It’s a myth…

It’s A Myth:

I've just finished reading The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern Age by Archie Brown. I can recommend it highly. It's heavy on political history, which isn't a strength of mine, however it's rigorously researched, so well worth the effort. What Brown does well is challenge the idea that leadership can be defined as one person a gifted individuals that others follow. He suggests that over-emphasising personal strength does not enable transformational leadership, the shared activity that underpins the social change beneficial to whole communities. In other words he challenges the reader to suspend their belief in the charismatic hero...

Brown draws together huge evidence to support the idea that a ‘more desirable model of a political leader as master is collective‘. Moreover,  that the belief in strength judged along a weak-strong continuum leads to an exaggerated belief in what constitutes accountable power. Of the many rich ideas he shares, is the notion that power with is more effective in achieving system change than power over. The quality of relationships is important in a leadership team, and the way people work with each other is as powerful in creating change – process matters. Individuals are less important than the ideas they share - particularly when lack of diversity leads to lack of critical thinking - not questioning the ideologies sought to impose. 

There are many qualities desirable in a political leader that should matter more than the criterion of strength, one better suited to judging weightlifters or long-distance runners. These include integrity, intelligence, articulateness, collegiality, shrewd judgment, a questioning mind, willingness to seek disparate views, ability to absorb information, flexibility, good memory, courage, vision, empathy and boundless energy. Although incomplete, that is already a formidable list. (Kindle - location 130)

He does not expect people to embody all these. The way I see it, we're given a lifetime, so I suppose intention, direction and effort are important. In the simplest terms leadership's about we, not about me. To my mind collegiality and a willingness to seek desperate views stand out, because inclusive practice is far more real to us than a vision. From my experience lack of respect for diverse views leads to bullying.

It's hard to lead differently though, people often don't realise they're looking for authoritarian behaviour - as opposed to authoritative.   I've found that in a position where I've chosen to listen and find consensus in conversation - as a way of developing strategy - I've been perceived as weak? Is that because people expect me to be submissive, rather than courageous in quieter ways… I wonder. I've often witnessed a lack of understanding when the ideas I have shared challenge current orthodoxy. It's not that people are dismissive so much as they really believe they know best irrespective of evidence. As Brown suggest this may be because we find it hard to interrupt and question our own feelings:

It is well known that in their perceptions people tend to screen out information that is at odds with their pre-existing beliefs and will find a variety of imaginative means to view decisions they have made as reasonable and justified, including those which display inconsistency between their actions and professed principles. (Kindle location 1080)

As Brown suggests being able to respect different perspectives is critical to good decision-making, and shared expertise is key in developing sound judgement. While depth of personal understanding is important in order to act flexibility, one individual cannot learn as much as many, shared knowledge therefore is invaluable. One person is less likely to be capable of weighing up the evidence for each decision. In short, our ability to appraise our own ideas in light of new evidence is of value, and that's rarely possible if there's little difference in the room.

What was especially important – a weakness for some observers, a strength in the eyes of others – was the extent to which he was willing to change his mind when presented with new evidence or persuasive arguments. (Kindle location 3423)

If we cannot think that our learning will take us beyond our current understanding, don’t we run the risk of falling short of our own aspirations? Those people I follow constantly revise their positions and understanding, they listen in order to challenge their preconceptions, not to reaffirm their own ideas. Brown warns that if our vision is inclusive, but our own way of working is divisive then people will question direction. As ever the lesson is clear, it's not the role but the way of carrying out the work that distinguished transformational leaders from others: 

… leaders in the purest sense of the term are those who attract followers and make an impact on society and politics while not holding any vestige of state power.  (Kindle location 110)

   I came away with a heightened sense of purpose - certainly in terms of my own practice. To carry on encouraging leadership activity - empowering and celebrating learning- with those around me.  To be ever more critical of all ideas, especially those I am most comfortable with. I'm also relieved I do not have to define a vision or do it right all the time. - the REAL challenge is to be kind!