Written by: gfesadmin on October 25, 2012

Wes Anderson is one of the most interesting and innovative directors today.  Through his seven films, Anderson has created a style and voice that is singular and unique.  When you are watching an Anderson film, you know you are watching an Anderson film.  As polarizing as his work can sometimes be, there is truly nothing like it.  Most of Anderson’s films tell the stories of diverse groups of individuals in a community or family, that through conflict and tragedy finally pull together to find a place of healing and reconciliation.  Almost all of his films end with emotional scenes consisting of all the main characters together signifying unity in diversity and final resolution. 

Here is a typical ending sequence, taken from The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPMf8G8Pi5o

Acclaimed as a creative genius, it is assumed that Anderson is the sole and complete voice behind all of his work.  However, in reality Anderson makes his movies from a community setting.  On his most recent film, Moonrise Kingdom, Anderson rented a mansion to share with his director of photography, editor, and some of the main actors.  Anderson always writes his scripts with at least one other writer (and in some cases two other writers).  Many of the actors in his films become repeat collaborators (Bill Murray in 6 films, Owen Wilson in 6, Anjelica Huston in 3).  Anderson has even expressed that he tries to create a family atmosphere on all his sets, so that actors and others can feel comfortable and have fun.  My guess is that the themes of communities in conflict coming to reconciliation within his films, may even reflect Anderson’s collaborative style in making films.  Community is the central theme in his films and in how he works.

In the Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice (edited by Nohria and Khurana), researchers Hill, Travaglini, Brandeau and Stecker explain in “Unlocking the Slices of Genius in Your Organization: Leading for Innovation,” that innovation and creativity almost always result from team/community efforts.  The myth of individual genius, is just that, a myth.  With that said, the article makes the point that leaders need to understand how to help their teams become innovative communities.

As a Christian leader, I see that innovation is necessary.  Our world is constantly changing, and often we are faced with overwhelming and often insurmountable challenges: the AIDS pandemic, the decline of the church in the West, how to communicate the gospel effectively across diverse and fragmenting cultures, etc.  Christian organizations and communities need to innovate to meet these challenges from a practical standpoint, to say nothing that as image bearers of a creating God we are in fact ontologically creative and innovative.  However, Christian institutions and communities often stifle innovation.  I have been blessed to work for an organization that upholds innovation as a core value, but still the question remains: how do we lead teams to be successfully innovative?

Hill, Travaglini, Brandeau and Stecker (along with Anderson) give us three key functions of a leader who is working to unleash the creative and innovative genius of their team:

1.       Co-design.  Innovation rarely if ever comes in an instantaneous moment of brilliance, the cartoonish “light bulb” moment.  Instead, true innovation on a grand scale takes a team of many people, working from different perspectives, working over a long period of time.  There must be a time of co-design, and others must be let into this process.  Stress must be placed on allowing for a diversity of opinions, gifts, and even backgrounds and thought.  This allows for ideas to grow and evolve, and through collaborative effort turn into something truly innovative.  Part of the process of co-design with a diversity of people, results obviously in conflict.  However, conflict need not be a negative thing.  Here the writers introduce the idea of “creative abrasion,” the idea that conflict resulting from a diversity of opinion and perspective is actually good, creating excitement and energy, and the genus of true innovation.  Leaders need to know how to work in situations of conflict while at the same time using that conflict to create something new by avoiding the “muddle” of diversity and instead integrating and connecting the positives.  Working as a film director Anderson involves others at all levels of the creative process: using co-writers in the genesis of the script, a team of researchers to find locations, teams of people who suggest design (including his own brother), etc.  He orchestrates and is a spark for creativity, but he also knows that others must take ownership and shine.

This phase of co-design of course is no easy task, and ultimately takes building a community where the individual is less important to the creative process. This in turn leads us to…

Community Building.  A leader of innovation has to put community first.  People working towards a common goal in a creative setting (with its requisite swings and instability) need to have full ownership.  They need to trust and be trusted, to know that their ideas and opinions (and those of others) are valued and respected.  This allows for co-design to function effectively.  For this to happen, leaders need to build communities that people want to belong to, while at the same time managing the tension between the individual and the collective.  The writers here stress that ultimately, the most important role of a leader is to “create meaning” and form a world that others gladly want to be a part of, so that their participation is by choice and passion. 

Anderson is known as a director who people want to work with.  He has in fact created an atmosphere of a group of “misfits” or even a troupe, working together to do something fun and unique.  He often is working with his friends (many of his collaborators including Wilson are friends from high school or college), and it is clear from even his relationship with Bill Murray, who has appeared in all but of one of his films, that to be in an Anderson film is a special thing.  Anderson as a leader is focused on his collaborators and making sure that they have a common, shared experience together that infuses meaning and purpose into their work.

3.       Leading from Behind.  Overall, a leader of innovation is understood as someone who leads from behind, bucking the usual trend of a presidential type speaking role leader who sets direction and vision.  They need to be people who share power and credit, are empathetic, generous, build trust and very humble.  They are motivators, and above all work from the back gathering and shepherding their team in the correct direction.  In order to build communities of meaning that work and can enjoy together the co-design process, leaders need to be able to marshal all their skills and qualities to lead the team from behind.  Bill Murray tells of his first time working with a very young Anderson, who would humbly whisper instructions to the famous actor, so not as to embarrass him in front of the crew.  Expressing a humble and generous spirit allows Anderson the ability build trust, create a greater meaning and purpose to the work, and effectively lead and work collaboratively in a team.

How can you unleash the innovative in your teams and organizations? How are you leading from behind?  Are you creating a community that people joyfully want to be a part of?  Would past co-workers gladly want to join us again in future projects?  Are we leading like Wes Anderson, or more like some of his conflicted and faulty anti-heroes in his movies?

Did Jesus lead from behind?  I can’t help thinking of the obvious connections between Jesus and the metaphor used by the authors, and Nelson Mandela, of a leader as a shepherd, caring for the flock and always bringing up the rear.

Leading for innovation will take some major shifts in how we understand and think about Christian leadership.  Still, it seems to me, that if we want our teams and even our churches to find creative solutions to the problems we face on global and local levels, we will need to change how we view leadership, and begin to train more leaders who can lead from behind.

About the Author

gfesadmin