Is Leadership Just a Costume Change?

Somewhere between the new executive board elections and constant LinkedIn posts, leadership at Smith has become a performance. 

It shows up in stacked resumes and back-to-back LinkedIn posts: students balancing multiple board positions while taking on 20-credit semesters, internships, and more. But if you take a closer look, many student organizations remain disorganized and stalled. Responsibilities are unclear. Work falls unevenly. Meetings are dysfunctional. If there is so much leadership on campus, why do students’ leadership roles still fail to function productively? 

One of the clearest signs that leadership is broken is how easily leadership titles circulate compared to the actual responsibilities. At Smith, students often accumulate executive board roles as markers of competence and ambition, displaying them like trophies. 

This pattern is not new. In 2013, Sheryl Sandberg wrote a book encouraging women to pursue leadership roles within corporate systems and was promoted as a guide for ambitious young women. In response to Sandberg’s book “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead”, bell hooks, a writer who focuses on race, social class and feminism, critiqued what she labels as “faux feminism.” Hooks argues that this version of empowerment focuses on individual women rising within existing problematic systems rather than changing those systems themselves. Sandberg’s definition of feminism, as hooks states, “begins and ends with the notion that it’s all about gender equality within the existing social system.” Meanwhile, the deeper structures of “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy,” persist, hooks argues. By prioritizing individual advancement over collective transformation, it reframes inequality as a problem of personal ambition rather than systemic design.

On campus, resume-padding leadership shows up in similar ways. Students “lean in” to titles without reimagining how organizations distribute responsibilities, make decisions, or hold leaders accountable. Advancement is framed as personal perseverance rather than collective improvement. The optics of leadership improve; however, the fundamental structure does not. When leadership is treated as branding rather than responsibility, systems stay stagnant and work quietly shifts on those who care enough to carry it. 

When leadership roles exist in name only, power does not disappear; it becomes harder to see. In the 1970s, during the rise of the U.S. women’s liberation movement, Jo Freeman wrote about feminist collectives that were intentionally trying to reject traditional hierarchies. In Freeman’s “The Tyranny of Structurelessness”, she argues that “there is no such thing as a ‘structureless’ group.” Any group that exists for long enough will form structures, whether formal or informal. The danger, she warns, is not structure itself but the myth of structurelessness. Without clearly defined roles, Freeman explains, informal elites inevitably emerge. In these groups, “the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few,” and power becomes masked rather than accountable. Informal leaders, she writes, “have no obligation to be responsible to the group at large.” 

The dynamic is recognizable on campus. When executive boards lack clear delegation, decisions often default to the most confident voices or tightest friendship networks. What appears as collaborative can actually become exclusionary. Students who are not “in the loop” begin to disengage, and distrust and resentment build among teams . I have experienced this firsthand in pre-professional clubs where certain board members rarely attend meetings for event planning, yet proudly post polished LinkedIn updates about their “leadership experience.” The roles were never clearly defined or re-affirmed and there is no way to address the imbalance.

Performative leadership intensifies this problem. Even though the titles exist, responsibility remains unclear. When no one is formally accountable, no one can be meaningfully held responsible. The result is not shared power but concealed hierarchy, creating a lack of transparency, which can make organizations feel even more disorganized, stalled, and distrustful. 

Performative leadership not only harms organizations but also exhausts the people inside them. In a Forbes article, “Leadership Is Not Performance: 3 Ways To Ditch The Act And Lead Authentically,” Vibhas Ratanjee asks directly, “Has leadership itself become a performative exercise?” He argues that many leaders feel pressure to “project unwavering confidence” even when they are uncertain. Leadership becomes something to act out rather than show up authentically. Ratanjee describes how “performative leadership is exhausting, like being a method actor who is always ‘in character.’” Over time, this facade erodes trust and drains well-being. Leaders who focus on optics, crafting words to match expectations rather than “meaningful impact,” create distance rather than connection. 

At Smith, this pressure is noticeable. Students take on multiple roles to signal drive and competence, rarely admitting uncertainty or limits. Saying no feels like a sign of weakness. But when leadership becomes a constant performance, burnout is inevitable. What looks like ambition from the outside often feels like depletion internally. 

If leadership requires never “letting them see you sweat,” it becomes unsustainable. Authentic leadership, as Ratanjee reminds us, requires vulnerability and engagement, not a polished and rehearsed persona. 

Ambition is not the enemy. Smith students are driven and deeply committed. Taking on multiple leadership roles can reflect passion and curiosity. In competitive academic and

professional landscapes, building experience feels necessary. It can be argued that students are responding rationally to the incentives placed before them. 

But incentives shape culture. When leadership is rewarded for accumulation rather than accountability, performance replaces practice. The issue is not that students care too much; it is that we have normalized a model of leadership that values visibility over responsibility. 

Leadership at Smith does not need to disappear. It needs to be redesigned by students to rethink its purpose. Instead of celebrating how many titles someone holds, we should ask what their leadership actually accomplishes. Does it clarify responsibility? Does it build trust? Are team members happy? 

The shift begins with individual choices. Take fewer roles but take them seriously. Normalize stepping out when you are overextended. Value facilitation, care, and follow-through as much as ambition and polish. Leadership is not about looking like a leader. It is about being accountable to the people you lead alongside. At Smith, that means moving beyond performance and actually putting in the work.