Management Communication

Quarterly
http://mcq.sagepub.com/

Leadership Development as Identity Construction

Brigid Carroll and Lester Levy
Management Communication Quarterly 2010 24: 211
DOI: 10.1177/0893318909358725

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/24/2/211

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Management Communication Quarterly can be

found at:

Email Alerts: http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://mcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://mcq.sagepub.com/content/24/2/211.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 16, 2010

What is This?

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Article
Management Communication Quarterly
24(2) 211­–231
Leadership Development © The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
as Identity Construction sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0893318909358725
http://mcq.sagepub.com

Brigid Carroll1 and Lester Levy1

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.

Keywords
leadership development, identity work, social construction, discourse, narrative

We intend to explore how the social construction of leadership literature

informs and shapes leadership development. Social construction approaches
to leadership have already established and enacted a distinctive body of theo-
retical and empirical work and continue to build a range and volume of
research. Social construction is increasingly being adopted to challenge
existing understandings and practices of leadership development, which has

1
University of Auckland Business School, New Zealand

Corresponding Author:
Brigid Carroll, New Zealand Leadership Institute, The University of Auckland Business School,
Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
E-mail: b.carroll@auckland.ac.nz

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

212 Management Communication Quarterly 24(2)

provided the impetus for this inquiry. The most cohesive body of social
constructionist work in the leadership development arena is that of identity
with a clear slant toward identity regulation and control. Though we do not
deny the importance and centrality of identity regulation, we wish to balance
it alongside identity construction within a larger identity work frame. Thus,
we argue that the broader social constructionist agenda would be furthered
by recognizing identity as a project as well as a product in the context of
leadership development.
We have elected to work with the concept of a space of action to illustrate the
possibility of agency, reflexivity, and fluidity in the leadership development
context. Space of action is characterized as a “conscious decision to be the
subject that decides as opposed to an object that is decided on” (Daudi, 1986,
as cited in Holmer-Nadeson, 1996, p. 59). We would argue that, though such
a space of action is certainly not unfettered, it nonetheless recognizes that
social actors as subjects are always ready to claim the right to construct iden-
tity options and positions in often unexpected ways. We draw on three
narratives demonstrating three different identity strategies for a space for
action that were collected from participant data from two long-term leader-
ship development programs. We contend that each strategy mobilizes a
different set of discursive communicative responses either enabling or disabling
the development trajectory, leading to either a more expansive or a diminished
leadership repertoire.
We conclude that the capacity to maintain alternative narratives becomes
a vital dimension of leadership development (and indeed leadership) for
both participants and those facilitating their development. It is our intention
that through this article we will foster the kind of identity work that protects
and expands the capacity of those undertaking leadership development. More
specifically, for them to be “the subject who decides” what constitutes the
identity choices available for the often mysterious and complex concept
called leadership.
We have structured this article into four main parts. We begin by exploring
how social constructionist thinking is shaping contemporary approaches to
identity, particularly in the leadership area. We then examine how this identity
work is emerging in the leadership development literature. Following this,
we make our own theoretical and methodological constructions visible by
paying attention to narrative constructionist inquiry and the contexts from
which our three narratives were drawn. To close, we focus on the reframing
of leadership development as an identity space that involves paying attention
to the types of communication that construct participants as conscious subjects
with the capacity to exercise choice.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Carroll and Levy 213

Social Construction, Identity, and Discourse

An overview of the origins or development of social constructionism has been
provided comprehensively in the literature (Gergen, 1999; Sandberg, 2001;
Weinberg, 2008). Our focus, instead, will be placed on social constructionist
approaches to identity. Social construction can be understood broadly to be
about the ongoing interpretation of social worlds and phenomena (Pye, 2005),
relational meaning making (Hosking, 2008), the constitution and reconstitution
of realities and identities (Cunliffe, 2009), and the centrality of discourse or
language (Deetz, 1992). Consequently it is perhaps no surprise that identity
research is where much social construction converges.
Cunliffe (2009, p. 125) draws attention to a wide number of choices in the
“nature and processes of socially constructing reality” ranging across critical,
cognitive, poststructuralist, and relational orientations. Whereas such orien-
tations involve a myriad of subtle and not so subtle distinctions, there are two
that are particularly key to this article: the agency “pendulum” (Fairhurst,
2007, p. 78) and the shift from nouns (fixed, static) to verbs (in movement, as
becoming; Weick, 1995). We would argue that social constructionist identity
research offers a range of choices along these two conceptual continuums
(among others) and that such choices require a “critically reflexive engage-
ment” (Cunliffe, 2009, p. 135) of not just ourselves as an individual researcher
but also in our gaze across the different terrains and fields of our research.
Understanding identity as socially constructed offers the opportunity to
understand social agents and, more specifically, our research participants as
both subjects (“managers or authors of meaning”) and/or objects (“an object
to be manipulated/ shaped”; Fairhurst, 2007, p. 76). Each choice involves
a quite different relationship and positioning of discourse and agent. Thus,
discourse (with a big “D”) could be understood as producing or constituting
its users effectively rendering them as objects, whereas discourse (with a
little “d”) can be viewed as a linguistic resource for users skillfully crafting
and adapting to insert themselves in relationships and contexts. Emphasis on
the former (big “D”) at the expense of the latter (little “d”) results in the
undertheorization of agency, whereas the reverse creates what Gronn
(2000) has termed exaggerated agency or leader centrism. Researchers could
be excused in thinking that they have a choice between rendering their research
participants as “docile bodies, mere throughputs of various discourses”
(Thomas & Davies, 2005, p. 684) and the personification of “a mix of
psychological-existential worry” (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003, p. 1165).
We view subject-orientated research as represented most strongly in
inquiries focused on identity work and object-orientated work in research

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

214 Management Communication Quarterly 24(2)

focusing on identity regulation. Identity work and identity regulation are two
of the three components (the third being self-identity) that constitute Alvesson
and Willmott’s identity framework, which has generated a growing body of
identity work (Beech, 2008; Carroll & Levy, 2008; Sveningsson & Alvesson,
2003; Sveningsson & Larsson, 2006). Identity work is understood as taking
place in a context of “contradiction, disruption and confusion” (Alvesson &
Willmott, 2002, p. 626) requiring intentionality, consciousness, or what is
more specifically referred to as reflexivity. It is a combination of reflexivity
and contextual instability that propels social actors into experiences of active
and even intense identity work such as leadership development programs.
This has been specifically framed in the leadership domain as, “a practical
authorship” (Shotter, 1993, p. 157) where one must “create a landscape of
enabling constraints” and “an intelligible formulation” out of chaos. How one
does this is understood as identity work.
In contrast, identity regulation works from a starting assumption that
identity is a “significant, neglected and increasingly important modality of
organizational control” (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002, p. 621) that occurs
“inside” not “outside” selves, unlike more tangible mechanisms of control.
Regulating identities predominantly through managerial discourse is part
of the work that organizations do and is central to the way they operate.
Leadership is simply one of these discourses that employees are asked to
identify with and accordingly claim a set of desired understandings and
behaviors in doing so. The focus here is less on how agents mobilize discursive
resources and more on how they position themselves within discourse or
“integrated, prefabricated line(s) of language and reasoning” (Sveningsson &
Alvesson, 2003, p. 1167).
We examine an example of what we have termed subject and object-
orientated identity research, both to illustrate what it means to focus inquiry
on identity work as opposed to the regulation of identity and also with a view
of building strongly on specific concepts from both. Holmer-Nadeson’s
“Organizational Identity and Space of Action” understands discourse as
positioning individuals and producing “the material conditions and forms of
their articulations” (p. 51). Holmer-Nadeson builds on Daudi’s (1986) work
to describe a concept space of action that is used as an expression and desire
for agency in the moment. This space is effectively a decision-making space
“to be the subject that decides, as opposed to an object that is decided upon”
(Holmer-Nadeson, 1996, p. 59). That space of action offers the opportunity
to identify (accept and work with dominant discourses), counteridentify
(negate the dominant discourse), and disidentify (replace the dominant

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Carroll and Levy 215

discourse with an alternative discourse) with discourses on offer or “managerial

formulations of identity” (Homer-Nadeson, 1996, p. 50). The important thing
about this approach is that though agents do have choice, their choice is
constrained by preexisting identity offerings that are shaped by managerial
ideologies. Thus, identity regulation lies in the dominance of certain discourses
over others and the (usually not insignificant) consequences attached to
particularly counter and disidentification.
Beech’s “On the Nature of Dialogic Identity Work” describes identity
work as “a mélange of different identity projects . . . distinct and potentially
conflicting” (p. 52). He asks whether identity regulation can be reversed
where “that which flows inward into the person to be reformed and poten-
tially flow outward to counter the external position that is seeking to regulate
the person’s self-identity.” This reversal hinges on the notion of authorship
where agents can transform “alien words” or external discourse eventually
into “one’s ‘own words’” (p. 55). Not unlike Holmer-Nadeson, Beech out-
lines three identity strategies that he terms assimilation (incorporation of a
new and congruent utterance into one’s discourse), complementarity (edit-
ing one’s current discourse to hold “points of acceptable difference,” p. 56),
and rejection (holding a discourse in opposition to one’s current discourse).
These strategies are dynamic and can alter and shift depending on four
dialogical forces termed emotive, cognitive, power dynamics, and narrative
style. We would propose that there are subtle differences between selecting
from a constrained offering of set discourses (Holmer-Nadeson, 1996)
and the ongoing and gradual weaving, crafting, and authoring between
discourses (Beech, 2008).
This leads to our second significant point of convergence in the fluidity
versus fixedness of the relationship of identity to discourse. Identity work
and construction attempt to view identity as a verb, a thing in motion, “a
working subjectivity” (Fairhurst, 2007, p. 104) or the often quoted movement
in which identity involves being “continuously engaged in forming, repair-
ing, maintaining, strengthening or revising” (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002,
p. 626). Identity regulation also tries to mitigate its associated determinism
primarily through the concept of resistance “as a constant process of adap-
tation, subversion and re-inscription of dominant discourses” (Thomas &
Davies, 2005, p. 687). Here agents are held as able to “exploit the looseness
around meanings” (Thomas & Davies, 2005, p. 699) that are created in the
gaps between discourses. It is these continuums (subject/object, fluidity/
fixedness, and inside/outside) that we will use to understand how social identity
constructionist work has shaped the leadership development literature.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

216 Management Communication Quarterly 24(2)

Leadership Development
Identity approaches are not uncommon in the leadership development field,
but they tend to be more functionalist (Lord & Hall, 2005) or constructivist
(Velsor & Drath, 2003) than social constructionist. In this section we examine
the functionalist and constructivist approaches primarily to differentiate
social constructionist identity-orientated research, before exploring what a
social construction lens brings to leadership development. To do so, we
initially look wider than leadership development to critical and constructionist
management pedagogy and education for a sense of the assumptions and
underlying purpose of its learning principles. We then consider the relatively
small number of explicitly critical and constructionist inquiries in the leader-
ship development terrain to somewhat cautiously (given that such research is
still very much in its infancy) assess its current positioning and direction.
One of the earliest typologies of leadership development comes from
Conger (1992) who identified conceptual, skill-building, personal growth,
and feedback approaches as the core mainstream components of the leadership
development field. The bulk of this literature could be characterized as
technical or what Grint (2007, p. 234) calls “know-how” (techne) in that it is
orientated at constructing a “tool box” whereby participants can get to work
on themselves and others in the name of leadership. Such an approach renders
identity effectively as another tool with the potential to provide an organizing
structure, source of motivation, and store of “personal material” such as life
stories (Lord & Hall, 2005, p. 592) that can be mobilized for greater personal
and organizational performance.
Constructivist approaches are more developmental in orientation (we
should note that there is considerable debate over how, and indeed whether,
constructivism and constructionism can truly be differentiated (see Gergen,
2001; Gergen & Gergen, 2003; Paris & Epting, 2008; Sayer, 1997; Tsoukas,
2000; Young & Collin, 2004). Perhaps the best known theoretical framework
for the constructivist approach is provided by Keegan and associates (Keegan
1982, 1994; Keegan & Lahey, 2001) who have developed what Velsor and
Drath (2003, p. 383) termed “a life-long developmental framework.” Velsor
and Drath convert Keegan’s third, fourth, and fifth stages into the three
developmental stages of self-reading, self-authoring, and self-revising. Each
of these three stages reflects a different pattern of “embedded webs of belief”
(p. 389) about the sources of one’s core identity. Underlying these notions
of stages are assumptions that identity construction is predominantly
unitary, cognitive, linear, ordered, essentialist, and internal. Under this set of
assumptions, leader(ship) development becomes orientated at identifying

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Carroll and Levy 217

which stage an individual functions from, to provide a personalized pathway

to the next level or stage.
Not surprisingly, social constructionist pedagogy challenges the assumptions
of identity as either a tool or personalized development journey. At the heart
of both is an assumption of neutrality, leading to approaches that tend to
coopt identity (albeit unwittingly at times) as yet another resource in the
pursuit of usually unquestioned organizational imperatives. However, social
construction at its broadest, must be accompanied by “a new idea of truth,
one that lies in relationships not in the situation” (Cunliffe, 2009, p. 95).
Such a “new idea of truth” has been described as moral activity or the
“ethics of the interpersonal” (Cunliffe, 2009, p. 97), “an ‘awakening’ of the
senses” (Chia & Morgan, 1996, p. 57), and the deep understanding of lived
experience (Thomas & Linstead, 2002). In more specific identity terms, at
the core of social construction is the understanding that “we are born into
dominant discourses (ways of seeing, thinking and speaking) that structure
our social experience, identities and our knowledge of the world by diverting
our attentions away from alternatives” (Cunliffe & Linstead, 2009, p. 6). If
we accept such a premise, that “identity formation is an exercise of social
power” (Thomas & Linstead, 2002, p. 75), then the work of education and
development must lie “in achieving emancipation from ‘perspective-limiting
assumptions’” (Kayes cited in Gray, 2007, p. 496). This emancipation can be
focused either toward exposing the dominant discourses or their alternatives
(or ideally, but rarely, at both). We would propose that social constructionist
approaches to leadership development appear more comfortable exposing
leadership development’s complicity with dominant discourses rather than con-
structing leadership development as the liberation of alternative discourses.
This is supported by Ford, Harding, and Learmouth’s (2008, p. 11) claim,
that their aim is concerned with “not how to be good leaders, but instead how
to look at the demands that have been placed on them and the ways in which
those demands may be influencing who they are,” which could be described
as emancipatory. However, such emancipation would seem essentially
about awareness of identity regulation. Accordingly, Ford et al. are critical
of “the mechanistic type of competency approach” (p. 20), the centrality of
self-awareness, the use of formative stories they term “hero stories” (p. 54),
and the performance of organizationally sanctioned identities.
This is predicated on an understanding of leadership development as a
process where participants receive “an invitation to seduce oneself through
the dream of heroic leader” (Ford & Harding, 2008, p. 78). The relationship
between seduction and leadership development is also highlighted by Sinclair
through an often subconscious reliance on desire (for entertainment, power,

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

218 Management Communication Quarterly 24(2)

self-knowledge) and secrecy (where development programs are compared to

“a brotherhood of confidential insights with language, acronyms, retreats and
rituals”; Sinclair, 2009, p. 272). In both inquiries, leadership development
appears “to render leadership ever more elevated, more invincible and
increasingly beyond critique” (p. 273) and consequently identity possibilities
“are whittled down and down and down” (Ford et al., 2008, p. 79).
In Gagnon’s (2008) work, which can be considered as the most empirically
orientated of the social constructionist research into leadership development,
this emphasis on identity regulation is allied with a focus on insecurity.
Gagnon draws strongly on Collinson’s (2003) work that argues that when con-
fronted with “the horrible realization that in order to make it, you’re going to
have to change” (Coutu, 2002, p. 104), where employees draw on three types
of subjectivities (conformist, dramaturgical, and resistant) to survive. Gagnon
explores the existence of these subjectivities across two separate in-house
leadership development programs to find that compliance, “compelled” iden-
tities (p. 388), and “criticized” selves (p. 387) predominate to the degree that
overt strategies, “to manage identity or control participants’ ‘insides’” (p. 384)
and defining required or desired selves to align with organizational objectives,
are explicitly orchestrated on the part of organization or facilitation. What
space for emancipation there is, similar to Sinclair (2009) and Ford et al.’s
(2008) work, is effectively a space for resistance where participants subvert,
withdraw, or refuse to enact the limited identities on offer.
We support and affirm what these approaches are bringing to the leadership
development field. Understanding leadership development as a form of
identity regulation is important work in understanding “the emotionalised
zone” (Domagalski, 1999, p. 84) that constitutes the leadership development
space and creates the kind of struggle, tension, and anxiety that fuels both
identity work and regulation. However, we do wish to complement this largely
identity regulation focus with an identity construction focus. Those who wish
to be involved in the kind of leadership development (organization sponsors,
facilitators, and participants) that enlarges rather than reduces identity options
will not be strongly and creatively supported by alternative kinds of emanci-
patory leadership development practice. It is our view that social construction
offers the potential for both.

Research Context and Construction

In this section we examine the construction and context of this research
inquiry accepting the social constructionist assumption that one cannot
be outside and separate from processes of knowledge (Cunliffe, 2009).
This assumption is even more critical when we wish to take up the two

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Carroll and Levy 219

opportunities that Grant and Hardy (2003, p. 9) see as distinctive in analysis

of a broad discourse orientation, first, “the opportunity to reflect on the
ambiguous and constructed nature of the data,” and second, the “space for
freer and bolder ways of interacting with the material.” The capacity to do
both comes from the nature of the data themselves (online and virtual) and
the choice of three participant narratives. Explanation and discussion of these
narratives will structure the bulk of this section.
For this inquiry we have drawn on data from 80 “future” leaders (aged 17
to 28) across 2 separate but similarly orientated 18-month leadership
development programs with the New Zealand Leadership Institute, at the
University of Auckland Business School. These were open programs spon-
sored by a group of corporate and community organizations and trusts that
aim to support and foster the leadership potential of those emerging into lead-
ership roles and positions both at work and in other spheres of their lives.
The conscious crafting of a leadership identity alongside other identities
was an explicit purpose of these programs. The New Zealand Leadership
Institute is strongly informed by social construction theory and practice and
is seeking to pioneer a body of work that is informed and shaped by
understandings of identity, discourse, and social context (Carroll & Levy,
2008; Carroll, Levy, & Richmond, 2008). Its research, design and develop-
ment work assumes that leadership is inextricably relational, contextual,
complex, and ambiguous and, as described by Ford et al. (2008, p. 29), is
developed “through highways and byways not dreamt of in mainstream
theoretical perspectives.” The programs include critical reflection, powerful
questioning practices, and sustained group inquiry and action processes and
takes a primarily adaptive leadership focus (Heifetz, 1994).
All three narratives come from the dedicated online learning environment
that supports each program. While 6 separate 3-day residentials formed the
backbone of the 18-month program, the bulk of the development time was
essentially virtual. This virtual environment served many functions in the
leadership development experience ranging from a repository for resources
and readings; a social networking site; a task, activity, and feedback platform;
and a conversation technology. These particular narratives came from the
latter two functions. One narrative was completely unsolicited and crafted in
a participant-initiated forum where participants were able to discuss anything
that was topical for them. The other two narratives were sourced from
participant’s responses to an activity in which they were asked to reflect on
their development at different points in the program. It is important to note
our understanding that such narratives are crafted for a specific medium and
audience and, therefore, need to be understood as both socially situated and
culturally mediated. Narratives such as these accomplish a certain kind of work

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

220 Management Communication Quarterly 24(2)

such as managing identities, legitimating behavior, performing a required or

desired self, and constructing the kind of narrative that contributes ultimately
to a coherent sense of identity (Sveningsson & Larsson, 2006). It is precisely
because narratives are, both consciously and unconsciously, crafted for such
means that they provide access into agency and choice.
These three particular narratives were selected for their ability to “speak”
to a “space for action” where each participant appears (at least for a moment
in time) to be cognizant of themselves as “a subject who decides.” We would
argue that these are precisely the moments that identity work is at its most
fluid and visible and, therefore, illustrates acute identity “precariousness”
where identity options can be shut down or opened up.
The selected narratives could also be considered as representing a critical
and repeating developmental narrative genre as each represent one of Beech’s
(2008) three different identity strategies—assimilation, complementarity, and
opposition. Finally each narrative addresses the issues that social construction
approaches have highlighted in leadership development (heroism, anxiety,
seduction, control).
Our analysis of each narrative largely focuses on its construction in
syntactical, structural, conceptual, and sequential terms. In selecting a limited
number of narratives and reading them as “wholes,” we are acknowledging
“the storying nature of human experience” (Sims, 2003, p. 1197) and the
distinctiveness of narrative truth (Bruner, 1990) where meaning is created
“by co-occurrence, spatial proximity, formal similarity, or metaphor (Tsoukas
& Hatch, 2001, p. 1005). We sought to find “nuances of event, relationship,
and purpose” (Tsoukas & Hatch, 2001, p. 998) that offer glimpses into
the meaning making of social actors as they choose to be subjects. We do
accept, however, that such narratives offer glimpses into wider structuring
discourses or “‘moral orders’ that define what is considered to be good, right
and valued” (Ylijoki, 2005, p. 559) within a particular community. The par-
ticular community that these narratives help us to see is not just the
community of these particular programs or the New Zealand Leadership
Institute, but instead the larger leadership development discursive community.

Narratives of Identity and Leadership Development

Annabelle’s Narrative

I used to be accused of being dominating, controlling, too serious, and

opinionated. I tried to correct this, but it now seems I have gone too far

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Carroll and Levy 221

the other way. I admit I am struggling and don’t know who I am or

what the right thing to do is.
I used to like being decisive and having an idea and running with it.
Through training courses I have been on, being an advisor, and being
part of a leadership program, I get the feeling this is a bad thing to do.
Like I can’t possibly have the answer because the right answer is some-
thing different altogether and my comment is simply a drop in the pot
that will get mixed in with everything else and miraculously something
completely new will appear. While I know this is supposed to be
empowering and contributes to a greater good, how can I back my
ideas and myself when I know that it shouldn’t be the answer?
At the moment I feel weak, ineffective, and frustrated because both
approaches obviously aren’t working very well.

Annabelle’s (pseudonym) narrative is both lucid and reflective in her

depiction of what it feels like to be “warned off” one discourse (“being
decisive and having an idea and running with it”) to another (“being a drop
in the pot who is mixed in with everything else”). This speaks to identity
regulation where external voices weight a discourse as more desired or
required than another. Her narrative in fact implies a set of characters who
sound as though they have just this sort of influence “(“through training
courses I have been on, being an advisor and being part of a leadership pro-
gram”) and who create the feeling in her that “this is a bad thing to do.”
Underlying her narrative is an image similar to a pendulum where “it now
seems I have gone too far the other way” and finding a point of reconciliation
seems fraught to say the least. Annabelle recognizes not only the limitations
of holding to a leadership discourse where she was “dominating, controlling,
too serious and opinionated” but also the strengths of its vitality and energy:
“being decisive and having an idea and running with it.” Repeated through-
out the narrative is the sentiment that such a discourse is “bad,” hence the
need to “correct” her leadership understanding. Particularly at risk, however,
is her identity, “don’t know who I am,” and her agency, “what the right
thing to do is.” Aside from appearing “weak, ineffective and frustrated,” she
appears to run the risk of losing visibility altogether: “My comment is simply
a drop in the pot that will get mixed in with everything” and any personal
accountability or ability to shape the result. All she can do is wait and hope
that “miraculously something completely new will appear.”
Significantly, her narrative ends in rejecting both extremes of the pendulum
but in a palpably emotional “weak, ineffective, and frustrated” state. We read
this narrative nonetheless as opening up a space of action as she swings to the

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

222 Management Communication Quarterly 24(2)

present tense in “I admit I am struggling” and in the question toward the end,
“How can I back my ideas?” Annabelle’s narrative, particularly its underly-
ing pendulum type imagery, “I have gone too far the other way,” speaks to
Beech’s (2008) rejection characterization where an alternative discourse is
held in opposition to an existing one.

Braden’s Narrative

A leader doesn’t have to be an overbearing figure. The leadership style

I have adopted, and prefer, is to be a team co-coordinator/facilitator.
I think that for the situations I’m commonly in and the roles I currently
have the style that I have adopted suits me fine and wouldn’t want to
change it. However, I can see in the not too distant future some positions
where I may need to adapt to a different leadership style at times,
something more authoritative. That should be a new challenge, trying
to develop a new style for those new roles. I got told, “We think you
have very valuable things to say, but you need to express them more.”
I guess I tend to hold back a bit and seek acceptance. I knew that, but it
was good to hear that from others. It kind of hit the nail on the head.

In contrast, Braden (pseudonym) has found a comfortable position and

mode of leadership that is not “overbearing” and reflects a recognizably
more participatory and democratic discourse of coordination and facilitation.
Braden displays an ease and acceptance of his leadership “style” alongside a
strong congruence between it and the leadership roles he currently has. The
phrasing of “suits me fine” could perhaps imply that Braden is too comfort-
able and has found a leadership mode that does not demand too much from
him or challenge him in any particular way. This is given credence by the
last part of the passage where Braden admits to receiving the feedback from
others, that he keeps things too close to him, and others in his context can
only guess at the existence of the “very valuable things (he has) to say” but
never does.
Braden’s preferred leadership mode as “co-coordinator/facilitator” looks
to be driven by a need for “acceptance” and a reluctance to risk that might
arise by expressing too much of himself; thus, he admits to “tend to hold back
a bit.” His leadership learning is then the opposite from Annabelle’s. His
attitude to such a challenge appears more welcoming in that it “kind of hit the
nail on the head.” Braden appears to have no reservation about using the
feedback in its entirety to potentially reframe his leadership in the future and

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Carroll and Levy 223

appears neutral and accommodating. This would make his narrative an

exemplar of Beech’s (2008) assimilation strategy where a new discourse
“something more authoritative” can be readily absorbed into Braden’s preferred
existing leadership identity “co-coordinator/facilitator.” Braden’s space of
action seems less emotive and less immediate; nonetheless, there appears a
conscious choice—“a new challenge” that is beckoning.

Johnny’s Narrative
Johnny’s (pseudonym) narrative returns to a similar trajectory to that of
Annabelle, but here a decisive and answer-orientated paradigm of leadership
becomes more nuanced and less clear-cut, rather than confused and seemingly
ineffectual as in Annabelle’s:

In beginning of the program, my vision of leadership was a secret

formula: known to a few, powerful, sword-waving, “over the top to
victory, lads” out-the-front leaders. I believed that somehow it could all
be distilled to a few formulas, heuristics, or algorithms that one could
make the perfect leadership decision for any team in any situation,
given sufficient knowledge and experience.
My beliefs now see leadership as something broader and less
specific. I see acts of leadership more often in everyday life, taking
many different forms and in many different situations. I don’t believe
in a particular type of leader or formula that makes for great leadership,
beyond self-awareness, self-efficacy, and a real connection with events
and commitment to see reality rather than what we want to see. I don’t
believe that we can always, or ever really get it right, and I see my
actions more as a series of options with a corollary set of consequences,
rather than a number of “right” and “wrong” actions/behaviors/beliefs.”

Johnny’s opening leadership discourse is positively heroic and masculine

with “a secret formula,” “sword waving,” and a very symbolic war cry, “Over
the top to victory, lads,” Johnny appears to be seeking the components for
“the perfect leadership decision” and appears confident and assured, that this
“perfect leadership decision” is both feasible and likely.
For this reason, his shift to “something broader and less specific” is all the
more striking. Johnny discovers that leadership can belong “in everyday life”
and that there is no secret or mystique, just multiple permutations of what it
can look like or achieve. Unlike Annabelle or Braden, we could argue that
Johnny doesn’t experience any diminishment of identity and retains “self

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

224 Management Communication Quarterly 24(2)

awareness, self efficacy, and a real connection with events.” Nevertheless,

like Annabelle and Braden, he understands leadership to be more about being
human than authoritative as “a series of options with a corollary set of
consequences.” Johnny avoids the judgments that Annabelle makes about
different models of leadership as bad or otherwise and rejects the imposition
of correctness that Braden brings (“I don’t believe that we can always or ever
really get it right”). Johnny remains interested and orientated to “great lead-
ership” even as he radically redefines it away from the heroic, with seemingly
little risk to his identification to the leadership title, his own energy, vitality,
and voice. Johnny’s narrative then could be considered a complementarity
strategy where multiple identity options can be held within the same narrative
structure.

Leadership Development and

Communicative Responses
The narratives of Annabelle, Braden, and Johnny offer the opportunity to
understand the possibilities of the “storying” of social construction,
communication, and leadership. Moreover, they are presented as identity
narratives because they consciously address the tension of who and how to
be in leadership, evoke the moment of consciousness and potential agency
(“space of action”), and expose the existence of the broader leadership
discourses (heroism and postheroism) that constitute this leadership and
development identity terrain. Finally, in structuring our discussion around these
narratives, we aim to evoke a space for action as academics and developers
to explore our choices in increasing or diminishing the identity possibilities
in this rapidly growing field of leadership development.
What should be apparent from all three narratives is that any space of action
must be viewed as being constituted by alternative discourse or identity
possibilities. If that is true then any form of identity regulation or emancipation
that seeks to be totalizing and unitary is going to be positioned destruc-
tively and most probably ineffectually for identity and development work.
Fairhurst (2007, p. 99) reminded us, “The more competitive the discursive
field, the greater the freedom to move or space of action.” Even more
counterintuitively, Collinson (2003, p. 532) argued that the pursuit or
attachment to the idea of a stable and secure self actually fosters greater
insecurity and that people become “entrapped in an illusory goal, a ‘search
for the holy grail’ of (re) securing self as either subject or object.” Collinson’s
assumption (supported by Berger, Berger, & Kellner, 1973; Giddens, 1991;
Knights & Wilmot, 1989, 1990) is that such stability is “self-defeating”

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Carroll and Levy 225

and “counter-productive” (p. 533) as all that happens is greater resistance

to increasingly smaller disruptions that hardly ensures greater security in
the long-term.
Both leadership development theory and practice need attention to not
just the identity regulation dimensions of such a complex space but also the
creation and sustaining of multiple discursive fields where identities inevitably
compete, struggle, contradict, lure, seduce, repel, dominate, and surprise.
Social construction would offer the conceptual and methodological practices
to navigate such a space. The narratives of Annabelle, Braden, and Johnny
invite us to consider leadership development as exactly this kind of multiple
discursive field. As we have previously discussed, each narrative represents
one of Beech’s (2008) three different identity strategies (assimilation,
complementarity, rejection), and, taken together, they encompass the dynam-
ics of juxtaposing, absorbing, and intermingling alternative discourses.
We understand leadership development as a sequence of ongoing, unfolding
opportunities to work with discourses in these different ways. The important
lesson from these narratives is that all these strategies are useful, desirable,
and perhaps inevitable in conscious identity work. So Annabelle’s “struggling,”
Braden’s reflection “I guess,” and Johnny’s strength of critique, “I don’t
believe,” could all be considered as potent and rich starting points to open up
emancipatory identity work. In contrast, as we have implied in the leadership
development literature section, the concept of resistance can be overused
to discursively narrow the scope and energy of response. So we agree with
Watson (2008, p. 130) when he reminds us that while we all have to deal
with “‘the grain’ of existing and dominant discourses and subjectivities,”
there are always various ways to “exploit the variety of sometimes over-
lapping, sometimes conflicting discourses and subjectivities in order to
craft a self which is to an extent ‘their own’.”
While Beech (2008) identified these three identity strategies and theorized
the generic forces (emotive, cognitive, power dynamics, and narrative style)
and broad needs for supporting identity work (care and critique) that would
support the choice of one strategy over the others, he did not go so far as
identifying the communicative responses that would open up or close down
identity possibilities. Working with Annabelle’s, Braden’s, and Johnny’s nar-
ratives provides us with the prospect of doing this. We identify three responses
that are suggested by the narratives: reframing (assimilation), recursivity
(complementarity), and polyphronic dialogue (rejection). Though we have
associated different communications with the different strategies for this
discussion, we do not wish to represent each type of communication as a type
of solution to a particular space of action. Rather, we accept that choices over

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

226 Management Communication Quarterly 24(2)

how to work with discourses present themselves in dynamic, fluid, overlapping,

and contradictory ways and that participants and facilitators need confidence
in moving between these.
Braden’s narrative invites a potential reframing of his existing identity.
His identification with the “co-coordinator/facilitator” mode contains both
security and further capacity. He appears to have no difficulty in accepting
that “something more authoritative” can belong with a facilitator identity in
leadership. A developmental approach that builds on assimilation would see
the potential to reframe “co-coordinator/facilitator” further so the repertoire
inherent in that identity can be fleshed out, explored, and claimed. It is easy
to forget that existing identities can offer considerable room, space, and new
territory for expansion, experimentation, and growth. In turn, Johnny’s narra-
tive shows at least an awareness of potential agility and fluidity with multiple
discourses. One way to work with these would be in terms of something
termed recursivity (Tsoukas & Hatch, 2001) where attention is paid to, not
just how we craft plots and narratives, but how we “give meaning and con-
nection” (Tsoukas & Hatch, 2001, p. 997) to the different elements in and
between them. Such a focus would enable Johnny to build insight into how
he constructs the “series of options” that come with being able to hold different
and sometimes contradictory identity possibilities together.
In contrast, Annabelle’s narrative seems to invite something perhaps more
counterintuitive in working with identities that appear juxtaposed, fixed, and in
conflict. Given that this is accompanied by a high degree of anxiety and confu-
sion in her narrative, then some kind of playfulness would appear desirable so
that she can step back, hold either identity far more lightly, and experiment in
ways that might ultimately deliver to her what seems mutually incompatible in
terms of agency and connectedness. Such a communicative strategy could be
termed polyphronic dialogue or “an incomplete dialogue on ultimate ques-
tions” (Cunliffe, 2009, p. 89) where, in Annabelle’s case, she needs to make a
choice to keep both options, the “opinionated” identity and the “empowering”
identity, open, alive, playful, and critical and unresolved. Annabelle’s space of
action involves her finding a way to occupy this particular identity space less
heavily, holding her right to agency and what delivers that, and the right to
thoroughly test and adapt new identity options before deciding to assimilate or
reject them. It is important to note that these communicative strategies are ide-
ally undertaken and supported relationally with others, especially participants
and facilitators. One might hope that this is exactly the purpose and value of a
collective leadership development program.
What is common in all these three communicative responses is “the capac-
ity to keep a particular narrative going” (Giddens, 1991, p. 244). That should

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Carroll and Levy 227

not be underestimated as a powerful emancipatory admonition. Social agents

are quite capable of sustaining, mixing, adapting, and modifying the dis-
courses that would seek to claim them, but can only do so (if our three
narrative cases are anything to go by) if they have enough agency to keep
making decisions to be subjects who choose. As we have previously dis-
cussed in the leadership development section, much of the identity literature
focuses on the imposition or regulation of organizationally desired and
required identities that do not appear cognizant, adaptable, or challengeable
of preexisting, emerging, or alternative identities. Our case here is that all
kinds of nuanced and creative identity work are possible if organizations,
developers, and participants have the courage and capacity (and protection)
to work in complex, multiple discursive fields.

Conclusion
Social construction inquiry not only has the power to reshape conceptual and
theoretical understanding of leadership and its development but also to inform,
refreshen, and challenge practice. In using identity as a theoretical and meth-
odological lens to frame and understand leadership development, social
constructionist scholarship has succeeded in drawing attention away from the
skills, acquisition, and training instruments that have dominated the relational
dynamics that structure such a space. Cumulative research is revealing that
much is at stake in programs seeking to align identities and discourses to orga-
nizationally sanctioned ones. Not surprisingly, the construction and translation
of what is an explicitly leadership identity would appear strongly contested
terrain where, like all identity terrains, control is sought through the selection,
promotion, exclusion, and legitimization of identities offered. We support
such inquiry and its purpose in making such regulation visible.
This inquiry has looked to another part of social constructionist thinking
to support programs, researchers, and institutes seeking alternative ways of
working in leadership development. We would argue that being alert to the
undoubted identity regulation that is occurring is not in itself likely to build
alternative practice. The wish to do so is fuelled by the great repertoire, vitality,
and promise already constructed by those working at the interface of social
construction, identity, and discourse/communication in other fields. If there
is a prospect of constructing the leadership development space differently,
then we suspect that it comes from just such an interface.
There might be those who argue there are simpler ways of developing
leadership than engaging with such complex and shifting processes of identity
construction and reconstruction, that is, those who would be more comfortable

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

228 Management Communication Quarterly 24(2)

with (to invert Shotter & Cunliffe’s, 2002, p. 20, proposition) focusing on
“what to do” and not “what kind of person to be.” Though properly debating
such a proposition is quite possibly the substance of another article in itself,
nonetheless, there is one point we would want to make for those who might
be reading this article and who play a part in the leadership development
process. At its most basic, leadership development could and should enact
the mind-set and practices that it is attempting to instill and embed. That is to
say that one practices leadership in the process of developing it. It would
seem unlikely that anxiety, conformity, regulation, and resistance would be
components of a leadership mind-set. We argue the communicative responses
we have proposed here—reframing, recursivity, and polyphronic dialogue—
would, on the other hand, be high in the list of leadership practices most
capable of constructing the kind of leadership required for an increasingly
complex and uncertain world.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Producing the appropriate individual: Identity
regulation as organizational control. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 619-644.
Beech, N. (2008). On the nature of dialogic identity work. Organization, 15, 51-74.
Berger, P., Berger, B., & Kellner, H. (1973). The homeless mind. New York: Penguin.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carroll, B., & Levy, L. (2008). Defaulting to management: Leadership defined by
what it is not. Organization 15, 75-96.
Carroll, B., Levy, L., & Richmond, D. (2008). Leadership as practice: Challenging the
competency paradigm. Leadership, 4, 363-380.
Chia, R., & Morgan, S. (1996.) Educating the philosopher-manager de-signing the
times. Management Learning, 27, 37-64.
Collinson, D. (2003). Identities and insecurities: Selves at work. Organization,
10, 527-547.
Conger, J. (1992). Learning to lead. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Coutu, D. L. (2002, May). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, pp. 47-55.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2009). The philosopher leader: On relationalism, ethics and reflexivity—
A critical perspective to teaching leadership. Management Learning, 40, 87-101.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Carroll and Levy 229

Cunliffe, A. L., & Linstead, S. A. (2009). Introduction: Teaching from critical per-
spectives. Management Learning, 40, 5-9.
Daudi, P. (1986). Power in the organization: The discourse of power in managerial
praxis. New York: Blackwell.
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments
in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Domalgalski, T. A. (1999). Emotion in organizations: Main currents. Human Relations,
52, 833-852.
Fairhurst, G. T. (2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership
psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Ford, J., & Harding, N. (2008). Move over management: We are all leaders now.
Management Learning, 38, 475-493.
Ford, J., Harding, N., & Learmouth, M. (2008) Leadership as identity: Constructions
and deconstructions. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gagnon, S. (2008). Compelling identity: Selves and insecurity in global, corporate
management development. Management Learning, 39, 375-391.
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Construction in contention: Toward consequential resolutions.
Theory & Psychology, 11, 419-432.
Gergen, M., & Gergen, K. J. (2003). Social construction—A reader. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Grant, D., & Hardy, C. (2003). Introduction: Struggles with organizational discourse.
Organization Studies, 25, 5-13.
Gray, D. E. (2007). Developing critical reflection through reflective tools. Manage-
ment Learning, 38, 495-517.
Grint, K. (2007). Learning to lead: Can Aristotle help us find the road to wisdom?
Leadership, 3, 231-246.
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educa-
tional Management and Administration, 28, 317-338.
Heifitz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press
Holmer-Nadeson, M. (1996). Organizational identity and space of action. Organizational
Studies, 17(1), 49-81.
Hosking, D. M. (2008). Can constructionism be critical? In J. Holstein & J. Gubrium
(Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 669-686). New York: Guilford.
Keegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Keegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

230 Management Communication Quarterly 24(2)

Keegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work:
Seven languages for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lord, R., & Hall, R. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leader-
ship skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591-615.
Paris, M., & Epting, F. (2008). Social and personal construction: Two sides of the
same coin. In J. D. Raskin & S. K. Bridges (Eds.), Studies in meaning: Bridging
the personal and social in constructivist psychology. New York: Pace University
Press.
Pye, A. (2005). Leadership and organizing: Sensemaking in action. Leadership, 1,
31-49.
Sandberg, J. (2001). The constructions of social constructionism. In S.-E. Sjöstrand,
J. Sandberg, & M. Tyrstrup (Eds.), Invisible management: The social construction
of leadership (pp. 28-48). London: Thomson.
Sayer, A. (1997). Essentialism, social constructivism and beyond. American
Sociological Review, 45, 456.
Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language.
London: Sage.
Shotter, J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2002). Managers as practical authors: Everyday
conversations for Action. In D. Holman & R. Thorpe (Eds.), Management and
language: The manager as practical author (pp. 15-37). London: Sage.
Sims, D. (2003). Between the millstones: A narrative account of the vulnerability of
middle managers’ storying. Human Relations, 56, 1195-1211.
Sinclair, A. (2009). Seducing leadership: Stories of leadership development. Gender,
Work & Organization, 16, 266-284.
Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2003). Managing managerial identities: Organizational
fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56, 1163-1193.
Sveningsson, S., & Larsson, M. (2006). Fantasies of leadership: Identity work.
Leadership, 2, 203-224.
Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2005). Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance:
New public management and managerial identities in the UK public services.
Organization Studies, 26, 683-706.
Thomas, R., & Linstead, A. (2002). Losing the plot? Middle managers and identity.
Organization, 9, 71-93.
Tsoukas, H. (2000). False dilemmas in organization theory: Realism or social con-
structivism. Organization, 7, 531-535.
Tsoukas, H., & Hatch, M. J. (2001). Complex thinking, complex practice: The case for
a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Human Relations, 54, 979-1013.
Velsor, E., & Drath, W. (2003). A lifelong developmental perspective on leader
development. In C. McCauley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development. Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013

Carroll and Levy 231

Watson, T. (2008). Managing identity: Identity work, personal predicaments and

structural circumstances. Organization, 15, 121-143.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weinberg, D. (2008). The philosophical foundations of constructionist research. In
J. A. Holstein & J. Gubrium (Eds.), The handbook of constructionist research
(pp. 13-39). New York: Guilford.
Ylijoki, O.-H. (2005). Academic nostalgia: A narrative approach to academic work.
Human Relations, 58, 555-576.
Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Constructivism and social constructionism in the
career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 373-388.

Bios
Brigid Carroll (PhD, University of Auckland, 2004) is a senior lecturer in the Department
of Management and International Business and is lead researcher at the New Zealand
Leadership Institute at the University of Auckland Business School in New Zealand.
Her research interests include critical leadership theory, identity theory, and the
discourse of leadership and management in contemporary organizations.

Lester Levy (MBChB, MBA) is professor (adjunct) of leadership at the New Zealand
Leadership Institute at the University of Auckland Business School in New Zealand.
His research interests include concepts of leadership, the relationship between leader-
ship and management, perceptions of leadership, and leadership in governance.

Downloaded from mcq.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DE LAVRAS on May 22, 2013