The Context
We are a very ambivalent culture when it comes to leadership and it is an ambivalence that runs deep. We desire and distrust it, and have so narrowly defined it that there is little room left for imaginative thinking or letting in of new ideas that might change people or institutions in any substantial way. The prevailing perception of leadership as the person “at the top” or ahead of everyone else is such a constricting view. It elevates leaders to a rarefied status where they see little and hear less of what is really going on.
Those who hold this perception help to debilitate the leader and become numb to their own capacities to think creatively or independently. These unacknowledged parts form shadow, limiting the view of the whole, and making it difficult to bring the full strength of organizational or individual gifts to bear. Over time, the shadow builds, produces organizational drag, encumbering the forces that are necessary to healthy, whole development, and leading to varying forms of psychological and spiritual disorder. We are beginning to see constructive remedies to these disorders in the efforts to restructure organizations, in the growing search for meaning, and in an increasingly public seeking of spirituality. But the hardest thing we still have to do is to embrace the shadow side or archetype of leadership that only acknowledges the leader as the high-placed decisive “doer.” In this archetype, leadership emphasizes action not reflection, fact rather than myth, solutions not definitions of problems, answers instead of questions, certainty not ambiguity. What is missing are the more invisible aspects and behaviors of leadership. Behavior that is not visible is perceived as inaction and is met with disparaging comments about the ability of the leaders. A belief in leadership that comprehends the conscious and unconscious realms of our being and connects them to who we are and what we do naturally leads to a different way of teaching –– a teaching with and of depth. “Why won't he/she do something?,” those in waiting plaintively wail. The lack of immediate, visible activity from the leader is viewed as weakness, inciting anger, grief, and scape-goating. It is almost impossible for those who see only the visibly active, all knowing archetypal image of leadership to understand the tremendous potential in recovering the lost parts –– the parts where the capacity to engage in thoughtful introspection and reflection reside. When these aspects of leadership are integrated, they increase the leader's capacity to provide the hospitable space Parker Palmer practices, or to engage in the adaptive work Ron Heifetz writes of, in which those with the problem own it and assume responsibility for working on it.
Case Example
Several months ago I visited with and observed such a leader whose deft handling of conflictual situations inspired both praise and fury, neither of which he would allow to divert him from the work to be done. He would not act precipitously; he quietly listened not with the intent of having a solution by the end of a meeting, but rather to have a fuller understanding of what the problem really was. He did not wither under attacks nor gloat about his triumphs, and with a graceful skill and enormous patience eventually got people together who had sworn to never speak to one another.
At first his leadership bewildered even his advocates, and the lack of tangible action during early stages of dialogue gave rise to a false impression that he would do nothing. Both friends and strangers initially viewed the “silent space” as a wasteland. As significant changes in the quality of their conversations began to occur, they began to see the value of this style. The so-called inaction was an empowering catalyst for significant change because it was done with consciousness and a depth understanding of the parties involved, their problems, and the boundaries of responsibility in addressing them. This is an example of an individual who understands the moral nature and purposes of leadership, and who exhibits the capacity, compassion, and courage to practice a new form of leadership not publicly sanctioned or acclaimed. This example strongly challenges the contemporary understanding of what leadership is.
Our view of leadership is deep and whole –– an integration of the inner and outer life, a connection between being and doing. The inner being of leadership has been long buried in the shadow of our psyches and its recovery is necessary to a healthier practice of leadership. Efforts to recover these lost parts will help us to again recognize the existence and value of the non-rational, to recognize our interrelatedness to and responsibility for one another, and to better understand the place of soul and spirit in our lives and work.
Leadership Education With Depth
A belief in leadership that comprehends the conscious and unconscious realms of our being and connects them to who we are and what we do naturally leads to a different way of teaching –– a teaching with and of depth. A pedagogy of depth education is in alignment with the perception of leadership as both “being” and “doing.”
In leadership education with depth, information and knowledge remain important, and those who teach in this manner are compelled to periodically reexamine the content of what is being taught and to ensure its relevance and quality. But content, no matter how good it is, is insufficient in the formation of leadership. This is the most difficult message for educators of leaders to understand and apply. Millions of dollars and hours are spent annually on content but much less attention is given to how to engage people in the learning of content. Content is too often a product to be delivered –– disconnected from any larger philosophy or purpose beyond the immediate specific tasks the individual is expected to perform. Organizations may talk about leadership development, but their culture may use educational methodology that stifles it. When will we take seriously the importance of how we teach? While content remains “king,” process remains its devalued subject.
Many consultants and internal training professionals I've spoken with are reluctant to tell the truth to organizations about their “car wash” approach to leadership education. This approach runs people through an unalterable, predestined course that dispenses information in equal amounts, and aims for a goal of improved appearance but no change inside. The fear of telling the truth is understandable because it can have economic consequences, but not telling organizations the truth about such cosmetic approaches has consequences, too. Education for leadership is hard work and in order for individuals to risk engaging in it, they need clear messages that the culture will support it. Leaders who engage in depth education can help to create such cultures.
Moving Toward a Different Pedagogy
The development of leadership for our time requires the acquisition of both information and experience, and the provision of opportunities that will transform them into knowledge infused with wisdom. Knowledge must become an earned wisdom that opens the individual to an ongoing cycle of learning that only grows deeper through experience. Such knowledge shapes character and influences a way of seeing and being that is transformative.
Alfred Whitehead, who thought the whole aim of education was the production of “active wisdom” writes, “That knowledge which adds greatness to character is knowledge so handled as to transform every phase of immediate experience.” He foresaw the consequences of the kind of education that numbs its recipients by denying any relationship between what is taught and how it is taught. “Whatever interest attaches to your subject matter must be evoked here and now; whatever powers you are strengthening in the pupil must be exercised here and now; whatever possibilities of mental life your teaching should impart, must be exhibited here and now. That is the golden rule of education, and a very difficult rule to follow.” The “golden rule” of education values both content and process, intellect and experience. It calls forth a pedagogy that requires hospitable space, develops and uses methods and processes that evoke both imagination and insight, and encourages initiative and responsibility for learning. It evokes a way of teaching that sees the relevance and power of authentic teaching and experiential learning. This pedagogy does not squander the teachable moment by rigidly adhering to a predetermined design and structure, by separating doing from being, or by an incapacity to see the past and future in the present. A good philosophical framework is value-laden; it affects the way we perceive, the way we listen, the way we interpret and apply what we hear, and how we continue to learn. A philosophy of education serves as an important filter through which context can be examined and reality read, and when philosophy and practice are well integrated, their combination houses principles, which can be extracted and applied in the development of effective educational experiences.
Including the Learner
If philosophy and practice are essential to the development of good pedagogy, so are people. The participants in our workshops are catalysts and co-creators of the educational process. The needs, interests, concerns, life experiences, and responses of participants influence the dynamics and substance of learning in a group and can dramatically affect the development of a community of learning. Our beliefs about people in general and their capacities and expectations for learning need to be considered in the preparation for and practice of teaching leadership. Are they perceived as peers or subordinate? As being assertively engaged or passively detached? Are they perceived as basically the same or diverse and distinctive? How real are we able to let them be?
Putting it all Together
Combining all of these elements with skill is lifelong work. In leadership education with depth, one is constantly weaving together elements of philosophy and practice with people, and the resultant tapestry gives us a glimpse of the nimble artistry of the good teacher. Our services, resources, and programs are informed by context, content, philosophy, practice, knowledge, wisdom, and, of course, people. All have helped us to not be seduced into thinking there is one formula, once mastered, that will resolve all of the complexity and tensions encountered in this work. The most effective approaches to leadership education will not resort to the “car wash” philosophy or method and will be willing to engage the inner being. Leadership and education for leadership are such organic processes. We can offer the best materials we know of and prepare well, but we must remain wise enough to know there is always an element of the unknown in our work. When we have done all we can, we will be fortunate to enter into the mystery of teaching and learning.
Author: Katherine Tyler ScottFrom Leading Ideas, newsletter of Trustee Leadership Development (TLD). Used with permission of TLD.
Katherine Tyler Scott is a Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Ki ThoughtBridge and author of several publications on governance leadership.