Leadership legitimacy and the mobilization of capital(s): Disrupting politics and reproducing heteronormativity

Abstract

The rise of populist leaders in the political sphere mounts a challenge to normative understandings of leadership. To better understand this challenge, we examine how political leaders mobilize different forms of social capital in pursuit of leadership legitimacy, providing insight into the dynamics of how leadership norms are maintained. While research has tended to focus on specific forms of capital, this article considers capital as multidimensional and strategically mobilized. The article applies a multimodal analysis to examine interactions between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during peak ‘Twitter Moments’ of the three 2016 presidential election debates. We theorize the paradoxical dynamics of the mobilization of multiple capitals and their intersection as a simultaneously disruptive and reproductive resource. While the mobilization of multiple capitals operates to disrupt traditional notions of who can claim legitimacy as a leader in the political field, their disruptive mobilization serves to reproduce implicit heteronormative leadership values. Hence, our theorization illuminates the resilience of implicit leadership values, and their intimate connection with heteronormativity, calling for the need to interrogate leadership legitimacy claims that promise ‘new’ approaches.

Evaluating shifting perceptions and configurations of social capital in leadership development

“…Exceptions include Tomlinson et al (2013) who take a Bourdieusian approach to argue that formal leadership development interventions can act as a form of ‘symbolic violence’ and ‘domination’, which lures participants in by creating opportunities to develop cultural and social capital to further negotiate their place in the ‘field’; suggesting that participants ‘misrecognise’ these initiatives as enhancing their own agency, whilst organizations use them as a means of control. In addition, Stead et al (2021) take a Bourdieusian approach to highlight how political leaders use different forms of social capital in the quest for ‘leadership legitimacy’. In doing so they illustrate how social capital is multidimensional and strategically deployed.…”