On the Word Leadership

Leadership

On the Word Leadership

Several years ago I attended a graduation ceremony at Bowdoin college, my alma mater. One of my long-time martial arts students was graduating in turn, and I was there to cheer her on. Late May in Maine is absolutely lovely, and it was wonderful to be back again. The ceremony was moving and inspiring, and it was really incredible to see my former student come of age.

Barry Mills was the President of the College at that time, and he rose to speak at the appointed time in the ceremony. Professor Mills was everything you wanted to see in a college president: a successful academic before going into law, dynamic, a great fund raiser and politically astute. He oversaw positive changes in both the curriculum and campus and was genuinely fun and interesting.

His speech made me curious. I don’t remember how long he spoke for, but it was long enough for me to notice that he said the words “leader” and “leadership” so often that I began counting. I left off at eighteen before someone I was standing with asked me if I was so-and-so. I wasn’t. I’m guessing that the count would have been somewhere between thirty and forty times.

Here’s an exercise to try. Pick a two or three syllable word and say it over and over for one minute. You may notice that you lose track of what the word means, and it turns into a simple catenation of sound. The word loses meaning.

I thought about that speech as I drove home, and for weeks afterward. What about his audience or society in general made him think he needed to stress those words so emphatically, and so often? Please understand, it may have been a bit over written, a bit forced, but Professor Mills is a pro, and it was a pro speech. I’m not interested in critiquing Prof. Mills; I am interested in understanding our obsession with the concept he felt compelled to overemphasize. I didn’t know it at the time, but an article published in the Atlantic that same year asked the same question.

It’s a question I continue to ponder. Why do we discuss leadership as often as we do, the way we do? We spend far less time talking about ethics, freedom, teamwork, cooperation, generosity. We revere leaders and leadership, but there’s a lot more to a great society than great leaders.

I have my theories, here’s two. Call the first one the “Culture of Leaders” model. America has traditionally been a great place for self-starters, folks who take the initiative in their lives and are willing to take risks. That puts them out in front, so they become leaders almost by default. Self-starters prefer the company of other self- starters, and look to bring them into their organizations, businesses, etc., and incentive them to succeed. In this model, even people who are not inherently “leaderly” learn how to work in a leader-based system. Leader based organizations are more resilient and adaptive and unlock more of each person’s potential. It’s one of the reasons America bounced back from the pandemic faster than other large economies. Remember when China’s centrally organized society was going to eat our lunch in every way? Not so much.

On the other hand, one possible antithesis: that we also have a “Winner Take All” aspect of our culture, which is ascendant right now. People are either leaders or clay for the leader to sculpt. Creatives, introspects, pure scholastics, artisans, etc., are viewed as secondary at best unless they have leveraged their skills and transcended the limits of their craft. Collaboration or partnership is deemphasized. Let’s call that the “Glenngary Glen Ross” theory of leadership; a new car for the person who comes in first, a consolation prize for the next person, and everyone else is shown the door. Perhaps it’s one of the reasons we’ve seen a decline in professional partnership firms in law, engineering and medicine in favor of huge conglomerates. Doctors, formerly revered, are now the new worker bees.

So, how might these two theories have impacted that beautiful day on the Bowdoin Quadrangle? I think both are at work at the same time. On the one hand, Bowdoin graduates are leaving the classrooms and libraries of the college ready to lead the businesses and institutions of our society. On the other hand, they don’t have a lot of choice. Leadership is the only real path to the higher echelons of success, so they better get out there and crush it, because 2nd place doesn’t exist the way it used to.

Is there a way to thread this needle? My gut says that Values are going to play a significant role. I’m gathering the data and will keep you posted.

What do we love about the idea of the powerful leader? When everything is changing, what do they offer? When everything is changing, what opportunities are there to take advantage of ?