Page 81 - Journal of Management Inquiry, July 2018

Abreu Pederzini 335

cannot defend ourselves against. Having now extended our latter what this article has done: to critique power relations
conception of power, we can see the paradoxical position and identity constructions regarding leadership, and to find
that the latter generates for leaders, because leaders are noth- novel ways of conceptualizing the latter. To be more specific,
ing else but human subjects who are subjugated to the hailing the present exploration of leadership in the context of
of the symbolic order. Thus, the first important contribution England’s higher education has contributed to our under-
that this article has generated is that the concept of a leader standing of alternative systemic power dynamics in leader-
has been turned from the ideal of a person with power, to the ship, taking forward De Rue and Ashford’s (2010) argument
ideal of a person that is a subject. Thus, where someone like about the relevance of identity granting and claiming pro-
Bendahan et al. (2015) would have argued that “Leaders cesses for this purpose, yet shedding further light on how
wield power” (p. 101), I have argued the opposite, which is these dynamics might work, by showing the role and interac-
that leaders are subjects. tion of various types of fantasizing. Like this, then, a novel
Furthermore, in this article, I specifically explored how and critical face of the leadership and power relationship has
leaders, by constructing their own magical realist fantasies, been explored. I have left behind the conventional approach
could speak back to the symbolic order and try to resist—or to this relationship. The approach, where, for instance,
better said renegotiate—their hail. In short, this is, therefore, Espedal (2015) would argue that “Leadership research . . .
what leaders were trying to do with the prestige, the indepen- suggests that there is a positive relationship between discre-
dent agenda, and inevitability fantasies. They produced other tion (freedom, autonomy) and power (influence): Discretion
symbolic cognitive constructions, which by trying to impose is the freedom of choice and the power to act according to
them on their followers, they aimed to make them part of the one’s own judgment” (p. 153). The latter derives in claims,
ruling symbolic order. In short, in this case, fantasies would such as those by Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006), about how
be related to leaders’ efforts to rebuild their identity: they for leaders “their leadership is driven by their own personal
“address the tension of who and how to be in leadership” egotistical needs for power and admiration” (p. 618). Like I
(Carroll & Levy, 2010, p. 224). So that as De Rue and mentioned in the beginning of the article, there is no question
Ashford (2010) argue, leadership becomes about identity that this connection between leaders and power is certainly
granting and claiming, where fantasies could be the vehicle important. Yet leadership and power is not as simple as the
through which leaders aim to reconstruct part of their iden- aforementioned research tradition would propose. By con-
tity. For instance, in my higher education context, if a leader trast, the discussion in this article has illustrated that the con-
is fantasizing with the prestige, then the leader is in some nection between leaders and power might not necessarily
ways claiming that perhaps he will not be able to do much begin with how leaders have power, but how actually there is
about the public policy turbulence, but instead will focus on power over them. However, conceiving leaders and power
these other dynamics regarding turning the university into this way becomes only possible once we can think about
the most prestigious institution. On the contrary, in the case power differently, and far from equating it to the influence of
of inevitability, the leader could be similarly claiming that one person over another, we take into consideration as well
her leadership cannot do anything about the public policies the influence of many other natural and social forces, includ-
because these are inevitable, but by accepting them as inevi- ing the symbolic. The symbolic which is constructed through
table, they could now redirect their missions as leaders to language, and thus materializes Clegg’s (1987) claim that
other things they could control. Here, the magical realism “this language is a language of power” (p. 62).
essence of these fantasies is fundamental, because it could be
allowing leaders’ fantasies to be seen by followers as matter- Conclusion
of-fact. So that very tangible and feel-as-natural fantasies
could be accepted by followers as potentially legitimate In conclusion, following Alvesson and Kärreman’s (2016)
excuses from leaders to escape the paradoxical position in call for critical perspectives on the relationship between
which followers put them in the first place. This is particu- power and leadership, I have focused here on one specific
larly important, precisely because as Lewis (2000) has dis- problem: the paradoxical position of leaders. If they want to
cussed, paradoxes could end up paralyzing people (Poole, lead, leaders would need to liberate themselves somehow
1989). Yet, through these leaders’ fantasies, leaders might be from this paradoxical position. The mechanism that this arti-
finding a way of escaping the impossible: the paradox. cle explored for leaders to liberate themselves from their
It is here, then, that a contribution to the field of critical paradoxical position was magical realist fantasies. But,
leadership studies emerges. As Collinson (2012) argues, which fantasies liberate leaders from their paradoxical posi-
“Constituting a comparatively new perspective on leader- tion and how? Through the analysis of the English higher
ship, critical studies share a concern to critique the power education sector, I explored an angle of this question. In this
relations and identity constructions through which leadership context, it seemed like leaders’ magical realist fantasies had
dynamics are frequently reproduced, rationalized, resisted the potential to become vehicles through which leaders could
and occasionally transformed” (p. 89). It is precisely the cope with their paradoxical position, by claiming a different