A Psychoanalytic Reinterpretation of Leadership: From Freud’s Paternal Hierarchies to Lacan’s Horizontal Influence [1]

?

ABSTRACT

?

This article presents a comparative analysis of leadership concepts as discussed in Freud’s Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego and in Lacanian theory, specifically through the lens of his later work. Freud’s approach conceptualizes leadership within a framework centered on the figure of the leader, structured around the dynamics of the Oedipus complex. In contrast, Lacan’s later theories propose a more complex, multifaceted view that moves beyond an “entity-centric” perspective on leadership. By integrating concepts such as objet a - the unattainable object of desire - and sinthome - the unique symptom or organizing principle that defines subjective structure - Lacan’s work suggests an approach of leadership that is horizontal, relational, and multidimensional. This article explores these shifts in leadership theory, illustrating how Lacan’s approach resonates with contemporary moves toward decentralized and relational approaches of leadership. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of leadership dynamics, moving away from the centrality of the leader figure to embrace a more distributed, networked approach of influence and identification within groups.

Keywords: Contemporary Leadership Theory, Psychoanalytic Leadership, Relational Dynamics, Horizontal Influence, Objet a and Sinthome,

?

Introduction

?

Leadership has long been a focal point of psychoanalytic inquiry, with foundational theories exploring the psychological dynamics that bind individuals to leaders and influence group behavior (Kets de Vries, 2006; Gabriel, 1999). Freud’s Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921) remains a seminal work in this field, proposing that leadership is fundamentally rooted in the Oedipal complex and structured around a leader-centric approach. Freud (1921) argues that individuals in a group establish strong affective bonds with the leader, whom they unconsciously identify with as a substitute for the paternal figure (Maccoby, 2004). This creates a centralized approach of leadership in which authority is concentrated in the figure of the leader, who becomes the emotional and psychological anchor of the group (Zaleznik, 1977).

In contrast, Lacan’s work offers a departure from Freud’s leader-centric view. Lacan (2005), with his concepts of objet a - the unattainable object of desire - and sinthome - a unique symptom or organizing principle that structures subjectivity, allow for a more dispersed, complex understanding of group dynamics and influence, one that moves beyond the Oedipal framework and the centrality of a single leader figure (Evans, 1996). His theories suggest an approach of leadership that is not only less hierarchical but also relational, where influence is distributed across multiple points of identification and desire within the group (Leader, 2014).

This study examines implications of these psychoanalytic approaches to leadership considering contemporary shifts in leadership theory, which increasingly advocate for relational, horizontal, and multidimensional approaches (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Yukl, 2012). Such approaches argue for moving beyond “entity-centric” (Uhl-Bien, 2006) views of leadership, where authority is embodied in a single individual, and towards more networked, relational forms of influence. By situating Freud’s and Lacan’s theories within this context, this article aims to explore the potential insights psychoanalysis offers for understanding leadership in the contemporary era.

In this sense, the central question guiding this study is: How do Freud’s and Lacan’s theories on leadership compare, and what insights do they offer for contemporary leadership approaches that go beyond an entity-centric perspective? Freud’s approach emphasizes a leader as the focal point of identification within a group, structured around Oedipal dynamics (Freud, 1921; Gabriel, 1997). Lacan’s work, however, challenges this leader-centric framework by proposing a more relational and multidimensional view (Lacan, 2005; Stavrakakis, 2008). This study seeks to conduct a comparative analysis of these two approaches, with the objective of clarifying how Lacan’s ideas, particularly those of objet a and sinthome, align with and potentially enrich contemporary leadership theories that emphasize relational and distributed forms of influence (Kets de Vries, 2006; Western, 2013).

Therefore, the specific objectives of this study are: 1. To analyze the key elements of Freud’s and Lacan’s views on leadership; 2. To identify the ways in which Lacan’s concepts provide an alternative to traditional, hierarchical approaches of leadership; 3. To assess the relevance of these psychoanalytic perspectives in light of contemporary theories that view leadership as a networked, relational phenomenon. Through this analysis, the study aims to bridge psychoanalytic theory with current leadership research, fostering a deeper understanding of how unconscious dynamics can shape both individual identification and collective behavior in leadership contexts.

This comparative analysis holds significance for both psychoanalytic theory and contemporary leadership studies. Within psychoanalysis, it sheds light on the evolution of leadership concepts from Freud’s early ideas to Lacan’s more nuanced, relational approach. By moving beyond the traditional Oedipal framework, Lacan’s theories offer a fresh perspective on how desire and subjectivity shape group dynamics, opening up new avenues for understanding leadership that do not rely on the centrality of a single figure (Stavrakakis, 2007; Leader, 2014; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Northouse, 2019).

For leadership studies, integrating Lacanian concepts such as objet a and sinthome contributes to the ongoing shift toward decentralized, relational approaches of leadership. In today’s complex, interconnected organizational landscapes, where hierarchical authority is often questioned, Lacan’s ideas provide a theoretical foundation for understanding leadership as a distributed and emergent process rather than a static, top-down structure (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2019, Northouse, 2019; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). This study, therefore, contributes to broader discussions about power, influence, and organizational dynamics, suggesting that psychoanalytic insights can deepen our understanding of how leaders and followers relate within a group.

By drawing connections between psychoanalytic and contemporary leadership theories, this research also highlights the importance of psychological and unconscious factors in shaping leadership. It suggests that beyond skills, strategies, and organizational frameworks, there are profound psychological forces that influence how leadership is enacted and experienced (Gabriel, 1999; Western, 2008). These insights have practical implications for leadership development, group cohesion, and the cultivation of influence in contemporary organizations, encouraging a broader and more nuanced perspective on what it means to lead effectively in diverse and dynamic contexts.

Exploring the psychoanalytic perspectives of Freud (1921) and Lacan (1973, 2005) in relation to leadership, this study offers an opportunity to revisit foundational concepts and re-evaluate them in the light of contemporary approaches of influence and group cohesion. With this initial theoretical grounding, the next section addresses the importance of moving beyond “entity-centric” leadership approaches toward more horizontal and decentralized approaches.

?

Contemporary Leadership: Moving Beyond “Entity-Centric” Approaches

?

Over the past few decades, there has been a marked shift in leadership theory, moving away from “entity-centric” approaches - those that focus on the individual traits, behaviors, and competencies of a single leader - toward more relational, distributed, and multidimensional approaches (Fletcher & K?ufer, 2003; Drath, McCauley, Palus, Van Velsor, O’Connor, & McGuire, 2008). Contemporary leadership theorists increasingly argue that leadership is not a fixed quality or role held by a singular authority figure; rather, it is an emergent, dynamic process that unfolds within interactions between individuals, shaped by social contexts and collective relationships (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Yukl, 2012). This shift reflects the growing recognition that traditional hierarchical and leader-centered approaches may be inadequate for explaining the complexities of influence and identification in today’s highly networked and collaborative environments (Cullen-Lester & Yammarino, 2016).

One of the most influential frameworks in this relational paradigm is Uhl-Bien’s Relational Leadership Theory (RLT), introduced in 2006. RLT posits that leadership emerges through social processes and relational interactions among individuals, rather than being concentrated in a single leader. Uhl-Bien (2006) argues that leadership is co-constructed by members of a group or organization as they engage with one another, negotiate roles, and build mutual influence. This approach views leadership as an ongoing social exchange, where influence is distributed and dynamically redefined through relationships rather than anchored in any one person. RLT emphasizes qualities such as interdependence, reciprocity, and shared responsibility, marking a significant departure from the hierarchical, top-down approaches that have historically dominated leadership studies (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Ospina & Foldy, 2010).

In addition to RLT, other contemporary approaches to leadership theory, such as Complexity Leadership Theory, Shared Leadership, and Networked Leadership, echo this emphasis on relational, horizontal, and distributed approaches of influence. Complexity Leadership Theory, for instance, suggests that leadership is an adaptive, emergent process that arises from interactions within complex systems, rather than being solely directed by a single leader (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). Shared Leadership approaches argue that leadership functions can be distributed across multiple individuals, allowing various members of a team to step into leadership roles as needed (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007). Networked Leadership highlights how influence flows through social and professional networks, recognizing that leadership often operates across interconnected groups rather than within rigid organizational hierarchies (Hoppe & Reinelt, 2010).

These contemporary theories align closely with Lacan’s psychoanalytic concepts of objet a and sinthome, which offer a framework for understanding leadership as a decentralized, relational process. Just as relational leadership theories suggest that leadership emerges through dynamic social interactions, Lacan’s objet a and sinthome suggest that group cohesion and influence are structured around shared desires and individualized organizing principles rather than a singular, central authority figure (Stavrakakis, 2007; Leader & Groves, 2014). Lacan’s notion of objet a - the unattainable object of desire - reflects the idea that leadership does not rely on a fixed leader, but rather on a collective pursuit of an elusive goal or value that motivates group members. This shared pursuit creates a horizontal alignment among individuals, similar to how relational leadership emphasizes mutual influence and shared purpose within a group (Fink, 1995; ?i?ek, 1989).

Similarly, Lacan’s concept of sinthome, as an individualized organizing principle, parallels the distributed nature of influence in contemporary leadership theories. In Lacanian terms, each individual within a group contributes their unique sinthome - their way of managing and expressing desire and identity - which shapes their role and interactions within the collective (Fink, 2004; Stavrakakis, 2007). This diversity of sinthomes allows for a multiplicity of influence points, echoing the relational and networked approaches of leadership that see influence as dispersed across various members rather than concentrated in a single leader (Evans, 1996; Gabriel, 1999). Just as relational leadership theories posit that influence and leadership roles are negotiated and shared among group members, Lacan’s framework suggests that group cohesion can emerge from the interplay of individual differences rather than strict adherence to a central leader.

Furthermore, Lacan’s approach resonates with the multidimensional aspect of contemporary leadership theories. Complexity and Networked Leadership approaches acknowledge that leadership is not a linear, top-down process but rather a complex interaction of multiple forces within a group (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). Similarly, Lacan’s ideas recognize that group dynamics are shaped by an intricate network of desires, unconscious identifications, and individual structures - sinthomes - that collectively influence the group’s direction (?i?ek, 1997). This view supports the idea that leadership is a dynamic, multifaceted process, influenced by psychological, relational, and structural factors rather than merely a function of hierarchical authority.

In sum, Lacan’s psychoanalytic concepts of objet a and sinthome offer valuable insights that align with the relational, horizontal, and multidimensional approaches of contemporary leadership theory. By moving beyond the “entity-centric” perspective, both Lacan’s framework and contemporary leadership theories highlight the role of distributed influence, shared desire, and relational dynamics in shaping group behavior (Stavrakakis, 2007; Leader & Groves, 2014). These perspectives challenge traditional hierarchical approaches, suggesting that effective leadership in today’s complex organizational landscapes may depend more on fostering relational networks and mutual influence than on asserting authority from a singular, central position.

This alignment between Lacanian psychoanalysis and contemporary leadership theories provides a compelling foundation for understanding leadership as a shared, emergent process rather than a fixed role or characteristic. Both perspectives invite us to rethink leadership as something that arises through interactions, driven by collective orientations toward shared values or goals, and shaped by the unique contributions of each individual within the group. In this way, Lacan’s work not only enriches the psychoanalytic discourse on leadership but also offers a theoretical lens through which contemporary, relational approaches to leadership can be further understood and applied.

Contemporary leadership theories increasingly recognize the need for structures that emphasize distributed, relational influence rather than centralization in a single figure. Having established this shift in contemporary leadership perspectives, the analysis now turns to the psychoanalytic foundations, comparing how Freud and Lacan each understand leadership’s role within group dynamics.

Freud’s and Lacan’s Approaches to Leadership

?

Psychoanalytic, Freud (1921) and Lacan (1977) share foundational concepts that form a continuity between their approaches to understanding leadership in group settings. Both thinkers emphasize the role of unconscious dynamics - particularly identification and desire - in shaping group cohesion, influence, and authority (Gabriel, 1999). For Freud (1921), the concept of identification is crucial to the formation of groups; individuals bond with each other through a shared identification with a leader, who serves as a symbolic father figure and a focal point of authority and emotional investment (Maccoby, 2004). This process, Freud (1921) argued, is rooted in the Oedipal complex, where followers project unconscious desires and rivalries onto the leader, creating powerful “libidinal ties” that bind the group together (Zaleznik, 1977).

However, while departing from Freud’s specific Oedipal framework, Lacan (1973) builds on these foundational ideas by exploring identification in a more dispersed and symbolic manner. In Lacanian theory, desire operates around the concept of objet a - the unattainable object that drives desire and shapes human relationships (Fink, 1995). For him, leadership and group dynamics are organized not only around identification with a central figure, but also around shared orientations toward objet a, which acts as a collective yet elusive point of desire for the group (Stavrakakis, 2007). This shifts Lacan’s approach away from a leader-centered approach to one that emphasizes relational connections and distributed influence within the group.

While Lacan (1977) reinterprets and extends many of Freud’s ideas, his work remains rooted in core psychoanalytic principles, allowing for meaningful points of comparison between the two approaches. Both Freud (1921) and Lacan (1977) view leadership as a process that unfolds in the unconscious dynamics between individuals, structured around identification and desire, and both recognize that these dynamics play a critical role in shaping group cohesion and authority (Leader & Groves, 2014; Gabriel, 1999). Lacan’s reinterpretation of identification and desire builds on Freud’s foundational insights, expanding them to account for more complex, decentralized forms of influence within groups, yet maintaining a continuity in the psychoanalytic emphasis on the unconscious foundations of leadership.

Freud’s and Lacan’s theories on leadership reveal a fascinating evolution, from Freud’s leader-centered view to Lacan’s more dispersed, relational framework. While both acknowledge the power of unconscious dynamics in shaping group cohesion and authority, their perspectives diverge significantly. The following subsections will delve deeper into each thinker’s view of the critical elements - identification and desire - that underpin leadership dynamics.

?

The Role of Identification in Group Dynamics

?

One of the strongest points of continuity between Freud and Lacan is their shared emphasis on identification as a fundamental mechanism in group psychology. For Freud, identification is the primary process through which individuals bond with one another and form a cohesive group. In Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921), Freud argues that members of a group are united by their shared identification with the leader, who serves as a paternal figure. This identification allows followers to connect with one another through a common psychological anchor, the leader, whom they idealize and emulate (Freud, 1921; Zaleznik, 1965). The leader thus becomes the focal point of group unity, as followers unconsciously approach themselves after this central figure, forming emotional and libidinal bonds that maintain group cohesion (Maccoby, 2004; Gabriel, 1999).

Lacan (1973), too, emphasizes the centrality of identification, though he reinterprets it in a more complex and nuanced manner. For him, identification is not merely a straightforward alignment with a paternal figure; rather, it is a process deeply intertwined with the dynamics of desire and the unconscious. In Lacanian theory, identification often occurs not only with a specific leader but also with an unattainable object or ideal - objet a - that the leader or group may seem to embody (Evans, 1996). This shifts the focus slightly, as group members may identify not just with a concrete individual but with the shared pursuit of a desire that remains elusive and ambiguous (?i?ek, 1989; Stavrakakis, 2007). However, the underlying psychoanalytic principle remains consistent: identification serves as the glue that holds the group together, whether it is directed toward a paternal leader - as in Freud (1921) - or toward a shared, abstract desire - as in Lacan (1973).

Identification emerges as a central mechanism in both Freud’s and Lacan’s theories, binding individuals within a group structure. For Freud, this is achieved through a clear focus on a leader figure, while Lacan expands identification to encompass shared ideals and elusive desires. Building on this, the next section explores how desire itself operates as a cohesive force in group dynamics according to each theorist.

?

Desire as a Central Force in Group Cohesion

?

Another key similarity between Freud’s and Lacan’s approaches is their focus on desire as a central force that binds individuals within a group. Freud’s approach centers on the idea that followers’ desire for the leader is rooted in the Oedipal complex, where the leader functions as a stand-in for the paternal figure who commands respect, admiration, and a certain level of unconscious attachment (Freud, 1921; Maccoby, 1981). This desire for the leader reinforces the leader’s authority and positions them as an ideal that followers aspire to and identify with (Gabriel, 1999). For Freud, this dynamic of desire is essential to maintaining the structure of the group, as it creates a psychological hierarchy with the leader at the top, embodying the ideals and values of the followers (Zaleznik, 1977; Kets de Vries, 2006).

Lacan (1973), while moving beyond the Oedipal approach, similarly places desire at the heart of group dynamics, albeit in a more abstract form. In Lacanian theory, objet a represents the “object cause of desire” - something that individuals in a group collectively desire but can never fully attain (Fink, 1995). This unattainable object serves as a driving force within the group, keeping individuals engaged and oriented toward a shared goal, even if that goal remains undefined or perpetually out of reach (?i?ek, 1997). By focusing on objet a, Lacan (1973) shows how desire can be dispersed throughout the group rather than fixated on a single leader. However, like Freud (1921), Lacan (1973) views desire as an organizing principle in group settings, suggesting that it provides a kind of cohesion that aligns individuals with a shared pursuit, even if they are not consciously aware of its nature or source (Stavrakakis, 2007; Leader & Groves, 2014).

In both Freud’s and Lacan’s frameworks, desire underpins the motivational forces within groups, although each theorist frames its role differently. Freud views desire as centered on the leader, while Lacan reimagines it as a collective pursuit of an abstract ideal. This leads us to consider the unconscious foundations of authority and influence, an area where both theories offer unique insights.

?

The Unconscious Foundations of Authority and Influence

?

Both Freud (1921) and Lacan (1973) agree that leadership and influence are not purely conscious, rational processes but are rooted in the unconscious dynamics of identification and desire (Gabriel, 1999). Freud’s approach of leadership suggests that authority is grounded in the leader’s ability to fulfill unconscious needs among the followers, offering a figure onto which followers can project their desires and anxieties (Freud, 1921; Zaleznik, 1977). The leader, in Freud’s view, becomes a kind of psychological anchor for the group, a figure who embodies the unconscious ideals and suppressed desires of the followers. This connection to the unconscious grants the leader a form of influence that goes beyond mere rational authority, tapping into deeper layers of attachment and identification (Maccoby, 1981; Gabriel, 1997).

Lacan’s framework, while moving beyond a traditional authority figure, still recognizes the unconscious dimensions of influence within a group. In his approach, the group’s cohesion is sustained by a collective, unconscious investment in objet a and the interplay of individual sinthomes - unique organizing symptoms or principles (Lacan, 2005; Fink, 2004). Even in the absence of a clear leader, individuals are unconsciously drawn to one another through shared desires and intersecting sinthomes. This creates a structure of influence that operates at a more dispersed and relational level, yet remains fundamentally rooted in unconscious dynamics (Stavrakakis, 2007; Leader & Groves, 2014). Lacan (1973) thus builds upon Freud’s insights into the unconscious foundations of authority, extending them to a approach where influence can arise from multiple, decentralized sources rather than a single, central figure (?i?ek, 1997; Evans, 1996).

Both Freud (1921) and Lacan (1973) attribute authority and influence within groups to unconscious dynamics, but each articulates this influence differently. Freud (1921) anchors it in the libidinal ties to the leader figure, whereas Lacan (1973, 2005) emphasizes shared desire and individual expressions of it. The next section examines how these frameworks handle the tension between individual and collective identity, a critical aspect of group psychology.

?

The Tension Between Individual and Collective Identity

?

Finally, both Freud (1921) and Lacan (1973) address the tension between individual identity and collective identity within groups. Freud notes that in order to be part of a group, individuals must temporarily relinquish certain aspects of their individual identity and subordinate themselves to the collective will, typically through identification with the leader (Gabriel, 1999). This creates an inherent tension, as individuals both merge with the group through identification and simultaneously experience a loss of autonomy. This tension is essential to Freud’s understanding of leadership, as it explains why individuals may feel both love and resentment toward the leader, who represents the collective ideals they identify with but also limits their individuality (Freud, 1921; Zaleznik, 1965). This ambivalence, stemming from the simultaneous attachment to and resentment of the leader, underlines the complex emotional dynamics within groups, where individuals are drawn to the leader yet struggle with the limitations on personal autonomy (Maccoby, 1981).

Lacan (1973) also addresses this tension, though from a slightly different perspective. For him, group identity is not simply a function of identification with a leader, but rather a complex interplay of shared desire - objet a - and individual sinthomes (Fink, 1995). Each person brings their own unique structure of desire, shaped by their personal sinthome, into the group, which allows for a more multidimensional and decentralized structure of influence (Stavrakakis, 2007; Leader & Groves, 2014). This introduces a similar tension: individuals maintain their distinct subjectivities - through their sinthomes - while participating in the shared, collective pursuit of objet a. Lacan’s approach thus allows for individual differences to coexist within a collective framework, but like Freud (1921), he recognizes that this creates an ongoing tension between the need for collective unity and the persistence of individual subjectivity (?i?ek, 1989; Evans, 1996).

In both Freud’s and Lacan’s frameworks, the tension between merging with the group and retaining individuality highlights the complex dynamics of group cohesion. Freud’s approach illustrates how identification with a leader can both unify and constrain, while Lacan’s approach shows how shared desire can coexist with individual differences, offering a more dispersed approach of influence that accommodates personal subjectivities. Despite their different focal points, both Freud (1921) and Lacan (1973) illuminate the challenges inherent in balancing collective identity with personal autonomy in group contexts.

Both address the tension between the individual and the collective in group settings, recognizing it as a core element of group dynamics. Freud’s approach focuses on unity through identification with a leader, while Lacan’s approach allows for diverse personal identities within a collective framework. Following this, one turns to Freud’s comprehensive view of leadership as rooted in the Oedipal framework.

?

Freud’s Perspective of Leadership

?

Freud (1921) presents a shaping psychoanalytic perspective on leadership, exploring the psychological mechanisms that underpin group formation and the relationship between individuals and their leaders. Freud’s analysis of group psychology builds on the idea that unconscious emotional ties shape the dynamics within groups, with leadership playing a crucial role in organizing and maintaining these ties (Gabriel, 1999; Maccoby, 2004). Central to Freud’s theory is the notion that leadership is deeply anchored in the Oedipal complex and that group cohesion relies on a process of identification with the leader as a paternal figure (Freud, 1921; Zaleznik, 1977).

His framework suggests that individuals in a group identify with one another by directing their libidinal energies toward a common figure - the leader. This identification process is rooted in the dynamics of the Oedipal complex, where the leader is unconsciously perceived as a substitute for the father figure from childhood. According to Freud (1921), the Oedipal complex involves a child’s feelings of desire for the mother and rivalry with the father. As these feelings are repressed and transformed into unconscious desires, they later resurface in adult relationships, including those within groups (Maccoby, 1981). The leader, then, becomes a symbolic figure who fulfills the role of the father, offering protection, authority, and guidance (Gabriel, 1997).

Freud argues that this identification process creates a powerful emotional bond between the leader and the followers, one that is akin to the bond between children and their parents. This emotional tie, which Freud (1921) refers to as libidinal ties, becomes the foundation of group cohesion. Followers see the leader as an idealized figure and direct their desires and admiration toward them, while simultaneously identifying with each other through their shared devotion to the leader (Kernberg, 1975). This shared identification fosters a sense of unity and solidarity among group members, as their attachment to the leader serves as a common psychological anchor (Kets de Vries, 2006).

In this approach, the leader’s authority is thus derived from their position as a central figure of identification and emotional investment. The leader becomes the embodiment of the group’s ideals and aspirations, acting as a unifying force that directs the group’s collective energy (Zaleznik, 1977; Gabriel, 1999). However, Freud (1921) also recognizes that this dynamic can lead to ambivalence, where followers harbor both love and resentment toward the leader, as they are simultaneously drawn to the leader’s authority and envious of their position of power (Maccoby, 1981). This ambivalence can create tension within the group, making the leader’s role a precarious balance between being an object of admiration and a potential target of unconscious hostility (Gabriel, 1997).

Freud’s conception of leadership is fundamentally hierarchical, as it emphasizes the centrality of the leader as the linchpin of group identity and cohesion. The leader, much like the father in the Oedipal triangle, occupies a position of symbolic authority that is not easily challenged. This approach assumes that the psychological stability of the group is contingent upon the presence of a strong, charismatic leader who can fulfill the unconscious needs of the followers (Freud, 1921; Zaleznik, 1977). As such, the dynamics of power and influence in Freud’s theory of leadership revolve around the leader’s ability to maintain their role as the primary object of identification and libidinal investment (Kets de Vries, 2006).

Moreover, Freud’s analysis suggests that the followers’ attachment to the leader is not solely based on rational factors or external circumstances, but rather on deep-seated emotional and unconscious needs. This insight has profound implications for understanding why certain leaders can command loyalty and devotion even in situations where their leadership might seem irrational or detrimental (Kernberg, 1975; Maccoby, 2004). The psychological dependence on the leader, according to him, is rooted in the desire for a paternal figure who can provide a sense of security and direction, mirroring the child’s dependency on the father during the Oedipal stage (Freud, 1921; Kets de Vries, 2006).

Freud’s theory of leadership, while groundbreaking for its time, has been critiqued for its focus on the centrality of the leader and its reliance on a paternalistic, hierarchical approach. Critics argue that Freud’s emphasis on the Oedipal complex and the leader as a father-substitute limits the scope of his analysis, making it difficult to account for more decentralized or non-hierarchical forms of leadership (Gabriel, 1999; Western, 2008). Nevertheless, Freud’s insights into the role of identification and emotional ties in group dynamics have had a lasting impact on psychoanalytic and social theories of leadership, offering a foundational framework for exploring the unconscious dimensions of authority and group cohesion (Zaleznik, 1990; Kets de Vries, 2006).

Freud’s perspective serves as a starting point for understanding the complexities of leadership in psychoanalytic terms, providing a lens through which the psychological bonds between leaders and followers can be examined. This framework sets the stage for a comparative analysis with later theories, such as those of Lacan, who builds upon and challenges many of Freud’s assumptions. Lacan’s approach offers a departure from the leader-centric approach, proposing a more dispersed understanding of leadership that moves beyond the Oedipal narrative (Lacan, 2005; Stavrakakis, 2007). This shift from Freud’s centralized view to Lacan’s more relational approach will be explored in the next section, illustrating the evolution of psychoanalytic thought on leadership.

Freud’s approach emphasizes a hierarchical structure grounded in unconscious identification with a paternal leader figure, yet it also invites critique for its centralized approach. With this foundation, one transitions to Lacan’s contributions, which challenge the leader-centric framework and propose a more dispersed, relational approach of influence.

?

Lacan’s Contributions

?

Lacan (1973), building on Freud’s foundational work, reinterprets and expands psychoanalytic theory to account for more complex understandings of desire, subjectivity, and identity within group dynamics (Leader & Groves, 2014; Fink, 1995). In his later seminars, particularly during what is often referred to as the “late Lacan” period, he emphasizes the concepts of objet a and sinthome - two ideas that mark a significant departure from Freud’s centralized approach of leadership (Lacan, 2005; Evans, 1996). These concepts open up new perspectives on influence and identification within groups, allowing for a view of leadership that is decentralized, relational, and multidimensional (Stavrakakis, 2007).

The concept of objet a, or the “object cause of desire”, plays a central role in Lacanian theory. Unlike Freud’s approach, which emphasizes the figure of the leader as an idealized father figure, objet a represents something more elusive - a fundamental lack or gap that drives human desire (Lacan, 1973; ?i?ek, 1997). According to Lacan (1973), desire is not directed towards a concrete, attainable object; rather, it is structured around objet a, an unattainable element that perpetuates a continuous search for fulfillment (Fink, 1995). In group dynamics, objet a does not manifest as a leader figure but rather as an abstract point of shared desire, a kind of collective fixation that motivates individuals without requiring a single person to embody this desire (Stavrakakis, 2007). This shifts the focus from the leader as the primary object of identification to a more distributed approach, where influence emerges from shared orientations toward this elusive objet a rather than a single central authority (Evans, 1996).

This conception of objet a allows for a decentralized approach to group identification. Instead of aligning themselves with a leader, individuals within a group are drawn together by a common pursuit of something that remains ungraspable and undefined (?i?ek, 1989). This creates a horizontal structure of shared desire, where group cohesion is not dependent on a hierarchical figure but on a collective orientation towards objet a (Leader & Groves, 2014). This shift from a leader-centric to a desire-centric approach changes how power and influence operate within the group, making room for a relational approach to leadership where multiple members may contribute to or embody aspects of this shared desire at different times (Stavrakakis, 2007).

In his later work, Lacan (2005) also introduces the concept of sinthome, a term he borrows from medieval French meaning “symptom”, but which he uses to signify an organizing principle that stabilizes an individual’s subjective structure (Roudinesco, 1990). For him, the sinthome is not just a symptom in the clinical sense; it is a unique, singular solution that each individual unconsciously constructs to manage the tensions of their own subjective experience (Fink, 2004). The sinthome represents a personal way of binding or managing one’s relationship to desire, the symbolic order, and the Real - the unsymbolizable aspect of experience. In the context of group dynamics, sinthome can be thought of as the unique patterns or organizing principles that each individual brings into the collective, allowing for a multiplicity of identifications and influence points within the group (Leader, 2014).

When applied to leadership, sinthome suggests that individuals do not merely follow a leader but instead align themselves with particular ways of managing and expressing desire that resonate with their own sinthome (Stavrakakis, 2007). This allows for a more complex, multidimensional structure of influence, where leadership is not embodied in a single figure but rather emerges from the interactions of multiple individuals, each contributing their own unique perspective or “symptom” (Fink, 2004). In this approach, influence is distributed, relational, and fluid, arising not from a central authority but from the interplay of various sinthomes within the group. The concept of sinthome thus decentralizes leadership, highlighting the role of individual differences and idiosyncratic solutions in shaping collective dynamics (Leader & Groves, 2014).

Lacan’s focus on objet a and sinthome fundamentally reconfigures the psychoanalytic understanding of leadership. In Freud’s approach, leadership is anchored in the Oedipal complex and revolves around identification with a central paternal figure, resulting in a hierarchical structure of power (Freud, 1921; Gabriel, 1999). Lacan, however, moves beyond this leader-centered approach by shifting attention to the dispersed and relational aspects of desire and identification within groups (?i?ek, 1989). Objet a creates a point of shared desire that unites individuals horizontally, while sinthome allows for a multiplicity of organizing principles that each individual brings to the group, enabling a more complex, decentralized interaction of identities and influences (Evans, 1996; Stavrakakis, 2007).

This decentralized approach aligns with contemporary relational leadership theories, which argue that leadership is an emergent property of group interactions rather than a static trait located in an individual leader (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Lacan’s concepts provide a theoretical foundation for understanding leadership as a fluid and dynamic process, where influence arises through networks of desire and relational connections rather than a fixed hierarchy. This relational approach to leadership resonates with contemporary organizational structures, where collaborative, networked forms of influence are increasingly valued over traditional top-down authority (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). With this theoretical foundation, the research design now moves to detail the methods employed to compare and interpret Freud’s and Lacan’s leadership approaches.

?

Method

?

This study employs a comparative theoretical analysis to examine the concepts of leadership in the psychoanalytic frameworks of Freud and Lacan. Given the nature of the research questions - specifically, how Freud’s and Lacan’s theories on leadership compare and what insights they offer into contemporary relational approaches of leadership - this study does not require empirical data collection but instead focuses on a detailed interpretive examination of primary texts and relevant secondary literature (Fairclough, 2003; Gadamer, 1975).

The research methodology can best be described as a comparative literature review combined with elements of hermeneutic analysis. This approach is well-suited to theoretical research, where the goal is to interpret and critically analyze key texts, uncover underlying assumptions, and explore conceptual continuities and divergences (Gadamer, 1975; Ricoeur, 1970). Hermeneutics, traditionally associated with the interpretation of philosophical and literary texts, is appropriate for psychoanalytic theory, where meaning often lies in subtle, layered concepts rather than explicit empirical claims.

The foundation of this research is a comparative literature review, focusing on Freud (1921) and Lacan’s later seminars, particularly those that introduce and develop the concepts of objet a and sinthome (Lacan, 1973, 2005). Through a comparative reading of these primary texts, this study seeks to elucidate the different ways they conceptualize leadership and group dynamics. By systematically comparing Freud’s leader-centric, Oedipal approach with Lacan’s horizontal, relational framework, this analysis highlights both the shared psychoanalytic principles and the significant theoretical shifts between the two approaches (Fink, 1995; Stavrakakis, 2007).

The literature review also draws on secondary sources that discuss psychoanalytic theories of leadership, group psychology, and relational leadership. These sources provide context, support the interpretation of Freud’s and Lacan’s ideas, and connect psychoanalytic theories to contemporary leadership studies, particularly those that emphasize relational and networked approaches of influence, such as Uhl-Bien’s Relational Leadership Theory (2006) and Complexity Leadership Theory (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

Finally, relevance to contemporary leadership theory involves drawing connections between Freud’s and Lacan’s insights and contemporary leadership approaches, particularly those that emphasize relational, networked, and non-hierarchical approaches (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Pearce & Conger, 2003). This study also draws on interdisciplinary sources from sociology, organizational psychology, and philosophy to enrich the analysis. Texts on social identity theory and collective psychology, for instance, help to contextualize the psychoanalytic concepts of identification and desire within broader theories of group behavior (Turner & Tajfel, 1986). Together, these primary and secondary sources enable a robust theoretical analysis that bridges the psychoanalytic insights of Freud and Lacan with contemporary relational and networked leadership approaches, offering a multidimensional perspective on how unconscious dynamics shape leadership and group cohesion.

To deepen the interpretive analysis, this study employs a hermeneutic approach, focusing on the close reading and interpretation of psychoanalytic texts. This approach allows for an in-depth exploration of the nuances in Freud’s and Lacan’s language, metaphors, and theoretical constructs. The hermeneutic method is particularly useful for examining Lacan’s complex ideas, as his work often employs symbolic and abstract language that requires careful interpretation (Gadamer, 1975; Fink, 2004). By applying a hermeneutic lens, this study unpacks key concepts such as objet a and sinthome, examining their implications for leadership and how they reframe the structure of influence in group settings. Similarly, Freud’s use of the Oedipal complex in group psychology is analyzed in terms of its symbolic function, revealing the underlying assumptions about authority, hierarchy, and identification that shape his theory of leadership (Freud, 1921; Gabriel, 1999).

The analysis is organized around two main dimensions: (1) similarities between Freud’s and Lacan’s theories on leadership, focusing on shared psychoanalytic foundations like identification and desire; and (2) divergences between the two approaches, particularly the transition from Freud’s centralized, leader-focused approach to Lacan’s decentralized, relational framework (Stavrakakis, 2007; Leader & Groves, 2014). This comparative structure allows for a systematic examination of how each theorist’s concepts align or conflict with contemporary leadership theories.

The interpretive analysis is guided by specific criteria: conceptual clarity, theoretical coherence, and relevance to contemporary leadership theory. Conceptual clarity involves examining how each theorist defines and uses key terms related to leadership - e.g., identification, desire, objet a, sinthome. Theoretical coherence involves assessing how these concepts fit within each theorist’s broader psychoanalytic framework (Evans, 1996; Fink, 1995). With the methodological approach established, one proceeds to a systematic comparison, beginning with an analysis of Freud’s leader-centric and Lacan’s relational approaches.

?

?From Leader-Centric to Relational Approaches

?

As previously noted, while Freud (1921) and Lacan (1973) share foundational psychoanalytic principles, their perspectives on leadership diverge notably in both structure and focus. Freud’s approach of leadership is explicitly leader-centric, grounded in a hierarchical framework where the figure of the leader occupies a central, paternal role (Gabriel, 1999). He argues that group cohesion relies on followers identifying with a single leader who embodies the qualities and ideals that the group members aspire to. This leader-centric approach is rooted in the Oedipal complex, where the leader functions as a symbolic father figure, serving as an anchor for the group’s identification and psychological unity (Freud, 1921; Maccoby, 1981).

In contrast, Lacan (1973) offers a more dispersed, relational approach that challenges the need for a singular, authoritative figure. By introducing the concepts of objet a and sinthome, Lacan shifts the understanding of leadership from a top-down, Oedipal structure to a networked, multidimensional process rooted in shared desires and individual organizing principles (Evans, 1996). In Lacanian theory, objet a represents the unattainable object of desire that binds individuals together through a shared, collective pursuit rather than through direct identification with a single leader. This desire-centric approach creates a horizontal structure where group cohesion emerges from a common orientation toward objet a, rather than from hierarchical allegiance to a leader (?i?ek, 1989; Stavrakakis, 2007).

Furthermore, Lacan’s concept of sinthome, a unique symptom or organizing principle that each individual brings into the group, adds an additional layer of complexity. The sinthome allows for individual subjectivities and unique identities to coexist within the group, contributing to a decentralized structure of influence. Each person’s sinthome shapes their role and interactions within the collective, fostering a multidimensional form of influence that arises from the interplay of personal motivations and shared goals, rather than from adherence to a central authority (Lacan, 2005; Fink, 2004). By emphasizing objet a and sinthome, Lacan moves away from Freud’s paternalistic, hierarchical approach and toward a networked understanding of leadership that aligns with relational and distributed approaches seen in contemporary leadership theory (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Leader & Groves, 2014).

As a result, the comparison between Freud’s leader-centric perspective and Lacan’s relational approach highlights a theoretical shift from hierarchical to networked views of influence. Freud’s approach underscores a top-down approach, while Lacan’s framework decentralizes power. With this contrast established, the next subsections explore each theorist’s perspective on hierarchy, identity, and the role of influence in group cohesion.

?

Freud’s Leader-Centric View and the Oedipal Framework

?

In Freud’s approach, the leader functions as a paternal figure who commands authority and serves as the object of the followers’ identification. He suggests that the emotional bond between the leader and followers is rooted in unconscious Oedipal desires; followers see the leader as a substitute for the father, a figure of idealized authority and protection (Freud, 1921; Zaleznik, 1965). This bond is cemented by what he calls libidinal ties, which create a strong emotional attachment to the leader and, in turn, foster group cohesion (Gabriel, 1999; Maccoby, 1981).

His approach is inherently hierarchical, as it positions the leader at the top of the group’s psychological structure. The followers’ identities are organized around their identification with this central figure, who represents an ideal that they aspire to emulate. This hierarchical arrangement aligns with Freud’s broader emphasis on authority and the unconscious need for a unifying paternal figure (Freud, 1921; Kets de Vries, 2006). Leadership, in this approach, is concentrated in the individual who occupies this role, and group stability relies on the presence of a strong leader who can embody the collective ideals of the group. Consequently, Freud’s theory assumes that group cohesion and authority are fundamentally dependent on the existence of a leader who functions as a psychological anchor for the followers (Maccoby, 2004; Zaleznik, 1977).

In summary, Freud’s model is firmly rooted in the Oedipal complex, positioning the leader as an idealized paternal figure. This framework emphasizes hierarchy and the role of authority, providing cohesion through identification with a central figure. One now transitions to Lacan’s decentralized approach, which reconfigures influence dynamics around shared desires rather than a singular authority.

?

Lacan’s Relational and Horizontal Perspective: Objet a and Sinthome

?

On the other hand, Lacan’s approach diverges from Freud’s leader-centric approach by decentralizing leadership and emphasizing the relational dynamics within a group. For Lacan (1973), leadership does not require a singular, authoritative figure who embodies group ideals. Instead, group cohesion is maintained through shared orientations toward objet a and the interplay of individual sinthomes, making leadership a more distributed and multidimensional phenomenon (Stavrakakis, 2007; Fink, 2004).

Objet a - the “object cause of desire” - is central to Lacan’s understanding of how groups are held together. Unlike Freud’s Oedipal approach, where desire is focused on the leader as a substitute for the father, objet a represents an unattainable, elusive element that drives desire but can never be fully possessed or embodied by a single person (Lacan, 1973; Evans, 1996). In group dynamics, objet a function as a collective point of orientation - a shared, yet undefined desire that unites individuals not by their identification with a leader, but by a common pursuit of something they can never completely achieve (?i?ek, 1997; Stavrakakis, 2007). This shifts the focus away from centralized authority and creates a horizontal structure where individuals are aligned by a mutual investment in an abstract ideal or goal. In this sense, objet a decentralizes influence, allowing it to emerge through shared, relational connections rather than a fixed hierarchical structure (Leader & Groves, 2014).

The concept of sinthome further supports Lacan’s dispersed approach of leadership. The sinthome - a term Lacan uses to describe a unique, personal symptom or organizing principle - is how individuals manage their own relationship to desire and identity (Lacan, 2005; Fink, 2004). In a group context, each member brings their own sinthome, their individual way of coping with unconscious desires and anxieties, which contributes to the group’s dynamics (Evans, 1996). This allows for a multiplicity of influence points, as each member’s sinthome interacts with others, creating a complex web of relational influences. Unlike Freud’s approach, where influence is centralized in the leader, Lacan’s theory allows for leadership to emerge through the interplay of multiple individual sinthomes, each of which adds a unique dimension to the collective dynamic (Stavrakakis, 2007; ?i?ek, 1989).

In Lacan’s framework, therefore, leadership becomes a fluid and relational process rather than a fixed attribute of a single individual. Influence is dispersed across the group, emerging through shared orientations toward objet a and the interactions between each member’s sinthome. This relational structure supports a multidimensional understanding of leadership, where authority is not imposed from above but co-constructed through ongoing, reciprocal interactions (Fink, 1995; Leader & Groves, 2014). Such an approach acknowledges the complexity of group dynamics, where each individual contributes to the collective through their own distinct perspective and personal orientation toward desire.

Lacan’s dispersed model of influence contrasts with Freud’s leader-centered view by focusing on shared desires and personal sinthomes, decentralizing power across a network. This relational structure aligns with contemporary leadership theories that emphasize influence as an emergent, collaborative process. One now considers how these two frameworks redefine power dynamics, moving from traditional hierarchy to networked influence.

?

From Hierarchy to Horizontal Influence

?

Freud’s leader-centric approach and Lacan’s relational approach also reflect fundamentally different assumptions about how power and influence operate within groups. In Freud’s Oedipal framework, authority is hierarchical and linear; the leader holds a position of power by virtue of followers’ identification with them, mirroring the father-child relationship in the Oedipal complex (Freud, 1921; Gabriel, 1999). This structure reinforces a clear boundary between leader and followers, with the followers’ role largely passive - they derive their sense of identity from their alignment with the leader, who serves as a psychological anchor and symbolic authority (Zaleznik, 1965; Maccoby, 1981). For Freud (1921), this hierarchical arrangement creates a top-down approach of power and influence, where the leader’s authority is maintained through emotional bonds, or “libidinal ties”, that keep the group united (Zaleznik, 1977).

Lacan’s approach, on the other hand, is non-hierarchical and networked. In Lacan’s view, the group operates as a decentralized structure, where power is not located in any single individual but dispersed through the collective network of shared desires - objet a - and individual sinthomes (Lacan, 1973; Stavrakakis, 2007). Here, influence is a dynamic and reciprocal process, with each group member capable of exerting influence based on their unique relationship to desire and identity (Fink, 2004; ?i?ek, 1989). This horizontal, distributed approach is inherently more flexible, as it does not rely on the stability of a single leader to maintain group cohesion. Instead, cohesion emerges organically from the relational interactions and the shared investment in objet a, allowing the group to adapt and reconfigure itself in response to changing circumstances (Evans, 1996; Leader & Groves, 2014).

Lacan’s decentralized structure contrasts sharply with Freud’s leader-centric approach by viewing influence as a distributed phenomenon. Each individual’s sinthome - or personal organizing principle - interacts with those of others in the group, creating a complex web of relational connections rather than a linear, top-down flow of authority. This approach aligns closely with contemporary relational and networked leadership theories, which propose that leadership and influence emerge organically from interactions within the group rather than being imposed by a central authority (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Thus, Lacan’s approach offers a more fluid understanding of power and cohesion, where the group’s stability relies not on a singular leader but on the collective and dynamic processes of shared desire and individual expression.

In contrasting Freud’s hierarchical structure with Lacan’s networked model, one sees a shift from authority based on identification with a leader to influence emerging through collective orientations and individual identities. These insights lay the groundwork for understanding how psychoanalytic theories of influence relate to contemporary leadership models, which will be explored in the next section.

?

Contributions to Contemporary Leadership

?

Integrating psychoanalytic theories into the study of leadership offers a unique lens through which one can examine the complex, often unconscious forces that shape power, influence, and group dynamics in organizational settings. While traditional leadership studies have often focused on observable behaviors, skills, and traits, psychoanalysis brings to light the hidden desires, anxieties, and identifications that underpin human relationships within groups (Gabriel, 1999; Kets de Vries, 2006). By incorporating concepts such as objet a and sinthome from Lacan’s later work, one can develop a richer, more nuanced understanding of leadership as an emergent, relational phenomenon influenced by unconscious psychological processes (Fink, 1995; Stavrakakis, 2007).

The concept of objet a, or the “object cause of desire”, adds depth to our understanding of what binds individuals to leaders, organizations, or collective goals. In Lacanian theory, objet a represents an unattainable object or ideal that drives desire but can never be fully satisfied (Lacan, 1973; ?i?ek, 1997). In an organizational context, objet a can be understood as a shared, often ambiguous goal or vision that motivates employees and aligns them with the organization’s mission. This could be an ideal such as “innovation”, “excellence”, or even a company’s brand identity. Unlike concrete goals, which can be achieved and completed, objet a is perpetually out of reach, continuously inspiring effort and engagement. It creates a collective orientation toward something that feels profoundly significant, even if it is difficult to define or fully realize (Leader & Groves, 2014; Stavrakakis, 2007). This shared orientation toward an elusive ideal foster a sense of unity and purpose within the organization, as employees are drawn together by a common desire to contribute to something larger than themselves.

The notion of objet a also helps explain why individuals remain committed to certain leaders or organizations, even when rational factors might suggest otherwise. Leaders who embody or represent an organization’s objet a - whether through charisma, vision, or symbolic actions - can inspire loyalty and commitment that goes beyond their personal attributes or leadership style (Gabriel, 1999; Maccoby, 2004). This insight challenges more transactional approaches of leadership that focus on rewards and incentives, suggesting instead that a leader’s influence often rests on their ability to personify or symbolize the organization’s deeper, unarticulated ideals. By understanding objet a as a driver of desire within groups, one can see how leadership influence is not merely about directive power but about representing and channeling the collective aspirations of the group (?i?ek, 1989; Stavrakakis, 2007).

In addition to objet a, Lacan’s concept of the sinthome - an individualized, unique organizing principle - provides valuable insight into how individuals relate to organizations and leadership structures. The sinthome can be thought of as a personal way each individual manages their own relationship to desire and identity (Lacan, 2005; Fink, 2004). In an organizational setting, this means that each employee brings their own unique motivations, coping mechanisms, and psychological structures to the group. Rather than seeking complete alignment with a single organizational identity, individuals interact with the organization in ways that resonate with their personal sinthome. This suggests that effective leadership in complex organizations may not lie in enforcing uniformity but rather in allowing space for individual differences to coexist within a shared framework (Evans, 1996; Stavrakakis, 2007).

Understanding sinthome as an element of organizational dynamics opens up possibilities for a more flexible, adaptive approach to leadership. Leaders who recognize the diverse “sinthomic” structures of their employees - understanding, for example, that one person might be motivated by stability while another thrives on challenge - can create an environment that accommodates different needs and motivations (Kets de Vries, 2006; Gabriel, 1999). Rather than imposing a singular vision, such leaders facilitate an organizational culture where multiple perspectives and personal desires can contribute to the collective purpose. This approach aligns with contemporary relational and complexity-based leadership theories, which emphasize adaptability, diversity, and the emergence of influence through interactions rather than rigid hierarchies (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001).

Moreover, the integration of psychoanalytic concepts like objet a and sinthome into leadership studies has implications for understanding power and authority in more nuanced ways. Traditional approaches of leadership often view power as something exerted by a leader over followers. However, psychoanalysis suggests that power in organizations is often more complex, operating through unconscious identification, desire, and mutual projections (Gabriel, 1999; Zaleznik, 1977). When individuals identify with a leader or an organization, they are not simply responding to direct authority; they are engaging in a process of unconscious alignment with an ideal or a desire. This alignment, while often beneficial for cohesion, can also lead to dependency, idealization, or even resentment if the leader or organization fails to fulfill the symbolic role they occupy in the minds of followers (Freud, 1921; Maccoby, 1981).

For example, a leader who is seen as embodying the organization’s objet a may inadvertently become the focal point of both admiration and hostility. Followers may project onto this leader not only their hopes and aspirations but also their frustrations and disappointments. Psychoanalytic theory thus illuminates the ambivalent nature of power within organizations, where the leader is simultaneously an object of desire and a potential target for unconscious hostility (?i?ek, 1989; Kets de Vries, 2006). This dynamic can be particularly challenging in situations where leaders are expected to represent impossible ideals, leading to cycles of idealization and disillusionment among followers. Understanding this ambivalence can help leaders navigate the emotional undercurrents within their teams, recognizing that power and influence are rarely straightforward and are often accompanied by complex, unconscious emotional attachments.

Lacan’s dispersed, relational approach aligns more closely with contemporary leadership theories that emphasize shared, networked, and horizontal approaches of influence. By contrast, Freud’s approach of leadership, grounded in the Oedipal complex, supports a more traditional, top-down approach where power and authority are centralized in a single figure (Freud, 1921; Gabriel, 1999). Lacan’s concepts of objet a and sinthome support a view of leadership as an emergent property of group interactions, where multiple members contribute to the collective dynamic (Lacan, 1973; Fink, 2004). This perspective resonates with relational and complexity-based leadership approaches, which argue that influence and authority are co-created through interactions and are not exclusively held by a single leader (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001).

In essence, they offer distinct approaches of leadership that reflect their differing views on desire, identification, and group dynamics. Freud’s leader-centric, hierarchical approach emphasizes the centrality of a paternal figure as the focus of group identification, with group cohesion maintained by the followers’ identification with the leader, who embodies the group’s ideals and authority (Zaleznik, 1977). In contrast, Lacan’s relational approach decentralizes leadership, allowing influence to emerge through shared desire - objet a - and the unique sinthome each individual brings to the group (Stavrakakis, 2007; Evans, 1996). Lacan’s framework challenges the necessity of a single authoritative leader, suggesting instead that group cohesion and influence can arise from a network of relational connections and collective orientations (?i?ek, 1997; Leader & Groves, 2014).

These divergences highlight Lacan’s move away from Freud’s Oedipal framework and suggest that his approach may offer valuable insights for understanding contemporary, relational approaches to leadership. By focusing on shared desire and individual contributions, Lacan’s approach aligns with the concepts of relational and complexity leadership, which emphasize adaptive, distributed, and co-constructed forms of influence - qualities increasingly valued in today’s complex, networked organizational environments (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Pearce & Conger, 2003).

As a result, this study contributes to contemporary leadership approaches by offering a psychoanalytic perspective that expands beyond traditional approaches (Gabriel, 1999; Kets de Vries, 2006). By juxtaposing Freud’s leader-centric, hierarchical approach with Lacan’s relational and decentralized approach, the study enriches our understanding of leadership dynamics in several keyways. Lacan’s theories align with contemporary leadership frameworks, such as Relational Leadership Theory and Complexity Leadership, which view leadership as a shared and emergent process within group interactions (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). This contrasts with Freud’s approach, where leadership hinges on a singular authority figure (Freud, 1921). By focusing on shared desire, or objet a, and individual contributions, or sinthome, Lacan’s approach illustrates how influence can emerge organically within a networked structure, thereby supporting the trend toward less hierarchical, more collaborative organizational approaches (Stavrakakis, 2007; ?i?ek, 1997).

Unlike mainstream leadership theories that emphasize visible behaviors and skills, this study foregrounds the unconscious elements of leadership. Concepts like objet a reveal how collective aspirations can drive motivation, while sinthome shows how individual variations contribute to group identity and dynamics (Fink, 1995; Leader & Groves, 2014). These insights encourage a deeper understanding of the psychological bonds between leaders and followers, suggesting that leadership effectiveness extends beyond strategies to include the management of complex emotional undercurrents within groups (Gabriel, 1999). Lacan’s approach, which emphasizes dispersed influence through individual organizing principles, resonates with contemporary networked and shared leadership theories (Pearce & Conger, 2003). By moving away from a top-down approach, Lacan’s framework illustrates how organizations can benefit from a diversity of perspectives, fostering environments where multiple individuals can contribute to leadership in a decentralized fashion. This flexibility is especially valuable in today’s complex organizational landscapes, where adaptability and innovation are increasingly critical (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).

In this regarding, contemporary leadership approaches - such as relational, shared, distributed, complexity, and enabling leadership - stand to gain significantly from the psychoanalytic insights discussed in this study, particularly those of Freud (1921) and Lacan (1973, 2005). By integrating the psychoanalytic lens on unconscious group dynamics, these approaches could deepen their understanding of how relational and adaptive structures are influenced by the often-invisible psychological forces at play within groups.

Firstly, relational leadership theory (RLT) emphasizes the co-creation of leadership through social interactions, mutual influence, and shared values. The Lacanian concept of objet a, or the unattainable object of desire, offers a profound addition to RLT’s perspective by suggesting that relational dynamics within groups are often driven by collective but elusive ideals that motivate individuals unconsciously. When leaders understand that group members are united by more than just rational alignment and shared goals, but also by a shared pursuit of something fundamentally ungraspable, they can more effectively foster engagement and cohesion in ways that resonate deeply with members’ unconscious motivations. This view aligns with relational leadership’s emphasis on creating mutual influence rather than exerting hierarchical control, enabling leaders to channel collective desire into a cohesive vision that does not rely on rigid authority (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Shared and distributed leadership models, which advocate for the decentralization of influence across team members rather than concentrating it in a single individual, also benefit from these psychoanalytic insights. Lacan’s idea of the sinthome, or unique organizing principle of each individual, offers a theoretical foundation for understanding why shared leadership functions effectively within diverse groups. Each group member, by bringing their unique personal structure or sinthome into the collective, contributes to a multidimensional understanding of leadership that supports creativity, resilience, and adaptive capacity. This insight suggests that shared leadership does not simply rely on the delegation of authority but is inherently sustained by the psychological diversity of the team. Leaders who recognize and value each person’s sinthome are better positioned to foster a collaborative environment where varied contributions are recognized as integral to the group’s success (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007).

In complexity leadership theory (CLT), leadership is seen as an emergent phenomenon within adaptive systems, responding dynamically to changes and challenges in the environment. The concept of objet a aligns well with CLT by suggesting that collective actions and motivations are often structured around elusive goals that drive adaptive behavior. Rather than seeking specific outcomes, individuals are oriented toward ideals or values that remain just out of reach, propelling them to engage, innovate, and adapt within the organization. This understanding of collective orientation can enhance leaders’ ability to guide adaptive teams by fostering a shared commitment to overarching principles that inspire continuous engagement and adaptability, even as the specifics of their work evolve. In doing so, leaders can help maintain cohesion without enforcing a strict, top-down approach, instead encouraging a shared orientation to evolving organizational goals (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, ?2007).

The enabling leadership approach, which focuses on creating conditions that allow others to emerge as leaders and influencers, would also benefit from these psychoanalytic insights. The sinthome offers a lens for understanding how individual identities and desires interact within groups, suggesting that an enabling leader can benefit by nurturing an environment that respects and cultivates the distinct orientations and motivations each member brings to the table. This perspective reinforces the idea that enabling leadership is not simply about removing obstacles but about creating a space where personal motivations and organizing principles - often unconscious - can align with the collective aim. Leaders who understand the underlying psychological dimensions of motivation can create environments that foster a sense of ownership and purpose among group members, facilitating self-organizing behaviors and distributed influence.

Table 1 clarifies the relationship between psychoanalytic concepts and the distinct contributions each brings to contemporary leadership theories. Each insight enriches contemporary leadership practices by offering new perspectives on engagement, diversity, and adaptability.

?

In sum, contemporary leadership approaches can enhance their efficacy by incorporating psychoanalytic perspectives on unconscious dynamics. Lacan (1921) and Freud (1973, 2005) provide a nuanced understanding of the non-rational forces that bind individuals to one another and to organizational ideals. By acknowledging the power of collective desires and individual identities, leaders can create more adaptive, relational, and cohesive environments that are better suited to the demands of today’s complex organizational landscape. Integrating these insights allows for leadership practices that respect the deeper, often unseen dimensions of human motivation and identity, enabling organizations to function as flexible and resilient systems of shared influence.

Furthermore, this study’s psychoanalytic lens challenges the traditional notion of leadership as a position of imposed authority, advocating instead for an approach where leadership is co-created through reciprocal relationships and shared aspirations (Zaleznik, 1977; Maccoby, 2004). By understanding leadership as an interplay of desires, identifications, and unique personal structures, contemporary organizations can foster more inclusive and dynamic leadership practices that value mutual influence and psychological cohesion (Kets de Vries, 2006). In this sense, this study bridges psychoanalytic theory and contemporary leadership thought, offering an innovative approach to understanding how unconscious dynamics shape collective behavior. It encourages leadership scholars and practitioners to integrate these nuanced, relational perspectives, aligning leadership theory with the evolving needs of complex, interconnected organizational settings (Uhl-Bien, 2006; ?i?ek, 1989).

Applying psychoanalytic insights to contemporary leadership allows for a nuanced view of influence dynamics and group cohesion within complex organizational settings. By examining Freud’s hierarchical model and Lacan’s relational approach, we can shift from a singular, authority-centered leadership model toward one that recognizes the horizontal, relational influence built through individual desires and shared group ideals. Practically, this means adopting a distributed leadership approach, where authority emerges through collective orientation rather than centralized power. For example, Lacan’s concept of objet a - an unattainable shared ideal - highlights how leaders can foster engagement and motivation by anchoring team members around a common, evolving purpose rather than rigid, top-down directives. Similarly, by acknowledging each member’s unique sinthome, or personal organizing principle, leaders can embrace the diversity of individual motivations, facilitating a collaborative culture where multiple voices contribute to group direction. This approach aligns with contemporary organizational needs for adaptability, encouraging resilience through mutual influence and shared psychological investment. Table 2 provides a clear overview of how psychoanalytic concepts apply to contemporary leadership and their practical implications.

?

?

By integrating psychoanalytic concepts into leadership studies, this article highlights the deep psychological forces shaping organizational dynamics. Freud and Lacan offer distinct insights into how unconscious elements influence power and group cohesion, challenging traditional, transactional models. As one concludes, one synthesizes these contributions, reflecting on how psychoanalysis can enrich both leadership theory and practice.

?

Conclusion

?

This study has explored the contrasting approaches of Freud and Lacan to leadership and group dynamics, revealing an evolution from a hierarchical, leader-centered approach to a more relational, multidimensional framework. Freud (1921) conceptualizes leadership through a paternalistic, Oedipal lens. In his perspective, the leader occupies a central, authoritative position, functioning as a substitute for the father figure in the Oedipal complex. Followers identify with this leader, who becomes the focal point of the group’s unity and cohesion. Through this identification, the leader serves as an anchor for group identity, establishing a clear hierarchy where power flows from the top down. Freud’s framework emphasizes the unconscious emotional bonds - what he calls “libidinal ties” - that link followers to the leader, reinforcing a leader-centric view of authority and influence (Freud, 1921; Gabriel, 1999).

In contrast, Lacan’s later work, particularly his concepts of objet a - the unattainable object of desire - and sinthome - a unique organizing principle of subjectivity -, introduces a more dispersed and relational approach of leadership. Moving away from Freud’s centralized structure, Lacan (1973) suggests that group dynamics can be organized around shared desires and individual differences rather than a singular authority figure (Stavrakakis, 2007). The concept of objet a functions as a shared but elusive ideal that aligns group members without requiring a central leader to embody it. Instead of directing desire solely toward a leader, His approach allows for a collective pursuit of objet a, which fosters cohesion through a shared orientation rather than a hierarchical attachment (?i?ek, 1997; Leader & Groves, 2014). Similarly, sinthome introduces the notion that each individual brings a unique organizing principle to the group, allowing for a multidimensional interplay of identities and motivations that shape group dynamics in a more flexible, adaptive manner (Fink, 2004; Evans, 1996).

The shift from Freud’s leader-centered approach to Lacan’s relational framework has significant implications for understanding leadership in contemporary, networked contexts. Lacan’s ideas resonate with contemporary theories of relational and complexity-based leadership, which emphasize the importance of distributed influence, horizontal relationships, and emergent, adaptive structures (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2019; Northouse, 2019; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). In current organizations, where traditional hierarchies are often replaced by networked, collaborative approaches, Lacan’s work provides a valuable framework for thinking about leadership as an ongoing, co-constructed process. By decentralizing the role of the leader and focusing on shared desire and relational dynamics, Lacan’s approach offers insights into how influence and cohesion can be achieved without relying on top-down authority.

This study contributes to both psychoanalysis and leadership theory by bridging these fields and demonstrating the value of applying psychoanalytic concepts to the study of leadership. By comparing Freud’s leader-centered approach with Lacan’s relational, decentralized framework, the study broadens our understanding of leadership beyond traditional hierarchical approaches, offering fresh insights into how influence and group cohesion operate on a deeper psychological level (Gabriel, 1999; Roudinesco, 1990).

In the realm of psychoanalysis, this study extends the application of Freud’s and Lacan’s ideas into organizational and leadership contexts, areas where psychoanalytic theory is often underutilized. Freud’s concept of the leader as a paternal figure and the basis of group identification provides a foundational understanding of the psychological attachment between leaders and followers. However, this study goes further by demonstrating that Lacan’s later theories offer an evolved psychoanalytic perspective on leadership, one that aligns more closely with contemporary needs. By focusing on objet a and sinthome, Lacan (1973) shifts the emphasis from an authoritative leader figure to the shared desires and unique individual contributions that shape group dynamics. This shift allows psychoanalysis to account for more complex, networked, and fluid forms of organization, showing how the unconscious motivations of individuals can create cohesion even in the absence of a central authority figure (Stavrakakis, 2007; Fink, 1995).

For leadership theory, this study introduces a psychoanalytic perspective that challenges traditional, trait-based and transactional approaches of leadership. Most mainstream leadership theories focus on the qualities, skills, or behaviors of leaders, often neglecting the unconscious psychological factors that shape group relationships (Kets de Vries, 2006; Maccoby, 2004). By integrating psychoanalytic insights, this study suggests that leadership is not solely a matter of overt actions or rational strategies, but is also deeply influenced by unconscious desires, identifications, and relational dynamics. Concepts such as objet a reveal how a shared, elusive ideal can motivate and unite group members, while sinthome illustrates how individual differences contribute to the collective identity of the group. These ideas emphasize that leadership is an emergent, relational process that cannot be fully explained by looking solely at the leader as an individual; rather, it requires an understanding of the complex psychological forces at play within the group (?i?ek, 1989; Leader & Groves, 2014).

Moreover, this study’s application of Lacan’s ideas to leadership aligns with and enriches contemporary relational and complexity-based approaches of leadership, which view influence as decentralized and co-constructed among group members. Lacan’s relational framework, which focuses on distributed desire and the unique sinthomes of individuals, provides a theoretical foundation for understanding how leadership can emerge organically from interactions rather than being imposed from above. This perspective resonates with networked and collaborative approaches that are increasingly relevant in contemporary organizations, where rigid hierarchies are often replaced by fluid, adaptive structures (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007; Pearce & Conger, 2003).

In broadening the scope of leadership theory, this study encourages a rethinking of what it means to lead and to follow. Rather than viewing leadership as a top-down, hierarchical dynamic, this analysis invites scholars and practitioners to consider how unconscious desires and identifications contribute to the collective processes that shape organizations. It suggests that effective leadership is not simply a matter of embodying certain traits or fulfilling specific tasks, but also of recognizing and harnessing the deeper, often invisible, psychological dynamics that bind people together. This psychoanalytic perspective on leadership, grounded in both Freud and Lacan, encourages a more holistic approach to leadership studies - one that accounts for both the conscious strategies and the unconscious forces that drive group behavior.

While this study offers a novel perspective by applying psychoanalytic concepts to the study of leadership, it is important to recognize several limitations inherent to this approach. First and foremost, psychoanalytic theories, especially those of Freud (1921) and Lacan (1973, 2005), are often abstract and symbolic in nature. Concepts such as objet a and sinthome were originally developed to describe individual psychic structures and unconscious dynamics, making them complex to apply directly to organizational and leadership contexts (Fink, 2004; Evans, 1996). Translating these ideas into frameworks that can be meaningfully used in real-world settings is challenging, as psychoanalytic language is often metaphorical and resists straightforward operationalization. This limitation raises questions about the extent to which these theories can offer practical guidance for understanding leadership in empirical, observable terms.

Given these limitations, there are several promising directions for future research. One avenue is to conduct empirical studies that investigate how psychoanalytic concepts such as objet a and sinthome might manifest in organizational dynamics and leadership relationships. For instance, qualitative research methods, including in-depth interviews and ethnographic observations, could be employed to explore how individuals in organizations relate to symbolic ideals (potentially akin to objet a) or how unique personal motivations and identities (sinthome-like elements) shape group dynamics (Gabriel, 1999; Kets de Vries, 2006).

Additionally, there is room for interdisciplinary research that combines psychoanalytic insights with frameworks from organizational psychology, sociology, and leadership studies. For example, integrating Lacan’s notion of objet a with contemporary theories on organizational identity or culture could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how abstract ideals or “visions” drive collective motivation. Interdisciplinary studies like these would expand the application of psychoanalytic ideas, making them more accessible and actionable within organizational research.

In closing, this study underscores the relevance of psychoanalytic perspectives in addressing the complexities of leadership in today’s world. As organizations and social structures become increasingly networked, fluid, and interdependent, traditional, top-down approaches of leadership often fail to capture the nuances of influence and cohesion in these environments. Psychoanalytic theory, particularly the insights of Freud (1921) and Lacan (1973), provides a valuable lens through which one can explore the often-hidden psychological forces that shape group dynamics, offering a deeper understanding of leadership as an inherently relational, multidimensional process (?i?ek, 1989; Leader & Groves, 2014).

?

References

?

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217-1234.

Cullen-Lester, K. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2016). Collective and network approaches to leadership: Special issue introduction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 173-180.

Drath, W. H., McCauley, C. D., Palus, C. J., Van Velsor, E., O’Connor, P. M. G., & McGuire, J. B. (2008). Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 635-653.

Evans, D. (1996). An introductory dictionary of Lacanian psychoanalysis. Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.

Fink, B. (1995). The Lacanian subject: Between language and jouissance. Princeton University Press.

Fink, B. (2004). Lacan to the letter: Reading ecrits closely. University of Minnesota Press.

Fletcher, J. K., & K?ufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership: Paradox and possibility. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 21-47). Sage.

Freud, S. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. The Hogarth Press.

Gabriel, Y. (1997). Freud and society. Routledge.

Gabriel, Y. (1999). Organizations in depth: The psychoanalysis of organizations. Sage Publications.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and method. Continuum.

Gay, P. (1988). Freud: A life for our time. Norton.

Hoppe, B., & Reinelt, C. (2010). Social network analysis and the evaluation of leadership networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 600-619.

Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Jason Aronson.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2006). The leader on the couch: A Clinical approach to changing people and organizations. Wiley.

Lacan, J. (1973). Le séminaire, livre XI: Les quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse. Seuil.

Lacan, J. (2005). Le séminaire, livre XXIII. Le sinthome de Jacques Lacan, Seuil.

Leader, D. & Groves, J. (2014). Introducing Lacan: A graphic guide. Icon Books.

Maccoby, M. (1981). The leader: A new face for American management. Simon & Schuster.

Maccoby, M. (2004). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business Review.

Maccoby, M. (2004). The power of transference in leader-follower relationships. Harvard Business Review.

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389-418.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Ospina, S. M., & Foldy, E. G. (2010). Building bridges from the margins: The work of leadership in social change organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 292-307.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Sage.

Roudinesco, E. (1990). Jacques Lacan & Co.: A history of psychoanalysis in France, 1925-1985. University of Chicago Press.

Stavrakakis, Y. (2007). The Lacanian left: Psychoanalysis, theory, politics. Edinburgh University Press.

Stavrakakis, Y. (2008). Subjectivity and the organized other: Between symbolic and imaginary identification in psychoanalysis and organizational theory. Organization Studies, 29(7), 1037–1059.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2019). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89-104.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.

Western, S. (2008). Leadership: A critical text. Sage Publications.

Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations. Pearson.

Zaleznik, A. (1965). The dynamics of subordinate and authority relationships. Harvard Business Review.

Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67-78.

?i?ek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. Verso.

?i?ek, S. (1997). The plague of fantasies. Verso.

[1] Professor at FGV-EAESP. Researcher at NEOP FGV-EAESP. MED-AoM Ambassador. Postdoctoral Researcher in Psychoanalytic Theory. Postdoctoral Fellow in the Psychiatry Graduate Program at USP. Doctor in Business Administration and Doctor in Architecture and Urbanism. https://pesquisa-eaesp.fgv.br/professor/anderson-de-souza-santanna .

This paper was developed within the framework of the Leadership Observatory NEOP FGV-EAESP. This research is supported by the S?o Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

Sant'Anna, A. S. (2024). A Psychoanalytic Reinterpretation of Leadership: From Freud’s Paternal Hierarchies to Lacan’s Horizontal Influence. Manuscript Discussion Series, 2(25):1-27. NEOP FGV-EAESP. (Work in progress)

?

?

?