Søren Willert

Using management inquiry to co-construct other memories about the future

The focal point in this article is to explore how management inquiry in the context of reflexive dialogical action research can be used as a way for researchers and managers to jointly construct knowledge that partakes in developing organizational life from “within.” This article builds on the acknowledgment that people in organizations have memories of the future. And it is argued that the prospective memories managers have of how an organizational dilemma will unfold in the nearby future shape their actions and co-construction of meaning in the present. In the article, we exemplify and explore how researchers and managers by using “unadjusted responses” and “social poetics” as ways of gesturing and responding can engage in management inquiry and enhance the future managers remember to make room for more desirable future memories to emerge that expand managers’ possible space for action in the present.

Gunnar Hjelholt, a pioneer within group dynamics and organizational psychology. Part 1: Life and work

On the basis of extended biographical material regarding Danish social psychologist Gunnar Hjelholt (1920–2002), the two authors present a historically-oriented case study in professional culture construction. The culture thus portrayed is a particular brand of Kurt Lewin-inspired social psychology. From the 1960s and onwards, Hjelholt was a key figure in developing this field in Scandinavia and, indeed, in most of Europe. In the present Part 1 of a two-part article, Hjelholts life story is unfolded chronologically and in its historical context. It is shown how his internment in a concentration camp during World War II shaped his view of the relationship between individual and organization. Further, how a 1958 visit to the USA where he encountered the Lewinian tradition exerted paramount influence on his thinking and practice in such areas as organizational development, group dynamics, laboratory training, adult education and the consultant role. It is concluded that Hjelholts experiences with the Lewinian tradition, coupled with a talent for supporting organizational change and development, made him a central figure in shaping a European variety of consultancy and group dynamics. The follow-up article discusses characteristic professional themes in Hjelholts contribution to the field.

Gunnar Hjelholt, a Pioneer within Group Dynamics and Organizational Psychology: Part 2: Boundary making and Boundary Breaking as Consultancy Theme

On the basis of extended biographical material regarding Danish social psychologist Gunnar Hjelholt (1920–2002), the two authors present a historically oriented case study in professional culture construction. The professional culture thus portrayed is a particular brand of Kurt Lewin-inspired social psychology. From the 1960s and onwards, Hjelholt was a key figure in developing this field in Scandinavia and, indeed, in most of Europe. Building on a chronological sketch of Hjelholts life story presented in Part 1 of a two-part article, the present second part of the article endeavors, not only to paint a picture of Hjelholt as a professional person with a distinctive problem solving style and impact on his surroundings, but also to search for interactions between identified professional themes and Hjelholts personal life story as well as his political attitudes broadly conceived. The concept of boundary and the image of the consultant as boundary keeper play important roles as recurrent, unifying metaphors in the text. Among other themes covered, the following may be mentioned: doing versus reflecting; what is the good organization; and individuals versus organizations. In the epilogue, one overarching aim of the two texts is described as that of opening up for discussion and dialogue concerning organization consultancy in a historical perspective.

Leadership in Relational and Distributed Practice: General and Historical Perspectives

This book presents a leadership perspective based on relations rather than individuals. By implication, leadership should not be understood as the effect of a leader’s unique personal abilities. Instead it should be seen as an umbrella term covering a number of specific organisational tasks that are embedded in and developed through organisational actors’ cooperation. Within this relational perspective, however, the formally appointed leader may still be positioned at the centre of the analysis. This chapter is largely based on a perspective that is often called distributed leadership (cf. e.g. Jeppesen 2013; Nielsen 2008) refecting the fact that leadership tasks have to some degree become distributed across the company or institution.

Leaders’ Use of Maps, Guiding Images and Momentary Meaningful Actions

In the book’s previous chapters, we have argued that people’s shared efforts to make sense of the variability of everyday life and to come up with meaningful actions can help us understand the different local, cultural and relational realities that come together to constitute an organisation. In this chapter, we build upon this perspective, with particular emphasis on the unpredictable incidents of everyday life: How are they understood and handled? How are relationally based attempts to make sense of the unpredictable — and at times the coincidental — part of developing and shaping the organisation?

The Self as a Center of Ethical Gravity: A Constructive Dialogue Between Søren Kierkegaard and George Herbert Mead

Abstract This paper examines the striking similarity between Kierkegaard’s and Mead’s theories of the self as relation, reflection and process as well as the normativity behind these theories. It is claimed that the theologian and the social psychologist share the view that the human being is an ethical being because its self is a dual relation; it relates to itself and in this relating it relates to an Other. Thus, regardless of their diverging views on the nature of this Other, they both define that of becoming a self as an unavoidable task: the task of standing in an ethical relation to oneself and to the Other. It is argued that differences in professions can be overcome: while reading Kierkegaard in the light of Mead helps to underline the relational character of Kierkegaard’s ethical notions, reading Mead in the light of Kierkegaard underlines the normative aspect of Mead’s social psychology.