Anthropological accounts of leadership: Historical and geographical interpretations from indigenous cultures

Abstract

This paper critiques contemporary leadership theory through a historiography of anthropological accounts. Through this review, the paper highlights a number of nuances in the conceptualisation of leadership from differing indigenous cultures using historical and geographical perspectives. The paper contributes to the leadership literature by taking a longitudinal perspective and providing further evidence of a history of notions akin to distributed leadership. This longitudinal perspective enables the paper to uncover an individualistic focus of leadership studies that appear to override sociologically orientated and distributed perspectives within a particular period of the twentieth century. The review of these studies also seems to point towards a pluralistic paradigm of leadership evidenced early on in the twentieth century.

Keywords

Leadership cross cultural worldliness history geography and anthropology

Introduction

Community exists in the minds of its members, and should not be confused with geographic or socio-graphic assertions of ‘fact’. By extension, the distinctiveness of communities and, thus, the reality of their boundaries, similarly lies in the mind, in the meanings which people attach to them, not in their structural forms. (Cohen, 1985: 98)

Cohen’s words here are particularly poignant given the focus of this exploration into anthropological accounts of leadership over the period of the twentieth century. Throughout, this paper will challenge the notion of measuring leadership across cultures using national boundaries based on historical evidence. This historical evidence is provided by a review of studies into a variety of communities. The review was developed in relation to current shifts in the literature towards investigating leadership in indigenous communities (e.g. Bolden and Kirk, 2009; Sveiby, 2011; Turnbull, 2009; Turnbull et al., 2012; Warner and Grint, 2006). For example, in his paper, Karl-Erik Sveiby (2011) explores Aboriginal prehistory through traditional law stories. He identifies two collective models of leadership which suggest that recent ideas of distributed and collective leadership (see Bolden, 2011 and Thorpe et al., 2011, for a review of theories in this area) are not new but can be traced back to aboriginal prehistory. In addition, Warner and Grint’s (2006) work highlights distinct differences in notions of leadership between western models and those derived from indigenous cultures, in this case those of Native Americans.¹ This paper, however, takes a slightly different format to that of Sveiby (2011) and Warner and Grint (2006) in that the review takes a more longitudinal and chronological perspective. As Sveiby (2011) points out, drawing on Boehm (1999), hierarchy in human systems has always been present, but it flips between an orientation to strongmen and an orientation to the collective. Similarly, Triandis (1994, cited in McSweeney, 2002a: 105) suggests that people all carry both individualistic and collective tendencies. Both these comments suggest a pluralistic perspective of leadership where collective notions are in tension with individualistic notions in context. The paper tentatively identifies one of these shifts where individualistic notions of leadership override a more distributed notion in the middle of the twentieth century with the onset of psychological perspectives in researching leadership (e.g. Homans, 1950). Moreover, this overriding of distributed perspectives also appears to be within the methodology of anthropological studies themselves. The paper therefore concludes that whilst there is an agreement with Sveiby, regarding the origins of distributed forms of leadership, it also highlights an inherent complexity in making judgements regarding the shift towards individualistic ideals of leadership that are also imbued in anthropological studies as well as psychological work and suggests a pluralistic frame for theorising leadership in social settings.

Cross-cultural leadership studies and worldliness

Contemporary leadership literature has been criticised for being too orientated towards individualistic (e.g. Jackson and Parry, 2011) and masculinised (e.g. Ford, 2010) notions. Epitomised and dominated by theories such as transformational leadership, it has been suggested that leadership studies need to break away from these moorings towards more processual notions of leadership (e.g. Tourish, 2013, 2014). In addition to accusations of the individualisation and masculinisation, there is a critique of notions of leadership being based on western assumptions (e.g. Bolden and Kirk, 2009). In response, the literature (e.g. Turnbull, 2009, Turnbull et al., 2012) has turned towards ideas around worldliness (Mintzberg, 2004, Mintzberg and Gosling, 2003) and therefore seeking leadership knowledge from indigenous communities. For a number of years, leadership studies have been dominated by Hofstedian (e.g. Hofstede, 1980) approaches to the study of leadership in different nations across the world which epitomises ‘…the contemporary spectacle of globalization’ (Kersten and Abbott, 2012: 324) developed through a refuted notion that the ‘West’ is best, or has some unique historical advantage as the ‘makers of history’ (Blaut, 1993). Blaut goes on to describe this notion as folklore and sees this Eurocentrism as simply a coloniser’s view of the world. This view is built on a naïve impression of indigenous communities that harks from colonisation and state-making, where the predominant view of these communities was of savages to be tamed and the potential for slaves to be made (Scott, 2013). Evidence provided by Blaut (1993) and discussed by Scott (2013) suggests that this view of a backward society is fundamentally flawed. This view, based on the colonial perspective, however, still drives historical and geographical scholarship and is firmly embedded in western culture. This notion also permeates the cross-cultural management literature which, in turn, has informed the study of leadership. But as Warner and Grint (2006: 225) point out ‘…the assumption that culture can be reduced to national culture remains problematic’. These national boundaries mask more complex inter-relationships between cultures and sub-cultures in and across geographical space, place and time. For example, if one was to study leadership between the UK and the USA, one would miss complex interplays of sub-cultures, such as the north and south in both countries and the differing politics and well-being represented in both areas. This is the example given by McSweeney (2002a; 2002b) in his critique of Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) work. McSweeney (2002a) suggests the idea of a national culture seems to be more akin to the search for state cultures (e.g. the UK). Sub-cultures, like those represented by Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and other deeper sub-cultures within these are nationally averaged, which belies complexities and diversities inherent within these sub-cultures (see McSweeney, 2002b: 110 for a list of studies emphasising cultural diversity as opposed to uniformity). This leads McSweeney (2002a) to point towards those who suggest that the uniformity of culture with nations is over-used (Archer, 1989; Kondo, 1990; Shearing and Ericson, 1991) or plainly false (Bock, 1999). McSweeney (2009) goes on to highlight that this overemphasis on continuity and uniformity discounts change and diversity within countries. He suggests ‘…cultures are fusions, remixes, recombinants. They are made through exchange, imitation, intersection, incorporation, reshuffling, through travel, trade, subordination. National borders are not cultural borders. Cultural boundaries are diversely permeable’ (McSweeney, 2009: 937). Interestingly, McSweeney (2009) goes on to highlight that these national culture models were used in anthropological studies around the 1920s (Kroeber, 1952) but had waned by the 1940s (Chapple and Coon, 1942). However, he also highlights that they were reinvigorated during a period between World War II and the early part of the Cold War (see McSweeney, 2009: 944 for references). This shift parallels a move towards individualistic notions of leadership noted above and evidenced in the following review of anthropological studies. McSweeney (2009) observes that by the 1960s, the national culture model was all but discredited (see Bock, 1999). He suggests that the belief in national cultural uniqueness and individuals being passive recipients had long since ceased, but as he highlights management studies seem to hang on to this arguably outdated national culture model.

The concern for leadership studies is that this notion of national or state culture continuity and uniformity is also still evident in the literature. This cultural model paradigm is represented, for example, by the GLOBE project (House et al., 2004; Chhokar, et al., 2007), a large scale multi-national research agenda for understanding leadership styles and behaviours in 62 countries across the world. This approach to cross-cultural leadership research has already been criticised for being too focused on structural, functionalist models and for relying too much on positivistic interpretations and quantitative methodologies (Bolden and Kirk, 2009; Jepson, 2009a). It could be argued that Hofstede’s research and the Globe project are neatly packaged for the consumption of researchers and practitioners by using clusters of nationalities. The worldliness concept, in contrast, builds on the literature concerning the ‘Worldly Mindset’ (Mintzberg, 2004, Mintzberg and Gosling, 2003). ‘Worldliness’ according to Mintzberg (2004) is quite different to the idea of globalisation, in that it involves taking a closer look as opposed to a distant look at the world. Turnbull (2009) defines worldliness in this respect as ‘seeing all kinds of different worlds (often worlds within worlds) from close up…’ (Turnbull 2009: 91). From this literature, there has been a push to develop an understanding of leadership in indigenous cultures (Turnbull and Gosh, 2009; Turnbull et al., 2012). This paper contends that this push towards studying leadership in indigenous cultures has been without an exploration of the knowledge that may already exist. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to review already existing anthropological accounts of various indigenous cultures to account for any existing knowledge that could add to and inform the leadership and worldliness literature and research.

Anthropological accounts of leadership in indigenous cultures

The paper does not take a particular anthropological stance with regards to the study of leadership, but instead looks at instances of studying indigenous cultures over the past 60 years. Whilst the literature is now drawing on anthropology as a methodology for studying and theorising about leadership (Harter, 2006; Jones, 2005), there appears to be little reference to historical anthropological accounts of leadership from the field. Also, by looking at studies over time, there is the ability to take a longitudinal perspective. Hence, the paper reviews a sample of anthropological studies from 1945 to 2004 that have explicitly mentioned leadership as part of their findings (Clemmer, 1989; Collier, 1946; Farinde et al., 2004; Goldfrank, 1945; Golovnev, 1997; Holmes, 1964; Keesing and Keesing, 1956; Krejci, 1976; Mines and Gourishankar, 1990; Pehrson, 1954; Read, 1959; Roscoe, 2000; Sangree, 1970). The papers were accessed through a search via Google Scholar with the search words ‘anthropology’ and ‘leadership’. The rationale behind this search was to identify anthropological studies that specifically mention leadership. Whilst the search was quite generic, the number of papers identified was small (13 in total). The sample consisted of studies in Navaho communities, a Lappish community, a Samoan community, societies in Melanesia in the Pacific Ocean, New Guinea, American Samoa, Nigeria, Mexico, South Asia, Northwestern Siberia and American Indian Societies in the Great Basin, Nevada, USA.

The paper highlights prominent themes within some of these studies below. Not all studies are included in the scope of this paper, as some of the papers were only available in abstract form (i.e. Golovnev, 1997; Krejci, 1976; Sangree, 1970), and will form part of the further development of this work by the author. In the meantime, and for the purposes of this paper, concentration will be given to the full text papers.

Navaho community leadership, USA

Following on from the work of Warner and Grint (2006) that developed notions of American Indian ways of leading, the earliest papers in the sample of studies were two from the 1940s and investigated the Navaho community in the USA (Collier, 1946; Goldfrank, 1945). An interesting discussion from these papers is the level to which agriculture is intertwined within the narrative on leadership. For example, Goldfrank (1945) highlights the role of agriculture in the Navaho society and especially the way in which the origins of the society were developed, ‘…the endless use of pollen, corn, and cornmeal that fill the pages of recorded Navaho myth² and ceremonial…it is the most significant that the tribe’s First Man was created from white corn, their First Woman from yellow corn’ (Goldfrank, 1945: 265) and ‘…descendents of the First Man and First Woman made a great farm’ (Goldfrank, 1945: 266). Interestingly, these assertions regarding the Navaho leadership appear to be breaking away from traditional views of the Navaho as nomadic herdsmen, which had been the impression before these forms of anthropological accounts (Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1883; Gregory, 1917). For one, this highlights the importance of anthropological research of leadership in differing indigenous cultures, which could challenge traditional views of common understandings of leadership in differing communities (see also Warner and Grint, 2006).

Second, this account highlights the importance of understanding leadership alongside cultural stories (similar to Sveiby, 2011, discussed earlier) as it enables deep-rooted cultural assumptions to be uncovered and understood in relation to leadership. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of understanding leadership in relation to context, and more specifically, in this case, the proximity that communities have with the environment in which they reside. This supports more contemporary findings by Warner and Grint (2006) who suggest that American Indian ways of leading are rooted in how different forms of leadership can serve the community rather than enhance individual embodiment. The narrative focussed on shifts in interpretation of the Navaho culture also highlights the changing nature of accounts of leadership and highlights the importance of viewing leadership as a fluid phenomenon that changes through time within varying communities and changing cultures. This suggests that approaches to the study of leadership across differing cultures should also be time based in a longitudinal sense, regularly revisiting these indigenous cultures and the question of leadership within them. This will enable shifts in thinking and enacting leadership in varying cultures to be detected and recorded. This reflects McSweeney’s notion of cultural boundaries being diversely permeable.

As Goldfrank goes on to assert, ‘…leadership in this inadequately watered and topographical varied Navaho region is sensitive to both time and place’ (Goldfrank, 1945: 273). This reference to time and place has been highlighted as an area for further development within the leadership literature (Edwards, 2011, 2012) and in other research on American Indian leadership (Warner and Grint, 2006). If we are to take a community or sociological perspective on leadership, then we should recognise the level to which we feel a sense of belonging to certain groups and leadership frames. This can only be achieved by understanding aspects of space, place and time (e.g. Low and Lawrence-Zúñiga, 2003).

Furthermore, the studies by Goldfrank and Collier identify the geography of the communities and societies they are studying. This is evident in this study where the author highlights the geographical location within the introductory passages of the study (Goldfrank, 1945: 262). In addition, when discussing the Navaho community in the USA (discussed in more detail below), Goldfrank (1945) highlights the link to agriculture and especially the aridity of the area (the Great Basin, Nevada). However, he goes on to suggest that although the area is famed for being arid (getting only 3 inches of rain per year at this time), the rainfall ranges greatly year on year and the seasonal distribution is strikingly uneven. This example therefore indicates a way of developing notions of culture away from national boundaries or national culture and points towards a greater emphasis on day-to-day context, geography and climate in what is constructed as important for the leadership of a community. Here we see a case in point of what Warner and Grint (2006) describe as the American Indian way of leading rooted in situations rather than individuals. Indeed, this could be an ever increasing area of importance for leadership given the changing world landscape and the problem of climate change (Case and Gosling, 2013).

Goldfrank goes on to describe the leadership approach to these adverse semi-arid environments, which appears to be a cooperative and community approach to getting things done. He uses a quote from an earlier study to exemplify this: ‘Some of the tasks…especially animal husbandry and agriculture, are carried out more often than not by a wider group of relatives than the simple biological family’ (Leighton and Kluckhohn, 1945), ‘…two or more different extended families, or one or more extended families linked with one or more independent biological families, may habitually pool their resources on some occasions – say planting and harvesting…’ (Collier, 1939) (cited in Goldfrank, 1945; 270). Goldfrank goes on to comment more explicitly on leadership in the Navaho community, using evidence from Hill (1940), where the Navaho community leadership is described in the following way – ‘Community leadership was vested in one or more individuals whose duties involved direction of domestic affairs and warfare’ (Hill, 1940: 24). Goldfrank further adds that these two areas might temporarily merge in particular conditions of stress. Again a link can be made here to the work of Warner and Grint (2006) regarding their conclusions on a situation based frame for the construction of leadership in an American Indian context. Goldfrank then uses Hill again – ‘The Navaho recognised a distinct dichotomy in these two cultural phases and seldom did one man fill both offices’ (Hill, 1940: 24).

Indeed, in a response to Goldfrank’s paper, Collier (1946), whilst not agreeing necessarily on the cause, also recognises the nature of Navaho leadership in comparison to another community: ‘There is certainly a marked difference in leadership in these two areas. This might be summarised by saying that, as far back as memory serves, the Klagetoh people have been conscious of the office of leader, while the Navaho Mountain people have been conscious of leadership as a function rather than as a formal, recognised office’ (Collier, 1946: 137). This may not be a surprising finding given contemporary accounts of distributed leadership (see Bolden, 2011; Thorpe et al., 2011 for a review). However, if we appreciate history in this context, this is an interesting finding given the heroic, individual, even great man leadership discourse prevalent at this time in the early to mid-1940s (see Gill, 2006 for comment). It is interesting to note therefore that these anthropological accounts of leadership appear to be overridden in the literature by accounts from a more industrial and psychological orientation. An account which still appears to dominate the leadership literature especially in studies of leadership embedded in the cross-cultural or national culture research paradigm.

It appears that earlier accounts of distributed leadership (e.g. Benne and Sheats, 1948; Gibb, 1954) did not get the same exposure as those of the individualistic approach at this time. Interestingly, there is a much later review of anthropological studies in the Great Basin region (Clemmer, 1989) that discusses other Indian communities such as the Southern and Mountain Utes, the Paddy Cap Shoshone-Paiutes and the Western Shoshones. In this review, Clemmer (1989) uses a much more individualistic language, exploring specific individual chiefs and referring to elements such as charisma linked to leadership. This possibly indicates the leadership literature of the time creeping into the anthropological literature which could potentially disguise potentially important sociological processes of leadership. Collier’s (1946) account, in particular, highlights the pluralistic nature of leadership within communities. For example, the Klagetoh people look to a position of office of a leader the Navaho mountain people have a more processual notion of leadership, two differing models driven by cultural context.

The accounts described above also highlights the importance of appreciating multiple identities (cf Ford, 2010; Ford et al., 2008) within cross-cultural and worldliness research, as highlighted above in the introduction to this paper. Goldfrank (1945: 273–274), for example, describes the differing identities of the Navaho community: ‘…some districts are isolated; some are in touch with other Indians, white traders, or government services of all kinds. Some have been inhabited for a long time; some have been settled for less than half a century. Some are comparatively speaking, densely populated; some are sparsely peopled. Some are predominantly agricultural; some are predominantly pastoral’. This shows the importance of recognising not just differences between cultures, in a cross-cultural tradition, but also differences within cultures when researching aspects of leadership theory. Moreover, this intricate interplay of leadership conceptualisation based on cultural context cannot be captured using the mechanisms of a Hofstedian model, as McSweeney (2002a, 2002b, 2009) rightly points out.

The Könkämä Lapp Society, Lappland, Sweden

The discussions held above appear to continue when reviewing an article on a Lapp community from 1954 (Pehrson, 1954). First, it is important to highlight this case regarding the limitations of the national culture paradigm, as Lappland transverses two countries – Sweden and Finland – and therefore is a society that crosses national boundaries. Having made this point, however, the Könkämä Lapp society resides in Sweden. Second, and similarly to Sveiby (2011), the idea of leadership being much more than the psychological, individualistic perspective is also evident in this case. Pehrson (1954), for example, describes the Lapp leadership as being based on three roles which are linked to the social structure of the Könkämä Lapp society. Indeed, Pehrson’s findings suggest a move away from personality/trait approaches and situational approaches of this time (around the early to mid-1950s) whilst recognising contemporaries looking at similar perspectives (Homans, 1950; Whyte, 1943). The three roles he describes in Lapp leadership are sii’dâ-ised (master of the band or herding leader), sii’dâ-æmed (mistress of the band) and sii’dâ-doal’le (assistant master of the band). Interestingly, Pehrson describes the sii’dâ-ised leader role as that most akin to westernised views of ‘a leader’ in spite of the ‘relatively limited powers’ (Pehrson, 1954: 1077), and goes on to discuss this role in the most detail and does not describe the other roles much at all. This again suggests how the westernised view of ‘leader’ subsumes the wider leadership discourse (interestingly, this is published in the American Anthropologist the author maybe trying to appeal to a certain audience of western thinkers).

Pehrson goes on to describe the sii’dâ-ised role and the link it has with sociological structures in some detail. For example, he firstly describes the leader’s authority being extended to people in relation to reindeer rather than to people divorced from their property. He also describes the herding leader as being characterised by maturity rather than by seniority, highlighting the ages of five leaders (26, 32, 39, 40 and 47 years of age) and that the leadership is transmitted bilaterally either through the male or female hereditary line. Lastly, the leader is selected by his/her membership in the wealthiest sibling group rather than his individual wealth. Whilst there are some interesting points made within this study regarding contextual and cultural aspects of leadership in the Lapp society, more importantly, there is an example here of a distributed form of leadership through differing roles in this society, yet at the same time an individualistic focus taken by the researcher. Herein lies some evidence of the dominance of individualistic notions over more distributed ideals of leadership.

The Gahuku-Gama Community, New Guinea

The review of leadership in the Gahuku-Gama community in New Guinea (Read, 1959) highlights once again a problem with using national boundaries, as New Guinea in today’s world is an island split in the middle by the border between Indonesia to the west and Papua New Guinea to the East. According to contemporary maps, the Central Asaro Valley, where the Gahuku-Gama community resides, is in Papua New Guinea. Read’s (1959) discussion starts with quite an individualistic focus, highlighting the ‘autonomous’ nature of a leader in this community and the need for self-control and self-confidence. The paper then proceeds to a much more sociological perspective that highlights an inherent tension between two central values – ‘strength’ and ‘equivalence’. It is the interplay between these two ‘values’ that is largely responsible for the distinctive quality of the Gahuku-Gama culture. Leaders appear to be men who can judge sensitive nuances between these values. Leaders are not ‘strong’ in the sense of physical strength (there are ‘big men’ who have influence and are important individuals in the community), but the leaders are not necessarily strong or weak or indeed ‘big men’; they are more autonomous and take on a role of conflict resolution in debates. These debates, however, also have a democratic nature – ‘When the clan orator concludes, he retires to the sidelines and the debate is open to any adult man who wishes to express himself’ (Read, 1959: 427). Indeed, in a much later paper looking at a number of communities within New Guinea, there appears to be a strong debate ongoing regarding the identity of big-men and the identities of great men as leaders (Roscoe, 2000). First, and interestingly, the way that ‘big men’ are described in this paper, taken from Sahlins (1963), appears slightly different from the way they are described by Read (1959). Roscoe (2000) through Sahlins describe them as – ‘…self-interested, cunning, calculating individuals who had to achieve power – build it personally by demonstrating, in direct competition with others, their self mastery of skills commanding respect. They might exhibit superior magical powers, gardening prowess, oratory, or bravery in war and feud, but typically what was crucial was an ability to amass and distribute valuables – usually pigs, shells and food’ (Roscoe, 2000: 84). There are elements of Read’s account of the big men, but the description by Roscoe and Sahlins appears to be much more self-interested, self-indulgent. It is interesting to reflect on the possible causes of the slightly differing accounts of ‘big men’. Is the leadership changing, or is it a difference in interpretation, or a difference in cultural understanding from differing communities?

Besides these slight differences, Roscoe’s review highlights that by the 1980s the discussion regarding leadership appears centred on the individual leader, whether it be the big man, great man or chief (e.g. Godelier, 1986; Godelier and Strathern, 1991). Roscoe goes on to suggest that the discussion around great man, big man and chiefs obscures what is a much more complex situation. Roscoe (2000) through the study by Read (1959) highlights an interesting distinction between ‘spontaneous leaders’ and hereditary ‘rhetoric thumpers’ within the New Guinea community in the Highland Kuma. This reflects current issues in the mainstream westernised leadership literature, where an individualistic focus overrides a much more complex interplay of leadership within context, community and society.

Furthermore, Roscoe (2000), reviewing Chowning (1979), highlights two forms of knowledge that construct hierarchy in the Melanesia community – mundane knowledge – or technical knowledge, referring to land boundaries, genealogies, feasting etiquette, craftwork, etc. The second is ritual, knowledge of magic, sorcery, ancestors, cult spirits, initiatory lore, etc. Roscoe from the work of Tuzin (1978) goes on to highlight that in such groups as the Ilahita Arapesh of the Sepik, artistic expertise is also important to reputation. Therefore, artistic or aesthetic forms of leadership (e.g. Barry and Meisiek, 2010; Bathurst and Monin, 2010; Bathurst et al., 2010; Hansen et al., 2007; Ladkin and Taylor, 2010; Ropo et al., 2002; Schroeder, 2008; Springborg, 2010; Woodward and Funk, 2010) can also be found rooted in some indigenous cultures. A further example of this is given by Roscoe through the work of Gell (1975), where he describes prestige accruing in the Umeda community through the ability to perform well key roles in the dances accompanying fertility and curing rituals.

Lastly, there is more evidence in Roscoe’s paper that suggest geography and even language are difficult dividers of culture within the New Guinea context. His work shows that it was only in a handful of cases that speakers of an entire language comprised a meaningful social group. Language, therefore, also appears key to understanding leadership culturally, as has also been highlighted by Jepson (2009a, 2010a, 2010b) and Warner and Grint (2006). Language also adds to the argument for the limiting factor of national boundaries in leadership studies as it too transcends national boundaries and therefore is a useful frame for a deeper interpretation of leadership in cultural contexts. As McSweeney (2009) has suggested, knowledge of dominant languages in cultural settings enable unique access to specific contexts.

American Samoa, Samoa Islands

Holmes’ paper represents a debate about changes occurring within the Samoan community given more interaction with America. Holmes compares data gathered in 1963 with data gathered in 1954. In the study, Holmes (1964) uses a criteria of leadership developed by Homans (1950) and Whyte (1943); however, a wider view of leadership is also taken into consideration, such as the traditions of leadership and political power found in fa’alupega (formal set of courtesy titles) alongside the historical narrative of the villages. It is interesting to note the inclusion of criteria similar to modern cross-cultural studies based on a national culture paradigm. Despite this, Holmes’ findings suggest a multi-faceted perspective of leadership in Samoan community. There is leadership at the family level – the family chief (matai) – who acts as the political representative, religious leader, patriarch and administrator. There is also leadership at the village level with village council meetings (fono) and lastly leadership at the legislative level in a senate composed of a legislator from each county (15 in total). Even at this time, 1963/1964, a certain level of westernisation is evident and the following passages exemplify this: ‘Knowledge of things European tends to be more convincing in speeches in the village council than the traditional mythological allusions and fa’aSomoa reasoning which once brought prestige and admiration for the orator’ (Holmes, 1964: 447) and ‘the current administration…does not encourage Samoan leadership. Strong leaders have often been placed in government positions where their ability will not be felt. Education is designed to change Samoans into Americans rather than prepare them for more useful lives in the Samoan community. Critics have dubbed the policy “education for export”’ (Holmes, 1964: 448).

The focus on worldliness to investigate indigenous leadership practices appears warranted and indeed long over due given these reflections from 1964. Holmes’ paper concludes with another interesting statement, ‘Samoans are experiencing a period of transition in their concepts of leadership. They are emotionally committed to the fa’aSamoa tradition and procedures but know that these are inadequate for the solution of 20^th century problems’ (Holmes, 1964: 448–449). This again illustrates the need for cultural research in leadership studies to take a worldliness perspective, not least to capture the transition points of leadership in and between differing cultures. Yet, this also suggests a need to recognise western influence interacting with community and indigenous cultures, something not explicitly recognised by the worldliness perspective. That is to say the worldliness perspective should be wary of solely seeking out the indigenous voice and should recognise the intricate interplay between aspects of indigenous culture and influences from other cultures, such as the westernised business values and practices. The question remains, however, as to whether this is indicative of a Eurocentric perspective (Blaut, 1993; Scott, 2013) or whether these are interplays of western and indigenous cultures.

South India, South Asia

Mines and Gourishankar (1990) discuss leadership in South India and highlight the importance of the concept of ‘Big-man’ in which individuality and instrumentality are key elements of leadership. They point out that the concept of big-man is drawn from a lexicon of terms common in south India, including periyavar (big-man or great one), periyar (an informal variant) and periyadanakaarar (big wealthy person). Incidentally, Mines and Gourishankar point out this is not exclusively a male role – a leading woman may also have the big-man status. Interestingly, this is one of the rare instances, along with Pehrson (1954), where the female voice of leadership is heard within the predominantly masculine discourse of the studies reviewed. Unfortunately, the review of studies herein has not been able to develop this aspect of leadership studies further, but it stands as a reminder of the worldly leadership ideal that all voices should be heard to gain comprehensive understanding of leadership set in context and culture.

Mines and Gourishankar also differentiate the concept of big-man in the Indian context from that of the big-man in the Melanesian concept where there is no institutional affiliation. In India, the concept of big-man and, indeed, individuality is connected to institutions and groups. For example, ‘Indians act and therefore are honoured, not as individuals, but as representatives of groups. This thinking, however, involves a false dichotomy: that individuals exist only in opposition to groups. Individuals always exist in relation to groups, and the individuality of eminence that honours help define necessarily defines individuality in relationship to other (cf Dirks, 1987: 260)’ (Mines and Gourishankar, 1990: 767). ‘…the identity of big-men is marked by their association with institutions which are used to attract and serve a “clientele”’ (Mines and Gourishankar, 1990: 772).

There appears to be an inherently altruistic element to the ‘big-man’ concept in South India, as Mines and Gourishankar go on to highlight that ideally these leaders are dedicated to the service of their communities. However, they also highlight the conflict between individual and collective interests, and paradoxically the more a big-man does for the community the more likely they are to be accused of self-interest. This is an interesting tension given recent literature on ethics and leadership that highlights an aspect of self-interest as the root to ‘unethical’ behaviour in recent cases in business history such as Enron (e.g. Knights and O’Leary, 2005). In addition, there also seems a link here to the suggestion that the ‘leader’ is ‘sacred’ and that we have a consistent need for heroic leaders, despite the discourse on distributed leadership (Grint, 2010). Lastly, whilst highlighting a pluralistic perspective of leadership, it also highlights the inherent tensions at play between differing notions.

Conclusions

This review of several anthropological field studies has highlighted some interesting nuances of leadership. Care needs to be taken, however, when conceptualising in comparison to contemporary society as these are historical accounts. In addition, there are limitations when conducting this type of review as we are dependent on largely westernised interpretations of the culture being studied, and hence more research is needed that takes an etic approach to engage directly insiders from the culture as suggested by Warner and Grint (2006). In addition, we are also reliant on translation into English and this has also been highlighted as problematic in cultural studies (Jepson, 2010b; Warner and Grint, 2006). Whilst these limitations need to be considered, there do appear to be some general findings that can be taken from the review.

First, there seems to be support for suggestions that ideals of distributed and collective leadership are not confined to modern organisational discourse. Instead they are deeply rooted in a variety of indigenous cultures across the world (cf Sveiby, 2011). Yet, in light of the issues highlighted above regarding translation and westernised interpretation, there are reservations regarding the suggestion that the studies reviewed suggest a distributed perspective. Nevertheless, the review does highlight important sociological processes of leadership over and above clichéd comments regarding individualistic notions of leadership that take a more heroic and ‘great man’ perspective. Time again from the review of these anthropological studies, one can see the importance of reflecting leadership from a multiple identity perspective (e.g. Ford, 2010; Ford et al., 2008). What is described as ‘big-man’ in some of these studies (e.g. The Gahuku-Gama Community, New Guinea and South India) is shorthand for a number of differing roles and identities in these communities. To gain a deeper understanding of these roles and identities of leadership, research may need to augment the linguistic focus taken herein with a para-linguistic or embodied³ understanding of leadership (e.g. Pullen and Vachhani, 2013). This may also help to uncover more feminine voices of leadership within indigenous communities which will divert the literature away from the predominant masculine discourse.

The paper highlights the importance, for example, of developing a more explicit focus of anthropological field studies of leadership as this challenges traditional presumptions regarding leadership in indigenous cultures specifically, but potentially, other cultures across the world too. Within this paper, the Navaho community is a good example whereby a study in the 1940s (Goldfrank, 1945) challenged preconceived ideas regarding this community as being based around being a nomadic herdsman. This is potentially how the worldliness perspective can contribute to future leadership research whereby it provides an opportunity for deep cultural analysis that may challenge presumptions developed from a westernised view of the world. Having said this, one must also recognise that indigenous cultures may also have historically westernised influences which may be assumed to be indigenous. Further research around the worldliness perspective, therefore, must find a way of incorporating a historiography perspective within the research to understand the nature of the culture to which they are ascribing notions of leadership.

The paper also highlights the importance of understanding storytelling (e.g. Boal and Schultz, 2007; Islam, 2009) in developing conceptualisations of leadership within communities. Again, the Navaho were a useful case whereby they used agricultural metaphors to represent leadership. This also relates to the work on linking community and the worldliness perspective (Edwards, 2012), where symbolism is seen as an important area for understanding community (Cohen, 1985) and hence leadership. It also highlights the foundations of contemporary writing about artistic and aesthetic forms of leadership in indigenous cultures potentially dating back to pre-history. This again may also represent an overridden concept in leadership studies that is now being rejuvenated in the literature (e.g. Barry and Meisiek, 2010; Bathurst and Monin, 2010; Bathurst et al., 2010; Hansen et al., 2007; Ladkin and Taylor, 2010; Ropo et al, 2002; Schroeder, 2008; Springborg, 2010; Woodward and Funk, 2010).

In addition, the paper highlights the importance of viewing leadership in context (e.g. Jepson, 2009b; Osborn and Marion, 2009; Osborn et al., 2002; Porter and McLaughlin, 2006), but from the perspectives of investigating leadership as an interaction with the environment. The research within the Navaho and Lapp communities highlights a sensitivity that leaders and leadership processes (e.g. Brown and Hosking, 1986; Hosking, 1988, 1997, 2007; Wood, 2005) have in relation to their surroundings. It also highlights the importance of viewing context and leadership as a fluid phenomenon based on time place and space (Edwards, 2011, 2012; Hosking, 1988, 1997; Klein et al., 2006) and language (Jepson, 2009a, 2010a, 2010b; Warner and Grint, 2006).

Probably most importantly, owing to the impact individualistic and psychologically driven approaches to leadership have had over the past 60 years or so, this paper has highlighted that the discourse regarding distributed leadership goes a little further back than the writing of Gibb (1954) and Benne and Sheats (1948) as is inferred in the literature (e.g. Gronn, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2009). There is evidence of distributed forms of leadership in the anthropological studies discussed above (e.g. Hill, 1940) and earlier in prehistory as highlighted by Sveiby (2011). Evidence from these studies suggests that the sociological focus of earlier studies appears to be gradually transformed into more individually and heroic focus in later studies. It seems there is evidence to suggest that the heroic discourse on leadership overrides the sociological discourse in the middle of the twentieth century.

From a more reflexive standpoint advocated by the review of previous drafts of this paper, there are instances in this paper where the author tends towards a positive notion of distributed leadership. Whilst this highlights a main argument within the paper, that of evidence of a shift from distributed notions towards individualistic, the author recognises this positive focus. In so doing, there may be the denigration of individualistic notions of leadership, which belies the pluralistic basis of leadership in these studies. In conclusion, therefore, the paper suggests that leadership appears to be inherently pluralistic in the communities discussed in this review and that the individualistic notions of leadership seem to override the pluralism at the expense of distributed notions of leadership. This is similar to a wider shift in the anthropological literature highlighted by McSweeney (2009) who suggests the use of the national culture paradigm over other interpretations of culture. McSweeney (2009) acknowledges that this model is discredited in anthropological research, and the review in this paper suggests that leadership studies is playing ‘catch-up’.

Whilst this paper has addressed the criticism of the leadership literature for being too westernised (e.g. Bolden and Kirk, 2009) and too individualised (e.g. Jackson and Parry, 2011), it has not been able to uncover more feminine voices in the representation of leadership. The studies reviewed herein are dominated by the masculine voice especially embedded in concepts such as the ‘big-man’. The worldly leadership paradigm therefore holds promise in ensuring that leadership is understood as an embodied phenomenon and ensures voices of leadership are not lost in the westernised and Eurocentric focus.

Lastly, from the studies reviewed, the notion of leadership as individualised seems too simplistic, as differing identities of leadership are evident within and across differing contexts and cultures. In addition, it also seems too simplistic to see the literature as either individualised or distributed; moreover, it seems to be pluralistic. In this sense, Bolden and Kirk’s (2009) notion of ‘self in community’ seems to enable a useful paradigm to explore leadership from a worldly perspective. Herein, the self is only discernable in relation to the social worlds in which one operates. This resonates with a number of findings explored by this review and could mark a useful way forward in developing this stream of research.

Footnotes

Notes

Author biography

Gareth Edwards is an Associate Professor of Leadership Development at the Bristol Business School, University of the West of England. His current interests are in the application of ideas on aesthetics and leadership, community and dispersed theories of leadership as well as his specialist area – leadership learning and development, where he is particularly interested in researching areas such as reflective walking for leadership learning and issues of liminality and organisational space. He is a Chartered Psychologist and member of the British Academy of Management. Before entering academia Gareth spent twelve years with a leadership and executive development company – The Leadership Trust. He continues his links to The Trust where he is an Associate and Fellow.

References

Archer

(1989) Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barry

Meisiek

(2010) The art of leadership and its fine art shadow. Leadership 6: 331–349.

Bathurst

Jackson

Statler

(2010) Leading aesthetically in uncertain times. Leadership 6: 311–330.

Bathurst

Monin

(2010) Shaping leadership for today: Mary Parker Follett’s Aesthetic. Leadership 6: 115–131.

Benne

Sheats

(1948) Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues 4: 41–49.

Blaut

(1993) The Colonizer’s Model of the World, London: Guilford Press.

Boal

Schultz

(2007) Storytelling, time and evolution: The role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. Leadership Quarterly 18(4): 411–428.

Bock

(1999) Rethinking Psychological Anthropology, 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Boehm

(1999) Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10.

Bolden

(2011) Distributed leadership in organisations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews 13(3): 251–269.

11.

Bolden

Kirk

(2009) African leadership: Surfacing new understandings through leadership development. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 9: 69–86.

12.

Brown

Hosking

(1986) Distributed leadership and skilled performance as successful organisation in social movements. Human Relations 39: 65–79.

13.

Case P and Gosling J (2013) Social dreaming and ecocentric ethics: Sources of non-rational insight in the face of climate change catastrophe. Organization 20(5): 705--721.

14.

Chhokar

Brodbeck

House

(2007) Culture and Leadership across the World: The GLOBE book of In-depth Studies of 25 Societies, London: Sage.

15.

Chowning

(1979) Leadership in Melanasia. Journal of Pacific History 14: 66–84.

16.

Clemmer

(1989) Differential leadership patterns in early twentieth-century basin Indian societies. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 11(1): 35–49.

17.

Cohen

(1985) The Symbolic Construction of Community, London: Tavistock.

18.

Collier MC (1939) Local Organisation among the Navaho. Filed with the Navaho Indian Service, Window Rock, Arizona, USA.

19.

Collier

(1946) Leadership at Navaho mountain and Klagetoh. American Anthropologist 48(1): 137–138.

20.

Commissioner of Indian Affairs (1883) Annual Report, Washington, USA: US Department of the Interior.

21.

Edwards

(2011) Concepts of community: a framework for contextualising distributed leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews 13(3): 301–312.

22.

Edwards

(2012) Worldly leadership and concepts of community. In: Turnbull

Case

Edwards

Jepson

Simpson

(eds) Worldly Leadership, London: Palgrave.

23.

Farinde AJ, Okunade EO and Laogun EA (2004) Community perception of women occupying leadership position in rural development projects of Osun State, Nigeria. Anthropologist 6(4): 273--278.

24.

Ford

(2010) Studying leadership critically: A Psychosocial lens on leadership identities. Leadership 6: 47–66.

25.

Ford J, Harding N and Learmonth M (2008) Leadership as Identity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

26.

Gell

(1975) Metamorphosis of the Cassowaries: Umeda Society, Language and Ritual, London: Athlone Press.

27.

Gibb

(1954) Leadership. In: Lindzey

Aronson

(eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology Vol. 4 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 205–283.

28.

Gill

(2006) Theory and Practice of Leadership, London: Sage.

29.

Godelier

(1986) The Making of Great Men: male Domination and Power Among the New Guinea Baruya, Swyer R (transl.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Godelier

Strathern

(1991) Big Men and Great Men: Personifications of Power in Melanasia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Goldfrank

(1945) Irrigation and Navaho leadership: case material on environment and culture. American Anthropologist 47(2): 262–277.

32.

Golovnev

(1997) Indigenous leadership in northwestern Siberia: traditional patterns and their contemporary manifestations. Arctic Anthropology 34(1): 149–166.

33.

Gregory HE (1917) The Geology of the Navaho Country. US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 93, Washington, USA.

34.

Grint

(2010) The sacred in leadership: Separation, sacrifice and silence. Organisation Studies 31: 89–107.

35.

Gronn

(2008) The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration 46: 141–158.

36.

Hansen

Ropo

Sauer

(2007) Aesthetic leadership. Leadership Quarterly 18: 544–560.

37.

Harter

(2006) Clearings in the Forest: On the Study of Leadership, West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

38.

Hill WW (1940) Some Navaho Culture Changes During Two Centuries. (With a translation of the early 18^th Century Rabal Manuscript). Washington, USA: Smithsonian Institution, Miscellaneous Collections 100.

39.

Hofstede

(1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

40.

Hofstede

(2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Holmes

(1964) Leadership and decision-making in American Samoa. Current Anthropology 5(5): 446–449.

42.

Homans

(1950) The Human Group, New York: Harcourt Brace and Co.

43.

Hosking

(1988) Organising, leadership and skilful process. Journal of Management Studies 25: 147–166.

44.

Hosking

(1997) Organising, leadership, and skilful process. In: Grint

(ed) Leadership: Classical, Contemporary and Critical Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

45.

Hosking

(2007) Not leaders, not followers: a post-modern discourse of leadership processes. In: Shamir

Pillai

Bligh

Uhl-Bien

(eds) Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

46.

House

Hanges

Javidan

(2004) Culture, Leadership and Organisations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, London: Sage.

47.

Islam

(2009) Animating leadership: Crisis and renewal of governance in four myth narratives. Leadership Quarterly 20(5): 828–836.

48.

Jackson

Parry

(2011) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Studying Leadership, 2nd ed. London: Sage.

49.

Jepson

(2009a) Studying leadership at cross-country level: A critical analysis. Leadership 5: 61–80.

50.

Jepson

(2009b) Leadership context: the importance of departments. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal 30: 36–52.

51.

Jepson

(2010a) Is organizational leadership theory and discourse converging internationally? An examination of the German case. Scandinavian Journal of Management 26(1): 1–12.

52.

Jepson

(2010b) The importance of national language as a level of discourse within individuals' theorising of leadership – a qualitative study of German and English employees. Leadership 6(4): 425–445.

53.

Jones

(2005) The anthropology of leadership: Culture and corporate leadership in the American South. Leadership 1: 259–278.

54.

Keesing

(1956) Elite Communication in Samoa: A Study of Leadership, Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press.

55.

Kersten

Abbott

(2012) Unveiling the global spectacle: Difference, identity and community. Culture and Organization 18(4): 323–335.

56.

Klein

Ziegart

Knight

(2006) Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and de-individualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 51: 590–621.

57.

Knights

O’Leary

(2005) Reflecting on corporate scandals: the failure of ethical leadership. Business Ethics: A European Review 14(4): 359–366.

58.

Kondo

(1990) Crafting Selves: Power, Gender and Discourses of Identity in a Japanese Workplace, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

59.

Krejci

(1976) Leadership and change in two Mexican villages. Anthropological Quarterly 49(3): 185–196.

60.

Ladkin

Taylor

(2010) Leadership as art: Variations on a theme. Leadership 6: 235–241.

61.

Leighton

Kluckhorn

(1945) The People and Their Children, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

62.

Leithwood

Mascall

Strauss

(2009) Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence, New York: Routledge.

63.

Low

Lawrence-Zúñiga

(2003) The Anthropology of Space and Place: Locating Culture, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

64.

McSweeney

(2002a) Hofstede’s model of national differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations 55: 89–118.

65.

McSweeney

(2002b) The essentials of scholarship: A reply to Geert Hofstede. Human Relations 55(11): 1663–1372.

66.

McSweeney

(2009) Dynamic diversity: Variety and variation within countries. Organization Studies 30: 933–957.

67.

Mines M and Gourishanker V (1990) Leadership and individuality in South Asia: The case of the South Indian big-man. The Journal of Asian Studies 49(4): 761–786.

68.

Mintzberg

(2004) Managers not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

69.

Mintzberg

Gosling

(2003) The five minds of a manager. Harvard Business Review Nov 54–63.

70.

Osborn

Hunt

Jauch

(2002) Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly 13: 797–837.

71.

Osborn

Marion

(2009) Contextual leadership, transformational leadership and the performance of international innovation seeking alliances. Leadership Quarterly 20: 191–206.

72.

Pehrson

(1954) The Lappish Herding leader: a structural analysis. American Anthropologist 56(6): 1076–1080.

73.

Porter

McLaughlin

(2006) Leadership and the organizational context: Like the weather? Leadership Quarterly 17: 559–576.

74.

Pullen

Vachhani

(2013) The materiality of leadership. Leadership 9(3): 315–319.

75.

Read

(1959) Leadership and consensus in a New Guinea Society. American Anthropologist 61(3): 425–436.

76.

Ropo

Parviainen

Koivunen

(2002) “Aesthetics in leadership.” From absent bodies to social bodily presence. In: Parry

Meindl

(eds) Grounding Leadership Theory and Research: Issues and Perspectives, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc, pp. 21–38.

77.

Roscoe

(2000) New Guinea leadership as ethno graphic analogy: A critical review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(2): 79–125.

78.

Sahlins

(1963) Poor man, rich man, big man, chief: Political types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5: 285–303.

79.

Sangree

(1970) Tribal ritual, leadership and the mortality rate in Irigwe, Northern Nigeria. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 26(1): 32–39.

80.

Schroeder

(2008) Aesthetic leadership. In: Maturano

Gosling

(eds) Leadership: The Key Concepts, London: Routledge.

81.

Scott

(2013) Crops, towns, government. London Review of Books 35(22): 13–15.

82.

Shearing

Ericson

(1991) Culture as figurative action. The British Journal of Sociology 42(4): 481–506.

83.

Springborg

(2010) Leadership as art – leaders coming to their senses. Leadership 6: 243–258.

84.

Sveiby

(2011) Collective leadership with power symmetry: lessons from Aboriginal prehistory. Leadership 7(4): 385–414.

85.

Thorpe

Gold

Lawler

(2011) Locating distributed leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews 13(3): 239–250.

86.

Tourish

(2013) The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership: A Critical Perspective, London: Routledge.

87.

Tourish

(2014) Leadership, more or less? A processual, communication perspective on the role of agency in leadership theory. Leadership 10: 79–98.

88.

Turnbull

(2009) ‘Worldly’ leadership for a global world. In: Harvey

Barbour

(eds) Global Leadership: Portraits of the Past, Visions of the Future, Maryland, MD: ILA, pp. 82–94.

89.

Turnbull

Case

Edwards

(2012) Worldly Leadership, London: Palgrave.

90.

Tuzin

(1978) Politics, power and divine artistry in Ilahita. Anthropological Quarterly 51: 61–67.

91.

Warner

Grint

(2006) American Indian ways of leading and knowing. Leadership 2(2): 225–244.

92.

Whyte

(1943) Street Corner Society, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

93.

Wood

(2005) The fallacy of misplaced leadership. Journal of Management Studies 42(6): 1101–1121.

94.

Woodward

Funk

(2010) Developing the artist-leader. Leadership 6: 295–309.