950462

research-article2020
MCQXXX10.1177/0893318920950462Management Communication QuarterlyDoshi et al.

Article
Management Communication Quarterly

Challenging the
2021, Vol. 35(2) 201­–225
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Discourse of Leadership sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0893318920950462
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318920950462
as Knowledge: Knowing journals.sagepub.com/home/mcq

and Not Knowing

Vijayta Doshi1  , Paaige K. Turner2,

and Neharika Vohra3

Abstract
Leadership and knowledge are often paired together. Yet, certain forces
that operate on businesses and individuals are often unknowable. In this
study, we consider leaders’ perceptions of the consequences of not knowing
and how leaders discursively cope with a sense of not knowing. Based on
interviews with 33 participants working in multinational companies in India,
we find that leaders perceive negative consequences of not knowing and
engage in discursive tactics such as posing, delaying, clarifying, admitting,
being silent, and stating “I don’t know,” that sustain and are sustained
by the Discourse of leadership as knowledge. The findings contribute to
the discursive leadership literature by demonstrating tactics leaders use
as they attempt to balance the discursive construction of leadership as
knowledge and lived experiences of not knowing. We discuss how the
Discourse of leadership as knowledge will hamper knowledge extension
as it undermines not knowing and privileges knowing over not knowing.

Keywords
leadership, qualitative, knowledge, not knowing, d/Discourse, interactive
knowing

1
Indian Institute of Management Udaipur, India
2
Ball State University, St. Louis, MO, USA
3
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

Corresponding Author:
Vijayta Doshi, Indian Institute of Management Udaipur, Balicha, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313001, India.
Email: vijayta.doshi@iimu.ac.in
202 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

Certain forces operating in the world, in businesses, and in ourselves are

often unknowable. As the world reacts to events such as COVID-19, leaders
across the globe struggle to exhibit leadership when knowledge is elusive,
emergent, and absent. “What should we do?” “How can we be safe?” “When
can we return to work?” These are questions posed to current leaders. Because
researchers have often paired leadership and knowledge (Connelly et al.,
2000; Lord & Shondrick, 2011), society expects leaders to know or have a
clear answer to such questions (Simpson & Burnard, 2000). However, situa-
tions often demand that leaders confront not knowing (Simpson et al., 2002).
Although leadership literature has acknowledged ambiguity (multiple mean-
ings) and uncertainty (inability to predict accurately) in leadership (Alvesson
& Sveningsson, 2003; Grint, 2005; Weick, 1995), there is little understanding
of how leaders discursively navigate the experiences of not knowing. It is
important to understand how leaders deal with not knowing because not
knowing has significant implications for leading.
In times of not knowing, “I don’t know” can be three of the most powerful
words a leader can say, yet social and organizational expectations pose a
challenge to the leader to confidently make this statement (Crossman &
Doshi, 2015). Subordinates romanticize leaders to be in control of the situa-
tion (Meindl et al., 1985), even though leaders often face wicked problems
that have no ending point or right or wrong answer (Grint, 2005). Not know-
ing among leaders is seen as a lack of competence (Simpson et al., 2002).
Thus, leaders have to undergo the tension of balancing the discursive con-
struction of leadership as knowledge and lived experiences of not knowing.
One approach to understand tensions situated within a context is to exam-
ine the discourse-Discourse relationship (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2019; Putnam
et al., 2016). Whereas “discourse” refers to communication between persons
in day-to-day interactions, “Discourse” refers to the meanings that circulate
at the macro level as cultural and historical systems of thought (Alvesson &
Kärreman, 20001; Fairhurst & Putnam, 2019). The distinction between d/
Discourse does not suggest focusing upon one or the other rather examining
the two in relationship with each other (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2019). d/
Discourse need to be linked because, while discourse describes what the
leaders say or do, Discourse considers why they say or do so (Clifton, 2014;
Fairhurst, 2007). We adopt the framework of d/Discourse in the present study
by capturing the discourses surrounding leaders’ lived experiences of not
knowing and linking them to the Discourses of leadership. Leadership litera-
ture in the past has not systematically and explicitly explored the question of
how not knowing relates to leadership. Thus, we present a critical exploration
of the lived experiences of managers charged with formal responsibilities as
leaders in multinational corporations (MNCs) in India.
Doshi et al. 203

We investigate the leaders’ perception of the consequences of not know-

ing and the way they discursively cope with a sense of not knowing. In
doing so, we analyze the relationship between the discourse (language and
social interaction) and Discourse (macrosystem of meanings) of leadership
(Fairhurst, 2007) in times of not knowing. The study finds that leaders per-
ceive situations of not knowing as disruptive events and engage in discur-
sive tactics such as posing, delaying, clarifying, admitting, being silent, and
stating “I don’t know,” that sustain and are sustained by a Discourse of
leadership as knowledge. The study contributes to the discursive leadership
literature by demonstrating tactics leaders use as they attempt to balance
the discursive construction of leadership as knowledge and lived experi-
ences of not knowing. Overall, by drawing attention to leaders’ experiences
of not knowing, the study challenges conventional wisdom regarding the
Discourse of leadership as knowledge.
In the following sections, we first provide a theoretical framework on
discursive leadership, knowledge, knowing, and not knowing. We then
outline the method section, and present the findings of the study via
two themes: “privileging knowledge and knowing” and “coping with
not knowing.” We conclude by discussing theoretical and practical
recommendations, limitations, and future research directions suggested
by this study.

Discourses Surrounding Leadership and

Knowledge/Knowing
In this section, we describe the Discourses of leadership concerning knowl-
edge and knowing. Historically, a positivist tradition or Discourse has domi-
nated the leadership literature (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1999). This stance
presumes a knowable, objective truth and directs leaders toward knowledge.
Fairhurst (2007) characterized such an approach as leadership psychology
and it has yielded strong foundational work on leaders’ behavioral styles,
contingency theories, relational foci, neo-charismatic leadership, and infor-
mation processing. According to this Discourse, leaders possess the knowl-
edge, are expected to uncover the truth of a situation, and then apply the
appropriate communicative and behavioral practices (Gardner & Avolio,
1998). Similarly, Lord and Shondrick (2011) discuss one approach to leader-
ship and knowledge which assumes that “knowledge is stored in a manner
that allows for its retrieval, re-activation, or off-line simulation” (p. 218).
Knowledge as a dominant Discourse has been rewarded, recognized, and
respected in societies and organizations (Swart, 2011). Knowing is often
commodified, objectified, and fixed as knowledge (Kuhn & Jackson, 2008;
204 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

Rennstam & Ashcraft, 2013). We characterize this approach as a Discourse of

leadership as knowledge, premised upon an “epistemology of possession”
(Cook & Brown, 1999, p. 383).
Alternatively, shifting from knowledge as an object to knowing as a pro-
cess creates possibilities for an “interactive experience” (Rennstam &
Ashcraft, 2013, p. 10) highlighting organizing (process) rather than the orga-
nization (outcome) (Weick, 1995). Focusing on organizing means focusing
on leadership communication, text and context, the reflexive agency of
actors, and an encompassing view of power and influence (Fairhurst, 2007,
2009). In an ethnographic study of manager-employee relations in a bank,
Larsson and Lundholm (2010) studied micro-interactions and argued that
leadership involves discursive strategies in seemingly mundane everyday
interactions. Likewise, Wodak et al. (2011) examined meetings among the
top management team in a defense corporation and found that leaders
deployed discursive strategies such as bonding, encouraging, directing, mod-
ulating, and re/committing to build a consensus among team members.
Situating leadership in an interpretive approach reframes the study of leader-
ship to “the doing of leading” (Pye, 2005, p. 31) and examines individuals
who are navigating multiple and competing truths (Collinson, 2005; Ford,
2010). An interpretive approach to leadership creates a framework for explor-
ing the tensions leaders feel and moves us closer to Cunliffe and Eriksen’s
(2011) conceptualization of leadership as “embedded in the everyday rela-
tionally-responsive dialogical practices of leaders” (p. 1425). We character-
ize this approach as a Discourse of leadership as knowing.
Amidst the two Discourses of leadership as knowledge or knowing men-
tioned above, not knowing is markedly absent and undermined. The possibility
of true and absolute knowledge subjugates not knowing as a failure to achieve
knowledge (Roberts, 2013). The burden on leaders to maintain a grandiose
image or focus on providing the right solution ill-fits situations of not knowing
(Simpson et al., 2002). When not knowing is undermined, leaders may treat
situations of not knowing as disruptive events—”events in which the interac-
tion contradicts, discredits, or throws a doubt about what one claims to others”
(Goffman, 1959, p. 12). Amid disruptive events, leaders either make defenses
stronger (through denial or posing what is socially desirable) or lower the
defense (by accepting the humiliation) and throw themselves at the mercy of
team members (Goffman, 1959). Leaders engage in “facework” (Goffman,
1959), both to create a face (Gardner & Avolio, 1998) and to save face (Liu,
2010). One of the ways of doing facework is through discourse (Harvey, 2001).
Leadership literature has noted the discourses that leaders engage in.
Gardner and Avolio (1998) argued that leaders deploy discursive tactics, such
as exemplification (presenting themselves as role models) and promotion
Doshi et al. 205

(communicating favorable and persuasive information about themselves or

organization), to create a charismatic image of themselves for their followers.
Others have found that leaders use discursive tactics to mitigate perceptions
of violating expectations of appropriate leadership behavior. For instance,
Minei et al. (2018) found that leaders used discursive tactics of “acknowledg-
ment” and “explanation” when making an illegitimate task request to their
followers in order to reduce the perceived illegitimacy of the request. Liu’s
(2010) discursive analysis of leaders’ media texts revealed a typology of tac-
tics used by leaders and others as a way of recovering from mistakes. While
discursive tactics employed by leaders to cope under certain conditions are
known, how leaders discursively cope in times of not knowing remains unex-
plored in the literature. Thus, we ask and address the following questions:

RQ1: What are leaders’ perceptions of the consequences of not knowing?

RQ2: How do leaders discursively cope with a sense of not knowing?

Method
To explore the research questions, we adopted a qualitative approach to cap-
ture the depth, complexity, and dynamics of leadership phenomena. This sec-
tion describes the sampling technique, method of data collection, and data
analysis.

Participants
Our sample consisted of 33 participants who were working in large multina-
tional companies (MNCs) in India. We recruited participants through per-
sonal contacts and the management development program of an institute
(where the first author was a doctoral candidate and the third author works as
a faculty member) and requested the participants to provide referrals of addi-
tional potential participants. We used purposive sampling based on the crite-
rion of a minimum of 5 years of work experience because employees are less
likely to have experiences of leading others in the initial years of a job. The
participants were Indian managers holding leadership positions in either a
project or area of work and were in middle to top management levels across
departments and industries (Table 1).

Data Collection
We conducted in-depth, face-to-face, one-on-one interviews with the partici-
pants over a period of 5 months until data saturation was achieved (Charmaz,
206 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

Table 1.  Participant Profiles.

Work Work
experience experience
No. Gender Industry Designation Function (in years) abroad

P1 Male IT Project Project 9.2 Yes

Manager management
P2 Male IT Deputy GM General 12.2 Yes
management
P3 Male Aviation President Strategic 10 No
management
P4 Male IT Senior Manager Consulting 10.5 Yes
P5 Male Telecom Regional General 6 Yes
Manager management
P6 Male Retail Solutions Consulting 7 Yes
Architect
P7 Male Telecom Simulation Lead General  9.8 Yes
management
P8 Female IT Technical Project  9.6 Yes
Manager management
P9 Female Banking Business Business analyst 7 No
Analyst
P10 Male IT Manager Personnel & 13.9 Yes
Administration
P11 Male Manufacturing Sr. Technical Research & 8 Yes
Lead Development
P12 Male Furniture Commercial General 35 No
head management
P13 Male Banking Manager Consulting 7 Yes
P14 Male IT Senior Manager Project 15 No
management
P15 Male Banking Vice President General 10 Yes
management
P16 Male Insurance Vice President Sales 16 No
P17 Male Retail Vice President Business head 20 Yes
P18 Male Banking Vice President Recovery head 15 Yes
P19 Female Banking Vice President Area head 20 No
P20 Male Furniture Senior Manager Consulting 10 No
P21 Male Insurance Vice President Business 15 No
retention
P22 Male Insurance Vice President Learning & 15 No
Development
P23 Male Furniture General General 15 No
Manager Management
P24 Male Furniture Deputy GM General 15 No
management
(continued)
Doshi et al. 207

Table 1.  (continued)

Work Work
experience experience
No. Gender Industry Designation Function (in years) abroad

P25 Male Furniture Manager General 11 No

management
P26 Male Banking Chief Manager General 8 No
management
P27 Male Energy Deputy Marketing 13 No
Manager
P28 Female Real estate Associate General 10 No
Director Management
P29 Female Healthcare Therapy Lead Product 9 No
development
P30 Female Healthcare Director General 12 No
Management
P31 Female IT Project Project 10 Yes
Manager Management
P32 Female IT Solutions Consulting 7 Yes
Architect
P33 Male IT Group Lead Research & 12 Yes
Development

2006). Interviews were semi-structured and were conducted in English by the

first author in non-work locations. The interviews ranged from 30 to 90 min
with a median duration of 49 min. We received informed consent from the
participants and sought permission to voice record the interviews.
Some illustrative questions asked during the interviews included: What is
your understanding of leadership? While leading, have you been in a situa-
tion of not knowing at your workplace? What is your understanding of not
knowing? Could you narrate the situation of not knowing in detail? How did
you deal with it? We transcribed the interviews to immerse ourselves in the
data (Charmaz, 2006). Transcription resulted in approximately 350 pages of
double-spaced transcripts.

Data Analysis
We coded the data manually in Microsoft Word and a physical notebook. For
analysis, we followed three types of coding—open/initial, selective/focused,
and theoretical (Table 2) (Charmaz, 2006). We read relevant literature a priori
for theoretical sensitivity (Glaser, 1978), yet we were open to looking at what
was emerging from the data.
The first type of coding was open/initial coding (Table 2). Guided by the
research question, a paid co-coder and the first author separately coded the
 Table 2.  Illustrative Codes.

Open codes Focused codes Theoretical code

208
Not knowing uncomfortable  
(“unpleasant,” “anxiety”)
“Sin”  
Leader must know  
Fear of not knowing Privileging knowledge and knowing  
Not knowing as problem  
“Incompetence”  
Leadership means knowing  
“Marginalized”  
Leader  
Taboo  
“Gray area”  
“Tricky situations” Sustaining or challenging the Discourse of
leadership as knowledge/knowing
Hiding/cover-up not knowing  
A lot of information  
Challenging others Coping with not knowing  
Image at stake Posing  
Better to admit Clarifying  
Saving face Delaying  
The suffering of growth prospects Admitting  
Being silent  
Doing nothing Stating “I don’t know”  
Feeling confident  
Losing credibility  
Gaining credibility  
“Ego”  
Blessing  
“Being human”  
Doshi et al. 209

transcripts, using line by line coding technique, giving preference to in-vivo

codes (Charmaz, 2006). The co-coder was engaged for reflexivity and not for
objectivity (like intercoder reliability). The co-coder gave a fresh look at the data
and helped assure that relevant ideas were not missed because of our precon-
ceived understanding of the phenomenon. After coding some transcripts, the
co-coder and first author met to discuss how and why their codes were different
or similar and repeated the process. The open coding gave us a sense of various
emergent ideas in the data.
The next step was selective/focused coding, which involved abstracting the
initial/open codes identified in the previous stage. Together, the first and the
third authors identified selective codes while sifting through the codes generated
from the line by line coding. There were several instances in which we chal-
lenged, questioned, or disagreed with each other. To reconcile coding discrepan-
cies, we referred back to the research questions to help us discuss and arrive at a
decision. We found that the data most saliently presented a pattern in which
leaders perceived negative consequences of not knowing and used discursive
tactics to cope with not knowing. We labeled these tactics as posing, delaying,
clarifying, admitting, being silent, and stating “I don’t know” (Table 2).
Selective/focused coding helped us reduce the data from 350 to 360 pages.
In the next stage of coding, we took a theoretical leap by following an
integrative analytical approach (Clifton, 2014; Fairhurst & Putnam, 2019).
We analyzed the relationship between the micro and macro d/Discourse
(Alvesson & Kärreman, 2000) to assess if the discourse sustained and/or
challenged a dominant Discourse of leadership as knowledge or knowing. We
started from the participants’ discourse (the tactics identified in the previous
stage of coding) and zoomed out to what would be the Discourse instantiated
by the various tactics (Turner & Norwood, 2014).

Findings
We present our findings in two sections: “privileging knowledge and knowing”
and “coping with not knowing.” The first section focuses on leaders’ dominant
belief that they ought to possess knowledge and that “knowing” is important to
their identity. The second section presents how leaders cope with the inevitability
of not knowing, including various discursive acts of impression management such
as posing, delaying, clarifying, admitting, being silent, and stating “I don’t know.”

Privileging Knowledge and Knowing

Participants privileged knowledge and knowing and undermined not know-
ing. When faced with not knowing, participants overwhelmingly reported
experiencing negative emotions, projected negative perceptions from others,
210 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

and defined knowledge as a necessary element of leadership. Participants

viewed not knowing as problematic. While describing their lived experi-
ences of not knowing, participants used terms such as “confusion,” “unfa-
miliar,” “complexity,” “uncertainty,” “gray area,” and “mess.” Their feelings
associated with not knowing were predominately negative and included
“helplessness,” “incompetence,” “choking,” “stress,” “scared,” “sleepless-
ness,” “anxiety,” “unpleasant,” “disappointment,” “frightening,” “shock,”
“fear,” and “scaring the hell out of me.”
Participants projected negative outcomes for not knowing. P13, a male
manager in a consulting role in an investment bank with 7 years of work
experience, emphasized that a leader is seen as “incompetent” and gets “mar-
ginalized” by team members for not knowing. He said:

You’ll seldom find a boss who says I don’t know. I have come across people
who have said this. Those guys are marginalized. The team itself starts talking
about the boss and says he doesn’t even know this. I can do a better job and
then the word gets spread. I had in my last company at least two managers who
were completely sidelined because the team used to think that they were
incompetent. To conclude, I think as a leader you must either know the answer
or know the person who knows the answer.

Participants not only raised concerns about others’ perceptions of them as

leaders when they didn’t know but also used not knowing as a criterion for
defining the leadership of others. Moreover, leaders mentioned that they had
to manage the expectations of their team members who expected them to
know. P31, a female project manager in IT services with 10 years of work
experience, said:

It’s very difficult for you to say that you don’t know because the team members
expect you to know. Likewise, if you have subordinates in the team who have
any questions, they expect you to know the answer because, if not you, who
else? The team follows whatever the boss says but if the boss doesn’t know
then that’s it.

Participants marked knowing as necessary for a leader by differentiating it

from the expectations for non-leaders. This differentiation served to not only
define knowing but also to define leaders as those who knew. P21, a male
vice-president in insurance with 15 years of work experience, said, “I would
say, in the non-leadership role, there won’t be any fear of admitting not
knowing, but in a leadership role, there are lots of initiatives to be taken by
yourself than asking for help when not knowing.”
Doshi et al. 211

Overwhelmingly, participants perceived not knowing situations to be

“tricky.” All participants except P19 indicated that they had experienced
moments of not knowing. P19, a female vice-president in banking with 20 years
of work experience, persistently said, “I have never come across a situation in
which I am at a loss or do not know.” As our conversation progressed, she admit-
ted to instances where she was likely to have experienced not knowing. Yet she
denied not knowing while claiming to have seen others who did not know.
Overall, participants’ perceptions of not knowing sustained the Discourses
of leadership as knowledge and knowing and deprecated not knowing. In the
following section, we discuss the various discursive tactics used by the par-
ticipants while coping with not knowing and their implications for the
Discourses of leadership as knowledge and knowing.

Coping with Not Knowing

Participants used various discursive tactics to cope with not knowing such as
posing, clarifying, delaying, admitting, being silent, and stating “I don’t
know” (Table 3).

Posing.  Posing is a discursive act in which people claim to know something

when they actually do not. While such an act allows individuals to manage
the impression of others at the moment, participants also reported that they
later felt they should have been honest because the use of posing required
them to engage in additional strategies at a later time or could backfire. For
example, P13, a male manager in a consulting role in at investment bank with
7 years of work experience, said:

The client calls me, “Where are we on this?” “What’s happening?” I replied.
And then the next day, I had to make a fire fighting call. Fortunately, everything
was okay, but this knee jerk or the spur of the moment things happen when you
say and you don’t realize especially when you know that you are the one
managing the project and you are the one he’ll come back to for queries.

Later on, during the interview, this participant mentioned that the reason he
posed was, “I had the fear of losing the client. If he, by any chance, had felt
that the commitment was not there from our side, he wouldn’t have given the
assignment to us.” The participant feared that exposing he did not know the
status of the project would be seen as a “lack of commitment.” Posing is both
premised upon and supportive of the Discourse of leadership as knowledge.
According to participants, not knowing was inappropriate for leaders and,
therefore, they posed as knowing rather than admitting not knowing.
212 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

Table 3.  Additional Quotes on Discursive Tactics.

Type of discursive
Quotes tactic

“Now if I had gone back to the team they would think that I had not Posing
been doing anything all that while because there were such basic
questions. So I was stuck. The offshore team expected me to get
the answer so that they could work on it and get something the
next day. We had to really cook up something, really cook up some
excuses that during our conversation these answers have changed
which was all nonsense.” (P8)
“The danger is when the person who is sitting in front of a client  
pretends. That keeps happening. The person created a situation
where he had gone and set the wrong expectation of the customer
and the customer took wrong decisions based on wrong inputs. So,
it was all miss-match. It keeps happening. It causes confusion and a
failed business. You will then not be able to sell.” (P20)
“So when I don’t know I throw it up as a challenge that ok people Clarification
come up with the solution whereas I know that I also don’t have the
solution. Then I see that if they can come up with a solution that can
enrich me. So my bosses also do the same thing to me.” (P16)
“I told them (team members) that don’t come with the problem, give  
me the solution. one, two, three, or four. If it is ok, I will say so if not
ok then you’ll have to go through the same cycle.” (P25)
“I would say I am not an expert on this, you would have my response Delaying
to this by tomorrow. Then I’ll go back to the team and do the
homework (listening to others). I don’t exactly say that I don’t know
but I would say that I’ll check and get back because, I kind of know
that somebody has the experience and knowledge.” (P13)
“There were certain decisions which were taken at the top level which  
you are not sure of and you are not actually part of that decision
making. When those questions were thrown at me and I didn’t know
why exactly is something happening, most of the time in front of my
team I would say that I shall get back to you.” (P28)
“The situation was that if something goes wrong, the bank’s image Admitting
would have been in soup (because of me) because already the
banking industry was facing challenges. I thought when things are not
working rather than continuing to try to sort out, it’s better to admit
not knowing to team members and the top management.” (P1)
“See one is not google so one doesn’t know everything. If the person  
knows about 80% to 90% of his job and 10% he doesn’t know there
is nothing wrong in admitting not knowing. That is what I feel. Doing
that actually sharpens your skills and knowledge.” (P23)
“I think it’s difficult if you portray that you know it because then you Being silent
are actually stuck in a situation. It is much simpler and easier to
accept that you don’t’ know and say it. It’s better to be clear with
them (team members) rather than saying ya I know this is the things
because you are gonna fall flat on your face once they ask something
more.” (P28)

(continued)
Doshi et al. 213

Table 3.  (continued)

Type of discursive
Quotes tactic

“When other people were talking (in a meeting), I started feeling that  
ok this is something totally different from what I was thinking. I was
clueless about what was going on. I realized that I was assuming
something else and these guys are saying something else. Then based
on whatever people had talked about, I had a fair bit of idea but I
was not confident. You had to tell something because it was too
good an opportunity to miss or show your value but it was also to
say something stupid and become a laughing stock for everyone. It
was more of a feeling of being ashamed of myself. That you are in
such an important meeting with so many important people so many
high stakeholders and then this is the second or third time I am
interacting with them and this is the image they are gonna carry. I
remained silent throughout.” (P1)
“It is totally normal to not know something because there are so many Stating “I don’t
things you can’t know. What matters is if you are willing to learn or know”
not. If you are willing to learn well and good. If not then you won’t
be going to go far. If someone doesn’t know something and is not
willing to learn or is scared of failure, those are somethings that don’t
take people far. My perception is that if I have to work with someone
I would love him to try things rather than saying that I don’t know
and won’t be able to do.” (P4)
“You are not a master of everything. So you gotta have the right skills.  
I think that’s what makes all the difference. I reach out to people.
There is no harm in taking help. If I know that the person will be able
to help, I do reach out saying I don’t know. Because as they say using
everyone’s strength leads to faster turnaround time.” (P32)

Clarifying.  Clarifying is a discursive act in which one asks the other person(s)
to elaborate and, in the process, expects to get to know the answer without
directly admitting to not knowing. P2, a male deputy general manager in
the IT services with 12 years of work experience, said that when a team
member asked him about something he did not know, he replied, “Please
explain it to me.” He said that by asking for clarification, he expected the
team member and himself to find an answer without his having to admit
that he did not know.

I had actually asked them [teammates] what is the biggest problem in the
project. If I had known, I should have been able to know from those sheets, but
since I did not understand, I posed this challenge to them only [chuckles].

Clarifying helped P2 save face in front of his team members. He went on to

explain why he did not say “I do not know:”
214 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

I had been given the responsibility of leading three different project managers
who had four to five years of work experience in this company. First thing was
that I had no knowledge of project management and they were deeply ingrained
in that methodology. They were pretty good and were all project management
professionals. So, their knowledge was almost complete, and I had to guide
them without having any information about it.

Even though the knowledge of the team was complete, P2 felt he must
still “guide them” rather than be guided by them, pointing to his belief that
“as a leader, I should have had more knowledge.” Clarifying helped avoid
saying “I did not know” while managing the perception of the team and
thereby sustaining the Discourse of leadership as knowledge and knowing
and demonizing not knowing.

Delaying.  Delaying is a discursive act wherein one responds indirectly in

order to buy time for addressing doubts or queries and avoid admitting not
knowing. Participants mentioned statements including, “I will get back to
you,” “I am very busy right now, talk to me tomorrow morning,” and “give
me some time.” P12, a male commercial head in furniture and appliances
with 35 years of work experience, said:

I think there are two ways to handle not knowing. One is you just bluff because
that fellow also doesn’t know. The other way is, to be honest, and say that I will
come back to you. Generally, I use the second one.

Participants reported that delaying without going back could help man-
age impressions temporarily, but “in the long run people may doubt the
individual’s integrity.” So, although delaying helped participants avoid say-
ing something on the spot, participants mentioned that it was important to
follow up, as their image was at stake and they could get “painted in red.”
Delaying may either challenge or support the Discourse of leadership
as knowledge. When used as a tactic to avoid acknowledging that the
individual does not know, it serves to support the Discourse. When, how-
ever, the individual acknowledges they do not know (e.g., “I am not an
expert on this, I’ll get back to you”), it may modify or subtly challenge the
Discourse of leadership as knowledge and move toward the Discourse of
leadership as knowing. The individual acknowledges that he/she does not
know at the moment but still retains the role of a leader who possesses the
knowledge, in that she/he can get the information and report back.

Admitting.  The rarely used admitting tactic was used in situations in which
the leader’s credibility would be reduced if they were asked to act upon
knowledge or skills they did not possess. For instance, a participant might
Doshi et al. 215

admit not knowing if they felt their credibility was enhanced by admitting not
knowing more than their credibility was reduced for admitting not knowing:
“I usually admit that I do not know when I do not know because others say
that it’s truthful of me and gives a good impression to them” (P6, a male solu-
tions architect in retail with 7 years of work experience). Even when they
admitted not knowing, participants were concerned how it would affect their
credibility. Admitting was used when exposure and embarrassment was
feared. “It would be more embarrassing [to lie and then not able to do/say
what he claimed to know] to fail than admitting not knowing” (P28, a female
associate director in a real estate division with 10 years of work experience).
Admitting was also used in situations where participants could identify
others who might be able to mitigate the negatives of not knowing. For
instance, P1, a male project manager in IT services with 9 years of work
experience said, “I do not want to be unnecessarily pushed into something
that I do not know when I know someone else can do it better. I’d rather
admit [not knowing].”
Additionally, participants mentioned they might admit not knowing if they
knew others also did not know and their admission would encourage others
to admit not knowing. Participants mentioned that they felt better about
themselves when others also did not know. For example, P26, a male chief
manager in banking with 8 years of work experience, described his experi-
ence when faced with the situation of not knowing:

I start talking to people to find out how they are feeling. If not my boss, why
not peers? So, there has to be somebody who must also be in a confused state
like me, I know am not unique in not knowing.

Others reported that they were comfortable admitting not knowing when
they had established enough credibility as a leader so admitting not knowing
would not challenge their identity as a leader. According to one participant
(P18, a male executive vice president in banking with 15 years of work expe-
rience), he could admit not knowing because he had “established” his “cred-
ibility” in the organization.
Thus, on the surface, participants admitting not knowing apparently chal-
lenged the Discourse of leadership as knowledge. However, the reasons for
admitting and the projected interpretations by others showed support for the
Discourse of leadership as knowledge. So, while admitting to not knowing
may appear to challenge the Discourse of leadership as knowledge, it may
serve to instantiate the same Discourse.

Being silent.  Especially in face-to-face interactions, some participants pre-

ferred to be silent in order to hide not knowing. The being silent tactic was
216 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

adopted to avoid a negative evaluation of them by others. For instance, P17,

a male executive vice president in retail with 20 years of work experience,
said:

I am not Yudhishtar [a character in Hindu epic Mahabharata who spoke the

truth] or the completely pure guy. So, as much as possible, I will not go around
saying that I don’t know. Let’s put it this way, there is a board meeting going
on and let’s say some very technical IT-related issue is being discussed of
which I have absolutely no knowledge. Unless I am coaxed, I am not going to
admit that I do not know. I will remain a silent spectator.

Being silent allowed participants a private space where they could avoid
speaking the truth about not knowing (“unless I am coaxed, I am not going to
admit”). Multiple participants (P1, P16) pointed to “ego” or the need to sus-
tain the image of a leader, as in “command and control,” as a reason for not
showing their “fear” of not knowing. According to P18, a male executive vice
president in banking with 15 years of work experience:

See what happens is that the ego comes in. You have been in this industry for
so many years, you have been in the organization for so many years. Because
everybody is putting up a brave face, it becomes a herd mentality that everyone
is pushing towards one side, so I also need to push to that side. So, [that time]
the emotions were that I was frightened, not able to tell anyone, confused,
cannot go and talk to others.

Participants reported that being silent helped them hide not knowing from
others and maintain an “image of the leader,” thus instantiating the Discourse
of leadership as knowledge and knowing.

Stating “I don’t know.”.  As opposed to the admitting tactic where participants

felt concerned with being exposed, saying “I don’t know” was used to either
reduce the offensiveness of not knowing or provide a positive logic or instru-
mentality to not knowing. Participants reduced the offensiveness of not
knowing by stating, “leaders are humans, and it’s ok to not know” (P2); “it is
not possible to know everything every time” (P3, a male president in an avia-
tion company with 10 years of work experience); and “one may not know for
several uncontrollable reasons” (P4, a male senior manager in IT consulting
with 10.5 years of work experience). Participants created a positive logic or
instrumentality when they said: “being in the not knowing situation helped
me know better” (P2); “unless I acknowledge that I do not know, I won’t be
able to improve and learn more” (P24, a male deputy general manager in a
furniture company with 15 years of work experience); and “why I get into
Doshi et al. 217

such kind of situation [where he experiences not knowing] is that it keeps me

going. It keeps me on my toes, and I believe I am adding value to myself.”
(P3). P14, a male senior manager in IT services with 15 years of work experi-
ence, completely reframed not knowing as a “blessing.”

One of the biggest blessings of not knowing is that you learn a lot. If you are
open-minded and want to learn on the job, you’ll think like that. But you have
already said to yourself that “I have already learned whatever I had to in
college” and that “education happens only in college and not outside.” And you
are in that phase that now, “those days are over” types. Then, not knowing will
come to you as a shock. So, in this particular case, it is more of a pleasant
surprise, in the previous case it is “oh God, what’s happening types.”

The stance of P14 was contradictory in that he implied “I realize the

importance of living with not knowing” (refuting the Discourse of leadership
as knowledge and knowing), while at the same time hiding not knowing in a
socially acceptable manner (sustaining the Discourse). The contradiction of
challenging and sustaining the Discourse of leadership as knowledge and
knowing was also present in other participants’ comments (P3, P24, and
P32). Even though individuals realized the benefits of acknowledging not
knowing, the Discourse of leadership as knowledge is so encompassing that
they chose to employ discursive acts that were counter to their own beliefs.
We discuss the findings and their implications in the following section.

Discussion
This study addresses two research questions. RQ1 considered leaders’ per-
ceptions of the consequences of not knowing. In answering this question,
Theme One, “privileging knowledge and knowing,” indicates that leaders
perceive negative consequences of not knowing and hold a dominant belief
that they ought to possess the knowledge. This finding is consistent with
previous studies (French, 2001; Simpson et al., 2002). The novel contribution
of the study lies in the answer to RQ2 regarding the discursive tactics
employed by leaders in times of not knowing and the implication for the
Discourse of leadership as knowledge and knowing (Theme Two: “coping
with not knowing”). We contribute to the literature on discursive leadership
by explicating the discursive tactics leaders engage in when they face not
knowing. Specifically, the leaders in our study employed impression man-
agement tactics because most of them saw situations of not knowing as “dis-
ruptive” events, meaning confusing and embarrassing (Goffman, 1959). The
findings also suggest that discursive acts such as posing, delaying, clarifying,
218 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

admitting, and being silent predominately sustain the Discourse of leadership

as knowledge and rarely the Discourse of leadership as knowing. In times of
not knowing, leaders tend to engage in “facework” to preserve the image of
all-knowing.
Leaders sometimes realized that not knowing helped them transition to
knowing. They acknowledged that transitions from not knowing to knowing
required structured and unstructured ways. For example, P16, a male vice-
president in insurance sales with 15 years of work experience asserted the
compulsion to have a “structured process” of “continuously converting not
knowing to knowing.” He said that when he gets into a new business, he
gives himself 2 to 3 weeks to just “Go there, sit there, and just absorb. Don’t
react, don’t give value addition, just understand what discussion is going on.”
Some participants mentioned unstructured ways of moving from not know-
ing to knowing. Participants improvised ways of acting or revised their
assumptions. For example, P4 said that when leading a team, he habitually
dealt with his teammates in a particular way. However, when a team of new
trainees joined him, he was not able to deal properly with them. He realized
that leading and managing the new team required a different way of doing
things, as well as letting go of his old approach.
While some participants realized that acknowledging not knowing can
open possibilities for knowing (Cook & Brown, 1999; Ralston, 2010),
embracing not knowing did not come easily and left the leaders anxious.
Leaders in the study mostly viewed not knowing as a weakness. A negative
connotation of not knowing involves its assumed closeness with ignorance or
lack of knowledge (French, 2001; Roberts, 2013). Some researchers have
argued that when we undermine not knowing, we limit knowing and knowl-
edge because of complementarity between knowing and not knowing (French,
2001; Simpson et al., 2002). Simpson and Burnard (2000) argued that not
knowing provides a reflective space to be able to move towards knowing and
knowledge. Recognizing the positive sides of not knowing, French (2001)
described acknowledging not knowing as a leadership capability (French,
2001) and Crossman and Doshi (2015) have named not knowing a virtue.
However, our study shows that Discourses of leadership as knowledge and
knowing reduce the acceptance of not knowing.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

An important theoretical implication of the study is that the Discourse of
leadership as knowledge was occasionally challenged and reframed as “it
is okay for the leaders to not know sometimes, provided they work
towards knowing in some systematic and reproducible way.” A shift
Doshi et al. 219

toward “communicative” or “interactive” knowledge (Kuhn & Jackson,

2008) will require a shift in the underlying Discourse of leadership.
Interactive knowledge recognizes the provisional nature of knowing and
has a collective community-based approach for accomplishing knowl-
edge (Kuhn & Jackson, 2008). The acknowledgment of not knowing will
encourage interactive knowledge.
For example, while responding to COVID-19, if emergency room phy-
sicians, virologists, economists, and supply chain management executives
believe that they have complete knowledge, there would be no impetus for
them to acknowledge what is not known, explore new information, or
challenge the knowledge they hold. If, however, the provisional nature of
knowing and a collective community-based approach for accomplishing
knowledge is recognized by the various actors, then the knowledge gener-
ated may shift as each enters conversations with each other and shift again
as data such as lab results, GPS tracking, public health statistics, and eco-
nomic forecasts are shared.
The shift in knowledge is possible only when not knowing is acknowl-
edged. As society faces increasingly complex organizational environments,
alternative Discourses of leadership will need to prevail, as current concep-
tualizations limit the chances for new learning (Simpson et al., 2002). By
complying with the Discourse of leadership as knowledge (without valuing
not knowing), leaders unconsciously self-limit while generating consider-
able anxiety (Ford, 2010). Alternatively, the Discourse of leadership as
knowing that values the constitutive nature of not knowing would open
space for leaders to acknowledge moments in which knowledge is emerging
and shifting. Leadership would then be conceived as a process of collec-
tively and iteratively knowing.
In terms of practical implications, the findings of the study caution that if
leaders use discursive tactics such as posing, delaying, clarifying, not admit-
ting, and being silent when faced with the situations of not knowing, they will
not push the boundaries of knowledge. Leaders in organizations need to
express not knowing openly rather than thinking about it as their problem to
be managed alone if they wish to unleash the full potential of the Discourse
of leadership as knowing. Leaders talking openly about not knowing will cre-
ate a climate of safety and encourage others both within and outside organiza-
tions to treat not knowing as a strength rather than a flaw. Moreover, other
organizational members need to be aware of the vulnerability they create for
their leaders by expecting leaders to know everything all the time.
Another practical implication of the study involves the structural pos-
sibilities when not knowing is normalized and seen as human. Organizations
may start convening “not knowing” meetings wherein organizational
220 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

members meet regularly to share what they do not know. Meetings in orga-
nizations are often conducted to share knowledge, having meetings for
sharing situations of not knowing may tone down the negative connotation
of not knowing. Not knowing meetings may result in more openness,
acceptance, relatedness, and empathy among individuals. Such meetings
may allow the individuals and collectives to navigate from not knowing to
knowing and also embrace not knowing as it is. Not knowing meetings
might be able to puncture the notion of knowledge as leadership and move
leaders and practitioners towards leadership as dialectical not knowing-
knowing. Now, we turn to the limitations of our study and future research
directions.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

First, in terms of future directions, some of the findings of the study point to
the transition from not knowing to knowing, indicating the dialectical nature
of not knowing and knowing. To illustrate from the findings, a leader learning
to motivate team members (from not knowing to knowing), then realizing the
same strategy is not working on a new team member (knowing to not know-
ing), and then learning new ways to motivate (not knowing to knowing). We
suggest that by examining both knowing and not knowing simultaneously,
theorists may elucidate moments where knowing is constituted rather than
presumed. Because we do not have enough data specifically on the dialectical
nature of not knowing and knowing, future research should consider the dia-
lectical nature of not knowing-knowing similar to other phenomena such as
leading-following, rigidity-flexibility, and power-resistance (Putnam et al.,
2016). As an interactive form of knowledge, knowing and not knowing will
have to be considered as complementary, neither privileged over the other.
Second, although we have delineated the various discursive tactics that
leaders adopt in situations of not knowing, future research should aim to
systematically map out which not knowing tactics are related to what type
of knowledge needed, such as technical, interpersonal, or strategic. Third,
while we have explored only the lived experiences of leaders, Collinson
(2005) and Cunliffe and Eriksen (2011) remind us that leaders and follow-
ers are co-constituted and that the discursive acts of colleagues, leaders,
and followers must be incorporated to provide a richer context. In the
future, interactions between leaders and followers could be analyzed
(Minei et al., 2018) for their construction of knowing-not knowing. Fourth,
another limitation of our study is that we have not investigated distinctions
between leaders and managers. Leadership and management can have
unique constraints and possibilities. Because of managers’ accountability
Doshi et al. 221

to leaders, managers may either feel greater constraints and vulnerability

with respect to not knowing or may find it easier to claim not knowing
because they are not ultimately responsible. The nuances in how not know-
ing may be experienced by managers and/or leaders would be valuable to
explore in future research.
Lastly, cultural variations, including organizational and national (House
et al., 2004), would also be expected to contribute to the epistemology of
knowledge invoked. Because the present study is based on Indian leaders
working in MNCs, their not knowing experiences might have been shaped by
cultural assumptions (like face-saving) held in India and/or criteria of profes-
sionalism in MNCs (like portraying a masculine brave self rather than a femi-
nine vulnerable self). The Discourse of leadership as knowledge may intersect
and sustain other Discourses, such as masculinity, authority, or patriarchy,
which could be explored in future research.

Conclusion
We contribute to the literature on discursive leadership by explicating the
discursive tactics leaders engage in as they face not knowing. Our study
finds that leaders privilege knowledge and knowing over not knowing, and
leaders cope with not knowing through discursive tactics that sustain and are
sustained by a Discourse of leadership as knowledge. We discuss that the
Discourse of leadership as knowledge hampers efforts in extending knowl-
edge. We argue that leaders need to embrace not knowing to unleash the true
potential of the Discourse of leadership as knowing. The study demonstrates
that rethinking leadership theory and practice will require rethinking the
knowledge Discourse. Our study is quite relevant in the current context of
the COVID-19 pandemic in which leaders across the world are undergoing
not knowing. There could not be a more suitable time to reframe the
Discourse of leadership.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the participants of our study for their time and for sharing their
experiences with us. Our heartfelt thanks to the editor Dr. Rebecca Meisenbach and
the three anonymous reviewers for their tremendous support and guidance towards
improvement of our manuscript. We are also thankful to all the scholars who provided
their useful feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
222 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

ORCID iD
Vijayta Doshi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9435-3098

Note
1. Alvesson and Kärreman (2000) in their later work repudiated that distinction
between d/D and argued to ignore the distinction because big “D” is only real-
ized in little “d.” However, scholars such as Fairhurst and Putnam (2019) have
advocated retaining the distinction as both d/D contribute to the social construc-
tion of reality.

References
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organi-
zations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125–1149. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0018726700539002
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). Good visions, bad micro-management and
ugly ambiguity: Contradictions of (non-)leadership in a knowledge-intensive
organization. Organization Studies, 24(6), 961–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0170840603024006007
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free
Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through quali-
tative analysis (1st ed.). Sage.
Clifton, J. (2014). Small stories, positioning, and the discursive construction of
leader identity un business meetings. Leadership, 10(1), 99–117. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1742715013504428
Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), 1419–1442.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705060902
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organi-
zations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research.
Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843
(99)00012-0
Connelly, S., Gilbert, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Threlfall, K. V., Marks, M. A., & Mumford,
M. D. (2000). Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and knowledge to
leader performance. Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1048-9843(99)00043-0
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance
between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization
Science, 10(4), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.4.381
Doshi et al. 223

Crossman, J., & Doshi, V. (2015). When not knowing is a virtue: A business eth-
ics perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-014-2267-8
Cunliffe, A., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11),
1425–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711418388
Fairhurst, G.T. (2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psy-
chology. Sage.
Fairhurst, G.T. (2009). Considering context in discursive leadership research. Human
Relations, 62(11), 1607–1633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709346379
Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (2019). An integrative methodology for orga-
nizational oppositions: Aligning grounded theory and discourse analysis.
Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 917–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/109
4428118776771
Ford, J. (2010). Studying leadership critically: A psychosocial lens on leadership
identities. Leadership, 6(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715009354235
French, R. (2001). Negative capability: Managing the confusing uncertainties
of change. Journal of Organizational Change, 14(5), 480–492. https://doi.
org/10.1108/EUM0000000005876
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramatur-
gical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 32–58. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amr.1998.192958
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of
grounded theory. Sociology Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘lead-
ership’. Human Relations, 58(11), 1467–1494. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187
26705061314
Harvey, A. (2001). A dramaturgical analysis of charismatic leader discourse.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(3), 253–265. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09534810110394877
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, lead-
ership and organizations. Sage.
Kuhn, T., & Jackson, M. H. (2008). Accomplishing knowledge: A framework for
investigating knowing in organizations. Management Communication Quarterly,
21(4), 454–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318907313710
Larsson, M., & Lundholm, S. E. (2010). Leadership as work-embedded influence: A
micro-discursive analysis of an everyday interaction in a bank. Leadership, 6(2),
159–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010363208
Liu, H. (2010). When leaders fail: A typology of failures and framing strate-
gies. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 232–259. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0893318909359085
Lord, R. G., & Shondrick, S. J. (2011). Leadership and knowledge: Symbolic, con-
nectionist, and embodied perspectives. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 207–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.016
224 Management Communication Quarterly 35(2)

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78–102. https://www.jstor.org/sta-
ble/2392813
Minei, E. M., Eatough, E. M., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2018). Managing illegitimate
task requests through explanation and acknowledgment: A discursive leadership
approach. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(3), 374–397. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0893318918755506
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and
paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management
Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421
Pye, A. (2005). Leadership and organizing: Sensemaking in action. Leadership, 1(1),
31–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715005049349
Ralston, P. (2010). The book of not knowing: Exploring the true nature of self, mind,
and consciousness. North Atlantic Books.
Rennstam, J., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2013). Knowing work: Cultivating a practice-based
epistemology of knowledge in organization studies. Human Relations, 67(1),
3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713484182
Roberts, J. (2013). Organizational ignorance: Towards a managerial perspective
on the unknown. Management Learning, 44(3), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1350507612443208
Simpson, P., & Burnard, H. (2000). Leaders achieving focus in the place of not know-
ing. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(5), 235–242. https://
doi.org/10.1108/01437730010340052
Simpson, P., French, R., & Harvey, C. (2002). Leadership and negative capabil-
ity. Human Relations, 55(10), 1209–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/a028081
Swart, J. (2011). That’s why it matters: How knowing creates value. Management
Learning, 42(3), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507610391591
Turner, P. K., & Norwood, K. (2014). “I had the luxury.  .  .” Organizing breastfeeding
support as privatized privilege. Human Relations, 67(7), 849–874. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0018726713507730
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.
Wodak, R., Kwon, W., & Clarke, I. (2011). Getting people on board: Discursive
leadership for consensus building in team meetings. Discourse & Society, 22(5),
592–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511405410

Author Biographies
Vijayta Doshi (FPM, equivalent to PhD, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad)
is an assistant professor in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
Area in the Indian Institute of Management, Udaipur. Her research interests include
leadership, knowing/not knowing, gender, diversity & inclusion in organizations, and
entrepreneurship.
Paaige K. Turner (PhD, Purdue University) is dean and professor in the College of
Communication, Information, and Media at Ball State University. Her research
Doshi et al. 225

focuses upon the creation and negotiation of contradiction, specifically within the
topics of organizational socialization, customer satisfaction, midwifery and birth, and
the body in the workplace.
Neharika Vohra (PhD, University of Manitoba) is a professor in Indian Institute of
Management, Ahmedabad in the Organizational Behavior Area. Her main research
interests include, leadership, women at work, diversity and inclusion.