Many leadership development activities in modern organizations focus on the individual, either finding an individual with the secret sauce, named leadership potential, or training the individual in so-called effective leadership competencies. For women, this focus often leads to a ‘fix the women’ approach. Avolio and Gardner’s Authentic Leadership (AL) theory with its overemphasis on the individual and narrow definitions of what it means to be ‘authentic’ reinforces the concept of the ‘ideal leader’ as the hero who will rid organizations of unethical practice. The theory’s lack of attention to the role of context leads to errors in our understanding of gender and leadership, and perpetuates discrimination.
The Solution
Bourdieu’s Social Theory is used to explore AL theory with a view to illuminating the role of power and privilege inherent in this concept.
The Stakeholders
Stakeholders are leadership development practitioners and HR specialists who are interested in reducing inequalities in organizational practices.
AckerJ. (2006). Inequality regimes gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20, 441-464.
2.
AvolioB. J.GardnerW. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
3.
BeerM.FinnströmM.ShraderD. (2016). Why leadership training fails and what to do about it. Harvard Business Review, 10, 50-57.
4.
BieremaL. L. (2016). Women’s leadership: Troubling notions of the “ideal” (male) leader. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18, 119-136.
5.
BieremaL. L. (2017). Foreword. In Storberg-WalkerJ.Haber-CurranP. (Eds.), Theorizing women & leadership new insights & contributions from multiple perspectives (pp. ix). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
6.
BoldenR.GoslingJ. (2006). Leadership competencies: Time to change the tune?Leadership, 2, 147-163.
7.
BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
BourdieuP. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
10.
BourdieuP. (1995). The political field, the social science field, and the journalistic field. In BensonR.NeveuÉ. (Eds.), Bourdieu and the journalistic field (pp. 29-47). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
11.
BourdieuP. (1996). The political ontology of Martin Heidegger. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
CollinsonD. (2012). Prozac leadership and the limits of positive thinking. Leadership, 8, 87-107.
16.
DrathW. H.McCauleyC. D.PalusC. J.Van VelsorE.O’ConnorP. M.McGuireJ. B. (2008). Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 635-653.
17.
DuberleyJ.CohenL. (2010). Gendering career capital: An investigation of scientific careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 187-197.
18.
Due BillingY.AlvessonM. (2000). Questioning the notion of feminine leadership: A critical perspective on the gender labelling of leadership. Gender, Work & Organization, 7, 144-157.
19.
EaglyA. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459-474.
20.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 62-71.
21.
ElyR. J.MeyersonD. E. (2010). An organizational approach to undoing gender: The unlikely case of offshore oil platforms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 3-34.
22.
EpitropakiO.MartinR. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659-676.
23.
FitzsimmonsT. W.CallanV. J. (2016). Applying a capital perspective to explain continued gender inequality in the C-suite. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 354-370.
24.
FordJ.HardingN. (2011). The impossibility of the “true self” of authentic leadership. Leadership, 7, 463-479.
25.
FotakiM. (2013). No woman is like a man (in academia): The masculine symbolic order and the unwanted female body. Organization Studies, 34, 1252-1275.
26.
GardinerR. A. (2011). Critique of the discourse of authentic leadership. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(15), 99-104.
27.
GardinerR. A. (2016). Commentary, gender, authenticity and leadership: Thinking with Arendt. Leadership, 12, 632-637.
28.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
HeideggerM.BrockW. (1949). Existence and being. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery.
31.
HertnekyR. P. (2012). Composing our lives—As women and as leaders. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 14(2), 140-155.
32.
HogueM.LordR. G. (2007). A multilevel, complexity theory approach to understanding gender bias in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 370-390.
33.
HoytC. L.MurphyS. E. (2016). Managing to clear the air: Stereotype thereat, women, and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 387-399.
34.
JohnsonR. E.VenusM.LanajK.MaoC.ChangC. (2012). Leader identity as an antecedent to the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1262-1272. doi:10.1037/a0029043
KrausM. W.ChenS.KeltnerD. (2011). The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 974-980.
37.
LearmonthM.MorrellK. (2017). Is critical leadership studies “critical”?Leadership. 13(3), 257-271.
38.
LiuH. A.BakerC. (2014). White knights: Leadership as the heroicisation of whiteness. Leadership. 12(4), 420-448.
39.
MeadG. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
40.
MillerD. L. (2014). Symbolic capital and gender: Evidence from two cultural fields. Cultural Sociology, 8, 462-482.
41.
MorleyL. (2013). The rules of the game: Women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender and Education, 25, 116-131.
42.
O’ReillyD.ReedM. (2010). “Leaderism”: An evolution of managerialism in UK public service reform. Public Administration, 88, 960-978.
43.
Painter-MorlandM.DeslandesG. (2014). Gender and visionary leading: Rethinking “vision” with Bergson, Deleuze and Guattari. Organization, 21, 844-866.
PhelanJ. E.Moss-RacusinC. A.RudmanL. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 406-413.
46.
ResickC. J.WhitmanD. S.WeingardenS. M.HillerN. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1365-1381.
RogersC. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In KochS. (Ed.), A study of a science, volume 3: Formulations of the person and the social context, (pp. 184-256). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
49.
Sanchez-HuclesJ. V.DavisD. D. (2010). Women and women of color in leadership: Complexity, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychologist, 65, 171-181.
50.
ScottK. A.BrownD. J. (2006). Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 230-242.
51.
ShawJ. (2010). Papering the cracks with discourse: The narrative identity of the authentic leader. Leadership, 6, 89-108.
52.
ShondrickS. J.LordR. G. (2010). Implicit leadership and followership theories: Dynamic structures for leadership perceptions, memory, and leader-follower processes. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25, 1-33.
SinclairA. (2013). Can I really be me? The challenges for women leaders constructing authenticity. In LadkinD.SpillerC. (Eds.), Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences (pp. 239-251). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
55.
SparroweR. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 419-439.
56.
SpoelstraS.ButlerN.DelaneyH. (2016). Never let an academic crisis go to waste: Leadership Studies in the wake of journal retractions. Leadership, 12, 383-397.
57.
Storberg-WalkerJ.GubbinsC. (2007). Social networks as a conceptual and empirical tool to understand and “do” HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 291-310.
58.
SullivanS. E.MainieroL. (2008). Using the kaleidoscope career model to understand the changing patterns of women’s careers: Designing HRD programs that attract and retain women. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 32-49.
59.
Van den BrinkM.BenschopY. (2012). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19, 507-524.
60.
ZanderL. (2013). Viewpoint: An authentic jerk. Authentic leadership can be bad leadership. In LadkinD.SpillerC. (Eds.), Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences (pp. 279-281). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
