What is the quality of leadership we need to build a world where everyone belongs?We desperately need bold leaders capable of caring for the whole… what does that quality of leadership look like? How can we cultivate it?
Thank you, this was lovely. I resonate with the idea of relinquishing power - and also control - in leadership, the aim being to allow each person to find their own way, and that means allowing yourself as the leader to be corrected and be human as well - I see it as a constant shifting landscape in relationship with one another as we find our way to common visions of the future we want to create together.
I too hope for a society where this is the leadership ideal. To me though it is less defined by vision and more about building communities and as such I think of it more as collaborative or community leadership.
One thing that you touch on, which I think a lot about is the ability to share power equally - it feels like this is a skill/trait that is very rare because of our mental models and assumption that one person must have the final word on everything. Good communities, however, acknowledge that individuals have different strengths and allow decision-making and leadership to rotate based on circumstances. That shared leadership is more resilient, more equitable, and allows for the expansion of power.
I really enjoyed this, particularly the effort to really unpack the definition of leadership. For me, leaders arent born, they are chosen, and developed. And good leaders lead in community
3rd, I find another difficult point to talk about... If leadership starts from a vision, it means to convince others. Then add the help of the following mass (helping to overcome the "empty dancefloor syndrom"!)...
But it means the same concept can be used and have been used to gather people and take them out of helplessness through accusing scapegoats.
Then leadership can lead to violence...
Smaller groups can have healthy conflicts (we generally lack places and times for this) and will try to agree by unanimity and not only majority.
So about having and sharing a wider vision, I concluded it was best to not lead, or to find another word... (thus why I said it was paradoxical!)
Could it be about bringing awareness instead of solutions?
Leaders propose solutions, but who are we if we just bring awareness?
So when I expose a problem and I am asked about the solution I propose, I say that bringing awareness and talking is indeed a good job for individuals, but that solutions can only come organically from enough aware people.
So I cannot propose solutions myself, and also because I don't want that we count on inviduals for this, because of the risk of fascism.
Then, why do people ask for solutions?
Because exposing a problem brings a feeling of helplessness we have to deal with.
As a separated point, I would include a discussion about the differences caused by the size of the group(s).
Living beings are wired to connect differently according to knowing little or well those they relate to. (As dogs to sheep relationships, from guarding to hunting.)
I am quite sure our predicament is to have increased the size of our groups instead of increasing the number of groups! Is worldwide leadership still the same leadership as leading a local group of people who know each others?
It might be the best leadership is at the tribe size + confederation.
As you asked for additions, I have some. Words are so often paradoxical!
All you say matches well what I have learned in Somatic Experiencing, about the reactions of our respective nervous system in group's relationships.
BTW, English is not my language but you mentioned "selfish", for what other languages call "egoism", and in English there's self and ego...
You also talk about narratives, some of them being created precisely ...by the ego, which definition could be "scars on the wounded self"!
We have personal and collective narratives. Maybe a leader gathers the amount of persons that share a certain narrative, thus certain wounds protecting the self?
Thank you, this was lovely. I resonate with the idea of relinquishing power - and also control - in leadership, the aim being to allow each person to find their own way, and that means allowing yourself as the leader to be corrected and be human as well - I see it as a constant shifting landscape in relationship with one another as we find our way to common visions of the future we want to create together.
I too hope for a society where this is the leadership ideal. To me though it is less defined by vision and more about building communities and as such I think of it more as collaborative or community leadership.
One thing that you touch on, which I think a lot about is the ability to share power equally - it feels like this is a skill/trait that is very rare because of our mental models and assumption that one person must have the final word on everything. Good communities, however, acknowledge that individuals have different strengths and allow decision-making and leadership to rotate based on circumstances. That shared leadership is more resilient, more equitable, and allows for the expansion of power.
I really enjoyed this, particularly the effort to really unpack the definition of leadership. For me, leaders arent born, they are chosen, and developed. And good leaders lead in community
3rd, I find another difficult point to talk about... If leadership starts from a vision, it means to convince others. Then add the help of the following mass (helping to overcome the "empty dancefloor syndrom"!)...
But it means the same concept can be used and have been used to gather people and take them out of helplessness through accusing scapegoats.
Then leadership can lead to violence...
Smaller groups can have healthy conflicts (we generally lack places and times for this) and will try to agree by unanimity and not only majority.
So about having and sharing a wider vision, I concluded it was best to not lead, or to find another word... (thus why I said it was paradoxical!)
Could it be about bringing awareness instead of solutions?
Leaders propose solutions, but who are we if we just bring awareness?
So when I expose a problem and I am asked about the solution I propose, I say that bringing awareness and talking is indeed a good job for individuals, but that solutions can only come organically from enough aware people.
So I cannot propose solutions myself, and also because I don't want that we count on inviduals for this, because of the risk of fascism.
Then, why do people ask for solutions?
Because exposing a problem brings a feeling of helplessness we have to deal with.
As a separated point, I would include a discussion about the differences caused by the size of the group(s).
Living beings are wired to connect differently according to knowing little or well those they relate to. (As dogs to sheep relationships, from guarding to hunting.)
I am quite sure our predicament is to have increased the size of our groups instead of increasing the number of groups! Is worldwide leadership still the same leadership as leading a local group of people who know each others?
It might be the best leadership is at the tribe size + confederation.
As you asked for additions, I have some. Words are so often paradoxical!
All you say matches well what I have learned in Somatic Experiencing, about the reactions of our respective nervous system in group's relationships.
BTW, English is not my language but you mentioned "selfish", for what other languages call "egoism", and in English there's self and ego...
You also talk about narratives, some of them being created precisely ...by the ego, which definition could be "scars on the wounded self"!
We have personal and collective narratives. Maybe a leader gathers the amount of persons that share a certain narrative, thus certain wounds protecting the self?
This is derserving of a book form, Brian.