Leadership - backwards and in high heels

The U.S. News & World Report (November, 2009), through the advice of a blue-ribbon panel, identified individuals around the globe for leadership that makes a difference. Reading the stories of these individuals, why they do what they do, and how they’ve managed to stay the course in their efforts is truly inspirational. There are examples across all age groups, but I did notice a gratifying trend of “mature” individuals whose work remains vibrant, fulfilling, and active when their chronological age has moved beyond 60, 70, and even 80 years of age.

The selection of these people is a statement of how we are beginning to understand effective leadership in the 21st century. Bill and Kathy Magee (Operation Smile), Greg Mortenson (Pennies for Peace), Judith Rodin (Rockefeller Foundation), Eboo Patel (Interfaith Youth Core), Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch (bipartisan bridge-building) and others have made a difference and they’ve done it by reflecting the criteria set by leadership experts such as Warren Bennis, David Gergen, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, and Barbara Kellerman; 1) building a shared sense of purpose, 2) achieving a positive social impact, and 3) cultivating a culture of growth.

A complementary analysis of leadership that makes a difference is offered by Rondinelli and Hefron (2009) in their Leadership for development: What globalization demands of leadership fighting for change. Beginning with reflections on what leadership in a rapidly globalizing world might entail, connecting that with the concern for global development that began with Kennedy’s decade of development in the 1960s, and moving on to examples of change underway around the world, Rondinelli and Hefron take the U.S. News & World Report to another level; they take us to examples of leadership that are historically and culturally contextualized and that represent perhaps our only hope in a world that is so dominated by political, religious, economic and other forms of warfare. Kennedy (1963, Commencement address at American University) introduced the possibility of world peace that would not be “… a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war … but peace for all men and women” (p. 51) that would begin by looking inward and by directing attention to common interests that would connect rather than divide humanity across the globe.

The Rondinelli and Hefron book provides amazing examples of change, some of which led to positive transformation and others to more challenges to be addressed. Consistent among them all is that transformative leaders deal with the practically reality of their environment, they mobilize others, and they demonstrate self-motivation, credibility, care, humility, and courage in their actions. What I most appreciated about this very realistic analysis was a wonderful metaphor that captures the work of those stimulating change in the developing world – “backwards and in high heels.”

The chapter by Ian Smillie of this same name, “Backwards and in high heels,” used the example of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, the famous dancing duo of mid-20th century movies. Astaire was applauded for his amazing skill and artistry but the fact was, he was always in the lead. In traditional dance, the man is the one who sets the standard while the female, Ginger Rogers, had to mirror the lead while dancing backwards and in high heels. That’s what it’s like in the developing world. The Western world may be able to offer help, advice, and resources, but the infrastructures, processes, shared values, and many other things are simply not there to allow the transfer of Western views into the new, developing, and globalizing settings. Everyone pursuing change outside of the Western environment is dancing backwards in high heels and the more emergent the infrastructure, the higher the heels and the more indefinite the lead. This is not easy work and those Westerners seeking to help, partnering with those actively involved in the change, will do well to consider how the rules of dance might need to be modified.

48 Laws of Power - Robert Greene

Difficult for me to read but, nevertheless, critical to understand... Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power advocates a way of being in the world that I do not embrace. Some of his recommendations encourage withholding information, being mystical and unavailable, exercising manipulation and coercion, and many other strategies that he poses as essential in the game of acquiring and holding power. While these are not strategies that are consonant with what I believe is effective leadership in the 21st century, to know that there are those who inadvertently or intentionally use these methods, and to have a way to respond to them, is necessary for survival.

The 48 laws are formulated through citations of historical incidents and figures across many cultures. This is part of Greene’s proposition – that the 48 laws are universal across time and place. The descriptions are thick and the repetition of certain historical figures such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, Bismarck and others is an important reminder of how wide-spread the misuse and abuse of power has been.

I also came to realize that I use certain forms of power that I had not recognized. One of these is transparency. I tend to play my cards with an open hand (meaning that others can see exactly what I have in my possession) which I’ve always recognized as involving risk, primarily the risk that others will use my transparency against me and strategize to undermine my efforts. The useful power part of this is that transparency tends to engender trust among both allies and opponents. In fact, even when an opponent uses information against us that we’ve freely shared, the moral authority we gain by demonstrating trustworthiness can easily backfire on the opponent. There are numerous other positive examples of power that I had not recognized, some of which involve potentially manipulative elements. An example is letting issues “ripen” until others are drawn into taking initiative. The metaphor of forcing others to first play their cards captures what happens. I’ve often wanted to jump into a challenging issue, to problem-solve, and to bring others together to respond to a question. However, sometimes the timing is off – it’s too early and the issue has not ripened sufficiently for others to be willing to take their portion of the responsibility or initiative to resolve it. This particular issue is very difficult for “fix-it” leaders to tolerate because waiting for the ripening and for the first move by others can be excruciating.

The 48 laws of power are formulated within the philosophy of Nicolai Machiavelli, the famous Florentian who authored “The Prince” as a guide to courtier conduct. The advice offered by Machiavelli has stood the test of time and is one of the most noted and debated perspectives in leadership studies. Reading Greene’s interpretation and voluminous examples was disheartening in many ways. On the other hand, it surfaced dynamics that I know are part of our daily work in education, government, business, arts, and other arenas. My most important “take-away” is learning to choose the power strategy that has the greatest potential to be effective while maintaining my integrity, all the time recognizing the choices that others are making in support of, or in contrast to, the method I’ve chosen. A theme to which I’ve returned numerous times on my blog – it’s not about us but about dynamics and processes beyond us.