_:n52aa357146a046bf9f4636f1878aca20xb0
<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"832019 Leadership, Betrayal and Adaptation 120Leadership, betrayal and adaptationJames KrantzA B S TRA C T Change stimulates complex cross-currents between institutionalrequirements and the psycho-social arrangements that have formedaround existing configurations. In navigating these complex forcesleaders are sometimes confronted with the need to betray, even ifin the service of higher purposes. This article explores the linksbetween leadership, betrayal and adaptation. It focuses primarily on the social and psychological reverberations of betrayal, with par- ticular attention drawn to the impact of betrayal on the leadersthemselves.KE YW ORD S adaptation betrayal change leadership projection unconsciousAMALLAH, West Bank Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, signedlegislation today to create a post of prime minister, after the . . .members of his Fatah movement forced him to withdraw a proposalto restrict the prime ministers powers. Mr. Arafats signature . . .followed an extraordinary rebuff to his proposal . . . in the Palestinianlegislature and in a stormy four-hour meeting in his ruined compoundhere. At the meeting, Mr. Arafat accused party members of betrayinghim . . .New York Times, 19 March 2003The demands of organizational change and adaptation confront leaders withenormously complex challenges. Among them is introducing structures andpractices that support new directions changes that create dislocation,2 2 1Human RelationsDOI: 10.11770018726706062733Volume 592: 221240Copyright 2006The Tavistock Institute SAGE PublicationsLondon, Thousand Oaks CA,New Delhiwww.sagepublications.com 2006 The Tavistock Institute. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.by guest on July 3, 2008http:hum.sagepub.comDownloaded fromhttp:hum.sagepub.comhttp:hum.sagepub.comhttp:hum.sagepub.comhttp:hum.sagepub.com832019 Leadership, Betrayal and Adaptation 220disruption and even turmoil. Among the least understood or recognizeddimensions of significant change are the dynamic reverberations of decisionsthat breach existing social, psychological and intrapsychic configurations,transgressions often experienced as betrayal.My central hypothesis is that betrayal is an essential element of leader-ship and organizational change. Using a systems psychodynamic perspectiveto explore the betrayal that often accompanies significant change, severalfacets of this question are considered, including: how the exercise of leader-ship and the capacity for betrayal are intertwined what dynamic challengesto both leader and follower are entailed by having to contain the experience and potentiality of betrayal in the collaborative bond and about the chal-lenges posed to the enterprise by the experience of betrayal.Because betrayal is such a charged concept and variously used word, Iwant to carefully circumscribe the kind of betrayal on which I am focusinghere. Usually betrayal centers on the sinister: wickedness, corruption andother violations of moral order. Even a cursory glance at the news under-scores the depressing reality that there is no shortage of such betrayal. Butmy interest here is not with, for instance, the Enrons or Parmalats or schemesto siphon pension funds. Nor am I concerned with the smaller, pettier betray-als that occur when position is used to enhance prestige or status rather thanadvancing the organizations purpose, a kind of corruption that Eric Millerdescribed as the exercise of power in contrast to that of authority. Large scaleor small, the defining element of these betrayals is that leaders exploit theirpositions of influence by promoting personal interests rather than those ofthe institution.What I am exploring here is diametrically different. My proposition isthat betrayal in the service of a higher purpose is inherent in organizationallife and deeply linked to the capacity to lead. This kind of virtuous betrayal,so to speak, originates in the crevice between the necessity for change andadaptation, on one hand, and the need for a dependable and reliable context,on the other. It flourishes in the medium created by the complex intersectinglinkages between people that arise in institutional life the commitment totask and goal, emotional connections that emerge through work, and thegroup dynamics generated by organizational membership.While virtuous betrayal differs profoundly from its venal counterpart,they nonetheless share a common feature. Both entail violating a trust, confi-dence or perhaps tacit agreement. The dynamics evoked by this trans-gression engender the distinctive social and psychological challenges forleaders and followers coping with betrayal.Human Relations 5922 2 2 2006 The Tavistock Institute. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.by guest on July 3, 2008http:hum.sagepub.comDownloaded fromhttp:hum.sagepub.comhttp:hum.sagepub.comhttp:hum.sagepub.comhttp:hum.sagepub.com832019 Leadership, Betrayal and Adaptation 320The concept of virtuous betrayalExploring virtuous betrayal, and its links with development and leadership,requires a more nuanced understanding of betrayal than is typically the case.At first glance it appears to be a contradiction in terms, yet on further exam-ination more complex possibilities emerge. Take, for example, Kazantzakiss1998 dramatic reframing of betrayal in The last temptation of Christ.Judas betrayal, in this retelling, was an act of love and deep devotion ratherthan of cowardly greed. Judas alone amongst the disciples recognized thenecessity of betrayal. Understanding his allys true motivation, Jesus isprofoundly grateful for only Judas was willing to suffer infamy throughoutall history to enable Jesus to fulfill his mission. Judas betrays for a noblepurpose he remains completely true and embraces the duty of betrayal asa necessity. From this the sense of betrayal as potentially dutiful begins toemerge.Before turning to betrayal in an institutional context I want to digressa bit further into the origins of the word in order to bring forward meaningsthat, although obscured by contemporary usage, introduce illuminatingconnotations. Latin precursors of the word, for example, signify the act ofgiving over to anothers care to give, transfer, to deliver into the hands orcontrol of another or entrusting for command. Even more striking in thecontext of this argument, se tradere refers to the act of abandoning oneselfto someone or dedicating oneself to some activity.1 Lost in the recent evolu-tion of meaning, but central to the viewpoint I am developing here, is thesense of betrayal that arises from dutiful obligation and involves consign-ment or handing over to a higher purpose Carotenuto, 1991.The link between betrayal and leadership is, however, hinted at in onecontemporary use of the term. Betrayalalso refers to revealing a truth: tobetray a confidence or secret is to expose knowledge. The idea of revealingtruth links betrayal with leadership through the role of direction setting andvision. Leaders reveal often unwanted truth about directions that must betaken or relinquished. Betrayal, as transgression, enters with recognition thatbringing a vision into reality necessarily destabilizes both the status quo andwhatever emotional equilibrium has developed around it.The idea of virtuous betrayal, then, raises the possibility that leadersmust sometimes betray in the service of the task. Virtuous betrayal recog-nizes a transcendent purpose that supersedes personal bonds of mutuality,loyalty or love. Ordinarily the context of shared purpose and missionprovides a containing function for interpersonal and group emotionality.Leaders, however, when confronted by irreconcilable conflicts between theinstitutional and personal, face the challenges of betrayal.Krantz Leadership, betrayal and adaptation 2 2 3 2006 The Tavistock Institute. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.by guest on July 3, 2008http:hum.sagepub.comDownloaded fromhttp:hum.sagepub.comhttp:hum.sagepub.comhttp:hum.sagepub.comhttp:hum.sagepub.com832019 Leadership, Betrayal and Adaptation 420The inevitability of betrayal in organizational lifeBions 1961 observation that we are group animals at war with ourgroupishness serves as a useful starting point for exploring the linksbetween leadership and betrayal because it points to complex interplay ofdiffering emotional states that are evoked in organizational life: task andsentient relatedness, individual experience and collective life and the differ-ing logics that govern formal and informal organization. Two distincttensions delineate the space within which the necessity of betrayal can beunderstood. One is the clash between novelty and the established order: theneed for innovation and direction, on one hand, and for security andreliability, on the other. Second is the tension between the institutional andthe personal. Institutional requirements and the dictates of task are ulti-mately impersonal. Yet"
<https://vdocuments.net/leadership-betrayal-and-adaptation.html>