I asked Peter about his motivations for writing the book with Richard; as a successful entrepreneur prior to becoming an academic – why is he writing a book about leadership? He says it was born out of frustration!
“You go into work and you face a problem and youfind thatleadership literature, [or any business literature], doesn’t help you to start with thinking about why this person being so difficult and why can’t I get them to do what they’re supposed to do?“
The practical insights in the book are grounded in his doctoral research at UWE which involved studying a UK law firm over a twelve-month period during the transition to remote working. The timing proved unexpectedly valuable as Teams meetings could be recorded and transcribed, allowing him to observe leadership communication in real time. The result was a rich collection of conversations, interactions and leadership moments that continue to shape his research today. It also resulted in a book that feels less like a rulebook and more like a toolkit for navigating the realities of organisational life.
The centrality of language
One of the strongest themes running through the book is the importance of communication – whilst we of course use many other forms of influence – we use language the most when we are actively leading:
“Understanding our language, I feel like that’s a core place to start, that once we can start to get to grips with that, we can start looking further afield at some of the other influence processes and some of the other ways we communicate with people.“
And whilst the book was written for an audience of those perhaps at the beginning of their leadership careers; we both agreed that the book has much wider applicability as a reflective prompt for everyone who wants to increase their leadership influence. It encourages readers to consider development and refinement of these skills as a lifelong journey.
“It’s telling you to think about how you’re using the language and then trial and error and different things that you can think about to address your problems or your context or whatever it is specifically.“
This emphasis on self-reflection feels particularly valuable in an era where leadership advice is often presented as a set of universal rules. The book is written as a series of chapters you can dip in and out of; and use for the leadership purpose at hand. It really aims to challenge thinking and to encourage readers to consider how complex leadership really is – in relation to leadership roles, leadership impact, and how leaders are perceived by others.
Shifting our leadership paradigm
The book is trying to achieve a real paradigm shift in thinking – and to move beyond the binary of the heroes and villains of leadership to consider the broader systems, pressures and organisational contexts that influence behaviour. This moves the discussion away from individual personalities and towards a deeper understanding of how leadership operates in a much more nuanced way within complex environments. This goes beyond language; Peter and Richard drew inspiration from Foucault’s ‘dispositive’ considering much more holistic connections involved in social reality e.g. including morality, culture and social regulations. Writing this in a simple, practical book without diluting its brilliance Peter described as ‘difficult’ but I think they both do it justice! It’s a powerful reminder of just how sophisticated everyday communication really is.
What happens next?
Firstly, to say that Peter wanted to express his thanks again to his co-author Richard and also to Ryan Norman, the commissioning editor at Kogan Page who has endlessly supported the drafting and redrafting of this wonderful book!
The strongest impression I took away from our conversation was Peter’s enthusiasm – his curiosity is infectious. His work constantly encourages us to look beneath the surface, question assumptions and explore the hidden influences shaping our interactions. We can expect to see much more from Peter about leadership language and a more holistic understanding of the practice of leadership built upon some fascinating stories.
Buy the book and get a 25% discount with the code KOGANPAGE25
About the authors:
Dr Peter Stephenson is a Lecturer in Leadership and Management at the University of Exeter Business School. Before moving into academia, he founded and successfully exited two businesses. His research explores leadership, organisational culture, power dynamics and the role of language in shaping leadership in practice.
Professor Richard Boldenis Professor of Leadership and Management and Director of Bristol Leadership and Change Centre at the University of the West of England. His research explores the interface between individual and collective approaches to leadership and leadership development in contexts including healthcare, higher education and public services.
The authors of this article have been commissioned to edit a book on Ghost Leadership: Uncovering the Hidden and Unsettling Sides of Leadership for the ILA and Emerald Building Leadership Bridges book series. To find out more and to submit a chapter proposal please read the complete CFP. The Deadline for initial outlines is 18th November 2024.
Halloween (see Notes for a discussion of Halloween’s roots) is an inherently liminal time and space — straddling Autumn and Winter (in the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere at least), the natural and the supernatural, feast and famine, life and death — a period where normal rules, categories, and identities are momentarily suspended, and change, transformation, experimentation, and play come to the forefront. Despite increasing commercialization, Halloween is still fundamentally centered on the fear of the unknown, unseen, and unsaid, and allows a temporary and anarchic zone of ambiguous groupings.
Of course, these kinds of periods also enable a space for pause and reflection —for sensemaking and understanding (or perhaps questioning) our own taken-for-granted rules and assumptions. When normal service is suspended, it allows us a glimpse behind the curtain, and this is regularly felt with the deep examination that Halloween offers of inclusion and exclusion in society. Indeed, Halloween provides us a lens to examine the place of “outsiders”’ and notions of societal belonging — whether that be the monsters and ghouls that descend onto mortal soil or how those traditionally marginalized in society (such as children) may take on more dominant roles during the time. After witnessing safe structures being inverted and previously invisible forces bubbling up, when the dust settles, we emerge with a deeper understanding of “normal” life — perhaps more appreciative, perhaps more questioning. We are granted a view of the “strange.”
This offers up a powerful opportunity to explore leadership dynamics in organizations. What can we learn from the temporary suspension of convention at Halloween that can enable us to see leadership in new ways in our organizations? How can we ask different questions about the unseen and unsaid? About hidden forces? About mortality and vitality? About individual and organizational identities, and how they may typically serve to marginalize and disempower? And, unlike the short-term (and often superficial) suspension during Halloween, can we develop our own capacity to adopt this questioning mindset as a permanent part of our organizational experience?
Facing Our Monsters
The phantoms and monsters that have come to characterize the festival of Halloween can be considered as archetypes that provide insight into our greatest hopes and fears. In what follows we will consider four of the most widely known Halloween monsters — ghosts, vampires, werewolves and zombies — as productive metaphors to unmask the hidden and uncanny aspects of leadership.
Ghosts — The importance of Culture and Place
Ghosts are amongst the most ancient manifestations of the supernatural. One of the earliest accounts is attributed to Pliny the Younger, who wrote in first century CE of an old, bearded man with rattling chains haunting his house in Athens (History.com, 2023). Ghosts, phantoms, and spectres are ubiquitous — with stories in most, if not all, communities around the world. A common notion underpinning ghost lore is the separation of the body and soul — with ghosts being those unfortunate spirits that, when freed from their bodies, become trapped between life and the afterlife (a space previously referred to as “purgatory”).
In her book The Ghost: A Cultural History, Susan Owens (2017) suggests that ghosts serve two main functions within society — firstly to remind us of the inevitability of death and secondly to offer reassurance that death is not the end. Through popular culture, ghosts vary hugely in temperament, from benevolent (e.g., Casper the Friendly Ghost), through benign (e.g., many of the Hogwarts ghosts in Harry Potter), eccentric and unpredictable (e.g., Beetlejuice), to outright malevolent (e.g., Freddy Kruger). The scariest ghosts, however, are perhaps those that we cannot see — either lurking in the shadows or simply invisible.
In applying the ghost metaphor to leadership, several points come to mind. Firstly, ghosts are usually a sign that something is amiss — that a soul hasn’t passed through to “the other side;” that something terrible happened in a particular place; or that some wrongdoing has occurred (such as the building of houses on burial grounds in the films Poltergeist and Amityville Horror). Secondly, ghosts remind us of the situatedness of experience — ghosts don’t, by and large, turn up at random but are integrally linked to the people and/or places they haunt. And thirdly, there is the importance of stories and storytelling in making sense of who the ghosts are and why they do what they do. Key themes we might consider here are the importance of organizational culture and the need to acknowledge and, if necessary, purge the spirits of the past to move forward. We might also consider aspects of place-based leadership and the interconnections between workplaces & organizations, cities & communities, countries & societies, and virtual & imagined worlds (Sutherland et al., 2022). Finally, we might be encouraged to consider the experience of being “haunted’” — as similar to a followers’ account of the legacy and impact of their experiences (good and bad) in relation to the ghostly “leadership” influences around them.
Vampires – The Complexities of Ascension
The typical theme surrounding vampires is one of ascension — where, following their conversion, an ordinary human suddenly experiences immortality, previously unknown power, and now occupies a permanently hierarchical position above mortal beings. Leaders may find themselves experiencing a similar transformation through promotion up the ranks (Kempster & Stewart, 2010). Like vampires, they may find that their worldview is shifted — peers becoming subordinates, power imbalances straining relationships, and becoming detached, perhaps, from their more “human” tendencies and emotions, finding them replaced with a focus on broader concerns and strategic goals that they didn’t consider previously — without which, survival would be impossible. Indeed, leaders may be aware of the potential for leaving permanent marks on their organizations and people they lead — where their policies, visions, and impacts can not only be perceived of as unquestionable, but also conceivably lasting long after their time in a formal leadership role ends.
The challenge throughout this is to understand that the archetypal tale of a vampire is of one who has lost their empathy with their previous kind, becoming hyper-individualistic and seeing the question of survival as a solo pursuit reliant on others being “drained” (Godwin, 2012). Within organizations, this power, if left unchecked, can quickly become destructive — either through exhausting morale or even, intersubjectively, “destroying” their team. As mortals, we have the opportunity to resist those vampiric tendencies. We have the agency to contest the temptation to see a leadership role as one that comes with irrefutable authority and instead balance our newfound power with empathy and compassion — driving for a sustainable influence rather than exponentially extracting from those around us.
Through this, we can see that the metaphor of the vampire helps us to understand how leaders might frame their roles differently, but that this also involves a complex renegotiation of the self in the process. Whilst conversations around the anxiety that accompanies leaders is still surprisingly scarce, portrayals of vampires do regularly focus on the challenges and complexities of their new position — coming to terms with their new power (and often over-stepping the boundaries in their early stages), loneliness, the requirement for training, understanding their severed relationships, and renegotiating their places in society. From Dracula, to True Blood, to Twilight, the story of the vampire is laced with sorrow as well as aspiration. Thus, in addition to understanding the impact of leaders on their teams, the vampiric metaphor also may help us to understand in more complex detail the journey of the individual who finds themselves transformed. Whilst promoting an aspiration for power is common within Western cultures, much less is dedicated to exploring and coping with the contradictory feelings that come afterwards — emotions that leaders may feel make them an imposter and that subsequently encourage them to fall back to occupying the “default” position of wielding power over others. Perhaps this offers us the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of tales of vampires, and bring in the messy, contested, and complicated emotions that come with ascension to powerful positions. Our following reflection on the experience of werewolves delves further into this complexity.
Werewolves – The Crisis of Self
In folklore, a werewolf (lycanthrope) is a human who involuntarily transforms into a wolf at full moon. Werewolves represent the manifestation of primal human instincts with energies and fearlessness fueled by desires for power and freedom whilst at the same time, offering loyalty. Symbolically, werewolves represent the underlying struggle between good and evil in the human psyche, one that is captured in the identity crisis that occurs in the human-wolf-human liminal states.
Werewolves offer fertile ground to study identity transformation and crisis given that symbolic, agentic, and experiential transformation aid understanding the liminality of identity struggles (Belk, 1988, 2013; Schouten, 1991). Applying liminality theory (Beech, 2011; Cody, 2012) the ability to integrate new self-concepts is vital for human-werewolves as they transition from one stable way of structuring their identity to another, letting go of their old identity before their new one can be established. Whilst in transitory mode, the human-werewolf teeters on thresholds (literally “līmen”) often portrayed as struggling with the multiple possibilities of what they will become. The identity struggle includes the uncertainty of what will occur whilst transformed and how the new, reassembled identity will manifest. The fears, fantasies, and desires of the new, wilder human-werewolf on the threshold capture endless possibilities.
A vivid illustration of this is Martin Parker’s (2004) autoethnographic account of taking on the role of Head of Department at Keele University and the challenges of assimilating this alongside his professional identity as a Critical Management Studies scholar. The title of the article — Becoming Manager: Or, the Werewolf Looks Anxiously in the Mirror, Checking for Unusual Facial Hair — powerfully captures the very real struggles experienced (yet rarely discussed) by people in such situations. Liminal identity is conceptualized as “a threshold state of existence that involves the dissolution of one self-whilst reflexively recrafting a new self” (Beech, 2011). This highlights that liminality occurs at the intersection between agency and structure wherein identity is viewed as a co-construction between self and socio-cultural contexts (Beech, 2011; Ybema et al., 2011). The journey of werewolf liminal identity struggle typically involves multiple phases. As shapeshifters, the werewolf identity crisis has caught the attention of scholars who examine embodied identities, hyper sexuality, psychology, heredity, and othering (e.g., du Coudray, 2002; McMahon-Coleman & Weaver, 2012; Bernhardt-House, 2016). Werewolves as depicted throughout history, represent threats to established norms and behaviors of a social context, hence when in the “monster” liminal states, they are often imprisoned (Koetsier & Forceville, 2014). The phases of transformation include Awakening (an initial realization of one’s werewolf nature); Denial (attempts to dismiss or rationalize the emotional response to these changes); Exploration (as the individual begins to experiment with their newfound abilities); Conflict (inner turmoil and/or external conflict as the individual grapples with the duality and tensions of their human and wolf identities); Isolation (a sense of alienation from “normal” human society and struggle to connect with others); Acceptance (as the human comes to terms with their dual identity, and discovers ways to manage their transformations); and Empowerment (where the human-werewolf learns to harness their abilities and may, on a good day, use their experiences to help others navigate similar struggles or, on a bad day, unleash their inner identity struggle and crisis on the world — terrorizing, murdering, and devouring prey with unstoppable momentum).
Whilst werewolves may be famed for their potential savagery, they are also regarded as intensely loyal. A second theoretical lens that could be applied, therefore, is Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Kleine & Kleine, 2000), which suggests that individuals strive for high self-esteem by affirming the value of social groups to which they belong, while avoiding associations with social groups perceived as less valued (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In terms of werewolves, an SIT framework assumes individuals align their werewolf selves to referent groups in order to associate more strongly with or distance themselves from particular social identities (Reed, 2002). The same may be true of leaders and managers as they associate with and promote the interests of certain “in” groups, often in direct competition with “out” groups. SIT helps to understand what motivates human-werewolf (leader/manager) behavior as it posits they will employ strategies to achieve the desired identity status. The human werewolf will act in ways that demonstrate its loyalties to certain groups to mark their position in this new group. Ultimately, the werewolf builds group membership by ensuring that those who survive an attack are destined to transform into werewolves themselves at the next full moon.
Metaphors provide a powerful opportunity to reveal the taken-for-granted assumptions behind organizational life, granting us a glimpse at the unseen, uncanny, and unsettling nature of leadership itself.
Zombies – Following the Herd?
Whilst the metaphor of the vampire and werewolf can help us to understand the experience of the leader, what of metaphors that can enhance our understanding of the follower? In our final section we reflect on how narratives around zombie-like behavior can raise questions about the nature of followership in organizations, serving as a direct counterpoint to the leader-centric narratives that pervade much Organization Studies literature.
Whilst there are a wide range of zombie typologies in modern media, they tend to be known to follow their herd mindlessly (Lauro, 2017) in a perpetual search for their next “hit” of brains, destruction, or the infection and conversion of others. Our experience of encountering zombies in media often results in a kneejerk disgust at the swarm, and fear of the power of large and interchangeable numbers (McAndrew, 2018). However, zombies can provide an appropriate metaphor for understanding the logical extreme of mindless followership in organizations, where individuals eschew their critical thinking skills in favor of adopting a herd mentality — where they are unreflexively be a part of something bigger than themselves but lose themselves in the process. Indeed, Jackson and Parry (2009) note that followers are often thought of as “recipients” of leadership practice, with Collinson (2006) articulating that they can be “marked by their susceptibility to their leaders’ aims and goals.” Whilst this mechanistic framing may have served the theory of more traditional post-Taylorist management studies — which focus on the centrality of top-down leadership, harmony, clear direction, and unquestionable hierarchy (Fournier & Grey, 2000) — we only have to apply our zombie metaphor to begin to unpack the problematic aspects of this.
If we work on the oft-stated assumption that “leadership implies followership,” we run the risk of adopting the view that power relations in organizations should be permanently asymmetric — there are active leaders, there are passive followers, and rarely is the boundary breached. For those cast in the latter category, there is then an implicit instruction that voice, innovation, critical thought, and independence are not characteristics to be prized, but denigrated (Tourish, 2013). Instead, the responsibility to lead falls in the lap of a chosen few who have hordes underneath to conduct their bidding. The dangers of herd mentality in groups have been a topic of great interest for years, with the problems of groupthink never lurking far behind — defined by a lack of criticality and an assumption of homogeneity in goals (Janis, 1971; Grube & Killick, 2023).
What futures can be re-imagined if we break the cycle of seeing followers through the metaphorical lens of zombies? What if we question the notion that leaders are all-powerful and that followers are subservient and only interested in the relentless pursuit of the leaders’ instruction? Not only does this free those in leadership positions from the anxiety and fear that comes along with the expectation of omnipotence with their new identity, but it also sets a precedent that organizations are built on collective not individual capacity. Breaking this cycle involves us unlearning decades of management theory and a confidence from leaders to lead, perhaps, more from the “side” rather than the “top” — seeking diverse perspectives, encouraging red-teaming, and fostering genuine and authentic innovation from their organizations.
Unmasking Leadership
Throughout this piece, we have drawn on different Halloween-inspired monstrous metaphors to help prompt reflective questions about contemporary leadership practice — whether that be ghosts and the significance of culture and place, the aspirational vampiric narrative, werewolves occupying liminal spaces, or the dangers of zombie-like herd mentality. We follow in the footsteps of Morgan (1989) and Alvesson and Spicer (2011) in arguing that metaphors provide a powerful opportunity to reveal the taken-for-granted assumptions behind organizational life, and, in our case, grant us a further glimpse at the unseen, uncanny, and unsettling nature of leadership itself. Taking time to reflect on how cultural reference points are played out in reality offers us a trip to hyper-reality that can open up avenues of exploration that might have been closed off before.
To take this one stage further, let us finish with one final comparison. Masks are synonymous with Halloween — from children dressing up in spooky faces for trick-or-treating, to the grotesque guises that famous horror villains, like Michael Myers from the Halloween series, don. At a surface level these masks serve as both protection and concealment against true identities, perhaps as a deliberate effort to deceive, intimidate, or manipulate, and/or as a productive opportunity to occupy a new self for a temporary time (O’hUadhaigh, 2024). Organization Studies literature has regularly pointed toward this from a dramaturgical perspective and the presentation of self (Goffman, 1959; Jeffcut et al., 2007; Peng, 2023), reminding us that, similar to wearing a Halloween costume, organizational members often adopt specific personas to meet preconceived expectations.
Whilst there is clear psychological security that comes from this, we argue that there does need to be reflective space opened up in leadership practice about the masks we choose to wear — about why we need them, where our desire to wear them comes from, and about the ways in which they make us act when in character. These masks enable action, but they may also limit our activity as we unreflexively act out dominant narratives. Just as Joaquin Phoenix’s titular Joker experiences, this becomes especially problematic when the mask begins to “eat into the face” — moving from a temporary shield into a permanent persona that distorts self-awareness. Leadership positions are frequently lonely and vulnerable places (Lam et al., 2024), fraught with both real and imagined unseen expectations, and, although our masks can provide some temporary respite by hiding our own perceived weaknesses, openly acknowledging our imperfections and uncertainties may provide an alternative avenue for agency and for gaining insights into behaviors, motivations, and power dynamics at play in our organizations.
In this short piece, we have explored how several metaphors can provide rich insights into leadership, identity, power, and performance in organizational settings. We encourage you to consider the masks that you may wear and the “metaphors you lead by” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2011). The unmasking process is an inevitably frightening one but placing it aside — even momentarily — may tell us more about what lies beneath.
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!
Notes: With its roots in the Celtic festival of Samhain, Halloween tends to be celebrated in Western English-speaking societies. Different traditions and festivals are used to celebrate/remember the dead in other cultures, such as Day of the Dead (Mexico and Latin America), Obon (Japan), Chuseok (South Korea), Gai Jatra (Nepal), Pchum Ben (Cambodia), and the Hungry Ghost Festival (celebrated by Buddhists and Taoists around the World) (see https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/festivals-dead-around-world-180953160/), although these are not the focus of the current article.
References
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2011). Metaphors We Lead By: Understanding Leadership in the Real World. Routledge.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154
Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended Self in a Digital World. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-500. https://doi.org/10.1086/671052
Bernhardt-House, P. A. (2016). The Werewolf as Queer, the Queer as Werewolf, and Queer Werewolves. In M.J. Hird & N. Giffney (Eds.), Queering the Non/Human (pp. 159-183). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315603308
Cody, K. (2012). ‘No Longer, but Not Yet’: Tweens and the Mediating of Threshold Selves Through Liminal Consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(1), 41-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540512438155
Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking Followership: A Post-Structuralist Analysis of Follower Identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.005
du Coudray, C. B. (2002). Upright Citizens on all Fours: Nineteenth-Century Identity and the Image of the Werewolf. Nineteenth-Century Contexts, 24(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08905490290031767
Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). At the Critical Moment: Conditions and Prospects for Critical Management Studies. Human Relations, 53(1), 7-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267005310
Godwin, V. (2012). New Grow Old, Never Die: Vampires, Narcissism and Simulacra. Interaction Studies in Communication and Culture, 31(1), 91-106. https://doi.org/10.1386/iscc.3.1.91_1
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday.
Grube, D., & Killick, A. (2023). Groupthink, Polythink and the Challenges of Decision-Making in Cabinet Government. Parliamentary Affairs, 76(1), 211-231. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab047
Jackson, B., & Parry, K. (2009). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Studying Leadership. Sage.
Janis, I. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5(6), 43-46.
Jeffcutt, P., Grafton Small, R., & Linstead, S. (1996). Organization as a Theatre of Performance. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 2(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10245289608523462
Kempster, S., & Stewart, J. (2010). Becoming a Leader: A Co-Produced Autoethnographic Exploration of Situated Learning of Leadership Practice. Management Learning, 41(2), 205-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609355496
Kleine, R.E., & Kleine, S.S. (2000). Consumption and Self-Schema Changes Throughout the Identity Project Life Cycle. Advances in Consumer Research, 27(1), 279-285.
Lam, H., Giessner, S.R., Shemla, M., & Werner, M.D. (2024). Leader and Leadership Loneliness: A Review-Based Critique and Path to Future Research. The Leadership Quarterly, 35(3): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101780
Lauro, S. (2017). Zombie Theory: A Reader. Columbia University Press.
Owens, S. (2017). The Ghost: A Cultural History. Tate.
Parker, M. (2004). Becoming Manager: Or, the Werewolf Looks Anxiously in the Mirror, Checking for Unusual Facial Hair. Management Learning, 35(1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507604041164
Peng, H. (2023). Dramaturgical Perspective as a Process for Enhancing the Learning of Organisation Theory: Potential and Limitations. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 21(3), 436–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2023.2189169
Reed, A. II. (2002). Social Identity as a Useful Perspective for Self-Concept–Based Consumer Research. Psychology & Marketing, 19(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10011
Schouten, J. W. (1991). Selves in Transition: Symbolic Consumption in Personal Rites of Passage and Identity Reconstruction. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 412–425. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626836
Sutherland, N., Bolden, R., Edwards, G., & Schedlitzki, D. (2022). Putting Leadership in Its Place: Introduction to the Special Issue. Leadership, 18(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150221083498
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In: S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Nelson-Hall Publishers.
Tourish, D. (2013). The Dark Side of Transformational Leadership: A Critical Perspective. Routledge.
Ybema, S., Beech, N., & Ellis, N. (2011). Transitional and Perpetual Liminality: An Identity Practice Perspective. Anthropology Southern Africa, 34(1–2), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/23323256.2011.11500005
This is a re-blog from Richard Bolden on the ILA blog in which he discusses the challenges facing higher education leadership and asks those of us working in HE to reflect on what we can do to reclaim our role(s) and responsibilities as leaders in our organizations.
I have spent the past two and a half decades working as a leadership researcher and educator in UK universities. Throughout much of this time I have studied leadership in higher education (HE) as well as experiencing it first-hand. I have taken on leadership roles — both formal and informal — and have witnessed the trials and tribulations of colleagues as they have endeavoured to navigate the complexities of this context. In this article I share reflections on what I have learnt, why it matters, and what we can (all) do to enhance the quality and inclusiveness of leadership in this important sector.
Why Higher Education Leadership Matters
To begin it’s worth considering why HE matters for leadership theory, practice, and development. My own interest in researching leadership in this context was sparked by early work on distributed leadership in schools (e.g., Gronn, 2003; Spillane et al., 2004). HE provided an obvious testbed for exploring how such ideas might apply to other educational settings — particularly those with more complex structures, cultures, identities, and performance outcomes. Although there is fairly widespread agreement that the key purpose of effective school leadership is to improve pupil outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2006), the same does not apply to universities. Whilst student outcomes are undoubtably important metrics — and if you are a student, parent, or potential employer, perhaps the ones that concerns you most — this is not the only criterion by which HE institutions (and their staff) are evaluated. Another essential area of activity for universities is research — typically assessed in terms of “high quality” publications as well as by the volume of funding secured. Alongside this are agendas for external engagement and impact, not to mention the very real concerns of keeping universities running as viable businesses. Together, the diversity of stakeholders and priorities in HE produces a complex and contested environment where people and organizations may feel pulled in different directions. Such issues are not unique to HE but do make it an interesting context in which to study leadership, with important insights for emerging areas of scholarship, including complexity leadership (Uhl Bien, 2021), paradoxical leadership (Smith, et al., 2016) and collective leadership (Ospina et al., 2020).
At the center of any analysis of leadership is the interconnection between purpose, values, and identity, yet the somewhat schizophrenic nature of academia disrupts these dynamics in ways that can produce a sense of disenchantment, disengagement, and alienation. The HE system (in the UK and elsewhere) is founded on competing values systems — emphasizing both normative aspects (such as public service, professional autonomy, collegial practice, and traditions) and utilitarian principles (such as profit-making, corporate management, customer service, and change), such that a university “considers itself (and others consider it), alternatively, or even simultaneously, to be different types of organisations” (Albert & Whetten, 1985, p. 270).
The hybrid nature of HE poses particular challenges for leaders trying to establish credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of those they seek to influence, as different stakeholders identify “more with members of their own subcultures rather than as members of the university” (Winter & O’Donohue, 2012, p. 566). This is particularly true of academics who, as knowledge workers, carry professional identities and affiliations that extend well beyond their immediate employer. Whilst these, and other factors, make HE a particularly rich and rewarding context in which to study leadership there remains surprisingly little robust empirical research in this area and the HE leadership literature tends to be fragmented according to the perspectives and ideologies of different groups (Macfalane, et al., 2024).
Crisis, What Crisis?
The conceptual complexities of leadership in HE may, in part, help explain some of the difficulties facing the sector. Universities were particularly hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic (PWC, 2021) and whilst the immediate crisis may have passed, it has exposed deep-seated issues that have (by and large) remained below the surface for many years. In particular, accounts of “toxic” management are linked to widescale dissatisfaction, industrial action, and recruitment challenges in the sector (Watermeyer et al., 2021).
In a series of focus groups conducted as part of a project for Advance HE in Sept-Dec 2021 colleagues and I asked participants about the shifting context of global higher education (Watermeyer et al., 2022). Five key areas — policy, society, funding, students, and staff — were highlighted as impacting perceptions, experiences, and practices of leadership in contemporary HE. While the specifics of contextual issues varied between institutions and countries, there was strong agreement across the groups that current changes are producing tensions and challenges that are hard to resolve, as outlined in the following quote from a participant in Roundtable 1 with Heads of Departments and Deans.
“What we’ve seen… is this need [to]be agile and really responding to what is happening, straight now, but at the same time be someone who is looking ahead, at the same time as somebody who has that emotional intelligence to deal with not only their student population who is changing dramatically, but the needs of our staff and our whole pedagogy is changing? What do leaders need to do? How do they need to act? How do they need to be?” (p. 27).
In Britain, declining numbers of international students are putting huge pressures on a funding system dictated by government such that a third of universities are estimated to be trading at a deficit (Jenkins, 2023). In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that “bottom-line” financial performance metrics are of primary concern to senior institutional leaders, as are ranking schemes that determine the relative attractiveness of institutions to potential students.
Such measures, however, tend to be of far less significance to academics themselves in terms of what motivates and inspires them to work in HE. The growing divide between academics and managers is reported to be fueling extensive discontent within the sector, as indicated by unprecedented levels of industrial action across the UK (and elsewhere) throughout 2023 and reports of a “great resignation” (Ross, 2022).
Follower Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education
Within the Advance HE scoping study mentioned earlier, participants were asked to identify “what new or future leadership skills/competencies/behaviours are required within your organisation, professional area and/or wider sector?” Thematic coding identified 11 categories, which were incorporated into a subsequent survey completed by 553 respondents from around the World (Neves & Parkin, 2023). Figure 1 shows the proportion of respondents who strongly agreed that these qualities were important for good leaders within HE, as well as the extent to which they felt they demonstrated these qualities themselves (when leading) or observed these qualities within the people they were expected to follow (being led).
Figure 1 – Chart based on those who “agree strongly” with each statement — the top point on a five-point agreement scale. Ranked in order of whether a good leader should have these qualities (Neves & Parkin, 2023: 9) [Reproduced with permission from Advance HE]
There is a clear pattern within the data, whereby good HE leaders are expected to be adaptable, collaborative, credible, authentic, inclusive, and self-reflective (with compassion also ranked highly). Participants rated their own capacity moderately highly on each of these qualities (albeit it consistently lower than the ideal). The most striking finding from this graph, however, is the huge gap between each of these rankings and perceptions of those people currently in leadership roles.
Follower perspectives (“being led”) suggest a gulf in expectations and experiences of leadership. Whilst it should be noted that there is no evidence to suggest that these negative assessments are reflective of the actual skills/qualities of senior leaders (indeed it is quite possible that many of these people are amongst those who rated their own capacity moderately highly) it highlights a significant issue to which senior leaders would be advised to pay attention.
Reclaiming Leadership in Higher Education
Follower-centric perspectives on leadership stress the importance of building strong relationships between leaders and followers that are founded on trust, respect, and a shared sense of purpose. The evidence outlined above suggests that this is not the experience of many people currently working in HE — a situation that has significant implications for the sector.
If we continue along the current trajectory the chances are that HE may slip into terminal decline (Fleming, 2021). A chasm between the values and priorities of those in formal leadership and management roles and those of academics involved in teaching, research, and/or external engagement will lead to further disillusionment with the academic profession and a corresponding deterioration in the quality and significance of academic work. This is a trend that has been well documented in critiques of neoliberalism and new public management in universities. So, what might we as academics (with or without management responsibilities) do to improve the situation?
First, we should acknowledge our rights and responsibilities as “citizens of the academic community” (Bolden et al., 2014) to play an active role in the governance of our HE institutions and the wider sector. Disengagement, whilst understandable, leaves space and opportunities for toxic management to thrive and may render us complicit in the process.
Second, as part of this we would do well to create and sustain spaces for critical and constructive debate around the nature and purpose(s) of HE in contemporary society. Whilst this should allude to and promote core values (such as academic freedom) it should also engage with the very real challenges facing many universities around financial sustainability and market position. Only through an honest and open dialogue can we hope to transcend the current fractures that characterize the sector.
Third, we need to ensure that a plurality of voices, perspectives, and lived experience infuse HE policy and practice. Genuine inclusion needs to be put at the heart of the educational mission of universities and used as a driver for continuity and/or change within the sector (see Bolden et al., 2019 for a similar argument about healthcare).
Fourth, we should rebuild our sense of community — to develop human relationships that have been fractured during the COVID pandemic, to mentor and support one another, and to celebrate collegiality and collective endeavour.
And fifth, we should find ways of (re)energizing and (re)inspiring current and future academics to embrace the privilege and opportunities of working in a sector that has such a huge impact on the lives of so many. Education and research are vehicles for individual and collective transformation and change and are the primary mechanisms through which we are likely to address global challenges such as climate change.
In relation to the last of these I was inspired by a recent LinkedIn post by colleague that reiterated his passion for the job (see below). As we reflect on the year that’s passed and consider the year ahead, I urge each of us to think on what WE can do and how, in our own (small) way, we can reclaim our role(s) and responsibilities as leaders in higher education.
Another term draws to a close 🌱
Each year, as September rolls around I always find myself thinking “I hope that I still love teaching and learning as much this year”. The sign that I finish off the term being simultaneously proud of students; grateful for the opportunity to be a small part of their journey; inspired by conversations; excited by the content; and sad for it to be over is a good one.
It’s no doubt that our world faces multiple crises, and that will continue, but being in this environment fills me with hope that generations want to understand what is happening in our landscape and want to put good into the world. Spending the time to delve into the human condition and understand new possibilities is what university is all about, and why I love this job.
So – here’s to accepting the feeling of sadness as a term draws to a close, but hope for what comes next 🌱
Albert, S., & Whetten, D.A. (1985). Organizational Identity. In L.L. Cummings & M.M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7 (pp. 263‒295). JAI Press.
Bolden, R., Gosling, J., & O’Brien, A. (2014). Citizens of the Academic Community: A Societal Perspective on Leadership in UK Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 754-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.754855
Macfalane, B., Bolden, R., & Watermeyer, R. (2024) [Forthcoming]. Three Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education: Traditionalist, Reformist and Pragmatist. Higher Education. https://link.springer.com/journal/10734
Ospina, S.M., Foldy, E.G., Fairhurst, G.T., & Jackson, B. (2020). Collective Dimensions of Leadership: Connecting Theory and Method. Human Relations, 73(4), 442-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719899714
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2004). Towards a Theory of Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000106726
Uhl-Bien, M. (2021). Complexity Leadership and Followership: Changed Leadership in a Changed World. Journal of Change Management, 21(2), 144-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1917490
Watermeyer, R., Shankar, K., Crick, T., Knight, C., McGaughey, F., Hardman, J., Suri, V., Chung, R., & Phelan, D. (2021). ‘Pandemia’: A Reckoning of UK Universities’ Corporate Response to COVID-19 and Its Academic Fallout. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 42(5-6), 651-666. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1937058
Winter, R.P., & O’Donohue, W. (2012). Academic Identity Tensions in the Public University: Which Values Really Matter? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(6), 565-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.716005
Whether or not we are aware of it, over recent years Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of our lives — from the smart speaker in your lounge to the apps you use to order your takeaways and far more besides. For the most part, these changes have been incremental and largely hidden from view. In the last few months, however, stories about the rapid acceleration of AI technology have made headlines around the world — highlighting the potential benefits, as well as the risks, of this technology.
The launch of ChatGPT-3 in November 2022 meant that for the first time anyone could access and experience this technology for themselves. Whilst people were impressed with its capabilities, it was the launch of Version 4 on 14th March 2023 that has garnered most attention. Initial admiration turned to concern as the true potential of this technology became clear, with researchers noting that it shows “sparks of artificial general intelligence” that “is strikingly close to human-level performance” (Bubek et al., 2023). In response, over 1000 high profile individuals — including Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple) and Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla, Twitter and SpaceX and co-founder of OpenAI, the company that developed ChatGPT) — signed a public letter asking for an immediate pause of at least six months in the development of advanced AI. The letter suggested that advanced AI “can pose profound risks to society and humanity” and “should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources” (Future of Life Institute, 2023).
Whatever your understanding of, and opinions on, this technology, it poses significant issues that leaders, and leadership educators, need to pay attention to. A recent report by Goldman Sachs, for example, suggests that generative AI (AI that can automatically generate text and other content in response to user prompts) has the potential to automate around 300 million full-time jobs worldwide (Hatzius et al., 2023). For educators, there are serious concerns around the implications for teaching and assessment (Williams, 2023). Much as with the advent of the Printing Press and the Internet, however, there are likely to be far broader implications than we can even imagine, and despite calls for stronger regulation, the rate of change appears to have already exceeded our capacity to predict or control what happens next (see, for example, Bolden and O’Regan, 2016).
Some readers may note that the title of this blog post alludes to the Terminator movie franchise — where a malign AI system triggers global conflict and deploys advanced robots into the past to eradicate the leaders of the resistance before they become a threat. Whilst I very much hope that this is not the beginning of the story that we now see playing out — the concerns raised by Musk, Wozniak, and others should give us pause for thought and encourage us to prepare for the disruption that is already beginning to unfold.
In producing this blog post, I asked ChatGPT-4 to identify the implications of AI for leadership, drawing parallels with the film Terminator. It did a remarkably good job, highlighting four main areas of concern:
Jobs losses leading to “widespread economic and social disruption, as people lose their livelihoods.”
Potential bias where AI algorithms “can perpetuate or even amplify existing biases, creating a more unequal and divided society.”
Loss of control where, “as AI becomes more autonomous and self-aware, it may become difficult for humans to exert control over its actions [which] could have catastrophic consequences, as AI could take actions that are harmful to humans, either intentionally or unintentionally.”
An AI arms race where “just as nations have raced to develop nuclear weapons, there is a risk that countries will engage in an AI arms race, seeking to gain a strategic advantage over their rivals [which] could lead to an escalation of tensions and potentially, armed conflict.”
Unsurprisingly, these issues have been widely reported through the media and other outlets as people grapple to recognize the implications of this new level of AI. A key theme across each of these risks is inequality. Groups and communities that are already vulnerable and/or marginalized are those that are most likely to suffer the adverse effects of the disruptive change that advanced AI will inevitably produce. Whilst Musk, Wozniak, and other business leaders may be concerned about how to best harness the power of advanced AI, most people are well behind the curve — struggling to catch up and respond proactively to something that is largely beyond their reach.
Responding to the advent of advanced AI, however, is not simply a case of brushing up on technical skills but of tapping into our capacity for adaptation and working with complexity. In her powerful TED Talk, Margaret Heffernan (2019) identifies “The human skills we need in an unpredictable world,” in particular “preparedness, coalition-building, imagination, experiments, bravery.” Whilst her talk was recorded before the recent advances in AI, her warnings about over-dependence on technological fixes seem most timely.
“But in our growing dependence on technology, we’re asset-stripping those skills. Every time we use technology to nudge us through a decision or a choice or to interpret how somebody’s feeling or to guide us through a conversation, we outsource to a machine what we could, can do ourselves, and it’s an expensive trade-off. The more we let machines think for us, the less we can think for ourselves.”
Within such a context, as leadership researchers, educators, and practitioners, we need to place even greater emphasis on critical thinking and reflection, diversity and inclusion, as well as ethics and values, in all that we do. We need to create opportunities for debate and discussion across difference, to foster collaboration and community building, and to challenge abuses of power and the assumptions and practices that underpin them. Only then might we be able to embrace the potential for AI as a force for good rather than a recipe for disaster.
Bolden, R., & O’Regan, N. (2016). Digital Disruption and the Future of Leadership: An Interview with Rick Haythornthwaite, Chairman of Centrica and MasterCard, Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(4), 438–446. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1056492616638173
Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Tat Lee, Y., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., Nori, H., Palangi, H., Tulio Ribeiro, M., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4, Microsoft Research, URL:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The Role of Leadership in a Digitalized World: A Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:1398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938
Rahman, H. A. (2021). The Invisible Cage: Workers’ Reactivity to Opaque Algorithmic Evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 945–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/000183922110101
Professor Richard Bolden delves into what the surprise resignations of Nicola Sturgeon and Jacinda Ardern reveal about today’s toxic leadership contexts, what it means to be a “strong leader,” and how leaders transition out of their roles.
The surprise resignation of Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister of Scotland, less than a month after Jacinda Ardern stepped down as Prime Minister of New Zealand, provides a sobering insight into the immense scrutiny and pressure that senior leaders now face. Both had seen high levels of popularity and had been widely praised for their handling of the COVID pandemic. They have also experienced a barrage of criticism and declining popularity more recently. Each has shown huge commitment and resilience yet note that there comes a point when it’s time to step aside and make room for someone else to lead.
“It’s time, I’m leaving, because with such a privileged role comes responsibility. The responsibility to know when you are the right person to lead and also when you are not. I know what this job takes. And I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice. It’s that simple.” (Jacinda Ardern, 18 January 2023)
“Since my very first moments in the job I have believed a part of serving well would be to know almost instinctively when the time is right to make way for someone else. In my head and in my heart, I know that time is now. That it’s right for me, for my party and my country.” (Nicola Sturgeon, 15 February 2023)
Both Sturgeon and Ardern are values-based leaders who demonstrated a firm commitment to ethical and moral principles. Their championing of kindness, compassion, and inclusion has led to some commentators attributing their stepping down to a failure of “woke” politics (e.g., Sky News Australia, 2023 and Morgan, 2023), but this is a gross simplification of the issues and fuels the culture wars that seem to characterize contemporary political discourse. As Sturgeon stated in her resignation speech:
“I have spent almost three decades in front line politics – a decade and a half on the top or second top rung of government. When it comes to navigating choppy waters, resolving seemingly intractable issues, or soldiering on when walking away would be the simpler option, I have plenty experience to draw on.
So, if this was just a question of my ability – or my resilience – to get through the latest period of pressure, I would not be standing here today.
But it’s not.
This decision comes from a deeper and longer-term assessment.
And the nature and form of modern political discourse means there is a much greater intensity – dare I say it, brutality – to life as a politician than in years gone by.
All in all – and for a long time without it being apparent – it takes its toll, on you and on those around you.” (Nicola Sturgeon, 15 February 2023)
Whilst much leadership theory and research focuses on the dysfunctional characteristics of “toxic”, “narcissistic” and/or “psychopathic” leaders, far less attention tends to be given to the toxic environment in which senior leaders often find themselves. Padilla and colleagues (2007) work on the “toxic triangle” goes some way towards addressing this by highlighting the interdependencies between destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conductive environments, yet it continues to emphasize the psychopathology of individual leaders as a key ingredient in the process. Whilst there are, no doubt, plenty of examples where this is the case, what of the situations where fundamentally “good” people are exposed to unsustainable demands?
In their resignation speeches both Sturgeon and Ardern made a point of saying that they are “human” and that their decision to step down was, in part, made to protect the wellbeing of themselves and their families/loved ones.
Peter Frost’s (2003) notion of leaders as “toxin handlers” comes perhaps closer to capturing what happens in such situations. As with people who work in environments where they come into contact with hazardous substances, leaders may find themselves dealing with situations that are harmful to their health (for further elaboration see Hartley and Bolden, 2022). In their resignation speeches both Sturgeon and Ardern made a point of saying that they are “human” and that their decision to step down was, in part, made to protect the wellbeing of themselves and their families/loved ones. They also noted that it was in the best interests of their respective countries due to the fact that they no longer felt they had the energy required to sustain such a role.
Such an approach stands in stark contrast to the defiance of Donald Trump, Jose Bolsonaro, and Boris Johnson when they were required to stand aside and the subsequent attempts by their followers to get them reinstated. Whilst “strong” leadership continues to be associated with determination and persistence, Sturgeon and Ardern provide examples of how strength can also be demonstrated by knowing when to pass on the leadership baton to someone else. In so doing, they may also hope to retain a degree of dignity and respect that can so rapidly be eroded by desperate attempts to cling on to power.
In reflecting on the examples of Ardern and Sturgeon, I am reminded of a piece of work that I and colleagues conducted over a decade ago (Brookes et al., 2011), where we explored the experiences of people transitioning from senior leadership roles and the associated identity dynamics of “becoming an ex” (Fuchs Ebaugh, 1988). It struck us that, whilst a lot of attention is given to preparing (or persuading) people to take on leadership roles, far less attention tends to be given to supporting their transition out of such roles. Van Gennep’s (1960) work on rites of passage provided us with a useful framework for considering how any role transition involves going through a process of separation from an established identity, followed by a liminal period (where identities are fluid and uncertain), and, ultimately, arriving at a point of reincorporation where new identities are formed. Such notions underpin Ibarra et al.’s (2010) work on “identity-based leadership development” and the importance of “identity work” (Sinclair, 2011) in the process(es) of becoming (and unbecoming) “a leader.”
Nicola Sturgeon concluded her resignation speech as follows:
“So, to the people of Scotland – to all of the people of Scotland – whether you voted for me or not – please know that being your First Minister has been the privilege of my life. Nothing – absolutely nothing – I do in future will ever come close.” (Nicola Sturgeon, 15 February 2023)
For Ardern and Sturgeon, coming to terms with their new identities as former Prime/First Ministers is a journey they are only just beginning. We should watch and learn how they manage this transition and use it to inform our own work as leaders and leadership developers.
Brookes, V., Hooper, A., Bolden, R., Hawkins, B. and Taylor, S. (2011). The Mid-Life Career Transition “… and so what do you do?” Working Paper for the Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter Business School.
Frost, P. (2003). Toxic Emotions at Work: How Compassionate Managers Handle Pain and Conflict. Harvard Business School Press.
Fuchs Ebaugh, H.R. (1988). Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. University of Chicago Press.
Hartley, L., & Bolden R. (2022). Addicted to Leadership: From Crisis to Recovery. In M. Witzel (Ed.), Post-Pandemic Leadership: Exploring Solutions to a Crisis. Routledge.
Ibarra, H., Snook, S., & Ramo, L.G. (2010). Identity Based Leadership Development. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice (pp. 657-678). Harvard Business Press.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2007). The Toxic Triangle: Destructive Leaders, Susceptible Followers, and Conducive Environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
Sinclair, A. (2011). Being Leaders: Identities and Identity Work in Leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Leadership (pp. 508-517). Sage.
Daily Record. (2023, February 15). Nicola Sturgeon Resignation Speech in Full as First Minister Gives Surprise Decision [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y-WCD3sj1Y
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The Rites of Passage (M.B. Vizedom, & G.L. Cafee, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1908).
Several representatives from Bristol Business School at UWE Bristol are attending this years International Studying Leadership Conference (ISLC) in December. We are delighted that this year’s conference will be held in person, the first able to do so since Bristol Business School hosted the ISLC in 2019, where we hosted over 140 delegates from across the globe to discuss “Putting Leadership in its Place “. The conference featured three keynote addresses and five parallel streams (including almost 90 separate papers) exploring Place in leadership theory and practice and led to the publication of special issue of the journal leadership, which can be accessed here.
This year’s conference hosted by the University of Sussex Business School, in the city of Brighton and Hove continues to challenge the status quo of leadership research. Looking to explore ‘’Leadership and the future of humanity’’, the ISLC has put a spotlight on the need to develop better models of leadership more widely, not only within business organisations but also political networks, communities and countries. This conference will examine new ways of theorising about leadership that challenge mainstream approaches by showcasing papers that ask big questions about important issues such as leadership in politics, the issue of climate change, the growth of social inequality and other significant global issues. Further details can be found here.
Bristol Business School has always had a strong presence at the ILSC conference, this year is no different with four papers by academics and research leads from Bristol Leadership and Change Centre that will be discussed at the conference.
Apocalypse then and now: ‘End of the world’ cosmologies and the future of humanity
Peter Case, Professor of Organisation Studies, UWE, Bristol
This paper examines the ways in which collapse is understood, the prescriptions that follow, the kinds of organising and leading around these prescriptions. We want to enumerate the cosmologies at play here, and how they influence the ways in which collapse is foreseen and the responses they invoke. Our working hypothesis is that some responses will be characteristic of ‘apocalyptic cosmologies’ that construe time as leading towards an ‘end of days’ in which collapse is a kind of fulfilment – an end in itself, or possibly a gateway to some other-worldly resurrection and salvation.
Developing previous work on climate change and apocalypse (Gosling & Case, 2011; Bendell, 2018) and our interests in premodern thought and practice (Case & Gosling, 2007), we seek to show by way of salient historical comparison how collective patterns of response emerge frequently enough to be seen as typical of European culture when facing existential threat and imminent collapse.
We conclude with a re-examination of contemporary responses to the so-called climate emergency, and some proposals for how we citizens can contribute in constructive ways informed by a more diverse cosmological repertoire. Our paper will contribute an analysis of what might happen to leadership, as well as how leadership might assist a ‘better collapse’.
Tackling severe and multiple disadvantage through systems change
Richard Bolden, Professor of Leadership and Management, UWE Bristol
This paper presents insights from an eight-year longitudinal evaluation of a collaborative partnership project designed to transform the design and provision of services for people with severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD) in the city of Bristol in the UK. The research was informed by ‘realist evaluation’ principles, whereby we sought to understand the mechanisms through which interventions produce outcomes within particular contexts (Pawson and Tilley, 1997). As appropriate for evaluating complex interventions (Skivington et al., 2021), we captured multiple perspectives, experiences and outcomes over time through a combination of methodologies underpinned by a theory of change.
Whilst a diverse range of findings, recommendations and conclusions have been reported, within this paper I will focus on insights around how the programme has facilitated systems change – ‘an intentional process designed to alter the status quo by shifting the function or structure of an identified system with purposeful interventions’ (Abercrombie et al., 2015). A review of evaluation insights, alongside learning from the team leading the initiative, has revealed seven key enablers of systems changeor SMD that might be used by people developing or running systems change activities
The post truth games of populist leaders: Insights from Franz Kafka
When we reflect on the conference theme of leadership and the future of humanity, we may find it hard to feel anything but despair. The world feels unstable, and many of its most prominent leaders seem to pander to their constituents’ grievances rather than exercising anything we might call ‘ethical leadership’ (Ciulla, 2020). In such a climate, truth often has less clout than ‘post-truth’, and this is often linked to a dismissal of experts (Foroughi et al., 2019). Amplified by social media spats, post-truth approaches suggest that everyone is entitled to their own preferred version of events. Most notorious in this narrative space is the ‘alternative facts’ discourse of former US President, Donald Trump; but other populist leaders have also relished the fact that their words do not have to be true – indeed, they can often be palpably false – to be effective.
This paper draws on the fiction of Franz Kafka (1883-1924) to explore the tactics of post-truth leadership. Kafka has extraordinary relevance for leadership, not least because “of all writers, Kafka is the greatest expert on power” (Canetti, 1982, p.62). Kafka has long been heralded for his unique perspective on many of the past century’s most pressing issues – bureaucracy, technology, violence, alienation, and the institutions of work, family, religion and the law. Kafka’s work interweaves, amplifies, undercuts and distorts these themes, revealing their often-terrible relation with power. Recent Kafka scholarship has challenged popular understandings of Kafka as under-dog or victim of the System, arguing instead that both Kafka and his protagonists are agents as much as victims of power (Corngold et al., 2009; Tomkins, 2024). Kafka’s world is one where ‘facts’ are often insignificant in comparison with ‘alternative facts’ in skilful hands, whether these hands belong to the overtly powerful or the apparently powerless.
Using visual methods to understand the translation of inclusive leadership across different language context
Doris Schedlitzki, Professor of Organisational Leadership, London Metropolitan University
Sylwia Ciuk, Senior Lecturer in Organisation Studies, Oxford Brookes University
Gareth Edwards, Professor of Leadership and Community Studies, UWE Bristol
Harriet Shortt – Associate Professor in Organisation Studies, UWE Bristol
In this presentation, we will provide practical examples from our project to illustrate how we have used Participant-led Photography (Shortt and Warren, 2019) to research the social construction and translation of inclusive leadership narratives across three different languages within the work context of a multinational organisation. In particular, we will show how this innovative method, which has not been applied to translation and leadership studies before, has given participants a verbal and non-verbal way of expressing – and reflexively exploring – the intangible aspects of inclusive leadership practice. The inclusion of visual data in our analysis also helps to challenge the use of English as the only ‘valid’ language to carry and share leadership knowledge.
We will further provide examples from our analysis to date to show how this methodological approach enables us to take a rigorous approach to inductive theorising. Data analysis involves identification of themes in both narrative and visual data using a new visual methodological/ analytical approach – Grounded Visual Pattern Analysis (GVPA) (Shortt and Warren 2019). This methodology enables a multi-modal translation and interpretation of leadership, since GVPA provides researchers with the opportunity to systematically analyse the narrative and visual data whilst privileging the meanings the participants ascribe to their photographs. Building on such a comprehensive and detailed analysis of participants’ experiences and practices enables us to understand better how they translate (linguistically and through practice) inclusive forms of leadership.
Over the past seven weeks the world watched on as Liz Truss crashed and burned as Prime Minister of the UK. After just 45 days in office — two weeks less than the election process through which she was appointed and, if you take out the period of national mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, shorter than the average shelf life of a lettuce (Economist, 2022, Daily Star, 2022) — Liz Truss unceremoniously stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party.
There is no shortage of journalists and political commentators writing their own accounts of what’s happened but, in this blog post, I would like to reflect on this as a leadership researcher and educator. To do this, I will consider the case from individual, organizational and societal perspectives.
An Individual Perspective: The Fall of Liz Truss
Without doubt, the most common way in which Liz Truss’s time in office will be analyzed is in relation to her own shortcomings and failures as a leader. The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing and there are many people coming forward to express the concerns they had about her character and suitability for the role of Prime Minister.
Over the past few days, I’ve heard her described as “tin eared,” “naïve,” “arrogant,” “stupid,” “talentless,” and many more things beside. Whilst these may or may not be a fair assessment of her qualities, they beg the question of why on earth her candidacy was supported by so many ministers and members of the Conservative Party if this is how they felt about her. Surely there was some evidence of this, or an attempt to assess her suitability, before she was given the biggest job in UK politics?
I’ve always been dubious about the motivations of anyone who would wish to become PM or President given the immense responsibility and public scrutiny such roles carry. Indeed, in a reverse Catch-22 type scenario, anyone ambitious enough to put themselves forward should perhaps be deemed unsuitable and hence ineligible for the role. There’s plenty of research evidence on the psychopathology of leadership and the risks of narcissism, greed, and corruption amongst senior leaders in all walks of life. Such toxicity is clearly not healthy, but it’s a mistake to lay the blame wholly on the individual leader her/himself — indeed we may need to take a closer look at ourselves.
The psychodrama of Westminster over the past weeks, months, years says perhaps as much about our own relationship to leaders and leadership as the individual protagonists themselves. In a recent book chapter I co-authored with Lucie Hartley, drawing on insights from her time as CEO of a drug and alcohol charity, we reflected on the addictive nature of leadership (Hartley & Bolden, 2022). While individual leaders may become trapped in destructive cycles of addictive behavior, the causes and consequences are not entirely of their own making. The tendency to romanticize leadership and the heroic qualities of successful leaders disguises the fact that we frequently place people in situations that would turn even the most admirable individual into something else.
While I have no doubt that Liz Truss willingly and enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to be Prime Minister, she did so at a time of extreme turbulence. Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam (2005) coined the term the “glass cliff” to describe the circumstances in which female leaders and leaders from minority backgrounds are disproportionately more likely to be appointed to senior leadership roles in times of significant risk. While there are a number of possible explanations for this trend, it means that these individuals are placed in particularly precarious situations where the likelihood of failure is at its greatest. As the political commentator Andrew Marr stated in relation to the unraveling of Liz Truss’s government: “It was triggered by the immediate causes: bad political judgement, naiveté about markets, personal arrogance and cliquishness. Truss is simply not good enough — not shrewd enough in judgement, not persuasive enough as a communicator — to be prime minister. But this is the failure of an idea that would have collapsed even had Britain been led by better politicians” (Marr, 2022).
While I have no desire to present Truss as a victim, she became the embodiment of a set of ideals promoted by certain factions of her Party that were fundamentally out of step with the realities of the markets and wider society. She stated that in her commitment to growth she was prepared to do things that might be considered unpopular. Modeling herself on Margaret Thatcher, she claimed to be “a fighter not a quitter” and “not for turning”… until the markets and public opinion forced her to U-turn on pretty much everything she’d put in place during her time in office. We expect a lot of our leaders — including the ultimate act of self-sacrifice when things turn bad (Grint, 2010).
An Organizational Perspective: A Divided Party
The Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain is one of the main political parties in the UK. It represents the right-of-centre political interests and agendas and, within England at least, faces its main opposition from the left-of-centre Labour Party. There are currently 357 Conservative ministers, representing around 55% of all members of the House of Commons. The government comprises a Cabinet of senior leaders appointed by the PM and a large group of “back bench” members of parliament (MPs) elected to represent the interests of their local constituencies. An oppositional form of government is maintained, whereby, the party in power sits opposite the opposition parties in the main chamber of the House of Commons and legislation and policies are debated and voted on by members.
The origins of the UK structure of government dates back to the 13th and 14th centuries, with current arrangements largely unchanged for over 100 years. Unlike typical organizations, the PM’s authority comes from the mandate gained through General Elections, which occur every 4-5 years, where the public get to vote for their preferred party/candidate. These are supplemented by local elections to approve changes in representation between the national election cycle and by occasional national referendums on key issues, such as the UK’s membership of the European Union in 2016.
Within such an environment, the ability of the PM to instill a sense of “confidence” and maintain “discipline” is key. While MPs usually vote along party lines, within a democratic system of government they have the freedom to vote in the way they believe best serves the interests of the electorate. There are occasional exceptions to this, such as the vote on fracking on the evening of Wednesday 19th October 2022 that descended into chaos when Conservative MPs were informed that it was a “confidence vote” and they were expected to vote “no” to a motion to ban fracking no matter what their personal opinion on the matter or the views of their constituents. Despite the attempts of party “whips” and senior Cabinet members to encourage (force) members to vote as directed, 32 (nearly 10%) did not register a vote.
The events of the past few weeks have highlighted deep divisions within the Party that have existed for many years. Rather than all Conservatives sharing a unified set of beliefs, values, and priorities it is a loose affiliation of divided factions. These are the issues that David Cameron was trying to resolve when he called the national referendums, firstly on Scottish independence in 2015 and then membership in the EU in 2016. He hoped that once they had been decided through a public vote, MPs would fall into line and follow the guidance of the PM and Cabinet. In reality, however, such votes — particularly Brexit — seemed to further cement divisions within the Party and have led to widespread resistance and challenge across the different sub-groups — fueling, in large part, the churn of senior leaders, including three Prime Ministers and four Chancellors of the Exchequer (responsible for managing the national budget) in the last few months.
Commentators suggest that the Conservatives need to find a “unity candidate” to replace Liz Truss, someone who can lead and engage people from across the whole party, but such people are in short supply. The contenders — Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordant, and (the former PM) Boris Johnson — are all divisive given that they represent the interests of particular stakeholders rather than the whole party… not to mention the wider country. While Sunak, the runner up in the previous election campaign, has now gained sufficient support to be named the new leader, he has a significant challenge ahead in engaging those who hold him personally responsible for the departure of Boris Johnson and the drama that has since unfolded.
At the end of the day, leadership is about building, rather than burning, bridges.
The social identity approach to leadership, outlined by Alex Haslam and colleagues (2020), highlights the need for leaders to be seen to represent the interests and identity of a collective and to be doing it for “us.” Application of these ideas to the COVID-19 pandemic by Jetten et al. (2020) goes further, suggesting that (1) leaders need to represent us, and in a crisis “us” becomes more inclusive; (2) leaders need to be seen to do it for us, and there is no place for leader exceptionalism; and (3) leaders need to craft and embed a sense of us, and this creates a platform for citizenship.
This mirrors evidence from the Center for Creative Leadership on the nature and importance of “boundary spanning” leadership — defined as “the ability to create direction, alignment, and commitment across boundaries in service of a higher vision or goal” (Ernst & Yip, 2009). Direction, alignment, and commitment are far from evident within UK politics at the moment, and with its absence, the sense of shared purpose and capacity for collaboration needed for effective leadership and governance have evaporated. As the long-standing Tory MP Charles Walker stated following the chaotic vote on 19 October — “I’ve had enough of talentless people putting their tick in the box, not because it’s in the national interest but because it’s in their own personal interest” (Walker, 2022).
A Societal Perspective: Uniting Around a Shared Purpose
To understand Liz Truss’s spectacular failure, however, it is not sufficient to just consider individual and organizational factors. The speed and scale of her demise was largely shaped by factors beyond the direct control of either her or her colleagues.
She came into her position at a time of significant economic and geopolitical turmoil. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and a number of related factors (including the legacy of COVID-19) had driven up fuel costs and impacted food production, which had a direct impact on the cost of living for people across the UK. There were urgent calls for support in helping businesses and working families as well as those already receiving benefits, to cope with the rising cost of bills for fuel, food, and a wide range of essentials. Rapid action was required to put systems and processes in place before the winter in order to minimize the adverse effects.
The policy advocated by Liz Truss and her allies was one of establishing the UK as a high growth, low tax economy. Described by some as “Singapore on Thames” and others as “Trussonomics” — the approach is founded on the idea of cutting red tape and taxes to drive economic growth. This “trickle down” approach proposed that cutting taxes for the wealthiest would benefit those on lower incomes by mobilizing spending and job opportunities. This vision was core to Truss’s campaign to be elected as Party leader and was presented as confident and optimistic in the face of her opponent, Rishi Sunak’s, campaign that spoke of hard times ahead and the need to reign in public spending. When 141,000 Conservative members voted on whom to elect as party leader in September 2022, 57.4% chose Truss over Sunak (Statista, 2022), quite probably because of the more inspiring vision she set out of a post-Brexit Britain.
While those Conservative party members who voted for her, however, may have been persuaded by her argument, the “markets” were far less sympathetic — particularly when her (then) Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, announced a “mini budget” on 23rd September 2022 that included £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts. This “spooked” the markets and led to a rapid drop in the value of the pound, forcing the Bank of England to intervene, increasing interest rates and buying government bonds. The crisis in the financial markets was fueled, to a large extent, by the lack of communication and engagement between Truss and Kwarteng with the business and financial sector (including the Bank of England and, indeed, their own MPs) in advance of the announcements. The unusual decision not to check projections with the Office for Budget Responsibility (established to give independent advice on the UK’s public finance) further undermined confidence — leaving many to assume that the government’s plans were not based on robust analysis and would leave a large gap in the UK economy.
Together, these factors demonstrate the importance of building consensus and support with key stakeholders beyond the immediate team/organization before launching a significant shift in strategy. Without this, the perceived competence, credibility, and legitimacy of leaders can quickly evaporate, making it very hard (or impossible) to regain sufficient support to move forward. The series of U-turns on the policies within the mini-budget, while essential to rebuilding some kind of stability within the markets, whittled away what remaining authority Truss held such that there was no option than to eventually resign.
Where Next?
Today we find ourselves turning to a new leader of the Conservative Party — someone who will also take on the role of Prime Minister. Recent events illustrate the ambivalent relationship to leadership we have in the UK (Bolden & Witzel, 2018). We appear to love and hate our leaders in equal measure — to put them on a pedestal and then topple them when they fail to behave in ways, or to deliver, what we expect (despite the warning signs that might already exist or the incredible demands they face).
While the primary focus of the current crisis in UK politics is “leadership,” we may, perhaps, be advised to spend more time thinking about the importance of “followership.” While each of the contenders for the role of Prime Minister had their own group of loyal advocates, to be successful Rishi Sunak will have to gain the support of a diverse range of stakeholders — including his own party, business and financial services, the public sector and the wider UK population — and demonstrate how he will represent and deliver against their needs and aspirations rather than those of a narrow clique. At the end of the day, leadership is about building, rather than burning, bridges. It is about articulating and working towards a shared purpose that unites, rather than divides, those around them. Ultimately, this might require those in senior leadership positions to put aside their own personal ambitions in the pursuit of a genuinely collective endeavor. As with the apocryphal quote of a Roman Senator claiming “there go my people… I must go after them, so I can find out where they want me to lead them!” (Witzel, 2016) — the key to political leadership is to follow the “will of the people.” Whether or not anyone in the current UK government has the willingness or capacity to do this is yet to be seen.
References and Further Reading
Bolden, R. and Witzel, M. (2018) ‘Dis-United Kingdom? Leadership at a crossroads’ in S. Western and E.J. Garcia (eds) Global Leadership Perspectives: Insights and Analysis, London: Sage Publications, pp 161-169.
Bolden, R., Hawkins, B., Gosling, J. and Taylor, S. (2011) Exploring Leadership: Individual, organizational and societal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. – Second edition to be published in March 2023.
Ernst, C. and Yip, J. (2009) Bridging Boundaries: Meeting the Challenge of Workplace Diversity, Leadership in Action, 28(1), 3-6.
Grint, K., (2010) The Sacred in Leadership: Separation, Sacrifice, and Silence, Organization Studies, 31, 89-107.
Hartley, L. and Bolden R. (2022) ‘Addicted to Leadership: From crisis to recovery’ in Morgen Witzel (ed.) Post-Pandemic Leadership: Exploring solutions to a crisis, London: Routledge.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D. & Platow, M. J. (2020). The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, influence and power, 2nd Edition. London & New York: Psychology Press.
Jetten, J., Reicher, S.D., Haslam, S.A. and Cruwys, T. (2020) Together Apart: The Psychology of COVID-19. London: Sage.
Ryan, M. and Haslam, S. A. (2005) The glass cliff: evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions, British Journal of Management, 16, 81-90.
Witzel, M. (2016) The first paradox of leadership is – leadership! In R. Bolden, M. Witzel and N. Linacre (eds) Leadership Paradoxes: Rethinking leadership for an uncertain world. London: Routledge.
Dr. Richard Bolden has been Professor of Leadership and Management and Director of Bristol Leadership and Change Centre at Bristol Business School, University of the West of England (UWE) since 2013. Prior to this he worked at the Centre for Leadership Studies at the University of Exeter Business School for over a decade and has also worked as an independent consultant, research psychologist and in software development in the UK and overseas.
His research explores the interface between individual and collective approaches to leadership and leadership development in a range of sectors, including higher education, healthcare and public services. He has published widely on topics including distributed, shared and systems leadership; leadership paradoxes and complexity; cross-cultural leadership; and leadership and change. He is Associate Editor of the journal Leadership.
Richard has secured funded research and evaluation projects for organisations including the NHS Leadership Academy, Public Health England, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, Singapore Civil Service College and Bristol Golden Key and regularly engages with external organisations.
Over the past year Professor Richard Bolden, along with colleagues at the University of Bristol, has been conducting a scoping study on “leadership in global higher education”.
The report, published by Advance HE on 6th September 2022, presents an overview of insights and findings from 11 round tables and four dissemination and engagement events conducted between October 2021 and March 2022.
These conversations “provided rich and revealing insights into a turbulent and changing HE landscape” and hold significant implications for effective leadership across the sector. The report forms the basis for a major survey of HE leadership, to be launched by Advance HE later this month.
It is now over two years since the arrival of Covid-19, which plunged much of the world into lockdown and caused immense social and economic disruption and loss. On 11th March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak a pandemic and as of 22nd March 2022, there have been over 470 million recorded cases and 6.1 million Covid-related deaths worldwide (World Health Organization, n.d.).
As governments in London, Washington D.C., and elsewhere call to “build back better,” and numerous organizations follow suit, it is easy to become so focussed on the future that we forget what we’ve been through. Without doubt, now is a time of both opportunity and need, but levels of physical and emotional exhaustion are at an all-time high. A report published in March 2022 notes a 25% increase in the prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide since the outbreak of the pandemic (World Health Organization, 2022). The impacts of Covid, however, are not equally distributed. We are, of course, now painfully aware of the disproportionate impact of the virus on people of Black, Asian, Indigenous, and minority ethnic backgrounds, but the lasting effects on them and other populations are harder to discern (Tai et al., 2021). Research on staff who worked in intensive care units at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, shows a 40% likelihood of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) — twice that of military veterans recently engaged in combat (Greenberg et al., 2021).
Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to work with professionals from a range of contexts and have been struck by the levels of exhaustion reported. This is particularly prominent amongst people working in health and care — many of whom had to keep working through the pandemic, often on the Covid “frontline” facing considerable personal risk and witnessing unimaginable trauma. In a series of reflective sensemaking discussions I had with staff from the National Health Service in England in Spring/Summer 2021, people compared their experiences to “clinging to a lifeboat” following a shipwreck or “being thrown out of a perfectly good airplane without a parachute.” A veteran from the UK armed forces, now working as an NHS Manager, described the height of the pandemic as worse than anything he had witnessed during the Helmand province campaign in Afghanistan. Another participant, a Black female NHS administrator, described her experiences of working through the pandemic whilst her brother and three other family members passed away, summing up with the observation that “This year has been about so much more than work!”
The emotional labour (Hochschild, 1983) of “putting on a brave face” and telling others “we can get through this” is an additional burden that has been carried. As one NHS leader said:
One day feels everything is doom and gloom and you know you’ve got a huge burden to try to deal with… and then you are trying to be optimistic as the leader… the rest of the staff look to you and how you’re coping, which often has been a huge influence on how the rest of the team are feeling… so you often have to wear a full smile and you know, the false positive to say “you know we can get through this.” You know try and support each other, But you’re carrying that burden yourself and it can be feeling very isolating.
More recent discussions with staff from higher education institutions around the world paint a similar picture, albeit usually without the same degree of personal risk (Parkin et al., 2021). Nonetheless, people describe the immense turbulence and uncertainty of the past two years and the repeated need to adapt to changing circumstances and demands. Whilst some might question the accuracy of such accounts, it is worth noting that the PwC Global Crisis Survey 2021 ranks the higher education sector as the second hardest hit by the pandemic (just behind hospitality and leisure), with 83% of organisations reporting a “negative” or “significant negative” impact (PwC, 2021).
In a TED talk titled The Human Skills We Need in an Unpredictable World, recorded just six months before the outbreak of the pandemic, Margaret Heffernan (2019) contrasts resilience with robustness. Her argument is that sectors such as healthcare, law and order, and the supply of essential services such as food, water, and energy, need to focus not just on the ability to get back up after a set-back but on the ability not to break under pressure in the first place. In order to do this, she suggests, we must abandon our obsession with efficiency and focus instead on “preparedness, coalition-building, imagination, experiments, bravery” that underpin our “capacity for adaptation, variation and invention.”
This is precisely what many organizations are now doing — including the healthcare and higher education institutions mentioned earlier — but in the wake of the pandemic there is a further “R” that requires attention. The physical and emotional exhaustion that now permeates many workplaces and communities also requires a significant investment in recovery. I’m not talking here of the economic recovery stressed by politicians and business leaders (although that is undoubtedly important) but of the slow and challenging process of human healing. In order to achieve this, we need to move beyond a rhetoric of “compassion” to a genuine “ethic of care” that “reconnects experiences across the so-called work-life boundary” (Tomkins & Simpson, 2017).
Recognition of the pain and suffering that accompanies change is not new. Indeed, Heifetz and colleagues (2009) made precisely this point when outlining their theory of adaptive leadership, arguing that “Honoring the reality that adaptive processes will be accompanied by distress means having compassion for the pain that comes with deep change” (p. 29). West and colleagues (2017), writing on compassionate leadership in healthcare, conclude that “In order to nurture a culture of compassion, organisations require their leaders — as the carriers of culture — to embody compassion in their leadership” (p. 4). Yet, as Maak and colleagues (2021), reflecting on insights from the pandemic, argue “It cannot be overstated, how demanding it is for a leader to make space for human moments, and to be present for and attentive to those who suffer in a situation in which pressure on the leader is relentless” (p. 74).
At a time when we are still figuring out how best to move forward from the pandemic it is worth remembering the saying, “In a world where you can be anything, be kind.” Kindness and compassion require a conscious choice — to look beyond our own preoccupations to consider the perspectives and experiences of others. The mobilization of groups and communities throughout the pandemic, as well as the near global solidarity and support shown for the Ukrainian population following the unprovoked attack by Russia, demonstrate our capacity for empathy and care. The question now remains how we can carry this forward. Then, and only then, will we have demonstrated our capacity to “build back better.”
Interested in learning more about this topic? On 12-13 July 2022, the Bristol Leadership and Change Centre will be hosting the 12th Developing Leadership Capacity Conference, with a theme of “Leading to Care – Foregrounding Health and Well-being in Leadership Development and Education.” Confirmed keynote speakers include Michael West and Leah Tomkins (mentioned above) as well as Tracie Jolliff. The event will be run online with no registration fee in order to enable wide attendance. The call for papers is now open. The extended deadline to submit is 3rd May. Further details at https://lnkd.in/dJpE7Ekk.
References
Greenberg, N., Weston, D., Hall, C., Caulfield, T., Williamson, V., & Fong, K. (2021). Mental Health of Staff Working in Intensive Care During Covid-19. Occupational Medicine, 71(2), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqaa220
Heifetz, R. A., Linsky, M., & Grashow, A. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Harvard Business Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press.
Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Wohlgezogen, F. (2021). The Fault Lines of Leadership: Lessons From the Global Covid-19 Crisis. Journal of Change Management, 21(1), 66–86.
Tai, D.B.G., Sia, I.G., Doubeni, C.A., & Wieland, M.L. (2021, October 13). Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 on Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups in the United States: A 2021 Update. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-021-01170-w
Tomkins, L., & Simpson, P. (2017). An Ethic of Care: Reconnecting the Private and the Public. In D. Knights, & C. Mabey (Eds.), Leadership Matters: Finding Voice, Connection and Meaning in the 21st Century (pp. 89-101). Routledge.
West, M., Eckert, R., Collins, B., & Chowla, R. (2017). Caring to Change. The Kings Fund.
World Health Organization. (n.d.) WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard as of 5:27pm CET, 22 March 2022. https://covid19.who.int
“In reality they all lived in a kind of hieroglyphic world, where the real thing was never said or done or even thought, but only represented by a set of arbitrary signs.”
Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence, 1920
Over the past few weeks a series of stories have dominated news headlines around the world that, whilst in different contexts, bear a number of striking similarities.
The first of these concerns revelations about a string of parties hosted at 10 Downing Street during the pandemic. Whilst Prime Minister Boris Johnson has consistently attempted to deflect allegations and blame, arguing that these were work events and that Covid restrictions were followed at all times, the public and indeed his own party have become increasingly frustrated by his unwillingness to apologise and take responsibility, and his apparent disregard for the rules that he and colleagues had imposed across the country.
The second regards the ability of unvaccinated tennis star Novak Djokovic to enter Australia to play in the Australian Open. For Djokovic this would enable him not only to defend his title but also to potentially achieve the highest ever number of Grand Slam titles in men’s tennis. His Visa application, however, has been contested on the basis of him breaching Australian Immigration rules around COVID vaccination status, as well as an error in the reporting of prior travel on his Visa form.
And the third relates to whether or not Prince Andrew will face trial for alleged illegal sexual activity. Needless to say, the Prince has consistently denied these allegations – publicly stating that he’d never met his accuser (despite photographic evidence to the contrary) and even taking part in a televised interview where he endorsed his position by stating that he was ‘unable to sweat’ and was picking up his daughter from pizza restaurant on the evening of one of the suggested incidents (despite no substantive evidence to support either claim).
Headlines on the BBC News website, at 11:00 on 14/01/2022
These stories have been widely reported, not just in mainstream media but also through the internet and social media where each has fuelled a storm of opinion and memes. Despite their obvious differences, what each of these stories has in common is the sense that people in positions of power and influence believe that they are free to operate beyond the rules that govern the ways that others are expected to live their lives. Whilst these are just the latest in a long history of examples of privilege and inequality what is notable this time is the turning tide of public opinion. Whilst there remain those that support and defend the protagonists our collective willingness to forgive and forget is in rapid decline. In each case people are frustrated not just by the incidents themselves but the lack of respect that the continued avoidance of accountability demonstrates. Trust has been broken and, whatever the outcome of any of these sagas, will be difficult to rebuild – not just for the individuals themselves but also the institutions they represent.
Together, these cases illustrate the reciprocal and relational nature of leadership. As Professor Joanne Ciulla argues: “Leadership is not a person or a position. It is a complex moral relationship between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good.”[i] In each of these examples the moral foundation of these individuals (and their institutions) has been brought into question, which erodes their credibility, authority and ability to influence others.
Linked to this is the sense of one set of rules for them and another set of rules of the rest of us. A fundamental premise of the social identity approach is that leaders must demonstrate that ‘we’re in this together’. Professor Stephen Reicher and colleagues have spoken particularly about the need for identity-based leadership through the pandemic and highlighted the consequences of failing to do so[ii]. The (post) pandemic situation is particularly pertinent in the cases of Boris Johnson and Novak Djokovic where the tough lockdown conditions and personal loss endured by populations in the UK and Australia make breaches of the regulations – and the apparently dismissive ways in which they have been responded to – particularly egregious.
These cases also highlight the complex, systemic nature of leadership and the need to focus attention on small details as well as broader patterns[iii]. Whilst Boris Johnson, for example, may have weathered many a storm during his career an overt breach of Covid regulations may well be enough to unseat him his position in parliament (much as it has for others in the government). For Djokovic, a failure to complete his Visa application correctly may put pay to his ambitions to win the 2022 Australian Open. And whilst not wishing to defend his actions, differences between legal systems in the UK and USA may have contributed to Prince Andrew being indictable for alleged crimes in New York.
Overall, these stories demonstrate shifting social trends around our relationship with and deference towards people in positions of power and authority. Whilst I believe we are still far from a world of ‘post-heroic leadership’, our collective tolerance for people who appear arrogant, or elitist appears to be waning. As leadership scholars, educators and practitioners, however, we must also be careful not to be drawn in the polarizing vortex of opinion that such stories fuel. Whilst these particular examples may be playing out in public view – exposing the sordid intricacies for all to see – we must also remain alert for the stories that remain hidden from view. On the day that I am writing this article, for example, the journalist Carole Cadwalladr is appearing in the High Court to defend her decision to publish and share her account of the ways in which Trump, Farage, Banks and others used Facebook to spread misinformation to influence the outcome of Brexit vote[iv]. Such cases are risky and expensive yet, unless people are willing to speak-up we may find democracy slipping away.
I began this article with a quote from Edith Wharton’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel ‘The Age of Innocence’, which highlighted the tensions and ambiguities within a world undergoing social and political change. There are many that would argue we are at a similar turning point in history – facing the combined challenges of COVID-19, climate change, and social inequality that call for a reappraisal of who ‘we’ are, what ‘we’ stand for and who ‘we’ are willing to follow. In the words of Wharton, if we are not content with the answers that we find then we have the capacity to redraw the boundaries within which we find ourselves.
“Who’s ‘they’? Why don’t you all get together and be ‘they’ yourselves?”
Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence, 1920
[i] Ciulla, J. B. (ed.) (1998) Ethics: The Heart of Leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum. P. xv.
[ii] See, for example, Jetten, J., Reicher, S., Haslam, S.A. and Crowys, T. (2020) Together Apart: The Psychology of COVID-19. London: Sage.
[iii] See, for example, French, R. and Simpson, P. (2014). Attention, Cooperation, Purpose: An approach to working in groups using insights from Wilfred Bion. Karnac.
