The first part of the blog post series dealt with authority. We give authority to others, and in return, we expect those people to protect us, to solve our problems, to guide us, or to represent us.
This blog post is about leadership. In colloquial language, leadership is often used interchangeably with authority. If we speak about “leaders”, we usually mean those individuals, who have lots of (formal) authority: The President, the CEO, the manager, the boss.
I’d like to invite you to think differently about leadership and to distinguish between leadership and authority. Here’s a new and different way of thinking about leadership:
LEADERSHIP IS AN ACTIVITY. IT IS THE ACTIVITY OF MOBILIZING PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN ADAPTIVE WORK, TO MAKE PROGRESS AND THRIVE.
Leadership involves “giving the work back” to the people, not taking it off their shoulders.
Hence, leadership often means helping people:
Facing a harsh reality
Bridging a gap between aspiration and reality
Resolve a conflict of values
Questioning own privileges and managing losses
Renegotiating loyalties
Develop new skills and capabilities
What becomes clear from this list: Leadership is anything but easy. When I confront people with their problems instead of solving them on their behalf, I do not make myself popular. In fact, I am likely to disappoint others, because leadership means mobilizing others to leave their comfort zone and to move into the unknown.
Climate change is a good example: Climate change harsh reality, which many of us are trying to avoid. I, too, am a frequent traveler (well, I was, pre-Covid). Greta Thunberg mobilized me and many others to think about the privilege of air travel. She demanded that I reconsider my frequent flying and venture into new travel terrain (might a “good vacation” also be possible locally?).
What does leadership, was we are defining it, look like in politics? During a televised speech at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic (18th March 2020), German Chancellor Angela Merkel demonstrated what leadership can look like from a formal authority role: She promised to
provide authority services (“the state will continue to function and guarantee [food] provisions”) and
gave the work back to the people by asking her listeners
to accept the harsh reality of the pandemic (“This is serious. No challenge since World Word Two has required more solidarity from us”),
laying the onus of responsibility on the people themselves (“I believe we will brave this challenge if every citizen views the challenge as their challenge, “every person can contribute”), and
helping people manage losses (“no handshakes, keeping 1,5 meters distance, ideally no physical contact with the elderly – I know how hard it is what I am asking for”) and develop new capacities (“We have to find new ways to show affection and friendship: Skype, phone calls, emails, or perhaps writing letters again”).
When I think of leadership as an activity, rather than a position or role, the following becomes apparent: Anyone can lead – at any time. Leadership is possible, irrespective of the authority I have or I lack. For example, think about a company that wants to create an open feedback culture (this is something we frequently encounter with clients). The gap between a aspiration (“everyone can make mistakes here and it’s no problem!”) and reality (“mistakes are hidden and covered up”) has to be acknowledged and closed step by step. Employees have to learn to name mistakes and to manage the discomfort that may come with that. I can model this behavior as the CEO – or as the intern. Leadership is therefore possible from all different parts of an organization. Our hierarchical position brings with it advantages and disadvantages. You can read more about that in part 3.
Can leadership be an activity? What do you think? Is this new way of thinking about leadership exciting to your – or discomforting?