“Just let me clear my throat… “

-DJ Kool

Legitimizing Power

Course Paper

Dept. Leadership Studies

School of Ed.

University of San Francisco

Spring 2026

A. Grab, MSOD, CLRM

Psychological Experience of Legitimacy

My psychological experience with legitimacy within public administration has centered largely on questions of credibility, professionalism, authenticity, and belonging. Early in my career, I often interpreted these experiences as isolated interpersonal conflicts or lack of fit. Over time, however, and through activism, graduate study in organization development, child-rearing, and eventually doctoral work focused on leadership, equity, and Critical Organization Theory, I began to understand these interactions as broader institutional and psychological processes connected to legitimacy maintenance, organizational identity, and social regulation (Jost & Major, 2001).

One of the most psychologically significant aspects of these experiences involved the relational and emotional consequences associated with direct communication and organizational critique. In situations where I communicated concerns clearly and professionally, I observed that the substance of those concerns was frequently overshadowed by interpretations of tone, emotionality, or perceived interpersonal disruption. Rather than withdrawing or minimizing my critiques, I maintained my commitment to directness, fairness, community, and professional integrity. Over time, however, I experienced increasing feelings of helplessness, social isolation, and diminished trust within the organization. At various points, I perceived informal organizational consequences emerging through back-channel conversations, blocked professional opportunities, a denied request for salary step advancement, and a general unwillingness among leadership to acknowledge the possibility of unfairness within these dynamics.

My continued willingness to engage critically with organizational issues was grounded less in opposition and more in a deeply held commitment to ethical responsibility and the belief that institutions function best when individuals are willing to address difficult realities honestly and directly. At the same time, maintaining professionalism and consistently extending dignity and respect toward others became increasingly laborious and psychologically taxing when those efforts did not feel reciprocated. The emotional burden emerged not from critique itself, but from existing within environments where direct communication and structural concerns were frequently reframed as interpersonal tension, negativity, or emotional disruption. These experiences reinforced my understanding that legitimacy within organizations is often tied not only to competence or expertise, but also to alignment with institutional expectations surrounding emotional presentation, communication style, and organizational comfort.

I also became increasingly reflective about the relationship between authenticity and professionalism within organizational environments. My communication style outside of formal professional settings is often informal, direct, and expressive, and while I understand the importance of adapting communication styles within different contexts, I became increasingly aware of the extent to which organizational legitimacy is tied to highly specific and culturally coded expectations regarding language, tone, and presentation. Although I modified aspects of my communication style within formal professional settings, I remained fundamentally consistent in how I treated others regardless of status or hierarchy. Over time, I began questioning who is permitted to be perceived as authentic, emotionally expressive, or direct within institutional environments while still maintaining professional legitimacy and credibility.

The course readings helped contextualize these experiences more critically. Van Leeuwen’s concepts of authorization and moral evaluation were especially relevant, as legitimacy within organizations is often attached to institutional hierarchy, professional expertise, and socially approved norms regarding behavior and communication (Vaara & Tienari, 2008). These concepts illuminated the extent to which legitimacy is maintained not only through formal structures and procedures, but also through subtle interpersonal expectations surrounding professionalism, emotional regulation, and acceptable forms of dissent. Similarly, the readings in The Psychology of Legitimacy reinforced the idea that individuals internalize institutional expectations in ways that shape identity, belonging, and self-perception within organizational spaces (Jost & Major, 2001). The article “In the Eye of the Beholder” further emphasized that legitimacy is often socially constructed through perception and interpretation rather than objective reality alone, helping explain how communication styles or emotional expression may become attached to assumptions regarding professionalism, competence, or credibility.

Fritz and Lewis’s discussion in “Whiteness and Organizations” was particularly influential in helping me understand the relationship between professionalism and institutional legitimacy. The authors argue that organizations often operate through hegemonic norms that define what forms of communication, emotional expression, and organizational behavior are considered appropriate, rational, or professional.   This framework resonated deeply with my experiences of organizational critique being reframed through interpretations of tone or emotionality rather than substantive engagement with the concern itself. Their discussion also challenged the assumption that professionalism operates as a neutral organizational standard, instead suggesting that professionalism often reflects dominant cultural expectations tied to power, belonging, and institutional comfort.

The course films similarly reflected the psychological dimensions of legitimacy and belonging. In The Rise and Fall of LuLaRoe, legitimacy was maintained through emotionally persuasive narratives centered on empowerment, belonging, entrepreneurship, and aspirational identity, even as participants experienced instability and exploitation. Huntington’s discussion of “synthetic sisterhood” further reinforced these themes by demonstrating how organizations construct legitimacy through emotional appeals tied to belonging, professionalism, gender norms, and institutional identity.   Similarly, White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch illustrated how organizational legitimacy can become tied to narrowly constructed ideals regarding professionalism, image, desirability, and “fit,” while Escaping Twin Flames and Bikram: Yogi, Guru, Predator demonstrated how emotional investment, charismatic authority, and social belonging can discourage critique and normalize organizational dynamics that participants internally recognize as harmful or exclusionary.

Most significantly, these experiences helped me recognize that legitimacy is not simply an external organizational condition, but also an internal psychological experience. Repeated experiences of emotional reframing, social distancing, or subtle delegitimization can produce exhaustion, hypervigilance, and relational isolation, even when concerns are grounded in substantive organizational issues. Over time, I recognized that the emotional strain stemmed less from speaking critically and more from existing within institutional environments where legitimacy, professionalism, and belonging were unevenly distributed and continually negotiated

Organizational Legitimacy and Performative Equity

My experiences with legitimacy within public administration became especially visible during organizational equity efforts connected to Sonoma County’s Racial Equity Action and Planning (REAP) initiative. While the organization publicly embraced the language of equity, inclusion, collaboration, and belonging, I observed increasing tension between symbolic commitments to equity and the organizational discomfort that emerged when deeper structural critiques were introduced. These experiences caused me to reflect more critically on the distinction between symbolic inclusion and substantive organizational transformation.

During early REAP-related discussions, I raised concerns that modifications to recruitment language, civil service terminology, and public-facing organizational messaging, while symbolically important, risked functioning primarily as performative gestures if not accompanied by deeper organizational reflection, accountability, and structural implementation strategies. I also attempted to introduce scholarship and perspectives related to performative equity, organizational legitimacy, and institutional culture in hopes of grounding the work in broader theoretical and organizational frameworks. Rather than generating sustained engagement, these concerns were frequently deferred, minimized, or redirected toward maintaining procedural momentum and institutional cohesion.

I also became increasingly aware of how legitimacy within the initiative was tied to externalized forms of expertise and organizational hierarchy. Consultants and equity professionals brought in to help develop the program and support the creation of the Office of Equity appeared to be granted immediate institutional legitimacy by virtue of their status as external experts and formal leaders. In contrast, my own observations and critiques, despite being informed by lived organizational experience, activism, academic study, and more than two decades of prior organizational leadership and human resources experience in the private sector, often appeared to carry less institutional authority because of my positionality as a non-supervising individual contributor within the organization.

In many instances, my private-sector background itself was subtly or explicitly referenced whenever I raised organizational critiques, as though my prior experience rendered my observations less applicable or less legitimate within the public sector context. Over time, I began to interpret these responses as part of a broader organizational process through which legitimacy is assigned selectively based upon institutional status, hierarchy, and proximity to established systems of authority. Organizational legitimacy often appeared less connected to the substance or depth of an analysis than to whether the individual offering critique occupied a formally sanctioned position of expertise or leadership within the institution itself.

This dynamic closely reflected Van Leeuwen’s concept of authorization, in which legitimacy is established through appeals to hierarchy, formal roles, credentials, and institutional authority (Vaara & Tienari, 2008). Within public organizations, expertise associated with external consultants or executive leadership may be treated as inherently more objective, credible, or legitimate than perspectives emerging from employees embedded within the daily realities of the institution itself. As a result, experiential organizational knowledge may become subordinated to institutionally sanctioned forms of expertise, even when internal critiques identify important structural or cultural concerns.

The article “Whiteness and Organizations” further contextualized these dynamics by arguing that organizational norms surrounding professionalism, credibility, expertise, and “fit” are frequently shaped through hegemonic institutional logics that privilege emotional restraint, institutional comfort, and dominant cultural expectations.   This framework resonated strongly with my observations regarding the extent to which organizational critique was expected to be delivered delicately and in ways that protected institutional identity and interpersonal comfort. Concerns related to equity, organizational culture, or implementation frequently required extensive emotional calibration so as not to appear dismissive of others’ intentions or efforts. While empathy and professionalism are essential components of organizational dialogue, I increasingly questioned how expectations surrounding tone, emotional delivery, and interpersonal comfort can function to constrain meaningful critique and limit deeper structural reflection. In practice, the manner in which concerns were expressed often appeared to carry greater organizational significance than the substance of the concerns themselves.

The course literature on legitimacy provided additional insight into these organizational dynamics. Van Leeuwen’s concepts of authorization, moral evaluation, and rationalization were particularly relevant in explaining how organizations maintain legitimacy through appeals to professionalism, procedural neutrality, institutional expertise, and administrative process (Vaara & Tienari, 2008). Within public administration, legitimacy is often reinforced through the belief that procedural action itself constitutes substantive progress. As a result, highly visible symbolic actions—such as language revisions, public statements, policy framing, or organizational workgroups—may function as evidence of institutional responsiveness even when deeper organizational structures remain unchanged.

This tension between symbolic and substantive legitimacy was also reflected in the course films and readings. In The Rise and Fall of LuLaRoe, legitimacy was maintained through emotionally persuasive narratives centered on empowerment, belonging, entrepreneurship, and transformation despite growing evidence of instability and exploitation. Huntington’s discussion of “synthetic sisterhood” similarly demonstrates how organizations construct legitimacy through emotional identification, shared values, and symbolic inclusion while simultaneously reinforcing conformity and organizational control.   Likewise, FYRE: The Greatest Party That Never Happened illustrated how legitimacy can be manufactured through branding, visibility, exclusivity, and aspirational messaging despite the absence of substantive organizational infrastructure. The documentary demonstrated the extent to which symbolic legitimacy and narrative management can obscure deeper structural dysfunction.

Similarly, The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley demonstrated how institutional credibility and authority can become attached to elite affiliations, expertise signaling, and organizational storytelling even when substantive accountability and transparency are absent. Wild Wild Country and Bikram: Yogi, Guru, Predator further illustrated how organizations often respond defensively when critique threatens institutional identity, leadership legitimacy, or collective narratives. In these films, dissent was frequently reframed as negativity, betrayal, or disruption rather than substantive engagement with organizational concerns. Although these examples differ significantly from public administration in scale and context, the underlying mechanisms of legitimacy maintenance—including conformity pressures, emotional investment, narrative reinforcement, and institutional self-preservation—felt strikingly familiar.

These experiences also caused me to reflect on the role of institutional defensiveness and organizational self-preservation within public administration. Public institutions rely heavily upon legitimacy to maintain trust, stability, and authority. Under these conditions, critique that challenges institutional identity, professionalism, or organizational fairness may become reframed as interpersonal negativity, emotional disruption, or resistance to collaboration rather than substantive organizational analysis. Over time, I perceived a form of institutional avoidance surrounding conversations that required deeper examination of power, inequity, and organizational culture. Whether intentional or unintentional, this dynamic often functioned to preserve institutional comfort while limiting opportunities for substantive reflection and accountability.

My previous and concurrent study of Critical Organization Theory and QuantCrit further illuminated these tensions by challenging assumptions of organizational neutrality, meritocracy, and procedural fairness. These frameworks emphasize that organizations are not neutral systems, but social environments shaped by power, hierarchy, identity, and historically embedded norms. Through this lens, legitimacy becomes not simply a matter of whether policies exist, but whose experiences are validated within institutional spaces and whose critiques are considered professionally acceptable forms of organizational knowledge.

Ultimately, my experiences with organizational legitimacy and equity work reinforced the importance of distinguishing between symbolic inclusion and structural transformation. While public institutions increasingly adopt the language of equity and belonging, meaningful organizational change requires more than visible commitments or procedural adjustments. It requires leadership willing to tolerate discomfort, engage reflexively with critique, and examine the institutional norms and legitimacy structures that shape whose voices are heard, protected, and validated within organizational life.

Leadership, Legitimacy, and Moving Forward

The course material on legitimacy significantly shaped how I think about leadership, organizational change, and my own professional practice moving forward. Prior to this work, I often understood leadership primarily through the lens of technical competence, communication, and ethical responsibility. While I still consider those qualities essential, this course deepened my understanding of how leadership is also connected to legitimacy: who is heard, whose expertise is recognized, how institutions regulate critique, and how organizational cultures reinforce belonging, conformity, and authority.

One of the most significant lessons I take from this course is the importance of reflexivity in leadership practice. Public institutions frequently position themselves as neutral, merit-based, and procedurally fair; however, the course readings and films repeatedly demonstrated that legitimacy is socially constructed and continuously reinforced through organizational narratives, emotional management, symbolic action, and institutional power structures. As a result, leadership cannot simply focus on maintaining organizational stability or projecting institutional credibility. Ethical leadership also requires a willingness to examine how legitimacy itself is constructed within organizations and whether existing systems unintentionally silence, marginalize, or delegitimize certain forms of knowledge, communication, or critique.

The course films were especially influential in shaping this understanding. The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley illustrated how legitimacy can become attached to institutional symbolism, elite affiliation, expertise signaling, and organizational narrative even when substantive accountability and transparency are absent. Similarly, FYRE: The Greatest Party That Never Happened demonstrated how organizations can maintain legitimacy through aspirational branding, symbolic visibility, and emotional investment despite underlying structural instability. Both films reinforced the extent to which organizational legitimacy is often sustained socially and psychologically long before it is substantiated structurally or ethically.

Likewise, Wild Wild Country and Bikram: Yogi, Guru, Predator highlighted the dangers that emerge when organizations become overly invested in preserving leadership legitimacy, institutional identity, and group cohesion. In both examples, critique and dissent were frequently reframed as betrayal, negativity, or disruption rather than substantive engagement with organizational concerns. These films challenged me to think more critically about how leaders and institutions may unintentionally prioritize emotional comfort, loyalty, or institutional image over accountability, reflexivity, and ethical responsibility.

The readings further reinforced these ideas. Van Leeuwen’s concepts of authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis demonstrated how organizations establish and protect legitimacy through appeals to hierarchy, professionalism, expertise, procedural neutrality, and organizational storytelling (Vaara & Tienari, 2008). Similarly, Fritz and Lewis’s discussion in “Whiteness and Organizations” challenged assumptions that professionalism and organizational neutrality operate as objective standards, instead arguing that institutional norms often reflect historically embedded power structures that shape whose communication styles, emotional expressions, and forms of knowledge are considered legitimate.   These frameworks reinforced my belief that leadership committed to equity and organizational integrity must move beyond symbolic demonstrations of inclusion toward practices willing to engage structural inequities, institutional discomfort, and critical self-examination.

The work of Robert Fritz also influenced my thinking about leadership and organizational change. Fritz argues that meaningful transformation requires individuals and organizations to confront current reality honestly rather than relying upon illusion, avoidance, or aspirational narratives disconnected from structural conditions. This concept resonated deeply with my experiences within organizational equity work. In many cases, institutions appeared more comfortable engaging symbolic demonstrations of progress than critically examining the underlying organizational dynamics contributing to inequity, defensiveness, or exclusion. Fritz’s work reinforced my belief that leadership committed to legitimacy and equity must be willing to tolerate discomfort and engage truthfully with organizational realities, even when doing so threatens institutional identity or emotional comfort.

This course also reinforced the importance of humility in leadership. Throughout my experiences, I often observed institutional expertise becoming associated primarily with hierarchy, executive leadership, or external consultants, while experiential knowledge from employees embedded within organizational systems carried less legitimacy. Moving forward, I want my leadership practice to remain attentive to the value of lived organizational experience and the importance of listening seriously to individuals whose perspectives challenge dominant institutional narratives or create discomfort within organizational spaces.

Perhaps most importantly, this course strengthened my belief that meaningful organizational change requires more than symbolic inclusion or procedural reform. Leadership committed to equity and legitimacy must be willing to examine how organizations regulate credibility, professionalism, emotional expression, and acceptable forms of critique. Without this willingness, institutions risk reproducing the very inequities they publicly claim to address. Moving forward, I hope to cultivate leadership practices grounded in reflexivity, transparency, accountability, and integrity rather than symbolic reassurance or institutional self-protection. Ultimately, I believe ethical leadership requires not only maintaining legitimacy, but also critically examining for whom legitimacy exists, how it is maintained, and what psychological and organizational costs may accompany its preservation.