Strategic Leadership Between Hegemony and Ideology

Abstract

This chapter introduces the construct of hegemony of strategic leadership and the categories of power and how it reflects on strategic leadership. Within an organization, hegemony gets an additional meaning. It refers to the members ‘and the entire collective’s acceptance of the dominant organizational ideology and aspirations established by the managerial elite. Further, power is an inevitable category when it comes to understanding social relations and structures. Having power means being able to influence the behaviour of others but not necessarily to also modify their behaviour. In this chapter, the author skilfully fills the philosophical gap in the field of strategic leadership, defending the thesis that strategic leadership is inseparable from organizational ideology.

Hegemony and Leadership

The natural urge to dominate is incontrovertible in human communities. This urge is not equally expressed in everyone, but it nevertheless exists and endures as a constant in human history. The need for power is the energising element of civilisation and often the main goal and sense of being of individuals and groups; an unquenchable desire that trumps all other human needs.

Fertile ground for “power games” is found in all human collectives: from the smallest, loosely connected groups of just a few individuals, to large countries, global political organisations and transnational corporations.

Collective action of any kind requires coordination, guidance and consistency that can only be provided by leadership. By taking on leadership roles in collectives, leaders exert crucial influence on common action: they integrate, connect and motivate the members on the basis of access to available sources of power.

In this context, comparable with Child’s (1977, p. 113) view on the political aspect of management, leadership can be defined as a system of power and authority in which various personal and group strategies are implemented.

It is a widespread belief that strategic management is the most managerialist of the management specialties: a modernist discipline with a clear accent on rational, linear and positivist determination, a continuation of Tayloristic ideology of control (Levy et al., 2001, pp. 1, 4; Levy et al., 2003, p. 92).

Strategy is thus reduced to a phenomenon of control, and strategic leadership to a sui generis emanation of it. Superiority is a prerequisite for control and the effort to achieve dominance is a rational action that may ensure integration, harmonisation and focus of members of a collective.

The logic behind this approach is the aspiration to achieve success: strategic leadership provides decisive leverage in adapting the organisation to its current and future environment. There have been numerous studies that analysed this relation very closely, trying to develop models based on which the benefit of strategic leadership will be clearly and undisputedly recognised as contributing to cost-effectiveness, achieving competitive advantage and ensuring a better and more sustainable adaptation to the ambience, among other things. This has been confirmed by the results of many studies that looked into the correlation between the extent of achievement and effectiveness of an organisation lead by strategic leadership and certain attributes and characteristics of heads of the organisation and/or their cognitive structures, and/or the ways they make decisions, and/or the way they behave in interaction with other actors, both within the organisation and outside it.

Our proposition is somewhat different.

Strategic leadership is the ultimate consequence of the inevitable side of human behaviour that surfaces in smaller or larger groups: the interwovenness of power and dynamics of influence with the intention to dominate and establish social control. This is what everything comes down to, irrespective of the various manifestations, hidden agendas and seeking of the “higher purpose” designed to obscure or distort the truth.¹

From this perspective, supremacy can seem as the main objective of leadership. A radical interpretation of this presumption would be that a leader’s objective is not to “provide good leadership” but to do everything they can to maintain a position of power in the collective.

This idea departs from the usual perspective of managerial disciplines that we are used to in the context of the dominant paradigm. Postmodernists believe that the views of advocates of modernism, focused on objectivity and reason, can be interpreted as a process intended to cloud and obscure the obvious legitimacy of existing social relations. Specifically, in the context of an enterprise, this would pertain to the maintaining and strengthening of the position of certain stakeholders in the function of preserving existing power structures within the organisation and around it.

Organisational science plays an interesting role in the function of perpetuating the power of the managerial elite. In his book The Servants of Power, Loren Baritz (1960) warned that, once the surface layers of this young discipline were lifted, the intention behind its research was to find the most effective means to exert control over employees with a view of further strengthening of managerial power.

Moreover, postmodernist deconstruction attempts to destroy the idea that the power attained and accumulated by organisational heads and other top managers as key agents in achieving the organisation’s objectives is “natural.” Giving more power to managers in the face of certain demands, owing to their ability to act rationally “in everyone’s best interest”, is only aimed at maintaining their supremacy and/or dominance over those who had given them the position they hold.

The power of the managerial elite cannot be understood solely based on horizontal and vertical differentiation of tasks in complex organisations. It has to be viewed as a way of reflecting on and maintaining the structure and relations of power in the society (Willmott, 2005, p. 30).

Similarly, in a critical analysis of the field of strategic management (using Giddens’² criteria in his disambiguation and referring also to Habermas³), Shrivastava (1986, pp. 370–374) concluded that this discipline is indisputably ideologized; strategic discourse helps legitimise and reproduce the existing power structures and resource inequality in organisations and in the society as a whole.

Consequently, power is not only an instrument but also a key purpose of leaders’ action which can ultimately lead to complete supremacy, or hegemony, where members of the collective willingly accept the leader’s superiority, identify with the leader, follow the guidelines they set, and refrain from questioning the existing structures of organisational and social power.

Hegemony (Ancient Greek: ἡγεμονία) is a concept brought to general use by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, referring to a complex web of conceptual and material arrangements that produce the fabric of daily life in a society (Alvesson & Deetz, 2005, p. 77). The original meaning is connected with the supremacy achieved by a polis in political and military alliances of Ancient Greece, and in modern-day politics it pertains to supremacy of a social entity (state, nation, social class or other) which governs the conduct of other, weaker entities. In international relations, as emphasised by Norrlof (2015), it emphasises the ability of the hegemon to use voluntary or involuntary means to create a system of global relations in a period of time.

Hegemony mirrors the image of the world in a historic period, the constellations of power, the aspirations of people, and the permissible space for collective action. The governing elite imprints its understanding of the social reality on everyone else in order to maintain the status quo. Hegemony emerges as “common sense,” that is “inherited from the past and uncritically absorbed” and reproduces “moral and political passivity” (Gramsci, 1971, p. 333, as cited in Herrmann, 2017). It is explained as a situation where there is no noticeable competition in imposing one’s own view of reality (Spears, 1999, as cited in Glăveanu, 2009).

It establishes a rounded and accepted system of asymmetry of power, an ideological framework, a distribution of social and organisational roles, and it maintains the order of things, by helping with sense-making in an intersubjective reality. Organisational (and social) reality appears as the only given possibility; the ambience in which organisations exist seems perfectly normal and the superiority of others is seen as a natural thing.

The meaning of hegemony lies in the temporary universalization in thought of a particular power structure, conceived not as domination but as the necessary order of nature (Cox, 1982, p. 38).

Schmidt (2018) highlights the relational aspect of hegemony, as it involves relationships between multiple actors in which at least one has the ability to dominate and control the activities of others.⁴ Controlling an actor’s behaviour means creating a situation in which that actor gives a positive response to requests to change or continue with a type of behaviour that has been established by the person in control.

Relational determination indicates that hegemony is closely related to leadership, regardless of the form such leadership takes in various collectives.⁵

Within an organisation, hegemony gets an additional meaning. It refers to the members’ and the entire collective’s acceptance of the dominant organisational ideology and aspirations established by the managerial elite. It is supported by economic, cultural and regulatory structures and arrangements; it is based on contracts that regulate organisational relations, common methods of giving rewards, advocacy of special values and visions, and rules that have been adopted in order to maintain and further strengthen a position of power.

If we were to accept the clever idea that organisations are reflections of their leaders (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), we could conclude that, in addition to the aforementioned, organisations are a reflection of the structure of supremacy existing in the society, brought and multiplied by the domination of a group that has the power of control. Acknowledgement of social and organisational acceptance of the role of strategic leaders and managers gives justification to existence of a superior position of technocratic elites and to hibernation of existing socio-political relations and structures.

Strategic leaders are protectors of existing social relations and inalienable representatives of the dominant view of reality. Their task is to establish order in a symbolic universe, to eliminate any alternative ideas of the truth and discrepant discourses from the organisational space, and to develop and integrate the collective based on a system of values that tacitly or completely explicitly protects hegemonic relationships. Leaders have to be aware of the fact that they, just like all other social hegemons, must transcend their interests so that they may become the interests of other subordinate groups too (Mouffe, 1979, p. 180, as cited in Jerbić, 2014, p. 69).

Hegemony, as must always be clear, is a mixture of coercion and consent. Nevertheless, coercion is only applied in extreme situations and exists more as a latent threat in the collective. The consensual aspect of hegemony is sufficient in and of itself to ensure compliance of the majority (Cox, 1983, p. 164; Destradi, 2008).

In most cases, members of an organisation take hegemony as a given, just like they accept the strategic leadership of powerful individuals or groups; they neither resist being in a subordinate position nor attempt to change the situation. They usually benefit from accepting to be subordinated, in terms of either financial or non-financial benefits and/or strengthening of the feeling of belonging to the collective, including the feeling of one’s own self-fulfilment.⁶

Dominant ideas, myths, rhetoric and concepts shaped or represented by leaders are embraced by members of the collective as elements of their own discourses. As emphasised by Schmidt (2018), a key indicator of hegemony is the degree of discursive incorporation of ideas inspired by the elite and the common sense of the masses.

Hegemony within organisations is also evident in cases when strategic leaders prepare and adopt decisions that are implemented by members of the collective without any opposition, even when they are harmful for them. This usually involves the creation of a vague higher cause or a common benefit as a justification for such action (Herrmann, 2017).

Ideology, organisational culture, and other arrangements can be perceived as a framework within which the supremacy of the managerial elite is effectuated. Narratives, rituals, ceremonies and symbols help strengthen the position of strategic leaders and encourage the self-renewal of their supremacy by deeply instilling ideology, and by indoctrination and socialisation of the members of the organisation. Instead of repression and coercion in the imposition of the will of the leader, what emerges is identification with the collective, feeling of belonging and connectedness among its members, which in turn encourages and strengthens togetherness (“us” against “all others”), and makes it possible to recognise personal and collective benefits of the present situation.

Naturally, it would be wrong to non-critically think of hegemony in terms of absolute comprehensiveness. Its existence in the organisation is inseparable from resistance to dominance felt by members of the collective. Group dynamics is always a reflection of such resistance (Cindrić, 2020). It is formed by continual juxtaposition of acceptance and refusal of roles, norms, symbols and imposed understanding of reality; obedience and disobedience; belonging and lack of belonging; and alike. The members’ identity is thus constructed depending on the degree of resistance to the influences exerted by leaders, whereas the level of socialisation depends on the level of acceptance of hegemonic relationships. Organisational and social innovations appear when such contradictions can no longer be reconciled in the existing hegemonic context Glăveanu, 2009).

A hegemonic relationship, as noted by Laclau and Mouffe (2005, p. 59), comes down to a relationship where a certain particular presupposes the presentation of a universal that is completely incommensurate with such particular. From our perspective, particulars are leaders and followers in the organisation, and the universal is their common and harmonious action. As the two authors explained, hegemony paints a picture of a particular and its contaminated universal, claiming that: (1) it lives in this unresolvable tension between universality and particularity; (2) its function of hegemonic universality is not acquired for good, but is, on the contrary, always reversible.

The first problem appears when organisational existence is not accompanied by sustainable fulfilment of collective and individual objectives. The gap between reality and expectations becomes greater, which eventually results in the unveiling of hegemony, the recognition of its true, self-renewing purpose. Commitment and motivation among members of the collective disappears, ultimately leaving nothing but position-based power as the sole foothold of strategic leadership.

This situation cannot persist in the long run: one has to re-establish an ambience where the willing element will be a part of the organisational reality. Normally, this requires change in the upper echelons, or in other words, the inauguration of a new group of strategic leaders.

Another problem may arise when strategic leaders lose sight of the environmental factors, particularly in a complex, vague and dynamic environment, where there are strong challenges in terms of competing organisations. If leaders focus solely on strengthening their own power and personal prestige, they will inevitably be caught in the pitfall of strategic short-sightedness. An expected outcome of this kind of entrenchment is threatened survival of the organisation (Walsh & Seward, 1990).

This is, of course, an aberration in the hegemonic field: a one-dimensional, superficial type of conduct that does not serve the function of maintaining social and organisational balance.

Power and Strategies of Influence

Power is extremely important for understanding strategic leadership, considering that it delimits the space for organisational action and explains the key relationships that develop between organisational actors.

It is an inevitable category when it comes to understanding social relations and structures. As pointed out by renowned twentieth century philosopher Bertrand Russell (1938, p. 12): The fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense in which Energy is the fundamental concept in physics (Fig. 6.1).

Fig. 6.1

Power, Influence, and Control of Strategic Leader Over Members of the Collective

Power is an asymmetrical relation between the behaviour of two or more individuals or other social entities, one that answers the question how a change in one of the individuals’ or entities’ behaviour changes the behaviour of the other (Simon, 1953).

Power, in the narrower sense, pertains to the degree of likelihood that, in a social relationship, individuals will succeed in imposing their will on others even in the event of resistance. Max Weber noted that any true form of domination implies a minimum of voluntary submission, or rather an interest in obedience arising from either ulterior motives or genuine acceptance (Weber, 1968, p. 212).

In the broader sense, power lies in creating discourse that, consisting of language and material practices and reasoning, organises institutions in the society and produces entities such as “leaders,” “managers,” “employees” or others (Alvesson & Deetz, 2005, p. 92).

There is a consensus in social sciences that the inherent nature of power is connected with the feeling of interdependence of social actors. Power can only exist when there is a relationship of inequality (imbalance) between the actors: when one entity depends on another.

Emerson (1962, p. 33) believed that there is a bond between those two phenomena that equalises their intensities: degree of power of A over B is the same as the degree of dependence of B on A. This idea has become quite influential in organisational science, despite the issue inadequacy of empirical proof.

Dahl (1957) claimed that the extent of A’s power over B is equivalent to A’s ability to convince B into doing something A wants. Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) noted that power can be easily recognised by its consequences—the ability of the person in the position of power (powerholder) to achieve the desired results, for the sake of ensuring their own survival, by accessing limited resources unavailable to other people.

Power is a latent ability to influence actions, thoughts and emotions of other groups or individuals (Nord, 1976, p. 439, as cited in Ott, 1989, p. 420) and this is a substantial determinant of leadership.

According to this perspective, leadership is realised power manifested as an influence on cognition and behaviour of others (“followers”) and mirrored as their willingness to submit to another or their loyalty or commitment to another.

Power directly depends on uncertainty and changeability of the environment, complexity of tasks being performed, and on personalities of those that exert it and those that are subjected to it.

There are three determinants of power: (1) number and importance of variables based on which the followers’ dependence on the leader is expressed, (2) degree of possible influence based on existing sources of power, and (3) time frame in which the leader exerts power (Dahl, 1957). Power can be measured in the relationship between social entities through which it is expressed, taking into consideration that the potential for change in a follower’s behaviour is directly related to the degree of such follower’s dependence on the leader as the powerholder. Its degree is measurable based on success in changing the behaviours of others: the easier it is to achieve submission or loyalty among followers, the greater the degree of power exerted by leaders.

Furthermore, power has to be put inside the frame of the leader-follower relationship. A fitting category for explaining the dynamics of that relationship is “elasticity of power,” which can be defined as a relative change in the leader’s power in connection with change of alternatives available to the followers (Robbins, 1989, p. 348).

Leaders can base their superior position on different sources of power. French Jr. and Raven (1959) developed a taxonomy of bases of power by considering answers to these two questions: (1) What determines the behaviour of the powerholder? (2) What determines the reactions of the recipients of such behaviour? In this context, they identified five bases (sources) of power: (1) reward power, expressed as the leader’s ability to give rewards, (2) coercion power, expressed as the leader’s potential to coerce the follower, (3) legitimate power, which is connected with having authority, (4) referent power, which pertains to identification with another, and (5) expert power, which is based on having certain expert knowledge. In line with that classification, two more types of sources of power could be noted: (6) informational power, which emerges from access to and possession of information (Raven et al., 1970) and (7) ecological power, which is explained as the leader’s ability to manipulate the followers’ environment (Tedeschi & Bonoma, 1972).

Firstly, reward power is based on the follower’s (“B’s”) belief that the leader (“A”) can reward them as a result of A’s actual or merely perceived ability to access resources that are valuable for the follower. Follower dependence emerges when the follower perceives, presumes or believes that the leader can access or control something that can be seen as a reward from the follower’s point of view.

Power increases in proportion with the magnitude of rewards that B perceives as obtainable from A, and with the degree of importance of such rewards to B. The more important the reward to the follower, the more pronounced the power of the leader. This depends on the likelihood of the leader actually securing the reward the way the follower wishes it. Conforming behaviour, submission or commitment of followers is based on proper understanding of their needs and interests, realistic offer of rewards that are ethically acceptable and reasonably incorporable in the ambience of leadership.

Secondly, if B believes that A is capable of punishing them, this means that A has the power of coercion over B (French Jr. & Raven, 1959). This power of A over B is primarily based on B’s fear that the perceived sanction will be implemented (Robbins, 1989, p. 341). Consequently, its source lies in the follower’s perception that punishment will ensue unless they do as the leader expects them to. The degree of that power depends on the magnitudes of negative valence of the threat of punishment multiplied by the perceived likelihood that such punishment will be avoided through conforming behaviour.

Coercion of followers is certainly not the best way to go if one wishes to achieve strong cohesion, motivation, and uniformity in collective action. Coercion power can create resistance among the followers, encourage poor performance, diminish commitment, and lead to conflicts in the organisation. It should only be applied if it is strategically important to achieve conforming behaviour of followers very quickly, when all other options have already been exhausted or where there are none.

The difference between reward power and coercion power exists due to their different dynamics (French Jr. & Raven, 1959). Reward power, if implemented, increases the attraction and appeal perceived by B vis-à-vis A and decreases rejection, whereas coercion power decreases attraction and increases rejection.

Thirdly, the follower’s perception of the leader being entitled to regulate their behaviour is the source of legitimate power. This power is rooted in believing that B is obligated to accept the influence and fulfil the demands that A has imposed on them. French Jr. and Raven (1959) emphasise that this source of power is the most complex one.

Legitimate power is expressed in the form of formal or informal authority. Specifically, power can be based on predefined rules, whether these are laws, contracts or other legally binding regulations and documents that give the leader the right to influence others. Formal authority provides and defines the space for expressing demands expected to be fulfilled by followers. This type of authority is extremely important in bureaucratised structures with highly pronounced hierarchies where legitimate power is realised solely through position. On the other hand, legitimate power can emerge from unofficial authority that is the result of an informal relationship between the leader and the follower(s). It exists when B is willing to adjust their own behaviour to suit the demands established by A regardless of the fact that A has no legally defined authority. In such situations, followers perceive informal authority as the leader’s legitimate power allowing them to regulate and influence the followers’ behaviour.

Fourthly, power can also stem from the follower’s identification with the leader. Identification is actually a feeling of oneness of B with A, or a desire to establish such identity: B interacts with the environment the way A does, mimicking A’s behaviour and submitting to A’s demands. French Jr. and Raven (1959) noted that referent power could be verbalised as follows: “I am like A and therefore I wish to behave like A does and believe what A does,” or “I wish to be like A and I will be more like A if I behave like (or believe what) A does.” The greater the identification of B with A, the greater the referent power of A over B.

Despite the fact that use of referent power is usually successful, there are some limitations to this. Referent power decreases through overuse, extreme demands, and underestimating and irritating of one’s partners in the organisation (Yukl & Wexley, 1985, p. 125).

Next, if a person perceives that the powerholder has some special knowledge or expertise on which their own success or the success of the collective hinges, the prerequisites are there for the development of expert power. The degree of that power varies depending on the extent of knowledge in the relevant field attributed by the follower to the powerholder (French Jr. & Raven, 1959).

The follower evaluates the leader’s expert knowledge based on general and absolute standards and in relation to the follower’s own knowledge. Existence of power is not as dependent on the actual quality of knowledge the leader has as it is on the follower’s perception of the role that such expert knowledge plays in achieving the follower’s own business-related and other objectives.

Existence of an individual’s expert knowledge is a prerequisite for the power that results in a primarily social influence on the cognitive structure of others. If B receives expert advice from A and learns to operate without A’s help, A’s expert knowledge ceases to be a source of power. In fact, B’s continued dependence on A’s expertise is necessary in order for A to remain in a position of power. Where a once solved problem ceases to appear, expert power no longer exists (Yukl & Wexley, 1985, p. 122).

Furthermore, power can also be created when B perceives that A can provide information that B finds inaccessible but relevant for their action. Informational power also exists when A, by emphasising the consequences of an action that B is not aware of a priori, succeeds in B accepting A’s proposal.

French Jr. and Raven (1959) considered informational power to be a sub-type of expert power. Indeed, both powers appear to be very similar. However, Raven et al. (1970) found that the differences between the two were not completely insignificant. Informational power of A is based on B’s acceptance of the logic behind A’s arguments and not on the perception of A’s expert knowledge.

In addition to that, ecological power in terms of manipulation via the environment can also be a source of power. Achieving control over as many factors that shape other individuals’ environment as possible means being able to influence their behaviour. Based on this aspect, Tedeschi and Bonoma (1972) noted that manipulative (ecological) power can also be identified, in the case where A has the ability to control critical aspects of B’s surroundings in a way that the potential newly-formed environment might result in a change in B’s behaviour.

Creation of environment for other members of the organisation can certainly be a strong source of power. Use of manipulative power can have a significant influence on submission of followers. It is mostly expressed in the control of information, restriction of alternatives, and other direct actions that modify the environment or affect the followers’ perception of such environment. In this context, Pondy (1989, p. 227) referred to Oldham’s expanded definition of leadership (1974) as any type of control that the leader has over the environment of a member of the group.

Having power means being able to influence the behaviour of others but not necessarily to also modify their behaviour. As such, power is a specific resource than may but need not be utilised.

Hence, if A has the capacity to influence B, we say that A has power over B, whereas if A does something that results in modifying B’s behaviour, we say that A has an influence on B (Cartwright, 1965).

Use of power results in changes in the degree of likelihood that an individual or group will adopt a desired behaviouristic change, which is defined as influence (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988, p. 203). Leaders who have power have the potential to exert influence in the collective. Consequently, influence is a kinetic or actually used power (Siu, 1979).

Possible results of the process of leader’s exerting of influence can be generalised in the form of the following potential reactions of followers: (1) feeling of connectedness, (2) submission or (3) rejection.

Feeling of connectedness is a situation where the follower exhibits positive acceptance of the influence exerted by the powerholder. The follower finds the leader’s position and role to be desirable and acceptable for achieving of the follower’s own goals.

In case of submission, there is no positive reaction or satisfaction among the followers. Their behaviour is rational; they accept the control of another organisational actor because they either have no other choice, or because they believe it to be the least inappropriate solution for them and their own position.

Lastly, a person may reject influence and the attempt to exert control, regardless of the consequences that may ensue, especially when they fail to see a rational explanation of the powerholder’s actions in terms of achieving the common goal, or when they feel that their own personality is threatened, when they feel humiliated, or in other similar circumstances.

Results of the process of influencing members of the collective directly depend on the sources of power on which the leader bases his or her influence (Moorhead & Griffin, 1989, p. 364).

Influence can be exerted directly or indirectly, depending on the way the powerholder approaches the realisation of his or her own potentials. For example, if the aim is to directly emphasise and influence the submission of, or feeling of connectedness in the followers, the powerholder will implement direct strategies of influence; if, on the other hand, such direct approach is not desirable, they will implement one of the indirect strategies.

Direct strategies of influence are the following: (1) request and recommendation, (2) promise, (3) cautioning, (4) command, (5) threat, (6) positive normativism, (7) negative normativism, and (8) legalistic reference.⁷

By giving recommendations or requests, a leader wishes to establish control without generating an off-putting attitude or behaviour in the followers. In this context, the leader informs the follower that, in order for their relationship to be good, the leader’s dominant position has to be accepted (Raven et al., 1970). Firstly, a request is a strategy used when the holder of power does not wish to implicitly draw attention to the sources of their power and relies on simply asking for something in order to exert influence. Secondly, the follower can receive the information (in the form of a recommendation) that their submission or commitment to the powerholder will ensure better achievement of goals.

Moreover, the leader can also promise certain rewards for the follower should they accept control (this is an attempt to exercise the power of reward). Similarly, if follower B perceives that leader A has the capacity to secure a reward for B, the prerequisites for exertion of A’s power over B are created.

Thirdly, a leader can caution the follower, by making them understand the negative consequences that may ensue unless the leader establishes control (Tedeschi et al., 1973), or they may simply issue a command explicitly requesting that the follower submit immediately. A command sometimes includes a possible sanction for the follower, but not necessarily in the same way as it is included in a threat, which serves to inform the follower that a negative sanction will take place if they refuse to submit. A threat can have negative consequences on the follower’s cognitive structure (stress, dissatisfaction, fear, anger, or other). The source of the three mentioned strategies of influence lies in the power of coercion.

Next, positive normativism is a situation in which the leader makes it clear to the follower that their submission is in line with organisational norms and rules of conduct. The follower is made aware of the fact that all organisational members who are considered good and loyal comply with the rules and do what is expected of them. On the other hand, negative normativism is a situation where it is made clear to the follower that, unless they accept the leader’s control and continue to disrupt and destroy organisational norms and rules, they will prevent the achievement of common interests and undermine the essence of collective action.

The last of the listed direct strategies of influence is legalistic reference. As the holder of legitimate power, the leader makes it known to the follower that there are certain legal standards involved in their relationship that require the follower’s submission. By familiarising the follower with the existence of a legal relationship that implies implementation of control, the leader influences the follower into accepting a subordinate position.

Indirect strategies of influence, on the other hand, are applied when one wishes to use informational, expert and referent power. Implementation of this type of strategies is also desirable when leaders have access to other sources of power and wish to intensify the effects of influence. These are: (1) information exchange, (2) information control, and (3) modelling.

Information exchange is a type of influence when the leader exchanges views and ideas with others with the intention of indirectly showing their own quality and knowledge (Raven et al., 1970). The attempt is to highlight their own expertise (or references) so that the submission of followers would occur as a natural, logical process.

Furthermore, a follower can be influenced by controlling the flow of information. The leader can generate, select or reduce information with the aim of creating a perception in others that their submission is natural in the context of achieving better results. Information control has to be a long-lasting process if one wishes to successfully influence others. It primarily comes down to creating an informational environment where the follower prefers the validity of information received from the leader compared to information obtained from other possible sources.

Finally, one can always apply the strategy of influence via modelling. This is a situation where the leader shows examples to others to make them understand that the leader’s control and influence is desirable. This way, followers are familiarised with situations where expertise (or references, information, possibilities of reward or coercion, manipulation of the environment, or any other source of power) is presented as effective and useful in important organisational matters. Modelling creates a context where followers independently correlate the examples with desirable behaviour, observe analogies, and submit without coercion.

Regardless of their character or type, influence strategies have a single major objective: to establish control over the behaviour of members of the collective in order to implement strategy and other planned activities and intentions of the leader.

Leaders need individuals who will follow them and be willing to accept leadership. Control can be observed through a causal chain that begins with the leader’s access to sources of power and certain limited resources, continues with their exertion of influence on followers, which in turn results in their feeling of connectedness or submission, and ultimately ends in active inclusion in common action.

More simply put, leaders always try to turn followers into the effectuators of their plans. Having power and successfully implementing some of the strategies of influence are fundamental prerequisites for establishing control over members of the collective.

However, there are other ways to identify forms of mutual influence in collectives.

For instance, Cialdini (2002) listed six instruments of persuasion (also referred to as key principles of influence) in social interaction between people. These are: (1) the trap of commitment and consistency, (2) reciprocity, (3) authority, (4) liking, (5) scarcity principle, and (6) principle of social proof.

The first instrument is the trap of commitment and consistency. Perception of one’s own consistency is inherent in most people. If a person commits to fulfilling a minor obligation in a social relationship with another person or persons, they are much more easily persuaded to accept a larger commitment if this can be portrayed as consistent behaviour.

The second instrument is reciprocity. Observing the intention to influence a person, one can also observe the human tendency to feel obligated to somebody who has given us something.

Apart from that, based on the authority principle, if someone has authority, they can more easily influence and persuade another to act.

Personal likeability and/or similarity can also be suitable instruments of persuasion (the liking/similarity principle).

The fifth instrument of persuasion is the scarcity principle; this involves our instinct telling us that something that is not available in large quantities must be valuable (Taylor, 2006, p. 77).

Finally, the social proof principle (social validation) indicates how widespread the so-called herd mentality actually is. Instead of thinking things through, people “go with the flow” and follow the “herd” (the majority in the organisation or society) in accepting or submitting to an ideology and/or strategic leadership.

As Cialdini noted, authority, scarcity and social validation principles serve to enhance decision-making effectiveness; liking/similarity and reciprocity are principles that meet the goal of establishing and sustaining social relationships; whereas the commitment/consistency principle is relevant to the goal of managing the individual’s self-concept and works because it modifies one’s self-perception.

Ideology and Instilling Beliefs

The idea that strategic leadership is supported by organisational ideology is not hard to defend.

Ideology is an organic part of every social totality (Althusser, 1969, pp. 231–232), one that creates space in which people operate, acquire an awareness of their position, and fight for their cause (Gramsci, 1959, pp. 19–23, 28–35, 38–39, 57, 90–92, 230–232; Ravlić, 2002). It is a system of collective beliefs, views, ideas, myths and concepts oriented toward representing, promoting, implementing and justifying special patterns of social relationships and arrangements (Hamilton, 1987, p. 38). Ideology is often the foundation for differentiating between “us” (collective or group we belong to) and “them” (competitor group or generally the world beyond the boundaries of our group).

A social group is made strong by tightly intertwined bundles of members’ beliefs woven into its ideology. Beliefs are deeply rooted views of the world conditioned by sociocultural milieu and history that create an interpretative and constructional tool for shaping the global reality (Van Dijk, 2006a). Ethereal ideas, with their appealing and deceptive simplicity, help constitute beliefs and create illusions of a singular, self-explanatory reality that is the only one that is true.

Ideology can also be observed as the process of constructing and legitimising shared values (Pesqueux, 2002) which gives sense to existing rules of behaviour, rationalises direction of action, connects the members, and acts as a foothold of collective action that is to be undertaken. It helps to preserve and stabilise social structures and represents the connective tissue of every collective.

Ideology is a symbolic system (Geertz, 1964) that reflects a shared, value-based perspective on reality. This is a special type of cultural construct, one which gives clearly formulated, value-laden and guidance-providing interpretations of the world (Ravlić, 2002) that cannot, in and of themselves, be observed through the right/wrong or true/untrue dichotomy, because they lack the elements that usually characterise science and ethics. The basic level of ideology is not a deceptive illusion of reality but rather a level of unconscious fantasm that creates our social reality (Žižek, 2002, p. 55).

A strong ideology creates an orthodoxy (Ancient Greek: Ορθοδοξία), a set of accepted and unquestionable truths, as an element of an ideological dogma the questioning of which is not desirable, or even permitted.

An organisation has its own ideologies or concepts of the world: instilled, unquestionable bundles of symbols, views, beliefs and values that connect people by making them rely on organisational mission.

Ideology is a system of representation of ideas (Althusser, 1969): in it, one can recognise the character and actual essence of the organisation. It integrates the collective, unifies the member’s views and perspectives, ties them firmly together in their action, and helps shape and strengthen the common identity and organisational culture. Existence of a common cognitive landscape shared by the leader and members of the collective makes it easy for them to understand and build the same ideas of reality.

Hegemony and ideology are two sides of the same medal: sophisticated tools in desubjectivisation of a person and their reducing to a mere fragment that is incomprehensible if observed outside the collective being.

Organisational ideology is not a construct that exists independent of civilisation, culture, space or time. It is indivisible from higher-level dominant ideologies; in fact, it is a constituent of such ideologies, a reflection of power relations in a social field; it serves to legitimise dominance of privileged structures in the society.

It is a mirror image of a constructed reality, often distorted and falsified in the rooted-in collective perception that aims to establish itself as the truth; it gives a more or less convincing interpretation of organisational existence. Its instrumental position is beyond contestation: it is the means of manipulation towards achieving the desired modes of action in the development of permissible discourse of key organisational actors.

Bias is at the heart of every ideology that clouds reality by constituting a “world of incontestable truths” firmly based on value propositions, and not necessarily facts. Ideological glasses are not about factuality—they are about fervour. Selective and suggestive emphasising of information is followed by narratives that come with inevitable distortions, and reality appears as a uniform fabric of artificiality, with subjectivity and infatuation as its warp and weft.

Ideology has completely enveloped us once we feel no conflict between it and reality. In the words of Žižek: Ideology truly succeeds when facts that appear contradictory to it at first glance begin to serve as arguments in support of it (2002, p. 39).

The universe of meanings and explanations seems harmonious in the ideological play that is put on the stage, because any departures from accepted ideological footholds are clouded up and blurred, or are deemed an unprecedented heresy.

Ideology forms us. Bare facts as such never reach our cognitive landscape. They are always covered up with a layer of hermeneutics to preserve virtue (Taylor, 2006, p. 301).

Ideological layers that envelop an individual intertwine as supports for one another, creating a single system where the individual’s conformism is a necessary consequence, and social power and desire to dominate are a solid core around which everything revolves.

Ideological hegemony includes all aspects of social existence and influences the individual’s awareness through creating a consistent system of beliefs that is accepted as a given across all levels of interaction. Power springs from complete control of reality—language, education, institutional forms, means of communication, economic organisation, as well as from continual, explicit and implicit justification of social ambience—where ideology dominates. As underlined by Althusser (1971), ideology constitutes individuals, who will more or less submit to the existing order.

As long as there are no cracks or successful ideological shifts that serve to create upturn, the system remains congruent and unquestionable.

Discursive strategy that is woven into ideology is, according to van Dijk (2006b), an ideological square: a coordinated amplification of positive perceptions of an organisation and reduction of negative ones, but at the same time accompanied by amplification of negative perceptions and reduction of positive ones about others.

Organisational ideology is woven into the social field; it is fitted into the ambience where the existing order of things is natural, self-explanatory, all-explanatory, and acceptable for organisational existence.

It rationalises and legitimises the organisation: it provides plausible explanations for behaviour in different situations and justifies its action in the network of other social entities. At the same time, it helps to distinguish the organisation from other entities in the environment.

Ideology is the spirit and the soul that inspires, leads and controls the vision of an organisation (Pesqueux, 2002). It gives a framework and guidelines for behaviour of organisational members; it determines the way they understand reality, reduces ambiguity and lack of clarity in interaction, defines the available space for strategic leadership, and justifies the selected patterns of dealing with critical aspects of the organisation’s survival. Ideology requires a special language with clusters of imprinted meanings that provide an explanation of organisational existence. The substrate of culture is contained in a delimited language space, symbols and rhetoric of organisational day-to-day life.

The convergence of perspectives on the world shared by members of the organisation is the consequence of organisational history and culture, and of the leader’s strong or less strong influence on ideology, rules, behaviour patterns, and decision-making methods.

Whatever the intentions and aspirations of strategic leaders, they cannot be implemented without involved and committed members who share the same beliefs and values. Sources of power and strategies of influence, as already explained in the previous chapter, have to be observed in the context of organisational ideology that creates permissible space for organisational actors to operate in.

In some situations, there can be aspirations towards the so-called universalisation of organisational ideology, or in other words, the conversion of particular ideological frameworks into general, widely accepted, ideological perceptions (Eagleton, 1991, p. 58; van Dijk, 2006c). Expansion of parts of ideological substance beyond organisational limits is, in most cases, connected with creation of clearly distinguishable and memorable symbols, stories and practices that can offer other people an acceptable, and at first glance more attractive, image of their constructed reality.

In other words, ideology helps create social and organisational homogeneity, and facilitates action and exertion of the leader’s influence on others. Moreover, strongly imprinted ideology reduces the chances for spreading heterodoxy (Ancient Greek ετεροδοξία), which involves the questioning of long-standing beliefs, narratives and principles, as well as the undermining of ideological foundations on which the organisation rests.

It defines the margins for permissibility of divergent behaviour: the stricter the doctrine, the faster and easier the heretic “missteps” and heterodoxies lead to exclusion and excommunication of members.

Nevertheless, ideology and its essence are not open pages of a book, as emphasised by Žižek (2002, p. 39), when he noted that ideological reality is a social reality the very existence of which implies a lack of knowledge on the part of participants regarding its essence.

The hypostasis of ideology is hidden to organisational actors, who interpret it oblivious of its original content. This raises two questions that are not actually the subject of this part of the discussion. The first is the issue of disclosure of the true nature of existing social relationships, and the second is the deconstruction of the symbolic universe of ideology beyond its limits.

Paradoxically, leaders can exist even before the existence of any followers, if they have an ideology that is successfully imprinted in a social field. The process in which a leader nominates and designates followers before they even exist as such, is referred to as interpellation. This concept was introduced by Louis Althusser as the explanation of the process through which state apparatuses imprint subjects before they even exist, thus bringing them into social existence.

Strategic leadership continually emerges from ideology and it cannot be understood if observed separately from it.

Leaders and other persons in charge act either as guardians of existing organisational ideology, according to Mintzberg (1979, p. 43), or as challengers who attempt to imprint new ideological patterns, more or less divergent from those that have taken hold and become historically accepted.

Imprinted, fortified and strengthened beliefs of members of the collective help leaders in their task of coordinating collective action in order to make strategic vision a reality. Aspirations and behaviours of leaders are determined by the ideological framework, and the success of their action is related to homogenisation of the collective, or in other words, with the achieved degree of integration, togetherness, and group identification.

Objectives of strategic leadership are the following: (1) achieve strong members’ commitment to shared values and ideological principles, (2) instil in them the beliefs, and imprint on them the views held by the leader, (3) create uniformity or similarity in the way members of the collective observe and perceive relevant elements of reality, and (4) develop organisational culture that supports organisational ideology, as well as the strategic leader’s aspirations, rhetoric, and behaviour patterns.

Successful imprinting of ideological beliefs increases loyalty, commitment and conformity of members; it strengthens the potential for motivation as a result of value congruence, by facilitating the achievement of defined objectives and expanding the leader’s decision-making space. At the same time, members also benefit from this because the ideological space makes it easier for them to understand the ambience and interpret certain aspects of organisational action in a complex environment, by helping them build a feeling of belonging to the group, achieve self-recognition, and connect with the ideas and actions of organisational heads, ultimately making them one with the collective.

Organisational ideology represents the collective spirit’s circumnavigation of the illusion perceived as the true reality.

Socialisation and Indoctrination

Organisational ideology is adopted and spread by socialisation and indoctrination of members.

Socialisation (Latin: sociare‚ meaning unite, join, associate) is the process in which members of the organisation accept a system of values, norms and behaviour patterns (Schein, 1968, p. 3), adopt the organisation’s principles of action and discourse, as well as the rhetoric and language, group beliefs, culture, organisational symbols, myths and rituals. This is a learning process in which members more or less successfully become part of the collective, by taking on the elements of shared identity: they get to have similar understanding and idea of reality, and acquire a perspective shared with others inside the organisation.⁸

Socialisation and indoctrination are mutually connected categories. Whereas socialisation draws from cultural or educational learning, indoctrination (derived from Latin doctrina, teaching) is a purposeful and non-critical instilling of ideas, views and beliefs in order for an individual to become an object—an indivisible element of the collective.⁹ It can be defined as an endeavour of the organisation and its head people to impose the ideological principles on all their members, by any available means.

Overcoming of resistance to adoption of new beliefs is the precursor to those processes. The greater an individual’s cognitive network (in number and strength), the easier it is for them to resist influence exerted by others. Abundance of cognitive landscapes in individuals makes it harder for them to be indoctrinated, and makes the process of socialisation more complex and demanding.

Socialisation is a means of protecting the collective from ideological aberrations. In the process of socialisation, one acquires knowledge in the form of “objective truths” that are internalised as “subjective truths”, which have the power to shape an individual (Berger & Luckmann, 1992, p. 88). Apart from acquiring knowledge and experience, socialisation is also characterised by social interaction in which an entity is created by being moulded by the time period, culture, human community or collective.

Initiation into a collective is only completed when the individual becomes an indivisible part of the collective, when their perspective of the world is successfully interwoven with organisational ideology.

Indoctrination, just like learning in the process of socialisation, is aimed at adoption of certain beliefs. However, unlike socialisation, indoctrination promotes the adoption of those beliefs without the need for understanding them. Reference to it normally elicits a negative connotation, because it is associated with bigotry, unreserved acceptance of authority and established ideological dogmas.¹⁰

In organisation science, special attention was drawn to indoctrination by Henry Mintzberg (1979, 1983), who believed it to be one of key parameters of organisational design.

The difference between indoctrination and socialisation by learning can also be explained by Habermas’s categories of communicative and strategic action (Habermas, 1982, pp. 128–132, 382–285; Puolimatka, 1996).

Communicative action is directed on reason-based knowledge and judgement, as well as on finding general principles that everyone involved believes to be valid. Truth and verification thereof form the basis for communicative action. It is based on openness and equality of participants. Logical reasoning should lead to consensual revelation of a common truth.

Strategic action refers to one actor’s influence on another. The true intention behind the influence can remain undiscovered if this is important for achieving the intended purpose. In social interaction, actors are not equal: one person is used as a means to fulfil the interests of another. Personal growth is not encouraged. Habermas’s strategic action, just like indoctrination, does not trigger the normative function, unlike socialisation through learning.

Organisational ideology, as a multi-layered and permanent set of beliefs, values and selected perspectives, is not a structure than can easily be deconstructed from within. It does not depend on the truth, facts or rational conclusion; it strongly distorts the perception of reality and imprints bundles of meanings and interpretations in organisational existence.

One should not forget that ideology provides a possibility to include the irrational and all kinds of beliefs presented in the most rational forms (Pesqueux, 2002).

Indoctrination is the way an organisation formally socialises its members in its own interest (Mintzberg, 1983, p. 41) through programs and techniques that serve to standardise norms, rules, and regulations; that way, members can be trusted to make decisions and take actions in accordance with the organisational ideology (Martínez-León & Martínez-García, 2011).

Characteristics of indoctrination are complete singularity in direction, dogmatism, and lack of criticism in the transfer of the ideological field. On the other hand, organisational socialisation is primarily an interactive process of learning through which new members come to understand the norms and roles they need to play in order to operate as part of the collective (Aleksić & Rudman, 2010, p. 242).

Indoctrination creates individuals who do not accept open and critical questioning of adopted norms and values; their perspectives of the world are impervious to plausible refutation of ideological principles or presentation of true facts that contradict the accepted system. Successful indoctrination results in passionate and committed members of the collective who strongly identify with the organisation and the strategic leader. Their mind is closed for any rational argumentation in the domain in which they had been indoctrinated and for the possibility that those beliefs are not true, regardless of new knowledge or insights (Puolimatka, 1996).¹¹ They are ideologically firmly anchored; they have a narrowed and false perception of reality; they do not question the beliefs, explanations and interpretations of meaning that were used to indoctrinate them.

This type of missionary-like commitment to the organisation facilitates leadership processes, but reduces collective mental elasticity and the value of having different perspectives, opposing ideas, and critical questioning of reality.

Limited indoctrination can also be permitted outside organisational limits in case of certain professions (attorneys, accountants, engineers, quality system experts, and other), especially if that contributes to the legitimacy of the organisation’s future actions.

Indoctrination is normally associated with targeted propaganda, rituals and ceremonies, limited and closed set of information and knowledge, easy-to-remember stories, messages and symbols, inspiring lectures and meetings, and alike.

In some cases, indoctrination is a more successful form of instilling ideology than socialisation by learning, but not always. There are situations when socialisation by learning creates capable and able-to-think individuals who are better adapted to facing the challenges of collective action than indoctrinated individuals.

Socialisation and indoctrination are like twins: one activity should not exclude the other. They both help in homogenising and integrating the collective by aligning the individuals’ values with those held by the organisation, and providing space for leaders in their efforts to implement strategic decisions more easily and effectively.

The influence of the leader is that much greater if there is a strong feeling of belonging and accepting of collective identity among the members, as an indivisible element of their self-definition. Socialisation and indoctrination strengthen trust, connect the individual with organisational culture, and enhance the feeling of togetherness and mutual understanding. Successfully socialised or indoctrinated members are more loyal to the leader and the organisation, and they show lesser tendency to leave the collective.

Coordination is easier when there is a high degree of homogeneity in the collective, a strong feeling of belonging and identification of members with the organisation. This is especially important when there are pressures and threats coming from the environment and when harmony of the collective is crucial for overcoming them.

Socialisation and indoctrination further strengthen organisational ideology and prevent the questioning of its essence.

In conclusion, strategic leaders are representatives and guardians of ideology: they have to manage a comprehensive system of continual socialisation and indoctrination which will integrate the collective and create the prerequisites for successful organisational action. In addition to that, they should consider the need to preserve critical thinking in the collective, which puts them in a very demanding position. It is desirable to have co-workers who will be autonomous, aware of their own identity, and willing to think for themselves, as long as this does not threaten the integrity and ideological principles on which the organisation is based.

Identification

The leader’s influence on members is much easier to exert when members identify with the organisation and/or with the leader. Adoption of basic values strengthens the member’s reliance on the organisation, which in turn increases commitment and the likelihood of engaged behaviour within the framework of the defined direction.

Identity is the personal footprint in collective predetermination; a multiple reflection of the individual in a house of mirrors that creates the illusion of society. It obscures the truth about substantial emptiness and fragility of being: it is comparable to a palimpsest which the collective keeps overwriting, creating the illusion of a self-created free individual.

Collectivity determines the identity or part of identity of a person, their being and the way they construct, understand and change the world in which they exist.

Identity is, at the same time, a social need of an individual, without which such individual could not coexist with others. It does not exist in and of itself: establishing identity requires relation with other actors. One’s ego establishes its identity through its mirroring in others (Žižek, 2002, p. 44). Another human being is that which can show it the image of its own comprehensiveness.

It is a measure of selfhood (“me”), it pertains to separation and distinction from others (“them” or “the others”), but at the same time it brings persons together and connects them: togetherness is created based on sameness (“us”).

An individual has a network of identities that can be categorised on a personal, interpersonal and collective (social) level (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Brickson, 2000), or on a personal, social and material level (Ashforth et al., 2008; Skitka, 2003).

There are several ways that the identity of members is influenced by the collective. Two constructs need to be examined separately: organisational identification and identification with the leader.

Identification of members is an important element of collective homogenisation. The greater the degree of identification, the more likely it is that the leader’s influence will be purposeful and successful, and the commitment of members more solid and durable. Identification creates committed members who surrender a part of their own self in order to feel secure in the warmth and protection of a group identity.

Organisational identification is a construct we understand as a process of cognitive connection between the definition of organisation and definition of one’s self (Dutton et al., 1994). It can be described as a perception of equivalence of the individual and the organisation (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) or through perception of a degree of integration of key organisational identities with one’s own identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Ravasi & van Rekom, 2003; He & Brown, 2013). It is a variable, fluid and inconstant category that changes over time and depends on a series of influences and factors.¹²

The greater the extent of organisational identification, the larger the degree of work performance, inclusion in organisational goings-on and work satisfaction felt by members of the collective (e.g. Dukerich et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005; Schuh et al., 2016; Van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000).

Identification is encouraged by a defined set of shared principles and values, a distinctive mission and common activities that connect members by giving them a strong sense of belonging. Collective intentionality, which we discussed in the first chapter of this book, is an important construct: it describes the power of togetherness that helps build a collective identity which serves as the gravitational force for fragile and changeable identities of the members. Identification with the organisation emerges through acceptance of shared beliefs, languages, intentions and interpretations of reality, whereas socialisation and indoctrination further strengthen those processes. All of this supports integration and cohesion processes and facilitates the anchoring of ideology as a support pillar in strategic leaders’ action.¹³

With their behaviour, leaders influence followers and the level of their organisational identification, especially if they are characterised by styles of transformational or ethical leadership (Carmeli et al., 2011; He & Brown, 2013; Walumbwa et al., 2011). This applies in cases when collective members are very submissive and accommodating, and also susceptible to the symbols and narratives communicated by the leader.

On top of that, identification with the leader can be the result of their charisma and other qualities that make them a role model for others. Charisma emerges through personal identification of the follower with the leader, and through the follower’s desire to imitate the leader (Crossan et al., 2008); it can also appear as a distinctive quality inaccessible to ordinary individuals.

Charismatic leaders draw people around them with the magnetic appeal of their aura. They are capable of motivating and inspiring others and, regardless of the intention and motivation, win them over to becoming their followers. There are no norms or rules that can explain the social relationship in which charismatic leadership emerges. It involves the creation of a relationship that contradicts formal authority; the core of the group is the emotional connection and loyalty to the leader, often interwoven with indoctrination and strong identification.

Consequences of charismatic leadership are primarily trust, admiration and respect exhibited by the followers, as well as a willingness to sacrifice their own interests in order to achieve the goals set by the leader (Waldman & Yammarino, 1999; House, 1991; Wang et al., 2012). Charismatic leaders have loyal followers that freely and usually unreservedly accept the leader’s interpretation of reality, the values they underline, the instructions they give, and the patterns of behaviour they exhibit. This is, in Weberian terms, a “domination” over the followers, the source of which lies in certain exceptional qualities that the leader possesses.

Charismatic leadership leads to a culture in which cohesion of the collective is an important determinant and formal structures are of derivative significance. Specifically, the leader’s charisma clouds the chains of command incorporated in organisational structure. Weber (1968, p. 243) emphasised that in a situation where charisma is present, there is no hierarchy; the leader only intervenes in a way that is general or in specific cases when they find that their staff members lack the charismatic qualification required to perform a specific task. In such cases, lower-level managers identify with the leader and with how the leader behaves and operates, so there is no need to provide comprehensive systems for monitoring and controlling their work.

In short, socialisation, indoctrination and identification of members create the prerequisites for comprehensive and consistent organisational action, and integrate and strengthen the collective even more.

This can sometimes lead to the absurd, where content imprinted in identity networks helps create a desubjectivised “member” who only needs to be one of many, easily fitted building blocks in the structure that is the organisation. This results in the rooting in of a concept of leadership that may be compared to a beehive or an anthill, and in forgetting of the issue of alienation as well as natural human creativity and non-mechanical nature of human endeavours.