Toyoko Sato Leadership as a Reflexive Co-determinative Process: Steve Jobs and His 1985 Departure as Discourse
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Toyoko Sato
Leadership as a Reflexive Co–determinative
Process: Steve Jobs and His 1985 Departure as
Discourse
This paper examines and explicates leadership as a reflexive co–determinative
process. The approach is an analysis of how a leader relates his/her view and
vision to other organizational members when the relationship between them
is entangled and how the so–called “dark side” affects leadership. Three steps
inform the analysis: 1) reflexivity and discursivity are introduced as constructs; 2)
Chester Barnard’s theory of leadership in relation to reflexivity is revisited. 3) I
analyze an exemplary case: the legendary “event” surrounding Steve Jobs’ 1985
departure from Apple. Particular attention is paid to the discourse sphere of Jobs’
letter of resignation. The results suggest two points. First, having vision is one of
the attributes of a leader, where such a vision can have positive or negative effects.
Vision may lure the leader and his/her organization to the dark side due to internal
or external power disputes. Second, a successful visionary leader needs followers
who understand, share, shape, and implement their leader’s visions as part of a
reflexive co–determinative process.
Key words: leadership, reflexivity, discursivity, Steve Jobs, visionary.
In his book Heroic Leadership, Chris Lowney wrote: “When leadership is working, it
hurts—the good news is the bad news” [2008: 88]. Although the book is about Ignatius
Loyola and the leadership of his company, the Society of Jesus, a Roman Catholic order
founded in 1540, this particular sentence present leadership as a reflexive vector. By vec-
tor, I mean to imply the direction of force, enforcement, and influence. My questions are
simple: Why does it hurt when leadership is working? And what, exactly, hurts?
To begin, leadership is a construct describing the person who influences his/her
followers toward achieving a specific goal. Leadership possesses versatile images. For in-
stance, it points out interactions, negotiations, decision–making, responsibility, care, vi-
sion, value, and power. It may presuppose an honor during and after struggles to achieve
the goal in question. Leadership, however, does not always highlight the positive, cel-
HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147138 Toyoko Sato
ebratory side. The word side signifies a position, which is a part of a whole. Leadership
has its negative side; there are dark facets. Certain risks and liabilities are associated with
the positive attributes mentioned above.
What is this dark side? McIntosh and Rima argue that the dark side is a natural
outcome of human development. It refers not only to the inner urges, but also to the
compulsions and dysfunctions of one’s personality. It is “often unexamined or remain[s]
unknown to us until we experience an emotional explosion” [2006: 22]. According to
Conger, the dark side often becomes visible when it is associated with a leader’s vision.
Although entrepreneurship and being visionary differentiate leaders from managers,
these distinguishing characteristics and behaviors themselves potentially become disas-
trous and may represent a danger for the organization. In particular, Conger stresses
that there are three main areas that are prone to the dark side of leadership: leaders’
strategic visions, their communication skills, and their management practices in general
[1990: 44].
Leadership falls within the arena of communication, in which relationships emerge,
develop, often die, and are occasionally revived. My question is: How does a leader re-
late his/her view and vision to other organizational members when the relationship that
exists is entangled? How does the dark side influence leadership? Consequently, my ap-
proach to these questions is analytical. I offer three processes to answer these questions:
first, reflexivity and discursivity are introduced as constructs; second, Chester Barnard’s
theory of leadership [1938, 1945] in relation to reflexivity is revisited; and third, an ex-
emplary case, which is the legendary “event” involving Steve Jobs’ 1985 departure from
Apple is analyzed by focusing on the discourse of his 1985 letter of resignation.
The goal of this paper is to show leadership as a reflexive co–determinative process,
in which organizational and societal members struggle for meaning. This paper does
not, however, seek to offer remedies for intricately intertwined relationships within an
organization. Instead, the contribution of this paper is to advance our understanding of
leadership as a reflexive process.
Reflexivity and Discursivity
The term reflexivity is used in multiple academic genres. The one that is associated with
leadership and managerial practices can be traced back to Harold Garfinkel [1967], who
argued that reflexivity is a phenomenological construct with which members in a social
group shape actions in relation to context while the context itself is continuously being
redefined through interactions. Thus, an object or behavior and the description of such
cannot be clearly divorced, one from the other, as if having a mirror–like relationship.
HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147Leadership as a Reflexive Co–determinative Process 139
Reflexivity may possess, but is not equivalent to, a dialectical moment, for we are unable
to track the origins and causal direction of its synthesis, if this does happen to exist.
The term reflexivity has been used often in late modern literature. Chouliaraki and
Fairclough [1999] state that one of the most important aspects of reflexivity is that it
changes in nature. Our practices become increasingly informed by “from the outside”
stimuli. Reflexively applied knowledge is positioned, so that it may have another visage
in a different moment, and is open to discursive practice constructions. In this sense,
“practices may depend upon these reflexive self–constructions for sustaining relations of
domination” [1999: 26].
Reflexivity is a part of the communication process, which reflects power. Power is
inevitably involved in leadership. Reflexivity manifests a social struggle that is inherently
discursive. Many scholars are clear about this point, stating that an organizational pro-
cess cannot be dealt with outside of its discourse [Alvesson and Kärreman, 2000; Grint,
2000; Fairhurst, 2007]. An organizational reality is an aspect of discursivity, which is
connected to societal disposition.
There are two points that I would like to raise in this discussion of reflexivity in
regard to leadership. First, an organizational direction is inevitably an outcome of a
co–determinative process, which is reflexively constructed and construed. Thus, strictly
speaking, the origin of the direction or idea cannot be attributed solely to one leader,
although it is the leader who is ultimately responsible for the decision and the outcome.
Second, what should be of interest, then, is that the above–mentioned reflexive mir-
roring process is both a conscious and unconscious co–determinative process. This is
because there is a non–specific manifest exercise of power and its distribution among
the relevant stakeholders. The balance between conscious and unconscious elements in
leadership manifestation may be appropriate or, in contrast, it may neither be proper nor
effectively understood. Thus, the matrix of these elements inevitably may attract some
stakeholders to the dark side—even, and especially the very leader.
Barnard on Reality
What then are the components of the dark side associated with leadership? A language
reflects its own historicity and is culturally bound [Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999].
Yet, the English word dark appears to have some commonalities with other languages in
relation to its antonym light. The word as a verb means, “to make dark.” The meanings
of the word as an adjective are listed below.1
1 These are modified from www.merriam–webster.com.
HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147140 Toyoko Sato
i) Devoid or partially devoid of light, transmitting only a portion of light,
ii) Wholly or partially black, of low or very low lightness, being less light in color than
other substances of the same kind,
iii) Arising from or showing evil traits or desires, dismal, gloomy, lacking knowledge or
culture, relating to grim or depressing circumstances,
iv) Not clear to the understanding, not known or explored because of remoteness,
v) Not fair in complexion,
vi) Secret,
vii) Possessing depth and richness, and
viii) Closed to the public.
Clearly, the word dark resides in both physical and mental (moral and/or psychologi-
cal) spheres as relational factors. The dark side of leadership is, therefore, presupposed
to be not only related to behavioral managerial stagnation, but also psychological activi-
ties and/or intrigues.
This reminds us about Chester Barnard’s three propositions of the reality that busi-
ness people face: 1) reality is complex, 2) reality is evolving, and 3) reality includes the
unknown and unknowable [1938, 1945]. For Barnard, reality is an amalgamation of
physical, biological, and social factors. Reality is complicated. Furthermore, our relation-
ship to the factors of reality is not stable, for reality is constantly changing and evolving,
and due to this transformative nature, the actual depth of reality is ultimately unknown
to us. While we abstract part of the whole reality, the degree and method of abstraction
differ individually. According to Isomura’s text on Barnard, practitioners need to adjust
and appropriate their norms and visions, ensuring that they carefully observe these ever–
changing realities, in so far as their actual comprehension is, at best, an approximation
limited by human intelligence and understanding [2010].
Barnard’s points do not aim to shed light on the downside of leadership. On the
contrary, they are eventually to lead to the positive side of leadership as a sort of model
and maxim. In this sense, as Novicevic, Davis, Dorn, Buckley, and Brown [2005] point
out, there is a link between Barnard’s leadership theory and transformational and au-
thentic leadership [Burns, 1978; Bass, 1998; George, 2003; Goffee and Jones, 2005]. In
my view, Barnard’s points emphasize the reflexive nature of leadership and this reflexiv-
ity stands for both positive and negative effects. Seeing reality as complex, evolving, and
unknown/unknowable is open both to potentiality and impotentiality. Thus, both leader
and stakeholders need to be aware of this latent risk.
HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147Leadership as a Reflexive Co–determinative Process 141
Steve Jobs and Apple
How, then, does the dark side of leadership relate to reflexivity and discursivity? To
answer this question, we now analyze an experience between Steve P. Jobs and Apple
around 1985. This was the time of Jobs’ departure from Apple, of which he was a co–
founder.
Jobs’ departure had two reasons. First, it was reported that Jobs overemphasized the
success of Macintosh, of which he was in charge [Rose, 1989]. Although his enthusiasm
was accepted and the Macintosh sold well among universities, the small computer with its
graphical user interface did not appeal to the general consumer. To make matters worse,
the Apple division collided with the Macintosh division, while the IBM discount scheme
was cutting into Apple II’s sales on the market [Young, 1986; Rose, 1989]. Second, as
a consequence of managerial entanglements, the relationship between Steve Jobs and
John Sculley, the then chief executive officer (CEO) of Apple, was jeopardized. Sculley
had previously been the CEO for PepsiCo, and it was Jobs who persuaded Sculley to
join Apple in 1983, using his legendary pick–up line: “Do you want to sell sugar water
for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?” [Scul-
ley and Byrne, 1987: 90]. Unfortunately, their time as Apple’s Dynamic Duo2 was brief.
Struggling to maintain power on the executive board, Jobs secretly tried to drive Sculley
from the CEO position, though it was Sculley who deprived Jobs of his duties as head of
the Macintosh division and tried to treat him as a visionary who had no actual decision–
making power [Young, 1986; Sculley and Byrne, 1987; Rose, 1989; Deutschman, 2001;
Young and Simon, 2005; Smith, 2008]. Jobs could not accept Sculley’s decision.
Jay Conger’s view [1990] on Jobs’ 1985 departure is that it was due to his exces-
sive vision of Macintosh as the computer of the future, and his subsequent managerial
neglect of overall corporate strategy. According to Conger, some leaders personify their
vision and become obsessed with its perfection and implementation. Some visionary
leaders tend to be absorbed by the paramount picture that they constructed in their
minds, yet, they fail to iron out the details. In addition, because they are often autocratic
and even dictatorial, the path to dialogue between the leader and others in the corpora-
tion becomes narrow, thereby triggering the dark side of leadership [Conger, 1990].
Conger’s view does not appear to be in conflict with the opinions of witnesses,
nor is it at odds with Jobs’ reputation at the time. While Jobs was characterized as a
pop culture icon, a media hero, and a role model for the venture industry, in his early
2 This naming was by Business Week, November 26, 1984 issue, where a photograph of Jobs
and Sculley appeared on its cover.
HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147142 Toyoko Sato
career, he was also described as a control freak, an egomaniac, and fearsome tyrant
[Deutschman, 2001]. While Jobs was praised as being persuasive and charismatic, he
was also described as temperamental and unreliable [Young, 1986; Rose, 1989; Young
and Simon, 2005].
In his memoir with Byrne, Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple, John Sculley reflected on Jobs’
departure:
It was a painful decision because I knew the cost was high. Steve would pay the
price of a job that he liked; I would pay the price of our friendship because I
knew it could never survive this. For days I wracked my mind for an alternative.
But I knew I wasn’t doing what I was hired to do. My responsibility was to the
shareholders, the board, and the employees [Sculley and Byrne, 1987: 241].
Sculley’s discourse is the typical reflection of a corporate executive manager. In this
text, there is no evidence of darkness as a leader. Yet, the irony is that while the text
conveys his struggle, his memoir fails to manifest a persuasive vision intrinsic to one of
the leaders of the United States’ computer industry.
Steve Jobs on Discourse
As Conger warned, the excessive vision of a leader can become deteriorative. However,
a weak vision does not make one a distinguished leader. In this vein, Steve Jobs ap-
pears to hold his leadership on the cliff ’s edge of the 1985 power struggle, which was a
complex and evolving reality. Jobs’ resignation letter addressed to Mark Markkula, co–
founder of Apple, is a key example.
Dear Mike,
This morning’s papers carried suggestions that Apple is considering remov-
ing me as Chairman. I don’t know the source of these reports, but they are both
misleading to the public and unfair to me.
You will recall that at last Thursday’s Board meeting I stated I had decided
to start a new venture, and I tendered my resignation as Chairman. …
…
… I must insist upon the immediate acceptance of my resignation. I would
hope that in any statement it feels it must issue, the Company will make it clear
that the decision to resign as Chairman was mine.
…
… Some Company representatives have said they fear I will use proprietary
Apple technology in my new venture. There is no basis for any such concern. If
that concern is the real source of Apple’s hostility to the venture, I can allay it.
HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147Leadership as a Reflexive Co–determinative Process 143
As you know, the company’s recent reorganization left me with no work to
do and no access even to regular management reports. I am but 30 and want
still to contribute and achieve.
After what we have accomplished together, I would wish our parting to be
both amicable and dignified.
Yours Sincerely,
Steven P. Jobs3
The entire letter is but 347 words, eight paragraphs, and seventeen sentences. Let
us trace Steve Jobs’ discourse at this acutely critical moment. There are four strategies in
this resignation: justification, mitigation, transformation, and selected silence.
At the beginning, Jobs justified his circumstance. Pointing out newspaper articles
about Apple and Jobs, he asserted that Apple’s so–called consideration to remove him
from the Chair of the corporation is both misleading and unfair, for his resignation was
determined by no one but himself, and it was Apple that asked him to postpone the deci-
sion for a week to seek a possible collaboration with Jobs’ new venture. Jobs stated that
the fact that he willingly resigned needs to be acknowledged. Next, Jobs expressed his
“condolences” to the end of his business relationship with the firm, and tried to mitigate
the situation with his defense that he is unable to use proprietary Apple technology for
his new venture because he is excluded from such information due to the recent corpo-
rate reorganization. Jobs then attempted to positively transform the stagnant situation
by appealing to the reader’s emotions, noting that he is only thirty years old and wished
to continue to contribute and achieve—in his own venture. Jobs keeps silent on some
points. He did not blame any specific Apple board member and he did not mention
his marketing failure related to Macintosh computer sales. Those appear to have been
intentionally omitted in the interest of maintaining an amicable and dignified end for
the relevant parties.
What is notable about the text of the letter of resignation is the repeated refer-
ence to “I.” The nominative pronoun I appeared fifteen times in the letter’s seventeen
sentences, for instance, “I stated,” “I had decided,” and “I tendered.” All of these I’s
are used in active structures. There is no passive voice such as “I was told.” The fre-
quency and choice of the nominative pronoun “I” appear not to be accidental; its usage
seems to signify the writer’s state of mind. Indeed, what we hear is Jobs’ voice of agency:
the faculty of exerting power [Butler 1997]. Jobs is positioning himself to sustain his
domination, even if this means leaving the corporation that he co–founded. Jobs also
3 The entire letter of resignation by Steve Jobs can be found in Young (1986), Linzmayer
(2004), and Young and Simons (2005).
HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147144 Toyoko Sato
proactively uses newspaper articles, although, to him, their credibility is uncertain. His
usage of these articles is positioned knowledge with which he also attempts to become
the savior of his entrepreneur spirit, and to legitimize his new venture. Thus, his letter of
resignation is an effort at self–construction.
Steve Jobs’ 1985 departure was an event that can be seen as representing the dark
side of leadership. His departure appears to be a conscious and unconscious, imbal-
anced co–determinative process between himself and Apple’s board members, like see-
ing multiple diffusely reflecting mirrors. Ironically, it is difficult to simply condemn the
mirroring negativity of Jobs’ leadership, especially knowing about his subsequent return
to Apple in 1997 and the fact that he formally assumed the position of CEO in the year
2000. He has been a symbol of the global cyber culture of our time and continuously
made his enterprise introduce cutting–edge devices with tremendous success. The sub-
title of John Sculley’s book Odyssey is Pepsi to Apple. Oddly, the title seems more suitable
for Steve Jobs and his journey, but with an alternative subtitle—Apple to Apple.
Jobs’ Odyssey may not be the simple success entirely attributed to his extensive
charisma, but rather to the tie between Jobs and his five staff members who left Apple
with him in 1985. Although the five were called “traitors,” they were for Jobs to estab-
lish NeXT, the new venture firm. Jobs and his five staff members were feared by Apple,
which had more than 4,300 employees at the time of Jobs’ departure [Young and Simon,
2005]. These six people versus Apple’s 4,300 indicates how radical the computer indus-
try was and how innovation, which may come as a result of vision, was valued in the in-
dustry during the 1980s. For Jobs, such a fact must have been empirically and intuitively
apparent, although the price that he paid for his departure was also partially expected.4
Furthermore, the post–resignation history tells us that to be a visionary, a leader
needs to have his/her followers who understand, share, shape, and implement their lead-
er’s visions in a co–determinative process, especially in industries in which technologies
accelerate not by the second, but at mach velocities. Without them, a visionary cannot
function as a visionary, for visions come in the form of discussions, negotiations, and re-
formulations for future outcome. Subsequently, John Sculley’s temporary plan for Jobs
to be a visionary without accessing corporate information could be observed as either
unrealistic optimism or miscalculated intrigue.
4 One example of this is Apple’s lawsuit against NeXt (See Young and Simon, 2005).
HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147Leadership as a Reflexive Co–determinative Process 145
Conclusion
Leadership is the power of decision–making. It is obliged to deal with complex, evolv-
ing, and unknown/unknowable reality. It is also a reflexive co–determinative process.
What we recognize is parts of what we perceive or assume to be reality. Leadership has
its dark side. While traits of individual leaders and their circumstances can be a source of
the darkness, magnanimous individuals suffer in this darkness. This is perhaps because
human nature is constrained to dealing with reality, and our relationships are often con-
structed upon such fragile reality.
Reflexivity is not restricted in certain groups and organizations. It is more a trans–
societal phenomenon. Certainly, market reflexivity is one such example. In the last de-
cade, Wall Street has been reacting in relation to news about Steve Jobs’ health. An
organizational paradox of leadership is that an extraordinarily distinguished leader can-
not be easily expendable. Thus, for Apple, the agenda is not exactly a succession issue,
but the representation of leadership, including its ability to manifest vision in the age of
global cyber culture. This can be the negative element of strong leadership for one who
comes later.
My effort in this paper was to highlight the reflexive nature of leadership. In particu-
lar, I attempted to analyze Steve Jobs’ 1985 departure from Apple through his letter of
resignation. As a methodology, I chose to focus on the discursive sphere. At the end of
his text, I discovered two points. First, having vision is one of the attributes of a leader.
Such vision can have a positive or negative effect. It may lure the leader and his/her or-
ganization to the dark side as a function of internal or external power disputes. Second,
to be a successful visionary leader, one needs followers who understand, share, shape,
and implement their leader’s visions in a reflexive co–determinative process.
I now return to the Lowney question posed at the beginning: Why does it hurt when
leadership is working? Examining Apple leadership, I can offer two possible answers.
First, it hurts because to lead is a task as well as a risk. Whether you are the leader or
the follower, realizing the “vision” as your own means that you pay a price. There is a
continuous struggle against an unknown future. Second, it hurts because reality is a
monster of complex, evolving, and unknown/unknowable entities, involving conscious
and unconscious processes. When leadership is working, we often touch upon the mon-
ster. Our pain is the price that we pay for this reflexive relation. And we pay the cost
and persist, hoping about and believing in the coming of an epiphany, both despite and
because of the dark side.
Postscript: The author wishes to note that this text was written before Steve Jobs passed
away on October 5, 2011.
HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147146 Toyoko Sato References Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2000), “Taking the Linguistic Turn in Organizational Research,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 1125–1149. Barnard, C. (1938), The Function of the Executive, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard Univer- sity Press. Barnard, C. (1945), “Education for Executive”, Organization and Management, Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts, Harvard University Press, 194 – 206. Bass, B. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Mah- wah, New jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burns, J. (1978), Leadership, New York, Harper & Row. Butler, J. (1997), Excitable Speech: The Politics of the Performative, London, Routledge. Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999), Discourse in Late Modernity, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Conger, J. (1990), “The Dark Side of Leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, 19 (2), 44–55. Deutschman, A. (2005), The Second Coming of Steve Jobs, New York, Random House. Fairhurst, G. (2007), Discursive Leadership, Los Angeles, Sage. Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice–Hall. George, B. (2003), Authentic Leadership, San Francisco, Jossey–Bass. Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2005), “Managing Authenticity: The Paradox of Great Leadership,” Harvard Business Review, December, 87–94. Grint, K. (2000), The Art of Leadership, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Isomura, K. (2010), “Barnard on Leadership Development: Bringing Action and Thinking,” Journal of Management History, 16 (2), 216 – 232. Linzmayer, O. (2004), Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive History of the World’s Most Colorful Company, San Francisco, No Starch Press. Lowney, C. (2008), Heroic Leadership, Chicago, Loyola Press. McIntosh, G. and Rima, D. (2006), Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Bakerbooks. Novicevic, M., Davis, W., Dorn, F., Buckley, M., and Brown, J., (2005), “Barnard on Conflict of Responsibility: Implications for Today’s Perspectives on Transformational and Authentic Leader- ship,” Management Decision, 43(10), 992–1002. Rose, F. (1989), West of Eden: The End of Innocence at Apple Computer, New York, Penguin. Sculley, J. and Byrne, J. (1987), Odyssey: Pepsi to Apple, New York, Harper & Row. Smith, D. (2008), Divide or Conquer, New York, Portfolio. Young, J. (1986), Steve Jobs: The Journey Is the Reward. Glenview Illinois, Scott, Foresman & Co. Young, J. and Simon, W. (2005), iCon: Steve Jobs, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons. Toyoko Sato holds a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an M.A. from Roskilde University. With her 2010 dissertation, “Performativity and Discourse: Japanese Advertisements on the Aesthetic Education of Desire,” she earned her Ph.D. (in Orga- nization and Management) from the Copenhagen Business School, where she works as an external lecturer. She received the Best Student Paper Award from the Management History division at the 2010 Academy of Management–Montreal. She has published on HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147
Leadership as a Reflexive Co–determinative Process 147 organizational identity in the Journal of Management History (2010), on a management education case study in the International Journal of Management in Education (2010), and on the performativity of Japanese advertisement (John Benjamins, 2011). HRM(ZZL)_6-2011eng_Sato-T_137-147
You can also read
