In previous posts I have written about empathy and leadership (e.g. Spiritual Crisis is the World’s Greatest Problem Part 2 – Cultural Sensitivity and Empathy) but I would like to revisit it again through a frame of empathy. Civic mobilization requires that we understand and address the underlying problems that create social unrest and inequities. To not question the social frame of discourse leads to polarization that leads to slogans that push stereotyping and ultimately the erosion of community. We need organizing capacity around plurality that activates community empowerment such that we are all working together for common cause with a shared sense of identity. This would lead to regenerative communities instead of hyper-individualism that exists within the consumer paradigm. It may seem obvious, but I believe the glue that creates this regenerative capacity is empathy.
Leaders need EMPATHY and PERSPECTIVE. Yet, so many take on the label of leader and let their ego then direct their actions. A leader is more than simply being ‘in charge’ but someone who takes care of those ‘in their charge.’ People are talented or trained enough to do what they do and a good leader leaves them to do it while providing vision and direction (see previous post Manifesting a New Global Society while keeping our diverse global cultures 3 – Leadership). What we need are more leaders and not managers per se.
I’ve held several leadership positions in my life – whether I was a good or adequate lie in the thoughts of those who have ever been in my charge. I tend to have a ‘Laissez Faire’ approach to leadership. Overall, I would say my style worked, but we each have our own style of leadership. While there are basic principles of leadership it is important to recognize that styles that work tend to use more empathy than belligerence. I used the term director to describe how I have often led a team, since I direct an expected outcome and expect the people I ‘lead’ to do their tasks without me having to oversee what they do – I picked them because of their skills and so I trust them to do what I know they know how to do. Occasionally, I have had someone who took my Laissez Faire attitude as permission to think that they can run more than I directed them to run. The outcome was things happening that I had no knowledge about and that created unexpected problems for both myself and the program I was running. As such one of the great lessons in leadership for me was to set clear boundaries as to role expectations for those I was leading. When a person needed more direction and oversight I would teach or lead them in doing the required tasks until I was satisfied with their ability to work alone and then let them do so. I always strove to use empathy when I was a leader. This means that rather than treating someone as merely the sum of their abilities (e.g. as an employee) I treated them as a person who was a valuable cog in whatever machine metaphor you wish you use here. I showed concern for them as a human being and not as just the output of what they did. I remember being a neophyte myself, and being an empath, recall how I felt when I was learning to fit in as a trainee technician and then as a budding leader in various positions as my career progressed. Empathy means not expecting perfection but encouraging people to aim for it in themselves without making them feel as though they had to be perfect.
What is life? Is it conformity to a series of socially acceptable labels, or a celebration and expression of the uniqueness in every one of us? In my role as a spiritual life coach guide, I often ask my clients to visualize who the ideal person would be if they did not have to conform to labels pushed onto them by their conditioning. Viva la non-conformity – don’t just be another brick in the wall as Pink Floyd sang all those years ago! This begs the question: can we be a successful community if we are all non-conformist individuals?
(A nonconformist is someone who doesn’t conform to other people’s ideas of how things should be. Activists, artists, street performers, your wacky uncle Marvin — anyone who marches to the beat of a different drummer is a nonconformist. Wiki). I believe we can all be unique and still get on well by simply practicing empathy – it’s about playing as a team and not as individuals. Nothing hard to understand about that.
I am not a big sports team follower, never have been. I’ll watch soccer, football, baseball, cricket, basketball, rugby, whatever, but I just don’t personally need to follow it. I’d rather be out hiking, biking, climbing, etc. doing something personally – that’s just me. I remember when I lived in England, I would be in the hills all day and when in the pub that evening, my friends would often be glued to the pub TV, watching the soccer ‘Match of the Day’ while I stood near the bar enjoying the conversation of the wife’s and girlfriends. I’m rambling (pun intended). I remember talking to a friend about why England was always having such a hard time winning the World Soccer Cup even though they won it in 1966. I said I don’t follow sports per se, but the obvious is observable by anyone. It’s not that the English didn’t have any great players, but it all comes down to being a team of talented players rather than being a group of talented but egotistical players. In 1966, England was a great team, ever since I would say it has been just a group of individuals not working well with each other. At this point this is just my opinion in case I may be losing soccer friends.
OK, the point I was making in that last paragraph is that it is a fine line between individuals working as a team and individuals simply working together. Empathy helps people become a team. And good leaders build empathy within the group. Good teams are not necessarily hierarchical even though there may be an experiential hierarchy within the team (people who are experienced vs. newbies for example). Even in the military, there are good leaders who can get results, and then there are great leaders who empathically inspire to such an extent that the followers will go through the gates of hell with their leaders to achieve almost anything.
To wrap up, we need leaders not managers. I advocate for a mass movement through empowered individuals, not sheeple following a charismatic leader. However, Eric Hoffer points out in his book The True Believers: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, a revolutionary change of paradigm needs leaders that fall into 3 categories: ‘men of words’, ‘fanatics’, and ‘practical men of action.’ I would disregard the need for fanatics as they can be destructive (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, etc.) but the ‘People of Words’ to inspire, and empathic ‘Practical People of Action’ to direct passions for change are essential.
“There are, of course, rare leaders such as Lincoln, Gandhi, even F.D.R., Churchill, and Nehru. They do not hesitate to harness man’s hungers and fears to weld a following and make it zealous unto death in service of a holy cause; but unlike a Hitler, a Stalin, or even a Luther and a Calvin, they are not tempted to use the slime of frustrated souls as mortar in the building of a new world…. They know that no one can be honorable unless he honors mankind”. Eric Hoffer.
To Be Continued ……………….
0 Comments