Leading Without Losing Yourself: Goffman, Huizinga, Höpfl, and the Leadership Mask

The Masks We Wear in Leadership

Leadership is a performance, whether we like it or not. Every leader navigates expectations, organizational cultures, and personal aspirations, often balancing between authenticity and the roles they are expected to play. This tension is not new. The sociologist Erving Goffman, the historian Johan Huizinga, the psychologist Donald Winnicott, the organizational theorist Chris Argyris, and the organizational scholar Heather Höpfl have all provided foundational insights into the nature of roles, play, and identity—ideas that remain highly relevant for today’s leaders.

Erving Goffman: Leadership as a Performance

In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956), Goffman described human interaction as a theatrical performance. People, especially in professional settings, wear metaphorical masks, carefully curating their actions to fit social expectations. Leaders, in particular, perform on multiple stages—whether in boardrooms, stakeholder meetings, or internal team discussions. Goffman’s dramaturgical model suggests that leaders must be aware of their public “front stage” while maintaining a sense of self in their “back stage,” where they can be more authentic.

The danger arises when leaders become trapped in their role, mistaking the mask for their true self. When leadership becomes purely performative, authenticity erodes, and leaders risk losing the ability to connect genuinely with their teams. This is precisely where Huizinga’s insights on play become relevant.

Johan Huizinga: Leadership as a Game

Huizinga, in Homo Ludens (1938), argued that play is fundamental to culture and human interaction. He introduced the concept of the magic circle, a space where normal rules are temporarily suspended, allowing for creativity, improvisation, and exploration. Leadership, viewed through Huizinga’s lens, can be seen as a form of structured play. Within organizations, leaders step into a defined space with established rules, much like entering a game. However, the best leaders recognize that while they are playing a role, they are not only the role. They maintain an awareness of the constructed nature of leadership and avoid over-identifying with their position.

Donald Winnicott: The True and False Self in Leadership

The British psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott introduced the concept of the true self and false self, which adds another layer to understanding leadership identity. The false self develops as a protective adaptation to external expectations, ensuring social acceptance but at the risk of alienating the true self. Leaders who over-identify with their professional personas risk functioning exclusively from a false self, suppressing their authentic instincts and values. This leads to burnout, disconnection, and a loss of personal fulfillment. To lead effectively, one must integrate authenticity with the necessary adaptations that leadership demands.

Chris Argyris: Overcoming Defensive Routines

Chris Argyris, in Personality and Organization (1957), explored how leaders and employees develop defensive routines—habitual behaviors that protect them from embarrassment or failure but ultimately stifle learning and growth. Leaders who become too invested in maintaining their professional image often resist feedback and avoid necessary but uncomfortable conversations. Recognizing leadership as a dynamic process, rather than a rigid role, allows for greater adaptability, learning, and effectiveness.

Heather Höpfl: The Theatricality of Organizations

Höpfl, in Theatre and Organization (2004), examined the ways in which organizations function as theatrical performances, where roles, scripts, and rehearsed interactions shape workplace dynamics. She built upon Goffman’s dramaturgical approach, emphasizing that organizations sustain collective performances, where employees and leaders engage in scripted behavior to uphold institutional norms. The challenge for leaders is to recognize when the performance becomes restrictive, preventing them from exercising creativity, emotional authenticity, and strategic adaptability.

Höpfl also highlighted the tension between structured theatrical performance and improvisational flexibility in leadership. While organizations often expect leaders to follow a pre-defined script, the most effective leaders are those who know when to improvise—when to step outside the script and respond to emergent challenges with authenticity and adaptability. This aligns closely with Huizinga’s notion of play, where engagement in structured roles must allow for moments of spontaneity and transformation.

You Are Not Your Role

This aligns closely with the IMD article You Are Not Your Role: How to Lead Without Losing Yourself. The article warns against conflating personal identity with professional status. Leaders often fall into the trap of believing that their worth is tied to their role, making it difficult to separate personal fulfillment from organizational demands. This over-identification with leadership positions can lead to decisions based on fear—fear of losing status, relevance, or control—rather than decisions rooted in clarity and long-term vision.

The IMD article emphasizes the importance of self-awareness, continuous learning, and cultivating a life beyond work. It suggests that leaders who define themselves solely through their title or responsibilities will struggle when facing transitions or challenges. Those who cultivate a broader identity, embracing personal passions, relationships, and introspection, will be more resilient and adaptable in the face of change.

Goffman would argue that leaders who overly invest in their public persona may struggle when that role is challenged. Huizinga would suggest that those who forget they are playing a game become rigid, unable to engage with the fluidity required in modern leadership. Winnicott would highlight the psychological consequences of suppressing one’s true self, while Argyris would warn against defensive routines that limit growth and adaptability. Höpfl would further emphasize that organizations, as theatrical spaces, must allow for moments of genuine human interaction rather than enforcing rigid, artificial performances.

Integrating the Insights: How to Lead Without Losing Yourself

Leadership requires a level of performance, but it is crucial to recognize that the role itself is not one’s entire identity. Embracing the reality of leadership as a performance means maintaining an acute awareness of when to step in and out of that role. Leaders must also learn to create personal spaces beyond their professional personas, engaging in activities that remind them of who they are beyond their work. The balance between the front stage of leadership and the back stage of self-reflection is critical in maintaining authenticity and avoiding the exhaustion of constant role-playing.

To navigate leadership effectively, it is essential to engage in the act of leadership with both intention and adaptability. Understanding that leadership exists within a structured yet fluid environment enables leaders to remain flexible in their approach. Huizinga’s concept of play offers a compelling lens through which leadership can be seen as a dynamic and creative process, rather than a rigid identity. Goffman’s theories reinforce the need for leaders to be mindful of the personas they adopt, ensuring they do not lose themselves in the process. Winnicott’s work underscores the importance of integrating authenticity with professional demands, and Argyris reminds us of the necessity of continuous learning and unlearning. Höpfl brings an additional layer, reminding us that organizational structures often shape and constrain leadership performances, making it crucial for leaders to cultivate awareness and adaptability.

Great leaders understand the paradox of their position: they must embrace their role while ensuring they never become imprisoned by it. By integrating Goffman’s dramaturgy, Huizinga’s play theory, Höpfl’s theatrical perspectives, Winnicott’s psychological insights, Argyris’s organizational learning, and modern leadership research, executives can navigate the complexities of leadership with both strategic awareness and personal authenticity.

Sources:

Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization: The conflict between system and the individual. Harper & Row.

Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre.

Höpfl, H. (2004). Theatre and organization: Editorial introduction. Organization Studies, 25(5), 691-704.

Huizinga, J. (1938). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

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

Kent, J. & Meister, A. (2025). You Are Not Your Role: How to Lead Without Losing Yourself. https://www.imd.org/ibyimd/leadership/you-are-not-your-role-how-to-lead-without-losing-yourself/