Leadership is often celebrated through stories of confidence, decisiveness, and achievement. Far less attention is given to the quieter work that makes sustained leadership possible: managing emotions, navigating criticism, learning from failure, and finding the strength to continue serving others over time. Scholars describe much of this invisible work as emotional labour, the effort involved in regulating one's own emotions while responding to the needs, expectations, and emotions of others. For women in public life, these demands are often compounded by persistent gendered expectations surrounding competence, empathy, and emotional expression.
Anna Hopkins, London City Councillor for Ward 9, suggests that emotional labour is only part of a much larger story. Over more than a decade in municipal politics, as well as careers in a law firm and a family-owned business, Hopkins has learned that effective leadership depends not only on caring for others but also on resilience, self-awareness, and self-compassion. Rather than presenting leadership as the absence of struggle, she describes it as a lifelong process of adapting to change, learning from mistakes, and finding sustainable ways to continue serving one's community.
Leadership as a Series of Choices
One of the most striking aspects of Hopkins' reflections is her emphasis on agency. While she readily acknowledges that leadership becomes more demanding as responsibilities accumulate, she repeatedly distinguishes between the responsibilities we choose and those that are imposed upon us.
As she reflects:
I think there's a big difference between what you choose to do and what happens to you… I have been very fortunate… I’ve been able to have that support and to be able to make decisions and choices. And I do think, sometimes we take on too much, and we have to maybe take a step back and maybe not do a marathon, just do a 10K run, when you're raising kids. We have to be prepared too, you know, know when it's time to back out, when is the time that’s too much? And when it's the time when things are falling apart, to ask for help. We’re not trained that way. It's not in our genetics; it’s not in mine anyhow. I’ve had to go through all those steps and learn. … I do think that builds a little bit of resilience.
Throughout the interview, Hopkins resists portraying emotional labour simply as a burden placed upon women. Instead, she presents leadership as a series of conscious decisions that require continual reflection and adjustment. Family, volunteering, community service, and elected office all bring increasing responsibilities, but leadership also involves recognizing personal limits, asking for help, and adapting as circumstances change. Agency, in her account, is not the absence of structural barriers but the capacity to navigate them thoughtfully.
Emotional Labour and Public Leadership
Hopkins is equally candid about the gendered expectations women continue to encounter in public life. Municipal politics places elected officials in constant contact with residents, making emotional labour an everyday part of democratic leadership. Yet women often perform this work under different standards than their male colleagues.
As she explains:
If I got very emotional or started crying… I could be perceived as 'oh she's having a bad day'… But when a guy does it… they're open to what I have to say.
Rather than expressing frustration alone, Hopkins focuses on how leaders respond.
It's not about 'oh, it's not fair.' For me, it's about being wise to that… How are you going to deal with it?
Leadership scholars frequently describe this dilemma as a double bind. Women are expected to display empathy and emotional intelligence while simultaneously avoiding any display of emotion that might be interpreted as weakness. Hopkins neither dismisses this reality nor allows it to define her. Instead, she emphasizes resilience, courage, and the importance of developing the confidence to continue despite criticism, misunderstanding, or self-doubt.
Leadership in an Age of Digital Polarization
Although Hopkins believes the emotional demands of leadership have remained relatively constant throughout her career, she argues that the context in which leaders operate has changed dramatically. Technology has transformed how citizens communicate with one another and with elected officials.
She observes:
You hide behind the screen so you're not very respectful. … But when I meet these people in person, they're not like that. … But sometimes this (motions to computer), as we rely on this more and more, it is a problem for me. As an elected official, we’ve got to be connected to our community, which is fine. Getting information, sharing information, all that is great. But when it comes to solving problems and working together, this is not the best tool to use.
Her concern extends beyond technology itself. What troubles Hopkins is the erosion of the face-to-face relationships that make democratic problem-solving possible.
Reflecting on changes she has witnessed over eleven years on council, she explains:
We're much more divided, polarized, and disrespectful of each other's opinions. Whereas you and I could probably agree to disagree in the past, we could still work together. It’s harder to be like that. [Now it is.] “I know how you’re going to vote, and I don’t agree with you, so I’m going to put you over there, and I’m not going to have the conversations with you. I’m gonna have the conversations with my colleagues that understand how I’m going to vote, because they’re going to vote the same way. …[B]ut the reality is we should be doing it with those who don’t agree and finding out how we can do the work together.
Her observations echo a growing body of research suggesting that digital communication can intensify conflict while reducing opportunities for empathy and deliberation (Nyanjom & Naylor 2020). For municipal leaders, whose effectiveness depends upon maintaining relationships across diverse communities, emotional labour increasingly includes navigating polarized online environments while continuing to foster dialogue and trust offline.
Learning Through Mistakes
Another recurring theme throughout Hopkins' interview is that resilience is learned rather than inherited.
She rejects the expectation that effective leaders must always appear confident or have all the answers.
So, there’s no formula. For me, I’ve had to go through all those steps and learn, and maybe fall down and cry and break down. But I do think that builds resilience. We can make mistakes. We're not taught to make mistakes, but I think we need to, and to not have all the answers.
Throughout her career, Hopkins has learned that leadership does not require perfection. Mistakes, setbacks, and moments of self-doubt are inevitable. What matters is learning from them and continuing forward. This perspective reflects a growing body of leadership research that views resilience not as an innate personality trait but as something developed through experience. Rather than presenting leadership as the ability to avoid failure, Hopkins emphasizes learning, adaptation, and self-reflection. Her willingness to discuss mistakes openly challenges idealized images of leadership that equate competence with perfection.
She spoke openly about moments when she felt overwhelmed, discouraged, or isolated, particularly as an elected official who is expected to project confidence even during difficult periods.
We need to look like we're kind of together. So that puts a little bit more pressure on us, you know, to look like we’re not falling apart.
This perspective challenges idealized images of leadership built around certainty and perfection. Instead, Hopkins presents mistakes as opportunities for growth. Leadership develops not through avoiding setbacks but through reflecting upon them, adapting, and continuing forward.
Taking Care of Your Younger Self
Perhaps the most memorable insight from our conversation was Hopkins' understanding of self-compassion. While much of the literature on emotional labour focuses on caring for others, Hopkins argues that sustainable leadership also requires learning to care for oneself.
She reflects:
What I have really learned at this age is to go back and take care of my younger version, when there was no one, and I didn't know enough. But you can do that at a later age in your life to show that kindness and support for yourself. And hopefully you use that and use that for people that you meet and your friends.
She goes on to acknowledge that many women spend years putting the needs of others before their own before eventually recognizing the importance of extending themselves the same compassion they readily offer everyone else.
I think it’s women; we put other things ahead of us. But there does come a time when we can maybe reflect a little bit and go “gee, I was pretty hard on myself. I shouldn’t have been.” and acknowledge that you could still take care of that.
This insight broadens conventional understandings of emotional labour. Rather than viewing it solely as the work performed on behalf of others, Hopkins suggests that leadership also requires emotional work directed inward: learning to forgive mistakes, recognizing personal limits, and sustaining one's own well-being. Self-care, in this sense, is not a retreat from leadership but one of the conditions that makes long-term public service possible.
Conclusion
Anna Hopkins' reflections reveal that leadership is not sustained through determination alone. It depends upon resilience, thoughtful choices, meaningful relationships, and the willingness to extend compassion both to others and to oneself. Emotional labour remains an important part of public leadership, particularly for women navigating persistent gendered expectations, but Hopkins' experiences suggest that emotional labour is best understood within a broader philosophy of sustainable leadership.
Her advice is ultimately both practical and hopeful. Ask for help. Accept that mistakes are inevitable. Learn from them. Continue building relationships, even when disagreement is difficult. And perhaps most importantly, do not forget to show kindness to the younger version of yourself that made today's leadership possible.
In an era marked by increasing polarization, digital communication, and growing public expectations, Hopkins reminds us that leadership is not measured by never struggling. It is measured by the ability to continue serving with resilience, humility, and compassion over the long haul.