Shared leadership

Postheroic models of leadership such as shared leadership (also known as collective leadership) emphasise the role of multiple actors, who actively take up leadership roles formally and informally.1 Leadership moves away from the attributes which identify it as a noun and metamorphoses to become an active process, a verb.11

Shared leadership is seen as highly practical in the healthcare setting12 13 as the nature of delivering healthcare requires much collaboration.14 The benefits of shared leadership impact on four perspectives: individual, coworker, organisational and societal.4 These result in benefits which include the avoidance of hubris, greater representation and a greater sense of security.4 15 Conversely, critics of shared leadership have noted that resistance to the model can make implementation extremely difficult. O’Toole et al stated that ‘in the popular mind, leadership is always singular.’ (O’Toole, p. 64).16

Gendered leadership

We believe gender plays an important role in leadership behaviour. Eagly and Johannesen -Schmidt6 argue that agentic and communal aspects of gender roles are particularly pertinent. Agentic attributes—competitive, dominant, self-confident—are deemed to be masculine, while communal characteristics—nurturing and interpersonal sensitivity—are deemed to be feminine. Regardless of organisation role, studies in the workplace have shown women to behave more communally than men.17

Agentic traits, such as individualism, control and assertiveness, are socially ascribed as masculine and are seen as traits of heroic leadership.4 6 Particularly in the realm of hospital leadership, the lens of history must be assigned to heroic leadership as men have often dominated leadership roles and thus masculine attributes have been perceived as the ‘norm’. On the other hand, postheroic models, which place emphasis on inter-relational work, compassion and empathy, are seen as feminine.4 5 18

Performative acts: gender and leadership

In this section, we will uncover the construction and deconstruction of gender and the development of leadership through performance.

Andrew McMillan states, ‘leadership is a performance: so be conscious of your behaviour because everyone else will be’.19 Kotter’s definition of leadership is concerned with aligning, motivating and inspiring people.1 20 To be able to align, inspire and motivate, performance as a leader is ultimately decisive. Likewise, Yukl’s taxonomy of effective leadership describes leadership attributes which can be enacted as part of leadership performance.21

Gender, in the eyes of Judith Butler, is constructed through a series of performative acts.22 23 Her work serves as a key theoretical pivot for us that aligns leadership, gender and the construction of gendered leadership. This alignment is particularly important within a healthcare system where leadership is dominated by men and masculine attributes.

Butler argues that gender is devised through performance.22 For Butler, gender is ‘what is put on, invariably, under constraint, daily and incessantly, with anxiety and pleasure’ (Butler, p. 531).22 Yet because gender is constructed through the repetition of performative acts then she argues that there is a subversive space formed that would allow the development of a different gender. The performance of gender, however, is dictated through socially constructed, binary notions and the lens of history. Butler therefore argues that we are often discouraged from the subversive space because of social expectations and taboos. Gender is ‘constrained by available historical conventions’ (Butler, p. 521).22

Gendered leadership is a powerful combination of both performances that are defined by history and taboo. If heroic leadership is considered standard within the NHS, then conventions have constrained leaders to perform with masculine leadership attributes. Furthermore, as women take up more leadership roles, there is an emerging conflict. Enacting a congruent gendered leadership performance—that is, a woman performing feminine leadership—is often considered mundane and may potentially be demeaned as doing what women do.5 On the other hand, women whose leadership performance follows the path of history (but contradicts her socially perceived gender) are often met with negativity and resistance,24 thus making the subversion of gendered stereotypes difficult.

Alongside specific leadership behaviours, we also consider speech and body language as examples of performative acts. These play a crucial role in the construction of gender and leadership. The work of Tannen also aids our understanding of the group through the way they talk.25 Table 1 summarises the characteristics of gendered talk that are pertinent to our study.

Case study

Although much of the literature discusses organisational commitment to shared leadership (West et al, 2011),26 the department we studied have undertaken the practice of shared leadership in a clinical microcosm. In this context, the leadership group consisted of seven consultants across two sites. The whole department are responsible for approximately 150 inpatient beds, community services and clinics. Although other consultants, nurses, allied health professionals and junior doctors were involved with the leadership group, none were permanent members.

In 2015, the department was experiencing a tumultuous period. Due to the anxieties and pressures placed on the clinical lead, the position became untenable. The department therefore moved to a shared leadership model, where all the consultants took on leadership responsibilities to spread the burden of anxiety within the department.

In such stressful times, there might be a desire to engage in strong, heroic leadership in order to provide safe care to patients. It was stressed however by the consultant body that a such multi-faceted department carries an almost unmanageable and off-putting burden of expectation for a solitary, heroic leader. To combat this, a thoughtful reimagining of the role of lead occurred within the department in April 2016 and the clinicians decided to embrace a shared leadership model.

The model used stresses a flattened structure where all consultants have leadership responsibilities regardless of previous experience. Roles (such as governance, junior doctor staffing and acute floor) were distributed among consultants and a weekly Monday meeting with an agenda was instituted. While there was no prescribed ‘leader’, there was a face for the change, in the form of the Monday meeting chairperson. The chairperson also received the email traffic and constructed the weekly agenda. We felt that the meeting was a space where decisions were made and tasks distributed. The meeting, as an anthropomorphised entity, was arguably the leader.

Ethical considerations

The study was deemed not to need any formal ethical approval by our Trust research committee. It is important however to discuss some of the key ethical considerations linked to the study. The study was explained and written consent was obtained from all participants prior to the observed sessions and interviews.

We were mindful that one researcher is a member of the leadership team, while the other researcher has previously worked with members of the consultant body. This created possible areas of tension with colleagues which we minimised by checking with each other and the participants whether our analysis was fair and likely to offend others. All comics and this manuscript were shown to all participants prior to submission, for feedback. We tried to balance the need to tell the story as we saw it, with regard for the potential emotional impact on our participants. While it is impossible to settle on one ‘true’ version of events, we wanted to make sure that the story we told was representative enough of the participants' recollection of what happened. For example, one participant asked for the wording of one comic to be altered slightly, and this was clearly very important to them and the way they were portrayed. We felt it did not significantly change the story or meaning of the comic, so agreed to alter it.

The persistence of heroic, masculine leadership and gender roles

In 2015, the department was experiencing a tumultuous, transitional period. New clinical directorate leads (M1 and M2) were appointed. The traditional perspective of leaders as heroes instantaneously prevailed and with that connotations regarding masculine leadership.

The comic (shown in figures 1 and 2) presents on its surface of men performing heroic, masculine leadership. The comfort provided from this congruent display of gendered leadership is one that links to clinical leadership within the NHS—men have often dominated medical leadership roles, therefore masculine leadership and its attributes are seen as the apparent norm.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

Shared leadership: the background (part 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 2

Shared leadership: the background (part 2).

Heroic leadership, and thus masculine leadership, is often championed within times of anxiety and uncertainty.5 8 As shown, clinicians were leaving for a plethora of reasons and heroic leadership was seen as the presumed answer. Interestingly, we noticed the depiction of the mother (F1) within the comic, which will be alluded to further but underlines one of the many gendered forces at play within the realms of work and hospital leadership.

The key image presented within the comic is that of our male leader (M1), enacting heroic, masculine leadership and walking into the metaphorical fire (see the first panel of figure 2). There is the implication presented that in order for M1 to perform masculine forms of leadership, he is expected to walk into the fire and he must continue to be the hero. His gendered leadership behaviours are therefore somewhat socially constrained.

The gender roles, which are presented within the background comic, have been remarkably persistent throughout a year’s worth of observation. M1, regardless of historical events, remains fixed within masculine attributes of leadership. M1 described himself as, ‘a blunt man’, an ‘innovator’ and is perpetually concerned with recognition for the work he is doing as a doctor. M1 is the only member of the group to use an electronic banner displaying the group’s award in service innovation. M1’s speech was littered with conflict and status talk.25 There was a constant focus on clinical performance, be it his own: ‘I could not maintain performance’ or the department’s ‘intense review of metrics’. For M1, the end result was always deemed the most important matter even when discussing interpersonal matters. For example, during a dialogue regarding the sensitive concerns of a colleague, M1’s response was, ‘what is the endgame here?…because you won’t get what you want from X’.

It is, however, not just M1 who we see persist with a gendered leadership identity. As shown through the mother and child within the comic (figure 1), F1 has also seen herself shackled to constructs closely linked to feminine leadership. Even though the model preaches a flattened structure, the chairperson of the Monday meeting (F1) was the primary spokesperson for the model. Using shared leadership—a feminine leadership model—to bring about change has seen F1 placed clearly within the role of the ‘mother’. At times, F1 spoke candidly regarding her parental role within the group and was even referred to as ‘Mum’ by members of the group in a jovial conversation.

Her feminine leadership performance has included explicit acts of nurturing, kindness and selflessness: ‘this is where your voice is important’, ‘our unity is our strength’ and ‘the trouble will come to me [acknowledging the damage of angry emails by colleagues]’. This is at odds with F1’s expressed gender role outside of clinical leadership. Enacting a feminine leadership performance, while congruent to her perceived gender is at odds to her own gendered view, ‘I am very much the Dad at home’.

The shared leadership model therefore sees the persistence of set gender roles. M1, the previous heroic leader, has remained unchanged. F1 performs a style of gendered leadership that is congruent to her outwardly perceived gender but incongruent to herself. As Butler22 23 posits, F1’s identity as a leader is created and performed by herself but also defined by the constructs surrounding her.

The right man or woman for the job

Figure 3 provides an interesting dichotomy within the practice of shared leadership and its relationship to gender roles.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 3

Convincing the powers-that-be to allow a revolution.

Particularly in the clinical directorate structure of the hospital, the practice of shared leadership is unique and peculiar. M3 expressed surprise when told the group was embarking on a shared model. He also highlighted his previous negative experience of shared leadership in an interview. He confided that while shared leadership seemed beneficial on paper, it was often difficult to maintain in small clinical groups due to a lack of commitment. M3 stated that it was not long before his previous group reverted back to heroic leadership.

Despite some reservations, there was a palpable belief within the group that shared leadership was potentially innovative within our Trust and a way to resist the pressures from higher management.

Although the belief was that their actions were ‘revolutionary’, the group’s use of gender roles remained in line with expected stereotypes. Although from the outside, there are a plethora of gendered leadership behaviours at play, it appears that individually the group quickly settled and remained in their own comfortable gendered leadership performances. The shared leadership model cemented and compounded this, as the distribution of the tasks meant that the right gendered leadership performance—masculine or feminine—was applied to the right situation. Members of the group were therefore never challenged to subvert gendered leadership stereotypes but in fact revelled in them.

The masculine, heroic leader (M1) of figures 1 and 2 could not have been sent to this meeting. The gendered leadership performance needed was one of friendly submission and supplication. As Fletcher5 would predict, F1 performed as a submissive leader, supplicating to her male manager, regardless of her inherent beliefs (the subtitles within the comic). This feminine performance, linked to archaic notions of masculine versus feminine power dynamics, has also been a source of internal struggle for F1 as rather than subverting gender stereotypes she has reinforced them.

Although the model has constrained F1 to perform as a feminine leader, it also allowed members to comfortably continue their performance as gendered leaders. M1 the heroic and masculine leader is used for governance, with its need for attention to performance and metrics. F2 who said ‘I never saw myself as a leader’ and expressed the view that female leaders concern themselves with understanding their colleagues, was charged with mentoring the junior doctors. Her performance as a leader, which contained rapport speech, proposals and questions is inherently feminine.25 She even acknowledges that she is not the right gender for the job: ‘I’m not the girl for finances’.

Finally M5, feminine in leadership style, who often brought matters relating to colleague welfare to meetings, was tasked as deputy-chair of the Monday meeting on several occasions. F2 suggested he was a ‘good replacement’ because of his ability to nurture the group.

The idea of women being submissive and supportive within the model has also been seen through the observation period. Supportive and proposal talk (from F1 and F2 in particular) highlight that even though there is a flattened structure, gendered power dynamics remain.25 F1, as chair, would bookend discussions to the group with ‘is that ok?’, and likewise begin sentences to colleagues with ‘do you mind?’. This is in stark contrast to the forceful language used by some of the male members of the group. Furthermore, F2 within her interview often asked, ‘what do you think?’ and sought reassurance, ‘is that right?…is that what you want?’.

Shared leadership as a feminine leadership model

The origins of figures 4 and 5 are rooted in our chosen technique of validation: asking the participants to draw how they felt shared leadership was progressing after 6 months. We amalgamated these drawings into this evaluation comic.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 4

Supergeris: so how’s it going?—Evaluation comic (part 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 5

Supergeris: so how’s it going?—Evaluation comic (part 2).

Figures 4 and 5 depict a perceived reduction in anxiety and a convivial spirit within the group. There is the sharing of anxieties and work-based pressures as depicted through the 1000 tonnes weight, sharing of a spotlight and rolling the boulder against the steep, perilous landscape of delivering healthcare within the NHS.

This dissipation of anxiety was also noted in several of the interviews conducted. M1 clearly stated, ‘it feels a lot better’ and that with the development of shared leadership, there was now an ‘easier and more supportive forum’ for debate. This is in contrast to a heroic model, which ultimately left M1 ‘banging my head on a brick wall’. Likewise, F2 commented on how the model was a ‘really good way of distributing the burden and the stress’.

This development of kinship and kindness is what the group hoped to foster at the inception of the shared leadership model. With this in the mind, the group, 6 months on, was more familial. There were light-hearted jokes, at the expense of other members of the group, but also the presence of conflict. For M1, M3, F1 and F2, this was a positive indicator of how close the department had become. To all of them conflict indicated that no one was hiding.

What has been described fits notions of a shared leadership model that nurtures trust and loyalty from a group as they move above their own self-interest towards a common vision. As discussed within the introduction this style of leadership is commonly seen as feminine.4 5 It is therefore fitting that figure 3B’s opening panel shows a team-member predicting the outcome of shared leadership to be a girl. This comic was done prior to any work on gender commencing and helped us to realise our focus.

We feel the shared leadership model is democratic, nurturing, familial and distributed, all characteristics which would traditionally align themselves with feminine leadership.

The struggle to subvert gender stereotypes

Leadership, be it medical or otherwise, has had a frightfully taut relationship with binary constructs of gender. There is an almost definitive, black-and-white nature to some of the literature discussing gendered leadership. Our aim, once gender became our focus, was to explore gender stereotypes. We realised, through reflective discussion and analysis, that our hope had been to see a subversion of traditional stereotypes. This desire for resistance to the pervasive models of leadership in the NHS was perhaps one of the key unconscious reasons for adopting this approach to leadership and our research, although this only emerged through our exploration of the data.

As figure 6 shows, subversion is double-edged and dependent on the perspective from which one views the group. With the heady presence of compassionate, democratic leaders (ie, the feminine) mixed alongside laissez faire or heroic leaders (ie, the masculine), one could argue that the group is the best of both genders when viewed from the outside. If gendered leadership was to be seen as a spectrum rather than a binary, then our group (with its different members) moves fluidly along the spectrum.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 6

The (doomed) idea of genderless shared leadership.

It was suggested by M3 within their interview that a good leader is one who is ‘flexible’ and knows when it is ‘time to be autocratic…and time for hand-holding within a technical bureaucracy’. The presence of multiple gendered leadership styles allows for a flexibility as the right performance can be provided. The plethora of gendered leadership behaviours found within the group fulfils theoretical traits of effective leadership as espoused by Yukl’s taxonomy.21

We feel that traditional feminine work plays a crucial role in a successful shared leadership model. It was suggested by M3 that in fact the group ‘may have just been lucky’. We feel that there was significant work involved in balancing the variety of gendered leadership styles within the group. It may be that because this work is seen as selfless and therefore feminine, it is not seen as true work.5

When viewed from an individual’s perspective within the group, gender roles are in fact reinforced by the model itself. Due to the nature of the distribution of tasks, stereotypes are moulded and continually recycled. Rather than challenging their gendered leadership performance participants are comfortable within their gender roles, which are dictated at first by themselves and then perpetuated by the nature of the model.

This comfort acts as an emotive force. We would argue that finding comfort within one’s gendered leadership identity is an important force in the dissipation of anxiety. Participants are not having to perform gender or leadership in a way that feels unnatural or uncomfortable to them, or perform tasks that would otherwise cause stress or anxiety.

We are not suggesting that participants within the group rigidly stuck to the same gendered leadership attributes over the course of the study. The chair (F1), for example, described scenarios where logistically an autocratic stance was the only viable option and thus had to briefly change her leadership performance. F1 has also been noted by members of the group to be able to balance both gendered performances within in short periods of time. Her ability to allow for discussion within the Monday meeting has allowed for the group to develop and foster trust and compassion. Yet M3 noted that F1 was an excellent chair because of her willingness to interrupt, a trait that has been seen by some (and fervently argued against by others) to be masculine.30–32

Furthermore, M4 flitted from a laissez-faire leadership attitude, to being more vocal and engaged within the group. By being responsible for matters regarding the ‘acute floor’, M4 moved away from the reserved figure he portrayed in early meetings, where his greatest contribution had been the rustle of a crisp packet. Likewise M1 showed moments of compassion, which was often met with extreme recognition from colleagues. The reaction to this incongruence displayed by M1 performing feminine leadership, serves as a metaphorical Pandora’s box of leadership behaviours and prejudices, especially when comparing it to the reaction women receive when performing masculine leadership.

Finally when discussing why he believes shared leadership works M3 answered ‘[the participants are] not too rigid in their thinking and are willing to listen’. There must therefore be some malleability in the group’s leadership behaviour to allow for discussion of matters in either a masculine or feminine manner.