Symbolic Leadership

  • Ingo Winkler
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)


The theory of symbolic leadership goes back to ideas of numerous authors (e.g., Pondy 1978; Pfeffer 1981; Smircich and Morgan 1982). Presenting it as a cohesive leadership approach that incorporates various ideas and concepts of symbolic management and leadership and as clearly distinguishable from other theoretical leadership approaches has to be credited to the German leadership scholar Oswald Neuberger (1990, 1995, 2002). According to Neuberger (1995), the approach of symbolic leadership embeds the understanding of leadership reality in a more comprehensive theoretical frame. This frame is based on anthropology (e.g., Geertz 1973), research on corporate culture (e.g., Hofstede 1980; Schein 1985; Sackmann 1991; Martin 1992), and organizational symbolism (e.g., Pondy et al. 1983; Turner 1990; Alvesson and Berg 1992). Additionally, the sociological concepts of symbolic interactionism (e.g., Mead 1934; Blumer 1969) and the constructivist approach (e.g., Hosking et al., 1995) play an important role in this approach. Symbolic leadership is defined as leadership which refers to, and is based on, the category of meaning. Meaning becomes tangible and therefore can be experienced in the form of symbols (Neuberger 1995). The concept assumes that reality, created and lived by employees in companies, is a social construction, with leadership being a part of this reality (Bartölke 1987). The approach rejects the existence of a level of substantive actions and results, like noted in Pfeffer’s (1981a) writings about management as symbolic action. Instead, it is emphasized that the meaningful world of organizations is the outcome of numerous interaction processes creating the organizational reality. Hence, symbolic leadership concentrates on studying values, meaning, interpretation, history, context, as well as other symbolic elements in the leadership process (Kezar et al. 2006).


Social Reality Corporate Culture Leadership Process Symbolic Element Organizational Reality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alvesson M, Berg PO (1992) Corporate culture and organizational symbolism. Walter de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartölke K (1987) Leadership: nothing but constructing reality by negotiations? In: Hunt JG, Baliga BR, Dachler P, Schriesheim CA (eds) Emerging leadership vistas. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 151–157Google Scholar
  3. Blumer H (1969) Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Daft RL (1983) Symbols in organizations: a dual content framework of anlysis. In: Pondy LR, Frost PJ, Morgan G, Dandridge TC (eds) Organizational symbolism. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 199–206Google Scholar
  5. Dandridge TC, Mitroff I, William FJ (1980) Organizational symbolism: a topic to expand organizational analysis. Acad Manage Rev 5(1):77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  8. Hosking DM, Dachler HP, Gergen KJ (1995) Management and organization: relational alternatives to individualism. Ashgate, VermontGoogle Scholar
  9. Kezar AJ, Carducci R, Contreras-McGavin M (2006) Rethinking the "L" word in higher education: the revolution in research on leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Martin J (1992) Cultures in organizations: three perspectives. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Mead GH (1934) Mind, self and society. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Morgan G, Frost PJ, Pondy LR (1983) Organizational symbolism. In: Pondy LR, Frost PJ, Morgan G, Dandridge TC (eds) Organizational symbolism. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 3–38Google Scholar
  13. Neuberger O (1990) Führung (ist) symbolisiert. Plädoyer für eine sinnvolle Führungsforschung [Leadership is symbolized (symbolizes). Plea for meaningful leadership research]. In: Wiendieck G, Wiswede G (eds) Führung im Wandel. Neue Perspektiven für Führungsforschung und Führungspraxis. Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart, pp 89–130Google Scholar
  14. Neuberger O (1995) Führen und Geführt werden [To lead and to be led]. Ferdinand Enke, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  15. Neuberger O (2002) Führen und führen lassen. Ansätze, Ergebnisse und Kritik der Führungsforschung [To lead and to let lead. Approaches, findings and critique of leadership research]. Lucius & Lucius, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  16. Pfeffer J (1977) The ambiguity of leadership. Acad Manage Rev 2(1):104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pfeffer J (1981a) Management as symbolic action: the creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. In: Cummings TG, Staw BM (eds) Research in organizational behaviour. JAI-Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 1–52Google Scholar
  18. Pondy LR (1978) Leadership is a language game. In: McGall MW Jr, Lombardo MM (eds) Leadership: where else can we go?. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 87–99Google Scholar
  19. Pondy LR, Frost PJ, Morgan G, Dandridge TC (eds) (1983) Organizational symbolism. JAI-Press, Greenwich, CTGoogle Scholar
  20. Sackmann SA (1991) Cultural knowledge in organizations: exploring the collective mind. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  21. Schein EH (1985) Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Smircich L, Morgan G (1982) Leadership: the management of meaning. J Appl Behav Sci 18(3):257–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turner BA (ed) (1990) Organizational symbolism. Walter de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Weibler J (1995) Symbolische führung [symbolic leadership]. In: Kieser A, Reber G, Wunderer R (eds) Handwörterbuch der Führung. C.E. Poeschel, Stuttgart, pp 2015–2026Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Border Region StudiesUniversity of Southern DenmarkSønderborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations