HOW XYZ of Leadership relates to MINDSCAPE
Figure 1 - Analytic Axes of XYZ in relation to Mindscape types (HISG)
Introduction - XYZ are the three axes for the analysis of leadership. If you are not familiar with the XYZ dimsensions, please see Boje (2004) website. There is a self-diagnostic test there. The three axes for the purposes of this analysis of the leadership viewed as a social system have been modified as follows: X = Knoledge, Y = Power, and Z = Ethics. This allows us to look at three questions posed by Michel Foucault concerning the relation between power, knowledge, and ethics (foucault, 1997: 318).
Another way to state this is X is about epistemology, the ways of knowing and how older ways of knowing context with new ways. Y is a method of acting in roles of power over time. Z is about ontology, being in the world; how we express our ethical selve in relationship to ways we are socialized and controlled to behave in organizational life.
Maruyama (1963) posited that there are cycles of deviation-counteraction and cycles of deviation-amplificaiton in organizatioins and societies. New knowledge enters an organization in ways that sets off either cycle. Deviation-counteraction will seek to control deviations. Deviation-amplification feeds on new knowledge and adds to the existing heterogeneity. Maruyama in subsequent writing developed four types that were associated with system processes (review types).
In Figure 1, Boje is suggesting that "H-type" is more mono-voiced and transactional as a style of leadership. "I-type" seeks independence from other's voices (high on Nietzsche;s will to power), and manages transactions in more random ways. the "S" and "G" types are viewed here as more transformational styles of leadership. "S-type" however has more of a "will to serve" will "G" type has a "will to power" which is used to keep things changing and rearranging.
In hypothesizing the location of Maruyama's four types in a leadership system, there are four more circles with "?" indicating undefined types. Maruyama has stressed that there are as many types as there are humans in a system, but that a number of clusters forms. While he has been working with the four types, he holds out the possibility, if not the probability that there are more types to be discovered.
With this much theory introduction, we can move along to some interesting relationships between the cycles of deviation-counteraction (also known as morphostasis) and deviation-amplification (morphogensis). The two cycles are more or less in balance, and when they are not, verious systemic dysfunctions result. For example, if there is too much defiation, then the system can veer out of control. However, if deviation is too tightly controlled then innovation ceases, adaptation is retarded, and disorganziation as well as dissolution sets in (Maruyama, 2002).
Figure 2 - XYZ & Mindscape types associated with Organizating Frames
XYZ posits four organizing frames (besides antenarrative); these are bureuarcatic, chaos, quest, and postmodern.
How do the two cycles relate to XYZ? The "X axis" are ways of typifying knowlege (transaction versus transformation); these are well researched areas of leadership (but there is some debate as to wether these are independent spheres or able to be considered as a dimension). It would seem that the "G-type" is most associated with deviation-amplification, while the "H-type" is most associated with counter-acting deviation. "I-type" introduces their own deviations, while "S-type" will counter-act or deviate in order to bring about social stability. A balanced system would therefore rotate between the two leader types or enable both leader types to exist simultaneously.
One way to look at "X" is that transformations are discourse-led but intransitive realities resistant to social (re) construction (Fairclough, 2002). The "Y-axis" relates to the types of genres of powerful actions; actions that have power meaing in a semotic sense. The "Z-dimension" is about participation; how many voices does the leader invite into a decision? A 1-voice leader, hears themselves, and few others (unless they agree). A 2-voiced leader is able to listen to and to internalize the voice of the other (other here would be a view different from their primary and secondary socialization). A 3-voiced leader has internalized an internalized spectator (this is based on work by Adam Smith). Finally, a 4-voiced leader is able to hear the voice of the voiceless (those who are so oppressed they may not speak; voices of trees, animals, and so forth who do not speak, but can feel pain). "Z-axis" is about the stylistic types of identity, the kind of internalized dialogic conversation between a multiplicity of selves; the hypothesis is that leaders with more dialogized (multiple selves) will be more participative than those who hear pretty much their own voice without a sense of the other, the spectator, or the voiceless.
The "Z-axis" is qute interesting. The "Z-axis" it seems to me, is relevant to Bakhtin's (1981, 1986) work on double narration. The corporation speaks thorugh its narrators; leaders, workeers, publicists are socialized to narrate the intent of the corporate system. I do not mean this in an anthropomorphic sense. The corportation is people, and memories of people's actions; the corporation in U.S. law is defined as a "person", people learn to perform scripted roles, where they do corporate-speak. This suggests that the first voice becomes the corporate voice, and the second, third, or fourth (depending on the situation) is left to the indiivudal's expressivity. In some cases there is a contention between narrating one's self directly and narrating the intention of the corporation. The result is double speech act. Whistle blowers decide to speak out; corporately inculcated people learn to control their deviiation from the norms.
In short X is about discourses, Y is about genres of action, and Z is about styles of identity (discourse, genre, & style is theorized by Fairclough, 2002).
TO BE CONTINUED
References
Bakhtin, M. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (C. Emerson, Ed. & Trans.). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson, trans.).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Fairclough, Norman. 2002. "New Capitalism: A critical discourse analysis perspective." Handout from keynote presentation to the Discourse Conference in UK.
Foucault, Michel. 1997. "What is enlightenment?" In P. Rabinow (ed.) Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984 Vol. I Ethics. Penguin.
Website created by David M. Boje September 6, 2004, adapted from works by Magoroh Maruyama and XYZ of Leadership by Daivd Boje (All survey and website materials are Copyright © Magoroh Maruyama & David Boje); Surveys may be used for educational purposes only; for any other uses please contact dboje@nmsu.edu - Thank you.