61. Leadership, February, 2016

A. There is a line from Kierkegaard’s Sickness Unto Death of which I am quite fond, (perhaps because it used to work so well at cocktail parties):

“The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.”

So, too, is leadership a relation — in its case a relationship between leader and led.

Continuing the paraphrase: leadership is not in the leader or in the led but in their relatedness. The leader (or the led) is not leadership, but rather leadership lies in their relatedness.”

More simply put: leadership lies not in the leader or in the led but in the relationship that unites them. Without the led there can be no leadership; with out the leader there can be no leadership. Each is a necessary, rather than sufficient condition for leadership which is the relationship itself.

B. Because leadership is a relation it lies neither in the leader nor in the led, but in their relatedness. Conversations about leadership being innate or acquired miss the point. Nothing can be innate that requires another. Nothing can be individually acquired that requires consent of another.

C. Clearly, leadership cannot be confirmed by a title. One does not become a leader except by consent of the led. They have to recognize (more about this later) and acknowledge someone as their leader. The fact that “management” has made you a “leader” through a promotion is not sufficient — indeed, it may be an obstacle to leadership.*

___

• The military is an obvious exception to this rule. There one can be a leader by command or by rank. Strangely enough, in matters of life and death some of the usual “nicities” of the leadership relationship can/must be dispensed with.

D. So, what are the mutual ingredients of this relationship. On the part of the leader it is a willingness to accept responsibility (literally to be “answerable for”); this is not a common characteristic/trait. Many people, indeed most, would rather not assume responsibility for anything from a family reunion to the rollout of a marketing plan. Perhaps five in a hundred, (I am guessing.), are willing to be responsible.

On the side of the led there is an equally necessary contribution to the relationship. The led must now cede their responsibility to the leader: “Mary said she would do it; I accepted her offer; I can’t now complain about how she discharged that responsibility.”

Ultimately, this contribution on the part of the led amounts to a willing suspension of disbelief. That is to say, one might know and recognize that the leader is no better, wiser, more committed than you, but she was willing to lead, i.e. to be responsible. In the led’s acceptance of this relationship there is a willingness to look beyond the leader’s feet of clay and to accept his/her judgment.

E. Leaders are so in a context. One is not always/everywhere a leader. You might be comfortable assuming responsibility for deciding what car to buy but not for what restaurant to choose. Here again, much of the discussion of leaders misses the point — as if some were automatically leaders whatever the context and others automatically followers. Leadership is situational/contextual. One senses a willingness (perhaps an ability) to lead on this matter in this context.

F. It is very rare that any leader is leader of all within his/her organization. That is to say, some will withhold their suspension of disbelief. In so doing they will serve the important and valuable role of critic. Here, again, leadership is not conferred by title. There will be people for whom the leader accepts responsibility (i.e. who are within his/her “jurisdiction”) who withhold their suspension of disbelief. An effective leader recognizes this and does not let it lessen her/his sense of responsibility to/for those persons.

G. I have said that leadership is a relationship, a relationship that must be earned rather than conferred. So, how is it earned? For starters the leader must listen. This is a way of demonstrating his/her concern about the led and their concerns. Listening is a way of a leader’s getting to know those for whom the leader is willing to assume responsibility. But it is a cliche to speak of the importance of listening. Beyond the identities and concerns of the led, for what is the leader listening?

She/he is listening for the story. It will not be heard all at once, in one place, from one source. It must be listened for and then constructed by the leader. But this story is not fiction. It must resonate with the led. Even though they have never heard it before, have never known it before, they must recognize it as their own. The story must resonate with them. They will not willingly suspend belief for just anyone, no matter how smart, charismatic she/he may be. They are suspending disbelief in the person because they are simultaneously investing belief in the story. This person can be our leader because he/she knows our story — and (by implication) can move it forward.

The leader is not only given responsibility for making decisions, he/she is“Keeper/teller of the Story”.

H. An important part of the leader’s work is symbolic. He or she is invested with the responsibility of being a symbol of the organization. I’m not just talking about CEOs; this is every bit as true with regard to division heads or group leaders. When Sally from sales in Pittsburgh sits at the corporate conference table she represents all her colleagues.

This symbolic responsibility is part of the covenant between leader and led.

Any real leadership relationship, (i.e. one not conveyed by title alone), includes responsibility on the part of the leader to speak in behalf of the led. This is a weighty responsibility; it is not an easy or trivial thing to serve as someone else’s voice. But in any organization some one voice must occasionally speak for all.

This ”Spokesperson” responsibility requires first and foremost that a leader know what the organization thinks. Now, of course, it would be a strange organization indeed if it thought with one mind.

It follows that one of the primary responsibilities of the leader is to facilitate conversations/discussions/dialogue to determine, as best he or she can, what members of the organization think.

I. The truth is, however, that the leader has an opinion just like everyone else in the organization. And it does not automatically follow that his or her opinion is better then that of colleagues. It can however be more informed — and that must happen through conversation. Most people in the organization are busy doing it’s work. The leader must be busy doing their work. Which means that an effective leader must know what members of the organization think, how they feel and toward what they aspire.

It is important to understand that the best salesperson will not necessarily be the leader of the sales group, the brightest in most skilled accountant will not necessarily lead the accounting staff. Why? Because the leader’s job qua leader is a different task. Is not to sell or to “account”, but to lead. And, to repeat myself, to lead requires a relationship with the led.

Looking at this from “the other side”, part of what the members of an organization expect of their leader is that he or she will be their voice. That’s part of what they are seeking when they chose a leader: who knows us? Who can effectively articulate our views/concerns? Who can represent us?

This brings us to a delicate part of the leader’s responsibility: he or she must be a person worthy of the trust of the led. Most obviously, that means that the leader cannot be, must not be, an embarrassment. The ways in which a leader can be an embarrassment are too many to list. It is the principle of not being an embarrassment that must be understood and adhered to.

J. A philosophic digression: Plato recounts Socrates as saying, “No man knowingly does evil.” Reflecting on this at a later date, Aristotle wonders in effect, “What was he smoking?” One has only turn on the evening news to recognize that human beings “Do evil”. But Aristotle admires Plato and thinks more deeply about this apparent contradiction. (I am paraphrasing.)

Everyone agrees that we ought not steal, and yet theft happens. Why? Sometimes it is because we don’t recognize that this is an instance of theft, for instance that plagiarism is theft. Or we might recognize that plagiarism is theft, but not that this particular act is one of plagiarism.

So what is with, “Not being embarrassed”? The requirement does not come with a list. It assumes self-awareness and good judgment. In particular the leader must assume responsibility of being a symbol of the organization–which means in part that he or she must behave in a way that reflects positively on the organization he or she represents.

You may argue that this is not a fair or reasonable expectation, but that is beside the point. It is part of the covenant between leader and lead. The fact is, how a leader behaves reflects, for good or ill, on his or her followers (who ceded their trust in him or her). Sometimes the other leaders around the table will not even know your name, but they will know that you are the sales leader from Pittsburg. You owe it to your followers to act properly, if you cannot be a credit to them, don’t accept the responsibility of leadership.

A friend of mine at San Diego State [Jim Sterk] was recently chosen by his national peers as Athletic Director of the Year. I learned of this from one of his colleagues who told me the news while explaining why she could not bring herself, (in spite of 13 years of excellent service and many tempting opportunities), to leave the athletic department at San Diego State. “He is such a good man.”

A leader must be a whole person. The single greatest recipe for leadership disaster is to entrust leadership and incomplete or damaged person.

K. Where do you lead? So, a relationship has been established — or at least begun. You have accepted responsibility, others have suspended their disbelief. Now what?

The first thing to understand about leading is that it entails movement from “A” to “B”. In its most basic sense, you can not lead if you do not move. Leading requires change, transition; in short, movement from “A” to “B”.

Leaders move us from this side of the river to that side, from this place or condition or stage to that one, from here to Mars, from here to a cure, from here to greater sales, from here to… to…. to….. In essence, leaders take us to new places; they help us realize our potential, improve our circumstances.*

And here is the amazing thing — often we do not know what that potential is. Often it emerges, inchoate, in the conversation between leader and led.

*Sometimes that just means avoiding disaster.

L. There is a mystery here. Did we know we could fly to the moon? Probably not, but Kennedy sensed it. Did we know we wanted pull-down menus? Probably not, but Jobs sensed it. This is part of what the leader is listening for. What is possible? What can we do? How can we be better, stronger, faster, smarter…? Part of the genius of leadership is to sense the (perhaps unimagined) change that is possible. Leadership is not “keeping the seat warm”; it is driving the car. But where? Great leaders take us to unimagined places — but not to unimaginable ones. That is to say, we will follow someone to new heights, but not to heights we cannot comprehend or imagine. The goal has to be one in which we can invest belief.

Successful leadership seeks a balance between change and fear, between the comfortable and the terrifying. Attempt too little and you do not move, do not accomplish change. Attempt too much and your would be followers desert you. Great leaders have a feel for that “sweet spot” of stretch. Typically the followers had no sense of what they were capable, no thought that they could double their productivity or raise the money, or win that contract. But (and this is the “mystery” about which I spoke earlier) the leader senses it in them. And, when sensed (still greater mystery) the led recognize that unexpected capacity in themselves, embrace that goal, and (perhaps to their own surprise) say “We can.” That is the contribution of a great leader. He/she gives to the led a new sense of their own capacity. Mountains get moved; moons get walked on.