‘No More Heroes’: Critical Perspectives on Leadership Romanticism

Abstract

Abstract:This paper revisits Meindl et al's (1985) 'romance of leadership' thesis and extends these ideas in a number of inter-related ways. First, it argues that the thesis has sometimes been neglected and/or misinterpreted in subsequent studies. Second, the paper suggests that romanticism is a much broader and more historically rich term with wider implications for leadership studies than originally proposed. Arguing that romanticism stretches beyond leader attribution, we connect leadership theory to a more enduring and naturalistic tradition of romantic thought that has survived and evolved since the mid-18th century. Third, the paper demonstrates the contemporary relevance of the romanticism critique. It reveals how the study of leadership continues to be characterised by romanticising tendencies in many of its most influential theories, illustrating this argument with reference to spiritual and authentic leadership theories, which only recognise positive engagement with leaders. Equally, the paper suggests that romanticism can shape conceptions not only of leaders, but also of followers, their agency, and their (potential for) resistance. We conclude by discussing future possible research directions for the romanticism critique that extend well beyond its original focus on leader attribution to inform a broader critical approach to leadership studies. This paper revisits Meindl et al's (1985) 'romance of leadership' thesis and extends these ideas in a number of inter-related ways. First, it argues that the thesis has sometimes been neglected and/or misinterpreted in subsequent studies. Second, the paper suggests that romanticism is a much broader and more historically rich term with wider implications for leadership studies than originally proposed. Arguing that romanticism stretches beyond leader attribution, we connect leadership theory to a more enduring and naturalistic tradition of romantic thought that has survived and evolved since the mid-18 th century. Third, the paper demonstrates the contemporary relevance of the romanticism critique. It reveals how the study of leadership continues to be characterised by romanticising tendencies in many of its most influential theories, illustrating this argument with reference to spiritual and authentic leadership theories, which only recognise positive engagement with leaders. Equally, the paper suggests that romanticism can shape conceptions not only of leaders, but also of followers, their agency, and their (potential for) resistance. We conclude by discussing future possible research directions for the romanticism critique that extend well beyond its original focus on leader attribution to inform a broader critical approach to leadership studies.

Barriers to leadership development: Why is it so difficult to abandon the hero?

“…These approaches offer primacy to individual freedom of selfexpression. Power asymmetries are neutralized in favour of collective work, harmonious dialogue, and consensus on key organisational goals (Collinson et al, 2018;Tourish, 2019). Collinson et al (2018) demonstrate that both of these leadership meanings, leader-centred and post-heroic, engage in a romanticized discourse reproducing assumptions that fixate on leaders or collectives in heroic terms and ignore the complexities of social reality.…”

“…Power asymmetries are neutralized in favour of collective work, harmonious dialogue, and consensus on key organisational goals (Collinson et al, 2018;Tourish, 2019). Collinson et al (2018) demonstrate that both of these leadership meanings, leader-centred and post-heroic, engage in a romanticized discourse reproducing assumptions that fixate on leaders or collectives in heroic terms and ignore the complexities of social reality. Critical literature problematises leadership concepts such as authoritarian leadership (Chu, 2014), hubristic leadership (Sadler-Smith et al, 2017), and monologic leadership (Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011) for emphasizing the personal dominance and control of leaders.…”

“…Critical literature holds that leader-centred leadership theories reproduce romanticism by exaggerating the impact of individual heroic leaders. Such a romantic view 'can be equal parts bewitching, disingenuous and harmful' as it neglects and avoids the ruptures, tensions, and complexities leadership offers (Collinson et al, 2018(Collinson et al, : 1642.…”

Theorizing dramaturgical resistance leadership from the leadership campaigns of Jeremy Corbyn

“…Third, we theorize a trifold focus of leadership, a shifting between resisting a hostile status quo, subduing resistance from the newly deposed leaders, and building alternative forms of 'communitas' (Turner, 1974). All three practices facilitate resisters to go beyond the trap of merely re-enforcing the practices and structures of power they have deposed (Bloom, 2016;Collinson, Smolović Jones and Grint, 2018).…”

“Leadership as a social problem”: A conversational engagement with the ideas of Alvin Gouldner

“…Critical scholars in the 21st-century have argued the problematic nature of leadership as a construct (e.g. Collinson et al, 2018;Grint, 2000;Spector and Wilson, 2018;Tourish, 2013). By combining a keen sense of historical context with a commitment to the social as well as the science aspect of social science, Gouldner asserted his credentials as a critical scholar while examining the problematic nature of leadership as exercised within a democratic society.…”