+ Models

ORGDYN-644; No. of Pages 10

Organizational Dynamics (2018) xxx, xxx—xxx

Available online at [Link]

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/orgdyn

Beyond leadership and followership:

Working with a variety of modes of organizing
Mats Alvesson, Martin Blom

Contemporary business life has high hopes and expectations differences. Leadership is also different from people influ-
for leadership. Managers are expected to provide more, encing each other in a horizontal or “equal” way, i.e.
new, and better leadership — strategic, visionary, charis- through teamwork or collegial support. This is sometimes
matic, level 5, transformational, post-heroic, authentic, referred to as “shared leadership”, which of course tends to
servant, you name it — in order to guide their organizations create confusion.
to success and at the same time contribute to a better No doubt, leadership often makes a difference. Vision-
world. Whatever the problem is, leadership is rapidly ary and inspirational leadership can provide purpose and
offered as the solution. But the meaning of “leadership” broader meaning. It can lead to shared ideas and values,
is often very vague. It is a powerful identity-booster, but crucial for people working together. A leader showing high
close up studies show how confused and inconsistent many ethical standards may set a good example and boost
managers often are about leadership and many fail to live morale in organizations. But successful leadership as
up to unrealistic ideals. Often leadership recipes are a described above is also quite complex and difficult. Few
source of problems just as much as solutions to them. managers come close to the high ideals. Disappointment,
The key issue addressed in this article is that in a time confusion and cynicism often follow –— among managers as
of strong leader-centrism it is easy to forget that there are well as their subordinates. And with a strong emphasis on
other ways of making people work well together, than leadership there is also a cultivation of followership: sub-
through leadership. A broader spectrum of other modes ordinates waiting for the leader to show them the way. This
of organizing — here defined as ways of providing direc- may be purposeful and adequate with very strong man-
tion, advice, support, coordination, encouragement, agers (or informal leaders) with plenty of time for doing
inspiration and feedback in order to make people work leadership and fairly weak subordinates highly receptive to
productively together (or autonomously) — is often leadership attempts, but often these preconditions are not
needed. We suggest some caution in over relying on leader- there.
ship in favour of working with this wider spectrum of ways Our research group has conducted decades of in-depth
of organizing. studies on the leadership efforts of managers in leading
Leadership is about influencing meanings, values and multinational companies in industries such as telecommu-
beliefs in a hierarchical (unequal) relation. It is often nications, electronics and high-tech, life science and IT-
confused with management. Management is about plan- and management consulting. One recurrent finding is that
ning, budgeting, resource allocation, assignment of tasks, managers’ leadership talk and practice often differ, some-
control, policy making, hiring/firing, role specifications in times radically. Many managers — perhaps more than other
the employment contract, not primarily about meanings, people suffering from biased feedback — have an unrealis-
ideas and values. Management targets subordinates’ beha- tic, blown up understanding of themselves and their
viour more directly, while leadership addresses people’s impact. Managers and subordinates often assess the leader-
feelings and thinking, or hearts and minds, as pointed out ship efforts quite differently. A recurrent finding is that
by scholars such as John Kotter and Abraham Zaleznik. Of leadership seldom works so well as managers and others like
course, in practice management and leadership often over- to think.
lap, but that is not a reason to ignore their important

[Link]
0090-2616/© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Alvesson, M. Blom, Organ Dyn (2018), [Link]
+ Models
ORGDYN-644; No. of Pages 10

2 M. Alvesson, M. Blom

BEING REALISTIC ABOUT LEADERSHIP: tures frame people’s sense of reality and are often beyond
CONSIDERING LIMITATIONS OF MANAGERS’ the direct control of individual managers trying to do leader-
ship. It is here also important to point out that skilled leaders
TIME AND ABILITY often articulate and focus on what is — more or less con-
sciously — already in people’s hearts and minds rather than
Managers are often busy people and leadership is a time- just insensitively trying to change their views, values, feel-
consuming way of providing inspiration, encouragement, ings and sense making. We typically ascribe leader qualities
direction, advice, support, coordination and feedback; to to people that fit our “prototypes” for how a leader should
profoundly influence how people think and act takes time be, i.e. how they correspond with our particular view of
and patience. Most managers interact not only with subor- leadership. Radically changing people is difficult and rare,
dinates, but spend a lot of their time with superiors, col- even though of course people can be made to change beha-
leagues, customers, suppliers and others. Mundane viour in crises situations or gradually over time.
administrative and operational tasks take time, especially It is often assumed that managers doing leadership are
for managers: IT-issues, forecasts, budgets, monthly report- outstanding in relation to their subordinates; they have
ing, legal compliance, and so forth. In short, as a manager convincing visions and values, they are impressive gestalts
you are often bombarded with other more or less urgent and that are respected and admired by their subordinates
important issues that makes it hard to find time for doing prepared to be guided by their leaders. It is often taken
leadership. In fact, many managers we have studied actually for granted that managers are smarter, more knowledge-
said that they simply had little time for leadership. able, morally superior, more psychologically insightful and
In addition to lack of time most managers, as human rhetorically skilled than their subordinates, being prepared
beings, have personal imperfections. Few people are that to follow. Of course, sometimes managers are superior in
charismatically, psychologically and communicatively gifted some aspects compared to their subordinates and thus have
so they actually can live up to the ideal of being transfor- a good platform for exercising leadership. But more often
mative or authentic or other popular concepts sold by the managers are only marginally superior to some of their
“leadership development industry” (educators, mass media, subordinates, in particular more talented or experienced
consultants, HR staff, researchers). Many managers like to ones. Just because a person is promoted or attending some
think they can, but their self-view is seldom confirmed by executive education program does not mean that s/he is
how their subordinates think of them. This is not to deny that necessarily far above others in terms of ability. Sometimes
there are good managers doing excellent leadership, but the they, as many of the managers that we have studied, run
average manager seldom comes close to the ideals. There is the risk of making fools of themselves when trying to live
a grandiose image of leadership that easily leads to myths up to unrealistic leadership ideals. Subordinates are often
and fantasies that is indeed problematic. Wishful thinking not impressed. One of us recently observed a meeting
and narcissistic feelings of greatness easily take over. And where two top managers launched a new strategy. All
people seduced into grandiose, seemingly easy “solutions” the standard leadership material was there: visions,
tend to breed disasters, when fantasies and hopes clash with values, well prepared power points, presentation skills
imperfect reality at workplaces. etc. The response of the subordinates indicated deep
Good leadership calls for reflexivity, thoughtfulness and scepticism; “A lot of buzzwords”, “So hollow”, “Gosh I
recognition of shortcomings rather than just following fash- had thought they were better than that”, “What have
ionable trends and popular recipes about how to act. It calls these people been smoking”. In another of our studies
for realism instead of excessive positivity and naïve opti- the manager believed he was a fantastic coaching leader,
mism. It calls for consideration of employees often wanting but after some time the subordinates thought he was
and benefitting from autonomy and relying on peer relations incapable of making decisions and found the coaching often
as much or even more than being devoted followers eager to more manipulative than helpful.
be led by their leaders. It also calls for seriously considering In many contemporary organizations subordinates are
the alternatives to leadership: both vertical and horizontal competent, self-confident and like think for themselves.
modes of organizing. They are not always so interested in being followers to a
manager trying to do leadership. Many feel that they do not
BEING REALISTIC ABOUT FOLLOWERSHIP: flourish in a hierarchical context where the leader is the star
THE “LEADERSHIP SCEPTICAL” of the local solar system. Too much exposure for less well
SUBORDINATE thought through managerial leadership activities are not
always well received. Blunted and perhaps increasingly fru-
strated targets for leadership attempts can start showing
In contrast to being a formal subordinate to a manager, being
cynicism, faked or shallow acceptance, ignorance, and so
a follower to a leader entails a largely voluntary submission.
forth. A well-known phenomenon is the BOHICA response:
As a manager, you can control subordinates’ behaviour in line
Bend Over Here It Comes Again –— a new “inspirational” talk,
with what the employment contract stipulates, but not
a change initiative, a new (and better!) corporate vision.
necessarily their thoughts, feelings, values and sense mak-
This risk needs to be recognized and carefully measured
ing. The latter is the key of leadership. But changing peoples’
against the pressure to proactively intervene, as often
hearts and minds is not easy. Subordinates have their own
described by the leadership development industry.
understandings and priorities. They are exposed to compet-
Illustrative practical examples can be the middle man-
ing messages and values from colleagues, family, friends, co-
agers at one global high-tech company that we studied
workers and professional communities. Organizational cul-
telling us that:

Please cite this article in press as: M. Alvesson, M. Blom, Organ Dyn (2018), [Link]
+ Models
ORGDYN-644; No. of Pages 10

Beyond leadership and followership 3

“The managers I struggle with most are the ‘motivating’ Leadership

types, who try to create energy and momentum, but only
move back and forth without keeping a clear direction.” Autonomy Management

Another middle manager at the same company told us

that:
Teamwork Power
“My work has seldom received much leadership. Some-
thing that I appreciate (laughter)!”
A senior software developer in another high-tech com-
pany we studied was asked about his manager’s leadership Figure 1 Modes of Organizing –— The 6M Model
and was happy with him getting the hint from his subordi-
nates about not being too ambitious: leadership — but there are also ways for people working
“So far there haven’t been any problems with George together that is not about leadership. Clever thinking calls
[referring to his new manager realizing that he should not for distinctions and understandings of nuances. Through
try to interfere too much].” distinctions, we can better see options and act more wisely.
It is therefore also useful to remember that there are alter-
These and other interviews from our research program natives to leadership and that these sometimes are more
illustrate the tiredness of leadership efforts in many modern appropriate in order to ensure direction, support, coordina-
organizations. Many managers are convinced of their signif- tion, discipline, advice, feedback, encouragement or
icance as leaders — often fuelled by the leadership devel- inspiration. Below we present a framework that will help
opment industry, eager to satisfy its consumers’ need for to identify and evaluate various means — so called modes of
wishful thinking and narcissism — while their subordinates organizing — to achieve that.
notice little of this: In Fig. 1 and Table 1 (below) we organize the alternatives
“In particular I have noted the lack of leadership, what- as six different modes of organizing: three vertical modes —
ever that is, but instead noted the image of a world class leadership, management and power — and three horizontal
leadership. In reality it seemed like the most successful modes –— group work, peer influencing and autonomy. Ver-
managers just were engaged in internal meetings with tical modes are characterized by a hierarchy (formal or not).
other managers. Leadership is . . . like something you Here one part — the leader, the manager or the exerciser of
mostly are talking about. Preferably in grand and pomp- power — is significantly more influential than the actor(s) he
ous terms. Everyone seems to be leadership oracles when or she is trying to influence –— the follower, the subordinate
they are asked to assess themselves.” (Engineer in a or the target of power. Horizontal modes are based on
global industrial equipment company) equality and influence is more evenly distributed among
actors, e.g. team members, peers within a profession or
When it comes to leadership, realism and modesty are as people working autonomously.
rare as they are important. In our studies, we have often Leadership, as already described, is about relating to and
seen that when subordinates want direction, support or influencing people’s hearts and minds, i.e. managing their
other forms of interference from their managers they actu- meanings. Leadership includes persuasive, sometimes
ally ask for good old-fashioned management, e.g. clear seductive talk, directing attention to important issues and
objectives or guidelines, more resources, clarity around engaging in symbolic, exemplary behaviour. As a follower,
expectations, deadlines or budgets, help with trade-offs you voluntary submit to the ideas and inspirational example
and priorities, clarification of policies, fair wage setting, of the leader. Not by force, anticipation of rewards or
etc. Often, they want managers to act upwards, to protect because your formal employee contract demands it, but
units from excessive demands or unproductive interventions because you buy into the leader’s message about what is
from senior levels. But acting upwards in the hierarchy is not right, wrong, desirable and possible to do. The leader’s
about leadership and followership. action and communication affects the sense of work, prac-
Managers and their not always so helpful allies in the tices, objectives and values. People tend to feel good about
leadership development industry — often preaching about themselves and their employment. They are cognitively and
leadership and neglecting most other things that managers emotionally inspired. This is of course easier to achieve if the
do — need to realize that there are alternative ways to make leadership acts are well aligned with and articulate what is
organizations function. And bring these alternatives more to already in people’s hearts and minds as well as the organiza-
the forefront. tional culture.
At its best, effective leadership leads to shared under-
standings, to flexible and committed actions. It can inspire
THE 6M MODEL: SIX DIFFERENT MODES OF people to create a positive work environment and accom-
ORGANIZING plish objectives better. It can therefore of course be very
powerful. A good example in this sense was an IT-consulting
Leadership has no doubt its place, also in organizations with firm we studied, where all new hires had a week of “boot
well-educated, highly motivated self-starters as the ones camp” were the firm’s history, myths, values, mission,
quoted above. But as previously said it is important to vision, culture and raison d’etre were effectively commu-
recognize the risk of ‘overusing’ leadership — in rhetoric nicated by senior managers to a responsive audience. Key
as well as in practice. Of course, there are many forms of values like being open and treating everybody as a friend and

Please cite this article in press as: M. Alvesson, M. Blom, Organ Dyn (2018), [Link]
 4
ORGDYN-644; No. of Pages 10
+ Models
Please cite this article in press as: M. Alvesson, M. Blom, Organ Dyn (2018), [Link]

Table 1 Modes of Organizing –— Summary and overview

Mode Dominant direction Definition Key roles Example of activities Key conditions for success
Leadership Vertical (persuasion) Interpersonal influencing Leader and follower Inspirational talk/behaviour in Time, skill and receptive
process in an order to provide direction, followers
asymmetrical meaning and emotional and/or
relationship, targeting moral support. Exemplary
meaning, feelings and behaviour
values
Management Vertical (legitimate Authority based on Manager and subordinate Planning, budgeting, Formal authority over the
authority) formal rights and supervision, schedules/rules/ actors you are trying to
hierarchy guidelines, and performance influence
control/evaluation
Power Vertical (anxiety) Authority based on force Dominant actor and less Use of threats and sanctions, Leverage and/or control over
and/or political skills dominant actor in a promising rewards, mobilizing critical resources in relation to
power game group pressure, use of client/ the actors you are trying to
patron networks influence. Political skills.
Authority
Group work Horizontal (persuasion/ Guidance and support Team members in a Co-decision making, team Co-workers that accept and are
group pressure) from members of the rather equal relationship meetings and mutual able to work together without
work group (no salient formal or adjustments on a daily basis significant hierarchical
informal –— “team direction or support
leader” other than
momentarily)
Peer influencing Horizontal (persuasion/ Guidance and support Respected and receptive Work in subject matter expert Co-workers with strong and
advice) from peers within the actors in one’s network networks, conferences or relevant network resources that
same occupational informal contacts/ad hoc- accept and are able to work
specialty/community of problem solving. Informal without significant hierarchical
practice (outside one’s meetings outside work direction or support
own immediate meetings, lunches, etc.
workgroup/
organizational unit)
Autonomy Horizontal (competency/ Self-orchestrated work Autonomous agent/ Thinking for yourself, to a Independent co-workers with
self-reliance) processes professional significant degree setting own high professional/work ethics

M. Alvesson, M. Blom
standards, planning and and a large portion of intrinsic
evaluating your own work and motivation
performance
+ Models
ORGDYN-644; No. of Pages 10

Beyond leadership and followership 5

part of the community, were expressed through leader talk, vated and accepted. But there is a risk that the exercise of
personal example and social events. openly coercive power will be morally out of line, violate
However, leadership is hard to achieve and take skills, policies (or even law) and cause resistance (e.g. conflicts
time, patience and responsive followers. And leadership talk with unions). As with the other two vertical modes of
emphasizing certain values and meanings may be vague, organizing, there are few correctives to the leader’s/man-
unclear and lead to rather diverse understandings, for exam- ager’s/power-holder’s possibly problematic understandings,
ple when customer-orientation, creativity or “being posi- objectives or priorities.
tive” are being preached. As mentioned, our in-depth Apple’s Steve Jobs is a good example of a CEO that
studies indicate that leadership efforts seldom are success- managed to combine all these three vertical modes of
ful; subordinates nod politely, but take little notice. They organizing in an often productive way, although his (ab)
may “play” doing followership to “leadership”, but there is use of power sometimes was seen as highly problematic.
no in-depth influencing that really sticks. This does not Jobs was famous for his intensive stirring at people trying to
necessarily mean that the managers we have studied are object to him –— in most cases they gave up.
poor leaders but that the necessary preconditions mentioned Of course, often power and management (and leadership)
above are not simply there. overlap but they should not be muddled: overlap does not
Management, also previously described, is in contrast to equate to sameness. For issues of clarity we avoid talking of
leadership directly targeting actual behaviour and specific leadership or management as power, although of course
objectives rather than the thinking and feelings of people. It there is always a power aspect in this –— exercise of power
is usually based on formal hierarchical role descriptions and is rarely a matter of simple brute force, but tends to be
organization charts (e.g. the relationship between a superior linked to some elements of leadership or management.
manager and a subordinate co-worker) in terms of status, In addition to these three vertical modes of organizing,
authority, rights and obligations. It typically addresses the there are also horizontal modes of organizing. Here fairly
input (hiring and firing people, resource allocation), output equal relationships are key in coordination and functional
(performance management and management by objectives), and psychological support, in sense-making and providing
actual content of work processes (standardization or speci- direction.
fication of how work tasks should be performed) or direct No doubt, hierarchical vertical modes of organizing have
supervision of people. Management is key to effective orga- their place in most modern organizations. But more hori-
nizations, in particular where formal structures, procedures, zontal modes are often underestimated as means of provid-
supervision and delivery requirements are important. But ing direction, advice, support, coordination, feedback,
management can be uninspiring, calls for compliance and encouragement and inspiration among subordinates. In par-
assumes that the manager or the managerial/bureaucratic ticular in knowledge intensive organizations, able and well-
structure “knows best”. Many organizations, in particular educated co-workers often prefer less top-down, control and
large ones, have a tendency of being over-managed –— with command types of instructions and influence. But also other
structures, guidelines, regulations and procedures for major trends such as shifting demographics and an increasing
almost everything. Flexibility, commitment and the full number of highly educated workers/job seekers in many
use of the ideas and knowledge of subordinates are to some countries point in the same direction –— horizontal modes
extent sacrificed. of organizing might often be a good alternative or at least a
Organizations are, however, not only sites where rational complement to traditional vertical ones. Let us now present
ways of organizing like management are at play. Often three of these more in detail.
people have different and conflicting interests and priori- Group work means that the members share responsibility,
ties. Organizations are political sites and clever use of power help each other and learn from each other without much
is central and sometimes highly functional for units, espe- interference (time, energy and focus) from their superior(s).
cially if other more conventional measures (e.g. leadership A group or team is of course seldom entirely leader- or
and management) have failed. Managers are often engaged manager-free, but most organizing work is done through
in political struggles and occasionally the use of coercive mutual adjustments among co-workers on rather equal
force, called power (of the coercive type) in the model, is terms, may it be within the formal line organization, a task
central. It includes the ability to punish co-workers in more force or a project. It can involve people working collectively
or less subtle ways (e.g. give them undesirable assignments) with a common task or situations where people have differ-
or to withhold resources or rewards that are dear to them. It ent, well-defined tasks but need to coordinate these with
can also mean raising the voice, show authority or being each other. Common is that there is no team member that
aggressive. Overcoming of inertia and resistance is here significantly stands out in terms of influence over his/her
essential. Intimidation and hints of rewards or punishments colleagues. The team may of course involve formal man-
(typically not regulated in the agreed upon remuneration agers, e.g. an appointed project manager, but the formal
scheme or personal development plan) can sometimes make position is not that central. Here, people primary influence
things happen when reason, formal management and based on arguments, knowledge and ideas, not on their
“softer” influencing efforts (such as leadership/voluntary titles. A typical example would be a group of engineers
followership) fall short. Publically celebrated managers are working on a technical problem with a new product that
often skilled power players, sometimes for the benefit of meet in order to solve that problem. No one — not even a
their units and people working for them. participating manager — is necessarily more dominant or
Organizational politics are seldom handled only through influential than the rest and the process is based on group
consensual leadership or rational management. In particular, discussions, emerging consensus and mutual adjustments.
in crises situations the use of coercive power may be moti- The outcome — the chosen solution — is a collective work

Please cite this article in press as: M. Alvesson, M. Blom, Organ Dyn (2018), [Link]
+ Models
ORGDYN-644; No. of Pages 10

6 M. Alvesson, M. Blom

product, without any authority doing much orchestrating or rather biased (“My boss is a jerk”). The network resource
monitoring. may have no or limited “local” knowledge. They cannot
Team members are the main source for direction, advice, directly be used for alignment of meanings, ideas and effort
support, etc. Sometimes people talk about this as shared at work as they usually only communicate with the network
leadership, but this confuses group work (or collaborative user, not the entire work group.
horizontal practice) with leadership. An advantage with Autonomy refers to people being mainly self-directed at
group work is that people often feel responsible and moti- work. Of course, being part of an organization means that
vated and there is more space for knowledge and good ideas you still need to communicate with and adapt to relevant
to be taken seriously than in hierarchical situations, where people such as close colleagues, peers and managers, but
management, power or leadership is supposed to be a key this is not dominant, regular or significant. Many highly
driver. Even with participatory leadership, the leader is still qualified people being motivated by interesting work are
in the driver’s seat and others tend to be more passive. able to work on their own, with only occasional support from
A problem with group work is that it is not so easy to others. A skilled physician, architect, a lawyer and crafts
establish. People may have different ideas, values and inter- person is supposed to be able to work without much leader-
ests and there may be conflicts or time-consuming discus- ship or management or team support. Competent and
sions. A group may also be more interested in protecting or responsible persons are able to deal with relations and
maximizing self-interest or avoiding stress or boring work, collaborations necessary for the job without a manager,
and may thus be less inclined to prioritize work in an overall leader, peers or colleagues overseeing and guiding this.
pro-organization direction compared to a situation where a Autonomy may of course indirectly be supported by e.g.
manager or other authority is having a stronger say. leadership or management, but the support occupies a
Similarly, network-based peer influencing is also charac- peripheral rather than central position for the autonomous
terized by its lack of hierarchical, vertical influence in favour person. It is contradictory to emphasize the role of leader-
of more horizontal, reciprocal interactions. In contrast to ship to cultivate “autonomous followers”, as autonomy
group work, here people in your network but outside your actually means “non-following”. This is often best done
closest work group context, are used for advice, support, through the absence or minimization of leadership more
encouragement and inspiration. It may be colleagues in other than active work with making people autonomous –— the
parts of the organization, former colleagues/managers, a latter being paradoxical. However, some signalling of the
mentor, a consultant, relatives and friends, peers within the need for autonomy, for example communication of expecta-
same profession in other firms, and so forth. Formal profes- tions on people being able to think for themselves at work
sionals often have strong associations, regular conferences, may encourage autonomy and can therefore often be appro-
courses and other activities. Respected peers in these com- priate.
munities are sometimes more helpful for guidance than man- A typical case of autonomy in this sense is a telecommu-
agers. Specific persons in a network can be actively used for nications firm that we studied, where a senior manager
many of the functions normally associated with managerial emphasized that he is not very active as a manager (acting
leadership, e.g. coaching or knowledge support. downwards) and that his subordinates (qualified software
An example of this is Andrew, a middle manager in a high- engineers) usually neither need, nor want interference from
tech firm, who describes the relationship with his formal their boss:
superior Edmund and his other colleagues like this:
Well, mostly it is them [the subordinates] that contact me
Patrick is also an experienced colleague that is useful when they need help with some issue . . . They need a
when you need an advice. Therefore, I ask Patrick for help leader that is sufficiently technically skilled in order to be
when it comes to concrete and tangible issues. On the able to give them support, but generally I do not think
other hand, when it comes to for example important they need or want any interference from the boss. I have
resource conflicts, I will go to Edmund [his manager]. received a lot of feedback that confirm this.
(Andrew)
In a consulting firm people said there was no need of
One could say that Edmund helps with management, e.g. “hand holding” and that “we are treated as adults”. Auton-
resource issues, but respected colleagues matter more when omy has the advantage that a qualified person in less need of
it comes to advice and support. guidance from a manager or other superior can make quick
Peer influencing and knowledge sharing have a clear decisions and concentrate on work and results. Job satisfac-
upside since networks are flexible, provide external per- tion, commitment and flexibility often follow from auton-
spectives on problems and are — from the organization’s omy. Knowledge work often calls for professional autonomy,
perspective — a “free” extra resource that can be utilized. In rather than managerial hierarchies or leader/follower rela-
principle, people with rich networks can draw upon more tions. There is however an obvious risk that people slack off
knowledge and insight than a single manager and/or collea- or do the wrong things in a context with minimal managerial
gues in the work unit can provide. Network resources are also control, leader guidance or group pressure. Limited coordi-
fairly neutral –— they are not involved in the daily political nation with others is another problem. Knowledge sharing
games within the organization and people may talk more with other colleagues can become scanty. Sometimes people
freely about worries and issues than with their manager working (fairly) autonomously feel lonely and in lack of close
(perhaps actually being the source of problems). Disadvan- peer or managerial support. There is of course also an
tages include network resources being very dependent on anxiety and stress element in this.
the network user’s version of the problem, which can be In Table 1 the six modes are summarized.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Alvesson, M. Blom, Organ Dyn (2018), [Link]
+ Models
ORGDYN-644; No. of Pages 10

Beyond leadership and followership 7

COMBINATIONS OF MODES depending on formal position, experience, energy and

talent. But all parties are to a varying degree involved in
All the modes are more or less in operation in most work- this –— through followership and going beyond followership.
places, perhaps often without much careful thinking. Often Organizations can work with this both informally and
the various modes of organizing operate in tandem or are formally. In all organizations, even the most authoritarian
mixed (This is illustrated by the overlapping circles in Fig. 1). or bureaucratic ones, there are informal, emergent ways in
For example, leadership often plays an important role in which people work. Subordinates can listen to their man-
fostering a culture characterized by group work and/or may agers’ efforts to do leadership, ask them for instructions,
lead to people having values and orientations helping them follow rules, adapt to expressions of power, but also listen
be self-guided at work. Management might provide the more to fellow co-workers, approach people in their network
appropriate structures (e.g. funding for participating in for advice and support or try to work autonomously. Man-
conferences, communication channels, meeting routines) agers can do the same, trying to place themselves in the
for various horizontal modes of organizing. An organization centre or avoid doing so, and encouraging people to work in
capable of hiring and retaining many competent employees non-hierarchical ways.
that are self-going may liberate managers from much work In well-functioning organizations managers and subordi-
and allow them to spend more time doing limited and nates make effort to come to some shared understandings of
focused leadership in situations where it may be needed. how to work. All communicate their views and expectations
A well-functioning team with well-defined responsibilities and through open dialogues or more implicit understandings
may facilitate autonomy. The use of power may marginalize people are broadly in agreement on how much and what type
destructive opposition and conflict and thereby aid group of leadership, management, power use, group work, peer
work or prevent people working independently from abusing network support and autonomy that seem productive. Much
the freedom at work. Of course, leadership and management of this is done informally, implicitly and in subtle ways. If a
are often intertwined: budget meetings or recruitment work manager is upfront in dealing with what she sees as laziness
may not only be about finance or manpower, but also under- and incompetence and subordinates seem to respect this or
score values and ideas about organizations. they protest or indirectly show their dislike, this will affect
In the same way, there are always bottom-up forms of the use of power. If subordinates nod or look uninterested
organizing, so that group work, networks and autonomy when the manager emphasizes values and norms it will make
moderate top-down influencing. Often groups and indivi- a difference for continued or discontinued leadership
duals modify or oppose what is seen as bad managerial efforts, at least of the type used. If group work is enthu-
decisions. Groups and individuals partly influence leadership siastically embraced it will of course facilitate the process,
and management through feedback and resistance. Many but if people instead mutter about forced collaboration it
leadership acts are furthermore simply just disregarded. will likely lead to more autonomy or more vertical forms of
Often organizational life takes place without people organizing instead.
involved fully grasping what mechanisms and modes of Apart from informal, emergent organizing, issues around
organizing that are invoked: sometimes the vertical and 6M can be openly discussed in workshops or formal meetings.
horizontal blend, such as during interactions where every- Agendas addressing the overall functioning of a unit can be
body participates but the manager has a somewhat stronger introduced. Do we need more/less or different forms of
impact than others. Combinations of modes and difficulties leadership, management, group work, network support,
in separating them do not take away the value of considering etc.? What can or should be done? What works? What needs
them as distinct options. Working with the entire spectrum in to be improved? All involved need to participate and arrive at
order to identify problems and opportunities could radically a reasonably shared understanding of how things work and
improve organizations. what needs to be considered for change. Managers have a
responsibility to make the organization function, but some-
times this is done through encouraging discussions and
THE NEED FOR A PRODUCTIVE MIX OF reflection and supporting horizontal ways of working
VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MODES OF together. Laissez-faire has a negative tone, but sometimes
ORGANIZING it may actually be part of productive organizing.

All modes have their different advantages, drawbacks, lim- SO WHAT IS NEW?
itations and risks. Every manager and subordinate realize the
need for at least some vertical influencing of the subordi- This expose of various modes of organizing might sound
nates — through leadership, management or power — at the familiar to the well-read student of leadership, perhaps
same time as it is obvious that there are many organizations associating to contingency theory and situational leadership.
and situations where the manager does not know best and But in contrast to many other popular texts on how to “lead”
horizontal modes of producing good work relations are an organization, our suggestion is to move away from a one-
superior. The key is to accomplish an optimal combination sided focus on the manager (as a potential leader) knowing
of modes of organizing. This is not about a fixed design but a best and viewing leadership as the ultimate key driver,
matter of on-going organizing. Working with this calls for making all the key decisions, including if and how to dele-
considerations and discussions of all involved; accomplishing gate. Wise forms of organizing need to involve also the non-
productive ways of working together is not only a top-down managers. In our model, we emphasize the importance of
activity. Of course, people will have different impact initiatives from and dialogue with the subordinates in order

Please cite this article in press as: M. Alvesson, M. Blom, Organ Dyn (2018), [Link]
+ Models
ORGDYN-644; No. of Pages 10

8 M. Alvesson, M. Blom

to define and agree upon the appropriate balance between ambitious leadership prescribed by popular management
the different modes. Subordinates claiming autonomy is literature that they might feel expected to do; strongly
somewhat different from a leader doing delegation. Flexible influencing followers in all good respects, from ethics and
combinations of top-down, down-up and horizontal, parti- values, to visions, cognitions, emotions and identities, from
cipatory relations between knowledgeable subordinates and excellent task performance to a good workplace climate.
formal managers can, at various times, and on various issues, Many employees are not that eager to be followers, but like
be an organizational ideal. This can lead to complications to work in horizontal relations, get support from network
and messiness, but also top-down leadership as well as contacts and be autonomous. As a consequence, many orga-
empowered team-organizations are in practice often much nizations may end up with plenty of leader-wannabees but
less smooth and streamlined than they may appear. few follower-wannabees.
We also, in contrast to most writings on leadership, We have therefore presented a framework based on six
deliberately use alternative vocabulary to leadership in complementary modes of organizing, where leadership is but
order to address various options. We think that this helps one option. Managers, but also subordinates, need to be
managers and others break away from being trapped in aware of these different modes of organizing, willing to
narrow-minded, leadership-infused language and thinking. reflect on them and engage in discussions about the appro-
We strongly warn against the over-use of the term “leader- priateness of the various alternatives, generally in the work-
ship”. Many managers are certainly already aware of the place and/or in specific situations. The 6M Model can
options besides leadership/followership, but we think our therefore be seen as a “Swiss army knife” for managers
model and concepts can be helpful when trying to think more and co-workers thinking about how to make their organiza-
systematically and consciously about the alternatives at tions work. Individuals using a spectrum of modes of orga-
hand. If we look at virtually all leadership and management nizing can work more effectively than those with strength in
literatures and listen to the large majority of managers and only one mode. The advocate of the idea that leadership will
management educators there is a strong and often naïve solve all issues is like a guy with only a hammer –— treating
belief in the idea that “leaders rule and lead followers”. We everything as a nail.
need to support alternative vocabularies and mind-sets. Balancing leadership with other modes of organizing can
Rather than seeing autonomy as a result of leadership dele- save precious time that can be used more productively, e.g.
gation or development, autonomy may be result of compe- by focusing on customers and other strategic issues, some-
tent persons simply refusing to define themselves as times neglected if managers concentrate on leadership and
followers. what Abraham Zaleznik refers to as “psychopolitics”. Of
Our suggestion to see leadership as just one option and to course, many managers partly realize this already, but many
emphasize both a range of alternatives, and the need to are stuck in seductive leadership talk and feel that they need
include subordinates in the active work of finding a good to live up to grandiose images and follow the fashion (of
combination of alternatives, may sound complicated. This is being a level 5, transformational, authentic or whatever
far from the simple “right and wrong” that the leadership leader). This often clashes with reality, both the imperfec-
development industry often is offering. Such leadership tions of managers, of their subordinates and the fact that
recipes are attractive and seductive, but seldom as helpful organizational work very often is about mundane adminis-
as they may seem. We have studied many managers creating tration and operational issues.
problems for themselves through a naïve and uncritical The framework we propose can easily be used in organi-
belief in seductive leadership ideals. And of course, as zational practice –— informally as well as more formally.
organizations, people and situations are also varied, but Through more or less implicit signalling and acting on an
can all benefit from considering alternative modes of orga- everyday basis people can form and revise how leadership,
nizing, and try to create a good balance. And this is not just a management, power, autonomy, group and network support
task for the leader/manager, but needs to involve many work. Managers and subordinates, with or without support by
people in an organization, since a reasonable alignment of external facilitators (central HR staff, consultants, etc.),
views is a clear advantage when trying to make sense of the may organize workshops scrutinizing themselves and the
options and deciding on the right balance. workplace and see if various elements in the organizing of
productive work relations function well or not. Do we need
CONCLUSION: LEADERSHIP IS JUST ONE OF more, the same or less of the various 6M elements? Are there
too much or too little or the wrong types of vertical and
MANY USEFUL TOOLS IN THE MANAGERIAL
horizontal ways of working together? Are other qualities
“SWISS ARMY KNIFE” –— USE IT WISELY needed in these respects? What is realistic to expect? How
can we improve? Perhaps more leadership and less autonomy
To sum up, there are many ways of providing and getting would be a good idea? Or more resources and more emphasis
direction, advise, support, coordination, feedback, encour- on using network resources could be a way of accessing
agement and inspiration other than leadership/follower- functional advice, cognitive coaching and emotional sup-
ship. The established “truth” of leadership as a panacea port? Or to engage in efforts to make co-workers less man-
for all types of organizational challenges is unrealistic, ager/leader-dependent and more inclined to do mutual
narrow-minded and unhelpful. It often places a heavy bur- adjustment and effective teamwork?
den on the meagre shoulders of most real-life managers Making organizations function well is of course a manage-
expected to do great leadership. Close up studies show that rial overall responsibility, but sometimes best carried out
many leadership interventions are superficial and backfire. together with people actively working with others, not
Few managers have the time and ability to do the over- necessarily all the time best seen as followers to superior

Please cite this article in press as: M. Alvesson, M. Blom, Organ Dyn (2018), [Link]
+ Models
ORGDYN-644; No. of Pages 10

Beyond leadership and followership 9

leaders. This joint work can be facilitated by a Swiss army expressed by the business press and management develop-
knife mind-set. Good organizations are capable of acting ment institutes. So instead of routinely invest more hope and
without all the time falling back on “What is the problem? financial resources in leadership development, it may be a
Leadership is the solution” thinking. It may well be that the good idea to instead use the resources to develop the
solution is actually the problem, e.g. when managers follow organization’s understanding of and skills in using all the
the latest leadership fashion or try to live up to the ideals potential tools in the organizational Swiss army knife.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Alvesson, M. Blom, Organ Dyn (2018), [Link]
+ Models
ORGDYN-644; No. of Pages 10

10 M. Alvesson, M. Blom

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
For the distinction between leadership and management see Supporting research for the main ideas in this article has
for example Abraham Zaleznik, “Managers and leaders: Are recently been published in Mats Alvesson, Martin Blom and
they different?”, Harvard Business Review, May—June (1977): Stefan Sveningsson: Reflexive Leadership. (London: SAGE,
67—68, and John Kotter, A force for change: How leadership 2017). This article is therefore in many respects an extension
differs from management (New York: Free Press, 1990). The and further development of the ideas presented in that text.
confusion of meaning when it comes to leadership is for exam- The risks associated with psychopolitics are described in
ple described by Martin Blom and Mats Alvesson, “All-inclusive Abraham Zaleznik’s “Real work,” Harvard Business Review,
and all good: The hegemonic ambiguity of leadership”, Scan- 75/6 (1997): 53—63.
dinavian Journal of Management, 31/4 (2015): 480—492.

Mats Alvesson is Professor of Business Administration at Lund University School of Economics and Management,
Sweden, at University of Queensland Business School, Australia and at Cass Business School, UK. Research
interests include critical theory, gender, power, management of professional service (knowledge intensive)
organizations, leadership, identity, organizational image, organizational culture and symbolism, qualitative
methods and philosophy of science. Recent books include Return to Meaning. For a Social Science with Something
to Say (Oxford University Press 2017, w Yiannis Gabriel and Roland Paulsen), Reflexive Leadership (Sage 2017, w
Martin Blom and Stefan Sveningsson), The Stupidity Paradox (Profile 2016, w André Spicer), Managerial Lives
(Cambridge University Press 2016, w Stefan Sveningsson), The Triumph of Emptiness (Oxford University Press
2013) and Metaphors We Lead By (Routledge 2011, w André Spicer). (Lund University School of Economics and
Management, Box 7080, SE-220 07 Lund, Sweden. E-mail: [Link]@[Link]).

Martin Blom is Associate Professor of Business Administration at Lund University School of Economics and
Management, Sweden. His research interests include leadership, strategic management and corporate gover-
nance. Recent publications include Reflexive Leadership (Sage 2017, w Martin Blom and Stefan Sveningsson),
Leadership studies — A Scandinavian inspired way forward? (Scandinavian Journal of Management 2016) and
Textual objects and strategizing: The influence of documents as active objects on strategic recursiveness
(Journal of Change Management 2016, w Mikael Lundgren). (Lund University School of Economics and Manage-
ment, Box 7080, SE-220 07 Lund, Sweden. E-mail: [Link]@[Link]).

Please cite this article in press as: M. Alvesson, M. Blom, Organ Dyn (2018), [Link]