A Return to Strong Leadership
I found Failure of Nerve a refreshing and challenging book, packed full of what I would consider wisdom on being a leader at a time were strong leadership seems to be giving way to a “softer” form where everyone gets a trophy regardless of the outcome.
It goes without saying that few if any appreciate a brutish leader. But according to Friedman, strong does not mean brutal. A strong leader is one who understands that leadership is an emotional process for which skill acquisition gives little aid. A strong leader is one who understands the importance and pitfalls of relationship, the power of presence and the importance of self-differentiation.
One of the principal players in Friedman’s thesis is the well-differentiated leader. The well-differentiated leader deals with and develops the emotional/relational side of their leadership. They understand the way in which emotion impacts and shapes an organization and use this understanding in the process of leadership. It is a leap beyond Goldman’s emotional intelligence or right brain/left brain theories of leadership into the relational mix in which all leaders find themselves. [2235]
What are some of the characteristics of a well-differentiated leader? A well-differentiated leader is “someone who has clarity about his or her own life goals, and, therefore, someone who is less likely to become lost in the anxious emotional processes swirling about.” They work at managing their own “reactivity to the automatic reactivity of others, and therefore are able to take stands at the risk of displeasing.” They strive to “maintain a modifying, non-anxious, and sometimes challenging presence” in the organization. In other words, they are able to distance themselves from the emotional tangles of organizational relationships that often hinder leaders from making the difficult decisions that These characteristics are not based on a set of skills but on developing an emotional maturity necessary for good leadership. [332-335]
One of the most interesting parts of Friedman’s thesis focuses on the power of the presence of leadership. To begin to apply the power of presence, the leader should work to shift their focus from acquiring techniques that motivate others to “one that focuses on the leader’s own presence and being.” [154-155] What does that mean? There is a saying in missionary circles that “presence is everything” meaning that if you are a leader, there is no substitute for being present and face to face with the people you are responsible for leading. However, Friedman suggests, interestingly enough, that that type of presence is not necessary for effective leadership. In fact, it might be detrimental in that it opens the leader up to be sabotaged by emotional terrorists, reactivity, herding and the blame game. All though it might be useful for morale, it does not help the leader in their role as leader of the organization. [3550-3358]
I also found interesting the notion that like families, many organizations are held hostage by toxic individuals who have their own interests at heart. Friedman states it is often the case that leaders assume “that toxic forces can be regulated through reasonableness, love, insight, role-modeling, inculcation of values, and striving for consensus.” This stance “prevents [leaders] from taking the kind of stands that set limits to the invasiveness of those who lack self-regulation.” [302-304]
In other words, many leaders focus on the toxic elements of an organization by trying to fix or appease those toxic few. However, practically speaking, the leader will only be wasting valuable energy and forward momentum trying to change people who have no desire or even the capacity to be self-regulating and to change. Instead, Friedman suggests that leaders focus on those who are energetic, visionary, motivated and imaginative. These are the individuals who will help transform and lead the organization. [290-304]
On many levels, this is both positive and freeing, as I remember the hours and weeks spent trying to regulate or even help those toxic people who will not change. The energy expended could have been better spent on those with creativity, vision, and motivation to have a positive and sustainable impact on the organization.
The challenge with Freidman in my context is that the leaders in the church or in the church organization often have a pastoral component that makes it difficult to distance oneself from emotional terrorists and toxic people. Also, for leaders in the church, there is a concern the for spiritual state and development of everyone no matter the level of maturity. Moreover, one should never underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives. This pastoral component of church leadership adds a dynamic that other organizations don’t have. I would also suggest that Friedman’s thesis, though it may be applicable in the more western cultures, may not be applicable across cultures; therefore, practicing leadership in another culture might call for another paradigm.
To conclude, I wish that Friedman would have lived to complete his work. His research is revolutionary and in many ways refreshing. His focus on emotionally healthy leaders brings new resource and value to the strong leader. The one-size-fits-all leadership manual seldom works in every situation; if it did, we wouldn’t need more than one book on successful leadership. His unique way of informing leadership outside of skill acquisition brings another sane voice to the broader leadership discussion. This is one book I will turn to again and again.
Edwin H. Friedman. A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. Kindle ed. New York, NY: Seabury, 2007.
Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee. Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. 1st ed. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2013.
About the Author
Jim Sabella
9 responses to “A Return to Strong Leadership”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post Jim. Yes, this is a book I not only resonated with but will also return to again and again as well. I so resonated with this thought: “On many levels, this is both positive and freeing, as I remember the hours and weeks spent trying to regulate or even help those toxic people who will not change. The energy expended could have been better spent on those with creativity, vision, and motivation to have a positive and sustainable impact on the organization.” I also was given permission to conserve my energy in working with selfish, toxic people. Here’s my question, what do we do with toxic people in a family, organization? Any ideas?
Thanks Jen. To your question, “what do we do with toxic people in a family, organization? Any ideas?” From an organizational perspective, toxic people must either be removed or isolated from decision making and influence that affects the whole organization. This is not always possible. This is where I think Friedman makes a good point—don’t give energy to the toxic individual but instead give a much energy as possible to the creative, motivated and imaginative. Their emotional development and presence will have a positive impact on the organization as well as the leaders. That being said, it’s not an easy thing at all, and there is certainly no formula. I’ll leave the family piece to you and Jake!
“One of the most interesting parts of Friedman’s thesis focuses on the power of the presence of leadership. ”
We’ve talked about charisma in leaders. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and others had charisma.
I agree with you; it can work both ways. The well differentiated leader can either be selfish or selfless.
I also noticed that the Holy Spirit was not mentioned as a possible change agent. We can use Friedman’s advice. But we also have the Holy Spirit to help us.
Thanks Mary. Excellent point about the necessity and help of the Holy Spirit! I agree!
Great post Jim! Yes the power of presence reminds me of when we were in Cape Town and Michelle encouraged us to be an embodied presence as leaders. Presence can take on many forms. I can understand the challenge you posed with the text. When your job is to be in the midst of the people and resolve any issues that occur to try to keep the peace it is hard to self differentiate. I think what can be taken away from what he said is that self care is important. There has to be some inward focus in order to maintain clarity of thought and decision making. How we do that (in my opinion) must be done through the cooperative work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. We do not possess the ability to do this in and of ourselves.
Christal, you make an excellent point about self-care and the inward focus. If the leader is not healthy how can we expect the organization to be healthy? The sad part is that just as a healthy leader’s presence is felt throughout the organization, so is the unhealthy leader. Even more tragic is that often everyone in a group knows when a leader is not healthy, except the leader themself!
Jim, thank you for bringing up both the pastoral and the cross-cultural perspectives.
When I first read Friedman I was certain this could not work in a church setting. Then I met a pastor who may very well be one of the most self-differentiated people I have ever met. He managed chaos and toxic people in such a pastoral yet matter-of-fact way that I realized that this must be possible in any setting if it was possible in church!
I do agree that this would be more difficult in a non-Western setting. I think this is where our learning about cultural intelligence has to come in. We can’t just assume this leadership approach works everywhere. Thanks for pointing this out!
“One should never underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit to change lives.” I have to believe this, especially for myself. If I understand that change and maturation within my own life are the work of the Holy Spirit, then I need to trust that in others as well. There must be, then a balance (a la pg 246 of the text) that allow us to imagine the transformational work of the Holy Spirit held in tension with the toxicity they may bring to a situation.
Jim,
Great post – the part about self differentiated leaders being clear on their goals, is a central point for us as followers of Jesus…. If our primary goal is living into our call and being led by the Holy Spirit then the strength – which may not always match the world’s idea of strength – will not have to come from us, but from the Holy Spirit.