Here's my final deliverable for my first class in the MSOLE program. It's really Michelann's personal beliefs about the universe, so it's a bit all over the place, but I'm fairly happy with it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that leadership is an evolutionary process. It is a process by which people create and enact change through striving for higher standards of ethics, goals and vision. Leadership requires the creation of a collective vision of a possible future. It requires facilitating group cohesion and mobilization towards enacting the vision and engaging and sustaining energy and commitment. This is accomplished through demonstrating faith in the goal and process, by supporting and developing the people involved, and by transferring and diffusing ownership of the vision. This must occur throughout the human system that will ultimately be responsible for enacting the outcome.
While the primary purpose of this paper is to defining what leadership “is”, I feel compelled to discuss what leadership “is not”. My experiences of people in positions of power have been frequently negative; it seems that those drawn to power are often the least self-aware and morally responsible. This class has helped me clarify my understanding of why this is the case. It has helped me define what I consider true leadership and how it contrasts with trends and proclivities in our society towards poor leadership.
Leadership is traditionally associated with specific personality traits, gender and age, as evidenced by the creation of the trait theory. The perception of leadership as a specific, almost mystical quality possessed by the select few is deeply embedded in human culture and still affects how we regard and choose our leaders today. Recent examples in American history include Presidents Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton. Both possessed charm and magnetism. Extroverted, persuasive and charismatic, they engendered fiercely loyal support from their followers, even in the face of public scandal and controversy. They were white men, over the age of 50, who looked good on television. They embodied what we consciously or unconsciously consider “leadership qualities” in America. This perception falls right in line with trait theory, or it’s predecessor, “Great Man” theory.
However, trait theory runs deeper than it’s early 20th century roots. Throughout history, humans have evidenced a tendency to parentify leaders, resulting in self-infantilization, sometimes with disastrous effects. As Freud and Jung both demonstrated in the development of their psychological theories, there is a part of us that craves the simplicity and psychic wholeness of the womb, the all-encompassing comfort of the cradle. This part of human nature is content to give up personal responsibility for complex situations and ethical dilemmas and transfer the decision making process to whomever they have bequeathed their personal power.
In every time and place there have been leaders who we imbued with god-like qualities, not understanding that whom we truly seek are all-powerful, protective parents. Examples include the Egyptian pharaohs, believed to be living gods, and the Pope of the middle Ages, considered God’s representative on earth. The domination of Europe by the Catholic Church during the middle ages provides a prime example of what happens when these tendencies becomes entrenched in a society. During this era, literacy was only available to clergy and aristocracy and the grace of God was obtained only through the church. As a result, the majority of Europe was kept in ignorance and poverty for over a thousand years. This persistent human tendency has led to many other shameful episodes in history, too numerous to mention. I believe that the foundation of American government was a deliberate attempt by the founding fathers to counter this phenomenon. By raising the consciousness of all citizens and encouraging them to reclaim the power they had formerly relinquished to kings and priests, they were taught to actively participate in their own governance.
In addition, surface, or “trait” qualities that we typically associate with leaders are often qualities innate in people with narcissistic tendencies. Mistaking charisma or magnetism for leadership ability is a common, but dangerous mistake. Narcissists do not have internal flexibility – they see any action pertaining to their vision as a reflection on themselves – a good idea or outcome is one they will want credit for, and a poor idea or outcome will be met with recrimination, distain, or disassociation. Hitler provides an example of a psychotic narcissist. His was unaware of the repressed rage and self-loathing that lurked beneath the surface of his consciousness which lead him to direct the mass murder of millions of people whom he deemed “unclean”. This is a graphic example of the concept of “shadow” that Jung coined and Moxley refers to in Leadership and Spirit. Even in less extreme examples, the narcissistic mindset leaves very little room for innovation within an organization, and can be demoralizing.
I believe that true leadership is grounded in a deep, honest and ever-evolving understanding of self, others and human nature. While many compel others to follow for reasons such as gain, status, or to attain power as an end to itself; to me, real leadership is movement towards a collectively constructive and ethical outcome, not an outcome that is selfish or destructive.
The ability to clearly communicate vision is crucial to garnering buy-in and support. If the outcome is unclear or the goal is nebulous, the leader must rely solely on personal qualities such as charisma and “personality” to gain attention. In extreme cases, he may use methods that are more coercive or manipulative. These behaviors are usually a clear indication of an attempt to lead for personal gain or gratification. Although the leader may have the personal magnetism to create initial excitement his ideas, he will ultimately be unable to effectively organize anyone to his cause. When participation is mandated, any enthusiasm or truly personal contributions from others will be few, and the outcome may lack richness or resonance. If instead, the leader can clearly articulate his vision, visualize and communicate ways it might be enacted, and express the positive outcomes possible for all, he may garner support that is voluntary and potentially sustainable.
To deliver quantifiable results, leaders must do more than create excitement or enthusiasm; they must facilitate the organizational process. Effective leaders understand the strengths of the people they lead and can help them to bring their “best selves” to the creation process. They encourage creativity, nurture confidence and foster independent thought. They must also be self-aware and self-realized enough to allow and encourage innovation, though it might change the specifics of how the goals will come to pass. This requires flexibility, adaptability, and a measure of emotional maturity, regardless of age. These types of behaviors are discussed in the works of Daniel Goleman on Emotional Intelligence and in The Leadership Challenge by Kouzes and Posner. The ownership and realization of vision must, at some point pass from the leader to the group in order for it to be fully synthesized and enacted. Therefore, those who initiate change must be willing to share the credit for it.
This transference of vision from the domain of the leader to the domain of the group is crucial to the success of the endeavor and of the leader. The leadership role then evolves into one of support and guidance, rather than rigid control and direction. If the leader is reluctant to relinquish ownership of his vision to the collective, the project will bog down; it will derail or diminish during the setbacks and delays that inevitably occur. If, however, transference takes place, every team member is in some capacity a leader, and can bring all manner of talents to bear. No one person possesses every available quality, but a group can encompass a great many. Perhaps the project leader is an excellent communicator, but is easily frustrated when dealing with bureaucracy. A team member may be adept at traversing the tricky waters of red tape, or may have beneficial relationships in the department that is causing delay. If the leader is unable to relinquish control, he will not be able to take full advantage of the unique qualities of his team. If he is comfortable with sharing ownership and credit, he will have access to all the talents of the members of his organization, and they will have a share in the credit and satisfaction derived from a successful outcome. Russ Moxley discusses this process at length in Leadership and Spirit; he refers to it as “Partnership Leadership.”
To summarize, I believe effective leadership must be visionary, compelling and clear. It must empower those called to follow, and it must be flexible, adaptable and equitable. Leadership is a fluid quality that should pass from the domain of the few to the many with ease, and not be dependant on the personality or ego of any one person. Most importantly, I believe leadership is a creative process that calls all involved to adhere to the highest standards of behavior, ethics and personal responsibility.
Preliminary vs. Final PCL Comments
While my basic beliefs about leadership did not change significantly from the first draft to the second, the depth of understanding of my own beliefs changed quite a bit. The first draft was very practical, rooted in my own organizational experiences and reading up to that point. After the reading and discussions of the past six weeks, I find that my definition of leadership has expanded to include my values and ethical system, which are largely based on personal experience, study of psychology and of Buddhism. I found that after my work in and out of class, I could no longer separate my deeply held beliefs about ethical behavior, compassion for self and others, and self exploration from my views of leadership. In fact, I found that much of the reading for class supported my beliefs and enabled me to articulate them much more clearly.
I would also like to comment that this process has changed how I see organizational behaviors in my place of work. Before the class, when I observed someone behaving in a way that conflicted with my personal ethics and ideas on leadership, I tended to ignore it or view it with a certain amount of distance and tolerance, excepting in what I deemed extreme cases. Now I find, as I commented to a friend, that I have “misplaced my blinders.” I can no longer ignore it when individuals in my organization act in a way that is dispiriting, coercive or unethical. Moreover, I must now examine my own actions or lack thereof, for as Moxley puts it, inaction is collusion. While this is not always comfortable, I am grateful for the clarity with which I can define what I observe, and I look forward to further growth as the program progresses.
