The Duality of an Atypical Leader in Diversity Management: The Legitimization and Delegitimization of Diversity Beliefs in Organizations

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12217
• Author: Marios Samdanis,Mustafa Özbilgin
• Date: 01 April 2020
• Published date: 01 April 2020

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 22, 101–119 (2020)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12217

The Duality of an Atypical Leader in

Diversity Management: The Legitimization

and Delegitimization of Diversity Beliefs in

Organizations

Marios Samdanis and Mustafa ¨

Ozbilgin

Brunel Business School, Brunel University London, London, UB8 3PH, UK

Corresponding author email: marios.samdanis@brunel.ac.uk

An atypical leader is often celebrated as an individual who is likely to support work-

force diversityin organizations. Yet the verity of the assumption that an atypical leader

will invariably promote workforce diversity remains underexplored. In this paper, we

question this assumption and demonstrate the dualities of an atypical leader in legit-

imizing and delegitimizing workforce diversity. We define and examine the concept of

atypicality among leaders, in terms of how they emerge, who they are (dispositions),

what they say (discourses) and what they do (performative acts). We introduce a con-

ceptual framework that maps out the emergenceand constitution of an atypical leader,

as well as their impact on diversity management within an organization. Our analysis

incorporates the concept of habitus (class-specific and reflexive), in order to reveal the

dualities of an atypical leader which determine the management of diversity within an

organization and cause continuity and change in diversitybeliefs.

Introduction

Demographic diversity in the boardroom is a much

desired social project (Glass and Cook 2018;

Hafsi and Turgut 2013; Torchia et al. 2011), the suc-

cess of which remains patchyand par tial across a large

number of countries and organizations (Azmat and

Rentschler 2017; Kakabadse et al. 2015; Sayce and

¨

Ozbilgin 2014; Terjesen et al. 2009). Atypicality

among leaders is often viewedas a sign of healthy lev-

els of workforce diversity and workplace democracy

(Alter 2017). As the project of diversity has gained

momentum more recently (Baehr and Gordon 2017),

we should now expect to see more opportunities for

individuals from atypical backgrounds to ascend to

leadership positions. However, the majority of corpo-

rate leaders still come from the dominant group of

white heterosexual able-bodied men from elite socio-

economic backgrounds (Danieli and Wheeler 2006;

Dobbin and Kalev 2016; Lumby 2006).

An atypical leader is an individual who is ‘rarely

associated with leadership positions’ (Alter 2017,

p. 88), originating from non-privileged, non-

dominant, under-represented, disadvantaged or

unusual demographic backgrounds (e.g. women,

ethnic-minority and LGBT+individuals, and indi-

viduals from lower socio-economic backgrounds).

Ideally, an atypical leader occupies a privileged

position, being simultaneously an ‘insider’, in terms

of influencing followers and accessing the core power

structure of an organization, and an ‘outsider’, in

terms of not fitting the dominant group and culture

(Alter 2017). This outsider and insider dynamic in

terms of atypicality is more complex than is currently

theorized. As a form of otherness, it empowers

an atypical leader to be ‘an innovator from the

margins’ – an innovator with a unique perspective

on organizational reality, who introduces novelty by

breaking away from the conventions of the prevailing

group (Alter 2018). However, this description neither

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original workis properly cited.

C2019 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews publishedby British Academy of Management and John

Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,

Malden, MA 02148, USA

102 M. Samdanis and M. ¨

Ozbilgin

fully interrogates the mechanisms that bring an

atypical leader to power, nor explicitly addresses the

impact of an atypical leader on diversity. This view

also runs the risk of homogenizing atypical leaders,

leaving unquestioned their intentions, affordances,

actions and impact on diversity beliefs.

In this paper we aim to address the impact of an

atypical leader on diversity within organizations, il-

lustrating our arguments with a conceptual frame-

work that explainsthe emergence of an atypical leader

and their role in diversity management. We initially

analyse ‘the emergence’ (Lisak and Erez 2015) of

an atypical leader, in the face of cognitive, norma-

tive and institutional barriers that construct discrim-

inatory status beliefs about individuals from atypical

backgrounds (Ridgeway 2011). The rise of an atyp-

ical leader should not be considered as an excep-

tion within an organization that is truly committed to

equality, diversity and inclusion. Yet the emergence

of an atypical leader is challenging to those organiza-

tions where diversity practices are evidently missing

(Bebbington and ¨

Ozbilgin 2013).

Weclarify, next,what constitutes an atypical leader,

drawing on Bourdieu (1984, 1993) to analyse their

dispositions (who they are) and discourses (what they

say); and then on Butler (1993) to shed light on their

performative acts (what they do). The focal point of

the analysis is the cognition and behaviourof an atyp-

ical leader as a result of their habitus, which is shaped

by their social position. This, in turn, is caused by

their demographic background (gender, class, race,

religion) and access to capital resources (Bourdieu

1993). In our analysis, we take into account the pos-

sibility that an atypical leader can indirectly delegit-

imize diversity, either due to the tenacity of normative

and structural barriers constructed by the dominant

group to preserve the status quo; or through the ac-

tions, inactions and behaviours of that atypical leader

in relation to diversity management. The habitus of

an atypical leader appears to determine their role in

legitimizing and/or delegitimizing diversity beliefs.

We argue that if an atypical leader operates based on

class-specific habitus (Hartmann 2000), then they are

more likely to comply with dominant norms that re-

produce precarity and inequality, eventually delegit-

imizing diversitybeliefs. I n contrast, whenan atypical

leader operates based on reflexive habitus, a process

of thoughtful and naturalized transformation of the

self and the circumstances (Sweetman 2003), they

are more likely to seek diversity gains.

Our conceptual framework enhances our under-

standing of an atypical leader, by analysing their

impact on diversity beliefs from the viewpoint of du-

ality,according to which ‘stability and change are fun-

damentally interdependent – contradictory but also

mutually enabling’ (Farjoun 2010, p. 202). A duality

view is important because the insider/outsider posi-

tion of an atypical leader may lead to diversity-driven

transformation. For instance, an atypical leader can

explore complementarities by bringing to an organi-

zation skills and values, such as empathy, resilience,

openness and inclusiveness( ¨

Ozbilgin 2019), acquired

as a result of their experience of the margin. How-

ever, diversity gains do not always take place in a

linear fashion, but sometimes through processes of

negotiation and reconciliation between the atypical

leader and the dominant group within an organiza-

tion (Kirton et al. 2007). A duality view exposes

the contradictions that exist in organizations which

select an atypical leader but subjugate them to dom-

inant norms, precarity and exclusion (Garcia et al.

2009; Ryan and Haslam 2005; Yoder 1991). A duality

view also enables us to identify and criticize the com-

plex and often controversial behaviour of an atypical

leader, such as their choice to support and legitimize

one aspect of diversity (e.g. gender) while dismissing

and delegitimizing another (e.g. social class).

The existence of an atypical leader alone does

not guarantee diversity-driven transformation within

organizations. As atypicality in leadership positions

may not always have the desired effect, in terms of

creating a more inclusive work environment,we need

to critically analyse the dispositions, discourses and

performative acts of an atypical leader, distinguishing

those which legitimize diversity beliefs from those

which may put diversity beliefs at risk. Figure 1

represents our conceptual framework and the flow

of our paper, depicting the social construction of

an atypical leader in terms of their emergence,

constitution and dualities associated with the legit-

imization and delegitimization of diversity beliefs in

organizations.

Defining an atypical leader within the

context of diversity management

Defining an atypical leader as inclusive, adventur-

ous, trustworthy,powerful and ingenious (Alter 2017)

does not encapsulate the struggles, compromises and

failures experienced by an atypical leader within an

organization. It should initially be noted that the term

‘atypical leader’ does not refer to a universal and uni-

fied category. Instead, individuals from marginalized

C2019 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews publishedby British Academy of Management and John

Wiley & Sons Ltd.