Search results

The objective of this article is to explore and challenge the concept of leadership by presenting a perspective on leadership as identity construction. The perspective presented is based on premises from the complexity sciences.

The article is based on a conceptual discussion.

Leadership is better understood as identity construction. This is because leadership emerges in the interaction between people as the act of recognising and being recognised. Leaders' images of themselves are therefore social constructions and the development of a leadership self (and thereby leadership) is coupled to the interaction between leaders and followers.

The research is limited to a conceptual discussion. The findings need to be further explored and challenged by other methods. The discussion is focused on organisational leadership.

Leaders do not always have the control that mainstream leadership theory suggests. The act of leadership is therefore better understood as identity construction. In the article the authors suggest a conceptual framework for reflecting on leadership identity because self‐images influence people's acts as leaders. The concept of leadership is hence the ability to mobilise the discipline necessary to develop one's self by reflecting on identity in different contexts and coupling this to the acts of leadership.

The principal contribution is a conceptual discussion on the concept of leadership. This contribution provides managerial ideas and insights into the act of leadership in organisations faced with increasing complexity.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the future concept of leadership. The paper argues a view of leadership in organisations as a shared social influence process of relating, thus challenging mainstream approaches to leadership and the emphasis on leadership as a specialized role.

Conceptual discussion

It is suggested herein that the central acts of leadership in the future will be to focus on the emergence of identity and relationships. It is contended that current paradigms of leadership are limited as they assert leadership as a role with fundamental influence over command and control enabling the design of appropriate interventions for future organisational success. This is not consistent with reality in most organisations today, and will be even less consistent in a near future with added complexity. Therefore a future view of leadership is proposed by paying attention to how leadership may be better understood as an emergent phenomenon when people interact.

The research is conceptual in its nature, and not grounded in empirical evidence. Further research work is needed in order to formalize a full leadership theory.

Leaders must then take better account of how identity and relations emerges to understand what constitute leadership – by viewing leadership as a shared social influence process of relating. For a leader this necessitates acknowledging feelings of not being in control as crucial to the leadership process; enables followers to experience their ability and find their way to act in the moment.

The article challenges the current mainstream paradigm of leadership and its powerbase. Its primary value lies in how one thinks of leadership – as position or as something being emergent/dynamic/not in control.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a way for leaders to lead chaotic change. By chaotic change it is meant changes in an organization when the external and internal complexity and uncertainty are high.

The paper is based on a conceptual discussion.

The paper contributes to concepts of change management in organisations faced with increased complexity in internal and external environment. The study challenges mainstream change management concepts and its chance of success when faced with increased complexity. The authors make suggestions on how to lead chaotic change by influencing the patterns of human interaction. It is recommended to focus change management on people, identity and relationships by changing the way people talk in the organisation.

The authors contend that change management effectiveness is low because leaders underestimates the complexity of change, focusing on tools, strategy and structures instead of paying attention to how human beings change by forming identities through relating.

Successful change management practices must take better account of unpredictability, uncertainty, self‐governance, emergence and other premises describing chaotic circumstances. For a leader this necessitates paying attention to how people form identities in organisations, avoids design oriented command‐and‐control managerial interventions, as well as keeping at bay the anxiety caused by not being in managerial control.

The principal contribution is a conceptual discussion on how to lead people in change by influencing the development and direction of change by changing the on‐going communication in organisations. Theoretical and managerial ideas and insights into change management are provided for organisations faced with increased complexity.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the concept of self as applied to leadership and propose an understanding of how a leader should form conceptions of self, and use these in his or her own development.

Based on self‐, personality‐ and developmental psychology, the paper examines a variety of theoretical foundations, and ties these into the context of leadership and self‐development.

The paper concludes that the self is core, consciousness, and action. The particular characteristics and qualities of the self determine the leader's comprehension of him or herself as a human entity, and is a leader's gateway to self‐confidence and self‐esteem. Leaders therefore need to cultivate an understanding of self by engaging in formative processes which are related to their ability to learn from defining situations, thus raising awareness of points of convergence in a leader's career.

The paper is limited to a conceptual discussion, and further research is needed to verify the proposed hypothesis. Future research should concentrate on empirical work.

The practical outcome is concrete advice, that leaders must engage in processes where their own willpower, beliefs, assumptions, values, principles, needs, relational patterns and social strategies are subject to feedback and testing if their aim is to develop themselves. Self‐development is not the training of skills, nor solely dependent on cognitive strategies.

Most leaders face pressure to develop themselves. The recommendations herein clarify what is a self concept applicable for leaders, and assist in identifying domains, processes and schemata applicable for leadership self‐development.

This study aims to examine how leadership identity manifests at the individual and collective levels within a relational training context among a group of multicultural higher education students.

This is a case study and examines the interactions among eight multicultural students through the theoretical lens of leadership identity development (LID) theory.

The main findings of this study suggest that LID manifests through an open will and intensifying motivation to the collective impulse of achieving shared goals through nurturing the collective cognition to integrate diverse perspectives and a broadening view of leadership as a collective capacity for co-creation and generativity.

Although the paper builds on a case study with a limited number of participants and the ability to generalise its findings is partial, the study may provide practical applications for training leadership in other collaborative contexts and supporting it at the individual and collective levels.

The LID theory and LID model have been applied simultaneously to a training lab to examine how LID manifests among a multicultural group of higher education students. The lab emphasises a participatory leadership-oriented pedagogy.