‘Should I Stay or Should I go?’ Exploring Leadership-as-Practice in the Middle Management Role

‘[Almost] paying for prostitutes … ’

‘This was the occasion when I found myself at the point of being pressurised to hand over cash to entertain some of our customers in a [European city] nightclub … Suddenly what seemed like a very straightforward way of getting to know ones customers got out of hand and almost ended up with me paying for prostitutes in a bar in [European city]. My Sales Director said “you should pay for the champagne, it will only be a couple of hundred quid.” I was concerned that sooner or later someone was going to ask for money for a girl’.

Middle managers are a most interesting group to examine in the context of LAP due to the nature of their role in organizations. The excerpt of Samuel above illustrates the pressure he was under to keep his customers happy for the greater good of the organization, and arguably for his career. The agency scope of the middle manager in the context of the organizational structure is most important. A prevalent role expectation of middle managers reflects a vertical relationship with senior managers ‘supplying information upwards and consuming decisions passed downwards’ (Balogun, 2003: 70). This anticipated relationship exists in expectations of responding and serving. Middle managers have been shown to be vulnerable, ambiguous and insecure, seeking to protect their role, protect their identity, emerging as a block to change, with a concurrent desire to maintain and advance their careers (Huy, 2002). Rather than seeing middle managers as a blockage in the system that ‘need to be co-opted side-lined or disposed of’ (2002: 32), they have also been shown to be a significant asset (Balogun, 2003; Floyd and Lane, 2000; Floyd and Wooldridge, 1994; Huy, 2002; Mantere, 2008; Rouleau and Balogun, 2011). Balogun and Johnson (2004, 2005) and Mantere (2008) have shown that middle managers are undertaking complex processes of sense-making, both formally within vertical relationships with senior managers and concomitant with horizontal informal relationships with peers engaging in the operational activity (Balogun and Johnson, 2005) this being in light of, and sometimes in spite of, the ambiguity and insecurity of their situation. Connected with processes of sense-making informed by the structural situation in which they find themselves, middle managers are also affected by structural processes of moral disengagement (Anand et al., 2004) and consequential impact on moral identity (Detert et al., 2008). Anand et al. have highlighted a complementary set of socialization and rationalization dynamics where managers (and employees) engage in activities that have become socialized as normal, and rationalized as not affecting personal morality through denial of responsibility, denial of harm and denial of victims (2004: 41). Further the notion of moral awareness also becomes learnt through time, gradually leading to an amoral norm as a consequence of becoming socialized into organizational practices (Anand et al., 2004). In the context of the middle manager role, Dean et al. (2010) showed that pressure was applied to middle manager roles to bend the rules from their line managers, clients and more broadly the organization. The notion of ‘pressure’ alludes to aspects of context such as relationships, desired outcomes, power, conflicts, morality, hierarchy, espoused and unstated assumptions. Kan and Parry (2004), in an examination of the work of nurses and hybrid middle managers, suggest these aspects can be seen as a continual emergent and complex process of reconciling paradox. In essence, the antecedent influences embedded in the everyday practices that shape the agency of middle manager work. This is the focus of our article. We seek to examine the narrative of a middle manager situated in a flow of activity (a study tour of European organizations) to achieve a particular outcome (establish strong relationships with customers) that contains a dilemma (being drawn in to purchasing prostitutes). We shall look at the organizational context, the roles and relationships affecting the activity. We also look at the outcome of the resolved dilemma, and the way this outcome impacts on the context and successive emergent practice. In this way, we offer forward an examination of middle manager work through the lens of LAP.

The article first outlines the terrain of LAP. We provide a focus on the ontology of practice and distinguish LAP from strategy as practice through its orientation of relational activity to achieve outcomes. After summarizing the dearth of empirical research on LAP, we establish the necessity of an ideographic approach. The research method of co-constructed autoethnography is detailed. We show how the method gives an emphasis to crafting an aesthetic narrative that seeks verisimilitude and insight to middle manager work. The narrative is constructed around a dilemma. However, we do not simply examine the dilemma. Rather, we situate this within the flow of activity of the study tour; which is itself situated within the organizational context. We conclude by suggesting that middle manager work seen through the lens of LAP needs to be understood as a context–activity–outcome relationship. So rather than simply seeing the dilemma as a discrete case study exploring, for example, ethical leadership and moral disengagement in the context of middle manager work (see e.g. Holden, 2000; Seidman, 2004; Trevino and Nelson, 2014), we problematize the simplicity of such examination. We suggest research needs to view middle manager agency within this relationship from which theory building can be constructed to understand middle manager work.

Leadership-as-practice

The notion of LAP has recently emerged as a fruitful area for research (Carroll et al., 2008; Crevani et al., 2010; Denis et al., 2010; Endrissat and Von Arx, 2013; Raelin, 2011). It represents a movement away from an essentialist perspective of the leader with a set of acquired competences and traits, and towards a relational notion of ongoing becoming within the situated practice of leadership relationships. Heidegger’s metaphor of building and dwelling (explored in Carroll et al., 2008) gives a rich sense of this distinction. The building is seen as the applied outcome of competencies and reflects how an ‘intentional actor act[s] on the world they stand separate from to achieve preconceived ends and objectives’ (2008: 367). In contrast, the dwelling is a focus on ‘being in the world’; a sense of an ‘intimate familiarity that one has inhabiting a home’ (Chia and McKay, 2007: 230). The dwelling perspective of leadership as practice emphasizes meaning and activity informed through participative engagement between individuals – ‘the incorporated products of historical practice’ (2007: 231). Dwelling also offers up to us the expectation of an ongoing and emergent dynamic that has an eye on the future in the present (Dall’Alba, 2009); a sense of an outcome orientation. In this way, we interpret dwelling as a context of history, roles and relationships, a continual flow of activity, future outcome oriented that is recursively produced, yet has an emergent quality.

Practice can be seen as non-deliberative collective action emerging from mutual, discursive, recurring patterns in the moment and over time among those engaged in the practice (Raelin, forthcoming). It draws on a history of relational engagements that repeat and develop over time. However, it is more than relationships – as with relational leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006). The practices are within a community and have been suggested (Schatzki et al., 2001) to be tacit and historically developed and encompass processes of managing, problem-solving, ‘non-deliberate practical coping’ (Chia and Holt, 2006: 643) focused on technical and relational aspects of the work of the community. Raelin (forthcoming: 4) suggests that the activity of the practice is: orderly, yet at times irregular and provisional; mastering the accomplishment of ‘daily mundane work but in surmounting unexpected challenges and disruptions’; a sense of coping with uncertainty and emergence (Chia and Holt, 2006). Drawing on the work of Hatch (1999), Raelin utilizes the metaphor of Jazz improvization to capture the essence of practice: ‘The directions [the tune] will take are only decided in the moment of playing and will be redetermined each time the tune is played’ Hatch (1999: 85). The Jazz metaphor also allows us to consider the socio-historic influences that shape meanings and activities that precede each session together, the structure of music, the materiality of the instruments and the relationship between the musicians and their instruments, aspects of power and agency and identities that are sustained and emerge as a consequence of the activity and being part of the activity.

It is the focus on action and interaction that is the ontology of practice. Woods gives voice to a shift in leadership theory away from the essentialist ontology ‘of things’ (2005: 1103) to a process ontology where ‘leadership is always enmeshed in social practice rather than in a clear-cut, definite figure’ (2005: 1116). Similarly Crevani et al. suggest that adopting a view of leadership (and organizations) as constructed by processes rather than as entities would enable theorizing on ‘problematic’ aspects of leadership manifestation in a much more nuanced way than does mainstream leadership literature (2010: 84). However, we suggest that the theoretical work on LAP with suggestions towards process theorizing to date has not been clear on the distinction of LAP from, for example, strategy as practice, or even practice studies. LAP cannot simply be cultural situated relational activity and interaction. How does this become leadership? Or is there no distinction between leadership and interaction? This line of questioning led to Alvesson and Sveningsson’s (2003) notion of the disappearing act of leadership.

We suggest that the ontology of LAP must be future oriented – towards a direction. We draw here on the useful work of Drath et al. (2008) who challenged the orthodoxy of the leadership tripod ‘leader or leaders, followers, and a common goal they want to achieve’ (Bennis, 2007: 3, cited in Drath et al., 2008). Instead they argue persuasively for an outcome orientation and suggest the focus should be to answering the question ‘how [do] people who share work in [a community] produce direction, alignment and commitment’ (2008: 636). Drath et al. (2008) echo the perspective of LAP’s commitment to collective enactments and place emphasis on the pattern of collective behaviour rather than to the behaviour of certain individuals. Here they are seeking to move attention away from the leader(s) and followers and the essentialist orientation of the tripod. Crevani et al. support the future outcome orientation, but caution against viewing outcomes as an end or result, or ‘happy endings’; rather for it to be seen as ‘continuously evolving modes of interaction […] never ending stories’ (2010: 81). Larsson and Lundholm assert a similar perspective through their empirical practice-based research, viewing leadership as future-oriented influence processes constructed in interaction with organizing processes (2013: 1102). Their work though is ‘tripod’ based. Nevertheless, the interaction aspect whether leader–follower or various actors in relational interaction gives emphasis to agency, which for this article we need to give prominence.

The argument by Archer (1995, 2000) for a malleable interaction between structures and agency speaks strongly as an interpretive frame for understanding LAP. Nicolini (2013), in a similar way to Wenger (1998), asserts that identity and agency are generated from a particular practice – a sense of socio-historic structures that precede agency (Archer, 1995). Yet at the same time, certain individuals have disproportional agency within the structure; a consequence of role and sources of power emanating from the structure, but also from the ‘human agency’ of the individual (Archer, 2000). Archer (1995) argues that the malleable interplay allows for both morphostasis – recursivity and morphogenesis – emergence. In this way, the jazz metaphor can be seen to speak to patterns and flow of activity, yet also allow novelty drawn from individuality contained within the broader structure. The music and the musicians develop a collective sense of knowing, being and doing of coordinated activity that produces an outcome; an outcome that is similar but not identical. New musicians may join the ensemble for just one playing or become permanent. In both instances, they can bring something new, or unexpected that the pattern absorbs. If permanent their ‘legitimate role’ allows them to observe and engage thereby becoming central members of the community through their participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), sharing a common sense of knowing, being and doing that is the practice of the jazz band. Yet, the jazz band’s knowing, being and doing heralds from a broader jazz community; a community where technical skills and relational skills have been developed along with a sense of the socio-historic and cultural shared background of jazz.

Crevani and Endrissat (forthcoming) make salient the importance of the unit of analysis in researching LAP. It focuses on the micro, relational activity set within a distinct context. It could be an examination of recurrent activity (Nicolini, 2009). It could be examination of patterns that are disturbed by exceptional events. It could be an examination of power-sustaining recurrent activity or power-causing emergence, and where power lies, how it is used and by whom. It could also be an examination of the interaction of materiality with structures and agency – such as through activity theory (Blackler, 2009; Engeström, 2001). With LAP research at a very early stage, it is valuable to illustrate both a substantive insight to a unit of analysis but also to point to methodological development. It is anticipated that approaches to researching LAP will not be nomothetic, seeking generalizations and regularity, but be ideographic placing emphasis to ethnographic forms of research. To build theory, there would be an expectation to look to compare contextual examinations of units of analysis and ‘once recognized, these situational patterns can become useful in understanding other contexts and even in constructing new theory’ (Raelin, 2011: 203). The unit of analysis we focus on here is middle manager work. Not singularly the activity (such as with Larsson and Lundholm, 2013, or Crevani et al., 2010), but to understand the activity of middle manager work set within the interrelationship of middle manager agency with context, activity and outcome. In this way, we draw on Nicolini’s notion of zooming in and out and repositioning the analysis ‘so that certain aspects of the practice are foregrounded while others are bracketed’ (2009: 1392). We shall examine the dilemma from the perspective of a middle manager, Samuel. This unit of analysis not only is the focus of the research but it also structures the co-constructed autoethnographic approach.

Co-constructed autoethnography

It is not just that there is a dearth of empirical research of LAP as activity, but there is limited examination of the micro detail in middle manager work (such as a dilemma) (example of notable exceptions are: Crevani et al., 2010; Denis et al., 2010; Ford, 2006; Ford and Harding, 2011; Larsson and Lundholm, 2010, 2013; Nyberg and Sveningsson, 2014). In part this reflects limited attention to activity and the notion of LAP. However, it is also related to the difficulties of accessing data to give insight to a topic that may be difficult to recall – a middle manager able to take a hyper reflexive (Tracy, 2013) engagement with the tacit, everyday ordinariness in which the dilemma is situated. Additionally in part it reflects the nature of the topic – speaking about dilemmas in terms of aspects of ethical considerations and confidentiality. Randall and Gibson (1990) highlighted the problematic nature of engaging managers in exploring ethical dilemmas.

We have used co-constructed autoethnography as outlined by Boyle and Parry (2007) and Parry and Boyle (2009). ‘[A]utoethnographies can provide first-hand accounts of taboo topics such as moral dilemmas and highly-charged emotional situations in the workplace [and] can open the door to these fascinating and hugely important organizational phenomena’ (Parry and Boyle, 2009: 186). Kempster and Stewart (2010) have applied co-constructed autoethnography to an understanding of leader becoming. We apply their approach here; an approach that seeks a partnership between respondent and researcher as a form of co-researching. The respondent, Samuel, does ‘more than a process of recounting and reflecting’ (2010: 210). He becomes inquirer and gains a ‘social and relational sense of himself’ – seeking to achieve a hyper-reflexive outcome with regards to the dilemma. Kempster and Stewart emphasize the importance of respondent triangulation (Janesick, 1998). For Samuel, he obtains an integrated and coherent understanding of the dilemma, thereby providing personal validity – ‘life and narrative [being] inextricably connected’ (Kempster and Stewart, 2010: 210).

The personal validity is also of much significance to the research. The insights drawn from the co-constructed autoethnographic narrative need to be reliable as a trustworthy account; but it also needs to be plausible. Does the narrative provide a sense of versimilitude? Does it ‘pull [you the reader] in’ (Watson, 2000: 497)? Does it resonate to our own sense of similar experiences? Can we imagine being in the shoes of Samuel and connecting with the issues of the dilemma? The plausibility then evokes in ‘readers [a] feeling that the experience described is life-like, believable, and possible’ (Ellis and Bochner, 2000: 751). The approach to autoethnography used in this research is evocative or emotional ethnography (Anderson, 2006). Evocative autoethnographic research seeks to ‘[move] the reader to feel the feelings of the other’ (Denzin, 1997: 228). We see much value in enabling a reader to stand in the shoes of the author to get a deep insight into the experience, a sense of verisimilitude. Drawing on Atkinson et al., ‘the ethnographic imperative [is] seeking to understand and make sense of complex social worlds’ (2003: 57). If the account seems plausible then the autoethnographic approach has been able to illuminate insights and patterns that may help the development of process theorizing (Carroll et al., 2008). In the context of this research, we are seeking to offer up a plausible account of the interrelationship of middle manager agency with context, the flow of activity and outcome(s).

Ethical considerations are most relevant to this research. The narrative is a reflective account. Working with Samuel we have taken a most keen eye to anonymity. We have changed or omitted names, removed locations, made generic the industry and have sought to create ambiguity with regard to dates of events. However, Samuel’s recall of the feelings, reactions and ethical considerations has been pursued overtly. We have been aware through this process not to push too far, being cognisant of the potential risks when revealing highly personal aspects that might generate vulnerability (Doloriert and Sambrook, 2009; Ellis and Bochner, 2006).

What we seek to present is a middle-manager’s narrative. It is retrospective and therefore not an examination of practice as it occurs. For example, there is limited attention to the detailed examination, of the interaction of individual activity with materiality and how each is informed by a preunderstanding drawn from the social–historic context. The narrative emergent from the research process seeks to reveal broadly LAP in order to see the dilemma and middle manager work from a very different perspective: namely to explore context, roles, flow of activity and outcomes. We now turn to the research process that structured the narrative around these elements.

The research process

The dilemma we focus on here was explored initially in research undertaken by (co-author) as part of a larger data set examining critical incidents in ethical decisions of middle managers. Samuel described a number of incidents of which this dilemma was one. A second interview occurred with Samuel to explore his interest in participating in a deep exploration of the dilemma. In this discussion (co-author) outlined the nature of LAP and how the dilemma had the potential to provide insight. From this, the five thematic areas we wanted to explore in the subsequent conversations were developed: first, the context of the organization including its history, purpose, structure, processes and activities, values; second the roles and relationships with colleagues; third, how the dilemma was situated in the flow of activity – the story of the study tour, describing what occurred prior to the dilemma; fourth, the detail of the dilemma in terms of what happened, who participated, where did it occur, what was said, what actions occurred and who instigated these, what emotions were present, and what was the dilemma, decision and subsequent actions; fifth, the outcome in terms of what happened subsequently, the learning from the dilemma and any changes to activities related or unrelated to the dilemma. The third conversation between (co-author) and Samuel occurred three weeks later and followed the above five areas. It lasted for 70 minutes. The conversation was recorded and subsequently transcribed and sent to Samuel. A fourth conversation then followed, exploring the transcript to primarily explore emerging themes and check on aspects of concern to Samuel in the transcript – these aspects were subsequently redacted. (Co-author) created the first narrative using the five thematic areas that structured the transcript, but also he identified a set of frameworks to be used to interrogate the narrative (Ellis, 2004). This was sent to Samuel. About a week later, the fifth conversation explored this narrative and (co-author) applied ideas from relevant theories (covertly) to help extend Samuel’s reflection on the narrative – seeking to develop a hyper-reflexive disposition with Samuel. Samuel subsequently revised and edited the narrative and sent it back to us. From this narrative, a set of themes related to middle manager agency were developed. This was sent to Samuel from which a sixth and final conversation took place to check out whether thematic areas resonated to his sense of the experience. There was a final refinement of these themes.

‘[Almost] paying for prostitutes …’ – continued

The analysis of Samuel’s experience has provided insight into the interrelationship of middle manager agency, context, flow of activity and outcome(s). These are divided into five aspects. The first two aspects are: #1: Strategic Context – the situation of the organization; #2: Structural Context – roles and relationships. The next two are the activity and this is divided into: #3: The Episode – the study tour and #4: The dilemma. The final aspect is #5: The Outcome. From the LAP perspective, the dilemma as activity is not Samuel’s alone. It is ‘nested’ in the flow of activity as part of the study tour. The study tour activity is informed by roles and relationships of the structural context, and the strategic organisational context setting the rationale for the activity. The outcome of the dilemma has an emergent and ongoing impact on the context and practice. The middle manager is an actor within this process. The autoethnographic account has been examined through the lenses of a number of frameworks from which we suggest agency activity manifest within Samuel’s narrative. We outline this process in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

LAP as context, activity and outcomes.

LAP process elements	Narrative content	Extant literature	Agency activity in middle manager work
#1 Organizational strategic context	Market change; emerging power of buyers	Huy (2002); Floyd and Lane (2000)	Addressing uncertainty and ambiguity
#2 Organizational structural context: roles and responsibilities	Structural conflict of past practice with desired change	Balogun and Johnson (2004, 2005); Mantere (2008); Sonenshein (2009)	Sense-making and framing
#3 Activity: episode	Direction and commitment to organizational purpose	Drath et al. (2008); Crevani et al. (2010)	Organizing, problem solving, relationship building
#4 Activity: dilemma	Responsibility for the whole group vs. personal integrity	Anand et al. (2004); Detert et al. (2008)	Political/ economic rationalising vs. moral rationalising
#5 Outcomes	Changing activity not recognized but emergent: ‘we just moved on’	Chia (1995); Woods (2005); Kempster and Stewart (2010)	Practice becoming

We draw here on Nicolini who encourages ‘an eclectic set of sensitizing concepts that allow different features of practices and their associations to come to the fore’ (2009: 1396). This table is used to frame the structure of examining each of the five LAP process themes. The narrative content is described through Samuel’s autoethnogrphic voice. Following which we briefly develop the agency activity through discussion of extant theory for context, roles and relationships and episode. Scope in this article limits depth of review for these areas and there already exists research attention to these areas which we draw on. We give particular attention to the dilemma and the outcome as the two key aspects in order to help explore micro activity and its impact on the outcome. Of importance is to note that the dilemma and the outcome are necessarily impacted by the three previous LAP process themes. Our use of many concepts and theories reflects Nicolini’s encouragement to use ‘an eclectic set of sensitizing concepts that allow different features of practices and their associations to come to the fore’ (2009: 1396).

Discussion

The intent of our contribution is to seek to reframe an appreciation of middle manager work through the lens of LAP. We have outlined an approach using autoethnography that provides insight into the complexity of practice in which a middle manager is situated; notably with regard to ethics in such practice. Knowingly recognizing the significant limitations of a sample of one, we have sought to give a detailed appreciation of how practice is shaped and emerges through examining a dilemma.

So what does our autoethnographic narrative of a dilemma experienced by a middle manager reveal? On the one hand, it asks the question: where is the leadership here? Viewed through the lens of functionalist traditional ‘tripod’ leadership, there is arguably an absence of a leader overtly providing directing action, making inspiring speeches or aligning followers and engaging in supportive and encouraging acts. Quite the contrary, the narrative could be seen as ‘muddling through’ culminating in an incident that was spiralling out of control and instinctively fleeing from the situation. Even in the conversation afterwards between the boss and Samuel, leadership is absent – all are complicit in never mentioning it again. From a traditional lens, this narrative could be a case to illustrate a lack of leadership, inviting the orthodox and rational instruction for middle managers on how to lead; there is plentiful source for this instruction from the leadership field. So perhaps there is an absence of desired and heroic leadership; and in part that is the point. The narrative illustrates the complexity of managing in the middle, which is messy and in reality reflects limited intentional daily leadership. Does this messiness, complexity and absence of guidance speak to the difficulty for middle managers of intentionally undertaking espoused notions of being authentic and transformational? Certainly for us it speaks to the difficulties and ambiguities of middle manager work from an ethical practice orientation when situated in the flux of events where overt and intentional senior management direction is absent.

On the other hand, when the autoethnographic narrative case is viewed through the lens of LAP, we can see a different interpretation. Not the absence of leadership, in the ‘traditional’ sense, but to look for leadership in how middle manager work is embedded in social historic context and relational activity that is being guided towards future-oriented outcomes (Drath et al., 2008). The approach necessitates understanding the interrelationship of context–activity–outcomes. It links the micro detail of future-oriented activity with meso organizational strategic and structural context. Samuel has a role as a middle manager in the middle of a flow of activity (a week’s study tour with buyers and colleagues) seeking to achieve an outcome (namely strong relationships with buyers) that is informed by the context of the organization (a need to shift to a new market and change internal structures) and the context of roles and relationships. Vis-à-vis an examination of Samuel as a ‘leader’, being judged on his ethical conduct, in isolation from the practice and flow of activity in which he is situated. LAP would view the middle manager as agent set within this context rather than ‘leader’. The muddling through, the lack of overt conscious leading in the dilemma illustrates the multiplicity of tensions, competing for attention embedded in the flow of activity – a potpourri mix of such aspects such as personal ambition, feelings of (in)security, allegiances and friendships, degree of commitment with organisational purpose, political interests and conflicts, relational tensions, moral identity and moral rationalisations. Yet the broad purpose, the future-oriented sense of developing relationships with a new set of critical customers, is the Drath et al. (2008) direction, alignment and commitment that weaves back and forth into the above potpourri manifest in the dilemma. This then is at the heart of LAP as context–activity–outcomes.

In this way, we suggest this narrative of a dilemma has illuminated a richer insight into both LAP and to the middle manager agency. It opens up research avenues to explore middle manager work from a very different orientation than has been previously examined.

The approach we have outlined of context–activity–outcomes offers up a frame to conduct LAP research in order to develop process theorisation. In looking at activity, it differs for example from the empirical work of Crevani et al. (2010) and Larsson and Lundholm (2010, 2013), because our frame overtly seeks to connect the micro flow of activity with the preceding organizational context and the emergent outcome that subsequently impacts on the emergent context and the ongoing flow of activity. This frame could be applied to a range of contexts to compare process theorizing to distil the commonalities of processes shaping practice manifestation. Related questions could explore: how do antecedent influences impact on the flow of future-oriented activity? How is the flow of such activity recursive and becoming? How does the outcome orientation (perhaps as outlined by Drath et al., 2008) impact on activity? How is the influence of an outcome orientation connected to the context? The focus on how questions points to the nature of this research, that is towards process theorization.

A gap in our approach has been that we have not drawn attention to aspects of materiality as part of our research. It is not that it was absent in the co-constructed autoethnography; the champagne was a significantly active element within the dilemma and certainly contributed to action! There is much scope here to explore the role of artefacts in LAP and it remains an area that has not been empirically developed (Sergi, forthcoming).

Carroll et al. (2008: 376) comment that LAP research ‘will need to be methodologically sophisticated in order to gain access to leadership interactions’ so as not to inadvertently focus on leader-centric behaviour and fall back on the tripod. We adopted the relatively unorthodox autoethnographic approach set within the context–activity–outcome orientation to view middle manager work. We hope this has resisted dropping back to such tripod tendencies. We also hope that our approach in itself provides a contribution and stimulation for similar alternative approaches to researching LAP and middle manager work. To obtain in-depth examination of the interrelationship of context, activity and outcomes to understand LAP necessitates overcoming aspects of access, confidentiality and ethical considerations. We have sought to give as much sense of Samuel’s experience to generate verisimilitude and plausibility; yet Samuel has been anxious to make sure the narrative could not do harm. It illustrates significant difficulties of researching LAP. There is the need for researchers to move in and ‘dwell’ with the middle managers. Arguably this is unlikely for many practical reasons for both the researcher and the researched. The alternative is to engage the middle managers in creative ways to co-research (Kempster and Iszatt-White, 2013). Kempster and Iszatt-White (2013) argue for co-researching linked with leadership development. Their argument draws on the hyper reflexive nature of co-constructed autoethnography and they outline a process of engaging managers in such a process of understanding the relational dynamics that shape their collective and recurring practice. There lies the strong potential to design leadership development within LAP research and as such connects with Raelin’s notion that ‘it makes little sense to teach leadership to individuals in a public setting detached from the very site where leadership is occurring’ (2011: 204).

Conclusion

Through the co-construction process, we have been partially able to address the conundrum outlined by Chia and MacKay: ‘[L]eadership-as-practice orients us to what is internalized, improvised and unselfconscious, then [researchers] must be prepared to work with what is unspoken, inarticulate and oftentimes unconscious’ (2007: 237). Our endeavour here has been to use a dilemma to enable the unspoken and unconscious aspects in middle manager work to be articulated. We have gone further though to understand such work as situated within an interrelationship of strategic context, structural context, activity and outcomes.

A major value of LAP-oriented research is that it should resonate with managers. A practice-based orientation seeks to understand the activity they are engaged in every day – a focus on their realities of ordinary work. Such ordinariness is in contrast to the ideal normative models of leadership that seem extraordinary. LAP research therefore has the great opportunity of connecting with practitioners in their worlds and building insights that draw from rigorous research and are relevant to their practical endeavours.