The Capacious Model and Leader Identity: An Integrative Framework

Abstract

The Integrated Capacious Model of Leadership Identities Construction (ICM) is a framework for understanding leader identity that integrates four extant leader identity theories with the systems and influences in the Capacious Model of leader identity. The ICM's systems (Individual System, Microsystem, Mesosystem, Exosystem, Macrosystem, and Chronosystem) contextualize leader identity in time and space; its influences (Purpose/Calling, Self‐Identity, Social Identity, and Relationships) pinpoint select factors that affect the construction of leader identities; and its integrated theories (Narrative Identity, Identity Theory, Social Identity Theory, and Social Constructionism) address the leader identity construction process. The ICM speaks to calls for interdisciplinary, multi‐level frameworks that are situated within the stream of scholarly literature on leader identity, as the model presents leader identity as a construct located across space, time, and people, rather than the purview of a heroic leader or single instance of identity claiming. Connecting established identity theories, systems, and influences results in a descriptive, practical model of leader identity. Examples are provided of the practical utility of using the ICM as a diagnostic tool for constructing a leader identity, designing leader development programs, and identifying gaps in leader identity scholarship.

Girls’ and young women’s leader identity development: a scoping review

“…Leadership paradigms (Brown, 2009) that are inclusive, intersectional and representational provide a broader view to integrate context and cultures in which girls can see themselves. Furthermore, leader identity, context and influences are essential in helping underrepresented people view themselves as leaders and for projecting this vision to others (Campbell et al , 2019; Egan et al , 2017; Fox, 2005). Nkomo and Ngambi (2009) concur noting that studying traditional and cultural norms is important as norms can perpetuate negative stereotypes that lead to questioning the competence of African women as leaders and managers.…”

The dialectics of leadership identity construction: Case studies from Indigenous women leaders

“…But the emphasis on the leader-follower dyad narrows our view of the dynamics of identity work behind co-constructed leadership identities (Tubin 2017; Machiondo et al 2015). Furthermore, the multiplicity and fluidity of identities cannot be captured through a linear process, and the model’s emphasis on sequential moments in the dyadic construction process minimizes other contextual factors constituting LIC (Campbell et al, 2019; Carroll and Levy 2010; Crenshaw 1991; Collins 2015; Egan et al, 2017; Endres and Weibler 2017).…”

“…Hence the need to broaden the lens to study LIC - from dyads to communities and societal contexts – and to attend to power relations at play within and across these spheres. We thus respond to the literature’s call to problematize LIC models that oversimplify the process, either stressing a single heroic leader (Epitropaki et al, 2017; Campbell et al, 2019) or isolating the relational leader-follower dyad from its social embeddedness. Re-calibrating the social construction lens to highlight LIC’s complex, collective, co-constructed dimensions beyond personal interactions augments the LIC theoretical corpus.…”

“…There are no Indigenous leadership empirical studies of the LIC process in-depth, despite this literature’s emphasis on the salience of indigeneity as a leadership resource. We thus address two calls: to investigate leader identity emergence that accounts for relationships, context, power, time and space (Campbell et al 2019; Pratt 2017); and to explore how leader and Indigenous identities’ intersections unfold and inform each other (Julien et al 2005; Evans and Sinclair 2016).…”