Page 1 of 14

Leadership as social integrative action. A study of a computer consultancy company.

Alvesson, Mats. "Leadership as social integrative action. A study of a computer consultancy company." Organization Studies 13.2 (1992): 185+.
Academic OneFile. Web. 9 June 2011.

Document URL
http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=AONE&docId=A12650449&source=gale&srcprod=AONE&userGroupName=capes2&version=1.0

Abstract:

In this paper it is suggested that leadership, at least in some types of organizations, can be conceptualized as social integrative action. Such action is seen as a synthesis of
institutional and human relations-oriented leadership. A case study of a computer consultancy company, a professional service adhocracy, supports this argument. This paper also
argues for viewing leadership as an expression of those values, virtues, norms and symbolic guidelines for understanding that are usually referred to as corporate culture or ideology.
Leadership is consequently seen as subordinated to the cultural context. A less 'commander' - and micro-oriented view on managerial work (the leader as a boss, understood through
focus on him/her and the group) than those common in the literature is thus suggested. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Full Text:COPYRIGHT European Group for Organizational Studies 1992

Mats Alvesson Department of Business Administration, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Abstract

In this paper it is suggested that leadership, at least in some types of organizations, can be conceptualized as social integrative action. Such action is
seen as a synthesis of institutional and human relations-ofiented leadership. A case study of a computer consultancy company, a professional service
adhocracy, supports this argument. This paper also argues for viewing leadership as an expression of those values, virtues, norms and symbolic
guidelines for understanding that are usually referred to as corporate culture or ideology. Leadership is consequently seen as subordinated to the
cultural context. A less 'commander'- and micro-oriented view on managerial work (the leader as a boss, understood through focus on him/ her and the
group) than those common in the literature is thus suggested.

Introduction

This paper explores the leadership styles of 'gold-collar workers' in a professional service adhocracy. It is based on a case study of a middle-sized
Swedish computer consultancy company and focuses on the role and behaviour of managers in the loosely coupled structure of the company. Emphasis
is placed on the cultural and symbolic aspects of leadership, especially in terms of how it contributes to the social integration of the organization.
Leadership is here conceptualized as social integrative action. This type of leadership is viewed as a reflection of the nature of a (particular type of)
loosely coupled organization. The focus for the study is the relationship between the organization and the way in which leadership is exercised by
managers working as heads of subsidiaries. The managers concerned can then be seen as belonging to the 'upper middle' level of management. The
emphasis in the paper is thus different from what is common in leadership research, in which the interest is concentrated on a leader and the group he or
she is heading (or just on a leader and his or her traits, attitudes, personality, behaviour, style, etc.). Leadership is seen in this paper to be partly an
expression of the organizational context in which the work is carried out. Of central importance, in the case being reported, is the corporate culture.
This concept is elusive and is often used in ways which stand for 'everything and nothing' (Aliaire and Firsirotu 1984). I use it here in the sense of a set
of meanings, understandings and values shared by at least a major part of top management and a significant number of other employees in an
organization and expressed in symbolic forms. This definition draws attention to certain ideational aspects of an organization. It does not presume that
organizational members normally share a unitary and unique culture. The advantages and disadvantages of this concept of culture is that it is broad and
holistic and imprecise. I will therefore complement the discussions with partly overlapping, but more restrictive, concepts such as ideology and climate.
(The meaning of these concepts will be indicated later in the text.)

The manipulative aspects of leadership are also discussed. It is difficult to define manipulation. I am using the term here mainly to signal potential
ethical problems and consequences of managerial action which make it difficult for employees to attain a critical understanding of their work situation
and to evaluate the exchange situation.

The paper is structured as follows. After a brief review and comment on leadership research and the presentation of a thesis, some information about
the case study company is given. This is followed by an account of the leadership principles and action patterns of the founders during the phases of
establishment and rapid growth of the company. In other words, the historical background to general leadership features of the company at the time of
my study, is provided. A third section of the paper treats the management and organization of the company in terms of corporate culture and, finally,
some aspects of leadership are treated in the context of the organizational characteristics.

A Note on Leadership Research and a Thesis

I will refrain from reviewing leadership research as there are plenty of those available (e.g. Andriessen and Drenth 1984; Knights et al. 1989; Yukl
1981; 1989; etc.). I will, however, pay attention to the tendency of the leadership literature to neglect the organizational cultural context of leadership.
Most studies of leadership focus on how a person identified as a leader is behaving or interacting with a group of subordinates. In some cases, this
group of subordinates is so large that it comprises an entire organization and in this way a few studies have looked at the leader's influence on
organizational culture. It is then normally the founder of the organization who is the target of attention (e.g. Pettigrew 1979; Schein 1985). A few
studies have taken an interest in leadership in relation to cultural change (Trice and Beyer 1989), but in all these cases, the leader is viewed as
somebody who exercises a more or less far-reaching influence on culture. Typically, it is top-level leaders who are focused upon. It is revealing that in
Yukl's (1989) extensive review article of leadership research, the word culture is only mentioned a few times in passing, and then as something that is
changed as an outcome of transformational leadership. In the present paper ('average') leadership is understood more as an outcome of the cultural

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 2 of 14

context.

A note on the relationship between managers and leaders (management and leadership) might be called for here. During recent years, many authors
have proposed a distinction between managers who are relying on their formal position and working with bureaucratic processes such as planning,
budgeting, organizing and controlling, and leaders, who rely on their personal abilities, vision, agendas and coalition building and who mainly affect
people's feelings and thinking by non-coercive means (e.g. Kotter 1985; Zaleznik 1977, etc. ). Zaleznik views the influence of leaders as 'altering
moods, evoking images and expectations, and in establishing specific desires and objectives ... The net result of this influence is to change the way
people think about what is desirable, possible and necessary' (p. 71). In comparison, managers are much less omnipotent types. Without denying that
leaders have the possibility to influence people in a far-reaching way as proposed by advocates of the 'big L' type of leader, my experience is that most
managers have a personal and non-coercive influence beyond pure 'management' which combines elements of management and leadership, and that the
latter element is far from unconstrained. The following definition of the two concepts captures this.

'Management can get things done through others by the traditional activities of planning, organizing, monitoring and controlling -- without worrying
too much what goes on inside people's heads. Leadership, by contrast, is vitally concerned with what people are thinking and feeling and how they are
to be linked to the environment to the entity and to the job/task.' (Nicholls 1987: 21)

This view allows a combination of the two elements which, I believe, we can find in the activities of many managers, including my research subjects.
Leadership is thus not seen as 'standing above' or being able to change culture, but rather as trying to influence people's minds. I assume that the
majority of people who have jobs in which leadership is a relatively important aspect of what they are doing are much more strongly influenced by
corporate culture than they are active in producing it. Apart from structural conditions (job task, resources, position, formal rights, etc.) the cultural
context of a leader (here equated with a manager not relying solely on formal authority) might be seen as an important determinant of the way in which
leadership is carried out. This aspect is neglected, as is the organizational context of leadership in general. One exception is Biggart and Hamilton
(1987) who stress the normative ties -- the principle of domination and cultural ties -- between leaders and followers and the institutional context of
these relationships. (These authors, however, deal more with the societal level than with organizational culture.) Of course, some recent models of
leadership have organizational culture as one of many variables in a box from which an arrow points at leader behaviour (and also vice versa) (e.g.
Yukl 1989) but, on the whole, the leadership research hardly acknowledges the significance of the cultural context as something that determinates
managerial work. Only a few exceptions exist (e.g. Smircich and Morgan 1982; Willmort 1987). (A couple of critically oriented studies considering the
leadership dimension have taken the societal cultural context into consideration in understanding how influence is exercised, e.g. Knights et al. 1989;
Rosen 1985. In these cases, the interest is focused upon top leaders and not on the more typical manager, and the leader is once again seen as being in
control over cultural issues, rather than the other way around.)

The absence of studies on the consequences of organizational culture for leadership has partly to do with the fact that the cultural dimension has been
traditionally neglected in leadership research (Trice and Beyer 1989), but perhaps even more so with the tendency in leadership research to stress the
manager as a superior, unidirectionally interacting with subordinates, thus neglecting the fact that almost all managers are also subordinates to a higher
hierarchy (Dervin 1990; Laurent 1978). Sometimes, external dependencies and structural restrictions for leadership are noticed but the phenomenon of
'cultural subordination' has not been treated seriously in leadership research.

In this paper I am arguing that most leadership styles are severely constrained by, and draw upon, the cultural and ideological context of the
organization. Normal leadership is thus, among other things, an expression and reproduction of key elements of this context, as will be developed in a
case study.

The Company

I choose to call the company CCC (computer consultancy company). It was rounded in 1977 when the market for all sorts of computer consultancy
work was expanding rapidly. The business concept was to combine management and computer consultancy knowledge and use information technology
as a vehicle for improving the client's business. The three founders were very successful and CCC expanded rapidly. At the time of my study, 1987,
500 people were employed, and the founders had earned a lot of money. From 1984 onwards, they gradually decreased their involvement in the
company.

The work within the company is very varied. The major activity is to develop software for the specific needs of a client. There are projects of various
sizes, offering a range of short-term employment for one person to employment lasting several years for a group of people. Often the projects are
carried out at the workplaces of the clients, bringing the employees of CCC in closer contact with the client's personnel than with those of CCC (outside
the project concerned). The employees in a project group might, in some cases, know the organization of the client better than CCC's.

The centrality of the project organization form means that CCC is a rather typical adhocracy, even though it also has many of the features that
Mintzberg (1983) attributes to the professional bureaucracy and the divisionalized form (Alvesson 1993a).

Method

The case study was based on loosely structured interviews with 35 managers and employees in the company. These were interviewed from one to three
hours per person. The interviews covered a wide spectrum of aspects aiming at creating a close to holistic picture of the company. Also participant
observation (of meetings, social activities, a week-long introduction course for newcomers) and study of documents were utilized. In around half of the
interviews, leadership aspects were treated. The 9 managers (7 were presidents of subsidiaries with 30-50 employees, 2 were top managers) were asked
to describe in detail their job as leaders. Eight consultants were asked to characterize the role of the subsidiary manager in the company. Four persons
were interviewed about the history of the company and the role of the founders as leaders.

Leadership During the Expansion of CCC

The three founders, of course, have had a very strong impact on the company, which they ran for the first 7-8 years of its 10 year history. A closer look
at their influence, especially during the formative years of CCC, is called for. People who participated in the first five years of the history of the
company have almost lyrical tales to tell about how the top management, i.e. the three founders, functioned. A consultant who started at CCC in 1981
tells:

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 3 of 14

'You had a management which knew what people could do, which took an interest in them and made demands. There were very strict guidelines during
that time. If you had a "conference" that went on half the night, there were no excuses for not arriving at the right time the following morning. If you
did not arrive on time you got a public reprimand. You had to be there at 8 o'clock in the morning, in fresh shape. You were allowed to do what you
wanted until then but ... '

Despite the fact that the work pressure and the demands of the owners were high, and a large part of the activities were carried out at the client's
workplaces, there was a strong feeling of closeness and involvement within the company.

'Right from the beginning, they talked about having a culture: about being close to each other, knowing what everybody was doing, who worked with
what and being able to phone to and get assistance from people. Even if one didn't do that so often, the feeling was there.'

The last sentence is, I think, illuminating. The influence of the leaders affected the beliefs and feelings of the employees rather than 'objective' things.
An element of manipulation is detectable here. It is the beliefs about reality rather than reality in itself which was affected by the owners. This
distinction is, of course, far from clearcut. Social reality is made up of beliefs to a large extent. When it comes to the feeling of being able to receive
support it is, however, possible to distinguish it from concrete supportive behaviour.

According to the subordinates, the management, i.e. the three founders, were characterized by a lot of energy, enthusiasm, high availability and a
committed and supporting attitude to the employees.

'One had a management that was very committed. You had direct contact with the management. The management was always ready, were always
available and always listened. You always got a reason.'

Some obvious circumstances facilitated the positive atmosphere and widespread commitment reflected in these interviews: the youth of the company
and its owners and personnel (25-35 years old), its rapid growth, the success of the company. In addition to these, at least four elements appear to have
contributed to the creation and maintenance of a strong, tight, positive spirit, a powerful feeling of community and a strong commitment and loyalty to
the company and its owners.

One of these is indicated above -- a forcefully expressed interest in the employees. Good performances were noted, acknowledged and communicated
within the organization. Spotlights were put on the person who had done the right thing. He or she encountered positive feedback from all directions. It
was not only the praiseworthy person who was told about how good he or she had been, but also other people, who had contributed in a positive way. A
bottle of champagne was often opened to celebrate the achievement.

A second important element in management was the fact that the leaders (founders) tried to, and succeeded in, tying together the everyday life of the
personnel with the company's activities. The personnel became involved in the company and its business side. The founders managed to make the
personnel feel that they were a central part of the company, not only with respect to different consu|tancy projects, but also in contributing ideas and
business developments, including contracts on new projects, joint ventures and company acquisitions. The management passed on a |ot of information -
- some of it on sensitive issues -- and often presented events and processes in a dramatized way. The employees felt that they were participants, rather
than spectators, to what was going on.

'When we had morning meetings one of the owners was always there. We got a lot of inside information on the present development, etc. We felt very
much a part of what was happening.'

The fact that the company was still rather small, 100-200 employees, made it easier to accomplish this effect, but the nature of the work, whereby
consultants normally worked at the clients' workplaces, presented obstacles. The founders made great efforts to distribute interesting, sometimes even
'hot' information, and to create among the employees a sense of being part of the dynamic centre of CCC. It seems as though the founders sometimes
overstressed the confidentiality and significance of the information they passed on, in order to influence employees' feelings as strongly as possible.
Their sense of being in, or very close to, the centre did not seem to completely correspond with their participation in decision-making. The founders'
position in this regard was very strong. They listened carefully to employees' opinions, but as owners, managers and individuals their power base was
very strong and seldom questioned, and the final word was always theirs.

A third important aspect concerns social activities outside working time. On this point too, the founders were energetic.

'The management was always there, was always at the centre. If we went out and took a meal one evening, they were always with us. They often took
the initiative, found out funny activities. They were a part of the gang as much as anybody else.' (Consultant)

On a more theoretical level, it might be argued that the founders broadened the sphere of social influence that leadership in corporations is normally
about. By broadening and 'dramatizing' information it acquired another character than if it was more concerned with 'facts' and was of a more neutral
and administrative nature. Through frequent participation in social activity, also outside normal working time, leisure time became, to some extent, a
part of corporate life, which benefited the community, strengthened social bonds and was perhaps also conducive to more productive work. When a
group of fellow workers meet in a pub there is a good chance that useful ideas and information will be exchanged. At the same time as this illustrates
the management's ambition to exploit the leisure time of personnel, there were probably important spontaneous elements in the fun activities. It is hard
to evaluate where the border between 'manipulation' and 'spontaneity' lies when it is about backpatting, visible interest in the well-being of the
employees and social activities outside the (purely) instrumental sphere. On the whole, the leadership style was characterized by careful reflection and
consistency, at least as it appeared from the perspective of the employees:

'I am impressed by the fact that they sat down, often, and thought this through: what affects people? makes them feel good? and had a strategy for this.
They had a common view which was passed on and affected other people who thereby got the same view.'

A fourth important aspect was the recruitment policy of CCC which strongly facilitated a good spirit within the organization. Many of the employees
were a part of the contact network of the three founders -- who knew a lot of people from earlier workplaces or in other ways. A large part of the
personnel employed during the first years of CCC came from a computer service company in which two of the founders had worked.

There is a general tendency for new organizations to start by recruiting a homogenous group of people, in order to create a good base for confidenee

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 4 of 14

and mutual understanding (Kanter 1977). Homogeneity in background and opinions helps social relations to function better, and this is particularly
valuable in situations where the level of uncertainty is high and standards and maps do not exist or are undeveloped.

For CCC, social criteria were important when recruiting new personnel. The management looked as much at people's social leanings as at their
technical competence. Individuals with similar personalities and attitudes were -- and are -- recruited. The personnel had, and have, considerable
influence on recruitment.

The leadership style and the personnel that was recruited in combination with a heavily expanding market and the possibilities for growth led to the
formation of an organizational climate which was characterized by a positive atmosphere which had a strong sense of community, strong loyalty and
commitment to work.

'In 1978 you could go through fire and water for the founders.'

'You felt you were part of it, and made an extra effort.'

This of course does not mean that the situation was idyllic. A high stress level at work was not uncommon. Some of the employees felt, in retrospect,
that what they got from work did not really correspond to their efforts and contributions during that time.

This history of leadership at CCC provides the background for the common features of the exercise of leadership within the company at the time of this
study. The patterns they developed have been reproduced in the company and are the cornerstones of the 'corporate culture', i.e. those values, virtues
and norms that are distinct to that company, and especially to its way of handling internal relations.

Management, Organization and 'Corporate Culture'

There are some specific characteristics of companies like CCC, especially in periods of rapid market growth, that are crucial for the exercise of
'successful' leadership, and make us appreciate some of the more 'extreme' features of the founders' style of managing the internal side of the company.
(As indicated earlier, leadership is defined in this paper as the exercise of influence by people in a superior position to subordinates by using, at least in
part, 'voluntary' means to direct their feelings and thinking.) As a professional service adhocracy it differs heavily from, for example, a machine
bureaucracy. It is highly unlikely, as contingency theory and common sense suggest, that the same managerial style will fit all situations, organizations
or corporate cultures. To understand leadership in CCC we must understand the basic features of the organization. In addition to the inherent features of
this corporate type, CCC's youth, rapid expansion and the excellent labour market for computer experts in the 1970s are worth noting as factors
influencing the situation of the organization. The implications for management and leadership differ from those which have typically and historically
predominated for the corporate type and which still strongly imprints the management and leadership literature on bureaucracy (Alvesson 1993a,
1993c). The company comprises a loosely coupled structure. It is organized in the form of 20 subsidiaries, consisting of a maximum of 50 people.
(Some of the subsidiaries have only one employee or just a few people. My study has concentrated on the larger subsidiaries and their managers.) Each
subsidiary has its own market niche. The manager of the subsidiary is responsible for sales, personnel management and the performances and economic
results of his company. The actual work is carried out in the form of projects, sometimes only employing one or two people. Project managers are in
charge of all (larger) projects. Projects are carried out under the supervision of the manager for the subsidiary concerned. Sometimes people from
several subsidiaries are involved in one project.

Managerial Work

The consultancy projects -- the labour processes of the company -- are characterized by their decentralized and heterogenous nature. The relationship
between a project and the rest of the company is normally weak. Some degree of supervision and quality control is exercised by management, and
sometimes a project borrows people from other parts of the company or has to refrain from using a project member who is committed to another
project. On the whole, though, the dependency between the project and CCC is very weak. This means that managers' duties/possibilities in supervising
and controlling the work are not key features of their work situation. The labour process is primarily coordinated by mutual adjustment within a project
group. A major obligation of the heads of the subsidiaries of CCC is to keep the consultants occupied. The managers act as sellers and ensure that there
is a steady flow of incoming projects. Planning and administrative duties are also an important aspect of their work. Apart from this, leadership --
influencing the personnel through personal interaction -- is the major and critical obligation. An important management task is to counteract the
disintegrative tendencies, both inherent in this type of activity and strengthened by the particular situation of CCC from its beginnings up to the time of
the present study: an expanding market, rapid corporate growth, a lot of employment opportunities for the employees, etc.

Important aspects of this disintegration problem are the high diversification of the work activities (projects), far-reaching decentralization,
heterogeneity in terms of tasks, clients, physical location of activities and, as a consequence thereof, few opportunities for spontaneous meetings and
the development of social relations outside those of the work units (projects). These conditions might lead to people feeling socially unsatisfied (the
risk is extra strong for consultants working on one-man projects), to a lack of experience of corporate identity (which for the employees might have
consequences for personal identity) and to a low degree of corporate loyalty. This may result in skilled consultants leaving the company, opening
businesses of their own, and perhaps taking customers with them. Another risk -- for the owners and management -- is that the consultants do not work
hard enough. Other risks include people developing principles of project work which are very heterogeneous, leading to difficulties in achieving
synergy effects within the company (such as the ability to learn from others' experiences) (Alvesson 1993a).

A major task for management might be formulated as counteracting tendencies -- which are functional and partly unavoidable -- for loose coupling to
drift into de-coupling, leading to fragmentation of the company (as a company).

Management Principles and Corporate Culture

Let us first take a look at the management principles of CCC and then see how leadership is exercised in the context of the labour process,
organizational structure and the corporate culture.

As one of the founders put it in an interview, companies of CCC's type are 'human companies' rather than 'service companies'. In the latter, other
resources are important as well as people, for example aircraft for an airline, food in a restaurant, furniture, etc. In a consultancy company, people are
the only asset and the only major factor for management to pay attention to. The need for capital is also small, so the financial side demands relatively

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 5 of 14

little attention, at least for the sake of operations, compared with other types of corporations. This means that personnel and social relations become of
decisive importance in the corporation, in a way that dearly differs not only from manufacturing companies, but also from most service companies. The
ability to utilize (exploit) the personnel as much as possible is crucial.

It is common in professional organizations that the professional, technical competence is highly valued. In CCC purely technical qualifications are
downplayed, to some extent, in favour of interpersonal and social ability. In jobs as manager and project leader the ability to manage a project might be
seen as a professional skill, but this is more related to general project and personnel management skills than to strict computer technical knowledge.

Many people within the company emphasize that they are not more skilled, in a technical sense, with computers and programming than people in other
companies. However, they think CCC is superior with respect to its social aspects, including its skills in running projects. The social aspects of the
project work have to do with cooperation, planning, communication, leadership, relating the project to the client's organizational conditions, etc. An
important internal principle in the company is to emphasize the interpersonal functioning within the company, and while the strictly technical
qualifications are important, they are far from decisive when new people are recruited. This corresponds to an emphasis on the ability to manage the
relationship with the client as a major part of the company's product.

An important assumption, held by many of CCC's managers and employees, is that it is always possible to transfer knowledge to people, but it is very
difficult to change personality and human attributes. It is also assumed that the success of the project tasks are less contingent upon technical problem-
solving as a critical factor, than on how social relations are managed, both within the project group and in relationship to the client's management and
operative personnel. Organizational climate -- the spirit and felt milieux of the organization, to a high degree influenced by the shared values,
understandings and ideals of the members -- and social relations are thus seen as a critical factor concerning both the functioning of the employees and
the company's results. This is emphasized by management.

The significance of people for this kind of business, CCC's top management argues, and especially for CCC, and the sensitivity of the performances for
the personal and interpersonal functioning of the personnel makes it important that the employees are feeling satisfied and that the managers know how
they are feeling. People are not supposed to be absent from work other than in exceptional cases, and when they are, they are sometimes expected to
work overtime in order to compensate for the income lost by their absence. The structural arrangement of the company, whereby subsidiaries employ a
maximum of 50 people each, is grounded in the idea that every subsidiary manager should know every employee. It is assumed that the two life spheres
clearly affect each other and that good project planning also includes consideration of the private situation of the employees. Furthermore, CCC's
managers believe that the well-being of the employees directly influences the quality of their work. One of the strongest sides of the company is the
ability to make people satisfied in the company, as expressed by one of the senior consultants:

'The company succeeds in making people feel happy with the company, so they also feel better in the work they are doing and the job is performed a bit
better and then our customers also become happy.'

A somewhat less positive way of describing this issue is to point at the efforts of management to make people work as much as possible. It is normal
for employees to work more than 40 hours per week for long periods. The profits of the companies are closely contingent upon exactly how much the
consultants work and to what extent they can debit time to clients. The arrangements with rather small subsidiaries give the subsidiary manager strong
incentives for making the consultants work hard and exerting strong persuasion to convince people of the importance of working overtime, and of
accepting a task which is not perceived as appealing, and so on.

Another important part of the management principles of CCC concerns the development of new ideas and innovations in the organization. One idea is
that situations and connections apart from the on-going, goal-directed work make it possible for new thoughts and impulses to be developed, perhaps
when one has a coffee break or talks with the coworkers over a beer after the working day. To a large extent, it is in the activities around the work itself
that important contributions to the organizations are generated. These ideas on management are expressed in the design and interiors of the corporate
building.

A further element in the management ideology is to make the employees see the company as 'a family'. This can be illustrated through the allocation of
space in the corporate building ('the home'). The consultants -- i.e. a third of all who are not located at the clients' workplaces -- only have limited
individual office space at their disposal. People sit tightly together. The social areas in CCC's house are, however, large and appealing. The top floor of
the company is designed as a home (TV, sauna, kitchen, etc.). There is also a piano bar. Facilities such as black boards are located in many parts of the
building, in order to stimulate the expression and discussion of ideas. The many social activities sponsored by the company, such as navigation and
other courses, a choir, etc., carried out in the corporate building after normal working time, are also an expression of the ideology.

Ideology here refers to a set of ideas, describing social reality in a somewhat idealized way, which has consequences both for consciousness and
attitudes and, to a smaller extent, for action. Ideology is used here partly in a 'neutral' (non-pejorative) way, and, partly in a critical way (cf. Alvesson
1987; Czarniawska-Joerges 1988). Ideology is neither seen as politically neutral, nor as the opposite of 'truth'. It is rooted in a normative representation
of the social world suggested by a powerful group which favours its sectional interests.

Included in the corporate ideology are also a number of values and virtues held by CCC and often expressed by management and many of the
employees. These concern openness, honesty, straightforwardness, informal and quick communications, equality, close social relations, 'having fun',
etc. The corporate culture of CCC is characterized by the espousal and to some extent also, the enactment of these ideals and virtues. (The concept of
corporate culture refers to broader phenomena than ideology. The former includes also values, ideals and understandings that are not espoused or
consciously promoted. In addition, culture includes forms of symbolism, which expresses the content. Culture also means that something is 'realized',
i.e. anchored among people, while an ideology might be an effort to make people adopt certain ideals. As Swidler (1986) puts it, an ideology can be
seen as an early phase in the development of cultural systems.) The company has taken great pains to induce these features and the oldest pans of the
company, at least, are deafly characterized by these. On the other hand, it must be recognized that in a young, rapidly expanding company with very
open boundaries, a deep homogeneous common culture is hardly being developed (Alvesson 1993a). The history and traditions of CCC -- despite its
brevity -- provides 'spontaneously' some 'support' for a certain pressure on people to approve of and identify with these ideals but, on the whole, the
upholding of the corporate culture is the task of top and middle management. It is thus not a 'genuine', emerging culture but rather a series of efforts to
construct such a culture and to persuade the corporate members to accept and identify with the ideals and values proposed by the founders and
maintained and refined by the present executives and managers. The most important aspects of the corporate culture of CCC have to do with social
relations. It is a means for achieving community (Westley and Bird 1989).

The Company as an Institution

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 6 of 14

In addition to this, the business concept and the product of CCC is used consciously and systematically by top management in order to anchor a certain
conception of the company in the minds of the employees. This might be referred to as the ideology of the corporate product. It concerns what the
company, according to its management, stands for. Important in this regard is that CCC is not trying to stress the technical quality of the work, but
emphasizes, as mentioned above, its ability to run projects, to connect information technology to a business and managerial perspective. The business
concept and its ability to carry out project work is (used as) a source of corporate pride for most employees within CCC, even though a number of
consultants have a somewhat sceptical attitude to it, because they don't see it as matching reality (Alvesson 1993a: Ch. 10).

The activities of CCC are very different from the closed system logic that characterizes large parts of many manufacturing industries and other
'machine bureaucracies'. Because of the absence of material dependencies and the risk of de-coupling in the organization, there are specific demands on
the integrative functions within the company. These cannot primarily rely on formal, technical and administrative means, but must, to a very large
degree, be carried out through social and ideological means. To borrow from Selznick (1957), it is vital for CCC to function as an 'institution' and not
only as an administrative organization, i.e. that the corporate collective attributes to the organization are values in themselves.

Instead of just functioning as a platform for work, wages, etc., CCC is considered to have a character, an identity, which embodies certain ideals and
values with which the employees (and possibly also external groups) identify and to which they are prepared to commit themselves. For organizational
members, a company that is functioning as an institution is a source of identification and emotional involvement, which generates an extra strong
motivation. The members accept and support the ultimate purpose of the organization: its mission. You can say that an organization is 'value-driven'
rather than 'control-driven' through formal means (Berg 1986). Leadership is, to a considerable degree, carried out by means of ideas rather than
instructions (Beckerus, Edstrom et al. 1988).

All this goes beyond the feeling of community and good social relations in the company. It concerns not so much people-in-the-company, but rather the
company-in-itself (Alvesson 1993a). This distinction is important, and is not always recognized in the literature on organizational culture. Selznick
(1957) suggests that the integrity of an organization goes beyond efficiency, organizational forms and procedures and even group cohesion. The
integrity is determined by a certain orientation being anchored so strongly in a group's life that it affects and governs various attitudes, decisions and
organizational forms. The creation of integrity is an important part of what Selznick refers to as 'the institutional embodying of goals' and is an
important management task in some organizations. In a strongly market and profit oriented company such as CCC, the importance of
institutionalization is probably much less, for example, than in some voluntary organizations, but the structural conditions of the company make it
important for management to avoid the development of a strong instrumental attitude on behalf of the employees.

Strong and systematic efforts of management attempt to communicate the positive sides and aspects of the company, to draw attention to these and to
conceptualize ambiguous phenomena in a positive way. These positively biased evaluations of what the company stands for are also, to some extent, an
attribute of the corporate culture and a part of the organization's self-understanding, fuelled and reproduced by management, but not primarily in a
manipulative and conscious way. Managers are also socialized into these values and beliefs and affective reactions. To some extent, managers can
influence the corporate culture, but it must be noted that it is 'above' individual managers, so that new managers are under strong pressure to adapt to it.

Leadership as Social Integralive Action

Selznick (1957) clearly distinguishes between the institutional manager and the human relations manager. The latter is interested in facilitating human
communication and interaction, increasing job satisfaction and reducing destructive anxiety.

Based on this, we might imagine three sorts of orientations in management and leadership. (See Figure 1.) The three forms of leadership are not
mutually exclusive, but every leader's temporal restrictions and personal attributes in combination with the nature of a particular management task and
organizational situation probably prevent the scoring of 9/ 9/9 on all three dimensions. A certain emphasis is put somewhere in the triangle of Figure 1.

In CCC and, I assume, similar companies, management is characterized by a certain emphasis on the institutional and social elements. I call this social
integrative leadership. (See Figure 2, in which I have also put some concepts on two other 'hybrids' in terms of leadership orientation.) It is probably
highly unusual for business organizations in the long run to emphasize institutional leadership as the dominating element in leadership. Sometimes the
literature on organizational culture highlights values, assumptions, philosophies, etc., stressing qualitative virtues, which are instrumental in achieving
corporate goals and forget the almost hegemonic status of profits and corporate growth as the ultimate values (Alvesson 1993b). These values can
hardly evoke the same feelings and commitments as, for example, social movement organizations or other organizations with 'higher' goals than profits
and growth.

Social integrative management differs from institutional leadership while the ultimate purpose of the organization, in principle, is taken for granted and
does not function as a primary motivator. For CCC, the goals and meaning of the company are not ambiguous. The company has, however, established
certain elements of institution for large groups of the personnel and from the management's point of view, its aim is to maintain it. CCC has been
reasonably successful in this regard, even though the increasing corporate size and a tougher external situation has decreased the institutional character
somewhat. The elements of institutional influence are closely connected with social influence. The management of CCC strongly emphasizes the social
element of the workplace. Group cohesion, friendship, openness, closeness, to be satisfied and have fun at the workplace, prevent conflicts, be generous
with information to the employees, etc., are important sub-goals. This social level is combined in various ways with institutional elements. The value
and meaning structure ('the corporate culture') point at the importance of these social virtues. The workplace and the company should be more than a
source of jobs and wages. An important idea of the company is to make it function as a second 'home' for the employees, a source of comradeship,
where people have fun and so on. These ideals are linked to the economic performances of the company: 'fun and profit' is a slogan. Certain social
rewards, such as 'conferences' in nice surroundings for the entire subsidiary, are partly contingent upon the economic results.

Basic values such as openness, a positive attitude and downplaying of organizational hierarchies, are attributes that are associated with CCC as an
institution, as an organization containing certain values and ideals. At the same time, these values, in a realized form, facilitate the good social
functioning of the company in true human relations style. What CCC is supposed to represent in terms of business concepts and working style is also
partly of an institutional character. The ability to manage projects and relate computer issues to the client's management perspective is a source of pride
to large groups of the personnel (Alvesson 1993a: Oh. 10).

From the view of CCC's top management, an important task is to create a totality, to bring the various parts of the company together. Social integrative
management is a matter of inducing a common orientation and direction to the operative units (the subsidiaries, the project groups and the individual
consultants); to contribute to the identification with the company and to a feeling of loyalty; to achieve social cohesion both on the micro level, within
work groups and subsidiaries, and on the overall level, within CCC as an entity. Social integrative leadership is, of course, of little operative use. The

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 7 of 14

purpose is not on this level. Instead, it is a matter of transferring ideas, representations and orientations that counteract the disintegrative tendencies
inherent in this organizational form and facilitates convergence in thinking, feeling and acting, which increases the chances of people staying in the
company, getting along, cooperating efficiently within and between units, and adopting a not too divergent or diffuse style with customers, etc.

Social integrarive leadership might also be formulated as a way of counteracting 'negative' reactions from employees concerning the high degree of
work pressure within the company. As mentioned above, the demands for effectiveness and, at least occasionally, for long working hours, are rather
strong, and this might be experienced by the work force as exploitation. The 'hard core' of the exchange relationship between company and employee is
'softened up' by social integrative strategies. The latter make people more prepared to accept hard work pressure.

In the next section, I will explore leadership on a more concrete level and provide some illustrations.

Aspects of Leadership as Social Integralive Action

In terms of the social integrative aspects of leadership, four functions appear to be crucial in CCC and companies of this type, especially for subsidiary
managers. (This group, i.e. upper middle management is crucial to the company and exercises the most significant leadership styles, in separate, largely
rather autonomous units. The types of leadership exercised by the executive and project managers have many of the features described below, but their
managerial situation is slightly different.) I will call these the boundary keeping function, the sparring partner function, the cohesiveness and the pride-
enhancing function. Other aspects and roles, well known in the literature, are not discussed here (Andriessen and Drenth 1984: Yukl 1989, etc.).

The first function has to do with maintaining the boundaries of the organization. In most organizations, it is completely clear to personnel where they
are employed, to whom they are supposed to be loyal and to whose interest they should give priority. In consultancy companies, as in some other
service companies, the boundaries between company and customer are often unclear. The projects are carried out on behalf of the client, in cooperation
with the client's personnel and often at the client's workplace. Some computer consultancy missions, compared with most management consulting, take
a long time, sometimes several years. It is not uncommon for the consultant to work on his or her own. The recently employed consultant will often
know the client better than CCC. Loyalty conflicts and identity problems may result. Whose interests are most important? Where does one belong? In
which situations is one an 'insider' and in which is one an 'outsider'? Even the more experienced consultant might run into similar problems:

'You are out there with the customer and keep your face, but you easily get into problems of loyalty. To keep on the fight side of the border you have to
go home occasionally and discuss the situation ...' (Consultant)

The subsidiary manager has the task of reminding the consultant that he/ she is employed by CCC and of making the person feel that he/she is a part of,
and important for, the company and the other employees as a whole. It is thus a matter of trying to create and maintain strong social bonds between the
company and the consultants.

'If you are working for a customer all on your own, you have a tremendous need to have contact with your manager. To feel that you are not only
earning money, but that you also are a person and important as a such.' (Consultant)

The subsidiary manager is important here as a representative of, and symbol for, the company as well as having a personal relation with the consultants.
Both the formal representation of the company and the personal, friendly contact are important. These two must be combined in the person of the
subsidiary manager. It is important that he (all managers were, at the time of my study, men) is both respected and well liked.

A second important function is to be a sparring partner for the consuitants and project managers. This concept is used frequently in CCC and in similar
companies (Sveiby and Risling 1986).

'It is not that easy to sit out there as a consultant, alone for half a year, perhaps with great responsibility. You have to have a sparring
partner.' (Consultant)

The subsidiary manager and his deputy are then functioning as advisers. While the boundary-keeping function is primarily about identification, the
sparring partnership means that the manager provides intellectual, social and moral support for carrying out the job. It thus goes beyond problem-
solving or task-oriented leadership. The instrumental aspect is socially embedded. Project managers and others might check ideas, discuss problems,
both technical, social and personal, and get assistance in evaluating whether the project is right in relationship to time and cost plans and with regard to
the quality that is required. The third crucial function concerns the internal social cohesiveness and atmosphere within the company. The subsidiary
managers should be socially active and express a positive and engaged spirit. The expectations are high in this regard:

'There is an opinion, a certain education that you get on how to be a manager in this company and that comes from the old leaders, the founders of the
company. The leaders are seen as very important, as a sort of cultural carrier and an ideal for the personnel. As a leader you must participate in all
social arrangements. You should preferably be the funniest of all, you should be visible all the time and give direction to the company and the
personnel in the way you wish the company to function, hold nice parties, tell entertaining stories and things like that.' (Subsidiary Manager)

A leadership style that contributes to satisfactory social relations and interaction, both within and outside normal working time, provides a base for
good fellowship and, to some extent, also an identification with the company, as well as a social-emotional background resource for project groups,
which facilitates their smooth functioning and counteracts conflicts between the members. An important aspect of the creation of social togetherness
and strength, is to manage the company as a collective and not only as a group of individuals (Berg 1986). It is important for the leader to emphasize
the collective at least as much as the individual employees. This has to do with the fact that the minimal level of collective feeling does not emerge in
this type of loosely coupled organization, if specific means are not used to encourage it.

The pride-enhancing function means that managers point at (and exaggerate) the distinctive features of the company. Through various symbols (such as
verbal expressions) the identity of the company is reinforced. While the boundary-keeping function is a matter of regulating the group belongingness
problem inherent in this type of work, the pride-enhancing function connects the employee to the principles and virtues of the company and, in subtle
ways, reminds him or her about the good side of what CCC stands for.

Apart from certain overall and common principles in exercising leadership, there are great variations in the ways these principles are expressed. Of
crucial importance for the functioning of managers are situationspecific circumstances. A critical factor for consultancy firms is to get projects so that

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 8 of 14

the employees have enough to do, and so that they can be debited to a high degree. The functioning of managers in terms of the classical, but somewhat
abstract and sterile dimensions, personnel (consideration structure) and task orientation (initiating structure) are sometimes more a matter of how the
subsidiaries score in relationship to market, customers and order books, than about leadership style as a static, situation-independent attribute.
Variations in situation have a crucial impact on how leadership is carried out:

'What it is all about is to have the capacity to be interested. To have the time and also the courage to do so, even if you have customers waiting in all
directions. Sales efforts easily take all the time.' (Consultant)

The form of leadership is thus dependant on many factors. The corporate culture is an important one, in that it gives an overall direction to how leaders
are expected to function. Especially important is the demand on subsidiary managers to be active in social arrangements, to downplay status and
prestige and to emphasize close and informal social relationships: to put personnel orientation and team building, to some extent, into focus, which
more or less radically breaks with traditional hierarchies and produces some broad parameters for the action space of subsidiary managers.

Illustrations of Leadership in Practice

I will now give a couple of brief illustrations of how leadership in CCC is exercised. One example came from an interview with a manager, which took
place the same day as a recruitment advertisement was being published. The subsidiary manager got several calls. He asked the interested person to
write to the company and say something about themselves and their qualifications, what they wanted, and what they were like as a person. He asked
them not to send academic grades, etc. He was not interested in formal documents.

Another example, also from the recruitment process, came from another manager. He also saw his management duty as comprising a social advisory
role.

'People came to me and talked about their problems.'

This manager starts by indicating his position at the time of the recruitment process. He asks personal questions such as 'are you religious?' 'jealous?', 'is
it important for you to speak the truth?', etc. He also talks with the potential employee's spouse about the job, and what it might mean in terms of
travelling, being away from home, etc. before an agreement of employment is made.

Both examples illustrate the symbolic aspects of leadership (Peters 1978; Pfeffer 1981; Smircich and Morgan 1982). In the first case, it is signalled that
the personal attributes are the crucial ones and that the purely educational merits, carry less weight. Informality and also trust in people's honesty are
communicated.

In the second case, something similar is signalled, but also a more holistic view of the personnel, their functioning and the appropriate behaviour in the
workplace is included. The manager goes far outside what is traditionally conceived of as being part of the work role. Thereby, it is indicated that his,
and the company's, interest in the personnel goes much further than their way of solving computer problems between 8 am and 5 pm. Openness and
informality, as well as the importance of personal life and the connection between work and home life are stressed. The new employee and his/her
spouse are also forced to commit themselves to the demands of the company in terms of overtime, travelling, etc.

A final example is the meeting every second week, when all the employees of a subsidiary company come together in order to receive information from
the manager and discuss things of importance. The purely instrumental aspects are not important here. The manager emphasizes informality, and tries
to make jokes, etc. His formal position and prestige is downplayed. A free and positive atmosphere is emphasized. It is also vital, CCC management
believes, that people feel well informed.

These examples illustrate the functions of leadership in CCC. The boundaries between CCC and the external world are maintained by stressing the
characteristics of the company, and by using the (few) internal social gatherings to reinforce community feeling. The sparring partner function is
facilitated by stressing informality and openness and -- thereby - the rapid dissemination of information and informal communication. Opening up the
personal dimension of people's functioning makes it somewhat easier for people to talk about problems and other sensitive matters. This is important as
the possibilities for management to exercise direct or behavioural control are relatively small in this kind of business. The willingness of consultants to
voluntarily report about potential problems and difficulties is important. The social cohesiveness of the company is promoted by communicating to new
employees the ideals of being personal, open and informal at the workplace. Leaders behaving in a way which corresponds reasonably well with these
virtues, who downplay prestige and formal positions in many situations and who use social gatherings as vehicles for the promotion of communion in
the companies fulfil this function.

Another example of symbolic leadership concerns how leaders try to anchor certain principles for project management among the employees. The
company takes a pride in putting information technology and its usage in a top management perspective. The projects, which normally concern the
development of software, should involve efforts to communicate with the top mangement of the client as a crucial part of CCC's advanced business
concept of relating information technology to the business and strategic situation of the client. Leaders try to stress this ideal and remind the consultants
of the principles of CCC, and what the company stands for. One manager regularly asks his consultants when they last talked to the MD of the
customer company for which they work. Another says that the consultant, who is not familiar with the business concept of the client, does not run his
job properly. These messages are not to be taken too literally. They are rather expressions of the ideal in which CCC believes and for which it is
striving -- although departures from the ideal are common -- and mark the identity of the company. They remind the consultants of CCC's ideals and its
uniqueness, thereby playing upon the institutional qualities of the company.

Discussion and Conclusions

The structural situation of CCC and other professional service adhocracies differs substantially from bureaucracies. This means that other aspects of
management and leadership to those traditionally being focused upon must be highlighted in order to understand how personal influence is exercised. I
have summarized this leadership style as social integrarive action. This includes efforts to tie employees closely to the company (the employer), to
influence projects mainly by effective informal discussions and by anchoring general virtues and principles among the employees to strengthen
community feelings and collective bonds within the subsidiary (and secondary within the company as a whole).

The traditional metaphors of the manager as a plan and control bureaucrat, a task-oriented technocrat or a consideration-oriented personnel specialist

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 9 of 14

have recently been succeeded by the vision of the manager as a manipulator of symbols (Peters 1978; Pfeffer 1981), a manager of meaning (Smircich
and Morgan 1982), an agenda setter and coalition builder (Kotter 1982) and a player of ten roles (Mintzberg 1975). The view proposed here is broadly
in line with these conceptualizations. The specific metaphor suggested is the one of the leader as a social integrator, as a counterweight to the
tendencies of decoupling which are inherent to many new organizational forms. As such, socially valuable and legitimate tasks, as well as
manipulation, are exercised.

The case object is a relatively homogeneous organization, mostly because the majority of the employees belong to the same occupational group are of a
similar age and attitude, and partly because of efforts to influence and maintain a certain set of values, ideals and understandings. This facilitates social
integrative action. Structural conditions make it harder and call for its centrality in the work of the managers. Many, probably the majority, of all
organizations are much more differentiated than CCC in terms of cultural manifestations (Martin and Meyerson 1988). This does not have to affect the
work of a particular manager: the people in his or her area -- for example a marketing or personnel department -- might share certain personality
features. Even a top executive might be less directly concerned by differentiation on lower levels in the company, than by the degree of homogeneity or
consensus among his/her closest subordinates. But how are the social integrarive aspects of leadership affected by an immediate context characterized
by cultural differentiation, either in the form of distinct cultural groupings or ambiguity and uncertainty? Such a situation might make leadership more
difficult, but would also make the manager as a social integrator more salient. In the absence of the integrarive force of organically developed shared
meanings, understandings and values, leadership processes, which tie employees to each other and clearly relate them to the organization, might be
extra significant. (The importance of this aspect is partly dependent on organizational characteristics. If, for example, a physical production process
integrates the work in a material way, the importance of social integration is reduced.) In the case of organizations characterized by cultural
differentiation, the outcome of social integrative leadership might be a satisfactory or minimal degree of commitment and feelings of shared purpose
and belongingness, in comparison with the rather high scores on these dimensions achieved by CCC.

Another aspect of leadership highlighted in the case study is the role of leader as an agent and reproducer of corporate culture. In contrast to many
normative authors, who optimistically talk about managers' active engagement in 'managing' culture, I am stressing the passive side of reproducing it.
The ideals, espoused values, norms and verbal symbols developed by the founders and reproduced and refined by later generations of top managers in
CCC prestructure the ways in which managers exercise influence. To what extent is hard to say, but it is vital to note that, in the company, the personal
qualities of new managers are considered very important and a lot of energy is put into their socialization. It is sufficient here to suggest that elements
in corporate culture simultaneously restrict the space for leadership behaviour, and functions as an important resource upon which managers can draw.
An important aspect is thus that corporate culture to some extent controls managers (as well as employees). A further illustration of this was the
recently employed manager in CCC who was forced to resign following the initiative of his subordinates. The major reason for his resignation was that
subordinates accused him of not being 'open enough' about passing on information to the personnel. The values and expectations of the personnel set
restrictions on what was considered acceptable in managerial behaviour. As Biggart and Hamilton (1987: 435) put it:

'All actors, but perhaps especially leaders, must embody the norms of their positions and persuade others in ways consistent with their normative
obligations.'

This can also be formulated as corporate as well as other forms of culture framing and constraining leadership. It comprises a background, including
expectations and preunderstandings from various sources -- top management, subordinates, colleagues, the manager him- or herself -- which facilitate
the interaction and social relations within the company. Of course, in many organizations, there are no distinct, organizationspecific cultural patterns,
but in that case other cultural manifestations, for example those associated with occupational communities, affect and constrain leadership.

It is possible that top management might be less constrained by culture than lower-level leaders. Some of the talk about leaders with a capital L would
indicate this (e.g. Zaleznik 1977). Taking the issue seriously, would call for a discussion of the possibilities of cultural change -- something which falls
well beyond the purpose of this paper. It is sufficient to say here that most reflective writers dealing with this topic downplay the chances of intended
cultural change (Fitzgerald 1988; Lundberg 1985). Cultural manifestations shared by a larger collective (or perhaps, which is the common situation for
a top executive, different kinds of manifestations corresponding to several collectives working within the boundaries of a formal organization) comprise
a very heavy counterweight to the possibilities of a top figure exercising influence on people's thinking and feelings. Such a task is, of course, severely
constrained by cultural manifestations, held not only by a large number of the employees, but also by many top executives themselves, especially those
promoted from within. A more modest, but often difficult and important task not only for middle management, but also for top management is to
maintain and or modify certain values, ideals and virtues in the organization (Nord 1985). The point with the concept of culture is that it refers to a
whole collective of organizational participants, including those at the top. My observations of CCC support this view. After the departure of the
founders, the new top executives who were chosen fitted in and did not deviate from their predecessors and from the organization at large in terms of
values, ideals and attitudes.

In the culture literature, there is a peculiar emphasis on the highly extraordinary situations of planned cultural change and top leaders who 'stand above'
corporate culture. The normal leadership situation with regards to culture is far less spectacular and grandiose. One of the purposes of this paper is to
draw attention to the transmission of culture by managers and to their 'subordinate' rather than 'superior' relationship to culture.

Recognizing that there might be exceptions, leaders are normally better understood as 'transmittors' rather than 'masters' of culture.

References

Allaire, Y., and M. Firsirotu

1984 'Theories of organizational culture'.

Organization Studies 5/3: 193-226.

Alvesson, M.

1987 Organization theory and tech

- nocratic consciousness. Berlin, New

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 10 of 14

York: de Gruyter.

Alvesson, M.

1993a Management of knowledge-intensive

companies. Berlin, New York: de

Gruyter (in press).

Alvesson, M.

1993b Cultural Perspectives on organiza

- tions. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press (in press).

Alvesson, M.

1993c 'Cultural-ideological modes of

management control' in Communi

- cation yearbook, Vol. 16. S. Deetz

(ed.). Newbury Park: Sage (in

press).

Andriessen, E.J., and P.J. Drenth

1984 'Leadership: theories and models'

in Handbook in work and organiza

- tional psychology, Vol 1. P.J.

Drenth et al. (eds.), 481-520.

Chichester: Wiley.

Beckerus, A., A. Edstrom, et al.

1988 Doktrinskiftet i svenskt ledarskap.

(The doctrine shift in Swedish

management). Stockholm: Svenska

Dagbladet.

Berg, P.O.

1986 'Symbolic management of human

resources'. Human Resource

Management 25: 557-579.

Biggart, N.W., and G.G. Hamilton

1987 'An institutional theory of leader

- ship'. Journal of Applied

Behavioural Science 23: 429-441.

Czarniawska-Joerges, B.

1988 Ideological control of non-ideologt

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 11 of 14

- cal organizations. New York:

Praeger.

Dervin, B.

1990 'Illusions of equality, reification of

inequality: Problems in leadership

research'. Paper presented at the

International Communication

Association, Dublin.

Fitzgerald, T.H.

1988 'Can change in organizational

culture really be managed?'

Organizational Dynamics 17/2:

5-15.

Kanter, R.M.

1977 Men and women of the corporation.

New York: Basic Books.

Knights, D., F. Murray, and H. Willmott

1989 'The chief executive as leader:

power, identity and the social con

- struction of leadership'. Paper

presented at the 4th International

Conference on Organizational Sym

- bolism and Corporate Culture,

Fontainebleu.

Kotter, J.P.

1982 'What general managers really do'.

Harvard Business Review (Nov

- Dec): 156-167.

Kotter, J.P.

1985 The leadership factor. New York:

The Free Press.

Laurent, A.

1978 'Managerial subordinancy: A

neglected aspect of organizational

hierarchy'. Academy of Manage

- ment Review 3: 220-230.

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 12 of 14

Lundberg, C.C.

1985 'On the feasibility of cultural inter

- vention in organizations' in

Organizational culture. P.J. Frost et

al. (eds.), 169-185. Beverly Hills:

Sage.

Martin, J., and D. Meyerson

1988 'Organizational cultures and the

denial, channeling and acknow

- ledgement of ambiguity' in Manag

- ing ambiguity and change. L.R.

Pondy et al. (eds.), New York:

Wiley.

Mintzberg, H.

1975 'The manager's job: folklore and

fact'. Harvard Business Review

(July-August): 49-61.

Mintzberg, H.

1983 Structure in fives. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hail.

Nicholls, J.

1987 'Leadership in organizations: Meta,

macro and micro'. European

Management Journal 6: 16-25.

Nord, W.

1985 'Can organizational culture be

managed? A synthesis' in Organiza

- tional culture. P.J. Frost et al.

(eds.), 187-196. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Peters, T.J.

1978 'Symbols, settings and patterns'. An

optimistic case for getting things

done'. Organizational Dynamics

7/2:2-23.

Pettigrew, A.

1979 'On studying organizational

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 13 of 14

cultures'. Administrative Science

Quarterly 24: 570-581.

Pfeffer, J.

1981 'Management as symbolic action'.

Research in organizational

behaviour, Vol 3. L.L. Cummings

and B.M. Staw (eds.). Greenwich:

JAI Press.

Rosen, M.

1985 'Breakfirst at spiro's: dramaturgy

and dominance'. Journal of

Management 11/2: 31-48.

Schein, E.

1985 Organizational culture and leader

- ship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Selznick, P.

1957 Leadership in administration. New

York: Harper and Row.

Smircich, L. and G. Morgan

1982 'Leadership as the management of

meaning'. Journal of Applied

Behavioural Science 18: 257-273.

Sveiby, S.E., and A. Risling

1986 Kunskapsforetaget (The knowledge

based company). Maimo: Liber.

Swidler, A.

1986 'Culture in action: symbols and

strategies'. American Sociological

Review 51: 273-286.

Trice, H.M. and J.M. Beyer

1989 'Cultural leadership in organiza

- tions'. Paper presented at: the 4th

International Conference on

Organizational Symbolism and Cor

- porate Culture, Fontainebleu.

Westley, F. and F, Bird

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011
 Page 14 of 14

1989 'The sociology of organizational

commitment: a critical review of

classical theories'. Paper presented

at the 4th International Conference

on Organizational Symbolism and

Corporate Culture, Fontainebleu.

Willmort, H.

1987 'Studying managerial work: A

critique and a proposal'. Journal of

Management Studies 24: 249-270.

Yukl, G.

1981 Leadership in organizations. Engle

- wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G.

1989 'Managerial leadership: a review of

theory and research'. Journal of

Management 15: 251-289.

Zaleznik, A.

1977 'Managers and leaders: are they dif

- ferent? Harvard Business Review

(May-June): 67-78.

Gale Document Number:A12650449

http://find.galegroup.com.ez50.periodicos.capes.gov.br/gtx/downloadDocument.do?content... 9/6/2011