The view is that of Edwin Friedman, an ordained Jewish rabbi and family therapist, As a founder of a Jewish congregation in Washington DC he was also an advisor to many other congregations, both Jewish and Christian. His penetrating and often humorous observations cuts through much of management and leadership jargon and he appears to preach what he practises.  A Failure of Nerve, Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix was originally published in 1997 and has been recently republished with commentary by some of his adherents.

Friedman observes that empathy is a surprisingly new word – not even appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary published in 1931.  Sympathy, on the other hand has a 450 year track record and compassion goes back to 1340. Friedman sees empathy as an example of the herding instinct that characterizes 20th century anxiety. He notes that saying this is probably going to have him immediately accused of heresy.

He notes that being caring and sympathetic is an essential component of leadership and at times is an appropriate response.  What he questions is whether feeling the pain of others at an intense level makes them more responsible or actually allows them to victimize the entire group.  His whole book is addressed to parents and presidents in a rather candid way of suggesting what our response has an effect no matter what the level.

Some of this rings true for me. I found that an entire board became overly involved in the pain of a new project in a way that ultimately affected both the continuing organization and the project in a negative way. The board as a whole was accused of being dysfunctional when one might have wondered whether all members were equally willing to take responsibility. Those who had more resources became the focus of giving by the other component. What happened is that those asking became better at taking. While everyone was willing to admit that the new project was immature, we seemed to fall into the trap of immaturity among the individuals including myself to focus on empathy rather than on responsibility.

And that would be Friedman’s prescription in such as situation. One can’t change others.  One can only take responsibility for one’s self.  As a leader one may then be accused of all kinds of things, including a lack of empathy. It is taking responsibility for the direction in which things are going that is the real role. Ultimately it is about personal integrity. Friedman calls this the non-anxious presence.  It means not being held hostage by those who do not support the over arching vision – and at the same time not checking out. but staying in touch.  More on this to come.

Probably the hardest thing for us to recognize is that we are not our roles.  I rather like Robert Fritz’s idea that roles are rather like vehicles.  You can ride a Land Rover to the woods; you can also drive a BMW into town. We have many roles,  some of them simultaneous.

We normally come to a new leadership role lacking some of the necessary capabilities. So the first task is to take some time and training to acquire the new skills that we need, as well as delegating what we can to those who possess the requisite skills and experience..

One of the hardest jobs for a leader is not to take things personally. Leaders almost automatically become substitute scapegoats or lightning rods for those dissatisfied with issues.  As Ed Friedman observes, “Expect sabotage”.  It takes ongoing skills to differentiate the self from the role. For that reason, we need alliances with supportive people both within and beyond our own organization.

The pressures of leadership require that we seek sanctuary – not only of time and place but in reflection. For most of us, that requires scheduling it as an activity and giving it as much importance as any other daily appointment or habit.

In the end, leadership brings pain and one has to expect that.  What also needs to be recognized is that it also brings the joy that comes from creating value and meaning.  That’s what makes leadership worthwhile.

First they are role models.  The combine two disparate characteristics at the same time – determination and humility. They have to believe in the integrity of the purpose and mission of the organization they lead, and give others a sense of hope and meaning.  To do this requires being a good listener. It also means being able to foster dialogue.  Good leaders avoid grandiosity – a real temptation when one is at the head of the pack.

Second they have to be fast learners – students as well as mentors.  And it’s not just the ability to recognize the brutal facts; one has also to confront them.  To understand the realities it’s not just enough to know the facts and figures and the processes. Leaders also have to have respect for human beings. Finally  have to be focused on the big picture and the future, while they allow others to focus on their areas of specialization.

Third, they have to avoid the temptation to think that it is all about their personal charisma.  Instead, leaders have to be trustees of community potential. This is extraordinarily demanding and the next post will suggest some  actions that will help them do that.

Remember all those wonderful software programs in the eighties that allowed one to design org charts. You don’t see as many of them these days, but the charts that they developed still hang around in our consciousness. It might be better to put the leader in the centre rather than at the top. I actually saw a chart like this as a model for an Arts Company in the nineties. A the centre was a split circle with the music director and general manager. Surrounding them in concentic circles were the core musiciams, the extras, the technical crews, the marketers – all with key tasks but with different roles and responsibilities. Arts projects are like that – highly specialized configurations of talent and skills brought together in appropriate roles and time trames with a focus on the creation. We are a long way from that in other worlds but the possibility is there.

Titles matter less, responsibilities more. Self-management is key. The suggestion is that it may matter more to manage up and across than down. Direct reports can come last if the others are management tasks are working well.So much depends on the people – the right people in the right seats.

Helping people to face reality may be the real task of leadership. And so often it means asking the right questions rather than having the right answers. In that regard, the reminder that “What you see is all there is” also comes to mind. So we have to have good research and honest advice. Both require hard work both in acquiring and receiving them

A major responsibility is not only to define the values but to be able to articulate them. An organization needs to become even more of what it is. It is easy on a day to day basis to become deeply mired in administrivia, but the leader always has to commit us to our highest purpose – one that always seems just beyond our reach. If the purpose and the principles are right, the rest will follow.

Cardinal Newman was not the best marketer of change. Fewer people all the time sing the words of his hymn, “Change and decay in all around I see”, but the link between change and decay has stuck – especially in the heads of those who were old enough to ever sing the words. But we don’t go backwards. Instead we have to focus on the impact of our actions for future generations and manage for the innovative and diverse world we now inhabit.

When we redefine change as creativity, some will respond positively. It is not enough to think that we can stop with making problems go away. We might have nothing left. and it is not so much what the vision is but what the vision does. We need to encourage tangible prototypes and build positive results that become stepping stones to the next stage.