Lately, I've been working on an integral reconstruction of the discourse and practice of leadership.
Here is a survey of three historical discourses of leadership. You will recognize them in your own interpratations of leadership. And my intent in articulating them is re-open the question 'what is leadership?' by unsettling the power of these apparent answers.
Discourse 1: Leadership requires a certain position
You either inherit the position as tribal chiefs, matriarchs, and patriarchs do or you take the position by force as feudal emperors do. Within this discourse, leadership is rarified air. Historically, this is how this discourse emerged - in tribes and feudal systems. But this discourse has staying power. We still see leadership through this discourse today when we see positions such as CEO, VP, Director, Manager, Senator, President, etc. as necessary to leadership.
And yet, within this discourse, there is no room for the person who steps forward in a difficult situation - without position, inherited or taken - to articulate orienting assessments that marshall resources to do what's necessary to take care of what needs caring. So there is something fundamental to leadership that is not positional.
Discourse 2: Leadership requires certain attributes, traits, and character
You either have them - and you are leadership material - or you don't and you aren't. Or you can take the approach of developing these leadership attributes, traits, and character. This, btw, is the approach that many corporate leadership development programs take. They identify their company's core leadership competencies and then build leadership development programs around supporting their leaders to develop these competencies.
And yet, no one set of leadership attributes, traits, or character guarantees successful leadership in the face of any situation. Different situations call for different leaders. Winston Churchill was a great leader during his times. But he may not fair so well today. So there is something fundamental about leadership that is independent of attributes, traits, and character.
Discourse 3: Leadership requires followers
In this discourse, you either have "your people" whom you speak for and support or you develop your following. On the face of it, this looks pretty obvious - leaders require followers. And there is certainly some truth burried in this discourse, as there is in all three.
As a correction to Discourse 2, which focuses on what the leader posesses as an individual, Discourse 3 seems to be extreme in the other direction granting all power to the collective in the making of a leader. Something is still missing from this understanding of leadership.
Is it any wonder that we tend to be bad at assessing leadership competence? We promote and vote people into leadership positions who, time and time again, fail to rise to our need for leadership. And yet, there are leaders who success time and time again through different situations.
Integral leadership is a fourth discourse that reinterprets each of these three discourses in a way that distills their enduring truths and leaves behind the parts that aren't essential to leadership. More to come on this in future posts.
I'd love to hear what you all make of this? Are there other discourses?
Take care,
-Steve
Comments