To be published in Bell, D.S. (ed) (2011) “Political Leadership”, Sage
DOWNPLAYING LEADERSHIP
Researching how leaders talk about themselves
Robert French and Peter Simpson
Address for correspondence:
Dr Robert French
Bristol Business School
University of the West of England
Frenchay Campus
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol, BS16 1QY
England
U.K.
Tel.:
Fax.:
Email:
44 (0)117 32 83468
44 (0)117 32 82289
Robert.French@uwe.ac.uk
Robert French has a particular interest in issues of teaching and learning, in
leadership, in the experience of role in organisations, and in the application of
psychoanalysis in group and organisational contexts. He has written widely in these
areas and recently edited the papers of David Armstrong (Organization in the Mind,
Karnac, 2005), and has co-edited Rethinking Management Education (Sage, 1996,
with Chris Grey) and Group Relations, Management, and Organization (Oxford
University Press, 1999, with Russ Vince).
Peter Simpson has published on the relevance of the place of faith, “not knowing” and
negative capability in understanding leadership practice. In line with this he has a
growing interest in the application of ideas of complexity to organisational dynamics,
and is particularly concerned with those aspects of leadership theory and practice that
are not well represented in the traditional literatures in the field. Recent consultancy
and research contracts have involved working with middle and senior management
teams on change initiatives and processes of learning in the face of uncertainty.
LEADERS DOWNPLAYING LEADERSHIP
Researching how leaders talk about themselves
Abstract
This paper identifies the notion of downplaying leadership. Whilst some attempt is
made to explore the meaning of this practice, our primary intention is to describe a
method and framework for analysing the transcripts of leadership interviews. This
method has been developed to help identify how leaders may sometimes use language
in research interviews to play down the importance of their own leadership and of
leadership in general.
Keywords
linguistic analysis; leadership; metaphor; research method
Introduction
We report here on a method of analyzing transcripts derived from research interviews
with leaders. The development of this method has led us to give attention to an aspect
of leadership practice that we call ‘downplaying leadership’¹. This was not the
intention of our research, which continued previous work on the related, but quite
different, aspect of practice that we refer to as ‘negative capability’ (Author, 2002,
2006). However, we were surprised by some of the interviewees’ responses, and not
1
only by some of the things that they said but also by how they chose to say them. As a
consequence we were ultimately compelled to investigate further. This paper is the
result.
We had chosen to interview leaders with a track record of success and we imagined
that they would be more than happy to talk about themselves and the significant role
that they played in their organizations’ successes. This was not quite the case. Our
first surprise was the opening gambit of our first interviewee, who said “I don’t really
like the concept of leadership”. We initially interpreted this merely as a form of
posturing or personal style. One of our research team, who knew the interviewee from
a previous working relationship, commented, “Oh, that’s just him. He always says
things like that.” This allowed us to put the incident to one side. However, our third
interviewee began with an almost identical statement, adding that she had recently
realized that “thinking about leadership is no longer useful to me.” It was at this point
that we began to think again.
The bald and apparently literal challenge in these statements was striking. In
questioning the concept of leadership in this way, these leaders appeared to be
downplaying their own roles as well as leadership in general. This interpretation did
have some resonance with the content of what followed in these two interviews, as
well as in our conversations with subsequent interviewees. However, making sense of
this was not at all straightforward. For example, whilst these leaders were claiming
not to like “the concept of leadership” and that “thinking about leadership” was no
longer useful, they proceeded to make many statements that clearly constituted a
thoughtful discussion of the concept of leadership. On the other hand, these instances
2
of downplaying leadership were not isolated and the leaders were persistent in their
claims that other concepts were more valuable – “entrepreneurship”, “innovation”,
“motherhood”, for example. We therefore decided to take these statements seriously
and to investigate whether or not there might be a meaning that we did not yet
adequately appreciate.
Our first task was to give attention to methods of looking for and identifying
examples of downplaying leadership. In this way we hoped to gather more detailed
data that might help us eventually to understand its role and significance. In part this
paper does begin to explore the meaning of downplaying leadership. However, our
intention is primarily to present a method for identifying ways in which leaders use
language to downplay leadership in research interviews. It is too soon to draw any
final conclusions as to the significance of this practice.
The structure of this article is as follows. We begin by describing the notion of
downplaying leadership. We then describe the approach that we have developed for
analyzing the transcripts of leader interviews. This identifies four linguistic techniques
by which interviewees downplay leadership. We illustrate the use of the framework
with an example from our research. We conclude with suggestions for further
research.
Researching what leaders say about leadership
‘Reading Labov’s work, I saw that it matters who the speakers are, and what
they have to say, and what they are doing with their language.’ (Guy, 1996: x.)
3
The fieldwork for this project comprises eight semi-structured interviews conducted
with leaders of large organizations (500+ members). In these interviews we ask about
their philosophies of leadership and, especially, what they have done in ‘good’ and
‘bad’ times – the latter being perhaps the organizational equivalent of Labov’s
‘Danger of Death’ question: ‘Were you ever in a situation where … you said to
yourself – “This is it”?’ (1972: 354).
The emphasis of the ‘narrative turn’ in the social sciences has been to open up for
analysis form as well as content in the language used by research participants. Our
approach to conducting these interviews and to interrogating the resulting interview
transcripts has been informed by a cluster of qualitative research methods from a
variety of fields. These include narrative analysis (Bruner, 1990; Cortazzi, 1993;
Cziarnawska, 1998, 1999; Gabriel, 2000; Riessman, 1993), linguistic analysis (Labov,
1972; Labov & Waletzky, 1967), metaphor and literary analysis (Budick & Iser, 1989;
Lakoff & Johnson, 2003; Morgan, 1986), and personal experience methods (Clandinin
& Connelly, 1994).
The framework we have developed is derived from Michael Sells’ (1994) analysis of
what he calls the ‘mystical languages of unsaying’. It might seem strange that we have
chosen to utilise an approach developed for the analysis of ‘mystical languages’ in our
study of what leaders say and so deserves some explanation.
In our interviews we noticed that leaders appeared to be downplaying the notion of
leadership in the attempt to communicate something that clearly mattered to them. It
4
occurred to us that this may usefully be thought of as a process of deconstruction. As
a consequence we noticed some similarities between what we were observing and the
features of the ‘mystical languages of unsaying’ that Sells explores in his study of
deconstruction in apophatic religious writings (see also Derrida, 1989). Sells argues
that apophatic writers attempt to convey a deeper meaning by deconstructing
previously established views of the divine. It was our insight that this similarity might
be worth pursuing. Having progressed our study to the point described in this paper
we are still of this opinion.
The framework which we have developed is derived from some of the specific
techniques, which Sells has identified. It consists of four elements, which appear to us
important in analyzing how leaders sometimes use language to downplay leadership.
They are:
1.
direct statements
2.
linguistic markers
3.
the instability of pronouns
4.
metaphor.
In the following section, we explain and demonstrate the use of the framework.
Developing a framework for analyzing the downplaying of leadership
Primarily for the sake of clarity we will illustrate the use of the method with data from
just one interview. It is our purpose here to describe our method, not to present a
5
thorough analysis of our interview data. However, our focus on one interview does
serve another purpose: to demonstrate the way in which a range of linguistic
techniques may be used by a single individual. This is a significant feature of the
method as it provides support for the contention that the interviewee is genuinely
seeking to downplay leadership rather than merely exhibiting an affectation, habit or
even regurgitating ideas picked up in conversation with others.
1.
Direct Statements
Direct statements are the most obvious example of language that downplays
leadership and, consequently, are perhaps the easiest to identify of the four elements
in our analytical framework. Indeed, as we have already indicated, it was a direct
statement that first alerted us to this practice. The following examples from the
interview are illustrations of direct statements that downplay leadership:

I don’t really like the concept of leadership

Thinking about leadership is no longer useful to me

I suppose you just go and snatch the driving wheel really

So we have diversified. Nothing to do with leadership!

You can be a bloody awful manager or leader – or whatever you call it – but
you will probably end up making a packet.
Whilst these statements are direct in their challenge to the significance of leadership,
their meaning is not immediately obvious. What is clear is that an assumed, and
perhaps generally accepted, idea of leadership is being questioned. Thus, each of the
direct statements listed above raises a question about one of the following: that leaders
6
should like the concept of leadership; that thinking about leadership is useful; that
taking control requires special talents; that diversification is a leadership intervention;
and that leaders must be highly skilled to be successful.
However, it is not self-evident why a leader might feel the need to challenge such
ideas. The downplaying of self-as-leader in this way might simply be read as
examples of irony or of modesty and humility (Collins, 2001). However, this
interpretation tends to draw attention back to the leader, whereas to downplay
leadership so directly could also be taken at face value, that is, as an attempt to direct
attention away from the leader and from the significance of his or her role.
We suggest that leaders employ the other three, less immediately obvious linguistic
devices identified in our analytical framework to achieve a similar end, that of
challenging the supposed importance of leadership, but with greater subtlety and
without, necessarily implying modesty or humility.
2.
Linguistic markers
Sells suggests that speakers use ‘markers’ – often a simple phrase, such as “it seems
to me…” – to prepare the listener for a new, even strange, idea. Like warning signs on
a footpath, these ‘markers’ are words or phrases that signal ‘crucial moments’ (Sells,
1994: 24); that is, they highlight a moment where a proposition of some kind is about
to be challenged, where something apparently certain or obvious is being called into
question. One of his examples is from the work of the Greek writer Plotinus (204-270
CE), who frequently inserted the word hoion, meaning ‘as it were’, to remind the
reader that his words should not be taken literally. In this way, he would mark the fact
7
that he was about to use a concept that might sound authoritative but was, in reality,
highly contested, and which he was both presenting as important and, at the same time
unsaying.
The existence of such markers in an interview transcript can help us to identify
examples of downplaying. This is especially helpful in cases where the speaker
frequently or habitually uses particular ‘markers’.
In the interview we are using here for illustration, the leader demonstrated clearly this
use of a marker at ‘crucial moments’ in the interview. In his case, it was the word
‘just’. He seemed to insert the word whenever there was a hint that what he was
saying might suggest the ‘Great Leader’ concept of leadership. The effect was
constantly to understate his leadership input.
For example, when describing his response to a crisis in the company’s history, he
used the phrase quoted above: “I suppose you just go and snatch the driving wheel
really.” Through the use of the marker, ‘just’, and by generalizing what he did – not
“I”, but “you” – and adding ‘really’, he emphasized the ordinariness and down-toearth-ness of his actions, impersonalising his actions, as it were. These elements give
a ‘throw-away’ tone to the statement, which distances him from the specialness with
which we generally endow the leader’s role, especially at times of crisis, such as the
one he was describing. As a result, it sounds as though this was not ‘really’ a
leadership act on his part at all, but ‘just’ what anyone would do in the circumstances.
8
His repeated use of ‘just’, to mark moments when he was downplaying the
importance of leadership, alerted us to the idea that this might be more than an
idiosyncrasy of personal style. For example, his opening phrase, “I don’t really like
the concept of ‘leadership’ ”, was quickly followed by: “Why I don’t like it is that if
you know where you are going people are just likely to follow.” The idea that if you
“know where you are going” as a leader, “people are… likely to follow” is a good
working definition of the concept of leadership. However, the marker – ‘just’ –
signals a challenge to accepted wisdom. It highlights the fact that we are being
presented with a contradiction: this is indeed a definition of leadership, but somehow
it is overstating it to glorify something he experienced as so simple and so obvious
with the title, ‘leadership’.
It was in analyzing this interview, and the way in which he appeared habitually to
‘mark’ certain key themes with this little word ‘just’, that we came to recognize how
common linguistic markers of this kind are in everyday speech – and that, as a result,
they can easily be overlooked. The word ‘just’ recurs throughout the interview,
appearing thirty-eight times in all, like a familiar tune in a piece of music. Of these,
just over half are literal applications of the word – as in the phrase, ‘just over half’.
The rest, however, seventeen cases in all, mark what might fit Sells’ notion of ‘crucial
moments’ in the discussion of leadership; that is, moments where this leader wished
to downplay his role and to dissociate himself and his views of leadership from
stereotypical images such as the ‘Great Leader’:

we just threw in leadership to make it respectable [referring to the design of a
university course in which his organisation collaborated]
9

if you know where you are going, people are just likely to follow

We just walked through the fence at the back of the Granada service station
and everyone grabbed a tray

It cost nothing really but they thought it was marvellous – nobody had ever
done anything for them before. It is just identifying really

I suppose you just go and snatch the driving wheel really

it’s better than roulette because it keeps paying out – you just continue to win

this was just a pure feeling: “yes that’s a bloody good idea, I am sure we can
do something with that”.
One problematic aspect of the use of these markers is that they tend to be common
rather than exceptional items of speech. This is evident with the word ‘just’, as it is
with Plotinus’ ‘as it were’ or Meister Eckhart’s ‘before’ and ‘now’: ‘we said before
that … but now we say …’ (Sells, 1994: 189). As we became aware of this linguistic
device in our reading of the transcripts, we found a range of quite unobtrusive phrases
or terms being used as downplaying markers. They include:

it may sound funny but

in other words

maybe I’m not articulating this very well but

how can I describe that

er…
As with the word ‘just’, some of these words or phrases may be interpreted in a
straightforward, literal manner. However, in some circumstances they all also fit
10
Sells’ argument that they mark the downplaying of a concept that is often accepted
without question, or whose meaning has become ‘frozen’ through use. Thus, although
words such as these are used in other ways they can also signal a crucial moment
when a proposition is being challenged.
3. The instability of pronouns
Another aspect of the language of downplaying, to which Sells directs our attention, is
the fact that pronouns are not as stable as they may seem. Speakers sometimes shift
between pronouns in a way that can cause ambiguity, because it can confuse the
connection between the pronoun and the person being referred to. Sells calls this
‘referential openness’ and argues that it can lead to ‘creative ambiguity’ and a
significant shift in perspective (Sells, 1994: 73).
In the context of our research, it is this idea of a perspective shift that matters. The use
of pronouns can act as a pointer to a particular perspective or an ambiguity of
perspective that the speaker wishes to indicate. The pronouns ‘I’, ‘we’, ‘you’, ‘she’,
for example, all appear, at first sight, to be relatively straightforward, but their use is
not always clear. For example, ‘I’ and ‘we’ can be notoriously problematic when used
in the context of a group or team. At times, we may observe the leader or a member of
a team or organisation moving between the use of ‘I’ and ‘we’ in ways that do not
necessarily make immediate sense.
As researchers analyzing interview texts, we may make use of our awareness of the
potential instability of pronouns to attune our reading to any inappropriate or unusual
movements between ‘I’ and ‘we’, or to a preference for ‘we’, an apparent discomfort
11
with the use of ‘I’, or perhaps to the generalizing impact of a shift from ‘I’ or ‘we’ to
‘you’. Ambiguities such as these were evident at times in the interview. For instance,
when describing his response to another serious crisis, he said:
Well, I really tried to keep a sense of reason. I remembered that a lot of people
were worse off. You try to keep a sense of balance. Then you think, “What can
I do”. For instance, you look for every inch of value in the balance sheet that
you can find. We had a very conservative balance sheet at the time. Then you
go searching for profits. At the time we fought against discounting our fees,
which probably we should not have done. But we tried to keep hold of higher
fees.
The response here is characterized by the almost off-hand way in which he
undermines the idea that this moment of crisis called for a special kind of leadership.
It is all made to sound very straightforward: first of all, don’t panic, then take a good
look at the most basic of data for such an organization – the balance sheet – and work
from there.
In addition, he introduces a level of ‘creative ambiguity’ through the instability of the
shifts between ‘I’, ‘you’ and ‘we’, which has the effect of further downplaying the
importance of his own leadership contribution. Having been asked a personal question
– “How did you cope?” – he did indeed start with a personal response, “I tried … I
remembered…” However, he quickly moved the argument away from himself,
generalizing to ‘you’: “Then you think… For instance, you look for… Then you go
searching for profits.” Finally, when describing the company’s situation and his
12
response, the pronoun again shifts, this time to “we”: “We had a conservative balance
sheet … we fought against discounting our fees …” In the midst of this, the image of
the strong, dynamic leader dissipates, as the listener’s attention is directed away from
the ‘I’ (Latin, ego) to the broader and less specific ‘you’ and ‘we’, neither of which
has a direct antecedent to which it refers.
Thus, the instability of pronouns is another pattern of language that can reflect or
highlight the leader’s desire to downplay leadership. As with the use of linguistic
markers, this is not an explicit downplaying, nor does it appear in this interview to be
merely an affectation or habit, although it is clearly important to keep that possibility
in mind. Rather, as Sells indicates, it appears to suggest a desire, conscious or
unconscious, on the part of the speaker to create a shift in perspective.
4. Metaphor
Metaphor is a key aspect of language, and considered by some to be ‘the core of
linguistic creativity’ (Crystal, 1987: 70; see also, Cox & Theilgaard, 1987; Lakoff &
Johnson, 2003; Morgan, 1986). Consequently it is not at all surprising to find images
or metaphors of leadership throughout the text of any interview with a leader. It is
important to note that figures of speech, such as metaphor, simile, oxymoron, litotes,
or paradox, are not introduced by speakers or writers just for ‘colour’. To some extent,
all such devices are called into use as a way of expressing complex or subtle ideas, or
of moving beyond the limitations of language in an attempt to approach the reality of
a lived experience.
13
The metaphors leaders use to describe what they do will reflect the images of
leadership that they hold in their minds. In our own research, we have observed
leaders describing leadership practice in terms of imagery drawn from other activities,
such as negotiation, innovation, or enterprise. Similarly, they have described taking up
their leadership roles through other forms of role: ‘mother’, ‘scapegoat’, ‘cleaner’, or
‘manager’. In serving as metaphors for leadership, all of these images may downplay
or disturb prevailing, often over-simplified, views of what leaders are and what they
do.
Returning to our illustrative interview, metaphor was used to downplay leadership and
their effect was further accentuated by juxtaposing one metaphor against another. For
example, two metaphors that appear close together in the text of the interview both
involve ‘games’: Poohsticks and roulette.
Having told the story of various projects set up over the years, a direct statement was
used to downplay the importance of leadership: “So we have diversified. Nothing to
do with leadership!” The stark irony of the comment seems to have stimulated the
interviewer to ask, “Did you have a sort of driving philosophy that was leading you to
set up these different businesses? What was in your thinking? Was it just ideas that
would come to you or would opportunities present themselves?” His answer was
immediate:
Yes. I think I believe now in something called Poohsticks. Not that I read
Winnie the Pooh… They put sticks in and then go round the other side of the
bridge and see whose twig comes through first. If you can see something quite
14
fast, you can be a bloody awful manager or leader – or whatever you call it –
but you will probably end up making a packet.
Both roulette and Poohsticks are games, hence both are to an extent playful, both are
competitive, and both seem just to involve chance. (Despite Tigger’s claim that his
success was related to letting go of his stick in a ‘twitchy sort of way’, the person
dropping the stick really is not in control once it hits the water.) But there are
differences too between these two games. Poohsticks, the more innocent, focuses
simply on fun, although a count is kept of who ‘wins’ the most – and, in the original
story, every now and then someone falls into the water, either by mistake or
deliberately (Milne, 1928). Roulette, however, is more risky – and yet when applied to
experimenting with new ideas, the metaphor is used to argue that ‘business-roulette’ is
almost foolproof:
We were always pushing something, trying something. I always think that
having an idea is like roulette really. If you start something, if you put your
money behind some new venture, and it fails, like roulette, your money gets
swept away. … but every now and again your number comes up. But it’s
better than roulette because it keeps paying out – you just continue to win. …
Really the odds are incredibly in your favour of winning in business.
Whatever differences there may be between these games metaphors, their cumulative
effect is unmistakable. The work he does may be fun, it may be risky, it may require
luck, and even some strategic planning and aggressive intent (as suggested by his use
later in the interview of a further game metaphor, namely that of chess), but his
15
organisation’s success is not dependent upon leadership – in fact, “you can be a
bloody awful manager or leader – or whatever you call it – but you will probably end
up making a packet.”
Summary and limitations
We have argued that the application of Sells’ principles of analysis of the ‘mystical
languages of unsaying’ offers an interesting and potentially rich basis for research into
the ways in which some leaders use language to downplay, or ‘unsay’, their roles or to
subvert the notion of leadership itself. We began by explaining the relevance of Sells’
work on ‘unsaying’ in relation to leadership. We then described a framework that we
have developed for the analysis of the language used in the transcripts of interviews
with leaders – and demonstrated its use in the analysis of one such transcript.
The comparison with Sells’ analysis of deconstruction in apophatic religious writings
has led us to develop a framework that highlights particular characteristics of the
practice of downplaying leadership. We have drawn attention to direct statements that
offer a clear challenge to established ideas about leadership. We have suggested that
‘linguistic markers’ appear to signal crucial moments when a proposition is being
challenged. The ‘instability of pronouns’, we have argued, suggests that referential
openness can lead to creative ambiguity, facilitating a shift in perspective. In
summary, we observe all of these linguistic techniques, and metaphor as well, being
used to challenge established ideas on or about leaders and leadership. The purpose
appears to be to destabilise existing ideas about what leaders do or think, and about
the importance, or otherwise, of such leadership. As such the speaker appears to be
16
attempting to bring about some sort of change in thinking on the part of the listener,
and, perhaps, in him- or herself as well. A concern with change – in thinking or
practice – is clearly in line with the leadership function. However, we have made clear
that we are not yet in a position to argue what particular function downplaying might
serve in the practice of leadership.
As a result, this paper does seem to us to be a beginning and not an end point. In a
sense, we see it as a proposal, certainly as ‘work-in-progress’. Further research is
needed to develop a greater understanding both of the practice and the purpose of
downplaying leadership. For example, further work might provide a clearer
understanding of the range and nature of the linguistic devices used by leaders to
downplay leadership.
Similarly, different ‘modes’ of downplaying might prove to be differently motivated.
There may be a more or less ‘pure’ form of downplaying, where the leader is
genuinely trying to undermine accepted wisdom in order, perhaps, to release
themselves and others from the grip of an unproductive stereotype. On the other hand,
some examples may be little more than personal style, habit or affectation. Indeed,
there may be cases where an apparent downplaying of the leader role is being used to
manipulate others into behaving in a particular way, while appearing to do the
opposite. We have suggested above that it may be important to use the whole
analytical framework, rather than relying on evidence from only one aspect, in
addressing these potential criticisms. However, it is clear that more needs to be done
to determine the meaning or meanings of downplaying leadership if we are to be able
to distinguish between genuine and counterfeit examples of the practice.
17
Another limitation of this study is that it draws only on examples of leaders
downplaying leadership in the context of research interviews with academics. It is
reasonable to assume that leaders will behave differently in this context compared to
how they might engage in actual leadership situations with members of staff, for
example. This raises the obvious question of whether this practice of downplaying
leadership has any bearing on leadership practice at all. Our suspicion, argued above,
is that it does, although it may well manifest in a different form to that which we have
experienced. This would require some research ‘out in the field’ to investigate the
language that leaders use when speaking in a leadership setting.
A further refinement would concern identifying those leaders who downplay
leadership and those who do not. We have implied in this article that we have
observed a number of leaders using the linguistic devices detailed in our analytical
framework. What we have not mentioned is that there are some who do not appear to
do so. We do not currently have sufficient empirical data to develop arguments about
what this might signify. However, the data that we do have suggests that this might
indicate a difference between leaders with a change agenda and those seeking to
establish and stabilise an existing situation. For example, one interviewee, the chief
executive of a global financial organisation, did not use any of the linguistic
techniques for downplaying leadership. However, he did speak quite extensively
about his appointment by the chairman, whom he described as a ‘real visionary
change leader’. In contrast he described himself as being appointed to ‘make it all
work’. This is reminiscent of Rowe’s (2001) distinction between ‘visionary’ and
‘managerial’ leaders. The former ‘are proactive, shape ideas, change the way people
18
think about what is desirable, possible and necessary’, whereas the latter ‘are reactive;
adopt passive attitudes towards goals; goals arise out of necessities, not desires and
dreams’ (p. 82). If downplaying leadership is concerned with changing ‘the way
people think’, then one might possibly expect it more of the visionary than the
managerial leader.
Finally, we suggest that the ideas presented here may well make it possible to develop
a more detailed appreciation of the practice of downplaying leadership and its
relations to other leadership practices and capacities, such as modesty, humility,
restraint and negative capability, which is indeed where this current study began.
Notes
1. We are indebted to Keith Grint for coining the phrase ‘downplaying leadership’,
which he suggested in preference to the slightly more enigmatic phrase, ‘unsaying
leadership’.
References
Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.
Budick, S. & Iser, W. (eds) (1989) Languages of the Unsayable: The Play of
Negativity in Literature and Literary Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (1994) ‘Personal Experience Methods’, in N.K.
Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp 413-412.
London: Sage.
Collins, J. (2001) Good to Great. London: Random House.
Cortazzi, M. (1993) Narrative analysis. London: The Falmer Press.
Cox, M. & Theilgaard, A. (1987) Mutative Metaphors in Psychotherapy: The Aeolian
Mode. London: Tavistock Publications.
Crystal, (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
19
Czarniawska, B. (1998) A Narrative Approach in Organization Studies. London: Sage.
Czarniawska, B. (1999) Writing Management: Organization Theory as a Literary
Genre. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Derrida, J. (1989) ‘How to Avoid Speaking: Denials’, in S. Budick & W. Iser (eds)
Languages of the Unsayable: The Play of Negativity in Literature and Literary Theory,
pp. 3-70. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gabriel, Y. (2000) Storytelling in Organizations. Facts, Fictions and Fantasies,
Oxford University Press: London.
Guy, G.R. (1996) ‘Preface’, in G.R. Gregory, C. Feagin, D. Schiffrin, & J. Bauch
(eds) Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, Vol.
1, Variation and Change in Language and Society, pp ix- xiv. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Labov, W. (1972) Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967) ‘Narrative Analysis’, in J. Helm (ed.) Essays on the
Verbal and Visual Arts pp 12-44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003/1980) Metaphors we Live by. Second edition, with a
new Afterword. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Milne, A.A. (1928) The House at Pooh Corner. London: Methuen.
Oppen, G. (2003) New collected Poems. Manchester: Carcanet Press.
Morgan, G. (1986) Images of Organisation. London: Sage
Riessman, C.K. (1993) Narrative Analysis. London: Sage.
Rowe, G.W. (2001) ‘Creating Wealth in Organizations: The Role of Strategic
Leadership.’ Academy of Management Executive 15(1): 81-94.
Sells, M. (1994) Mystical Languages of Unsaying. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Simpson, P., French, R. and Harvey, C.E. (2002) ‘Leadership and Negative
Capability’. Human Relations 55(10): 1209-1226.
Simpson, P. and French, R. (2006) ‘Negative Capability and the Capacity to Think in
the Present Moment: Some Implications for Leadership Practice.’ Leadership 2(2):
245-55.
20