Abstract
Through analysing corporate videos, this article examines two chief executive officer leadership narratives in a UK Building Society that reflected and reproduced certain discourses of masculinity; the first expressed this through military images and metaphors while the second emphasised sport. This article makes three arguments for why certain expressions of masculinity may disengage those whose support managers are endeavouring to enlist. The first is that not all employees are attracted to images of war, conquest or competition. The second is that masculine sporting and warring discourses may repel staff when they are wielded against them. The final argument is that disenchantment is likely to result from enactments of masculinity that treat critical voices as a threat and where leaders simply seek to win the argument, silence opposition and refuse to ‘listen’ to alternative points of view. This analysis of leadership discourses is distinctive because it explores the visible (watching) and the verbal (listening). In this way, it exposes ‘hidden, gendered practices’ that are all too often neglected.
Introduction
The discursive or linguistic turn in the study of organisation and management is now well established but there are diverse schools of thought within this approach that draw our attention to different features of discourse. For example, Alvesson and Karreman (2000) refer to small ‘d’ discourse or micro-level studies of texts ‘as local achievements’ (Alvesson and Karreman, 2000: 1126) versus ‘Discourse’, which ‘assumes that discourse, subjectivity and practice are densely interwoven’ (Alvesson and Karreman, 2000). The latter fits with our understanding of discourse, which follows in the Foucauldian tradition; hence, language is understood to be embedded in practice. Yet, irrespective of this tradition, there continues to be a strong emphasis in discursive studies on analysing language (e.g. Dick and Cassell, 2002; Leitch and Palmer, 2010) and when applied to the study of leadership this means interrogating the language of leaders. In this article, we argue that to study discourse in this way only reveals part of the story because important insights are lost if we neglect the visual imagery of leadership that can be gleaned through analysing corporate videos or, in other words, videos that are created by corporate leaders to convey certain messages to their staff, as in the following study.
Like many management or organisational initiatives and techniques, leadership has blown hot and cold at different historical junctures but after a brief respite it came back into vogue at the turn of the 21st century (Bryman et al., 2011; Collins, 2001). Although leaders are required to manage both their lives and the lives of others and leadership is distributed throughout many managerial positions, for analytical purposes, we distinguish between leadership and management on the basis that leadership relates to the governance of the organisation as a whole and therefore refers to individuals at the top of the hierarchical command structure. Traditionally, the task of management was seen as that of monitoring, disciplining, organising and coordinating whereas the job of a leader was to inspire and motivate. Broadly subscribing to this understanding, Zaleznik (1977) associates leadership with a dynamism that inspires others to be challenging, creative, imaginative and ethical whereas management is seen as a more conservative function that thrives on impersonal bureaucratic rules and a hierarchical order that sustains the status quo.
In its recent renewal, the leadership discourse has shifted its attention away from the persona of the leader whether as the hero with super-human powers typical of the myths and legends of classical Greece, or possessing essentialist traits and characteristics such as drive, initiative, intelligence and integrity. Contemporary theory draws more on context and the contingency of situations, distributed leadership and the followers on which leadership depends (Collinson, 2006; Grint, 2011). Also building on but rejecting either an essential individual or context, constructionists see leadership as an embodied outcome of collective interpretations of specific contexts (Grint, 2000). In this sense, leadership and the context in which it is practiced are mutually constitutive of one another.
The vogue within democratic countries is to advocate leadership that enlists followers so as to lead through consensus rather than coercion. In the following study, leaders sought to appeal to followers through sporting and military metaphors as a means to promote consensus. As Westerbeck and Smith (2005) have argued, ‘Sport offers a unique metaphor for critically examining business: the two share some common ground. Both are fast, complex and at times unpredictable’ (p. 3). However, in drawing parallels with sport and the military, there can be a tendency, as in our case study, for leaders to reflect and reproduce particular masculine discourses bound up with aggression, competition, conquest and control (Kerfoot and Knights, 1998) that can have counterproductive effects. Far from becoming enrolled and mobilised in team-like commitments, staff can be left feeling bereft of any real engagement as these discourses override any contribution that they attempt to make. The question our research poses is whether military and sporting metaphors can promote consensus especially when they are associated with masculine rationalities that are inclined to put closure on meaning (Clough, 1992) and are intolerant of dissenting voices (Ziarek, 2001).
Our article seeks to make a number of contributions to a discursive understanding of leadership and its relevance for management learning. First, it highlights the limitations of discursive studies that attend only to language by exploring the way discourses are enacted through the visual as well as the verbal. Second, it makes an empirically grounded contribution to a comparatively sparse literature on the masculinity of leadership (see Calas and Smircich, 1991; Collinson, 2005a, 2005b; Kerfoot and Knights, 1998; Knights and McCabe, 2001; Knights and Tullberg, 2012; Sinclair, 2000, 2009). It does so through exploring different articulations of ‘masculinity’ (see Brittan, 2001; Collinson and Hearn, 1994, 1996; Connell, 2001; Morgan, 1994; Pacholok, 2009) as expressed through military and sporting images and metaphors (see Collinson and Hearn, 1996). Third, it examines corporate videos and related documents to consider how leadership discourses are replete with masculine norms, images, metaphors and rationales that are understood as ‘hidden aspects of gender’ (Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011: 478).
The article is organised as follows. The next section examines discourses of masculinity and how historically and theoretically they have an affinity with sport and the military. Then, after a discussion of our methods, we present our case study. In the final section, we draw out the insights of the article in a discussion and consider the implications of the research in the conclusion.
Masculinity and leadership
It was argued a decade ago that management, organisation and leadership were dominated by certain masculine modes of rationality where the pursuit of instrumental goals overrides all other kinds of relationships (Knights and Kerfoot, 2004; Ross-Smith and Kornberger, 2004). Such rationalities reduce others ‘to no more than instrumental resources in the pursuit of [a] purposive rational design on the world’ (Knights and Kerfoot, 2004: 436) as a means to attaining a stable, solid, sustainable and secure sense of self (Clough, 1992; Game, 1991). Relying more on subjugation than collaboration, they often preclude reflexivity and engagement. Yet ironically leaders often have to persuade or ‘seduce’ (Calas and Smircich, 1991; Sinclair, 2009) others (e.g. employees, clients, customers) into accepting their definition of the situation so that they become willing collaborators either as employees, consumers or, in mutuals, members of the organisation.
Consequently, when masculine subjectivities dominate leadership, there can be numerous difficulties in securing the collaborative commitment of employees. We believe that this is particularly so when the form of masculinity exhibits what Collinson and Hearn (1994) describe as ‘authoritariansim’ which is ‘characterised by an intolerance of dissent or difference, a rejection of dialogue and debate’ (p. 13). Despite this tension, masculinities are often ‘invisible’ (Sinclair, 2000: 89) or ‘hidden’ (p. 281) in accounts of leadership. This article therefore adds to the sparse literature (see Collinson, 2005a, 2005b) that seeks to make masculinity ‘already embedded in the discourses of leadership explicit’ (Calas and Smircich, 1991: 570). It goes beyond existing discursive approaches through focusing on corporate videos in the belief that reflecting upon the physical manifestations of masculinity as well as the textual or verbal can help to persuade students and practitioners ‘of the need to think differently about leadership, organizations and themselves as leaders’ (Cunliffe, 2009: 88). We argue that as leaders express themselves through sporting and military metaphors and imagery, they may not see or understand the implications for others of the masculinity that their discourses perpetuate.
Fulop and Linstead (2009) suggest that ‘there is a dominant discourse of leadership built around the notion of the lone, masculine leader single-handedly determining and controlling what happens in an organization through feats of visioning and strategizing’ (p. 476). Stereotypical forms of masculinity are often evident in the type of attributes outlined in ‘Trait theory’ (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991). Hence, the traits that are most frequently associated with leadership include ‘dominance, aggressiveness and rationality’ (Thompson and McHugh, 2009: 330). It needs to be recognised, however, that these traits are not exclusively or essentially male because masculine discourses affect women as well as men and women may display and enact competitive and aggressive forms of masculinity in the development of their organisational careers and leadership designs (Eveline, 2005). To assume otherwise is to slip into what Connell (1987) describes as ‘categorical theory’ (p. 54) where we think in terms of two distinctive, undifferentiated and absolute categories of ‘men’ and ‘women’.
While there is no single universal, fixed ‘masculinity, only masculinities’ (Brittan, 2001: 51), according to Connell (2001), at any given time, one form of masculinity rather than others is culturally exalted (p. 38). In a later work (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005), however, he rejects the idea of a single, dominating masculinity in favour of a neo-liberal pluralist position of multiplicity. Yet, if there is no central core whereby certain discourses of masculinity are seen as dominant, the framework collapses (Schippers, 2007) and we would find it difficult to explain how minority masculinities and women who do not become ‘one of the boys’ are effectively excluded (Knights and Tullberg, 2012).
In view of this, we support the view that a dominant masculine discourse presides within business, which revolves around an ‘aggressively competitive, goal driven and instrumental’ pursuit of success where some men and women ‘seek to master all they survey’ (Kerfoot and Knights, 1998: 8). The determination of one of the leaders we discuss in our study always to be right, and their failure to listen, reflected a denial of vulnerability through expressing a certainty that could not be sustained. Nevertheless, this was not the only discourse of masculinity that could be observed for it coexisted with and indeed rubbed up against an earlier more paternalistic masculinity where men eschew coercion and seek to exercise power by emphasizing the moral basis of cooperation, the protective nature of their authority, the importance of personal trust relations and the need for employees both to invest voluntarily in their work task and to identify with the company. (Collinson and Hearn, 1994: 13)
Although Collinson and Hearn (1994) have identified five expressions of masculinity (authoritarianism, paternalism, entrepreneurialism, informalism and careerism), the ebb and flow of discourses of masculinity is a missing and yet ‘key element of the picture of masculinity’ (Connell, 2001: 39). This article therefore seeks to contribute to knowledge through exploring how different but related leadership narratives reflect and reproduce a competitive, aggressive discourse and imagery of masculinity. Both the sporting and warring narratives called for substantial organisational change and yet the discourses of masculinity that infused these narratives was largely bereft of ‘the sensitivity, skills and knowledge’ that are needed ‘to manage the emotional labour involved in such change’ (Fulop and Linstead, 2009: 510). This goes to the heart of the article for it is argued that certain discourses of masculinity can result in disengagement rather than collective direction, alignment and commitment.
The case study
B&E (pseudonym) is a mutual Building Society in the United Kingdom that employed 4500 people at the time of the research. It has a network of 250 branches and its main business is the provision of mortgages. Traditionally, B&E operated in a paternal, bureaucratic and hierarchical way, with both staff and managers believing that they had jobs for life. This was evident, for example, in the separate toilet, parking and restaurant facilities for staff and management in a call centre where we conducted some of our research. These more glaring hierarchical symbols have since passed into history. The impact of competition on mutual providers who are owned by their members (i.e. customers) has been profound with many losing their mutual status. In the 1990s, there were 100 mutual building societies but in 2008 these had diminished by 50 percent mainly due to mergers and acquisitions rather than directly due to the financial crisis (Klimecki and Willmott, 2009: 171). The ongoing financial crisis has heightened competition, generating yet more change in an industry that already has experienced radical transformations but despite this many mutual organisations continuing to survive in the marketplace (see He and Baruch, 2010). Although mutuals enjoy a different system of ownership than their private sector competitors, they share many similarities in how they are managed, which is evident in the case of B&E. Hence, following the appointment of a new CEO in the run up to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), B&E participated in the merger mania within the broader UK financial services sector.
The appointment of this new CEO – a former consultant from outside the financial services sector – marked a turning point in B&E’s history since previously leaders, like his predecessor, had tended to be home grown. The new CEO was concerned to ‘modernise’ B&E and to this end he relied heavily on outside consultants. They were involved in reengineering business processes, which has been described by some as a highly masculine practice (Knights and McCabe, 2001). In addition, consultants were used to introduce strategic models and tools including Overhead Value Analysis (OVA), Business Quality Modelling (BQM) and a Core Process Review (CPR).
The new CEO introduced a strategy called Growth, Efficiency and Management Effectiveness that sought to secure radical rather than incremental growth. This was achieved largely through corporate acquisitions rather than expanding the traditional business of mortgage lending. In 2 years, the new CEO acquired two organisations, one of which was for the purpose of expanding ‘riskier’ loans that promised the potential of increased profits. Concurrently, branches were closed; a recruitment freeze announced; 10 percent of the staff were made redundant and aspects of the business centralised. For example, 13 regional mortgage-processing centres were reduced to one. Its call centre was closed with the loss of 350 jobs and was relocated to the Head Office.
The downsizing of the organisation reflected centralisation, efficiency and cost-cutting drives. The new CEO was concerned to radically rethink how services were delivered and the clearest expression of this was the decision to cease being a provider of household mortgages and turn instead to distribution. This meant setting up a chain of financial advisers, who would offer new and existing customers’ products from a range of other suppliers rather than from B&E. A series of videos were used to introduce the new CEO and then to placate disgruntled staff as the traditional paternalistic culture of security and incremental change came under increasing strain.
Research methods and analytic framework
The research approach involved trying to get inside so as to say something about the culture of B&E, recognising that ‘culture is contested, temporal, and emergent’ (Clifford, 1986: 19) and that ‘cultural analysis is intrinsically incomplete’ (Geertz, 1973: 29). It involved documentary investigation through corporate strategy statements, training materials, staff briefs, newsletters, videos and tape-recorded strategy presentations. The research was conducted over a 12-month period and included hour-long, tape-recorded interviews with 17 senior- and middle-level managers, 21 members of staff and 4 team leaders but this material is not drawn upon in this article, which focuses on videos produced by the leaders of B&E rather than by us. The latter is becoming an increasingly popular method of conducting ethnographic research (e.g. Heath and Hindmarsh, 2002).
As part of our endeavour to understand the cultural context of the organisation, four video tapes were analysed. One was produced under the leadership of a CEO who retired before the research commenced and three under the new CEO. Respectively, the first made the case for remaining as a mutual building society and outlined the corporate strategy; the second introduced the new CEO to the organisation and indicated something of his future management style; the third spelt out the new CEO’s strategy for the organisation in the context of 10 percent of the workforce being made redundant; the fourth called ‘The Team’ was a recorded exchange between the new CEO and a small group of staff who were invited to ask questions of their leader. The theme of masculinity leapt out from watching these videos largely because of the metaphors and language through which the leadership was represented. We regard this as potentially significant in terms of bringing to light previously hidden gendered aspects of leading and organising (See also Stead, 2013). We began to analyse these texts by repeatedly watching the four videos, tape-recording the dialogue and listening to it. Moreover, we read through documents that were produced to support the first of these videos including a staff briefing plan.
Sub-themes then began to emerge when it became evident that the leadership of the first CEO drew on military metaphors while the new CEO drew predominantly on sporting metaphors. They share similarities in the sense that sporting metaphors often have ‘militaristic connotations’ (Gregory, 2010: 308) and both involve battling for dominance and conquest. A more focused analysis then began which amounted to a detailed, line-by-line, scene-by-scene exploration of the videos. All the dialogue, phrases, imagery and scenes relating to military and sport were extracted and recorded in written note form for the purposes of comparison and analysis.
Although videos ‘have been largely ignored in the social sciences’ (Holliday, 2000: 503), they provided us with a unique artefact for studying the culture of the organisation. Examining these materials is useful because along with language they include images that can help to frame and provide ‘a more subtle understanding of an organizational culture and the contextual relationships within the social setting under investigation’ (Kunter and Bell, 2006: 179). They cannot ‘tell us the whole story’ (Pink, 2004: 401) but they can provide a partial glimpse into how leaders are represented and represent strategy and themselves at a particular point in time (see Guthey and Jackson, 2005). As we shall see, such texts can help us to understand ‘the constitutive processes through which’ leaders ‘are created’ (Wood, 2005: 1107) as they reflect and represent ‘elements of the context in which the image is made’ (Kunter and Bell, 2006: 187).
Pink (2004) has argued that ‘using visual methods allows us to extend our research to incorporate knowledge that is not accessible verbally’ (p. 391) and this is important because identity is displayed in ‘visual ways through different arrangements of cultural products such as clothes and interior decor’ (Holliday, 2000: 513). This fills an important gap in terms of a ‘discursive’ understanding of leadership (Bolden et al., 2011: 19) because with the exception of ‘photographic representations’ of leaders (Guthey and Jackson, 2005: 1060), imagery has been neglected in this literature.
Our analytical framework draws on the notion of discourse understood as ‘the structured collections of texts embodied in the practices of talking and writing (as well as a wide variety of visual representations and cultural artefacts) that bring organizationally related objects into being’ (Grant and Hardy, 2004: 6). We do not therefore draw a distinction between texts and practice because we see these as interwoven and so in this sense videos are not simply texts because they have to be produced, staged, scripted, acted, recorded, burnt onto film or DVD and disseminated in a way that is obviously inseparable from practice. Moreover, they visually articulate corporate events, intentions, actions, identities and strategies that are bound up with practice. One could argue that corporate videos are inherently masculine in the sense that they seek closure around meaning at one point in time that precludes genuine dialogue and yet we argue that they can also be seen as an expression of different masculine discourses, depending on the messages they convey.
Discourses are not simply passive in their transfer and appropriation of knowledge but are also ‘productive’ in facilitating the exercise of power that frequently constitutes subjectivity, or to be more precise, transforms individuals into subjects that secure (or resist) a sense of identity, meaning and reality through the practices invoked by power/knowledge relations (Foucault, 1982). Nevertheless, this constitution of subjectivity and reality is precarious insofar as, except in relations of domination, no single individual or group ‘possesses’ (Foucault, 1982: 157) a monopoly of power to determine the actions of others. Power/knowledge relations are only fully productive when they engage others for it is the uniquely creative potential of humans, not their ritual conformity that power seeks to mobilise.
This points towards a ‘relational’ concept of power, which challenges most contemporary theories of leadership for even the more recent ‘charismatic, effective, visionary and transformational’ approaches to leadership can be seen as flawed largely because they ‘often attribute power to individual social actors’ (Wood, 2005: 1106). As Grint (2000) has argued, the major theories of leadership – trait, contingency and situational – are constrained by some form of essentialism or determinism and only the constitutional approach escapes these weaknesses by focusing on the importance of interpretation for practical leadership (p. 2). From this point of view, leadership is about capturing the imaginations, identities and interests of followers and thereby engaging them fully in the organisation’s practices. In view of this, we believe that an analysis of how leaders attempt to enrol the support of others through videos in ways that reveal hidden gendered practices can provide a useful way in which to understand how leaders endeavour to exercise power. The next two sections are organised around the discourses of two CEOs as expressed through videos and related documents.
A military masculine discourse
In a context of insecurity generated by mergers and building society de-mutualisations, the strategy advanced by our first CEO was that of being a ‘niche’ player in UK financial services. In practice, this meant focusing on mortgages and remaining an independent mutual building society. The General Manager for Strategy and Communications wrote to local managers instructing them to watch a video with their staff about the corporate strategy to encourage their engagement with remaining mutual: I fully understand that there has been considerable uncertainty among our staff as to our exact position on this issue [mutuality] and your enthusiastic participation in this project should help us to reduce this problem significantly. A convinced army of employees will then be an invaluable weapon in communicating to the outside world how adamant we are on this question. (Letter)
This letter represents the leaders of B&E as having an ‘army’ of employees at their disposal that can be used as a communication ‘weapon’ and it conveys an aggressive, confrontational masculinity. Local managers were issued with a video, ‘a video briefing plan’; the video narrative and a document providing model answers to questions that staff might raise about the video contents. The video briefing plan document deployed a similar discourse, emphasising the choice that the company faces: We expect the largest building societies and banks to continue gaining market power at the expense of their smaller brothers. That trend increases pressure on organizations like ours either to merge or defend their current position (using mutuality as a key weapon in their armoury). (Video briefing plan document)
In this extract, B&E is represented as facing a choice between merger whereby one becomes stronger at the expense of ‘smaller brothers’ or to use mutuality as a ‘key weapon’ in its ‘armoury’. Higate and Hopton (2005) argue that masculinity is characterised by ‘the domination of weaker individuals, competitiveness and heroic achievement’ (p. 433) and these briefing notes are redolent of this masculinity.
The video that accompanied these documents opens with a brief interview with the CEO, who is dressed in a black suit, black tie with white polka dots and a striped shirt. He is in his late 50s, has a faint regional accent, appears friendly, safe and evokes a different, more ‘paternalistic’, masculinity (Collinson and Hearn, 1994, 1996). The video then cuts into pictures of the Head Office and the surrounding area including rolling, green hills that convey a paternalistic sense of solidity and security. Images of staff then follow who voice positive opinions about mutuality, the organisation and its customers. The CEO and the Chairman of the Board are then interviewed and both use the paternal word ‘caring’ on a number of occasions in relation to customers and staff. His greater maturity, upper-class English accent, a sun tan, silver hair and a silk handkerchief in his suit pocket distinguish the latter. The Chairman’s grandfatherly appearance reinforces a sense of paternalistic community and so do his words; hence, he referred to ‘loyal customers and loyal staff’. The video elevates a sense of place and belonging by concluding with further scenic images of the local area and endorsements by local business ‘men’ before returning to the CEO who says with passion ‘it’s down to us’. The video conveys paternalistic feelings of security and certainty that seem designed to enlist the support of employees towards the corporate strategy. Nevertheless, it is a one-way mode of communication and this chimes with ‘authoritarianism’ and ‘a negation of dialogue’ (Collinson and Hearn, 1994: 13).
Attacking the competition
This section explores how the leaders represented the competition and their strategy of being a niche player; it evokes, once again, a more aggressive masculinity and so there were multiple, contradictory masculinities at work. An example was the siege mentality conveyed in ‘the model answers to questions’ document that accompanied the video that was designed seemingly to enrol and mobilise staff support:
Yes. We have to do what we believe is right for us and our members. We are convinced that our own policy is right for ourselves and our customers, and that is our central concern We may, of course, still play a role in reducing the size of the building society sector, as our policy is to take over appropriate smaller societies ourselves. (italics added)
A Churchillian spirit of defiance is evident here because even if other societies are ‘swallowed up’ B&E will fight on (see Cunliffe, 2009: 92). The leadership expressed a different masculinity then through its video and the documents that accompanied it. The written documents were more confrontational, voicing a willingness to take over competitors and to fight predatory designs in the other direction:
It is technically possible, though extremely difficult, under the law, for a predator whose bid a society Board rejects, to swallow the organization by winning the members’ approval. If a predator tries to do this in our case, we will launch a massive campaign to convince the customers … that their interests are best served by refusing the offer. This really will be a no holds barred, all guns blazing effort.
The last two extracts imply that the threat of take over necessitates unity and the fear of being swallowed led the leadership to express its ‘willingness to use force’ (Cohn, 1995) in terms of a ‘massive campaign’ (p. 137) of defence. Masculinity is evident in the ‘lashing out’ at ‘the enemy’ whereby the leaders become ‘the aggressor’ (Karner, 1998: 228). A wrestling (sporting) metaphor was drawn upon to indicate that it would be a ‘no holds barred’ contest followed by a military allusion to coming out ‘all guns blazing’. This represents the leaders as ‘strong active males collectively risking their personal safety for the greater good of the wider community’ (Higate and Hopton, 2005: 434). The discourse is imbued with this masculinity, which is also apparent in the preoccupation with size and strength: There is little historic evidence that sheer size gives you many advantages in financial services, but quite a lot that big players tend to be unfocused. We are confident of surviving and growing by developing a very different position from these giants, which involves being stronger than them in the carefully chosen market areas where we will compete. (Video briefing notes)
This extract is evocative of a David and Goliath battle (‘big players’, ‘giants’). The leader and employees are represented as a heroic David, who will successfully defeat ‘stronger’ opponents. The competition is presented as ‘unfocused’, lumbering ‘giants’, whose strength rests only in ‘sheer size’. B&E will seemingly win by ‘being stronger than them’ in ‘carefully chose market areas’. The leader’s guile will outwit and vanquish the ‘unfocused’ Goliath. The menace of muscular ‘giants’ was nevertheless underlined seemingly to galvanise employee support: the giants could secure commanding positions in the medium term, through their muscle in areas such as price leadership, buying power, and ability to cross-subsidise. (Video briefing notes)
The staff were depicted as a central resource to defeat these ‘giants’ and a report by ‘mystery shoppers’ was drawn upon to argue that the staff are ready for combat, as they have shown themselves capable, like the organisation as a whole, of adapting to fast changing market conditions. (Video briefing notes)
Overall, the leadership represented B&E’s staff as a united, agile ‘army’ that is a ‘key weapon’ in the contest with ‘muscular’ but unfocused predatory ‘giants’. Although this was meant to enrol staff support, it is questionable whether the discourse will appeal to everyone.
Attacking the staff
This section explores how the leaders subsequently deployed this masculine military discourse against the staff and perhaps this should come as no surprise because ‘metaphors of war, battle, and struggle’ imply that the individual must be ‘willing to give up everything for the group’ even if this means ‘self-sacrifice’ (Shahinpoor and Matt, 2007: 47). If the leaders had only focused on B&E’s strengths then there would have been no case for change. It was asserted, therefore, that ‘these great strengths do not remove the need to attack our weaknesses’ (video briefing notes). These ‘weaknesses’ largely related to the staff, for example, the ‘cost base’ was said to be ‘too high’, which obviously poses a threat to jobs. It was also implied that the staff must become more efficient and self-disciplined: ‘We must get more tasks “right first time”’, after we have discovered why we don’t achieve this now. Lack of care in delivering services and products means that expensive and time consuming 100 per cent checking is necessary. (Video briefing notes)
Through these notes, it was implied that the staff lack ‘care in delivering services’ and do not get things ‘right first time’. In view of this ‘a change of culture is needed, which makes all our staff customer-focused’ and it was asserted that ‘we need particularly to make Head Office people more flexible and adaptable’ (video briefing notes; emphasis added).
A readiness to ‘attack’ corporate predators may enrol some staff. Yet, attributing the lack of competitiveness to the staff could have the opposite effect and it contradicts the earlier emphasis on the strengths of the workforce. There is a tension between the more caring paternalistic masculinity expressed by the leaders in the video and the aggressive masculinity evident in the documents that accompanied the video. This exposes flaws in the exercise of power that became evident only through our attending to both texts and images. We turn now to the discourse that emerged following the appointment of a new CEO approximately 1 year after the above statements were made.
A sporting masculine discourse
There is substantial evidence that ‘for many men in highly competitive professions’ that ‘their actions and positions are anchored in sports references and strategies’ (Gregory, 2010: 298; see also Coakley, 2004: 268; Connell, 2005: 846). Senior management in our case study were no exception as a video that was used to introduce staff to the new CEO opens with the CEO competing as an oarsman in an all male boat race during his days at an elite University. Although this heroic representation appears to be meant to ‘seduce audiences’ (Sinclair, 2009: 277), the image of a White, aggressive, high-achieving, educated, privileged, upper-class man may not appeal to everyone. A tension is also evident in the representation of the leader as a masculine ‘heroic individual’ (Morgan, 1994: 174) and the concurrent emphasis in the video on teamwork. Over film footage of the boat race, the CEO says that rowing is ‘all about leading the team. You have to get the team to perform to the maximum of its abilities over the course’. Although one could dismiss the aggressive nature of this presentation, it is not a trivial matter for ‘sports metaphors and strategies are part of the production process’ (Gregory, 2010: 302) of leadership. It is important since the discourse endorses ‘aggressive behaviour that is deemed necessary to accomplish projects, to secure business deals or to overcome adversity’ (Gregory, 2010: 299).
The video then cuts to the CEO being interviewed by a TV journalist. In the background are silver cups and trophies in a wooden display cabinet, which it appears that the CEO won through his sporting prowess. Other ‘symbols’ of the leader’s individual powers are evident including leather bound books, which look legalistic and convey an aura of intellectual credibility. The CEO is a tall man who is powerfully built and he appears in a casual grey polo shirt. The tension between ‘leaders who actually lead other people toward a common vision’ and the individualistic, masculine ‘solitary world-maker’ (Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolf, 1991: 535) is apparent in the video. Hence, an individualistic portrayal of the CEO is juxtaposed with his comments that ‘I enjoy being part of the team’ and the lesson he learnt as a sportsman: ‘You’re always rowing with other people and you can’t get there faster than the team does’. Overall, the images of individual, masculine prowess belies the textual emphasis on teamwork, which would have been missed had we only attended to language.
At the end of the video, the CEO is seen facing the camera while sitting at his CEO’s desk. He is now wearing a shirt and tie and this confirms his power, identity and status (see Guthey and Jackson, 2005: 1072). He talks directly to the camera and this creates the impression that he is talking to the staff on equal terms. On the one hand, this identity performance is meant to convey that he is ‘just like us’, someone who shares similar experiences to those he now commands. On the other hand, he is speaking from the CEO’s office through the medium of a video that only those in authority are able to produce and distribute (see Jackson and Carter, 1994). This medium is meant to break down hierarchical barriers but it reproduces ‘images of the “great man”, viewing leaders as dynamic agents of change and followers as passive and compliant’ (Collinson, 2005a: 1424). Moreover, videos are one-way communication devices that do not let others speak thereby constituting ‘them as objects of the activities of those’ (Jackson and Carter, 1994: 156) in positions of authority. The imagery of the video expresses hierarchical dominance and a ‘desire for control’ over meaning/subjectivity and, therefore, ‘mastery over the other’ (Collinson and Hearn, 1996: 18). In this sense, it suggests that teamwork is a secondary consideration and again had we only focused on the text of this video, we may have drawn a different conclusion.
If we understand ‘sport as an institutional realm in which men construct and affirm their separation from, and domination over, women’ (Messner, 2005: 314) and others, then using an elite, masculine sport to define the CEO, from the vantage point of the CEO’s office, can be understood as a means to potentially disengage others. For example, it may alienate women, working and middle-class employees, minorities and those who do not share the CEO’s interest in sport. In view of this, not everyone may be seduced by ‘the leader’s performance of mastery and power’ (Sinclair, 2009: 277).
Nearly 2 years after his appointment, another video entitled ‘Now and Tomorrow’ was launched in the context of almost 10 percent of the workforce being made redundant. This signifies an end to paternalistic security and the CEO can be seen focusing on a middle-aged, male, TV journalist. The latter wears a business suit and tie and appears to be listening intently as he conducts the ‘interview’. The camera flits back and forth from the journalist to the CEO as questions are asked but the CEO does almost all the talking. The camera occasionally closes in on the CEO’s face seemingly to underline the importance of certain words and then pans out to reveal his shoulders and torso. The CEO’s attire is relatively informal. He wears a pale blue shirt with a black silk tie with silver stripes and he is sitting at an expensive looking desk with a computer in the background and a framed picture of the corporate headquarters on the wall. The walls are painted a sober, muted colour and his chair is high-backed and comfortable looking. The images of both his dress and the interview represent the CEO as powerful, relaxed and in control. He is portrayed as an important and serious man whose words demand respect but he is also represented as being open to questions and scrutiny. We are not told, however, how the questions were constructed. The video seems designed to create an impression of impartiality, objectivity, honesty and fairness but the images say otherwise for they perhaps unwittingly represent the leader as an individual who is a member of a powerful, masculine elite – a representation that would be hidden to the researcher without access to these images. In the video, the CEO legitimised the redundancies in a way that deployed both a feminine, caring discourse and a masculine, ruthless one: The last few weeks have been pretty tough for a lot of people at B&E … there certainly hasn’t been a time in the society’s history when a large group of people in Head Office have found that their jobs have gone. That’s a very difficult time not just for the people directly affected but frankly for everyone in the society because people look for their friends and they see them going through a period of change. Whilst it isn’t easy, the reality is, it’s essential if we are going to be a successful, 21st Century Building Society. We have to have a tight, lean operation. (Now and Tomorrow video; emphasis added)
In this extract, the organisation is presented as an athlete undergoing the intense competitive preparations that are necessary to achieve ‘success’. The leader states that this ‘isn’t easy’ and yet the image speaks of a man who is comfortable, secure, privileged and free from the worries of redundancy or work intensification. Like athletes, the staff are urged to bite ‘the bullet of pain’ (Sabo, 1995: 99), for ‘to endure pain is courageous, to survive pain is manly’ (p. 100) but they are instructed to do so by a man who appears free from such pain, which would not be obvious from attending only to his words. Employees not leaders are represented as the fat that needs to be removed to render the organisation ‘tight’ and ‘lean’. Previously, a masculine, military discourse was employed to enlist employees, which was then used to ‘attack’ employees. Likewise, a masculine, sporting discourse was used to enrol the staff, which was then turned against the employees who were seen as surplus to requirements.
Making the case for growth
This section explores how, in the ‘Now and Tomorrow’ video, the new CEO articulated a strategy for growth. The CEO stated that ‘we’ve been working very hard to define’ B&E’s vision but when he says ‘we’, he is referring to an elite group of senior executives. Decisions taken at the top are represented in terms of what ‘we’ (everyone) needs to do. Previously, consolidating B&E’s position as a niche player was represented as the only possible future for B&E whereas now the new CEO presented growth as the only way forward: What’s become clear to us is that staying as a middle of the road mutual is not the right answer. What we need to do is to raise the game. (Now and Tomorrow video)
Both leaders suggested that the competitive environment comprises ‘giants’, but the meaning of this was constructed differently so as to legitimise different strategies and so masculinity competed with a previous masculinity. The earlier thinking was castigated as seeking to be ‘middle of the road’ and this is not acceptable to a ‘tight’ and ‘lean’ competitor. In order to gain market dominance, the CEO stated that B&E will have to ‘raise the game’ even though the previous leadership had also sought to ‘attack’ the organisation’s weaknesses.
In the final video, we analysed entitled ‘The Team’ – a videoed interaction between members of staff and the new CEO – it was evident that some staff questioned the rationale for the new growth strategy. In the video, the CEO is seated next to and was introduced by the same male, TV journalist who appeared in the previous video. Both sit cross-legged in black leather chairs. The CEO is more formally attired than before, wearing a charcoal grey suit, a white shirt and a dark tie. The camera occasionally pans out to reveal that they are facing 9 employees (5 women and 4 men) sitting in two rows. The CEO does not look at the camera but focuses on the staff. The journalist invites questions from the staff who are wearing business attire. As each member of staff asks a question, their job title appears at the bottom of the screen – branch manager, lending analyst, commercial lender. The CEO articulates his answers in a calm and controlled way while expressing himself through continuous gesticulations of his well-manicured hands. This visual imagery makes use of symbolic codes (Holliday, 2000: 508) to represent the leader as dominant and powerful. Although the meeting was numerically in favour of the staff and the video is entitled ‘The Team’, there is no doubt about who the leader is. There is perhaps an unconscious representation of the CEO as powerful, which belies the emphasis on teams, dialogue and openness. Once again this is clear from the staging and the camera focus rather than the dialogue.
Videos are ‘performances of identities in that their production is itself a practice through which identities are negotiated and performed’ (Pink, 2001: 592) and consequently their meaning is not fixed or predetermined. This is evident in that during the video, Elaine, who works in commercial lending, expressed her shared belief with peers that harm had been inflicted on B&E due to the rapid growth that it went through under the previous CEO: this whole cost cutting exercise really is a result of a very aggressive few years of growth that the society went through, albeit prior to your appointment. And it’s now a case of the staff first of all are being asked to pay for those decisions because growth didn’t actually produce the expected levels of profitability. (Elaine, Commercial Lending; The Team, video)
Elaine’s challenge to the CEO’s strategy of ‘Growth, Efficiency and Management Effectiveness’ demonstrates that those who are expected to follow the leader are not ‘judgemental dopes’ (Garfinkel, 1967) but her criticism of the earlier ‘aggressive’ growth was managed by the CEO evading her concerns. He achieved this partly through ignoring the negative consequences of B&E’s earlier growth and partly through continuing to define reality in a way that supported his growth strategy. So, for example, he articulated his concern to expand the customer base through offering more competitive savings rates. In the video, this was depicted in terms of a masculine physical encounter that, it was claimed, must be won. It was expressed in terms of how the products ‘will be highly competitive’ for ‘they knock the converters [former building societies] into a cocked hat’. Boxing is the embodiment of or ‘a powerful metaphor for or symbol of masculinity’ (De Garis, 2000: 87) and boxing metaphors were used elsewhere in the video when it was said that ‘we’ve taken a £4.5 m hit’ for closing an overseas operation. The new CEO was asked by the TV interviewer what the strategy will mean for the staff and again a boxing metaphor was used: I think the most important thing for the staff is that we’ve got a clear strategy and an absolutely knock out customer proposition. That means they can sell with confidence. That means our business will grow and that means in the long run opportunities for staff. (The Team video)
It is questionable whether staff faced with redundancy will be relieved by a ‘knock out’ customer proposition. The CEO appeared to be so engrossed in the ‘fight’ to win over staff to his way of thinking that he was deaf to the concerns they raised.
Winning arguments, silencing others
This final section considers an interaction between the CEO and the staff during the ‘The Team’ video. This is useful not least because ‘little research attends to followers and their interactions with leaders’ (Collinson, 2005a: 1423). The video sought to provide an ‘open’ forum through which the staff could ask the leader direct questions. This was contradicted, however, by his ‘instrumental pursuit of the control of social relations’ (Kerfoot and Knights, 1998: 8). Thus, in the extract to follow and above, the CEO seemed unable to hear what was communicated to him. Rather than listening/empathising, the leader sought to ‘win’ (see Cunliffe, 2009) the argument and, in so doing, endeavoured to drive through his beliefs, thereby ruling out the concerns of others. It indicates how ‘aggression, or a will to dominate’ (p. 98), which is associated with discourses of masculinity can ‘prohibit intimate personal relationships’ but intimacy (De Garis, 2000: 89):
branches have had a reduction dramatically of staff. The impact to us is we’re not seeing any good news. That’s the feeling and the bad news is being worsened by simple things like, the fact that we don’t have diaries anymore … when you’re pulling out a competitor’s diary because you haven’t got one. It’s one more thing that sticks in the throat (Branch Manager).
About three things. First, we spend £50 k a year on diaries. I bet you didn’t know that? That’s not what it would cost for a branch to go out and get a diary so I don’t think we need £50 K worth of centrally purchased diaries. I’d like you to use your judgement and, if you feel that you haven’t got a diary from any other source, you should go and get a diary. Don’t pull out a competitor’s one, I agree with you on that. In terms of what’s in it for me? You’ve described that as an issue in the branches. It’s not, it’s an issue for 4500 people. Everyone asks what’s in it for me so your colleagues are being, you’re actually representing what everyone feels, and the only way we’re going to get the ‘what’s in it for me?’ sorted out is to really work hard at communication. I can encourage people. I can get out and do some of the message for myself but we collectively have to work together and, what I absolutely want you to do is, if you’re not getting clarity of messages ask your boss (The Team video).
The CEO ignored Mike’s concerns regarding staff cuts and his view that ‘we’re not seeing any good news’. He focused narrowly on diaries but Mike only used this to illustrate the problem with cost cutting. The CEO has not purchased corporate diaries and so some staff used competitor’s diaries during customer interactions. In a display of masculinity characterised ‘as determination and resilience against all opposition’ (Kerfoot and Knights, 1998: 10), the leader refused to concede that the cost-cutting drive is a problem or to acknowledge the feelings of the staff. He attributed the ‘problem’ to a lack of communication and intriguingly redirected the issue to the local level saying ‘ask your boss’ and yet it is the CEO who was asked for ‘clarity’ on this issue. It is unlikely that these obfuscations will be lost on the staff who will ‘detect discrepancies between leaders’ policies, discourses or practices’ (Collinson, 2005a: 1428). It is also problematic to suggest that frontline employees can self-authorise the expense of paying for a diary. It could be argued that the leader is unwilling to concede points for fear of appearing to be ‘not in full control of others, of events or even of themselves’ (Collinson and Hearn, 1996: 14; see also Lockyer and McCabe, 2011). Yet, it appeared to us that his masculine concern to win the argument meant that he could not hear the concerns of those whose support he is concerned to mobilise through the video.
The video was at once a means to procure consent, if not commitment, and a means through which the staff could voice their dissent albeit in a highly controlled and artificial way. It was entitled ‘The Team’ and although possibly an unintended consequence of extant masculine power relations, it was plainly visible that some team members acted in an authoritative manner and others were largely passive. In the video, the CEO subsequently attributed responsibility for cost cutting to the competition. He used this to justify changes that have implications for how B&E is managed, and its impact on the lives of staff: We have to strip ourselves down to being focused on only spending money on those things that add value … What’s driving us to make the cost reductions is the competitive world in which we now operate. It’s the Tesco’s. It’s the Direct Lines. It’s the other competitors coming into our business who have lower cost bases than us and, therefore, can compete more aggressively. So we have to match them and beat them. (The Team video)
In this extract, the CEO presented the fortunes of the staff and B&E in a masculine, even gladiatorial manner. It appears that B&E is engaged in a contest with ‘aggressive’ competitors and so must be ‘stripped’ down in order to compete. It was visually clear, however, that it was the CEO not the ‘team’ directing this strategy.
Discussion and conclusion
Discursive research in organisations and management has tended to rely primarily on verbal texts either in the form of interview materials or documentation and thereby leaves out of account visual imagery. While not excluding verbal materials, in this article, we have focused on the images presented through corporate videos designed to endorse the leadership of a building society and enrol staff support for change but, whether intended or not, they also enwrap managers in a cloak of masculine prowess. A number of interesting outcomes can be discerned including first, a recognition of how visual images as well as words can advance our understanding of leadership and, in particular, some ‘hidden dimensions of gendered power’ (Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011: 478). Texts have provided us with much of the material through which leadership and masculinity have been analysed but this can be complemented by examining the images in corporate videos. Sometimes verbal communication can say one thing and images another and at other times they are mutually reinforcing. In this research, we found examples of both. Inconsistencies may lead followers to question their leaders but this does not mean that consistency will always result in consensus. Both leadership texts and images are exercises of power that reflect and reinforce social and hierarchical inequalities but opportunities for resistance remain, as indicated in our analysis.
According to Kuronen (2014), the reason of the primacy of the visual lies in its sensory-emotional appeal to us as human beings – the very same subjects that ultimately interpret (and validate) every account of research. The appeal of the visual is also closely related to the notion of myth by Broms and Gahmberg (1983), and their power upon us; they engage not only the intellectual, but also the emotional registers of our constitution. (p. 15)
Kuronen’s arguments provide one explanation for why leaders enrol the visual in support of their strategies but our analysis suggests that leaders are not able to control emotions through the visual. All too often texts and images contradict each other or other contradictions arise (e.g. team versus individual) that open up spaces for resistance. Irrespective of the emotions that leaders seek to foster through their use of images (security, loyalty, acquiescence), followers may respond in different ways (anger, defiance, betrayal). Given that we live in ‘a consumer society saturated with televisual imagery’ through which we ‘construct and display identities’ (Holliday, 2000: 509), it is a little surprising that leadership and discursive studies have tended to neglect visual images in favour of verbal texts. We think therefore that this article contributes methodologically as well as more substantively to the study of leadership and management.
Second, this article has explored how senior management framed their leadership around military and sporting metaphors in a way that reflected and reproduced aggressive, masculine constructions of reality that frequently denied employees a voice in the organisation. Although the link is far from ‘straightforward’ (Morgan, 1994: 179), Barrett (2001) argues that ‘there has long been an association between the military and images of masculinity’ (p. 77). In many military communities, ‘manliness’ is ‘equated with the willingness … to threaten and use force’ (Cohn, 1995: 137). Cohn (1995) asserts that in such communities ‘there are things professionals simply will not say in groups, options they simply will not argue nor write about, because they know that to do so is to brand themselves as wimps’ (p. 136). In such instances, discourses of masculinity within leadership discourage sensitivity and compassion towards others for such displays are seen as a threat to the leader’s authority. It has been argued that an absence of compassion and sensitivity is often a feature of the corporate world (Shahinpoor and Matt, 2007). Shahinpoor and Matt (2007) theorise that through stifling dissent leaders ‘risk not hearing’ (p. 42) issues which have a potentially harmful effect on organisations and individuals. The question we raise is why leaders fail to hear and we have concluded that often this is because of attachments to certain masculine narratives. Shahinpoor and Matt (2007) advocate that leaders should ‘find ways to hear’ (p. 42) and we have indicated that even when forums are set up for this purpose, leaders may still fail to hear what others are saying to them.
We have also suggested that the use of sporting metaphors in leadership is particularly resonant with masculine discourses. Research into sportsmen reported that for them ‘it became “natural” to equate masculinity with competition, physical strength, and skills’ (Messner, 1995: 107). Barrett (2001) also argues that ‘in playing sports, judgement under pressure, stoic courage, endurance of pain, and controlling emotion are all considered signs of manhood’ (p. 87). Sports are largely sex-segregated and so for leaders to couch their strategies in ways that allude to predominantly masculine sports (e.g. boxing, rowing, wrestling) tends to reinforce gendered divisions. Allusions to sport may also disengage those who do not share this interest especially males who may feel ‘inadequate’ especially where they have a historical experience of marginality (see Glassner, 1995: 253). The ‘importance’ attached to ‘winning’ (Messner, 1995: 108) in the sports world reflects and reproduces competition, division, individualism, envy and inequalities between people and so overall references to sport may undermine calls for unity. To maintain a link to team sports as our second CEO did when using images from his success as an oarsman may alleviate this tension. But by definition, of course, the majority of staff have not experienced such team sports and so the imagery can pass them by with little affect.
Third, it has highlighted how different masculine discourses are reproduced by leaders seeking to engage staff and enlist their commitment and support. This responds to the recent call for an understanding of masculinity in terms of ‘identity in everyday practices’ (Pacholok, 2009: 476) and to expose its painful self-defeating consequences. The first leadership discourse used military images and metaphors and made the case for B&E to remain a niche player. The second employed sporting metaphors to justify a strategy of all-out growth. The staff were required to forget the first discourse even though, as Elaine a member of staff pointed out, they are still suffering the consequences of previous ‘aggressive’ growth.
It is significant that in each case, masculinity was at first deployed externally against the competition and then internally against the staff. In the case of the first leadership discourse, the ‘attack’ against the ‘giant’ competitors was redirected against the staff whose inefficiency and inflexibility became the target for attack. The second discourse attributed the need for a growth strategy to ‘the competition’, which was then used to justify becoming ‘lean’ and ‘tight’. Both strategies carry an underlying threat of job losses and work intensification. One can question, therefore, whether they can engage employees because both pose a threat to those they seek to enrol.
A fourth and related point is that these discourses may contain the seeds of their own demise because employees may not identify with them. Hence, one can question whether everyone will find references to the military and sport appealing. Employees are concerned about their employment security and so the emphasis on attacking ‘our weaknesses’ as expressed through the first discourse and the new discourse of ‘stripping’ down the organisation may simply frighten them because it poses a threat to jobs, friends(hips) and communities. Both discourses might disengage employees who feel disenfranchised by aggressive, privileged, white men. Grint (2005) has argued that we need to understand ‘the processes through which decision-makers persuade their followers, and perhaps themselves, that a certain kind of action is required’ (p. 1469) and this article has shed some light on these issues through exploring how discourses of masculinity are embodied in persuasive rhetoric.
Leadership can be understood to be about direction, alignment and commitment and this is likely to be undermined when leaders simply impose their worldview on the organisation. Certain forms of masculinity then appear to be an obstacle to engagement in directing, aligning and committing the collective actions of staff for it can inhibit ‘emotional sensitivity’ and the expression of ‘vulnerability or weakness’ (Karner, 1998: 200). This point is evident in the videoed interaction between the staff and the new leader, when he attempted to win the argument and neglected the concerns expressed by the staff. If ‘masculinity achieves meaning within patterns of differences’ (Barrett, 2001: 82) and success is associated with aggression, toughness and winning at all costs, then ‘femininity becomes associated with’ (p. 82) accommodation, compromise and sensitivity. In effect, an attachment to certain masculine identities may rule out precisely the type of discourse needed to enrol and mobilise staff in a common enterprise (see Lockyer and McCabe, 2011).
Leaders driven by masculine discourses are then caught up in a dilemma because their reluctance to appear weak or concede defeat leaves them in a difficult situation when they seek to engage their employees. For engagement ordinarily involves having some voice to effect how work proceeds but, as we saw above in the case of Elaine and Mike’s concerns, alternative views may not be ‘heard’, explicitly devalued or purposely kept off the agenda. It then becomes impossible to contribute unless following the official line so that there is a closure on potential alternative insights. In this sense, certain masculinities create problems for leaders who have been urged to listen to the concerns of others as a means to overcome resistance (see Ford and Ford, 2010: 33).
Collinson and Hearn (1996) ask whether, through ‘the exclusion of alternative views’, masculinity can be understood to ‘constitute crucial barriers to “effective”, “efficient” and “rational” decision making and organizational practices’ (Collinson and Hearn, 1996: 22). This article has provided some empirical evidence to suggest that it does but this does not mean that organisations simply need to be feminised for that would just result in an instrumental use of what are seen as the listening, caring and empathising aspects of leadership (Knights and Kerfoot, 2004: 450). Followers would easily see through such manipulations and so there is no easy shortcut of developing distributed leadership and employee engagement other than to abandon the masculine preoccupation with control and identity.
Before concluding, we examine briefly the potential implications and limitations of this article. It has been argued that within society in general but in higher education in particular, the ‘intellectual tyranny of economics’ has resulted in it being taken for granted that the role of educators is to facilitate ‘economic productivity and competitiveness’ (Hendry, 2006: 267), thus displacing wider humanitarian and moral values that could advance social well-being. The CEOs in our study clearly endorsed this neo-liberal consensus in their use of aggressive masculine sporting and military metaphors to encourage in staff a mentality of beating opponents as integral to the dominant pursuit of economic growth and profit. While critical of this, we cannot be oblivious of the extent to which we are in a minority in management education, where it is invariably believed that students can be provided with ‘a series of instrumental techniques, by means of which the “manager” can rationally analyze and so, by implication, control the social world’ (Hendry, 2006: 274) – precisely reflecting and reproducing the masculine discourses that were evident in our study. Hendry (2006) suggests that an antidote to this intellectual economic tyranny would be to teach a broader range of the humanities in business studies. However, we have to be cautious in assuming that all that management needs is ‘a liberal arts education’ (Case, 2006: 287) since even their gendered discourses of masculinity are often absent from the agenda not least because of the limited ‘ability of the humanities to represent social difference’ (Atwil, 2009: 13) and to explore its ethical implications (Ziarek, 2001).
Perhaps one limitation of our study is that it has not sufficiently elaborated the problematic relationship between discourses of masculinity and leadership and, in particular, the ethical and philosophical (Case et al., 2011; Ciulla and Forsyth, 2011) implications, but this could be a topic for further research. Another topic at the pedagogical level of teaching executive or MBA programmes in business schools (see Cunliffe, 2009) could be to explore the use of corporate videos to facilitate discussions of gendered images of leadership. We believe that an understanding drawn from such methodological and pedagogic approaches would have considerable benefits not just for the theory of leadership but also for its practice. For in encouraging individualistic, self-seeking pursuits of heroic and embattled achievements, masculine discourses can often be dangerous and counterproductive to leaders and their organisational practices. Our case study is an exemplification of this insofar as the hyper masculine aggressive approach to leadership and corporate activity was partly responsible for a decline in B&Es economic performance, as the business extended itself too far beyond its financial resources.
To conclude, this article has explored how masculine discourses employed by leaders can be flawed and contradictory and how they may undermine attempts by leaders to engage employees. It has highlighted how masculinity presents a problem for leaders if it erases the sensitivity and sensibility needed to connect with those who are tasked to follow. Thus, despite creating a video promoting openness and dialogue, the new leader seemed unable to compromise, to listen and learn from followers, to allow others to have a voice, or to acknowledge or concede weaknesses/flaws in his designs. It has been suggested that this potentially threatens the consent and engagement that recent approaches to leadership claim are essential to a productive organisation. Finally, we have argued that attending to images as well as to texts can enhance our understanding of leadership discourses and perhaps other topics.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.