Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Structure and Corporate Ideology on Leader–Follower Relations in the Bureaucratic Organization: A Reflection on Moral Mazes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the wake of organizational scandals associated with corporate America servant as well as transformational leadership are seen as approaches capable of engendering a type of morality—on the part of leaders and followers—based on shared values, universal moral principles and an orientation towards a pro-social behavior serving the common good. However, recent critiques have highlighted the tendency in the relevant literature to overlook the systemic context within which leadership and followership are situated. Given this oversight this paper re-visits a classic piece of ethnography on corporate America: Robert Jackal’s Moral Mazes. Employing concepts from critical realism fused with insights from studies on management and bureaucracy we analyse the key themes from the book pertaining to the nature of the leader–follower dynamic in shareholder capitalism. The analysis highlights the role of bureaucracy and corporate ideology as key elements shaping leader–follower relationships, encouraging a type of morality associated with guarding self-interest whilst undermining relationality. The influence of the structural and cultural context in which leader–follower relations unfold draws attention to morality as relationally contingent as opposed to an ideal state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). Critical leadership studies: The case for critical performativity. Human Relations, 65(3), 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Blom, M. (2015). Less followership, less leadership? An inquiry into the basic but seemingly forgotten downsides of leadership. M@n@gement, 18(3), 266–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2016). Intellectual failure and ideological success in organisation studies: The case of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2019). Warning for excessive positivity: Authentic leadership and other traps in leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. (2020). Upbeat leadership: A recipe for—or against—“Successful” leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 31, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. (1996). Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. (2007). Making Our Way Through the World: Human Reflexivity and Social Mobility. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. S. (2020). The cultural wantons of the new millennium. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 50, 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34, 51–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (1991). Modernity and the Holocaust. London: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blom, M., & Lundgren, M. (2020). The (In)voluntary follower. Leadership, 16(2), 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, A. (1994). Critical Realism: An introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy. Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58, 1419–1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, D. (2014). Dichotomies, dialectics and dilemmas: New directions for critical leadership studies? Leadership, 10, 36–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, D. L. (2020). ‘Only Connect!’: Exploring the critical dialectical turn in leadership studies. Organization Theory, 1, 2631787720913878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courpasson, D. (2000). Managerial strategies of domination: Power in soft bureaucracies. Organization Studies, 21(1), 141–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunliffe, A. L., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64, 1425–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, M. (1959). Men Who Manage, Fusions of Feeling and Theory in Administration. New York: Wiley and Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deslandes, G. (2011). In search of individual responsibility: The dark side of organizations in the light of jansenist ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donati, P., & Archer, M. S. (2015). The Relational Subject. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elder-Vass, D. (2005). Emergence and the realist account of cause. Journal of Critical Realism, 4(2), 315–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendaya, S., Dierendonck, V., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30, 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairhurst, G. T. (2009). Considering context in discursive leadership research. Human Relations, 62, 1607–1633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1043–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, C. M., & Morris, J. (2003). The “Neo-Bureaucratic” state: Professionals, managers and professional managers in schools, general practices and social work. Organization, 10, 129–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Glacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression Management in the Organization (pp. 143–170). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., & King, T. R. (1994). A political conceptualization of managerial behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 4(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., Harrell-Cook, G., Dulebohn, J. H. (2000). Organizational politics: the nature of the relationship between politics perceptions and political behavior. In Research in the Sociology of Organizations, (pp. 89–130). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

  • Fleetwood, S. (2009). The ontology of things, properties and powers. Journal of Critical Realism, 8, 343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. NewYork Times Magazine, September 13: 32–33, 122–124.

  • Fu, P. P., Tsiu, A. S., Liu, J., & Li, L. (2010). Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders’ transformational behaviours and personal values. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 222–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, N. M., & Kubasek, N. (1998). Do we really want more leaders in business? Journal of Business Ethics, 17(15), 1727–1736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. (1954). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. W. (1995). Leadership, moral development and citizenship behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into The Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Paulist Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hales, C. (1998). Why do managers do what they do? Reconciling evidence and theory in accounts of managerial work. British Journal of Management, 9(4), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanlon, G. (2015). The Dark Side of Management: A Secret History of Management Theory. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heckscher, C. (1995). White Collar Blues. Management Loyalties in an Age of Corporate Restructuring. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J., & Hoy, W. (1983). Leader authenticity: The development and test of operational measure. Educational and Psychological Research, 3(2), 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, D. E. (2004). Project work: The legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, C., & Munro, I. (2014). ‘“Moral Distance”’ in organizations: An inquiry into ethical violence in the works of Kafka. Journal of Business Ethics, 124, 259–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackall, R. (1988/2010). Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Johnson, P., Wood, G., Brewster, C., & Brookes, M. (2009). The rise of post-bureaucracy. International Sociology, 24, 37–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpik, L. (1978). Organizations, institutions, and history. In L. Karpik (Ed.), Organization and Environment: Theory, Issues, and Reality (pp. 15–68). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempster, S., & Parry, K. W. (2011). Grounded theory and leadership research: A critical realist perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 106–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knights, D., & O’Leary, M. (2006). Leadership, ethics and responsibility to the other. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laroche, H. (2005). Moral mazes-the world of corporate managers. European Management Journal, 24(6), 439–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazonick, W., & O’Sullivan, M. (2000). Maximising shareholder value: A new ideology for corporate governance. Economy and Society, 29(1), 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meinecke, A. L., Rowold, J., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). How transformational leadership works during team interactions: A behavioral process analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 1017–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, P. (2000). Realism, causality and the problem of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(3), 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1984). Notes on ambiguity and executive compensation. Journal of Management Studies, 1(1), 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P. Y. (2001). ‘Mobilizing masculinities’: Women’s experiences of men at work. Organization, 8(4), 587–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutionalized action and corporate governance: The reliance on rules of CEO succession. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 384–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahoney, J., Vincent, S., & Harley, B. (2018). Realist studies of oppression, emancipation and resistance. Organization, 25(5), 575–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ospina, S., & Sorenson, G. (2006). A constructionist lens on leadership: Charting new territory. In G. Goethals & G. Sorenson (Eds.), The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership (pp. 188–204). Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parris, D. L., & Peachy, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(3), 377–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. (1997). In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 18(1), 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. (2012). Masters of the universe: Power and elites in organization studies. Organization Studies, 33(2), 203–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, N. J. C., & Gregory, R. J. (2011). Spinning an organizational “Web of Obligation”? Moral choice in Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience” experiments. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 495–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (2012). Power, causality and normativity: A critical realist critique of Foucault. Journal of Political Power, 5, 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sendaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamir, R. (2008). The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Economy and Society, 37, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnicks, M. (2018). Leadership after virtue: MacIntyre’s critique of management reconsidered. Journal of Business Ethics, 147, 735–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. (2010). What is a Person? Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and Moral Good from the Person Up. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, B. (2019). Moral leadership? Be careful what you wish for. Leadership, 15, 123–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. L. (1996). Neoclassical economic theory, executive control, and organizational outcomes. Human Relations, 49(6), 735–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Bos, R., & Willmott, H. (2001). Towards a post-dualistic business ethics: Interweaving reason and emotion in working life. Journal of Management Studies, 18(6), 769–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership. Academy of Management Annals, 7, 1–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, T. J. (1994). In Search of Management: Culture, Chaos and Control in Managerial Work. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetstone, J. T. (2001). How virtue fits within business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, P. (2019). Retroduction, reflexivity and leadership learning: Insights from a critical realist study of empowerment. Management Learning, 50, 449–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zyglidopoulos, S. C., & Fleming, P. J. (2008). Ethical distance in corrupt firms: How do innocent bystanders become guilty perpetrators? Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 265–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the handling editor and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions which helped develop the paper further. We would also like to thank Professor Mike Reed for his encouragement and helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. All errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Coventry University Business School, Coventry, UK

    Konstantinos Kakavelakis

  2. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Timothy James Edwards

Authors
  1. Konstantinos Kakavelakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy James Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantinos Kakavelakis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kakavelakis, K., Edwards, T.J. The Impact of Structure and Corporate Ideology on Leader–Follower Relations in the Bureaucratic Organization: A Reflection on Moral Mazes. J Bus Ethics 181, 69–82 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04919-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04919-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation