About leadership…..
I’ve always thought the topic on leadership was a one we generally agreed on until I read Friedmans’: A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. Every now and then, I pick up a book or article and find some aspects polarizing and others that I agree with. This book had both, and that’s okay. In this week’s blog, I will reflect on some quotes from the book and attempt draw my position on his claims and statements.
The quotes will focus on the leader’s mindset and the dynamics of leading diverse individuals and teams.
Quote 1: “Sabotage is not merely something to be avoided or wished away; instead, it comes with the territory of leading, whether the “territory” is a family or organization.” [1]In my view, this statement is a reality for many in leadership roles. No matter how good one’s intentions are, there are almost always going to be naysayers, unhealthy critics, and destroyers of good works. However, I wonder, shouldn’t it be a leaders’ goal to create an environment that is free of sabotage? Shouldn’t this be an aspirational target for building healthy teams?
Quote 2: “Chronic criticism is often a sign that the leader is functioning better.” [2]While this could happen in some instances, I disagree with the statement. I’ve observed when there is clarity of a goal, and the leader rallies people around it, there is little room for criticism. Additionally, the posture of respect for others greatly improves the work environment. When people feel that they have a voice (agency), room to create and fail, a sense of fairness and justice, then criticism becomes less and less of an issue. People begin to be driven by common pursuit of the mission and vision of the team and organization. I have even seen colleagues correct each other when they begin to raise unnecessary criticism. I think chronic criticism is a sign that the leader is not functioning well.
Quote 3: “A leader must separate his or her own emotional being from that of his or her followers while still remaining connected.”[3] In times of change and instances where decisions may affect the functioning of a team, this may be a helpful stance. Even more when dealing with disciplinary issues and helping individuals and teams see the importance of organization policies. In such times, it helps to keep things objective, but I also wonder, can empathy and objectivity co-exist? Friedman argues that “empathy has become a power tool in the hands of the weak to sabotage the strong.”
Quote 4: “Living with crisis is a major part of leaders’ lives. The crises come in two major varieties: (1) those that are not of their own making but are imposed on them from the outside or within the system, and (2) those that are triggered by the leaders through doing precisely what they should be doing.[4]” I agree with the first “major variety” of crisis that is more extrinsic and happening outside the system. Whether it’s social media rage and backlash[5], or the state of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity (VUCA) in today’s world[6]. A leader should learn to live with and imminent crises, and I would argue, proactively find ways of absorbing, mitigating or transferring risk. The second “major variety” is where I both agree and disagree. Say you are reinforcing good and ethical practices and holding a stance on integrity firmly, you will face a type of resistance, and this could be termed as a crisis. However, I differ with the idea that a leader’s actions and intent naturally trigger crisis. From an organization development standpoint, I think a leader should be very intentional about creating the desired work environment and that should not create additional crises but more productivity and alignment of constituents. With that said, Jesus Christ, my ultimate example of a leader, brought a lot of crises (of religion and thought), disruption of practices of the day and what was considered “the norm”. His disruptive stance indicates he brought more of a “sword” than “peace”[7].
Well, I guess a read that makes you reflect a bit harder is always good!
[1] Friedman, Edwin H., Margaret M. Treadwell, and Edward W. Beal. A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. 10th anniversary revised edition. New York: Church Publishing, 2017
[2] Friedman, Edwin H., Margaret M. Treadwell, and Edward W. Beal. A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. 10th anniversary revised edition. New York: Church Publishing, 2017
[3] Friedman, Edwin H., Margaret M. Treadwell, and Edward W. Beal. A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. 10th anniversary revised edition. New York: Church Publishing, 2017
[4] Friedman, Edwin H., Margaret M. Treadwell, and Edward W. Beal. A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. 10th anniversary revised edition. New York: Church Publishing, 2017
[5] https://www.europeandissemination.eu/social-media-making-us-angrier-study-reveals/14899
[6] https://hbr.org/2014/01/what-vuca-really-means-for-you
[7] Mathew 10:34-36
About the Author
Alex Mwaura
12 responses to “About leadership…..”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Alex,
Thank you for brining these four points to the surface. As I read though the bold quotes from Friedman, I tend to agree with the statement. At the same time, when I read through your thoughts I tend to agree with them as well. There is defiantly tension between the two viewpoints that you presented. I wounder if that “tension” could be the health of the people that the leaders is leading. As I was reading through Freidman’s book, it seems as thought his perspective is of a leader who is leading an anxious and emotionally unhealthy group of people?
Thanks for your thoughts Darren. Yes, he is referring emotionally unhealthy groups but aren’t we dynamic as humans. One time a team could be healthy and another time emotionally unhealthy, based on the internal or external environment. I have observed that this switch (from healthy to unhealthy) can happen in a very short time. How then should a leader react? Still learning the tactics
Alex, you bring a great point about the speed at which a group can move from one level of health to another. I would imagine that the smaller the group, the faster it happens.
If that was to be the case, the leader would need to be in close or regular contact with the front line?
Thank you Alex for your thought provoking post.
I do also find it fascinating to agree and then disagree with authors. I enjoyed this perspective. I want to answer your four points as they are fun to think about!
1. I agree that sabotage can be avoided, unless you become a threat to a culture that is comfortable with any form of sin, darkness or evil. Then I think sabotage can be quite normal. But I do think if leaders create or normalise the culture which is aligned with the current self obsessed, materialistic, ungodly culture, then I think they can avoid much sabotage!
2. In a trauma informed culture, any criticism would be taken as an opportunity for relational communication, with awareness of the power dynamics and kind, attentive, reflective conversation. I believe that countless criticism is a sign of culture that need to be transformed and so agree with you that chronic criticism could be a sign of unhealthy culture, unless it is actually reflective discussion amongst the team?
3.’A leader must separate his or her own emotional being from that of his or her followers while still remaining connected.’ I assumed he meant that it was important to separate his or her emotional being from that of the followers in a crisis, or an emotionally charged decision, but not all the time? Did I misunderstand that?
4.I agree with you with the idea that a leader’s actions and intent shouldn’t naturally trigger crisis. I also agree that ‘a leader should be very intentional about creating the desired work environment and that should not create additional crises but more productivity and alignment of constituents.’ Yes! Lead the environment, set the culture, listen to the people and reflect and be self aware! Yes !
Thanks Betsy for your reflection! I’m intrigued by the trauma informed culture and the need for relational communication. I’ll reflect on this a bit more. I have also found that the more I stand against practices that are harmful then sabotage becomes imminent. I’m learning that other strategies such as getting a critical mass to rally behind rooting out bad practices, helps teams align and move in the same direction. This way, the role of helping people abandon bad behavior, culture and adopt new behavior is also shared by those in the critical mass. I guess this is a tactic a leader can use to set the culture and environment..
Yes Alex, I think a critical mass is based on authentic relationships where deep honesty and openness about our whole selves and our call are a hallmark of the shared vision, direction and culture. That is a firm critical mass as a foundation to the building of culture that can transform unhealthy culture.
Hi Alex,
When it comes to criticism, I think that there is an important difference between critique of ideas and critique of people.
In a healthy culture, ideas should always be able to be critiqued, as they do not all have equal merit and value (I’m no postmodernist, as I’m sure you know already!). However, the critique of people is dangerous. Jesus invites those of us with no sin to throw the first stone, and to remove the log from our own eye before calling out our brother’s speck.
I think about this as I reflect on your comments about critcism of leadership. I think that a healthy culture would permit the critique of any idea, and resist the critique of a person unless within the context of a relationship of kindness, trust, and love (which takes intention and effort).
In this light, I think you have reasonable grounds to disagree with Friedman on point #2, given the nuances of intent and direction of criticism. Still, as leaders, we will come across people whose intent is to criticise another person. It takes presence of mind to see this for what it usually is: reflective of the critic, not the target.
Joff, thank you, I think this is a vital point to highlight. I say in all my organisations that our communication culture is about our heart intention. If words are used to destroy, bring down or harm, then we give little time to those words. If your heart intention is to help, understand, build and grow, then we give time to hold space for difficult conversations that have maybe brought up emotional reactions due to past experience’s. Such an important element of navigating criticism in a healthy way.
Agreed Betsy.
Thanks for this clarifying thought on criticism. I agree and like your suggested approach and dimension of separating criticism of people and ideas. I think it forms a great way of keeping the issues in perspective and that way, it’s provides a path to deal with the people who are contributing to the issues. I raised this because I have seen how unwarranted and misinformed critique (of people) can greatly harm workplace culture in a very short period of time.
Alex,
On your third point, where you share, Friedman argues that “empathy has become a power tool in the hands of the weak to sabotage the strong.” This is a delicate balance between being an empathetic listener and a direct leader. I wouldn’t necessarily label this as “sabotage the strong,” but I have witnessed firsthand how individuals continue to lead with the empathy card. It pulls in the opposite direction of organizational goals and slows progress. It can be a slippery slope. Can you think of examples where you have come across these tactics being used?
You also shared your thoughts about disagreeing with the idea that a leader’s actions and intent naturally trigger a crisis. From an organization development standpoint, a leader should be very intentional about creating the desired work environment, which should not create additional crises but more productivity and alignment of constituents.
I have encountered opportunities where well-functioning teams need a crisis. I have created or developed them to push the envelope or better the collective team when no crisis presents itself. These opportunities revolve around change management and introducing an artificial crisis to further develop and move the team forward. Have you had circumstances where teams grow complacent and need a nudge in the right direction?
Thanks Michael. I have not thought about that distinction between an empathetic listener and direct leader. I think it is possible to be direct and empathetic at the same time. In my view, this is more of a matter of motive and intent (which is largely unseen). I was recently leading a change process and I had a lot of empathy but had to be very clear about decisions. As I reflect on the process, my posture was still one on empathy. The tactic I used was keeping the team focused on the overall mission and “the why” of change, I also think prayer (before and during action) is one great tactic that could be used in such circumstances. This is likely an unpopular opinion :).
To your point on what to do when teams grow complacent, I agree it’s important to create new challenges or an imperative for change.