5.3.6 Leadership And Power

I have a deep interest in the distribution of power, how, where and when it changes and how some people can own and take their power in a healthy and responsible manner and how some people don’t ever seem to have a felt sense of their own power but only feel powerful when they garner others’ approval and/or are given the power by virtue of their rank or station in society.

I’m not sure why it interests me – it just does!

But I do know that it was my interest in power and my observations about its use (or misuse) and how it affects our Focus Group that prompted me to include a full Chapter on Power and Control in Society.

And it is because of my commitment to sharing power when designing responses to the problems that are caused in society by the behaviour of some people who are alienated and marginalised that I include this short Sub-Chapter on power in the context of community leadership.

Shirley Ward, in her book Healing Birth – Healing Earth posits that power struggles are useful reflection for healing. And, as we saw in a post in the Chapter on Systems Theory, humans are in continual state of conflict – and so power struggles are a reality in our lives. And they can either be destructive or, as Shirley suggests, opportunities for healing. Much of the responsibility for enabling healing is down to leadership – and this is particularly true if we are committed to sharing power.

I believe that everyone needs to have a power base (that is, a space and time that they feel powerful) and I also believe that people have an intuitive sense of where the limits of their power base lie. I believe that when children are playing, they are often experimenting with the level of power that they are comfortable with – and this has a role in determining the limits that they set for themselves as they grow up.

For example I might feel very powerful with the lads in the pub but I don’t feel at all powerful in my job even though I might be in a position of authority.  And this is far more a felt sense, i.e. intuitive sense, (feeling powerful) than a cognitive understanding of my role.

Some people are at ease with power.  For example if promotion (at work) comes it is embraced with enthusiasm and others who were formerly peers but are now juniors are treated with respect and appreciation.

And for some (as we say) power goes to their head. (And this is an interesting expression indeed – in respect of what I wrote about the importance of emotions – the heart – in leadership and feeling powerful).

In other words, other people notice that they change when they get a sniff of power – and usually for the worse.

Power and what it means to us is important in community leadership and this Sub-Chapter are some of my thoughts on it.

It is obvious from even a cursory knowledge of history that since time immemorial and in every society in the world, people have yearned to be led by someone that they perceive to be more powerful than themselves.

Religion, for example, is a manifestation of our need to be led in shaping our values and norms.  God is all powerful (in all religions that I know of anyway) and he is the ultimate arbiter of our lives.  His representatives on earth (priests in the Catholic faith) traditionally have a substantial amount of power which we afford them so that they can lead us in matters to do with God’s message to us as how we should live our lives.

At the bottom of the post where I discuss how societies evolve I mention that many kings and emperors told their subjects that they had similar status as God, or were chosen by, or had some special relationship with God.  And people accepted it.  This, of course, is an extreme and unhealthy example of manipulation by powerful people of our need to be led.

Our need to be led starts when we are children – leadership offers us security.

Our parents, teachers, leaders in youth clubs, managers in sports teams etc. all offer us leadership.  They look after our interests, give us direction when we need it, as well as annoy us from time to time. 

Perhaps, (as I described in the table in the Chapter on Energy on how we are conditioned to accept myths) the leadership we receive may be controlling and/or lacking in integrity, but our need to be led appears to be greater than our need to be true to ourselves – so believing the myths allows us to hang in there, have a relationship with our leader – and feel secure – regardless.

(At the end of the post about how we are conditioned to accept myth – link a few lines above – I mentioned how, when I challenged certain myths, I felt temporarily insecure; particularly in my relationships).

Our acceptance of others’ power (and leadership and then authority) seems to be part of belonging to the human family, and those who do not accept the need-to-be-led are often deemed to be eccentrics, or mavericks, and are often marginalised and side-lined in society.

Now I generally promote the benefits of self-organisation in groups of humans that set out to do things (and to effect change) but that doesn’t mean that such groups are leaderless!

Rather, the mixture of individual and collective responsibility that is part and parcel of self-organisation actually increases the challenge for leadership [1].  In self-organisation it may appear that no-one is wielding the traditional type of power that we associate with leadership – and self-organisation can sometimes be too close to chaos for most people’s comfort.

If we want something to happen, or indeed something to change, we need good leadership.  Very often in organisations, rigidity, the opposite of the flexibility that is inherent in self-organisation, is needed to hold everything together and make things function because the people at the top have no confidence in (and/or have low expectations of) leaders at different levels of the organisation. Rigidity, generally, makes for bad leadership.

This is observed in dictatorships where a leader wields a lot of power and imposes rigid rules, which in turn provide security for the majority of a population, even though in doing it he has to suppress a minority of dissenters who won’t accept his authority. (In fact, thinking about dictators, generally speaking, if there’s a surge in support for some regime – or some individual – that we don’t want it’s probably because of lack of leadership in the regime that we do want).

But because of our desperate need to be led, bad leadership is better than no leadership at all.

When the dictator gets weak, or goes altogether (as happened in some countries in the social-media driven Arab Spring which initially promised so much and which, it was claimed – with some evidence – was manipulated by more powerful countries that had interests in the Middle East), disorder and confusion often follows.

The disorder happens because too many entities that are trying to seize power rush in, too quickly, to fill the power vacuum that society, like nature, abhors.

However, a critical mass of the population does not perceive, (or recognise) any of the entities to be legitimate in respect of leading them – so no leadership ensues – a recipe for disaster – and that’s another word that I don’t use lightly!

[1]. I visited a Greenpeace ship when it visited Limerick some years ago. One of the reasons why I visited was to chat with crew members on how the ship functioned.  Navies (including the Merchant Navy) are noted for fairly harsh regimes – the rationale being that when out at sea all manner of emergencies are likely to occur and the harsh regime is necessary to ensure that everyone does exactly what they are told, and quickly.  The Greenpeace ship was crewed by an international group of men and women and after a bit of hanging around I got to speak with the Captain.  I asked him about the regime on board and to all accounts it seemed quite relaxed and yet up to speed on everything to do with safety of life at sea etc.  I came to the conclusion that it could be relatively relaxed because every person on board wanted to be there, whereas many sailors in the Merchant Navy, (while probably having some hankering to go to sea at some stage in their lives) had totally different expectations and experienced (and were willing to accept) coercive leadership.  Also I imagine that the class difference between officers and sailors in the Navy wouldn’t encourage the co-operation and togetherness that was evident on the Greenpeace ship.

(If anyone reading this has served on a Greenpeace ship – or similar – I’d like to hear your views to see if they are the same as the Captain’s)!

Yes, we need to be led, and we might as well accept it.

I believe that those who enjoy being in power, and put themselves forward for leadership positions in society, always possess an element of narcissism. Some have healthy narcissisism but many, unfortunately, have the unhealthy, and particularly the grandiose type.

The proportion of leaders-with-integrity is (probably) representative of the proportion of people-with-integrity in any society. That is, the quality of leaders, in general, reflects the norms of the society from which they spring. This is particularly true in a democracy, where we choose our leaders.

Do we think about this when we criticise politicians?

And perhaps grandiose narcissists can become powerful because there are not enough leaders with integrity in their countries to challenge them on their way up, as they operate with a very fast processing speed, dazzling followers with their bright light, and by force of numbers and personality intimidate those who might have reservations about their suitability.

Let us look again at the hard and easy problems I spoke about in the Chapter on Modalities, particularly in respect of the Pillars.

It is surely a hard problem to eradicate poverty and famine, or stop all wars in the world.

But poverty, war and famine are a function of collective human choices.  Each one of us, (well, I am sure, the vast majority of us) would, if faced with the situation in our own kitchen, use any power we have at our disposal to save the life of a starving child, rather than allow him die.

But in a group something else happens.

Collectively, it would appear that we are, kind of, intimidated by power and we follow leaders blindly rather than choose for ourselves.  Apart from the distance in space, (which is always influential) I propose that a significant factor in our collective indifference to, say, children starving to death in a far-away country, is our need to be led.

We cling to (and endure) the bad leadership that we observe in both national and international, political and corporate spheres which, we know deep down, is a causative factor in children starving to death, because, as I stated already, it is better than no leadership at all, and the disorder and confusion that would ensue from that.

And we do not feel that we have any power to change it – because all the power resides with the leaders that (mostly) we have chosen to lead us.

For example, in our own country, if a critical mass of people forced those that we have voted into powerful positions to make different choices then we wouldn’t have homeless people dying on the street or children going to bed hungry.

Sometimes I think that the choices that our leaders make for our society are like parents deciding that one of their children will go without food while they splash out a fortune on a Renoir for another child because that child has a love of art.  Now I know it’s a bit more complex because of what I might call societal variables (for example people’s ability or willingness to be responsible for their own situation, chaotic or unexpected events in people’s lives, the dynamics at play in large groups of people etc.), but that’s what it feels like to me.

Obviously the hungry child will get very angry and will either turn the anger inward, convincing himself that he is worthless, and stay hidden and fade away from sight, perhaps even harm himself to get attention, or else might resort to nasty or even violent behaviour that is unacceptable to the family to get what he feels is rightfully his, or perhaps do both – that is, strike out and turn anger inward at the same time. 

However he reacts, it is most probable that his actions will be responded to in a punitive manner, or at best in a manner where he feels completely misunderstood.

Now the point in all this is that it is analogous to the so-called disadvantaged estate, which has to do the same as the neglected child in order to get attention. (I mentioned this in the description of the Focus Group earlier).

Or, indeed, a nation or ethnic group that is denied the right of self-determination that we all take for granted and is neglected by the self-styled world leaders, which has to strike out in desperation to be noticed.

With leadership comes power, and with power comes responsibility.

What about love? What role does love have to play in the leadership, power and responsibility triangle? (And remember love, in this context, means genuine care, nurture and passion as described in this post). If you have not read it – it might be helpful to read it now.

I have observed that in many organisations that support our Focus Group, when it comes to power, the balance between fear and love leans far too heavily towards fear.  (There are so many reasons for this that it probably requires a separate book).

In cracking the community leadership code I believe that if we, as leaders, have the courage to replace fear with love we will reframe our perspective on both.  This is because of the power of love.

The power of fear is woven into all elements of society from our first day at school and it filters down to the most vulnerable to increase their (already often high) anxiety. Consider, for example, the challenge of boundaries in organisations. Which is better – encouraging people to do the right thing or making them afraid to do the wrong thing?

I believe that creating an atmosphere where the power of love can thrive will mean that we can begin to make it safe for everyone to talk about boundaries, and recognise that a boundary should above all be based on common sense, and does not always have to be imposed through fear.

Usually, a sanction that is imposed through genuine engagement and love is not really an event that raises anxiety beyond a level that is harmful.

Good enough parents and good enough teachers do it all the time. The more love that those who are being led perceive, (or experience), the better chance that they will accept that the person who has authority, and who is responsible in his use of power has a right to impose the boundary.

This is because the boundary-setter and the boundary-receiver are in relationship – one of our root foundations.

Of course, I can be oppositional for a variety of reasons – it could be because of my own need to dominate or even just get attention.

However, if I am a reasonable worker I will generally accept the power differences that are part and parcel of all community organisations. This is particularly true if I feel a relationship with the person in authority and a sense of belonging in the organisation itself.  The reasons are that 1): I appreciate and need leadership, and 2): in our culture there is an almost natural order of power where whoever gets to be the boss is in charge.

But if I am a leader that wields power irresponsibly, and/or asks people to take on responsibilities without giving them power, there is a far greater chance that workers will be oppositional, or cynical, and have low morale.

And I find that both go hand-in-hand.  That is, if we use power wisely, respectfully and responsibly we are more likely to give people the resources (that is, the power) they need to carry out their responsibilities effectively.

Continuing our discussion on our power as leaders, I believe that it is important to get an appropriate sense of our own importance.

I want to spend a little time exploring this because leaders have the power to change things.

Of course, like all workers, leaders, etc. we are important and we hope to make a significant difference in whatever we are doing. However at another level, we are people who are, (as I stated already), driving a car for a particular segment of a journey and in due course, when we are finished driving, someone else will take the wheel.  And the interesting (and sometimes frustrating) thing about this journey is that we may never really perceive ourselves getting to our destination.

I find this analogy helpful as it assists me in knowing my place and having an appropriate sense of my own position, my importance, and even the extent of my indispensability.  I strongly believe that good enough leadership in any community is about having an awareness of these factors.  This might not be true for leadership in other spheres e.g. political, business even sporting etc. but is crucial in our community of families affected by imprisonment.

For example, in many statutory agencies, people are behind the wheel for a very short time – they know that this is a feature of their working lives so they will moderate their expectations accordingly.  And that is perfectly fine.

But in the community sector we may be driving for a much longer time.  This means that we can get carried away a little!  Perhaps we may unwittingly become complacent, take things for granted, and think we are a little more important than we are.  And if we do this we might think that our way is the only way – whereas it is not.

I will expand on this point by, once again, referring to processing speed.

What is considered to be a desirable course of action [1] is something that we should be prepared to wait for if it eludes us at the first, the second or even the third attempt.  Remembering our propagation from the Chapter on Systems Theory, it might take a while for the good idea (that I think I have) to filter through the organisation – and if it doesn’t propagate it probably isn’t a good idea anyway…..

But let us say that it is a good idea, and we are anxious to go with it.

Now when we consider our good idea in respect of processing speed (and accepting that leadership is about change), I believe that slow change is better than no change.  And fast change almost inevitably results in reassertion of old patterns that have endured for a long time, resulting in the more things change the more they stay the same type change (which I am sure you are fed up reading now), that is, no real change.

Furthermore, we need to honestly ask ourselves does fast change arise from our desire that the changes we want will happen on our watch and we will both feel good about it inside and/or (wince) get the credit for it?

My hunch is that it is far better to let go of the desired destination (at least temporarily) and focus instead on the journey to the destination.  By doing this we will have a much better chance of effecting real and sustainable change, and encourage others (the sceptical believers) to do the same.

Fast processing inevitably means that we will attract followers who are fast processors too, but crucially may not attract the people who matter most – people who have struggled alone for years, decades if not generations, whose hopes have been risen and dashed and risen and dashed again, who have been largely ignored by the Pillars, who have all but given up hope that anything will ever change, but whose involvement optimises the sustainability of change.

[1]. Perhaps I have a strong feeling that something will be of value (maybe I’ve looked into my heart)!