Research has been lacking in exploring the implications of sexual identity on public leadership and in using discursive approaches to develop gender and public leadership literature. This study utilizes queer analysis to explore how six nonheterosexual public leaders in the Philippines negotiate their leadership identities and practices vis-à-vis a collectivistic, religious, and heteronormative culture. Interview accounts yield a reimagining of public leadership as a desire for intimacy with the people. Embedded in heteronormativity, this unspoken conception positions nonheterosexual subjects as unfit to participate in public leadership spaces, compelling them to make concessions to be allowed entry into the field. Such concessions, however, do not preclude the emergence of queer public leaderships that eventually enable a leadership praxis grounded on intersectionality. These findings reveal possibilities for a radical liberation of leaders and followers from interlocking structures of oppression.
AlkadryMGTowerLE (2006) Unequal pay: the role of gender. Public Administration Review66: 888–898.
2.
Asian Development Bank (2005) Country Governance Assessment. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
3.
BergEBarryJChandlerJ (2011) Changing leadership and gender in public sector organizations. British Journal of Management23(3): 1–13.
4.
BermanEWangC-YChenC-A, et al. (2013) Public executive leadership in East and West. Review of Public Personnel Administration33(2): 164–184.
5.
BlighMCKohlesJC (2008) Negotiating gender role expectations: rhetorical leadership and women in the US senate. Leadership4(4): 381–402.
6.
BowlingCJKelleherCAJonesJ, et al. (2006) Cracked ceilings, firmer floors, and weakening walls: trends and patterns in gender representation among executives leading American state agencies, 1970–2000. Public Administration Review66(6): 823–836.
7.
BowringM (2009) Leading at the border: gender, sex, and sexuality in hypergendered organizations. PhD Thesis, University of Leicester, England.
8.
BreslinRAPandeySRiccucciNM (2017) Intersectionality in public leadership research: a review and future research agenda. Review of Public Personnel Administration37(2): 160–182.
9.
BrillantesAJrFernandezM (2008) Is there a Philippine public administration? Or better still, for whom is Philippine public administration?Philippine Journal of Public Administration52(2–4): 1–37.
10.
BrillantesAJrFernandezM (2011) Restoring trust and building integrity in government: issues and concerns in the Philippines and areas for reform. International Public Management Review12(2): 55–80.
11.
BurnsJPBowomwathanaB (2001) Civil Service System in Asia. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
12.
ButlerJ (1988) Performative acts and gender constitution: an essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theater Journal49(1): 519–531.
ButlerJ (1993) Bodies that Matter. New York: Routledge.
15.
CabantousLGondJ-PHardingN, et al. (2016) Critical essay: reconsidering critical performativity. Human Relations69(2): 197–213.
16.
CalásMBSmircichL (1991) Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies12(4): 567–601.
17.
CardozoB (2014) A “coming out” party in Congress?: LGBT advocacy and party-list politics in the Philippines. Master’s Thesis, UCLA eScholarship, Los Angeles, CA.
18.
CetinS (2012) Leadership in the public sector: a brief appraisal. Dumlupinar University Journal of Social Sciences32(2): 75–85.
19.
CollinsPH (2015) Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology41: 1–20.
CoronelS (1998) Pork and Other Perks: Corruption and Governance in the Philippines. Quezon City: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
22.
CourtneyS (2011) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (lgb) identity and school leadership: lgb english school leaders’ perspectives. MA Dissertation, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
23.
CourtneySJ (2014) Inadvertently queer school leadership amongst lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) school leaders. Organization21(3): 383–399.
24.
CrenshawK (1991) Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review43: 1241–1299.
25.
D’AgostinoM (2015) The difference that women make: government performance and women-led agencies. Administration & Society47: 532–548.
26.
Duerst-LahtiG (2007) Reflections on studying public leadership so as to take gender and race seriously: person, position, political location and perception in the gendered and raced leadership of Wisconsin’s major agencies. In: Leading the future of the public sector: the third transatlantic dialogue, Newark, Delaware, 31 May–2 June 2007, pp. 1–37. Delaware: University of Delaware.
27.
FerreiraFGyourkoJ (2011) Anatomy of the Beginning of the Housing Boom: U.S. Neighborhoods and Metropolitan Areas, 1993–2009(National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
28.
FerryN (2017) It’s a family business!: leadership texts as technologies of heteronormativity. Leadership14(6): 1–19.
29.
FineL (2017) Gender and sexual minorities’ practice and embodiment of authentic leadership: challenges and opportunities. Advances in Developing Human Resources19(4): 1–15.
30.
FoucaultM (2004) Microfísica Do Poder [Microphysics of Power]. Rio de Janeiro: Edições Graal.
31.
FoxRLSchuhmannRA (1999) Gender and local government: a comparison of women and men city managers. Public Administration Review59(3): 231–242.
32.
FussD (2001) Theorizing hetero- and homosexuality. In: SeidmanSAlexanderJC (eds) The New Social Theory Reader: Contemporary Debates. London: Routledge, 347–352.
33.
GarciaJ (2008) Philippine Gay Culture: Binabae to Bakla, Silahis to MSM. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. (Original work published in 1996).
34.
GarciaJN (2013) Nativism or universalism: situating LGBT discourse in the Philippines. Kritika Kultura20: 48–68.
35.
Getha-TaylorHHolmesMHJacobsonWS, et al. (2011) Focusing the public leadership lens: research propositions and questions in the Minnowbrook tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21: i83–i97.
36.
Gibson-GrahamJ (1996) The End of Capitalism (As We Knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
37.
HardingNLeeHFordJ, et al. (2011) Leadership and charisma: a desire that cannot speak its name?Human Relations64(7): 927–949.
38.
HolsteinJGubriumJ (1995) The Active Interview. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
39.
LeeHLearmonthMHardingN (2008) Queer(y)ing public administration. Public Administration86(1): 149–167.
40.
LinsteadSPullenA (2006) Gender as multiplicity: desire, displacement, difference and dispersion. Human Relations59(9): 1287–1310.
41.
MacapagalMEOfreneoMMontielC, et al. (2013) Social Psychology in the Philippine Context. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
42.
ManalastasETorreB (2016) LGBT psychology in the Philippines. Psychology of Sexualities Review7(1): 60–72.
43.
MatthewsPPoynerC (2019) Achieving equality in progressive contexts: queer(y)ing public administration. Public Administration Quarterly.
44.
MontielCJMacapagalME (2000) Political psychology in the Philippines: an update. Philippine Journal of Psychology33(2): 1–32.
45.
MortonJW (2017) Think leader, think heterosexual male? The perceived leadership effectiveness of gay male leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences34: 159–169.
46.
MuhrSLSullivanKR (2013) “None so queer as folk”: gendered expectations and transgressive bodies in leadership. Leadership9(3): 416–435.
47.
OraziDCTurriniAValottiG (2013) Public sector leadership: new perspectives for research and practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences79(3): 486–504.
48.
OspinaSM (2016) Collective leadership and context in public administration: bridging public leadership research and leadership studies. Public Administration Review77(2): 275–287.
49.
ParkerM (2002) Queering management and organization. Gender, Work & Organization9(2): 146–166.
PetersenA (1998) Unmasking the Masculine: ‘Men’ and ‘identity’ in a Sceptical Age. London: Sage.
52.
Pew Research Center (2013) The Global Divide on Homosexuality: Greater Acceptance in More Secular and Affluent Countries. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.
53.
RennK (2007) LGBT student leaders and queer activists: identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identified college student leaders and activists. Journal of College Student Development48(3): 314–328.
54.
RumensN (2012) Queering cross-sex friendships: an analysis of gay and bisexual men’s workplace friendships with heterosexual women. Human Relations65(8): 955–978.
55.
RumensNDe SouzaEBrewisJ (2018) Queering queer theory in management and organization studies: notes toward queering heterosexuality. Organization Studies40(4): 1–20.
56.
SabharwalM (2013) From glass ceiling to glass cliff: women in senior executive service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25(2): 1–29.
SeidmanS (1997) Difference Troubles: Queering Social Theory and Sexual Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
SinclairA (2005) Body possibilities in leadership. Leadership1(4): 387–406.
60.
SlootmaeckersKLievensJ (2014) Cultural capital and attitudes toward homosexuals: exploring the relation between lifestyles and homonegativity. Journal of Homosexuality61(1): 962–979.
61.
SmithJAEatoughV (2007) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: LyonsECoyleA (eds) Analyzing Qualitative Data in Psychology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 35–50.
62.
TanML (2001) Survival through pluralism: emerging gay communities in the Philippines. Journal of Homosexuality40(3–4): 117–142.
63.
UNDP-USAID (2014) Being LGBT in Asia: The Philippines country report. Bangkok, Thailand.
64.
Van WartM (2013) Administrative leadership theory: a reassessment after 10 years. Public Administration91(3): 521–543.
65.
VogelRMasalD (2014) Public leadership: a review of the literature and framework for future research. Public Management Review17(7): 1–25.
