The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.

htm

JMD 28,10

Leadership as identity construction: the act of leading people in organisations

A perspective from the complexity sciences
Tom Karp
Oslo School of Management, Oslo, Norway, and

880
Received 13 March 2008 Revised 13 October 2008 Accepted 17 November 2008

Thomas I.T. Helg

Emergence, Oslo, Norway
Abstract
Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach The article is based on a conceptual discussion. Findings 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. Research limitations/implications The research is limited to a conceptual discussion. The ndings need to be further explored and challenged by other methods. The discussion is focused on organisational leadership. Practical implications 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 reecting on leadership identity because self-images inuence peoples acts as leaders. The concept of leadership is hence the ability to mobilise the discipline necessary to develop ones self by reecting on identity in different contexts and coupling this to the acts of leadership. Originality/value 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. Keywords Leadership, Leadership development, Work identity, Personality Paper type Conceptual paper

Journal of Management Development Vol. 28 No. 10, 2009 pp. 880-896 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0262-1711 DOI 10.1108/02621710911000659

Introduction Leaders seem to have unique opportunities because their position makes them gatekeepers for some aspects of the experience of others. But what is leadership? Like all terms in social science, the concept of leadership is obviously arbitrary and subjective. An observation by Bennis (1959, p. 259) is as true today as it was many years ago:
. . . the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So, we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to deal with it . . . and still the concept is not sufciently dened.

In this article we explore the concept of leadership as identity construction. In doing so, we are taking a different approach to what it means to lead than do most mainstream approaches. Such traditional ways of leadership grow out of a view of organisations as equilibrium-seeking systems where the future is knowable and anticipated by leaders who plan interventions and control behaviours. In accordance with such tradition, inuential academics like Drucker (2004) focus leadership on opportunity, performing actions, and taking responsibility as the way to effective leadership. Others, like Gosling and Mintzberg (2003), point to the different mind-sets a leader requires to lead successfully. Yet others argue the need for attributes like vision, discipline, and passion (Covey, 2004), the need to master capabilities such as sense-making, relating, visioning, and inventing (Senge, 1990), or the need to mix personal humility with professional will (Collins, 2001). The complexity approach Most of the above conceptions of leadership predominately reect the assumption that it involves a process whereby intentional inuence is exerted by an appointed person over other people (followers) to facilitate activities in a group of people or in an organisation. A large body of academic literature conceptualises the above by identifying what leadership is and what makes successful leaders. Much of this work prescribes the characteristics of leaders and the styles to be applied in different situations (e.g. Yukl, 2006). This literature suggests that the leader can sit outside the organisation as an objective individual, design and apply deliberate interventions to move the organisation or group of people forward. In this article we will argue that it is often not possible to identify the preferred leadership attributes of the ideal leader and then conclude that a person with the requisite attributes will perform effectively as a leader and move the organisation forward. This is because how the leader performs will depend just as much on the kind of recognition and the kinds of responses of others as it does on personal attributes. Whether leadership should be viewed as a specialised role or as a shared social inuence process is controversial in leadership theory. In this paper we will argue the latter. Regardless of their school of leadership theory, most academics and practitioners agree that the objective of leadership thinking and practice is to construct a way of making sense and direction of organisational life. Hence, in leadership theory and practice we are concerned with social systems. During the last two decades, physicists, meteorologists, chemists, biologists, economists, psychologists and computer scientists have worked across their disciplines to develop alternative theories of systems. Their work goes under such titles as chaos theory, dissipative structures, complex adaptive systems, and nonlinear dynamics, disciplines commonly referred to as complexity sciences. Independently of this work in the natural sciences, similar ideas related to social systems have been appearing in sociology and psychology. In this article we will suggest that complexity sciences make a contribution to our understanding of leadership and human interaction in organisations. If complexity theory is applied to leadership, then organisations should be regarded as responsive processes of relating and communicating between people; a psychology based on relationships (Stacey, 2003). Complexity thinking related to social sciences therefore focuses attention not on some abstract macro-system but on what people (as leaders and followers) are doing in their relationships with each other on a micro-level (Shaw, 2002).

Leadership as identity construction 881

JMD 28,10

882

Following the above, the authors contend that possible consequences of complexity thinking for our way of understanding leadership and organisational life are some of the following: . Organisations private or public operate in a complex external and internal environment; vital assumptions continuously change due to dynamic developments and events (in the marketplace, in the industry, in the organisation, and so forth). . Organisations are rich in people diversity, structure, activities, processes and culture, and it is not possible for a management team or a single leader to understand cause-effect loops, as well as systemic connections. . Organisations behave like ongoing reality construction entities leaders can often not decide on one reality. . People together construct a future that is a function of their history, their identity, and their own agenda, but which is always open to further shaping as people continue to communicate and interact. . People construct their future not as a single vision, values or strategy, but in terms of what actions become possible and sensible for them, given their circumstances. . People in organisations inuence and affect each other, through loops of interaction that create individual and collective motivation, behaviour and identity. These inuences arise in dynamic relationships between people and in specic and changing contexts. . People are constantly shaping and shifting the width and depth of their relationships, depending on the context; individuals and groups form and are formed by each other simultaneously. . People in organisations are not the rational actors leaders wish them to be; they behave and react in a number of unpredictable ways. Several researchers support the above claims; of particular interest are the works by Shaw (2002), Stacey (2003), North (2005), and Beinhocker (2006). The main points are that the way humans relate is in itself complex and uncertain, even without impulses from the external environment (Stacey, 2005). This means that leaders do not always have choices and do not have the control that most leadership theory suggests. In contrast we will, according to complexity theory, suggest that the best a leader can do is to enter, with his or her intentions, into interactions with others with their intentions, out of which something will be created under no ones full control. This is because the future is under perpetual construction and the past is continually reconstructed in relation to the present moment, therefore leaders cannot fully determine what happens or choose it. This does not mean, however, that there is no personal choice or freedom; as leaders we can apply our intentions in relation to others. Leadership as identity forming Leaders lead groups or organisations, and groups or organisations are reections of our identities (Stacey, 2003; Covey, 2004). According to Shaw (2002), the way we talk in the group or in the organisation reects how we see ourselves in the organisation. New ways

of talking are new ways of making sense of the group or the organisation and of ourselves (Weick, 2001). The experimental psychologist Kurt Lewin was the rst to write about the importance of the group in shaping the behaviour of its members (Burnes, 2004). Individuals form groups and are also being formed by the groups. The important aspect, according to, for example, the philosopher Hegel (1807), the sociologist Elias (1991), and the neurobiologist Cozolino (2006), is that the self is relational. People communicate in organisations in order to couple their practical activities in the organisation with those around them; to create meaning and to express identity. In these attempts, according to Shaw (2002), people are constructing relationships. We argue that the character of these conversationally developed and developing relationships, and the events occurring within them, are of greater importance than the shared ideas to which they might (or might not) give rise. For it is from within the dynamically sustained context of these constructed realities that what is talked about get its meaning and its direction. What is interesting is how people develop and sustain certain ways of relating to each other in their conversations and then, from conversations, make sense of their surroundings and themselves. The authors contend that what matters are not so much the conclusions arrived at as the context within which arguments are conducted. When leaders inuence the way people talk in organisations, they construct new forms of relationships, and to construct new forms of relationships is to construct identities (Stacey, 2003; Shaw, 2002). What then emerges from such conversations, and is continually iterated, is a diversity of identities in which each participant recognizes and is recognized in the differences (Stacey, 2003). One such difference is obviously the role of the leader. This is the emergence of the act of leadership by an appointed leader or by a person not appointed who takes leadership in a given situation. The identity and behaviour of the leader is as much formed by the group as he or she forms the group in his or her recognition of others (Grifn and Stacey, 2005). The (formal or informal) role of the leader emerges, and is continually iterated in social processes of recognition (Grifn, 2002). The act of leadership is therefore created simultaneously between leaders and followers. The leadership is then linked to both what the followers presently accept as legitimate sense-making and power relating by the leader and what the leader sees as possible acts of leadership based on his or her current and tentative sense-making and future direction. Following this argumentation, we suggest that leadership is perhaps better understood as a dynamic process which occurs between people rather than depending on the individual characteristics of the leader appointed or not. The obsession with the characteristics of the leader is coupled with a tendency to see an organisation in terms of its leader; to locate the responsibility for the life of an organisation, in its widest sense, with a special super-heroic individual. In contrast, it is our view that leadership is not static or permanently possessed (even though somebody has this in his or her job description) but emerges from the ongoing interaction between leaders and followers in the present:
The real work of leadership is in leaving the models behind and discovering in the here and now, with this group of people, this organisation and in this context, what leadership is possible and needed (Binney et al., 2005, p. 15).

Leadership as identity construction 883

What is being recognised in the leader-follower relationship is a conguration of power in which the power balance is tilted towards the identity of the leader (Grifn and

JMD 28,10

884

Stacey, 2005). The one who is recognised as a leader (being formal, informal, appointed or not) is the one who has the capacity to inuence the group. Obviously, such capacity is not static. The potential for a shift in power is therefore present in any given moment as long as there is interaction going on. The reason for this paradoxical nature of leadership is that it is a complex process of being and not being in control. We will claim that leaders struggle to hold on to a sense of order is linked to a wish to reduce anxieties associated with disorder and unpredictability. In their anxieties, leaders and followers in organisations want to believe that someone, somewhere, is in control. However, the notion of the leader as the one who is in control is not consistent with reality, as discussed above. We therefore argue that leadership is about dealing with the unknown and the emergence of new patterns of communication and behaviour. The action of the leader is not split off from the nature of leadership, and we contend that leadership is then better understood as the movement from idealised to the actual experience between people. This claim is supported by the work of Grifn and Stacey (2005). We also contend that leaders act and leadership is therefore action. Such action is made possible by the way leaders construct their identities as leaders. Day and Harrison (2007) support this by arguing that using identity as a development lever promotes leadership. Leaders emerge in the interaction between people as the act of recognising and being recognised, as well as the act of gaining the necessary trust, credibility, and respect to perform as a leader. We propose therefore that leadership is an emergent phenomenon of people in interaction or, as Klein (2004) puts it, a dynamic, socially enabled and socially constrained set of functions. The leader is embodied in an individual person but, more importantly, leadership is a social phenomenon that emerges only in interaction and has no value without interaction. This is a distinction from the dominant way of thinking about a leader as holding an assigned position to oversee activities and seeking to achieve a desired outcome. In terms of leadership capabilities, it is our view that it is more fruitful to speak of the forming of leadership identity rather than skills/characteristics/traits, the former containing movement as opposed to the latter. By taking this stand, we do not intend to minimise the signicance of leadership by identifying substitutes for leadership. On the contrary, it is our stand that the forming of leadership identity is a result of hard work related to the understanding and development of oneself in relation to others. The debate about leadership skills/characteristics/style, suggests something permanent can exist and be possessed by a person appointed to the task. We think that rather than viewing leadership as something that can be possessed, it should be viewed as a dynamic process emerging between people dependent obviously on context but, more importantly, on identity and relationships. This is obviously a process requiring reection and personal development (see, for example, Day and Harrison, 2007; Pearce, 2007). In making this argument, we also agree with the conclusion made by several researchers that leaders are not born leaders but we will suggest that leadership is a development process not suitable for everyone. What constitutes leadership identity? Identity is a multidimensional construct used throughout the social sciences to describe an individuals comprehension of him or herself as a discrete, separate entity. In psychology, identity often relates to self-image (a persons mental model of him or

herself), self-esteem, personality and individuation. Over the years different theories of the self-images have been identied (e.g. Lecky, 1945; Mead, 1934; Wylie, 1979; James, 1890/1918; Rogers, 1961; Cooley, 1902; Colby, 1968). One of the more widely accepted theories was developed by the German developmental psychologist and psychoanalyst Erik Erikson (1959). He proposed a framework to describe identity based on a psychological sense of continuity; the ego identity more commonly known as the self. The self is thus the personal idiosyncrasies that separate one person from the next (Erikson, 1959) and the human being responsible for the thoughts and actions of an individual. The self is the individual core and substance, which endures through time; thus, the thoughts and actions at different moments of time may pertain to the same self. The development of identity is based on this self, and development can then be charted in terms of a series of stages in which identity is formed in response to challenges and human interaction. To another person, the self of one individual is exhibited in the conduct and discourse of that individual. Therefore, the intentions of another individual can only be inferred indirectly from something emanating from that individual. The particular characteristics of the self determine its identity the individuals personal, highly subjective comprehension of him or herself as a separate human entity his or her self-image. This subjective comprehension of the self may contrast the other domains of the self; namely between own versus others images of self-state representations, or the distinction between the ideal self and the ought self (Higgins, 1987). From the vantage point of self-psychology, there are two areas of particular interest in terms of development of identity: (1) the processes by which a self is formed (the I); and (2) the actual content of the schemata which compose the self-concept (the Me). Building on Eriksons (1959) research, the work of James Marcia (1966) focuses on choice and commitment as central to this process. The idea is that any individuals sense of identity is determined in large part by the choices and commitments that he or she makes regarding personal and social traits. Many also argue that most of such choices are value-based choices; some claim that values create choices, and choices create values (see, for example, Moxnes, 2007). Following the above, identity promotes a view of the dynamic and multifaceted self as the enduring substance in identity forming (Lord and Brown, 2004). Peoples self-perception is composed of different aspects. Forces at various levels (for instance personality traits, choices, commitment, etc.) inuence the accessibility of a given self-concept, leading to activation of identity at a given point in time (Brickson, 2000). Thus, different situations may bring different aspects of the self to the fore, and the self-concept, thus identity, may change due to various external stimuli and environmental challenges (Kark and van Dijk, 2007). Self-psychology also investigates the question of how the personal self relates to the social environment, focusing on explaining an individuals actions within a group in terms of mental events and states. Some social psychology theories go further by attempting to deal with the issue of identity at both the levels of individual cognition and of collective behaviour (e.g. Day and Harrison, 2007). An important issue of interest in social psychology is thus the notion that there are certain identity formation strategies that a person may use to adapt to the social world. Higgins (1987) proposed

Leadership as identity construction 885

JMD 28,10

886

that people have two basic self-regulation systems. One regulates achievement of future rewards, while the other regulates avoidance of punishments. Promotion goals represent the ideal self whereas prevention goals regulate the ought self, as discussed above. Based on identity theory as rooted in the work of Mead (1934) and expanded by Stryker (1968), a process of the individual interacting with others in order to create an identity has been developed; a process called identity negotiation. The purpose of identity negotiation is to develop a set of behaviours that reinforce the identity of a person. In general, a person will have to negotiate separately on each identity he or she possesses by interacting with those who are affected by the role in question; and in our context, the leadership role. Mead (1934) argued that the individual mind is the silent conversation and role-play of an individual body with itself, equivalent to social processes. Mead thus states that humans and thereby leaders cannot be understood in isolation. Mind is emerging in social relationships and it is itself in processes of relating (Stacey, 2003). It therefore follows, according to Mead (1934), that the self is a social construction. Such argumentation is supported by recent developments in neurobiology. Building on such research, the clinical psychologist Cozolino (2006) argues that the brain is an organ of adaptation that builds its structures through interactions with others and experience. In the case of leadership this means that the identity of the leader is, thus, as much formed by the group as he or she forms the group in his or her recognition of others. Leadership-wise, work for instance by Burns (2003) and Bass and Avolio (1994) focus on the relationship between leaders and followers. This work has resulted in theories of transactional leadership (Yukl, 2006). As a result, scholars have taken more interest in the psychological contract between leaders and followers, and there is a growing body of research showing the importance of the leadership-follower dynamics. Some argue that self-consciousness, understood as the ability to get in touch with our inner dimensions, is the key to self-development (e.g. Moxnes, 2007; Dearlove and Coomber, 2005). Others, such as Scharmer (2004), state that most of the twentieth-century social sciences focused on objective social facts, structures, systems, and inter-subjectivity; the process by which such social constructions are shaped between agents in a social system. He claim that theorists in social sciences have primary concentrated their efforts on the exterior and collective dimensions of reality mostly addressing behavioural, social, and cultural aspects of social structures and processes and the individuals, their capabilities, and their relationships. These theories in social sciences have missed a spot in this respect. That is the interior dimension of the individual when leading or engaging in other human interactions, according to Scharmer (2007). This is the dimension of the self relating and acting in a social system from which action emerges. We therefore suggest that ones image of ones self is a social construction being created and re-created. Moxnes (2007) states that to develop as a human being is to be seen. To be seen is to develop a self. The development of a self is thus strongly linked to human interaction by communication. Carl Gustav Jung (1957), the founder of analytical psychology, claims that human beings have an innate need for self-realisation. This process is called individuation, or the process of becoming an individual. We attempt to create our own identities (the I becoming the Me) through human interaction, and Jung proposes that the goal of self-realization is to pull us to

our highest possible construction of identity. Our identity is then a movement in time and space constituting a collection of self-images in our mind from the past, from the present, and from the future, all results of human interaction. Jung (1957) coined our images from the past the Grounded Self, our images of the present the True Self, and our images of the future the Possible Self. Other similar common representations of the self are the actual self, the ideal self, and the ought self (Higgins, 1987). Others, such as the psychologists McAdams and Pals (2006), have approached the question of identity from the concept of personality. Personality can be dened as the personal traits that constitute a pattern of behaviour in different situations over time (Moxnes, 2007). Hence, according to Moxnes (2007), personality is both structure and process. Following this, McAdams claims that there is an I who seeks to become a Me, where the Me is the end product and the I the reective process. Seen together, these constitute our identity where personality comprises part of our constructed identity. McAdams and Pals (2006) proposed that identity construction also includes two others elements in addition to personality; namely the tasks that interests us our concerns, and what we have experienced earlier in life our stories. Towards a model for development of leadership identity Several researchers have investigated the role of identity in leadership (e.g. Day and Harrison, 2007; Baltes and Carstensen, 1991; Day et al., 2008). The understanding of leadership identity may be enhanced by the use of a development approach, according to several researchers (e.g. Erikson, 1959; Kegan, 1982; Loevinger, 1976). Building on such work, we will suggest a conceptual model for development of leadership identity. In a forming and being formed relationship between leaders and followers, we claim that a leader needs to reect on and react to identity issues. By reecting and reacting, we mean leading by acting in the moment but at the same time paying attention to who one is in relation to others and what is occurring in ones own mind and feelings. It is then pertinent to ask: if leadership is dependent on identity, how should one pay attention to identity in the act of leading? Discovering and paying attention to identity in the act of leadership requires a commitment to develop oneself (Day et al., 2008). Leaders life stories provide the context for experiences. It is the personal narratives that matter, not the mere facts of peoples lives. Narratives and images of the past, present and future, are role-playing and form the basis for silent conversations in peoples minds. Over and over, people replay the events, dreams, and personal interactions that are important in their life, attempting to make sense and nd their way. Day and Harrison (2007) argue that such processes also apply to leadership development. Based on a Jungian framework, we propose that identity forming in the act of leading may be understood in terms of images from the past (the Grounded Self), images of the present (the True Self), and images of the future (the Possible Self). In making this argument, we do not assume a linear view of time. On the contrary, we take a circular view of time in which the past is not given but is being reiterated in the present in the light of the expectations people are forming in the present for the future. According to Stacey (2003), expectations for the future are affecting how we view the past and those views are again affecting expectations for the future, all in the present. With respect to self-psychology, the present (the True Self) is thus living in the sense

Leadership as identity construction 887

JMD 28,10

888

that it has a circular time structure incorporating both the past (the Grounded Self) and the future (the Possible Self). The journey to increased awareness of identity as leaders and discovering the path to leadership begins with understanding the story of leaders lives. Leaders images from the past are a function of how they may learn and develop from their life story. It is a matter of framing life stories that allow leaders to see themselves not as passive observers of their lives but as individuals who have developed self-awareness from important experiences (George and Sims, 2007). We therefore suggest that the following issues are central when reecting on images from the past what we will term the leadership grounded self: . What are the leaders stories? What knowledge and experiences does he/she have? What are their unique strengths, skills and capabilities? . Who have they met who has inspired them, who has challenged them, and who has contributed to their development as human beings and as leaders? . What is their network or team of supportive people, possible mentors and advisors? What are the leaders family backgrounds, their interests, and their roots of origin? . What challenges and difcult experiences have they overcome and how can they use these difculties to give meaning to their life? How do they nd motivation from these difcult experiences and how do they grow from these? In their book Geeks and Geezers, Bennis and Thomas (2002) describe a phenomenon they call crucibles as central to nding ways to leadership; by this they mean experiences that test people to their limits. This has to do with how potential leaders in early years nd personal strategies to cope with difcult challenges from which they later manage to develop leadership capabilities. There is also a growing volume of research work on the issue of leadership and authenticity (Goffee and Jones, 2005; Dearlove and Coomber, 2005; George and Sims, 2007; Pearce, 2007), as well as on transformational leadership, supporting the above discussion. This work encourages leaders to learn from their life stories and develop a strong sense of self in order to discover their personal ways to leadership. Dearlove and Coomber (2005) go further by arguing that leaders who skip the necessary stages of self-development could adapt identities that are not true to their own values and beliefs. Such leaders, according to these researchers, can be damaging to organisations if they are compensating for perceived personal shortcomings through their leadership. When members of the Stanford Graduate School of Business Advisory Council were asked to recommend the most important capability for leaders to develop, they answered self-awareness (George and Sims, 2007). Some researchers argue that without self-awareness, development as a leader will not progress (Hautala, 2006). Becoming self-aware is perhaps best understood as the ongoing process of individuation, as conceptualised by Jung and Baynes (1921). Individuation may then be seen as the combination of self-awareness and the will power needed to develop oneself (Moxnes, 2007). It is leaders attempt to create their own identities through their images of the living present (the process of the I becoming the Me) that inuences the self-awareness process. The previously mentioned work on self-psychology by Marcia (1966) focuses on choice and commitment as central to the process of individuation.

Developing Marcias conclusions further in the context of leadership, we suggest that a leaders sense of identity is determined by the choices and commitments that he or she makes regarding different personal and social traits in various difcult situations. We then propose that some of the following issues are relevant for leaders to reect upon with respect to images from the present what we call the leadership true self. Choices Some researchers claim that many leadership choices are value-based (e.g. Moxnes, 2007). Maio and Olson (1998) propose that values in a leadership context are truisms that lack cognitive support but that can be applied in an unquestioned manner; suggesting that values reect fundamental, rather than surface differences among individuals. Individuals, including leaders, hold different values and give prominence to certain value over others. Values are hence relatively enduring criteria used in generating leadership behaviour (Lord and Brown, 2004). Various researchers have therefore asserted that the values held by leaders are related to their behaviour (Thomas et al., 2001) and regulate behaviour (Kark and van Dijk, 2007). Also, building on the concept of value-driven or ethical leadership (see, for example, Yukl, 2006), we will propose that it is relevant for leaders to become aware of what their values are and how these values inuence their choices, decisions, and behaviours. One may also develop the above further by asking on what principles leaders base their leadership. In his book Questions of Character, Harvard professor Joseph Badaracco (2006) argues that the tension between principles and pragmatism accompanies leaders throughout their career. He claims that combining principles and pragmatism is among the most difcult challenges leaders face. It may therefore be important for leaders to take a stand on what are the ethical and moral boundaries (for example in the form of values) that guide their professional and personal life and, more importantly, what the trade-offs leaders are willing to make, leadership-wise, between their principles and pragmatism? Commitment The simplest way for leaders to commit to any type of purpose is to assume some kind of responsibility for their organisation, for their team, for their role in society, for achieving results and, perhaps most importantly, for themselves. Alexander (2005) denes commitment to purpose as the determination, dedication, and energy to make something become reality as being central to the acts of leadership. Drucker (2001) has stated that leadership is responsibility. A leaders commitment to any kind of purpose is an act of taking responsibility. Taking responsibility is a difcult emotional and cognitive psychological challenge and hence a complex, subtle human activity. It may be difcult to grasp what taking responsibility actually means leadership-wise, as the term responsibility is not easy to dene. However, one way to approach this issue is for a leader to take responsibility by committing to a purpose. Such commitment is often based on a conviction (Alexander, 2005) and is most critical when conditions are tough. This is when leaders persist by having the motivation to create action and movement. A consequence of commitment to purpose is hence a leaders motivational inuence on others (Alexander, 2005). This is thus the ability to communicate purpose to followers or other stakeholders.

Leadership as identity construction 889

JMD 28,10

890

Jungs conception of the True Self, i.e. leaders images of the present, may contain other aspects. A steady ow of books and concepts argue about the importance of character, beliefs, integrity, compassion, humility, passion, reection, dedication, and other honourable traits as central to conception of self-images (see, for example, Covey, 2004; Badaracco, 2006; George and Sims, 2007; Bennis and Thomas, 2002). We suggest, however, that most such concepts may be referred back to Marcias (1966) work on choice and commitment as the dominant psychological processes governing self-image and subsequent leadership behaviour, and therefore inuencing leaders identity construction. Douglass C. North, the 1993 co-recipient of the Nobel Price in Economic Sciences, argues in his latest book Understanding the Process of Economic Change (North, 2005) that in contrast to biological evolutionary theory, the key to human development is the intentionality of the players involved:
In contrast, human evolution is guided by the perceptions of the players; choices decisions are made in light of those perceptions with the intent of producing outcomes downstream that will reduce uncertainty of the organisations political, economic, and social in pursuit of their goals (North, 2005, p. viii).

We therefore propose that a parameter in the act of leadership is intentionality both the one held by leaders and shared in organisations. The explanation is straightforward; social systems (for instance in the form of a leader and followers) are constructions of the human mind. They have no existence outside the human mind; thus, our understanding is unlike that in the physical sciences, which can employ reductionism to understand the physical world. Agents in an organisational system, be they leaders or followers, adjust their moves to the situations that these moves together create. This adds a layer of complication to social sciences that is not experienced in the natural sciences. The structure that makes up the foundation of leader-follower interaction is a construct of the human mind; constituting the cumulative aggregate of surviving beliefs. North (2005) argues that while the constructs human create are a subjective function of the human mind, humans are continually testing the constructs against evidence to see if they have value. Such evidence and theories are constructs and both at best are very imperfect mirrors of what we are trying to comprehend and thereby lead. In terms of leadership, such thinking has given rise to theories on situational leadership. One such example is the work by Hersey and Blanchard (1977). They proposed a contingency theory for appropriate leadership behaviour according to the maturity of followers in relation to the work in question. Other examples are path-goal theories, multiple linkages models, cognitive resource theories, and normative decision theories (Yukl, 2006). We do not necessarily agree with the above researchers or other prescriptive ways of dening effective leadership, but we argue that intentionality is present in the act of leading. Badaracco (2006) suggests that intentionality in the form of a dream is a resource for leaders. Others claim that intentionality in the form of visioning (Senge, 1990) or some sort of strategic capabilities (Alexander, 2005) is central for leaders. We contend that any kind of intentionality from compelling images or expectations of the future in the form of visions, strategies, directions, positions, or the like, is a part of the act of leadership. Jung termed this part of peoples identity the images of the future as the Possible Self. Some will claim that images of the future in the form of

intentionality, expectations, dreams, visions, ambitions, or any other agendas have roots in a persons character and everyday life (see, for example, Badaracco, 2006). Therefore, in our conceptualisation of leadership identity construction we suggest that leaders images or expectations of the future are dening for leadership. This we will call the leadership possible self and we propose that leaders should reect on the following: . What are their intentions, what are their expectations for the future, what are their dreams, what are their visions, what are their ambitions, their strategies, and perhaps more pragmatic, what is their agenda for the future? . They may also ask themselves what their greater concerns are, what their role in society is, and how they can make some kind of a difference. Many researchers support the above argument, basically stating that leadership is intentionality in the form of direction. Behling and Rauch (1985) claim that leadership is the process of inuencing a group towards goal achievement. Richards and Engle (1986) say that leadership is about articulating visions, and Jacobs and Jaques (1990) dene leadership as the process of giving meaningful direction. Regardless of the various denitions of leadership and direction, most human beings articulate intentions as images of the future. We suggest that this is a dening quality of leadership. In constructing their identity as leaders, most leaders will nd motivation in their expectations of the future. We propose in this article that leadership is identity construction emerging in human interaction. Our images of our self are a time circular construction being constantly created and re-created. The development of a self is linked to human interaction. Leaders create their identities as their individual and personal way to leadership. A growing body of research (e.g. Day and Harrison, 2007; Day et al., 2008; Day and Lance, 2004; Lord and Hall, 2005) suggests that we need to understand better the coupling between identity and leadership, and how this affects peoples development and behaviours as leaders. Following our discussion in this article, we therefore suggest that leadership is perhaps better understood as who you are towards other people in challenging situations. In this article we have proposed a framework for such reection and development. This is no prescription but a conceptualisation of aspects inuencing leaders construction of their leadership identity. Finding and expressing ones self in leadership always carries risks; some peoples selves are more acceptable than others. What is also certain is that discovering individual and unique ways to leadership requires a commitment to develop ones self. Jung and Baynes (1921) propose that the goal of self-realisation is to pull a human being to his or her highest possible construction of identity. We contend in this article that such leadership identity construction is a movement in time and space, constituting a collection of time circular self-images in our mind from the past, from the present, and from the future. These images inuence peoples acts as leaders. We also argue that reecting on identity and coupling this to the act of leadership is an ongoing exercise lasting throughout a leaders career. We suggest that herein lies the Holy Grail of leadership, if any; the ability to mobilise the discipline, stamina and willpower necessary to develop ones self as a leader and, ultimately, as a human being.

Leadership as identity construction 891

JMD 28,10

892

Conclusion The concept of leadership is arbitrary and subjective. In this article we have suggested that leadership is perhaps better understood as identity construction. We are taking a different approach to what it means to lead than do most mainstream approaches, namely that of the complexity sciences. In taking this perspective, we claim that leaders do not always have the overview and control that mainstream leadership theory suggests. We also argue that leadership is action. Such action is made possible by the way leaders construct their identities as leaders. Leadership therefore emerges in the interaction between people as the act of recognising and being recognised, as well as the act of gaining the necessary credibility to perform as a leader. Identity, we argue, is then best viewed as a multidimensional construct used to describe an individuals comprehension of him or herself as a discrete, separate entity often related to self-image, self-esteem, personality and individuation. Leaders images of themselves are also social constructions being constantly created and re-created. The development of a self is hence strongly linked to interaction between leaders and followers, and between leaders and human beings in general. In the article we have suggested a conceptual framework for reecting on such leadership identity, because we argue that leaders create their identities as their individual and personal ways to leadership. Discovering individual ways to leadership requires a commitment to develop ones self. Such identity construction is a movement in time and space, constituting a collection of time circular self-images in our mind. These self-images inuence peoples acts as leaders. The concept of leadership, if any, is therefore the individuals ability to mobilise the discipline necessary to develop ones self by reecting on identity in a social context and coupling this to the acts of leadership.

References Alexander, E.D. (2005), The rule of three: a unied theory of leadership, Business Strategy Review, Autumn. Badaracco, J.L. Jr (2006), Questions of Character: Illuminating the Heart of Leadership through Literature, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Baltes, M.M. and Carstensen, L.L. (1991), Possible selves and their fertility in the process of successful aging: a commentary on Cross and Markus, Human Development, Vol. 34, pp. 256-60. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (Eds) (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Behling, O. and Rauch, C.F. Jr (1985), A functional perspective on improving leadership effectiveness, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 51-61. Beinhocker, E.D. (2006), The Origin of Wealth. Evolution, Complexity and the Radial Remaking of Economics, Random House Business Books, London. Bennis, W.G. (1959), Leadership theory and administrative behavior: the problem of authority, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 259-60. Bennis, W.G. and Thomas, R.J. (2002), Geeks & Geezers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Binney, G., Wilke, G. and Williams, C. (2005), Living Leadership: A Practical Guide for Ordinary Heroes, Pearson Education, Harlow. Brickson, S. (2000), The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse settings, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 82-101. Burnes, B. (2004), Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re-appraisal, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 977-1002. Burns, J.M. (2003), Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, NY. Colby, C.K. (1968), A programmable theory of cognition and affect in individual personal belief systems, in Abelson, R.P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W.J., Newcomb, T.M., Rosenberg, M.J. and Tannenbaum, P.H. (Eds), Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Source Book, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 520-5. Collins, J. (2001), Level 5 leadership, Harvard Business Review, January, pp. 66-76. Cooley, C.H. (1902), Human Nature and the Social Order, Scribners Sons, New York, NY. Covey, S.R. (2004), The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. Cozolino, L. (2006), The Neuroscience of Human Relationships, Attachment and the Developing Social Brain, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY. Day, D.V. and Harrison, M.M. (2007), A multilevel, identity-bases approach to leadership development, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 360-73. Day, D.V. and Lance, C.E. (2004), Understanding the development of leadership complexity through latent growth modelling, in Day, D.V., Zaccaro, S.J. and Halpin, S.M. (Eds), Leader Development for Transforming Organizations: Growing Leaders for Tomorrow, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 41-69. Day, D.V., Harrison, M. and Halpin, S. (2008), An Integrative Theory of Leader Development, The Psychology Press, New York, NY. Dearlove, D. and Coomber, S. (2005), A leadership miscellany, Business Strategy Review, Autumn, pp. 53-8. Drucker, P. (2001), The Essential Drucker, HarperCollins, New York, NY. Drucker, P.F. (2004), What makes an effective executive, Harvard Business Review, June, pp. 58-63. Elias, N. (1991), The Society of Individuals, Blackwell, Oxford. Erickson, E.H. (1959), Identity and the Life Cycle, International Universities, New York, NY. George, B. and Sims, P. (2007), True North. Discover Your Authentic Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2005), Managing authenticity: the paradox of great leadership, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83 No. 12, pp. 86-94. Gosling, J. and Mintzberg, H. (2003), The ve minds of a manager, Harvard Business Review, November, pp. 54-63. Grifn, D. (2002), The Emergence of Leadership. Linking Self-organization and Ethics, Routledge, London. Grifn, D. and Stacey, R. (2005), Complexity and the Experience of Leading Organizations, Routledge, London.

Leadership as identity construction 893

JMD 28,10

Hautala, T.M. (2006), The relationship between personality and transformational leadership, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 777-94. Hegel, G.W.F. (1807), The Phenomenology of the Spirit, Joseph Anton Goebhardt, Bamberg, (trans. by Miller, A.V.), Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1977), The Management of Organizational Behavior, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Higgins, E.T. (1987), Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect, Psychological Review, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 319-40. Jacobs, T.O. and Jaques, E. (1990), Military executive leadership, in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership Library of America, West Orange, NJ, pp. 281-95. James, W. (1890/1918), The Principles of Psychology, Holt, New York, NY. Jung, C.G. (1957), The Undiscovered Self (Present and Future), American Library, New York, NY. Jung, C.G. and Baynes, H.G. (1921), The Psychology of Individuation, Kegan Paul Trench Trubner, London. Kark, R. and van Dijk, D. (2007), Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: the role of self-regulatory focus in leadership processes, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 500-28. Kegan, R. (1982), The Evolving Self, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA. Klein, K.J. (2004), Teamwork in a shock trauma unit: new lessons in leadership, Knowledge@Wharton, October. Lecky, P. (1945), Self-consistency: A Theory of Personality, Island Press, New York, NY. Loevinger, J. (1976), Ego Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Lord, R.G. and Brown, D.J. (2004), Leadership Processes and Follower Self-identity, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Lord, R.G. and Hall, R.J. (2005), Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 591-615. McAdams, D.P. and Pals, J.L. (2006), A new big ve. Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality, American Psychologist, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 204-17. Maio, G.R. and Olson, J.M. (1998), Values as truisms: evidence and implications, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 294-311. Marcia, J.E. (1966), Development and validation of ego identity status, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 551-8. Mead, G.H. (1934), Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL. Moxnes, P. (2007), Fasettmennesket. Teori og forskning om Personlighet og Rolle. Et lederopplringsperspektiv, Forlaget Paul Moxnes, Oslo. North, D. (2005), Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Pearce, C. (2007), The future of leadership development: the importance of identity, multi-level approaches, self-leadership, physical tness, shared leadership, networking, creativity, emotions, spirituality and on-boarding processes, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 355-9.

894

Richards, D. and Engle, S. (1986), After the vision: suggestions to corporate visionaries and vision champions, in Adams, J.D. (Ed.), Transforming Leadership, Miles River Press, Alexandria, VA, pp. 199-214. Rogers, C.R. (1961), On Becoming a Person, Houghton Mifin, Boston, MA. Scharmer, C.T. (2007), Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges. The Social Technology of Presencing, The Society for Organizational Learning, Cambridge, MA. Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY. Shaw, P. (2002), Changing Conversations in Organizations: A Complexity Approach to Change, Routledge, London. Stacey, R.D. (2003), Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity, Pearson Education, Harlow. Stacey, R.D. (Ed.) (2005), Experiencing Emergence in Organizations: Local Interaction and the Emergence of Global Pattern, Routledge, London. Stryker, S. (1968), Identity salience and role performance, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 4, pp. 558-64. Thomas, J.L., Dickson, M.W. and Bliese, P.D. (2001), Using personal values and motives to predict success as a leader in the US Army Reserve Ofcer Training Corps, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 181-96. Weick, K.E. (2001), Making Sense of the Organization, Blackwell, Malden, MA. Wylie, R.C. (1979), The Self-concept, Vol. 2, University of Nebraska Press, West Lincoln, NE. Yukl, G. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed., Pearson Education, Mahwah, NJ. Further reading Ancona, D., Malone, T.W., Orlikowski, W.J. and Senge, P.M. (2007), In praise of the incomplete leader, Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 92-100. Arthur, W.B., Durlauf, S.N. and Lane, D.A. (1997), The Economy as an Evolving System II, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Charan, R. (2005), Conquering a culture of indecision, Harvard Business Review on Leading through Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Collins, J. and Porras, J. (1994), Build to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, HarperCollins, New York, NY. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996), Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, HarperCollins, New York, NY. Dennett, D. (1990), Memes and the exploitation of imagination, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, No. 48, pp. 127-35. Gardner, H. (2004), Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other Peoples Minds, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Kaufmann, G. and Kaufmann, A. (1996), Psykologi i organisasjon og ledelse, 3 utgave, Fagbokforlaget, Bergen. Kets de Vries, M. (2001), The Leadership Mystique: A Users Manual for the Human Enterprise, Financial Times Prentice-Hall, London. Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (2005), Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Rock, D. and Schwartz, J. (2006), The neuroscience of leadership, StrategyBusiness, No. 43.

Leadership as identity construction 895

JMD 28,10

896

Saunders, R.M. (2005), Communicating change a dozen tips from the experts, Managing Change to Reduce Resistance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Wiley, San Francisco, CA. Shotter, J. (1993), Conversational Realities: Constructing Life through Language, Sage Publications, London. Streateld, P.J. (2001), The Paradox of Control in Organizations, Routledge, London. Corresponding author Tom Karp can be contacted at: Tom.karp@c-k.no

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.