Semiotic Theory

Organizational cultures are filled with cultural products or communicative signs that point to something, or signify meaning, and symbols that represent a socially understood concept. It is these signs and symbols that add a rich complexity to our communication. One aspect of which is expressed through mythologies. The academic meaning of the term myth, as opposed to the meaning one might receive from the general public, is not a false story. In the field of linguistics or semiotics, myth is defined as a “system of communication” (Barthes, 1972, p. 109).

A culture’s myths originate from its collective memory and serve “to create a picture of the world, to establish identity between distant spheres” (Lotman, 1990, p. 152). In other words, our myths help us to make sense of the world, how it functions, and the individual’s significance or purpose within that world. The mythologies shared by an organization provide the culture’s worldview, ethical structures, and the reasoning beyond the norms within which the members operate. These shared mythologies are a cultural product of society created by its members. Yet, the members are also a product of society (Berger, 1990, p. 3). It might be said that the organization creates the mythologies that create them. Learning to recognize and interpret these mythologies provides one with the means to contextualize change strategies that may be more quickly adopted.

Exploring Jazz culture reveals a symbolically rich experience played out within a highly ritualized sacred space. It is within this context that we witness the leadership of Miles Davis as he relentlessly pursued his Jazz vision. Leadership within the context of the arts, specifically certain genres of music such as Jazz, operates under a very different understanding of the image of a leader. In the sphere of musical genres, antisocial acts, such as excessive indulgences and misanthropic behavior, are believed to add to the authentic image of a true artist. Without these significant anti-social symbols, the artist, by some perspectives, may not be seen as legitimate but as a pretender or “wannabe.” The art produced by those labeled as “original” is considered authentic and perceived to contain legitimacy. The pretender’s art is not a reflection of a “lived” life and lacks any of the rich qualities that would be expected from the “experienced” life.

The problem with defining leadership is the myriad of persons who define themselves as leaders.

If we continue to use the generalized definition that a leader is someone with followers, then everyone is, was, or will eventually be leading. In other words, everyone finds themselves at the front of the line at some point in their life. But, I pose the question, is there a difference between the acting of leading and the concept of  leadership? It may be that this discussion is difficult because we find ourselves in the midst of the dilemma.

An example is the fact that many scholars have reached the resolution that attempting to differentiate between the generational divides of modernity and postmodernity is far too difficult at this point because we are living in the midst the transition. These same scholars (mostly humanities) dropped this discussion several years ago because it showed no signs of forward progress. It would seem that it is easier to define certain phenomena as a self-contained historical context–a moment in time. Those historical moments are what provides us with an image of leadership.

This task proves difficult when one so desperately needs to find a definition that is inclusive of one’s self. From an historical perspective most can clearly discern those who possessed leadership out of the multitudes that were merely leading. Yet, the context of that portrayal of leadership is important to understand. I for one would not want a corporate leader leading me into a combat situation. The same can be said for political leaders leading a football team to the Super Bowl, and the thought of Mother Teresa leading the forces in the Battle for Khafji during Desert Storm is rather absurd.

I would simply posit that leading is a social response to an event performed by individuals within a particular context whose actions impact a system and signify culturally defined symbols that we recognize and identify with leadership. With Richard Barker’s introduction of statesmanship, management, supervision, command into the conversation as being on par with the term leadership, others turned the discussion towards these as traits. I see each of these terms as having their own symbolic place as defined acts or aspects of leadership and not specific traits.

Some have stated that leadership is not a symbolic act as if this in some way minimizes a leader.  I would be foolish to think that everyone in a field of study is there for the same reasons or approach the topic from the same perspective. I can only speak for myself when I say that I am not pursuing my research to define myself as a leader, nor do I entertain the notion that researching these topics will even make me a leader. If one is attempting to pursue this topic for  scholarly contribution to the field of leadership philosophy, then one need not be concerned with what the discoveries might say about one’s self. One would have to be willing to conclude that although they may have lead or even will lead, they might not possess the qualities of leadership that are symbolically being defined from an historical analysis of leadership events. Once a researcher steps out of their own paradigm and accepts the fact that they are not the rule by which all things are measured, then honest research can begin. Therein lies the asperity of leadership study.