Leadership as Identity

By J. Ford, Nancy Harding, M. Learmonth. 2008

126 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/faa84484704e3e4541b0f42c5f81b9834780863b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

1. H. Nicholson
2. J. Ford
3. Nancy Harding
4. Brigid Carroll
5. L. Levy

Citations in the corpus

• The impossibility of the ‘true self’ of authentic leadership (2011, background): “There is now an emerging body of work which can be called ‘critical leadership studies’ that aims to take what Fournier and Grey (2000) call an anti-performative approach (Collinson, 2006; Collinson and Grint, 2005; Ford, 2006, 2010; Ford et al., 2008; Grint, 1997, 2010; Pye, 2005).”
• Leadership and charisma: A desire that cannot speak its name? (2011, background): “We have had longstanding concerns about the ways in which leadership theory denigrates those it calls ‘followers’, and our own research has shown the anxieties and confusion aroused in managers who are told they must be leaders (Ford et al., 2008).”
• Studying Leadership Critically: A Psychosocial Lens on Leadership Identities (2010, background): “…of leader ship, gender and managerial behaviour, and to exploring new approaches to researching leader ship in organizations (Alvesson, 2002; Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003; Calas & Smircich, 1991; Fletcher, 2004; Ford, 2006; Ford & Harding, 2007; Ford et al., 2008; Pye, 2005; Sinclair, 2007).”
• Leadership Development as Identity Construction (2010, background): “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).”
• Identity undoing and power relations in leadership development (2013, background): “LDPs offer and promote a preferred rhetoric or set of norms about what leadership is, who a leader is and the self-work that leaders need to engage in (see Ford et al., 2008).”