Facing the fear?

This is the second part of my response to Chris Rodgers’ great post ‘10 much-needed shifts in the way we think and talk about leadership’.

As you might have guessed from the title of that post, Chris argues that we need to find a better way to think and talk about leadership. He also points out that our current ways of leading are reinforced by how we ‘frame’ leadership - change is prevented by the dominant dialogue in our society.

I agree, and think this change is important because, in my view, these ways of leading are not helping.

Our current style of leadership may have helped us do wonderful things in the past. But it seems unlikely to me that we’ll solve many of our most complex problems - war, poverty, environmental destruction - with the same style of leadership, one which is broadly about telling other people what do do.

Chris suggests we might form a coalition, one that attempts to change mainstream thinking about leadership. I would love to be part of that coalition.

But perhaps we first need to understand what we are up against?

I have recently been reading the US army manual on leadership - ‘Field Manual 622’. It defines leadership as follows:

“Leadership is the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organisation.” (Section 1.6)

Please read that carefully. Then the next bit:

“Influencing is getting people - Soldiers, Army civilians, and multinational partners - to do what is necessary.” (Section 1.7)

And finally:

“Leaders should provide clear purpose for their followers…” (Section 1.8)

This is a great summary of the conventional framing of leadership. In it, leadership is seen as:

• influencing people (1.6)
• getting them to do something (1.7)
• something defined by someone else (and definitely not by them) (1.8).

It’s an approach that is very reminiscent of the first definition that my dictionary (Google) throws up for the verb ‘to lead’:

To lead (verb)

• cause (a person or animal) to go with one by holding them by the hand, a halter, a rope, etc. while moving forward. "she emerged leading a bay horse"
  Synonyms: guide, conduct, show, show someone the way, lead the way, usher, escort, steer, pilot, marshal, shepherd

 But the dictionary also offers a second definition for ‘to lead’:

• be a route or means of access to a particular place or in a particular direction. "the door led to a better-lit corridor". Open on to, give on to, connect with/to, provide a route to, communicate with. "A path through the park leads to the beach"

 In the latter definition, by contrast, to lead is to be a route or a means of access.

The difference between the definitions seems to lie in ‘agency’. In the first definition, I get you to do something. I have most choice, and I use my power over you to get the result I want.

In the second, in my mind, you discover something, and have autonomy - that is, power over yourself. Should you wish to make that choice, by following the route, you can. And the result is yours, not mine.

I much prefer definition 2, because I value autonomy, and being independent. For me, it is also the basis of developing interdependence, which I believe is vital for effective collaboration.

But there is a problem with the second definition. What is it a route to? What is it a means of access to? That can be unclear.

That, for me, is at the core of the problem of why this alternative framing of leadership is so hard for people to embrace. Because this ‘what’ is difficult to understand. Difficult to even talk about.

Because we’re talking about the unknown.

Definition 1 - and conventional leadership generally - gives a sense of security. I assume the person doing the leading knows where we are going, even if I do not.

In Definition 2 - I have to face the reality that I don’t know where we are going, or where we will end up.

I think the result of the new paradigm Chris (and I, and many others) is advocating that we need to look into the unknown. This, for me, is the very definition of this alternative way of understanding leadership. We can't predict, we can't control - therefore we have to face and find ways to deal with uncertainty. 

It’s a form of leadership where we all lead. We don’t delegate leadership to just the chosen few - who we assume, perhaps mistakenly, know where they are going.

But it takes real courage to approach, or even look at, the unknown.

Can we brave enough?

I believe we can. There are skills to learn, which I have written about elsewhere, with my colleague Rob Warwick. We suggest the core skills include:

• Noticing - simply becoming more aware of what is happening in (feelings) and around us (the use of power, for example) can be very helpful.
• Enquiry - looking right into the face of fear, for example, we sometimes discover that it is not at all what we thought.
• Holding - for me, this means experiencing our own emotions and feelings, as well as those of others. I have learnt that a feeling embraced in this way will sometimes transform. But even if it doesn’t, with courage we can carry on.
• Naming - by speaking of something, we cut it down to size.

And perhaps the first thing we need to notice, to enquire into, to hold, and to name, is fear of the unknown?

References

Chris Rodgers blog post: ‘10 much-needed shifts in the way we think and talk about leadership’. December, 2015.

FM 6-22 “Army Leadership - Competent, Confident and Agile” October, 2006.

Pete Burden and Rob Warwick: Leading Mindfully, March, 2015.