Wie is de baas? : leiderschap gevangen in verblindend spektakel : een hermeneutisch onderzoek naar de spectaculaire elementen van leiderschap

Although there are a great many studies on leadership, a dynamic society constantly demands new insights. A big social development is the expanding influence of the image culture and mass media: the arrival of television and internet has changed society dramatically. Contemporary image culture offers leaders a stage to display themselves on and to increase their influence. This has radically changed leadership: leaders are more visible now than they have ever been before, though paradoxically they have never been more inaccessible to their followers. In his book La Société du Spectacle (1967) the French philosopher Guy Debord (1931-1994) describes a society in which leaders play a similar role. He calls this society the ‘society of the spectacle ’. The research approach in this study is interpretative and critical. Furthermore two methods typical for this type of research are combined, respectively hermeneutics (Ricoeur, 1970) and cultural and ideological critique. Hermeneutics plays the principle role here. The first central question of this research is, how and to what extent does image and (in)visibility play a role in contemporary Western theory about leadership? Although not mentioned as such earlier, we can conclude that image and (in)visibility certainly are a part of both the traditional management literature as well as sociological theories about leadership. Both elements are present in the current schools of thought about leadership theory, but are nowhere explicitly mentioned as being part of leadership. The second central question about whether leadership, in Guy Debord’s terminology, has acquired a spectacular character can also be confirmed. Analyses show that the spectacle has infiltrated every level of current leadership and leadership theory. The elements of the society of the spectacle figure prominently in all the articles. The authors, for example, acknowledge the influence of illusion and celebrity in appointment processes and the consequences of indentifying with leaders. Furthermore, the authors of the articles describe a number of trends where leadership will have to adapt. But there are no proposals to root out abuses. The authors make the observation that, under the influence of the commodity fetish, leaders award themselves extremely large bonuses. However, they do not advise leaders to stop this practice. No; instead they propose new, seemingly reasonable regulations that stifle further criticism of large bonuses. The authors then focus on secondary problems that are a result of the spectacle. In short, they acknowledge the symptoms (with appointments, in communication, in bonuses, in control, in manipulating information, etcetera), but do not specifically identify them as spectacle. The solutions that they offer therefore only address the symptoms, as a result they subconsciously allow the spectacle to absorb its shortcomings and become stronger. Fundamental criticism on the influences that make leadership even more spectacular is nowhere to be found. These remarkable conclusions round off this study, but open the way to innovative leadership research in the future. Will the spectacle succeed in absorbing the criticism on leadership