I\u2019ve 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\u2019s blog, I will reflect on some quotes from the book and attempt draw my position on his claims and statements.<\/p>\n
The quotes will focus on the leader\u2019s mindset and the dynamics of leading diverse individuals and teams.<\/p>\n
Quote 1: \u201cSabotage is not merely something to be avoided or wished away; instead, it comes with the territory of leading, whether the \u201cterritory\u201d is a family or organization.\u201d<\/strong> [1]<\/a>In my view, this statement is a reality for many in leadership roles. No matter how good one\u2019s intentions are, there are almost always going to be naysayers, unhealthy critics, and destroyers of good works. However, I wonder, shouldn\u2019t it be a leaders\u2019 goal to create an environment that is free of sabotage? Shouldn\u2019t this be an aspirational target for building healthy teams?<\/p>\n Quote 2: \u201cChronic criticism is often a sign that the leader is functioning better.\u201d [2]<\/a><\/strong>While this could happen in some instances, I disagree with the statement. I\u2019ve 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.<\/p>\n Quote 3: \u201cA leader must separate his or her own emotional being from that of his or her followers while still remaining connected.\u201d[3]<\/a> <\/strong>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 \u201cempathy has become a power tool in the hands of the weak to sabotage the strong.\u201d<\/p>\n Quote 4: \u201cLiving with crisis is a major part of leaders\u2019 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]<\/a>\u201d <\/strong>I agree with the first \u201cmajor variety\u201d of crisis that is more extrinsic and happening outside the system. Whether it\u2019s social media rage and backlash[5]<\/a>, or the state of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity (VUCA) in today\u2019s world[6]<\/a>. 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 \u201cmajor variety\u201d 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\u2019s 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 \u201cthe norm\u201d. His disruptive stance indicates he brought more of a \u201csword\u201d than \u201cpeace\u201d[7]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Well, I guess a read that makes you reflect a bit harder is always good!<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Friedman, Edwin H., Margaret M. Treadwell, and Edward W. Beal.\u00a0A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix<\/em>. 10th anniversary revised edition. New York: Church Publishing, 2017<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Friedman, Edwin H., Margaret M. Treadwell, and Edward W. Beal.\u00a0A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix<\/em>. 10th anniversary revised edition. New York: Church Publishing, 2017<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Friedman, Edwin H., Margaret M. Treadwell, and Edward W. Beal.\u00a0A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix<\/em>. 10th anniversary revised edition. New York: Church Publishing, 2017<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Friedman, Edwin H., Margaret M. Treadwell, and Edward W. Beal.\u00a0A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix<\/em>. 10th anniversary revised edition. New York: Church Publishing, 2017<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> https:\/\/www.europeandissemination.eu\/social-media-making-us-angrier-study-reveals\/14899<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> https:\/\/hbr.org\/2014\/01\/what-vuca-really-means-for-you<\/p>\n