human relations 2009 reid 1073 112

Impact of dual executive leadershipdynamics in creative organizationsWendy Reid and Rekha Karambayya

A B S T R AC T The paradoxical co-existence of business and artistic objectives in

creative organizations provides a useful background to explore the

conflict dynamics of dual executive leadership. Using a social psycho-

logical lens, eight case studies of non-profit performing arts companies

in Canada generated two sets of findings that highlight 1) types of

conflict dissemination beyond the duo and 2) their co-occurrence

with conflict types impacting on the organization’s ability to function

well. The study also re-confirmed types of conflict as found in the

leadership duo.

K E Y WO R D S charities/not-for-profit organizations � conflict dissemination �

conflict resolution � creative organizations � distributedleadership � dual leadership

Introduction

Most scholars and management practitioners view dual leadership as anunusual structure, but it has been a longstanding feature of a range oforganizations, particularly in the non-profit field. It is also found in banking,film, journalistic organizations like newspapers and high tech businesses(Alvarez & Svejenova, 2005).

Many leadership and management scholars argue that a dual executiveleadership structure cannot function effectively (Alvarez & Svejenova, 2005;Locke, 2003; Locke et al., 2007). A recent discussion between Locke et al.

1 0 7 3

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726709335539

Volume 62(7): 1073–1112

© The Author(s), 2009

Reprints and Permissions:

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/

journalsPermissions.nav

The Tavistock Institute ®

http://hum.sagepub.com

at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia on May 24, 2015hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

(2007) and proponents of shared or multiple leadership (Pearce & Conger,2003a) provided the arguments in favour of unitary executive leadership:organizations need a single person to generate a coordinating vision. Conflictbetween the two or more executive leaders renders the vision incoherent andineffective. A number of historically noted management scholars support thisnotion (Barnard, 1938; Fayol, 1949; Mintzberg, 1979, 1989).

However, a number of leadership scholars have argued that workgroups are more creative (Pearce, 2004), schools are more democratic andaccessible (Gronn, 2002) and organizations are more coordinated andresponsive to the environment (Heenan & Bennis, 1999) when leadership isshared or distributed. Distinctive of these recent multiple leadership studiesis a self-chosen and emergent nature. These leaders negotiate their duties anddivision of labour in the process of assuming their roles together. As a result,conflict may have a limited presence, providing these scholars with a strongargument for the benefits of multiple leadership structures.

In contrast to these emergent multiple leaders, the majority of organiz-ations with dual leadership in the creative, media and non-profit sectorsfeature two individuals who are chosen independently, often mandated by aBoard of Directors, with different contract times and lengths. They assumeroles that are functionally pre-defined (professional versus managerial) inresponse to external institutional and resource pressures (DiMaggio &Powell, 1983; Peterson, 1986; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). This formal andpotentially conflict-laden approach to multiple leadership has not beenstudied in this emerging leadership literature.

As further illumination of the conflict-laden context, creative organiz-ations have been described as paradoxical (DeFillippi et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2006; Lampel et al., 2000) and functioning with hybrid identities(Albert & Whetton, 1985; Glynn, 2000). Leading and coordinating creativeorganizations requires a capacity for balancing the decision-making acrosscontradictory forces, often requiring trade-offs between artistic excellenceand financial viability (Caves, 2000; DeFillippi et al., 2007; Jones et al.,2006; Lampel et al., 2000). As a result, creative organizations present anopportunity to examine significant potential for conflict in multiple leader-ship organizations. Therefore, we explore the following two questions in thisstudy:

1) How do dual executive leaders in creative organizations work withconflict in their relationship?

2) What impact do the relationship’s conflict dynamics have on mana-gerial, artistic and Board members of the organization and their abilityto realize their responsibilities?

Human Relations 62(7)1 0 7 4



A qualitative research method is appropriate for two reasons: the earlystage of research on multiple leadership, and the executive leadership duo’simpact across levels to that of the organization lends itself to an organiz-ational case approach (Yammarino et al., 2005).

So, we examined eight performing arts organizations in Canada, wherethe two leaders typically hold equal formal authority and report to the Board.The duo members lead two separate functional groups within the organiz-ation: performing artists, technicians and creators led by an artistic or musicdirector, with managerial and business staff led by an executive director orgeneral manager. The dual leadership structure has been an acceptedapproach in the Canadian performing arts field for most of the 20th century,similar to that in the US (Peterson, 1986).

Cross-sectional data on the relationship dynamics of these executiveduos were gathered by individually interviewing the leaders, as well as seniorstaff, artists, Board members and representatives of funding organizations.The data of this study enabled an exploration of the conflict dynamics in therelationship, and their impact on organizational processes involving staff andBoard members using a social psychological theoretical lens. An alternativeapproach, employing a psycho-dynamic perspective to explore these researchquestions would also be rich and useful for insight in this context (Bion,1961; Miller, 1990a, 1990b; Turquet, 1974),1 but would require a differentdata collection strategy focusing on the management group as the unit ofanalysis and observing group dynamics over time.

Literature review

This study involved two topics that have substantial traditions of research inthe social psychological literature: conflict and its management and leader-ship. While our research questions exist at the intersections of these twostreams, research in conflict management and leadership have developed, forthe most part, independently. However, the end of this section provides a lookat matrix structure, which is another intersection of conflict and leadership inorganizations. In this review, a discussion of the pertinent findings from theseliteratures follows an examination of the research on cultural and creativeorganizations where tensions between artistic and business values dominate.

Tensions in creative organizations

Mainstream business scholars and practitioners have recently come to recog-nize that management of creative processes is a strategic strength. The value

Reid & Karambayya Impact of dual executive leadership dynamics 1 0 7 5



of the particular traits in creative organizations is being recognized becausethe ‘integration of creative and business activities’ is viewed as increasinglypertinent (Lampel et al., 2006: 9). A number of paradoxes appear to shapethis sector. Lampel et al. (2000, 2006) enlightened the traditional paradoxof art versus business by observing a number of facets of this core tension:artistic versus mass entertainment, cultural versus commercial values, indi-vidual inspiration versus organizational creative systems and originalityversus well-tested formulas. Others have followed suit, building on individ-ual versus artistic systems or collective identity (DeFillippi et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2006). The dual executive leadership phenomenon symbolicallyembodies a number of these paradoxes. The AD is the individual artistsearching for artistic expression through their leadership in an organizationalstructure and the ED is the managerial leader motivated to ensure the sustain-ability of the organization through business practice.

Three types of research articles have examined the effect of paradoxesfaced by managers in creative organizations. First, scholars focused onorganization-wide phenomena often grounded in organization theory. Manystudies using rich and complex analyses of culture described the tensionbetween managerial/economic thinking versus the professional curatorial orartistic perspective (Chiapello, 1998; Eikhof & Haunschild, 2007; Glynn,2000; Townley, 2002; Voss et al., 2000). Also studied was the powerful effecton artistic strategies from external economic resources (Alexander, 1996).

A second, practice-oriented approach provided lists of skills and traitsnecessary for leadership in creative organizations. The business versus artparadox was also implicit in this analysis. Managers are facilitators(Bendixen, 2000; Clancy, 1997); they try to be human resource managers(DiMaggio, 1983); they choose either a managerial or artistic leadership style(Palmer, 1998); and they are decision-makers (Cray et al., 2007). Ironically,these descriptions of leadership in the arts overlooked the dynamics of thedual executive leadership often found in these organizations.

Finally, in response to their iconic status, the orchestra conductor hasoften been studied in the management literature (Glynn, 2006; Hunt et al.,2004; Mintzberg, 1998). Implications were drawn for broader consumptionin management studies. However, to date the focus has been on the individ-ual conductor and that leader’s relationship with the orchestra members,rather than the relationship with the executive director and the wholeorganization, although Glynn’s work (2006) does suggest larger organiz-ational issues.

Dual executive leadership and its practice in creative organizationshave been understudied. This relationship’s conflict dynamics should providegreater insight into managing creative organizations as well as similarlystructured leadership in the larger management field.




Conflict research is reviewed next, followed by an overview of leader-ship studies. Following that is a discussion of the research on matrix organiz-ations in which both conflict and leadership are seen as phenomena that ariseout of complex organizational forms.

Conflict

To begin, situated within the field of social psychology is a definition ofconflict: ‘perceived differences or incompatibilities, where discrepant viewsor interpersonal incompatibilities contribute to the tension of conflict’ (Jehn,1995: 257). Early views in this field positioned this tension as exclusivelydestructive and sought means to eliminate conflict (Blake & Mouton, 1984;Pondy, 1967). Scholars subsequently argued that conflict needed managingrather than avoidance or elimination (Brown, 1983; Thomas, 1998).Recently, researchers of groups and top management teams (TMTs) havefound that certain types of conflict can productively assist in group processes (Amason & Schweiger, 1997; De Dreu, 1997; Jehn, 1997a;Tjosvold, 2006).

Researchers in social psychology have long claimed that conflict mightbe one of two variations – one is ‘task’ and the other is ‘emotional’ (Deutsch,1969). Recently, ‘process’ conflict has been identified (Jehn, 1997b). Task-oriented conflict focuses on substantive choices involved in making decisions.Focusing on outcomes, recent contributors have valued this conflict typebecause it reduces the pressure to conform (Amason & Schweiger, 1997;Jehn, 1997a; Tjosvold, 2006), develops more creatively conceived decisions(Amason, 1996; Eisenhardt, 1989b; Peterson, 1997) and generates greateracceptance of communal decisions among group members (Amason, 1996).

Emotionally-oriented conflict refers to disagreements over personalvalues that involve responses like anger and hostility. Resulting hostilitysiphons energy and focus away from the tasks of the group, with a negativeand potentially paralytic impact on decision-making (Janssen et al., 1999;Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Pelled et al., 1999).

Process-oriented conflict involves differences about the method ofundertaking the task and responsibilities within the group (i.e. who doeswhat?) (Hinds & Bailey, 2003; Jehn, 1997b). It can easily lead toemotionally-oriented conflict in circumstances where roles are specificallydefined (Jehn, 1997b). However, it is constructive in a group’s process toclarify task structures and responsibilities early (Jehn & Mannix, 2001).

Much conflict research in work groups has been restricted to observ-ing conflict types and their outcomes within the group on decision-makingand strategy development through demographic study, experiments andsome field observation (Amason & Schweiger, 1997; Hambrick & Mason,




1984). But none of this research examined the conflict’s organizationalimpact beyond the conflicted parties or the group.

Moving to the leadership field of study, scholars have argued againstshared or distributed leadership highlighting conflict as destructive or un-productive in this context. This discussion is analysed next.

Leadership

Traditionally leadership is conceived as a one-person phenomenon. Sharedleadership was counterintuitive because, for many centuries, strong solomonarchs and church leaders dominated. Currently, charismatic politicalleaders are profiled in the media. The study of unitary leadership started withan examination of individual traits (Stodgill, 1948), reflecting the ‘great men’perspective. Later the focus moved to a values-driven individual functioningas a charismatic or transformational leader (Bass, 1985; House, 1977). Thesetheories called for strong, individually conceived views and vision, so thenotion of multiple leaders in the same role in an organization would generateunacceptable differences.

A number of seminal works have influenced generally acceptedthinking in favour of unitary leadership (Alvarez & Svejenova, 2005). Fayol(1949) advocated unity of command and direction in a pyramidal hierarchy,in order to achieve a rational and efficient process and to avoid confusion,emotion and conflict. In his study The theory of social and economic organiz-ation, Weber (1924/1947) argued that authority and power should be vestedin a single leader, in order to generate a consensus in the organization.Barnard (1938) described how the specific vision and moral tone set by asingle executive leader’s authority would generate the cooperation byemployees necessary for a successful organization. Mintzberg’s study (1989)of executive leaders’ activities observed that all leadership functions need tobe situated within one leader. Cumulatively, these scholars have influencedgenerally accepted thinking about the importance and normative value ofsingle leadership.

Locke recently argued that developing a ‘vision’ and hiring a stronggroup of people to carry out that vision were the essential responsibilities ofan executive leader and that only one person could fulfil these responsibilities(Locke, 2003; Locke et al., 2007). He defines leadership as ‘the process ofinducing others to take action toward a common goal’ (2003: 271). Incontrast, advocates of multiple leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003b) havefocused on a more informal and emergent understanding where the destruc-tive conflict envisioned by advocates of single leadership may not exist. But




conflict and its impact in a formally structured dual executive leadershipremain unconsidered in this literature.

Finally, we explore the literature on matrix organizations and its treat-ment of both conflict and leadership within complex organizational forms.2

Researchers on matrix organizations have studied the dual structure ofproject and functional management within the same organization. Thismanagement structure generates ambiguity and conflict for middle managers(Allcorn, 1990; Burns, 1989; Lawrence et al., 1977; Sy & D’Annunzio,2005). Lateral coordinative mechanisms like project managers, matrixguardians and parallel accounting systems are key features of this approachto organizational management (Burns, 1989; Sy & D’Annunzio, 2005).Much of the research on matrix organizations tends to focus on the com-plexity of the dual reporting relationships faced by middle managers, ratherthan the challenges of the top leadership in such structures (Lawrence et al.,1977; Sy & D’Annunzio, 2005). Typically matrix structures are composedof a number of senior managers with clearly defined functional or projectresponsibility and a single chief executive who is responsible for alignmentof departmental goals and establishment of organizational priorities(Lawrence et al., 1977).

Our study of dual executive leadership structures focuses on asomewhat different structural form in which middle managers wouldtypically report to either the artistic or the business head at the executivelevel while the role of organizational effectiveness would be the jointresponsibility of the two leaders. While we expected dual leadership struc-tures to share some of the challenges faced by managers in matrix structures,such as the alignment of unit goals and establishment of organizationalpriorities, we were also aware that in these organizations the top executiverole is more complex because it is shared by two people with somewhatdifferent priorities and agendas.

Further, conflict is often characterized as competitive and potentiallyproblematic in the matrix literature (Sy & Cote, 2004; Sy & D’Annunzio,2005). Conflict is seen as needing management through refining negotiatingskills, in contrast to recent social psychologists who advocate embracingproductive conflict (Tjosvold, 1997, 2006) or using conflict to developcreative solutions and organizational strategy (Amason & Schweiger, 1997;De Dreu & Van de Vliert, 1997). This study can benefit from the insightsabout conflict in the matrix managerial perspective (Bartlett & Ghoshal,1993; Lawrence et al., 1977). However, an examination of the impact ofconflict behaviour on organizational processes through dual executiveleadership is not found in this literature.




Research context

This study used non-profit performing arts organizations in Canada asillustrative case studies of conflict dynamics in duos at the executive leader-ship level and their impact on the ability of various members of the organiz-ation to do their jobs. While the two leadership roles developed as acomplement to each other driven by external pressures (Peterson, 1986),there are a range of factors that would generate conflict between the leaders.The causes of conflict are outside the focus of this study, but five features ofthe organizational context provide some understanding of how conflict is abackdrop to the duo’s relationship.

The first feature looks at the normal hiring process and functionalresponsibilities of the two leaders. In the cases of this study, typical oforganizations in this field, the duo involved an artistic director (AD) and anexecutive director (ED). The leaders were chosen by the Board of Directorsand hired independently of each other. None shared the same tenure orcontract conditions. The hiring context, therefore, provides little opportunityfor the two leaders to gain any previous working understanding that mightmitigate conflict.

The ADs oversaw the selection of artistic productions for the season.These leaders were often directly involved in either creation or performanceactivities and proposed the key artistic personnel to undertake that season.That person’s taste and style made the organization distinctive in the market.The artistic side of the organization was typically unionized and its workingschedule spanned late mornings through to the evening, sometimes split shiftsand often weekends.

The ED was in charge of the revenue development activities likefundraising, marketing and government relations; the ED was also typicallyresponsible for the budget planning process with the finance functions report-ing to them. The ED was typically the partner most in touch with the Boardof Directors, working with them on governance issues, environmentalscanning and networking. The people reporting to this leader were businessstaff working a usual nine to five o’clock weekday schedule. They were rarelyunionized.

The two leaders would normally connect at points throughout the yearwhere the artistic plans and activities were integrated with the expectationsfor audience and funded resources. Balancing the annual budget is the momentwhen debate and potential differences would surface over resources neededfor each side of the organization, to move forward the work of certain func-tions or to realize certain artistic plans (Chiapello, 1998; Lampel et al., 2000).

The second distinctive feature involved the sensibilities in orientationand training of the AD and the ED. Chiapello (1998) described the roots of




this difference: artists were creative, unpredictable, iconoclastic, spontaneousand social critics; and managers were rational, ordered, planned and workedwithin the social order. She argued that these two sensibilities were subjectto natural animosity and opposition – a difference of values.

The third feature describes organizational priorities. In the initialdevelopment of these organizations, community founders and other membersof the organizations’ Boards of Directors focused on the AD as leader andon artistic priorities (DiMaggio, 1986; Peterson, 1986). But as the fundingenvironment around non-profit arts organizations evolved to includemultiple external stakeholders like foundations, large corporations andgovernment, the funding dependence generated powerful demands forfinancial accountability. This shaped how these organizations were resourcedand how they developed organizational strategies (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978),thus changing organizational priorities.

While the artistic leader remained important, the partnering skills of financial management and revenue development became increasinglyimportant. These skills were rarely found in the person of the AD. There-fore, a partnered leadership structure for the organization developed throughthe 20th century in North America (Peterson, 1986), placing the ED in anincreasingly powerful role.

The two leaders could bring different perspectives and priorities to thedebate on how to manage the organization’s relationship with the marketand funders. In parallel to the paradoxes of business versus art and inresponse to the range of funding criteria from environmental stakeholders,the AD would argue for quality, artistic development and the risk of inno-vation and the ED would argue for efficiency, and conservative, predictable,widely acceptable programming.

The fourth feature examines assessment criteria for these organiz-ations. There were no generally accepted criteria with which to judge thevalidity of an artistic or an organizational strategy (DiMaggio, 2001; Lampelet al., 2000). In such a web of ambiguity and subjectivity, personal valuesand perspectives can easily creep into resource negotiations and strategicdecisions. This seems to set the stage for personal conflict.

The fifth feature highlights the interdependencies in the relationship.While the duo members’ responsibilities for leadership generally involvedseparate functions, the roles involved strong organizational inter-dependencies. In all of these cases, the AD relied on the ED for financialresources derived from funding sources as well as from ticket sales. In all butone case, the ED was responsible for negotiating union and individualcontracts that determined the work conditions and availability of the artisticresources needed to satisfy the AD’s ambitions and taste. On the other hand,the ED relied on the AD to create programming that was stimulating to




critics and performers, appealing for audiences and appreciated by privatedonors and artistic peers on government granting juries. This mutual depen-dency made each executive vulnerable to the risk that the other would notdeliver.

These five contextual features demonstrate how conflict is a normalbackground for these leaders. There may also be explanations for conflictmore general than this context found in the social psychology and psycho-dynamic literature. The research focus of this study is a description of theresulting conflict behaviour at the executive leadership level and its impacton the organization. In this manner, it provides a window onto the dynamicsof managing these, and other, similarly creative organizations.

Methodological approach

Case selection

Cases were selected to vary along three features: distinguishing character-istics of the organization (type of art form and size), their environment(variations in funding contexts) and the leadership duo (respective tenurelength, founder status, educational and experience backgrounds and thehealth of the relationship). The eight cases analysed here represented asymphony orchestra, two dance, three theatre and two opera organizations.

Particular effort was made to research several organizations where therelationship was known to be particularly problematic. The nature of thesedifficult leadership duos ranged from a distant relationship, to an overtlydestructive and toxic dynamic. These cases proved very useful in exploringdestructive conflict in this study.

Data collection

Unstructured hour-long interviews took place (McCracken, 1988) with indi-viduals in and around the organization providing a cross-sectional view ofthe situation. Each case site generated an average of eight interviews with atotal of 79 interviews across the cases. Those interviewed were: both leaders,usually the chair of the Board of Directors, two other members of the Boardwho might have insights on the leader relationship (often including thetreasurer), two members of staff who had a sense of internal dynamics of the leadership (often the finance or production director and the marketingor fundraising director), an artist associated with the company and finally,the appropriate discipline officer at the federal or provincial fundingorganization.




The interview format involved open questions on a number of topics:about each individual’s notion of leadership, about the relationship of thetwo leaders in the organization, and how it affected people’s jobs, and aboutleadership style in the organization.

Data analysis

Particular events or ongoing behaviours were reported differently from onerespondent to another. Rarely were the reports contradictory, but theyreflected the variations in perspectives. Reports from a third and fourthrespondent were helpful in understanding differences between respondentsto complete the portrait. While there was inevitably some image manage-ment behaviour undertaken by one or the other of the leaders in their inter-view conversations, the 360 degree effect of the interviews provided amultifaceted view of the leadership duo (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

The analysis of data involved an iterative process that was inductive anddeductive (Denis et al., 2001). Phases involving data collection, consultationof the literature and writing reports and papers throughout the process shapedthe study. The analysis was accomplished in a traditional grounded theorymanner searching for repeated themes (Bryman, 2004; Bryman et al., 1996;Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), crossing and comparingcases searching for patterns (Eisenhardt, 1989a; Eisenhardt & Graebner,2007; Yin, 2003) and finally, abstracting the themes and their relationships.

In the next section the findings in this study are outlined, followed bydiscussion of implications and applications.

Findings

First, we outline the main constructs that emerged in the analysis of the eightcases and then we go on to discuss in more detail the nature of the relation-ships among the conflict types, conflict behaviours and their implications fororganizational processes.

Central constructs

As studied in the social psychology literature on conflict, three conflict typeswere reflected in this study’s cases. These were task-oriented conflict, process-oriented conflict and emotionally-oriented conflict.

We also uncovered a previously unreported form of conflict behaviourin the dual leadership structure in these organizations. Four types of




behaviour emerged that we refer to as conflict dissemination: advice-seeking, mediation, alliance-seeking and abdication. Advice-seeking involvedattempts to consult other organizational members and gather informationregarding the issues of conflict. Mediation happened when either a Board orstaff member enabled communication between the two. Alliance-seekinginvolved behaviour by one leader to leverage power through alliances with other organizational members to create opposition to the other leader.Abdication of decision-making occurred when the two leaders were unableto make a decision and they sent the issue up to the Board or down to middlemanagers for resolution.

Organizational processes explored here involved three elementsinternal to the organization: operational functions, leadership attributionand morale. The data for these notions were found in the interviews withthe staff and Board members, and hence, are perceptions of the leaders’collective behaviour and how these perceptions affect work and attitudes inthe organization. Operational functions focused on decision-making aboutannual programming and other longer term plans, and perceptions of theirtimeliness and effectiveness. Leadership attribution reflected respect in thedirection of the duo. This respect generated weight for their decisions, andappeared to motivate the organizational members to carry out thesedecisions. Organizational morale involved a sense of member confidence inthe organization’s future – a collective sense of efficacy (Bandura, 1982;Bohn, 2002).

Appendix A provides a list of all constructs used in this study withsome illustrative citations from the data for each.

Construct relationships

The research questions for this study enquired about how dual executiveleaders in creative organizations manage conflict and what influences theconflict dynamic had on the work within the organization. The analysissuggested two new conflict dynamics in response to these questions. First,these duos either retained conflict between them or disseminated it throughthe organization as a means of managing the conflict. The three differentconflict types co-occurred with the different types of conflict dissemination.Task conflict appeared to co-occur with retention of the conflict or withadvice-seeking. Process conflict appeared to be either retained within the duoor disseminated through alliance-seeking or advice-seeking. Emotionally-oriented conflict seemed to be retained temporarily, and then disseminatedeither in the form of mediation, alliance-seeking or abdication.





The second finding is that various combinations of type of conflict andmanner of dissemination influenced organizational processes. The organiz-ational processes functioned independently, and were influenced by combi-nations of the conflict constructs. For example, a case may have had timelyand effective operational functions, but low leadership attribution andmorale because of dissemination of conflict through political alliance-seeking. Table 1 provides a mapping for these relationships; and Figure 1describes the relationships in a model format.

In the next section, we describe the two findings in more detail withpropositions that summarize the dynamic of each relationship by conflicttype. We first illustrate the co-occurring relationship between the range ofconflict types and different conflict dissemination behaviours. Then wedescribe the impact of the combination of conflict type and dissemination onorganizational processes.

Table 1 Map of co-occurring conflict constructs and organizational processes

Organizational processes——————————————————————–

Conflict type Conflict Operational Leadership Organizational dissemination functions attribution moraletype (timely/slow) (strong/weak) (high/low)

Task-oriented Internally More timely Stronger Higherretained Case A Case A Case A

Advice- Less timely Stronger Higherseeking down Cases B, D Cases B, D Cases B, D

Process-oriented Internally Slower Less strong Less highretained Case C Case C Case C

Advice- Less timely Less strong Less highseeking up; Cases B, C, G, I Cases B, C, G, I Cases B, C, G, IAlliance-seeking

Emotionally-oriented Internally Slower Less strong Less highretained Cases C, E Cases C, E Cases C, E

Alliance- Slower Weaker Lowerseeking above; Cases E, H Cases E, H Cases E, HMediation;Abdication of decision-making



Combinations of conflict type and dissemination type

Task-oriented conflict

Task-oriented conflict often appeared to be retained within the duo.Discussions of programming, audience size, special projects and fundingwere all conflict issues that some duos were able to resolve productivelybetween themselves.

Case A is a particularly strong example of internally-retained task-oriented conflict. The duo took charge of their differences, and never reachedout to polarize others for support, even if the differences were aired in thepresence of the senior management group. A member of that group explainedhow neither leader had drawn others into their differences:

If ED has spoken for both of them, AD will respect that. You know,he won’t try to say ‘Why would ED make that decision? I absolutelydisagree with that.’ Like that would never happen. And certainly not,he would never publicly say that. He might go back to ED and say,‘What were you thinking’ or ‘Let’s talk about this’.

In Case D, however, task conflict was shared in an advice-seeking modewith the senior management. The duo chose to include the finance andmarketing directors in their discussions about programming, schedules and


Figure 1 Construct relationships for conflict dynamics in dual executive leadership

Causes of conflict

Dissemination of conflict

Internal to duo

Advice-seeking Mediation

Alliance-seeking Abdication of decisions

(down/up)

Conflict type

Task-oriented Process-oriented

Emotionally-oriented

(present/absent)

Organizational processes

Operational functions

(timely/slow)

Leadership attribution

(strong/weak)

Morale (high/low)



financial issues. While the AD was sometimes combative, the ED’s role wasa neutral facilitative one that helped to keep discussions task-oriented. Thisforum provided the two executive leaders with a vetting process on whichto base their decisions. The finance director explained the dynamic:

Among the three of us I am on one side of the spectrum, AD on theother side of the spectrum with ED in the middle mediating and . . .you would understand that ED makes a fine mediator. He has that skilland he does it well.

Proposition 1a: When task-oriented conflict occurs in the duo, it islikely to co-occur with internal retention of conflict and/or conflictdissemination through advice-seeking.

Process-oriented conflict

Process-oriented conflict involves the task’s ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘who’. In thisstudy, process-oriented conflict was generated when one member trans-gressed the boundaries of the other’s role, when one duo member was unableto deliver their partner’s needs or when there were value differences betweenthe two leaders about how tasks should be undertaken.

In Case B, when the AD was particularly concerned about the engage-ment of a star artist, he expressed his frustration with the ED’s approach toanother staff person by interpreting the ED’s delay in concluding the engage-ment as evidence of poor commitment to the larger cause of the organiz-ation. The alliance-seeking behaviour attempted to rally others to the AD’spoint of view, and it distributed the conflict around the organization. Onesenior manager explained her experience with the AD:

AD had a little hissy fit yesterday about . . . how he’s the only one inthis organization who – he was mad because ED hadn’t made a phonecall about an artist yet for somebody who he wants for his show 18months down the road, . . . he made a comment about how he’s the oneleft holding the bag around here all the time.

This situation reflects the instability of process-oriented conflict for theorganization.

Proposition 1b: When process-oriented conflict occurs in the duo, it islikely to co-occur with conflict dissemination through alliance-seeking.




Emotionally-oriented conflict

In the cases studied, emotionally-oriented conflict appeared to involvealliance-seeking, mediation and occasionally abdication of decision-making.Instances occurred where emotionally-oriented conflict was, for a time,retained within the duo.

Case E provided an example of open emotionally-oriented conflict thateventually involved dissemination. When the ED could not develop theresources to satisfy the AD’s expanded production demands, the AD becameangry at being let down by the ED. For a time, this conflict remained internalbetween the two, and was hidden from the rest of the organization. However,the conflict was eventually shared externally by using an intermediaryworking in the artistic department to exchange information. They were thenable to communicate on a limited basis. However, the mediation did notimprove the ED/AD relationship. Increasingly the ED and AD arranged dailyschedules purposely to avoid the other’s presence in the organization, andthey immersed themselves in their respective functional roles.

Ultimately, the AD planned a season that would result in significantdeficit, but the two were unable to talk about the problem. The ED resortedto seeking an alliance with the Board to gain support and restore a balanceof power. He explained his strategy in the following manner:

And then when I started to see [production x] going off the rails in terms of expenses once again, I realized that living an insular life of tryingto solve the problems without getting any sense of partnership from AD,or a sense from AD to his staff, downwards to his staff, that they neededto modify things, I decided I’d put it out on the table in a more publicvenue and that’s where I decided to bring it to the executive and financecommittees and identify it as an issue and ask AD to attend.

However, no additional mediation by the chairperson was able torepair the relationship. The ED felt that after five years, he was no longerable to function effectively in the organization, so he found a position in aduo elsewhere.

Proposition 1c: When emotionally-oriented conflict occurs in the duo,it is likely to co-occur with internal retention of conflict or conflictdissemination through mediation and/or alliance-seeking below theduo and/or abdication of decisions above the duo.




Impact of conflict type and dissemination on organizationalprocesses

Task-oriented conflict and internal retention or advice-seeking

Task-oriented conflict retained within the duo ensured that the rest of theorganization could feel confident that divisive issues were being addressedadequately without experiencing the political risks and tensions of theconflict directly.

Case A revealed a relationship where task-oriented conflict, internally-retained, had a constructive impact on the organization. Since everyoneunderstood that the two leaders regularly challenged and tested the plans,the resulting decisions were respected by the members of the organization.Because the duo never drew anyone into their differences, the conflict wasreassuring since there was an ongoing check and balance to the two pointsof view. Respondents spoke of the productive nature of the duo’s relation-ship, and the confidence they felt in the leadership, demonstrating strongleadership attribution. One senior staff member felt safe in expressing auniversal perception of the duo’s relationship:

I think everyone would say that they have a really good relationshipwith one another and that there’s a lot of trust and respect for oneanother.

Morale was positive. Member loyalty to the organization remainedstrong and optimism seemed to prevail at the senior management and Boardlevels of the organization.

Proposition 2a: When task-oriented conflict and internally-retainedconflict co-occur in the duo, then i) operational functions are likely tobe more timely; ii) leadership attribution is likely to be stronger; andiii) morale is likely to be higher.

In Case D, while task-oriented conflict and advice-seeking down tosenior staff may have required time to make decisions, the duo’s control ofthe conflict ensured that relationships remained positive. Senior staff experi-enced great satisfaction at being able to contribute to the strategic solutionsfor the organization. As a result, leadership attribution was high and moralewas strong despite slightly slower organizational processes. A senior managerexplained: ‘And AD and ED are both, I think, very highly regarded’. Thechairperson indicated that: ‘There is a real sense of cohesion between staffand Board at DD’ indicating that the organization’s morale was positive.




Proposition 2b: When task-oriented conflict in the duo and conflictdissemination through advice-seeking co-occur, then i) operationalfunctions are likely to be less timely; ii) leadership attribution is likelyto be stronger; and iii) morale is likely to be higher.

Process-oriented conflict and internal retention or alliance-seeking

When process-oriented conflict is internally-retained, the members of theorganization have little connection with the conflict, except for the decisionsthat may not get made in a timely fashion. Normally a healthy dynamic, theissue of ‘who does what’ may block an exploration of the substantiveconcerns.

Case C provided an example of this kind of retained conflict. The twoleaders were deadlocked on developing a future direction for the artistic sideof the organization. The ED felt that the AD was responsible for the idea-generation that would carry the organization forward, but the AD seemedparalysed on the topic. Other members of the organization were dependenton this vision-development to realize their objectives for the organization.The lack of information created frustration, and started to reduce leadershipattribution. One senior manager explained how this affected his job:

I have been waiting in limbo land and yet as you know decisions arebeing made by sponsors, and the kind of money we need is significant. . . I’m out there selling, and I’m out there trying to explain the vision to the extent I can. But I end up focusing a lot on pastaccomplishments . . .

Morale remained relatively high because the organization was adminis-tratively meeting deadlines and keeping on track financially. However,respect for the leadership duo was weak, and there was reduced teamworkwithin the organization. This disconnection reflected lower morale.

Proposition 2c: When process-oriented conflict in the duo andinternally-retained conflict co-occur, then i) operational functions arelikely to be slower; ii) leadership attribution is likely to be less strong;iii) morale is likely to be less high.

When process-oriented conflict was disseminated, the staff or Boardmembers experienced varying degrees of concern about the leadershiprelationship’s health, which undermined leadership attribution. Working insuch a political environment for any extended period appeared to affect long-term loyalty and morale.





These dissemination behaviours, particularly the more politicallyoriented alliance-seeking behaviour, also increased the risk of the conflictbecoming emotional. However, in most of the cases involving process-oriented conflict, the duos seemed able to prevent the conflict from becomingvery destructive.

An example of alliance-seeking downward occurred in Case B. Whenthe AD questioned the ED’s approach to artist contracting, others whofunctioned closely with the two leaders felt the tension of the conflict directly.The AD’s demand for allegiance influenced closely positioned members’ability to attribute leadership in that instance. However, because the conflictdid not generally define the state of the duo’s relationship, morale was notsignificantly affected and was restored over time.

Advice-seeking by a duo up to the Board of Directors combined withprocess-oriented conflict might result in less control. Members of the organiz-ation may have developed an impression that decisions are not made at theduo level, but rather, at the Board level, potentially undermining the duo’sleadership authority. As well, exposing the conflict to the Board may lead toreduced leadership attribution by the Board.

An example of Board consultation occurred in Case G, where the twoexecutive leaders frequently involved the chairperson in decision-making.Decisions involving HR problems (how to compensate a disgruntled long-time employee) and artist relations issues (artists were upset because touringlogistics were too tight) were taken up for consideration by the good-naturedand helpful longstanding chair. He explained the norm in the organization:

And there is a tendency to say: Good, we’ll ask the Board to make thedecision. If there were a conflict.

However, this exposure to the Board prompted an artist respondent toanticipate that the Board would intervene in all conflict, diminishing leader-ship attribution to the AD and the ED. However, organizational moraleremained relatively high since the majority of the conflict behaviour remainedwithin the duo and decisions were made in a timely fashion, and the chair-person rarely intervened beyond the duo. But the potential for this possibilitywas recognized by the incoming chair of the Board.

Proposition 2d: When process-oriented conflict in the duo and conflictdissemination through advice-seeking upward or alliance-seeking inany direction co-occur, then i) operational functions are likely to beless timely; ii) leadership attribution is likely to be less strong; and iii)morale is likely to be somewhat less high.




Emotionally-oriented conflict and internal retention, alliance-seeking, mediation or abdication

Emotionally-oriented conflict is the most destructive to organizationalprocesses. It decreases group members’ motivation and satisfaction (Jehn,1995, 1997a) and affects strategic decision-making in TMTs (Amason,1996). Retained within the duo, emotionally-oriented conflict may affect theleaders’ capacity to make effective decisions for the organization as a whole,and it may require one partner to compensate for the other. But dependingon the compensating partner’s capabilities, the situation may appear effec-tive and decisions may happen in spite of the acrimony. If externally definedsuccess factors like balanced budgets are met, reasonably high leadershipattribution may occur. As well, morale may not be significantly influencedbecause members have no direct contact with the conflict. This may compen-sate for any possible decreased leadership attribution that might come fromslower or less effective decisions. Morale would be less affected because thereis no direct contact with this destructive conflict.

In the early years of the relationship in Case E, the organization wasexperiencing some marketing success, and neither the Board nor a numberof organizational members recognized difficulties within the duo, despiteslower decision-making and concerns about cost controls. This affectedleadership attribution although outside funders complimented the organiz-ation. The new ED outlined how successful the organization had becomefrom an outside perspective:

. . . artistically I think it’s an incredibly successful company. I think thatthe combination of [production x] last spring and our first sell out runwas indicative of that. Bringing [production y] back and thetremendous response that we got from people to that artistically . . .we became the poster – one of the poster child organizations for thesustainability funding programme, and came out of it much stronger,much more strategic.

The concerns about the delays in decision-making and the compensating cutsundertaken exclusively among administrative staff affected morale somewhat.

Proposition 2e: When emotionally-oriented conflict in the duo andinternally-retained conflict co-occur in the duo, then i) operationalfunctions are likely to be slower; ii) leadership attribution is likely tobe somewhat less strong; and (iii) morale is likely to be somewhat lesshigh.



Once emotionally-oriented conflict becomes difficult to retain within aduo, it seems that dissemination becomes inevitable. So alliance-seeking andmediation is used as a conflict management technique. But disseminationrequires other organizational members to move outside their normal roles,to undertake allegiances or to become a ‘toxin handler’ by acting as mediator(Frost, 2003). They lose their capacity for belief in the organization’s futureviability and morale will decline. When Board members are drawn intomanagement, they express discomfort with having to abandon theirgovernance role.

Case E demonstrated overt emotional conflict between the two leadersand over time involved many organizational relationships above and belowthe duo. One subordinate staff member was drawn in to mediate betweenthe two, but the duo’s decision-making ability remained limited, because ofthe indirect communication. The value and immediacy of first-hand iterativecommunication was lost.

Despite the mediation, solutions for major problems were notdiscussed or negotiated, and eventually decisions were delayed. The market-ing director explained how the ED was affected by the situation:

A couple of times there were some major stress issues going on amongstthe staff, partly because we saw him not making decisions. We sawthings getting put off.

Company members felt responsible to compensate for the lack ofdecision-making, and they perceived a leadership vacuum. Leadership attri-bution was negative. The ED explained the impact on organizationalmembers:

They felt the tension. They felt the lag in decision-making. They sawthe frustration and the train wreck of budget overspending and theyfelt powerless to make a difference. They felt powerless; they didn’t feelthat the organization was capable of finding solutions.

The ED suggested that the organization’s morale was at a breakingpoint, and there was no sense of hope for the future:

the organization began to feel very fractured. Box office hatedFundraising and Fundraising hated Marketing and Accounting hatedeveryone and everyone hated Accounting and everyone hated AD andnobody wanted to be there and people were coming in late and leavingearly and there were a lot of sick days . . . It was a horrible place to be.




The organization was caught in a spiral where emotionally-oriented conflicthad become a mode of operating and this negatively affected morale in theorganization. Many on staff were actively seeking jobs elsewhere, and theartists of the organization felt insecure.

In a final effort, the ED sought assistance from the Board in order torestore cost control over the AD and to resolve the pending budget planningissues. The Board’s attribution of leadership to the duo was diminished. Theirdiscomfort with the demands for allegiance and necessity of greater involve-ment in the management reduced motivation and morale.

Proposition 2f: When emotionally-oriented conflict in the duo andconflict dissemination through mediation and/or alliance-seeking upand/or abdication of decision-making co-occur, then i) operationalfunctions are likely to be slower; ii) leadership attribution is likely tobe weaker; and (iii) morale is likely to be significantly lower.

Discussion

Two research questions oriented this study of creative organizations. The firstinquired about the dynamics of conflict within the dual executive leadershiprelationship, and the other queried the nature of the impact of this relation-ship’s dynamics on the organizational members and processes. Two sets offindings answered these questions. First, when twinned with previouslydefined conflict types, conflict dissemination linked conflict dynamics withinthe duo to the whole organization. Second, the two co-occurring conflictconstructs influence three organizational processes: operational functions,leadership attribution and morale.

Researchers of conflict usually examined the phenomenon as itoccurred between two individuals, or within a group. In contrast, this studylooked at the effect of conflict found originally between two parties on therest of the organization. This insight is important to creative organizationsbecause it helps explain some variations of internal stability and its link withthis relatively common structure of leadership in these organizations.

The leadership duo is an arena for balancing and negotiating differ-ences present in the paradoxes normally found in these organizations. Whenthe duo extended the conflict beyond them, as far as the duo was concernedthe conflict was managed, but this behaviour had an impact by extendingthe conflict throughout the organization. In many cases, leadership attri-bution and morale within the organization were damaged and decisions weredelayed or impaired, creating an unstable situation. While dissemination





could be helpful on occasion, cases where task-oriented conflict was retainedwithin the duo were usually constructive and generally more stable. As aresult, the paradox of art versus business was debated and balanced withinthe duo, and the rest of the organization was unscathed by the duo’s conflict.The study describes how the dual leadership structure works within the para-doxes that dominate these organizations (Lampel et al., 2000) and how thiscan affect the organization’s processes.

Implications for theory

Given that conflicting values and personal taste dominate the decision-making process (Lampel et al., 2000), the challenge of maintaining taskconflict is particularly demanding. The duo represents the two sides of theart versus business paradox.

Even as a micro-dynamic, this leadership structure has significant influ-ence on the organization’s ability to function and achieve its goals and theduo’s differences are strategic. This micro–macro view of dual executiveleadership in creative organizations enhances our understanding of theparticular challenges of managing these organizations and others like them.

Conflict management theory has traditionally sought to reduce theimpact of negative conflict on relationships between groups and individuals(Amason, 1996). In this study, destructive conflict in a leadership duo’srelationship was found to be disseminated into the organization, in one offour conflict management behaviours. Ironically, this conflict managementusually has a negative effect on the rest of the organization by escalatingemotional conflict and generating an environment of political allegiances.Ultimately, there is no final resolution to the conflict and the organizationabsorbs the tension. It becomes less efficient; organizational membersbecome dispirited and less hopeful; and leadership is less effective as amotivational force for organizational members. Managing conflict by main-taining the discipline of task-oriented conflict appears as the most effectivemeans of constructively using conflict while avoiding the destructive aspectsof emotionally-oriented conflict. The conflict dynamics found in creativeorganizations help shed light on the behavioural impact of organizationalparadoxes.

While research on matrix organizations highlights the impact ofconflict in the relationship between function and project leaders, thediscussion has a normative sensibility. The results reported here suggest anuanced and complex set of relationships among conflict types and organiz-ational processes that may provide some insights into conflict and itsmanagement in matrix organizations among others.




In terms of leadership for creative organizations, dual leadership hasbeen analysed for its capacity to manage conflict, and ultimately manage theorganization. Our study showed that the conflict management behaviour thatarises from duos at the executive level is a leadership phenomenon withincreative organizations. It may exist elsewhere, but insight regarding this typeof behaviour contributes to leadership and conflict management researchthrough the study of creative organizations.

These dynamics have implications for executive leadership. Theargument that dual executive leaders cannot coordinate a unified vision forthe organization may or may not be true. Certainly, negative conflict, dis-seminated in a manner that generates political and challenged relationshipswithin the organization, can have a particularly damaging effect on theorganization and this dynamic undermines such vision. But there areinstances where the conflict is retained within the duo and the effect ispositive for the organization’s processes because decisions are respected andstability is maintained. In cases like these, a vision is honed and evolved for the organization as the arguments within the duo explore the fullerpossibilities of the vision. This study demonstrates how an effective visionfor the organization can be a product of a dual executive leadership.

Finally, the use of psycho-analytic theories to study organizations maybe a particularly useful way to explore the dynamics of dual leadership struc-tures in the future. This approach has been a focus of the Tavistock Institute(Bion, 1961; Jaques, 1976, 1986; Miller, 1990a, 1990b). While the researchin our study provides a conscious, rational view of how conflict unfolds ina leadership duo, the psycho-dynamic perspective with its focus on theunconscious dynamics between and around that duo may offer useful,nuanced, alternative views of how conflict emerges and influences organiz-ational processes.

Implications for management

The study suggested a number of practical considerations. The first insightinvolves hiring for dual executive leadership. Hiring either an ED or an ADis a key responsibility of the Board for a non-profit performing arts organiz-ation, as is true for any non-profit organization. Boards of Directors mightwant to consider the implications for organizational performance arisingfrom conflict dynamics in the executive relationship when hiring for eitherrole. Many hiring processes described in the interviews of this study indi-cated that the potential relationship was rarely considered. Given theirfiduciary responsibilities outlined in agency theory (Jensen & Meckling,1976), Boards seemed to emphasize competence in financial, fundraising or



marketing functions for an ED role. As well, in several cases of newlystructured dual leadership, the Board enthusiastically hired an ED to managethe AD in a negatively adversarial manner. Since all non-profit Boards arevolunteers and members rarely have professional expertise in the field(Middleton, 1987; Ostrower & Stone, 2007), the Board often manifestsinsecurity about effective monitoring, and could hire an ED that counter-balances the AD in an extreme manner. However, this research demonstratesthat competence in relationships is beneficial to the organization and shouldbe a further hiring criterion.

Beyond the hiring process, Boards may want to recruit members whounderstand and can manage conflict. Lessons might be learned about activeparticipation by trusted Board members in conflict management, supportingrelationship stability within the leadership duo. A further support for the duothat the Board could provide might be an organizational coach who under-stands the dynamics of conflict and its organizational implications.

Finally, this research suggests how strategic the nature of the executiveleadership relationship is for the organization. Incumbent executive leadersmight find it useful to reflect on the nature of their own relationships.Building confidence from the insights of others’ experience, those incumbentsmight be encouraged to engage in analysing their own conflict dynamics, toachieve greater likelihood of constructive conflict. Building on this to abroader context, the nature of a duo’s relationship may be a topic ofdiscussion or workshop facilitated within sector meetings. It has already been a recent source of an annual workshop for dance and theatre leadersin the US.3

Limitations to the research

The study described here also has some limitations. Parallels exist betweenthe case organizations in this study and other small- and medium-sizedorganizations, but applying qualitative research results to cases outside thosestudied can present problems (Yin, 2003).

In his comments about the difficulties of shared leadership at theexecutive level, Locke (2003) specifically excluded non-profit organizations,suggesting that they may be different. Press reports about dual leadership inthe high technology and entrepreneurial firms indicate similarity to the casesstudied here (Prashad, 2006). However, the cases of this study are non-profitcultural organizations, which we consider to be a type of creative organiz-ation. The learning from this study should be useful elsewhere in othercreative enterprises in the for-profit sector, however, the generalization ofthese insights has yet to be tested.




Cross-level analysis should always be approached with caution(Yammarino et al., 2005). Crossing levels from the dyad to the organizationin this study demands such caution. However, in each case there was onlyone set of dual leaders, and so the observations were about these leaders andtheir organization.

Furthermore, in this qualitative study it is important to be cautiouswhen inferring cause and effect. Leadership studies suggest that leadershipimpacts on organizations, but in this study the degree and nature may beinfluenced by other factors such as the intervention of the Board and its chair,funding priorities and previous leadership residual impact.

Finally, we chose to focus our attention on the leadership duo and touse interview data to explore our research questions. Therefore, our resultsare likely to reflect the sense-making and conscious cognitive processes of therespondents. Observational data might have allowed us an opportunity toaccess first-hand the conflict dynamics and their consequences. In addition,observation of the top management team might have allowed us to use alterna-tive theoretical approaches, such as the psycho-dynamic approach to conflict.Clearly our research choices limited the nature of the insights available fromthis study and must be considered in any interpretation of the results.

Despite these concerns and limitations, the insights found in the studyhave a number of useful implications for research and practice in creativeorganizations.

Future research

The first potential research question focuses on the context of conflict forcreative organizations. This study has treated the range of arts disciplines ina generic fashion in an attempt to describe the variations in the dynamicitself. But little was done to deconstruct one art discipline from another.More cases need to be studied to be able to differentiate factors in each ofthe four disciplines covered in the study. Using data that include more casesfor each discipline, and other data from film and journalism might providenuances where the organizational mandate plays a role in the conflictdynamics of the duo.

Second, despite the formal equality of the two leaders, there weresubtle and informal differences of power between the two leaders varying bycase. Further investigation of these power differences might provideadditional insights on the dynamics between the two leaders and their impacton the organization.

Third, this study examined the impact of conflict on internal organiz-ational processes, but analysis of external stakeholder impressions of the duo





was abandoned due to complexity in the data. Scholars in the leadership fieldclaim that impression management by charismatic leaders affects externalperceptions of the organization (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Sosik et al., 2002).Research questions might examine stakeholder perceptions of a dual ormultiple leadership structure, the conflict dynamics of that relationship andthe impact on the reputation and on funding of the organization.

Fourth, while these organizations would not claim to be structuredusing matrix principles, latent matrix dynamics appear to be at work. Certainroles like a stage manager in theatre assigned to a specific production mightbe, in fact, functioning as a horizontal coordinating function. Investigatingthe latent matrix dynamics in these organizations would be an interestingand useful investigation to undertake. Further, the implications for matrix-type organizations with a dual executive leadership structure couldbe investigated.

Fifth, while the data of this study do not lend themselves to a psycho-dynamic perspective, there is certainly much to recommend a furtherexamination of such structures using this theoretical approach. Innovative intheir view that groups and organizations are a phenomenon for psycho-analytic study distinct from an individual (Bion, 1961; Miller, 1990a, 1990b;Rice, 1965), these theorists understand conflict as a result of unconsciousanxiety and other assumptions of group behaviour. Leadership is a phenom-enon that functions within the group or organizational context, respondingto and generating these unconscious group dynamics (Schruijer & Vansina,2002). Using this lens might generate further theoretical and practicalinsights for creative organizations and for multiple leadership in general. Aswell, in terms of governance, the examination of a formally mandated dualleadership and its relationship with the Board may be another context thatlends itself to psycho-dynamic study.

Sixth, also looking at governance, the cases in this study demonstratedan interesting trend. In the eight years previous to the study, Boards ofDirectors in five of the eight cases chose to change the leadership structurefrom a single leader to a dual leadership structure following significantproblems of financial control with the single leader. The apparent intent ofthe change was to generate more checks and balances in the organizationthat could be an expression of governance as understood from agency theory(Jensen & Meckling, 1976). The duo’s approach to conflict may influencethe governance dynamic of checks and balances in these organizations.

Seventh, the application of the conflict dissemination construct toresearch in other entities and from other levels within organizations may provide new insights, as well as confirm and extend its usefulnessapplied in other fields of study. It is an innovation from the study of creative




organizations, and has implications for conflict management, and leader-ship studies.

Conclusion

This study focused on the conflict managed within dual executive leadershiptypical in creative organizations and its impact on the organizationalprocesses through dissemination behaviour. The description of this dynamicpresents a portrait that is particularly important to the field of creativeorganizations where conflicts of values, sensibilities and personal tastesdominate the organization. Much has been said about the existence of theparadoxes endemic to these organizations, but little has been said about howthey play out as leadership behaviour. This article provides an initial andexploratory step in that direction.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge many helpful suggestions from EileenFischer, Ann Langley and two anonymous reviewers for Human Relations.

Notes

1 We would like to thank one of our anonymous reviewers for suggesting the potentialpertinence of this literature.

2 We would like to thank one of our anonymous reviewers for this suggestion.3 ‘Dual Leadership: Partnering from the Inside Out’ was a three-day seminar produced

by Dance USA and Theatre Communications Group for member leadership duos.It has been held twice, in 2007 and 2008.

References

Albert, S. & Whetton, D.A. Organizational identity. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds),Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Publishers, 1985,pp. 263–95.

Alexander, V. D. Pictures at an exhibition: Conflicting pressures in museums and the displayof art. American Journal of Sociology, 1996, 101, 797–839.

Allcorn, S. Using matrix organization to manage health care delivery organizations.Hospital and Health Services Administration, 1990, 35, 575–90.

Alvarez, J.L. & Svejenova, S. Sharing executive power. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2005.

Amason, A.C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on




strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academyof Management Journal, 1996, 39, 123–48.

Amason, A.C. & Schweiger, D.M. The effects of conflict on strategic decision-makingeffectiveness and organizational performance. In C.K.W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert(Eds), Using conflict in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1997, pp. 101–15.

Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 1982, 37,122–47.

Barnard, C. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938.Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S. Beyond the m-form: Toward a managerial theory of the firm.

Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 14 (Special Issue), 23–46.Bass, B.M. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press,

1985.Bendixen, P. Skills and roles: Concepts of modern arts management. International Journal

of Arts Management, 2000, 2, 59–73.Bion, W.R. Experience in groups. London: Routledge, 1961.Blake, R. & Mouton, J. The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 1984.Bohn, J. The relationship of perceived leadership behaviors to organizational efficacy.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2002, 9, 65–79.Brown, L.D. Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,

1983.Bryman, A. Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review. The

Leadership Quarterly, 2004, 15, 729–69.Bryman, A., Stephens, M. & à Campo, C. The importance of context: Qualitative research

and the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 1996, 7, 353–70.Burns, L.R. Matrix management in hospitals: Testing theories of matrix structure and

development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1989, 34, 349–68.Caves, R.E. Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 2000.Chiapello, E. Artistes versus managers: Le management culturel face à la critique artiste.

Paris: Editions Métailié, 1998.Clancy, P. Skills and competencies: The cultural manager. In M. Fitzgibbon & A. Kelly

(Eds), From maestro to manager: Critical issues in arts and culture management.Dublin, Ireland: Oak Tree Press, 1997, pp. 341–66.

Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE,1996.

Cray, D., Inglis, L. & Freeman, S. Managing the arts: Leadership and decision makingunder dual rationalities. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 2007, 36,295–313.

De Dreu, C.K.W. Productive conflict: The importance of conflict management and conflictissue. In C.K.W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds), Using conflict in organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1997, pp. 9–22.

De Dreu, C.K.W. & Van de Vliert, E. (Eds). Using conflict in organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: SAGE, 1997.

DeFillippi, R., Grabher, G. & Jones, C. Introduction to paradoxes of creativity: Managerialand organizational challenges in the cultural economy. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 2007, 28, 511–21.

Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L. & Langley, A. The dynamics of collective leadership and strategicchange in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44,809–37.

Deutsch, M. Conflicts: Productive and destructive. Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 25, 7–41.DiMaggio, P.J. The careers and opinions of administrators of American resident theatres,

art museums, orchestras and community arts agencies. Washington, DC: ResearchDivision, National Endowment for the Arts, 1983.



DiMaggio, P.J. Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston, part I: The creationof an organizational base for high culture in America. In P.J. DiMaggio (Ed.), Nonprofitenterprise in the arts: Studies in mission and constraint. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1986, pp. 41–61.

DiMaggio, P.J. Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector on society is probably imposs-ible but possibly useful: A sociological perspective. In P. Flynn & V. Hodgkinson (Eds),Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector. New York: Kluwer Academic, 2001,pp. 249–72.

DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and col-lective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 1983, 48,147–60.

Eikhof, D.R. & Haunschild, A. For art’s sake! Artistic and economic logics in creativeproduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2007, 28, 523–38.

Eisenhardt, K.M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of ManagementReview, 1989a, 14, 532–50.

Eisenhardt, K.M. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academyof Management Journal, 1989b, 32, 543–76.

Eisenhardt, K.M. & Graebner, M.E. Theory building from cases: Opportunities andchallenges. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50, 25–32.

Fayol, H. General and industrial management. London: Isaac Pitman, 1949.Frost, P.J. Toxic emotions at work: How compassionate managers handle pain and conflict.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.Gardner, W.L. & Avolio, B.J. The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23, 32–58.Glynn, M.A. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within

a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 2000, 11, 285–98.Glynn, M.A. Maestro or manager? Examining the role of the music director in a symphony

orchestra. In J. Lampel, J. Shamsie & T. Lant (Eds), The business of culture: Strategicperspectives on entertainment and media. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006,pp. 57–69.

Gronn, P. Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 2002, 13,423–51.

Hambrick, D.C. & Mason, P. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its topmanagers. Academy of Management Review, 1984, 9, 193–206.

Heenan, D.A. & Bennis, W. Co-leaders: The power of great partnerships. New York: Wiley,1999.

Hinds, P.J. & Bailey, D.E. Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributedteams. Organization Science, 2003, 14, 615–32.

House, R.J. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds),Leadership: The cutting edge: A symposium held at Southern Illinois University,Carbondale, 1976. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977, pp. 286–301.

Hunt, J.G., Stelluto, E. & Jooijberg, R. Toward new-wave organization creativity: Beyondromance and analogy in the relationship between orchestra-conductor and musicians.The Leadership Quarterly, 2004, 15, 145–62.

Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. & Veenstra, C. How task and personal conflict shape therole of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 1999,25, 117–42.

Jaques, E. A general theory of bureaucracy. New York: Halsted Press, 1976.Jaques, E. The development of intellectual capability: A discussion of stratified systems

theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 1986, 22, 361–84.Jehn, K.A. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup

conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995, 40, 256–82.




Jehn, K.A. Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups: Increasing performance throughvalue-based intragroup conflict. In C.K.W. De Dreu & E. Van deVliert (Eds), Usingconflict in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1997a, pp. 87–100.

Jehn, K.A. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimension in organizational groups.Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997b, 42, 530–57.

Jehn, K.A. & Mannix, E. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intergroupconflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44, 238–51.

Jensen, M. & Meckling, W. Theory of firm – managerial behavior, agency costs andownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 1976, 3, 305–60.

Jones, C., Anand, N. & Alvarez, J.L. Guest editors’ introduction: Manufactured authen-ticity and creative voice in cultural industries. Journal of Management Studies, 2006,42, 893–9.

Lampel, J., Lant, T. & Shamsie, J. Balancing act: Learning from organizing practices incultural industries. Organization Science, 2000, 11, 263–9.

Lampel, J., Shamsie, J. & Lant, T. Toward a deeper understanding of cultural industries.In J. Lampel, J. Shamsie & T. Lant (Eds), The business of culture: Strategic perspectiveson entertainment and media. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006, pp. 3–14.

Lawrence, P.R., Kolodny, H.F. & Davis, S.M. The human side of the matrix. OrganizationalDynamics, 1977, Summer, 43–61.

Locke, E.A. Leadership: Starting at the top. In C.L. Pearce & J.A. Conger (Eds), Sharedleadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE,2003, pp. 271–84.

Locke, E.A., Conger, J.A. & Pearce, C.L. Theoretical and practitioner letters: Shared leader-ship theory. Leadership Quarterly, 2007, 18, 281–8.

McCracken, G. The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1988.Middleton, M. Nonprofit boards of directors: Beyond the governance function. In W. Powell

(Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,1987, pp. 141–53.

Miller, E.J. Experiential learning in groups I: The development of the Leicester model. InE. Trist & H. Murray (Eds), The social engagement of social science, Vol. I: The socio-psychological perspective. London: Free Association Books, 1990a, pp. 165–85.

Miller, E.J. Experiential learning in groups II: Recent developments in dissemination andapplication. In E. Trist & H. Murray (Eds), The social engagement of social science,Vol. I: The socio-psychological perspective. London: Free Association Books, 1990b,pp. 186–98.

Mintzberg, H. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1979.Mintzberg, H. Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations.

New York: Macmillan, 1989.Mintzberg, H. Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals. Harvard Business

Review, 1998, 76, 140–7.Ostrower, F. & Stone, M.M. Governance: Research trends, gaps, and future prospects. In

W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook, 2nd edn.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007, pp. 612–28.

Palmer, I. Arts managers and managerialism: A cross-sector analysis of CEO’s orientationsand skills. Public Productivity and Management Review, 1998, 21, 433–52.

Pearce, C.L. The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership totransform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 2004, 18, 47–57.

Pearce, C.L. & Conger, J.A. Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leader-ship. New York: Wiley, 2003a.

Pearce, C.L. & Conger, J.A. All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of sharedleadership. In C.L. Pearce & J.A. Conger (Eds), Shared leadership: Reframing the howsand whys of leadership. New York: Wiley, 2003b, pp. 1–18.




Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. & Xin, K.R. Exploring the black box: An analysis of workgroup diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44,1–28.

Peterson, R.A. From impresario to arts administrator: Formal accountability in nonprofitcultural organizations. In P.J. DiMaggio (Ed.), Nonprofit enterprise in the arts: Studiesin mission and constraint. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 161–83.

Peterson, R.S. A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both virtue andvice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1997, 72, 1107–21.

Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. The external control of organizations: A resource dependenceperspective. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

Pondy, L.R. Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 1967, 12, 296–320.

Prashad, S. Are two heads better than one? Toronto Star, 26 March 2006, p. A19.Rice, A.K. Individual, group and intergroup processes. Human Relations, 1965, 22, 565–84.Schruijer, S.G.L. & Vansina, L.S. Leader, leadership and leading: From individual

characteristics to relating in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2002, 23,869–74.

Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J. & Jung, D.I. Beneath the mask: Examining the relationship of self-presentation attributes and impression management to charismatic leadership. TheLeadership Quarterly, 2002, 13, 217–42.

Stodgill, R.M. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature.Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35–71.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1998.

Sy, T. & Cote, S. Emotional intelligence: A key ability to succeed in the matrix organiz-ation. The Journal of Management Development, 2004, 23, 437–55.

Sy, T. & D’Annunzio, L.S. Challenges and strategies of matrix organizations: Top-level andmid-level managers’ perspectives. Human Resources Planning, 2005, 28, 39–48.

Thomas, K.W. Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette &L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2.Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House, 1998, pp. 651–717.

Tjosvold, D. Conflict within interdependence: Its value for productivity and individuality.In C.K.W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds), Using conflict in organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: SAGE, 1997, pp. 23–37.

Tjosvold, D. Defining conflict and making choices about its management: Lighting the darkside of organizational life. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2006, 17,87–95.

Townley, B. The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy ofManagement Journal, 2002, 45, 163–79.

Turquet, P.M. Leadership: The individual and the group. In G.S. Gibbard, J.J. Hartman &R.D. Mann (Eds), Analysis of groups. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1974,pp. 87–144.

Voss, G.B., Cable, D.M. & Voss, Z.G. Linking organizational values to relationships withexternal constituents: A study of non-profit professional theatres. Organization Science,2000, 11, 330–47.

Weber, M. The theory of social and economic organization, trans. T. Parsons. New York:Free Press, 1924/1947.

Yammarino, F.J., Dionne, S.D., Chun, J.U. & Dansereau, F. Leadership and levels ofanalysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 2005, 16, 879–919.

Yin, R.K. Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE,2003.





Appendix A Citations demonstrating constructs in the study (cases are identifiedby capital letters)

Construct Exemplary citations

Conflict typeTask-oriented So I think that you know – I think that’s a very good relationship, a positive conflict relationship even though we scream at each other at times, and we’re able to

scream at each other at times because it is positive. (A)

He’s very inclusive. He rarely makes, he certainly doesn’t make any difficultor what might be perceived as controversial decisions without consultingme. I think that’s one of his strengths, he’s very open to seeking out myopinion almost on everything, maybe he goes too far, I don’t know. (D)

But they’re also both strong enough to see it as an argument aboutsomething other than their personal egos or personal places. They see it notas ego-driven. (G)

We meet regularly. It isn’t every day, but we exchange our ideas by writing aswell. We look at the project we would like to do, and we discuss it in a veryorderly fashion. (I)

You have to travel together, otherwise, it becomes chaotic. When there areproblems to solve, we do it together. (G)

Process-oriented That’s a subject of some tension within the organization. ED would like to be conflict the total face to the Board of everything to do with the symphony. But he

realizes that obviously AD wants to be with the Board too. So what ED triesto do is only have AD present when he’s present and then he can controlthat and AD doesn’t like that. (I)

There are occasions when I can step back and say, ED, you know, I thinkyou’ve just been put under too much pressure by blah blah blah blah blah,whatever list or the Board or the numbers or whatever it is and I think youmight be being coaxed into something that you might not actually have todo, or you might be able to do in another way and we can speak to eachother very freely that way. (I)

And it was a really protracted negotiation, and money-wise we were like ondifferent ends of the world. And he was freaking out, he didn’t know me verywell, and he wasn’t confident that I’d be able to get her, and daily washaranguing me . . . ‘now we’re going to have to have one of these six-weeknegotiations, and you’re just going to have to hold your breath’. But it’s – Iguess I’m confident we’ll have her, but we have to go through the motions ofthe deal. So he’ll mention it every couple of days, no doubt about it. (B)



Human Relations 62(7)

Appendix A Continued


Emotionally- They will have disagreements and they will go their separate ways. We don’t oriented conflict actually see them spending much time together. (D)

It’s all very polite, and that’s being interpreted as we’re not going to screamat each other, and maybe we’re getting to the point where we would actuallysolve a few things if we start to scream at each other. (C)

Yeah well we’re starting to find ourselves in a more polarized position. (C)

Looking at me in the eye, not saying hello to me when he came in, notcoming to any staff meetings, just generally not communicating whatsoever.And when I would come in, when I would go in and look for him and speakto him and try and search him out I would get glared at. Long, long silences,long glares. Just made to feel like I was the enemy. It was very tough. (E)

Conflict disseminationInternal to duo . . . neither of them go tattling, like it’s not like AD is running to the Board

with stories about ED, and ED is not running to the Board with storiesabout AD. They see that they co-exist together. (B)

And generally, if ED has spoken for both of them, AD will respect that. Youknow, he won’t try to say – like he never would say – ‘Why would ED makethat decision? I absolutely disagree with that.’ Like that would never happen.And certainly not, he would never publicly say that. He might go back to EDand say, ‘What were you thinking’ or ‘Let’s talk about this’. (A)

If they do argue, they certainly don’t do it in front of anyone in the companythat I am aware of and this is an arts organization place, we’d all hear aboutit within five minutes if they had a big blowout, and we haven’t. So I thinkthey have a good relationship. (C)

Advice-seeking We don’t always do what AD says but we do always have to take AD’ssuggestion with the respect that it deserves because he does the same forus. (B)

And ED because he very much aligns himself with AD. Although on apersonal level he may agree with me, on an organizational level it’s not amatter of agree or disagree, I don’t mean that we have disagreements onthis, we all talk this through and we make it work but we all have differentassessments of risk and AD’s entrepreneurial background in a smallerorganization where the risks are smaller . . . (D)

Among the three of us I am on one side of the spectrum, AD on the otherside of the spectrum with ED in the middle mediating and . . . you wouldunderstand that ED makes a fine mediator. He has that skill and he does itwell. (D)

1 1 0 6






But I instituted, in the summer, a kind of weekly meeting, call it brainstorming,with himself, with ED, the director of finance xx, who you’ve met and directorof marketing xx which you’re going to meet . . . In which we just kind of[discuss] blue sky ideas. Because I felt I wasn’t getting the opportunity, or weweren’t getting the opportunity to just sit around and just talk about . . . ED’svery process oriented, very good at strategic planning and all of that, butsometimes strategic planning can lead you down the wrong path and so Iwanted to start to question some of our assumptions and had they beenworking and, because we changed the way we did some of our programmingand we changed, we basically cut back on our summer season and I thoughtwe should, we started these meetings in the summer. I think we really neededto sit and talk about whether what’s right, is that move the right way to go,and any other subjects that . . . so we continued to do that, depending oneverybody’s availability, sort of every Friday morning, we meet. (D)

I mean that we’re all equals. And we’re just there to spin ideas around andsee what grabs hold and, here’s a topic, let’s talk about this one. AD mightapproach it that way, I don’t know about director of marketing xx, but Iknow director of finance xx who’s told me that, as round as that table mayor may not be, you guys are still the boss. So it isn’t absolutely round. Myopinion isn’t as equal as your opinion really is what he has said to me. And Irespect that. Because he often says I really wanted to say this at thatbrainstorming but I just knew AD was going to take it the wrong way, or Ijust knew . . . something like that. So there’s still that strategic thinking goingon. It’s not absolutely, and I don’t know if it will ever get there. But I’mpleased with the mindset we have walking into it and I’m pleased that we’vebeen doing it now since the summertime and we continue to do it. (D)

Alliance-seeking AD had a little hissy fit yesterday about . . . how he’s the only one in thisorganization who – he was mad because ED hadn’t made a phone call aboutan artist yet for somebody who he wants for his show18 months down theroad, . . . he made a comment about how he’s the one left holding the bagaround here all the time. (B)

And I would say sharing that with your staff is unnerving. You know in termsof leadership . . . you don’t need to see your leader breaking down. You needto be strong, articulate and calm and focused. You need to inspire, I think youneed to have – as a leader you do need to have your confidants that you canbreak down with, to be vulnerable with. And I just don’t think that we’ve hitthe right balance here. (C)






Well I think he is becoming increasingly critical, the lack of a vision. And sowhen having certain kinds of discussions he will provoke that with us, ratherthan try to engage AD in some kind of a discussion to move us forward. Soyou feel like you are being pulled by the two of them, you know, tends to pullthe family apart, rather than you know how can we help create anenvironment where AD can feel the support or whatever he needs to getpast this barrier. It’s becoming more confrontational rather than nurturing. (C)

Well, instead of talking to each other, they can send the ball back and forth. Ihave that sense from the AD . . . well, even from the ED too. The ED hasnever said to me that he didn’t want to talk with the AD or that he everfound him incompetent. But I have to say that the AD has said to me that hedoesn’t find the ED competent, um, well maybe . . . not adequate. But fromthe ED, I never heard anything like that. But sometimes, there are littleallusions. Like – the AD forgot to tell him something: ‘you know how AD is,he never spoke to me about it’. But is that true? Is that really true that theydidn’t speak to each other about it and tell us about that . . .? You see, Idon’t know really. I doubt it at a certain level. Maybe it is true that theynever spoke about it and they forgot. Or maybe they spoke about it but theydon’t want to tell us. But it is a manner of self-protection. (G)

Mediation From other people’s perspective what wasn’t working was just the lack ofmutual respect that was going on, and the tension and all that good stuff. (C)

No they don’t argue, they just avoid, and they’re very professional. Nobodyknows it’s there, and so when . . . both of them will talk to me individuallyquite a bit and I can kind of see it coming. I mentioned it to our Pres. andshe said I’m not seeing it, and then she started to see it too, so then I justtalked to both of them. She talked to both of them. (C)

It took them a while because they’re both stubborn. These are not rookiesthat will be easily swayed from their position. They’re both a couple ofstubborn types those two, and so I gave them that feedback and so now, youknow, make it work or we’ll make the decisions, and then you’ll have to livewith what we decide. (C)

I mean because that relationship was so dysfunctional I don’t think they evenspoke to each other in the last months. Like I think they spoke through the(staff xx), and so that put (staff xx) in the middle . . . (C)

1 1 0 8






We as a Board did not play a significant role in managing the relationshipbetween them, you know because I only came on a year and a half ago as achair. You’re putting out fires everywhere. If you clear the smoke away youmight get a glimpse that maybe half a year to three quarters of a year intothe year that I’ve been there, I started to see: okay there’s some problemshere, and you can hear right. I mean you can hear ED saying you know AD’snot or you know AD’s whatever it is, I mean you can hear things arehappening. You can hear that there’s a problem, but you can’t fix it becausethere’s nothing you can do. (E)

Abdication of If there are two, it requires that everyone is completely in agreement. But if decisions there isn’t agreement, it requires someone to decide at some point. And the

tendency is to send it up to the Board. (G)

Well, there are two people involved. This doubles the responsibility of theBoard, and it doubles the complexity of the management of the organization.And the other problem is that there is no boss. In other words, in anyorganization where this structure exists, it requires that there is a boss, andwhen there are two people, the conflict, and important decisions are goingto be dealt with by whom? The decisions are currently taken by thepresident of the Board. (G)

(Board Treasurer) So I am trying to be that buffer because if the organizationreverts to the structure where the ED can’t say anything, can’t override,someone has got to do it. So I feel responsible enough that I’m going tomake sure that the decision floats up to me. So without trying to impairtheir working relationship . . . (E)

Organizational processesOperational Timelyfunctions And I think from my colleagues in the business, I think that the perception

there is it’s a very strong team. I know that ED is one of the first executivedirectors, that has actively pursued or has taken an active interest inpursuing opportunities, I suppose, which will support AD and what he wantsto do. And consequently, it’s that that’s made the company grow. I think thatthat’s what people will perceive. (A)

I think that’s part of his credibility with Board members, is that, you know, it’sjust so clear he’s very passionate about this organization and it beingsuccessful. That gives a lot of confidence from those that have hired him. (A)

I think of ED and I think okay, here we have an organization that is well run. Imean it is on a level of sophistication of the systems and of the organization,and the expectations of the senior management and how that iscommunicated. (A)






I think there’s confidence in ED. There’s excitable people, but you know theBoard, I think the Board has confidence in the organization and of the staffto get the plans made up to address the issues. (C)

I think what’s happening is for anybody that works here, they say, we have anAD that’s making it work for us. If we didn’t have an AD making it work theneverything else is going to fail. So I think they have in their head, here’s whatwe need, he’s doing what we need to get done. (H)

SlowIt was leaderless in a way, the whole – there wasn’t anybody naming what wewould become. We were pitching a campaign on don’t lose this, don’t losethis beautiful community entity, so we were pitching on our past, not whatwe were going to become. (C)

I have been waiting in limbo land and yet as you know decisions are beingmade by sponsors, and the kind of money we need is significant, and so, yeahI mean how much myself do I want to put up there in order to close thedeal if I don’t necessarily have the confidence, because again AD is not outthere selling. I’m out there selling, and I’m out there trying to explain thevision to the extent I can. But I end up focusing a lot on pastaccomplishments, rather than . . . (C)

Leadership Strongattributions AD’s leadership style I don’t know how to describe it. He’s an arts guy. I

mean I don’t understand those people. But I like what he does, you knowfrom an artistic perspective you know I’m trying to figure out how tounderstand him, you know and how he comes up with what he does but Ithink that’s more of a technical issue as opposed to a leadership issue. (B)

And you know what that has kind of given back is undying dedication to himin this organization. So that to me is a real gift. (B)

And so I think it makes it – for the staff they don’t get a lot of exposure tohim, so I think that they’re very excited to serve him. Like when he doesspeak at company meetings and they do interact with him, they’re verycharged up after. (A)

Well, the two individuals could have strength in the right brain or left brain, soyou’ve got four parts. You’ve got ED who could weigh in and have anunderstanding and a deep appreciation of the artistic side and the businessside, and AD who could do the same. You’ve got four possibilities. I guess it’spossible that, out of four, you could get zero. You could get one of four.Probably the organization’s operating on a kind of two out of four hopefully,when each guy is good at what they do best. But I think in this situation you’veprobably got a three or a three and a half out of four, which is pretty good. (A)

I think everyone would say that they have a really good relationship with oneanother and that there’s a lot of trust and respect for one another. (A)

1 1 1 0






There is a real sense of cohesion between staff and Board at DD. (D)

We like AD so much, we want him to stay, we want him to be happy. (I)

ED I think is well liked by the people who work with him and for him. I thinkthey have a lot of time for him, I think they work well under his directionand that he gives them a good amount of scope to achieve their own stuffand he acknowledges that very well. (B)

We don’t always do what AD says but we do always have to take AD’ssuggestion with the respect that it deserves because he does the same forus. (D)

And AD and ED are both I think very highly regarded. (D)

WeakED was never available. The last six months he was just never available. Hewould be in his office with the door closed, on the phone or email, he wouldbe out at wherever, meetings or lunches or whatever. There was noleadership coming from him.(E)

I think leadership disappears in that context absolutely. And I think thatthere is an opportunity for other areas of an organization to showleadership when some areas fail. So if an executive director, as was the casewith me, starts to feel like failure is imminent, and I think there areopportunities for other areas of the organization to show leadership, and inmy experience at EE, there wasn’t any leadership coming from anywhereelse, so it was a spiralling sense of doom. (E)

Morale HighTo me the number one element of success is the reputation it has with theartists. Everyone tells me it’s a great place to work, that artists love comingto work for CC, that often times our pay isn’t necessarily in line with whatthey’re used to. (C)

You know from not a direct observation but an indirect observation, youknow I understand that the performers love to come back to work with AD. (B)

LowLack of gusto. Lack of energy. Lack of a desire to find a solution. A dwindlingsense of commitment and a growing sense of tension and anger, which reallycuts into productivity. (E)

I think it only becomes an issue and feels bad when you get to the pointwhere it just feels like it’s all going to just crumble. It’s all just about to fallapart . . . It felt that something had to happen. He had to leave, I had to leave,the place had to you know implode, something big was going to happen ifthere was no way around this then there is no way we could continue topretend this wasn’t happening, or you know that kind of thing. (E)



Wendy Reid is Visiting Professor in the Management Department atHEC-Montréal. Having recently completed her doctorate in Organiz-ational Behaviour, she has had an executive management career inperforming arts and public broadcasting organizations in Canada. Herresearch interests are in leadership, governance, and group processes innon-profit and creative organizations.[E-mail: [email protected]]

Rekha Karambayya is Associate Professor of Organization Studies atthe Schulich School of Business, York University, Canada. Her currentresearch interests include conflict management, identity and identificationprocesses in organizations and organizational diversity. Her work hasbeen published in the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Organiz-ational Behaviour and Journal of Business Ethics.[E-mail: [email protected]]




human relations 2009 reid 1073 112

Documents