Paradigmatic conflict in the authentic leadership classroom
Today I am reading an interesting article describing the lived experience of two professors co-teaching a leadership course when conflict emerges with a student over whether identity is constructed or discovered in the context of authentic leadership. Published in Leadership, the article is a confessional where both professors disclose in hermeneutic fashion their experience and their processing of that experience.
This is a brave and difficult thing to do so I thank both professors for being willing to write this article and the editors of Leadership for publishing it.
Having co-taught leadership for 14 years the article resonated with me for several reasons. Professors of leadership discuss some thorny issues, as no one can lead as someone else. Thus, part of teaching leadership is developing the sense of identity of students so that knowing themselves, they can lead as themselves. This is particularly salient in the context of leadership approaches like authentic leadership that posit the core of leadership is honoring the truth about oneself.
Disclosure of our identity puts us in a position of vulnerability but it does foster connection with followers since many people respect differences if the views are perceived to be authentically and honestly held.
The authors of the article disclose an intellectual difference between one of the professors who held that identity is constructed by our own internal narratives and a student who held that identity is discovered and once discovered one needs to be authentic to it. This was an honest intellectual difference but because identity is so core to our views of ourselves the interaction was emotional and was experienced as negative by both parties.
Although the authors do a great job relating all the second guessing, anxiety, worry about administrative reactions, and ambivalence that hounds a professor after a negative interaction with a student, what they relate is a wonderful teaching moment that was lost.
Humans cannot interact with each other perfectly. We are simply not that mature not to take things personally, nor so other-aware that we can anticipate how others experience what we say and do. Given that the average professor interacts thousands of times with students in a month, it is statistically surprising it does not occur more often. Even if we hold that a good professor will only have 2% negative interactions, that rate results in 1000*0.02=20 negative interactions in a month, which in my experience does not happen. Thus, professors must have a very low negative interaction rate, in spite of discussing topics most people are wise enough to avoid. Yet when a negative interaction happens, it does not feel that way.
For me, the teaching moment that was lost is that we had a paradigmatic intellectual difference that could be explored. Paradigms are ontological-epistemological ways to conceptualize reality and our knowledge of it. In methodology, particularly qualitative or mixed methods, paradigms are explicitly taught.
The student did not believe identity was constructed but discovered. He had a neo-positivist view of reality and knowledge. For him, identity is self-discovery. He had struggled in that journey of self-discovery at great personal cost, and had found precious insights that were now challenged.
The professor was a constructivist, for him identity is painfully and laboriously constructed. For him, identity is what you choose to make it. He had struggled in his journey of identity construction and was sharing important lessons about building himself. He was surprised his insight was not welcomed. Perhaps he tacitly assumed students were in the process of building themselves and would have found his construction tips helpful.
Yet both persons were sharing deep insights about their own life trajectories. Both deserve respect and discussion.
If you do methodology for a living, you can detect another person’s ontological-epistemological core beliefs simply by the way they speak in very few minutes. Most people have not reflected enough on these matters and they mistakenly believe that their way to see reality is the way reality is, how could it be otherwise? They have a naive view of paradigmatic complexities, mostly because they lived in their paradigm which was affirmed by others.
In some cases, whole families and professional communities around them have the same paradigm. I am thinking of a few scientist friends who live in neo-positivist communities at work and at home and thus believe constructionism is generally a scam, a way to seek power and resources. In that, they unknowingly adopt a Marxist view of life (i.e. superstructures are narratives to obtain power and resources) which would undoubtedly surprise them. In my experience, people of all paradigms can run scams.
Other people have quite different experiences. They live in communities that are critical or interpretive from their birth. They believe the neo-positivists know the color frequencies in the Mona Lisa but fail to understand the image and its context. They see pixels and miss the art. They criticize scientific approaches to leadership that miss what makes life worth living: faith, trust, integrity and above all love.
Finally, some people have a different paradigm than their families. To them paradigms are not a methodological curiosity. The paradigms finally articulate how they have felt all their lives, like a pear in an apple basket.
In the leadership classroom and in the real workplace, they all meet. No one speaks of paradigms. Yet their paradigms, as unchallenged assumptions, shape all they say and do.
Implications for leaders
- You supervise people and report to leaders who may have different ontological-epistemological beliefs than you do. These go undiscussed. It is just the way it is. Yet, they are at the root of most serious differences of opinion in the workplace. People whose paradigms are not respected do not feel respected.
- Working with another person who does your same job (e.g., co-teaching in my case) is an education because it often exposes how your paradigm shapes the way you do your job. You learn much from seeing other people do what you do. It is humbling at times, other times it is frustrating; but overall is a terrific experience. It teaches you the core of respect: other people are not you. It gives you ideas on how to do your job better. It also shows you that other people can do your job in ways that work for them but you could never imitate. Hence, it leads naturally to authentic leadership discussions. How can you do your job and be yourself? What are the limits and boundaries of such authenticity at work given the organizational culture?
- A third insight from this article: Think about what is a reasonable rate of negative interaction at work. Because unless both you and everyone in your workplace is perfect it cannot be 0%. If it cannot, should we react when it is quite low? Sometimes our reactions make things worse because they come from this assumption of perfect interaction which is an angelic fallacy. Paraphrasing the words of Madison, if we were angels we would need no leadership. How can you lead while taking into account a non-zero negative interaction rate both for you and the people you lead? How would your leadership be different?
Ideas for Dissertations
- Paradigms are not studied enough. Dissertations that explore paradigmatic agreement and conflict in the workplace are sorely needed.
- Co-teaching and other forms of co-working need study. While more expensive than individual work, they often have hard to quantify benefits such as access to other points of views, modeling mutual respect, informal professional development, accountability, exposure to diverse role models, and many others. In some cases, those benefits may outweigh the costs.
Image
Craiyon.com AI generated to the prompt: realistic photo of a pear in an apple basket.
Disclaimer: Please read here.
