Chathumi Lelwala SOCCLEAD 703 – Assignment 1 AUID: 862018105

Reading One: Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership’ (Grint, 2005)

Many literatures attempt to discern the most effective leadership model that ensures success, one such
example being the “Situational leadership” theory (Fielder, 1967; House & Dessler, 1974, cited in
Grint 2005) that propose leaders be coached to be more contingency centric. Doing so, they hoped,
would allow for systematically standardized and reproducible approach, strongly anchored in the
(hypothetically) objective problem. Grint (2005) critically examines the feasibility of this,
constructing a guide (p. 11) to assist in exploring the extent to which social constructivism (cited from
Kuhn’s, 1962; Berger and Luckmann, 1966) was involved in deriving the problem narrative. Focusing
still on the problem, the model underpins three main variables, evaluating the degree of authority
(Etzioni,1964 ; Nye, 2004, cited in Grint, 2005) required for each which finally informed the
leadership model to utilise:
 “Tame” Problems; A pre-existing or recurring problem with a known solution (goalpost)
can be sufficiently overcome by “Management”. The degree of authority can vary, however
never demanding compliance beyond the boundary of civilian reason.
 “Wicked” Problems; A novel and complex issue associated with a high degree of variability
and uncertainty both in gauging the problem and the solution. Often this can appear to be a
non-zero sum problem, where fixing one aspect can exacerbate others. “Asking the right
questions” (p. 7) and collaboration, Grint states is pivotal here, thus lesser “Soft” degree of
authoritarianism is crucial to facilitate ideation via questions. This calls for “Leadership”
with Grint noting that leaders gravitate less towards Leadership given this is the most difficult
and time-consuming.
 “Critical” Problems; Urgent threats such as COVID-19 demanding an immediate solution,
where there is the expectation for those in charge to act fast and decisively. This is when the
use of “Command” leadership is seen to be an acceptable concept, citing Etzioni (1964) that
suggests a more coercive form of authority requiring high compliance is warranted and is
therefore, legitimized. Military and Emergency services often employ such authority.

The situational model initially to me in theory supported leadership to be more accessible to anyone
regardless of personal attributes. Grint’s (a distinguished academic) peer-reviewed SAGE journal
increased my appreciation for the power of the narrative, particularly in relaying the urgency and the
confidence in knowing the problem presented and its many implications. Grint thus rejects the
feasibility of the situational model - urging that the “Situation” in and of itself is not appropriate to
determine leadership approach, rather is the evolving subjective narrative that situates the problem to
justify leaders’ actions.

Historically the problem narrative demonstrated it can generally evolve in to all three problems
through time (in a non-linear manner). Although Grint did little to elaborate on the overlap between
the three problems during the transition from Wicked to Critical, given the examples evolved in to
Critical, the COVID-19 pandemic (although not entirely novel, novel in the context of globalization)
began as Critical while leaders navigated the Wicked nature the measures would have on the global
economy. Evidently, once defined as Critical, that problem will always take precedence given the
urgency. The Command model can also be seen in recent events in Sri Lanka, where the ongoing
economic crisis and political disarray saw the current President freely enacted State of Emergency
citing “Civil unrest” that legalized the arrest of many anti-government activists.

The largely political examples studied may not always be applicable, particularly for smaller cohorts
of communities and corporate organizations. Grint convincingly argues the human biases in
interpreting crisis, although more cynical of leaders to do harm than good. When considering smaller
cohorts of communities, where leaders may be much more intimately involved in the community
(seen in Indigenous leaders), I wonder how this may change the dynamic of authority and thus the
application of the model.

1
Chathumi Lelwala SOCCLEAD 703 – Assignment 1 AUID: 862018105

Reading Two: Relational leadership – An indigenous Māori perspective (Henry & Wolfgramm,
2018)

Delving in to the world of screen media industry, Henry and Wolfgramm (2018) conducted a
longitudinal study over 4 years that recruited its Māori leaders to ask a series of questions that
reflects on their life journey throughout, with an emphasis on “leadership as a way-of-being-in-
relation-to-others” (p. 1). Henry and Wolfgramm began by highlighting the Māori philosophies
studied in existing literature, introducing the pivotal roles each element had on Relational Leadership
- specifically Whakapapa (lineage), Whanau (Family), Tikanaga (Tradition Praxis) and Mana (divine
essence); encapsulating “mana atua (divine, spiritual), mana tupuna (ancestral), mana whenua
(geographical and terrestrial), mana tangata (social spheres) and mana wahine (feminie principle)”
(p. 13).

The prevalence of all the above elements were reflected in the three main distilled themes from
participants’ responses that drew on ways of achieving Relational Leadership; Embodying, Enacting
and the moderating Macro-contextual factors that either aid or hinder this, summarised in Table 2. (P.
12). Embodying was presented as the personally constructed “Self-Concept” that deeply considers
Whanau, Mana and crucially the Kauapaua (the cause of) reviving Te Reo (Māori Language). The
participants stressed Enacting to be seeded in nurturing future Rangatira (leaders) and the Rangatahi
(Youth), in a way that would preserve Māori Ontology, instilling strong foundations of transferrable
skills to aid in Relational Leadership. Macro-contextual factors such as technology being a positive
force to permeate Te Ao Maori (interconnectedness) especially to the diaspora was recognised while
Institutional Racism amongst Political structures were described as just some of the barriers
encountered by the participants.

This peer-reviewed article by Henry and Wolfgramm who are evidently well published, provided a
sound foundation of the pillars of Relational Leadership in Māori praxis which places a great
emphasis on Manaakitanga (great respect and care) and humour, which I believe should be inculcated
in all Rangatahi (irrespective of any other personal identities) globally. Mana Tangata particularly in a
care role would enable for better Tautoko (support) and Mana Whenua likely minimising the ongoing
impact for Climate Change. Such qualities may align with other Leadership models, particularly in
Servant Leadership (Russel, 2001). Although the focus was on Relational Leadership, the 45 themes
that were identified in the first stage were omitted and may perhaps have provided interesting insight
that supported other leadership models as well. Furthermore, including participants overseas
(diaspora) may also have been valuable to identify ways to improve connection to Whakapapa. In
considering the institutional racism being a contextual a barrier, one such example by Came and
Griffith (2018) explores the “Wicked” problem of racism facing public health in Aotearoa, stating it
to be a modifiable determinant driving inequitable health outcomes (Grint, 2005). Came and Griffith
thus calls on all practitioners to exercise Manaakitanaga to overcome this, supporting the need for
Relational Leadership.

2
Chathumi Lelwala SOCCLEAD 703 – Assignment 1 AUID: 862018105

REFERNECE

Came, H., & Griffith, D. (2018). Tackling racism as a “wicked” public health problem: Enabling allies in

anti-racism praxis. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 199, 181-188.

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.028

Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership’.  Human Relations

(New York), 58(11), 1467-1494. doi:10.1177/0018726705061314

Henry, E., & Wolfgramm, R. (2015). Relational leadership – an indigenous māori perspective SAGE

Publications. doi:10.1177/1742715015616282

Russell, R. F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal,  22(2), 76-84. doi:10.1108/01437730110382631