Contextual leadership in organizations

How leaders create and manipulate context by means of social sciences

Asoss Zaitali
Chalmers University of Technology
International Project Management
zaitaliasoss@gmail.com
Bjrn Tropf
Chalmers University of Technology
International Project Management
bjoerntropf@gmail.com
Georgios Pardalis
Chalmers University of Technology
International Project Management
giorgospardalis@gmail.com






Abstract This report investigates how leaders enhance their
context by means of social sciences. It explores the morality of the
methods leaders resolve to and whether the acts are specious or
commendable. The overall sentiment is that contextual leadership
is justifiable if the leader presents aims that benefit the greater
commonwealth positively. In conclusion, the ailment of
sensationalism and domineering can be neutralized if individuals
exercise in acuity and questioning.
I. INTRODUCTION
Much of the information we know is comprised of parts
given to us and parts taken in by us, this is of course assuming
we actively participate in the events that occur in the world and
not seclude ourselves completely from reality. In order to
comfortably partake in these events, society has ultimately
constructed a vast network of agents responsible for sharing
and processing information that is viewed as important. This
report investigates what happens when different agents instead
obscure the information in an attempt to secure their personal
agenda. By manipulating context, focus and environment entire
audiences can be misled to believe the acts on that specific
stage. This method lends itself very well when trying to for
instance convey political agendas, journalistic sensationalism
or any hocus-pocus to be completely blunt. This report will
focus on revealing some of the techniques used by people of
importance in order to create contexts where they are in control
of questions asked and answers given. This report is interesting
for numerous reasons. Firstly, it tries to expose how media
influences the general public into perceiving world news,
advertising and entertainment. Secondly, it describes the power
play used by our world leaders to promote their ideas. Thirdly,
it teaches people the rules of the arena and how to become
individual game changers.
II. METHOD
This report is peer review based and collects empirical data
from scientific journals, literature and websites in an attempt
to investigate the relation between contextual leadership and
the use of framing, spinning, lying, priming and agenda-
setting. Evidence is given in examples, concepts and
arguments that are derived from facts and assumptions. The
writing is deductive in nature and the overall approach on the
subject is observational. The conclusion is experimental and
heavily influenced by personal opinions and reflections.
III. LEADERSHIP AND JUDGEMENT
A. Contextual leadership
In governments and business enterprises there can be
identified four major activity sets that have to be taken into
account by the leader. Storey (2006) describes them as
organizational contexts for leadership. All contexts are
related to or revolve around a common purpose. They are
described as follows:
! Leadership in Governing Around Purpose
! Leadership in Administering Toward Goals
! Leadership in Managing Means
! Leadership in Delivering Services
The aspect of governance is important, as the wider purpose
of every government or business is to create benefits for human
needs. It does not matter whether we discuss about a steel
company or a hospital; organizations exist because people
gather around a purpose. Governance is therefore linked to
purpose: Without a purpose, there is nothing to be governed. A
leader is only able to lead if he understands the governance of
an organization or is able to create it.
While being closely related to governance, Administering
Toward Goals essential task is to identify the boundaries of
the organizational purpose and to ensure the realization of all
embodied goals. Without administration the set purpose and
goals might soften and not be reached at all. In order to carry
out the necessary steps to reach the goals, it is crucial that the
leader is aware of his means and manages them efficiently, e.g.
ensure the performance in the best possible manner, and
effectively, e.g. producing the expected result. There is always
a limitation on resources and therefore a limitation on what can
be achieved. A leader has to know the existing limitation and
try to expand it. Coming back to the overall purpose, delivering
services is essential to ensure leadership in the long run or as
Storey (2006) describes it: Those who deliver service offer
us a primary measure of whether organizational purpose is
being achieved. For this report it is necessary to mention that
leaders are often public presenters of the organization and its
purpose. A good way to create a context is by delivering
results.
B. The ability to diagnose context
The ability to diagnose contexts successfully requires a
natural inclination towards leadership and a tendency to see the
bigger picture even when dealing with narrow working
environments. It is a skill that is above job roles, working
experience and organizations and it is aligned to the leadership
competencies of an individual. In order for this to be achieved
there is a need for individuals to change their way of thinking
and change the way in which all the data is assimilated. There
are those that place this ability on the same level as
organizational learning (Kofman and Senge 1993).
Nonetheless, the ability to diagnose context is strictly an
individual skill and not the result of effective organizational
learning strategies.
As Hannah (2009) point out, whatever contextual
variations exist, political leadership- followership is always a
social process of adaptation and innovation. The leader has to
either adapt to the environment, or be innovative enough to
create a new context. The latter is rather difficult, as context is
behind every action within the organization. It has no certain
forms and always includes all the possible variables of an
event. The one that has the ability to know or to form every
aspect of the organizational context has the power to interpret it
in a right way and apply it in the best possible way. Summing
up, we can form a definition for what is called Contextual
Intelligence as it is stated by Kutz (2008): Contextual
Intelligence is the ability to quickly and intuitively recognize
and diagnose the dynamic contextual variables inherent in an
event or circumstance and results in intentional adjustment of
behavior in order to exert appropriate influence in that
context.
C. The science of judgement
Before looking at how certain individuals influence
deviously, we need to contend how people pass judgment in
general. Judgment according to psychologist Daniel
Kahnemann is inherently based on a two-system view. Humans
either respond with intuition or reasoning. (Kahnemann, 2002).
The scheme shown in Figure 1 shows the two different modes
that people operate under when in a cognitive state. For the
purpose of this report we will instead focus on how this affects
the sequence in which we handle information given by a
second party.

If we assume that a person is in a perpetual System 1 state then
one can argue that judgment is intuitive. Kahnemann explains
that this state is dealing with concepts and percepts and can be
evoked by language (Kahnemann, 2002). It is also further
explained by the author that System 2 is involved in most
judgments but that the label intuitive is applied to all
judgments that reflect impressions (Kahnemann, 2002). Thus,
if we were hypothetically to create a powerful impression,
reasoning could be passively bypassed and allow subjects to
remain in a state where cognitive processes are fast, automatic
and effortless.
One way to understand this phenomenon is to solve a puzzle
given by Professor Shane Frederick: A bat and a ball cost
$1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much
does the ball cost? 5 cents would be the right answer, yet
Frederick found that almost half of the students asked in his
study had an immediate impulse that gave the wrong answer,
with the majority answering 10 cents. This problem illustrates
according to Kahnemann how lightly the output of System 1
is monitored by System 2. The author concludes by writing:
...people are not accustomed to thinking hard, and are often
content to trust a plausible judgment that quickly comes to
mind... (Kahnemann, 2002). This lends strength to the idea
that any argument regardless of how credible it might be, can
be plausible depending on the skill and tact of its user.
IV. SOCIAL SCIENCES
A. Framing
In the words of famous Republican Frank Luntz: Its not
what you say, its how you say it (Luntz, 1997). With these
words Luntz successfully became the first one to
systematically campaign using the concept of framing.
Framing acts on the premise that the user can influence how
the audience evaluates a story, by effectively presenting a
focus and scenario with own characterizations (Scheufele &
Tewksbury, 2007).

According to Entman (1993), framing is based on four key
aspects: The prerequisite and first aspect for framing is found
in the lack of information in people. Leaders are able to form a
message in which the actual subject of their agenda is of minor
importance. Rather the reliance on emotions and on the sub-
consciousness of the recipients is of essence and makes the
leaders message more digestible and accepted by the masses.
To support the first aspect, a whole objective framework of
information is created around the dominant meaning that aims
to block the recipients mind from having a clear view about
the fact and making their own assumptions. As a result, the
truth that the message wants to pass on seems the only
logical explanation and it is followed by a vast majority of
people. Entman (1993) stresses the use of coders, i.e. bold
text, images or music, as third aspect. These are used to tote
up all messages that are considered to be positive or negative
and draw conclusions from the most significant meanings. The
reader becomes more focused on these coders and fails to
examine all the elements of the message, resulting in
misinterpreting the finer key points. Moving on the thin red
line between framing and manipulating, the fourth aspect is
about the formation of the public opinion.

This social phenomenon is today actively used by media when
reporting facts and is usually used in conjunction with the
manipulation of other narrative elements. For example, a study
by Pratt, Ha, and Pratt (2002) showed that media on the one
hand often used negative descriptions when reporting on
diseases such as HIV/AIDS, but on the other hand had neutral
terms of diseases like tuberculosis. Another example is the
topic of climate change. The way a message is framed can
according to Arnold (2013) easily alter the public opinion.
News titles like global warming, ice caps melting or
preventing the next ice age all talk about climate change, but
expand the topic, enable readers to consider different
perspective and give a the topic a high urgency. In this way,
the media has established a frame for interpretation that can be
reinforced further by the use of a complementary technique
called spinning.

B. Spinning
Spinning involves taking a topic and focusing on the flip-
side, it is manipulative in the sense that the person is twisting
the belief of the public. Framing creates the foundation in
which spinning helps delude the specific topic to fit whatever
motives the speaker has. Framing alone is an invaluable tool
when trying to present complex issues and make the
information accessible (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). It is
however the additional use of a spin that quickly questions the
morality of the situation.

One example would be the gradual onset of the automotive
industry. Before streets were filled with all sorts of vehicles,
parents encouraged their children to go outside and play. With
the emergence of the automobile, death statistics reached an
all-time high with thousands of children dying yearly. The
media portrayed the car as a death machine and the deaths
were considered public tragedies. With the automotive
industry suddenly being in a pinch for trying to claim the
streets, they redirected the blame onto the parents, calling it
human recklessness. This is textbook spinning (Mars, 2013).
The automotive companies tried spinning in an effort to shift
the responsibility from their alleged automobiles to the fact
that the deaths were a result of human error.

C. Lying
The act of lying is quintessentially the best invention man
has made. Never has it been so easy to increase personal
prowess through the use of blanket statements, engineered to
either capture or divert your attention. With just a few words,
the user has the power to disguise, mislead, misconduct,
fabricate, circumvent and bluff the true nature of his or her
motives. This does not necessarily mean that all lies are ill
natured but refraining from the use of it is highly
recommended, as some intelligent individuals know how to
skillfully dismantle them.

Not all lies are shrewdly invented, one such lie is the one
given by United States military officials. In an article written
by Elisabeth Bumiller, the author reports how military
officials downright lie about a military mission taken place in
Baghdad, Iraq. The official statement given by the military is
that Apache helicopters had been called in to help American
troops combat local violence (Bumiller, 2010). A video that
was officially released later, shows that what was thought to
be armed and hostile insurgents were in fact Reuters
employees carrying their cameras (Bumiller, 2010). This is
one of many dubious statements given by military officials in
order to downplay their mistakes with flat out lies. In terms of
what tools are used by media, there are two additional means
for manipulation: Agenda setting and priming.

D. Agenda setting
As Scheufele & Tewksbury (2007) point out, Agenda
setting refers to the idea that there is a strong correlation
between the emphasis that mass media place on certain issues
[...] and the importance attributed to these issues by mass
audiences. If the same image or idea is presented over and
over again in common media like television or in online
newspapers, people will start to adapt this image or idea as
their own, even though they never question the content of it.
The major consensus narrative, e.g. the truth the majority
agrees on, is challenged by agenda setting, but in a way that is
not obvious to the majority. Before the collapse of the Lehman
Brothers, the general perception of banks and financial
institutions was rather positive. Nowadays, most people have a
negative image of investment bankers. When asked, they
assure you that they were always sure that there was
something wrong with the financial system. Like the Asch
experiment demonstrated, people adopt the major consensus
narrative very fast, even if they had a different opinion before
that. Agenda setting uses this phenomenon to influence
people.

E. Priming
Priming is less subtle than the before mentioned methods
and can in fact be very aggressively used by the media. It
basically refers to how the media provide a context for public
discussion by reporting on an issue which is explicitly there to
give way for audience understanding (Scheufele &
Tewksbury, 2007). An example would be the almost
suffocating coverage on huge sports events such as Super
Bowl or the Winter Olympics, the media puts it out there so
strongly that it is difficult as an audience to ignore. This
allows media to increase the size of its audience albeit
temporarily, still sufficiently. This effective tool can sadly
promote corruption since leaders can use the media to further
their own private schemes. Whoever controls the prints,
controls the audience.
V. DISCUSSION

A. How does leadership benefit from social sciences?
A leader who abstains from the ability to control a large
number of people is dismissive of the virtuous. Framing as a
tool helps to invoke thought or imagination, it is the
subsequent use of lies that detracts what is morally justifiable.
Nonetheless, with the aid of before mentioned methods, a
leader can grant himself or herself the power to set direction
and create purpose. This will allow him or her to govern the
context of her leading. When in this position, he or she can
control a host of different strategies: Deceiving in order to
achieve short-term goals, puppeteering the media and as a
result own the public opinion, playing with the order of
succession in rule and finally having the magic to dispose or
impose whatever vision they deem fit. What makes all of this
possible? It is a combination of innate charismatic ability and
the misuse of increased attention.

B. Are all discussed methods immoral or manipulative?
British poet William Ernest Henley once wrote: It matters
not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the
scroll. I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my
soul. This quote poses an important question. Are we held
morally accountable for whatever truth we believe in? If yes,
how can we pass judgment onto our leaders and if no, how can
we vindicate our wrong? Lets take a look at how we classify
each method. Framing can be done instinctively and is a way
of presenting an idea open for interpretation, it allows for
instance scientifically inclined reporters to reduce the
complexity of issues so that they can be more accessible to the
less scientifically knowledgeable population. Imagine
explaining stem cell research to soccer moms in a traditional
manner.

The above example is arguably morally right, it is however the
intent that can easily change the ethics of the situation. If we
hamper with the objective truth in order to mislead, then it can
be argued that the tendency to immoral behavior is increasing.
By stating that the glass is half full we offer a frame. A spin
instead would be to claim that somebody said the glass is half
empty while he or she actually said it was half full. In this way
we still state the same fact, e.g. that the glass contains the
same amount of fluid, but change the attitude of a person
towards it. We can than call the other person a pessimist, even
though he or she said the glass was half full. We need to
analyze the purpose of the spin to decide whether the motive is
morally unjustified.

C. Do the methods create stereotypes about leadership?
If we assume that all methods discussed are prevalent and
active in succession, then we most likely are dealing with the
stereotype of tyrannical leadership. Ruling in this case is
dogmatic and heavily influenced and reinforced by the ruler. If
the leader for instance produces positive content and uses
priming to lift the spirits of his people, Churchill being one
example, then context can arguably be called heroic in the
sense that moral and pride is being uplifted. The ends didnt
really justify the means in this specific cause though.

To really demonstrate the efficiency of the methods, we can
take a look at a modern leader. Namely G. W. Bush. He was a
leader with obvious weaknesses both in character and in
control, yet his reign involved and sparked one of the most
active war on terrorism campaigns in world history. He single
handedly increased the walking distance for the average
American from three meters to three Iraqi tours.

D. How can the methods be used on a smaller scale?
On a smaller scale the use of spinning and lying is very
dangerous since the clear use of it is more evident. It is easier
for a lie to go full circle before it ends up backfiring. The very
reason why it is successful on a larger scale, is the reason why
it fails on a smaller one. It simply is easier for the people you
reach out to, to reach back and be an obstacle in your way.

Furthermore, in a managerial context most of the decisions are
authoritarian and less democratic, so there really is no need for
a manager to convince the purpose of his overall intent.
Framing can definitely be used generously in order to raise
motivation, priming is also acceptable since it can endorse
healthy competition, maybe inform employees that a
promotion is on its way. It is also a very valuable tool for
describing company vision.

E. What are the consequence for the leader / the followers?
As the contextual leadership itself, the consequences of the
presented methods are also very dependable. Based upon the
skill of the leader and the context, it is possible to create either
an effective or a defective working environment. The methods
provided should therefore be used with care. Furthermore, the
different people might have a different perspective on a leader
who employs these method. Some might seem him as an
inspiring and charismatic leader, others as tyrannical. The
leader has to be careful with the power of the methods, as they
can be easily abused. The road from simple framing to evident
manipulation is quite short and the leader will destroy the trust
of his followers by going too far, even if it only happens once.
VI. CONCLUSION
The presented methods of social sciences can be very
beneficial for contextual leadership. Framing provides a way
to express the personal opinion independently of the context,
as the message itself can be changed. Moreover, it is important
for a leader to understand spinning and lying, as he will be
confronted with these methods from time to time. A
contextual leader should nonetheless refrain from using these
methods, if other options are available. Agenda setting and
priming are becoming more and more important in our modern
world, where people are bombarded with news all day.
Furthermore, the social sciences can help to put the own
agenda and personality into the right light, especially when
dealing with many followers that can not be talked to directly.
Knowing the limits between wise and thoughtless use of the
presented methods is crucial to establish an effective working
environment, while keeping honesty and trust. The latter can
easily be destroyed, but are very hard to build up again.

One recommendation would be to research how mentioned
methods can be effectively implemented into organizations
without the stigmatization that surrounds spinning and agenda-
setting. A second recommendation for research would be to
investigate ways for the media to make information accessible
for the general population with reduced complexity and
without bias or priming. A third recommendation would be
releasing a guide that teaches individuals how to question
political statements with an open-mind.
REFERENCES
[1] Arnold, A. 2014. Media Effects III: Framing - "Melting Ice Caps or No
More Ice Age?". [online] Available at:
https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/media-effects-iii-framing-
melting-ice-caps-or-no-more-ice-age [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014].
[2] Bumiller, E. 2014. Video Shows U.S. Killing of Reuters Employees.
[online] Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html
[Accessed: 22 Feb 2014].
[3] Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured
paradigm. Journal of communication, 43 (4), pp. 51-58.
[4] Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J. and Cavarretta, F. L. 2009. A
framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20 (6), pp. 897-919.
[5] Kahneman, D. 2002. Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on
intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel prize lecture, 8 pp. 351-401.
[6] Kutz, M. 2008. Toward a conceptual model of contextual intelligence: a
transferable leadership construct.Kravis Leadership Institute Leadership
Review, 8 pp. 18-31.
[7] Luntz, F. I. 2007. Words that work. New York: Hyperion.
[8] Pratt, C. B., Ha, L. and Pratt, C. A. 2002. Setting the Public Health
Agenda on Major Diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa: African Popular
Magazines and Medical Journals, 1981-1997. Journal of
communication, 52 (4), pp. 889-904.
[9] Mars, R. 2013. 76- The Modern Moloch | 99% Invisible. [online]
Available at: http://99percentinvisible.prx.org/2013/04/03/76-the-
modern-moloch/ [Accessed: 22 Feb 2014].
[10] Scheufele, D. A. and Tewksbury, D. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and
priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of
communication, 57 (1), pp. 9-20.
[11] Storey, V. 2006. Who Leads? A Contextualized Perspective On
Organizational Leadership & Learning, 10 (4). IEJLL: International
Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10.