Leadership and Change: In Search of Human Agency

Djayadi Hanan

The conceptualization of agency and structure and the relationship between the two will affect how we view the role of leadership, especially in its relation to change. Leadership is usually associated with the emphasis on human agency. Imbroscio, in his discussion on “Structure, Agency and Democratic Theory” (1999) for instance, suggests that the emphasis on agency or structure will determine to what extent the role of democratic leader is conceptualized. It also will have significant implication to the practice of democracy. Similarly, what is change and what factors cause it are questions that bring the debate in social sciences, including political science, into the contrast and relations between agency and structure. Change can be caused by agency or structure or by both of them depends on how the social scientists define agency, structure, and the relations among them. Literature on transition to or the breakdown of democracy, for example have been engaging in the debate between the voluntarism camp which takes the agency as the explanatory factor, and the determinism camp which emphasizes the role of structure as the cause of the regime change (Mahoney and Snyder, 1999; Kitschelt, 1992).

This paper looks at several notions/concepts which are developed by social scientists about the role of agency and structure and identify some of its implications on the conceptualization of the role of leader and leadership as human agency especially in its relation to change. With different point of departure, three articles from Emirbayer and Mische (1998), Sewell (1992) and Mahoney and Snyder (1999) reviewed in this paper are attempting to look at agency and structure without being in favor of one and eliminating the other. This paper argues that the conceptualization of agency and structure and their relationship which attempts to view that the existence of one does not deny the other will be useful to understand how leadership (leaders) can make a difference in social change.

Defining Agency: An Autonomous Actor?

All articles reviewed in this paper claim that they are attempting to put both agency and structure in a way that is not in favor of one or the other. It is interesting that both article that focuses on agency such as Emirbayer and Mische’s, and article that focuses on structure such as Sewell’s started with the statement that the subject they are dealing with is the most under theorized, elusive, and confusing in social sciences. Both structure and agency seem to suffer the same conceptualization problem especially on the relationship between the two.

In conceptualizing the relationship between agency and structure, most theories, according to Emirbayer and Mische tend to make agency “…remain so tightly bound to structure that one loses sight of the different ways in which agency actually shapes social action” (963). Agency according to them must be reconceptualized by looking at its several analytical elements and how those elements related to (interpenetrate) with structures. Therefore they define agency as:

“the temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments—the temporal relational contexts of action—which, through the interplay of habit, imagination, and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations” (Emirbayer and Mische: 970).

Because of its capacity to differentiate the different dimensions of agency, Emirbayer and Mische argue that their conceptualization “can help account for variability and change in actors’ capacities for imaginative and critical intervention in the diverse contexts within which they act” (970). Their conceptualization is also claimed to focus on the dynamic possibilities of human agency by viewing it as “composed of variable and changing orientations within the flow of time” (964).

This conceptualization provides clear place for human agency. It assumes that agency has its own reasoning and consciousness (imagination) in its efforts of intervening diverse contexts. This notion of temporal constructive engagement seems to be in line with the conceptualization from Bhaskar (1979: 48-49) that “social structures, unlike natural structures, do not exist independently of the agents’ conceptions of what they are doing in their activity.”

Based on their definition, Emirbayer and Mische propose three constitutive elements of agency i.e. iteration, projectivity, and practical evaluation. Iteration is “the selective reactivation by actors of past patterns of thought and action, as routinely incorporated in practical activity, thereby giving stability and order to social universes and helping to sustain identities, interactions, and institutions over time” (971). Projectivity is “the imaginative generation by actors of possible future trajectories of action, in which received structures of thought and action may be creatively reconfigured in relation to actors’ hopes, fears, and desires for the future” (971). Practical evaluation is “the capacity of actors to make practical and normative judgments among alternative possible trajectories of action, in response to the emerging demands, dilemmas, and ambiguities of presently evolving situations” (971).

By introducing these constitutive elements, especially on the projective capabilities of the agency, Emirbayer and Mische give further place and significant role to human agency in the making of change. Projective element seems to imply that human agency has the capabilities of constructing the future and use the current temporal engagement to achieve it. This projection of future can be put in the current framework of structure or outside it. In line with this assessment, Hays categorizes change into reproductive and transformative (1994:63-64). By using the temporal constructive engagement of Emirbayer and Mische, it can be further stated that agency can construct the engagement as to reproduce or transform the structure. Burns’s notion on transforming leadership (1978) can also be understood in the framework of these constitutive elements of agency.

In the current dichotomy of agency–structure, Emirbayer and Mische’s conceptualization of agency starts from the side of agency and then projects it to structure. Clearly, agency is more a focus here. The problem with this conceptualization is that it has the tendency to assume that actor always understands the contexts. Or actor can always adjust its engagement construction over time in a changing context. The first problem is that actor does not always understand the context. Wendt (1987: 359) has pointed out that “agents may not understand the structural antecedents or implications of their actions.” The second problem is the constructive engagement by the agent can result in the unintended outcome and the further response of the agent can be more problematic because it can also result in more unintended outcomes. Strategic choice approach used by Collier and Norden (1992) for example shows that agent’s choice depends on strategic environment which does not always provide complete information to make agency fully understands the context.

In contrast with Emirbayer and Mische, Sewell’s conception of agency can be regarded as structure based. It starts with structure and then projects it to the agency. However, he views agency “not as opposed to, but as constituent of structure” (20). Agency is the one that is:

“capable of exerting some degree of control over the social relations in which one is enmeshed, which in turn implies the ability to transform those social relations to some degree. … agents are empowered to act with and against others by structure: they have knowledge of the schemas that inform social life and have access to some measure of human and non human resources. Agency arises from the actor’s knowledge of schemas, which means the ability to apply them to new contexts. Agency is implied by the existence of structures” (20).

Therefore, Sewell also puts agency in an important place. However, his conception is different from Emirbayer and Mische in the sense that he puts the structure more as the source of the agency’s capacity. He clearly views agency as inseparable from the structure (something that seems to bother Emirbayer and Mische). In other words, the existence of structure constitutes the human agency. He further states that “capacity of agency… is inherent in all humans. But… humans are born with only a highly generalized capacity for agency…. The specific forms that agency will take consequently vary enormously and are culturally and historically determined” (20). Human has a kind of limited autonomous agency capacities at the first place which then develops depending upon the structure it encounters. On this, Sewell further states that “…agency differs enormously in both kind and extent. …what intention they can form, and what sort of creative transpositions they can carry out vary dramatically from one social world to another depending on the nature of the particular structures that inform those social world” (20-21).

The question is however; to what extent this born-agency capacity differs from one agency to another. Can this explanation be related to the different personal or psychological traits of individuals? From the leadership point of view, can this be the source of agency based explanation about the different outcome of the actions from different leaders? Unfortunately, Sewell does not elaborate more what he really means by “highly generalized capacity” of human agency. He does not explain further about what is the relationship of this inherent generalized capacity of agency with the next capacity that the agency gets later from its interaction with the structure. Is that relation is deterministic or more dynamic? If it is dynamic, what accounts for that? Do different agencies get the same empowerment from structure? Also, how the agency gets these agentic capacities? Sewell’s explanation does not give insight to answer those questions.

Mahoney and Snyder’s conception of human agency is different from both Emirbayer and Mische and Sewell. From their study on the explanation of regime change, they try to embrace/synthesize both agency based and structural based conception of human agency. According to them, “Voluntarist approaches conceive human behavior as underdetermined by social structures. In this view, actors’ identities and interests during regime transformations cannot be explained by social or economic roles. Human action is understood as a force external to and disengaged from “objective” social relations” (5). This conception is called undersocialized conception of human agency. Structural approaches on the other hand “treat the identities and interests of actors as defined by positions within social structures and view choices and actions as results of these positions” (5). This is called oversocialized conception of human agency.

The undersocialized conception on interaction between actors and change, Mahoney and Snyder continue, “deemphasizes the possibility that these interactions may be affected by pre-existing social relations which shape actors’ interests and capabilities” (5). This results in the tendency of voluntarist approaches to “overemphasize immediate, short-term processes, choices, and political crafting, while ignoring the extent to which “the possible” is conditioned by social structures” (5). The inverse problem occurs to the oversocialized conception of agency. It has bias for emphasizing long-term, impersonal processes and for overlooking the possibility that actors may have margins of maneuverability during periods of regime change (5).

Mahoney and Snyder’s proposal is to combine the two approaches of undersocialized and oversocialized human agency. They come up with “structurally conceptual based” and “voluntaist conceptual based” human agencies (6-7). There are two problems of this kind of broad conceptualization. First is objective problem. How do we decide that the problem we are dealing with can be analyzed by using structurally based or voluntary based human agency? Is it based on the characteristic of leadership during the time of regime change? Or, is it based on the type of socio-economic factors dominant during the time of regime change? Are there any other objective criteria for judging it? The second problem is subjective problem. By introducing the structurally based and voluntary based human agency, Mahoney and Snyder tend to leave it to the subjective tendency of the researcher in analyzing and explaining the problem. If the researcher tends to lean toward voluntarism, he /she will tend to use it as analytical tools and vise versa. Therefore this categorization is less helpful in conceptualizing further the role of leadership in change.

Defining Structure: Context and Culture?

In Emirbayer and Mische’s conceptualization, structure is defined more as contexts or environment in which human agency can show “varying degrees of maneuverability, inventiveness, and reflective choice in relation to the constraining and enabling contexts of action” (964). Structure or structural environment: “are both dynamically sustained by and altered trough human agency—by actors capable of formulating project for the future and realizing them, even if only in small part, and with unforeseen outcomes, in the present” (964).

This characterization of structure seems to imply that structure is more like a playing field for agency. This concept is again seems to be in line with Bhaskar’s notion that “structure may be only relatively autonomous. …, they do not exist independently of the conceptions that the agents possess of what they are doing, … (1979: 48). The different contexts or structure or environment affect agency’s construction on how to engage with it and later, the agency will prepare further response on the possible changing structure as a result of the previous temporal engagement. This can be regarded as a kind of Sewell’s characterization of human agency on its general agency capacity at the first place but Emirbayer and Mische apply it on structure. If this reading is true, Emirbayer and Mische look at the structure as having a sort of general impact on agency at the first place but the further impact depends on how the agency constructs its temporal engagement with the structure. Both agency and structure then is in the state of changing over time but the direction of change is more on the control of agency. This is one of the main problems of this characterization because it can lead to the impression that everything can be controlled by agency. If we accept the notion that agency does not always understand the structure as has been reiterated by Wendt, the problem is getting problematic. The failure of understanding the context will result in the improper temporal engagement construction which can lead to unintended outcomes. The strategic choice models for example, has suggested that the games that are played by agency in many instances (if not most) are not based on complete information, but the games of incomplete information in which there is no uncertainty about the environment or structure and the agency must rely on possible choices that can be drawn from the signal of the strategic environment.

Structure according to Sewell consists of schema and resources. Schema is “generalizable procedures applied in the enactment/reproduction of social life. They are generalizable in the sense that they can be applied in or extended to various contexts of interactions” (8). Sewell’s examples of this schema are rules of etiquette, aesthetic norms, recipes for group actions, democratic vote, set of equivalence such as wet and dry, male and female, nature and culture, private and public, etc. This schema is generalized (can be transposed or extended) to new situations when there is opportunity (8). Resource as the second element of structure consists of two types: human and non human. Nonhuman resources are “objects, animate or inanimate, naturally occurring or manufactured, that can be used to enhance or maintain power; human resources are physical strength, dexterity, knowledge, and emotional commitments that can be used to enhance or maintain power, including knowledge of the means of gaining, retaining, controlling, and propagating either human or nonhuman resources. Both type of resources are media of power and are unevenly distributed” (8-9).

In Sewell’s conception, structure is possible to change. Social transformation in his view cannot only explained by the change from outside the system. Social transformation can be generated by the operation of structure internal to society (16). This will be possible if the theory of structure adopts a multiple, contingent, and fractured conception of society and structure. He further suggests five axioms that will enable the social transformation. The five axioms are the multiplicity of structures, the transposibility of schemas, the unpredictability of resource accumulation, the polysemy of resources, and the intersection of structures (16).

The room for human agency in Sewell’s construction of structure looks more limited that Emirbayer and Mische’s conceptualization. Sewell’s human agency’s role in social transformation depends on the five enabling axioms of the change. The most possible significant role of human agency in social transformation derives from the concept of transposability of schema. Agency’s knowledge of a rule or schema means “the ability to … apply it creatively” (Sewell: 18). The room of transposability is limited however, because it depends on the opportunity. This opportunity seems to be more structurally bounded.

According to Mahoney and Snyder, structure can be viewed from the constraint and generative models. Constraint model depends on the conception of structures as contingent constraint that “potentially limits the ability of actors to achieve their goals” (6). In constraint model “structural factors are treated as barriers external to actors which may or may not stand between them and the achievement of their autonomous goals and interests” (6). Generative model conceives structure as “necessary relations internalized by actors and from which their interests, identities and goals derive” (6). Structure constitutes the properties that define actors and motivate their behavior.

Constraints model looks to be more compatible with the concept of temporal constructed engagement of Emirbayer and Mische while generative model is more in line with the structure based concept from Sewell. From these two typologies of views on structures Mahoney and Snyder suggest that structure can be both constraining and empowering the actors (agency). Thus, they are not infavor of one or the other.

Agency – Structure Interaction

The main problem in understanding the interaction between agency and structure is the nature of their relationship. Is the relationship constitutive or causal or both? If the relationship is causal which one is more as a causal factor than the other? Emirbayer and Mische have clearly rejected the idea that agency and structure are mutually constitutive because they want to define agency from its own internal structure. They proposed a type of relationship called double constitution of agency and structure which means “temporal-relational contexts support particular agentic orientations, which in turn constitute different structuring relationships of actors toward their environments” (Emirbayer and Mische: 1004). This conception, according to them is different from mutually constitutive since the agency “is never so deeply intertwined with every aspect of” the structure (ibid). Mahoney and Snyder, with their integrative approach seem to leave it out to the choice of researchers whether or not to use funnel, path dependent or eclectic strategies in combining the role of agency and structure. They are more concerned with how the conceptual framework could provide analytical tool that include both structure and agency. Sewell seems to embrace the idea that agency is “deeply intertwined with every aspect of the structure.” Sewell’s structure as the source of agency’s empowerment (schema and resources) is compatible with the idea of resources from Galbraith (1983) and Swiddler’s idea on culture as a tool kit (1986). It is not clear however whether these resources/tool kits are the constitutive elements or the causal factors of the human agency.

With regard to the outcome of human agency’s action, what is the nature of the structure’s role/effect? Sewell seems to see it more deterministic than Emirbayer and Mische, while Mahoney and Snyder look it as more situational, depends on the approach that is used. In helping to understand this, the view from critical realist such as Bhaskar (1979) and Lewis (2002) can be useful. They suggest that, although not deterministic to the behavior of human agency, social rules and resources given by structure may exert important influence to social affairs/actions (Lewis, 2002: 20). Structure, in this conception provides material cause while human agency provides efficient cause to the outcome. Material cause provide medium of action for human agency, while human agency is acted as the driving force because of its creative and initiative capacity.

Conclusion: Some Preliminary Lessons for Leadership and Change

Although not specific, the above discussion on several conceptualizations on agency, structure and the relationship between the two have provided some insights on the role of leadership as human agency and change. Clearly, the explanation of social affairs/events cannot be viewed from the perspective which is in favor one and eliminating the other. The discussion from Emirbayer and Mische, Sewell, and Mahoney and Snyder suggests that it is possible that the intensity of human agency’s role will be various from one situation to another. Leader or human agency plays roles in change, but it depends on what kind of structure the human agency encounters and what kind of human agency that is playing the game. A Mahoney and Snyder’s eclectic strategy is one example of this insight.

Although the place for human agency has been provided--at least by the three articles reviewed in this paper, to put leadership as a distinct human agency requires the social scientist to view it as an individual agency. The three articles do not clearly discuss this or give more insight. Sewell only mentions briefly that agency is collective as well as individual (21). But again, his explanation on this tends to put individual to be bound to collectivity. Therefore in an effort to understand leadership as a distinct individual agent the discussion in more literature is needed. Until we can explain that the individual agency can act and make a difference without necessarily bound to collectivity or structure the conceptualization on leader’s agentic nature will always be under criticism. Finally, there is still not much discussion on how to put the issue of personality or personal traits into the debate between structure and agency. This is important because if the leader is conceptualized as individual human agency there must be explanation on why several leaders seem to act differently even in the same structural constraints/empowerments.

Bibliography:

Bhaskar, Roy. 1979. The Possibility of Naturalism. A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Sussex: The Harvester Press.

Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Collier, David; Deborah L. Norden. 1992. “Strategic Choice Models of Political Change in Latin America.” Comparative Politics 24 (2): 229-243.

Emirbayer, Mustafa and Ann Mische. 1998. “What Is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology 103 (4): 962-1023.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1983. The Anatomy of Power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Hays, Sharon. 1994. “Structure and Agency and the Sticky Problem of Culture.” Sociological Theory 12 (1): 57-72.

Imbroscio, David L. 1999. “Structure, Agency, and Democratic Theory.” Polity 32 (1): 45-66.

Kitschelt, Herbert. 1992. “Review: Political Regime Change: Structure and Process-Driven Explanations?” The American Political Science Review 86 (4): 1028-1034.

Lewis, Paul. A. 2002. “Agency, Structure and Causality in Political Science: A Comment on Sibeon.” Politics 22 (1): 17-23.

Mahoney, James and Richard Snyder. 1999. “Rethinking Agency and Structure in the Study of Regime Change.” Studies in International Comparative Development Summer: 3-32.

Sewell, William H., Jr. 1992. “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and Transformation.” The American Journal of Sociology 98 (1): 1-29.

Swiddler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51 (2): 273-286.

Wendt, Alexander. 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.” International Organization 41 (3): 335-370.