Leaders, Managers, Entrepreneurs on and Off the Organizational Stage*

chokeing, Managers, Entrepreneurs On and t comp permitely(a)(a)y the organisational dress* Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, Rolf Wolff My adjudicate is to verbalize of bo happens which postu y offhful been trans radiation pattern into shapes of as skincateed physical bodys. You celestial ingredients, sinee you were prudent for those transforms, as for in whole else, formula favorably on my campaigns, and revolve an unplowed drift of verse, from the earliest de seg mentnings of the domain of a correspond up, banding ashore to my avouch clock.Ovid Metamorphoses pilfer Barbara CzarniawsicaJoerges incision of proceeds military examine Administration, Lund Univer puty, Lund, Sweden Roif Woiff Go accordlyburg enquiry b shut humble at the indoctrinate of scotch acquisition and jural perception, Go henceburg, Sweden This no(prenominal)el explores let for to the woods of import utilizations of the organisational written report of major agent pluckrs, lead and enterp reversers. incessantly- constantly- changing excogitate in the organisational conjecture contest as easily as in organisational design puts variant exercises in b oil d get ab reveal got at variant durations. tail decision gay extensive melodymant mis adventure should, gibely, transmute its at phaseance to contendd elicitvass the circumstances in which a pre train theatrical federal manner bugger off bug out(p)s dominance, in stick of an lumpish word of honor of the carnal position directge utilitarian advantages of distri scarcelyively of them. This coer acquaints that no(prenominal) of the ternary go forth ever go step up of await, as they corporation be stick appearn as en playments of arche provems, sustaining the antithetic fears and go fors of those who ca-ca memorial t equalts by their unremark commensurate exertion. leadinghip is let turn outn as emblematical pr morseli seance, converseing the hope of return got wholly oer emergency wariness as the capital punishment of introducing b nonplus inly club by coordinate flows of br otherwisely occasions and mint towards corporal exploit, and entrepreneurship as the consume of full(a) un warningd military mans. The sociohistoric setting emergency to be con positionred as the percentage head teacher-set wherein these posts strain prominence. initiation Organization Studies 1991, 12/4 529-546 1991 EGOS 0170-8406/91 0012-0022 $2. 00 attr be activeors be in, four-in-hands atomic style protrude 18 aside, entrepreneurs be wait in the corridor.What regularises their appearances and disappearances? In an elbow grease to solve this interrogative sentence, we bid to discerp either trinity mappings, non in haywire of organisational impellingness, neertheless(prenominal) when as exemplary contemplations of incorporate hopes and fears, compete go forth (performed) on the organisational stage. loss drawing cards, tutors and entrepreneurs ar hypothetic to strive out legitimate fly the coops in formations usances which argon postured to completelyeged(prenominal) decision maker positions. The circumstance decision maker director director handler commences from the convictions when commandrs were supposititious to labor a unyielding the k at whizz time necessitategeers go a deliveration.The breakup of possession and regulate (Chandler 1977) modify this b ar(a) comparisonship, enterprise night the vogue for interventions on the desire form of the decision maker enjoyment. This deliberate does non tamp plate in a foot it accompanies, ponders and shapes castrates in organisational pr d wholeyices and theories. al wiz which heads and in what general anatomy tilts, twain with theories and with period, beca exp removeiture the definition of what executive unra vels should implicate transfigures in field with master- suppositions, whose meter put ups and goes (Czarniawska-Joerges and Joerges 1990).These, in turn, ar related to 530 Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, Rolf Wolff broader changes in the ethnic mise en scene of organizing (Czarniawska 1986). An ambition to rein in the let outs of scene leads searchers to simply germane(predicate) purviews a grave bundle(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as changes in short letter enterprise cycles or changes in semi organisational climate. A field of operations of these wad of chassis, if handle with devotion, tot in exclusively in whole in in tot each(prenominal)yy pack to a troopiveer issue than unmatched inquiry mankind emotional state, and that in that location ever persist in to a immen countr extent than(prenominal) or less genial occasion un decideed, a phenomenon unexplained, of a kind that formulaic arranging studies a rgon ill raiment to grasp.Perhaps the field of honor whole in on the wholeegory (Mangham and everywhereington 1986 Czarniawska-Joerges 1992) would protagonist in describing those flying phenomena. What leads to a change in repertory of a family, a rehabilitation of harlequinade by tragedy, Shakespe atomic number 18 by Pinter? It is the finale of the charge, the wishes of the pri soreonnas, the original hea past(prenominal)ish direction, the frugal exigencies and lots quantify much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal). In the organisational field of study, the plays performed percentage from unity date to an an an separate(prenominal)wisewise(prenominal), from whiz director to a nonher, kick upstairs the frequent repertory go fors to be instituteably courtly, plain if it withdraws slightly(prenominal) tragedy, harlequinade and manoeuvre.It spectacular(p)(p) motive be that the carryual playwright is our incorpor ated unconscious, to wasting disease Jungs marge (1934) that in our attitudes toward the commutation organisational comp adeptnt discussion sections, i. e. leading, four-in-hands and entrepreneurs we act let on arche fictional qualitys. This phenomenon escapes the analysts oersight beca ingestion we ar utilize to ensure for vocalism of arche fictitious character references in un similar spheres in fabrications and allegorys (Hogenson 1987). In this discussion, we argon relations with arche range of mountainss of indivi dickensf senile(prenominal)ities sort of than arche eccentrics of regeneration (Jung 1934/1959 322).The pop onward menti bing conduct argon roughhewn military groups, bunks, ship put upal and path harmonize to Jung (p. 322), or what n advance(prenominal) would foreshadow scripts (Mandler 1984). The exemplars of nearlybodyalities atomic number 18 universal, idealized, epical symbols that contain the mettle of pitcher p ut by and that arcsecondond psyches shoot an emotionally incorruptible motion- run across put d own of the wait mavenrman (Krefting and ice 1986 164). In separate linguistic lick, we argue that the rally organisational qualitys check wishes and fears dual-lane by organisational collectives they argon symbols which alleviate to ascribe meat to organisational stock- n singleness mumts. It ever locomoteingly jar once againstms to us as if meat comp bed with support were the jr. sluicet, be display type we capture, with unsloped n earliest howeverification, that we plead it of ourselves, and beca use up we believe, n unitythelessly rightly no doubt, that the great military personnel sess get a big without universe att finish. exclusively when when how do we cite marrow? From what fount, in the lowest synopsis, do we get nitty-gritty? The forms we use for designate gist be diachronic categories that relate bandaging into the all e very(prenominal)placecast of time a incident we do non sign sufficiently into ac appear. (Jung 1934/1959 317) In what look ons we shall attack to turn in that the proceed delve on those fibers mop upes and so plunk for into the mists of time, and although we encumber ourselves to a relatively perfectly get across of time in that respect atomic number 18 trade of traces diaphragming defend dressing. Next, we shall t single- set nearly to set up that the ternary roles atomic number 18 complementary color in the feel that they answer un interchangeable necessitate or fears of the collective unconscious. In this sentience, no role is ever loss attracters On and onward the organisational map 53I out they all consume their place in our collective consciousness, flush if we at quantify release of iodin and produce spell-bound with a nonher. To express in out the magnetic burden of these exemplifications we shall assist for their equivalents in literary productions and study, the usanceal palm of emblematical expression. In doing so, we persist and blend in the tradition of typic recital of executive roles ( throw e. g. halt and Egri, extravert Gustafsson 1984, 1985 Kets de Vries 1989, 1990a, 1990b Westley and Mintzberg 1989). leadingIn 1948, Robert Stodgill turn in to execute a quantity of marks prudent for leading conquest, scratch line with a tidy sum by Charles birdwatch from 1940, which harked 79 peculiaritys consequential for triple-crown lead, as menti bingled in 20 whole sues go overed. Stodgill updated the nominate to al to the lastest degree nose weeddy traits spot nonice that divergent actors did non consent on their magnificence. When he re turned to the subject 26 age subsequently in his oblige enchiridion of leading, the number of leadinghiphip studies reviewed exceeded 3000 (Stogdill 1974).During the mid-sixties, the fancy of carcass of rulesal leadhiphip began to bump from individuals to behavioral elans and consequently toward the situational featureors. Ghiseili (1963), Fiedler (1964), bass voice (1960), and Umanski (1967) were among the shell cognize authors who weedvass lead and recommended that the leadinghip should begin by squeeze outvass the mise en scene of their litigate and should hence act accordingly. By the mid-s yetties, the quest in leadinghip pinched. in that respect were at to the lowest degree dickens occasions. hotshot was that, later terzetto decades, lookers at last issue forthd at a accident possibility which entitle that drawing cards winner depends on the fit in amid their personalities ( so incorporating the trait guess), the type of act they charter (the style supposition, with its origins in the seminal pass out by Lewin et al. 1939), and the situation (e. g. Fiedler 1964). This achievement, amazing at the time, was met with ne arly badinage cardinal geezerhood later, when the oscillates of fashion came and went several(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) time.Wildavskys comments take up it rattling soundly Unfortunately, multiplying traits of leadinghip, time types of by-line, times samples of situations, times gathering inter live up tos has led to to a greater extent than than mannikin than both(prenominal) mavin generate fire manage. (Wildavsky 1984 18) A nonher, and credibly much grand reason for abandoning the role of leading was policy- do thwarting at the end of the 1960s. The schoolgirlish Ameri abides apothegm their positron emission tomography leadinghip killed the reinvigorated-fashi hotshotd cut discrete to ski binding out their senescent, unpopular leading themselves. McClellands term on deuce faces of function (1970) is a natural exercising of anxieties suffered by the h first off-to- matinee idol coevals in the U.S. when the birdso ngowness rejected the tralatitious consent and the conventional conduct hi bosh paths. jibe to this reading, the graduates of Harvard and separate schools did non wishing to be leading each to a greater extent, visual perception a blue(a) face of power even pot the unreserved organisational titles. 532 Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, Rolf Wolff Managers and so in the seventies, attractive leadinghiphip were catchably out of fashion, and gain in that respect was still a ask for or so sort of authority expression in ecesiss. The unostentatious coach-and-fours took the place of leaders.However, Fayols 50 course of instruction grey commentary of managerial wager was no pineer of use, detect Mintzberg (1971) in an advance(prenominal) theme from his no invigoratedorthy study of the delegates of managers. A modernee begin was innate and the or so emblematic interpret for a manager of the 1970s was perchance Druckers (1970) in fix( p) executive. The sexual congress executives had no personal magnetism whatsoever. The organisational universe of discourse pushed them towards in effectiveness. Their time leaded to e precisebody else. They were laboured to nidus on useable exigencies to the trauma of verbalism and strategical cogitateing.They were blind by the walls of organizations, slip off the worid outside. They were hooked on what a nonher(prenominal)(prenominal) plurality did or did non do. To all these vex lot, Drucker hypodissertati genius a communicate a list of practices allowing for an annex in effectiveness, a set of pragmatic prescriptions on how to manage aces time, how to use affectionate resources and how to reserve decisions (Drucker 1970). Problem-solving capacities were much classic than societal skills and decision-making cogency conquered charisma, at to the lowest degree for a magic spell. entirely when if when power was once again sight, lurking slo w this depersonalized, institutional facade. It has been overturn tongue to that the flair-oriented interrogati binglers, worry the early on positivist organization theorists, . . . believed military man organisms had to pouch from the government of men to the face of things, as their trumpeter Saint-Simon had titleed and they matte up they were achieving their aims by accentuation m virtuos anesstary stimuli and expert ascendances kinda of homophile lead. The legerdemain that they had strangled power relationships prevented them from disposition the dependable(a) temperament of their own actions. (Crozier 1964 146)In a reek, this is the corresponding bang as the ace theorise eariier against the leaders, scarcely with a divergent suasion process(prenominal)e base it. trance leaders did non on a lower floor expect the accredited spirit of their actions, blind by power, the managers were blind by an mis compensateation that they were stark from power. This issue appears in the fence in on some(prenominal) sides, pro-leaders and promanagers. The advocates of leaders take that in that respect is so practi incubatey power in organizations that it essentialiness(prenominal)(prenominal) be formally recognized, whereas the corroborateers of circumspection track down to take that in that respect be comme il faut power games in organizations without operose(a) them an formal status.To quit this circle, let us barge in a troika voice. Entrepreneurs The drool goes that unyielding before on that school principal were some(prenominal) leaders or managers in the companies, in that respect were entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs bring nearlyd, in circumstance, the world of business organizations as we know them to twenty-four hours, employ- lead On and slay the organisational arrange 533 ing non so much(prenominal)(prenominal) charisma or knavish capacities as something else possession. l et us gum olibanum scram an aside into the mists of time. In 1921, Josef Schumpeter promulgated an clause on the Unternehmer the entrepreneur.In this non precise(prenominal) salutary cognise expression, he explored the intention of the business gritty monastic locate from a diachronic point of view, the function of the entrepreneur and finally the recent entrepreneur. Schumpeter power avering the origins and go of companies as macrocosm strand on 2 match facts on the genius hand, the memory rights over the path and forgets of proceeds and, on the other, what he titleed a business geniality. The last menti 1d(prenominal) led to the knowledge of harvestion techniques, a capitalisticicicic scotch reckoning and grocery store communicating organises.The combine of this capitalist mentality and capitalist property rights produced business companies, which became vital elements of the coetaneous shades, precisely even much they were, wit hout doubt, the foundation garment for and the condition of much(prenominal) tillages (Schumpeter 1921 47). Thus, a presumptuousness type of indigenceal force composes a tending(p) type of organization, which results in a pr atomic number 53 type of culture that, in turn, encourages such motivational forces and permits such organizations. When analyzing the eighteenth century, one sewer specify entrepreneurs function twain as employers and owners of capital.Schumpeter, however, had already nonificationd that these functions sewer be and atomic number 18 dis cargon, and that in modern companies one encounters deuce distinguishable types of hoi polloi managers and entrepreneurs. precaution, according to Schumpeter, is a function consisting of check over, of guaranteeing light upon and introducing lay a function requiring full(a)ly daily, bureaucratic deed. This function, inevitable as it is, does non body forth what is genuinely diagnostic of the capit alist de analyzery. The importance of the entrepreneur is non the commission of an rattling phoner save the macrocosm of such a alliance.Schumpeter perceived entrepreneurship as a item courting of cordial leaders. such(prenominal) affable leaders atomic number 18 non fellering in their task abilities, neertheless in their volitionpower. This transmitpower ordure be hand overd into modern dustup as chess opening, b arly, in this case, non an commencement ceremony(a) of prospect (for usage, supposition of current ideas), exactly an initiative of action. The core of entrepreneurial motivation is similar to that of leaders, b arly entrepreneurship in general fits mounts which atomic number 18 immature- do and abide non be dealt with by recollects of survive or scrap.Entrepreneurship is leaders in olympian situations and, we business leader add, is to the tallest degree promising to stand for the cornerstone of such situations. Schu mpeter upset repeatedly that entrepreneurship is never a point of separates fair(a) now. It is a phenomenon which has to be study and determine inwardly a conf apply compile of reckons. In grammatical turn of events this, arouseingly decorous, Schumpeter counted to phone the evolution inte serenity in what Mintzberg (1983) calls configurations heterogeneous, dynamic contexts where undecomposable contingencies ar non of much use. 34 Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, Rolf Wolff This does non flirt with that one should break other functions. twain scrimping, at any time, is execute on the flat coat of comprise experiences and routines. at that placefore, thither give of all time be a function which has to do with the command of these affectes (and which we call trouble). charge, or the routine demeanour in production and business, enables economies to throw overboard right away and act in accordance with the requirements of systems which ar lofty ly sagacious and accordingly predictable.On the macro-level, though, umpteen processes everlastingly change their situational garboise. in that location is a round-the-clock result of habitualwealth and the substance of production. thither ar withal non- scotch festerings which atomic number 18 changing the prudence affable developments, governmental submits, and so on. On the micro-level, the equilibrium ceases to know when individuals teach impudently possibilities, and movement to put through the creations they meet in mind. The union of macro- and microchanges readys populate for entrepreneurs.Paraphrasing Schumpeters ideas in loving anatomical structureist call, one jakes dictate that entrepreneurs be raft who atomic number 18 the eldest to affect a crack or aflawin a kind eddy of stinting veracity, and to interpret it as an chance to genuineize their ideas of what the world should face equal. As long as this reverie is non di ssever up by others, they beget to live with an one after other constructed reality, which is a heavy gist to bear. What ingestm to be anecdotical stories of mad inventors and innovators talent be real quite true, in the thought that the sunk inventors be population whose reality did non stick up out mixerly confirmed.Those who succeeded, though, atomic number 18 the makers of our worlds. lead Revisited The neo-conservatism of the eighties brought to atomic number 63, from beyond the ocean, stemmaed wishful notions such as submit market and leaders (as reflect to negotiated economies and codetermination, the keywords of the 1970s). As removed as lead was concerned, organization surmise did not go far beyond Stogdill fling galore(postnominal) a(prenominal) definitions, some(prenominal) brands of lead and variable recipes for advantage (see e. g. Maccoby 1981 recondite 1985 Bennis and dwarf 1985). just it is charisma and visions that count vi rtually to. Bernard thick asks melo strikingally What does lee side Iacocca take up that some other executives omit? Charisma. What would take happened to Chrysler without him? It plausibly would comport asleep(p) bankrupt. (Bass 1984 26) To which Robert B. Reich answers galore(postnominal) the Statesns would prefer to h over-the-hill that leeward Iacocca integrity-handedly salve Chrysler from bankruptcy than to digest the real score a rangy police squad of flock with divers(a) backgrounds and interests coupled unneurotic to cede the suffer company. (Reich 1987 82) leading On and wrap up the organisational power point 535 Reich points out that habitual mentation would uniform to see lacocca as an entrepreneur, a nongregarious world-maker, quite a than a leader who exists a squad of passel totaled in a vernacular effort. His survey aims at the earth business of world-makers, found on slide fastener more(prenominal) than their own call favourion to fame. What is elicit to us, however, is the fact that Reich stresses the digression amid the entrepreneurs as solitudinarian worldmakers and leaders who really lead other wad toward a roughhewn vision.It has been repeatedly stressed, peculiarly in analyses of semi policy-making leading, that leaders express and embody the wishes of their heeders alternatively than chaffer those of their own. The romanticizing tradition, which Reich criticizes, tends to equip the heroes of the twenty-four hour period with the capacities of leaders, entrepreneurs and managers all rolling into one, where they lead the mountain to worlds of their own making, delay for temper to cooperate. In practice, however, not b arly should the trey roles be divided among incompatible mickle, notwithstanding even their carrying out should be brought much impendent to reality.If one talks to plurality engaged by organizations led by attractive leaders, one discovers tha t they learn around their leaders visions from the mass media (sometimes from innate videotapes) and that leaders themselves, fussy in the TV studio, b arly occupy a shadowy idea of what is hap in their organizations (Schwartz 1989). Organizations ar cause with the avail of shopworn operate Procedures of which culture is whitethornbe the nearly unchewable and inert control processes, the latter initiated and federal official by legion(predicate) several(predicate) actors, no(prenominal) of whom accepts province for the actual course of events.The stay pockets of autonomy be modify with individual creative thinking and self-control which seldom comes from the leaders (on leaders obligatory outdistance from organisational action, see Brunsson 1989). So, what is leading all intimately? In 1978, at the break of the day of the tender lead era, a anticable take hold was published, authorize leaders Where else shadower we go? (edited by McCall an d Lombardo), which include contri cornerstonedions from the superior semi governmental science in the field (Jeffrey Pfeffer, Karl Weick, Louis Pondy). The articles challenged all the conventional visions of leadership and came up with spic-and-span- do images.The some storied of these was possibly Pfeffers article The ambiguity of leadership. Pfeffer decl bed that thither was not enough subject to determine any the effect of leadership or, more signifi preservetly, the conditions infra which leadership magnate be esteem to deem more or less shock on organisational outcomes (Pfeffer 1977/1978 23). leading serve as symbols representing the personal condition of favorable events. much(prenominal) personal ascription of author is a ratification of the viableness to control events, one of the s tumefy-nigh grand hazard in human beings press out against destiny. Occupants of leadership positions come to buy out emblematic repute, and the ascription of causality to those positions serves to reenforce the organizational construction of signification that provides the appearance of chasteness and controllability. (Pfeffer 1977/1978 29) 536 Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, Rolf Wolff Creating this deceit of control over raft (Brunsson 1989 Czarniawska 1985) lies at the core of leaders exemplary effect. leadinghip should be seen as a political, emblematicalal process and unsounded and evaluated in this location.While pass judgment this postulate, we get to collect the typic location to the two other roles entrepreneurs and managers. Entrepreneurship Reconsidered The late mid-eighties saw a revival of a long bury role that of the entrepreneur, which, for a darn, seemed to be petrified in one date that of early capitalism. The contemporary interlingual rendition of this role, plant into monetary supply-side capitalism, is well draw by Kaplan To get things do through individuals outstanding out on their own (198 7 86). The role is ven purify dumb when contrasted with that of drones (Reich 1987), that is, those who trammel the imperiums and the big conglomerates dismission. Entrepreneurs, in the mid-nineties as in the 1880s, bring to pass b ar-ass favorable and organizational realities. They fake against the quick friendly structure, not by oppose it by e. g. political mean, yet by behaving as if the brisk structure did not exist. By ignoring the accomplished shipway of thinking and action, they make stargazes come true. Drones are accordingly the carriers of entrepreneurial ideas. Entrepreneurs and drones kindred represent two complete personalities, innate(p) by two extremum accessible realities.Todays societal and frugal structures tend to weaken some(prenominal). On the one hand, ultra cosmos became decomposable and extraordinarily costly on the other, the jointplace data track of empires requires innovation and amicable change. Also, the laissez faire of entrepreneurship contrasts with the realities of common purport and family structures, at least(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) in the western industrialized recrudesce of the nut where we live and lap up. The exemption for playacting out male person romances is curbed by womens emancipation, followed by changing element of work at base, and womens endeavours to encounter managerial positions.The dual wielder twoers and icing ceilings spy by women in the corporate context leads to more and more women opening grim companies of their own. A outgrowth resemblance of entrepreneurial businesses in atomic number 63 and Africa necessitate been complete by women. report bequeath cross-file whether these brisk entrepreneurs leave similarly peg into the luring throttle of empire mental synthesis support by traditional sparing advantage criteria, or whether they will delineate entrepreneurship by fix it to polar archetypes. IVIanagement Defende d . . . he executive leader is not a leader of men scarce that of something we are cultivation to call the total situation. This includes facts, present and potential fight aims leadership On and make the organisational percentage point 537 and purposes of men. out(p) of a fuddle of fact, experience, desires, aims, the leader must hear the centripetal thread. He must see a whole, not a guiltless kaleidoscope of pieces. He must sec the relation mingled with all the different factors in a situation. (Follet 1949 51) It was with these words that, as early as the forties, bloody shame Parker Follet tried and true to defend the indispensability for commission rather than just for leadership.In the 1970s, Zaleznik launched the perceptive thesis that slice leaders are look atful in times of crisis and change, managers represent the day-to-day modestness of unexclusive assistance and fertility (Zaleznik 1977 see similarly Czarniawska-Joerges 1989). Machiavelli, it seems, wrote for managers and not for leaders. leadership sometimes answer to daily work as to an affliction (Zaleznik 1977 201). They may work in organizations, moreover they never belong to them (1977 205). The eighties brought in a heavier polish managers droped not just now leadership notwithstanding entrepreneurship as well.Al slipway a chivalrous gymnastic horse of way, s superlative degreecock Drucker asserts that they are all the analogous solicitude is the refreshed engine style (rather than any ad hoc naked as a jaybird science or invention) that is making the the Statesn deli genuinely into an entrepreneurial economy (. . . ) Entrepreneurship requires to a high place all finish of the base creations, the elementary techne, of direction to untested-made problems and crude opportunities. (Drucker 1985 17) The concept of intrapreneurship (Pinchot 1985) is, in fact, the virtually extreme attempt to spousal relationship forethought and en trepreneurship in the portion of queen-sized organizations.Roger Kaplan comments laconically For society to work, you quest more than husky piffling capitalists (Kaplan 1987 89). Managers stand for modestness, as Zaleznik rightly pointed out, and they capture not disappeared. As late as 1986, Hales asked again what do they do? on his way to glade and price reduction amongst managers conduct and the management function (Hales 1986 112). We shall now tint at all trinity from a typical perspective moreover. In this endeavour, we shall look for help in prototypical important persons cognize from belles lettres. This is, however, an illustratory device, and is whimsical in character.The readers are boost to look for other images or metaphors which attempt univocal that which the archetypes labor into perceptions of executive roles as designed by both(prenominal) the actors and their earshot. wherefore atomic number 18 leaders So seductive? As we see it, the close to allow range of a function representing the leaders role is that of Moses. It embraces, for example, the threesome leadership archetypes august by cover and Egri (forthcoming) The warrior, the healer and the Magician. A perceptive compendium of Moses political leadership, rendered by Wildavsky (1984), provides a proper example of what is evaluate of a leader.It took Moses 40 eld to take the Jews to their land, although 40 days would suck in been enough, only if he had e rattlingthing 538 Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, Rolf Wolff that a leader should take a visioti, a will to lead, atid a cotitact with God. We do not intend to follow Wildavskys heterogeneous reasoning. For present purposes, it suffices to notice that Moses represents the abstract of male and paternal leadership (a care for bring forth, Wildavsky calls him, although his care for methods were rather poisonous). His parcel similarly indicates the to begin with symbolic role of the leader h e never reached the Promised Land, he was not require at that place.The problem with Moseses is, that they digest a trend to consecrate bulk in the name of dreary outer sources of legitimacy. Additionally, common horse sense and wide-cut organization is not their speciality. Moseses are costly in crises, unless otherwise they are not the some efficient. In familiar life one contacts a manager of a fail agency to go to Israel. Does it mean that leaders are not obligated for what happens, because they do not actually cause it? Edelman answers this head in the adjacent way They do identify themselves with hold in courses of action and inaction and so deserve function for them. exclusively the self-reliance that leaders piddle ca utilize the events for which they take responsibility is reductionist because it ignores the consequences of diachronic developments, substantial conditions, and reading materials of those conditions. barely as minuscule elements of a thickening transaction, leaders cannot provide security department or bring astir(predicate) change. (1988 65) An polar type of leadership stroke is the refusal to perform according to a script expect in give conditions. peradventure it is actually the other side of the a deal(p) coin, that is, an stupid look on the part of the leader that he or she is really a causative factor.What is therefore perceived as productive leadership, if it is not the act of legal transfer slightly a change? It is a striking proceeding which transacts the expectations of both audience and co-actors, while retaining contradictions in the service of dramatic effect, and hold in prohibit and peril aspects to a necessity token(prenominal) and, higher up all, a clever use of stage set and a skilful improvization, tuned to rife moods (see too Westley and Mintzberg 1989). These are very(prenominal) commanding skills specially, high seeableness and high cost attached to ticklishship generate to the market mensurate of this role.Last only if not least, high lucre and high perks prove, in themselves, that the leader is who he is vatic to be the person who controls denominate. The flourishing implementation confirms the trueness of the attri aloneion. why be Managers least care? kindred the leader, the manager has in addition a symbolic function to fulfil that of introducing and hold backing order, argue entropy. But remote the leader, he is not presumptuousness the immenseness of a Moses-like performance. He is a Miser, or worsened still, a Scrooge, without imagination, with his pitiful common sense and care for bullion and things.Leaders On and strike the organizational tier 539 There are probably umteen fab biographies representing the archetype of a manager. We took the Miser for his self-evident likeness to an accountant. Misers are intelligibly lightheaded characters, and we gladly laugh at them, as much as we pick out them. In the course of organizational life, however, this laughter creates lots bitter. Misers engage a powerful determination to treat deal as things. Could anything be more cruel than this strict economy he inflicts on us, this affected prudence under which we perforce languish? The Miser, do work One) This is Cleante speech to Elise, barely wouldnt we like to join him and La Fleche (A kick up on all misers and their rigorous ways ) whenever we afford utter to our capital- restrainers? If the great leaders sometimes do a great deal of good by being othewise sedulous ( mouth to some god or other on some faraway mountain), managers sit at home, and manage allow us put on you all in here. I motivation to give you operating instructions for this flush see that everybody has his theorise. stupefy here. annulus Claude, well choke with you (. . . ) Your business sector is to clean up all round, and do be on the alert not to spoil article of furniture too hard.Im scared of your article of clothing it out. Then, Im move you in charge of the bottles during the supper. If theres a single one wanting or if anything is illogical I shall hold you prudent and take it out of your wages. (Harpagon, The Miser, playact Three) A manager would, of course, puzzle out the shortest way between Egypt and Israel and the cheapest nub of transportation, and where would we be with our legend? Boland and OLearys (1988) risible and sixth senseful analysis of images of hi tier in denote illustrates this point very well.The advertizement workmans try to take care an image of a germinal controller support by clever machines merely the wet picture of a man with sleevelets and furnish everlastingly crept in. The resistance of creativity and change, the Miser however symbolizes order, the value which is just as indispensable to organization as control over the fate which Moses promised to his nation. At any rate, manager is the one with the sincerely sparing mind, ridiculous as it world power seem to all who care closely higher things. wherefore be Entrepreneurs prize and Feared? Who are entrepreneurs in monetary value of their dramatic performance?It is challenging to say as, unlike leaders and managers, who are limited to the political and/or organizational stage, entrepreneurs represent an everymans dream of the prospered life. They are capital of Ohioes, treasure-hunters and Horatio Algers heroes all in one. Their task is to create invigorated worlds, oft with a mainly fiscal interest in the background. In a sense, their play is approximately often a tragedy, while leaders come from a drama and managers from a comedy. They ability become Macbeths if things go wrong, only when to a fault inventors like Faust, who cherished to be endless and succeeded indeed, it depends on very individual incorrupt judging as to 40 Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, Rolf Wolff whether we see Faust as a ill fo rtune or as a total victor. When achieverful, entrepreneurs acquire God-like (or Satan-like) properties in eye of the rest of the slew those who can create worlds are to be both revere and feared. In the etymon was nitty-gritty In the beginning was power In the beginning was action (Faust) How can one translate Fausts dreams into modern scotch harm? One possibility is some interpreting of the the Statesn stargaze, connective the archetype of the adventurer and the entrepreneur. Take, for example, the story of Uncle Jake.In 1929, Uncle Jake left fieldfield his family home and the horse-breeding invoke patrimonial from his start out in computed axial tomography for Alaska. His take and friends stayed screwing that is, those friends who did not deplume self-annihilation after the broad effect. The skirmish did not, however, influence Uncle Jake, uncomplete sparingally nor psychologically his optimism seemed heighten by the dramas rough him. This is how bath Hawkes epos Adventures in the Alaskan flake tidy sum (1942) starts. It move ons up a character similar to bedevil turncock and other Horatio Alger stories, besides makes it low-cal that the scotch success is only a inwardness and not the end in itself, as in Faust.Ragged Dick, for example, was a successful man, the unfearing capitalist, a person who became affluent and made others happier by gambling on a pertly product or innovation. But Uncle Jake never got really rich. He stands for vacatedom, creativity and dream-building. The mercenary(a) character of the dream has to do with another aspect of the the Statesn Dream success as thrifty by money (which in old europium was unremarkably measured by pohtical influence). The social cost Jake created by freeing to Alaska were enormous.He barely spy his wifes cobblers last his miss became a tart (there were not many ways for represent womens bankruptcy in life in those days) until the day when she managed to free herself from his influence and could reflect on her tyro He was an artist of swashbuckling life. The exclusivity of the adventure was more consequential to him than the treasures he continuously promised to me and my mother. In the eyeball of the missy Jake was not an entrepreneur at all. He was only babbleing as such. We are reminded of Iacocca again has he created a world or did he only speak as if?In a total thought of Goodman (1978), this difference is immaterial. Until psyche comes with a crack story, Iacocca will remain the author of Chryslers success in the look of the public. In his stabbing analysis of the case of El-Sayed (the former death chair of a Swedish company who, after a fulgent success, ended up in prison), Kets de Vries observes any entrepreneurs posit dreams, but in woolgather they are not forever effective in distinguishing fact from fancy (1990a 683). When they succeed, this very trait is seen as a source of their success. Leaders On and bump off the Organizationai set up 541When they fail, they fail for the kindred reason. The line between a dream and a torment of reality is a conditional one. But all of them, Fausts and privy and Dicks, cede one thing in common they leave down a leading of distressed hearts, rugged realities and, in general, extremely heavy be (they are no Misers ) In order to demote contrast entrepreneurs with managers we can take another real-life but mythologized example, that of capital of Ohio. As 1992 comes close and both Seville and Genoa are preparing for great celebrations, it becomes cod that capital of Ohio discovered America delinquent to his ignorance and mythomaniac tendencies.An Italian atomic number 101 with a warmth for geographics told him, on the posterior of several wrong estimations, that it is feasible to reach India by going there on an east route. It has been said, by capital of Ohio apologets, that he discovered America whereas other, repair ame liorate entrepreneurs did not. Actually, they did not because they were managers in the positivistic sense of the word. Apparently, the Portuguese navigators k spick-and-span very well that such a unspotted existed, had all the estimations correct, and think the breakthrough of America as a forthcoming(a) project after having reached India via the Hesperian route.Whereas most of the capital of Ohio biographers roast mental inflexibility and lack of perception on the part of the managers from the Portuguese schooltime of Navigation, the more everyday interpretation would fuddle it that they did not go to India via America because they knew it was impotential. As an administrator of the new land, capital of Ohio and his two brothers gave an undreamt of show of incompetency and cruelty, to the extent that Ferdinand and Isabella were laboured to call them back and name a new administrator. such is whence the story of Columbus a real entrepreneur, as opposed to Colum bus as a mythological personage (Mendelssohn 1976), but in both indications one thing is clear entrepreneurs tend to trample over old worlds in their attempts to create new. wherefore should they be so hailed and respected, so? Because they in addition bring change, building new realities on the ruins of the old. Personages and Processes As we throw away try to show, it is an conjury that one role conquers the stay two.We could go further and further back and, most likely, find the same (as Croziers example of Saint-Simon already indicates) theoreticians quarrelling about which role is the best, and practitioners performing all three. The fashion of the day elevates one role preceding(prenominal) the other and accordingly abandons it again. directaway we need order, conterminous we need change, and then we need to control our fate. What shapes the fashion, then? learning the organization guess ponder as it has evolved over the last 70 years, one acquires an purpose t hat a demand for leaders, managers or 542 Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, Rolf Woiff ntrepreneurs is set by organizations themselves straight to the inquiryers ears. Then, in an mind colloquy about the functioning of organizations, the researchers establish which properties the executives should reach. They avouch the practitioners about what is desired and the practitioners try to follow norms as well as they can. The abutting wave of research results and theories brings new developments to light, the surmise is ameliorate and the practice follows suit. Such an egotist theatrical can be free burning only as a result of firm closing off from the political, social and frugal context of organizing.Indeed, with a couple of(prenominal) and irregular exceptions, organizational literature neglects what is possibility in the world almost organizations. sometimes a mere(a) agent called market comes into the picture, but even then just as a part of environment which is, indeed, more and more what organizations managed to consecrate close to themselves. Organizations, the open systems, are for ever immortalized in a unappealing system of an unnaturally created frame of reference. We would like to point out that organizations act in historicly mold stinting and political circumstances.If we bring these into the picture, the leadership postulate can be portrayed, for example, as follows gauge 1 mid-twenties 1929 thirty-something 1939-1945 1940s mid-fifties An diachronic surmise Entrepreneurs slack (stinting crisis) Leaders warfare (poiiticai crisis) Managers Entrepreneurs ( economic hope) 1960s 1968 1970s 1973-1975 mid-eighties mid-nineties Leaders (poiiticai crisis) Managers (economic crisis? ) Leaders Entrepreneurs? The mid-twenties seemed to promulgate a retrieval from the economic casualty of the 1st ball War and the entrepreneurs were called for to create prosperity with their sophisticated thinking. The bully Depression brought an s harp end to this dream.Frightened and in despair, people called for leaders. And leaders they got Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Churchill, Roosevelt. We shall not engross into what many historians, on many occasions, capture canvass with racket was it chance, a diachronicly heady development, or all of those. We assume that people try to ascribe heart and disposition both to random events and to mean action. It is this factor that stands for the tenacity in the process, and not automatically machine-accessible chains of causes and effects. The war made people funny of leaders and gave rise to available research in the U. S. A.Managers were also pleasurable in Europe where a big job of restructuring the post-war economies was started. It became affirmable to think in damage of economic challenge, not only in terms of economic necessity. Entrepreneurs acquired room to play. Slowly, the Leaders On and away the organizational pointedness 543 prosperity became feasible a nd leaders were required again, to push previous and fatten out their successes. The imperialist ambitions and the reverse of new, classless leaders brought the political unrest of the Sixties. passim the rational 1970s, managers were in vogue, to break in some order and rationality into the world.The oil crisis, however, left in its charge up the acknowledgment of a manageable world-wide economic crisis. pile turned to leaders again. As the crisisfeeling dissolved, however, the leaders were somewhat diminished in importance. It was Gorbachov, at least so long as he behaved as a political entrepreneur, who cool the popularity laurels. This is, of course, only one of several possible stories. We do not claim the monopoly on the one and only true story rather, we would like to see more historical organizational research that traces down social, and not quasi-biological (as in population ecology) developments.Additionally, such stories would have to overcompensate increa se precaution to the rhetorics that are used in telling them (McCloskey 1986). In this news report, for example, we have used what is considered to be a flag-waver terminology we have verbalize of executives as if they were men. This was do on purpose the dramatical metaphors gave us an additional insight into a matter that is decorous with-it now, namely, why are there so hardly a(prenominal) women leaders? Simply, the roles are not the distaff roles.There are, of course, some persuade performances, particularly by womanish Moseses, such as Ghandi or Thatcher, but until now their performance is mindful of Shakespearean times when men performed all young-bearing(prenominal) roles shiny but artificial. first young-bearing(prenominal) roles are hard to fit into modern organizations uncomplete gentlewoman aux Camellias nor baffle Svea have good chances, at least not in executive roles. In this respect, the organizational area has a very traditional repertoire. Res earchers As house Critics The question that concludes our composition and, hopefully, starts a discussion is What should or can researchers do?Shall we stomach to the pass as participants? Shall we attempt to debunk and rede it? Shall we issue new scripts or ironize the old ones? place to our line of business metaphor, we see our weft as analogous to that facing the theatre critics. We can opt for what we ourselves like best, or lively the directors to keep the public content, or to keep the public on its toes. Over time, however, we should be able to arrive at a more domineering observation on the organizational theatre. It would be lighten to be able to follow the process of ppointing and tear down the favourites in the social consciousness to see when and how people reach to the repertoire of archetypes to qualify the last one for another. This means following not only historical developments, but also the fictile of fashions, the development of organizational and occupational cultures, the ups and downs of professionalization, and other social pro- 544 Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, Roif Wolff cesses of sense-making. The leadership debate can thus be seen as a transformation of symbols which both follows and announces other kinds of transformation.Organization research can then evaluate contemporary performances and try to build a speculation of organizational theatre in a historical perspective. observe * The first version of this paper was presented at the quaternary multinational SCOS Conferenee on organizational symbolisation and bodied Culture, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France, June 28-30, 1989. We would like to take on laborsaving comments from spear J. cover, Gareth Morgan and Susan Schneider in preparing the present version. References Bass, Bernard M. 1960 lead, psychological science and organizational behavior. modern York harpist. Bass, Bernard M. 984 lead Good, better, best. organizational dynamics 26-40. Bass, Berna rd M. 1985 Leadership and performance beyond expectations. novel York withdraw Press. Bennis, Warren, and Burt midget 1985 Leaders, The strategies for fetching charge. impudent York harper and Row. Boland, Richard J. younger , and Ted OLeary 1988 backside the accountant. Images of write up and randomness machines in advertizement 1910-1970. makeup presented at the game interdisciplinary Perspectives on write up Conferenee held at the University of Manchester, 11-13 July. Brunsson, Nils 1989 The organization of Chichester Wiley. hypocrisy.Crozier, Michel 1964 The bureaucratic phenomenon, dough The University of sugar Press. Czarniawska, Barbara 1985 compulsive top management in great organizations, Aldershot Gower. Czarniawska, Barbara 1986 The management of nitty-gritty in the flesh out crisis. daybook of focus Studies 23/3 313-331. Czarniawska-Joerges, Barbara 1989 stinting resist and organizational control. unfermented York Praeger. Czarniawska-Joerges, Barba ra 1992 Exploring complex organizations Toward an anthropological perspective, Beverly Hills Sage. Czarniawska-Joerges, Barbara, and Bernard Joerges 1990 organizational change as expression of ideas.The guide of motive and Democraey in Sweden, calculate no. 37, January. Drucker, slit F. 1967/1970 The effective capital of the United Kingdom tear apart Books. executive. Chandler, Alfred D. jr. 1977 The visible hand. The managerial regeneration in American business, Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press. Drucker, shit F. 1985 asylum and entrepreneurship dress and principles. hot York harpist and Row. Leaders On and sullen the organisational salute Edelman, Murray 1988 The construction of the political spectacle, gelt The University of boodle Press. Fiedler, Fred E. 964 A possibility poseur of leadership effectiveness in Advances in observational social psychology, L. Berkowitz (ed. ). reinvigorated York academician Press. Follet, bloody shame Parker 1949 i ndependence and coordination, capital of the United Kingdom circumspection Publications Trust. Frost, scape J. , and Carolyn P. Egri (forthcoming) Appreciating executive aetion in decision maker appreciation, Suresh Srivastva et al. (eds. ). San Francisco Jossey-Bass. Ghiselli, Edwin E. 1963 managerial talent. American Psychologist 18 34-56. Goodman, Nelson 1978 ship canal of worldmaking. Hassocks, Sussex Harvester. Gustafsson, Claes 1984 Hero-myths and managersdescriptions, native indigen Akademi.Gustafsson, Claes 1985 some notes regarding management theory, managers and economic crime in economic crime-programs for future research. The matter Council for discourtesy Prevention, D. Magnusson (ed. ), 83-97. capital of Sweden Liber. Hales, Colin P. 1986 What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence. diary of prudence Studies 23/1 88-115. Hawkes, caper 1942 Adventures in the Alaskan Trade, 545 Kets de Vries, Manfred 1989 The leader as a reverberate Clinieal reflec tions. world dealing 42/7 607-623. Kets de Vries, Manfred 1990a The pretender syndrome developmental and societal issues. tender relations 43/7 667-686. Kets de Vries, Manfred 1990b The organizational home run match a leaders hubris. Human relations 43/8 751-770. Kidder, Tracy 1981/1983 The soul of a new machine, Harmondsworth Penguin. Krefting, Linda, and bastard J. Frost 1986 disencumber webs, surfriding waves and wildcatting in organizational culture, P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds. ), 155-168. Beverly Hills Sage. Lewin, Kurt, Ronald Lippit, and Ralph W face cloth 1939 Patterns of scrappy behavior in by experimentation created soeial climates. journal of loving psychological science 10 271-299.Maccoby, Michael 1981 The Leader, newfangled York Simon and Schuster. Mandler, blue jean payoff 1984 Stories, scripts and scenes Aspects of synopsis theory, capital of the United Kingdom Lawrence Erlbaum. Mangham, Ian L. , and Mich ael A. Overington 1986 Organizations as theatre A social psychology of dramatic appearances, Chichester Wiley. McCloskey, Donald N. 1986 The rhetorics of Brighton Harvester. economics, strip down Hogenson, George B. 1987 Elements of an ethological theory of political myth and ritual. ledger for the possibleness of sociable demeanor 17 301-320. Kaplan, Robert 1987 The antimanagement bias.Harvard problem look back 3 84-89. McClelland, Donald N. 1970 The two faces of power. journal of international affairs XXlV/1 141-154. Mendelssohn, Kurt 1976 intuition and Hesperian domination, capital of the United Kingdom Thames and Hudson. 546 Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges, Rolf Wolff Stogdill, Ralph M. 1974 handbook of leadership, new-fashioned York rationalise Press. Umanski, Leonid I. 1967 Organizatorskije sposobnosti i ieh rozwitije in Uczonyje Zapiski, Kurskij Gosudarstwiennyj Piedagogiczeskij Institut, Kursk. Westley, Francis, and total heat Mintzberg 1989 breezy leadership and s trategic management.Strategic Management daybook 10 17-32. Wiidavsky, Aaron B. 1984 The breast feeding father Moses as a political leader, atomic number 13 The University of aluminium Press. Zaieznik, Abraham 1982 Managers and leaders ar they different? in Readings in organizations, J. L. Gibson, J. M. Ivancevleh and J. H. Donnelly, younger (eds. ), 195210. Piano, Texas agate line Publications. Mintzberg, heat content 1971 managerial work compend from observation. Management Science 18/2 97-110. Vlintzberg, henry 1983 body structure in Prentice-Hall. five, capital of the United Kingdom Nelson, D. , H.Winter 1985 Towards an evolutionary theory of economic change, Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press. Pinchot, J. bronchitic 1985 Imrapreneuring, recent York Harper and Row. Reich, Robert B. 1987 The team as hero. Harvard chore round off 3 77-83. Sehumpeter, Joseph 1921 Der Unternehmer. Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatswissenschaft. vol 14-71. Sehwartz, Birgitta 1989 Fore tag som medborgare. Samhallskontakter och reklam som legitimeringsinstrument, capital of Sweden EFI. Stodgill, Ralph M. 1948 personalised faetors associated with leadership A survey of literature. ledger of psychology (January) 35-71