The performativity of leadership talk

Abstract

Leadership-as-practice holds great promise for the re-theorization of leadership in ways that reflect the dynamics of ongoing practice in the day-to-day realities of organizing. However, in order to progress this agenda there is an urgent need to develop more dynamic theories and complementary methodologies that are better able to engage with the continuities of leadership practice. This paper responds to this need firstly by teasing out the conceptual implications of the practices/practice duality, differentiating between leadership as a set of practices, and leadership in the flow of practice. Then, drawing theoretical insights from Austin and Mead, the performative effects of turning points in the flow of ordinary conversation are examined in the context of the leadership talk of a senior management team. The paper makes contributions to both theory and methodology, which are elaborated empirically to show how different types of talk relate to different phases of leadership practice

Claiming the corner office: Female CEO careers and implications for leadership development

“…Finally, we urge HR departments and leadership developers to draft a new leadership lexicon . Simpson et al (, p. 13) argue that leadership talk is “transformative” and “changes the trajectories of conversations,” producing “new movements in the emergence of practice.” It is therefore important to pay more attention to how this leadership talk translates into HR practices. The current lexicon dates back to the days when established ways of leadership were gendered as predominantly male (Stead, ).…”

“…Such an approach invites scholars to see gender and leadership as socially constructed and encourages the field to focus instead on what West and Zimmerman (; in Leitch & Stead, , p. 127) have described as the “doing of gender.” Such an approach invites the gender and leadership field to explore how gender becomes the subject of (re)creation and negotiation and is sustained within various social contexts (Leitch & Stead, , p. 127). This new interest in the performativity of leadership has triggered discussions on the reframing of leadership in such a way as to distinguish between “leadership as a set of practices” and “leadership in the flow of practice” (Simpson et al, , p. 1). In the latter perspective, aspects of leadership performativity such as the nature of “leadership talk” (Simpson et al, ) as well as the use of leadership discourse in best‐selling leadership texts (Ferry, ) take center stage.…”

“…This new interest in the performativity of leadership has triggered discussions on the reframing of leadership in such a way as to distinguish between “leadership as a set of practices” and “leadership in the flow of practice” (Simpson et al, , p. 1). In the latter perspective, aspects of leadership performativity such as the nature of “leadership talk” (Simpson et al, ) as well as the use of leadership discourse in best‐selling leadership texts (Ferry, ) take center stage.…”

“…Leadership-as-practice (Harrison, 2016;Raelin, 2016) is now introduced as a promising approach to theorizing leadership that allows for better capturing the dynamics of organizational practices and organizing (Simpson, Buchan, & Sillince, 2017). The links between context, practice, and gender appear to invite new ways of understanding gender and leadership.…”

“…While much of the gender and leadership literature is preoccupied with leadership style differences between genders and how followers perceive leader effectiveness as mediated by leaders' and followers' gender, the relatively recent practice turn in organization studies (Schatzki, Knorr Cetina, & Von Savigny, ; Whittington, ) has also had an effect on how gender and leadership are conceptualized. Leadership‐as‐practice (Harrison, ; Raelin, ) is now introduced as a promising approach to theorizing leadership that allows for better capturing the dynamics of organizational practices and organizing (Simpson, Buchan, & Sillince, ). The links between context, practice, and gender appear to invite new ways of understanding gender and leadership.…”