A discursive analysis of the in situ construction of (Japanese) leadership and leader identity in a research interview. Implications for leadership research

Abstract

Interviews are a way, if not the key way, in which knowledge of leadership and leader identity is sought. Yet, the interviews as a site of the construction of this knowledge are often “black-boxed” and few scholars consider how the “what” of leadership and leader identity are constructed as in situ social practice. Taking a discursive approach to leadership, and using membership categorization analysis as a methodological tool, this paper considers the identity work that participants do when constructing (Japanese) leadership and leader identity in a research interview. Findings indicate that leader identity is fragmented and contradictory and that identity work is skewed to producing a morally acceptable leader identity that has little to do with revealing underlying truths of leadership as often assumed. On the basis of these findings, we call for the discursive turn in leadership research to go beyond considering leadership-in-action to also consider the way in which both meanings of leadership and leader identities are discursively constructed as in situ social practice, notably in research interviews. Second, we call for more careful consideration and analysis of research interview as a site for building knowledge of leadership and leader identities, which, close analysis reveals to be fluid, changeable, and even contradictory. Third, we argue that researchers should also analyze what the particular constructions of leadership and leader identities “do.” This aligns with calls for more critical approaches to leadership studies that challenge hegemonic views of leadership and seek to make visible the power dynamics of presenting leadership and leader identity in one way rather than another.

Making Interviews Meaningful

“…Scholars that take this approach draw on conversation analysis methods to show how the framing of questions (e.g., the categories invoked), and the turn taking that takes place orients responses in particular ways. A recent example is Clifton and Dai’s (2020) fine-grained analysis of an interview with a Japanese executive on the nature of Japanese leadership, which shows how the questioning elicited contradictory expressions from the informant, as he attempted to position himself in relation to the categories invoked by the interviewer. Scholars who adopt this perspective are less interested in what respondents say, than in how the interview situation generates the specific data that it does (Potter & Hepburn, 2005; Silverman, 2017).…”

Leadership in interaction. An introduction to the Special Issue

“…Of course, investigating how leadership is perceived is a valid researcher activity, but these second order accounts of leadership should not be confused with actual workplace practice. Indeed, the use of post-hoc accounts for leadership studies has been criticised since at least the 1970s and more recently these criticisms have been extensively developed (Antonakis et al, 2016; Clifton and Dai, 2020). Particularly, the role of social cognition, including prototyping (Lord and Shondrick, 2011), attribution (Martinko et al, 2007), and performance cue effects (Lord et al, 1978) in producing, what on the surface look like reports of observations of leadership, has been clarified and more broadly acknowledged (Crawford and Kelder, 2019).…”

A turning point: utilizing responsive interviewing and graphing as meaning-making techniques to develop leader identity

“…There has been a trend in leadership research that considers leader identity to be a social and discursive construct (Clifton & Dai, 2020;Fairhurst, 2007). In this context, the understanding is that leader identity (like all identities) is constructed through talk (Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010).…”

“…Given that identity and meaning-making are so interconnected, researchers have recently become more interested in better elucidating the intersection of meaning-making and leader identity development (Orsini & Sunderman, in press). Given the importance of personal narratives to both meaning-making and identity construction (McAdams, 1993), leadership researchers have often turned to the research interview as a means of acquiring narrative data to better understand the leader identity development process (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003;Clifton & Dai, 2020;McCain & Matkin, 2019). Leadership educators have also relied on personal narratives as a powerful pedagogical tool in student self-discovery which has assisted emerging adults with their leader identity development (Armstrong & McCain, 2021;Baxter Magolda & King, 2007;Clapp-Smith, Hammond, Lester, & Palanski, 2019).…”

“…Leadership educators have also relied on personal narratives as a powerful pedagogical tool in student self-discovery which has assisted emerging adults with their leader identity development (Armstrong & McCain, 2021;Baxter Magolda & King, 2007;Clapp-Smith, Hammond, Lester, & Palanski, 2019). Despite the prevalence of the narrative methods in leadership education and research, few studies have explored how the discursive interactions in research interviews influence leader identity development (Clifton & Dai, 2020;Ganz, Lee Cunningham, Ben Ezer, & Segura, 2023).…”