Authentic Self: Personal Identity Conceptualizations for Leaders and Followers

• In Event: Perspectives on Followership

Short Description

The presenter will offer a multidisciplinary analysis of personal identity theories in relation to the authentic self of leader-follower identities from philosophical, psychological, and philosophical psychology literature with the purpose of integrating these into leadership scholarship. The review uncovers key identity conceptualizations for leaders and followers as interdependent identities; dynamic process-identities; multiple identities; dynamic intrapersonal energy; and life-story narrative identities. Personal identity theories offer a number of helpful insights for further development and conceptualization of interdisciplinary understanding of leader and follower identities in leader-follower-ship research.

Detailed Abstract

A widely accepted critique exists today among leadership and followership scholars and practitioners that leadership has been traditionally observed and studied from the leader-centered and individualistic perspectives (Gronn, 2011) with little attention to the followers as a subject matter for study. For instance, scholars tried to understand the leadership phenomenon for decades (Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959) as personality traits (Stogdill, 1974; Lord, DeVader & Alliger, 1986; Goldberg, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Alcorn, 1992; Zaccaro, Kemp & Bader, 2004; Zaccaro, 2007), characteristics unique to leaders (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Nadler & Tushman, 1989; Bass, 1990; Jung & Sosik, 2006), personal intelligence (Marlowe, 1986; Golman, 1995; Mayer & Salovey, 1995, 1997; Shankman & Allen, 2008), skills (Katz, 1955; Bass 1990; Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly, & Marks, 2000; Yammarino, 2000; Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007), styles (Katz & Kahn, 1951; Blake & Mouton, 1964, 1978, 1985; Stogdill, 1963, 1974; Yukl, 1994), personal charisma & transformational qualities (Burns, 1978; House, 1976; Bass, 1985, 1998; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Avolio & Gibbons, 1988; Bryman, 1992), situational (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969a, 1993; Blanchard, 1985; Vecchio, 1987; Graeff, 1997) and other contingency theories for leader effectiveness (Fiedler, 1964, 1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984; Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House & Dessler, 1974; Schriesheim & Neider, 1996).
However, numerous scientific inquiries to theorize leadership from the leader’s individualized standpoint have not been satisfactory (Stogdill, 1948, 1974; Burns, 1978; Bass, 1981, 1990; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Hollander, 2009; Kellerman, 2012). Interestingly, hardly any of the theories mentioned above have explicitly addressed the identity issues in relation to leaders or followers. Identity theories have not been integrated into leadership studies and most models of leadership have been associated with positional roles in organizations. This perhaps explains why leadership identity theories are rare in most handbooks and textbooks on leadership (Stogdill, 1974; Bass, 1990; Wren, et al., 2004; Renz, 2010; Nahavandi, 2014; Northouse, 2013). The closest leadership theories to identity issues (i.e., who the person is) are the trait and skills approaches, where one is identified as a leader based on his or her traits or skills. Further, despite the fact that a new literature has emerged on identity in the fields of philosophy, sociology, psychology, as well as in interdisciplinary fields of philosophical psychology and social psychology since the second half of the 20th century, the latter remained somewhat untouched by most leadership scholars of the same period.
From the psychology and social psychology studies, researchers addressed issues of identity in the leadership and followership (Riley & Burke, 1995; Hogg, Terry, White, 1995; Hogg, 1996b, 2001; Hogg & Mullin, 1999; Burke, 2003; Haslam & Reicher, 2004; Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005; Burke, 2006; Burke, Stets, & Cerven, 2007), but their findings continue stand in silos from the main stream of leadership and followership research. Ironically, despite the individualistic approach of organizational psychology to leadership (Pfeffer, 1997) and the management theories’ tendency to “celebrate the cult of the individual” (Haslam, 2015, p. 5) identity theories in general, and personal identity theories in particular, have not been integrated into the study of leadership until the turn of the 20th century. Today, the term leadership identity has gained a momentum in the leadership and followership research, particularly within social psychology ever since Hogg (2001) and associates introduced the social identity theory of leadership (Hogg, 2008; Hogg, Martin, & Weeden, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2004; Hogg, Martin, Epitropaki, Mankad, Svensson, & Weeden, 2005; Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011; Hogg, van Knippenberg, Rast, 2012; Platow, Haslam, Reicher & Steffens, 2015).
To engage in a full discussion on identity that incorporates all major theories on identity (i.e. identity theories, role identity theories, person identity theories, social identity theories, and social identity theory of leadership) is beyond the scope of this study. Thus, this paper addresses only personal identity theories developed primarily in the field of philosophy and philosophical psychology in the Western world with its more individualistic and less collectivistic paradigm of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The purpose of this analysis is to apply personal identity theories to leadership and followership research in order to understand how personal identities of leaders and followers are formed and sustained over time in intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships between those who lead and those who follow in social context.

Participant

• Petros G. Malakyan, Robert Morris University