Friedman proposes that
a continuum or spectrum of leadership qualities exists in most institutions, be
they families, churches, or corporations. On one end of this spectrum is what
he terms the Charismatic and on the other end he terms Consensus. (noting that you
cannot force a person into any end of that spectrum, that any leader may at
times exhibit qualities across the spectrum). Following are some excerpts from
his book Generation to Generation, looking
at his understanding of the failings of extreme consensus models of leadership.
A counterpoint to the charisma
philosophy of leadership is consensus. The strategies at this end of the
leadership continuum, while designed to avoid the dilemmas of the opposite
extreme, often wind up with similar effects. The basic emphasis in the
consensus approach is on the will of the group. Consensus is prepared to wait
longer for “results,” being more concerned with the development of a cohesive
infrastructure. It tends to value peace over progress and personal relationships
(feelings) over ideas. It abhors polarization. In such a setting, the
individualism of a leader is more likely to create anxiety than reduce it.
Since the will of the group is supposed to develop out of its own personality,
rather than come down from the top, the function of the leader becomes more
that of a resource person or an “enabler.”
Some of the
basic problems with the consensus approach to leadership are as follows: (1)
The family led by consensus will tend to be less imaginative. The major
creative ideas of our species have tended to be come from individuals rather
than groups. Prophets are far more likely to hear “the call” in the wilderness.
The muse rarely strikes the artist in a crowd. The world’s most important
ideas, philosophical, religious, and scientific, have tended to come to people
in their own solitude. It is not that the consensus approach gives people less
time to be alone but, rather, that it discourages the initiative to be
solitary. (2) Leaderless groups are more easily panicked and the anxiety tends
to cascade. The circuit-breaker effect of self is missing in an
undifferentiated crowd. For all its advantages over autocracy, democracy can
have a more difficult time dealing with anxiety when there is no
self-differentiated individual who can say, “Here I stand!” (3)Emphasis on
consensus gives strength to the extremists. They can continue to push the
carrot of unity further out on the togetherness stick as the price of their
cooperation. In some absurd turnaround, when the main goal of a family is
consensus, they actually make it harder to achieve that goal because they put
themselves in the position of being blackmailed by those least willing to
cooperate. This is as true in marriage as in the vestry. (4) Consensus is no guarantee
against xenophobia or polarization. The paranoid dangers of emotional
interdependency enumerated in the charismatic approach are also present in
consensus approach. An emotional system led by consensus can become equally
cultic. Paradoxically, as a consensus-based approach to family leadership nears
its goal, the degree of emotional fusion that results is likely to create or
exacerbate the very problems its approach was designed to avoid.
Following, Friedman discusses some basic concepts and misinterpretations
of the idea of leadership self-differentiation. He uses these arguments to
counter the “false dichotomy” of the charisma-consensus spectrum.
The basic
concept of leadership through self-differentiation is this: If a leader will
take primary responsibility for his or her own position as “head” and work to
define his or her own goals and self, while staying
in touch with the rest of the organism, there is a more than reasonable
chance that the body will follow. There may be initial resistance but, if the
leader can stay in touch with the resisters, the body will usually go along.
This
emphasis on a leader’s self-differentiation is not to be confused with independence or some kind of selfish
individuality. On the contrary, we are talking here about the ability of a
leader to be a self while still remaining a part of the system. It is the most
difficult thing in the world in any family. And yet, when accomplished, the
process will convert the dependency that is the sources of most sabotage to the
leader’s favor instead.
There are
three distinct but interrelated components to leadership through
self-differentiation, keeping in mind that successful leadership means not only
moving a family toward its goals but also maximizing its functioning, as well
as the health and survival of both the family and its leader. First and
foremost, the leader must stay in touch. The concept is basically organic: For
any part of an organism to have a continuous or lasting effect, it obviously
must stay connected. This is not nearly as easy as it may seem. …It is far
easier for a head to remain attached if it is content to merge its “self” with
the body. Any leader can stay in touch if he or she does not try to stand out.
The trick…is to be able to differentiate self and still remain in touch despite
the body’s efforts to counter such differentiation.
The second
central component is the capacity and willingness of the leader to take non-reactive,
clearly conceived, and clearly defined positions. …The functioning of any
organism, often its survival, and certainly its evolution are directly
dependent on the capacity of its “head” to…define
self and continue to stay in touch. Note here, with regard to safeguarding
against sabotage, that the leader is not trying to define the followers, only
himself or herself. …It is their need for
a head that will move them.. As was said, it is hardly that simple.
Some may
regard this as manipulation or as acting unilaterally. But if leaders want
progress, in choosing between the poles of individuality and togetherness, they
had better err in the direction of the former, less they be the ones who are
manipulated. Some may think this borders on narcissism, but those who cannot
distinguish self-differentiation from narcissism have no comprehension of the
dilemmas or the value of leadership. They have confused pathology with power
and the healing potential of properly self-conceived power. When spiritual
leaders must defend time-hallowed traditions from the onslaught of contemporary
backsliding and erosion, all the while jeopardizing their jobs, health,
families, and resolve, it is time for a healthy infusion of what those who fear
such strength mistake for narcissism, or they are not very likely to survive.
But unilateralism is less likely to be narcissistic if the leader is also
taking care to remain connected. That is once again the difference between differentiation and “in-dependence.” It is independence or
autonomy, without staying in touch, that is most likely to end in divorce.
2 comments:
Thank you for realizing that church families cannot be run entirely by consensus! My favorite comment is we agree to disagree!
Thank you for your leadership and sweet spirit and I pray Gods spirit continues to grow in me, Barry, and our church!
Yes yes yes!
Post a Comment