Leadership

This article develops and illustrates a gendered theorization of narcissism as it relates to the self-identity of leaders in organizations. While the value of existing theories of leadership and narcissism are acknowledged, it is noted that they treat narcissism in an implicitly masculine fashion. In so doing they limit narcissistic leadership identity to relatively aggressive, self-oriented, and domineering forms. To develop a more thorough and nuanced appreciation of the implications of narcissism for leaders' identity work, the article articulates a gendered perspective on narcissism that accounts for forms of leadership that are self-focused but not necessarily traditionally masculine. Four types of leadership narcissism are identified and illustrated: the bully, the star performer, the servant, and the victim. While each of these forms is narcissistic in that identity is associated with the defence of a grandiose self-image (ego ideal) through the admiration of others and the love of the self, they achieve this in markedly different, and gendered, ways. The article concludes by arguing how a gendered reading of narcissism and leadership provides a richer understanding of the narcissistic behaviours of men and women in contemporary organizations.

Based on archival and interview research, the current article examines the leadership roles of Tougaloo College's Sociology Professor Ernst Borinski, a German-Jewish Holocaust refugee, in Mississippi's racial integration struggles in the 1950s and 1960s. Embodying characteristics of both a bridge leader and a transformative intellectual, Professor Borinski worked behind the scenes and utilized the academy's resources and his status as an `outsider' to contribute to undermining Mississippi's racial status quo. As a bridge leader, Dr Borinski directly linked black and white groups together so that they could regularly meet, talk with one another, and develop critiques of racial segregation. As a transformative intellectual, Professor Borinski ensured that students understood their constitutional rights as American citizens and supported students and colleagues who were involved in the Mississippi civil rights movement. These two interlocking leadership roles encapsulate the contributions of Ernst Borinski to Mississippi's development from a `closed society' to a more racially integrated state.

The research that forms the basis for this article draws attention to a group of middle managers who are reluctant to become leaders because they seek more space and autonomy to stay in touch with their subject, their students, and their own pedagogic values and identities, family commitments and the balance between work and life. This reluctance is reinforced by their scepticism that leadership in Further Education (FE) is becoming less hierarchical and more participative. In a sector that has had more than its fair share of reformist intervention, there is some scepticism of the latest fad of distributed and transformative leadership as a new panacea to cure all the accumulated `ills'of Further Education in England. Although focused primarily on this one sector in an English context, the article draws some inferences where there are parallels with wider sectors of public sector reform and where the uneasy (and incomplete) transitions from `old' to `new' public management have been underpinned by invasive audit, inspection and performance cultures.

Leadership formative experiences (LFEs) are those experiences that make a high impact on leaders resulting in learning relevant to their leadership. This intervention was designed to capture LFEs through bi-focal lenses of leadership research (explore the process by which leaders build and share knowledge) and development (raise participants' awareness of self and others to shape effective leadership interventions). Senior leaders participating on a leadership development programme recounted LFEs in peer groups to surface their learning. Most LFEs occurred in adulthood (76%) identifying `self-improvement' (40%), `coping with struggle'(33%), `personal relationship/role model' (13%) and `parental/symbolic relationship' (5%) sensemaking categories. Only 8 per cent addressed a `natural process'supporting a `born leader' view and 1 per cent involved identification with a cause. Experiences powered `from within' in pursuit of self-development were more effective in extracting lessons from LFEs than where learning occurred through coping with adversity. The research details LFE impact located in the social construction process embedded in micro-interactions of leaders with those they help develop.