Leading with emotion: authenticity, accountability, and the power of feeling

Authentic emotion in leadership fosters trust, ethical clarity, and connection but remains misunderstood and scrutinised.

First published in the Mandarin.

We are in a time when leadership arrogance has become more prevalent.

Political and business leaders frequently assert that they know what’s best for others and act as if they are free from legal constraints or social norms in chasing their objectives.

The portrayal of leadership is warped by misinformation, rendering the truth hard to discern and authenticity tough to assess.

Public service leaders are uncomfortably positioned at the heart of this leadership crisis.

Leaders educated in government administration learn a leadership culture that emphasises giving ‘frank and fearless’ advice. Personal success hinges on impartiality and an evidence-based perspective.

Public service leaders often support ministers during briefings to reassure the public that programs, no matter their complexity or contentiousness, will be implemented thoroughly, thoughtfully, and professionally, minimising harm whenever possible.

Public service leaders are trained to be objective and professional. In his recent valedictory speech, former DSS Secretary Ray Griggs emphasised that providing apolitical and impartial advice is essential in these uncertain times while also highlighting the growing toxicity of the environment in which public servants operate.

Recently, the NSW Health Secretary, Susan Pearce, was brought out from the Minister’s shadow at a press conference to comment on two Bankstown Hospital health workers bragging on social media about how they would refuse to treat or kill Israeli patients.

In responding, Pearce was brought to tears while reflecting that: ‘Never in my wildest dreams did I think that I would be standing here with two staff of the New South Wales Health System having said such horrendous things about our community, and particularly to our Jewish community.’

While accustomed to seeing politicians get teary-eyed, we’re less familiar with witnessing emotion from our public servants. Does the public benefit from seeing how passionately public servants care about issues?

A broader and perhaps more significant question is: What does our reaction to leaders who show emotion reveal about us?

Leaders and emotion

Susan Pearce’s display of emotion was genuine, heartfelt, sincere, and significant. Her response showcased her as a passionate leader and advocate for the Health Department and its 180,000 employees.

Pearce genuinely embodied the human and empathetic qualities of a public service workforce that supports the community in their everyday mishaps as well as during profound personal crises.

However, public displays of emotion are perceived and treated differently depending on gender, cultural context, the type of emotion expressed, and the situation in which it occurs.

The contrasting fortunes of two leaders in Australia’s most important positions, the Australian cricket captain and the Prime Minister, illustrate how we treat emotional leaders.

In the 1980s, Prime Minister Bob Hawke was well-known for openly expressing his emotions. His heartfelt displays showcased his deep compassion and strong moral leadership. Though sometimes a bit cringe-worthy, his intense passion and enthusiasm captured how Australians like to see themselves. In contrast, Kim Hughes, the Australian Cricket Captain in the 1980’s, faced harsh criticism and ridicule after breaking down in tears during his resignation on national television.

Leaders can enhance their credibility and influence by expressing emotions publicly in a way that fits the context. The situation is crucial.

The Prime Minister was given more leeway than the Australian Cricket Captain to express emotion, perhaps reflecting the differing importance of the two roles.

History shows that those who authentically display emotion in context earn respect, but it is a fine line.

The passion of public servants

In public view, public service leaders often appear composed and impartial, which may reinforce the stereotype of cold, distant, bookish bureaucrats who operate in shadowy rooms and manipulate government through bureaucracy. This perspective is particularly evident today in the United States.

The upcoming Australian election is likely to treat the public service as a convenient political football. This old and cliched game will once again place public service leaders, who strive to remain impartial and professional, in complex and sometimes untenable positions.

However, public servants often demonstrate their commitment to service in private discussions with the government or during forums on public service practices.

For example, the APS’s focus on public service ‘craft’ reflects a cultural shift that prioritises the public service’s knowledge, skills, and experience over merely following bureaucratic procedures. It underscores public service as a vocation cultivated through experience.

When trust in public service institutions wanes, the community must be involved in discussions about the value of government administration. Are passionate public service leaders better suited to lead this effort?

The psychology of emotion and leadership

The development and practice of leadership are regarded as fundamentally rational activities. Countless hours are committed to the practical aspects of leadership and leading.

Our leadership education and training initiatives regularly emphasise tangible, practical outcomes. This is evident in our concerns about the next generation of leaders: ‘Do they have policy skills?’ ‘Are they equipped to manage teams?’ ‘Can they manage implementation?’

However, those who have led or are currently leading would likely argue that leadership practice is seldom rational. They would emphasise that every decision and action is profoundly influenced by emotion. Yet, we maintain the image of a rational, detached, and objective leader.

This image suggests that emotional insight may be unnecessary for leadership or possibly unteachable. Emotions are positioned beyond reason or method, a phenomenon best left to individual instinct and intuition. When emotion is incorporated into leadership, for instance, through ‘emotional intelligence’, the essence of leadership emotions is reduced to measures and tools.

Leaders are left adrift as they navigate their journeys through incredibly complex social and emotional scenarios, with each leader personally rediscovering the significance of emotions.

How can leaders understand that world without seeing, hearing, feeling, touching, and smelling it—without experiencing it?

As the philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues, emotions are not irrational impulses but deeply connected to thought, value, and reasoning.

Nussbaum challenges the conventional perspective that emotions are distinct from cognition, arguing instead that they are vital to ethical and social life.

Is there an ethical or moral decision that does not start life as an emotion?

Nussbaum’s perspective on emotions is worth pondering in the context of public service leadership.

• Emotions encompass cognitive content—they represent evaluations of what we consider valuable.

• They influence ethical decision-making by shaping our perceptions of the world and interactions with others.

• Compassion, love, and fear affect our views on moral intuitions and social justice.

• Rather than opposing reason, emotions guide it.

• They evolve through personal and cultural narratives that mould our attachments and vulnerabilities.

The idea that public service leaders should strive to occupy a mythical, tensionless state between government demands and the practicalities of implementation, one that is rational yet emotionless, is unrealistic.

Leaders cannot simply turn their emotions on and off as needed for practical purposes.

Public servants are dedicated individuals whose emotions fuel their energy and drive. The passion and resolve needed to carry out government policies require emotional strength. Relying solely on a sound argument is not enough to endure the challenges of policy implementation.

Emotion plays a vital role in identifying potential policy and implementation harm before it arises, promoting ethical practices and encouraging the courage to offer advice in contentious political environments. This emotion helps make the challenges and pressures of government work more manageable.

Emotion in leadership isn’t a weakness; instead, it provides a vital foundation for ethical clarity, fosters connections, and aids in decision-making.

Unfortunately, the typical response to leaders expressing emotion is that they are viewed as weak, unstable, and unprofessional.

Women who face harsher scrutiny are often labelled with that most damaging epitaph, ‘emotional’.

Emotions, authenticity, and performance

Social media has intensified performance, often blurring the line between authenticity and inauthenticity. For example, the lawyers representing the two health workers in NSW predictably claim in the media that this was merely a joke that went wrong. This is a common tactic when accountability catches up.

In an environment where authenticity and performance are integral to the social landscape, emotional responses are closely scrutinised, and emotional insincerity is judged severely. Once uncovered, inauthenticity leads to scepticism and diminished trust.

Toxic positivity is a growing trend in leadership, marked by an unrealistic and persistent cheerfulness that is often associated with optimistic leaders. It emphasises harmony and conformity in the workplace through excessive optimism, which can suppress authentic dissent among leadership teams. This approach can be seen as manipulative and indicates a deficiency in the emotional authenticity of leaders.

If leaders adopt Nussbaum’s philosophy, they can authentically engage emotionally and avoid manipulative displays of emotion, creating connections and communicating the ethical insights essential for public service leadership.

The power of feeling

Leadership is often framed as a rational pursuit from which emotions are separated. However, as Martha Nussbaum argues, emotions are not irrational impulses—they are deeply intertwined with thought, values, and ethical reasoning.

Public service leaders, in particular, operate within a complex environment where they are expected to be impartial and deeply committed to serving the public good. Their ability to express genuine emotion, as seen in Susan Pearce’s response, can reinforce trust and demonstrate the moral weight of their responsibilities.

However, leaders, particularly those in public service, must navigate a delicate balance when expressing emotions that might be seen as compromising impartiality. Public displays of emotion are not always perceived equally or fairly.

Public service leaders should regard emotions not as a liability in leadership but as a source of ethical clarity, resilience, and connection. Instead of suppressing or feigning emotions, leaders—especially in public service—should embrace them as guides for decision-making and moral leadership.

If we continue to view emotion as a weakness, we risk fostering detached, impersonal leadership that is ultimately ineffective in addressing the human realities of leadership, governance, and management.

Recognising and valuing emotions in leadership isn’t just about perception; it’s about fostering a leadership culture that is principled, accountable, and genuinely engaged with the people it serves.

Susan Pearce illustrated the significance of authentic emotion in leadership by highlighting her dedication and enthusiasm for her department’s positive impact on the community while supporting the many committed public servants providing health services in NSW.