In introducing this special issue of the Transactional Analysis Journal (TAJ) on “Leadership,” we are acutely aware of what is going on at different levels in terms of how leaders are showing up these days. Certainly, on the world stage, with so many national elections taking place this year (2024) involving over half of the globe’s population, the question of who should lead will be on many minds. With significant international tensions, warfare, and regional disputes, leaders face immense pressure to perform, to deliver, and to bring their people with them. Closer to home, we are mindful of what leadership means for the communities in which we live and, in particular, our own professional community.
To lead is to create movement, to open up spaces, to direct or transform in order to influence others. A common frame of leadership, deeply embedded in the human condition, is that leaders need followers and followers need leaders. We are familiar with how leadership development programs are highly popular, drawing on an almost primal hunger to exercise influential power. Leadership can be big business and, in an increasingly globalized world oriented toward consumer autonomy and economic growth, a leader’s accomplishment in such a system can be attributed to personal qualities rather than understood as an entanglement of dynamic power systems. This complexity is further heightened when leadership is set in the context of social media, in which the success of “influencers” is measured by the rate of remuneration, often devoid of consideration of the values that underpin what and who is being influenced. Without collective care, models of sustainability, and a strong ethical compass, there is a danger of a corruption of the concept of leadership, perhaps reminiscent of Berne’s tilting stack of pennies, which eventually results in dysfunction and abuse of power. Given all the turmoil, it is clear that we can be led or misled in different, and sometimes violently opposing, directions.
In the process of editing this leadership issue, we have been interested in what is called for from leadership as we look to the present and the future. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, or the demonstrable and welcome rise in awareness about intersectionality, the growing demand for social change, and the climate catastrophe we are facing: What does this all mean for those who lead?
We have also been curious about how power, authority, rank, and privilege arise across our community. Leadership is very much a part of the way we live, learn, and practice our TA, and hierarchy is found as much within our community as it is outside of it. International and regional organizations clearly require leadership, as do national associations. In addition, leadership is fundamental to the network of training institutes around the world. We also recognize how leadership takes other, less obvious forms in terms of its practice as well as being positional. This includes, for example, those writing for the TAJ or editing its regular and special issues; those undertaking administrative roles supporting the training and examination system, including marking written exams or chairing examination boards; the thought leaders contributing innovative theory and ideas for application; those coordinating conferences, seminars, and workshops; and, finally, all those TSTAs and those on the TSTA journey—all of these individuals hold an important level of leadership.
In turn, we have needed to reflect on our own leadership roles within the professional community, both through the formal posts we hold in relation to the training and examination system as well as contributing to the development of educational and psychotherapy theory and practice. While we both seek to advocate for changing the systems to be more progressive and democratic, we have been frequently reminded that we are the system. How easy it is to be seduced and engulfed in what no longer holds validity but defend it anyway, only to wish for a new world that seems improbable. Holding such a paradoxical position is arguably at the heart of contemporary leadership: how to remain with integrity in systems that are entropic by nature while being committed to their renewal.
So, with this in mind, we introduce a diverse range of papers in this issue, some of which speak more generally to the theme, others that focus on particular aspects of leadership, and those that are more specific to the TA community. We open with Vanessa Williams’s paper, “Does Transactional Analysis Have Enough to Offer Those in Leadership Positions to Enhance Their Understanding of the Role?” It offers a critique of the literature on organizational TA and in doing so leads the reader through contemporary ideas from both within and beyond TA about what makes for effective leaders. These discussions prepare the ground for Williams’s case study presentation of a research exercise in which she explores the relevance and value of TA concepts to the experience of leaders in a range of organizations.
We next shift to a more political direction. In her essay, “Leadership, Intersectionality, and Feminism: Radical-Relational Perspectives,” Karen Minikin revisits Berne’s theory of leadership and shows how it reflects and critiques the masculine state of mind that assumes the leader to be White, male, and omnipotent. She proposes that feminism and intersectionality can offer alternative perspectives on leadership by questioning the assumptions of patriarchy; exploring the dynamics of privilege, power, and oppression; and fostering a relational interplay between power, authority, and responsibility. She ends with a call for more honesty and critique within the transactional analysis community and literature.
Taking Minikin’s systemic critique to a more specific level, we turn to a paper by Anisha Pandya, who sets out a new revision of Berne’s concept of group imago. Arguing that his ideas of leadership and power in groups was limited, in “System Imago: A New Perspective on Leadership and Power,” Pandya proposes that systemic dynamics are overlooked in Berne’s earlier writings. She introduces the system imago as an idea that illuminates the significance of how systemic power and privilege endorse and advocate on behalf of those who carry entitlement and rank in the wider system. Pandya introduces additional features to Berne’s original model through integrating intersectionality and antioppression work. Finally, she offers a number of observations about how the systems imago applies to the contemporary TA context.
In the fourth of our contributions from women authors, “Being in Charge: A Quest to Embrace the Role of Both Feminine and Masculine Energies in Leadership, Leaving Duality Behind,” Sarah Lowes describes how facilitating a leadership program for a group of men helped her to explore the role of feminine and masculine energies in leadership. Drawing on the legend of Parzival, a knight seeking the Holy Grail, and Temple’s functional fluency model, Lowes explores the struggle with embracing both energies in leadership as well as the challenge with showing care and compassion as leaders. Finally, she reflects on the relational encounter in the leadership program.
Returning to earlier TA writing on group leadership, in “The Leadership Triad: A Relational Model” Michael Korpiun opens with considering the themes of group authority and Berne’s commentary on the three areas of leadership: responsible, effective, and psychological. He goes on to introduce the core idea of his article, which is the “leadership triad,” a relational model comprising representative, executive, and transformative leadership. Each of these can be held within the group—not only by an individual leader—through a cocreated process in which responsibility is held collectively. Korpiun offers case examples illustrating potential imbalances that can occur through the lens of the leadership triad and concludes with thoughts about how the model might apply to the TA community.
Our next two papers focus on the intrapsychic and interpersonal dynamics of leadership. The first, “The Impact of Attachment on Leadership in Organizations” by Miek Hehenkamp and Cor van Geffen, explores how leaders can benefit from developing a secure attachment style. This enables them to create a safe and trusting environment for their teams, especially in times of transition and uncertainty. Drawing on the work of Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Erskine, they explore how different attachment styles can influence the leader’s self-image, expectations of others, and ability to cope with stress and change. They present a case vignette and suggest some interventions that TA facilitators/supervisors can use to support leaders in developing a more secure attachment style. These include working on boundaries, building a relationship of trust, empowering the leader, and providing a secure base.
Meanwhile, in his article “Iatrogenic Effects of Harmful Leadership in Psychotherapist Training: Split Group Imago and Psychological Games Between Teacher/Therapist and Trainee/Patient,” Antonino Raneri offers a specific perspective on the theme of harm in association with leadership as incorporated in the roles of trainer, therapist, and institute director. He takes a relational psychoanalytic approach to understanding what goes on unconsciously between trainers and trainees and in other professional dyads. The article focuses on the potential of harm in such relationships, arguing that there is an inevitability by which power imbalances can activate unconscious drives and delusions. An extended case study is presented through which these ideas are explored.
In our eighth contribution, “Affinity Continuum: Toward Professional Autonomy,” Jan Šimek, Lenka Procházková, and Michal Dubec present a model of skill acquisition that describes how people learn, what discounts they face at different stages, and which trainer interventions effectively support learners in their growth. The model stems from their own experience in a TA-infused teacher training program in the Czech Republic, where they observed discrepancies and patterns in trainees’ competence and reflections. Using a case study, they discuss the factors that influence a trainee’s progress, the relevance of the model for leadership and certification, and the possible applications and limitations of the model.
Finally, this special issue ends with a timely book review from Jr-Earn Lam on The Fluent Leader, a title covering the application of functional fluency in the context of leadership.
We are delighted that a range of ideas, experiences, and writers are represented in this issue. We hope this is a stimulus for your exploration of the personal, professional, and political challenges of leadership. A further question that still intrigues us is the overlap and differences between eldership and leadership. Leaders often focus on success, growth, and progress. By definition, they are situated within a specific domain, whether it be a group, an organization, or a region, and they are primarily charged with the task of protecting and advocating for the locality of their remit. However, we also need to be led in times of defeat, destruction, and decay, and perhaps these are the times when we need to look to elders. Eldership asks questions of us about how to be a good ancestor, and the task is to move beyond the particular locality of the group and toward the universal, remembering the ancestors and turning the collective gaze to a time we ourselves will not see … but perhaps that is for another edition.