Home » Posts tagged 'leadership'
Tag Archives: leadership
As I write this post, I am on the beach in Pacifica, California. I am here to participate in my fourth California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) Transformative Leadership intensive (retreat). This program has been beneficial for my personal transformation. It has helped me to identify and articulate my personal philosophy for leading. Although I have been a “leader”, I now consider myself to be a co-leader. I will exercise my ability to lead when the context, situation, and people need me to lead. The following is a philosophy statement that helps to explain my insistence on shifting my ways of being to show up as a co-leader rather than a “leader” (as defined by the dominant culture).
- For everyone. There are no genuine leaders without willing followers. The true sign of a leader is their ability to create contexts wherein others are able to use their leadership abilities.
- Chaotic and complex. The world is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Leaders have a role to guide and lead people through chaos and complexity. To lead is to become comfortable acting without certainty. To lead is to embrace the creative possibilities of chaos.
- Contextual and provisional. Although positional authority is often necessary to organize human endeavors, it is always important to acknowledge that commanding people is not leadership it is dominance. Genuine leadership is granted by the people being lead or organized. Positional leadership is granted in order to accomplish shared goals, or in response to a shared vision (a context). When positional power is abused, people will replace their leaders, or they will refuse to be influenced by, or follow, those with power.
- Emergent and divergent. The ability to lead rises out of the passion and commitments of people. Leadership naturally emerges from within groups of people. Everyone has an innate ability to lead. When the context is ripe, when enough people are passionate about making a difference or changing something, leaders emerge to organize human efforts. If there is a vacuum in leadership, a leader will emerge. Leadership is also divergent. There is no right way or wrong way, no single style, no clearly defined traits or attributes of those who lead. Leaders can lead people towards destructive actions or positive constructive actions.
- Relational, dynamic, and perichoretic. One can be commanding and controlling without being in love with people, but one cannot be a genuine leader without knowing how to form and sustain dynamic relationships. To be perichoretic (borrowed from Christian Trinitarian theology) is to be engaged in dynamic relationships that allow the unique individuality of the persons to be maintained, while insisting that the group of people also share their lives (diversity in unity). That leading is perichoretic means a community of being is created through the act of leading. There is no separation and yet there is diversity.
- Mysterious and mythical. There is something in human nature that creates legends and myths. Leadership rises out of mythical ways of knowing. Leading is not always logical or sensible. It is important to acknowledge the limits of our conscious thoughts, and to welcome the wisdom of our subconscious. Growing as a leader is a process of many transformations in consciousness. In the higher levels of human development, we are less attached to our ego and basic survival needs, and more concerned about the well being of all creation.
What is leadership to you? How do you lead? Do you prefer to follow, or to lead? Do you have a philosophy of leading, or leadership? Please share your comments.
We are in the process of integrating a six-month-old English Springer Spaniel named Micah into our family. We also have a six-year-old English Springer Spaniel named Isaiah. Isaiah spent the first six years of his life in our family with our older Sheltie (Mocha) who passed away shortly before we adopted the new puppy.
Shelties are work dogs. They instinctively herd other animals, so Mocha felt his job was to shepherd Isaiah. English Springer Spaniels (ESS) love to run freely, so the two worked out their respective household (or pack) roles. Mocha’s job was to keep Isaiah out of trouble. Whether they were on leash or off leash, Isaiah was always a step ahead of Mocha.
Mocha and Isaiah were devoted and faithful companions to each other, and to my husband and I. We often care for other family dogs managing up to five dogs at a time. There were minor conflicts between the dogs over toys, but generally they established their own roles and responsibilities, and pecking order.
We thought bringing home a new puppy of the same breed as Isaiah would help Isaiah because he was grieving the absence of his buddy, Mocha. We chose another ESS because we thought they would love to do most of the same things; run, swim, chase balls, go for walks.
I failed to understand that dogs are still instinctively hierarchical pack animals. Mocha exerted ‘authority’ over Isaiah when he was a young puppy, and then he let Isaiah develop as a ‘peer’ in the pack. When we brought a puppy home, Isaiah exhibited aggressive behavior towards Micah. I reacted as though aggression was unacceptable. I just thought they ought to be friends and play cooperatively, including sharing toys and sharing our attention. The pressure built up and within three days Isaiah attacked Micah and bit him hard enough to draw a tiny bit of blood.
Shocked and very concerned that we had made a huge mistake adopting Micah, I began to research ‘problem’ dogs. Although there is a great deal of conflicting information online about dog training, I found a book that made sense to me, The Dog Listener. The author, Jan Fennel, raises English Springer Spaniels (among many other breeds). Fennel refreshed my memory; dogs are pack animals. More important, dog packs are hierarchies. At the top of the dog hierarchy there are alpha leaders (one male, one female) with other levels of leadership for pack members. The pack survives or thrives because dogs know their role and responsibility within the pyramid.
Given my passion for non-hierarchical styles of leadership, I wanted to resist the book’s recommendation that I assert myself as the pack leader. However, when I did assert stronger leadership, I found that Isaiah and Micah became calmer and less aggressive. I also learned to acknowledge Isaiah as the ‘big’ dog and acknowledge his authority over the younger Micah. Things are going much better now.
Since I read the first few chapters of The Dog Listener, I have been pondering dog and human evolution. Even though I am convinced that human beings have evolved to the degree that many of us crave partnership and egalitarian organizational forms, prehistoric humans were pack animals. The bond between early humans and their dogs is older than religion or civil society and it originated because humans became beneficial alpha leaders for dogs. Dogs were better off working for packs of people than just hunting on their own.
Do human beings still need hierarchical structures? Are we still very much like our dogs, do we need to know our place in the ‘order’ of our tribe or pack? Do we need alpha leaders, and are we willing to submit to their authority in the way that wolves submit to their alpha leaders?
Please share your comments and answers to these questions. Tomorrow I will continue this inquiry.
I wrote this poem to illustrate a metaphor for an eco-egalitarian style of co-leadership. Since my ideas about leadership have been heavily influenced by my experience as a Christian, it is also a metaphor for spiritual leadership and a spiritual community.
by Robyn Morrison
We kneel, rubbing the moist dark soil in
our weathered hands. Earth is our source.
Enriched by life composted from seasons past.
The days are warmer.
The time for sowing seeds has come.
We turn the soil (once, twice)
noticing earth worms, uncovering potential,
bringing life giving air to what was beneath.
Rows, patches, mounds, pots —
Wondering what each plant needs;
where each will thrive.
Then — down into the soil seeds are sown.
Patience now. God is our partner.
Only God knows how to release the potential in each seed.
The Garden gathers what she needs;
crawling creatures, winged things,
winds gentle and strong, life giving water,
There are structures in our Garden that endure;
apple trees, currant bushes.
Others stay for many years;
The colorful ones come and go, here for a season, then
thrown into the compost bin.
The Garden sustains life. She feeds us.
In return we, the Garden and her gardeners,
cultivate and tend all who gather in her midst.
Year after year;
kneeling, sowing, tending, harvesting, composting.
From soil to soil. Life goes on.
One of the most important aspects of this new culture of co-leadership is that people will no longer have the luxury of simply being followers. We cannot sit around waiting for leaders to appear because we probably would not follow them if they did show up.
Younger generations are restless and suspicious of hierarchical leadership, for good reason. They prefer to be actively engaged in the causes that they care about. However, they generally do not possess the maturity and depth of consciousness to be evolutionary co-leaders. We must face the fact that the United States has not invested in the type and quality of education designed to create millions of thought leaders and activists prepared to address the challenges of our age. We teach most students to follow instructions, not create new possibilities.
We also need to retrain adults, to be less dependent (they can no longer depend on their employer to provide for their needs), to be more generative (to create meaningful work), and to be more generous (we are in this together, and we need to give those who are struggling a hand up). The most difficult kind of generosity is giving people what they need to sustain themselves. We are threatened by this level of generosity because we have bought into the scarcity myth and we are used to playing the capitalist competition win/lose games. We fail to see that working 50 or 60 hours a week to keep our job steals so much of the quality of our lives. There would be enough work, and enough food and shelter to go around if we practiced an empowering kind of generosity.
This evolutionary transformation needs to begin within our selves, extending to our families and neighbors, rippling out to our workplaces and markets, impacting the way we vote, and the people we elect to represent us. All politics are local, and global transformation begins in our local community.
The metaphor or image that I hold for this new model of leadership is the image of an ecosystem, or of a perma-culture (garden). It is holistic and highly collaborative. Each person contributes something to the collective well-being, even if the contribution is as ordinary as receiving love and care (our children and people with severe disabilities).
It will not be easy. It will be the most difficult and courageous thing that human beings have ever done. Our survival depends on it. We did not create the web of life, we are merely strands in it. We can be engaged in restoring the web, and creating stronger connections. We are in this together.
Timing is important, very important (Kellerman, 2010, 165).
Why now? After resisting the desire to be a writer, why should I start writing this blog now? The recognition that other women (and marginalized people) have found writing to be a tool for influencing people helped me to recognize the connection between my many attempts to exercise collaborative leadership and my nagging desire to write.
Authentic leadership emerges from a leader’s lived experience, it is contextual. For the past five years I have felt the impact of my choice to refuse to submit to an abusive religious authority. I made a practical choice, to pursue a legitimate path into spiritual power (to be a professional Minister), a career with a salary and benefits, and that choice led to a dead end.
When the religious hierarchy pushed me out of my positional leadership role as a Pastor, I found myself under-employed and floundering in the depth of the economic crisis of 2009-2010. I had lost my spiritual path, and I had no idea what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I still felt called to be a spiritual leader, to be a source of hope for the hopeless and oppressed. There was an abundance of need and I had accumulated experience, education, and the skills to help people who had been displaced by the economic crisis.
The world was shifting — the power and wealth was getting more and more concentrated in the hands of a few. Our elected leaders bailed out the big banks and financial institutions and left the unemployed struggling to pay their mortgages. Nonprofits and religious organizations were reeling from the economic crisis. Foundations cut back their giving. Middle class donors (more generous than the wealthy) were unable to give.
It was a humbling time for me. I was in Oregon and at that time one of five Oregon workers was jobless or underemployed. The religious hierarchy blocked my attempts to create a new ministry to serve those who were displaced by the economic crisis. I had no salary, benefits, or career track. For the first time in my life, I felt like a nobody, so I moved back home to nowhere Montana.
In Montana, I was able to connect with meaningful work as an Executive Director for a couple of nonprofit organizations. However, I was not using my communication gifts. I was not speaking in public or writing, I was mostly an administrator. I was doing what I needed to do to survive, and my continuing commitment to developing egalitarian leaders caused me to search for a connection. I found that connection through the California Institute of Integral Studies — Masters of Arts in Transformative Leadership program.
(Continued in part four).
We are creating a community of practice for individuals with an interest in being a new breed of leader: collective leading, shared leading, co-leading, or eco-egalitarian leadership.
This 4 minute video is an introduction to the purpose of Our Co-Leader Connection. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHuKlvEmhQ8
If you are interested in joining this community of co-leaders, connect with our follr community at: https://follr.com/Communities/OurCoLeaderConnection/
It is not power that corrupts but fear.
Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and
fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.
Aung San Suu Kyi
Power over others is a corruptive force. It is probably truer that power attracts the corruptible. People, who are more conscious and more compassionate, are usually more attracted to sharing their power. Power, fully expressed, tends to reveal the true nature of the individual.
People have plenty of reasons to distrust their leaders.
One of the most troubling statistics about cheating is that students and business people are beginning to argue that cheating is necessary because everyone cheats. It has become part of the culture of capitalism; lying, cheating, and stealing are proven ways to get ahead in a culture that values competition over community and compassion.
Among senior executives within the U.S. financial industry who were interviewed in 2012, over half believe that the rules may have to be broken in order to be successful. They believe that they have to engage in unethical or illegal activity. Nearly half admitted to being tempted by insider trading. Nearly one third say they feel pressured to compromise their ethical standards and even to break the law. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/10/financial-executives-sure-we-lie-and-cheat/
The 2014 political campaigns demonstrated a new level of political corruption and lying. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/10/30/fact-check-2014-campaign-whoppers/18081211/. In September 2014, a federal judged overturned an Ohio law that prohibited lies in political ads, claiming it violated free speech. Free speech = freedom to lie and produce false and misleading political ads.
Our leaders also make promises to gain our allegiance, or our votes, and routinely break those promises. Maybe broken promises are nothing new. We want to believe the promises. We want to exercise our right to vote, and sometimes we have to choose between the lesser of two liars and con artists.
Maybe it is the cumulative effect of broken promises and outright lies that has brought us historically low levels of trust and confidence in leaders, low voter turnout, and low levels of civic engagement.
If leaders have to lie and make promises they cannot keep, then we, those of us with strong moral compasses, not only don’t want to follow those leaders, we also don’t want to be that kind of leader. Hence we are facing the end of leadership and followership, as we have known them.
That is not necessarily bad news. In a culture where everyone leads, trust is essential. If we strive to be egalitarian in our leadership style, we must learn to collaborate and share power. When we strive to exercise shared power, we are mutually dependent upon character traits like integrity, honesty, compassion, respect, and honoring our word.
What qualities of leadership are essential for you? What kind of people do you want to engage with, and share power with? Are you willing to respect diversity of all kinds? Are you willing to disagree with love and respect? Are you willing to be accountable to your colleagues or co-leaders, while also holding them accountable?
Please complete our brief online survey. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/L65ZPJ6
We want to know your expectations, hopes, and ideals? What will it take to create the trust that is needed for genuinely shared leadership?