Subjectivity in Leadership: How Relational Dynamics and Psychoanalysis Shape Transformative Practices [1]

Abstract

This article examines relational leadership through a psychoanalytic lens, using Lacan’s sinthome - an individual’s unique way of managing unconscious conflicts - and Bollas’s transformational object - a metaphor for people or experiences that shape personal growth - as conceptual tools. Traditional leadership paradigms often emphasize charisma and an entity-centric perspective. Relational leadership, however, is reconceptualized as the product of a dynamic interplay between individuals, their environment, and societal structures. In this framework, leadership transcends top-down or entity-focused hierarchical models and is instead cultivated through relational engagement at multiple levels. Moving beyond narcissistic or heroic ideals, relational leadership emphasizes the significance of engaging with others and acknowledges the unique sinthome each individual develops to address foundational experiences of helplessness. Additionally, this article explores how leaders can function as transformational objects, enabling others to navigate relational influences and foster growth. By integrating psychoanalytic theory with contemporary leadership studies, this article highlights the transformative potential of leadership as both a personal and social process.

Introduction

In the contemporary landscape of leadership studies, traditional paradigms - rooted in charisma, motivation, hierarchy, and top-down control - are increasingly being critiqued for their limitations in addressing the complexity of relational dynamics (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Drath et al., 2008). These critiques have drawn attention to the ways in which leadership models that prioritize individual traits or heroic personas often fail to capture the deeply interpersonal and contextual nature of leadership as it unfolds in real-world interactions (Fletcher, 2004; Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011). Consequently, this growing recognition calls for a fundamental shift in how leadership is understood, moving away from entity-centric frameworks to more relational, multilevel, and process-oriented perspectives (Ospina & Uhl-Bien, 2012).

Building on this need for a paradigm shift, psychoanalysis offers a compelling lens through which to reimagine leadership. Particularly relevant are the contributions of Bollas and Lacan, whose concepts provide a deeper understanding of the relational and subjective dimensions of leadership. For instance, Lacan’s notion of the sinthome highlights the singular psychic structures through which individuals navigate existential tensions (Lacan, 2016). Similarly, Bollas’s concept of the “transformational object” underscores the ways in which certain figures or relationships catalyze profound personal growth (Bollas, 1987). Together, these psychoanalytic frameworks offer unique insights into relational leadership, framing it as a dynamic interplay of subjective and intersubjective processes rather than a fixed set of skills or behaviors (Kets de Vries, 2006).

As such, this article argues that relational leadership is far more than a technique or strategy; instead, it is a deeply subjective process shaped by the singularity of the leader’s psychic structure and their ability to engage meaningfully with others (Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011). By integrating psychoanalytic theory into contemporary leadership studies, the discussion seeks to illuminate the transformative potential of leadership when understood as a relational and intersubjective phenomenon.

To further develop this perspective, the article explores how psychoanalytic theory provides new insights into leadership as a relational construct. Drawing on Bollas’s concept of the “transformational object” and Lacan’s sinthome, the study delves into the interplay between subjective experience and relational dynamics, reframing leadership as more than a set of skills or a product of charisma (Bollas, 1987; Lacan, 2016). Instead, leadership is presented as a deeply personal and intersubjective process that emerges through meaningful engagement with others.

Building on this foundation, the central question driving this article is: How can the psychoanalytic lens, particularly the concepts of the transformational object and the sinthome, enrich our understanding of leadership as a relational construct? Addressing this question requires reframing leadership as a process that embraces singularity, relationality, and transformation. In doing so, the article moves beyond traditional, hierarchical, or entity-centric paradigms (Uhl-Bien, 2006), suggesting that leadership is less about individual authority and more about the dynamic processes that unfold within relational networks. These processes, shaped by the leader’s singularity and their capacity to foster meaningful connections, offer a more nuanced framework for understanding leadership (Drath et al., 2008).

To connect these psychoanalytic insights to contemporary leadership studies, the article seeks to demonstrate how leadership can be understood as both a subjective and transformative phenomenon. This reframing not only challenges conventional models but also underscores the importance of relational and contextual factors in shaping the practice of leadership. In doing so, it opens new pathways for both theoretical exploration and practical application (Fletcher, 2004; Kahn, 2001).

The structure of the article reflects this integrative approach, with each section building upon the central premise that psychoanalytic theory provides valuable insights into relational leadership. The discussion begins with the introduction, which outlines the relevance of rethinking traditional leadership paradigms and presents the main thesis of the article. Following this, the theoretical framework section delves into the key psychoanalytic concepts - Bollas’s “transformational object” and Lacan’s sinthome - and their relevance to understanding leadership as a relational construct. Importantly, this section situates relational leadership within the broader landscape of leadership studies, highlighting its divergence from hierarchical and entity-centric approaches.

From this theoretical foundation, the article transitions into a critical analysis of traditional leadership models, identifying their limitations and demonstrating how psychoanalytic concepts offer a richer understanding of leadership as a deeply personal and intersubjective process. Building on this critique, the subsequent section applies the psychoanalytic lens to explore the dynamics of relational leadership in greater depth, focusing on how leaders can act as transformational objects and how their singular sinthome shapes their relational interactions.

Moving beyond theoretical analysis, the discussion shifts toward practical considerations in the implications and applications section. This section outlines how the proposed theoretical approach can inform leadership development, ethical practices, and relational engagement across various contexts. Finally, the conclusion synthesizes the key insights, revisits the central research question, and highlights potential directions for future research, emphasizing the transformative potential of integrating psychoanalysis into leadership studies.

This introduction lays the groundwork for a deeper exploration of how psychoanalytic concepts enrich relational leadership theory. The discussion now turns to the theoretical foundations of leadership as a relational construct, emphasizing the interplay of subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and context that defines this perspective.

Theoretical Foundations

Leadership, when viewed through a relational lens, does not originate from an individual’s traits, behaviors, or positional authority. Instead, it emerges through the interplay of subjective and intersubjective factors - complex dynamics that are shaped by the unique singularities of both the leader and those they engage with (Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011; Uhl-Bien, 2006). In this view, leadership is not a static or fixed quality residing within the individual but rather a dynamic, co-constructed process that unfolds within relational contexts (Drath et al., 2008).

This relational perspective represents a significant departure from traditional notions of leadership as a top-down exercise of authority or as a set of prescriptive skills universally applicable across contexts. Instead, it situates leadership in the space between individuals, where subjective experiences and intersubjective exchanges create opportunities for connection, collaboration, and growth (Fletcher, 2004). Consequently, a leader’s effectiveness lies not in their ability to dominate or impose control but in their capacity to navigate and engage with the interplay of subjectivities within their relational network (Kahn, 2001).

Moreover, relational engagements have the potential to be profoundly transformative, benefiting both the leader and those they interact with. Through such interactions, individuals can discover new perspectives, develop greater self-awareness, and challenge previously held assumptions (Fletcher, 2004; Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011). For example, a leader who fosters open dialogue and mutual recognition can create an environment where others feel empowered to express their singularity, take risks, and explore their potential. In this way, leadership becomes a process of co-creation, where transformation arises not from unilateral influence but from reciprocal relationships that encourage growth and exploration (Kets de Vries, 2006).

To deepen our understanding of this relational process, psychoanalytic theory offers valuable insights into the unconscious dynamics underpinning human interactions. Concepts like Bollas’s “transformational object” and Lacan’s sinthome illuminate the ways in which leaders, through their singularity and relational presence, can serve as catalysts for transformation (Lacan, 2016; Bollas, 1987). Specifically, the leader’s ability to attune to the unique psychic structures of others - while remaining aware of their own subjectivity - fosters a relational space where change and growth can occur (Ogden, 1994). Importantly, this space is not one of hierarchy or control but one of mutual influence and shared transformation (Winnicott, 1965).

In this sense, the sinthome, as Lacan describes, serves as a deeply personal anchor, shaping how individuals perceive the world, engage with others, and respond to existential challenges (Lacan, 2016). For leaders, the sinthome influences not only their internal sense of self but also their approach to relational dynamics within their networks.

Every leader inevitably brings their own sinthome into the relational space, coloring their leadership style, decision-making processes, and interactions with others. For instance, a leader’s sinthome might manifest in the way they address uncertainty, handle conflict, or inspire collaboration, reflecting their unique way of organizing their internal and external realities. A leader whose sinthome is rooted in a need for stability may gravitate toward highly structured and predictable relational environments. Conversely, a leader whose sinthome embraces risk might foster more innovative or dynamic relational spaces. These singular psychic structures influence not only how leaders express themselves but also how they perceive and respond to the subjectivities of others (Leader, 2014).

The interplay between a leader’s sinthome and the sinthome of those within their relational network creates a unique dynamic that defines the relational space of leadership. Within any relational context, individuals bring their singularities into dialogue, resulting in moments of alignment, tension, or transformation (Kahn, 2001). For instance, a leader’s capacity to recognize and engage with the singularity of others - rather than imposing their own psychic structures - can foster a sense of trust, mutual respect, and authentic connection (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Conversely, when a leader’s sinthome conflicts with the sinthome of others, challenges may arise in relational dynamics, requiring the leader to navigate these tensions with sensitivity and self-awareness (Ogden, 1994).

Thus, this dynamic interplay highlights the deeply intersubjective nature of leadership. Effective relational leadership arises not from suppressing or transcending singularities but from embracing and integrating them into a shared context. Leaders attuned to their own sinthome and open to understanding the singularities of others can create relational spaces that are both unique and transformative. These spaces are characterized by authenticity, allowing individuals to feel valued in their singularity while contributing meaningfully to collective goals (Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011).

Analyzing leadership through the lens of the sinthome reveals that leadership processes are not merely strategic or operational but deeply subjective and relational (Lacan, 2016). The sinthome reframes leadership as a dynamic interplay of unique psychic structures, where the leader’s singularity is not a limitation but a critical element in fostering relational engagement and transformation. This perspective challenges conventional leadership models that prioritize conformity or prescriptive frameworks, offering instead a view of leadership as an ever-evolving relational process shaped by the interplay of singular subjectivities (Drath et al., 2008).

Similarly, Bollas’s concept of the “transformational object” provides a profound framework for understanding the role of leaders in facilitating growth and transformation within relational contexts. As described by Bollas, a transformational object is not merely an external presence but an experience - a relational dynamic that evokes change within an individual’s psychic structure (Bollas, 1987). Acting as a catalyst for self-discovery, it enables individuals to access latent aspects of their potential and navigate complex emotional or existential challenges (Winnicott, 1965). By integrating these psychoanalytic concepts, we gain a deeper appreciation for how relational leadership emerges - not through dominance or prescriptive techniques, but through the nuanced and transformative interplay of subjectivities.

This theoretical exploration underscores the need for a shift in leadership studies, moving from a focus on individual traits to the co-constructed dynamics of relationships. The following sections expand on this perspective, examining how Lacan’s sinthome and Bollas’s transformational object illuminate the subjective and transformative dimensions of leadership.

Leadership: Toward a Relational Perspective

Traditional leadership models, particularly those rooted in entity-centric or charismatic paradigms, often focus narrowly on the traits, behaviors, or authority of the individual leader. These approaches, while historically dominant, have long emphasized leadership as a top-down process where the leader’s charisma, decision-making prowess, or perceived heroism becomes the central driver of success (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Bass, 1990). Whether articulated through the “great man” theory or its contemporary iterations that idealize transformational leaders as larger-than-life figures, such frameworks inherently position leadership as a unilateral dynamic, with influence flowing predominantly from the leader to their followers (Grint, 2005).

However, as leadership studies have evolved, the limitations of these traditional models have become increasingly evident. A key criticism lies in their inability to account for the relational and intersubjective dimensions of leadership. By focusing primarily on individual attributes - such as confidence, vision, or even narcissistic charm - entity-centric models reduce leadership to a set of static qualities, divorced from the social, emotional, and contextual dynamics in which leadership actually unfolds (Ospina & Uhl-Bien, 2012). This narrow focus neglects the co-constructed nature of leadership, where outcomes are shaped not by the leader alone but by the dynamic interplay between leaders and those they engage with (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Charismatic models, in particular, present distinct risks. While they often highlight the leader’s ability to inspire and influence, they can inadvertently foster dependency rather than collaboration. Leaders framed as figures of exceptional insight or power tend to marginalize the agency and contributions of others within their relational networks (Conger, 1989). This dynamic reinforces hierarchical structures, discouraging reciprocal influence and mutual growth - two hallmarks of relational leadership (Fletcher, 2004). Moreover, the emphasis on heroism can create significant blind spots, obscuring the relational contexts and unique subjectivities that fundamentally shape leadership processes (Kets de Vries, 2006).

By overlooking these relational and intersubjective dimensions, traditional models fall short in addressing the complexity of contemporary leadership challenges. Leadership is rarely a solitary act; instead, it emerges from the interplay between individuals, their environments, and the broader systems in which they operate (Drath et al., 2008). Without acknowledging the mutual influence and co-creation inherent in leadership, these models risk perpetuating outdated notions of power, authority, and control, providing an incomplete and overly simplistic view of what leadership entails (Ospina & Foldy, 2010).

In response to these limitations, relational perspectives on leadership offer a compelling alternative. Unlike traditional models that emphasize traits or behaviors as residing within a single individual, relational leadership views leadership as a co-constructed process. This approach asserts that leadership does not reside solely in the leader but emerges through dynamic interactions between leaders, followers, and the broader societal and environmental contexts in which they operate (Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011). In this sense, leadership is not a static set of qualities but an evolving, collective phenomenon shaped by relational engagement (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Expanding on this perspective, relational leadership underscores the inherently interdependent nature of leadership. Leaders are not isolated agents but participants within networks of relationships, where influence flows multidirectionally (Ospina & Uhl-Bien, 2012). Effectiveness, therefore, depends not only on the leader’s actions but also on how those actions are received, interpreted, and acted upon by others within the relational network (Drath et al., 2008). Furthermore, relational leadership situates leadership within its broader cultural, organizational, and societal contexts, highlighting that it cannot be understood in isolation from the systems that frame and shape these interactions (Fletcher, 2004).

Relational leadership, as a theoretical construct, represents a significant departure from traditional hierarchical models that have dominated leadership theory for much of its history. By emphasizing the dynamic interplay between leaders, followers, and their shared contexts, relational leadership reframes leadership as a co-constructed and interdependent process. Tracing its intellectual origins reveals an evolution shaped by contributions from sociology, psychology, organizational studies, and, more recently, psychoanalysis, each discipline contributing to a more nuanced understanding of leadership as a relational phenomenon (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011).

The earliest theories of leadership, emerging in the 19th and early 20th centuries, were heavily influenced by the “Great Man” theory, which positioned leadership as the domain of extraordinary individuals. Leadership was thought to be an inherent quality, residing in traits such as charisma, intelligence, and decisiveness (Carlyle, 1841; Stogdill, 1948). This trait-based approach, epitomized by figures such as Thomas Carlyle, emphasized the exceptional qualities of leaders while largely ignoring the relational and contextual aspects of leadership (Bass, 1990).

As theories evolved, however, new perspectives began to challenge this trait-centric view. In the mid-20th century, behavioral theories, such as those developed by Kurt Lewin and his colleagues, shifted the focus from traits to actions. Leaders were studied not for their innate qualities but for their behaviors and decision-making styles (Lewin et al., 1939). While this represented progress, these theories still viewed leadership as a top-down process, with the leader as the primary actor shaping outcomes. Relational dynamics were acknowledged but often relegated to the background (Burns, 1978).

Building on this growing recognition of leadership’s complexity, the 1960s and 1970s introduced advances in systems theory and organizational studies. The work of scholars like Peter Senge, who emphasized systems thinking in organizations (Senge, 1990), and the rise of contingency theories (Fiedler, 1964) highlighted the importance of context and the interplay between leaders and their environments. Leadership was increasingly seen as situational, requiring adaptability and responsiveness to external factors.

At the same time, the seeds of relational leadership were being planted. The recognition that leadership did not exist in isolation but was shaped by interactions between individuals and their contexts laid the groundwork for a relational understanding of leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). However, these theories often focused more on environmental or structural factors than on the interpersonal dynamics at the heart of relational leadership (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

The shift toward relational leadership became more formalized in the late 20th century. Scholars in organizational studies and psychology sought to foreground the role of relationships in leadership processes. Uhl-Bien’s work in the 1990s formalized the concept of relational leadership, defining it as a social process that emerges through the interactions between leaders and followers. Uhl-Bien (2006) emphasized that leadership is co-constructed, meaning it is not a static attribute of a single individual but a dynamic process shaped by relationships and contexts.

In addition to these developments, new frameworks emerged to further deepen the relational understanding of leadership. This era also saw the integration of emotional intelligence into leadership theory, with Goleman’s groundbreaking work highlighting the role of empathy, self-awareness, and relational skills in effective leadership (Goleman, 1995). Emotional intelligence reinforced the idea that leadership is deeply relational, requiring an understanding of and attunement to the emotions and needs of others.

As organizations and societies became more interconnected, relational leadership gained further traction in recent decades. Scholars and practitioners have grappled with the challenges of leading in increasingly complex, diverse, and interconnected environments. Unlike traditional models that emphasize hierarchy and control, relational leadership focuses on collaboration, mutual influence, and the co-creation of meaning (Fletcher, 2004). This perspective aligns with the realities of contemporary organizations, where authority is often distributed, and adaptive leadership is essential (Heifetz, 1994).

Relational leadership theory has also been enriched by interdisciplinary influences, further broadening its scope and applicability. Feminist leadership studies, for instance, emphasize relational ethics and care (Eagly & Carli, 2007), while cultural studies explore how diverse social and cultural contexts shape leadership dynamics (Hofstede, 1980). The integration of psychoanalytic theory, as exemplified in this article, further deepens our understanding of relational leadership by illuminating the unconscious processes and subjective experiences that shape interactions between leaders and followers (Bollas, 1987; Lacan, 2016).

Together, these developments signal a paradigm shift in leadership theory. Relational leadership challenges the individualistic and hierarchical assumptions of traditional models. Its key contributions include: 1. Emphasizing co-construction: Leadership is seen as a process that emerges through interactions, not as a fixed quality residing in an individual; 2. Valuing emotional intelligence: Relational leadership prioritizes empathy, self-awareness, and the ability to navigate interpersonal dynamics; 3. Acknowledging contextual complexity: Leadership is understood as deeply embedded in social, cultural, and organizational contexts; 4. Highlighting ethics and mutuality: Relational leadership foregrounds the ethical responsibilities of leaders to foster trust, inclusivity, and mutual growth.

Despite its transformative potential, relational leadership is not without challenges. Its reliance on qualitative and interpretive approaches makes it difficult to quantify and measure, which can limit its acceptance in more traditional organizational settings. Additionally, the emphasis on co-construction requires leaders to relinquish some degree of control, a shift that may be resisted in hierarchical cultures (Drath et al., 2008).

To fully operationalize relational leadership, further exploration is needed. Interdisciplinary studies, including those integrating psychoanalytic and sociocultural perspectives, can enrich our understanding of how relational leadership functions across diverse contexts. These approaches can offer practical strategies for implementing relational leadership without losing its depth and complexity.

Finally, the integration of psychoanalysis into relational leadership provides a critical lens for addressing the oversimplifications of traditional models. Psychoanalysis highlights the complexity of human relationships, rooted in unconscious processes and unique psychic structures. From this perspective, leadership is not simply about exerting influence but about navigating the intersubjective space where the singular subjectivities of leaders and followers meet.

As such, concepts like Bollas’s transformational object and Lacan’s sinthome provide a rich framework for understanding how leaders facilitate growth and transformation in others while recognizing the singularity of each individual. These insights reframe leadership as a deeply relational and transformative process that moves beyond traditional, hierarchical paradigms.

Lacan’s Sinthome and Singular Subjectivity

Lacan’s concept of the sinthome represents a crucial element of his later psychoanalytic theory. The sinthome refers to the unique psychic structure or knot that enables an individual to navigate existential tensions and maintain psychic stability (Lacan, 2016). It operates as a personal anchor, tying together the symbolic, imaginary, and real dimensions of human experience (Evans, 1996). Unlike traditional psychoanalytic approaches, which focus on symptom resolution, Lacan’s sinthome emphasizes the ways in which individuals create singular solutions to the universal condition of lack and fragmentation (Fink, 1997). The sinthome, therefore, is less about pathology and more about the creative ways in which individuals sustain their subjective identity in the face of existential challenges (Leader, 2014).

To better understand the origins of the concept, it is essential to examine how Lacan initially developed the sinthome in his exploration of psychosis. He posited it as a unique psychic structure that individuals create to stabilize their subjectivity in the absence of a fully functioning symbolic order (Lacan, 1977). In Lacanian theory, psychosis arises from a failure or “foreclosure” of the Name-of-the-Father (Nom du Père), leaving the individual without the symbolic anchoring typically provided by paternal authority. In such cases, the sinthome functions as a compensatory mechanism, allowing the subject to maintain a semblance of coherence amidst the fragmented experience of psychosis (Evans, 1996).

However, Lacan’s later work significantly expanded the conceptual scope of the sinthome. His analysis of the case of James Joyce offers a pivotal example. Joyce, despite his strained relationship with paternal authority and apparent borderline traits, did not exhibit the classical symptoms of psychosis, such as delusions or hallucinations (Lacan, 2016). Instead, Lacan identified Joyce’s literary creation as his sinthome - a singular solution that allowed him to navigate his resistance to authority and stabilize his subjective position in the face of existential tensions (Leader, 2014). Through this reframing, the sinthome transcends its original association with psychosis and becomes a broader concept, applicable to cases of severe resistance to symbolic authority, such as paternal figures, and to borderline dynamics that characterize much of contemporary society (Fink, 1997).

This expansion of the concept opens the door to its application in modern contexts. In contemporary society, where resistance to traditional authority structures and paternal figures is increasingly prevalent, the sinthome provides a lens for understanding how individuals create singular solutions to address profound conflicts with societal norms and expectations (Verhaeghe, 2008). Moreover, borderline phenomena, often marked by intense emotional instability, difficulties with interpersonal relationships, and a deep ambivalence toward authority, can similarly be interpreted through the framework of the sinthome. Rather than viewing these traits as purely pathological, Lacan’s approach suggests that individuals construct unique ways of organizing their experiences, allowing them to function and even thrive within their singularity (Leader, 2014).

In this regard, the relevance of the sinthome extends further. Modern society, characterized by the erosion of traditional structures and the decentralization of authority, highlights its applicability. The sinthome provides a way to understand how individuals cope with the fragmentation of symbolic frameworks and navigate challenges related to identity, authority, and relational dynamics (Žižek, 2006). Borderline cases, in particular, reflect the difficulty of finding stable anchoring in a world where the symbolic father figure no longer holds the same centrality or unifying power. In such contexts, the sinthome emerges as a creative, albeit sometimes precarious, solution for maintaining psychic stability amidst the fluid and uncertain structures of contemporary life (Fink, 1997).

By situating the sinthome within this broader framework, Lacan’s work moves beyond the clinical realm, offering valuable insights into the psychic structures of individuals navigating resistance, instability, and contemporary existential challenges. This expanded understanding allows the sinthome to serve as a critical tool not only for psychoanalytic theory but also for interdisciplinary applications, including leadership, relational dynamics, and cultural critique (Verhaeghe, 2008).

In the context of leadership, the sinthome offers a powerful lens to understand how a leader’s singularity influences their relational dynamics. Every leader operates from a unique psychic structure that shapes their approach to decision-making, their ability to relate to others, and their capacity to inspire or guide (Kets de Vries, 2006). As such, a leader’s sinthome becomes a central feature of how they engage in relational processes, as it not only informs their perception of the world but also their relational style. For instance, a leader’s particular way of addressing ambiguity, conflict, or vulnerability will be rooted in their own sinthome, influencing how they connect with and respond to those they lead (Goleman, 1995).

Furthermore, the sinthome highlights the deeply personal and subjective nature of leadership. Effective leaders are not those who attempt to conform to prescriptive models but those who embrace their singularity while recognizing the singularity of others. This alignment enables them to cultivate meaningful and authentic connections. Relational leadership, through this lens, becomes a process of navigating and engaging with the interplay of individual sinthomes within a shared context (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Leaders who understand and embrace their singularity can foster environments where others feel validated in their own uniqueness, creating spaces for relational growth and transformation (Fletcher, 2004).

Ultimately, by incorporating Lacan’s concept of the sinthome, this perspective reframes leadership as a profoundly personal and relational endeavor, where the uniqueness of each individual contributes to the complexity and richness of the relational dynamic. Rather than suppressing singularity, leadership emerges from its acknowledgment and integration into collective processes, providing a more nuanced and transformative framework for relational dynamics.

By positioning the sinthome as a central element of relational leadership, Lacanian psychoanalysis highlights the role of singularity in shaping interactions and decision-making. Having explored this concept in depth, the discussion now shifts to Bollas’s transformational object, illustrating how leaders catalyze personal and relational transformation through their relational presence.

Bollas and the Transformational Object

Bollas’s concept of the “transformational object” refers to an object or person that facilitates profound psychic transformation in an individual. Rooted in psychoanalytic theory, the transformational object is not merely a tangible entity but a relational experience that evokes a deep sense of change within the psyche. As Bollas (1987) explains, this transformation often mirrors early developmental processes, where caregivers, through their nurturing presence, provide the conditions for the self to evolve, enabling the individual to discover new aspects of their potential. In this sense, the transformational object becomes a catalyst for growth, self-awareness, and emotional restructuring.

To understand the origins of this concept, it is essential to situate Bollas’s notion of the transformational object within the object relations tradition in psychoanalysis, particularly the work of Klein (1952) and Winnicott (1965). Bollas (1987) builds upon and reinterprets these foundational ideas to create a theory that emphasizes the experiential and unconscious dimensions of human development.

Klein’s pioneering work emphasized the internalization of “objects” - primarily caregivers – and their dynamic interaction within the psyche. She argued that objects are pivotal in shaping psychic life, with early relationships influencing emotional and psychological development (Klein, 1952). Extending Klein’s insights, Bollas shifts the focus from the internalized “object” as a static entity to the transformative potential of lived relational experiences. In doing so, he aligns his ideas with Winnicott’s notion of the “good enough mother,” who creates a holding environment for the infant, facilitating the emergence of the self (Winnicott, 1965). Winnicott’s focus on transitional phenomena - the intermediate space between subjectivity and external reality – provides a key conceptual bridge to Bollas’s transformational object.

Bollas introduces the transformational object as a concept in his seminal work, The Shadow of the Object (1987). In his description, the transformational object is an experience in which a person encounters an object (broadly defined as a person, environment, or even an abstract experience) that facilitates a profound reorganization of the psyche. Unlike the transitional object, which mediates between the inner and outer world, the transformational object is experienced as an unconscious process that evokes a sense of deep change in one’s subjective structure.

Crucially, Bollas (1987) ties the transformational object to early infantile experiences, particularly the pre-verbal and affective interactions between an infant and their caregiver. In these formative moments, care and nurturing are intertwined with profound psychic resonance, where the infant feels transformed by the presence and responsiveness of the caregiver. As Bollas emphasizes, the memory of these transformative encounters remains as an unconscious template, shaping how individuals seek out and experience future transformations in life.

What makes Bollas’s theory particularly original is his extension of the transformational object beyond clinical settings and childhood development. According to him, individuals unconsciously seek transformational objects throughout their lives to replicate the formative experiences of early change and growth. These objects, which may include relationships, works of art, religious experiences, or certain environments, evoke feelings of renewal and transformation (Bollas, 1992). For Bollas (1987), the transformational object is not static or concrete; it is the process of transformation itself, experienced through an interaction that catalyzes psychic reorganization.

To further clarify this concept, Bollas distinguishes the transformational object from other psychoanalytic constructs, such as the transitional object or the fetish. While the transitional object bridges the gap between self and other, the transformational object operates at a more foundational level, engaging the unconscious in a process of deep change. In contrast, while a fetish is often fixated and unchanging, the transformational object is dynamic, focused on creating new possibilities for the self (Ogden, 1994).

A key feature of the transformational object is its unconscious nature. As Bollas (1987) notes, individuals may not consciously recognize the significance of transformational objects in their lives. Instead, the experience is often felt as a profound emotional resonance or a sense of being “moved” or “changed” without fully understanding why. This reflects the pre-verbal, affective quality of the original transformational experiences in infancy, remembered not as explicit memories but as implicit, felt patterns.

The concept of the transformational object has significant implications for psychoanalysis and other domains. For example, in clinical practice, it highlights the role of the therapist not as a directive figure but as a potential transformational object, facilitating change through their relational presence and attunement to the patient’s unconscious needs (Ogden, 1994). Beyond the clinical setting, Bollas’s theory has been applied to art, literature, and spirituality, exploring how these domains provide transformational experiences for individuals seeking renewal or growth (Frosh, 2012).

Despite its transformative potential, the theory is not without critiques. Some scholars argue that the transformational object is too abstract or lacks clear operationalization for empirical study (Greenberg & Mitchell, 1983). Others highlight that Bollas’s emphasis on unconscious processes and subjective experience makes the concept difficult to generalize or integrate into structured frameworks. Nevertheless, the transformational object remains a powerful lens for understanding how relationships and experiences shape the self.

In the context of leadership, Bollas’s concept offers a compelling framework for understanding how leaders can act as agents of profound personal and relational change. Rather than simply guiding or directing, leaders who embody this role create environments where those they engage with feel seen, understood, and empowered to grow. Similar to the transformational object in psychoanalytic theory, such leaders do not impose their will on others but instead foster an atmosphere that encourages exploration, creativity, and emotional development (Kets de Vries, 2006).

For instance, a leader might serve as a transformational figure by recognizing and nurturing the unique capacities of individuals, enabling them to navigate challenges and discover new dimensions of their abilities (Goleman, 1995). This relational dynamic is not one of dependency but one that empowers others to internalize the experience of transformation and integrate it into their personal or professional development. In this way, leadership modeled after the transformational object becomes a deeply relational and dynamic process, fostering not just organizational success but also individual flourishing.

Bollas’s transformational object reframes leadership as a process of enabling growth and self-discovery through relational attunement. Building on this idea, the next section bridges these psychoanalytic concepts to demonstrate how they collectively enrich relational leadership theory, offering new pathways for understanding and application.

Bridging Psychoanalysis and Leadership Studies

Relational leadership, when examined through a psychoanalytic lens, offers a profound reinterpretation of the dynamics between leaders and those they engage with. In particular, the integration of Christopher Bollas’s concept of the “transformational object” (Bollas, 1987) and Lacan’s notion of the sinthome (Lacan, 2016) highlights the deeply personal and intersubjective nature of leadership. Together, these psychoanalytic concepts emphasize the dual importance of facilitating transformation and embracing singularity in leadership processes, providing a nuanced framework for understanding how leadership emerges in relational contexts.

To begin with, the concept of the transformational object positions leaders as figures who can facilitate profound change in those they interact with. Bollas (1987) describes transformational objects as relational experiences that evoke deep, often unconscious, psychic transformation. Building on this idea, relational leadership involves creating environments where others feel seen, validated, and empowered to navigate their potential for growth (Fletcher, 2004). Importantly, leaders, as transformational objects, do not impose change but instead serve as catalysts for others to explore new dimensions of their subjectivity. This requires not only attunement to the relational dynamics at play but also the capacity to foster trust and emotional connection (Goleman, 1995).

At the same time, Lacan’s concept of the sinthome reminds us that every individual - leader and follower alike - operates from a unique psychic structure (Lacan, 2016). As Lacan (2016) explains, the sinthome serves as a stabilizing knot that binds the symbolic, imaginary, and real dimensions of experience, allowing individuals to navigate existential tensions and maintain coherence (Fink, 1997). From this perspective, a leader’s sinthome shapes how they perceive the world, engage in relationships, and respond to challenges. By developing a deeper understanding of their own sinthome, leaders can recognize the ways in which their singularity influences their relational style, decision-making, and capacity to inspire others.

Equally significant, leaders must also acknowledge and engage with the sinthome of others, appreciating the singularity that each individual brings to the relational dynamic. This interplay of singularities is crucial, as it creates the conditions for meaningful connection and mutual influence (Uhl-Bien, 2006). For example, a leader who is attuned to the unique psychic structures of their team members can create spaces where trust, authenticity, and creativity flourish. In turn, such relational spaces allow individuals to feel valued in their uniqueness while contributing to collective goals.

By bridging these two psychoanalytic concepts, leadership can be reconceptualized as a relational process that requires both transformational engagement and an awareness of subjectivity. Crucially, leaders become transformational objects not by subsuming others into their vision but by facilitating spaces where individuals can navigate their own transformations. Simultaneously, leaders who embrace their singular sinthome and recognize the singularity of others can cultivate environments that celebrate uniqueness while fostering collaboration (Kets de Vries, 2006).

Under this framework, relational leadership emerges as a dynamic and co-constructed process. Unlike traditional approaches, it is neither prescriptive nor formulaic but rather rooted in the deep and often unconscious exchanges between individuals (Frosh, 2012). This psychoanalytic perspective reframes leadership as a space where relationality, subjectivity, and transformation converge, offering a powerful critique of traditional, entity-centric leadership models. In contrast to traditional paradigms, which often focus on traits or behaviors and view leadership as a top-down process, this perspective positions leadership as an emergent and shared phenomenon shaped by relational dynamics and singular subjectivities (Ospina & Uhl-Bien, 2012).

Ultimately, by emphasizing the co-construction of leadership and the transformative potential of relational engagement, this framework opens new pathways for understanding and practice. Leaders who can skillfully navigate their own subjectivity while attuning to the subjectivities of others not only foster growth but also create environments where collaboration, innovation, and mutual influence thrive.

Table 1 synthesizes the core ideas of Lacan’s and Bollas’s psychoanalytic concepts, relational leadership theory, and their practical implications for leadership. These insights collectively offer a nuanced, transformative framework for understanding leadership as an intersubjective and dynamic process.

The integration of psychoanalysis into leadership studies underscores the transformative potential of relational engagement, where subjectivity and mutual influence converge. With this framework established, the discussion now turns to the theoretical insights and practical implications of applying these ideas to contemporary leadership contexts.

Theoretical Insights

This article makes several key theoretical contributions by bridging psychoanalytic concepts with contemporary leadership studies, offering a novel framework for understanding leadership as a deeply relational and intersubjective process. By integrating Bollas’s concept of the “transformational object” (Bollas, 1987) and Lacan’s notion of the sinthome (Lacan, 2016), the discussion advances both fields, demonstrating how psychoanalytic insights can enrich relational leadership theories while simultaneously extending the applicability of psychoanalytic frameworks beyond their traditional contexts.

To begin with, this study reconceptualizes leadership as a relational phenomenon rather than an entity-centered or trait-based construct. Traditional leadership models often emphasize individual traits, behaviors, or hierarchical authority (Bass, 1990; Carlyle, 1841), but these approaches frequently overlook the co-constructed and interdependent nature of leadership dynamics. In contrast, by applying psychoanalytic concepts, the article reframes leadership as emerging through the interplay of subjective and intersubjective factors, rooted in the unique singularities of leaders and those they engage with. This shift in perspective moves the focus from “what a leader does” to “how leadership emerges within relational spaces” (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Relational leadership, from this vantage point, becomes a process of co-creation, where meaning, direction, and growth are collectively negotiated rather than dictated.

In addition, the integration of Lacan’s sinthome into leadership studies underscores the importance of singularity in relational dynamics. Each leader’s sinthome - their unique psychic structure - shapes how they perceive and respond to relational challenges, influencing their relational style and interactions (Fink, 1997). According to Lacan (2016), the sinthome binds together the symbolic, imaginary, and real dimensions of the subject’s experience, providing a stabilizing structure that mediates their engagement with the world. This lens provides an important theoretical contribution by emphasizing the subjective complexity of leadership and offering a new way to understand how leaders navigate the singularity of others. Moreover, the sinthome concept challenges prescriptive leadership models by highlighting the need for leaders to engage with the specific, personal, and unconscious dynamics that underpin human interactions (Verhaeghe, 2008).

Building on this foundation, the article introduces the concept of the leader as a transformational object, illustrating their potential to serve as catalysts for growth and psychic transformation (Bollas, 1987). This perspective deepens the understanding of relational leadership by demonstrating how leaders facilitate change not through control or imposition but through their relational presence and ability to engage authentically with others. As Bollas (1987) explains, transformational objects evoke profound changes in individuals, often replicating early developmental experiences where caregivers fostered the conditions for growth and self-discovery (Winnicott, 1965). Similarly, in leadership contexts, this relational presence enables leaders to create environments where others feel seen, valued, and empowered to explore their potential. Importantly, this dynamic is not hierarchical but co-creative, emphasizing mutual influence and shared transformation (Fletcher, 2004).

Furthermore, by drawing on Bollas’s framework, the article provides a theoretical foundation for examining the emotional and psychological dimensions of leadership. The capacity of leaders to act as transformational objects depends on their relational attunement and ethical responsibility, ensuring that their influence promotes autonomy and growth rather than dependency or control (Goleman, 1995; Kets de Vries, 2006). This emphasis aligns with contemporary relational and ethical leadership models, highlighting the importance of emotional intelligence, empathy, and self-awareness in leadership practices.

Finally, this framework contributes to the broader field of leadership studies by addressing gaps in traditional paradigms. Specifically, by incorporating psychoanalytic perspectives, the article critiques the limitations of charisma-driven or hierarchical models and offers a more nuanced understanding of leadership as a relational, transformative, and contextually sensitive process (Drath et al., 2008). From this standpoint, leadership is reframed as an emergent phenomenon, shaped by the interplay of subjective and intersubjective factors within relational contexts. In doing so, this interdisciplinary approach enriches the theoretical landscape of leadership studies, providing new pathways for exploring the ethical, emotional, and psychological dimensions of leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Heifetz, 1994).

In conclusion, by bridging psychoanalytic theory with contemporary leadership studies, this article opens new avenues for theoretical exploration and practical application. It positions leadership as a profoundly relational and transformative act, emphasizing the importance of singularity, mutual influence, and emotional attunement in fostering environments of trust, growth, and collaboration.

By situating relational leadership within a psychoanalytic framework, this section illuminates the importance of singularity, relational attunement, and co-construction. These theoretical insights set the stage for practical considerations, exploring how leaders can integrate these principles into their development and practice.

Practical Implications

Traditional leadership development programs, often focused on technical skills, strategic thinking, and standardized frameworks for decision-making, have long been the cornerstone of leadership training (Day et al., 2014). While these competencies remain valuable, they frequently neglect the relational and subjective dimensions of leadership - elements that are critical for navigating the complexities of contemporary organizational and social contexts (Drath et al., 2008). To address these gaps, leadership training must evolve to prioritize relational awareness, emotional intelligence, and the ability to engage meaningfully with others’ singularities.

Relational awareness, for instance, entails a profound understanding of the interdependent nature of leadership, where influence and meaning emerge from dynamic interactions rather than from hierarchical authority (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Thus, leadership training programs should encourage leaders to view leadership as a shared, co-constructed process, moving beyond a role defined solely by positional power or expertise. Similarly, socioemotional intelligence - the capacity to perceive, understand, and regulate emotions in oneself and others - should become a cornerstone of leadership development. This focus fosters empathy, communication, and relational depth (Goleman, 1995), equipping leaders to connect authentically with others and create environments that encourage collaboration, trust, and transformation (Kahn, 2001).

Incorporating psychoanalytic tools into leadership development provides an innovative approach to enhancing these relational and emotional capacities. Reflective practices, such as journaling, guided self-inquiry, and group dialogue, can help leaders explore their own sinthome - the unique psychic structure that shapes their perceptions, relational style, and responses to challenges (Fink, 1997; Lacan, 2016). By fostering this self-awareness, leaders can identify unconscious patterns that influence their decision-making and relational dynamics, enabling them to adapt more effectively to the needs of their teams and organizations.

Moreover, psychoanalytic frameworks can also support leaders in engaging with the singularities of others. Training programs might include techniques such as active listening, perspective-taking exercises, and case studies that delve into the unconscious dynamics of group interactions (Bion, 1961; Ogden, 1994). Through such practices, leaders can develop the capacity to recognize and respect the uniqueness of those they lead, fostering relational spaces where individuals feel valued and supported in their personal and professional growth (Winnicott, 1965).

This reimagined approach to leadership development is particularly relevant in the context of modern leadership demands. In today’s interconnected and diverse environments, the ability to engage authentically with others’ subjectivities has become indispensable for building resilient teams, addressing systemic challenges, and fostering innovation (Kets de Vries, 2006; Ospina & Uhl-Bien, 2012). By shifting the emphasis from technical proficiency to relational and emotional depth, leadership training can better equip leaders to fulfill their roles as transformational figures within their organizations and communities.

At the same time, relational leadership informed by psychoanalytic concepts places significant ethical responsibility on leaders, particularly as they serve as transformational figures within their communities and organizations. This role extends beyond facilitating change; it requires ensuring that transformation occurs within a framework of respect, mutuality, and ethical accountability (Fletcher, 2004). Given the substantial influence leaders have over those they engage with, their actions and decisions carry profound implications for the relational and psychological well-being of others.

A key ethical responsibility of relational leaders, therefore, is to recognize and respect the unique subjectivity of those they lead. Drawing on Lacan’s concept of the sinthome, leaders must understand that each individual constructs a singular psychic structure to navigate their world (Lacan, 2016). This singularity shapes not only how individuals experience challenges but also how they approach growth and transformation. Failing to acknowledge this complexity risks imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to leadership, potentially leading to alienation, dependence, or a stifling of personal agency. Conversely, ethical leaders embrace the diversity of sinthomes within their relational networks, fostering environments where individuals feel seen, understood, and empowered to contribute authentically (Verhaeghe, 2008).

Furthermore, leaders must carefully navigate the inherent power dynamics in relational leadership. While the ability to influence others can facilitate growth and transformation, it can also unintentionally foster dependency or undermine individual autonomy if exercised insensitively. Thus, ethical leadership demands that leaders empower individuals by encouraging self-reflection, supporting independent decision-making, and creating relational spaces where people can explore their potential on their own terms (Goleman, 1995).

Another critical ethical consideration is self-awareness. Leaders must remain attuned to their own sinthome and its influence on their relational style, ensuring that unconscious biases or unresolved personal dynamics do not negatively impact their relationships (Fink, 1997). Psychoanalytically informed reflective practices, such as self-inquiry, can help leaders maintain this awareness and navigate their relational responsibilities with integrity and empathy (Ogden, 1994).

Ultimately, ethical leadership in relational contexts requires a commitment to mutual respect, emotional attunement, and the co-creation of transformative spaces. Leaders must approach their role with humility, recognizing that leadership is not about imposing change but about engaging authentically with others to foster mutual growth. By upholding these principles, leaders can create relational environments that are not only productive but also deeply humanizing, affirming the singularity and dignity of everyone involved (Winnicott, 1965).

To strengthen the practical relevance of the article, incorporating real-world examples that demonstrate the application of Lacan’s sinthome and Bollas’s transformational object can provide valuable insights into how these theoretical concepts unfold in leadership contexts. For instance, consider the case of a CEO leading a startup during a financial crisis. The leader’s sinthome - their unique psychic structure - shapes how they perceive and respond to uncertainty. Research by Kets de Vries (2006) highlights how leaders’ unique psychological frameworks influence their behaviors in high-stakes environments. A leader whose sinthome revolves around maintaining control in chaotic situations might introduce highly structured workflows, providing clarity and reassurance to employees (Goleman, 1995). Conversely, a leader whose sinthome embraces risk might foster open discussions, encouraging creative problem-solving and innovative strategies. These differing approaches illustrate how a leader’s singularity influences team morale, decision-making, and organizational adaptability in challenging situations (Drath et al., 2008).

Similarly, Bollas’s concept of the transformational object can be observed in educational settings. For example, a professor who fosters an environment of curiosity and critical thinking can act as a transformational figure for their students. Winnicott’s (1965) notion of the “holding environment” closely aligns with this dynamic, where a nurturing relational presence enables personal growth. By mentoring a struggling student and helping them recognize untapped potential, the professor facilitates a shift in the student’s self-perception and intellectual growth. This mirrors the developmental transformations described by Bollas (1987), where relational experiences serve as catalysts for self-discovery. The same principle applies in leadership contexts, where leaders can catalyze personal growth by creating relational spaces that encourage exploration and self-discovery (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

In organizational settings, leaders who understand the sinthome of their team members can foster more effective and harmonious working relationships. For instance, in a marketing agency, a leader might recognize that one team member’s sinthome is rooted in a need for stability, while another thrives on spontaneity. Studies on emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995) have demonstrated that leaders who tailor their approaches to the unique needs of individuals enhance trust, creativity, and team cohesion. By providing clear deadlines and structured tasks for one individual and offering opportunities for open-ended brainstorming to another, the leader demonstrates an attunement to the singularities within their team. This personalized approach not only enhances trust but also encourages creativity and collaboration, showcasing the value of relational leadership informed by psychoanalytic insights (Fletcher, 2004).

A striking example of leadership as a transformational object can be found in the political realm. Nelson Mandela, for instance, exemplified how a leader’s relational presence can inspire collective healing and growth. Scholars such as Kets de Vries (2006) have documented how Mandela’s emphasis on empathy and reconciliation created a transformative environment during South Africa’s transition from apartheid. His ability to create spaces for transformation, both personal and collective, illustrates the profound potential of relational leadership grounded in empathy and an understanding of human subjectivity (Frosh, 2012).

In the context of crisis management, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders in healthcare organizations often embodied the role of transformational objects. A study by Shanafelt et al. (2020) emphasized the importance of leaders demonstrating empathy and consistent communication to support frontline workers during the pandemic. A hospital administrator who validated the experiences of staff members and offered a sense of stability played a critical role in helping healthcare workers manage emotional stress while remaining committed to their professional responsibilities. These leaders exemplified how relational dynamics can mitigate existential challenges and foster resilience in the face of adversity (Shanafelt et al., 2020).

By weaving these examples into the theoretical discussion, the article bridges the gap between abstract concepts and their tangible applications. They illustrate how Lacan’s sinthome and Bollas’s transformational object provide valuable frameworks for understanding the nuances of relational leadership in diverse settings. From fostering creativity in workplace teams to inspiring societal transformation, these scenarios demonstrate the profound implications of relational leadership for addressing the complexities of contemporary organizational and social challenges (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Verhaeghe, 2008). Integrating these practical dimensions enhances the accessibility and applicability of the article, ensuring its resonance with both academic audiences and leadership practitioners.

The practical application of these psychoanalytic insights encourages leaders to cultivate self-awareness, relational depth, and ethical responsibility. As organizations face increasingly complex challenges, this relational approach to leadership provides a powerful framework for fostering innovation, inclusion, and mutual growth (Drath et al., 2008; Kahn, 2001). The concluding section synthesizes these ideas, emphasizing the transformative potential of psychoanalysis for leadership theory and practice.

Conclusion

This article has analyzed how psychoanalytic concepts, specifically Bollas’s “transformational object” (Bollas, 1987) and Lacan’s sinthome (Lacan, 2016), offer profound insights into the dynamics of relational leadership. By reframing leadership as a process that emerges through relational engagement and intersubjective exchanges, the study challenges traditional, entity-centric paradigms that prioritize traits, behaviors, or hierarchical authority (Bass, 1990). Instead, it highlights the transformative potential of leadership as a deeply relational phenomenon, shaped by the singularity of both the leader and those they engage with (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Bollas’s concept of the transformational object underscores the capacity of leaders to catalyze growth and transformation in others, not through control but through relational attunement and support. Similarly, Lacan’s sinthome emphasizes the importance of singularity in relational dynamics, illustrating how a leader’s unique psychic structure shapes their interactions and ability to connect with others (Fink, 1997). Together, these concepts expand our understanding of leadership, positioning it as a profoundly subjective and transformative process that transcends conventional models.

While the integration of psychoanalytic concepts into relational leadership offers valuable insights, it is also important to recognize the epistemological, theoretical, and practical limitations of this approach. These challenges, however, do not diminish the contributions of this framework; rather, they underscore the complexities of applying psychoanalysis to leadership studies and highlight the need for further refinement and exploration.

One significant challenge lies in the epistemological divergence between psychoanalytic theory and leadership studies. Psychoanalysis, with its roots in subjective, unconscious processes, relies heavily on interpretive and phenomenological methods of inquiry (Freud, 1923; Lacan, 1977). This contrasts sharply with the outcome-driven focus of leadership studies, which often seeks to measure behaviors, traits, and organizational performance through empirical methods (Avolio et al., 2009). Reconciling these distinct paradigms requires bridging fundamentally different ways of knowing: the introspective, qualitative lens of psychoanalysis versus the data-driven, quantitative approaches dominant in leadership research. As a result, the subjective and ambiguous nature of psychoanalytic insights may pose challenges for their validation and integration into existing leadership frameworks (Verhaeghe, 2008).

Furthermore, applying psychoanalytic concepts such as Bollas’s transformational object and Lacan’s sinthome to leadership is an ambitious theoretical endeavor that risks overextending these constructs beyond their original contexts. These ideas were initially developed to address individual psychic processes, particularly in clinical settings, and their extrapolation to organizational or leadership dynamics requires careful justification (Gabriel, 1999). Critics may argue that the abstract and introspective nature of psychoanalytic theory renders it overly esoteric for practical application in leadership studies. Additionally, the inherently individualistic focus of psychoanalysis may struggle to account for systemic and structural influences, such as cultural or economic factors, that shape leadership dynamics in organizational contexts (Heifetz, 1994).

Another layer of complexity arises from the practical challenges of implementing this framework in real-world leadership settings. The abstract nature of psychoanalytic concepts, while rich in theoretical depth, may make them difficult for practitioners to grasp without extensive training (Kets de Vries, 2006). Leaders operating in fast-paced environments may find it challenging to engage in the deep self-reflection and relational attunement required to understand their own sinthome or to serve as transformational objects for others. Moreover, the time and emotional investment needed to foster meaningful relational engagement may conflict with the efficiency-driven demands of many organizations (Goleman, 1995).

Additionally, the focus on relational dynamics and singularity introduces ethical and operational risks. Leaders who engage deeply with others’ subjectivities risk inadvertently blurring professional boundaries, potentially fostering dependency or emotional entanglements (Kahn, 2001). Without clear ethical guidelines, these psychoanalytic principles could unintentionally lead to relational conflicts or destabilize organizational structures.

Despite these limitations, the framework proposed in this article offers an innovative and compelling perspective on relational leadership, challenging traditional models and opening new pathways for exploration. To refine and expand this approach, addressing these challenges is essential.

Empirical studies could provide a valuable means of bridging the gap between theory and practice. For instance, research could examine how leaders function as transformational objects in real-world contexts, exploring the relational dynamics that foster growth and transformation within teams and organizations. Longitudinal studies, for example, could investigate the impact of leaders’ attunement to the singularity of others on team performance, innovation, and organizational culture (Drath et al., 2008). Additionally, future research could explore how leaders’ sinthomes influence their relational styles, decision-making processes, and ability to connect with diverse subjectivities (Verhaeghe, 2008).

Moreover, this framework could be applied to specific industries or domains, such as education, healthcare, politics, or creative organizations, where relational dynamics and emotional engagement are critical (Ospina & Foldy, 2010). Examining how relational leadership, informed by psychoanalytic insights, operates in these sectors could reveal strategies for fostering more inclusive, ethical, and transformative leadership practices.

At its core, this article invites a reimagining of leadership as a deeply relational and transformative endeavor. By integrating psychoanalytic theory into leadership studies, it challenges conventional models and offers new possibilities for understanding the complexities of human relationships in leadership processes. Leadership, when viewed through this lens, becomes not merely a function of authority or strategy, but a profound interplay of subjectivities, where transformation is co-created through relational engagement (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Ultimately, embracing this perspective allows us to recognize that the true potential of leadership lies not in its ability to direct but in its capacity to connect - inviting leaders and those they engage with to grow, evolve, and transform together. This relational and psychoanalytic understanding of leadership provides not only a critique of traditional approaches but also a vision for leadership that is more human, empathetic, and transformative, capable of addressing the complexities of contemporary challenges (Kets de Vries, 2006).

By bridging psychoanalytic theory and leadership studies, this article invites a paradigm shift, reframing leadership as a relational and transformative process that embraces the complexity of human subjectivity. Future research and practice can build on this foundation, deepening our understanding of leadership as a co-created and humanizing endeavor.

References

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Free Press.

Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups and other papers. Tavistock Publications.

Bollas, C. (1987). The shadow of the object: Psychoanalysis of the unthought known. Columbia University Press.

Bollas, C. (1992). Being a character: Psychoanalysis and self-experience. Routledge.

Carlyle, T. (1841). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic in history. James Fraser.

Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage Publications.

Cunliffe, A. L., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), 1425-1449.

Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82.

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.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business Review Press.

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

Fink, B. (1997). A clinical introduction to Lacanian psychoanalysis: Theory and technique. Harvard University Press.

Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647-661.

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 1-66). Hogarth Press.

Frosh, S. (2012). A brief introduction to psychoanalytic theory. Palgrave Macmillan.

Gabriel, Y. (1999). Beyond happy families: A critical reevaluation of the control–resistance–identity triangle. Human Relations, 52(2), 179-203.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Greenberg, J. R., & Mitchell, S. A. (1983). Object relations in psychoanalytic theory. Harvard University Press.

Grint, K. (2005). Leadership: Limits and possibilities. Palgrave Macmillan.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23(5), 26-34.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.

Kahn, W. A. (2001). Holding environments at work. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(3), 260-279.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2006). The leadership mystique: Leading behavior in the human enterprise. Pearson Education.

Klein, M. (1952). Some theoretical conclusions regarding the emotional life of the infant. In M. Klein (Ed.), Developments in psychoanalysis (pp. 198-236). Hogarth Press.

Lacan, J. (1977). Ecrits: A selection. W. W. Norton.

Lacan, J. (2016). The sinthome. In J.-A. Miller (Ed.), The seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book XXIII. Polity Press.

Leader, D. (2014). Strictly bipolar. Hamish Hamilton.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 271-299.

Ogden, T. H. (1994). Subjects of analysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 75(1), 3-19.

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.

Ospina, S., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Exploring the co-construction of leadership in practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 279-295.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

Shanafelt, T. D., Ripp, J., & Trockel, M. (2020). Understanding and addressing sources of anxiety among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA, 323(21), 2133-2134.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35-71.

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

Verhaeghe, P. (2008). On being normal and other disorders: A manual for clinical psychodiagnostics. Other Press.

Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. International Universities Press.

Žižek, S. (2006). How to read Lacan. Granta Books.

[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 São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

Sant'Anna, A. S. (2025). Subjectivity in Leadership: How Relational Dynamics and Psychoanalysis Shape Transformative Practices, 3(4):1-21. NEOP FGV-EAESP. (Work in progress)