Transitional Environment: A Nexus between Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory and Lacanian Structuralism in Contemporary Leadership Studies [1]

ABSTRACT

?

This article initiates a dialogue between Kurt Lewin’s field theory and Jacques Lacan’s structuralism, investigating their potential interplay within contemporary leadership studies. While acknowledging the inherent differences between these paradigms, the study explores avenues for their cross-fertilization. Lewin’s field theory, centered on the “Imaginary” and focused on psychological environments and human behavior, is complemented by Lacan’s structuralism, which introduces the “Real” and “Symbolic” domains. This article revisits these distinct theoretical landscapes, highlighting the role of D. W. Winnicott's concept of the 'transitional environment' as a unifying bridge. This approach offers fresh perspectives on leadership as a dynamic interplay of internal psychological forces and external organizational influences. Incorporating elements from Lacan’s structuralism, the study delves into the symbolic nature of leadership, emphasizing the importance of language, culture, and relational approaches in leadership practice. It also sheds light on the significance of transitional environments in fostering creativity and adaptability within organizations. Ultimately, the study posits that an appreciation of the unconscious and the “Real” domain can deepen our understanding of leadership in complex and innovative organizational settings.

Keywords: Transitional Space, Leadership, Kurt Lewin, Lacanian Structuralism, Relational Perspective.

?

Introduction

?

As contemporary organizations undergo a fundamental transformation, characterized by horizontal structures, relational dynamics, and decentralized forms of organizing, the field of leadership faces unprecedented challenges. This evolving landscape demands a reevaluation of traditional leadership paradigms, which have predominantly centered on leader-centric approaches (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Scholars such as Northouse (2018), Grint (2018), and Eisenbeiss et al. (2008) have underscored the urgency of revisiting and reinventing our understanding of leadership in this changing context.

The significance of these organizational changes - where power is dispersed, decisions are made collectively, and hierarchies are flattened (Grint, 2018; Uhl-Bien, 2006) - cannot be overstated. They present both challenges and opportunities, prompting a critical reexamination of the essence of leadership. Traditional models that emphasized the singular authority of a leader (Mintzberg, 1979) are increasingly scrutinized for their inability to capture the nuances of leadership in a contemporary setting (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Morgan, 2006).

Acknowledging the imperative for continuous evolution and reevaluation in leadership studies (Grant & O’Reilly, 2019; Barker & Waite, 2018), this study builds upon Kurt Lewin’s field theory, introducing the concept of a “transitional environment”. This concept serves as a link between the social and individual dimensions of leadership dynamics, deeply entwined with the structuralism in Jacques Lacan’s works. Here, the “transitional environment” is occupied by culture and the “symbolic order” - comprising the “Real”, “Symbolic”, and “Imaginary” domains - and plays a crucial role in enhancing our understanding of leadership within horizontally structured, relational, decentralized, and networked contemporary organizations (Smith & Johnson, 2021; Jones & Brown, 2020).

This exploration lays the epistemological groundwork for a relational and symbolic perspective of leadership, offering new insights into the interplay of the “Imaginary” realm - individual psychology and societal constructs - and the symbolic order. The study delves into this theoretical bridge, combined with Lacanian structuralism, to illuminate unexplored aspects of leadership research and deepen our comprehension of the interplay between individual and collective dynamics in the context of modern organizations (Anderson & Williams, 2019).

Central to this research is the question: How can the field of leadership be comprehended and theorized within the context of contemporary organizations, which are markedly horizontal, relational, decentralized, and networked? This inquiry challenges us to revisit and refine existing leadership theories and frameworks, forging novel perspectives that align with the realities of current organizational structures (Uhl-Bien, 2020; Dinh et al., 2014).

To address this research problem effectively, an extensive review of the existing literature is essential. It not only establishes the present context but also identifies gaps in our understanding of leadership within modern organizational settings. This review highlights the inadequacies of traditional leader-centric approaches (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013) and paves the way toward a holistic understanding of leadership, acknowledging the dynamic interplay among individuals, relationships, and organizational structures (Dinh et al., 2014; Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Our study examines the evolving landscape of leadership theory through an interdisciplinary lens, drawing on philosophy, psychoanalysis, and leadership studies. The central thesis posits that the “transitional environment” is a vital link between Lewin’s psychological field theory and Lacan’s structuralist perspective, bridging the gap between individual psychology and the symbolic order. This approach advances our understanding of leadership as a dynamic process, influenced by personal identity, relational dynamics, and cultural symbols (Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005).

Methodologically, adopting the structuralist tradition is highly relevant (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). It emphasizes the importance of analyzing underlying structures and systems that shape human behavior and interactions. This perspective aligns with the nature of contemporary organizations, which are characterized by horizontal, relational, decentralized, and networked structures (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Morgan, 2006). The structuralist approach recognizes the significance of language and symbols in these structures, influencing leadership dynamics (Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011).

In summary, the structuralist methodology employed in this article is pertinent for understanding leadership in contemporary organizations. It offers a systematic framework for exploring the interplay of symbols, language, culture, and unconscious processes in leadership dynamics, facilitating a more nuanced comprehension of the complex nature of leadership within today’s organizational landscape (Morgan, 2006).

?

Expanding Leadership’s Field Theory: From Behavior to Symbolic Order

?

Kurt Lewin, a pioneer in social psychology and organizational behavior, introduced a transformative conceptual framework known as “field theory”, profoundly influencing the field of leadership studies (Lewin, 1951, 1936; Lewin, Lippitt, White, 1939). Departing from reductionist perspectives, Lewin’s theory emphasizes the intricate interplay of factors that influence individual and group dynamics (Cartwright & Zander, 1953; Lewin, 1943).

Challenging traditional, individual-centric views of leadership, Lewin can be considered a pioneer in underscoring the significance of considering the broader social and environmental context (Lewin, 1951, 1943, 1936; Lewin, Lippitt, White, 1939). His theory introduces the idea of a “Psychological Field” - F Psychological (P, E) -, a dynamic space where internal and external forces interact to shape human behavior, marking a paradigm shift in understanding human dynamics (Lewin, 1951, 1936, 1947).

The Psychological Field

Central to Lewin’s theory is the distinction between driving and restraining forces within a “psychological field”, where behavioral changes occur when the balance between these forces is altered (Lewin, Lippitt, White, 1939; Lewin, 1943). The psychological field is conceived as a dynamic interplay between individual characteristics (Personality) and the surrounding context (Environment), emphasizing their mutually influential relationship (Lewin, 1951, 1936, 1935).

Personality (P) encompasses an individual’s unique set of characteristics, traits, and dispositions, recognizing the importance of understanding how internal factors contribute to behavior within the psychological field (McCrae & Costa, 1997; Eysenck, 1990; Cattell, 1957; Allport, 1937). On the other hand, Environment (E) includes external influences, highlighting the active role of the environment in shaping individual behavior (Gifford, 2007; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Barker, 1968; Lewin, 1936).

The interactive nature of Personality (P) and Environment (E) implies that changes in either component impact the psychological field, leading to shifts in behavior, attitudes, and perceptions (Cervone & Pervin, 2019; Bandura, 1986; Heider, 1958; Lewin, 1951). Lewin’s concept of “life space” expands the theory, encompassing the psychological realm within which an individual operates, acknowledging the uniqueness of each perspective (Festinger, 1957; Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, Sears, 1944).

Beyond individual psychology, Lewin’s field theory extends to group dynamics and organizational change, aligning with contemporary notions of systemic thinking (French & Bell, 1999; Whyte, Greenwood, Lazes, 1989; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Lippitt, Watson, Westley, 1958; Cartwright, 1953; Lewin, 1951; Lewin, 1946; Lewin & Grabbe, 1945).

In essence, Lewin’s theory lays the foundation for a holistic understanding of human behavior, leaving an enduring legacy in social sciences, organizational development, and leadership studies. Its emphasis on dynamism, context, and practical application remains a guiding principle in contemporary research and practice (Cummings & Worley, 2014; Burnes, 2004; Lewin, 1951, 1947).

?

From Psychological to Leadership Field

?

Inspired by Lewin’s field theory, a “leadership field” can be understood as intricately woven through the dynamic interaction of three major components: Personality, Environment, and Transitional Environment. Personality (P) encompasses the unique set of characteristics, traits, and behaviors inherent to a societal agent. Within the leadership field, individualities serve as a foundational element, influencing how leaders perceive, interact, and respond to various challenges and opportunities.

In addition, the Environment (E) signifies the external surroundings, contexts, and situational factors that leaders navigate. It includes organizational structures, cultural norms, and the broader socio-economic landscape. The interaction between personality and the environment shapes leadership styles, decision-making processes, and overall effectiveness within a given context.

Lastly, the Transitional Environment (T) represents the intermediate enabling space between an individual’s internal world (P) and the societal surroundings (E). This dynamic arena, the Field Leadership (P, T, E), serves as fertile ground for creativity, learning, and innovation. In the leadership’s field, the transitional environment acknowledges the fluidity of leadership dynamics, fostering adaptability and the co-construction of meaning.

?

The Leadership Field from a Structural Perspective

?

Drawing upon Lacanian structuralism, which introduces the dimension of the “symbolic order”, involving the domains of the “Real”, “Symbolic”, and “Imaginary”, as a primary consequence, one could define Lewin’s field theory as belonging to the realm of the “Imaginary”. In Lacan’s structural framework, this realm involves the creation of an idealized self-image and a perception of wholeness, contrasting with the fragmented and incomplete nature of the “Real” domain (Lacan, 1953).

While Lewin emphasizes the interplay between an individual’s personality (P) and the surrounding environment (E) - encompassing the leader’s unique set of characteristics, traits, and behaviors - underscoring the importance of understanding how these factors interact with external ones to shape an individual’s behavior within their social and psychological field, Lacan’s work centers around language, the unconscious, and the construction of subjectivity.

To further understand this “linguistic turn”, it is relevant to analyze Lacan’s intellectual evolution, from his initial exploration of the “Imaginary”, during his studies around the “Mirror Stage” to his focus on the symbolic order, which reflects his quest to unravel the intricate dimensions of human constitution, unconscious, language, and culture under a psychoanalytical perspective (Lacan, 1953).

By the domain of the “Mirror Stage”, Lacan (1953) examines how early individuals, when they recognize themselves in a mirror, develop a rudimentary sense of self-identity. As a result, he underscores the fragmented and illusory nature of this self-recognition, highlighting how individuals create an idealized self-image, which he terms the “Imaginary ego”.

The transition from the “Imaginary” to the symbolic order marks a profound shift in Lacan’s understanding of the human subject and the nature of psychoanalysis. Under the influence of Claude Lévi-Strauss’ structuralism (Lévi-Strauss, 1963) and a reexamination of Freud’s texts (Roudinesco, 1997), Lacan brings language, symbols, and culture to the forefront of his analysis, moving beyond the biological and pulsional perspectives and underscoring the profound influence of the social world on the human subject (Fink, 1995).

According to Lacan, language is not merely a means of communication but also a fundamental structuring force within the human psyche. Language plays a pivotal role in shaping how individuals perceive themselves and their roles in society. Similarly, the introduction of symbols as central elements recognizes the significance of cultural symbols, myths, and narratives in shaping human subjectivity. In addition, Lacan’s work expands to encompass the cultural dimensions of human existence, exploring how societal norms, values, and institutions influence individual behavior and identity.

In this new phase, the notion of the “Other” assumes a pivotal role in Lacan’s perspective, representing not just another person - “other” - but the symbolic order of language and culture that shapes human subjectivity (Lacan, 1966). This concept highlights the role of language and communication in defining our understanding of reality and, by extension, our perceptions of leadership and authority (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2014). Furthermore, the “Other” embodies societal norms, expectations, and the collective symbolic order (Lacan, 1953).

In the context of leadership, it can be seen as the collective expectations and norms that leaders are expected to embody. Leadership effectiveness often depends on how well leaders navigate and respond to these societal expectations (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2015). Highlighting the role of language in constructing reality and power relations, Lacan introduces his “Discourse Theory”, emphasizing the role of language in constructing reality and power relations (Howarth, 2000). By incorporating this perspective, leadership scholars can develop a deeper understanding of how leadership is constructed, perceived, and enacted within social contexts, ultimately contributing to a more nuanced and comprehensive view of leadership.

?

The Field Leadership as Discourse and Social Ties

?

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the concept of discourse extends beyond mere verbal communication to include a broad spectrum of symbolic systems such as social norms, discursive practices, and power structures. These systems are instrumental in shaping individual subjectivity and regulating social relations, functioning as frameworks within which subjects interact with others and themselves. Lacan identifies four primary discourses, each elucidating distinct forms of social interactions, group dynamics, and structures.

The Master’s discourse, characterized by the master signifier (S1) as the agent and the subject ($) as the other, encapsulates a power dynamic rooted in authority and traditional hierarchical command. This discourse is reflective of scenarios where dominant figures or institutions exert control, emphasizing the master signifier’s role in sustaining social order. Conversely, the University discourse, with knowledge (S2) as the agent and “Object a” (a) as the other, typifies systems where knowledge is disseminated from a position of authority, often reinforcing established knowledge hierarchies.

In a different vein, the Hysteric’s discourse positions the subject ($) as the agent challenging the master signifier (S1). This discourse embodies resistance and critique, often paralleling narratives in social and political movements that confront existing power structures and question prevailing narratives. Such movements, advocating for social justice and equity, exemplify this discourse in contemporary society.

The Analyst’s discourse, featuring “object a” as the agent and the subject ($) as its counterpart, mirrors the dynamics of psychoanalytic therapy. In this setting, the analyst facilitates the subject’s exploration and reconciliation of internal conflicts and fragmented self. The growing prominence and acceptance of mental health discourse reflect the increasing relevance of this analytical perspective in today’s society.

Lastly, examining the Lacanian concept of the “Other”, enriched by Jung’s notion of “archetypes”, reveals a predominant discourse in contemporary society and organizations - the “Capitalist’s Discourse” as termed by Lacan. This discourse, a variation of the Master’s, is marked by the financier (S1) using techoscience (S2) to produce gadgets (“Object a”) for a consumer ($), delineating a pseudo-social bond where individuals are reduced to consumer roles. Confronted with the market-driven transformation of social relations, the pressing question arises: How can one addresses the challenges of fostering authentic human social ties in the face of such dominant capitalist discourse?

?

The leadership field under the capitalist’s discourse hegemony

?

In the realm of Jungian analytical psychology, contemporary society, particularly under the hegemony of the Capitalist’s Discourse, exhibits a kind of “hysterical disposition” as described by Jung (1970). This state is characterized by a pronounced separation between opposing elements within the psyche, particularly characterological ones, leading to phenomena such as the “psychology of prestige”. This condition, common in hysterics, involves the continuous seeking of recognition, admiration, and love, often through the display and imposition of one’s perceived merits.

Jung (1970) identified this mental state as requiring a “neurosis approach” for treatment, suggesting a need for mental re-signification not through any special or charismatic individual, but as a personal journey for each individual. Thus, the discourse needs to be “hystericized”, perpetually questioning and challenging the established order, or “Master Signifier”. This continual challenge to authority and the status quo is crucial for transformational environments, ensuring that organizations remain dynamic and progressive.

The hysteric’s intense desire to understand, particularly in relation to the “Other”, is emblematic of transformational organizations. Their sense of lack, akin to a knowledge gap, cultivates a relentless pursuit of understanding. This environment, therefore, becomes one where knowledge creation is continuous and central.

In this dynamic, the interaction between the hysteric and the master signifier mirrors the relationship between leader and group, characterized by a mutual and active dialogue rather than a one-way transmission of knowledge.

Furthermore, the challenge posed by the hysteric allows for the transformation of the established order, paving the way for innovative and creative ideas. Lacan (1978) and Jung (1970) advocate for a system that values questioning as much as it does answers, recognizing that true effectiveness often emerges from engaging with complex ideas.

However, the Master’s and University’s Discourses have inherent limitations. The University’s Discourse, often a reproduction of the Master’s Discourse, sometimes fails to acknowledge the contingent and constructed nature of knowledge. In contrast, the Analyst’s Discourse necessitates a level of emancipation and maturity more prevalent in entrepreneurial and adhocratic cultures.

In summary, these discourses are not confined to isolated areas but are applicable across various contexts, including leadership, politics, culture, and interpersonal relationships. They offer a comprehensive framework for understanding the interplay of language, power, and desire in human behavior and societal structures. An understanding of Lacan’s discourses, as summarized in Table 1, provides valuable insights into leadership interactions and the structures shaping organizational environments.

?

The Transitional Environment: Comprehending Leadership Field as Symbolic Order

?

In the field of psychoanalysis, the concept of the “transitional environment”, introduced by the British pediatrician and psychoanalyst D. W. Winnicott, holds significant value in understanding human development, interpersonal relationships, and leadership dynamics (Winnicott, 1971). Winnicott theorized this space as a liminal zone, neither entirely internal nor external, where the inner world of an individual intersects with the external reality. It is characterized by elements of playfulness, imagination, and creativity, enabling individuals to navigate the boundary between self and the external world through transitional objects or activities (Winnicott, 1971).

Originally framed in the context of early childhood development, Winnicott’s concept illuminates how early individuals use transitional objects or engage in pretend play to explore and experiment within this shared realm. This exploration fosters psychological safety, emotional growth, and helps in navigating the complexities of the world (Edmondson, 2018; Goleman, 2001; Senge, 1997; Winnicott, 1951).

In leadership, the transitional environment concept is pivotal in viewing leadership as a dynamic, relational process. It emphasizes co-constructed environments where leaders and followers collaboratively create solutions, fostering creativity, trust, and open communication. Leaders can use this concept to nurture environments conducive to experimentation and imaginative thinking, thereby enhancing organizational innovation.

Furthermore, this concept aligns with the idea of psychological safety in teams. Leaders who embrace the transitional environment foster a culture where team members feel comfortable expressing themselves, sharing vulnerabilities, and engaging in open dialogues. This environment enhances trust, healthy team dynamics, and productive collaboration.

In conflict mediation, the transitional environment offers a framework for leaders to facilitate understanding and collaborative problem-solving, leading to more constructive outcomes. Additionally, recognizing the importance of the transitional environment can significantly impact employee engagement. When team members feel their voices are heard and their contributions valued, they are likely to be more engaged and committed.

In summary, the concept of the transitional environment (T), as developed by Winnicott, provides deep insights into leadership as a creative, dynamic, and relational process (Winnicott, 1971). Leaders who integrate this concept into their approach can create environments that promote innovation, trust, psychological safety, effective conflict resolution, and heightened employee engagement. Such leadership not only elevates the effectiveness of teams but also contributes positively to the overall health and success of organizations.

?

The Transitional Environment in Lewin’s Phychological Field

?

In the framework of Kurt Lewin’s psychological field theory, the transitional environment is conceptualized as a crucial arena where an individual’s internal psychological world intersects with the external environment. Lewin’s theory, a cornerstone in the field of social psychology, highlights the significant role of psychological forces in shaping human behavior. Central to this is the concept of the “lifeenvironment”, a term Lewin used to describe the amalgamation of an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and motivations (Lewin, 1935). Within this “lifeenvironment”, the transitional environment emerges as a zone of interaction and negotiation with external factors, aiding individuals in navigating the complexities of their surroundings (Lewin, 1935).

Before individuals or groups can effectively transition to a new state or behavior - a process Lewin termed the “change” phase - they often need to ‘unfreeze’ their existing behavioral patterns. This unfreezing creates a psychological setting conducive to adopting new behaviors. The transitional environment is the crucible for this process, facilitating experimentation, learning, and adaptation (Lewin, 1939). It is within this psychological terrain that individuals engage in exploration and adaptation, influenced by the constant interplay of internal drives and external stimuli.

This understanding of the transitional environment as conceptualized by Lewin is vital in various fields, particularly in organizational change and development. It highlights the importance of creating a supportive environment for change, where individuals feel safe to experiment, learn, and adapt to new ways of thinking and behaving. Recognizing and effectively facilitating this transitional phase can significantly enhance the success of change initiatives in organizations and personal development (Figure 1).

In Lacan’s structuralism, the “transitional environment” is an insightful concept that can be examined within the broader context of the symbolic order. This perspective perceives it as a pivotal space where symbolic signifiers play a crucial role, influencing individuals’ perceptions and constructions of self and the world (Lacan, 1966). In this realm, a rich tapestry of words, cultural symbols, and discourses mediates experiences, shaping individual subjectivity. This arena is heavily influenced by cultural and social norms and values, playing a key role in how individuals internalize societal expectations and norms, thereby significantly shaping their behavior and self-concept (Lacan, 1953).

Extending beyond Lewin’s psychological field, which primarily dwells in the “Imaginary” realm, Lacanian structuralism offers a more comprehensive framework. It includes not only the “Symbolic” (or “Other”) domain but also the “Real” - a dimension that resists symbolization or representation in discourse and language, representing experiences that cannot be fully articulated through words or symbols. This realm is associated with uncertainty, shock, trauma, and situations where individuals confront elements that defy complete understanding or symbolization (Lacan, 1966).

In this framework, leadership is viewed as evolving within a complex interplay among the “Real”, “Symbolic”, and “Imaginary”, constituting a “transitional environment”: F Leadership (R, S, I). Here, the “Imaginary” (I) represents inner experiences, perceptions, and self-images, forming self-identity through processes of mirroring and identification. The “Real” encompasses unmediated, raw experience existing beyond language and symbolic representations, including the body and lived reality.

The “transitional environment” thus operates as a confluence of these domains, a space enabling the intersection of individual subjectivities, the negotiation of meaning, and engagement with the intricate interplay between the inner world and the socio-cultural context (Figure 2). This structural approach opens up new avenues for understanding leadership dynamics, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and navigating the complex layers of human experience and social interaction (Lacan, 1966).

In the realm of Lacanian structuralism, the “transitional environment” is critically understood as a space where language, symbols, and cultural constructs deeply intertwine with both the conscious and unconscious aspects of our psyche (Lacan, 1953). This concept underscores a dynamic space where individuals continuously negotiate their identities and meanings, influenced by the complex interplay of the symbolic order. It enriches our understanding of how individuals construct their subjectivities and engage with the socio-cultural context.

?

Bridging Paradigms

?

Analyzing the nexus between Lewin’s psychological field theory (F Psychological (P, E)) and Lacanian structuralism in contemporary organizational studies requires acknowledging the inherent incommensurability of these paradigms (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Despite this, there exists a potential for meaningful dialogue and cross-fertilization between these different epistemological patterns to enrich our comprehension of the 'transitional environment', as inspired by Winnicott’s work. This concept is pivotal within the “enabling leadership” perspective (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Hardy, Lawrence, Grant, 2005) - F Leadership (P, T, E).

This theoretical framework provides a nuanced analysis of contemporary leadership, envisioning a dynamic equilibrium between internal psychological forces and external organizational influences (Winnicott, 1951). The leadership landscape in this context embraces fluidity in roles and power distribution, characterized by horizontal structures and decentralized networking. Leaders in such environments are responsible for creating conducive spaces for change, innovation, and adaptation.

Drawing from Lacan’s structuralism, “enabling leadership” assumes a symbolic role within organizations. Leaders symbolize the broader symbolic order, using language and symbols to construct meaning and facilitate dialogue among stakeholders (Lacan, 1953). The “transitional environment” becomes indispensable in this leadership context, encouraging creativity and open dialogue, and fostering horizontal collaboration and decentralized decision-making.

“Relational leadership” is particularly crucial in decentralized and networked organizations. Leaders transcend traditional authority roles to become facilitators and connectors, nurturing relationships and fostering a collective leadership approach. This empowers individuals and teams, enhancing organizational capabilities.

Leaders must also be ambidextrous, capable of transitioning between transformative approaches as needed, adapting their strategies based on the specific challenges in decentralized and networked structures (Lacan, 1953).

Lastly, acknowledging the influence of unconscious desires, conflicts, and the “Real” domain is essential. Leaders who understand these unconscious factors can navigate team dynamics and decision-making processes more effectively, contributing to the organization's overall performance and sustainability (Lacan, 1953).

?

Conclusion

?

This study aims to intertwine Kurt Lewin’s field theory and Jacques Lacan’s structuralism to illuminate the complexities of leadership in contemporary organizations. Our goal is to offer a fresh perspective that acknowledges the evolving nature of organizing and the intricate interplay of individual and collective dynamics.

The exploration begins by framing leadership as a dynamic process, deeply rooted in Lewin’s field theory (Lewin, 1951). It highlights the necessity for leaders to adeptly navigate the shifting balance between internal psychological forces (P) and external environmental influences (E), positioning leadership as a pivotal driver of change and adaptability.

Drawing from Lacan’s structuralism (Lacan, 1953), the study then ventures into the symbolic realm. Here, language, symbols, and culture are central in shaping leadership practices, portraying leaders as custodians of the symbolic order. They utilize linguistic and symbolic tools to communicate meaning, foster collaboration, and shape organizational identities. This approach underscores the importance of effective communication and shared narratives in leadership (Lacan, 1953).

Significantly, one analyzes the evolution in Lacan’s studies, initially centered on the “Imaginary” and later encompassing the symbolic order. This shift, inspired by structuralism and a reevaluation of Freud’s works, has prompted a reinterpretation of Lewin’s field theory in leadership, particularly through the lens of the 'transitional environment' (Lacan, 1953).

Lacan’s transition from the “Imaginary” to the “Symbolic” marks his recognition of the limitations of the former in fully explaining the complexity of human psyche and social influence. He introduces the “Symbolic” dimension, influenced by Claude Lévi-Strauss’ studies, acknowledging the role of language, symbols, and culture in shaping the human subject (Lacan, 1953).

This philosophical evolution inspires our approach to leadership studies. One introduces the “transitional environment” as a critical bridge in leadership research, recognizing that contemporary organizational studies need to transcend traditional approaches to capture the nuances of modern organizations (Lacan, 1953).

Thus, the “transitional environment” emerges as an intermediate space that mobilizes the symbolic order, constituting a structural leadership field - Field Leadership (R, S, I) - where language, culture, and human subjectivity play pivotal roles. This perspective allows for a deeper exploration of leadership dynamics in a complex social context, expanding on Lewin’s studies by recognizing the importance of this connecting space (T) between personal leadership styles (P) and the design of more horizontal and adhocratic organizational structures (E) (Lacan, 1953).

Finally, the introduction of the transitional environment (T) also acknowledges the significance of the unconscious, highlighting its ongoing relevance in understanding human behavior and leadership dynamics, particularly in creativity, innovation, and the presence of the “Real” - the dimension of experience that resists symbolization (Lacan, 1953).

?

References

?

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2015). Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress. Routledge.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler set. Mind Garden.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Emerald Group Publishing.

Barker, J. R., & Waite, N. (2018). Emergence and dynamics of organizational improvisation: A historical-institutional perspective. In C. Hardy & S. R. Clegg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 385-400). Oxford University Press.

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford University Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977-1002.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. Heinemann.

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1953). Group dynamics: Research and theory. Harper & Brothers.

Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation: Structure and measurement. World Book.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization development and change. Cengage Learning.

Cunliffe, A. L., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), 1425-1449.

Dembo, T., Festinger, L., Sears, P. S., & Lewin, K. (1944). Level of aspiration, conflict, and social adjustment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 39(2), 179-210.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.

Edmondson, A. C. (2018).?The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.

Eisenbeiss, S. A., Knippenberg, D. V., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438-1446.

Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 244-276). Guilford Press.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 285-310.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Flink, B. (1995). The Lacanian subject: Between language and jouissance. Princeton University Press.

French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1999). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Prentice Hall.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 371-384). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Optimal Books.

Goleman, D. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building.?The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace,?13, 26.

Grant, A. M., & O’Reilly, J. (2019). The strong situation hypothesis. In L. Z. Zettler & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of situational judgment tests (pp. 73-92). Oxford University Press.

Grint, K. (2005). Leadership: Limits and possibilities. Palgrave Macmillan.

Grint, K. (2018). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: The role of leadership. In K. Grint (Ed.), Leadership: A very short introduction (pp. 81-101). Oxford University Press.

Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Grant, D. (2005) Discourse and collaboration: The role of conversations and collective identity. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 58-77.

Jones, S., & Brown, J. (2020). The polyphonic leadership paradigm: A post-heroic approach to leading in the twenty-first century. In S. Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing, and being (pp. 293-313). Sage Publications.

Jung, C. G. (1970). Four archetypes: Mother, rebirth, spirit, trickster. Princeton University Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer.

Lacan, J. (1953). The function and field of speech and language in psychoanalysis. écrits: The first complete edition in english. W. W. Norton & Company.

Lacan, J. (1966). écrits: The first complete edition in english. W. W. Norton & Company.

Lacan, J. (1978). The four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis. W. W. Norton & Company.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology. Basic Books.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. American Journal of Sociology, 44(6), 868-896.

Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “Field at a Given Time”. Psychological Review, 50(3), 292-310.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected Theoretical Papers. Harper & Row.

Lippitt, G. L., Watson, J. P., & Westley, B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change: A comparative study of principles and techniques. Harcourt, Brace & World.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Sage Publications.

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Roudinesco, E. (1997). Jacques Lacan & Co.: A history of psychoanalysis in France, 1925-1985. University of Chicago Press.

Senge, P. M. (1997). The fifth discipline.?Measuring Business Excellence,?1(3), 46-51.

Smith, P. B., & Johnson, P. (2021). The cognitive social psychology of organizations. Sage Publications.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2020). The promise of complexity leadership theory: Opportunities for exploring dynamic, non-linear interactions. In K. S. Cameron, D. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 251-265). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89-104.

Whyte, W. F., Greenwood, D. J., & Lazes, P. (1989). Participatory action research: Through practice to science in social research. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), 513-551.

Winnicott, D. W. (1951). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena: A study of the first not-me possession. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 34, 89-97.

Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations. Pearson.

?

?[1] Professor at FGV-EAESP. Researcher at NEOP FGV-EAESP. MED-AoM Ambassador. Postdoctoral Researcher in Psychoanalytic Theory. Doctor in Business Administration and Doctor in Architecture and Urbanism. https://pesquisa-eaesp.fgv.br/professor/anderson-de-souza-santanna .

This paper was developed within the framework of the Leadership Observatory NEOP FGV-EAESP. This research is supported by the S?o Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

Sant'Anna, A. S. (2023). Transitional Environment: A Nexus between Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory and Lacanian Structuralism in Contemporary Leadership Studies. Manuscript Discussion Series, 1(15):1-16. NEOP FGV-EAESP. (Work in progress).