Aesthetic leadership
Hans Hansen
a,
⁎
, Arja Ropo
b
, Erika Sauer
b
a
College of Business Administration, Texas Tech University, MS2101, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
b
University of Tampere, Finland
Abstract
We introduce aesthetic leadership as a promising approach in leadership studies. Two current movements in leadership research,
the inclusion of followers in leadership models and the exploration of subjective leadership qualities, make taking an aesthetic
perspective in leadership especially attractive and timely. Aesthetics relates to felt meaning generated from sensory perceptions,
and involves subjective, tacit knowledge rooted in feeling and emotion. We believe the aesthetics of leadership is an important, but
little understood, aspect of organizational life. For example, while we know followers must attribute leadership qualities such as
charisma and authenticity to leaders to allow for social influence, we know little about how these processes operate. We propose
that followers use their aesthetic senses in making these assessments. We relate aesthetic leadership to several current topics in
leadership research, and outline the assumptions and methods of aesthetic leadership.
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Aesthetics; Follower-centric; Charisma; Authenticity; Attribution
1. Introduction
Leadership research has been watering down the rich phenomena of leadership. Jerry Hunt (1999) was not subtle
about the irony when he picked the representative quote: “If leadership is bright orange, then leadership research is slate
grey” (Lombardo & McCall, 1978 ). Part of our enduring roma nce with leadership comes from its attractive explanatory
power in the absence of rational, objective explanations of extraordinary organizational performance. “Leadership” has
become the perfect pat response to “the ill-structured probl em of compr ehending the causal structure of complex,
organized systems” (Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985, p. 79). Somewhere along the way, “leadership” became a
shorthand answer when positive organizational outcomes could not be causally determined. Leadership became the

great dumping ground for unexplained variance.
The lofty status to which leadership was elevated, in the stark absence of empirical findings, was Meindl's premise
of the romance of leadership (Meindl, 1995, Meindl et al., 1985). The “romanticized conception of leadership results
from a biased preference to understand important but causally indeterminant and ambiguous organizational events and
occurrences in terms of leadership” (Meindl et al., 1985, p. 80). Bresnen (1995) also describes how leadership has been
socially constructed to explain superior or poor leadership performance.
A
vailable online at www.sciencedirect.com
The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544 – 560
www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
⁎
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 806 742 2304.
E-mail address: (H. Hansen).
1048-9843/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.003
We were not in search of excellence as much as we were in search of a way to calm our collective anxiety to explain
everything in organizations via scientific realism
1
— a complex we acquired from modeling the social sciences after
the natural sciences. If things went from good to great and we were unable to correlate antecedents with outcomes, our
catch-all antecedent became “leadership.” We brushe d much under this rug. We then pulled a fast one on ourselves. We
began looking for antecedents and consequences to leadership. Never mind that leadership itself was ambiguous
(Pfeffer, 1977), just so long as we could suggest that anything good in organizations was the result o f it. We got so
giddy about leadership that we forgot it was our pat answer for the unexplainable, and went about looking for rational,
objective, causal explanations, making great efforts to quantify a quality we used to explain what we could not quantify.
Kafka would have found this sort of insanity all very delightful, and we might add “leadership tomfoolery” as a
symptom of “academic amnesia” (Hunt & Dodge, 2000).
But before one begins to think we are taking leadership to task, we want to make sure we say that we find leadership
refers to phenomena we find magically creative, inspi rational, and life-full. Our plea is that we might treat it as such.
Leadership is a vibrant bright orange, and we are amazed at its resi lience in the face of leadership studies hammering it

into a shapeless, hapless, colorless, life-less condition . Meindl (1995) was remorseful that so many people took the
romance of leadership as a call to abandon leadership studies. Rather, we should take leadership's larger-than-life role
as a demonstration of just how important and significant leadership is for organizational participants as they make sense
of their experience. It also denotes a welcomed departure from leader-centric approaches toward more follower-
inclusive and social constructionis t approaches to leadership. “…the romance of leadership is about the thoughts of
followers: how leaders are constructed and represented in their thought systems (Meindl, 1995, p. 330).”
The purpose of this article is to introduce aesthetic leadership as a unique, distinct, and valuable approach within
leadership studies. We set out to build a case describing why leadership studies needed to move towards aesthetics, but
as we reflected on recent trends in leader ship research, it became clear to us that leadership was already moving toward
an aesthetic approach. The question then became: Is leadership ready for the place it is already heading? We think it can
be, and taking an aesthetic perspective will help leadership studies thrive in the areas it has just begun to venture into.
We will explain why we think an aesthetic perspective can benefit leadership studies, and lay out what an aesthetic
approach to leadership entails.
We define aesthetics and review the quickly building steam of organizational aesthetics. We will then discuss how
aesthetics can complement and offer valuab le insights to leadership given current trends in leadership studies. We think
leadership is just beginning to grapple with some issues that organizational aesthetics is particularly suited for. In fact,
given the combination of current movements in leadership, ones that continue to inch closer and closer to aesthetic
issues, it is time that leadership embrace an aesthetic approach. More than demonstrate what aesthetics has to offer
some current leadership topics, we hope to introduce a distinct approach within leadership studies — aesthetic
leadership.
2. Aesthetics
We should start by saying that aesthetics is not synonymous with art or beauty. When we talk about the aesthetics of
leadership we want to avoid any superf icial reference to “the art of leadership.” By aesthetics, we refer to sensory
knowledge and felt meaning of objects and experiences. Reason and logic has often been contrasted with emotion and
feeling, but what they both have in common is that they are sources of knowledge and generate meanings we rely and
act on. Aesthetics involves meanings we construct based on feelings about what we experience via our senses, as
opposed to the meanings we can deduce in the absence of experience, such as mathematics or other realist ways of
knowing.
The Greek word aisthesis refers to any kind of sensory experience regardless of whether it is sensuous or artistic.
Philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten is considered the father of aesthetics. Along with Vico (1744, reprinted in

1948), he contended that knowledge was as much about feelings as it was cognition (Baumgarten, 1750). Aesthetic
knowledge involves sensuo us perception in and through the body (Merleau-Ponty, 1962) and is inseparable from our
direct experience of being in the world (Dewey, 1958; Gagliardi, 1996). The contention that the felt meaning based on
1
Boal, Hunt, & Jaros (2003) contrast realist ontologies with subjectivism, symbolic/interpretive interactionism, social construction and post-
modernism. They further distinguish positivism and scientific realism, which can attend to unobservable phenomena, such as charisma, by making
inferences from its effects.
545H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
experience was just as important as cognitive understandings was made in contrast to Descartes' detached intellectual
epistemology. Cartesian thinking did not so much separate the mind/body as simply ditch the body. As a result, the
mind (cognitions, intellect, logic) was privileged as a source of knowledge and our sensory-based and embodied ways
of knowing were marginalized. This marginalization is ironic because aesthetic experience shapes and precedes all
other forms of knowledge (Husserl, 1960; Langer, 1942).
We might find a touch-point for those unfamiliar with aesthetics in Polanyi's idea of tacit knowledge. Polanyi (1958,
reprinted in1978) contrasted explicit, objective knowing with more implicit, subjective, tacit ways of knowing. Leaders
are said to rely on this tacit knowledge when they rely on “their gut feelings” or instincts. Knowledge at the tacit level is
often described as deeply ingrained, inexpressible know-how that resists clear, logical explication. For our purposes,
the embodied, tacit knowing corresponds roughly to sensory/aesthetic knowing, particularly as opposed to intellectual/
explicit knowing.
Robert J. Sternberg and colleagues (Hedlund et al., 2003; Sternberg & Horvath, 1999) have used tacit knowledge to
explain leader success. They note that tacit knowledge is drawn from everyday experience, guides action, and is
commonly understood in terms like professional intuition. Though much of the tacit knowledge relevant to perform
successfully is not easily expressed, it does increase with experience in a particular domain, and will be relied upon and
instrumental in pursuing goals more that knowledge based on someone else's experience. Aesthetic knowledge is
similarly drawn from experience, guides action, and is difficult to codify. But distinct from tacit knowledge, the focus
of aesthetic know ledge is skewed toward knowledge drawn from more aesthetic experiences or knowledge used to
construct, represent, and interpret the felt meanings and sensory experiences related to organizational life.
Just as we do not want to confine aesthetics to art, we want to avoid relegating aesthetics to being only about beauty.
When we do associate aesthetics with art, it is probably because art communicates in paralogical ways, giving meaning
through expressions other than the logical, such as emotional. Because of its representational form and its experiential

nature, art involves our aesthetic senses and generates a different type of knowledge. However, we make aesthetic
judgments about many things we experience besides art. Art has an aesthetic, but so do places and interactions, such as
an office and how a factory is laid out, or a job interview. A conversation with our boss might leave us with a bad taste
in our mouth or feeling inspired in ways that go beyond any content of the conversation.
Likewise, the association wi th beauty is too confining. We often think of aesthetics as referring to beautiful things,
as when we find something aesthetically pleasing. Aesthetics do involve judgment, but beauty is only one of several
aesthetic categories. There is also the aesthetically ugly, sublime, comic, or grotesque (Strati, 1992). And while we
often think of aesthetic judgments as those we make toward art, aesthetics involves sensory assessments of how we feel
about anything. We can also consider what an event, object, or interaction evokes in us emotionally. It might be
beautiful, ugly, inspiring, creepy, funny, warm, ironi c, etc., as opposed to what it might mean for us objectively (our
market share will increase, my office will be larger, I'll have more free time, my sales commission will decrease, our
division will be split in two, my budget will be cut, etc.). There are many feelings and emotions that sensory
experiences give rise to, and many types of aesthetics to describe those felt meanings. Our focus is on that felt meaning
and the implications it has for leadership studies, as opposed to rational, instrumental, intellectual or logical meanings.
3. Organizational aesthetics
Seminal organizational theorist Chester Barnard (1938, p. 235; and cited in Vaill, 1989) said management was
“aesthetic rather than logical” and better described by terms such as “feeling, judgment, and sense,” but organizational
studies has taken a scien tific realist approach in search of effectiveness. Ottensmeyer (1996) pointed out that though we
consistently experience and refer to organizations in aesthetic terms, we have not approached them that way
academically.
Once we recognize that aesthetic meaning is all around us in everyday life, and we rely on aesthetic meaning to
guide our behaviors, thoughts, and actions just as much as we rely on rational, logical, instrumental reasoning, then we
must also recognize that aesthetic meanings are just as pervasive in work settings as they are in everyday life. We
generate all kinds of meaning based on the sensory experience of our work lives, and aesthetics abound in
organizations, but are greatly underrepresented in organizational studies (Strati, 1999, 2000a,b,c). For example, we
have not approached decision-making aesthetically, even though we know we make important decisions using aesthetic
judgment as opposed to rationality. Leaders have “gut feelings” that they trust in spite of objective reports and data
models that draw different logical conclusions.
546 H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
It might be more correct to say one of our aims is to introduce a new aesthetics of organizing, because organizational

research itself has a particular aesthetic already. For example, Guillen (1997) has argued that Taylorization and
Scientific Management presents an aesthetic which equates beauty with efficiency. This aesthetic dominates
organizational thinking, and is represented in statements like “it's wor king beautifully” (White, 1996), which means
that it is working smoothly, efficiently, exactly as planned — the realization of the modernist management ideals.
Given that this aesthetic has directed our concept ualization of organizing, Strati (1995) sugges ts alternative aesthetics
can help redefine what organization is, and new criteria, besides efficiency, by which organizations might be judged.
This is really more forgotten than uncharted territory. Strati (1999) reminds us that empathic knowledge, feelings and
intuition, the stuff of aesthetics, once had a prominent place in management science (Weber, 1922).
Strati (1992, 1996, 1999) is most responsible for introducing an aesthetic approach to organizational studies.
Aesthetics provides a philosophical point to develop an alternative to the mainstream paradigm that emphasized the
logical, rational, and linear nature of organizational practices such as management and leadership (Ropo, Parviainen &
Koivunen, 2002). Since then, the empirical and theoretical analysis of the relations between aesthetics and organization
has been well-es tablished. There are even several reviews of the organizational literature on aesthetics and various
codifications of the field of organizational aesth etics (Dean, Ottensmeyer, & Ramirez, 1997; Gagliardi, 1996; Ramírez,
2005; Strati, 1999; Taylor & Hansen, 2005).
In general, an organizational aesthetics perspective seeks to explore the everyday experience of organizing in terms
of its aesthetic construction. Strati (1992) makes a detailed epistemological argument for aesthetic inquiry as the way to
get at experience and aesthetic/symbolic organizational forms, and highlights areas where aesthetic understanding is
particularly appropriate but analytical understanding is not. Strati (1999) wants to centralize these aesthetic elements of
organizational life, and further distinguish aesthetics as a way of knowing in contrast to intellectual–rational knowing.
Dean, Ottensmeyer, & Ramirez (1997) point out that an aesthetic perspective addresses questions and issues that are
fundamentally different from instrumental or ethical concerns. The approach is not only unique but important. For
instance, people are attracted to things they see as beautiful and are repulsed by the ugly. We want to be involved with
organizations that appeal to us on aesthetic dimensions. Wal-mart might ask: ‘What aesthetics are associated with our
company? How do people feel about us?’ While stock price may have done well, people form their judgment s about
companies based on more than stock price. Even just asking aesthetic questions will shift the perspective of
organizations and point to a broader set of actions.
Inquiry into the aesthetic dimension of organizations entails several forms and methods (Carr & Hancock, 2003;
Gagliardi, 1996; Guillet de Monthoux, 2004; Jones, Moore, & Snyder, 1988; Linstead & Hopfl, 2000; Strati, 1999;
Taylor, 2002; Watkins, King, & Linstead, 2006), but most common elements include analysis of the day-to-day feel of

the organization, questions of what is considered beautiful or ugly, and other aesthetic content that has not been part of
much of mai nstream organizational research. For example, Ramírez (1991) describes how empirical research can grasp
the beauty of the organization as a whole, and others have argued that organizational processes should be grasped as
aesthetic phenomenon, because organizational participants are “craftspersons and aesthetes” (Jones, Moore, Snyder,
1988, p. 160). Gagliardi (1996) explores feelings of/toward organizational artifacts that constitute the organization's
symbolic landscape which are exercised at the emotional and aesthetic level rather than the normative and cognitive
one. Instead of favoring either the cognitive or aesthetic, Pierre Guillet de Monthoux (2004) encourages us to foster the
tension between the rational and the artistic as a source of creative potential in organizations.
Looking at art and aesthetics inside organizations, Dobson (1999) classifies managers as technicians, moral
managers, and aesthetic managers. The emergence of the aesthetic management paradigm places the aesthetic manager
as an artisan in an aesthetic firm, seeking excellence in craft instead of an exclusive pursuit of profit. Similarly,
Dickinson & Svensen (2000) outline what will constitute a beautiful corporation in the coming aesthetic age. At the
managerial level, Austin & Devin (2003) contrast artful making with industrial making in comparing artful managers to
theatre directors. Guillet De Monthoux, Gustafsson, & Sjostrand (2007) provide an array of cases that explores
aesthetic leadership in different contexts.
Organizational aesthetics certainly has more roots in Europe (Ramírez, 2005), but as the field has gotten larger, it has
begun to transcend geographic boundaries. Recent literature point s us to ways aesthetics might be approac hed across
various topics. Linstead & Hopfl (2000) made feeling and emotion central to the aesthetics of organizing. Ramírez
(2005) developed a theory to empirically examine why some aesthetics appeal to us (“it is working beautifully”
) more
than others (“it is working effectively”), emphasizing the importance of symbols that are used in experiencing and
sharing aesthetic dimensions (1987). Chua & Degeling (1993) add aesth etics as another lens for critically assessing
547H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
managerial actions and others draw on aesthetics to continue the critical project in management studies (Cairns, 2002;
Dale & Burrell, 2002; Hancock, 2002). Finally, Pelzer (2002) takes an aesthetic perspective in exploring disgust that
comes from an organizational change.
4. Organizational aesthetics and leadership
We believe leadership studies are already on a trajectory toward more aesthetic dimensions of leadership. The
aesthetics of leadership lies at the conjunction of two current movements in leadership research. The first movement
began with conceptualizations of leadership as the management of meaning (Calder, 1977; Smircich & Morgan, 1982 )

and continues to grow along with interest in social constructionist, subjective, and symbolic approaches to leadership.
The qualities we highlight within these approac hes are transformational/visionary leadership, chari sma, and
authenticity. The second movement is toward follower-centric models of leadership, such as those rooted in social
influence models that take the basic premise that without followers in the picture, there is no one to be lead. Meindl
(1990) and Lord & Maher (1991) were some of the first to explicitly state that one was not a leader until others saw one
as a leader. This made others central to leadership. Previously, the focus was on individuals and essential traits or
behaviors, and not the perceptions of others. It is at the point of convergence of these two movements, follower
perspectives of leadership qualities, that we see the strongest contribution for aesthetic leadership.
A brief sketch of the history of leader ship reveals steady progression towards leadership qualities and the inclusion of
followers, as well as the convergence of these two movements. Early leadership studies attempted to identify, measure,
and isolate universal traits successful leaders needed to possess to be effective or to be considered leaders. Following
trait theory, the next broad phase of leadership studies sought to identify behaviors or styles that leaders should
demonstrate (see House & Aditya, 1997 for a review of trait, behavior, and charismatic theories). The menu included
selections of autocratic or democratic styles, task or relationship orientations, initiating structure or consideration, and
the like. It was hard to isolate effective styles because results showed that all styles worked in some context.
The field quickly decided that determining just which style leaders needed to exhibit was contingent upon the
particular situation a leader faced (Fiedler, 1967). It was at this time that leadership models began to take followers into
account, with foll ower-readiness deter mining just how much of a participative style a leader could exhibit (House,
1971). With followers entering the picture, other topi cs that explored social influence emerged (cf. Sussmann &
Vecchio, 1982), and we think we are still in this mode today. We do not think the search for leadership qualities is a
return to trait theory. While trait theory searched for objective, quantifiable characteristics that leaders had, measurable
to variable degrees, the turn to leadership qualities has not only included more subjective qualities, but also recognized
that these were qualities a leader could develop, as opposed to essential traits they had or they did not. The focus is on
how those leadership qualities allowed for social influence over others.
Transformational and visionary leadership, charismatic leadership, authentic leadership all imp ly social influence as
a positive motivational aspect of these qualities. Charismatic leadership studies that take a follower-centric perspective
demonstrate the turn to leadership qualities, a substantial shift from identifying and measuring proper proportions of
explicit traits, behaviors, and styles. In those approaches, followership is central in charisma because no leaders have
charisma unless followers bestow it upon them. Charisma might be a quality a leader can possess, but does not allow
for social influence until recognized and attributed by the followers. Hence, this highlights the now common contention

that there is no leadership without followers. That brings us to the present day, where research is beginning to explore
more and more tacit, implicit leadership qualities that are just as dependent on followers' judgment and recognition as
the leader exhibiting these qualities. These leadership qualities and how they are judged based on followers sense and
experience of them during the social influence process puts leadership squarely into the realm of aesthetics. The
impressions and effect that visions have on followers, as well as what sense followers make of, or any judgment they
make about, leadership qualities like charisma, authen ticity, and credibility are all related to sensory-based knowledge
based on their experience of those phenomena, or the aesthetics of leadership.
As leadership pushes forward into these new territories, new approaches and new methods will provide new
insights. Leadership studies have revealed much about leadership phenomena, but older approaches to leadership need
to be complimented by new ones, especially as we reconceptualize the leadership process. Overall, a psychological
approach has dominated leadership research (Parry, 1998). The psychological approach relied on instrumentalism, a
strong but very narrow measure of the overall leadership experience. Leadership has rightly turned to social influence
processes, which cannot be reduced to the measurement of psychological factors. People use more than rationality and
548 H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
intellect to make decisions. They bring thei r minds and bodies to work; their emotions, feelings, and personal
experiences that cannot be represented in any rational models. In fact, it is in those situations where rationality does not
apply that leader ship is most crucial. If we could reduce every decision to a rational model, we would not need leaders
at all. CEOs would make very little money and fishbone diagrams would be priceless.
If leadership continues to include the followers' perspective and explore subjective qualities, it will benefit from
developing an aesthetic approach. Aesthetics has a long history and its stock and trade are the very areas that leadership is
just now entering. What works in leadership will continue to be the central question for the practicing leader and leadership
researchers alike. While previous leadership studies have largely taken an instrumental approach to what works, aesthetics
also sheds light on what works, but what works aesthetically, what seems to agree with our tacit knowledge or implicit
feelings and emotions regarding a particular context. It is actually a much deeper and complex reasoning than a solely “will
it physically work?” instrumental determination. Throwing a child into the water might be a successful crash-course in
swimming, but how does sink-or-swim resonate with the parents and children as a method? We need to be concerned with
leadership processes as well as outcomes, asking if something will work in much broader ways.
5. Trends in leadership studie s: moving toward aesthetics
Transformational, visionary, chari smatic and authentic leadership represent some of the leadership approaches in
what was referred to as the new paradigm of leadership that emerged in the 1980s (Bryman, 1992). Besides

representing the movements to include followers as a crucial part of leadership's social influence and exploring
leadership qualities, these leadership topics spurred a much-needed rejuvenation of the field (Hunt, 1999). We will
briefly review the topics in order to highlight some connections to aesthetics.
5.1. Transformational and visionary leadership
Transformation leadership (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985) is associated with large scale change efforts and organizational
visions that inspire, motivate, and empower followers. An outcome of trans formational leadership is performance
beyond expectations. Transformational leadership involves creative insight (Bass & Avolio, 1993), and followers are
also inspired to be more innovative and creative (Bass, 1990; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Aesthetics stands to bring new insights to these more inspirational and creative aspects of
transformational leadership.
Yukl, Gordon, & Taber (2002) note that visions of a better future are a common element in transformational
leadership. Leader's have remarkable influence over subordinates who internalize the leader's vision of what can be
achieved (Bass, 1985) through a shared sense of purpose or mission (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Visions are effective if they
are communi cated with enthusiasm and confidence and are perceived to be feasible. Visions provide an appreciation of
the possibilities that the future might offer to followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994).
Gardner & Avolio (1998) explored how leaders use stories to help articulate an organizational vision and align
followers' aspirations. In providing an idealized vision, stories can make followers' work more meaningful and provide
them with a deeper sense of purpose (Gardner & Avolio, 1998) and appeal to their desire to contribute to the collective
good (Bass, 1985; Shamir, 1995). Boal & Sc hultz (2007) describe how strategic leaders shape interaction and construct
shared meaning through storytelling.
But visions are future tense, so the pursuit of visions involves a leap of faith. The motivation to take that leap of faith
is not always based on rational, objective, and empirical evidence because there may be none. Instead, leaders must
inspire through the felt meaning of the organizational vision. Since visions have yet to be realized, an artistic
description is more useful than an accurate description. Visions are sensory rich because they lack rational details and
propositional arguments. Leaders must provide followers with a sense of what life will be like if the vision is enacted.
Because of their nature, visions must appeal to aesthetic senses. Followers are convinced by appeals to emotion as
much as rationality or logic.
Visions convey felt meaning. Stories can make followers' work more meaningful and provide them with a deeper
sense of purpose (Taylor, Fisher, & Dufresne, 2002). How people express themselves to, and in conjunction w ith
others to create meaning and influence, is the central focus of dramaturgy (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). To the extent

that visi ons are dramatic, their construction and delivery involves aesthetics. Some of the elements of communicating
visions are composition, style and delivery (Harto g & Verbe rg, 1997), with followers considering plausibilit y and
549H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
credibility that involves aesthetic reflection rather t han an ana lysi s of accu rac y. Efforts to communicate the idealized
content of the proposed vision and persuade followers to embrace it are based on merit (Gardner & Avolio, 1998).
This communication of idealized content involves a challenge for leaders to somehow make visions real and bring
them into the present, to give followers at least a sense of what it is like to live in the vision so that feelings and
emotions might i nsp ir e enactment of the vision.
5.2. Charismatic leadership
Charismatic leaders have extraordinary effects on their followers. House (1977) proposed that leaders go beyond the
call of duty in making personal sacrifices for the good of their followers, articulate an exciting vision, and engage in
personal image-building which produces favorable perceptions of themselves to followers that results in favorable
outcomes for the organization. The leader 's ability to raise followers' self-concepts is a key feature of charismatic
leadership ( Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Weber (1947) originally conceptualized charismatic leadership as a form of
authority derived from ecclesiastical divinity based on follower perceptions, as opposed to formal authority.
Charismatic leaders have magnetic personalities that draw followers and motivate them to achiev e higher levels of
performance (Bass, 1985; Conger, 1989; Willner, 1984). Followers are more dedicated to the leader and organization
because of the relationship with the leader. This emotional attachment allows for the social influence and positive
outcomes in charismatic leadership (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).
This emotional attachment is a key advancement within charismatic leadership, along with the central role of
follower and focus on leader–follower interaction. Willner (1984) defined charisma in terms of follower responses to
the leader, and some charismatic perspectives assume charisma is granted to leaders by followers (Yagil, 1998). While
“extraordinary effects” are attributed to the emotional attachment associated with followers “granting” charisma to
leaders, we still have not explored how followers decide to grant or bestow leaders with charisma. It is recognized that
charisma involves much emotional work (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Shamir et al., 1993), but little is known about the
processes that result in emotional attachment. Given the role of emotion and feelings toward leaders, as well as the
decision to give charisma, followers' aesthetic judgments based on their sensory experiences during interacting with
the leader should be central in research on charisma.
5.3. Authentic leadership
Authentic leaders are those that are true to themselves. Followers sense this and implicitly trust the leader as being

genuine. Authentic leadership processes involve positive psychological capacities and organizational contexts, which
results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and followers (Luthans
& Avolio, 2003). This definition incorporates insights from positive organizational behavior as well as transformational
leadership (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans & May, 2004; Bass, 1985; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, &
Walumbwa, 2005). Authentic leadership includes organizational climate (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) as one of its three
main elements in addition to leaders and followers.
Authentic leadership results in heightened levels of trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Jones & George, 1998),
engagement, work place well being (Gardner et al., 2005 ), and a more inclusive and caring organizational climate
(Gardner et al., 2005). All of these outcomes speak to the ‘feel’ of an organization and subjective judgments about
whether a leader is being authentic. It seems implausible that followers will judge whether or not leaders are “being
themselves” from any objective criteria, yet people are incredibly adept at sensing when someone is being fake, when
what the individual is projecting is not “the real me.” We know anecdotally that we make judgments about whether
people are being genuine all the time. We also consider feelings members have toward their organization, such as the
organizational climate, which refers to the shared perceptions about the way things are in the organization (Reichers &
Schneider, 1990; Schneider, 1975). Much of organizational life is mired in judgments based on felt meaning. An
aesthetic approach to authenticity would help shed light on these leader–follower interactions as well as sensory-based
interpretations about the organization.
Transformational, visionary, charismatic and authentic leadership all point to aesthetics as a potentially informative
approach. All of these leadership theories emphasize symbolic leader behaviors (Shamir et al., 1993) and the
interpretative and productive role that followers play in determining leadership qualities. In each of them, feelings are
evoked in followers and leaders alike. All of these topics involve the sense made of subjective experiences and follower
550 H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
assessment of leadership qualities. We suggest that followers imbue leaders with social influence capabilities based at
least partially on aesthetic senses and judgments, as opposed to purely objective criteria . Leadership approaches rooted
in scientific realism, like most of the social sciences, take a rational view that is too narrow to describe these more
complex human experiences of leadership. Followers, like leaders, can go by their gut feelings. Judgments about
leadership qualities are implicit and subjective. They involve sensemaking processes that rely on subjective tacit
knowledge and aesthetic sensibilities. The sense followers make, and feelings they have, about the contextualized
experience of leadership phenomena produces aesthetic knowledge.
6. Other touchstones with aesthetic leadership

Having revie wed three areas of leadership studies we believe connect to aesthetic s, we would like to discuss three
additional leadership issues that share touchstones with aesthetic leadership. Attribution, emotion in organizations, and
discursive leadership all have aspects that are poignant in taking an aesthetic leadership perspective. These three areas
address the relationship between leaders and followers, and involve the management of meaning, sensemaking,
interpretation, or the projection of qualities onto the leader.
Attribution becomes central in any leadership theory that includes follower perceptions of leaders, and Martinko &
Gardner (1987) suggest attribution theory is applicable to leadership. For example, both charisma and authenticity
involve follower attribution toward the leader (Weber, 1947; Yagil, 1998), but we know very little about the process by
which followers attribute charisma or authenticity to leaders. Attribution theory and research has centered around two
basic models. Kelley (1973) described how people use information to make social attributions and focused on the
process used to form attributions. Weiner (1985) proposed assessments of the locale of causality and stability, which
describe dim ensions that underlie attributional explanations (Martinko & Thomso n, 1998). Both attribution models
derive causal explanations of behavior and outcomes based on a comparative quantification of behavioral episodes, but
cannot get at the processes of attributing qualities. Because these assessments of leadership qualities are subjective,
implicit, interactionist, and involve felt meanings, we believe inquiry into the aesthetics of the leader–follower
relationship will reveal much about follower attribution processes.
Since aesthetics delves into the felt meanings in organizations, emotion in organizations (Fineman, 2003) and
aesthetics can inform each other, especially across the topics we have suggested here. For example, Ashforth and
Humphrey (1995) call for the study of emotions in transformational leadership, such as how emotions relate to feelings
and inspiration regarding change. Interest in emotions corresponds with an increased emphasis on the emotional,
inspirational, and symbolic aspects of leadership influence (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir et al., 1993). The
Leadership Quarterly (2002) published a special issue on emotions in leadership.
Emotional labor research overlaps with aesthetics, especially with regard to leaders' projection of emotion and
followers' emotional responses. For instance, Conger & Kanungo (1998) argue that leaders who are able to elicit
emotional responses from their employees are more likely to achieve desired organizational changes. One stream of
research on emotion within leadership focuses on managing the emotions of followers (Humphrey, 2002). This stream
corresponds with the definition of leaders as managers of meaning, and is represented by recent work such as
Dasborough & Ashkanasy (2002) , who conceptualize leadership as an emotional process where leaders display and
evoke emot ion, and Pescosolido (2002), who offers empirical insights into how leaders manage group emotions. There
is also a connection to attribution. For instance, Dasborough & Ashkanasy (2002) use attribution theory to examine

how followers' attribute sincerity and intention when interpreting leader emotional displays.
But more research on emotion in leadership is needed. Brief & Weiss (2002) point out that though the field is full of
stories about the role of the leader in the production of moods and emotion, there is little empirical data on emotions and
leadership. Bono & Ilies (2006) suggest charismatic leaders are strong senders of emotion, but marvel at how little is
actually known about charismatic leaders' expressions of emotions. Beside the production and recept ion of emotion,
there are additional questions about processes such as emotional contagion, the spread of emotion from leaders to
followers. Taking an aesthetic perspective could provide much insight into the production and interpretation of
emotions.
Lastly, we see a touchstone between aesthetics and discursive approac hes to leadership (Fairhurst, 2007). Like
emotion in leadership, the import of discourse into leadership studies is largely due to the increasing trend to see leaders
as managers of meaning. Similar to discursive approaches, narrative theory has gained a foothold in leadership studies.
Both correspond with the rise of qualitative research in leadership studies that came along with social constructionist
551H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
and symbolic approaches. Like Grint (2000, 2005), Fairhurst embraces the social constructed nature of leadership and
defines leadership as constructed by discourse. Persuasion becomes a central task of leadership, which entails style,
content and delivery of vision as part of a symbolic approach to leadership.
Discursive leadership focuses on leaders' language-in-use and everyday dialog as leaders and followers construct
organizational reality. Aesthet ic leadership relates to the extent that discursive leadership evokes certain aesth etics or
attempts to manage felt meaning. While felt meanings and emotions can be evident in leadership discourse, aesthetics
also includes other symbolic forms, such as the non-discursive, the contextual, and paralinguistic constructions of
meaning. For example, organizational participants might share a strongly sensed and felt but unspoken understanding
of their organizational climate.
7. Aesthetic leadership
We now turn to outline the assumptions and implications of an aesthetic leadership approach. We align aesthetic
leadership with some ontological and epistemological assumptions, suggest a research focus and methods, and provide
examples of some research questions from an aesthetic leadership perspective. Aesthetic leadership is concerned with
sensory knowledge and felt meaning associated with leadership phenom ena. It entails a subjectivist ontology, symbolic
interpretive epist emology, and qualitative methods. Aesthetic meanings arise and emerge out of symb olic interaction
and processes of social construction. Methods to inquire into aesthetic meaning include ethnography (Strati, 1992) and
discourse/narrative analysis. In applying aesthetic methods to leadership topics, we highlight the importance of the

getting at the experiential and contextual, and inquiry into leaders and followers sensory and felt meanings constructed
in subjective processes that rely on aesthetic knowledge.
7.1. Ontological and epistemological assumptions of aesthetic leadership
We have drawn connections to some symbolic and interpretive influenced leadership theories, but we want to point
out that there are still fundamental ontological and epistemological controversies that differentiate transformational,
charismatic, and authentic leadership research from aesthetically informed leadership study. The predominant approach
to leadership phenomena has been objectivist, relying on a scientific realist approach to discover and predict outcomes
associated with various aspects of leadership. The latest surge of aesthetics into organizational studies comes broadly
from the search for alternate methods of knowledge and has emerged along with interpretive/critical perspectives in
organizational studies. Instead of attempting to predict objective outcomes of leadership phenomena such as charisma
and authenticity, aesthetic leadership focuses on how these phenomena are produced and emerge, and attempts to
describe the subjective felt meanings as experienced by leaders and followers. An aesthetic approach recognizes that
rational analysis neglects important aspects of everyday organizational life. It enables us to study and to talk about the
subtle, underlying qualities, which we sense, but cannot quite put our finger on (Sauer, 2005, Strati, 2000a,b,c). In
contrast to the linear-rationalist and cognitive understandings of knowledge, the roots of aesthetic knowledge lie in
experiential knowing and understanding. We have not explored the aesthetic side of leadership, though Grint (2000)
has argued there is much to be gained from more artistic views because construction and invention play such a large
role in leadership.
Aesthetics is concerned with knowledge that is created from our sensory experiences, which includes a conn ection
between our thoughts and feelings and how our reasoning around them informs our cognitions. Aesthetic knowing
corresponds to the embodied, tacit knowing that is often contrasted with intellectual/explicit knowing. Aesthetic
leadership assumes leadership phenomena are subjective. It is concerned with the experi ential, but considers reality to
be a subjective experience, a human-made interpretation based on our awareness, perception, and the subjective
materials we use to make those interpretations. We play a role in constructing reality, as far as it is known to us. As
researchers, we inquire into that socially constructed, subjective reality through an interpretive epistemology. We
inquire into the meanings and understandings that leadership has for individuals in a particular context, attempting to
describe phenomena as experienced by the people who produce it and rely on it to guide their behaviors and
interpretations. This search for meaning of the phenomenon itself is contrasted to a search for what outcomes are
correlated with its presence.
For social constructionists, meaning arises out of, but also guides, the interpretive process of social interaction. The

underlining prem ise here is that people act towards things on the basis of the meanings the things have for them. The
552 H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
meaning of anything must be formed, learned, and transmitted through a process of indication, as it occurs in context.
There are no fixed meanings, but meaning may be sustained through reconstruction. A social constructionist approach
to leadership has been building over the past decade (Bresnen, 1995; Bryman, 2004; Bryman, Stephens, & Campo,
1996; Meindl, 1995). Meindl (199, p. 330) for instance, views leaders as “constructed by actors and observers.” He
suggests a focus on the meani ng and symbolism of the relationship-as-constructed between followers and leaders, as
opposed to traditional causal behavioral linkages, which are merely derivatives of the follower-made construction of
leadership.
Consider these assumptions applied to charismatic leadership. Charisma is a subjective phenomenon constructed via
interaction between leaders and followers, the result of an interpretive process that then guides how followers and the
leader interact. If followers treat the leader as charismatic, then that becomes reality. Leadership scholars will have no
trouble agreeing with this conceptualization of charisma, but we are concerned with the processes by which followers
and leaders interact to construct that meaning.
In taking an ae sthetic approach to understanding this m eaning, we assume the judgments a nd interpretations
made by followers are partly based on implicit, tacit, felt meaning derived from their subjective interpretation of
leadership experiences. Aesthetic le adership seeks to inquire into the aesthetic meanings peop le rely on and form
in co-constructing a charismatic leader. This inquiry leads to descriptive understanding rather than predictive
outcomes. Both are useful, but leadership research has produced a considerable amount of predictive outcomes
of leadership, even though leadership itself is poorly understood ( Yagil, 1998). We th ink an aesthetic approach
will p rovide new insights about the meaning leadership has for the people who experience and participate in i ts
practice.
The two enduring components of an aesthetic approach to leadership are 1) engagement of the senses and 2) the
focus on the experiential (Taylor & Hansen, 2005). An aesthetic world-view seeks to open up possibilities and widen
the understanding of leadership by becoming knowledgeable about the hidden and unrecognized sensuous ways of
knowing. In emphasizing the importance of everyday, mundane actions, aesthetic leadership takes a holistic
perspective and a multidimensional view of skills and competencies of people interacting in complex contexts, as
opposed to just cognitive faculties of leaders. Aesthetic practices include language skills, listening, gazing, touch, and
treating emotion and feelings as important sources of knowledge. Another distinguishing factor is that inquiry into
aesthetics requires direct experience. One has to be there a nd experience the situation to understand it. Just as no text,

no matter how detailed and colorful can describe what it feels like to hit a perfect golf drive, aesthetic knowledge
requires experience to “know what it is like” on a tacit level. Ramírez (1996) suggests that organizational life is not
simply an intellectual abstraction but offers a direct sensory experience, and suggests that future research in
organizational aesthetics should address the aesthetic experience of everyday organizational life.
Aesthetic leadership takes a relational and embodied perspective. Aesthetic leadership knowledge is constructe d
(i.e. it is made, shared, transformed and transferred) in relationships between people by way of interaction. Ramírez
(1991) suggests that aesthetics are about the “belonging to” aspect of a system, and Duke (1986) applies an aesthetic
perspective to argue that leadership is about bringing meaning to relationships between individuals and organizations.
While the recent movements to include followers in leadership models was much needed, aesthetic leadership focuses
on the felt meaning, tacit assumptions, and the emotions as integral to leader– follower relationships. For example,
while charismatic leadership already assumes followers imbue leaders with charisma, aesthetic leader ship is concerned
with the aesthetic judgments and emotional processes followers attended to in deciding whether or not to bestow a
particular leader with charisma. We understand leadership as a processual (Hunt & Ropo, 1995), subjective, interactive
(Trice & Beyer, 1986), developmental relationship as opposed to an objective characteristic that individuals have or
not.
Corporeality (or the bodily nature of leadership) has been largely neglected in mainstream leadership and
organization theory. It seems as if corporeality has been taboo. There has been much effort in theory and practice to
control or hide certain aspects of humanness, such as the body and emotions. An aesthetic view of leadership and
organizing emphasizes the importance of bodily presence. The sensuous and sensing body is essential in organizational
life, though it is typically seen to belong to the private sphere of people and not to those in organizations. This is ironic,
given that organization is a metaphor based on organisms. The call to bring the body back into organizational studies
came about largely because of the post-modern critique of the modern project of rationalization and of Cartesian
dualism (Casey, 2000). Almost like an unwanted and unwelcome guest, the living body has largely been ignor ed in
leadership. The “bodylessness” of leadership theories has been reflected in ways of how people, both leaders and
553H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
followers, have been treated as ‘human resources,’ abstracted from their concrete, living bodies that sense, experience,
and reflect with other human bodies (Ropo et al., 2002, p. 22).
Leadership is an embodied practice, but the presence of bodies has been taken for gran ted in organizational
studies (Hassard, Holliday, & Willmott, 2000). There has been some inclusion of the body in social and cultural
studies (cf. Shilling, 1993; Turner, 1996), but few organizational theorists have taken up discussion on how bodies

are conceptualized and attended to in organizations. Barry and Hazen (1996) provide an analysis of how
organizational forms and practices originate from assumptions w e ha ve about our bodies. They demonstrate a history
of organizational stud ies t hat has considered the bod y to be a machine in relation to a larger organizational machine,
where researchers conduct an analysis of the motion of the machines (Taylor, 1911), and tweak structures for optimal
performance (Fayol, 1949). Though organizational studies has largely overlo oked the lived embodied experience
(Casey, 2000), there have been gains related to aesthetics. Gagliardi (1996) discusses the aesthetics of bodily
experience, a nd Martin (2002) describes the aesthetics of life in an elder care home, with body politics and power
struggles o ver who is in charge of the human body being central themes. Harding (2002) c onsiders the bodies of
managers, how they embody the desire d aesthetic of the organization, and how they produce and are consumed by
the organization. Bodily leadership knowledge refers to a special type of tacit knowing acquired through experience
and so cial interaction over time (Ropo & Parviainen, 2001). For example, Sauer (2005) discusses the sensory and
emotional dimensions of t he body and corresponding rhythms in constructing leadership. An aesthetic way of
knowing through the senses allows corporeal aspects of l eadership like these to become legitimate knowledge. These
aspects include both positive and negative feelings and emotions, such a s joy, but also anger and shame (Ropo et al.,
2002). These aspects are also seen from a relational perspective, in contrast to the traditional, individually-centered,
mindful cognitions.
8. Research focus and methods
Aesthetic leadership is concerned with the aesthetic aspects of social influence processes in leadership. Aesthetic
knowledge refers to sensuous experiences (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching) that are lived in and through
the human body. The focus is on interaction and the aesthetic knowledges that are produced by and guide interactions.
To date, leadership studies have focused on the individual and cognitive rather than interactional (Fairhurst, 2007). We
searched for traits, characteristics, behaviors, and styles that resided in the leader. With the turn to social influence and
the inclusion of followers in leadership process, we look at qualities that are co-constructed between leaders and
followers. The qualities do not reside in leaders, but rather in the interaction between leaders and followers. For
example, aesthetic leadership might attempt to describe the intuitive processes followers go through, focusing on
aesthetic knowledges they rely on, in determining if a leader is authentic. These are the more creative forces of
leadership (cf. Zalenik, 1977), and the parts of leadership that remain elusive and enigmatic (Meindl et al., 1985). Fig. 1
compares the focus of traditional leadership research to aesthetic leadership research, and other socia l constructionist
approaches to leadership (Grint, 2000; Meindl, 1995).
Inquiry into aesthetic leadership requires qualitative methods. Fortunately, calls for more qualitative approach es to

leadership have been steadily increasing (Bass, 1990; Hunt, 1996; Yukl, 1989), and we can say that the increase in
qualitative studies in leadership has definitely cleared a path for the entry of aesthetics. It has been argued that the use of
alternative methods can overcome deficiencies in mainstream leadership research, especially with regard to theorizing
about the nature of leadership processes (Parry, 1998). Qualitative research has made a positive impact in our
understanding about how leaders manage meaning (Bryman, 2004).
But despite these calls for qualitative research, there continue to be too many surveys that attempt to quantify
leadership (Hunt, 1999). We have still not departed enough from traditional views of leadership; perhaps because
leadership studies, like organizational studies overall, have been dominated by psychological research and
experimental designs (Bryman, 2004). While Bryman et al. (1996) note that qualitative research is on the rise, the
majority of it is interview data (Bryman, 2004), which is not always suited to the more recent leadership approaches we
have reviewed here. While symbolic approaches call for qualitative research, we also need methods that account for
contextual influences in specific organizational settings (Johns, 2006).
Conger (1998), who also bemoans the over-reliance on interview data, is adamant in admonishing researchers to use
methods that capture the richness of leadership phenomenon and call for more observational methods. Calder (1977)
reminds us that leadership is a subjective phenomenon rooted in the real world. Leadership was not an invention of
554 H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
social scientists; it was not a creation of the behavioral laboratory, rather, it was based on our observation of the
everyday vernacular in real organizations. It arose from observation of social actors making sense of their experience,
and it should be studied as it occurs in its natural setting. Meindl (1995) begs us “to return leadership study to focus on
what actors and observers construct as a normal part of their social experiences” (p. 340).
Aesthetics is about sensory knowledge and felt meaning, and concerns itself with feelings and emotions and the
richness of qualities, so researchers will have to engage organizations with methods that are appropriate for these types
of phenomena. Purely analytic approaches are too thin to describe deep aesthetic experiences (Shusterman, 2001). We
recommend ethnographic observation conducted with an aesthetic consciousnes s. Inquiry into felt meanings requires
an aesthetic sensitivity in making observations. Taking an aesthetic attitude in observation requires an openness and
attentiveness to experiencing an object or process aesthetically (Küpers, 2004).
Aesthetic inquiry attempts to cap ture the felt meaning various events and interactions have for leaders and followers
alike, and getting at the experiential aspects of sensory knowledge will require participant observation and qualitative
interviews (Strati, 1992; Taylor & Hansen, 2005). In exploring these more aesthetic aspects of leader–follower
interaction, resear chers would ask about emotions rather than logics that surround particular organizational decisions,

changes, and visions. For example, researchers might ask about the different ways that visions are expressed in
organizations, in stories that convey more than just objective content on what a transformation means for an
organization. Visions rarely involve objective data, they are emotional appeals communicated in dramatic ways
(Gardner & Avolio, 1998), such that the shared and felt meaning generated comes from more than just the content of a
visionary speech. Fortunately, there already exists a strong body of qualitative methods that are well-suited for
exploring the aesthetics of an organization. In much the same way that qualitative inquiry gets at the culture of an
organization, researchers can use qualitative methods to explore the a esthetics of leadership.
An important aspect of aesthetic inquiry is that the insights provided by an aesthetic experience are not easily
detached from that experience, and it is also worth noting that those particular insights cannot be reached by any other
route other than tapping into the aesthetic side of organizational life. In this pursuit, ethnographic methods in particular
will be useful. Aesthetic leadership research calls for insight into the experience through ethnographic interviews
regarding those generative experiences, or direct participation in the aesthetic experiences and the emergent
sensemaking that flows from them. It will require activation of the sensory faculties, the aesthetic judgment, and the
cognitive capacities of both the researcher and the participants.
Research into leadership narratives, such as charismatic or transformational leadership stories and visions, might
reveal much emotion and be filled with aesthetic description, or attempt to surface aesthetic knowledge in order to
motivate, but stories and visions must be considered in the experiential context in which they are constructed and
spoken. The need for sensitivity to context has been highlighted in leadership studies that take a relational approach
Fig. 1. The changing focus of leadership research.
555H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
(Bryman et al., 1996). Using the ethnonarrative approach (Hansen, 2006) might be helpful in taking these perspectives,
because it offers a methodology that attends to narratives as experienced in their context of construction. Several
aesthetic researchers have made the link explicit and applied ethnographic methods to capture aesthetic k nowledge
(e.g. Letiche, 2000; Linstead & Hopfl, 2000; Rusted, 2000).
9. Some aesthetic leadership research questions
Having described aesthetic leadership, its focus, and methodology, we want to suggest some possible research
questions. Readers will certainly think of many ways to tap into the aesthetic side of leadership, so we will simply pose
some examples and relate them to topics we have discussed so far.
We might begin by asking about situations where leaders rely on aesth etics in transformational efforts, and if they
employ different aesthetics in different con texts? For instance, considering Lewinian-based models of transformational

change that call for an organization to unfreeze from its current state, be moved to a new state and refrozen, we might
note that different aesthetics are called for during each of these phases. Unfreezing might call for an ugly or grotesque
aesthetic to generate displeasing aesthetics toward the current state. In raising the urgency for transformation (Kotter,
1995), perhaps emotional appeals with ominous aesthetics are required, especially when things seem fine objectively.
Are beautiful or fearful aesthetics more likely to motivate movement in the second phase? And some feelings of
reassurance and warmth communicated with feeling and emotion might help ‘refreeze’ an organization. In what
situations, and how, do leaders rely on aesthetics in other types of transformational efforts?
Although vision is known to be a critical component of outstanding leadership, little is known about how
people create viable visions (Strange & Mumford, 2005). We suggest aesthetic material plays a prominent role in
the formation of visions. In researching the aesthetics of visionary leadership, we m ight question as to when and
under what conditions some visions may be more “aesthetically-loaded”? Some visions are more colorful and
dramatic, seeking to evoke emotion, more than others. Do aesthetically-crafted visions result in higher levels of
motivation in followers? Are aesthetical ly minded leaders able to present visions in a way that more deeply
engages the senses and emotions of the followers? Do aesthetically minded visions and stories engage followers
in a different way? With what particular aesthetic is a vision being communicated (the beautiful, the good, or the
sublime)? In cases where they lack objective data to make a case, do leaders appeal to aesthetic sense of
followers? Awamleh and Gardner (1999) found that in presenting visions and stories, what mattered most was
the delivery of the speech, overriding the content of visions. Weak delivery could undermine content and strong
delivery could overcome not-so-visionary content. Strong delivery also influenced the perceptions of charisma
more than content.
Turning to charismatic and authentic leadership, we would inquir e into t he processes by which, and with what
material s, followe rs make assessments about these leadership qualiti es. What is driving these decisions on whether
or not a follower is drawn t o a leader, how much of this attraction depends on aesthetics and the feelings/emotions
that leaders evoke in followers? How do leaders evoke that emotional attachment? What aesthetic criteria are
followers using to make aesthetic judgments about their leader? How do they assess whether a leader is genuine or
authentic (Gardner et al., 2005)? We would be surprised if this were a rational decisio n more than an aesthetic one.
What sensory knowledge or feelings are followers relying on to ascertain whether a leader is charismatic? Inquiry
into the aesthetics involved in these processes is especially important in follower-centric views of leadership
(Meindl, 1990).
We imagine there are countless aesthetic research questions that relate to broader l eade rsh ip issues. Fairhurst

(2007) points out that t he depiction as managers of meaning is becoming commonplace. Research might inquire into
whether some leaders are better than others at managing the felt meanings in organizati ons? A re there aesthetic
leaders who are especially talented at managing felt meanings? Which aesth eti cs are guiding leaders as they make
decisions? In situations where little objective data are available, will leaders rely on aesthetic j udgment (their gut)?
What makes aesthetic leaders distinct? Are they more attuned to and sensitive to the felt meaning in organization
and are able to sense and discern different aesthetics that are operating, or called for, in various organizational
contexts? And considering context (Johns, 2006), what roles do the aesthetics of the context play in leadership
interactions? We might also ask how aesthetics relate to the feelings associated with the organizational climat e and
culture. For example, does aesthetic leadership encourage creativity in organizations? A more supportive organi-
zational climate?
556 H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
10. Conclusion
While some have argued that a romantic attachment to leaders has overplayed the leaders' personal influence
(Meindl et al., 1985), we are not so fast to dismiss the power of feelings and emotion in leadership. While we know
about what this attachment brings, we know little about how it is formed. We have attempted to introduce an approach
capable of inquiry into these more implicit and subjective aspects of leadership. We believe there is great potential for
aesthetic leadership. We have demonstrated that leader ship is already inching tow ard the aesthetic side of
organizational life in c urrent topics such as transformational, charismatic, and authentic leadership. We also believe that
the movement to include followers in leadership models and the exploration of leadership qualiti es call for an aesthetic
perspective. To give aesthetic leadership not only an introduction, but a push, we laid out some ontological and
epistemological assumptions and methods appropriate for aesthetic leadership. We also whet readers' appetites with
some research questions.
There has been much progress in leadership research, and given the direction leadership studies are going, the time
is right for an aesthetic approach to leadership. Perhaps as we continue to move into a new paradigm of leadership
research, aesthetics will be included in that shift. We might wonder why leadership has not looked to aesthetics
previously, but it is just now being imported into organizational studies, and within organizational studies, leadership
developed from well within the functionalist paradigm, and calls for qualitative research are still relatively fresh in
leadership. In all, it seems leadership studies have not been very transformational in leading organization studies in new
directions. We hope aesthetic leadership offers the field a chance to lead theory and practice. We think attention to the
aesthetic side of leadership phenomena will not only transform organizations, but the lenses we use to view them

(Taylor & Hansen, 2005). And if we begin to view leadership through new lenses, we can begin to think and attend to
leadership differently, generating new theory and further developing our conceptualization of what leadership entails.
And that is something we would find beautiful.
References
Austin, R., & Devin, L. (2003). Artful making: What managers need to know about how artists work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ashforth, R. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48,97−125.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly,
16, 315−338.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic
leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801−823.
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision, content, delivery, and organizational
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345−373.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barry, D., & Hazen, M. A. (1996). Do you take your body to work? In D. Boje, R. Gephart, & T. Joseph (Eds.), Postmodern management and
organization theory. London: Sage.
Baumgarten, A. G. (1750). (reprinted in 1936). Aesthetica. Bari: Laterza.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112−121.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City, CA:
Mind Garden.
Boal, K. B., Hunt, J. G., & Jaros, S. J. (2003). Order is free: On the ontological status of organizations. In R. Westwood & S. Clegg (Eds.), Debating
organization (pp. 84−98). Oxford: Blackwell.
Boal, K. B., & Schultz, P. L. (2007). Storytelling, time, and evolution: The role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18,411−428.
Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotion, and mood contagion. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 317−334.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bresnen, M. J. (1995). All things to all people: Perceptions, attributions, and constructs of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 495−513.
Brief, A., & Weiss, H. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279−307.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage Publications.

Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative view. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 729−769.
Bryman, A., Stephens, M., & Campo, C. (1996). The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 7, 353−370.
Cairns, G. (2002). Aesthetics, morality and power: Design as espoused freedom and implicit control. Human Relations, 55, 799−820.
557H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
Calder, B. J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior
(pp. 179−204). Chicago: St. Clair.
Carr, A. & Hancock, P. (Eds.). (2003). Ar t and aest hetic s a t wo rk New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Casey, C. (2000). Sociology sensing the body: Revitalizing a dissociative discourse. In J. Hassard, R. Holliday, & H. Willmott (Eds.), Body and
organization (pp. 52−70). London: Sage.
Chua, W., & Degeling, P. (1993). Interrogating an accounting-based intervention on three axes: Instrumental, moral and aesthetic. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 18, 291−318.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 107−121.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage: London.
Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2002). An-aesthetics and architecture. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 2 ,77−90.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader–member relationships. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 615−634.
Dean, J. W., Jr., Ottensmeyer, E., & Ramirez, R. (1997). An aesthetic perspective on organizations. In C. Cooper & S. Jackson (Eds.), Creating
tomorrow's organizations: A handbook for future research in organizational behavior (pp. 419−437). Chichester: Wiley.
Dewey, J. (1958). Art as experience. New York: Capricorn.
Dickinson, P., & Svensen, N. (2000). Beautiful corporations: Corporate style in action. New York: Prentice Hall.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87,611−645.
Dobson, J. (1999). The art of management and the aesthetic manager: The coming way of business. Westport, CT: Quorum.
Duke, D. L. (1986). The aesthetics of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22,7−27.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field
experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735−744.
Fairhurst, G. T. (2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadership psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fayol, H. (1949). Industrial and general administration. London: Pitman.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fineman. (2003). Understanding emotions at work.
London: Sage.
Gagliardi, P. (1996). Exploring the aesthetic side of organizational life. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization
studies (pp. 565−580). London: Sage.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23,32−58.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). ‘Can you see the real me?’ A self-based model of authentic leader
and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343−359.
Grint, K. (2000). The arts of leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grint, K. (2005). Leadership: Limits and possibilities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guillen, M. F. (1997). Scientific management’s lost aesthetic: Architecture, organization, and the Taylorized beauty of the mechanical. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42, 682−715.
Guillet de Monthoux, P. (2004). The art firm: Aesthetic management and metaphysical marketing from Wagner to Wilson. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Business Books.
Guillet de Monthoux, P. G., Gustafsson, C., & Sjostrand, S. (2007). Aesthetic leadership: Managing fields of flow in art and business. London:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Hancock, P. (2002). Aestheticizing the world of organizations: Creating beautiful untrue things. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern
Organization Science, 2,91−105.
Hansen, H. (2006). The ethnonarrative approach. Human Relations, 59(8), 1049−1076.
Harding, N. (2002). On the manager’s body as an aesth etics of control. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Sc ience, 2(1),
63−76.
Hartog, D., & Verberg, R. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international business leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 8,
355−391.
Hassard, J., Holliday, R., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2000). Body and organization. London: Sage.
Hedlund, J., Forsythe, G. B., Horvath, J. A., Williams, W. M., Snook, S., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Identifying and assessing tacit knowledge:
Understanding the practical intelligence of military leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 14,117−140.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321−338.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership, the cutting edge (pp. 189−207).
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409−473.

Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 493−504.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership's transformation of the field: An historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10,
129−144.
Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). Leadership déjà vu all over again. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 435−458.
Hunt, J. G., & Ropo, A. (1995). Multi-level leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of general motors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 379−412.
Husserl, E. (1960). Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology. The Hague. Netherlands: Martinus Nijoff.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 396−408.
558 H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
Johns, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 531−546.
Jones, M. O., Moore, M. D., & Snyder, R. C. (Eds.). (1988). Inside organizations: Understanding the human dimension Newbury Park: Sage.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attributions. American Psychologist, 28, 107−128.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59−67.
Küpers, W. (2004). Art and leadership. In J. M. Burns, R. R. Goethals, & G. J. Sorenson (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of leadership (pp. 47−54). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Langer, S. (1942). Philosophy in a new key. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Letiche, H. (2000). Observer versus audience. In S. Linstead & H. Höpfl (Eds.), The aesthetics of organization (pp. 154−179). London: Sage.
Linstead, S., & Hopfl, H. (Eds.). (2000). The aesthetics of organizations London: Sage.
Lombardo, M. M., & McCall, M. W., Jr. (1978). Leadership. In M. W. McCall Jr. & M. M. Lombardo (Eds.), Leadership: Where else can we go?
Durham, NC: Duke University.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perception and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytical review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385−425.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),
Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241−261). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.
Martin, P. Y. (2002). Sensations, bodies, and the ‘spirit of a place': Aesthetics in residential organizations for the elderly. Human Relations, 55,
861−885.
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1987). The leader member attribution process. Academy of Management Review, 12, 235−249.
Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. F. (1998). A synthesis and extension of the Weiner and Kelley attribution models. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 20, 271−284.
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to he conventional wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (pp. 159−203). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6,
329−341.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30,78−102.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). The phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.
Ottensmeyer, E. J. (1996). Too strong to stop, too sweet to lose: Aesthetics as a way to know organizations. Organization, 3, 189−194.
Parry, K. W. (1998). Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 9,85−105.
Pelzer, P. (2002). Disgust and organization. Human Relations, 55, 841−860.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 104−112.
Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 583−599.
Polanyi, M. (1958, reprinted in1978). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ramírez, R. (1991). The beauty of social organization. Munich: Accedo.
Ramírez, R. (1996). Wrapping form and organizational beauty. Organization, 3(2), 233−242.
Ramírez, R. (2005). The aesthetics of cooperation. European Management Review, 2(1), 28−35.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture
(pp. 5−39). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Ropo, A., & Parviainen, J. (2001). Leadership and bodily knowledge in expert organizations: Epistemological rethinking. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 17(1), 1−18.
Ropo, A., Parviainen, J., & Koivunen, N. (2002). Aesthetics in leadership. From absent bodies to social bodily presence. In K. W. Parry & J. R.
Meindl (Eds.), Grounding leadership theory and research: Issues and perspectives (pp. 21−38). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Rusted, B. (2000). “Cutting a show”: Grounded aesthetics and entertainment organizations. In S. Linstead & H. Höpfl (Eds.), The aesthetics of
organization (pp. 111−129). London: Sage.
Sauer, E. (2005). Emotions in leadership: Leading a dramatic ensemble. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28, 447
−479.
Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6,19−47.
Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. J. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for

research. The Leadership Quarterly, 5,25−42.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization
Science, 4(4), 577−594.
Shilling, C. (1993). The body and social theory. London: Sage.
Shusterman, R. (2001). ‘Pragmatism: Dewey’. In B. Gaut & D. Lopes (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics (pp. 97−106). London:
Routledge.
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257−273.
Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). The origins of vision: Effects of reflection, models, and analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 121−148.
Strati, A. (1992). Aesthetic understanding of organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 568−581.
Strati, A. (1995). Aesthetics and organizations without walls. Studies in Cultures, Organizations, and Societies, 1,83−105.
Strati, A. (1996). Organizations viewed through the lens of aesthetics. Organization, 3(2), 209−218.
Strati, A. (1999). Organization and aesthetics. London: Sage.
559H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560
Strati, A. (2000). The aesthetic approach to organization studies. In H. Hopfl (Ed.), The aesthetics of organization (pp. 13−34). London: Sage.
Strati, A. (2000). Putting people in the picture: Art and aesthetics in photography and in understanding organizational life. Organization Studies, 21(0),
53−69.
Strati, A. (2000). Theory and method in organization studies. London: Sage.
Sussmann, M., & Vecchio, R. P. (1982). A social influence interpretation of worker motivation. Academy of Management Review, 7, 177−186.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Row.
Taylor, S. S. (2002). Overcoming aesthetic muteness: Researching organizational members' aesthetic experience. Human Relations, 55(7),
821− 840.
Taylor, S. S., Fisher, D., & Dufresne, R. L. (2002). The aesthetics of management storytelling: A key to organizational learning. Management
Learning, 33(3), 313−330.
Taylor, S., & Hansen, H. (2005). Finding form: Looking at the field of organizational aesthetics. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6),
1211−1231.
The Leadership Quarterly. (2002). Vol. 13, No. 5. Special issue on emotions and leadership.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement organizations. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Leadership, participation, and group behaviour. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, B. (1996). The body and society. London: Sage.

Vaill, P. B. (1989). Managing as a performing art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vico, G. (1744, reprinted in 1948). The new science of Giambattista Vico. Trans. Bergin, T. G. and Fisch, M. H. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Watkins, C., King, I., & Linstead, S. (Eds.). (2006). Art of management and organization conference series. Culture and Organization, Vol. 12 (1).
White, D. A. (1996). “It’s working beautifully!” Philosophical reflections on aesthetics and organization theory. Organization, 3, 195−208.
Weber, M. (1922) (English translation 1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement and motivation. Psychological Review, 92, 548−573.
Willner, A. R. (1984). The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Yagil, D. (1998). Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: Attribution of charisma to close and distant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly ,
9,
161−176.
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251−289.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15−31.
Zalenik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67−78.
560 H. Hansen et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 544–560