What’s the difference between ‘being clear about your philosophy’ and ‘being dogmatic’ ?
A polemic against the rampant and only apparent common sense of 'clarity'Try googling for ‘leadership philosophy’ or ‘leadership principles’ and you get any number of results like this: http://www.thepracticeofleadership.net/2006/12/10/the-importance-of-a-clear-leadership-philosophy/
“Consistent leadership action and behaviour requires a clear leadership philosophy. Why? Well, because your leadership philosophy determines how you react to people and how you react to situations. Your leadership philosophy affects your behaviour and ultimately your leadership effectiveness.”
Initially that seems like common sense. But in studying examples like this, soon the question arises: what’s the difference between ‘being clear about your philosophy’ and ‘being dogmatic’ ?
In most cases the answer is: very little. If I was dogmatic, I’d say: “None.”
If you follow the author’s line of thought into how he applies this leadership wisdom, the apparent common sense soon breaks down. In this example, the author has a very limited and traditional notion of ‘the leader’: a leader in his eyes is someone who is ‘strong’, who knows what he thinks and what he stands for. Someone who is certain and who is decisive on behalf of his men. Someone who is unshakable in his principles and his position, who gives his word and does not change his mind, i.e. somebody who cannot be influenced by others. In short: somebody dogmatic.
I am not saying these qualities - of clarity, of decisiveness, of reliability - are irrelevant or not useful. I believe they are essential.
What I am saying is that these qualities can also be counterproductive and dangerous, especially when applied in a one-sided way. I am saying they make half a good leader. For a whole good leader each and every one of these qualities needs to be balanced by its opposite.
Unshakable autonomy needs to be balanced by sensitivity and receptivity. Directiveness needs to be balanced by consultation and delegation. Decisiveness and certainty need to be balanced by the capacity for uncertainty and insecurity.
Only when a leader can balance these contradictory qualities and capacities, will we be able to trust them and cooperate with him or her. Otherwise we are merely obedient, and every good leader feels short-changed by merely obedient subordinates. A good leader knows that their team will get by on obedience, but they will never excel in their task.
As a leader I want to be more than merely right, or one-sidedly certain. I do not even always want to be clear. I aim for being balanced and whole, and that - in most cases - includes both sides of whatever coin we’re dealing with.
Posted by Michael Soth in