Gender, Authenticity and Leadership

Thinking with Arendt

R. Gardiner

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN:
  9781137460431
• eBook ISBN:
  9781137460455
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

This book examines the conceptual underpinnings of authentic leadership to discover why so little attention has been paid to gender. The author explores the failure to interrogate the complexities surrounding the concept of authenticity, especially as it relates to the diversity of lived experience.

1

Introduction

The common and the ordinary must remain our primary concern, the daily food of our thought – if only because it is from them that the uncommon and the extraordinary emerge.¹

Hannah Arendt

Several years ago I attended a fundraising event at which some women in the community were receiving awards for their work. The women honored came from different walks of life. Each gave a passionate speech that included thanking friends and colleagues for their part in the honoree’s success. However, the last speaker took a different route. In her speech she said ‘I’m an authentic leader.’ My immediate, visceral response was: ‘Isn’t that for others to judge?’ Little did I realize that my first encounter with the concept of authentic leadership would lead to this book, in which I consider the interconnections among gender, leadership and authenticity.

In what follows, I examine the conceptual underpinnings of a management theory called authentic leadership to discover why it has paid so little attention to gender. In much of the scholarly literature on authentic leadership to date, I argue that there is a failure to interrogate the complexities surrounding the concept of authenticity, especially as it relates to situated, gendered embodiment. For instance, a critical interrogation reveals an underlying presupposition that authenticity means the same thing to everyone, and manifests itself identically. I disagree with this viewpoint, as well as highlight the pitfalls that arise from scholars’ assumption that a quality-like ‘authenticity’ is measurable.

Rather than encouraging a genuine approach to leadership, I suggest that authentic leadership may tell us more about social conformity than it teaches us about authenticity. Conversely, thinking with Hannah Arendt can help to uncover inherent difficulties with the discourse of authentic leadership. Her insights provide a richer lens through which to consider the ways in which gender, authenticity and leadership intersect. Following Arendt, I contend that each individual, because of her life experiences, has a unique way of perceiving the world that is both relational and embodied. I seek to demonstrate how an Arendtian analysis can deepen our comprehension of authentic leadership by showing how our embodied actions are mediated by our relationships, as well as the social environment.² For example, our way of being is constantly impinged upon by social factors, some of which we remain unaware. Nevertheless, this background knowledge has an effect, not only upon the way that we perceive the world, but with respect to how we interpret the actions of others. In short, context matters. But context is often overlooked in authentic leadership scholarship, which means that differences fade into the background.

Furthermore, thinking with Arendt reveals some hidden assumptions behind dominant themes within the discourse of authentic leadership. For instance, underlying this discourse is an assumption, sometimes explicit, on other occasions implicit, that authentic leadership will result in individual success, as well as better organizational outcomes. Yet insofar as all action is contingent, we cannot predict leadership success ahead of time. Moreover, I find myself puzzled by claims that authentic leaders can effect positive change merely by virtue of their charisma. Not only does this reinforce the belief that charisma is necessarily good for leaders, it ignores the damage that ‘larger than life’ personalities can cause to organizations and the people they lead.

A secondary research aim is to understand why, at this particular historical juncture, the theory of authentic leadership has emerged. Specifically, why do today’s leaders need a theoretical justification to teach them how to act authentically? Is a desire for authentic leadership an antidote to an ever-increasing bureaucratic existence that serves to distance people from one another, or is it an attempt to make leaders more accountable for their actions? For instance, in exploring the literature I was surprised at how leadership scholars linked the concept of authenticity with ideas of greater efficiency (Chan, 2005). Although I recognize that it is important for a leader to be effective, there are times when the demands for leadership efficiency may serve to obscure larger questions of ethics. Perhaps this is not so surprising in a world in which people’s actions are measured on short-term outcomes. Yet the present-mindedness that seems to permeate many organizations is precisely why a desire for efficiency may override questions of ethics. I will return to the topic of efficiency versus ethics throughout the book, as I believe the privileging of the former at the expense of the latter is one of the foremost societal challenges we face.

For Arendt (1958), the modern drive to organizational efficiency has severe drawbacks, not least of which is that, in Western society, we have become ‘a society of jobholders’ (p. 40). In Arendtian terms, theories such as authentic leadership have a tendency to obscure ‘the who’ of the individual over ‘the what’ of the role. As such, a common occurrence in modernity, according to Arendt, is to focus on what a person does, and care more about their social status as opposed to who they are as an individual. This focus on social status, in other words, leads to a lack of recognition of individual difference.

One reason for this lack of attention to difference may be because many scholars who write on authentic leadership lean toward positivist forms of inquiry and behavioral explanations. Arendt was resistant to behavioral explanations, because she argued these explanations focus on the most insidious trends in modern society, namely, social conformity, and the ensuing suppression of individual uniqueness. In organizational terms, Arendt (1958) views bureaucracy as potentially the most tyrannical form of leadership, since it is based on what she called ‘the rule of nobody’ (p. 40). This nameless, faceless form of organizational rulership serves to suppress the plurality of human expression in favour of social conformism.

The dominant paradigm in authentic leadership scholarship privileges a leader’s self-knowledge. As a consequence, it can lead to a kind of ‘disembodied narcissism’ in leaders, because a focus on self may be at the expense of an awareness of situational context. Sometimes, it seems as if authentic leaders possess ‘God-like qualities’ (Wilson, 2013, p. 56). Yet while some men and women may consider themselves to be ‘authentic leaders’, believing in one’s inherent authentic superiority is a problem. No-one is authentic, or for that matter inauthentic, in all contexts. What is more, in regarding themselves as authentic, some leaders may have a view of themselves that is profoundly out of touch with lived experience. Because life is messy and rarely conforms to one’s desires, we must guard against this type of disembodied narcissism, which places personal desires above communal well-being.

Although a leader’s vision is often touted as fundamental to success, I want to question this assertion by contending that it is a leader’s values, communicated and shared with others that matters most. It is these shared values, rather than personal vision, that help to ensure that leaders do not act in a manner that is unethical. In our exploration of authentic leadership, we will consider how it is ethical action, rather than authentic intent, that is fundamental to an authentic engagement with others. This kind of authentic engagement requires a relational approach to leadership. It also requires us to consider how structural inequities, cultural contexts and gender socialization affect our understanding of what constitutes authentic leadership. These are some of the issues I am concerned with in this book.

I have organized the chapters as follows. In Chapter 2, I provide a review of authentic leadership, and outline some of the problems I see with this discourse. I argue that this theory has, for the most part, overlooked the ways in which ideas about authenticity are influenced by patterns of gender socialization. I also seek to understand why the theory of authentic leadership has emerged at this time. As such, we need to ask the question: why is it scholars now believe leaders need a theoretical justification to teach them how to act authentically?

In the section on leadership training, I contend that training programs designed to increase a person’s authenticity serve to reinforce normative ideas of what constitutes a good leader. Rather than developing genuine leaders, this training may result, paradoxically, in increasing social conformity. This conformity works in two ways. First, there is an adherence to external conformism, that is, the laws we obey as a member of society. Second, there is internal conformism, and the manner in which we modify our behaviour to fit what we perceive is in keeping with others. This can lead, in a Foucauldian sense, to the attenuation of difference, and the ongoing formation of docile bodies (Foucault, 1995). On the one hand, the disciplining of difference encourages homogeneity; on the other, it reinforces a social hierarchy. Additionally, there is often an assumption that by displaying particular behaviors a leader is being authentic. However, this ignores how leaders may be merely complying with what they think is expected of them and, thus, are being hypocritical. As a result, leadership training that purports to teach authenticity may not be conducive to genuine action.

After situating authentic leadership studies within the broader context of leadership scholarship, I turn to the work of Arendt, and demonstrate how an Arendtian analysis offers insights into some conceptual gaps within the current theory of authentic leadership. Yet while Arendt has much to tell us about the importance of creating environments where dialogue and debate flourish, she has little to say about gender and leadership. Therefore, in Chapter 3, I augment her ideas about leadership with insights from current scholarship on the topic of gender and leadership. One central argument I put forward is that the concept of intersectionality, so popular in feminist theorizing, is underutilized in leadership studies. Alongside gender and questions of authenticity, I suggest that we must consider how different identity characteristics can have a bearing upon how leaders are perceived. Thus, it is integral to comprehend how gender, together with other social factors such as race and class, influence societal perceptions of what constitutes authenticity in leadership.

To understand the ways in which gender may influence our ideas about authentic leadership, it is necessary to consider how material conditions affect how we think about leaders. By considering the workplace in relation to gender socialization, I show how ideas about leadership are influenced by normative ways of thinking about gender roles. As such, normative ways of thinking about leadership will have an effect on our notions of authentic leadership. Simply put, women leaders are often regarded as out of place in the gender hierarchy. This displacement may encourage them to feel a lack of spatial belonging, which may be one reason why so many women do not regard themselves as leaders. This lack of fit may also be the reason why some women resort to hierarchical ways of leading. In trying to live up to some ideal leadership standard, the danger is that some people become so caught up in their desire for success that they forget to distinguish between their role as leader and themselves as individuals. While assimilation may appear to be a strategic route to the top, it merely perpetuates structural inequality, and does little to explain authenticity.

In Chapter 4, I show how theories of the present are influenced by gendered perspectives of the past. Here, I illustrate the ways in which the concept of authenticity has been shaped by bourgeois ideas about gendered identity. Specifically, I trace the antecedents of authenticity back to the Age of Enlightenment, since this was when modern ideas surrounding authenticity were initially formulated (Taylor, 1991). In regards to the formation of the liberal subject, I show how authenticity is linked to gendered ideas about virtue. Gendered notions of what constitutes virtuous action placed limitations on women’s ability to perceive themselves, and be seen as, leaders within the public realm. As a result, Enlightenment notions of virtue serve to constrain women’s autonomy and, hence, limit their ideas about their own possibilities.

By understanding authenticity through the lens of the past, we may open up new avenues of inquiry that shed light on the connections among gender, authenticity and leadership in ways that complement current scholarship. For example, I suggest this historical diminishment of women’s potential ability to lead may still bear an influence on societal views regarding leadership. Consequently, a lingering trace of gender prejudice toward women leaders may be embedded within the cultural imagination.

In Chapter 5, I consider the concept of authenticity through the lens of existential, hermeneutic phenomenology as this philosophical tradition has gone the furthest to develop an account of the authentic self. Considering authentic leadership through the lens of existential hermeneutic phenomenology provides us with a greater depth of understanding human existence that can enrich current scholarship. In particular, I explore Martin Heidegger’s theory of authenticity, as elucidated in his magnum opus, Being and Time. His notion of authenticity is sometimes referenced by leadership scholars, but rarely in depth (Algera and Lips-Wiersma, 2012).

One of my primary purposes in this chapter is to rethink Heidegger’s concept of authenticity in light of Arendt’s diverse insights into the complex webs of relationships and interwoven narratives that affect our comprehension of what it means to be authentic. I argue that her account of what it means to be unique enriches Heidegger’s definition of authenticity because of her emphasis on the relational quality of human existence. While Heidegger sees authenticity as emerging from silent resolution, for Arendt (1958), uniqueness lies in speech and action. She maintains that it is our unique ability to bring something new into the world that is central to understanding human existence. According to Arendt, it is through our actions that we insert ourselves into the world (p. 176). Metaphorically, each act is akin to a second birth, because it brings something novel into existence. Her emphasis on natality stands in contrast to Heidegger’s belief that it is by coming to terms with death that we realize our potential for authenticity.

Furthermore, an Arendtian analysis can help illuminate some hidden consequences that arise from leadership that is self-oriented. Put simply, a focus on the self can lead to a disconnection from the world of others. This disconnection can prove harmful as leaders may begin to view others instrumentally, as no more than a means to an end. By looking at extreme examples, such as totalitarianism, we will see how issues such as personal responsibility and judgement may be negatively affected by a focus on a leader’s vision.

Thinking with Arendt also reveals how leadership requires not only an internal sense of purpose, but also a genuine responsiveness towards others. Such a responsive orientation necessitates a willingness to think from different perspectives. To enhance my own understanding of the different perspectives regarding gender, authenticity and leadership, I conducted a qualitative phenomenological investigation in which I interviewed ten senior women leaders in the university sector. My guiding question was: how do senior women leaders describe their experiences of authenticity, or lack thereof, in the university workplace? Emerging from these women leaders’ accounts is a plethora of ethical tensions regarding the conflicts between personal principles and institutional priorities.

In Chapter 6, I discuss the methodology I adopted for this study, which is rooted in hermeneutic, existential phenomenology. Arendt quoted in Hill (1979) adopted the term ‘thinking without a banister’ to describe her methodological approach. Thinking without a banister refers to how we try and think from the position of another so as to enhance our understanding. However, Arendt was reluctant to discuss her methodology in detail. Therefore, I briefly consider two major thinkers in the phenomenological tradition, specifically, Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, and show how their different perspectives influence current discussions in qualitative phenomenology. I also explore how feminist theory can help provide a deeper understanding of some methodological concerns.

In the qualitative component of this inquiry, I focussed on the experiences of senior women leaders because there is a lack of attention paid to how gender socialization influenced ideas about what constitutes authenticity in leadership (Sinclair, 2013). The reason why I chose the higher education sector is because of my background knowledge, having worked for more than 20 years in university administration, and as a member of various leadership teams. This situated knowledge is important from a phenomenological perspective, as it allows me to consider these participants’ understanding of women’s leadership alongside my own lived experiences. Interviewing these women leaders brought to light how other intersections of identity, such as class and race, have a bearing on our understanding of authentic leadership.

In Chapters 7 and 8, I turn to the narrative and thematic accounts gleaned from these women leaders so as to obtain a richer understanding of the ways in which gender, authenticity and leadership interconnect. In retelling these personal narratives, I seek to enrich our knowledge of what constitutes authentic leadership through their descriptions of concrete, lived experience. Moreover, as a humanities scholar, I am intrigued by how narrative accounts can serve to broaden our comprehension of the place of authenticity in leadership, precisely because of the richness and diversity of lived experience. While I recognize that what is remembered is not necessarily what occurred, nevertheless, these accounts open up fresh ways of thinking about authenticity as it relates to gender and leadership.

In Chapter 8, I consider five themes that arose from these interviews. The first theme I discuss concerns conflicts that arise when institutional objectives are at odds with personal convictions. The second theme relates to the connection between leadership, care and relationships. Gender and embodiment constitutes the third theme, intersectional identity constitutes the fourth theme, and anxiety represents the final theme. Then, I consider outlying themes that have phenomenological importance. Finally, I bring together the different strands of the discussion to consider how these women’s descriptive accounts shed light on the diverse ways in which gender, authenticity and leadership interconnect.

What emerges from these research findings is a different way of thinking about the place of authentic...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Table
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter: 1 Introduction
• Chapter: 2 Authentic Leadership
• Chapter: 3 Gendered Expectations
• Chapter: 4 Enlightened Virtue
• Chapter: 5 Authenticity, Ethics and Leadership
• Chapter: 6 Troubling Method
• Chapter: 7 Telling Tales Out of School
• Chapter: 8 Themes
• Chapter: 9 Concluding Remarks
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index