Many of my life experiences have placed me in leadership roles in various ways. Some have been deliberate and formalized (faculty council chair, president of the Pediatric Association of Naturopathic Doctors, co-chair of NEST, chair of the Eco Council, associate professor), while others have been more organic and casual (Extinction Rebellion, community events). Some leadership roles have been public, while others have been more personal (such as parenting!). Sometimes I feel that I am an excellent leader, while at other times I think I am fully ineffective. I wonder if this is due to the breadth of qualities that good leaders possess, and the fact that the ideal combination of traits and skills will vary from scenario to scenario. Because of this, it can be challenging to define what makes a good leader (Winston & Patterson, 2006; Fairholm, 2002). One of the simplest definitions of a leader I’ve heard is someone who is followed. Although that seems circular, it seems to reflect the idea that a leader is defined by their effectiveness. A leader is a person who can motivate others to action. (Ideally, that action is productive and for the betterment of the world, but we know from history that strong leadership is not necessarily beneficent). I think about a strong leader as being someone with a clear vision, and the ability to inspire others to act towards that vision (similar to the definition put forth by Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). However, my experience in the workplace and as a student and instructor, child and parent, is that people are accountable to a chain of command. Extinction Rebellion (XR) was explicitly designed such that there is no XR other than the individuals who choose to act under its banner. I hesitated asserting myself at times because of a struggle to reconcile this style of governance with what I knew of leadership. I suspect I was conflating leadership with concentration of power, which is typical in hierarchical systems of governance typical of our culture. Under any circumstances, someone must take the lead. Collier and Estaban (1999) describe a different style of leadership that is needed in a participatory organizational model, one that cultivates learning, growth, trust, and intrinsic motivation. In theory, this style of leadership should enhance innovation and productivity. In a grassroots movement, leaders may be less likely to be selected, but are more likely to emerge due to charisma, skills, and passion (Fairholm, 2002). In a participatory organizational model, leadership should fundamentally involve empowering others and building capacity to act (Colliers & Estaban, 1999). It makes me think of the theory of diffusion of innovation - that there will be early adopters (ie. of direct action), and those who come along when there is a compelling plan, or who join the party later (Dearing, 2009). The willingness and capacity to act is impacted by far more than simple cognition; I’m curious about the factors that influence individuals, and how to more effectively motivate others. If the stages of change model can be applied to organizing, emergent leaders would use different tactics to engage people at different points in that cycle. Those who are ready to act require different tactics from those who would like to be engaged but don’t quite know how, or from those who are apathetic, or those who actively push back against it. When XR Toronto (XRTO) was active, I often heard from peripherally- associated members that XRTO “should” do a particular action, or target a particular goal. These individuals could be described as contemplative, and would require different resources to move towards action than do folks who are prepared to dive in. The “social barometer” illustrates this idea beautifully (Shields, & Somerville, 1994): While participatory or horizontal organization in theory should increase productivity of a group (Collier & Estaban, 1999), my on-the-ground experience has been that some people prefer being told what to do - to being managed. Kotter (1990) makes a strong assertion that leadership and management are distinct roles within an organization. The author defines leadership as necessary for innovation and navigating change. Leaders set the direction of the organization, ensuring that all members are aligned, while management is more pragmatic, and allows for successful implementation and execution of direction. This theory explains why attempting to lead and manage simultaneously often feels futile: it is like trying to see the mountains ahead while focusing on the path beneath my feet. However, it has been my experience that effective leaders ultimately do require strong managerial skills (or a very competent partner!). In the spring, parents in my community expressed a desire to create a family-friendly anti-racism event. Although this was ultimately someone else’s vision, she felt unable to guide it to fruition. Others who chose to participate on the planning team seemed uninterested/willing/capable to step up to lead. I attempted to foster a participatory organizational model with a collaboratively determined vision and plan. However, conflict arose due to some individuals feeling a lack of leadership. Upon discussion, I wonder if they were missing management. Given our agreed-upon plan, I did not feel the need to micromanage the tasks that each person had taken on. However, it seems that they saw frequent check-ins and meetings as evidence of leadership. One comrade in XR expressed to me on numerous occasions that she will do what someone asks her to do, but she doesn’t want to have to come up with ideas (since the dissolution of XRTO, she has told me that she will never work or volunteer with a horizontally organized group again). This also makes me think of distribution of labour in relationships; in many cases, even if both partners contribute to household duties, one often carries the burden of thinking about and delegating what needs to be done - the one with a vision who motivates others to action. As in my reflection on organizational structure, perhaps folks require training in or at least agreement on or familiarity with the structure of an organization; it can’t be taken for granted. Particularly in a culture in which this approach to organization is novel. I tend to have very high standards for myself and others, and a very clear vision of what I would like to see happen. My leadership compass reveals that prioritization of action is an inherent component of my leadership style; however, I have been told this can make others feel inadequate. When I was a novice instructor, I often found myself being grandiose and authoritarian because of my own insecurity and indoctrination with this style of leadership. As time has gone on I have been very deliberate about working on skills of humility and compassion. Even in a conventionally hierarchical structure, there is tremendous merit in honing leadership skills of empowerment and capacity building. In recent years my students have reflected more on my approachability, and the ways in which they feel my teaching and mentorship inspire and motivate them without my having lowered my standards or expectations. I suspect my personal work has fostered a sense of safety and vulnerability, and ultimately trust (Fairholm, 2002). Trust has been defined as the intersection between capability and character; a good leader needs to be both in order to be credible and worth following (Purdue 2001). Good leaders trust others in the organization to fulfill their role; when all members of an organization feel that their contributions are worthwhile, there is greater commitment, which further enhances the group’s effectiveness (Napoli et al, 2019). Good leaders can further the feeling of trust by providing or encouraging members to to seek opportunities for purposeful struggle. When trust has been fostered, it is more possible to establish an environment where people can feel vulnerable, be open to productive failure, and thus to learning. The dissolution of XRTO felt like a failure to me. Menand, when writing about Martin Luther King Jr. (2018) posits that “movements are created when a leader emerges to speak on behalf of the aggrieved. And the role of the leader is to hold the aggrieved together long enough to accomplish their goals, or some of them.” I felt disappointed that I was unable to midwife the movement to radical rebellion in Toronto, and I felt sad that in the end, it fell with so much unnecessary dissent and pain. Of course the movement’s collapse was not all on me; there was a collective that was unable to apply the idealized model effectively to the local environment. In “The End of Protest,” Micah White (2017a) describes a unified theory of revolution (a more concise description can be found at http://occupywallst.org/article/unified-theory-revolution/): a framework to describe factors that influence whether a movement succeeds or fails - leadership is but one component of this. Although history remembers Martin Luther King Jr. as a charismatic and passionate leader, Carson (1987) points out that the success of the civil rights movement relied heavily on social circumstances at the time, in line with White’s theory. Dr. King did not aspire to lead the movement, but was approached because of the traits he had demonstrated in his work as a minister, and he reflected deeply about the circumstances before taking on the mantle of leadership (Menand, 2018). In Toronto in 2019 there were many leaders that emerged at different points and in different ways. Some were excellent, and others had obvious deficiencies. We all had and still have a lot to learn. White (2017b) also embraces the idea of “constructive failure”. I have learned a great deal from my struggles in organizing. After the dissolution of XRTO, I received feedback from others that I inspired them to keep with it when their cynicism and exhaustion started to creep up. They saw and were motivated by my energy and vision, and (surprisingly to me) my warmth and compassion. I would like to work more on these latter traits. I would like to do better at helping others identify their skills and gaps, and support them in approaching challenges as a purposeful struggle. This requires me to prioritize relationships, which I often treat as a byproduct of the work rather than the other way around. In my leadership roles going forward, I will pay closer attention to mindfully building relationships, and embracing vulnerability and conflict as opportunities to build trust, innovation and ultimately movement toward the shared vision of the group. References
0 Comments
|
Archives
January 2024
Categories
All
|