University of Cambridge Faculty of Education

Leadership Experiences: Appreciating Films

Psychoanalytically

Don Antunes

2

1. Introduction

The last few decades have witnessed a large growth in the amount of academic studies, popular

books, public talks, conferences and teaching programmes on the subject of leadership. Indeed,

as far as the contemporary organizational mantra goes, leadership is everywhere and everyone

should appreciate it; everyone should recognise himself or herself as subject to its discourse.

However, if, on the one hand, it is the case that the contemporary world increasingly demands

leadership capabilities from almost everyone working in a group or in a large organisation,

then on the other hand, leadership is such a fuzzy, attractive and imprecise concept that

professionals as diverse as business and sports people, politicians, management consultants

and professors invite themselves into its arena believing that they have something worthy to

say about it, and could therefore supply theories and practices of leadership. No doubt this

extensive diffusion of leadership has enthroned it as a dominant and popular concept

increasingly used to legitimise structures, discourses, power and desire. Yet, is it fundamentally

necessary in the way it has been employed? Does it fulfil any fundamental lack for human

beings or human societies? More importantly, given its widespread and popular use, what

makes this concept so dominant? Has it in fact become an overgeneralised and vacuous term?

Some commentators argue, for instance, that the industry that has developed around the

leadership concept has promised too much, delivered too little and has failed not only to

produce high quality leadership practice, but also to take appropriate notice of the importance

of followership as a corollary to its own existence (e.g. Alvesson, 1996: Gronn, 2010;

Kellerman, 2012; Kaiser & Curphy, 2013). Other commentators condemn it for being

excessively concerned with individual leaders to the detriment of leadership being understood

as processes and interactions between leaders and followers; indeed, core themes of the

leadership literature such as emotion, character, ethics and greatness have so far given

prominence to leaders and not to leadership. Considering it unsurprising that people talk about

leaders and attribute importance to them, James March (2006, p. 85) argues that “the idea of

leadership is imposed on our interpretation of history by our human myths, or by the way we

think that history is supposed to be described.” He also goes as far as to say: “I doubt that

‘leadership’ is a useful concept for serious scholarship” (March, 2006, p. 85). Much earlier,

shaping what was becoming the leadership studies field in the mid 1950s, Cecil Gibb wrote:

“the concept of leadership, like that of general intelligence, has largely lost its value for the

social sciences, although it remains indispensable to general discourse” (1968, p. 91).

3

Nevertheless, as the enduring popularity of the concept attests, countless commentators

and practitioners disregard this potential dismissal of the value of leadership as concept and

practice, and I agree with them. Leadership has become of such a totemic importance for

business, policy and education that the widespread influence of its various models not only

encourages people to act, but also engenders various sorts of experiences. This, in turn, brings

about the need to open up alternatives to disrupt the ossification and misuse of the concept.

In line with this, the work developed in this project uses critical conceptual tools to

expand elements currently less visible in leadership. It focuses on experiences of leadership. It

argues that whenever taken as an experience, leadership encompasses a larger scope than so

far represented by the literature, allowing, instead, for the contingencies of the world and the

singularities of perceptions to be given the centrality they deserve. An experience is ephemeral,

implies changes from one state into another, and is appropriated in an inherently unique manner

lived and felt by a subject through the singularity of his or her flesh. Indeed, as clinical

psychoanalysts acknowledge there is no experience without a living body. The subject is first

and foremost produced as an object of discourse, since it is discourse that allow social bonds.1

By focusing on the ontic, singular, discursive and contingent elements shaping a bodily

experience of a subject, I attempt to redress a shortcoming of the leadership literature and

propose an innovative approach able to account for the effects of subjection that the leadership

discourse produces upon those experiencing it as a symptom of contemporary civilization.

This project’s original and significant contribution to knowledge is to refine leadership

theory by integrating singularities of leadership experiences into it. It incorporates conceptual

tools from the psychoanalytical doctrine inspired from the later teaching of Jacques Lacan in

its emphasis on the register of the Real2, and enriched by philosophical, socio-political,

educational and art theories.3 It shows that, due to its extensive overuse by many of those who

subject themselves to it, ‘leadership’ has become what in psychoanalysis is called a symptom

of civilization, presenting itself as discourse and as a master signifier. The word signifier

presupposes interlinked psychoanalytical concepts such as signified, fantasy, body event,

1 Briefly, the word ‘subject’ takes a specific meaning in accordance with psychoanalysis. It is a multifaceted word whose designation corresponds to roughly correlated terms employed in academic discourses. These include individual, person, agent, participant and being; terms which are usually employed respectively by biological, sociological, economic, adult education and philosophical discourses. 2 Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real are the three registers of psychical life as perceived from the analytic experience. 3 Previous use of psychoanalytical approaches in leadership and management research include Barry (1994), Arnaud & Vanheule (2005); Kets de Vries (2006, 2009), Kets de Vries & Engellau (2010), Petriglieri & Petriglieri (2010), Petriglieri, Wood, & Petriglieri (2011), Gabriel (2011), Costas & Taheri (2012), Axelrod (2012), Driver, (2013), Parry & Kempster (2014). They differ from the perspective adopted here as inspired by the later Lacan (Lacan, 1975/1998, 2001, 2005; Miller, 1996/2007, 1997/2005; Voruz & Wolf, 2007; Laurent, 2014).

4

discourse and jouissance, which will be appropriately addressed further in this work. Since

psychoanalysis integrates theory and method, instead of treating them separately, this report

follows such epistemic positioning, and interweaves literature review and ontology with

methodology and epistemology. This implies, for instance, that the core concepts of leadership

and of experience are discussed throughout this report and not simply as a sole section.

Methodologically, due to the phenomenological, ephemeral and singular nature of

leadership experiences it is difficult to sample them, even if longitudinally or ethnographically.

It is not feasible to follow people around waiting for leadership experiences to happen. Film

narratives, I claim, can come closer to resolve this.4 Though characters in films might not

necessarily be leaders of education or business, the actions, events and episodes they engage

with nonetheless offer sufficient verisimilitude to life situations. The project treats a film

character as equivalent to a ‘subject’ to highlight singular ways in which each displays himself

or herself as a subject to leadership within each corresponding film narrative. In line with the

Freudian defence of the case study as the appropriate methodology to provide a voice to the

ontic and singular dimensions of a subject it constructs eight case studies of leadership

experiences from eight contemporary art films. Each one of the cases is analysed separately.

Each analysis focuses on how leadership actions, events and episodes are experienced by the

main character(s) in each film narrative. By using multiple cases I hope to improve theory

robustness, by better grounding it in diverse evidence and densifying it through cross-case

comparison.

4 In this research project cinema refers both to the art form and the theatre venue projecting films; film is as a story or event recorded by a camera as moving images to be shown in a cinema or on television. The term movie is avoided.

5

2. Project Overview

This overview clarifies the priorities of the project following the form of a series of questions,

which are answered below. They are: why does what I want to do needs to be done?; what are

the project’s research questions?; how do I propose to finish the undertaking of this research?;

and what are its anticipated outcomes?

2.1 Why does what I want to do needs to be done?

Firstly, the philosophical basis of leadership research as expressed in two underlying debates

needs renewed attention. One regards what is leadership and what it consists of, that is, its

ontological and ontic dimensions. The distinction between the ontological and the ontic is

relevant, since the former designates what has to do with being, and the latter refers to what

comes from existence. The other debate involves its epistemology, in the sense of how one can

know and claim to know about leadership; for that film analysis is offered as a solution to

research issues hard to tackle empirically, such as experiences. The essentialist viewpoint in

leadership presupposes that research should aim to uncover a foreseeable set of the attributes

necessary to its identity and function. I believe there is an inherent shortcoming to this view.

Thus, taking inspiration mostly from the work of pragmatist and post-structuralist thinkers to

overcome essentialism I introduce a non-essentialist perspective, which I also call holistic.

Philosophically, essentialism is the doctrine that maintains that for any specific entity there is

a set of attributes, which are necessary to its identity and function (Cartwright, 1968). The

perspective I develop here combines pragmatist (Peirce, 1897, 1934; James, 1991; Rorty, 1979)

and non-essentialist (Lacan, 1966/2006, 1973/1977, 1975/1998, 2001, 2005;5 Foucault, 1970,

1972; Miller, 1996/2007, 1997/2005) philosophies with literature from leadership, arts and

psychoanalysis.

Secondly, since leadership research has emphasised mostly cognitive and behavioural

dimensions of experiences, by highlighting their psychoanalytical and philosophical features

instead, I want to demonstrate that the use of narratives from films offers stronger support for

theorising leadership experiences, for it allows experiences to be approached subjectively in

order to consider discursive effects upon a subject. By and large, leadership scholars have

5 In an attempt to take into account historical changes of meaning of concepts and the invention of new ones, the publication dates of Lacan’s, of other psychoanalysts and of philosophers will be referenced using two dates, and with a forward slash in the middle. The first one refers to the publication in the original language; the second to its publication in English, when translated.

6

tended either to ignore the field of the arts completely or have rejected its validity and utility

as a source, despite the fact that the arts have always had “a primary function in helping us

both to focus and to integrate thoughts and feelings in relation to the most fundamental

challenges of our existence (Whitley, p. 2)”. This project attempts to find a way of opening up

a gap in this terrain. The psychoanalytical study of leadership experiences as displayed by the

subjects in filmic narratives should provide a means to redraw the relationship of leadership

theory to the arts, for I believe that sources such as art films are sufficiently plausible to offer

a valid claim to refocus this relationship. Besides, my clinical psychoanalytical experience

should bring forward original and additional interpretative elements to appreciate the film

narratives in order to extract from them not necessarily explicit leadership and followership

issues.

To summarise, I argue that filmic narratives can be significant sources to renovate

traditional views of leadership, and that to apply an approach derived from psychoanalysis into

the leadership field using the arts is appropriate, innovative and required.

2.2 Why experiences of leadership?

Two similar concepts to experiences as used in leadership research are activities and practices.

In my view, the concept of experience implies broader amplitude than that of practice or

activities for at least two reasons. The concept of experience can be more easily used to assume

singularities. This allows for a portrayal of a richer spectrum of differences. Even if it is too

broad as a concept, an experience serves “as a way of talking about what happened, of

establishing difference and similarity, of claiming knowledge that is unassailable.” (Fox, 2008,

p. 52). Given its pervasiveness, it seems useful to work with and from it, to analyse the

operations it allows, and to redefine its meaning. Why not practices? True, there is a certain

undeniably subjective aspect to practices, particularly if considering their tacit aspects.

However, that does not exclude the repetitive elements they contain. An emphasis on repetition

is not what I am attempting to bring to light. What I do have in mind regarding practices is

what Bernstein (1981, p. 348) calls attention to when distinguishing two levels of tacit

practices: one as “subject to conscious selection and orderings within the possibilities of a given

syntax of generation and realization” and the other as “not subject to conscious selection and

orderings.” I will attempt to capture this as part of an experience. I am here taking forward

Bernstein’s (1981, p. 348) advice, for whom “It might be possible to show the relation between

the levels of tacit practice and that of unconscious practice through the writings of Lacan.”

7

Furthermore, the concept of experience is more pliable to accommodate the innovative,

transformative or even transgressive or subversive qualities present in leadership. Since

activities and practices have to submit to repetitive elements, they are therefore unable to allow

for those qualities that the concept of experience allows. If one is to conceive of an experience

as a “constant interaction between the observer and the object” (Lacan, 1966/2006, p. 67) -

which therefore implies assimilation and revaluation of perception as well as continuous

imprinting of sensorial impressions - it is possible to assume also that the repetitive and routine

dimensions of experiences must be infused with a singularized and subjectivized embodiment.

Indeed, a subject embodies a leadership experience in ways that go beyond automatically or

repetitively practicing it.

Nevertheless, leadership has been commonly confused with formalised hierarchical

positions given through the holding of office, that is, as disembodied enforcement of

procedures, rules and regulations. In fact, positional authority is neither a prerequisite not a

guarantor for leadership quality. Instead, I claim that what provides for the quality of leadership

is radically ethical, that is, what is closer to what is done “to affect and enhance the lives of

others” (MacBeath, 2007, p. 244). In itself, this does not preclude the leader’s defence of his

or her self-interest, as long as that self-interest serves those supposed to be affected or enhanced

by his or her actions. Mainstream research falls short of incorporating those dimensions, which

I intend to redress in this project.

2.3 What are the project’s research questions?

From what has been stated in terms of the theory development intent of this work, two main

research questions can be formalised as:

• What can be said to constitute a leadership experience?

• To what extent can a leadership experience be considered as such?

Given the research focus on psychoanalysis a subsidiary question can be stated:

• How can perspectives from the late Lacanian psychoanalysis help to constitute the

concept of leadership experience?

Given the research focus on the appreciation of film narratives a further question needs to be

added:

• What has shaped a leadership experience from the subject’s viewpoint in each film?

8

2.4 What are the anticipated outcomes?

The psychoanalytical discourse should provide means to highlight how signifiers, language,

desire and narratives are part and parcel of the actions that leaders and followers engaged upon.

By approaching subjects through the discursive singularity that traverses the events and

episodes shaping their lives, this project will renew evidence on the intertwined complexities

of leading and following for leadership theory. Given the immense influence the leadership

discourse is having in the world, to prepare and diffuse a broadly critical interpretation of its

hidden workings is crucial to create social transformations. To state with Voruz (2010, p. 434),

when commenting on the value of interpreting the social bond, “it is because our world is

structured by discourse that an interpretation, in turn, has structuring consequences on the real

world.” All this matters not only for the type of professional settings I explored previously

(Büchel & Antunes, 2007; Antunes & Thomas, 2007; Antunes, 2009), such as business

practices and schools, training bodies and consulting firms, but also for those searching to

derive better practices, policies and pedagogical innovations from new theories.

9

References Alvesson, M. (1996). Leadership studies: from procedure and abstraction to reflexivity and situation. The

Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 455-485. Antunes, D & Thomas, H. (2007). The competitive (dis)advantages of European business schools. Long Range

Planning, 40, 382-404. Antunes, D. (2009). Linking Theory and Practice in the Strategy Field: Applications to Education and Consulting.

Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Cambridge, Judge Business School. Arnaud, G. & Vanheule, S. (2005). The division of the subject and the organization: a Lacanian approach to

subjectivity at work. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), 359-369. Axelrod, S. D. (2012). “Self-awareness”: at the interface of executive development and psychoanalytic therapy.

Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 32, 340–357. Barry, D. (1994). Making the invisible visible: symbolic means for surfacing unconscious processes in

organizations. Organizational Development Journal, 12, 37-48. Barry, D., & Meisiek, S. (2010). The art of leadership and its fine art shadow. Leadership, 6, 331-349. Bernstein, B. (1981). Codes, modalities, and the process of cultural reproduction: a model. Language and Society,

10, 327-363. Buechel, B. and Antunes, D. (Eds.) (2007). Academy of Management Learning & Education, Special Issue, 6(3),

Executive Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Cartwright, R. L. (1968). Some remarks on essentialism. The Journal of Philosophy, 65(20), 615–626. Costas, J., & Taheri, A. (2012). ‘The return of the primal father’ in postmodernity? A Lacanian analysis of

authentic leadership. Organization Studies, 33(9), 1195–1216. Driver, M. (2013). The lack of power or the power of lack in leadership as a discursively constructed identity.

Organization Studies, 34(3), 407–422. Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. London: Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock. Fox, K. (2008). Rethinking experience: what do we mean by this word “experience”? Journal of Experiential

Education, 31(1), 36–54. Gabriel, Y. (2011). Psychoanalytic approaches to leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson &

M. Uhl-Bien, (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Leadership, (pp. 393-405). London: Sage. Gadamer, H-G. (1993). Truth and method (2nd ed. rev.). London: Sheed & Ward. Gibb, C. (1968) Leadership: psychological aspects. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of the social

sciences, 9, (pp. 91-101). New York: Macmillan. Gronn, P. (2010). Leadership: its genealogy, configuration and trajectory. Journal of Educational Administration

and History, 42(4), 405-435. James, W. (1907/1991). Pragmatism. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Kaiser, R. B., & Curphy, G. (2013). Leadership development: the failure of an industry and the opportunity for

consulting psychologists. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(4), 294–302. Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York: Harper Business. Kets de Vries, M. (2006). The leader on the couch: a clinical approach changing people and organizations.

Chichester: John Wiley. Kets de Vries, M. (2009). Reflections on leadership and career development: on the couch with... Chichester:

John Wiley. Kets de Vries, M., & Engellau, E. (2010). A clinical approach to the dynamics of leadership and executive

transformation. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice: a Harvard Business School centennial colloquium, (pp.183-222). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Lacan, J. (1966/2006). Écrits. New York: Norton. Lacan, J. (1973/1977), Seminar XI: the four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis. London: Hogarth Press. Lacan, J. (1975/1998). Seminar XX: on feminine sexuality: the limits of love and knowledge. New York: Norton. Lacan, J. (2001). Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil. Lacan, J. (2005). Séminaire XXIII: Le sinthome. Paris: Seuil. Lurent, E. (2014). Lost in cognition: psychoanalysis and cognitive sciences. London: Karnac. MacBeath, J. (2007). Leadership as a subversive activity. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(3), 242-264. March, J. G. (2006). Ideas as art: Interview by Diane Coutu. Harvard Business Review, 84(October), 82–89. Miller, J-A. (1996/2007). Interpretation in reverse. In V. Voruz & B. Wolf (Eds.), The later Lacan: An

introduction (pp. 3-9). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Miller, J-A. (1997/2005). A and a in clinical structures. The Symptom: Online Journal for Lacan.com. Retrieved

from http://www.lacan.com/symptom6_articles/miller.html. Peirce, C. S. (1897). Fallibilism, continuity, and evolution. In Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Pierce, volume

I. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10

Peirce, C. S. (1934). Collected Papers, volumes 5-6. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Petriglieri, G., Wood, J. D., & Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Up close and personal: building foundations for leaders’

development through the personalization of management learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education 10(3), 430-450.

Petriglieri, G., & Petriglieri, J. L. (2010). Identity workspaces: the case of business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education 9 (1), 44-60.

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Voruz, V., & Wolf, B. (Eds.). (2007). The later Lacan: An introduction. Albany: State University of New York

Press. Voruz, V. (2010). Psychoanalysis at the time of the posthuman: Insisting on the outside-sense. Paragraph, 33(3),

423-443. Whitley, D. (2008). The idea of nature in Disney animation: from Snow White to WALL.E. Farnham: Ashgate.