Political leadership in democracies: some lessons for business?

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to show that, with demands from a widening range of stakeholders for more democratic approaches to governance, there is an evident need to develop alternative models of organizing. In seeking to understand how to conceptualise this alternative, an analysis of the organizational and political institutional contexts for leadership is provided.Design/methodology/approachAnalyses the main precepts of democracy to establish the basis upon which a comparison between these two contexts might be made. It distinguishes between the value premises of democracy and the structural mechanisms through which those principles are enacted and identifies the significant leadership processes that underpin these values. This analysis is then used as a basis for analyzing the leadership role in organizations.FindingsThe paper demonstrates that differences between the two settings are a matter of perspective: the structural mechanisms of democracy are not enacted rationally. In particular, the pre‐eminence of micro‐political activity is highlighted as a vehicle for the enactment of ethical behaviour and civic virtue in both settings.Practical implicationsApplying a political institutional approach to leading suggests the need to reconfigure the role of hierarchy to encourage self‐organization, valuing conflict, protection of weaker stakeholders, the legitimization of political activity and helping groups to forge their own identity.Originality/valueMost similar analyses are typically constructed within the canons of rational organization. Applying to businesses the principles of institutional leadership implies a significantly different model in which leaders promote and legitimise both the distribution and coalescing of power and the necessary dissent and debate required to reconcile a plurality of interests with the establishment of organizational coherence.

Achieving styles of Bulgarian managers and politicians: a longitudinal perspective

“…To this end, a wide variety of HRD initiatives have to be designed to assist both politicians and business leaders to learn how to balance individual interests with those of the social and economic interests of the wider community (Butcher and Clarke 2006). With respect to the AS/CL model, those HRD initiatives have to appreciate the significance of authenticity and accountability which, taken together, are able to block unethical and irresponsible action (Lipman-Blumen 1996), which is of crucial importance given the Bulgarian transitional context.…”

Organizational democracy, ethics and leadership: The mediating role of organizational politics

“…These kinds of deliberations as to the nature of organizational democracy and ethical leadership have inspired our own considerations as to what conditions might give rise to ethically assertive managers and how they might mediate the expression of corporate priorities. Our work (Butcher and Clarke, 2006, 2009; Clarke, 2006) building from the traditions of political science, has explored the idea of organizational political leadership as a potential catalyst for greater workplace democracy. Whilst the analysis of political institutional leadership as a means of illuminating the practice of organizational leadership can be traced back to the seminal work of Burns (1978), we see our work as distinct from much of the current literature addressing the relationship between personality, politics and leadership (see Vigoda-Gadot and Drory, 2006).…”

“…The nature and limitations of this parallel are explored fully in Butcher and Clarke (2006) and Clarke (2006) but in summary, in situations of contested power and diverse objectives, political behaviour in organizations, far from being dysfunctional, is central to the achievement of managerial goals. Moreover, as suggested by Grit (2004), it can constitute a vehicle to strengthen the ethical choices made by managers.…”

Co-Evolution: Law and Institutions in International Ethics Research

“…The topic has, however, attracted renewed interest in the twentyfirst century (Flier et al, 2003;Graetz and Smith, 2006;Porter, 2006;Smith and Graetz, 2006), and more recent articles partly focus on ethics -though not specifically in the organisation-environment arena (Arce, 2004;Butcher and Clarke, 2006;Juma, 2005;Laaksonen et al, 2007;Sarasvathy, 2001). Our article contributes by focusing on institutions including legal systems, the informal systems that underlie them, and the immediate link with norms and values that they display.…”