It's not just who I am: exploring EMBA students' leadership sensemaking, future possible selves and how to be in the world Open Access

Today's leaders face wide-ranging challenges and responsibilities in a VUCA world, from sustainable development to digitalization, and as artificial intelligence revolutionizes the workplace (Van Quaquebeke & Gerpott, 2023). Ensuring human-focused leadership (Bankins, Ocampo, Marrone, Restubog, & Woo, 2024; Frimpong & Wolfs, 2024) is key in developing and educating leaders in the face of these challenges. Business schools and universities pick up that mantle, viewing leadership development as part of their core business (Flanagan & Palmer, 2021; Rubens, Schoenfeld, Schaffer, & Leah, 2018), for example, through Executive Masters of Business Administration (EMBA) programs. EMBA programs are followed part-time by cohorts of mature professionals with leadership exposure and who aspire to develop personally and to power organizational growth. Like their full-time counterparts, EMBA programs combine theoretical insights and practical application that both mirror and prepare students for the real-world organizational challenges they face in uncertain futures. However, real-time corporate practice also forms a constant presence throughout the EMBA. Students retain full-time employment alongside their studies, sometimes being employer-sponsored. Moreover, they often already hold leadership responsibilities and bring a wealth of experience into class discussions.

Although the EMBA is aimed at cohorts of students focusing on leadership development (Day, 2001; Day & Dragoni, 2015), students are also challenged individually, not least as they navigate the paradoxes inherent in combining professional and educational responsibilities with private lives. By continually asking “What would you do in this situation?” students are probed as to their knowledge and experience, their understandings of their identity (Epitropaki, Kark, Mainemelis, & Lord, 2017), and specifically their leader identity (Day & Harrison, 2007). This results in those learning and development processes that contribute to developing leader efficacy and leader identity (Kwok, Shen, & Brown, 2021) becoming inherently complex, highly individual (Day & Sin, 2011) and ever-changing (Liu, Venkatesh, Murphy, & Riggio, 2021).

The personal, individual nature of each student's ongoing development necessitates an individual focus within development processes. Leader development (Day, 2001; Day & Harrison, 2007) prioritizes the individual, and is defined as “a discrete subfield of leadership focused on preparing individuals to become more effective in leadership roles, work, and processes” (Newstead, Eva, & Day, 2024, p. 554). Although the individual leader's broader sense of self is central to ongoing development (Day, 2001), empirical studies into leader development in more mature populations are scarce. Little is currently understood about the processes through which more mature individuals, such as EMBA students, make sense of who and what they are as leaders (Day, Riggio, Tan, & Conger, 2021; Miscenko, Guenter, & Day, 2017). This results in gaps in our understanding of these sensemaking processes. In turn, this can hamper the design and running of much needed EMBA leader development trajectories that meet students' own learning (Kegan, 2009), place the person at the forefront of leader development (Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2015; Zaar, van Den Bossche, & Gijselaers, 2020) and better prepare leaders for future leadership realities (Benjamin & O'Reilly, 2011; Collinson & Tourish, 2015).

To better understand individual leader development in mature populations, we explore the following research question in this paper: How do EMBA students at the start of their MBA make sense of their current leadership and of their imagined possible futures? We answer this question through a series of semi-structured in-depth interviews with students in the opening weeks of their EMBA program, as the program first challenges them to consciously reflect on their leader identity.

The results of our empirical study enable us to make several contributions. A first contribution is to the nascent leader development discussion (Newstead et al., 2024). Theory is lacking in how individual leaders develop (Day & Sin, 2011; Newstead et al., 2024), and leader development processes remain relatively underexplored (Day et al., 2021; Day & Dragoni, 2015; Liu et al., 2021; Riggio & Mumford, 2011). We work towards filling that gap by first illustrating how EMBA students make sense of their current leadership and future possible selves (Cross & Markus, 1991; Markus & Nurius, 1986) on three dimensions of qualification, socialization and subjectification. We were guided towards these dimensions during our analysis by Biesta's (2009) education philosophy. More specifically, the outcomes of our study support his argumentation that all three dimensions are central to education that is fit for purpose. Secondly, we shed light on the shifts that occur in students' sensemaking processes at the intersection of the three dimensions, when comparing their sensemaking of current leadership and future possible selves. Thirdly, we build on leader identity scholarship, illuminating how students make sense of their current leadership in terms of leader identity and make sense of future possible selves in terms of how they are as leader. We suggest that, in addition to identity exploration, an increased sense of subjectification, or how to be in the world, plays a guiding role in identity processes in the early stages of the EMBA program. Lastly, we illustrate how, in the absence of a clearly defined future possible self, the sensemaking process itself can provide direction in the early stages of the EMBA program.

Universities and business schools worldwide hold a key role in developing leaders (Flanagan & Palmer, 2021; Rubens et al., 2018). International accreditation bodies, such as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), promise that recruiting from AACSB-accredited business schools brings hiring organizations into contact with “the next generation of great leaders” (www.aacsb.edu, n.d.), and graduates from programs accredited by the Association of MBAs (AMBA) are “game-changing managers and future business leaders” (www.amba-bga.com, n.d.).

Although accrediting bodies make bold claims about graduates' leadership-readiness, extensive empirical research into how leaders develop within EMBA programs is limited. However, recent research has started to foreground student perspectives and experiences. Studies suggest that EMBA students value opportunities to become more self-aware (Dalton, 2018), being positioned as protagonists (Vazquez & Ruas, 2012) engaging in their own personal development. Educators, for their part, are challenged to facilitate EMBA student learning that is transformative (Kim, Kang, Kim, & Park, 2023), supporting the development of reflective executives (De Déa Roglio & Light, 2009). Furthermore, EMBA curricula should intertwine practice, critical thinking and reflection (Kelliher, 2014), based on applicable academic theory (Tucker & Scully, 2020).

EMBA programs that incorporate the aforementioned elements can help students blend professional, personal and study commitments, and grapple with the paradoxical reality their new study environment brings. Think, for instance, of the otherwise autonomous and successful professional who is suddenly required to adapt to a study regime set by the business school. Early in the EMBA, students strive to make sense of their shifting and expanding operating contexts, their new EMBA experience and the influence of regular life on their learning and development (Passarelli, Boyatzis, & Wei, 2018). The business school can therefore function as an identity workspace (Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2010) as students make sense of their current leadership and future possible selves, and explore a sense of identity.

Exploring identity, questioning “who and what am I?” can form a key step in leader development (Day & Harrison, 2007). Although individuals hold multiple identities (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006; Ramarajan, 2014), we focus on the leader identity, or “the sub-component of one's identity that relates to being a leader or how one thinks of oneself as a leader” (Day & Harrison, 2007, p. 366). Behind this definition lies a more complex picture of leader identity comprising four dimensions (Hammond et al., 2017, 2025), namely the strength of sense of leader identity, the meaning one gives to being a leader, the individual, relational or collective levels of identity, and how one integrates the leader identity across different domains. Leader identity dimensions can develop in stages (McCombs, Williams, & Deptula, 2024); however, neglect of one dimension over another may lead to unexpected or unwanted outcomes (Hammond et al., 2025), for instance, a strong leader identity coupled with an interpretation of leadership as dominance over others.

The complexity of leader identity underlines its uniqueness and ambiguousness: each individual's identity exploration is a singular process. Making sense of one's leader identity occurs in interaction with others (Beech, 2008; Yip, Trainor, Black, Soto-Torres, & Reichard, 2020; Zheng & Muir, 2015), prompted by everyday activities (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2020), or unexpected challenges (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Weick, 2005) that signal opportunities for new learning or alternative action, for instance when entering business school (Carroll & Levy, 2010; Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2015). As such, the development of a leader identity is the development of a leader relationship with others (DeRue & Ashford, 2010), through the act of “recognising and being recognised” (Karp & Helgø, 2008) as a leader, or through cues used to claim the leader identity for oneself or grant it to another (DeRue, Ashford, & Cotton, 2009; DeRue & Ashford, 2010).

Claiming and retaining the identity one is granted can be impactful. People may feel drawn to an identity (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002) or avoid relinquishing one previously granted (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Sessa, Bragger, Alonso, Knudsen, and Toich (2018) illustrate how, for some undergraduates, holding a pre-study leader identity can result in their taking leadership roles during their study and beyond. Students may identify as a leader without having held a leadership role (Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005), while not fully understanding leadership (Sessa et al., 2016) or experience fluctuating leader identity strength during leadership development programs (Miscenko et al., 2017). These valuable insights highlight the changing nature of leader identity and leadership sensemaking processes, yet focus on younger populations. The sensemaking processes of more mature leaders, such as EMBA students, remain overlooked. Given the role of leader identity in supporting leader development (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009; Kwok et al., 2021) and guiding future direction (Day & Sin, 2011; Lord & Hall, 2005), more insight is therefore greatly needed into the sensemaking processes of these mature leaders (Miscenko et al., 2017), not least to maintain a focus on the person within leader development processes (Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2015; Sessa et al., 2016; Zaar et al., 2020) and learning contexts (Jarvis, 2009).

The sense of self that can guide future direction can also support the formulation of a future-oriented possible self (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Future possible selves are the notions that individuals hold regarding what they might wish to become in the future. Possible selves are social in nature, often inspired by others (Markus & Nurius, 1986), and can act as motivators or drivers of current behaviour (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016; Markus & Nurius, 1986), so much so that future selves can be experienced as more authentic interpretations of the self than the current self (Wakslak, Nussbaum, Liberman, & Trope, 2008). Consequently, individuals reflecting on their best possible leader selves are more likely to act as leaders in practice, identify as leaders and the positive affect triggered is likely to stimulate further leadership behaviours (Jennings, Lanaj, Koopman, & McNamara, 2022).

Context also plays a role in how possible selves motivate leadership behaviours (Oyserman, Destin, & Novin, 2015). For example, in contexts experienced by undergraduate students as likely to result in success, a positive possible self has more motivational power (Oyserman et al., 2015). If a current context is thought likely to induce failure, a negative possible self or feared self (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Oyserman et al., 2015) can motivate action to avoid failure. Being recognized as a leader in context, or granted a leader identity (DeRue & Ashford, 2010), can help individuals to see themselves as a current or future leader (Markus & Nurius, 1986), and the dynamism of possible selves may help people to develop in different ways at different life stages (Cross & Markus, 1991). Less clear, however, are scholarly insights into the processes that help individuals determine direction when a future possible self is not yet clearly defined (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016). This study attempts to lift the veil on those processes by comparing EMBA students' current leadership sensemaking and how they make sense of future possible selves.

Sensemaking processes (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Turner, Allen, Hawamdeh, & Mastanamma, 2023; Vough, Caza, & Maitlis, 2020) support people as they try to understand what is happening around them. Sensemaking is “the first stage in human learning” (Jarvis, 2009, p. 25), and a reflective activity (King & Kitchener, 1994) that is personal and possibly emotion-driven (Maitlis, Vogus, & Lawrence, 2013) and as such provides a useful lens through which to compare how EMBA students understand their current leadership and how they make sense of future possible selves.

Adults make sense by building on the knowledge and lived experience gained across life stages and domains (Clapp-Smith, Hammond, Lester, & Palanski, 2019) as part of their development, and historical and contemporary experiences feed ongoing development (Day et al., 2009). Through retrospective sensemaking, people make sense of the present by reflecting on past experiences (Weick, 2005; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005), while “prospective sensemaking” (Gioia and Thomas, 1996) enables individuals to anticipate and outline future direction, explore questions of identity, and evaluate appropriate action in different contexts. Sensemaking rests upon plausibility (Weick et al., 2005) rather than accuracy, as people find seemingly plausible explanations for their behaviours or actions (Schabram & Maitlis, 2017) that help define a course of action to be taken (Weick et al., 2005), and support them in building future selves that are positive (Dutton, Roberts, & Bednar, 2010; Schabram & Maitlis, 2017).

To explore EMBA students' sensemaking, we conducted a series of interviews with students within the first ten weeks of their two-year MBA program. We build on an interpretivist philosophy to shed light on the participants' own understanding of their operating contexts (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019). This philosophy guided the data collection and analysis within this study and enabled an inductive approach, where data reflect the richness of participants' experiences (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

The homogeneity of the participant group enabled us to use purposive sampling (Merriam, 2002; Saunders et al., 2019). All 52 students of two EMBA cohorts at a European business school were invited to participate in the research, thus avoiding a single-cohort study (Passarelli et al., 2018). Sixteen students expressed interest in participating, and eventually 13 interviews were held. The participants held between eight and 27 years of professional experience upon entering the EMBA.

We chose to conduct face-to-face, semi-structured interviews, enabling us to gather rich and thick data, staying as close as possible to each participant's own narrative during data analysis (Merriam, 2002). Initial questions were formulated to explore the claiming and granting of identity clues (DeRue & Ashford, 2010) and participants' possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986), and designed to provide participants ample room to bring their own insights into the interview.

A first draft of the interview protocol, inspired by MBA course materials and informal discussions with program alumni, was discussed with the research team to ensure that all key concepts within the study were addressed clearly. The interview questions were checked for clarity and flow by two individuals unaffiliated with the research study: one EMBA educator and one individual unaffiliated with the EMBA program.

All interviews took place at the start of students' EMBA programs. The first eight interviews in cohort A (see Table 1) took place in summer 2023. To ensure cohort representation (Fix & Cooper, 2024), five interviews in cohort B (see Table 1) took place in summer 2024. We provided each participant with information describing the study, and each provided written consent prior to interview. Each interview lasted on average 84 minutes, and took place at a location of the participant's choosing.

The main researcher conducted the audio-recorded interviews and transcribed the audio files. This approach enabled her to immediately revisit the interview and become more familiar with the content (Merriam, 2002), and to prepare and conduct subsequent interviews differently or with more focus (Cassell, 2015; Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013) or clarity. The data were immediately pseudonymized during transcription to avoid participants being identified at a later stage of data analysis and reporting. Pseudonymization involved the allocation of a unique code to each participant's interview; any additional identifiable references within the transcripts were removed.

Each interview transcript was reviewed within one week of the interview date, and a first round of coding was conducted. First-order codes (Gehman et al., 2018; Gioia et al., 2013, 2022) were determined through a combination of initial and In Vivo coding to “prioritize and honor the participant's voice” (Saldaña, 2021, p. 138). The first-order codes of the first eight interviews were reviewed to help us reexamine and refine the interview protocol for the remaining interviews, enabling us to avoid inadvertently asking leading questions or using leading terminology. Interviews nine to 13 were held in the summer of 2024, and were transcribed, pseudonymized and coded following the same processes as used for the first eight interviews.

Within qualitative research, the richness of the data gathered outweighs the sample size (Merriam, 2002), and within homogenous samples 12 interviews should suffice (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006); however, we remained mindful of the smaller size of our participant group. During coding of the ninth and tenth transcripts, the first-order codes emerging from the interview data revealed no surprising new insights or topics, and we felt we had reached saturation of meaning. The first-order codes did, however, continue to add further richness to the overall image that was developing of students' sensemaking, and we proceeded to interview all 13 participants.

During the second coding round, first-order codes were refined to merge similar codes and reviewed for emerging patterns within the data. The patterns were categorized in themes, for example, combining skills acquisition and business knowledge acquisition under the theme of leadership as explicit knowing. Themes are the researcher's own interpretation of selections of first-order codes (Saldaña, 2021), and make the data set more manageable while using “phrasal descriptors” (Gioia et al., 2013, p. 20), ensuring proximity to participants' narratives.

During a third round of abductive analysis, three dimensions of sensemaking emerged, illustrating how participants made sense of their current leadership and future possible self through a combination of skills and knowledge, interpersonal interaction and by striving to understand themselves in diverse contexts. At this stage, we were struck by how participants so often described their ongoing personal development in terms of how to be in the world. Our analysis and observational surprise (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012) led us to explore education theory, particularly the work of Biesta (2009). Biesta's education philosophy is built upon three domains: qualification, socialization and subjectification, where subjectification is described as an invitation for students to “meet themselves in relation to the world” (Biesta, 2020, p. 98). Borrowing from Biesta (2020), we labelled the three dimensions of sensemaking as qualification, socialization and subjectification. We then overlaid them onto a broader leader development context within an EMBA program in structuring and analysing the data. Each sensemaking dimension was evaluated in turn, and second-order themes were explored in more detail. For example, within the qualification dimension we compared students' current leadership sensemaking with sensemaking of future possible selves. We observed how within current sensemaking, leadership is explicit knowing; when making sense of future possible selves, leadership is practical knowing. Our analysis is presented in Figure 1.

The main researcher is affiliated with the EMBA program studied, possibly placing her in an internal researcher (Saunders et al., 2019) position. Several steps were taken to address any potential concerns as to the research aims or the researcher's purpose. Firstly, the research proposal was approved by the university's Institutional Review Board. Secondly, the main researcher graded no work submitted for assessment by the research participants. Thirdly, all EMBA students in both cohorts were informed of the research through the initial invitation to participate; student participants received additional information on the research and the main researcher's role and provided their formal consent. Lastly, the main researcher regularly reviewed her affiliation with the program with the research team.

We now detail our interpretation of the students' interviews, enabling us to answer our research question and compare the sensemaking of EMBA students' current self as a leader and sensemaking of future possible selves. During analysis, we observed that participants make sense of their current leadership and formulate future possible selves on three dimensions, all of which are central to their leader development. They make sense by reflecting on acquiring and applying skills, knowledge and experience that enable them to learn about and operate in their context (qualification dimension), by reflecting on the social interactions and constructs that enable them to learn about and operate in context (socialization dimension), and by reflecting on how they understand and see themselves in their context (subjectification dimension). The three dimensions, associated second-order themes and first-order concepts are presented in Figure 1. Numerical references within second-order themes refer to numbered sub-sections in Results. We present each sensemaking dimension in turn, exploring the second-order themes and each time comparing current leadership sensemaking with sensemaking of future possible selves.

We first visit the qualification dimension. Within Biesta's (2009) education philosophy, qualification is defined as providing students of all ages with “the knowledge, skills and understanding and often also with the dispositions and forms of judgement that allow them to ‘do something’” (p. 39). We adapt this to also include the range of professional and life experience EMBA students bring to their leadership. We first explore students' current leadership sensemaking and second-order themes and first-order concepts displayed in Figure 1, and then repeat with students' future possible selves.

Analysis and interpretation of participants' reflections on their current leadership revealed descriptions we position as explicit knowing, as they spoke of skills and abilities, such as decision-making and communication, and the knowledge and theory they feel enable them to do leadership (cf. Biesta, 2009). Skills, abilities and knowledge are acquired formally through education and training and tested in context, or gained informally through self-study and “trial and error” (P3). Learning through practice can have its challenges, as noted by one participant: “It feels weird to start with, so you have to find the natural way to slowly bring it in. Because if you do it now out of the blue, full pull, then people think ‘whoah, what's going on?’” (P10). This can be addressed by openly sharing the learning journey with the team: “Will it come across as a textbook leader sometimes? Sure! That's the way you learn. That's how you get comfortable with new material” (P13). Furthermore, practice is also key to building experience, and students see their lived experience and exposure to different environments as central to shaping and further building their leadership and their sense of self as a leader.

Exploring how students make sense of future possible selves within the qualification dimension, narratives suggest a potential shift away from explicit knowledge when looking forwards, as “theory will only get you so far” (P8). At a certain point, leadership means sensing how to do the right thing at the right time, moving towards practical knowing (Coghlan, 2011) in imagined futures: sensing what is called for by a particular situation, in terms of skills and knowledge. Practical knowing is dependent on the self, to “see where [the team] needs help, instead of making all the decisions by myself” (P12). “It's not about being right at that moment. It's about analyzing the situation and preventing it from happening again” (P13). Furthermore, as the balance shifts from explicit to practical knowing, participants examine how leadership action will be guided by the requirements of the work content, operating setting, and sensing how to adapt.

We turn now to students' second sensemaking dimension, namely socialization. Biesta (2009) describes socialization as “the many ways in which, through education, we become members of and part of particular social, cultural and political ‘orders’” (p. 40). When exploring current leadership, two second-order themes emerged within this dimension: leadership as a role, and leader identity, which spans both socialization and subjectification (see also 4.3.1). When exploring possible futures, one second-order theme emerged. Leadership as a way of being with others spans both socialization and the subjectification sensemaking dimension (see 4.3.2).

Socialization highlights the role of interpersonal dynamics in leadership. Interaction can both unite and create power distances, and guide identity exploration. As participants make sense of their current leadership, human interaction stands central to leading others and themselves, forging relationships, communicating, supporting and inspiring others. Leading others can provide “the most beautiful opportunity” (P4) to support peoples' growth. Yet it is also something that they currently do to others from a role or position, rather than with others, that reveal distance between the leader's enthusiasm and that of their team, or between new leaders and their colleagues: “So the people you were close to, in work but also outside work, that relationship totally changes into business” (P10).

When leading themselves, students use informational cues from peers, teams and managers to understand how their behaviour is perceived and adjust where necessary, or to understand culture and the impact of context to ensure that “if it doesn't work out, at least I can look myself in the mirror” (P4). Outside work, they consult family and friends: “People who have known me for a long time. […] They can also see from a different perspective, because they are in different fields” (P7). As interpersonal interaction and social structures play a role in leader identity exploration (Beech, 2008; Yip et al., 2020; Zheng & Muir, 2015), we also see how questions of leader identity and input from others, and across domains (Hammond et al., 2017), also underpin or temper students' current leadership sensemaking on the socialization dimension. While a leader identity may not be actively sought, it can be granted by others, and perhaps claimed somewhat reluctantly: “I think if you say you are a leader, it doesn't sound, first of all, very modest… I guess it's about that…A bit of image around the word leader” (P4).

As students make sense of future possible selves, leadership is no longer always a role, and rather a way to be with others. Leadership becomes a shared endeavour, and students imagine a future possible self (positively) impacting others, through actions and behaviours, inspiring others, but not always through recognized roles or positions. As one participant notes, “I want to double or triple or multiply my impact […] and for me, my impact is not about me” (P9). In other instances, some participants' future possible selves continue to relate to status and position, and further building on an existing leader identity granted by others. Balancing an enthusiasm for leadership with a quest for recognition, one participant notes, “I don't want to be the leader of everyone who is equal” (P3).

The third dimension of sensemaking is subjectification, understanding the self and one's being in the world. Biesta (2020) himself acknowledges the difficulty of grasping subjectification, describing it as being a self (Biesta, 2023). He notes that “my existing as a subject is something no one else can ‘do’ for me” (Biesta, 2021, p. 49, italics in original), and within the subjectification dimension we see students' sensemaking of their current leadership compared with imagined futures that focus on their own individual development.

While making sense of current leadership, subjectification appeals to individuals' sense of both who and how they are as they move through the world. Questions of who, or leader identity, span both the subjectification and socialization sensemaking dimensions in students' current sensemaking, as illustrated in Figure 1. Within the subjectification dimension, questions of leader identity relate to how students see themselves. Where some already openly hold a leader identity, or find clarity in other professional identities, for others, the leader identity is undesirable, unclaimed (DeRue et al., 2009) or rejected: “I hate the word manager. I hate the word leader, to be honest. Because it gives a label” (P10). In other instances, the leader and leader identity development are seen as ongoing processes. As one participant suggests, he still awaits cues that others grant his leader identity:

Work processes in general, and consciously enacting leadership more specifically, help students learn about themselves as subjects in their own operating context. They make sense of their current leadership such that doing leadership or being a leader is a conscious and deliberate practice; skills, knowledge and purposeful steps lead to valuable new insights. Describing the handling of a tense team situation, one participant shared “I let out a little bit more who I actually am and what I actually feel… And then I got a positive and beautiful response from that. So, I noticed immediately that [authenticity] had some positive effect” (P5). Receiving informational cues helped the participant understand what was needed in context, and contributed to his sense of a self moving through the world.

As students make sense of future possible selves, one second-order theme, leadership as a way of being with others, spans both the subjectification and socialization sensemaking dimensions (see 4.2.2). Students make sense of future possible selves through how they are in interaction with others; they seek to understand their impact on others, and how their way of being in the world can inspire and motivate people. The following excerpt hints at one participant's real excitement at the thought of inspiring others:

Looking towards possible futures also reveals a lack of clarity or definition, contrasting with the clarity of students' current sensemaking. Where making sense of current leadership highlights questions of leader identity, making sense of a future possible self prompts broader questions of identity, and becoming a self who might lead. One participant speaks of a successful leader identity that almost traps him into a predefined future. For others, future possible selves choose personal balance over leadership, or see joy in the prospect of the opportunities inherent in an unknown future. Leadership becomes a way of being, and emerges from how students carry themselves and interact interpersonally. Better understanding oneself and self-actualization become prime focuses, and future possible selves are envisioned as guided by a sense of purpose:

Within this study, we compared how Executive MBA students at the start of their MBA at a European university make sense of their current self as a leader and how they make sense of future possible selves. Heeding calls for empirical examination of leader development processes (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Newstead et al., 2024), we used semi-structured interviews to foreground the person within leader development (Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2015) and explore individual EMBA students' sensemaking to provide insights that enable leader development trajectories that better prepare people for future leadership challenges (Benjamin & O'Reilly, 2011; Collinson & Tourish, 2015). We shone light on the differences between students' current sensemaking and understanding of leadership and sensemaking of a future possible self. Four important outcomes resulted from our analysis, visited in the following paragraphs.

Our analysis reveals that students make sense of their current leadership and future possible selves on three dimensions: qualification, socialization and subjectification. All three dimensions are central to students' sensemaking, yet our results also illustrate how students may lean more towards one dimension than another at different points in their sensemaking processes. Biesta (2009) suggests that what occurs at the intersections and interaction of qualification, subjectification and socialization might be more important than what occurs in each aspect individually. Our results build upon that suggestion and reinforce the importance of an EMBA program that enables and facilitates students' sensemaking on all three dimensions.

We reflect first on students' sensemaking leaning more towards the qualification dimension. Our results reveal how participants make sense of their current leadership from an explicit knowing perspective, describing their leadership skills and knowledge, how they lead others and themselves, and how that can inform their identity (Miscenko et al., 2017). Focusing on knowledge acquisition is perhaps unsurprising: we can assume that EMBA students wish to acquire knowledge. However, as participants make sense of a future possible self, we observe a shift in the sensemaking process from explicit to practical knowing, sensing what is called for by a particular situation. One explanation for this may lie in how adults learn, increasingly seeing knowledge as continuously evolving in nature (Schommer, 1998); mastered knowledge becomes embedded in practical or tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966), leaving them to focus on the situation in question. It is in such instances, however, that we highlight the importance of the intersection of the three dimensions. Practical knowing requires communication and human interaction and as such “directs us to the concern of human living” (Coghlan, 2011), whereby sensemaking on the qualification dimension becomes supported by sensemaking on the socialization dimension.

Examining the subjectification sensemaking dimension, students make sense of their current leadership in terms of identity, and it is feasible that the research interview itself may have contributed to sensemaking on questions of identity (Orsini, McCain, & Sunderman, 2024), even with no prior discussion of (leader) identity within the EMBA program. Future possible selves, on the other hand, are imagined through a broader lens of understanding the self in the world as students think about how they are as a leader, seeing themselves as subjects who decide. They use fewer leader identity-related descriptors when making sense of future possible selves. This may, for instance, signal transformative student learning paths that enable them to challenge existing assumptions and determine different courses of action (Eschenbacher, 2020). A further explanation may be a shift in identity focus through professional exposure. Increased experience may enable participants to integrate a leader identity with other sub-identities (Hammond et al., 2017), or transition to an identity that is interactional and open to others (Lord & Hall, 2005; Zheng & Muir, 2015), underpinned by a desire to become “a better partner for the business” (P13) or “be a more natural leader” (P3). Additionally, some students feasibly envisage futures in which leadership may or may not play a role, while others do not yet claim a leader identity within their new EMBA context (DeRue et al., 2009).

We also consider the possible effects of the context on students' sensemaking. Interviewing participants in the early stages of their program may trigger sensemaking (Carroll & Levy, 2010; Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2015) on the subjectification dimension, and induce questions of identity. Additionally, students may have perceived the EMBA as a holding environment that supports them in their sensemaking exploration (Shepherd & Williams, 2018), while enabling “identity play” (Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2010, p. 10) through which students try out different identities and prepare for future possible selves while in their “MBA bubble” (P13). Furthermore, students are also confronted with paradoxical realities within EMBA, in addition to the organizational challenges they face at work. As professionals, they are knowledgeable and successful; as new EMBA students, they experience uncertainty and fear a lack of knowledge. We speculate that some of the students in our sample are developing, or have developed, a paradox mindset (Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith, & Lewis, 2018) that helps them deal with everyday tensions and atypical situations, and thus enables their sensemaking.

Our findings also home in on future possible selves and the subjectification sensemaking dimension. Even as students continue to make sense on three dimensions, some make sense of future possible selves more noticeably on the subjectification dimension. At the intersection of socialization and subjectification, our results reveal how some students currently build upon an explicit leader identity to formulate a future possible self that is clear, and recognized as a leader by others. We see such examples aligning with existing theory, in which holding a future possible self provides direction (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016; Markus & Nurius, 1986), and motivates action, especially if the probable outcome of an imagined self is likely to be successful (Oyserman et al., 2015).

However, making sense of leadership and defining a future possible self is more than a question of leader identity alone (Orsini & Sunderman, 2024). Our findings also reveal that although some students struggle to consider, let alone define, a future possible self in the early stages of the EMBA program, they formulate steps towards a possible future, supported by sensemaking on the subjectification dimension. We suggest that this outcome provides insight into the lesser-known processes that help people determine direction when a future possible self is not yet clearly defined (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016). Oyserman and Horowitz (2023) use identity-based motivation theory to posit that if a possible future feels relevant to one's current situation, then aiming towards that possible future is seen as worthwhile. Given this, we suggest that even in the absence of a clearly defined future possible self, the EMBA students' current focus on leader development provides direction and drives action. Perhaps the sensemaking process itself becomes a primary source of direction in the early stages of the MBA program, when making sense of the self is an intermediate step before a future possible self is defined. This builds on existing theorizing on possible selves, speculating on how understanding the self as a subject in the world, or subjectification, might pre-empt or support later definition of future possible selves. Our insights also contribute to ongoing conversations on leader identity and future possible selves by challenging the weight that some individuals may give to their identity when defining possible futures, where others favour a deeper understanding of the self in the world.

Despite the insights gained through this study, limitations should be addressed. Within an interpretative philosophy, the researcher is driven to search for richer understandings and interpretations of social worlds and contexts (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 149) above numerous data-sets. That notwithstanding, a larger sample size may uncover yet more nuance in EMBA students' sensemaking both currently and towards a future possible self. Additionally, where some participants had extensive leadership experience, others were relatively new leaders. Those students' relative freshness to leadership provided valuable insights into the challenges of making sense of a new leadership place within the organization; however, contrasting such insights with those of more mid-late career leaders would have provided additional richness to the study.

Looking ahead, future research is merited into the processes and people that guide EMBA students throughout their study. Our findings are based on interviews with students at the start of their 2-year EMBA program. We therefore question what occurs within sensemaking processes as students progress through the EMBA, through discourse (Maitlis, 2005; Weick et al., 2005) with peers, and exposure to varying perspectives (DeRue et al., 2009) and different educators. Furthermore, what may be the processes taking shape as a future possible self comes into clearer definition? Further research into students' longer sensemaking and leader development processes across the EMBA would add much value in this regard. Lastly, this study illustrates the role of subjectification in leadership sensemaking within an EMBA context. Future research might extend into leadership development initiatives within organizational contexts, such that individuals are facilitated in their sensemaking and experience the space and support to explore their own being in the world.

There are important practical implications of our findings for business schools, organizations and for society in developing leader development curricula and processes that support sensemaking on three dimensions of qualification, socialization and subjectification. Effectively, our results support the creation of highly-tailored leader development paths; a step that may create tension when balancing existing leader development initiatives offering economies of scale, and the individual and personalized focus our findings suggest is needed for impactful leader development.

Firstly, our findings may guide business schools in delivering human-focused leader development (Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2015). Admission and onboarding processes could combine elements of qualification (such as standardized admission tests), socialization (such as organized interactive meetings with other candidate students) and subjectification (through guided self-reflection during an admissions interview). Dedicated educators could initiate an educator-student discourse (De Déa Roglio & Light, 2009) from admissions and onboarding onwards to co-create the curriculum with the student cohort, provide coaching (De Déa Roglio & Light, 2009), oversee the integration of subjects program-wide (Latham, Latham, & Whyte, 2004; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Reeves & Rimmer, 2008), and ensure a continuous learning line throughout the curriculum integrating qualification, socialization and subjectification.

We also foresee how our findings might prompt a re-evaluation of EMBA student assessment. Possible examples include learning laboratories or integrated projects (Kelliher, 2014) favouring reflective practices, peer review and facilitated discourse through which students make sense of and evaluate their progress aligned with their individual learning goals. Stand-alone assessments could be replaced by an integral leadership portfolio submission. This would call upon the support of the business school in adopting a non-standard approach (Mavin, James, Patterson, Stabler, & Corlett, 2024), including some partial movement away from the systems of testing and measurement that underpin many educational programs, track program and student success, and enable quality control. Indeed, such implications may also stretch to MBA accreditation bodies.

Reconfiguring an EMBA program in this way would necessitate the knowledge and experience of educators, and the courage (Mavin et al., 2024) to enter the unknown at the start of each EMBA program. It would require both the willingness to involve students (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2006) and the agility to shape and schedule the program to student needs, providing moments of “suspension” (Biesta, 2020, p. 98) that fully enable students' sensemaking processes. This in turn requires conscious self-reflection and learning also for all educators (Mavin et al., 2024), regardless of their teaching focus. To better guide leader development, “leadership educators should reflect on their own leadership identity journey” (Komives et al., 2009, p. 38), and understand how their own beliefs impact their teaching (Hardy & Tolhurst, 2014).

Some of the implications we foresee for business schools also apply in broader organizational contexts supporting leader development. Organizations might develop leader development programs combining fixed, collective course elements building on qualification and socialization sensemaking dimensions, flexible elements that also support the subjectification dimension and facilitated by dedicated coaches to ensure a continuous learning line through the leader development path.

Lastly, we highlight possible implications for leader development at wider societal levels. Societies and organizations increasingly require large-scale re- and upskilling (World Economic Forum, 2025) of professionals to meet the challenges of the VUCA world. This results in skill building through micro-credentials (Tamoliune et al., 2023), and hiring practices that are skills-based (Bone, Ehlinger, & Stephany, 2025; Lindborg, 2024) rather than degree-based. Our findings indicate an ongoing need for a focus on more than skill development (qualification) alone. Instead, through combining qualification, socialization and subjectification within an EMBA, the program continues to add value and retain its attraction for future students. More importantly still, the EMBA thus maintains the much-needed human focus in leadership (Bankins et al., 2024; Frimpong & Wolfs, 2024) in times of turbulence.

Leaders face extensive contemporary challenges, and our research offers valuable insights on leader development for both business schools and their EMBA students. As we compare how EMBA students make sense of their current leadership and future possible selves, we demonstrate how they make sense on three dimensions: combining knowledge, skills and experience (qualification), through interpersonal interaction (socialization) and understanding the self in context (subjectification). Where students make sense of their current leadership through explicit knowing, they make sense of future possible selves through practical knowing, or sensing what is required by a situation. Making sense of their current leadership, students lean towards descriptions of who and what they are as leaders, outlining leader identity; when talking of possible futures, their sensemaking leans towards how they are in the world. Lastly, for some students, formulating a clear future possible self provides direction. Others struggle with such formulation, instead demonstrating how sensemaking on the subjectification dimension helps guide future steps.

These findings suggest opportunities for business schools preparing EMBA students for future challenges through individual leader development. We believe that providing students space and time for their sensemaking is key, coupled with the support of educators who are aware of their own impact on learning. Through this, EMBA programs can carve out new routes towards leader development that better prepare students to meet the needs of people and organizations, and more fully place humans at the heart of developing organizations and societies in challenging times.