Post-heroic heroism: Embedded masculinities in media framing of Australian business leadership

Abstract

Over time, the relevance of heroic leadership to contemporary corporate environments has been questioned, with media coverage arguing there is a need for alternate, post-heroic forms of leadership. Using a multimodal media analysis, we show how two leading Australian business magazines frame leadership in response to this debate, identifying three distinct frames of leadership. The first frame emphasizes masculinized heroic leadership as normative which reinforces gendered assumptions through differential framing of men and women’s leadership. We then argue media (re)frames post-heroic leadership as a variation of heroic leadership through two further frames; by subsuming feminized attributes into the repertoire of heroic leadership as ‘softer masculinities’ and through the construction of a masculinized post-heroic hero, both applied exclusively to men’s leadership. This (re)framing of heroic leadership has significant implications for perceptions of credible contemporary business leadership.

Gendered hybridity in leadership identities: a postfeminist analysis

“…What Victoria demonstrates here is that feminine attributes and behaviours cannot be refused as being perceived as a credible leader is dependent on successful engagement with feminine gender norms (Khan et al , 2022). Clothing plays an important role in calibrating masculine behaviours with displays of femininity.…”

“…Increasingly, “good” leadership now requires a type of “gender balancing” – collaborative, caring, empathetic behaviours are expected alongside masculine-marked practices. Indeed, accounts of leadership highlight how leaders engage in both individualistic and relational practices when leading (Byrne et al , 2021; Khan et al , 2022; Powell et al , 2021). Nevertheless, significant issues persist in terms of who can enact “gender-balanced” leadership in a way which is valued and recognised.…”

“…The common-sense association of women leaders with feminised leadership or that a “gender-balanced” form of leadership can be performed by both men and women and assigned equal value requires ongoing scrutiny. Indeed, Khan et al , (2022, pp. 321-322) demonstrate how media representations in Australia suggest that “ […] only men (are) able to perform both masculinized and feminized attributes, despite the theoretical assertion that post-heroic leadership can be performed by both men and women”.…”

Examining employee willingness to execute shared leadership: The role of leadership behaviour, gender, age, and context

“…The question that this study poses is whether shared leadership, although defined as a post-heroic form of leadership, may still perpetuate gender differences. If so, shared leadership could still be dominated by men who, because of an environment with systemic inequality, may feel more drawn to exercise leadership (compare this to Khan et al’s (2022) notion of post-heroic heroes or Schweiger et al’s (2020) sense of self-as-a-leader). Finally, explanations of gender effects may also be found beyond the workplace.…”

Indonesian women leaders navigating hegemonic femininity: A Gramscian lens

“…It highlights how various constructions of idealized femininity persistently serve those in power and challenge women's leadership. This conceptualization complements the interpretation of masculine hegemony as a commonly held factor hindering women's leadership (Acker, 1990;Calás & Smircich, 1991;Ford, 2006Ford, , 2010Harding, 2003;Khan et al, 2022;Oseen, 1997;Sinclair, 2013). Furthermore, in feminist literature, an ongoing debate exists regarding the term used to describe this phenomenon, with Connell preferring the term "emphasized femininity" (Connell, 2014;Francis, Archer, Moote, de Witt, & Yeomans, 2017;Paechter, 2018).…”