Leadership

The Essence of Leadership? Existentialism

and Leadership
John Lawler, University of Leeds, UK

Abstract The article outlines dominant themes in existential thinking and considers
what this perspective might offer in developing our understanding of leadership. It
explores existential concepts primarily using the writings of Sartre. The existential
focus on the concepts of essence and existence is outlined and the current concerns
with essentialism discussed in relation to this philosophical approach. The article
notes that much research into leadership takes an objectivist approach which, while
providing important insights into dimensions of leadership, fails to capture the
subjective experience of the leadership relationship. The discussion then details exis-
tential themes such as freedom, responsibility and meaninglessness and discusses
what questions these provoke for the further study of leadership.
Keywords essence; existentialism; freedom; leadership; Sartre

Introduction
The study of management and leadership has a strong rationalist tradition from scien-
tific management approaches in the early part of the last century, to the present day.
Such an approach characterizes much research into and writing about leadership,
which seeks largely to identify this phenomenon and to inform the development of
more effective leadership in organizations. Other more recent approaches provide
different insights, for example, critical management and post-modernism perspec-
tives, which question some of the assumptions of orthodox views of leadership.
There are philosophical perspectives which merit exploration in relation to leader-
ship which might be overlooked currently. This article explores existentialist thinking
and the contribution this perspective might offer leadership thinking.
When this perspective was initially developed, in the first half of the last century,
it was regarded as being particularly pessimistic, if not nihilistic. Two world wars
and the perception of moral breakdown in and beyond Europe were influential in this,
as was the development of the Cold War (Falzon, 2002). However, at the start of this
millennium few, if any, philosophers claim themselves to be existentialists. Never-
theless, themes of existentialist thinking continue and are noted to have influenced
more recent theorists, particularly in the concern with the struggle for and constraints

Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
Vol 1(2): 215–231 DOI: 10.1177/1742715005051860 www.sagepublications.com

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership 1(2) Articles

on freedom (from oppressive language and social and political structures; from social
stereotypes; from universal truth claims for the human situation) and for under-
standing one’s individual and social place in the world (Matthews, 1996; Wicks,
2003). The concern with literature and the structure and use of language, with
consciousness and subjectivity in the later part of the 20th century, illustrate further
themes explored in existentialism and in Sartre (1988; 1989/2003) particularly. The
notion of a constant ‘becoming’ from Hegel and then Sartre continues to resonate in
later and current theories, though with significant differences of emphasis. Wicks
(2003) notes the particular influence of two lines of thinking on later thinking: Sartre,
from the existential line of thought; and Saussure, developing linguistic theories.
Wicks notes that Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray and Lacan all developed their thinking
in part from themes discussed by these two. This article examines concepts explored
in existentialist thought, particularly through the work of Sartre, and considers what
insights they might provide for the study of leadership.

Existentialism
Existentialism is seen primarily as an eclectic philosophy or a set of attitudes,
developing predominantly from a phenomenological foundation. Its proponents
provide interesting perspectives on the world, with existential thinking being used to
inform practice and debate in a variety of areas beyond philosophy itself, such as:
mental health (Jones, 2001); nursing (Todres & Wheeler, 2001); education (White,
2001); business ethics (Agarwal & Malloy, 2000); organizational behaviour (Kelly
& Kelly, 1998); organization theory (Burrell & Morgan, 1979); and research
(Holloway & Wheeler, 1996). While the explicit influence of existentialism is less
than in previous years, the influence of existential thinkers in the development of
more recent French philosophy is noted (Matthews, 1996; Wicks, 2003).
The history of existential thinking can be traced through a number of different
writers: Jaspers, Heidegger, Husserl, Camus, De Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre
(Blackham; 1961; Lawlor, 2003; MacDonald, 2000; Solomon, 1972; Wicks, 2003).
The development of such thinking goes back further, in the development of phenom-
enology. Themes developed by later existentialist writers can be seen in Hegel,
Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, even Nietzsche. Hegel’s thinking on the process of
‘becoming’ and developing, rather than existing as a defined self, is influential in
Sartre’s thinking (1989/2003; see also MacDonald, 2000) as is the thinking of other
20th-century French philosophers such as Bergson (1944), though the latter’s approach
has a greater social aspect, considering the process of becoming oneself in the context
of social interaction between individuals. Consciousness, ‘being for itself’ and ‘being
in itself’ similarly are themes explored by Hegel and examined by existential writers.
Kierkegaard also considers consciousness in his four spheres of being and develops the
theme of authenticity, again taken up by later writers, notably Heidegger. Nietzsche’s
views on bad conscience can be seen to influence the concept of ‘bad faith’ in exis-
tentialism (MacDonald, 2000). Also Nietzsche’s concern with the power to influence,
to control the variations in one’s life and to accept the responsibility for that, find further
exposure in Sartre’s writing. This article draws largely on the writings of Sartre as one
of existentialism’s foremost and more recent figureheads (even allowing that Sartre
himself rejected the label of ‘existentialist’ in his later years).

216

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership Existentialism and Leadership Lawler

Existentialism deals with a number of themes. Individually these may not be

exclusive to existentialism but together they form its prime concerns. In principle,
existentialism rejects the notion of a transcendental human essence – of ‘human
nature’. Our individual existence, our ‘being’ is an issue to us and provokes funda-
mental questions: who are we?; what influences who we are and who we become?;
how predetermined is our existence? Primarily, existentialists argue that we ‘become’
individuals through our own unavoidable choice and action. Secondly, existentialists
focus on our embodied being. Each of us, as individuals, is one being. We are not
beings with two related but separate sides, an inside and an outside, but our
consciousness and actions occur together ‘in the world’. The Cartesian duality is thus
rejected in this mode of thinking. How we choose to act defines who we are: there
is no ‘hidden reality’ behind our actions. Thirdly, the theme of absurdity is one popu-
larly associated with existentialism. Is there any reason for our existence? If our lives
are not predetermined by human nature or by God’s plan, why are we here and what
are we to do? What sense are we to make of our lives? Is it not absurd that we lack
a reason for our existence and that our life’s purpose might be to seek a purpose? Is
it not absurd that our lives can come to an end at any moment without any sense of
a purpose for our existence having been accomplished or even identified? Related to
this are further themes of alienation or lostness, and anxiety or dread, due to the
uncertainty of our lives and our individual responsibility for determining or choosing
our own lives. The responsibility for making choices for ourselves is daunting.
Besides these issues a further and important theme in existentialist thinking is that
of freedom. This is not a matter of ‘freedom from’ or ‘freedom to’ but unrestrained
freedom to choose our life and its values.
All these themes are inter-related and all refer to life being lived ‘in the world’
– there is no hidden world behind such being. Thus Sartre (1985) argues that exis-
tentialism emphasizes the human setting for all activity. We have conscious choice
and an awareness of ourselves in the world, which together set us apart from other
forms of nature. This subjectivity is seen as a prime principle of existentialism.
While existentialism has many different interpretations, all, however, argue that
human existence precedes human essence – there is no predetermined ‘human
nature’. In the traditional Christian view of the world, according to Sartre (though
he does accept that there are Christian existentialists, see for example Sartre
[1985]) God creates humanity as a realization of a divine concept; human nature
precedes the existence of each individual. Sartre’s view however is that ‘man (sic)
exists, turns up, appears on the scene, defines himself’ (p. 15). It is this self-
definition, how we conceive ourselves to be, which demonstrates the importance
of consciousness, of subjectivity. If existence precedes essence we are responsible
for what we are. We have freedom, choice and responsibility, all important
concepts for Sartre. If that is so then all God-like predeterminations are gone. There
is no transcendent set of morals to guide us, no human essence prescribed by God
to determine our purpose.
Sartre’s philosophy is both individualist and holistic – we are individual: we are
the sum of our actions. While he discusses the individual in relation to the collective
and the relationship between the two, he sees humanity as being primarily by itself,
as individuals alone in the world. As our actions are everything, meaning is
constructed through what we do and its impact on our world.

217

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership 1(2) Articles

Essentialism
One possible reason for a reluctance to engage currently with existential thinking is
the issue of essentialism. The development of thinking since Sartre has questioned
this use of the concept of ‘essence’ in many areas (Cheng, 1995; Krefting, 2000).
The idea that there is any human essence is anathema to this line of thinking. On that
basis we might dismiss Sartre’s views, with his focus on essence, as obsolete.
However, if we look at Sartre’s work for a definition of human essence, we find that
he too is uncomfortable if not antagonistic to the notion. He does indeed outline to
us what he and others mean by ‘essence’ as being the ‘invariant within the variant’
but he avoids defining human essence (Sartre, 1989/2003). Rather he implies that the
‘essence’ of any person is the sum of that person’s activities, behaviours, beliefs and
actions when seen as a totality in hindsight. If there is any individual essence at all
it is in the past, from actions in the past and most importantly it does not determine
the future self. To that extent this particular notion of essence attributed to Sartre’s
writing can be interpreted as being something of a distraction. His views of human
‘essence’ mirror those of Hegel. Much of Sartre’s work is concerned with the issue
of freedom and the concept of essence within that is too restrictive. So, while Sartre
might be seen as being essentialist – or too much so for modern liking – this may be
an inappropriate criticism. He makes no claims for human essence. On the contrary
he cites the need for individuals to become and remain, just that: individuals with the
potential for many, almost infinite, choices, values, behaviours. If there is a human
essence – an invariant element of a person – that in itself becomes a constriction on
freedom. It prevents us being free to choose who we are. We cannot be anything
which excludes any element of this essence. Thus individuals can only ever
‘become’. Sartre’s rejection of the preformed human essence and the process of
becoming have their roots in Husserl’s (1970) thinking as can be seen from the
latter’s rejection of preformed and constant essence:

This life, as personal life, is a constant becoming through a constant

intentionality of development. What becomes, in this life, is the person himself.
His being is forever becoming. (p. 338, from MacDonald, 2000: 33)

Other existentialist thinkers, such as Ortega (1936 in MacDonald, 2000: 36), argue
similarly the incompatibility of essence and freedom. Freedom means not having a
predetermined being, no ‘constitutive identity’. We cannot avoid choosing who we
become. So the stereotypical view of the existentialist as having an over-emphasis
on essence misses the point. MacDonald highlights (2000: 40) this paradox well: ‘the
true “nature” of human being then is that it is not defined by any essentialist qualities
or features’.
The existentialist position reflects its phenomenological roots in suggesting that
‘essence’ or commonality of human being is limited to consciousness. The human
being chooses who she/he becomes and is always becoming. Our selves are not
predetermined and while our past actions might influence the direction of our future
selves they do not determine it. MacDonald notes Heidegger’s use of an ancient
Greek time metaphor to illustrate this: ‘like a rower in a boat, a person fixes his or
her position by looking backward, while his or her actions move the boat forwards’
(p. 35). So existentialism uses the word ‘essence’ specifically and not in an orthodox,

218

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership Existentialism and Leadership Lawler

positivist manner. Sartre (1989/2003) acknowledges ‘essence’ as something in the

past:
We should refer here to Hegel’s statement ‘Wesen ist was gewesehn ist’.
Essence is what has been. Essence is everything in the human being which we
can indicate by the words – that is . . . But the act is always beyond the essence
. . . Essence is all that human reality apprehends in itself as having been. (p. 59,
emphasis in original)
This is crucially important because it indicates that ‘essence’ is not a predictor of
future behaviours or values. (This is in sharp contrast with the search for an ‘essence’
of leadership, as discussed later, which implicitly is to be used to predict/influence
future leadership behaviour.) There are certain things in our lives and our situations
which we can regard as given, over which we have no influence, including events
which have already happened, which existentialists refer to as ‘facticity’. My
biology, upbringing, location, temporality all influence me (and are ‘true’ or ‘facts’
about me) but they do not determine who I am – that depends on what I make of
them, what I think about my past and current situation and the choices that I make.
This relationship between past, present and future is summarized thus by Sartre
(1956: 32 in MacDonald, 2000): ‘I do not know what I shall be, but I do know that
it will not be what I now am, and also that nothing I now am or can know will deter-
mine what I shall be’ (p. 10).
In this way ‘the essence is not in the object: it is the meaning of the object’ (Sartre,
1989/2003: 5). This implies unique and individual interpretation given by any indi-
vidual to his or her own set of circumstances and the meaning they derive from or
attribute to it. This resounds in the literature which deals with meaning and sense-
making in leadership and organizations (e.g. Weick, 2001).

Meaninglessness
So an important element of our existence is to find meaning. This concept of
meaning, and more often meaninglessness, is a prime concern of Sartre (1973; 1985;
1989/2003). Without pre-existing moral codes, without a mission to progress to a
spiritual afterlife, our life’s project is to create meaning for ourselves. Without guide-
lines to assist us in our life project we are free – free of any strictures on our actions
and our behaviour. This freedom is itself potentially terrifying. What we choose to
do defines us, identifies us. The responsibility associated with this freedom is
daunting. Not only does what we choose to do identify us as individuals (for, as noted
earlier, there is no ‘human nature’ nor any predetermined values), what we do
identifies humanity (Sartre, 1973; 1985). We behave as we would expect or desire
others to behave. So our identity, through what we do, illustrates individual poten-
tial, values and aspirations. From this individual choice these same elements are
defined for all humanity. This is indeed a daunting prospect and is in part respons-
ible for the anguish which, Sartre argues, we all suffer throughout our existence.
Individuals may have the opportunity or may seek the opportunity to develop
meaning through adherence to particular leaders in work lives and beyond: creating
meaning or sense may be an important leadership function (Weick, 2001). Features
of charisma imply a certain meaningfulness – we wish to develop an identity in

219

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership 1(2) Articles

close connection with a particular ‘leader’ on account of his/her individual quali-

ties/charm/influence (Bryman, 1992; Steyrer, 1998). More important than this,
however, is the ‘vision’ that this leader provides (Bass, 1985). The leader is provid-
ing meaning through the articulation of a vision with which the individual can
identify and to which the leader is persuading others to subscribe. We are develop-
ing an identity through adherence to this ‘vision’ and the person who promotes it.
Our individual anguish over making choices in our freedom is diminished as vision
helps provide a set of values to guide our lives and our relationships with other
people, to provide or construct meaning. The daunting scope of the freedom to
choose our lives, which presents itself to us, becomes reassuringly bounded. We
identify with the leader and the vision and choose to limit the extent of our individual
freedom. We are absurdly, in Sartre’s terms, free to choose not to be free. This is
echoed later in this article, in comments on ‘empowerment’.
Sartre’s concern with meaninglessness has parallels with other themes in organiz-
ational life such as anomie (Merton, 1968) – a disenchantment with or disengage-
ment from life or community. Rather than resulting in active resistance to the
organization, meaningless may result in drift and detachment (Bridges, 1995) and
further anxiety and anguish. The leadership process may present itself as a dynamic
feature which engages individuals, establishes vision and a set of values and social
relationships which provide meaning for individuals, should they choose to
subscribe. This differs from the individual’s relationship with a manager, in that the
individual may choose to submit themselves to the authority invested in manage-
ment, through their decision to join an organization. Choosing to align oneself to a
leader, however, implies more iterated decisions, greater individual autonomy, and a
constant review of that choice.

Researching leadership: seeking the ‘essence’?

Research into leadership has continued throughout the 20th century and on into this
new millennium. Developments and debates over time within this research have been
documented (Grint, 1987; 2001; Northouse, 2001) and they demonstrate a develop-
ment of thinking from an examination of people who were regarded as leaders or
‘great men’ and an exploration of the personality traits they possessed. Later
developments have explored behavioural aspects of leadership. Others have
examined the impact of context or ‘situation’ on leadership (Yukl, 1998). The notions
of ‘nearby’ and ‘distant’ leadership have also emerged, as researchers consider the
function and impact of leadership below the macro level (Shamir, 1995). The distinc-
tion between ‘leaders’ as particular individuals accorded that label and ‘leadership’
as a dynamic process has been noted (Barker, 1997). This may still prove to be a
fruitful distinction from a research point of view.
Research which focuses on behavioural dimensions or competencies implies an
endeavour to identify the ‘essence’ of leadership. This has led to lists of dimensions
which seek to encapsulate and separate all the different elements which comprise this
elusive phenomenon. The assumption behind this approach is that, once these com-
petencies or behaviours are identified, the individual can be measured along each
dimension and can estimate their relative strengths and development needs. With the
aid of an effective development programme, they can develop their behaviours to

220

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership Existentialism and Leadership Lawler

enable them to become more effective leaders. This follows a largely positivist
approach to research which seeks the most appropriate method to identify the
‘essence’ of this existing phenomenon. Once the essence is distilled, it is brought into
existence through development programmes as noted earlier. The foundation of this
approach, both to research and to development, is that essence precedes existence.
The same assumption is the basis of earlier leadership work where the ‘essence’ of
leadership in the ‘great man’ is sought so that others may emulate him (as it usually
is ‘him’) and bring leadership into existence again.
This approach to identify essence before existence has a strong history in organiz-
ation studies and in management (e.g. Mullins, 2003). This approach starts with a
thorough analysis of a task or problem or set of tasks and through this, the essence
of, for example an effective production process, can be identified and the means to
bring this about can be planned. The essence of the product exists in the mind of
designers and managers, prior to existence. While this approach has many relevant
applications, a social phenomenon such as leadership with so many different
interpretations may not be as amenable to such an application. Research findings to
date may have created typologies of leaders and leadership characteristics which
have a general appeal and which provide models to a certain extent. They do not,
however, capture the unique quality of individually located relationships at work.
Typologies have further limitations. In his novel Nausea Sartre (1965) narrates
how categorizations or typologies of people are applied as a general aid to under-
standing difference but that such generalizations are indeed only that – they do not
cover the uniqueness of individuals, nor the potential of novelty: ‘they explain the
new by the old’ (p. 102). They may have immediate pragmatic use but do not provide
us with a full understanding of an individual and the choices they make in a particu-
lar set of circumstances – how they exercise their freedom. The implicit reason for
much research into leadership is to be able to predict future leadership effectiveness.
Existential thinking casts doubt on this as it suggests that all relationships are unique
and that the value of each relationship to those involved is not predictable. As much
leadership research seeks to identify objectively the essence of leadership, paradox-
ically, we may be moving away from a clearer understanding of the phenomenon, as
the plethora of definitions of leadership might indicate. From an existential perspec-
tive, definitions of leadership characteristics exclude particular behaviours or aspects
of relationships from being seen as ‘leadership’ – they are not ‘essential’ to it. This
search for an essence of leadership promotes the danger of homogenizing leadership.
Through essentialist views of leadership we lose the unique quality of relationships.
Cheng (1995) notes that such approaches to people in organizations marginalize indi-
vidual experience within the overall homogeneity: ‘this type of marginalization
denies the right of diverse people to have and interpret their own experience’ (p. 5,
emphasis in original). Thus, he implies the need for further research to address this.
Descriptions of leadership characteristics, styles and behaviours abound in the
leadership literature (e.g. Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Bass & Avolio,
1990; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). To what extent are these universally applicable?
They may exclude characteristics which might exemplify other relationships, felt by
those party to them, to be productive or effective or valued in their own right. We
witness attempts both to develop long, comprehensive lists of leadership character-
istics/behaviours/traits in an attempt to define the phenomenon, and other approaches

221

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership 1(2) Articles

which attempt to encapsulate leadership by reducing these characteristics to the bare

‘essential’ minimum. In his existentially influenced novel Identity Kundera (1999)
examines how we identify and reinforce the individuality of the self in discussing
how two of his protagonists – sisters – seek to identify themselves, either by adding
more facets to themselves or by reducing them.
Agnes subtracts from herself everything that is exterior and borrowed, in order
to come closer to her sheer essence (even with the risk that zero lurks at the
bottom of the subtraction). Laura’s method is quite the opposite. In order to
make herself ever more visible, perceivable, seizable, sizable she keeps adding
to it more and more attributes and she attempts to identity herself with them
(with the risk that the essence of the self may be buried by the additional
attributes). (p. 111)
We might say that approaches such as that by Blake and Mouton (1985) using two
dimensions to describe leadership, demonstrate the former approach, while the multi-
factoral approach of Bass and Avolio (1990) demonstrates the latter. In abstracting
leadership, we might view leadership stripped away from any context, externality,
superficiality, to find too that ‘zero lurks’ at the end of this exercise, or that we
obscure and ‘bury’ leadership in a superabundance of attributes. In developing
leadership also, do we encourage ‘leaders’ to develop more and different dimensions
of their behaviour which are seen to constitute effective leadership, at the risk of
losing their individuality? There is the possibility that the development of specific
leadership ‘competencies’ is achieved only at the cost of individuals losing their
ability to act individually and authentically and of reinforcing a homogeneity of
leadership.
As noted earlier, Sartre is critical of our use of ‘types’ in constraining our
thinking about people, yet leadership research may rely on previous ‘typologies’ of
leaders or ‘types’ of research, in efforts to understand it more. Roquentin, the
protagonist in Sartre’s Nausea (1965), notes how people classify others in relation
to people who preceded them: ‘Lenin as a Russian Robespierre or Robespierre as a
French Cromwell’. Thus sometimes in his eyes, this constriction of perspective and
curiosity masquerades as wisdom: ‘convenient past. Pocket-sized past, little gilt-
edged book full of fine maxims’ (p. 102). There is a danger of following orthodox
paths of research to try to understand leadership which blinkers us from further
exploration. Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) note the difficulties of defining
leadership, and the usefulness of not having a consistent definition, of not relying
on the refinement of previous conceptions – it does allow for further perspectives
to be developed:
. . . we doubt that a common definition of leadership is practically possible,
would not be very helpful if it were, does not hit the target and may also obstruct
new ideas and interesting ways of thinking. (p. 362)
The existentialist perspective provides one such interesting mode of thinking. It
allows an examination of individual meaning and interpretation of relationships,
events and experience of ‘being in the world’ of leadership. An exploration of human
experience from this perspective needs:

222

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership Existentialism and Leadership Lawler

to be grounded in the real world; to incorporate reflexivity and an

acknowledgement of the positional knowledge of individuals in the research
project; research must be ‘humanised’ and ‘reflect the language of experience’.
(Todres & Wheeler, 2001: 2)

In relation to grounding research in the real world, the existential approach argues
that ‘we live before we know’ and that behaviours, emotions and relationships
cannot be viewed comprehensively from an external, objectivist, research perspec-
tive, as this does not lay open the range of understandings, expectations and so on
which give meaning to particular experience. We live life as a continuous stream of
events which only make sense to us in relation to each other. Thus the concept of
‘leadership’ is open to many interpretations and might only make sense to us when
viewed in hindsight or through considering situations or occasions when we experi-
ence its lack, i.e. no leadership, relative to the many other events we experience over
time.
Humanizing research and using the language of the real world draws directly from
Heidegger and the concept of ‘dasein’ or ‘being in the world’ (Sartre, 1989/2003).
This involves seeing the individual inextricably within his/her own world context.
This concept assumes an examination of an individual in a temporal context, framed
both by history and by the pressures and ‘facticity’ of the current context. It implies
a holistic view of the individual who does not exist outside this contemporary setting.
The individual was before and, for a time, will be after but it is now which is of
primary importance. Taking this perspective, leaders cannot be studied outside the
context in which they are regarded as leaders. Research which identifies leadership
characteristics implies a transcendent quality of leadership yet leaders cannot be said
to operate asocially, i.e. without other people, without followers nor acontextually,
without a setting. One implication of this is the symbiotic nature of ourselves in our
own context: we make our world and our world makes us; leaders make their world
and are made by it. If we wish to understand this in more detail we need to know
how the individual world is perceived and interpreted. We need to explore what
‘leadership’ means to all people involved in these relationships.
There are research approaches and methods which attempt to take account of this
at some level, e.g. a repertory grid approach might identify dimensions through
asking about experiences of leadership, but these experiences are not then reported
‘in the world’ in which they were generated. The dynamics, understandings, contexts
and meanings are stripped away (as Kundera’s Agnes does regarding her own
identity). There is nevertheless a question which should precede this which is: what
is the ‘language of experience’ in relation to the concept under consideration? We
know of the use of the term ‘leadership’ from both distant and nearby perspectives
yet is the word in common parlance in describing work relationships? The discussion
on the difficulties of defining the concept (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003; Barker,
1997) points to the possibility that this is a commonly used word but that the interpre-
tations given to it may be very diverse. Its corollary may be more difficult to identify:
do people perceive themselves as being ‘led’ or as ‘followers’ or as participants in
effective relationships? The difficulty of defining what ‘leadership’ actually means
to individuals may be compounded by the research process itself, as argued by Jones
(2001). He cites Hunt (1989) as noting that the research process and the interview

223

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership 1(2) Articles

relationship in particular are influenced by situated emotions and moods. These

might at times be recognized consciously but at others will not be.
That dynamic forces might influence a researcher is important in that reality
might conceivably be reported not as it reveals itself to the researcher and
subject but as each would prefer it to be knowingly or otherwise. (Jones, 2001:
371, my emphasis)
Thus the danger in relation to leadership research is that respondents might identify
with a mythology or commonly understood interpretation of the concept without it
having direct meaning in their own experience. We need to examine the use of the
word and to investigate whether it is a valid term ‘in the world’, in the experience of
organizational members at all levels. Does everyone experience leadership or
identify its absence? To what extent does ‘leadership’ exist? How do we describe
ourselves in the leadership relationship?

Studying leadership: process or dimensions?

Interpretative or constructivist approaches meriting attention currently incorporate
the holistic element of being, which Sartre emphasizes, as noted earlier. While we
are made up of different elements and have different facets and operate in different
contexts we are individual entireties. When we look at the elements which contribute
to this interpersonal entirety we see some interesting parallels between the
conclusions of research studying personal/interpersonal phenomena far removed at
first sight from leadership. Look for example, at the dimensions highlighted by
research into ‘caring’, recognized as being a complex, interactive, interpersonal
process. These include:
listening, trust, responsiveness, granting an appropriate degree of choice and
control to the patient, information giving, and other interpersonal activities
which show concern for the individuality and uniqueness of the patient. (Euswas
& Chick, 1999 cited in Todres & Wheeler, 2001: 6)
Remove references to the patient in the above quotation and consider dimensions of
leadership as summarized by Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2001) which
include: genuine concern for others; political sensitivity; decisiveness; integrity,
trustworthiness, honesty and openness; ability to empower and to develop potential;
accessibility and approachability; ability to clarify boundaries and to involve others
in decisions; encouragement of critical and strategic thinking; ability to inspire
others. In both cases they are highlighting (at times very similar) personal qualities
along separate dimensions. Todres and Wheeler (2001) specify the ‘fragility’ of
caring, implying it may not be a lasting phenomenon, and which is strongly influ-
enced by context and individual participants: ‘it is not its individual elements that
define it, but how some of the different elements come together at appropriate times’
(p. 6).
We might say the same of leadership dimensions and might add that it is equally
fragile. What leadership research does not yet indicate is how these dimensions influ-
ence the leadership relationship or what are ‘appropriate times’. Furthermore, in
relation to characteristics such as these, it is interesting to note the dimensions of the

224

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership Existentialism and Leadership Lawler

existential concept of ‘authenticity’ as outlined by Guignon (1986, cited in Agarwal

& Malloy, 2000). The characteristics of authenticity are described:
The existential notion of authenticity embodies certain ideal character traits –
such as courage, integrity, clear-sightedness, steadfastness, responsibility and
communal solidarity – which can contribute to the formation of a character
capable of making meaningful choices in concrete situations. (Guignon, 1986:
88)
The similarity with dimensions of leadership and caring is again striking. This causes
us to consider whether, rather than identifying core characteristics of particular roles,
we are highlighting important personal qualities which are valued in effective
relationships across situations. There may be extra qualities required in some situ-
ations but the core may recur across contexts. This is not to suggest, as would be
anathema to existential thinking, that these are the ‘essence’ of humanity but that they
are valued in many relationships. As noted, we know relatively little about how these
facets come together to constitute authenticity, effective leadership, or effective
caring. Furthermore, if we view leadership as a process, we never can see it in its
entirety. It only appears in ‘Abschattung’ (Sartre, 1989/2003): we only see aspects
of it from time to time, never in its totality. Research which lists characteristics of
leadership may be trying to identify, not only an ‘essence’ of leadership (which distin-
guishes it from other aspects of human relationships), but also the entirety of leader-
ship. Such attempts result in idealized, homogenized models. The implications of the
argument here are that we cannot abstract leadership from its context and from the
experience of participants in the relationship. The extent to which individuals feel
free to continue to regard the relationship as an effective leadership relationship or
otherwise, is little explored. The degrees of discretion within the relationship felt by
each participant might be examined in relation to existential views of freedom. An
important focus for future leadership research is the leadership process. Continuing
attention on developing further and more sophisticated dimensions of leadership, at
the expense of a consideration of process leaves us: ‘ever the dull alchemist, I have
before me all the necessary elements. It is their combination which eludes me’
(McAlloon, 2003: track 1).

Aspects of the leadership relationship: freedom and responsibility

Notions of freedom, empowerment, delegation and involvement recur in leadership
writing. Freedom and responsibility form important concepts for existential thinking.
Sartre argues that the scope of freedom and the enormity of the attendant responsi-
bility leads to such individual anguish. We have the freedom to choose who we
become through what we choose to do. As a concept used in the management and
leadership literature, freedom has a much more limited interpretation. Concepts such
as autonomy, delegation and empowerment are often used in standard management
texts and indeed may be in favour currently in management and leadership practice
but do they reflect a great degree of freedom in themselves? They are often used
within a very tightly defined arena of operation, defined by others (i.e. managers) and
not by individuals. Yukl (1998) uses the word ‘empower’ very uncritically in his
comments on research into leadership: ‘the research mostly ignored behaviour used

225

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership 1(2) Articles

to influence subordinate commitment to ideological values and empower subordi-

nates to pursue them’ (p. 63). Empowerment here appears to be a highly mechanis-
tic process where, paradoxically, power differentials (manifested through control
mechanisms) appear blatant rather than diminished.
Delegating is not likely to be effective unless the leader clarifies the
sub-ordinate’s new responsibilities; ensures that the sub-ordinate accepts them;
monitors progress in an appropriate way; and provides necessary support,
resources and assistance. (p. 63)
The concept of empowerment and power are the subject of much debate and it is not
intended to review that here. However, according to the managerialist view of
empowerment expressed earlier, authentic choice and freedom are not in evidence.
Absurdity plays an important role in existential thinking and here perhaps we have
an example of this in attempts to provide greater ‘freedom’, through enlightened
management, only in effect, emphasizing its absence.
A more detailed examination of empowerment is provided by Trevelyan (1998),
where one can see the application of Sartre’s concept of freedom more clearly. She
discusses the problems of empowerment:
For some leaders, relinquishing control to give employees the freedom that
creativity and efficient decision-making require is something to be feared. They
either fear that their authority and status will be eroded or that by devolving
responsibility . . . corporate objectives are inadequately incorporated or left by
the wayside as individual objectives predominate. (pp. 37–8)
Here we see anxiety regarding the freedom of the leader to delegate and anxiety over
the freedom which others might exercise. Freedom and responsibility do not repre-
sent a binary tension. Rather, along with other leadership dimensions, they present a
complicated dynamic system.
The existential view of freedom goes well beyond the concept of empowerment
and its implied constraints on freedom. Whose is power or freedom to bestow on
others? Freedom is something we choose to recognize or actively ignore if we operate
in ‘bad faith’ (Sartre, 1989/2003) and assume we have no choice. Freedom is not a
concept which we can have in part only – we cannot be ‘a bit free’:
It is absurd to try to find in him (man) afterwards moments or psychic regions in
which he would be free. As well look for emptiness in a container which one has
filled beforehand up to the brim. Man can not be sometimes slave and
sometimes free; he is wholly and forever free or he is not at all. (p. 569)
Absurdity is evident again as organizations clamour to empower staff who may have
chosen, in joining that organization, to relinquish freedom. Sartre argues that in every
situation there are ‘ultimate possibilities’ to exercise freedom which cannot be
ignored, no matter how difficult. If we choose not to extricate ourselves from a situ-
ation, we choose to remain in it: ‘for lack of getting out of it, I have chosen it’ (p. 575,
emphasis in original).
The extent to which organizational members feel free to make their own decisions
or decisions which are meaningful to them, would merit further examination, as
would the extent to which they feet supported by others in this. Might this be

226

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership Existentialism and Leadership Lawler

‘empowerment’ more fully applied? The concept of organizational leadership is

constrained significantly by organizational purpose and goals and their pursuit is
implicit in such leadership. If leadership were really to be transcendent, the quality
of such relationships would be expected to exceed organizational bounds: to be free
of such constraints. In Immortality Kundera (1991) notes the quality of the relation-
ship between Dumas’s Three Musketeers. Their relationship transcends context and
endures even at times when they are fighting for opposing sides. Thus the endurance
of meaningful relationships is a further potential point of investigation, considering
the extent to which organizational context is seen to be a limitation. While this might
stray beyond organizational relationships into the area of ‘friendship’, if we are to
understand the process of leadership relationships in more depth we need to under-
stand how relationships are both encouraged and constrained by organizational
contexts, influences and interpretation.
The notion of empowerment can too easily be seen as manipulative, encouraging
people to operate in bad faith (a further existential concept, see Sartre (1989/2003)),
where employees are ‘empowered’ only inasmuch as tight organizational constraints
allow. To what extent organizational members truly feel free to make choices which
are meaningful to them is less well considered. The choices faced within the leader-
ship relationship are prime issues for further attention in research. Examinations of
leadership and empowerment might fruitfully consider subjective experiences of
freedom in relation to leadership, which might incorporate impressions of ‘empower-
ment’ and the subjective experience of this.

Future questions of leadership

Following this line of thought, if there is no essence of leadership, leaders and other
members are free to exercise freedom as they wish or to construct leadership relation-
ships with those around them as best suits them and their circumstances. Any defi-
nitions of leadership or itemizations of leadership characteristics become themselves
constrictions, excluding, as they do, other personal and interpersonal dimensions,
from consideration in any analysis. In Wicks’s view (2003) identifying our own
‘essential aspects’ is self delusional and lacks responsibility. This produces a false
security of how we irrevocably ‘are’ and thus denies any choice or responsibility over
who we are or who we become. Thus we act in bad faith, the main aspect of this
being the objectification of certain aspects of ourselves – a grocer, level-headed,
creative and so on, which become privileged above other aspects of our selves. So
we see the objectification of certain aspects associated with leadership – integrity,
individual consideration and so on as being privileged over other aspects of a person
which may be valued in a particular relationship. Leadership characteristics then
imply a generality which masks the opportunity for individual interpretation.
The development of management thinking is characterized as the search for
certainty, as a means of dealing with complexity. Leadership, however, is the means
of dealing with chaos (Barker, 1997; Kotter, 1990). We might be faced here with
another example of ‘absurdity’. The absurdity here lies in searching using an objec-
tivist system to identify the components of leadership, which is inherently a chaotic,
arrational, emotional phenomenon. Less traditional, more subjective and interpretive
approaches create the potential to provide new insights into leadership and

227

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership 1(2) Articles

leadership relationships. The danger of continuing to use orthodox, objectivist

approaches to leadership is that we fail to recognize the uniqueness of leadership and
the possibilities of further qualities of leadership relationships. We may rely too much
on previous approaches which blinker us, much as the characters in Sartre’s Nausea
(1965) are blinkered and do not allow for the uniqueness of individuals or relation-
ships. They fall back on forcing people into a type. In that novel, the protagonist
Roquentin expresses disgust at the habits formed by the townfolk of Bouville and at
their apparent understanding that ‘nature’ is the driver for their actions (and in-
actions). They do not recognize the freedom which confronts them. Their categoriz-
ation of life relies on previous understandings, they are not prepared to challenge the
status quo, nor explore the new or the challenge of freedom: ‘they think about
Tomorrow . . . simply (as) another today’ (p. 225). Leadership research may be recon-
figuring previous categorizations, reordering, reprioritizing and revaluing past
characteristics, traits, behaviours and thus not recognizing the diversity, the unique-
ness, the possibilities, of relationships and the freedom to create meaning within
them. We are seduced into thinking of types of leaders or leadership behaviours and
competences, and arguing that ‘types’ exist, whereas each relationship is unique and
situated in the context.
As nothing is predetermined according to existential thinking, ‘everything could
have been different’ (Matthews, 1996: 64). If we describe different relationships we
might have different criteria as to whether they are seen as being positive to those
involved. There is no necessity about us: ‘it is not a necessary truth that there should
ever have existed someone with the properties which I happen to have’ (p. 64).
This is what Sartre means by absurdity. As we assume an objectivist view, we
ignore the consciousness, the ‘being for itself’ of participants in the dynamic relation-
ship which might or might not contain some or all the elements indicated as neces-
sary for effective leadership. If there is no essence of leadership there is no ‘logically
compelling reason’ why it should be this way and not that. We may assume that any
observed or reported relationship has ‘being for itself’, creates its own meanings.
Much leadership writing implies the centrality of work in people’s lives. By examin-
ing leadership relationships within the wider context of members’ ‘existence’ we may
have the opportunity to examine the diversity of relationships which are perceived
to be meaningful and indeed how meaningful organizational goals and espoused
values are felt to be.
So the themes of existential thinking provide a basis for further exploration of
leadership. Interpretations of meaning, and authenticity within the leadership
relationship provide possibilities for further research. To what extent do leaders
choose how they lead? To what extent do members choose their leaders? To what
extent do people experience ‘leadership’ either as leaders or members? The issue of
freedom provides particular scope for further examination: how free do people
perceive themselves to be in the leadership relationship? How constrained are they
by, for example, defined roles, expectations, stereotypes? How free are they in the
leadership relationship to pursue a ‘grand project’ (MacDonald, 2000: 22) of their
own or do they perceive themselves to be pursuing one of another’s creation? Such
exploration would imply the need for more subjective approaches. An interpretive,
subjective approach is in line with Sartre’s (1973) thinking on understanding
ourselves. He values ‘reflective self-awareness’ (Murdoch, 1999: 106) where

228

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership Existentialism and Leadership Lawler

individuals consider their own freedom, their own choices, actions and conse-
quences. Sartre argues the importance of our reflective consciousness in all aspects
of life, creating meaning, exercising freedom and responsibility, establishing values,
all important aspects of the leadership process.

References
Agarwal, J., & Malloy, C. D. (2000) ‘The Role of Existentialism in Ethical Business
Decision-making’, Business Ethics: A European Review 9(3): 143–54.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2001) ‘The Development of a New
Transformational Leadership Questionnaire’, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 74: 1–27.
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003) ‘The Great Disappearing Act: Difficulties in Doing
“Leadership”’, Leadership Quarterly 14: 359–81.
Barker, A. (1997) ‘How Can We Train Leaders if We Do Not Know What Leadership Is?’,
Human Relations 50(4): 343–62.
Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bergson, H. (1944) Creative Evolution. New York: The Modern Library.
Blackham, H. J. (1961) Six Existentialist Thinkers. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985) The Managerial Grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing.
Bridges, W. (1995) Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. London: Nicholas
Brealey.
Bryman, A. (1992) Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London: SAGE.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis:
Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heinemann.
Cheng, C. (1995) ‘Experience, Essentialism and Essence: Changing Organizations Through
Personal Work and Gender Stories’, Journal of Organizational Change Management
8(6): 3–7.
Euswas, P., & Chick, N. (1999) ‘On Caring and Being Cared for’, in I. Madjar &
J. A. Walton (eds) Nursing and the Experience of Illness: Phenomenology in Practice,
pp. 170–88. London: Routledge.
Falzon, C. (2002) Philosophy Goes to the Movies: An Introduction to Philosophy. London:
Routledge.
Grint, K. (ed.) (1987) Leadership; Classical, Contemporary and Critical Approaches.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grint, K. (2001) Literature Review on Leadership. Report Commissioned by the
Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office, available at: http://www.
cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2000/leadership/leadershipreport/08/default.htm.
Guignon, C. (1986) ‘Existential Ethics’, in J. Demarco & R. Fox New Directions in
Ethics: the Challenge of Applied Ethics, pp. 73–91. New York: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (1996) Qualitative Research for Nurses. Oxford: Blackwell
Science.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1993) Management of Organizational Behavior; Utilizing
Human Resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hunt, J. C. (1989) Psychoanalytic Aspects of Fieldwork. London: SAGE.

229

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership 1(2) Articles

Husserl, E. (1970) The Crisis of European Sciences. Evanston, IL: Northwest University
Press.
Jones, A. (2001) ‘Absurdity and Being-in-Itself. The Third Phase of Phenomenology:
Jean-Paul Sartre and Existential Psychoanalysis’, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental
Health Nursing 8: 367–72.
Kelly, J., & Kelly, L. (1998) An Existential-Systems Approach to Managing Organizations.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Kotter, J. P. (1990) A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New
York: Free Press.
Krefting, L. A. (2000) ‘Reconsidering Essentialism’, Journal of Management Inquiry 9(2):
186–92.
Kundera, M. (1991) Immortality. London: Faber.
Kundera, M. (1999) Identity. London: Faber.
Lawlor, L. (2003) Thinking Through French Philosophy: The Being of Question.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
McAlloon, P. (2003) I trawl the megahertz. Liberty: EMI Records.
MacDonald, P. S. (ed.) (2000) The Existential Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Matthews, E. (1996) Twentieth Century French Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Merton, R. K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
Mullins, L. J. (2003) Management and Organisational Behaviour. London: FT Prentice Hall.
Murdoch, I. (1999) Sartre: Romantic Rationalist. London: Vintage.
Northouse, P. G. (2001) Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sartre, J-P. (1965) Nausea. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sartre, J-P. (1973) Existentialism and Humanism. London: Methuen.
Sartre, J-P. (1985) Existentialism and Human Emotions. New York: Citadel Press.
Sartre, J-P. (1988) What is Literature? And Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Sartre, J-P. (1989/2003) Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology.
London: Routledge.
Shamir, B. (1995) ‘Social Distance and Charisma: Theoretical Notes and an Exploratory
Study’, Leadership Quarterly 6(1): 19–47.
Solomon, R. C. (1972) From Rationalism to Existentialism. New York: Harper and Row.
Steyrer, J. (1998) ‘Charisma and the Archetypes of Leadership’, Organization Studies 19(5):
807–28.
Todres, L., & Wheeler, S. (2001) ‘The Complementarity of Phenomenology, Hermeneutics
and Existentialism as a Philosophical Perspective for Nursing Research’, International
Journal of Nursing Studies 38: 1–8.
Trevelyan, R. (1998) ‘The Boundary of Leadership: Getting it Right and Having it All’,
Business Strategy Review 9(1): 37–44.
Weick, K. E. (2001) Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford: Blackwell.
White, D. (2001) ‘Freedom and Responsibility: Existentialism, Gifted Students and
Philosophy’, Gifted Child Today 24(2): 48–65.
Wicks, R. (2003) Modern French Philosophy: from Existentialism to Postmodernism.
Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
Yukl, G. (1998) Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

230

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015

Leadership Existentialism and Leadership Lawler

John Lawler is Lecturer in Leadership and Management. He trained and practiced

as a social worker for a number of years before moving into academia. He has a
particular interest in management and leadership in the public sector. His research
focus includes leadership, organizational change, management development in the
public sector, and the involvement of the public in health and social care organiz-
ations and has published in these areas. He has taught on a wide range of programmes
largely at postgraduate and post-experience levels. He has consultancy experience in
the public and commercial sectors in the UK and internationally.
[email: J.A.lawler@leeds.ac.uk]

231

Downloaded from lea.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on June 14, 2015