Leader Identity: What Kind of Leader Are You?

Bozen – Professionals carry out critical functions in organizations based on their unique knowledge and skills. When they advance in their career, they often receive leadership responsibilities. However, when they are promoted because of their expertise in a specific field (e.g., in medicine, engineering, science etc.), they often see themselves as an expert in that field, and not necessarily as a leader. Typically, they have varying interpretations of what it means to be a leader and are often neither originally trained in leadership nor did they aspire to be a leader in the first place. Even when they hold formal leader roles, their identity is usually predominantly based on their expertise in a specific field (e.g., being a physician, an engineer, an academic, etc.) rather than on being a leader. Still, research has shown that developing a leader identity – seeing oneself as a leader – is important for effective leadership. Dis-identification with the leader role may increase the risk of ineffective leadership such as laissez faire or even destructive leadership. Therefore, it is important to understand when professionals identify or dis-identify with being a leader.

Why some professionals develop a leader identity

In a recent study, we investigated whether and how professionals develop a leader identity (published in the peer-reviewed journal “Applied Psychology: An International Review”). We chose German academia as our research context because professors have a strong domain-specific identity and, at least in Germany, hold a formal leader role. Professors often identify more strongly with their profession than with their leader role such that the identity as a scientist may override other identities. They often interpret formal leader roles rather as a duty than a relevant part of their own identity. To uncover whether and how professionals construe a leader identity, we conducted semi-­structured interviews with professors, which we combined with additional observational and online data.

The professional identity, in combination with professionals’ perceptions of what it means to be a leader, determine what kind of leader identity is construed.

The findings suggest that individuals’ professional identity defines priorities that may or may not be in line with being a leader. The professional identity, in combination with professionals’ perceptions of what it means to be a leader, determine what kind of leader identity is construed. We found four different kinds of leader identity construal:

One group of professors strongly stressed their identity as researchers and/or teachers and rejected the formal leader role. For example, one professor explained that he chose his profession for the “joy of delving deeply into unexplored topics” and another professor stated “I don’t see myself as a leader – not at all”. They saw themselves primarily as specialists. A second group of professors focused on developing junior researchers and accommodated the formal leader role while rejecting the label ‘leader’, for example by saying, “my main task is to get young people enthusiastic about theories, methods, and research fields”. They identified primarily with being mentors.

A third group focused on managerial structures and delegation and incorporated the formal leader role, for example by elaborating that “one can only lead successfully if everybody identifies with the tasks and trusts the captain”. They saw themselves mainly as managers. Finally, a fourth group aimed to impact political or societal spheres and emphasized their formal leader role, and leadership was an important part of how they saw themselves. For example, one professor explained, “I want to make an impact. Already in school, I took over leadership responsibilities in a natural manner.” They showed a primary identity as shapers.

Identity-based approaches to leadership development

The findings illuminate variations in whether and how professionals’ construe a leader identity – including the possibility that they reject a formal leader role. Thus, when professionals receive a formal leader role, there is a great heterogeneity of identities, even within the same profession. Based on our findings, we suggest identity-based approaches to leadership development.

Awareness of different kindsof leader identity construal may help organizations to enhance person-job fit and to develop targeted developmental activities.

The findings are relevant for professionals, in particular those who have invested a lot of time and resources in developing strong domain-specific expertise, and then received leadership responsibilities, perhaps without being trained for the leader role or without an aspiration to become a leader. This can not only refer to professors but also, for example, to physicians, entrepreneurs, engineers, or other experts in organizations. We encourage these professionals to reflect on the crucial parts of their identity.

Self-awareness, built through reflection on critical incidents and mentoring, can foster the discovery and development of one’s own leader identity. For instance, some professionals might reject a leader identity because they think a leader needs to be authoritarian, and this is not what they want to be. Yet, state-of-the-art definitions of leadership define leadership as social influence, and include many different ways of influencing others (with authority being appropriate in only few situations). A broader understanding of leadership might encourage those who tend to dis-identify with being a leader to seek developmental opportunities that help them fulfil their leader role in a way that fits their own understanding of what leadership is or should be, and adopt their formal leader role more actively.

Awareness of different kinds of leader identity is essential

Moreover, awareness of different kinds of leader identity construal may help organizations to enhance person-job fit and to develop targeted developmental activities. We suggest that organizations should critically evaluate who they select for formal leader roles, especially because some (such as the “specialists” in the current study) are likely to be reluctant to accept a formal leader role. In this case, other equally attractive career paths could be considered, for example an expert career track.

Additionally, our findings may help to design more effective leadership development programs that – instead of focusing on a specific set of leadership skills – put identity work at the centre­ of attention. Trainings could incorporate the discussion of variations amongst implicit beliefs about what leadership is, images of the typical versus ideal leader, or the reflection on different roles and identities that may compete with each other.

A discussion of the various roles and expectations, which may cause conflicts, can help participants integrate and prioritize them. For example, to foster the development of a coherent leader identity, professionals could be asked to write down their personal leadership mission statement guided by questions such as “What kind of leader am I and what kind of leader do I want to be?” and “What do I want to stand for as a leader?”. Our findings also point to the need for more targeted leader development approaches that go beyond a “one-size-fits-all” approach. For example, the professionals who see themselves as “mentors” might benefit from learning coaching tools to professionalize their guiding and mentoring, whereas those seeing themselves as “shapers” might appreciate tools to integrate differing expectations from their various stakeholders. We suggest a strength-focused approach to help professionals achieve their full potential and in turn contribute to organizations’ overall success.

Stephanie Rehbock, Sylvia Hubner, Kristin Knipfer and Claudia Peus

THE AUTHORS

Rehbock is Senior Manager at Accenture’s Talent & Organization practice and conducted her PhD at Technical University of Munich. Her research and teaching focus on leadership (development), diversity, and intercultural leadership.

Hubner is Assistant Professor at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano. Her research and teaching focus on leadership, human resources management, and diversity in entrepreneurship and innovation.

Knipfer is Executive Director of the TUM Institute for LifeLong Learning at Technical University of Munich. Her research and teaching focus on leadership and specifically leaders as catalysts of learning and innovation in organizations.

Peus is Professor of Research and Science Management, Senior Vice President for Talent Management and Diversity, and Founding Director of the TUM Institute for Life Long Learning (TUM IL3) at Technical University of Munich. Her research and teaching focus on leadership and leadership development in the digital age, research organizations, and diversity.