In the leadership debate, one of the questions for public leaders nowadays is how to reflect and experience meaning in these complex and accelerated times. This article compares three dominant theoretical narratives with the narratives of public strategic leaders in practice. The statement in literature is that leaders in organisations need to create time to reflect on “creating meaning” with others as an answer to the adaptive challenges. The limitation of these studies is that they do not explore leaders’ experiences in practice. We fill this gap by examining the experiences of public strategic leaders and exploring the implications.
We qualitatively explore the narratives of 25 public strategic leaders using interviews, group dialogues and surveys.
The central finding is a problematic gap between theory and practice. This is a concern because of the utopic ideology of reflectivity, which does not consider the forces present in political and bureaucratic organisations and the leaders’ perceptions of their role and position. The narrative exploration shows a pattern of leaders trying “to do good”, avoiding disruptions caused by doubts, emotions or intuitions.
The narratives of public strategic leaders show three persistent ideologies putting pressure on their reflective space in daily practice. These narratives offer a starting point for public organisations regarding the reflective practices of strategic leaders.
This article opens a debate about leadership and reflectivity paradigms in theory and practice. It offers a reality check for leaders’ and coaches’ daily practices, as opposed to the often utopic theories.
1. Introduction
One of the main questions for public leaders nowadays is how to reflect and experience meaning in these accelerated times, dealing with problems too complex to resolve and, facing unpredictability, doing things they have never done before (Heifetz and Heifetz, 1994; Vaill, 1996).
To explore current implicit leadership theories, this article aims to explore three dominant theoretical narratives based on the experiences of public strategic leaders in organisations. Lord et al. (2020) state in this light that leadership is shaped by the perceptions of leadership held by others, primarily driven by the unconscious and unconsidered conceptual images that people have with mental structures or templates that capture what people expect from leaders (Lord et al., 2020).
The background of the study is the repeating statements of a wide range of scholars arguing that strategic leaders in organisations face increasingly complex changes and diverse adaptive challenges accompanied by a growing body of information at an accelerated pace (Raelin, 2002; Obolensky, 2014; Rosa, 2019; Haslam et al., 2020). Other scholars state that digital times overload leaders with incoming information and impulses (Rosenberg and Feldman, 2008). The starting point of these scholars is the concern that a growing number of leaders experience an accelerating force and “no time to think” (Raelin, 2002). “Doing” swallows up reflecting and learning (Amulya, 2004; Raelin, 2002).
In this light, the general statement is that leaders in organisations need to create time to think, reflect and discern regarding their mindset and role, “creating meaning” for themselves as an answer to the complexity, uncertainty and accelerating forces (Kornelsen et al., 2019).
Another central theme relevant to this study is the concern of a “shrinking of time”, which, according to Rosa (2019), leads to the phenomenon that people are unable to form meaningful relationships of mutual understanding and interaction, neither with their material surroundings nor with their fellow human beings. As the root of this disability, he pinpointed the constant striving for modernistic control and predictability (Lijster and Celikates, 2019).
The main concern in this study is that the concept of “reflectivity” is often used as a self-evident “frozen” concept in literature and amongst strategic leaders in public organisations. Finlay argued in 2008 that reflection was used as an umbrella or canopy term to signify something good or desirable. Amongst others, she underlines that reflective practices have become a critical stand in the fields of continuing development, work-based learning and lifelong learning (Eby, 2000; Finlay, 2008; Van der Steen et al., 2021). The limitation of earlier studies is that they do not explore the deeper meaning of strategic leaders in practice.
In this article, we fill this gap by exploring the actual experiences and struggles of public strategic leaders. We conducted this exploration from a “with-ness perspective” to add more insights into the actual experiences of public leaders in practice, as opposed to the often-theoretical leadership debate on how leaders should behave as described in the “aboutness perspective” (based on Shotter, 2006; in the research tradition of Mintzberg, 1973; Rhodes and Noordegraaf, 2007; Noordegraaf, 2000; Van Dorp, 2023). The article dives into reflectivity as a source of meaning in accelerated times.
As a starting point, we explore the fundamental concept of “reflective practices” followed by three dominant theoretical narratives, as Van der Steen et al. (2023) describe in their study. We compare these narratives with those of public strategic leaders in organisations. We aim to question these dominant narratives as a starting point for further research.
2. Methodology
We chose a qualitative approach, using “narrative exploration”, narratives from literature and narratives of the actual experiences of public strategic leaders.
In choosing a qualitative approach, we follow Rhodes and Noordegraaf (2007), who highlighted the value of qualitative explorations in studying public leaders. They state that political science provides limited help in understanding top-level bureaucrats’ behaviour and why they do what they do. Ritchie et al. (2003) confirm this by stating that narrative explorations of experiences offer an “open and revealing” view of the blind spots and, thereby, a starting point for developing a theory explaining social processes and actions.
We add to the phenomenological study of Van der Steen et al. (2023) based on the data of 13 in-depth interviews amongst public strategic leaders (semi-structured, of which four online and nine personal encounters). In this study, we analyse this thick data with a phenomenological eye. In the phenomenological approach of Dahlberg et al. (2008), we did a close reading with an open and inquiring mind (avoiding selecting or interpreting). To analyse the tick data, we made 13 documents with each leader’s observations, reflections and analyses based on the audio, our notes and their reflections by email. We chose to reflect on the data, making handwritten notes and comments based on the lived experiences per participant and our observations to explore the essence of the experiences of the particular manager.
We combined this open phenomenological approach with AtlasTi’s coding system to interpret the data. We consider every experience a unique phenomenon. The result was 1084 codes, 1413 quotes, 24 memos and 41 clusters (Van der Steen et al., 2023).
In the next phase, we conducted a deepening study amongst 12 additional public strategic leaders with group dialogues in a focus group and open surveys. The narratives of 25 of these leaders were explored inductively. Based on the first findings, we included the approach of Mattingly (2019), pleading for alertness for “frozen” concepts revealing persistent paradigms (based on Arendt, 2003).
In the samples, we selected the first 13, and in the additional study, 12 public leaders at a strategic level in complex public organisations, both men (16) and women (nine). Each of them works in a public organisation such as health (seven), government (ten), education (six) and social organisations (three).
We included additional group dialogues to explore in detail the narratives between the public strategic leaders in practice. In addition to these group dialogues, we did a qualitative survey to collect more personal and private thoughts of the public strategic leaders, avoiding the effect of socially desirable answers and groupthink. We analysed the written answers of the 12 strategic leaders concerning reflectivity and leadership with open questions. All the thick data were extracted into a series of narratives based on an inductive and interpretative analysis asking, “How do public strategic leaders interpret and construct their experiences shaping their social reality concerning leadership and reflectivity?” (based on Griffin and May 2012). In this article, we refer to interviewees no. 1–13, survey participants no. 1–12 and the group dialogue in general because of the collective process.
3. Dominant narratives on leadership and reflectivity in theory
Based on the literature review conducted by Van der Steen et al. (2021), we first illuminate the critical concept of reflective practices in the context of public leadership. In general, they state that the concept of “reflectivity” is fragmented and has multiple meanings. They elaborate on two dimensions and two forms of reflective practices, as summarised in Table 1.
Two dimensions and two forms of reflective practices in summary
| Dimensions and forms | Proactively planned reflective practices | Reactive reflective practices, in the work process |
| Intrapersonal reflective practices (introspective) | Individual planned reflective practices; reflective writing, coaching, retreats, walks in nature, etc. | Individual reactive reflective practices; reflection-in-action in the work process; exploring and giving meaning to the experience |
| Interpersonal reflective practices (relational) | Planned reflective practices with others in dialogue as meetings, programmes, etc. | Reactive reflective practices with others reflecting in the moment exploring and giving meaning to the mutual process |
| Dimensions and forms | Proactively planned reflective practices | Reactive reflective practices, in the work process |
| Intrapersonal reflective practices (introspective) | Individual planned reflective practices; reflective writing, coaching, retreats, walks in nature, etc. | Individual reactive reflective practices; reflection-in-action in the work process; exploring and giving meaning to the experience |
| Interpersonal reflective practices (relational) | Planned reflective practices with others in dialogue as meetings, programmes, etc. | Reactive reflective practices with others reflecting in the moment exploring and giving meaning to the mutual process |
Source(s): Authors’ work
They identify two dimensions of reflectivity in the context of leadership in literature. First of all, the dimension of intrapersonal reflective practices. This concept is defined by Boud et al. (1998) as “the process of learning from experience towards gaining new insights” (Finlay, 2008). They built on the view of Schön (1987), whose concern was the undervaluation of the practical knowledge of action central to practitioners’ work and who underlines the relevance of intrapersonal reflection-in-action. In this light, Dewey (1933) defines this dimension of reflectivity as “doubt, hesitation or perplexity related to a directly experienced situation”.
The literature review of Van der Steen et al. (2021) identifies, secondly the interpersonal, relational, reflective practices, for example, described by Frimann and Hersted (2016), who plead for the “construction” of meaning in uncertain, ambiguous situations as a participatory narrative process of co-authoring. They build on the view of Gergen (1999), who argues that the creation of meaningful language requires “social coordination and a process of communal relationship asking for a curious mindset and the listening to others beyond disputing or blaming” (Gergen, 1999, p. 221). As Gergen, Weick (2005) was one of the first to address anxiety and confusion in the work process with the idea of “meaning-making” of disruptive phenomena as a relational process (Weick, 2005).
Next to these dimensions, two different forms of reflection came forward in the empirical study of Van der Steen et al. (2023) amongst public strategic leaders: (a) the proactively planned reflective practices as regular meetings or days outside the organisation and (b) reactive reflective practices during emotional incidents and distress in the work process.
In the following paragraphs, we specifically explore the three dominant narratives central to this exploration based on this phenomenological empirical study, in which both intrapersonal and interpersonal reflective practices, planned and reactive reflectivity, come forward (Van der Steen et al. (2023).
Firstly, we explore the narrative that leaders should be reflective and address slow questions. Secondly, we question the narrative that leaders should reflect interpersonally, be co-creative and share meaning in dialogue. Lastly, we explore the narrative that leaders should be wise and self-aware (Van der Steen et al. (2023). We summarise the dominant narratives with our selection of dominant and “frozen” concepts in cursive. Later on, we summarise the paradigms found in theory and practice in three more tables.
3.1 Narrative 1: leaders should be reflective and address slow questions
In general, literature underlines the narrative that leaders are facing an increase of new questions and “wicked issues”, asking for a fundamentally new perspective on leadership (Rittel and Webber, 1973; Rhodes and Noordegraaf, 2007; Marion and Uhl-Bien, 2011; Obolensky, 2014; Haslam et al., 2020).
Rittel and Webber already in 1973 introduced the concept of wicked issues, as opposed to “tame issues”, referring to complex and new societal problems. Van der Wal (2017) refers in this light to the term volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA), underlining the “Volatility”, speed, magnitude and dynamics of change, with “Uncertainty” describing the unpredictability in public management. Complexity stands for the chaos surrounding organisations, and ambiguity describes the “haziness of reality and the mixed meanings of conditions” (Horney et al., 2010; Kornelsen et al., 2019).
Heifetz and Heifetz (1994) emphasise that these wicked problems are too complex to resolve and require social engagement and support. Adaptive problems are, in this light, defined as challenges that require a new form of reflective practice (Heifetz and Heifetz, 1994; Grint, 2010). Vaill (1996) underlines the urgency of learning considering the dynamics of “permanent white water”: the unpredictable environment in which leaders work. He explains how nonstop “white water” puts leaders in the position of doing things they have never done before – thus making effective learning a critical skill (Vaill, 1996).
Grint (2010) and Potter (2015) state that the adaptive challenges leaders face require a new form of reflective practice with a deeper attention structure, inviting them to explore “slow questions” (Grint, 2010; Potter, 2015; Kunneman and Suranksy, 2011).
Kunneman and Suranksy (2011) take a step further and argue that addressing slow questions and creating meaningful relations are critical for leaders experiencing adaptive challenges and “shrinking time” because of the moral dilemmas and the existential issues concerning adaptive challenges at the strategic level.
3.2 Narrative 2: leaders should reflect interpersonally–co-create in dialogue
In literature, many scholars, amongst whom Frimann and Hersted (2016), take a step further than Kunneman and Suranksy (2011), pleading for the narrative of an explicit interpersonal practice, the co-creative “construction” of meaning in current uncertain and ambiguous times in which leaders share meaning in dialogue with others. In their view, meaning appears when leaders involve employees and other stakeholders in their processes. In this sense, leadership is described “as the social construction of meaning between parties to face challenges”.
Various concepts address sense-making and reflective practices as a source of creating meaning in organisations based on Weick. Weick (2005) has laid a foundation for these concepts by describing “meaning-making” when disruptive phenomena, anxiety and confusion occur. He defines sensemaking as the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalise people’s actions (Weick, 2005). In this view, Frimann and Hersted’s (2016) suggestion is that leadership in terms of “co-authoring” must be seen as a participatory narrative process of sense-making. Considering the definition of dialogue, Isaacs (1999) underlines that dialogue is more than just the exchange of words; instead, it is the embrace of different points of view, literally the art of thinking together.
In this light, Haslam et al. followed in 2020 with a social-psychological perspective on leadership, exploring how leadership emerges. Their contribution to leadership theory is the concept of leadership as a shared social identity, a sense of “us” that connects leaders and followers as a joint group (Haslam et al., 2020). They place followers in an agentic role; followers confer leadership and their collective effort is essential to bringing a leader’s proposals to fruition.
3.3 Narrative 3: leaders should reflect intra-personally and act wise and self-aware
The general narrative in literature is that leaders in organisations need to create time to reflect and discern their mindsets and roles (Kornelsen et al., 2019). Schön (1987) introduced the concepts of reflection-on-action (after-the-event thinking) and reflection-in-action (thinking while doing) as the core moments of reflectivity in leadership practices, and Vaughan and Covey plead for a deep awareness of multiple levels of consciousness (Schön, 1987; Vaughan, 2002; Goleman, 2012; Nullens, 2019). Others emphasised that leaders should not only focus on how to act but also, above all, have an inner consciousness of why they act in a certain way (Goleman, 2012; Nullens, 2019).
In this light, Küpers and Statler (2008) point out the Aristotelian concept of practical wisdom in Greek “phronesis” (Küpers and Statler, 2008). For Aristotle, the critical distinction between practical wisdom and knowledge was that practical wisdom involved “experiential encounters” or experiences with particular lived situations (Küpers and Statler, 2008).
Practical knowledge and practical wisdom result from this, put above intellectual, scientific and rational knowledge (Van Manen, 1996). We also mention Snowden and Boone’s (2007) quote, underlining that “wise executives tailor their approach to fit the complexity of the circumstances they face”, emphasising the central role of the wise executives.
4. Exploration of dominant narratives of public strategic leaders in practice
This paragraph describes the narrative approach to explore the three dominant theoretical narratives in practice. For each theme, we explore the experiences and observations of the public strategic leaders during the interviews, group dialogues and surveys. In the last section, we reflect on these findings in the discussion and conclusion.
4.1 Narrative 1: leaders should be reflective and address slow questions
Considering the theoretical stand for this theme described earlier, we present the most remarkable experiences and observations collected in the interviews, group dialogues and surveys, asking: Which paradigms are revealed in the leaders’ narratives in practice?
First, the leaders' experiences reveal a pattern due to their “active” values and mindset. The most illustrative metaphors in the leaders’ language were, for example, “always on”, “work hard”, “never fade away” and “perform 100% at high speed” (o.a. survey-participant (SP) 3 and interviewee (I) 6). One director stated in this light; “as a director in this community I am my role 24/7; I am never not in function. Everybody watches” (SP-8).
One leader explains, “I see a tendency among leaders to want to get results and score quickly. We become uncomfortable when things are unclear and uncertain.” Later, he states, “If you have an ultimate responsibility as a leader, you must always take everything seriously. You must never fade away”.
Another leader underlines: “Most people working here are regularly on the edge of a burnout” (I-12), whereas other leaders describe in this light “hard-working as an additive and a source of adrenaline and flow” (SP- 4 and SP-5) or in other words, “I am always on, and I work too much, that is how much I like it” (SP-7).
The survey highlights the tension often shared in the interviews between “working hard, always ‘on’ dictated by Chronos (planned time)” and “Self-care, slowing down with an eye for Kairos (‘right’ or propitious timing)”.
About 100% of the survey participants confirmed this as a tension and struggle, with, for example, one leader stating, “Work is often addictive. I do not fret but enjoy thinking about tough issues” (SP-4) or “Addictive yes, alienating no” (SP-6) and “I am always on. There are a few times when I do not think about my work. Even in the holidays I have, the ‘on’ thinking goes on” (SP-9).
Secondly, in our observation, several leaders started “working hard” during the interviews, lecturing the researchers on the difference between “wicked and tame” and between “complex and complicated” as an apparent and relevant approach (I-4, I-8 and I-14). All seemed to be educated on the concepts of “wickedness” and the Cynefin Framework, based on the theory of Snowden and Boone (2007) and with five elements for decision-making (Fierro et al., 2018).
Another example of the pressure when “slowing down” was a short moment between a leader and her chauffeur when we started the interview (I-10). The chauffeur stated, “I will pick you up in half an hour.” The leader replied, “Sorry, we will have an interview for 1.5 hours”. He reacted with a frown and told her he would stand by in case of need. She joked, “All my meetings are scheduled for 30 minutes. This will probably be considered as an afternoon off”. Perplexing in this example is the chauffeur controlling the leader’s time, the leader replying with “sorry” and the metaphor of “an afternoon off”. It seems to illustrate the interpretations in the mindset of leaders, who are also influenced by others in their direct surroundings. In Table 2, we summarise the paradigms in theory and practice.
Paradigms in theory and practice: on reflectivity and slow questions
| Dominant paradigms | Paradigm in practice |
|---|---|
| Adaptive problems require a new form of reflective practice | A leader is a central and problem-solving person: responsible and available for others |
| The urgency of learning considering the unpredictable environment in which leaders work | A leader works hard and controls the interview, “explaining” and showing good examples |
| Adaptive challenges require a deeper attention structure inviting them to explore “slow questions” | A leader involves reflection in his/her practice to stay in the moment and in control |
| Dominant paradigms | Paradigm in practice |
|---|---|
| Adaptive problems require a new form of reflective practice | A leader is a central and problem-solving person: responsible and available for others |
| The urgency of learning considering the unpredictable environment in which leaders work | A leader works hard and controls the interview, “explaining” and showing good examples |
| Adaptive challenges require a deeper attention structure inviting them to explore “slow questions” | A leader involves reflection in his/her practice to stay in the moment and in control |
Source(s): Authors’ work
In summary, the exploration shows how public strategic leaders interpret their role as central problem-solving, with the constant pressure of others projecting expectations from their interpretations on them. The exploration seems to reveal an overall discourse of “control and responsibility” in the position of public leaders.
4.2 Narrative 2: leaders should reflect interpersonally–co-create in dialogue
Considering the earlier described theoretical stand for this theme, we put forward the most remarkable experiences and observations, asking the question: Which paradigms are revealed in the narrative of the leaders in practice?
Generally, the narratives of the public strategic leaders within this theme are twofold. They state in their narratives that they “lead by connecting”, but in their interactions, they show other behaviours. One example stood out during an online interview in which the leader started a monologue of twenty-five minutes, unfolding his view on leadership and reflectivity (I-3). He introduced the monologue by explaining that he prepared himself and assumed we wanted to hear his view and answers first and foremost. He explained in this monologue his vision of sensemaking and “leading others by connecting and co-creation”.
Furthermore, the leaders shared experiences demonstrating how they struggle with the relational process with others; for example (I-8), stating, “At some point, I become like the Superman. They constantly put me on the spot”. The focus group dialogues also highlighted the pressure of “others” in the daily exchange. One of the themes was a relational obstacle due to differences in power: “They importance me … ” and later on, “I cannot change the projections of others.” The words “I” and “they” were used constantly, illustrating a pattern of reactive and defensive responses, stating, “Yes, but.. they blame me for … ” or “Yes, but they expect an immediate reaction”.
The survey put forward the tension often shared in the interviews of “acting and reflecting alone” vs “together in co-creation”. 83% of the survey participants confirmed this as a tension and struggle. Moreover, more specifically, three of them (SP-3, SP-5, SP-8 and SP-9) confirmed the statement, “I feel I need to connect co-create, but often alone is easier or faster”, with SP-9 explaining, for example, “Sounds arrogant (it probably is) but my brain is so fast and creative that I have more peace of mind on my own. On the other side, execute I cannot. So, I know that together it is ultimately faster to get to execution though” (SP-9).
Another recurring narrative was about the leaders’ mindset on reflectivity when under stress or caught off guard (I-3, I-7, I-8 and I-9): “When caught off guard in an emotional incident during work, I will not share my feelings, doubts, and questions since that could disrupt others”. They explain that at these unexpected moments, “only then I register my stress and tension, becoming aware of my overwhelmed emotions (I-9, I-12)”. The leaders share unanimously: “The reflective moments with peers, family, and friends offer me a place of restoring and belonging”.
On the other hand, several leaders mention an example of the “art of thinking together” as a source of meaning in organisations. They expressed it as, “when we face complex issues, the magic happens together; the world is too complex to approach from one perspective” (I-1, I-3, I-9 and I-13). Another leader stated (SP-1): “I consciously choose for a process together, even though it can give an image of a non-decisive director.” The majority shared examples of “participation” in terms of “involving others”, “leading by connecting” and “engaging others”.
In these examples, their language reveals a narrative in which they put themselves generally in the centre, involving others when there is time and space. We summarise the paradigms in Table 3 found in theory and practice.
Paradigms in theory and practice: on interpersonal reflectivity and co-creation in dialogue
| Paradigms in theory | Paradigms in practice |
|---|---|
| Co-creative “construction” of meaning in current uncertain and ambiguous times | The leader as the “owner” of the decision-making processes |
| Leaders sharing meaning in dialogue with others | Leader-central- orientation focusing on position and role |
| As participatory narrative process of sense-making; the art of thinking together | Leaders having to live up to the perception of others; expecting, blaming and projecting |
| Leadership as an emergent process, a shared social identity and a sense of “us” | Speed and calmness have priority above sharing and creating together |
| Paradigms in theory | Paradigms in practice |
|---|---|
| Co-creative “construction” of meaning in current uncertain and ambiguous times | The leader as the “owner” of the decision-making processes |
| Leaders sharing meaning in dialogue with others | Leader-central- orientation focusing on position and role |
| As participatory narrative process of sense-making; the art of thinking together | Leaders having to live up to the perception of others; expecting, blaming and projecting |
| Leadership as an emergent process, a shared social identity and a sense of “us” | Speed and calmness have priority above sharing and creating together |
Source(s): Authors’ work
The exploration shows how strategic leaders interpret their role as initiators from a “leader-central” position (reacting to “them” or “others”). The exploration seems to reveal an overall discourse of “pressure” and “power” in the positions of public leaders, pointing out their perception of their precariousness. The force of acceleration, speed and calmness seems to overrule the wish to share and reflect.
4.3 Narrative 3: leaders should reflect intra-personally and act wise and self-aware
Considering the earlier described theoretical stand for this theme, we put forward the most remarkable experiences and observations, asking the question: Which paradigms are revealed in the narrative of the leaders in practice?
The first example within this theme concerned a leader we met online for the interview (I-4). She checked in late, explaining the busy times and chaotic dynamics in the political arena of her work. She started making coffee out of sight of the camera, telling us to start with the first interview question since she could hear us while making noise with the coffee machine. When she returned, she let herself be interrupted three times by urgent phone calls. When we offered to reschedule, she replied, “No time for that. Let us get it over with”. While talking about reflectivity and the attention structure of leaders, she demonstrates the hard-working leader, acting with “no time”.
The survey furthermore put forward the area of tension often shared in the interviews of “reflecting aware and consciously” vs “reacting from the hip, imperfect and spontaneously”. About 83% of the survey participants confirmed this as a tension and struggle. More specifically, 50% confirmed the statement, “I am doing a lot of reflection and continuous improvement, trying to be aware of everything. It is also a form of control and directing” (with 50% neutral and 0% disagree) with, for example, one leader stating, “Reflection and intervision has helped me a lot to stay in the now and in my power. Moreover, that requires constant maintenance” (SP-12). Another leader explained: “Reflecting is so much second nature that sometimes I slip into it and keep rationalising, explaining and then reflecting again. Usually, agenda pressure ensures that this is bounded, but some topics have many dimensions” (S-10).
Another example demonstrates a moment of shame of one of the leaders during work. We share a brief fragment of his twofold narrative, pointing out the delicacy of this process in the interviewee’s approach (I-1). “Last week, we had to tackle a few complex issues with our board. When we finished, I started to make a few jokes, happy to be at the end of the day. People smiled, and I addressed a colleague overly enthusiastically, making a compliment which sounded like a joke about her contribution. The moment I stopped talking, I felt this was inappropriate behaviour; in a word, overly relaxed! I know I am in power, and my remarks have a disproportional impact. However, I will never accept that as a given. This uncontrollable emotional rollercoaster is part of the continuous paradox. I did call her and listened to her discomfort, of course. Moreover, I know I will be alert for at least several months, but then, with another moment of relaxation, I will again forget that I am no longer just one of the guys and girls”. This leader shared in this example a variety of interpretations; “an uncontrollable emotional rollercoaster is an unavoidable part of his job and role”, “a continuous paradox is a static thing”, “I have to realise that I am in power. My remarks have a disproportional impact” and “I cannot no longer be one of the guys and girls”.
Relevant in this experience, on the other hand, seems to be the acceptance of “failure” and the endurance of discomfort. The leader illustrates a struggle and, simultaneously, an acceptance of the ambiguity, paradoxes, emotional rollercoaster and uncontrollable imperfection in his role. This addresses a theme shared by several leaders: the wish to behave spontaneously and the risk of transgressive moments or interactions. Leaders also addressed a variety of experiences in which they were transgressively approached with assaults by others, with, in their experience, feelings of being offended and discriminated against (I-12, SP-1).
One leader shared a situation: “I saw myself as who I was, and to me, it did not matter “what colour the apple was”; I remained the same, but instead of being an “immigrant Greek”, I suddenly was a “white Dutch person” in the eyes of the other. If someone thinks I am a racist, that is a truth I have to relate to. I considered their feelings a fact and tried to explore it from there” (SP-1).
This leader also shares a variety of interpretations: “If someone thinks something, that is a truth”, and “As a leader, I have to relate to the interpretation of others”.
In general, group conversations put forward the attitude of reflecting as a wise and strategic act, doing good and avoiding discomfort in unexpected, spontaneous emotions. Concerning the concept of reflectivity, the leaders confirmed that reflecting has become a new way of controlling the tension and acting aware and conscious (constantly learning and improving). Other leaders explained in the group dialogue how they are “loose” from the daily hassle and more able to take distance and time. Some are caused by insights from sickness or other personal events, and others by spiritual and profound private reflective practices. They often referred to reflective practices outside work as a source of inspiration.
One leader summarised this tension as “When is good enough—enough, and may I accept the uncontrollability or the processes” (SP-3). Lastly, SP-9 shared, “I try to trust and follow my intuitions and hunches more often. This helps me avoid endless internal reflection.” In Table 4, we summarise the paradigms found in theory and practice.
Paradigms in theory and practice: on intra-personally reflectivity, acting wise and self-aware questions
| Paradigms in theory | Paradigms in practice |
|---|---|
| Leaders in organisations need to create time to reflect and discern their mindsets and role | A leader should rationalise and predict the outcomes |
| Reflection-on-action (after-the-event thinking) and reflection-in-action (thinking while doing) | A leader should do the right thing and should know what is the right thing; reflectivity is a way to control and succeed |
| A deep awareness of multiple levels of consciousness and an inner consciousness of why they act in a certain way | The role and the procedures of the organisation leave no space for imperfections, mistakes, emotions or moments of shame |
| Paradigms in theory | Paradigms in practice |
|---|---|
| Leaders in organisations need to create time to reflect and discern their mindsets and role | A leader should rationalise and predict the outcomes |
| Reflection-on-action (after-the-event thinking) and reflection-in-action (thinking while doing) | A leader should do the right thing and should know what is the right thing; reflectivity is a way to control and succeed |
| A deep awareness of multiple levels of consciousness and an inner consciousness of why they act in a certain way | The role and the procedures of the organisation leave no space for imperfections, mistakes, emotions or moments of shame |
Source(s): Authors’ work
The exploration shows how strategic leaders interpret their relationships as rational processes, with little room for discomfort, imperfections, emotions and shame as risks of disturbing others. It reveals the overall discourse of a rational leader who gives clear direction.
5. Discussion and conclusion
This article opens a debate about leadership and reflectivity paradigms in theory and practice. The main conclusion is that public strategic leaders experience the pressure of acceleration, various utopic paradigms to live up to, and little room for profound reflection in the daily dynamics (“delusions of the day”).
The leaders experience the value of reflectivity mainly in planned moments alone at home or during planned sessions where they explore “wicked issues”, new questions or personal development with others in dialogue.
Overall, they seem to withdraw from unexpected vulnerable and emotional moments in the process of the interactions, referring to the relational break due to their position and role as leaders.
In this study, considering the narratives the public strategic leaders share, we wonder: What do the discrepancies between theory and practice reveal when further explored? One of the central findings is the problematic side of this discrepancy between theory and practice because of the utopic ideology on reflectivity without considering the context and the forces present in political and bureaucratic organisations and, next to that, the public leaders’ perception of their responsibility. The narrative exploration shows a pattern of leaders trying “to do good”, avoiding disruptions by doubts, emotions or intuition.
The dominant narratives add an unrealistic and seductive story to live up to. The persistent ideas seem to create an alienation self-fulfilling prophecy in which leaders find themselves stuck, expressing envious feelings towards the “freedom” of the researchers being professionals and not a “wheel” or “radar” in a demanding system.
In the perspective of narrative hermeneutics, which states that events do not have meaning in isolation but “acquire meaning in the context because we surround ourselves with certain people in certain situations; closely intertwined with the world as a continuous, dialectical process, in which “understanding” is achieved dialogically” (Visse, 2014, based on Gadamer, 1975), this finding shows how public leaders are dialogically intertwined with their context of political and interpersonal pressure.
They wish to live up to the theoretical ideologies. Still, in practice, their narratives show several forces that seem to mute reflectivity and their narrative identity, such as the pressure of public (and personal) expectations in a context of increasing transparency, the pressure of acceleration due to a dominant focus on growth and improvement, and, lastly, the mutual precariousness and growing risk of transgressive moments or interactions. These pressures leave little space for reflection-in-action involving doubt, hesitation or perplexity related to a directly experienced situation.
In summary, three persisting ideas are revealed in the paradigms of public strategic leaders:
- (1)
The heroic ideology of leadership, in control and solving problems, combined with an
- (2)
Instrumental interpretation of reflectivity as a goal-oriented- and also time-consuming task
- (3)
With little room for imperfections, emotions and doubts in a hierarchical and rigid system that emphasises rational learning and adapting.
We explore these three “persisting ideas” to further explore the implications for leaders and others in organisations:
The heroic ideology of leadership (in control and solving problems): This idea confirms the new “critical demands” as described by Van der Wal (2017) and Noordegraaf (2007) due to an increase in public expectations, stakeholder multiplicity and ethical complexities leaving little space for human experiences as “doubt, hesitation or perplexity related to a directly experienced situation”, as Dewey (1933) pleads in his definition of reflectivity. Considering this definition, we conclude that public strategic leaders, in general, seem to experience a daily accelerated pressure, with a strong focus on solving problems as a central “cockpit”, which, when it comes down to emotions and dealing with chaos, results in a defensive and avoiding pattern, especially when it concerns reflection-in-action in the interaction with others (based on Schön, 1987). Public strategic leaders share reflective experiences and ethical considerations in their narratives, mainly concerning reflection-on-action after the event. This outcome confirms the statements of Twist and Frissen (2024), who describe leadership as the first and foremost central individual continually at the heart of decision-making (Twist and Frissen, 2024; Meuleman, 2010). Specifically, in public leadership, they illustrate a “governance centrism” with the concept of leadership associated with an action-oriented attitude (Twist and Frissen, 2024).
Further research should explore the implications, for example, on the question, “How to reflect without the leaders as the centre of the process and next to that create reflective space instead of the dominant solution orientation?”
Instrumental interpretation of reflectivity as a goal-oriented and also time-consuming task: This article states that the concept of “reflectivity” in theory and amongst public strategic leaders in practice is fragmented and has multiple meanings. Public leaders use various interpretations of this concept: instrumental, ethical, existential, individual, groupwise, planned, spontaneous, rational, emotional, at home, at work, etc. It appears that reflectivity refers to a pleasant and good way of doing things, a mindset no one can be against without the nuance of a counter-narrative. Above this, we conclude that the conceptualised abstractions of “reflectivity” in the context of leadership have become habitual to refer to as an independently existing utilitarian “thing” to be planned and, in practice, often delegated to consultants or external coaches. Reflectivity seems to be approached from the same reductionistic, goal-oriented paradigm as “problem-solving”, aiming for control and rational improvement, not as a “contemplating space” but as an additional pressure to organise and “do good”. The leaders seem to approach their role as a position to serve the system and possibly, at the same time, to survive in the system.
In this light, further research should explore the implications, for example, “how to reflect beyond the reductionistic goal-oriented orientation exploring the actual relational, emotional and tensions ín the moment of the interactions?”
Little room for imperfections, emotions and doubts in a hierarchical and rigid system that emphasises rational learning and adapting: This third persisting idea underlines the worry of Hernes (2014), illustrating how organisations are commonly conceptualised as rational entities adapting to the environment (as two separate entities and not interconnected) in mainstream education and organisation theory. As a counternarrative, Hernes (2014) offers a “process” perspective with an “inversed” focus; there is not a unitary organisational actor that acts, but there is the making of organisational actors through “acting”. He offers an alternative perspective of organising defined as “the ongoing process of making, remaking, unmaking, and relating organisational actors of all sorts: humans, technologies, concepts, groups and the like, into meaningful wholes” (Hernes, 2014, p. viii). Cooper and Law (1995) underline in this light that the fundamental criticism of “modern” sociological studies of organisation is that they deal with results or organised states rather than the complex social processes that lead to these outcomes or effects.
In this light, further research should explore the implications, for example, on the question, “how to reflect beyond the orientation of processes in organisations as “rational entities” while aiming for “perfection”; enduring and exploring the actual imperfections, doubts, emotions and tensions again ín the moment of the interactions?”
As a result of these persistent ideas, the conception of reflectivity in the context of leadership in public organisations shows a “utilitarian” paradigm with an alienating effect: leaders as the centre of control, facing new demands, struggling with time pressure in a lonely and precarious position in a rigid system under pressure by others trying to “do” and “reflect” sound, with a rigid ideology; balancing in stress and transgressive behaviour.
Meanwhile, current times challenge, above all, the acceptance of uncontrollability and approaching it as a source of meaning since several paradoxical phenomena determine the daily dynamics and challenges of strategic leaders (based on Rosa, 2010). First, leaders face a “shrinking time” dynamic, wanting more in less time (Rosa, 2019). Secondly, all decisions and actions bring new uncertainties (Bauman, 2000), and thirdly, more technology and knowledge do not lead to more control but to an increase in feelings of uncertainty (Obolensky, 2014).
The dominant theories seem to dictate expectations based on outdated images of organisations and leadership. They aim to improve leadership by adding another ideology to the theoretical stand (authentic, decisive, compassionate and reflective leadership).
In this light, reflectivity has also become a canonical frozen concept leading to socially desired behaviour amongst leaders and an alienating gap between the espoused theory and the theory in use (based on Kerr and Todd, 2021).
We may conclude that the most problematic concept is not only reflectivity but also “leadership” in combination with “adapting” (or learning and improving) because the growing number of implicit theories puts pressure on this role and position, leaving little space for open, meaningful reflectivity and vulnerability. From a broader perspective, current times show a societal debate in many countries on leadership ideology. It seems that the more insecure the dynamics are, the more we wish for a strong leader who brings clarity on cause and effect and quick solutions. In the scope of this study, theory should start with daily dynamics instead of persistently prescribing new ideologies that reinforce muteness and alienation.
Suppose we want to conclude within the frame of leadership and reflectivity. In that case, we would plead for the leaders’ and others’ radical awareness of ideologies to avoid further theoretical wishful thinking, which can be a source of disappointment in their daily work (as described by Zizek, 2019). We would invite them to take a stand and include the uncontrollable in their wording, to share doubts and imperfections as a source of meaning. Or this becomes just another pressing ideology.
We thank Laurens ten Kate, Aart Goedhart, Marrit Woudwijk, Frank Hulsebos, Anna Stutje, Heli Penz and Dirk Jan Jonker for their helpful feedback.
Declaration ethical review committee: File number: 2021.9. Date: 30 September 2021. The Ethics Review Committee of the University of Humanistic Studies in Utrecht has reviewed and approved the proposal for the research to be conducted by Van der Steen et al. entitled Reflective practices and resonance of leaders in a fluid and accelerated time.
