Gender, Authenticity and Leadership: Thinking with Arendt

Abstract

Recent criticisms levied against authentic leadership scholarship suggest there is little reference to gender, or to lived experience more generally (Ladkin and Spiller, 2013; Sinclair, 2013). My purpose in this book is to explore authentic leadership through a broader lens by asking questions such as: What does it mean to lead authentically? And does gender make a difference? Hence, I want to encourage scholars to engage in a re-visioning of authentic leadership that accounts for the diverse ways in which we live and lead. Specifically, in considering the interconnections among gender, authenticity and leadership, I consider how thinking with Hannah Arendt can deepen our understanding of what it might mean to lead authentically. On the surface, authentic leadership seems to be concerned with ethics; yet, at a deeper level, this discourse is a narrowly defined quest for knowledge. Such a quest for knowledge is problematic, states Arendt (1971), because a constricted focus may serve to cover over what is meaningful about a phenomenon. Arendt's work is rarely taken up in leadership studies; I aim to show how her thinking offers new insights into contemporary debates on leadership. Born in 1906, Arendt was a German Jew who managed to escape from Nazi Germany, moving first to Paris, and later to New York. Her books, The Origins of Totalitarianism and The Human Condition, were to bring her fame. However, she became infamous with her portrayal of Adolf Eichmann, one of the Nazi officials most implicated in the detailed organization of the Holocaust. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, she argues that evil, rather than being heinous is, in fact, banal. People were more likely to commit evil, in Arendt's opinion, whenever they chose not to think. For Arendt, it was Eichmann's thoughtlessness, rather than him malevolent intent, which encouraged his action against the Jewish people. For this comment on the banality of evil, together with her suggestion that some members of the Jewish leadership may have aided the Reich, Arendt was vilified (Young-Bruehl, 1982). Although she was devastated by the criticism and hate mail she received, nevertheless, Arendt did not waver from this view. Indeed in her last work, The Life of the Mind, unfinished at the time of Arendt's death in 1976, she is still concerned with Eichmann and the notion of evil as thoughtlessness. In short Arendt's inquiry into the nature of evil, as well as her critique of the bureaucratic mindset, has much to offer leadership studies.

Nature‐Based Training Program Fosters Authentic Leadership

“…Existential philosophers, such as Sartre, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Buber, addressed the importance of the true self when individuals try to give meaning to their lives and live authentically (Macquarrie, ). The existential philosophers did not claim a fixed true self, but rather stressed that individuals are always situated in historical and social contexts (Gardiner, ). Seeking authenticity is a process in which the self continuously transforms through compromises regarding social norms and standards (Heidegger, ; Sartre, ).…”

Ethical Responsibility - An Arendtian Turn

“…In some cases, for instance, leaders view others as resources, rather than as unique individuals. 30 When those in power view employees in this manner, it is easier to see employees as "thing like," and thus easily expendable. The powerful, in turn, lose a sense of humanity.…”

Paradox of gender and leadership in India: a critical review of Mardaani

“…These two systems for organising activity and meaning are as intertwined as are their outcomes (Reynolds, 2011). It is, therefore, important to assess the notion of leadership and its practices from a feminist perspective (Gardiner, 2015;Johanson, 2008). While numerous studies point towards gender differences in leadership (Eagly & Johnson, 1990;Gardiner, 2015), femininity as an attribute is hardly associated with leadership (Reynolds, 2011).…”

“…It is, therefore, important to assess the notion of leadership and its practices from a feminist perspective (Gardiner, 2015;Johanson, 2008). While numerous studies point towards gender differences in leadership (Eagly & Johnson, 1990;Gardiner, 2015), femininity as an attribute is hardly associated with leadership (Reynolds, 2011). Chemers (2000) suggests that there are three theoretical explanations for the types of differences between male and female leaders: biological differences (hormones, temperament etc.…”

“…Leadership is generally understood as a process that facilitates and influences human organisation towards the achievement of common goals (Gardiner, 2015;Northouse, 2007). In contrast, gender is understood as a socially constructed system of organising meaning (Dietz, 2003;Lanaj & Hollenbeck, 2015).…”