Return of the Heroic Leaders?

Should we stop nurturing naïve fantasies of blissful “bottom up” societal revolutions, carried forth by a collective energy of compassionate and united global citizens? Has the time come for a revival of the “HEROIC” #LEADER?

1. Collective change starts with individual change

I was recently preparing our #LeadersforHumanity interview with Otto Scharmer and it just struck me that also in “Theory U” — ultimately — the only hope for organisational transformation lies in an “ethics of individuality” (the approach famously endorsed by Rudolf Steiner in his anthroposophical Philosophy of Freedom).

In fact, whilst #TheoryU proposes a “social technology” for societal liberation — based on the quality of consciousness of the so-called “social field” — ultimately, it seems, higher consciousness can only ever originate in individuals. In other words, if we wanted to catalyse wider societal #transformation, we would need to deliberately develop a certain amount of “better” individuals and seek to dynamically connect and scale them to generate “plural sector” power (as Henry Mintzberg suggests in “Rebalancing Society”). Research helpfully indicates that in any given system 5–20% of early adopters might suffice to generate wholesale change…

2. Organisational change is embedded in an existing social field

However, as Mats Alvesson shows: change in organisations is not a “package” that simply gets cascaded top down (or pushed upwards), but rather a torch that is re-ignited at every passage. In other words, the quality of the “social field” and the capacity of an organisational system “to see itself and the future that emerges” might well be constrained by the people who hold power in an existing social and institutional field — especially in a hierarchical organisation. Thus, contrary to the widely held belief that innovation arises from the “edges of the system” - which might well be true for the generation of new ideas, organisational change will often require a holistic approach to behavioural change, including those individuals who embody (and cling to) its current ideology.

Sadly, we seem to have many leaders in position of power who are far away from displaying any deep consciousness. It comes, therefore, as no surprise that we have mostly failed to generate societal or organisational change “bottom up”…

3. We need “heroic” leaders to sponsor organisational transformations

What does that all mean? Whilst we might ultimately plan to involve everybody in organisational transformation and develop their personal capacity to see “themselves-in-system”, as Otto proposes, it could be critical to (initially) focus our transformation efforts. In analogy to Peter Koenig’s suggestion of a unique energetic “source” in every organisation — normally embodied by one or few key individuals — we might need to identify the (power or inspiration) sources of an existing social field to enable its transformation. Only if we install (or remove) “the right people” in positions of power, and endow them with the necessary resources to change existing institutions, can we hope to catalyse the change of “energy” in the wider field. Moreover, given that any existing system will undoubtedly resist reformation, transformation leaders will have to come equipped not only with consciousness, but with competence and strong resilience, zeal and perseverance… in other words: organisational heroes!

Do we therefore need to deliberately develop a few “heroic” transformation leaders before we can hope to make everyone “become a leader”, and unite? Has the time come, again, for a novel episode of “real” heroes and heroines — displaying true nobility and solid character, as in ancient myths and tales?

Maybe everybody must become a (tiny bit of a) hero…

Let’s be honest. Firstly - I hear you! - we certainly do not want the wrong “heroes”. But, arguably WE ALREADY HAVE (a whole lot of) THEM. And very often a single “bad apple” ruins the bucket… and the whole orchard. So, if nothing else, we should remove any existing “assholes”, pardon the expletive (!), fast. Secondly, “heroes” have recently gotten a bad reputation (admittedly, more in academic circles and socialist communes than Hollywood movies!), but we should be willing to admit that this was not the original idea. In Homer’s original epos, heroes virtuously face danger and combat adversity through feats of ingenuity, courage and strength. That really doesn’t sound too bad, in comparison with the habitual incompetence and vices of many of today’s societal leaders! What rests, then, is our deep suspicion of authority and a widespread reification of individual autonomy. That, however, seems to be somewhat self-defeating: we are continuing to tolerate the wrong “heroes” who ruin our organisations and society, whilst enviously seeking to disallow the emergence of any “good” heroes — for the sake of (an egalitarian?) principle. Maybe we should finally acknowledge that as long as we have societal (hierarchical) systems, any wider change is predicated on the presence of a few “heroic” and selfless individuals in key positions of transformation… In a nutshell, we might need to endorse “proper” aristocracy rather than today’s oligopoly of money, narcissism and power— where “aristos”, as the original term indicates, is truly about “the best”, for all. And either we step up to becoming such “heroic” role models ourselves, or we’d better commit to wholeheartedly following one…

It always starts with ourselves…

So, why have we not started to reform our organisations “from the top”? Thinking about many conversations about transformation, I have a suspicion that our modern obsession with creating “authentic individuals” and “leaders at every level”, ultimately, becomes a self-serving discourse that perpetuates the status quo: it seems, we are happily fooling ourselves with fantasies of bottom-up change and accept existing suffering, rather than face the pain of standing up “against” bad leaders, and bear the necessary risks of entrusting ourselves and our transformational hopes to a bunch of properly selected leaders who could sponsor wider societal change. Somehow, if we do not complain too loudly about “bad” leadership, but rather embrace abstract theories about more “democratic” participation, it does not shine the light too hardly on lack of integrity and character, and thus gives us permission to “muddle along” in our own convenience-centric mediocrity. In other words, to a degree, we have bad leaders because we have bad followers — and by continuing to insist that leadership must not be a result of character and merit, of “aristos”, we are somehow shooting ourselves in our own feet…

In this context, John Dewey famously posited: individuality is the outcome of a developmental journey — not its starting point. As part of that journey, we might need to find and embrace those foundational principles that we are willing to sustain, beyond our own ego and sometimes at the cost of our own safety. Once we are crystal clear about what matters, we might need to not only act with integrity ourselves, but also very carefully and responsibly choose those leaders to whom we can entrust our collective hopes — rather than egotistically insist on the “right to be our own leaders”.

Fact is that there are no risk-free transformations — every strategy will have to be appropriately managed and safeguarded, and we must be prepared to hold ourselves and our leaders to account. Maybe, then, what we need is a bit of “everyday heroism” and the virtuous dedication to a good, common cause, in both leaders and followers, in order to bring about that “social technology” for change that Theory U so strongly advocates…

Please don’t get me wrong: it would be wonderful if one day an egalitarian mass of self-motivated, wise, good citizens would responsibly co-lead us into a shared future, but such a eutopia doesn’t seem to be on the horizon. In the meantime, time is ticking and it seems often the wrong people continue to run the show… Thus, it might be best to commence by being “good” and responsible followers, rather than loudly insist on an “ideological non-existence” of good leaders…

From: “Sunday Morning Thoughts on LinkedIn” — I will report some of the interesting LinkedIn dialogues here, paraphrased and applying the Chatham House Rule — trying to protect some of the sentiments, thoughts, and above all our stimulating discussions from oblivion ;-)

Comments:

C: I believe that this is a bit one sided. A strong system will beat any good leader in no time; whilst bad leaders too can magnify such toxic systems. We clearly need to work on all levels: humans (and character), (distributed) leadership, systems. And sure we can start with leaders but collective impact arises out of several conditions or as Senge and Kania explain: „what stands out beyond the five conditions is the collective intelligence that emerges over time through a disciplined stakeholder engagement process“

• A: Although that phrase is in a joint piece which Senge coauthored with Kania it is in cross reference to an earlier paper by Kania and Kramer claiming that “Our research shows that successful collective impact initiatives typically have five conditions that together produce true alignment and lead to powerful results: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support organizations.” I’m not at all convinced by that argument. Agendas may overlap but are rarely common and shared. Measurement is another minefield where what gets measured often gets manipulated. Any systems change effort that requires these conditions seems to me highly unlikely to get out of the starting blocks. Here’s the Kania / Kramer paper: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact. I agree they are more emergent properties than imposed starting conditions. The trap many academics fall into is mistaking the former for the latter. It’s a trap that’s almost impossible to avoid if they lack the real world experience of being in the system under change — so their only real experience is as outside observers. I guess that’s the origin of the saying “In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice — but in practice there is“
• A: The confusion of outputs with inputs is endemic in both the management academic and consulting fields. Unfortunately it’s not going to change anytime soon as both gain their power from their apparent ability to generalize. If they had to treat every organization as unique (which in my view, for many purposes, they are) there would be a lot fewer management books and academic papers. This would be a real blessing! See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/true-useless-why-so-much-management-advice-sucks-what-hurst-frsa/
• A: What if we accepted the view that the authority can, and indeed is exerted by both formal leadership and a group?
  - organization is established if and when there’s revenue imperative (more productive resource management than banditry)[1]
  - resource management include establishing (coercive or voluntary) consensus regarding what collateral damage should and should not be regarded as an “externality”, that is, have zero weight in productivity evaluations of the organizational leadership.
  - where there is an authority perceived as legitimate, long-term minimization of collateral damage of an activity is only possible when there’s both individual and societal prerequisites for intelligent disobedience [2]
  - depending on the instantaneous balance, intelligent disobedience can be either formal leader checking on a group’s embodied values, or a group member checking on formal leadership’s choices. 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12juhp6mZ-i4T-5sIhetHQJ0Vy6g9u25S/view 2: https://irachaleff.com/books/id-the-book/

C: I find this statement to be a bit abrasive, Otti: “…as John Dewey famously posited: individuality (or authenticity) is the outcome if a developmental journey, not its starting point.” I think that’s part of the problem, if you ask me. 🤓 Take a look at the Rapport Pyramid as an example. Look at all the steps one’s got to go through in order to reach Authenticity — it’s crazy! Essentially, what society’s asking of us is the be *the clumsy teenager* again. Learning how to hold our own, making plenty of mistakes, sitting with uncertainty. If you ask me, being authentic is the starting point if what we’re asking people is get back to the very basics of what it means to be human.

• A: I must say that Dewey’s more detailed views on education (I believe democratic participation and education are for him key enablers for development) are still on my backlog. However, we discussed “subjectification” with Gert Biesta — the interview will go live in a few weeks, and as you know we are researching civic and moral learning and development. On top, we of course have all the psychological theories of development — from Jung’s individuation to Piaget and Kegan, to Torbert etc. So the notion of individuality will in our view be a combination of these developmental theories. When it comes to “authenticity” we will of course get back into our “usual” discussion about what exactly it means ;-) — is it a state of integrity, and therefore of mature responsibility for others and the common good, or some (alleged) state of “finding one’s true inner self inside one self” — or both…
• C: Otti — I think authenticity is an emergent state (coming from a developmental process — which is socially designed). It’s not something of an outcome.
• A: Well i guess we won’t quite agree on this one :-). For me such a proposition implies an ontology of essence where somehow we are constructed around an essential soul that we can simply discover and then turn into a qualitative state of authenticity. That isn’t my view — and i reckon also not what i think is useful. Here. I’m with Marx, ie philosophy isn’t only there to explain the world but to change it. And making it the goal of philosophical inquiry to go after my alleged essence — based on some phenomenological premise of transcendental bracketing or spiritual enlightenment — i am not sure will solve our problems :-). On the other hand, arguably, it might not hurt — but evidence is not so positive. Before i know it, I’m back in an egological system unless i create further “mystic” metaphysical bridges between me an the universe that quickly create their own dynamics

C: Leadership in a systemic perspective is providing an orientation to balance the necessities of the here-and-now and the then-and-there. (For the theory go to Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model.) We dedicate attention and resources to answering both questions. What is, now? -and — What could be, then? Co-reflecting lived experiences we grow a shared understanding of those questions and live — as Rilke had put it — slowly into the answers. We embody our understanding. We recognise each other’s understanding in our embodiment. We may call this authenticity. We find orientation in the resonance of our understanding. We may recognise in a person’s embodied and lived understanding answers to our questions. We may want to join; we may want to follow.

• A: Very nicely said, but what does that mean? :-) Rilke was a “mystic” impressionist and hence probably not the least problematic epistemological (or better: “lyric poetry in lieu of epistemology“) foundation? Orientation to balance — yes, but why? What is our axiological premise? Why would a biological or physical concept of homeostatic equilibrium help us to resolve an arguably philosophical question (ie whence to go)? It sounds like the good old should/is natural fallacy? :) beyond incommensurabilities, science is descriptive, never normative. By the same token, “lived experience” implies a phenomenological stance which again poses questions of ethical foundation. (Not accounting for evident differences between Rilke’s famous “Weltinnenraum” and cybernetics.) We can of course go to the poststructuralists and posit divine revelation, or anthroposophy with “instinctive morality”, or jump to daoism and claim dualistic monism, or simply pragmatism- but apart from being very different from each other none of these ultimately adress the question of “what SHOULD be, then”, collectively. That “resonance” of moral imagination requires politics, “rule of law and guidance of character ” to enable self-fulfilling lives…
• C: The dialogue, when i co-reflected it friends, has opened up spaces to explore: 1. it looks like people usually seem to take positions or hold a belief too closely to not see what else it can reveal — and move towards a confluence of intentions (nia in Tamkeen). 2. Is our need for control/certainty impacting our seeing or even (immersive) knowing? 3. Taking a cue O’ Donohue in Eternal Echoes — how does nia / intention / longing emerge from the inter-spaces and in-between times? How do our reference frames shift (if we allow it)? More so, if as in 2., our seeing is impacted. Otti, i was deeply struck by your bold question, “what should be? Collectively” . I don’t think we can not know before hand. Even any certain xyz-logical approaches are insufficient. The process and outcome have to evolve.
• A: Yes i think processes and outcomes will indeed evolve, as much as purpose. Yet that doesn’t mean that emergence is the aim- its simply a consequence, our patterns of collective behavior. Here, what i see as the phenomenological fallacy if people cross the is-should threshold too fast: i can observe myself “being in the world” (Heidegger), or even seek to bracket my experience to get closer to reality (Husserl), but that doesn’t mean that facts become values. I might be closer to “truth”, but I haven’t got answers on how “to live well”, let alone on how to create political systems that enable everybody to live well. Of course i can turn to normative metaphysics and postulate that essence is all that matters. But beyond the intrinsic unprovability of such a hypothesis, on epistemological grounds (i never can see what i can’t see), i simply don’t see its usefulness. At the end of the day, we want to make life BETTER — and not (only) write philosophical essays on the nature of human knowledge… ;-)

C: The Leader that has the power to decide who the executive leaders will be is not always visible. It seems to me that top down, peer to peer and bottom up coexisting strategies are necessary to catalize, speed up and sustain change.

• A: That’s a very good point! My thought here is that many of those consultants and coaches engaged in business transformation cherish a highly individualistic and almost “anarchic” ideology (the “un-bossing” narrative). This it seems to me is not fully mature — ultimately, it is about the future we want to create and individual must also be held in (or ideally hold themselves in) noble responsibility for a collective constitutive end — which of course includes their own flourishing. Here authority and freedom are not necessarily dichotomies. So I guess we sometimes must also learn to follow, not only to lead — especially if there are others who are “better” than ourselves — as long as we have the right people in charge…
• C: I believe real leaders umderstand that there is more than one way to lead. Intentionally and visibly following others is one of those other ways. I, myself, would recommend caution in connecting leadership to being heroic. What I see is that leadersip also involves taking charge and control as much as following and empowering others.
• A: Again good point — yet as was pointed out a few weeks ago we might be unduly projecting onto the concept of “hero” which is meant to be in essence “a person noted for nobility of character”
• C: I see the point, but I think that the hero narrative would be perceived more in a sense of heroic as it is more commonly understood by people. That could end up creating behaviours expectations from leaders that are more connected to boldness and so on, which could emphasize the image of a saviour. That saviour image can even be confortable for those with low accountability, justifying their expectations that they project onto others to make change happen, while not really owning their part in it.
• A: Well, as always the “narrative” of leadership is complex and multi-faceted. And Mats Alvesson quite rightly asked whether “leadership” exists at all, or is just a collective fantasy. My point here arguably is mostly related to the intervention itself, and less about how people might perceive it. I am kind of saying: would it not be a good idea if actually we had heroes to run our institutions. Heroes in a sense of noble characters. People who feel that they truly serve their people and a higher cause. That might not be a recipe to solve all our troubles, but in our current situation that might not be the worst starting point…
• C: All good people are capable of being heroic. Sometimes just getting out of bed in the morning is heroic. Similarly, all people can lead and there is more than one way to lead. Sometimes the ‘real’ leaders are not in the titular, designated leader role — they are the influencers and often it is the influencers who exert the most power or bring about the most change and the most good. They can also thwart the best of initiatives and subvert good policy/leadership. We need a much more nuanced understanding of leadership and heroism, and even the saviour can have his/her role to the play in a particular time and place.
• C: Leadership is not a trait of formal leaders only, but it is not a trait used only for the ‘good’, as well. I see 3 different dimensions in this discussion: 📍Psychological: Hero as a trait of the personality. In that case, I see it as an archtype as defined by Jung. One of many that humans can connect to. Humans are not “one thing” only. The same person can be a ‘hero’ and a ‘villain’ and that does not necessarilly mean that the person is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. 📍Change Communications: Hero as part of a narrative. I wouldn’t recommend using it as it allows for many interpretations. 📍 Managerial: Hero as a desired trait/personality formal leaders should encompass so that Business could go through business transformations that can actually enable them to bring more sustainable results for society and not only organizations. I am not sure the focus should be in personality traits in that case, especially traits that classify and might freeze people in being perceived as good or bad.
• C: Otti Vogt I have enjoyed yours and Antoinette Weibel’s interviews with an eclectic range of management gurus. What a range of views! Which is why I am so astounded that you even think of calling for heroic saviours as a “solution” to our challenges. You really do need a theory of context. If you had one you would know that most (all?) tyrants and villains began their careers as “heroes” and then became corrupted by success and power, leading their enterprises into power traps often followed by crisis and collapse, which is then sometimes followed by the rise of a new hero…. Strengths become weaknesses in changing contexts and we need to understand where we (whoever ‘we’ is) are in the process. For that you need a theory of context that does not abstract organizations from time, space and scale. http://www.davidkhurst.com/youre-gonna-need-a-bigger-boat/
• A: I do not think your claim holds. Whilst many villains might have started as “heroes” (i guess most of them were purely military “heroes” rather than those selfless philosopher kings of Plato), certainly many didn’t — and many heroes didn’t become villains. And arguably we owe an endless lot to those many heroes who truly sacrificed their life for noble causes and made humanity better. We should probably cherish them more. But i know that’s not your point. Like Toynbee or Acton, i think you suggest that without a change in context even the best heroism doesn’t survive. Here, I agree with you. But still that wouldn’t change my (admittedly facetious) argument: even if we needed to change context — let’s say by appropriate safeguards etc (Plato’s guardians had no property) — our focal point would be good leaders, not the org system
• C: Heroism is not the property of an individual person: it is a product of the person and the situation. So there’s always the question of “Hero, but in whose eyes?”. Donald Trump was and still is a “hero” in the minds of many of his supporters. The belief in context-free heroes like Plato’s guardians doesn’t mesh with human experience. Context matters!
• A: I believe that is true in general — but here it seems to be mostly a taxonomy question? If we accept a dictionary definition of “heroic” as an attribute of people who exhibit “courage and supremely noble or self-sacrificing character” (Merriam-Webster) I am not so sure that this is indeed contextual. Of course, there are people who insist calling social democracies “socialism”, or historic events “historical”, but that is not true just because they believe it to be so. Otherwise we would quickly drown in cultural relativism or emotivism, as MacIntyre suggests. And maybe the notion of “nobility” here has a Western connotation — but in this case that is indeed my reference.

C: “Everyone is a leader, and their responsibility is to unleash the potentiality of those they influence.”

• A: Please allow me to contend that the questions remain unanswered: why would being a leader not be a choice — you seem to use assertion rather than evidence (“everyone is an influencer” — that is not the same as “leader”, and we can “choose” if/how to “influence”?). What is “existential purpose” if it exists? Why would that existential purpose imply responsibility? If purpose is being a hermit, or masochist, or tyrant… How does this answer “what” that responsibility entails? Should I preach the gospel? Be a therapist? A teacher? Force others to “freedom”? And why? Is John Rawls wrong in his theory of justice? Helping to find “guiding stars”? Like what? Love? Justice? Reincarnation? Jesus Christ? Kantian deontology? ;-) Potential as “existential potential”? What does that mean? Aristotelian telos? Hinduist atman? Buddhist nirvana? Christian salvation in paradise? Belonging is a psychological need. Mindfulness is an ascetic technique. Wellness is a rather ill-defined sociological concept. Beliefs are many and whether they are “empowering” might be highly subjective — see eg Charles Handy in “understanding organisations” on summarising motivational theories. I fear we cannot make these things too easy…
• C: Otti Vogt again all great questions that need space and time to answer. :) let me comment on one and refer the rest to my book which one can listen to free on Purposehood mobile app or buy a copy on Amazon and others.
  What is leadership? It’s what you define it to be. I define it as the will to influence others. The fact that we influence others all the time qualifies us to become leaders in all our thoughts, words, and actions. The choice is what kind of leader you want to be? A destroyer, a consumer, a martyr, or a creator? — I know those will raise more questions from your end! :)) — But it all starts with awareness of your life’s purpose. 🙏
• A: I am always very skeptical when we jump into simplifications. On the practical side I’m having many people trying to tell me how to lead — when it often turns out they have never led anything of much collective relevance in their own lives. And on the theoretical side I’m continually encountering “prophets of sale” who are quick to advertise their own gospel (most have their latest book nicely lined up on their zoom background) but lack basic understanding of philosophy, and hence rarely can locate their “recipes” in any accurate comparative epistemological or axiological analysis. Personally, i don’t think the phenomenological fact that we influence each other (it never is unidirectional) qualifies us in any way to “lead others”. Leadership is a verb, it implies a promise of social order, a moral philosophy, not just awareness of ourselves. As MacIntyre warns, our postmodern anxiety gives birth to much relativism and emotivism, and one must sympathize with Sartre’s existentialist radicalism: god is dead, now BE! Yet, a promise of a better future needs more than an anthroposophical ethics of authenticity, and to conflate common good with “purposehood” i fear will not suffice. ;-)

C: I am deeply convinced that the main cause for the missing deeper consciousness is the (linear) structure of our designed system containers. Structure causes behavior. That‘s why I believe Sociocracy has so „much power“.

• A: Very interesting! But would you suggest bad people in good structure would work better than good people in bad structure? And good structure would survive bad leaders? And i need to ask — how does consciousness link to structure? How is “structure linear” and what is a “system container”? Sorry for sounding facetious but i have a fear that if we’re using taxonomy differently we won’t effectively dialogue. Structure causes behavior — hmm, yes but if we look at motivational theories — there are lots of factors (even if we stick to enpiricist research) impacting behavior so structure might not be enough. That said, i do believe you have a point and sociocracy is a great example (even if i will again query Ted on scalability ;-)). But it requires a set of preconditions and maintenance principles — above all embedded in the design principles — that need to be collectively upheld. Here leadership becomes constitutional (rather than just about consciousness) — the Abbot is the “first follower” (of the regula) in the monastery, not its leader.
• C: Good questions — Let me try: System containers for me are the institutions we established with a (linear) mindset after the last (industrial) revolution, like Schools (education) or companies (markets). If linear system containers aim at a paradigm of unlimited (materialistic) growth and scarcity, investments in the growth of consciousness (individuation) would lead to an opposite effect (abundance). BUT: abundance is not a paradigm of the scarcity world. Transforming towards new paradigm design principles like Endenburgs Sociocratic Circle Method turns on autopilots encouraging a new consciousness to grow. Maybe impacting structure is not sufficient. With my 25 years of central-european business experience I believe it is more than „safe enough to try“… What I‘ve seen in various implementations of self-organisation design principles: a good and minimum 5 years established structure will not only survive bad leaders. It filters them out automatically. The right structure & design — as said — is „more powerful“…

C: I wrote a book titled the #Ecoleadership paradox- saying that to create Ecoleadership cultures will sometimes take Messiah leaders with an ecological vision- Distributed leadership, grassroots leadership needs to be understood in relation to vertical leadership and power
It’s not an either or. Creating #goodorgainsations will take more than training an elite leadership cadre (this is a bit Leninist if you think about it, and look where that ended :)
The idea of some utopia of raised consciousness is also flawed in my view
We have to co-create structures and cultures that mitigate human folly, expand the idea of leadership from just top down and develop understanding of how our human technical and environmental ecosystems are connected and interdependent…..thx for the provocation

• A: I couldn’t agree more Simon! It’s going to be very interesting to play with those thoughts further. Also very interesting to discuss with Otto who makes a good point that we have seen evidence of collective development in action research and t groups (I’m going back in my mind to Scotty Peck and also Bill Torbert — and we will further explore with Manfred and Gianpiero) — but I’m skeptical to what degree we can create effective holding environments — or the containing to use your term — for that to occur within today’s large organizations. But well… i guess that’s why we started our inquiry ;-)

C: I don’t believe that everyone has to be a self-responsible leader, but that being self-responsible is a suitable target for more people. Otherwise, I would ask: Who are the real heroes and who decides that? And there I am with Antoinette Weibel: Can “good leaders” remain with their true nobility and retain solid character in bad structures?
So yes, starting everywhere at the same time. And leaders should allow more real networking instead of just promoting their own ideas through networks. I like the approach of Céline Schillinger, who shares her experiences with corporate activism in her book “Dare to Un-lead”.

• yes i fully agree — inasmuch as i think cultivating personal development (and we can call the self leadership) and even more importantly civic development should be an aim for every adult. Who are the real heroes might not really be so difficult to discern — and it’s interesting that we so easily get hung up on “who decides”. I guess we could trust some good people to come up with something? And i also suggest it’s actually not very hard as many surveys show — but i fear our fetish for personal freedom is often threatening to become an enemy of common responsibility… which perpetuates the status quo…
  Can power corrupt? Most definitely. So we certainly would need safeguards — independent of wider democratisation.
  But we often forget that our current systems are far from democratic — and we can’t even collectively make those work!
• C: You’re right — maybe it’s not so much about who decides. But that we trust those who decide. So, when do we do that? When people are able to balance personal interests and we-thinking. Or if a particular setting guarantees that this is the case.
  Let’s take New Pay as an example, in the sense of a process in which employees participate in shaping the compensation system. In such a project team or committee, employees with and without leadership responsibility can make good decisions. The prerequisite is that they learn to understand who makes which value contribution and how the system (here: the cash flows and rules of distribution) works. The diversity of the group that works this out on behalf of others is also important. Age, gender, background, job, hierarchy level, location…. — as all these aspects have an impact on desicion making.
• A: great points — whereas, again, I will challenge the premise of “balance personal interests and we-thinking”. Who is “we”? And what is the premise for “we-thinking”? What about “we-sensing”? Or is it “us-thinking”? And indeed what are the pre-requisites? Sadly, I think there is little evidence to support the idea that a group of any configuration — based simply on the empirical understanding of “who makes which contribution” and “how the system works” — can create effective societal norms.
• C: We-Sensing sums it up best for me! I also see that as a decision: how far the “we” goes, beyond the organization or not.
  I don’t know evidence on the effects and success factors of participatory boards either. Maybe someone else here? Most likely in equity research.
  In practice, many people confirm that participation in decision-making processes increases the acceptance of its solution. But of course there are downsides or difficulties. When the group doesn’t have the necessary resources (time) or it’s not clear how far the responsibility goes. That leaders provide the framework is essential in most structures. But these should leave a lot of room for shaping concrete decisions. Might that be a task for a better version of “heroic Leaders”?
  And another thesis: The better the participtory group knows to broaden their knowledge in the organization, e.g. through rotation, the more sustainable the whole thing is. It would be exciting to evaluate this over a longer period of time…
• A: great thoughts! In my mind there are fundamentally two different “moral” dynamics at play: firstly, a relational orientation, an I-Thou which continually increases sensitivity to a larger and larger circle of relations that “are seen and considered”. At some stage this translates into abstract and aesthetic principles of “love of the good”, as Socrates writes in the Symposium. Then there’s a second, rational dimension of reasoning that seeks to ascertain what “justice means” for that ever larger moral circle. In this “field” we must learn to situate ourselves, and commit to a choice of identity that is expressed in actions and practices, norms and structure. So the question then becomes: how do we evolve the quality of togetherness and decision-making, and ultimately collective flourishing.

C: I agree that leadership requires a deep level of consciousness. If taken seriously that already means that there cannot only be one kind of leader to achieve transformation. If we want to reach a vast majority, we need a pluralistic view on leadership because everyone has their blind spots. That’s the hard bit about constantly re-evaluating oneself and the system, taking the ego out of the equation and always allowing for the possibility that someone else might just have the better idea.

• A: great thoughts! Now i will play once again devils advocate :-). Closing johari’s window will indeed require help from many sides and perspectives, but it wouldn’t necessarily entail democratisation of decision-making. As a matter of fact, diversity is often not “diversity of thought” — and we can simply focus on better process (think Laloux’s “by advice” with many perspectives, and as you suggest many ideas) and better development, rather than decentralization of power. Indeed, as i believe Hannah Arendt once suggested freedom and authority can be companions, not only antagonists. On the ego, as i have pointed out elsewhere, people often conflate ego with egoism. In Freuds (admittedly simplistic analytical) concept of self, id (es) — ego — superego all play necessary parts. Indeed, rather than the ego needing revision, it is often more about the qualification of super ego. Here, also it’s important to note that moral development isn’t simply a function of consciousness ie cognitive/constructive development — see eg FCM by Rest/Narvaez. That said, I’m absolutely with you: good leadership is hard. However, comparatively speaking, I still wonder whether the best short-term intervention should focus on better or more leaders…
• C: You’re right. Too often “democratic leadership” is (mis)understood as an anarchy of ideas and processes and thereby looses direction. Good leadership should provide a vision and create the space for people to align with that vision. What makes it democratic is that it needs checks and balances to ensure that the vision keeps meeting the needs, that there is a process in place for correction, learning and development. It needs a charismatic leadership that people trust enough to lean in into their full potential because true transformation and growth goes hand in hand with allowing yourself to be vulnerable. I guess I agree with you in that a great leader holds this space while people might not even notice.
• A: very nicely framed! Let’s at least hold this as “hypothesis 2” whilst we work on “hypothesis 1” which is a participatory enterprise. But the legitimacy of hypothesis 1 can’t be derived from organisational objectives or effectiveness but is founded in a belief that all organisations must enable personal development of all “for good” — that is to cherish the sacredness of life itself as the ultimate and uncontestable aim of human existence
• C: Agreed. Neither leadership nor participation are an end in itself. What are they (good) for is the question underlying any further contemplation. It’s about development on all levels. Personal, societal,… and essentially balancing individual needs with group needs toward the overall good. I’m convinced that we get better if we allow for emergence. The in-between, not the compromise! That means that leadership needs to provide a safe space for growth. It cannot work if leadership dictates what the “overall good” looks like.
• A: yes and here emergence will not provide us with answers. Emergence is ofc simply the phenomenon of behavioural patterns. And growth requires direction and orientation. So maybe it is not so interesting whether leadership dictates “the overall good”, rather than — as you suggest — what that “good” is. If that “good” was a “good” (pardon the pun) someone might even dictate it without it deteriorating. But if, as Aristotle argues, politics is the “form” and citizens are the” matter” then the act of politics itself might be what we need to focus on. Then, the focus is not on the “overall good” but on the practice of politics. Eudaimonia, on the great philosopher’s account, is not an outcome but produced in every moment, by making the moment “poietical”, i.e. an end in itself. Which of course brings us back to the starting point. Then “participation” is indeed an end in itself — as John Dewey I believe argues. Every society is as good as the “citizens it produces”. And the citizens become good by cultivating their character in participation… trans-formation is in the “form”, not the “matter…

C: A pox on Plato and his Fascist Philosopher Kings. Education, education, education, and support for vulnerable families to end intergenerational trauma.

• A: of course there are parallels in the Republic, but i wouldn’t suggest the philosopher kings ie guardians were fascists? Beyond the historic incommensurability of the term — ie, if at all the fascists drew on Plato (and many others, esp the Roman Empire, in legitimating their regime) — fascism as an absolute state implies an idolization of its leaders. Conversely, the famous passage in Plato’s Republic, Book VI, where he introduces the philosopher-king: “…neither cities nor States nor individuals will ever attain perfection until the small class of philosophers whom we termed useless but not corrupt are providentially compelled, whether they will or not, to take care of the State, and until a like necessity be laid on the State to obey them; or until kings, or if not kings, the sons of kings or princes, are divinely inspired with a true love of true philosophy. That either or both of these alternatives are impossible, I see no reason to affirm: if they were so, we might indeed be justly ridiculed as dreamers and visionaries.” There is no reason to imply that such leaders can only be element of an absolutist dictatorship
• C: The notion that there is an elite group who know that which others do not know and who are in some sense chosen by divine providence to rule is fascist. With a little bit of poetic license.
• A: Lots of poetic license ;-). If you drop the divine Providence you’re almost describing democracy. But there you’re of course spot on: plato certainly wasn’t a democrat!

C: Idealistic leaders can be extremely authoritarian.

• A: yes, but the one does not imply the other? Think Mahatma Gandhi or many of the other human rights activists. Inner conviction does not always mean “domination” of others who think differently (even if eg Bill Torbert’s review of Gandhi is somewhat critical) — that seems more then characteristic of fanatics. And btw I have seen lots of extremely authoritarian leaders who were not one bit idealistic ;-). But maybe we are sometimes also too quick to equate all central order or control with “authoritarianism” (ie rejection of political plurality, use of strong central power to preserve political status quo, reductions in rule of law, separation of powers, and democracy). In educational research we can clearly see that the idea of anti-authoritarian development, ie self-managed learning journeys etc, is often incomplete. Development requires both order and freedom. If control becomes an end in itself it of course is harmful, but when it creates boundaries that support legitimate social order, positions of superior wisdom and craftsmanship,or enables paternal containing of creative endeavours for development, it might not necessarily be. Here, as always, leadership requires wisdom — its a fine line and not one strategy fits all.

C: I suppose a lot depends on the way one defines ‘heroic’.
According to the dictionary, a hero is a person who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities while heroic pertains to someone who performs actions without any expectation of reward or external gain. Recognition and acceptance of the potential risk or sacrifice made by taking heroic actions. Both imply that ‘heroic’ is not something you choose but is a status accorded to you by others for selfless (using your skills to act in favour of an outcome greater than just your own fulfilment) and courageous actions. It boils down to owning our impact and using our skills to lead change.

• C: The “theory” or “truth” I have been developing is that we have to find these “heroic leaders” and inculcate in them a responsibility:
  When you are a leader who knows that is evolving to your best version of a citizen and human being, and you have a greater good in mind with right motivations (emotions that guide you — as serving others), then you will inspire others.
  When you are a true inspiring leader you are sharing your evolution with your team so they learn from you. At this point you have two very important responsibilities:
  1. Inspire and role model your leadership principles to others so they learn and find their own way to be “authentic” by evolving themselves, and
  2. You have to foster an environment where they can live this evolution and maybe collectively grow and guide us to be better together.
  When I was leading my teams, I use Otto”s model to share with them how the U theory would help align intentions with stakeholders and among ourselves so we evolve together.
  I leave the note that being and fostering a life long learning, curiosity in the team, framed on a purposeful environment has helped me!!!

C: Awesome articulation of something I have struggled with for decades. Some thoughts follow. The context we operate in determines the capacity to enable societal revolutions. Here the context is the system that gives rise to formal leadership in Corporations , government. These systems have an embedded ethics that is not enabling of transformations. The basic structures of organising have to change — from hierarchies of dominance (Hero territory) to hierarchies of function (Emery — Norway).
#TheoryU also offers up a need for a new economy — Otto seeks to deal with the “money issue” which is at the core of holding onto old ways of dealing with global problems.
May I suggest that the “good” leaders you seek understand the need to design the system and have the skills for it. Design from dominance OR design from collaboration, adaption, mutual support etc. Putting good leaders into a system designed from dominance has not worked for us.

• C: Hierarchies of dominance have little to do with heroism. That is tyrannical leadership, not heroic leadership. If you think about it, people have not actually made evolutionary leaps for a very long time — they have remained pretty much the same for the last few thousand years, notwithstanding the advances of science I am not sure the quantum of wisdom has much increased. Up until recently we thought our Western democracies would prevail and become the ‘norm’ — now we know we are going to have fight tooth and nail to just maintain and protect what we have.