Table Of Content

Journal of International Education and Leadership Volume 5 Issue 2 Fall 2015 http://www.jielusa.org/ ISSN: 2161-7252 Subtractive Leadership K. H. Larwin Youngstown State University Eugene M. Thomas Lowellville Local Schools David A. Larwin Kent State University This paper introduces a new term and concept to the leadership discourse: Subtractive Leadership. As an extension of the distributive leadership model, the notion of subtractive leadership refers to a leadership style that detracts from organizational culture and productivity. Subtractive leadership fails to embrace and balance the characteristics of the distributive leadership styles by instead encouraging collusion, self-interest, and self-promotion. In doing so, subtractive leadership fuels a lack of organizational vision, feeds distrust amongst constituencies, and undermines the commitment of organizational stakeholders. With this introduction of a model of subtractive leadership, practitioners will now be able to clearly understand and identify the characteristics and behaviors associated with subtractive leadership that in effect negate additive and concertive leadership. It seems very likely, that at one point or another, everyone has experienced these deleterious effects of subtractive leadership in their work arena. Historically, the term “leadership” has been order for organizational theory and research used interchangeably with management to provide a clear perspective of the (Carroll & Levy, 2007). Recently, foundational principles of leadership—and leadership and management have evolved how those principles shape the relationships into two separate interdependent concepts and identities that inhabit the contemporary (Yukl, 2008). Most research focuses workplace—a complete, systematic view of primarily on the "effective" characteristics leadership and its multi-faceted nature is of leadership and management; what required (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; successful leaders possess and implement. Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003; As a result of this focus, there is a dearth of Sveningsson & Larsson, 2006). To this end, research that examines the traits that prohibit there is certainly a need to closely examine, organizations from moving forward and and embrace, a common conception of successfully reaching goals. However, in healthy leadership; a style of leadership associated with an organizational structure that fosters a realization of Gronn’s (2002) Subtractive Leadership Larwin, Thomas, Larwin notion of “additive” and “concertive” forms enthusiastically expend spiritual, of distributive leadership. But there is also a emotional, and physical energy in a need to examine the counterpoint to these concerted coordinated effort to healthy patterns; the pathological, achieve the organizational mission dysfunctional, and destructive patterns of and objectives. (p. 7) leadership. This latter form of examination is necessary to understand and combat the The benefits of distributed leadership, status quo of leadership dysfunction that has especially the hybrid or concertive variety penetrated like some Trojan horse into discussed by Gronn (2002), are in its ability arenas of contemporary organizational to foster success in achieving organizational culture. goals. Distributive leadership may be key in Today, a dualism exists in distributive demonstrating a connection between leadership approaches. Gronn (2002) leadership strength and organizational describes additive models (the success that is often sought but not found in hybrid/concertive types in particular) of the research literature (Jerimer & Kerr, leadership as models of organizational 1997). Such may be the story with the functioning in which the leadership arranges multitude of cases that highlight how and facilitates the individual strengths and schools that are subject to changes in differences of the membership in an effort to leadership when an effective leader departs-- benefit from the group’s collective strength. yet retain existing staff--continue to This distributive leadership, according to demonstrate higher performance on Gronn, potentially benefits from the standardized tests, maintain staff and collaborative behavior of the organizational community morale, and perpetuate positive members in such a way that the quantity of culture and climate. Even when the energy/productivity of this cooperative effective leader leaves in these cases, the membership is greater than the sum of each effects of healthy leadership persist. A individual’s actions or behavior. Macbeath similar persistent effect is found with (2009) describes the group’s ability as the ineffective leaders; the effects of the totality of all the leadership found within the dysfunctional leadership persist after the membership. According to Gronn (2002), leadership change. (Jones, 2014). the result of this leadership is a focused One of the types of distributive output of the group’s cooperation and leadership discussed by Gronn (2002), in collaboration towards an established addition to his notion of hybrid or concertive goal/mission for the organization’s future leadership, is the concept of additive prospects. Winston and Patterson (2006) leadership. This concept of additive contend that a leader, in an leadership refers to a pattern where additive/concertive culture of distributive leadership behaviors and activities are leadership, dispersed across multiple members of an organization, but without the degree of a is one or more people who selects, coordinated focus or strategic alignment equips, trains, and influences one or found in other forms of distributive more follower(s) who have diverse leadership. The result is an isolated, rather gifts, abilities, and skills and focuses than combined, effect on the attainment of the follower(s) to the organization’s the organization’s goals. However, it mission and objectives causing the would seem that additive leadership follower(s) to willingly and behaviors, distracted from or devoid of an 2 Subtractive Leadership Larwin, Thomas, Larwin organization’s vision, could result in a level simple summation of individual of organizational deconstruction whose accomplishments, subtractive leadership resultant effect is subtractive rather than creates what amounts to a reverse synergy. additive. In this subtractive leadership By dividing group or team members into model (initially conceptualized by K. H. camps with their own unique self-interests Larwin, first author of the present study), and objectives, often contrary to one collusion and intra-organizational conflict another, and by instilling people with a and competitiveness can occur that is sense of mutual mistrust and suspicion, the focused on the immediate, self-serving, self- dysfunctional leader puppeteers those in his defined focus or intentions of the leadership; charge to assist him in his bid to prioritize rather than what is best for the whole his own goals and agendas above the goals organization. This subtractive leadership and mission of the larger organization. The can yield both short term and long term internal conflict, infighting, backstabbing, consequences. Subtractive leadership is in collusion, conniving, game-playing, and effect the additive leadership model gone hyper-vigilant suspiciousness among group bad! It is a perversion of additive leadership or team members not only undermines any styles, distorted to serve the dysfunctional potential for a productive group synergy to leaders’ off-mission personal agendas. emerge, but it actually subtracts from the It is not enough for leadership models to creative and productive work of each group account for what effective, productive or team member. The focus of effort and leaders do, and then to say simply that energy of the organization is on the internal dysfunctional leaders can be understood as drama, politics, and game-playing, and not failing to do those constructive and on work essential to move the organization beneficial actions and efforts. Dysfunctional toward its immediate and long-term goals. leadership, if it is to be fully understood, Each group or team member—with their must be understood as something more than attention distracted and motivation simply the absence of effective, distributive redirected--ends up contributing less to the leadership. It represents a pattern of mission of the organization in this chaotic energized action, strategy, and goal-directed system than they otherwise would as an efforts that serve goals contrary to those of individual working independently. the larger organization and interfere with the The term subtractive leadership was accomplishment of the larger organizational initially inspired by a disruptive schooling goals, if not sabotage them altogether. model described by Valenzuela (1999). Dysfunctional leaders must be understood First, within this case there was an absence by the destructive acts they do, not simply of an authentic caring for all members of the what constructive acts they fail to do. leadership. There was a failure to appreciate The notion of subtractive leadership the existing social capital that each member provides an important mechanism for the brought to the organization. Finally, there explanation and understanding of what it is was a subtractive integration in that the that is central to dysfunctional leadership existing culture (or structures) was rejected and action. Whereas distributive leadership and not valued. Why would such a involves organizing and combining group or subtractive model arise? A lack of team member efforts to work collectively in emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998), a synergistic fashion to encourage creativity transactional understanding of leadership and productivity that reach levels greater (Bass, 1985), a lack of maturity to deal with than what might be expected to result from a change (Hyatt, Hyatt, & Hyatt, 2007), and a 3 Subtractive Leadership Larwin, Thomas, Larwin lack of commitment to the current stakeholders. Such self-serving behavior organizational arena (Crossan, Gandz, & that sows discord and creates relational Seijts, 2012) are some of the possible chaos and dysfunction may also model the theories. Characteristics associated with way for others in the organization to some forms of mental disturbance, such as reproduce such patterns, but this would not Narcissistic Personality Disorder, also seem likely represent a path that objectively as likely culprits here as well. Other scholars characterizes effective leadership. And if have also made this observation (Padilla, the heart metaphor in the last of Fullan’s Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). five factors is a reference to encouraging The concept of subtractive leadership strong passions and powerful motives, also has the potential to expand our clearly not all desire and drama of great conceptualization and discussion of emotional intensity is healthy and distributed leadership, in particular, and constructive for individuals and leadership theory in general. Models organizations. True, effective leaders developed initially for the purpose of capable of guiding organizations though describing and explaining effective change—operating individually or as part of leadership can be revisited through the lens a distributed leadership culture—may of subtractive leadership. For example, embrace and embody these factors Fullan Michael Fullan (2001; 2007) suggested five describes. But these factors, and the models factors that characterize effective leadership of leadership they define, take on additional in a “culture of change.” These five factors meaning, and paint a picture of greater include Challenging the Process, Inspiring a variety, depth, and complexity, when Shared Vision, Enabling others to Act, considered as components that apply to the Modeling the Way, and Encouraging the notion of subtractive leadership as well. Heart. While on the surface these factors Just as models of leadership originally sound constructive and as if they would be offered to understand healthy, effective positive characteristics of healthy and leadership may reveal new insights and effective leadership, this may not necessarily complexity when examined from the be the case. In the hands of participants in a vantage point of subtractive leadership, the subtractive leadership process, these same same may be the case for other models of factors can create a culture of pathology that dysfunctional leadership as well. serves to sabotage organizational goals. Leithwood, Mascall, Strauss, Sacks, Obviously not any and all efforts at Memon, and Yashkina (2009) posit four challenging the process are constructive and patterns of distributed leadership, based on progressive. A leader could work to divide the alignment of leaders and units within an those in his or her charge into competing organization. These include Planful factions, form alliances with one faction, Alignment, Spontaneous Alignment, and work to inspire a shared vision for such Spontaneous Misalignment, and Anarchic alliances based on the attainment of self- Misalignment. It is the latter of these four serving, immediate goals that are achieved that Leithwood et al. describe that seems at the expense of other group members and most dysfunctional—demonstrating negative the mission of the organization. Such a effects on short-term and long-term process of division and collusion may productivity, and most resistant to the indeed enable others to act, but again in optimal Planful Alignment pattern—and ways counterproductive to the attainment of appears to bear the strongest relation to the organizational goals and the benefit of all concept of subtractive leadership introduced 4 Subtractive Leadership Larwin, Thomas, Larwin here. This Anarchic Misalignment pattern is self-esteem that is unstable, and its close described by the authors as characterized by cousin narcissism—which are likely often leaders and units that behave independently associated with subtractive leadership and actively reject influence from others behaviors—are fundamentally characterized about what they should be doing in their by an active avoidance of self-reflective domain. This Anarchic Misalignment thought or dialogue (Vazire and Funder, pattern is also characterized by competition 2006; Zeigler-Hill, 2006). with others when it comes to goals and Perhaps the greatest distinction between resources, leaders who mistrust the motives subtractive leadership and Leithwood et al.’s and capacities of fellow leaders, and (2009) notion of Anarchic Misalignment is commitment to individual/unit goals and not the reverse synergy associated with organizational goals. Competition is valued subtractive leadership, discussed earlier. over cooperation as the best way to promote Subtractive leaders do not simply reject productivity across the organization. other’s influence, value competition, It is indeed the case that the mistrust others, and act independently. competitiveness, mistrust, reflexive Subtractive leaders actively and independence, rejection of organizational intentionally create conflict, competition, goals, and negative effects on organizational and collusion to sabotage organizational productivity that characterize the Anarchic goals and productivity, in order to promote Misalignment pattern discussed by their own personal goals and agendas. The Leithwood et al. (2009) can be characteristic subtractive leader amplifies interpersonal of subtractive leadership as well. However, conflicts, suspicion, game-playing, and in- there are some key differences. Despite fighting to levels far beyond what might some conflict and disagreement about naturally occur in an organization. organizational goals that characterize the Subtractive leadership has more in common Anarchic Misalignment pattern, there is at with tyranny, than it does with anarchy. least some value placed on organizational Whatever the distinctions that exist productivity implicit in Leithwood et al.’s between Anarchic Leadership (Leithwood et description. This is not necessarily the case al., 2009) and the concept of subtractive with subtractive leadership, where the focus leadership introduced here, it is clear that a is on individual gain and self-interest, often complete understanding of leadership, and at the expense of others. Organizational or distributed leadership in particular, must individual productivity are secondary include models of both constructive and concerns, if they are concerns at all. destructive leadership patterns and Leithwood et al. also describe the Anarchic behaviors. There is indeed an existing Misalignment pattern as associated with literature on leadership theory that addresses “considerable reflection about one’s own destructive forms of leadership (Padilla, et position on most matters of concern,” and al., 2007) and Leithwood et al.’s notion of “reflection and dialogue as the basis for Anarchic Leadership is one step in good decision-making about one’s own extending this line of inquiry and a resultant work” (p. 227). While the conceptualization knowledge base into the domain of of subtractive leadership presented here does distributed leadership. The notion of not preclude these characteristics, subtractive leadership offers the potential to subtractive leadership can, and likely often extend such inquiry and knowledge even does, operate in the absence of much self- further. As presented here, subtractive reflection and constructive dialogue. In fact, leadership applies not only to distributed 5 Subtractive Leadership Larwin, Thomas, Larwin leadership patterns and actions, but other References broader, and more traditional, models of leadership as well. It describes a unique and Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. particularly caustic pattern of leadership that (2002).Producing the appropriate individual: is all too common in contemporary Identity regulation as organizational control. organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619- The value of theory and research with 44. respect to constructive leadership patterns and characteristics seems quite obvious; Bass, B. M, (1985). Leadership and organizations have an inherent interest in performance. New York, NY: Free Press. such knowledge, and the goal of applying such knowledge to enhance organizational Carroll, B., & Levy, L. (2007). Defaulting to productivity and success. However, while it management: Leadership defined by what it may seem less obvious, there is value in an is not. Organization, 15(1), 75-96. understanding of dysfunctional or destructive leadership patterns as well. Crossan, M., Gandz, J., & Seijts, G. Dysfunctional leadership patterns like (2012).Developing leadership character. subtractive leadership may exist in latent Leadership. Retrieved from form within an organization, easily http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leader overlooked or underestimated. Without ship/developing-leadership- sufficient attention and awareness, they are character#.VHIw7IvF98E free to grow and spread and undermine organizational success. Thus, theoretical Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of concepts like subtractive leadership, and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. empirical investigation to delineate their nature and operation, have the potential to Fullan, M. (2007). The five practices of expand our understanding of dysfunctional exemplary leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass leadership, and help prevent or remediate its Reader on Educational Leadership, San occurrence. In particular, the concept of Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons. subtractive leadership extends our understanding of dysfunctional leadership Goleman, D. (1998). Working with patterns by revealing the intentional, emotional intelligence. New York, NY: conflict-inducing, self-promoting behaviors Bantam Books. that often operate in concert with each other to produce an interaction that magnifies their Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In deleterious effect on organizational K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger, K. Seashore- missions, goals, and productivity, well Louis, G.Furman-Brown, P. Gronn, W. beyond the simple additive effect of the Mulford, & K. Riley (Eds.), Second individual costs of these behaviors. This International Handbook of Educational understanding represents a unique and Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht, important contribution to the extant Nethelands: Kluwer. scholarship on leadership patterns and characteristics. Hyatt, L. L.,Hyatt, C. B., & Hyatt, J.C.(2007). Effective leadership through emotional maturity. Academic Leadership, 5(2), 3. 6 Subtractive Leadership Larwin, Thomas, Larwin politics of caring. SUNY Series, The Social Jermier, J. M., & Kerr, S. (1997). Substitutes Context of Education. New York, NY: State for leadership: Their meaning and University of New York Press. measurement –Contextual recollections and current observations. Leadership Quarterly, Vazire, S., & Funder, D.C. (2006). 8(2), 95-101. Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists. Personality and Social Jones (2014). The Impact of Mentoring on Psychological Review, 10,154-165. First Year Principals. (Unpublished dissertation). Youngstown State University, Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). Youngstown, Ohio International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6-66. Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. Yukl, G. (2008). The importance of flexible (2009). Distributing leadership to make leadership. Retrieved on August 03, 2014 schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the from system. In Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & http://www.kaplandevries.com/images/uploa Strauss, T. (eds.). Distributive leadership ds/Importance_of_FL_SIOP08Yukl.pdf according to the evidence. New York, NY: Routledge. Zeigler-Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem: Macbeath, J. (2009). Distributed leadership: Implications for narcissism and self-esteem Paradigms, policy, and paradox. In K. instability. Journal of Personality, 74, 119- Leithwood,& P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second 143. international handbook of educational leadership and administration (Vol. 2, pp. 41-58). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments, The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194. Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2003). Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56(10), 1163-93. Sveningsson, S., & Larsson, M. (2006). Fantasies of leadership: Identity work. Leadership, 2(2), 203-24. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the 7