Maneuvering Space for Leadership

Abstract

How can we understand the interaction between agency and structure within an organizational arena that allows maneuvering space for leadership?In the following exploration, the first two research questions are debated-from a theoretical discussion and from some data from an illuminating case study.The leadership literature reveals that the top executives of organizations need room to maneuver in order to affect organizational performance and adaptiveness. This article examines the basis for this conventional wisdom. The approach is first and foremost theoretical; however, illustrative data from a case study are also included. The discussion shows that maneuvering room for leaders is comprised of structural, social, and cognitive factors that provide guidelines and set constraints for leadership action. At the same time, leaders can be learning agents that influence and shape these aspects. Thus, guidelines and constraints represent both the conditions and the objects for leadership decision making and action.

The impact of mindfulness on leadership effectiveness in a health care setting: a pilot study

“…Organizational and management researchers are beginning to consider the applicability of mindfulness as a means of enhancing managerial focus, strategic decision making, and resource utilization. For example, mindfulness relates positively to overall job performance (Dane and Brummel, 2014), higher order learning (Espedal, 2009), judgement accuracy (Kiken and Shook, 2011), and to insight-related problem solving (Ostafin and Kassman, 2012). Langer (1989) posits mindfulness as a strategic moderator in the context of managing uncertainty.…”

Governance and the functions of boards

“…Also the more management-oriented literature suggests that governance and strategic leadership are based on discretion, which is somewhat similar to the concept of decision space [19]. Following these arguments, the decision space should be limited by rules, identities and commitment in order to obtain organisational goals [20].…”

“…In such situations, a wide decision space may face the boards with problems related to ambiguity, emotions and opportunism [19]. The Ministry gradually re-centralised governance of hospitals in order to reduce the hospital boards' decision space, and decisions within several of the boards' main tasks were silently [21] centralised in the hierarchy.…”

Is managerial discretion good or bad for organizational adaptiveness?

“…As a result, defensive reasoning and opportunistic acting violate the intention behind the precommitment, and if actors become aware of their impact they will claim “that they are in a double-bind, helpless but to act as they do” (Argyris, 1999: 167). A fourth problem might be “goal displacement” (Etzioni, 1964: 10; Merton, 1957: 201): The need for leadership to accomplish a goal leads to precommitment to a rule and to follow this rule might become a goal in itself. A fifth problem is associated with self-liberation.…”

“…Leadership research which has focused on the positive effects of leadership, posits that managerial discretion is a necessary condition for intelligent leadership-initiated adaption to new and changing circumstances. When the top leadership (as change agent) has discretion, it has freedom of choice and, in turn, the chance (and power) to affect the organization's capacity to become more dynamic (Espedal, 2009;Hambrick, 2007;Hambrick and Mason, 1984;Kotter, 2005;March and Weil, 2005;Northhouse, 2010;Yukl, 2002). Thus, organizational adaptiveness is supposed to occur in a context that allows the top leadership a high level of discretion.…”