5.3.7 Leadership And Control

In the previous Sub-Chapter we discussed power and it is a word that is often associated with control.  Indeed in another part of the blog I join the two words in the title of a Chapter.

But they are different in the sense that in order to have control I first need to have the power to exercise the control.  Sometimes this power is honest and life-affirming, and I, the leader with the power, exercise control in a manner which has the mission of the organisation, or whatever I am leading, at its heart.

Other forms of exercising control are dishonest, manipulative divide and conquer, win at all costs or even bullying and arise from what I referred to as disingenuous room values.

Obviously it is the former type that we are aiming for in our work as community leaders.

(As an aside, this is equally true if we consider the organisation to be the family, and the parents are the leaders, i.e. the ones in control.  The mission of the family might be to rear happy, contented children who will have the skills to deal with the ups and downs of life as well-adjusted adults, and make a positive contribution to their family, community and society at large).

What certainty and uncertainty mean to us has been explored in previous Chapters, e.g. second half of this post.

In the Chapter on Anthropology I mentioned that there is evidence to show that many thousands of years ago, when our food supplies became more certain, (by planting, harvesting and keeping cattle etc. rather than depending on hunting and gathering), we actually became more insecure.

From the point of view of being in control, I find this fascinating, and perhaps it is because when we plant, harvest, keep cattle etc. we need to plan.  If we are living day-by-day hunting and gathering we don’t really have to plan that much.  We can live more or less in the present – in the now, if you like.

(And, as another aside, there is a link here to what is complicated and what is complex. Farming is far more complicated than hunting and gathering, but less complex. And one way of controlling something is to make it complicated, or difficult to understand; beyond the reach of people who are not educated in the particular skills required for the task).

When we start planning, control almost always becomes necessary!

Part of the reason for this is that – depending, I suppose, on how much is at stake – we begin to experience fear.  What if our plan doesn’t work out?  Not only will we have lost materially (and in the case of early farmers – we may not have enough food for ourselves and our families) but also, our ego will be bruised.

Foe example I almost always get anxious before an event.  I also get anxious travelling somewhere on a train or bus and it is running late.  (I’m not in control; I can’t make the driver go faster).  I also get anxious in a lift – another scenario where I am not in control – as I would be on a stairs.

I could go on about this a bit, giving different examples, but I want to use my anxiety before an event as an example because firstly it is linked to planning, and also I feel that this anxiety is linked to how I perceive my role as a leader.

It is particularly true if it’s an event where either I have to perform some duty (if I’m in charge of it, if I have to make a speech, give a talk etc.) or if a lot is depending on it.  I can feel my need to control clicking in and this, I’m almost certain, is directly related to my ego – and how I will feel if everything doesn’t go to plan.

For leadership, anxiety about not being in control has certain implications.

It certainly raises the bar, leadership-wise, if people who are being led (the sceptical believers) feel secure.  The reason for this is that they will probably be able to think for themselves, be assertive about their needs, be able to sustain good relationships with each other, want, within their own area of work, to have a leadership role themselves, and (relevant to this post) be more challenging to control.

(The word control has such negative connotations that I feel a need to say again that I am talking about control in the most positive and encouraging way).

Dysfunctional leadership control tricks like manipulation, comparing, complicating everything, using fear tactics, setting one up against the other etc. are well-nigh impossible with people who feel secure. 

The control that I need to exercise (because, yes, as the responsible leader I will need to be in control) will be based on trust, relationship, collaboration, sharing power, respect, democratic decision making, integrity, and the one that is common to all of them, genuine encounter.

Allowing people the space and time to dissent – and be assertive as to why they are dissenting – is far more challenging in the fluid uncertain world of the community than the certain environment of technology.  The pay-off, however, is a far richer and deeper sense of belonging and togetherness than the sterile world of the distant manipulative leader.

But we have to be up for it!

There is a particular challenge for organisations that are committed to including people who have, or whose family members have been involved in crime and imprisonment and everything that it brings to families – as I have described in the posts on both the Focus Group and the characteristics of same.

It is well documented in much research into trauma that if we have suffered a lot of abuse, and the trauma that we have experienced remains unresolved, we may be fearful (or even panicky) when not in control.  Furthermore, if unresolved trauma is triggered in us while we are helping another traumatised person we risk getting sucked into the trauma ourselves.

This means that we may not be aware of the impact of our unconscious process, and worse still, we may not be aware that we are not aware!  Most practitioners (and I include myself) would agree that such a situation is actually unsafe for those who are helping, as well as those who are seeking help.

Now, as an aside, I need to stress that if we are practitioners with loads of formal education we may also be obsessed with being in control, and not be aware of our needs in this respect. (Indeed we might be, unbeknownst to ourselves, carrying a lot of trauma). 

However this post is aimed at enthusiastic people in the Focus Group who want to help others.

It is a real tragedy if bad leadership results in enthusiasm being stifled and, as a result, people with loads to offer drifting away.  Understanding and encouragement is what is needed from leaders, not criticism, subtle sidelining and further marginalisation in respect of trauma that may be present.

So it is important that we reflect on this a little and do our best to get it right!

I believe that if we have suffered trauma, and are working through it, while being, perhaps, very insightful, intelligent, sharp and perceptive, we need to undertake a significant amount of growth and development to acquire a healthy approach to being in control.

We may like being in charge (which is great) but we may struggle with the skills of leadership and in particular control skills.

Almost certainly, we will need to learn how to know the difference between healthy control (to transform an idea into action, or to maintain safety, or to be effective when we are in charge of something), and the unhealthy need to control that actually arises from the fear of not being in control which may, in turn, (as I said above) have arisen from experiences of trauma in our childhood.

I propose that this learning/encouragement is, in turn, a control challenge for the leader.

I previously stated, and repeat here now, that it is the leader’s responsibility to maintain control in the fluid, uncertain, self-organising world of community work.

How do I, the leader, do this without marginalising people who are in the process of learning about healthy and unhealthy control themselves?  After all, they might have never allowed anyone to control them, whereas the well-educated practitioner is well used to being controlled.

(I know, I know, this is a bit tongue in cheek.  But a practitioner in any field who is successful will have learned the skills to know their place – that is, in a best-case scenario, to respect legitimate authority and do what they are instructed to do in a cooperative and generous-spirited manner).

I believe that one of the best ways of encouraging people to become aware of the difference between healthy and unhealthy control (and remembering that some may have been very hurt in life) is, within the boundaries of safety and protection, allow space to explore it for themselves. 

Far too often, when we, the formally educated leaders, get a little whiff of controlling behaviour in an idea or a proposed course of action we go either into fear mode (I am imagining a dreadful outcome here), superior mode (I know better here) or processing speed mode (if I go along with this it will hold up what I’m trying to get done) and dismiss it altogether or else gently guide the proposer away from it.

I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with this, because it is always a difficult dilemma.

For example, in the Chapter on Trauma and Related Topics I mentioned how trauma seeps into workplaces and the first reaction of leadership is often to halt it in its tracks, fearful of it getting out of control.

However, I will state that in a choice between 1): empowering someone to come to a decision themselves and trusting them to learn from it, or 2): dismissing a suggestion before it is even discussed, unless there are major safety implications, I’ll always go for the empowering action.

And the people who drift away are often the very ones that we want to have in our organisation so that our efforts can truly be a synergy of the direct experience of the lives of enthusiastic people in our Focus Group and the professional boundaries that are needed for safety, ongoing health and good work.

On a final note on this subject, I have observed many community people drifting away when they experience leaders abusing their power, behaving in a patronising or condescending way, or paying lip service to sharing power.

As much as possible, I try and recognise and increase the potential in people to help each other, and de-professionalise helping as much as possible.  But it is substantial challenge to manage this in practice – particularly when it comes to the area of control. 

Imagine if all decisions were made by robots!

Robots would make decisions based solely on logic and be free of all the prejudices that our emotions bring.  Yet a robot would miss out on the nuances that enrich our lives even though such nuances often cause us a lot of problems.

If I am a leader that is in control of an organisation tasked to support families in our Focus Group I need to be a bit of both, i.e. rational in decision making, and be aware of all the subtle nuances of my decision.  I propose that I must feel part of the decision (and the consequences of the decision) as well as delivering it objectively.

There is an old saying that when making and implementing decisions, managers say do that but leaders are more inclined to say let’s do this. When I consider decision making in this context I once again think of the processing speed which I mentioned already. 

Let’s do this implies a slower processing speed and the ‘if we want to travel far – travel together’ saying that I referred to towards the end of this post.

Now sometimes, when exercising control, decisions have to be made quickly – and it is not necessary that everyone in the organisation knows about them or is consulted on them.  This is a perfectly valid organisational stance and is done for safety for all, respect for others and confidentiality as much as anything else. 

However, when the quick decision hand is overplayed it is usually done to exclude, or maintain control where there is no need, really, to maintain it.  Most issues in organisations can be thrashed out and then decided on collectively, and in that way staff will have a feeling of both being in control of their destiny and a greater sense of belonging through being consulted.

Many HR problems that I have had as a leader arose because I (often inadvertently – in fairness to me) left people out of decision making when it would have been beneficial to include them.  (And as I said elsewhere, the best lessons are learned the hard way).

It’s amazing that when we have to make difficult decisions that reality is sometimes, maybe not thrown out the window, but at least distorted.

When including people, it is inevitable that there will be decisions to be made that will need to be negotiated. This is particularly true if our decision involves change.  This could be selling an idea to someone, imposing a new routine or work practice, making changes to our ethos, or similar changes.

Now we mightn’t be making any money out of the idea we are selling or the changes that we desire, it might be just our baby; and that little expression is very appropriate because the feeling that we have towards our baby is always very powerful, protective, and special.

Such people, i.e. people who are so enthusiastic about their own way of doing things, or are interested in their own ventures or projects to the exclusion of other people’s interests and concerns, might be good leaders in the getting-things-done department but will usually struggle in the invitational leadership area.

And invitation is very important in our situation because I can almost guarantee that no matter how good, sensible, practicable or necessary an idea seems to the originator there will always be voices that will oppose it!

I always respect those voices because I’m curious about dissent (and, indeed, subversion) and what meaning they have in the decision making process in organisations.

And my respect also comes from my general distrust of obedience or uniformity. I’m just not sure what they have to offer the world in general – and in particular those who disagree with the mainstream way of doing things.

When I was a boy I remember a little prayer book that I had which was full of do’s and don’ts and the general thrust of the book was that obedience was a virtue that all good-living people should have.

But, as I reminded readers in a post in the Sub-Chapter on Narcissism, most of the cruelest deeds that the world has ever known have come about as a result of leaders insisting on non-questioning, almost robotic, obedience!

I have mentioned that this work has a substantial cultural dimension, and I believe that in Ireland we tend towards a culture of disobedience and non-conformity.

Even though (or maybe because) we were controlled by firstly the English and then the Catholic Church for many centuries, there was always an undercurrent of mutiny, dislike of rules and regulations, and suspicion of over-control that exists to this day.

I also believe that this tendency to be a little bit rebellious is good when it comes to creative pursuits, which means that we punch above our weight – as is sometimes said – in areas like art, writing and music.

I have devoted an entire Chapter on the necessity to be creative in supporting vulnerable families.  I believe when we are in control and, as we stated above, we are inviting people to believe in our vision, it is very healthy to listen to the diverse view.

Having a diverse view is culturally close to us as a people – so it must be of value.

Also, if we are leading an organisation that aims to do things that are non-mainstream, and think outside the box, it is of benefit to enable a non-conformist tendency in the people who chose to be sceptical believers and take a risk in choosing to be involved with us.  And it is also good for morale to listen to an opposing view, even if the view is based more on a kind of natural rebelliousness than logic!

I have had many experiences where I was alerted to new ways of doing things by way of a rebellious streak in others which in turn caused me to modify a decision I’d made.

In my experience, an atmosphere of trust and dialogue built up in a team over time will ensure that common sense will prevail in the long haul.

If there is high morale and openness to dialogue in a group it will filter down to families being helped.  It might be good to remind ourselves here that in such an atmosphere, if I am in distress, I will probably be positively affected with no formal type therapeutic intervention at all, because I will feel that I have control over the terms by which decisions about me are made.

Good enough decision making in community leadership involves learning from the conflict that dissent, disobedience and rebelliousness brings, not running away from it.  It involves encouraging people to park unresolvable interpersonal and/or team issues and forgive both themselves and others who are not perfect – and all this starts with the leader.

When it comes to decision making (and I will revisit this in the next Sub-Chapter on Reflection), I believe that one of the most harmful things in community leadership is shallow thinking.

This is something that is very seductive because (as we saw in the Chapter on Power and Control) it is promoted by the corporate world that is so influential in our lives.

Community leaders need to have the courage and patience to think things through fully.  We need to slow things down and seek advice if we are unsure.  We need to include those who are non-conformist, and who we feel might have alternative views and check them out.

Decisions made on the basis of shallow thinking can be driven by our desire for a quick-fix solution, or in some cases even a desire to make a name for ourselves! 

Leadership is necessary to effect good work in family support, or any work that aims to help vulnerable people in our Focus Group.

Decisions we make (and take responsibility for) will bring either success or failure.

We need to be courageous enough to take responsibility for failure – use it as a learning experience, apologise if that is necessary, and move on.

We can take credit for success, and then have humility in our success.

Success and failure are as much a result of the atmosphere in an organisation that is created over many years in countless incidents big and small, as a once-off decision that might have a good or bad outcome.

And the leader is responsible for creating that atmosphere!