Keywords

1 Introduction

Many people believe that the only things we need for success are talent, energy, and personality. But history has taught us that, over the long haul, who we are is more important than who we appear to be. —Stephen R. Covey

The pandemic has had not only economic, social and environmental implications, but also appeared to put our leaders, whether of companies or countries, in a new light. People questioned why and how decisions were made, why some countries reacted differently to others in the pandemic. The resulting outcome was a mixture of failed expectations, uncertainty and ambiguity.

One of the key reasons for the failed expectations could be that these expectations were unrealistic to begin with. When students are presented with leadership models and styles, they may be offered the pros and cons of each style but is there more to it than that? Do leaders fit neatly into a particular style or approach, or have we overlooked complexities that should be considered fully before judging the decisions and actions of our leaders?

In this chapter, I present the literature that considers the complexities of how a leader makes decisions from a psychological and social perspective. These elements are often overlooked and rarely combined to create an all-encompassing model of how our leaders think and behave in situations with their subordinates or colleagues. This chapter will cover areas referred to as ‘shadow literature’ as they cover the darker side of leadership, as well as group dynamics and cultural influences.

With this integrative review, the chapter is divided into a number of theoretical sections which will then be combined to create a model which is aimed to provide future research directions as well as a new perspective and understanding of leadership for practitioners.

2 Theoretical Background

Bolden (2004) cites Gemmill and Oakley (1992) in suggesting that leadership could be ‘an alienating social myth’ which may in fact deskills employees and place excessive dependency on the ‘leader’. According to Bolden (2004), leadership is dysfunctional as it demands the repression of uncomfortable needs, emotions, and wishes when in the working environment. Through placing the leader on a pedestal, followers fix their hopes on the leader to take over and manage everything for them. In doing so, they limit or neglect their own critical thinking, visions, inspirations, and emotions (p. 279). This may be worsened by the need for leaders to be recognized, gain power and promote themselves (Maccoby, 2000), thereby placing themselves on the pedestal and building an empire around themselves, as the ‘go-to person’ if followers need direction.

With this alternative view of leadership and leadership styles in mind, the following sections look at some examples of leadership theory, both old and new, with a particular focus on how these theories may well promote unrealistic expectations from employees, society and even the leaders themselves.

2.1 Great Man Leadership

One of the earliest leadership theories is ‘great man leadership’. The historian Thomas Carlyle stated, ‘The history of the world is but the biography of great men’. From the Pharaohs and Roman Emperors to Napoleon and Nelson, he saw leaders as the ‘gifted few’ who had the suitable combination of characteristics to be successful leaders. Needless to say, from a historical standpoint, people of lesser social status also had the obstacles of poorer education, lesser social status and not having the birthright to enable them to be considered as leaders in the first place.

This concert may seem antiquated, and yet nowadays as well leaders are seen as possessing ‘the right qualities’ for the position or as a great man/‘hero’ coming to save the day. The problem here is not that there are certain qualities to become a leader, but two other sticking points. Firstly, the theory assumes that leaders are born rather than made, i.e. the characteristics making a successful leader cannot be taught. Secondly, and most importantly for this review, the expectation of a leader taking responsibility for being able to turn a company around seems an unrealistic one when we consider how Yahoo, searching for a saviour, changed the CEO five times in five years, each time firing them when they failed to live up to expectations.

Needless to say, there are other issues with great man theory, as leadership is a complex subject, when we consider that not only the leader but the followers, the resources available, company culture and many other situational factors also dictate the success or failure of a leader (Yukl, 2012).

2.2 Authentic Leadership

Authentic leadership emerged due to two drivers. The first was a decrease in ethical leadership as seen in events such as the scandals at Enron and Worldcom and, coupled with this, a corresponding increase in societal challenges such as downturns in the economy and global terrorism (Cooper et al., 2005). As a ‘created construct’, there is a push by scholars for this training of leaders so that they will conduct business in an ethical, socially responsible manner. Within authentic leadership, there is also a push towards ‘positive organizational scholarship’ based on the two areas of challenges mentioned earlier and, as such, these ‘leaders of the future’ are also encouraged to nurture positive organizational environments. It is this latter that presents the toughest challenge of all—whilst facing all of these challenges, the leader is expected to be a source of and encourage positivity across the organization, regardless of circumstance. This is one of the stumbling blocks of authentic leadership (Alvesson & Einola, 2019) that a person must ‘be genuine—a true reflection of their own core beliefs and values and not a replica of someone else’s leadership persona’ (George, 2003), whilst maintaining a positivist approach. In this way, there is also a danger of ‘oversharing’ as the leader divulges all thoughts in an attempt to be real and true to themselves and others. Some authors indicate that authenticity requires leaders to keep negative emotions to themselves such as annoyance, upset or anger in everyday working life.Footnote 1 So, it seems there is a cap on how much authenticity is acceptable in a business environment.

Even though authentic leadership seems to be driven by the need for a positivist approach to how business is conducted, there is an expectation of the leader to remain positivist no matter what, which arguably pushes authentic leadership beyond the bounds of realism and authenticity, demands unrealistic expectations of the leader, regardless of the training they have received. Moreover, Einola and Alvesson (2021) argue that authentic leadership theory may in fact not only be wrong, but hazardous in the effects of scholars trying to encourage practitioners (e.g. managers and leaders) to live up to the expectations demanded of an authentic leader.

In summary, the theory of authentic leader is driven by scholars with the best of intentions at facing current issues in business and society, but it is not without its criticisms. The expectations and responsibilities placed upon the shoulders of the leader seem at times unrealistic and overlook the harder times that managers and leaders go through and how they should cope on these ‘bad days’. Often, in this and other leadership styles, there is an apparent desire to overlook or hide the darker side of leadership and management.

3 The Hidden Side of the Leader

Despite the positivist approaches referred to in the previous sections, the track record of leadership is not seen in such a positive light. Employees selected for leadership positions have been found to be toxic, abusive and causing harm (see e.g. Padilla et al., 2007), and having other negative effects on their followers (Kiliç & Günsel, 2019). Whilst the argument may be that from a sample of leaders, there will always be some bad apples, leadership failure rates are high (Aasland et al., 2010) and inequalities in those selected for leadership positions remain (Bebbington & Özbilgin, 2013). Bearing in mind the impetus for authentic leadership began around 2005, and how so many of these studies have found the same negative effects of leadership 5–10 years later begs the question as to whether something is being overlooked or the nature of leadership needs a comprehensive reassessment. In this section, the alternative side of the positivist coin is considered.

Jung’s (1938) concepts of ego, persona and shadow form the basis for a potential lack of realistic expectations of our leaders. What we often see is the persona, where the leader wants to show only their best sides. However, the shadow is the reverse side of the coin. Although not conscious, Jung (1938) asserts that everyone has a shadow and the more it is repressed and rejected, ‘the blacker and denser it is’ (Jung, 1938, p. 76). The shadow has the subconscious aggressive counter-reactions (Ketola, 2008, pp. 200–202) and encompasses, according to Bértholo (2013), all the hidden, rejected and repressed parts of our personalities, i.e. ‘the thing a person has no wish to be’ (Jung, 1938). In reality, the shadow appears as so unpleasant and unbearable that a person disassociates that side of themselves with them. According to Klein (1952), this disassociation can cause those aspects of the shadow to be ‘projected’ onto others or onto the external environment.

The shadow also contains the psychic wounding or past trauma that we have experienced (Jung, 1953, p. 65). With its repression and disassociation, the shadow forms a ‘mysterious and troublesome unwanted self’. However, Ketola (2008) highlights that the shadow is not all bad news for the leader when referring to ‘the golden shadow’ as it contains original and innovative thoughts that have been repressed but may actually be a drive towards growth, creativity and being authentic (Jung, 1976; Ladkin et al., 2018), which is particularly relevant in the quest for a realistic expectation of leadership.

Over time, the Shadow stores these rejected parts of ourselves and becomes a source of untapped potential, rich in raw emotions and primal drives, and undervalued contents. These aspects further reinforce that the shadow should not be seen as a negative or bad presence but rather that which has been disowned.

Most importantly, Bértholo (2013) suggests that whatever the reason, some people may have repressed their leadership skills during some experience which required them to do so. She also points out that we all have a number of shadows rather than just one element of ourselves that we have rejected or repressed, and that these shadows ‘mutate and evolve according to context and time’.

The concept that the shadow contains aggressive counter-reactions will be considered in more depth in the following section, concerning the topic of how the shadow can be triggered out of repression and become what we see as the person.

4 Emotional Triggers

When a leader (or anyone) is ‘triggered’, the shadow emerges and the leader presents an entirely different sides to that experienced by employees with the persona. However, this doesn’t happen to everybody. For those that have a control over their emotions or ‘emotionally competent’ they keep an awareness of the emergence of the shadow and in this way can continue to repress it. For those that are not able to do this, it may seem to employees that the leader has a ‘bad day’ as their usual nice self is replaced by a more nasty or ‘bad’ personality. This highlights the need for self-awareness in leaders and its role in emotional intelligence as a regulator of the emergence of the shadow (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990).

According to Hede (2007), there are six main triggers for emotional reactions that may result in the emergence of the shadow: projection, association, threat, verbal abuse, frustration and guilt. Further from what was discussed earlier, projection is not only the outcome of disassociation but is also a trigger when the leader sees one or more characteristics of their shadow in, for example, a subordinate. Although this characteristic is part of the leader, they have rejected and repressed it, but are now faced with being reminded of it by the subordinate or. Association is also related to the aspect of disassociation of the shadow as a subordinate’s personality may remind the leader of someone who was responsible for an unpleasant or even traumatic episode in their past. Likewise, the shadow may emerge when the leader feels threatened, such as when their decisions are challenged, or they experience resistant to change from employees. It is understandable that a leader becomes frustrated or angry in situations where they are verbally abused by their superiors or their ideas are blocked or sabotaged by other leaders in a meeting, leading to frustration. Likewise, leaders may experience guilt when they are torn between two difficult options and have to make a decision. These scenarios are just examples, and they could just as easily arise between subordinates, in work groups or other situations in the working environment. However, the findings of Hede (2007) highlight how politics in the life of a leader can lead to the emergence of the leader’s shadow or other familiar situations such as resistance to change and handling critical thinking from subordinates or other leaders.

5 Managing Groups

If we integrate what we have learnt so far into the cultural perspective then we see how the shadow fits the working of a group made up a of leader and subordinates. According to Schein (1999), a work group is built on a ‘pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration’. Internal integration is likely to be tarnished in groups led by a leader with low self-awareness and little emotional control. The external pressures may not only make the leader feel frustration or anger, but may also cause group members to challenge change initiatives and resist change, which in turn will trigger the shadow of the leader.

If we extend our perspective beyond the leader to the rest of the work group, then it seems feasible that external elements may also trigger the shadow in them, such as through uncertainty and ambiguity, a leader severely limiting behaviour such as we find in the alienated followers of Kelley, or political behaviours at this level. The question arises as to whether the emergence of the shadow in subordinates, then increases the likelihood of triggering the shadow in the leader, and so on, which may lead to a ‘snowball effect’, with the emergence of the shadow in other members of the work group, until all members are identified as shadow, and perceived as part of a ‘toxic culture’. Hede (2007) also highlights how task conflict can lead to triggering the shadow. In this way, the cultural perspective means bringing shadow literature to the group level (Ketola, 2008), to consider the collective and cultural elements. Moving from the group to the organizational level, the organizational shadow is seen as ‘facts which organizations wish to deny about themselves, due to the threat posed to self-image and self-understanding and, more generally, the need to be viewed in a favorable light by others’ (Bowles, 1991). For this chapter, however, we will keep our focus on the leader, as part of work groups, i.e. on the group level.

Organizational culture is expressed in artefacts, behaviours and values by employees and as the shadow is a part of or potential behaviour that, as we have seen, may be triggered by the behaviour of others, and may be based on values relating to past experiences, we can see that culture and the shadow are inextricably linked, despite the literature being rather limited in combining these aspects, and even less so in the context of leadership in organizations.

Much of the theory so far has focussed on the work of Jung’s psychological approach, and yet Jung distinguishes three levels of unconscious: personal, cultural and collective. Jung focussed on the personal and collective unconscious rather than the cultural unconscious (Singer & Kimbles, 2004a). However, some researchers have investigated the cultural unconscious (e.g. Singer & Kimbles, 2004b), which examines groups in a social setting and from the leader’s perspective, it could involve topics such as the departmental, unit and organizational unconscious.

The cultural unconscious is shared by a group but varies from one culture to another (Ketola, 2008). In the same way that large complex organizations experience the emergence of heterogenous subcultures, different kinds of group identities develop (Nkomo & Cox, 1996; Polzer et al., 2003) with their own cultural unconscious. Moreover, the preconscious persona of an organization has its roots in the organizational culture (cf. Schein, 1992; Whetten, 2006).

According to Miller (1999), despite being repressed and rejected, our shadow is observable to others and, as such, highlights the need for analysis of the group aspect and the leader’s place in it. Hede (2007) presents a model of a ‘self-in-group’ where we can see the difference between the ‘overt self’ and the ‘shadow self’. The overt self is the side of ourselves which we show to others, define ourselves by and interact with others, i.e. the persona. On the other hand, our ‘shadow self’ is seen as the opposite, rather than repressed side of ourselves. As found in other literature, this side of ourselves contains the qualities which we do not accept, and, in doing so, tend to project onto others. One additional, and important, aspect of Hede’s mode is that we have an ‘inner observer’ which monitors the shadow and overt selves. Within this model, there is an overarching assumption of a person’s awareness of these selves, without which observance would not be possible. The inner observer thus acts as a mediator of the shadow, which Hede (2007) claims is achieved through emotional competencies.

As there is a general desire to be seen by others in a positive light as a means towards social acceptance in a cultural context, the persona is also seen as positive. In this way, from a cultural perspective, being positive is seen as a norm and associated with the persona. As Feldman (1984) and Pech (2001) put forward, the persona encourages a group norm that people ‘try to be nice’ or at least try to appear nice to others so that they are not seen as ‘problematic’ to the rest of the work group resulting in alienation from the group or weakened group cohesion. In the same way, the impetus falls upon the leader to also ascribe to these norms of ‘positivity’ and ‘niceness’ as a means towards being accepted in the work group. However, there are examples of leaders such as Steve Jobs, that did not follow this as a cultural norm and in turn leads us to question if this was due to a lack of concern for the persona or difficulty in repressing the shadow.

If we consider the role of the shadow on a group/subcultural level, such as between subordinates and managers then the interplay between the leader and the group can be seen in how the shadow of group members may emerge during interactions. Hede (2007) presented a model for how work groups move into the shadows. Starting with the presumption that a group is initially made up of overt members interacting and ‘fully functional’, an overt member, for whatever reason, switched to the shadow, leading to a change in the group dynamic, which in turn leads to other members switching to the shadow, which then progresses until the overt group becomes a shadow group and thereby dysfunctional. As the group progresses with an increasing number of shadow group members, interpersonal relationship conflict also increases. In this context, there is no perceived benefit in turning to the shadows, the overt self is seen as the fully functional employee, despite the positive aspects of the shadow covered by other authors, and the problems that emerge due to the repression of the qualities deemed part of the shadow.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, there is potential for the leader to be triggered into allowing the shadow to emerge over the persona and, in doing so, may become ‘nasty’ or ‘bad’, which in turn may act as a trigger for other members, such as subordinates, of the work group to allow the shadow to emerge. The group may become fully dysfunctional as a shadow group due to the emergence of the shadow in one individual. Each step results in changes in group interaction and, applying this model to the leadership context, we can see the potential impact of the leader upon the group, if lacking the emotional competencies to keep the shadow at bay.

However, this gives rise to another question concerning the role of the leader in work groups that has not been discussed by practitioners not researchers: Is the one of the tasks of leaders to bring work group members back from the shadows? If so, what sort of competencies are needed? Issues such as resolving conflict and interpersonal skills are often listed as required for a leader. However, bringing someone back from the shadows would potentially require more than ‘try to be nice’ or ‘smile, it might never happen’. Further research in this area would aid practitioners too in understanding the role of the leader in this context and how work groups can be encouraged to be more self-aware, have the suitable emotional competences to deal with triggers of the shadow, and perhaps even an awareness of shadows as a means of coping when the leader or other work group members are triggered into the shadow self, such as training on becoming ‘inner observers’.

For the leader of the workgroup, training would also help in understanding the triggers of the shadow. The Hogan Development Survey, for example, identifies 11 behavioural tendencies that could trigger ‘leader derailment’ but could arguably be considered as potential triggers of the shadow in the leader as well. In relation to the shadow, many leaders are aware of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, both according to societal and organizational norms. Interestingly, Dotlich and Cairo (2003) argue that effective executives regularly commit 10 ‘unnatural acts’ as a way of mitigating against derailment, such as surrounding yourself with people who create some discomfort, trust first—ask questions later, giving up some control and coach and teach rather than inspire and lead. These ideas may also be of use to leaders in trying to learn to cope with repressing the shadow.

In a study by Shaw of the elements that trigger shadows, it was found that a range of areas could cause triggers such as tasks, processes, policies and procedures, management practices, leadership, formal structures, missions and strategies, climate, culture, resources, environment and so on. In this study, the ‘open system approach’ is considered as it is suggested that there is a need for congruence or alignment between different aspects of the system, between different systems and between an organization and its environment.

6 Theoretical Model

This chapter has focussed upon the need for a realistic perceptive of managers or leaders. In this respect, a model is proposed that combined the theory and empirical research to construct a model of the nature of a realistic manager, as shown in the Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The functions of a realistic manager

Full size image

These functions are not to be considered as an exhaustive list of the functions of a manager, in a realistic context. Rather, these are the functions that distinguish a realistic manager from other types as well as the basic areas where a manager will need to focus, if they wish to develop more realistic expectations of themselves as a managers and others’ expectations (e.g. employees) of them as managers. This proposed model can be added to as research progresses in this area.

For the manager to function in this way, they will need to be equipped with a combination of personal and firm resources. Firm resources may take the form of training for employees, such as on the dangers of emotional triggers for a team, or training for the manager to develop and improve the personal resources required to fulfil these functions. Based on findings in the literature, the personal resources that would aid a manager in adopting a more realistic approach to leadership and management and thereby ensure more realistic expectations of them have been added to each function in the model.

It can be seen in the theoretical model that certain aspects are seen in other management models, such as the Mintzberg’s 10 management roles. However, here the model indicated that these are the necessary abilities rather than roles. Therefore, the manager requires certain skills, for example, to resolve conflicts, such as tact, awareness of others’ sentiments (EQ) and tolerance. In this way, there is some overlap between the tools listed. However, tolerance and EQ have a prominent role in empirical studies of dealing with the shadow and as such have been highlighted in this figure. The monitor requires the manager to dedicate time to checking in with subordinates, such as in stand-up meetings, weekly roundups and so on. This will require time management as well as the ability to encourage openness and transparency between subordinates and managers. This openness and transparency are also central to the concept of not hiding the shadow but rather revealing weaker, ‘less acceptable’ sides of oneself.

Once again, this is not an exhaustive list and other aspects may be at a manager’s disposal to manager employees heading into the shadows, such as the use of humour to reduce the impact of emotional triggers or as an enable to cope with the weaker sides of the manager and/or others. Likewise, a manager or leader has more to deal with than purely the shadow aspects, such as monthly targets, budgets, performance benchmarks, reports and so on. However, the aim of this framework is for the encouragement of the shadow, and thereby realistic leadership, to form the basis for how work is done and how employees and managers interact with one another.

7 Conclusions

Jungian concepts have been used to assess the moral character of managers (leaders) (Rozuel, 2010) or to distinguish between good and bad leaders (Allio, 2007). However, if a leader is associated with positive attributes such as being honest, visionary, inspirational, creative and intuitive (de Haan, 2016; Eckhaus, 2017; Figler & Hanlon, 2008; Mason, 2006), from the perspective of this chapter we are describing the persona only and not the whole person. Negative traits of the leader such a narcissism, Machiavellianism and hubris (Harms et al., 2011) are thus associated with the shadow, even though we have seen in the literature that there is a positive side to the shadow.

The central problem here exists that this idea of a positive set of attributes appears to perpetuate great man and trait theory, rather than delve into (and accept) the complexities of what humans are: a mixture of good and bad (Jones, 2007).

In contrast, some authors consider the darker traits as needed for an employee to succeed and get to top management (Kets de Vries, 2004, p. 188). We do however see in these studies of leadership traits signs of the shadow and its triggers such as Pryor et al. (2014) who blame ethical “failures on ‘deviant’ employees” (p. 115), highlighting the link between norms of being acceptable to the work group and the persona. Leaders that are described as ‘toxic’ are also defined as ‘deviants’, even though this toxic behaviour may be a reaction (trigger) and temporary (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Likewise, Zimbardo (2004) warns that dark behaviour may be a product of the environment, such as structures, to which the leader is subjected. In essence reality is complex, and leaders should not be put into boxes or labelled as one type of other (Judge et al., 2009; Klotz & Neubaum, 2016).

This chapter reviews theoretical literature and considers an alternative to existing, idealistic models of leadership by offering a realistic leadership style, which accepts the leader as he or she is, as a human, imperfect and thereby encourages realistic expectations. However, as many existing studies refer to the need to bring employees back from the shadows, this new theoretical work has a particular dilemma when it comes to subordinates. As seen in this chapter, the leader has a role in ensuring that employees are brought back from the shadows. However, if a leader’s shadow is accepted, then why not the employees? A decision to accept the shadow in all employees, not just the leader, could have far-reaching effect on people management, motivation, performance appraisal (and associated expectations), disciplinary procedures, reward management and even recruitment and selection. At this stage in the theory, a realistic leader is left with the decision of whether to accept a shadow for all or only for the leader.

8 Implications

In this chapter, we have seen that many leadership styles have the potential to cause damage either through the assumptions underlying the theory or the effects of these leadership styles. The leadership shadow is not exception to this. According to Chappell et al. (2019) leaders can do harm by transferring their shadow (projecting) onto others as well as emotionally triggers the shadows of other employees, as already discussed in this chapter.

The positivist approach to leadership leads to distorted expectations of the leader. Through denying the existing of the shadow, the leader also risks distorting their own perceptions of reality and misjudging subordinates (Petriglieri & Stein, 2012). In some cases, subordinates may even be used as scapegoats unconsciously by the leader due to the leaders’ lack of self-awareness (Steinkamp & de Vries, 2014). On the organization level, if the entire leadership has an enforced persona and consequent repression of the shadow, the whole organizational system has the potential to develop into a toxic organizational culture (Vince & Mazen, 2014), comprised of groups in constant personal conflict and a state of limbo between being forced to bear a persona whilst also being triggered towards shadow groups through projections and emotional triggers of both other group members and the leader.

The shadow is not something that potentially causes detriment to employees across the company, but rather the repression of it. As covered in this chapter, there are also positive aspects to the leader’s shadow, known as ‘the golden shadow’. These aspects were repressed at some point as they were not seen as useful or practical at that time. In sum, acceptance rather than repression of the shadow has the potential for leaders of getting in touch with their whole psyche and avoid potential conflict and harm to both themselves and others.

From the findings of this review, it seems that there are some key competences that a leader should possess if embracing the shadow is to be encouraged. Firstly, a self-awareness of the leader to know when the shadow is being projected, repressed or affecting their leadership in some other way. Moreover, empathy and understanding (EQ) is an important requirement as leaders will have the task of bringing employees back from the shadows. Further research could consider Goleman’s (2001) model in this context as it is concerned with two relevant dimensions: a self-versus-other dimension and an awareness-versus-management. Moreover, the personal skills and, as indicated in the theoretical model as ‘tools’ could be investigated further, not only to test the model itself but also to add other possibly relevant leader tools for effective realistic leadership such as adaptability, empathy, trustworthiness and initiative.

This form of ‘realistic leadership’ also implies a crucial nurturing role for HR and leaders in, for example, training subordinates in self-awareness, and building elements of EQ and awareness of other group members will need to be prioritized. In doing so, shadow would become a normal and everyday part of working life, expectations could become fairer and more realistic.