Leadership Development as Identity Construction

Abstract

The authors seek to broaden the focus and orientation of social constructionism in leadership development. Previous research has predominantly concerned identity-orientated approaches focused on regulation as opposed to construction of identity. Social constructionism challenges us to view leadership participants as subjects and objects. Using the concept of a “space of action,” the authors focus on places in leadership development where identity work is visible, inducing different kinds of agency. Three different responses are analyzed, exploring their implications for leadership development. The authors propose the importance of three communicative responses in allowing alternative identity storylines to remain open and active. The authors support leadership development as a site, discourse, and series of practices that equips us to work with identity in fluid, dynamic, and plural ways.

The Grit in the Oyster: Professionalism, Managerialism and Leaderism as Discourses of UK Public Services Modernization

“…This is a more thoroughgoing expectation of obedience than the deference expected by the professional, or the contractual authority of the manager. The development of leaders, and leadership, therefore, requires a more integral focus on the character of leaders -on their intellectual, affective and moral selves as well as on their behavioural competencies (Carroll and Levy 2010;Day and Harrison 2007;Richards 2008), which has been reflected in the content of growing leadership development provision in the public services in the UK, as well as many other countries (Luckcock 2007;Wallace, O'Reilly, Morris and Deem 2011).…”

Going beyond the hero in leadership development: the place of healthcare context, complexity and relationships Comment on "Leadership and leadership development in healthcare settings – a simplistic solution to complex problems?"

“…The more informed evaluations in the UK healthcare context (13) show that participants report themselves better able to handle the demands of their jobs, but these studies are small-scale -often reporting evaluations of just one programme. More recent critical writings reinforce the importance of engaging research on leadership and management development (6,10,14). Mabey and Finch-Lees (15) identify 5 sets of arguments in relation to the imperative of seeking to identify the value and significance of management and leadership development activities.…”

“…If we accept that leadership is co-produced by at least leaders, peers and followers (as well as the organisational context in which it occurs), it follows that these parties should be active in participating in leadership learning -going beyond completion as anonymised 'raters' of their managers within the 360 survey instruments and other questionnaires that seek psychometric predictions of leader behaviours. There is considerable risk that the preoccupation with leaders reinforces an exclusive focus on self-awareness, self-development and self-improvement at the expense either of gaining insight into relational dynamics or of an appreciation of the context and environment within with leadership occurs (6,10). This raises a significant question as to how can something that is purportedly relational, and founded on the impact that one person has on many others, merely and purely focus on the one person, the leader?…”

Preparing Community College Leaders to Meet Tomorrow's Challenges

“…Critical here is how individuals begin forming a leadership identity. Carroll and Levy (2010) argued how leadership development could be understood differently by participants and, therefore, influence the social construction of participants' leadership identities. Pointedly, the authors identified three responses or means of sensemaking for participants in leadership development programs: "reframing (assimilation), recursivity (complementarity), and polyphronic dialogue (rejection)" (p. 222).…”