Work in Progress

Leadership and Authority in a Crises-constructing World: towards a synthesis and clarification.

Dermot O’Reilly, Eleni Lamprou, Claire Leitch and Richard Harrison

Corresponding author: d.oreilly@lancaster.ac.uk

Paper presented at the XII International Studying Leadership Conference, Rome, 2013.

IntroductionMuch of the leadership literature makes reference to the potential of crises for new orders. Many early accounts in the ‘great men’ tradition stressed the importance of times of ‘unbelief, distress, perplexity’ as being like ‘dry dead fuel, waiting for the lightning out of Heaven that shall kindle it. The great man, with his free force directly out of God's hand, is the lightning’ (Carlyle, 1966)(p. 13). Similarly, Weber (1978) believed that times of great distress were the opportunity for charisma (one of his ideal-typical forms of authority) to act as a revolutionary force. Padilla et. al (2007) too, identify instability and perceived threat as two of the key elements of environments that are conducive to toxic leadership (which is also identified as charismatic). Similarly, Schein (1985) identifies the way in which leaders react to critical incidents and organizational crises as one of the primary mechanisms through which leaders embed culture in organizations – in particular the learning of new norms and behaviours. These relations of crisis to leadership all point to a reading of crises as ‘dangerous opportunity’ (Neumann, 1995), reflected in Rahm Emanuel’s (Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff) comment in relation to the Global Financial Crisis: ‘You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that [is that] it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before’. These positive evaluations of crises as ‘windows of opportunity’ for leadership see crises as an opportunity for new or extended legitimate domination – and, tellingly, they tend to be leader-centric in orientation. Crises, however, are also potentially disruptive of embedded power and leadership relations – not least because the emergence of a crisis can provoke a questioning of the legitimacy of those in power and leadership positions – crises are not simply tests for leaders; they are tests of power and leadership systems, which entail a closer examination of the relational and processual aspects of leadership and authority relations. As Grint (2005b) pointed out, much leadership literature assumes that crises enable, authorise or favour particular modes of leadership or authority, which he counters with the argument that the relationship is often the other way around – it is the successful use of modes of leadership and authority that construct the crises and thus authorize their own reproduction.

In response to these crucial interlinkages between these phenomena, where crises are a crucible for the authorization of leadership, this paper undertakes to contribute some theoretical groundwork by presenting a conceptual map of the inter-relations between the concepts of leadership, authority, and crisis through reviewing, synthesizing and adding to their respective literatures. In particular, a number of underlying inter-relationships between these concepts are developed and explored. Firstly, we explore the importance of the processes of social construal (the semiotic representation of a state of affairs) and social construction (the actualisation of a social construal into a social fact) (Sayer, 2000) – which is crucial to all three concepts and explicable via the lens of critical realism. Secondly, we examine the role of leadership in establishing, enacting, supporting or resisting modes of authority, in particular, in the construal or construction of crises (Grint, 2005b). Thirdly, we highlight the importance of crises as potential turning points in the unfolding of social

processes is highlighted - that is their potentiality for change and revolution (Harvey, 2010), or conversely, as a means for legitimating extended domination (Wright Mills, 1956, Kerr, 2008). Fourthly we explore the role of the parsimony of theoretical representations of crises as itself being potentially implicated in the reproduction of modes of authority and leadership

The paper begins with an outline of the methodology and philosophy of science informing our theoretical synthesis, given the crucial role of critical realism as enabling a theorization of both semiotic and material aspects in social structuration, which is important in explicating the roles of construal and construction in the processes and forms of authority, leadership and crisis. This is followed by sections detailing and discussing the processes and forms of each of these focal concepts. The discussion focuses on the inter-relationships among authority, leadership and crisis, and we finish with an outline of a future research agenda.

Methodology and philosophy of scienceThe methodology of the paper is ideal-typical (Weber, 1978, Hekman, 1983, Parkin, 1982) in form and content, by extrapolating and abstracting the core conceptual components of the phenomena in order to better understand their nature (O'Reilly and Reed, 2011) without reifying analytical categories to an ontological status. The ideal-typical approach is augmented by adopting a ‘natural language’ and ‘forms of life’ sensibility (Wittgenstein, 2001). That is, the purpose of identifying ideal-types is not to arrive at essentialist a-temporal definitions, but to point to the contextual and specific variability of language-games and forms of life and the relations within them, while at the same time abstracting the generic aspects of these relations and identifying their continuous and discontinuous aspects. What this means in practice is that instead of attempting to define leadership, authority and crisis and the inter-relationships among them we instead develop a cartography of the different meanings of these terms and their inter-relationships, as well as of the different situations in which these meanings have purchase. These ideal-typical typologies are developed by synthesizing a range of academic literatures including philosophy, politics, sociology, organizational studies, crisis management, anthropology, and leadership.

This methodology is employed within a critical-realist philosophy of science (Archer, 1995, 2000, Sayer, 2000) informed by cultural political economy (Jessop, 2007, 2010, 2013). The relevant aspects of critical realism for our theoretical groundwork include the ontological notion of the world/ phenomena as being composed of a series of unfolding generative and dynamic powers and processes that underlie the actual (all that has taken place) and the empirical (what one experiences). These dynamic powers are composed of mechanisms at various levels (genetic, psychological, social etc). These combine, re-combine and inter-relate at various emergent strata, which are themselves inter-related but open systems. Powers/mechanisms tend, therefore, to produce causal tendencies (including double or multiple tendencies), but not causal laws. These

powers/mechanisms result in actual and empirical phenomena and forces which undergo various stages/processes of generation and variation, selection, and retention (Jessop, 2013). The social sciences are different from the natural sciences in that all social phenomena are comprised of inter-relations between semiotic elements and processes (where semiosis is understood as the social production of intersubjective meaning (Jessop, 2013)) and material elements and processes. Imaginaries are a subset of semiotic elements, involving an ensemble of relatively durable but not exhaustive meanings, perceptions and guides; they are symbolic reservoirs through which individuals and communities imagine and construct the world (McNally, 2012, Gosling and Case, 2013, Wright et al., 2013, Halsall, 2013)(Gosling and Case, 2013; Wright, Nyberg, De Cock and Whiteman, 2013; Halsall, 2013). Taylor (2004) describes them as ‘the ways people imagine their social existence, how they fit together and how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations" (p. 23). Imaginaries enable action in so far as they reduce the complexity of experience and perception and enable ensuing planning and activity. Construal, then, can be understood as a largely semiotic process, in that particular imaginaries are developed, deployed and/or promoted to interpret particular events. Some of these construed imaginaries will be selected (and others not), and if retained sufficiently over time they will be constructed into new sedimented institutional, social and political arrangements and processes (and imaginaries), which will be partly semiotic, but even moreso, material in their nature. Selection and retention of particular imaginaries over others – the movement from construal to construction – is affected both by semiotic features: for example, which imaginaries have resonance, or which help account for the variability of the particular event; and material features: for example, which imaginaries are supported by ‘legitimate’ sources of knowledge, or which actors are able to generate and disseminate their imaginaries and ignore others’. Agency is thus enabled by sedimented structures, but is also constrained by them; the mutual interventions taking place over time – generating new, or regenerating old, structures – what Archer refers to as morphogenesis (Archer, 1995).

Having outlined the key critical realist concepts that we will employ in our analyses, we move on to consider each of our three focal concepts.

The processes and forms of authority“Of authority it may be said in the most general way that it is an attempt to interpret the conditions of power, to give the conditions of control and influence a meaning by defining an image of strength” (Sennett, 1980). What Sennett is articulating here is that authority, in the most general sense, is the right to direct, the licence or prerogative to order or enjoin socio-material phenomena. This ‘right’, ‘licence’ or ‘prerogative’ may be assumed or granted for multifarious different reasons – owing to beliefs in individual sovereignty, expertise, the nature of the universe or force of personality, but in each case there is the presumption, or granting of, a right to power.

Weber (1978), arguably the most influential thinker on authority, also regarded authority as being related to right, or in his terms, legitimacy. Weber, however, explicitly excluded the consideration of modes of mundane personal authority from his works as he regarded them as amorphous and intermittent, whereas he was primarily concerned with persistent association or ‘social order’, hence his focus on ‘organizations’ where he regards organizations as ordered social groupings with an administrative cadre.

Such organizational authority is conceived by Weber as a type of domination, because some superordinate party, parties, or system, through an ‘administrative cadre’ enforces a prescribed purpose on other subordinate parties in a regular pattern. It is considered legitimate because the subordination is achieved through the consent of those subordinated parties, as if the purpose were their own maxim for conduct (1978)(p.946) (even if there are also motives of expediency, habit or self-interest in their acceptance of subordination). Legitimate domination is thus effected without the recourse to force, even if the threat of force is present1. Legitimate domination, moreover, is guaranteed not simply by the accession of the subordinated to the mode of domination employed by the superordinate, it is buttressed by the belief, by the subordinate, in the legitimacy of the mode of domination2. Beetham (1991) extends Weber’s insights by pointing to the justifications that are held, by both the superordinate and the subordinate, to support the moral obligation imposed by legitimacy, and the consent provided by subordinates through their actions.

Grint (2005b) can be interpreted as extending Weber’s insight about authority as legitimate domination (although Grint un-explainedly reproduces Weber’s phrase as legitimate power, whereas Weber appears to regard these phenomena as being different) in that he develops three modes in which this authority can be carried out – command, management and leadership. Grint (2005b) presents these three modes of authority in terms of their inter-relationships with problems (critical, tame, wicked) and power (coercive, calculative, normative), where the construal and construction of processes and events as crises tends to favour a move away from either normative leadership or calculative management to coercive command (although the three modes of authority are not mutually exclusive). Grint’s explication of leadership as a mode of authority and its distinctions from management and command are useful to consider in relation to the forms of leadership, developed below.

In summary, we have identified two polar types of authority, understood as the right to direct: (a) the various modes of personal or informal authority, and (b) 1 In Weber’s terminology non-legitimate domination, by contrast, is achieved through the use of force. Real cases, of course, may involve elements of both types of domination.2 Scott (1990) critically examines various theories that place a role on the consenting beliefs of the subordinate and finds these theories wanting, arguing that submissions by the powerless are strategically dramaturgical rather than representing their real beliefs. There is not space to properly discuss Scott’s arguments, but while his work is considered a useful corrective to superficial explorations of the role of semiosis in the reproduction of power structures, his implicit stress on public submissions as only, merely, and always, dramaturgical is considered reductionist and thus rejected in this paper.

regular and administered authority that involves (i) administering and legitimizing the will of a superordinate party, parties or system, (ii) the content of the beliefs shared by both dominant and subordinate, and (iii) producing the active consent of the subordinated party or parties. In turn, we pointed to Grint’s development of three modes of regular and administered authority as types of command, management and leadership, which in turn leads on to a fuller consideration of the forms of leadership

The processes and forms of leadershipLeadership is an amorphous concept, in that its form and meaning is dependent on its context3. The amorphous nature of leadership underlies both the well-documented definitional problem (Stogdill, 1974), and the related contested nature of the concept of leadership itself (Gallie, 1956, Grint, 2005a). Particular versions of what leadership is conceived to be are used to judge or help influence how leadership should be put into action, that is, leadership is an ‘appraisive’ or evaluative (and hence, political) concept, not simply a descriptive-analytical one.

Despite the amorphous and contested nature of the concept of leadership, the notion of leadership invariably involves some mode or process of relational direction-giving (which is related to the etymological root of ‘lead’ as ‘to cause to go with one’) or direction-finding (O'Reilly and Reed, 2010). Most ‘heroic’ notions of leadership stress direction-giving, mostly in terms of an asymmetric influence process (e.g. Hollander, 1978, House et al., 1999), whether it is through arousing motivation (e.g. Burns, 1978), meaning-management (e.g. Smircich and Morgan, 1982) or initiative (e.g. Stogdill, 1974). Other versions of leadership, however, can be read as allowing for a direction-finding aspect of leadership. For example, Yukl (2009) defines leadership as ‘the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives’ which could entail either asymmetric direction-giving or collective direction-finding, whereas Grint (2005b) and Raelin (2013) explicitly argue that leadership involves (or should involve) asking questions or inquiry, and seeking collaboration.

Critical commentators, however, have noted that this preponderance to argue for versions of purportedly progressive or distributed modes of leadership can sometimes obscure the fact that leadership, as often practiced as asymmetric direction-giving, involves the use of force, whether physical, psychological or semiotic (Gordon, 2002, Kamoche and Pinnington, 2012, Tomlinson et al., 2013), or that leadership as a mode of regular and administered authority, even if it is inquiry- and collaboration-based, is itself often predicated upon, or enabled by, positional power (whether formal or informal in nature, and recognizing that formal power often generates a shadow informal power of influence). Leadership, therefore, is often (normally) fused with hierarchy. The amorphous character of 3 Power is also an amorphous concept, which is different, but often related, to leadership and/or authority. Space does not allow for a fuller discussion of power.

leadership, however, means that even if leadership is normally mixed with, or expressive of, hierarchy, this need not always be the case. Considering resistance leadership, however, is salutary in considering the difficulty in disambiguating or disaggregating hierarchy and leadership. While resistance leadership is a particular form of leadership, the benefit of examining it is that it points to the nascent, emergent, fragile and brokering qualities of leadership that are often overlooked in mainstream leadership literature, and thus adds to a fuller analysis of the processes and forms of leadership, and in particular, is useful in considering the relationship between leadership and hierarchy.

Zoller and Fairhurst (2007) point to a number of dialectical tensions and processes at play in the leading of resistance which they use to inform conceptualisations of leadership (in particular, they look at resistance that aims at changing structural arrangements rather than simply individual, covert or discrete acts of resistance). They identify a number of processes that are instructive to this discussion. Their work is also useful in that it fills out Gramsci’s (1971) evocative notion of ‘moral and intellectual leadership’ – which he identifies as the mode and means of creative and constitutive uses of power, in contrast to restrictive or coercive uses of power.

Firstly, Zoller and Fairhurst (2007) consider how leadership relationships develop among resisters. They point to a number of dynamics that can be important – the pre-existence of perceived injustice or ‘hidden transcripts’ of injustice (that is, drawing on Scott, 1990, private discussions and views of the powerful by the powerless); the emotions that are evoked or provoked in particular instances; the ‘handling’ or ‘scaffolding’ (Tronick et al., 1998) of such emotions; the infusion of emotional talk with ‘rational’ or instrumental arguments; the differential positions of agents in relation to such phenomena as rhetorical ability, group identity, networks, knowledge, organizational power, or status; the self-attributions of resisters and attributions by others; as well as acknowledging the potential role of explanatory variables from the mainstream leader-centric literature such as charisma or ‘crucibles’ of experience. They note also the importance of happenstance in sometimes sparking a situation where these processes collide and solidify, while being careful to acknowledge that often instances of resistance leadership are temporary and do not necessarily result in stable relationships.

Secondly, they discuss the sources of power that resistance leadership draws upon or develops (interestingly, they slide into discussion of resistance leaders in this section rather than keeping open the possibility of leadership not being located in particular leaders). Zoller and Fairhurst (2007) acknowledge the interplay between sources of power and the development of leadership relations, and also note previous identifications of sources of power – such as formal power, critical resources, network links, social relationships, discursive legitimacy (Hardy and Phillips, 2004), information, money, reward power and expertise (Zald and Berger, 1978), and self-, group- and collective identities and subjectivities. Zoller and Fairhurst’s contribution, however, is their identification

of the crucial activity of creating or identifying resources of resistance. In particular, they note the role of communication in the creation of resources of resistance – especially in creating meanings, symbols, and/or narratives, that build legitimacy (whether internal or external) and create alliances. In relation to previous theorizations about such discursive power they note the tension between conceptualizations that focus on macro- or societal- discourses (or formalized aspects of imaginaries), and approaches that focus upon micro-interactions and language use (incipient imaginary work). Zoller and Fairhurst argue, rather, for the need to recognize that both larger systems of meaning and micro- language interactions are both involved in structuring reality. Indeed, Zoller and Fairhurst read Foucault’s work on power as implying that it is possible to critique particular Discourses (formalized aspects of imaginaries), but that it is only possible to do so by manoeuvring between Discourses through the use of micro-language interactions. These sources of power have both moral and intellectual aspects – moral, in that leadership involves the evocation or invocation of a moral order – the creation or exhortation of a mode of communality or shared ground (even if there are also distinctions or stratifications within the moral order); intellectual in that leadership involves capturing and extending the imagination of agents (rationally and/or emotionally or affectively), and through developing this, directs action.

Both of these processes – the development of leadership relations and the sources of power that resistance leadership draws upon or develops are processes pertinent to the generation and variation of imaginaries. New, or previously only imagined, orientations are potentially generated from the fusing of pre-existing perceptions and conflicting multiple experiences which are stimulated by the collision of hidden transcripts, multiple identities and subjectivities, discursive resources and interactions, resentment, opportunity and particular constellations of situated alliance and conflict.

Zoller and Fairhurst’s third process, moves onto the selection of such variably generated imaginaries. In particular, they assess the role of leadership in coalescing individual, subjective or covert resistance into collective and/or overt attempts at change. They quote Hodson approvingly that those involved in resistance aimed at deflecting abuse must first ‘symbolically reject the definition of the situation provided by those in power’ (cited in Zoller and Fairhurst, 2007) p.1348. As such, they argue that ‘leadership plays a significant role in transforming such rejections into collective action’ (p.1348). In contrast to modes of leadership that are in the service of a regular and administered authority which is predicated on the consent of the subordinate (even if it is passive or insincere), resistance leadership (that is resistance which is not simply individual, covert or discrete) involves the active dissent of the subordinate. This argument points to both semiotic and material processes in the conflict between alternative imaginaries and their proponents, and their selection in the establishment of moral and intellectual leadership. Semiotically, this includes, again, the management of meaning and emotions, and also the importance of symbolic actions, performed for an audience; and material practices such as

‘massing’ which involves bringing people together to both facilitate and display collective power (Scott, 1990), and material issues such as how the position of the enunciator affects whether their voice is considered to be warranted (Hardy et al., 2000) – both of which are crucial for the evocation or invocation of a moral order.

This aspect of resistance leadership echoes Grint’s (2005b) specification of leadership as a mode of authority, in the sense that it involves asking questions (disrupting or provoking imaginative work) and seeking collaboration – coalescing individual concerns into collective experience, and hence action. Grint’s illustrations all involve instances where those exercising this form of leadership are in superordinate positions – but Zoller and Fairhurst’s discussion show that this form of leadership (and indeed the other forms of authority that Grint distinguishes – command, and management) are all also potentially present in resistance leadership. In resistance leadership, however, such forms of authority are not initially predicated upon formal authority, but upon informal authority (in the stabilisation of resistance, however, such movements may develop their own authority and administrative systems).

Fourthly, Zoller and Fairhurst (2007) address the issue of how resistance leadership attempts to make the discourse of change ‘stick’ (although they again slide into the terminology of resistance leaders), that is how imaginaries move from selection to potential retention. The crucial issue here, of course, is how temporary instances of resistance or resistance leadership, are enabled to sustain conflict. Weick et al are invoked to note that the articulation of a resistant or alternative imaginary is not static, rather it involves the ‘continued redrafting of an emerging story so that it becomes more comprehensive, incorporates more of the observed data, and is more resilient in the face of criticism (cited in Zoller and Fairhurst, 2007) p.1352. As such, the tension that resistance leadership needs to manage is between ‘penetrating’ or ‘unsettling’ dominant modes of meaning or Discourse (formalized aspects of imaginaries), and the development of some degree of fixity in the resistant discourse or narrative (a formalization of a new imaginary). As noted above, the unsettling of pre-existing imaginaries involves both semiotic and material elements and processes, and likewise, the relative fixing of resistance leadership also involves semiotic and material practice – including the elaboration and (relative) definition of alternative imaginaries, and their instantiation into material codes, forms or practices.

The value of Zoller and Fairhurst’s (2007) analysis of resistance leadership is that it points to key processes of informal authority, which are often present in, but are erroneously equated with, formal authority and leadership in the mainstream leadership literature. Whether informal or formal, however, authority always involves some expression or development of hierarchy – evidenced in Zoller and Fairhurst’s slippage into the terminology of leaders rather than leadership. Nonetheless, there are also elements of their illustrations that suggest the possibility for leadership existing without leaders – e.g. in the ‘massing’ of groups

where the collective becomes a temporary entity with its own power. Leadership involving leaders, whether formal or informal, therefore, is always hierarchical, whereas leadership without leaders may not involve hierarchy, formal or informal (but may, however, be transient or fleeting).

A further aspect noted by Zoller and Fairhurst (2007) also warrants consideration. They note that the leadership literature tends to focus either on the leader or the follower, whereas they argue that what is required is a view that can accommodate both asymmetric and mutual influence (p.1341). This insight calls to mind Weber’s stress on the importance of an administrative cadre in regular and administered forms of authority, and this insight can in turn be extended. For example, mainstream leadership literature tends to focus on simple leader-follower binary relationships – either between a senior business leader and their staff, or between a middle-management leader and rank-and-file employees – but this is incredibly reductionist – there are multiple tiers and functions within an organization each of which will have multiple direct and indirect relations with each other, as well as there being multiple external parties which will likewise have multiple direct and indirect relations with the tiers and functions of the organization as well as with each other. Leadership relations are not binary – they potentially involve multiply extended multi-directional, multi-qualitative, interlinked and multiply mediated relations.

In summary, we have identified a number of different forms and processes of leadership (the amorphous relationship of giving or finding direction) – in particular we have recounted the asymmetric relations of force, meaning-giving, influence, initiation, command or management, and discussed the potential mutual forms of moral and intellectual leadership that were brought to the surface in considerations of resistance leadership where there is not regular and administrated authority (while noting that these same forms and processes can also be asymmetric depending on how they take place in practice). The moral aspects of collective leadership involved ordering via the experience and recognition of emotions, relationships and links; while the intellectual aspects of collective leadership involved inquiry, attributions, narratives, the use of transcripts and the adaptive use of micro-language interactions and macro-discourses, as well as the adoption of strategic intent. Both these moral and intellectual aspects were seen to involve both semiotic and material aspects that either enabled them, or were part of the grasping of resistant agency, and the contiguity of these processes with the broader concerns with generation and variation, selection and retention of social imaginaries and practices were delineated.

Having thus developed a broad rubric for understanding the forms of authority and leadership we move onto a more detailed consideration of the forms of crisis.

The processes and forms of crisis

There is one thing upon which consensus has been built in crisis research: there are multiple types of events discussed under the concept of crisis, multiple terms used interchangeably in the same account and multiple perspectives employed to approach its emergence and unfolding (Buchanan and Denyer, 2013, Pearson and Clair, 1998). The field appears to develop comfortably in its multiplicity and, whilst earlier attempts to review crisis research aimed at synthesising points of departure to create a unitary perspective on crisis (Pearson and Clair, 1998), more recent attempts embrace this multiplicity (Buchanan and Denyer, 2013). In this light, a crisis can be construed or can be constructed as a number of things: it can be a low-probability, high-impact situation with a tight timeframe for response (Hadley et al., 2011); it can be a seemingly mundane event that invites individuals to reflect upon their underlying assumptions (Probert and Turnbull James, 2011); it can be a context that bestows emerging situations with a certain affective load and cognitive colour (Williams et al., 2009); it can have more or less positive and negative effects (Pearson and Clair, 1998) or it can be different from something else (Hannah et al., 2009). Importantly, a crisis can be any of the above, or it can be semiotically construed and constructed as such.

Grint (2005b) moves away from a functionalist perspective of crisis (an event, situation or context that carries certain properties) to a constructivist perceptive. He approaches crisis as something that becomes through collective engagement and contending accounts of ‘reality’, assuming ever temporary forms as it unfolds. Language, he suggests, is central in such a process, as it provides both the tool and the frame to make sense of and perform ‘reality’. In this light, the value of discourse, narratives, images and storytelling in the construction of crises has received increased attention (Boudes and Laroche, 2009, De Cock et al., 2011, Hartz, 2012, Moynihan, 2012, Riaz et al., 2011, Svetlova, 2012, Tourish and Hargie, 2012). Narratives materialise processes of sensemaking, which have been extensively linked with crisis research (Maitlis and Sonenshein, 2010, Mullen et al., 2006, Stein, 2004, Weick, 1988, 1990, 1993). As Weick put it, ‘the sensemaking sequence implied in the phrase, 'How can I know what I think until I see what I say?' involves the action of talking’ (1988: 307). Such conversational episodes and the stories constructed thereof allow individuals and groups to cope with the ambiguity and unfamiliarity of crises (Boudes and Laroche, 2009, Probert and Turnbull James, 2011). As Boudes and Laroche aptly note, ‘stories are used to domesticate dangerous and hostile events that we are confronted with’ (2009: 392). Moral stories, in particular, are quite relevant in exploring crises, as they engage with issues of accountability, responsibility and blame (Whittle and Mueller, 2012). They are also quite powerful, as they have a performative role in changing or maintaining the status quo (Riaz et al., 2011). Apart from their obvious audiences, they also serve unconsciously to help their authors construct their perception of self-in-crisis (De Cock et al., 2011). Research reveals ante-narratives of crisis which capture the plurivocal, gradual, fragmented and tentative quality of crisis narratives (Whittle and Mueller, 2012).

Highlighting the discursive elements of crises construction is not intended to shadow material elements thereof. Technologies have long been present in

accounts of crisis, albeit tightly coupled with the organisational and institutional context of their production and use (Pearson and Clair, 1998). The effects of the materiality of technological artefacts are often subordinated to the intentionality of human agency, as it is the latter that purportedly inscribes agency to artefacts in the design phase. Recently, discussions of material performativity have become more pervasive in social and organization studies, finding their place in crisis research as well. The manner in which material spaces provide the resources for constructing crises (Bar-Lev and Vitner, 2012), framing and calculating devices and economic theory perform aspects of emerging crises (Roberts and Ng, 2012), and material structures constrain the construction of alternative resolutions to crisis (Levy and Spicer, 2013) provide insight on the performativity of materiality in crises construction. Such a perspective substantiates beautifully critical realist accounts that discuss how materiality and its consequences become implicated in narratives of crises, particularly in moral accounts of accountability and blame.

What emerges as central in discussions of crises construction is the temporal dimension. Crises become as stories are told and retold, as images are circulated, interpreted and revised. When addressing the temporal dimension of crises, we need to distinguish between their chronology (Boudes and Laroche, 2009), namely, the unfolding of events in clock time, and both their phenomenological duration, that is the intertwining of a psychic flow with the immediate data of consciousness (Bergson, 1910) and their symbolized ‘duration’ (Chia, 2002). The latter refers to how events become weaved in storylines, assuming certain temporal spaces that altogether communicate the lived experience of the author. Even further, we refer to how authors and audiences move from the past to the present to the future in constructing these accounts. At times, it is memory that is constructed, tying the present to the past (Whittle and Mueller, 2012). At other times, the narrative reveals the perceived irreversibility of the past of the current crisis, the dependence of current constructions of a crisis on past ones (Di Mascio et al., 2013) or the usefulness of an irreversible past in approaching a current crisis (Brandstrom et al., 2004). Sometimes, however, memory is deconstructed to recover the lost potential of the past, in the hope that it finds actualisation in the present, thus, keeping open the possibility of resolution in the future; ‘we have to expose and dissipate the illusion of continuity in history and endow the present with its abilities to become other than it is’ (Wright et al., 2013)p. 653). In this sense, crises emerge as liminal spaces (Bar-Lev and Vitner, 2012), as they unfold in the absence of or despite the presence of contested structures (Powley, 2009). At the same time, they create a temporal space when the past can be reviewed and the future imagined. Crises carry the particular quality of inviting and establishing connections across temporal dimensions; successful construals of climate change, for instance, bring far consequences close, they make them part of the author’s and the audience’s present (Wright et al., 2013).

As insinuated in the above, it is not only crises that are constructed through discourse and narrative. So are resolutions of crises, the construction of which

has also been approached through the concept of the imaginary (Gaonkar, 2002, Jessop, 2013). Crises disturb prevailing frames of reference, as well as discursive and material practices, allowing for multiple constructions of crises, some of which will be accepted as ‘imagined recoveries’ (Jessop, 2013). Such osmosis often gives way to competing imaginaries, as contending accounts of the legitimacy and reasonableness of different responses unfold (Levy and Spicer, 2013). The social construction of imaginaries suggests they are far from well-contained, determinate technologies of organising social activity (De Cock et al., 2013). What they offer, nonetheless, is a reconceptualization of the contemporary understanding of crisis. Whilst the contemporary understanding of crisis carries the connotation of intense danger or difficulty, imaginaries communicate an understanding closer to the etymological root of the Greek krinein, ‘a time which requires one to decide ... a turning point or ‘moment’’ (Mabey and Morrell, 2011) p. 106). Thus, through the consideration of imaginaries, their generation and variation, selection and retention, a successfully constructed crisis may be theorized as involving the following processes: (i) a fundamental change in generative powers that sustain a process, (ii) a potential turning point, and (iii) a decision.

Congruent with this theorization of crisis, Jessop (2013) identifies two polar continua for understanding crises. Firstly, there is a polar distinction between, at one pole, ‘accidental’ crises, which are construed or constructed as being caused by some ‘external’ factor, and at the other pole, ‘form-determined’ crises, which are construed as being rooted in crisis-tendencies or antagonisms associated with specific social forms (the Marxist construal of capitalism as entailing crisis tendencies is an archetypal form-determined construal of crisis). Secondly, Jessop differentiates between the polar cases of crises in a given social configuration, and crises of a social configuration:

Crises ‘in’ occur within the parameters of a given set of natural and social arrangements. They are typically associated with routine forms of crisis-management that restore the basic features of these arrangements through internal adjustments and/or shift crisis effects into the future, elsewhere, or onto marginal and vulnerable groups. This is exemplified in alternating phases of unemployment and inflation in the post-war advanced capitalist economies and their treatment through countercyclical economic policies. Crises ‘of’ a system are less common. They occur when there is a crisis of crisis-management (that is, normal responses no longer work) and efforts to defer or displace crises encounter growing resistance. Such crises are more disorienting than crises ‘in’, indicating the breakdown of previous regularities and an inability to ‘go on in the old way’ (Jessop, 2013) p 243?

In other words, construals of a crisis as being ‘in’ a system favour responses which define the causes of the crisis and their remedies as being relatively known and manageable. In contrast construals of a crisis as being ‘of’ a system, imply that the crisis is both systemic (it affects the entirety of the system in

question) and systematic (it is methodical in the perpetration of its effects), and potentially favour responses of a radical or transformative nature.

In summary, the processes and forms of crisis display a multiplicity of characteristics: the role of the construal, construction and de-construction of crises and their resolutions; the semiotic and material interpenetration of these processes, including the moral dimension of blame and accountability and the aspects of the temporal dimension – material chronology, individual and group phenomenological durations and symbolized semiotic durations; the crucial features of (i) a change in generative powers; (ii) a potential turning point, and (iii) decision; and finally, the distinctions between ‘accidental’ and ‘form-determined’ crises on the one hand, and between crises ‘in’ a system and crises ‘of’ a system on the other.

Discussion: the inter-relations of processes and forms of crises to those of authority and leadershipMabey and Morrell (2011) very eloquently describe how crisis relates to leadership and authority by destabilising existing domain paradigms and modes of engagement:

It can expose the shortcomings of outmoded orthodoxy, paving the way for more radical, more ‘in touch’ ways of working. It can push people to the extreme which has the tendency to surface emotion, uncover latent conflict, reveal true motives and bring out the sacrificial best (in some at least). It can tell us what is important, by stripping away the superfluous and paring down to essentials. It can lay bare unfair, discriminatory, fraudulent practice and point to the root of accountability. It can puncture the pomposity of self-sufficiency, the myth of someone being in charge, the hubris of having all the answers (Mabey and Morrell, 2011) p.106

It is this myth of invulnerability that is dissolved in crisis - consequences directly affect the regulative, normative and cognitive grounds of the institutional field (Wicks, 2001). Crises are relevant to authority precisely because they undermine the belief in the legitimacy of regular and administered authority and its shadow informal authority. Essentially, in crises individuals and institutions ‘abdicate’ their authority by facilitating the emergence and maintenance of cultural elements that contribute to the crisis (Stein, 2011). Because there is a fundamental change in the generative powers of the process in question, the mode of legitimating that process comes into question (the justifications that ground the obligation come into question). Without the buttressing of belief naked power relations and conventions of order become apparent – the ‘crisis of legitimacy’ (cf Habermas, 1975) becomes the context in which any presenting crisis plays out. Crisis may in fact free both the administrators of formal authority and its subordinates from formal positional authority – which may be differentially experienced, between and within these groups. Experiences and construals of, and responses to, crisis will be influenced by position, relations and

resources, the potential generation and proliferation of imaginaries, as will their ensuing selection and retention. In this sense, crisis is a potential moment for modes of authority to be suspended – and for alternative modes of leadership or resistance leadership to be tested. Crises offer opportunities for affected individuals and groups to revisit their ‘leadership concept’ (Probert and Turnbull James, 2011), namely, their unconscious and collective assumptions about how they perceive, engage and evaluate leadership. Crises invite the exposing, reflecting and renewing of these assumptions so as to develop the potential for resolution, which often requires significant paradigm shifts (Brookes, 2011).

As noted in the introduction, much of the leadership literature makes reference to the potential of crises for new orders, in particular notions of charisma with both its authoritarian and revolutionary connotations, crises as ‘dangerous opportunity’ and crises as tests of leadership character. Much recent research engages with the relationship between crisis and charismatic leadership, contending that uncertain and turbulent environments often facilitate the emergence of charismatic leadership (Bligh et al., 2005, Davis and Gardner, 2012, Williams et al., 2009). Perceptions of charisma, nonetheless, relate also to the position of the leader within crisis. For instance, an incumbent leader’s perceived charisma is more likely to fade in a crisis due to the perceived contribution of the leader to the emergence and unfolding of crisis. At the same time, charisma is more often associated with a challenger who constructs a vision that provides a resolution to the crisis. Nonetheless, more mundane characteristics of leaders have been highlighted as relevant to crisis (Hadley et al., 2011), and the discussions of the processes and forms of leadership, in particular of resistance leadership open up a range of further inter-relations between crisis, leadership and authority.

Figures 1 and 2 distil some of the key processes and forms of crisis, leadership and authority, while not exhausting the preceding discussions. Figure 1 focuses on construals of crises ‘in’ a system with ‘accidental’ causes, whereas Figure 2 focuses on construals of crises ‘of’ a system with ‘form-determined’ causes (these representations do not exhaust the above combinations of processes and forms of crisis, authority and leadership, but they do enable consideration of two polar opposite construals of crisis and of some of the key features of authority and leadership).

Figure 1: Crises in a system, ‘accidental’

Relatively stable powersAccident

Generation and variation of imaginaries

Selection of imaginaries

Retention of imaginaries

Construal and ConstructionForce; moral and intellectual leadership

Resistance leadership (informal authority); incipient administered authority

Regular and administered authority; Informal authority

Crisis

Figure 2: Crises of a system, ‘form-determined’

Systematic crisis

Generation and variation of imaginaries

Selection of imaginaries

Retention of imaginaries

Construal and ConstructionForce; moral and intellectual leadership

Resistance leadership (informal authority); incipient administered authority

Regular and administered authority; Informal authority

Altered generative powers and crisis tendencies; or, Re-inforced generative

powers and crisis tendencies

Generative powers and crisis tendencies

The co-construal and co-construction of authority, leadership and crises is perhaps the key relationship between these three phenomena highlighted through the two Figures. Figure 1 points to the role of an accident acting as a reverse- deus ex machina – instead of inexplicably or unexpectedly resolving an issue or crisis, it is construed as unexpectedly causing the crisis. The crisis then requires explication via the generation and variation of imaginaries, their selection and retention, which involves both semiotic and material construal and construction through an assemblage of modes of leadership, which can variably involve force, moral or intellectual leadership. While a crisis that is construed as ‘in’ a system from an accidental cause may momentarily threaten regular and administered authority, its very construal as accidental tends to favour the re-application or moderate modification of the modes of power normal to the administrative system, assuming, that is, that these modes of power have not themselves been disabled by the crisis or its consequences, which would create more potential for alternative or resistant modes of leadership and incipient authority.

In this respect Figure 1 highlights the important difference between understanding leadership as ‘socially constructed in and from a context’ (Osborn, Hunt and Jauch (2002: 798) cited in Hannah et al., 2009) p.898. That is, it focuses attention on the ability of those in formal authority or leadership positions to intensify or attenuate the experience of crisis, and underlines the importance of approaching leadership as a phenomenon that essentially constructs its context. Understanding crises as constructed through leaders’ selective engagement, appropriation and narration of surrounding circumstances bestows leadership a performative quality that is often missing in situational/contextualist accounts. Grint (2005b) suggests that a crisis emerges as such only when leaders construct events as particular kinds of problems, assuming particular forms of authority. In this light, ‘what counts as legitimate authority depends upon a persuasive rendition of the context and a persuasive display of the appropriate authority style’ (Grint, 2005b: 1477). This discussion shares similarities with Boin et al’s (2009) discussion of framing contests around the significance and causality of triggering events and subsequent blame games.

In contrast, Figure 2 puts an emphasis not on individual instances of crisis, leadership or authority, but on inter-related and mutually impacting crisis tendencies, and recurrent and concurrent generation and variation of imaginaries, their selection and retention, and on ongoing conflict and negotiation of alternative and resistant modes of leadership and incipient authority with regular and administered authority. For sure, it recognizes the impact of systematic crises as particular instances where these processes collide and interact, but puts these in relation to the previous (and ensuing) accommodations between different groups and their modes of leadership and authority.

Figure 2 also highlights the ‘minor’ or ‘contained’ crises that are construed out of the equation in Figure 1. As Jessop (2013) points out, the normal crisis

management in construals of crisis as being ‘in’ a system as represented in Figure 2 normalizes or authorizes the administrative mechanisms that distance or externalise crisis effects onto vulnerable or external parties (e.g. the poor, the Global South, the environment). In other words, the construal of crisis as ‘in’ a system reinforces the regular and administered authority of pre-existent power structures. Figure 2 in contrast, points to the mutual implications of broader social forces such as the interdependency of the global North on processes which underdevelop the global South4.

The complexity represented in Figure 2 also indicates the potential multiply-tendential effect of crises on authority and leadership. On the one hand, systematic crises undermine the legitimacy of those in authority and potentially undermine their normal modes of regular and administered authority. Such situations, where both the administrators and subordinates receive less direction, allow the possibility for hidden transcripts to emerge and solidify and for the creation of new coalitions and concepts of leadership. On the other hand, systematic crises may also lead to what Grint (2005b) calls the irony of leadership (leadership that is inquiry- and collaboration-based) – a crisis situation tends to favour a command mode of positional authority, because while the authoritative leadership mode of asking questions and seeking collaboration may be most apt, it is also the most difficult mode to pursue in times of crisis, at least by those in positions of formal authority, precisely because crises threaten the beliefs that support their position of authority.

There is one further observation to be made from comparing Figure 1 and 2. One aspect of imaginaries, or at least the aspects of imaginaries that involve explicit ideas and discourses, is that part of their utility is that their representations simplify or reduce the complexity of everyday phenomena, and as such enable people to ‘carry on’. Formalized concepts and ideas are themselves commonly subject to a degree of frugality – that is concepts and theories are partly evaluated in accordance with their degree of parsimony. Parsimonious representations or theorizations of systems or phenomena, however, have a tendency to omit less visible processes – precisely those variables that will re-occur at some later stage as crisis-inducing reverse- deus ex machinae. As such, even if the representation of Figure 2 is a more ‘accurate’ construal of the inter-relationships of leadership, authority and crisis, there is a tendency to prefer the construal in Figure 1 – as it absolves those in authority of blame, and puts the onus on their powers of crisis management and resolution.

To review, the key arguments put forward in this paper are as follows. Firstly, the processes of social construal (the semiotic representation of a state of affairs) and social construction (the actualisation of a social construal into a social fact)

4 We acknowledge the reduction of complexity entailed in using these spatial terms (imaginaries), while referring to the differentiated generative powers embedded within these spatial regions that result from their ‘differentiated regional locations within the circuits of global accumulation’ (see McNally 2012 for a discussion of regional imaginaries)

(Sayer, 2000) is clearly crucial to all three concepts of leadership, authority and crisis, and in particular the construal and construction of any one of these has ramifications for the other two. Secondly, the role of leadership in establishing, supporting or resisting modes of authority, in particular, in the construal or construction of crises (Grint, 2005b) is brought to the foreground as the primary agency in these processes, but it is an agency that operates within and between already sedimented and stratified semiotic, material and power structures. Moreover, while much mainstream leadership literature is leader-centric we point to the possibilities of mutual and collaborative leadership, even if we acknowledge the often fleeting nature of such modes of social co-ordination. Thirdly, we argue for the importance of crises as potential turning points in the unfolding of social processes - that is their potentiality for change and revolution (Harvey, 2010), or conversely, as a means for legitimating extended domination (Wright Mills, 1956, Kerr, 2008). In particular, construals that focus upon crisis ‘in’ a system or on ‘accidental’ causes tend to be reproductive of forms of regular and administered authority, and even construals of crisis ‘of’ a system that is form-determined result in the irony of inquiry- and collaborative-based leadership – that is, that such a mode of leadership is often the most difficult to pursue in times of crisis. Finally, we have also pointed to the potential bias of the mode of representations of theories and concepts – namely that the explanatory power of theory is partly based on their parsimony, yet precisely this parsimony tends to favour representations of crisis that omit the cyclical, tendential, historically-embedded and contested nature of their construal and construction, and thus tend to favour systems and modes of regular and administered authority.

A future research agendaEngagement with alternative discourses of leadership (Mabey and Morrell, 2011) and considering the centrality of processes of construal and construction shows the complex relationships between crisis, authority and leadership. Should we move away from individual models of leadership to the joint, distributed and enacted leadership of the interpretive discourse, the discursively accomplished, temporary and fragile leadership of the dialogic discourse and the socially, historically and politically mediated leadership of the critical discourse, it becomes apparent how leaders are themselves constructed through their construction of crisis, as their narratives and performances interact with contending accounts of followers, other members of ‘elite groups’ (Kerr and Robinson, 2011, Riaz et al., 2011), researchers (Hargie et al., 2010) and further stakeholders (Riaz et al., 2011). These ante-narratives of crises, leadership and authority allow for unexpected ‘twists’ to occur. They can move the locus of crises in ways that leave audiences startled and bemused (Morgan et al., 2011) and can, even, account for failure while maintaining faith in the system (Whittle and Mueller, 2012). As Mabey and Morrell (2011) note, within such spaces leaders are able to influence developments by co-constructing accounts of the crisis that legitimate a certain form of authority. Of course, self-representation in the construction of crisis will have implications for self-representation in other

contexts (Tourish and Hargie, 2012). In this light, the fluidity and vulnerability of leadership in its becoming is revealed, and further research on these processes is warranted. Leadership and authority emerge as relational phenomena that take their form through continuous and tense interaction between individuals, groups, organisations and institutions. Crises, as a locus for potential research, open up spaces where the taken-for-grantedness of established forms of leadership and authority is revealed and scrutinised and become the sites where the alternative present becomes accessible, by reflecting on the past and imagining a future. Whether these new forms of order are imaginatively identified and adequately explored remains an open question – the contribution of past leadership towards this direction remains a more contentious one (Boin and 't Hart, 2003, Zahariadis, 2013), justifying further investigation into resistance leadership or other emergent phenomena of leadership, and/ or re-orientations by those in positions of authority.

ARCHER, M. S. 1995. Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, New York: Cambridge University Press.

ARCHER, M. S. 2000. Being Human: The Problem of Agency, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.BAR-LEV, S. & VITNER, G. 2012. Performing a Crisis: Institutional Politics and the Construction of

(Ir)Responsibility. Organization, 19(6), 667-684.BEETHAM, D. 1991. The Legitimation of Power, Basingstoke: Macmillan.BERGSON, H. 1910. Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness, London:

GeorGeorge Allen and Unwin.BLIGH, M. C., KOHLES, J. C. & PILLAI, R. 2005. Crisis and Charisma in the California Recall Election.

Leadership, 1(3), 323-352.BOIN, A. & 'T HART, P. 2003. Public Leadership in Times of Crisis: Mission Impossible? Public Adm.

Rev., 63(5), 544-553.BOIN, A., 'T HART, P. & MCCONNELL, A. 2009. Crisis Exploitation: Political and Policy Impacts of

Framing Contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81-106.BOUDES, T. & LAROCHE, H. 2009. Taking Off the Heat: Narrative Sensemaking in Post-Crisis Inquiry

Reports. Organization Studies, 30(4), 377-396.BRANDSTROM, A., BYNANDER, F. & 'T HART, P. 2004. Governing by Looking Back: Historical

Analogies and Crisis Management. Public Adm., 82(1), 191-210.BROOKES, S. 2011. Crisis, Confidence and Collectivity: Responding to the New Public Leadership

Challenge. Leadership, 7(2), 175-194.BUCHANAN, D. A. & DENYER, D. 2013. Researching Tomorrow's Crisis: Methodological Innovations

and Wider Implications. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 205-224.BURNS, J. M. 1978. Leadership, New York: Harper and Row.CARLYLE, T. 1966. On Heroes, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History., Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press.CHIA, R. 2002. Essai: Time, Duration and Simultaneity: Rethinking Process and Change in

Organizational Analysis. Organization Studies, 23(6), 863-868.DAVIS, K. M. & GARDNER, W. L. 2012. Charisma under Crisis Revisited: Presidential Leadership,

Perceived Leader Effectiveness, and Contextual Influences. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 918-933.

DE COCK, C., BAKER, M. & VOLKMANN, C. 2011. Financial Phantasmagoria: Corporate Image-Work in Times of Crisis. Organization, 18(2), 153-172.

DE COCK, C., VACHHANI, S. & MURRAY, J. 2013. Putting into Question the Imaginary of Recovery: A Dialectical Reading of the Global Financial Crisis and Its Aftermath. Culture and Organization, 19(5), 396-412.

DI MASCIO, F., NATALINI, A. & STOLFI, F. 2013. The Ghost of Crises Past: Analyzing Reform Sequences to Understand Italy's Response to the Global Crisis. Public Administration, 91(1), 17-31.

GALLIE, W. B. 1956. Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167-198.

GAONKAR, D. P. 2002. Toward New Imaginaries: An Introduction. Public Culture, 14(1), 1-19.GORDON, R. 2002. Conceptualizing Leadership with Respect to Its Historical–Contextual Antecedents

to Power. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 151-167.GOSLING, J. & CASE, P. 2013. Social Dreaming and Ecocentric Ethics: Sources of Non-Rational Insight

in the Face of Climate Change Catastrophe. Organization, 20(5), 705-721.GRAMSCI, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks, London: Lawrence and Wishart.GRINT, K. 2005a. Leadership: Limits and Possibilities, Basingstoke: Palgrave.GRINT, K. 2005b. Problems, Problems, Problems: The Social Construction of 'Leadership'. Human

Relations, 58(11), 1467-1494.HABERMAS, J. 1975. Legitimation Crisis, Boston: Beacon Press.HADLEY, C. N., PITTINSKY, T. L., SOMMER, S. A. & ZHU, W. 2011. Measuring the Efficacy of Leaders to

Assess Information and Make Decisions in a Crisis: The C-Lead Scale. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 633-648.

HALSALL, R. 2013. Signs of Crisis and Recovery: Geographical Imaginaries in Press Coverage of the Financial Crisis in the Uk and German Press 2008-2009. Culture and Organization, 19(5), 377-395.

HANNAH, S. T., UHL-BIEN, M., AVOLIO, B. J. & CAVARRETTA, F. L. 2009. A Framework for Examining Leadership in Extreme Contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 897-919.

HARDY, C., PALMER, I. & PHILLIPS, N. 2000. Discourse as a Strategic Resource. Human Relations, 53(9), 1227-1248.

HARDY, C. & PHILLIPS, N. 2004. Discourse and Power. In: GRANT, D., HARDY, C., OSWICK, C. & PUTNAM, L. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: Sage.

HARGIE, O., STAPLETON, K. & TOURISH, D. 2010. Interpretations of Ceo Public Apologies for the Banking Crisis: Attributions of Blame and Avoidance of Responsibility. Organization, 17(6), 721-742.

HARTZ, R. 2012. Reclaiming the Truth of the Market in Times of Crisis: Course, Transformation and Strategies of a Liberal Discourse in Germany. Culture & Organization, 18(2), 139-154.

HARVEY, D. 2010. Organizing for the Anti-Capitalist Transition. Interface: a journal for and about social movements, 2(1), 243-261.

HEKMAN, S. 1983. Weber's Ideal Type: A Contemporary Reassessment. Polity, 16(1), 119-137.HOLLANDER, E. P. 1978. Leadership Dynamics: A Practical Guide to Effective Relationships, New York:

Free Press.HOUSE, R. J., HANGES, R. J., RUIZ-QUINTANILLA, S. A., DORFMAN, P. W., JAVIDAN, M. & DICKSON, M.

A. 1999. Cultural Influences on Leadership and Organizations: Project Globe. In: MOBLEY, W. H., GESSNER, M. J. & ARNOLD, V. (eds.) Advances in Global Leadership. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.

JESSOP, B. 2007. State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach, Cambridge: Polity Press.JESSOP, B. 2010. Cultural Political Economy and Critical Policy Studies. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3-4),

336-356.JESSOP, B. 2013. Recovered Imaginaries, Imagined Recoveries: A Cultural Political Economy of Crisis

Construals and Crisis-Management in the North Atlantic Financial Crisis. In: BENNER, M. (ed.)

Before and Beyond the Global Economic Crisis: Economics, Politics and Settlement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

KAMOCHE, K. & PINNINGTON, A. H. 2012. Managing People 'Spiritually': A Bourdieusian Critique. Work, Employment & Society, 26(3), 497-513.

KERR, R. 2008. Discourse and Leadership: Using the Paradigm of the Permanent State of Emergency. Critical Discourse Studies, 5(3), 201-216.

KERR, R. & ROBINSON, S. 2011. Leadership as an Elite Field: Scottish Banking Leaders and the Crisis of 2007-2009. Leadership, 7(2), 151-173.

LEVY, D. L. & SPICER, A. 2013. Contested Imaginaries and the Cultural Political Economy of Climate Change. Organization, 20(5), 659-678.

MABEY, C. & MORRELL, K. 2011. Leadership in Crisis: ‘Events, My Dear Boy, Events’. Leadership, 7(2), 105-117.

MAITLIS, S. & SONENSHEIN, S. 2010. Sensemaking in Crisis and Change: Inspiration and Insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551-580.

MCNALLY, D. 2012. Monsters of the Market: Zombies, Vampires and Global Capitalism, Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

MORGAN, G., FROUD, J., QUACK, S. & SCHNEIBERG, M. 2011. Capitalism in Crisis: Organizational Perspectives. Organization, 18(2), 147-152.

MOYNIHAN, D. P. 2012. A Theory of Culture-Switching: Leadership and Red-Tape During Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration, 90(4), 851-868.

MULLEN, J., VLADI, N. & MILLS, A. J. 2006. Making Sense of the Walkerton Crisis. Culture & Organization, 12(3), 207-220.

NEUMANN, A. 1995. Context, Cognition, and Culture: A Case Analysis of Collegiate Leadership and Cultural Change. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 251-279.

O'REILLY, D. & REED, M. 2010. ‘Leaderism’: An Evolution of Managerialism in Uk Public Service Reform. Public Administration, 88(4), 960-978.

O'REILLY, D. & REED, M. 2011. The Grit in the Oyster: Professionalism, Managerialism and Leaderism as Discourses of Uk Public Services Modernization. Organization Studies, 32(8), 1079-1101.

PADILLA, A., HOGAN, R. & KAISER, R. B. 2007. The Toxic Triangle: Destructive Leaders, Susceptible Followers, and Conducive Environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194.

PARKIN, F. 1982. Max Weber, Chichester: Ellis Horwood.PEARSON, C. M. & CLAIR, J. A. 1998. Reframing Crisis Management. Academy of Management. The

Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 59-76.POWLEY, E. H. 2009. Reclaiming Resilience and Safety: Resilience Activation in the Critical Period of

Crisis. Human Relations, 62(9), 1289-1326.PROBERT, J. & TURNBULL JAMES, K. 2011. Leadership Development: Crisis, Opportunities and the

Leadership Concept. Leadership, 7(2), 137-150.RAELIN, J. A. 2013. The Manager as Facilitator of Dialogue. Organization, 20(6), 818-839.RIAZ, S., BUCHANAN, S. & BAPUJI, H. 2011. Institutional Work Amidst the Financial Crisis: Emerging

Positions of Elite Actors. Organization, 18(2), 187-214.ROBERTS, J. & NG, W. 2012. Against Economic (Mis)Conceptions of the Individual: Constructing

Financial Agency in the Credit Crisis. Culture & Organization, 18(2), 91-105.SAYER, A. 2000. Realism and Social Science, London: Sage.SCHEIN, E. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.SCOTT, J. C. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, New Haven: Yale

University Press.SENNETT, R. 1980. Authority, New York: Knopf.SMIRCICH, L. & MORGAN, G. 1982. Leadership: The Management of Meaning. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257-273.STEIN, M. 2004. The Critical Period of Disasters: Insights from Sense-Making and Psychoanalytic

Theory. Human Relations, 57(10), 1243-1261.

STEIN, M. 2011. A Culture of Mania: A Psychoanalytic View of the Incubation of the 2008 Credit Crisis. Organization, 18(2), 173-186.

STOGDILL, R. M. 1974. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press.

SVETLOVA, E. 2012. Talking About the Crisis: Performance of Forecasting in Financial Markets. Culture & Organization, 18(2), 155-169.

TAYLOR, C. 2004. Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.TOMLINSON, M., O’REILLY, D. & WALLACE, M. 2013. Developing Leaders as Symbolic Violence:

Reproducing Public Service Leadership through the (Misrecognized) Development of Leaders’ Capitals. Management Learning, 44(1), 81-97.

TOURISH, D. & HARGIE, O. 2012. Metaphors of Failure and the Failures of Metaphor: A Critical Study of Root Metaphors Used by Bankers in Explaining the Banking Crisis. Organization Studies, 33(8), 1045-1069.

TRONICK, E. Z., BRUSCHWEILER-STERN, N., HARRISON, A. M., LYONS-RUTH, K., MORAN, A. C., NAHUM, J. P., SANDER, L. & STERN, D. N. 1998. Dyadically Expanded States of Consciousness and the Process of Therapeutic Change. Infant Mental Health Journal, 19(3), 290-299.

WEBER, M. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Berkeley: University of California Press.

WEICK, K. E. 1988. Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305-317.

WEICK, K. E. 1990. The Vulnerable System: An Analysis of the Tenerife Air Disaster. Journal of Management, 16(3), 571.

WEICK, K. E. 1993. The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628-652.

WHITTLE, A. & MUELLER, F. 2012. Bankers in the Dock: Moral Storytelling in Action. Human Relations, 65(1), 111-139.

WICKS, D. 2001. Institutionalized Mindsets of Invulnerability: Differentiated Institutional Fields and the Antecedents of Organizational Crisis. Organization Studies, 22(4), 659-692.

WILLIAMS, E. A., PILLAI, R., LOWE, K. B., JUNG, D. & HERST, D. 2009. Crisis, Charisma, Values, and Voting Behavior in the 2004 Presidential Election. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 70-86.

WITTGENSTEIN, L. 2001. Philosophical Investigations, London: Blackwell.WRIGHT, C., NYBERG, D., DE COCK, C. & WHITEMAN, G. 2013. Future Imaginings: Organizing in

Response to Climate Change. Organization, 20(5), 647-658.WRIGHT MILLS, C. 1956. The Power Elite, New York: Oxford University Press.YUKL, G. 2009. Leadership in Organizations, New Jersey: Pearson.ZAHARIADIS, N. 2013. Leading Reform Amidst Transboundary Crises: Lessons from Greece. Public

Administration, 91(3), 648-662.ZALD, M. N. & BERGER, M. 1978. Social Movements in Organizations: Coup D'etat, Insurgency, and

Mass Movements. American Journal of Sociology, 83(4), 823-61.ZOLLER, H. M. & FAIRHURST, G. T. 2007. Resistance Leadership: The Overlooked Potential in Critical

Organization and Leadership Studies. Human Relations, 60(9), 1331-1360.