Symbolic leadership

This item has been on the quality assurance side of the portal sociology entered. This is done in order to bring the quality of the articles on the subject of sociology to an acceptable level. Help eliminate the shortcomings in this article and participate in the discussion . ( Enter article )

The symbolic leadership approach is a modern concept of personnel management . The concept consists of two components, the symbolized leadership and the symbolic leadership (cf. in detail Oswald Neuberger (2002)). Leadership is invisible. Because leadership cannot be recognized as such, it has to be personified in order to be taken seriously and to be real. But it also acts invisibly, namely indirectly z. B. about institutions, rules and artifacts etc. that replace them. Symbols play a prominent role as means or media; Leadership is symbolized and it symbolizes. Leading is therefore a special case of not only political but also social action, for which it is generally true that representation and pretense are closely related. Managers do not just act, they stage their actions and provide them with instructions for interpretation and direction. That is what is meant when we speak of symbolic leadership.

Terms

The term symbolic leadership is easy to misunderstand. The adjective “symbolic” can give the impression that this form of leadership is only given, that is, not really, as if it were just about the pretense of leadership or a show. However, that is not what is meant. Leadership and leadership are not always easy to understand or control. Thus, a sense of purpose must be conveyed through leadership and leadership (see also transformational leadership ). The term symbolic encompasses the two aspects of meaningful leadership, namely symbolized and symbolizing leadership. In the original sense of the word, symbol means “joining”. In the past, a broken object (e.g. a ring or medallion) served as a sign of identification if the parts could be joined together when they met again. This basic element can still be found: A symbol is something concrete, what is separate is put together and it has a transferred meaning that points beyond itself. What a symbol refers to does not have to be present. It may be invisible or non-representational symbols stand for something for something for someone. For example, logos, flags, pins and pins are symbols of togetherness or loyalty. "In this context, symbols are to be understood as signs with which a large number of people associate very specific common values, wishes, feelings, memory images, meanings, etc." ( Lutz von Rosenstiel (1992), p. 55) Symbol make sense. The Sinn Foundation does it through the Sinn-Bild. The Sinn Foundation is not an individual service, but requires social commitment and comprehensibility. Which sense is expressed through this objectification is determined by certain interpretations. With symbolic leadership (leadership as a symbol) every action should be given meaning by the agent, i.e. by the manager.

Theory elements and leadership theory aspects

Jürgen Weibler (1995), p. 2018, states that “a closed theory on symbolic leadership or the related term symbolic management” is not available. That is still the case. Symbolic guidance is therefore only a “label” that identifies the various facets of guidance with symbols. In this context, the task of the leader is to create a common perception and interpretation of the given situation. The aim is “that this gives rise to the legitimation and the desire to tackle and realize joint plans. Symbolizations help significantly. "(Rosenstiel (1992), p. 55)

Symbolic leadership is especially important wherever

• “There is uncertainty about what is to be achieved;
• Doubts arise in the evaluation of goals to be achieved;
• the acceptance is to be increased;
• Employees can hardly be controlled by their superiors in terms of content;
• it is questionable whether general principles automatically legitimize company action;
• Organizations, eg in crises, should or must be given a changed identity overall;
• individual, previously established views / meanings / goals need to be changed;
• Leader and led are in reduced personal contact with one another;
• self-control is desirable for those being guided, but this has to move within a previously binding framework;
• Loyalty, commitment and consensus are more important than expertise to success;
• especially collectives rather than individual individuals should be addressed. "(Weibler (1995), p. 2022)

With symbolic leadership, a common focus on goals can be secured in such situations and the motivation to act together can be strengthened.

The symbolized leadership

From the superior's point of view, symbolized leadership characterizes the more passive or defensive aspect of symbolic leadership. It assumes that leadership (action control) is hidden in facts: In this context, facts are communication, actions and gestures as well as objects and artifacts:

• Communication, such as B. language rules, slogans, speeches, anecdotes, such as legends about founders and entrepreneurs: Reinhold Würth , Steve Jobs etc.,
• Actions and gestures, such as B. Traditions, rituals, habits, customs that become visible through on-boarding new employees, assessments, birthday or anniversary celebrations, incentive trips, etc.,
• Objects and artifacts, such as B. status symbols, logos, badges, flags, certificates, control devices, which are substantiated by company buildings, company vehicles or clothing, etc.

This means that action is reliably channeled. This means that superiors have an indirect (indirect) effect on their employees.

The symbolizing leadership

The symbolic leadership as the second component is the active part of the symbolic leadership. Significant facts should be changed here. So it's about the emergence of a new meaning. Here the symbolic leadership touches the so-called transformational leadership . The connection arises in the implementation and / or standardization of interpretation patterns in the team (shared mental models) and the interpretation of the present and the future for the individual. The task of leadership is to convey the 'right' meaning or to ensure the 'right' interpretation. For example, the particular size of a manager's room could also be interpreted as a waste or swank and not as a proof of success or power and suitable for representational purposes.

Conclusion

Symbolic tour complements the 'classic' tour. Through the use of communication, actions and gestures, objects and artifacts, it provides a basis and occasion for a dialogue with employees. In an environment that is becoming increasingly complex, ambiguous, contradictory and networked, it enables simplification. That supports v. a. where direct control of employees or organizational units is not possible or is only possible with difficulty (e.g. spatial, temporal, quantitative). Brands, logos, rituals, etc. connect leadership and employees. Symbolic guidance can also be used where there is uncertainty or doubt about the goal to be achieved, where acceptance should be increased, for example in a far-reaching process of change, or where self-control is desired. Management can thus reduce uncertainty.

Further examples of the attempt at 'mental programming' are all leadership substitutes such as B. management principles, 360 ° feedback system, balanced scorecard , furnishing an office or (in-) official dress code or carefully staged board appearances. In a positive way, leadership becomes visible or even personified.

See also

• Management theory
• Industrial and organizational psychology

literature

• B. Blessin, A. Wick: Leading and letting lead - approaches, results and criticism of leadership research. 8th edition. UVK, Konstanz / Munich 2017.
• B. Blessin, A. Wick: The formed sense - symbolic leadership. In: Labor and Labor Law. No. 8, 2014, pp. 455–458.
• O. Neuberger: Lead and let lead - approaches, results and criticism of leadership research. 6th edition. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2002.
• L. v. Rosenstiel: symbolic leadership. In: io management magazine. 61. Vol., No. 3, 1992, pp. 55-58.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ J. Weibler: Symbolic leadership. In: A. Kieser, G. Reber, R. Wunderer (eds.): Concise dictionary of leadership. Poeschel, Stuttgart 1995, pp. 2015-2026.