Leadership as Agency

Conceptualization of Social-Cognitive Theory

The roots of agency are in the social sciences (Archer, 2003). The concept of agency has become increasingly popular in education, psychology, and also in working-life studies and gender research (Eteläpelto et al., 2013). Human agency has mostly had very positive connotations for creativity and for motivation, well-being, and even happiness (Welzel & Inglehart, 2010). Agency is also connected to autonomy and self-fulfillment, acting as a force for change and for resistance to structural power (Casey, 2007; Eteläpelto et al., 2013). In its most active forms, agency can be seen as creative initiatives and suggestions for developing existing work practices (Paloniemi & Collin, 2012). But agency can also manifest itself in less positive ways, such as struggles against reforms (Fenwick, 2007). Agency can involve participation and collaboration within the work community or within the entire work organization (Collin et al., 2011; Sawyer, 2012). It is associated with individuals’ and collective’s development of professional knowledge, skills, and abilities (Harteis & Goller, 2014) and their negotiation of work identities and their contribution to transformations of occupational practices (Billett, 2011; Goller & Harteis, 2017).

Agency enables to make free or independent choices, to engage in autonomous actions, and to exercise judgment in the interests of others and oneself (Bandura, 2018; Frost, 2006). In more general terms, agency describes how human beings are agents of influence who are able to cause and change their environments (Bunnin & Yo, 2008; Goller & Harteis, 2017; Schlosser, 2015). It also can describe those who have the capacity to act on the behalf of others (Campbell, 2012). This aspect of freedom in which individuals are producers of experiences and shapers of events is core ingredient among the mechanisms of human agency (Bandura, 2006, Jenkins, 2020; Wolfgramm et al., 2015).

In this research, the context is school and school principals. In looking at principal agency from a social-cognitive template, we can conclude that when principals step out and exercise their agency, their colleagues watch to learn what happens. If the agency is well received, then other principals are more likely to take their own leaps in exercising their own agency (LePelley, 2020).

Structure and Agency

Agency and structure are strongly connected, given that agency is shaped and constrained by structural factors (Eteläpelto et al., 2013). Furthermore, structures have influence on human activity, and on the degree of individual agency within the structures (Hitlin & Elder, 2007). The main question surrounding the discussion on structure and agency is the extent to which individual actors are capable of acting independently in spite of the structural constraints in their social environment (Clifton et al., 2013). In order to answer this question, two influential scholars, Giddens and Archer, provide their own explanations and conceptualization to how agency should be understood in this context.

The first leader on structure agency, Anthony Giddens, studied the connections between agency and structure (LePelley, 2020). Giddens’ (1984) theory explains the relationship between agency and structure. He refers to the “structure” as an abstract concept, defined as a virtual order of differences produced and reproduced in social interaction as its medium and outcome (Giddens, 1979). Structure consists of rules and resources in society that guide a person’s actions (Giddens, 1984). It can either enable or constrain actions (Giddens, 1979). In fact, Giddens argues that structure should be viewed as cultural and abstract (Lizardo, 2010).

To understand Giddens’ (1979) theory, it is important to see that he argued that agency and structure are interdependent. His structuration theory offers an alternative explanation of human actions that take into account the interaction between agency and structure (Giddens, 1979). As such, Yang (2012) suggests that Giddens’ theory of structuration can be used as a theoretical lens to gain an understanding of how structures affect a person’s actions and what the consequence of those actions are on the organization.

According to his theory, social structures provide actors with the rules that govern their behavior. Through their actions, agents either transform or reproduce those structures. The essence of Giddens’ theory leans on the rejection of the individual versus society dichotomy, which refers to either structure as representing society or human agency without acknowledging the interplay between the two (Asikin-Garmager, 2017).

Giddens (1979) defines agency as connotes a person’s capacity to act autonomously. To an extent, agents have control over their actions and their social relationship with others (Asikin-Garmager, 2017; Sewell, 1992). The agents’ actions are influenced by the structures around them (Gutierrez & Barton, 2015). They possess knowledge of schemas that make up their social structures and have the ability to enact them in new situations (Sewell, 1992). In doing so, they either reproduce or alter those social structures (Baber, 1991). Clifton et al. (2013) argue that individual agents may face an enormous difficulty trying to overcome structural limitations that have systematically constrained their actions to effectively transform the social systems. Because an actor’s sense of agency is highly influenced by his or her social position and social settings (Sewell, 1992), everyone has a different capacity for exerting agency.

Additionally, agency is also shaped by structures. Since different structures contain different types of resources, some more powerful and influential than others, it can be concluded that some agents are more powerful than others (Sewell, 1992). Therefore, agency is collective in both its sources and its mode of exercise (Sewell, 1992). As suggested by Vallas (2006), the outcome of social transformation is determined by more than the initiative of the person holding a socially powerful position, but also on the actions of others around them.

According to Giddens’ claims, structures both facilitate and constrain agency. Structures are thought of as facilitating agency by giving actors the capacity to enact the rules or schemas in novel ways (Sewell, 1992). However, by claiming that structures both enable and constrain agency, Giddens has been criticized as placing an emphasis on the agents’ ability to influence the social structure. In doing so, he fails to transcend beyond the voluntarism/determinism dichotomy, which was what he intended to do with his structuration theory (Asikin-Garmager, 2017). Lizardo (2010) criticized Giddens’ idea by arguing that because human action may not result in a given social product, Giddens’ idea of duality of structure may actually be incorrect.

Although for Giddens agency is not defined by unintentional consequences, he admits that such unintentional consequences may emerge. This is also why agency implies the power to evoke or intervene in an event. Agentic action is seen by Giddens as manifested in “acting differently” and thus consciously in a situation where a person has had the option and power to make a different choice (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009; Eteläpelto et al., 2013). Giddens suggests that agentic action depends upon the individual capability. Therefore, Giddens’ definition of agency demanding from the perspective of individuals, since it places the emphasis strongly on individuals’ capacity to use power to influence social events (Eteläpelto et al., 2013).

Giddens’ definition of agency, in the context of structuration theory, had a wide impact, on domains of working life and learning research (Heiskanen, 2004). Giddens addressed the concept of agency as consequent of the relationships between social structure and human action (Baker, 2019; Lok & Willmott, 2019). Later Giddens notes that agency does not refer to the intentions people have in doing things, but to their capability of doing these things in the first place (Eteläpelto et al., 2013). This theory has been criticized for its narrow limitation to individual rational action only and the lack of analytical separation between the individual and the social, as reducing human existence to purely individual action (Archer, 2003; Evans, 2007). As Archer argued (2003), without an analytical distinction between social and individual, the relationship between a person and his/her social circumstances cannot be addressed. Therefore, it is impossible to make an analytical distinction between individual and collective agency. Archer (2010) criticizes Giddens’ structuration theory by claiming that structures and agency are separate entities for a better examination of their interplay, in her “morphogenesis” perspective of structure-agency relationship. Further states, she argues that Giddens’ conception of structuration denotes a process and not a product. Archer’s morphogenesis perspective, on the other hand, suggests that structural elaboration serves as the end product of the interplay between structure and action.

As opposed to Giddens’ theory of agency, Margaret Archer (2003) suggests that human beings have practical and embodied relations to the world. She also makes a clear analytical separation between the individual and the social because of their own special properties and powers. Archer’s theory of agency (2003) focuses on the concept of identity. She distinguishes between social identity and an embodied sense of self. Archer (2003) suggests that social identity is component of personal identity and that personal identity emerges from the individual’s emotional commentaries from the natural, practical, and social orders of reality. In fact, by Archer, personal identity is something that emerges from an internal conversation. This “internal conversation” is thus the central form of interplay between the social and the individual. Therefore, agentic actions are intentional and goal-directed process. In terms of seeing agentic action as intentional, Archer shows similarities with Giddens’ definition of agency.

Agency Within the Workplace: Both of Theories Through the Same lens

Both Giddens’ structuration theory and Archer’s morphogenesis perspective leave out an important aspect of the interaction between agents and structure: the bodily and emotional dimensions. Agents’ actions are not only oriented toward structures, but also toward their face-to-face relationships with others and the emotional dimension of these relationships (Asikin-Garmager, 2017).

Giddens (1979) developed the theory of structuration to address the need to balance the role of structure and agency in the reproduction or transformation of social systems. This theory posits that actors' social practices are results of their enactment of structure, defined by Giddens as rules and resources. By performing a certain action, social actors are exerting their agency.‏ In the field of education, leaders have been considered to be key players in school effectiveness and change implementation (e.g., Seashore Louis & Robinson, 2012). The theory of structuration is used to shed light on the relationship between structure and agency, as manifested in the principals’ leadership practices, in the reproduction or transformation of the system.

Giddens provides a framework to highlight the relationship between agency and structure, which shows that structures are continually being created through people’s daily actions (Caldwell, 2012). In other words, individuals shape action in relation to context, while context itself is constantly being redefined through action. In this regard, actions or practices are considered to be the focal point between the actor’s or leader’s influences through personal beliefs or feelings and the context (Chingara & Heystek, 2019; Rafiee et al., 2014). According to King (2011), individuals’ actions are always guided by structure (e.g., policies, performance systems, rules, and more). When individuals are called into agency, such action is guided by structure. Agency and structure are therefore inseparable and interdependent. According to Archer’s (2010) theory of critical realism, there is connection between agency and structure.

Implementation of changes by school leadership can thus influence how they recreate their roles and responsibilities. It may prompt changes to the existing structure so as to create a new structure. It is therefore possible that the actions of the school leadership, while limited by the existing structure of a school, can also change and strengthen the organizational structure of the school (Chingara & Heystek, 2019). This is in line with the social cognitive theory by Bandura (2006), arguing that people do not just react to organizational structure, rules, and policies. Instead, people are in a position to create their own organizational structures, rules, and policies or to make changes to suit their contexts (Chingara & Heystek, 2019). According to the social cognitive theory, agency and structure collectively establish the behavior of people, and such behavior, in turn, also affects agency and structure.

Social systems are a product of human activity, and social systems, in turn, help to organize, guide, and regulate human affairs. The relationship between agency and organization is expressed in that the social structures provide actors with the rules that govern their behavior. Through their actions, agents either transform or reproduce those structures (Busco, 2009). In other words, the structure versus agency debate has long dominated discussions in social science (Archer, 2010). Agency exists because of its relationship with the social structures. Additionally, agency is also shaped by structures. Clifton et al. (2013) argue that individual agents may face an enormous difficulty trying to overcome structural limitations that have systematically constrained their actions to effectively transform the social systems because an actor’s sense of agency is highly influenced by his or her social position and social settings (Asikin-Garmager, 2017).

According to the social theory, agency and structure collectively establish the behavior of people, and such behavior, in turn, also affects agency and structure. Agency at organization refers to making decisions and judgements related to one’s work and it further supports organizational development. Collective agency is needed to build a shared understanding and subsequently create new work practices, and to introduce innovation at work (Paloniemi & Collin, 2012). However, individual and collective forms of agency are not separate (Haapasaari & Kerosuo, 2015).

Theories of agency and structure provide conceptual tools that can be used to understand how and when some aspects, which make up the composition of structure, such as policies and organizational structure, influence the action or activities of people and how such action may strengthen or change the rules, roles, and relationships in schools (Coburn, 2016). In some organizations, the structure may dominate the agency—for example, in strong bureaucracies. However, it is also possible that a leader with agency can shape the structure and determine which organizational structure and rules will be applied (Chingara & Heystek, 2019).

It is important to note that neither of these discussed perspectives conceptualize human agency as something independent from social, cultural, historical, and physical contexts. In contrast, all authors profoundly acknowledge that human agency can only be understood in relation to the social and material world (Elder & Shanahan, 2006; Shanahan & Hood, 2000; Tornau & Frese, 2013).

Agency and Leadership: “The Capacity to Make a Difference” (Durrant & Holden, 2006)

Leadership is associated with agency. In fact, agency is relevant and essential condition for the pursuance of leadership (Chingara & Heystek, 2019; Frost, 2006). Gillies (2013) argues that agency—the practices that individuals undertake in order to shape themselves in particular ways, is a crucial element of leadership. Thus, there is an inseparable relationship between leadership and agency (Chingara & Heystek, 2019). Hence, the most influential leaders of tomorrow will not only seek to solve the problems discovered in the organization, but seek to find sustainable solutions to future issues. Through agency they can develop new perspectives in leadership that enhance their ability to find, understand, and address complex issues (Andenoro et al., 2019).

Stones (2005) argues that an agency is defined as the capacity to take action. A crucial aspect of such capacity is the actor’s sense of both their own power and that of others. Ultimately, leadership becomes a consequence of collaborative meaning making in practice; in this way, it is intrinsically tied to a collective rather than to an individual model of leadership (Ospina & Foldy, 2009). Raelin (2016) offers the expression “collaborative agency” as the basis for the emerging practice conception of leadership. This expression, “collective agency,” in its reference to leadership is not dependent on any one individual. Collective agency refers to the emerging relationship among the interacting parties as a synergy based on reciprocal dependence. Through this, the parties look to coordinate with one another to complete their singular and mutual activities as in the practice of leadership (Gronn, 2002). The collaborative nature of agency emphasizes two additional characteristics of leadership. First, outcomes from interaction are usually open-ended such that the parties don’t truly know the end results. Second, the participants through their activities are serving as agents in the construction of knowledge and actions (Ahearn, 2001). This process is collaboratively and intersubjectively agentic.

Leadership is a meta-capability that encourages movement from day-to-day actions by individuals to core processes and capabilities that subsequently shape individual behavior. It entails dynamic relationship between individuals, social structures, and technologies (Oborn et al., 2013; Sergi, 2013). In collaborative agency, the emphasis is on perceptions of group or community accomplishment, not the sum of individuals’ abilities. When groups develop a collective sense of their agency, they are likely to engage in further creative activity as they confront and surmount subsequent challenges and disruptions (Gronn, 2002; Raelin, 2016). Leadership as collaborative agency refers to explicit and shared efforts to build and maintain the community (Raelin, 2016). The following section sheds light on the relationship between structure and agency, as manifested in the principals’ leadership practices.

School Leader's Agency

Mumford et al. (2000) conceptualize effective leadership in terms of the leaders’ ability to influence others in their organizations through certain behavior patterns (Asikin-garmaer, 2017). They argue that effective leadership results from the leaders’ capabilities, knowledge, and skills, shaped by their prior experiences. In addition, contextual and structural factors contribute to these abilities and characters (LePelley, 2020). School leaders, as a group, can develop a working knowledge of when and under what circumstances their actions are acceptable, also, how often their acts of agency can be exercised. Hence, effective leaders that possess a high level of agency, are more likely to succeed in achieving their goals (McCormick, 2001). Mizrahi-Shtelman (2019) describes in her research that school principals managed to find ways to enact their agency, relying mostly on their professional knowledge, prestige and authority. Thus, the relationship between power and agency shapes the social behaviors of principals as a group within the organization (LePelley, 2020).

A great importance is given to the behaviors and actions of school leaders. As mentioned above, it can be assumed that if a principal exercises agency and its results are perceived as positive and successful, other school staff are more likely to exercise their agency. In this sense, agency moves to greater action. Here, it can be understood as the importance of looking at the notion of principal agency from both a social-cognitive and structure agency lens as critical in developing a more complete understanding of the role of school leaders in lifting up the whole school faculty (Eteläpelto et al., 2013; LePelley, 2020).

Bandura expanded on the idea of agency. He wrote that human agency can be exercised through personal agency; through proxy agency by collective agency operating through shared beliefs of efficacy. In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products of social systems. This idea of agency and its interconnectedness to both one’s sense of worth and human social interaction and critical mass is essential to understanding how school leaders can exercise agency within the political landscape of public schools. School leader’s agency occurs when school leaders “push up” against the system and flip the pyramid so that they are actually creating the policy changes sought to better the lives of the constituents whom they serve directly (LePelley, 2020).

Principals with greater perceived agency are more likely to strategically use policies concerning improving and achieving school goals (Cohen et al., 2020). The importance of principals’ belief in their own abilities, their perceived agency is associated with their assessment of the strategies they use to achieve school goals. School leader’s agency occurs when they navigate the political and social landscape to initiate change for school communities. Within the navigated landscape, school leaders are careful to recognize and consider to what extent the environmental elements play in school communities that influence their work (LePelley, 2020).