Running head: LEADERSHIP AND DNA

Leadership Inside Our D.N.A: Leadership Philosophy as Told Through the Double Helix
Jah Thomas
Loyola University Chicago
 LEADERSHIP AND DNA 2

Leadership is best to be thought about in lines and structures. The concept of

leadership is often a series of stages or obstacles that form a leader, and in the past have

resulted in a linear pathway towards leadership. With linear ideas of leadership

dominating the discourse, the path is fixed and follows instructions to perpetuate certain

kinds of leaders. The fixation on a particular linear path of leadership aligns with a white,

heterosexual, male narrative. As an educator, leadership needs to take a more complex

structural approach, specifically the double- helix structure of deoxyribonucleic aid

(DNA).

Leadership’s linear paths can transition into a double- helix structure by applying

queer theory to leadership. “Queer theory deconstructs binary categories, like male versus

female. By extension, the same liminal, fluid properties could be applied to queering race

or other social identities, thus complicating their meanings and structures (Johnson&

Quaye, 2017, p.1139). Leadership can utilize queer theory by adding fluidity to the

making of a leader and dismantle the binary of the have or have-nots of leadership skill.

Queering leadership’s definition and application will pull underrepresented populations

in leadership from the background of the discourse and position those voices in the

foreground. In addition, the structure of leadership coupled with queer theory will

transform the linear status of leadership into the double helix structure, which allows for

nuances in the performativity of leadership development.

DNA’s double helix structure forms because of two separate strands, which are

made up of four base pairings. The first strand of this leadership philosophy will connect

authentic leadership with servant leadership. Then, the second strand will connect

emotionally intelligent leadership with one of the seven c’s of the social change model
 LEADERSHIP AND DNA 3

that is controversy with civility. In an effort to establish this leadership philosophy, I have

to position my identities at the forefront as a black male educator, east coast native, and

someone of Afro-Caribbean background. Through these identities, I have come to form

my leadership philosophy.

Authentic leadership requires that individuals come with their whole self and lead

through transparent interactions. While there are several iterations of the definition of

authentic leadership, this philosophy on leadership will focus on the intrapersonal aspect

of authentic leadership as defined by Peter Northouse (2018) in Leadership Theory and

Practice. Northouse states, “Authentic leaders exhibit genuine leadership, lead from

conviction and are originals, not copies. This perspective emphasizes a leader’s life

experiences and the meaning he or she attaches to those experiences as being critical to

the development of the authentic leader (p .196). “ The belief that leaders should be

authentic in their interactions humanizes leaders and helps teams see their leader as a

person. This desire to be in tune with life experiences troubles the notion that sharing

personal aspects with a team will make a leader weak.

There is a need for individuals to embody authentic leadership practices because

followers respond to a trustworthy leader. In addition, higher education needs high,

middle, and entry-level positions to build this type of leadership because students

gravitate towards individuals, who are trustworthy and student centered. I want to trouble

an aspect of authentic leadership in a higher education space. Authentic leadership asks

that leaders emphasize life experiences, but sometimes a space is not brave enough to be

authentic. Depending on the space and identities individuals hold, leaders may not

embrace that space because there is a policing of their leadership. Revisiting the linear
 LEADERSHIP AND DNA 4

path of leadership, authentic leadership can only be a reality if the sphere of leadership

troubles the identities that are in the space and welcomes the differences. Authentic

leadership will reimagine the various truths individuals hold in a space and reconfigure

the space to meet those needs.

An example of a specific space not necessarily meeting the needs of individuals in

their pursuit of authentic leadership are black retention programs, specifically black male

or men of color initiative programs. These programs often reinforce the rigid structure of

male leadership and embrace gendered practices like tying a tie. Trans*men or others that

may not ascribe to the performativity of the male rigid gender norms are even more

marginalize in a space that focuses on leadership. The critique is not to attack or to shun

male leadership programs, but to offer the perspective of revisiting practices that might

stifle leaders’ authenticity.

The second base pairing for this leadership philosophy’s double helix structure’s

first strand is servant leadership. Northhouse (2018) describes these leaders by stating, “

servant leaders place the good of followers over their own self-interests and emphasize

follower development. They demonstrate strong moral behavior toward followers, the

organization, and other stakeholders (p.226).” Servant leaders are individuals that see the

value of their leadership outside of themselves. The concept of servant leadership aligns

with the Leadership Identity Development model’s stage five of generativity. Komives et

al (2006) describe generativity as “[The] stage that deepened student’s commitment to the

interdependence of people working together. In addition to knowing that all people can

do leadership in a group, their view of leadership was that it is a process. (p.416).” A

leader must be able to see leadership beyond their locus of control and understand their
 LEADERSHIP AND DNA 5

purpose to help future individuals enact leadership. Leaders possess the ability to

strengthen each other by agitating an environment that fosters growth.

I see servant leadership show up in my life as an educator through working with

Resident Assistants (RA) and number of student groups. As a member of the residence

life team, I ask RAs not to take anything residents say personally and to serve them

despite the situation. RAs are ask to uphold the values of servant leadership by

continuing to be ethical in spite of residents behaviors, uphold the values of the

department without having someone have a close eye on them, and work with others to

bring resources to the residents.

The first strand of the double helix model of leadership connects authentic and

servant leadership together. Leaders are able to build trust and followers buy into the

vision when they sense authenticity. By displaying authentic behavior, leaders position

followers in a state of mattering not only for performing the work, but also to the leader.

Authentic and servant leadership seem to deviate from the typical leader equals control

discourse of leadership and influences a reciprocal relationship, for the leader and

followers. Leadership is not about power and both theories help to create holistic

development in various aspects of an organization.

The second strand of my leadership philosophy begins with the idea of

emotionally intelligent leadership. According to Peter Salovey and John Mayer,

emotional intelligence is the “ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and

emotions to use the information to guide one’s thinking and actions (p. 9 as cited in

Gehrke (2008)).” Individuals that are able to read the emotions and feelings of others can

appeal to the affect of people, which is a major part of winning people over to one’s side.
 LEADERSHIP AND DNA 6

One cannot be in a situation and say that there are not any emotions behind a decision.

Whether repressed or active emotions drive the human condition and are potent in

leadership.

Gehrke (2008) defines emotionally intelligent leadership as “ promoting an

intentional focus on three facets: consciousness of self, consciousness of others, and

consciousness of context (p.9).” Emotionally intelligent leaders are not only able to sort

out their emotions, but help engage others with emotions to create solutions. This type of

leader frames the decision and interactions by thinking about the effect on the leader and

others. Due to emotions being a part of the human condition, the leader needs to be

conscious of the way in which emotions manifest in a space, specifically at points of

tension.

I do not believe that this takes place enough in higher education spaces. As a

Resident Director (RD), I use emotionally intelligence leadership often because of the

tasks of defusing roommate conflicts or dealing with students through the conduct

process. My ability to read the emotions or the lack thereof can create a resolution as well

as ignite a problem. The position of RD also calls into question the authenticity of my

emotional appeal because some time, it is to get information that is helpful to a situation.

In addition, emotionally intelligent leadership must take into consideration the ideas that

are held by individuals. As a black male educator from the east coast, my straightforward

approach to situations is often read as aggression because this has been my experience in

the Midwest. There are several determining factors in this misreading of emotional

situations. As a black male, I am marked by the perception of black people in an

overwhelmingly white space. In addition, I may be mark with the potential to do harm
 LEADERSHIP AND DNA 7

because of media outlets, which often do not portray black folks in the best light. My

geographic upbringing may distort my communication style when perceived by others,

specifically in the Midwest. Identity is central to the enacting of emotional intelligence

and draws on the self, interpersonal relationships, historical assumptions, and the

environment around individuals.

The emotionally intelligent leadership strand of this leadership philosophy

structure is connected to controversy with civility. In my experiences working at both a

higher education institution and a non-profit organization, I notice that differences are not

always resolved in the most empowering way. The points of tension in leadership are met

with the systematic tearing apart of dissenting opinions. The social change model is

grounded in collaboration of the individual, group, and societal/ community values. One

of the seven c’s of the social change model controversy with civility is part of the group

values category of the social change model. Heri (1996) describes controversy with

civility by stating:

Controversy with civility acknowledges, first, that there

will be important and potentially creative differences in
viewpoint within any leadership development group and
that these opposing views can be aired and eventually
resolved through cooperative, open and honest dialogue
which are satisfying or beneficial to all (p.59).
Controversy with civility asks that leaders honor the differences in opinion and

emphasize that there is a learning moment in enacting these controversies. Leadership

becomes a more powerful tool to help students and staff alike when we are able to sit

with disagreement. Also, controversy with civility asks that we attack ideas and not

people to create dialogue that is beneficial for all parties. This second strand of the double

helix structure of my philosophy of leadership as an educator draws on looking at

 LEADERSHIP AND DNA 8

leadership outside of one’s self. Both emotionally intelligence leadership and controversy

with civility ask the leader to oscillate between the values of the self with the values of

the community.

Leadership discourse is heteroglossic and the philosophy presented here addresses

specific regimes of truth in accordance with my identities. My leadership philosophy as

an educator builds on the troubling of a linear idea of leadership, which is in close

proximity to male, heterosexual whiteness. The double helix structure creates two strands

that are interconnected, which align authentic and servant leadership with emotionally

intelligent leadership and controversy with civility from the social change model.

This philosophy of leadership troubles the rigid leader focused aspects of

leadership and produces a reciprocal relationship between individuals in relation to

others, as well as the outside world. Paulo Freire author of the Pedagogy of the

Oppressed states, “Liberation is a praxis: the action and reflection of men and women

upon their world in order to transform it (p.60).” Leadership brings liberation and the

double helix structure queers the definition of the ideals of leadership. To lead in any

capacity is to have the freedom to set standards and create spaces for others to follow.

However, the individuals that follow can contribute to the space to enact different

meanings of leadership. Higher education will soon be in a space both of a digital age

generational shift and an overwhelming majority of students, who identify as those of

color. Leaders, who engage in the aforementioned leadership philosophy, can appeal to

the changing demographics of students. As educators, there is a call to action to leave the

quotidian style of leadership behind and foster one that appeals to the human experience.
 LEADERSHIP AND DNA 9

Student Affairs educators must queer the structures of leadership to set up the future

students will the skills to lead.

 References

Gehrke, S. (2008). Leadership through meaning making: An empirical exploration of

spirituality and leadership in college students. Journal of College Student Development,

49 (4), 351-359

Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). (1996). A social change model of

leadership development (Version III). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los

Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute

Johnson, A. & Quaye, S. (2017). Queering Black racial identity development. Jounal of

College Student Development, 58 (8), 1135-1148

Komives, S., Owen, J., Longerbeam, S., Mainella, F., Osteen, L. (2005). Developing a

leadership identity model: Applications from a Grounded theory. Journal of College

Student Development, 47 (4), 401-418 doi: /10.1353/csd.2006.0048

Northouse, P. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice, 8th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.