Organisational Culture, Leadership Language and Integration of the Collective

Abstract

This chapter concentrates on organisational culture as a system of beliefs, understandings, and ways of thinking which is common to everyone in the organisation and implies a specific, distinct form of behaviour. Strategic leadership is inseparable from the cultural stage built on shared assumptions, symbols, language, and behaviour patterns. Further on, this chapter explains the concept of network of trusts; Trust in the collective is the condicio sine qua non for creating and implementing organisational strategy. Leadership language and rhetoric are constructs inseparable from strategic leadership; Top strategic leaders are narrators and orators and are good at storytelling and creating other narratives that enhance the plausibility of action and encourage togetherness in fulfilling organisational objectives.

From Ideology to Organisational Culture

The way we see things and the world around us depends to a great extent on the social and cultural context that has shaped us and of which we are an indivisible part; it depends on our life experiences and the paradigm that outlines our values, interests, cognition, and discourses. Social interactions, culture, group belonging, and “the sea of ideas in which we swim from birth,” shape our ideas and our identities much more than we realize (Taylor, 2006, p. 218).

It is beyond doubt that people, as noted by Berger and Luckmann (1992, p. 69), together produce a human environment, with the totality of its sociocultural and psychological formations, and that [m]an’s specific humanity and his sociality are inextricably intertwined. Homo sapiens is always, and in the same measure, homo socius.

Social actors across different historic and cultural contexts and traditions perceive and shape their subjective environment differently and form different patterns of interaction with that environment.

Our existence is woven into culture; culture constitutes and defines us, delimits the space for development of our discourses, and determines the way we act, both individually and collectively.

Culture encompasses a complex set of institutions, values, perceptions, learned thinking patterns, opinions, behaviours, and practices that form the life of a group of people; it paints a picture of its heritage and history; it outlines the space in which the group exists, and it gives sense to its existence in time.

It is created over time, it cannot be replicated, and it is very hard to fully comprehend.

Culture encompasses multiple social layers and delineates all types of collectivity. It is identified and imprinted across multiple levels; in this context, we can speak of a culture of a civilisation or of a time in which one lives, or of regional or national culture, as well as of various cultural circles and sub-cultures that people belong to, or of cultures of various collectives that encircle an individual’s self, giving that individual the illusion of self-determination and social realisation as an entity.

Every organisation has its own culture, imbued with an ideological framework. It is constituted through social interaction: over time, collective characteristics and permanent attributes emerge, inseparable from the essence of the organisation and mutually interwoven in its inner workings. Culture is compressed in the forming press of organisational tradition and history.

Organisational culture mirrors the internalisation of a symbolic universe of collective action and acts as a frame for a fabricated reality: it provides the space for what is considered permissible and desirable in organisational actors’ relations. It exists as collective cognition sui generis: organisational members share fundamental values, accept customary practices and norms, and develop similar expectations.

It can also be seen as a system of beliefs, understandings, and ways of thinking which is common to everyone in the organisation and implies a specific, distinct form of behaviour. Culture persists through symbols and narratives, assisting in the members’ self-perception and in the development of their perspective of the world beyond the organisational limits.

Culture is, therefore, essentially composed of interpretations of a world and the activities and artefacts that reflect these (Mintzberg et al., 1998, p. 265). These interpretations become part of a world of symbols and meanings that tie members together in the social fabric of the organisation.

Culture differs from one organisation to another, comprising their inner identity delimited by ethical standards, rooted-in business principles, practices, unwritten rules of conduct, but also written internal policies that affect the management of human resources. It can be recognised in the style of life and work within the organisation. It is an important cohesive element of the organisation, one that invisibly strengthens its connective tissue.

Organisational culture is a cape that covers organisational ideology: it is hard to distinguish a clear boundary between the two.

Organisations with different cultures interpret their environment differently and ascribe different meanings to important constituents of that environment. Their strategies are “anchored” in culture: they are socially constructed through historically and culturally determined change. Rules that govern strategy are less connected with the leader’s and other strategy makers’ cognitive framework and more so with cultural rules and norms existing on the organisational and social level.

Behaviour of members of the collective is delineated by culture. Culture of a group of people, as defined by Schein (2004, p. 17), is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. According to him, culture formation is always a striving toward patterning and integration, even though in many groups their actual history of experiences prevents them from ever achieving a clear-cut, unambiguous paradigm.

There are three layers of organisational culture (Schein, 2004).

The first layer is comprised of manifested elements of culture that we recognise in symbols and organisational members’ behaviour patterns. Stories and myths, language and slogans, methods and contents of internal and external communication, rituals, norms and customs—these are all observable elements of organisational culture. There are also ceremonies, styles and desired behavioural patterns, other physical manifestations such as office design or acceptable dress code, and all other things that can be identified as differentiating and self-determining organisational dimensions. Such artifacts include the collective’s observable creations and collective action.

The second layer of culture comprises espoused beliefs and values that provide clear guidelines for organisational actors’ behaviour and action. They are not externalised and they do not exist in formal organisational documents or written procedures. Nevertheless, clues of their existence can be found and recognised in all forms of observable behaviour, primarily in stories retelling organisational history, or in metaphors and other narratives.

The third layer of culture comprises basic underlying assumptions. These assumptions are deeply-rooted in the organisation, least observable, and not open to questioning. They rarely change: only in cases of radical organisational transformations when the organisation’s survival is at stake, or when new social values develop.

Unlike Schein’s approach, Hatch (1993) developed a dynamic perspective of organisational culture that should give answers to the question how culture is constituted from assumptions, values, artefacts, symbols and processes that connect them. The cultural dynamics model comprises four simultaneous cognitive and social processes: manifestation (relation between assumptions and values), realisation (relation between values and artefacts), symbolisation (relation between artefacts and symbols), and interpretation (relation between symbols and assumptions).

Dynamic model defines culture as a set of continued cycles of action and sense-making, clouded by cycles of shaping organisational images and identities. Culture is permanently renewed through socialisation, learning and indoctrination of new organisational members who gradually adopt well-established assumptions, beliefs and values, and accept certain rules of conduct.

It is not wrong to say that culture “distorts” a member’s perception of reality. Every mind is endowed with the ability to reach an objective truth, according to epistemological tradition of Western philosophy (Descartes, Hume, Kant and others), provided however that such mind applies the right method and that, as noted by Gellner (2000, pp. 49–50) it resists the seduction of cultural indoctrination; after all, the Cartesian principle is that the path to the truth leads through voluntary cultural exile.

For organisational members this is an impossible mission: they are “short-sighted” because of the cultural lenses that affect their fundamental beliefs and create blindedness through entrenched assumptions that they have adopted and that are inevitable in their understanding of organisational reality.

Strategic leadership is inseparable from the cultural stage built on shared assumptions, symbols, language, and behaviour patterns.

Organisational culture has a significant impact on the enactment of strategic leadership: it creates the context in which the desired and the undesired leaders’ behaviour patterns emerge, provides additional definition of decision-making discretion, outlines the space available for leaders’ action, and creates room for acceptable forms of intraorganizational interaction. It is a manifestation of the emotional organisational world: its content, on the other hand, can be one of the biggest obstacles in realising the strategic leaders’ intention.

Strategic leadership is very dependent on culture because: (1) it establishes the rules of conduct (Weihrich & Koontz, 1994, p. 334; Greenberg & Baron, 1997, p. 471), (2) manages behaviour and guides the organisational members’ action (Schermerhorn et al., 1991, p. 341) and (3) creates the prerequisites for learning and transferring knowledge, beliefs, and behaviour patterns over the course of time. Culture is directly associated with instilling beliefs and developing a desired perspective of the organisational members’ world.

Organisational culture discourages radical change because its essence lies in consistency and inflexibility that are based on shared beliefs and assumptions of members. It de facto limits the action of strategic leaders’, who have to adjust their aspirations to the playing field outlined by culture, or attempt to deal with the difficult and uncertain task of changing it.

Karl Weick (1995) made a lucid remark that an organisation does not actually have a culture but rather that the organisation itself is a culture, which makes changing it a very demanding, hard and uncertain task for strategic leaders.

Creating and implementing new strategies and managing the processes of organisational change is always associated with the question of character of the ambience in terms of how suited the current organisational culture is for any radical steps that the strategic leader intends to make. Culture draws strict boundaries around the space available for strategic leadership action.

Research shows that leaders of complex business organisations spend a sixth of the available working hours dealing with culture, which is primarily associated with organisational structure (Porter & Nohria, 2018).¹ They can influence organisational culture in countless ways: for example, from participating in corporate forums where shared values, beliefs and accepted norms are encouraged, to recognition and rewarding of members of the collective who deserve credit for strengthening that culture, and ultimately to explicit or implicit communication of their own example through model behaviour that is congruent with cultural determinants.

On the other hand, culture is not, and need not be, an instrument of personalised strategic leadership. As underlined by Shrivastava and Nachaman (1989, p. 64): Some organizations can strategically lead themselves through their culture and/or structure. In such situations, the cultural, structural and political forms of strategic leadership are enacted on all organisational levels.

Regardless of the complexity and difficulty of the task at hand, strategic leaders have to get to grips with targeted change of organisational culture in situations when this is necessary to ensure survival and prosperity of the organisation. This requires an understanding of the processes and mechanisms of cultural change and how it is connected with the shift from old to new organisational identity, as indicated, for instance, by an ethnographic study based on the example of the leading breweries in the world, Carlsberg (Hatch et al., 2014).

Furthermore, networking and connecting of the organisation with other organisations also affects culture and its characteristics. Strategic leaders have to deal with significant challenges, for example, in situations of organisational mergers, when they have to reconcile different cultures or implement the usages of one organisational culture in the newly acquired part of the organisation.

The idiosyncrasy of the cultural context in the organisation is undeniable, but we must not forget that it represents only a thin veil that is inseparable from the existing social order, ideology, hegemonic relationships, and power constellations surrounding the organisation.

To change a culture means to boldly tackle the actual sense of, and reason for, organisational existence.

Networks of Trust

Trust is an obligatory element of strategic leadership: it needs to be encouraged and developed as a kind of “glue” for the collective that helps leaders lead the organisation, particularly so in the world of great uncertainty, drastic environmental changes, and unexpected crisis situations that have marked and continue to mark our time.

Without trust there can be no stable society, sustainable institutions or social structures; there can be no commitment or proper participation and partnership in human activities; one cannot create or share visions or intentions; reservedness and resistance to collectivity grow; bonds get dissolved and collectives weakened and hibernated.

Trust speaks to us about the intimate inner world of a person who, to a greater or lesser extent, opens up in intertwining relations with others. This is a psychological condition where a social entity (trustor or trusting party) puts a greater or lesser degree of trust in a trustee (party to be trusted, which can be one or more individuals, a group or another type of collective, society, time period, or other). In other words, it indicates to what extent the trustor feels secure and willing to act based on the words, actions and decisions of the trustee (McAllister, 1995; Podrug, 2010).

Trust is determined by two cognitive processes: (1) the trustor’s feeling of vulnerability, and (2) expectation of reliable conduct on the part of the trustee over a certain period (Rousseau et al., 1998; Simpson, 2007; Bošnjaković, 2016, p. 123). Vulnerability is connected with a potential loss that may result from trusting another, from the trustor’s readiness to accept risk by forming a relationship with the trustee. There is a firm belief that vulnerability will not be exploited and that the trustor will not be threatened by the trustee’s behaviour or actions (Jones & George, 1998).

At the same time, credibility is expected from the trustee: the trustor accepts the trustee’s behaviour as appropriate and reliable, without any doubt or previous verification. Trust is the perception of a strong bond and a benevolence that makes us let our guard down and open up to others, believing it to be the way to obtain some benefit or eliminate a threat.

It is necessary for organisations to have a developed network of trust that connects its members and brings them closer to one another, thus making joint action possible. Networks of trust develop across all hierarchical levels, both vertically and laterally, and encompass all kinds of formal and informal organisational relations.

Leaders are usually the bridge and the centre of gravity of such a network of trust. Most of them are deeply aware that any irreparable loss of trust can shake up the collective, threaten its cohesion, and hinder the potential for integration.

In principle, we can observe trust through two relations; the leader’s trust in the collective, and the collective members’ trust in the leader. Both relations are important for integration of the collective and involve the risk and readiness to “go with the flow,” an ability that is of exceptional importance when it comes to joint action.

Firstly, people choose whom to trust and who to respect (and under which circumstances), in which context they base their choice on the consideration of sources and evidence that would justify such trust. Respect and trust emerge in the trustor’s cognitive process irrespective of the relations of formal authority, and as such they cannot be based on it.

Secondly, affective foundations of trust consist of emotional attachments between people who, by making emotional investments in trust relationships, exhibit true concern and care for the welfare of others, and who believe in the inherent virtue of such relationships and feel that those emotions are reciprocated (McAllister, 1995).

Trust is a sensitive thing and once it is broken, it is hard to fix. It was Nietzsche who so aptly put it: I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you. Interestingly, this has also been very appropriately expressed in the (slightly adapted) words of Lady Gaga: Trust is like a mirror, you can fix it if it’s broken, but you can still see the crack in (its) reflection.

Organisational actors build complex relationships of trust, in which they play the role of trustors and trustees at the same time (Mayer et al., 1995). Strategic leaders put more or less trust in the collective, and in turn, members of the collective trust them to a greater or lesser extent.

Strategic leaders need to believe that members of the collective can be good associates in their work on making the defined vision a reality. In this context, they are the trustors who exhibit trust in individuals, groups, and units within the organisation. Trust in the collective is the condicio sine qua non for creating and implementing organisational strategy. Any hint of potential distrust must be eliminated in order to preserve collective harmony and congruence. On top of everything else, leaders take on the role of trustors in relations that extend beyond organisational boundaries: with external stakeholders, partners, institutions and other entities important for organisational existence.

Even more important is the reversible relationship in which strategic leaders appear as the trustees for members of the collective, who act as trustors, trusting them (more or less) to perform the underlying task. By putting their trust in leaders, members of the collective “surrender” to them and their ideas, plans and activities, which are important to both sides. They are willing to accept the risk of engaging in a relationship with the leader and, as underlined by Mayer et al. (1995), exposing themselves to the actions of the trustee without using any control mechanisms.

In other words, members of the collective form a network of trustors in the system of strategic leadership: they are willing to “make themselves vulnerable” because they have certain expectations, assumptions, or beliefs that the leader’s behaviour will be positive and beneficial for them (Deutsch, 1958; Carmeli et al., 2011).

To make it clear, control and trust are two opposing mechanisms: a high degree of trust eliminates the need for control, regardless of the type of social relationship involved.² From a strategic leader’s perspective, this means that the trust that members of the collective have put in him/her, just like the trust he/she has put in the collective, will reduce the need for intensive control and facilitate implementation of common action (Fig. 7.1).

Fig. 7.1

Trust and Control in Relationships Between the Strategic Leader and Members of the Collective

Recognising mutual benefit is the basis for establishing trust between the leader and the followers. If we observe the relationship between two social actors, we can say that trust will grow (1) if both actors channel their planned outcomes toward what is best for the partner or the relationship, and (2) if the actors believe that their counterpart will also decide based on what is best for their mutual relationship, even if their personal benefit might be lesser (Simpson, 2007).

For leaders, this implies creation of a climate in which others will recognise the long-term importance of togetherness and common good, and where they will exemplify, through their own leadership, a departure from opportunism and selfishness towards common organisational interest, particularly in demanding situations in which they are exposed to pressures and threats that may potentially be harmful for the trustors.

A relationship-based perspective places trust inside the process of social exchange: the follower sees the relationship with the leader as the foundation of their interaction, in which parties operate (or should operate) with trust, good will, and a perception of mutual obligations applying to both actors. The second perspective, the character-based one, shows trust as a positive perception experienced by the follower, where the leader’s personality traits and character affect the follower’s feeling of vulnerability in their mutual relationship (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).

In both cases, the trustor’s perception that the trustee will not betray their trust and disrupt the fragile and complex relationship in which they are entangled (in terms of hierarchical relationships and position-based authority) is very important.

A strategic leader should create an atmosphere conducive to building a network of trust with others.

As the trustee, the leader has to continually build such ambience of trust, and the members of the collective, as the trustors, have to avoid hindering the leader’s efforts in a way that would result in trust that has been given becoming irreversibly lost, and they have to contribute to maintaining the perception of the leader’s reliability.

Trust depends on: (1) previous experience and information about the leader that is available to members of the collective, and vice versa, and on (2) the degree of readiness to trust.

If members have positive previous experiences with the strategic leader, or reliable information about the leader’s humanity, credibility, and previous work success, they find it easier to trust such leader and willingly accept his/her ideas and activities ceteris paribus. Research shows that trust in a leader grows in proportion with increased perception of the leader’s capability and reputation in the community (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).

Some people have greater and some have lesser tendency to trust others. The theoretical construct that explains this is referred to as the propensity to trust, which determines how fast, how much, and for how long people give their trust to others. Propensity to trust is affected by life experiences and personality traits. Simpson (2007) noted that individuals who are more loyal and possess a great deal of self-awareness and self-confidence are more prone to give trust and develop that trust over time. Differences in people’s propensity to trust are also found between different cultures (Hofstede, 2001).

Strategic leadership will be more successful if the majority of members of the collective are prone to trust others. That makes it easier for the leader to strengthen the important relationship-based aspects of leadership: encourage collaboration, develop communication, and promote honest behaviour (Carmeli et al., 2010, 2011).

The leader’s credibility makes members of the collective trust him/her more, and do what is expected of them. Trust develops based on the perception of the content communicated by the leader; a congruence between words and messages; a reputation of integrity and reliability, together with other elements that support the leader’s credibility. Character and capability encourage trust in the leader.

Interpersonal trust has a positive correlation with the perception that the strategic leader is just and benevolent, and that his/her behaviour signalises good intentions (Young & Perrewé, 2000; Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012); it implies that the leader is capable of doing what he/she has committed to do (Perrone et al., 2003) and is able to communicate the shared vision (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Gillespie & Mann, 2004). Trust is also strengthened by the members seeing for themselves that the leader’s behaviour is ethical (Bews & Rossouw, 2002).

Successful indoctrination and socialisation of members of the collective facilitates the giving of trust. Indoctrinated trustors unreservedly accept the leader’s ideas and intentions, whereas socialised trustors have no reservations as long as the leader’s actions are in line with fundamental organisational values.

Moreover, Fulmer and Gelfand (2012) emphasise that identification leads to greater trust in situations where members perceive certain similarities with the leader, if they identify with him/her through some common values, and/or if the leader represents a symbol in which the identity of the collective is recognised. Apart from cases of strong identification with the leader, the members’ trust also increases in situations of high-degree organisational identification (Maguire & Phillips, 2008).

It is easier to develop trust if leaders are charismatic individuals with attractive messages and inspiring visions. More than anything else, followers have an emotional relationship with charismatic leaders; they can be blinded by their personalities and be at times oblivious to information that does not justify non-critical trust.

Some other leadership styles can also be correlated with greater follower trust. In this context, Fulmer and Gelfand (2012) noted that leadership is based on empowering followers, the same way that transformational, transactional, responsible and authentic leadership have a positive effect on the level of trust that members put in the leader.

Successful strategic leadership is based on multiple relationships of trust that develop among close associates and hierarchically (or spatially) distant individuals within the organisation.

The essence of strategic leader’s ability to develop and maintain trust lies in inspiring and motivating members of the collective. Trust strengthens loyalty and job satisfaction, increases reliability of communication channels and information, develops organisational commitment and pro-organisational behaviour, and reduces retention of and potential for dysfunctional intraorganizational conflict. Apart from that, it improves the quality and speed of interaction and decision-making, and serves as an additional effectuator of organisational performance. The greater the trust, the higher the likelihood that common action in the organisation will be successful.

Recent studies show that CEOs of large corporations spend as much as a quarter of their work hours in meetings intended to build and improve relationships within the organisation and outside it (Porter & Nohria, 2018). Most of them are aware of the fact that development of mutual trust facilitates communication and delegation, reduces the need for control and monitoring of activities, and increases the likelihood of success of collective action.

Renowned management author Stephen Covey noted that a low level of trust creates additional costs in organisational action. He underlined that: When trust is low, in a company or in a relationship, it places a hidden ‘tax’ on every transaction: every communication, every interaction, every strategy, every decision is taxed, bringing speed down and sending costs up. My experience is that significant distrust doubles the cost of doing business and triples the time it takes to get things done.³ Covey also referred to results of a study conducted by Watson Wyatt, which showed that companies with a high degree of trust have 300% better performance indicators than those with a low degree of trust.

Leadership Language and Rhetoric

The world we live in and experience is the product of language, and language not only describes a certain object, but also constitutes it. Language creates the human condition and it is one of the most important instruments of social influence.

We do not live in reality but instead we live in our own idea about what reality is. That idea is enacted through common language; we are only able to understand reality through the discourse created by language.⁴ Derrida’s famous “nothing outside the text” maxim (although often misinterpreted and taken literally) implies a separation of our being from the so-called “objective” reality and refers to the fact that we perceive and understand reality through the prism of the language in which it has been created.

Language is the means to construct leadership socially; it exists, as noted by Marturano et al. (2010) referring to Searle, only if there are certain types of beliefs and values present in social relations between people in which symbols play a central role. According to them, leadership is enacted as a linguistic process of production and it cannot be reduced to a personal trait or a result of the leader-follower relation.

Leadership is the process of creating a dialectic relationship between the person who leads and the one who is being led, in which process the leader’s actions give others a reference point and various interpretations for meaningful actions that need to be taken (Smircich & Morgan, 1982, p. 262).

Leadership is characterised by a delicate relationship between action and language, and any analysis of social influence, which represents the categorical core, has to begin with an analysis of language, as highlighted by Kelly (2008, pp. 767–768) who, paraphrasing Wittgenstein, noted that leadership as a language-game is more than a spoken language—a language-game is an activity, it is a form of life. It follows that talking about leadership, writing about leadership, using the concept in any way, shape, or form is the product of some kind of action.

Leadership, like any other concept, derives its meaning not from any action, relation or condition that it signifies, but from the historical context of discourse—the language-game—in which the word is used. This means that our knowledge and understanding of leadership are more likely to be a product of linguistic conventions than the result of direct insight into empirical reality of leadership (Astley & Zammuto, 1992, p. 444).

In other words, a language space has been created (specific vocabulary, rules and conventions of language) pertaining to leadership, and it is in that space that our understanding of this phenomenon develops. From this Wittgensteinian perspective, leadership can be viewed as a vague notion referred to as family resemblance between language games aimed at power and influence (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014, p. 8).

Organisations can also be observed as language constructs of some sort (Ford, 2001, p. 329) or as constructs that mainly comprise language concepts that are shared by their members. Language is not neutral: it depends on meanings attributed to it by the members, irrespective of the intentions of the speaker or writer of the text referring to an aspect of reality.

If organisations are interpretation systems, as highlighted by Daft and Weick (1984, p. 294), then it is the leaders’ and managers’ job to interpret, not to do the operational work of the organization, just as it is their job to outline the space for understanding and sharing experiences and to shape the stories and myths intended to input clusters of meaning in the collective consciousness (Pondy & Mitroff, 1979, p. 30; Astley & Zammuto, 1992, p. 454).

The exchange of experiences and story-telling makes it easier to understand the language and communicate the interwoven clusters of meaning around the organisation and its existence. As Pondy (1989, p. 229) claims, it is not sufficient to enact a shared environment, it has to be talked about.

The influence that strategic leaders exert in the collective cannot, therefore, be understood without language and the way it is used.

Language did not primarily originate as a means of information exchange, but rather as a means of maintaining cohesion in a group of people (Christakis & Fowler, 2011, p. 236).

Language connects the collective; it paints a landscape of understanding, creates the magic of togetherness, and facilitates identification. If leadership per definitionem is a kind of social influence, then language is the totality in which that influence is enacted. The boundaries between action and language of leadership are vague: meaning is constructed, maintained, destroyed and substituted by speaking and writing, or in other words, by language games that constitute leadership. Language, meaning and action cannot be observed as different from one another.

In this context, Pondy (1989, pp. 228–229) underlined that use of language is the least noticeable, the most-subtle and the most powerful method of exerting influence that creates control over what other people do and, as far as leadership is concerned, it can be an important factor in the leader’s success in strengthening their own credibility and better managing the process of influencing others. Furthermore, he highlighted that one has to take a step back from behavioural determination based on the notion that leaders need to make sure followers do whatever they are expected to do. Change of the follower’s behaviour is not a measure of success of leadership, but, as underlined by Pondy: the effectiveness of a leader lies in his ability to make activity meaningful for those in his role set—not change behavior but to give others a sense of understanding what they are doing, and especially to articulate if so they can communicate about the meaning of their behavior (p. 229).

Strategy opens up the playing field for language games.

By designing or recognising strategy, a specific organisational language is created, one which is imbued with elements of organisational culture. Strategic leaders mediate and designate, ascribe meanings, and interpret reality. Their rhetoric is an important foothold in the process of leadership: the world they tell stories about is given sense, and the decisions that are made or have been made are given rationalisation and justification.

Language is used to define the ambience in which strategic leaders operate. Strategic leaders do not need to be just excellent strategists, their role is extended to the language space: they also have to have oratory skills, and create narratives and messages to connect and inspire members of the collective.

Strategic leadership cannot be understood without maximum communication inside the collective; through listening and story-telling, creating and sharing language-created meanings closely connected with the purpose and direction of organisational action. Reliance on language extends within and beyond the organisation, delimiting the space for strategic leaders’ action.

Fairhurst and Connaughton (2014) listed two approaches to leadership communication: (1) transmissional approach to communication and (2) meaning-centred approach. Transmissional approach is about seeing leadership as a system, and communication as a variable or part of the process of leadership, or as a link to it, or a behavioural outcome of leadership. The alternative perspective is based on the idea that language creates reality and that communication is at the centre of creation of meaning, which is a post-modernist, specifically post-structuralist proposition.

Conger (1991, p. 32) noted that leadership language consists of two elements. These are: (1) framing, which represents a way of meaningful determination of organisational purpose in the messages communicated by the leader, describing the vision in an intrinsically appealing way and recommending a map of action; and (2) rhetorical crafting, which demonstrates the leader’s ability to use a symbolic language in order to emotionally reinforce the messages communicated to the collective and outside it. Such messages provide guidelines for action that for the base of leadership, and the art of rhetoric enhances their memorability and motivational attraction.

Firstly, it is extremely important how strategic direction will be formulated and presented within the organisation and outside it. The expression of strategic intent has to be simple, suggestive, conducive to togetherness, encouraging, and far-reaching in terms of its communicational scope. Messages and slogans have to be clear and targeted. We can speak of framing as an ability to separate the important from the unimportant: communicating the key elements of strategy and interpreting reality for members of the organisation in the constructs that constitute strategic leadership (mission, vision, intent, and alike).

From this perspective, frames are understandable and meaningful representations that outline purpose and that create space for action; they are intended to amplify values and beliefs held by members of the collective and guide them towards the defined goals. Successful leaders communicate through simple messages and they are capable of turning vision into slogans and symbols that are inspiring and easy to understand. Their interpretation of reality has to paint a desirable picture of the future that is within reach if the advocated strategy is followed. As Nutt and Backoff (1993, p. 329) underlined: Leaders must dramatize importance to underscore the demands for transformation, making the strategic vision seem a viable and attractive way to change.

True leadership skills lie in making sense of things and creating a language that is meaningful to a large number of people (Pondy, 1989, p. 230) and that brings the collective closer and more emotionally connected, especially in terms of building confidence and excitement about shaping a common future (Conger, 1991, p. 34). This comes down to the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols (Burke, 1950, 1969, p. 43). This can be achieved, for instance, by recognising, emphasising or conjuring up an “external threat” in order to create additional cohesion and commitment in members.

We mentioned earlier that strategic leaders are not the only ones who can create vision. Similarly, Bennis and Nanus (1985) underlined a long time ago that vision is rarely the product of the leader’s considerations; it is common for it to come from others in the organisation. We have also highlighted that the key role of strategic leaders lies in legitimating vision and accepting it as the basis for collective action. Leaders need to draw the members’ attention to important issues and agendas; the goal is to create meaning through clear communication that is intended to encourage imagination and focus on action.

There are many types of messages that strategic leaders communicate to the collective and stakeholders beyond the boundaries of the organisation. Apart from confirming the vision and mission as well as the key elements of current strategy, leaders also have to plausibly communicate strategic initiatives, decisions, and other steps that require strong collective action, especially those that serve to achieve radical organisational transformation.

The messages through which leaders communicate their expectations from the collective are those that have the greatest influence. New business ventures, products, acquisitions, and other important events also represent a communication challenge for strategic leaders, just like all other circumstances that can be used to create a motivational environment in which togetherness and collective directionality toward certain objectives take centre stage.

The second element of the language of leadership is rhetoric (Greek: ῥητοριϰὴ τέχνη: oratorical skill).

Messages are just as important as the way they are communicated. Strategy has to be plausible and strong communication-wise, and the rhetoric and language have to be powerful and distinct. One has to choose the language-based footprints and symbols that will best communicate the targeted content. The goal is to amplify general trust in the strategic leaders’ competence in order to generate a perception that the organisation greatly depends on their actions, and to facilitate better understanding and embracing of the vision they are advocating.

The winning-over, emboldening and inspiring of the members of the collective is a task that requires strategic leaders’ serious commitment in their effort to develop an effective communication strategic.

Top strategic leaders are narrators and orators. They are good at story-telling and creating other narratives that enhance the plausibility of action and encourage togetherness in fulfilling organisational objectives. Metaphors and analogies also help portray the experiences and reality as experienced through the eyes of others.⁵

The power of metaphor can inspire imagination and intellect, and amplify beliefs and values in the listener. Story-telling and giving real-life examples can become deeply instilled in the collective consciousness and give motivational momentum for organisational transformation. Feelings and emotions intertwine in language, and leaders are required to reach for them and discover them.

Consequently, they are excellent communicators, capable of rousing emotions both in members of the collective but also in the target audience outside the organisation. The content of the message being communicated is important but not necessarily crucial; rhetoric is the art of seduction that creates a feeling of attachment and followership. A language of symbolism helps to adopt their discourse. Bryson and Crosby (1992, p. 21) pointed out that capable leaders are those who may or may not have positions of authority, but who inspire and motivate followers through persuasion, example, and empowerment, not through command and control. The real power of Martin Luther King was not in the fact that he “had a dream,” but in his ability to explain it in a way that was expressive and emotional (Pondy, 1989, p. 230).

We must not forget the elements connected with sound, such as repetition, rhythm, balance, and alliteration (Conger, 1991, p. 42). The way leaders accompany their words with sounds in their speeches has a significant influence on followers and others around them.

When leaders clearly communicate their expectations from their co-workers and other members of the organisation, this reduces the possibility of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and disorganised action. Research shows that clear communication of expectations is one of the most important leadership characteristics.⁶ As Cicero wrote: Nothing is so unbelievable that oratory cannot make it acceptable.

In summary, strategic leaders are creators of meaning who motivate and connect people in several ways: they create vision that relies on values of those affected by it; they include people in making decisions that are relevant for making vision a reality; they support staff efforts in the realisation of vision through coaching, feedback, and role modelling; they encourage people in their professional training and achieving of self-respect; they recognise and award good performance (Kotter, 1990).

In all this, language defines the space in which strategic leadership is manifested. Leaders interpret and shape reality, choosing the right messages and words to better explain strategy and objectives, and using rhetoric in order to encourage followers in joining them on the “journey to the future.” The basic purpose is the creation of a feeling of belonging and mutual participation in fulfilling the organisational mission.

Many recognise communication as an important, or even the most important element of leadership. According to a 2018 LinkedIn poll that asked business leaders “What do you think is the most important factor in leadership?”, most of them (38%) named communication, whereas 24% said they would like to see better character.⁷

Study programs offered by some of the world’s finest business schools place great emphasis on the importance of communication when it comes to leadership. In materials accompanying an INSEAD educational program, it was noted that CEOs might just as well be called “explanation, engagement or enlightenment officers,” owing to the fact that their messages need to echo deeply with emotions, aspirations and desires that the target audience has to understand well.⁸

Integration of the Collective

Integration of the collective, together with strategic direction, external adaptation and outcomes, is a constituent of strategic leadership architecture. It is designed to establish order, or in other words, to unify and integrate the collective in all activities, so that it could advance in the desired direction. Careful harmonisation of all organisational activities is the imperative of strategic leadership.

Integration is an act in which mutually dependent individuals and groups, together with processes and structural units, constitute a single, well integrated unit. It can be understood as an interconnection and coordination between organisational parts (Barki & Pinsonneault, 2005) and as a process of achieving unity of effort among the various subsystems in the accomplishment of the organisation’s tasks (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969, p. 34). Specialisation of functions and tasks within an organisation demands a carefully designed and even more carefully implemented integration.

Another important aspect of integration is cohesion, which is defined as a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs (Carron et al., 1998, p. 213).

Integration of the collective depends on the size, complexity and locational distribution of the organisation; in other words, on the amount of information and scope of activities that need to be done. The more activities performed by the organisation, the greater the need for knowledge, information and special skills of its members; this means that integration- and coordination-related challenges are also greater.

Aberrant behaviour among members of the collective reduces changes for successful performance; focus in action is lost, there is insufficient coherence or internal connectedness inside the collective.

In small groups, people tend to coordinate their behaviour through unconscious actions, adapting to one another. In larger collectives, this may not be sufficient: it is necessary to establish standardisation instruments, encourage homogenisation, and develop activities that will support better integration of the members and give room for leadership as a strong integrating factor.

Leadership is a mechanism that serves to eliminate procedural and structural redundancies, guide and motivate staff, overcome obstacles, and utilise opportunities that emerge from the organisation’s interaction with the environment.

It contributes to creating a climate of togetherness, strengthening collective integrity, inspiring members in their performance of tasks and targeted convergence of all activities.

Collective alignment empowers members and reduces their vulnerability and lack of resourcefulness in individual and group activities. It helps them to understand the mission and vision more easily; to embrace strategic direction as their own, and invest effort in making it a reality. It needs to encompass not only members of the collective but also all those who have an interest in the organisation and who take part in its outcomes, interests, and claims.

Ancient Greek historian Xenophon made it clear ages ago that whichever army goes into battle stronger in soul, their enemies generally cannot withstand them.

Furthermore, integration can also be the result of hegemony and completely unrelated with the instrumental determination of strategic leadership.

If we were to delve deeper into the analysis of the real position of strategic leaders and their relationship with others in the organisation, we cannot avoid looking into the key sociopolitical relations, their antecedents and consequences, as well as their manifestations in the behaviour of all important actors.

The purpose and meaningfulness of the collective, when observed from this perspective, gets a different dimension, just like individual leadership-related processes.

Additionally, encouraging members to engagedly participate in organisational action is an important aspect of integration activities. Strategies of influence result in greater or lesser control of the members’ behaviour and help congregate them around the main task, whereas successful motivation leverages stronger commitment and identification as well as a stronger feeling of connectedness of members with the leader, and with the mission and vision of the organisation.

Strategic leaders need to be an inspiration to members of the collective. The best ones among them are completely certain in knowing that in life, instead of doing nothing — to paraphrase Helen Keller — one has to be daring enough to embark on the adventure of creating a better future. Their task is to instil the principles and values, set the bar high, develop directions of action, strengthen the bonds between members, and create unity in action.

Togetherness surpasses individual limitations and strengthens capacities many times over so that it becomes possible to set high aspirations targeted at the use of collective power in building a desired future for the organisation. The most important thing is to embolden and motivate the members to act in order to create a strong collective synergy and a sense of pride in belonging to the group, as well as a feeling of mutual dedication and commitment among members. Strategic leaders need to continually build the esprit de corps and inspire membership by slogans, symbols and narratives that increase the degree of organisational identification and self-determination of the members as indivisible constituents of the collective.⁹

If one aspires to be an inspirational leader, it is important to stop focusing on one’s self and focus on the collective instead. The most successful leaders are those who are capable of creating a common identity with members of the collective in shaping and communicating an inspiring vision (Haslam & Platow, 2001; Molenberghs et al., 2017).

Besides that, the leader’s ability to spread positive emotions throughout the collective is also important. In this context, charismatic leaders are more successful than those who lack charisma (Ilies et al., 2006) because they have a greater capacity of transferring their own emotions on the followers in an interpersonal process referred to as emotional contagion (Hatfield et al., 1994).

Inspirational leaders know how to paint a picture of a desired future, provide support to the members, and give them their trust. They lead by example and do so without holding back; they will even sacrifice their own interests for the sake of the collective.

Mahatma Gandhi is an example of an inspirational leader who inspired millions of people to act as one in peaceful protests against injustice, advocating togetherness, non-violence, love, and tolerance.

The strength of any organisation lies in motivated and dedicated members. Willingness, selfless inclusion, greater effort and readiness to accept responsibility in fulfilling organisational tasks are the prerequisites for success of any collective. Sharing emotions and a common destiny in the collective encourages members to put the common organisational interest before their own (Choi, 2006). Fulfilling visions, coping with problems, and accepting common challenges—these are the elements of a creative energy that strategic leadership needs to inspire, showing by the leader’s own example the importance of serving the organisation.

The more important the vision for the identity or values of members of the collective, the more they will get engaged in making it a reality (Parker et al., 2010). In this context, one must consider the fact that efficient use of mechanisms of encouragement depends on the degree of members’ perception that strategic leaders share the same identity with them (Ellemers et al., 2004) (Fig. 7.2).

Fig. 7.2

Motivation vs. inspiration

Inspiration should not be confused with classic motivational instruments that rely on sources of power and strategies of influence. Irrespective of the differences between them, they “push” members of the collective forward, linking results with some forms of extrinsic or intrinsic gains.

Inspiration is a positive emotional perception of being connected with a person, a symbol, or an imaginary future; in other words, it is the feeling of being drawn to something that touches people’s hearts, minds or souls.

The goal is to get a motivated and homogeneous collective held together by the mission and shared intentions. Strategic leaders have to create an atmosphere in which members will be united despite all their differences, where they can learn to listen to one another and understand that diversity is richness, not a threat; where they can coordinate their efforts and wishes toward a common mission and vision, be proactive, inspire, and shift from reaction to action. This is how energy, enthusiasm and flexibility are introduced into the organisation, and team spirit strengthened as an inexhaustible power that enables the achievement of objectives.

Members who are inspired continue spreading the “inspiredness” throughout the collective: this way, motivational power spreads across the organisation.

Richard Branson developed an inspirational leadership style primarily focused on employees working in one of his many companies (more than 60 of which comprise the Virgin Group), communicating a clear and easy-to-understand message: Loyal employees in any company create loyal customers, who in turn create happy shareholders.

Humanitarian organisations are a good example for explaining the importance of inspiration in collective integration. For instance, Rotary International uses a new slogan and accompanying narratives each year to empower new strategic leadership and strengthen cohesion between more than 1,200,000 of its members. This kind of approach, together with their cooperation with other organisations and individuals, contributed to eradication of polio and increased the overall quality of life globally; this was achieved through countless activities the organisation engages in worldwide, in all fields of human activity. Being at the service of others is at the heart of Rotarianism, and benefaction, or charity, as the only treasure that increases with sharing, as so nicely put by Italian historian Cesare Cantù, strengthens friendship and gives meaning to organisational action.¹⁰ This applies to a great extent to other humanitarian organisations as well.

Inspirational communication seems particularly important as an instrument of integration of such organisations. It can be defined as the expression of positive and encouraging messages about the organization, and statements that build motivation and confidence (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004, p. 332). Communicating such messages increases the organisation’s appeal in the eyes of its members and has a positive impact on the degree of their identification with and feeling of loyalty to the organisation.

Inspirational speeches strengthen the emotional connection and dedication between people. This brings to mind several speeches given by Winston Churchill during World War II, in which he encouraged the British in their unity in resisting Nazi Germany, or perhaps also Steve Jobs’ famous 2005 Stanford commencement address.¹¹ These are the kind of speeches that inspire and connect, and reveal a reality that may not be plain to see, instilling clear meanings, giving sense, and strengthening collective commitment.

All things considered, strategic leaders should convincingly communicate the elements of strategic direction to strengthen shared objectives, show trust in membership and energise the collective (Bass, 1985), but also to improve the organisation’s recognisability and reputation (Joshi et al., 2009).

Good communication skills enable a strategic leader to be an inspiration and a driving force that will unite, encourage and activate the collective in their shared aspirations.