Introduction
Leadership has always carried powerful myths. Since at least the 16th century, leaders have often been cast as saviors—figures who guide, rescue, and “fix” supposedly incapable followers (Wilson, 2016). While leadership studies have evolved over time, many of these outdated ideas still shape how organizations function today.
Michel Foucault’s concepts—discourse, power, power/knowledge, and subjectivity—offer tools to unpack these myths. Of these, subjectivity is especially significant. It reminds us that leadership is not a neutral phenomenon: how leadership is described depends greatly on the storyteller’s perspective.
This is why leadership can feel so different depending on where you sit. As Annie McKee (2012) observed, most managers don’t intend to make employees’ lives difficult—yet employees often experience their leadership that way. This tension highlights the importance of adopting a critical perspective.
What Critical Analysis Really Means
Chandler and Kirsch (2018) argue that not all analysis is truly critical, even when it calls itself “critical thinking.” To be genuinely critical, analysis must:
- Consider multiple perspectives.
- Question and challenge the status quo.
- Reflect deeply on how social and political contexts shape systems, behaviors, and power.
In this sense, critical analysis is not about offering definitive answers. Instead, it is about interrogating the structures and assumptions that shape leadership and power.
As Horkheimer (1972) reminds us, even the categories and mental shortcuts we use to classify reality are social reactions—tools for adapting to our environment. Organizations often unconsciously deny oppressive practices, not out of explicit malice, but because no institution wants to see itself as the villain.
Leadership, Power, and Context
Power sits at the heart of leadership. Who grants it? Under what assumptions? How is it distributed, and how does it shape relationships with followers?
There is no single, universally accepted definition of power. This is why approaching leadership critically is essential: without reflection, we risk normalizing hierarchical structures that perpetuate inequality. Chandler and Kirsch (2018) caution that genuine critical analysis cannot happen if we accept power relations as “just the way things are.”
In today’s workplace, these dynamics are complicated by generational divides. Many leaders manage teams composed of people one or two generations apart. Without reflection, this gap can lead to stereotypes, miscommunication, disengagement, or even subtle forms of oppression.
Why Critical Reflection Is Urgent
Critical reflection is not critique for its own sake. Its purpose is to foster more inclusive, equitable communities—spaces where human flourishing is possible. But we must also admit that “flourishing” is not a fixed or universal outcome. What it looks like will vary across cultures, communities, and contexts.
This makes leadership a dialectical process: an ongoing cycle of questioning, reframing, and adapting. In an era where artificial intelligence is reshaping both work and society, many current assumptions will soon be obsolete. Leaders must remain adaptable, reflexive, and willing to confront their own rationalizations.
Moving Forward
As leaders and critical scholars, we must resist the temptation to uncritically accept the structures around us. Leadership myths—from the heroic savior to the benevolent authority—limit our imagination for what leadership could be.
The path forward is not about perfect answers or universal formulas. It is about cultivating habits of reflection, building stronger communities, and challenging the narratives that keep systemic oppression in place. Leadership, viewed critically, is not about saving others—it’s about reshaping systems so that all can flourish.
