...in which leadership qualities are explored.
I recently heard an interesting exploration about leadership and anarchy. A link can be found here: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2292.htm.It is from a series on science called "Engines of Our Ingenuity" and is put out by the University of Houston. The article discusses a recently attended concert where the musicians, who know each other professionally and sometimes for many years, come together in an ad-hoc kind of way to produce concerts. This is not an organization of people done by a conductor or other benefactor - it's by a group of people who gather and say - hey, let's do Mozart. And they do.
His point is that without a conductor, there's no lead dog. There's no one who is the titular head of the group - each musician esteems and respects each other as his or her equal. There is no need for competition, only creative expression. He decries the excessive scrabbling for attention that often accompanies competitive organizations, noting that when people treat each other as equals a spirit of camaraderie is fostered, one where people can feel free to explore ideas without fear of reprisal, oneupmanship, or other unproductive exercises. The struggle is internal - to better one's self, rather than garner attention and acclaim from external sources.
There's something appealing in this very democratic notion. The idea of a world with no tyrannical leaders is at once intriguing and inspiring. It is clear that anarchy, meaning not rioting in the streets in a hedonistic frenzy, but rather the absence of a leader, has its desirable points.
But is such a thing practical? Is it even possible?
Thinking of the societies of which I am aware, there is always someone who acts as the leader. There is always someone who, for whatever reason and due to whatever circumstance, finds him or herself in the role of leader. This provides for efficiency, responsibility, accountability, and definition to the various roles that the organization must take.
It may be helpful at this point to state what I feel leadership really is. Leadership can take several forms, but I wish to speak and reference the ideal - since we are discussing things of an ideal nature when we speak of anarchy anyway, it's appropriate to respond in kind. An ideal leader takes the highest qualities of leadership - diligence, humility, charisma, faithfulness, loyalty, integrity, and especially love - and combines them in service to those whom he or she presumes to lead. A leader thinks not of selfish gratification, rather on the success of the whole.
History is replete with examples of failed leaders, leading to the axiom: power corrupts. This may be true, but it is not ubiquitous. There have been examples of leaders who have lead with humility and have not become corrupted by or with the power that they are given. Ultimately, leadership is an uncomfortable position - like walking on a razor's edge between failure. On one side, there's the failure of incompetence and weakness, on the other, there's the excesses of pride of position, arrogance, and lack of empathy. A wise leader learns from the weakness and strengths of those who have gone before. Further, a wise leader also learns from those who are led. All of these things can be creatively combined in new, creative, and powerful ways to be more and more effective.
In the example the author of the article cited above notes that these concerts are given by professionals who esteem each other as equals. Perhaps he has never been involved with such a group, but from my experience there is always someone who takes on a coordinating or leading role. It may not be the performer with all of the experience or with the dramatic part to play, but it will be someone who finds the mantle of leadership put upon his or her shoulders. The response of the others to that leadership is instructive - without a formal acquiescence, they will know instinctively who that person is and what role they will serve. And when it comes time to count off the piece, or when the last chord is sounded and cut off, it is clear who the leader is.
Continuing this analogy, it may be that the ultimate leader is the composer of the music. The musicians only play notes already written. While there is some room for personal interpretation, the best musicians faithfully repeat what the composer has indicated. This allows not only the performer to recreate the mind of the composer, but also allows the opportunity for the listener to enjoy the music as it was intended to be heard.
Leadership is frequently given to people in situations that find the leader unprepared for the role. That is OK. Perhaps the best leadership is done by those who do not even realize they are doing it.
In Korea, it is immediately and clearly identified who are leaders and who are subordinates. Upon meeting, and two people will ask almost immediately when one's birth date is unless it is otherwise immediately obvious. This is important because the younger person MUST defer to the older, even if the age difference is minimal. Further, the older person MUST Thus, social order is established and maintained. While it may appear oppressive to our western thinking, Koreans find great comfort in knowing their relative position.
I think we do the same kind of thing subconsciously here. I think we often defer to those we feel are people of integrity, education, experience, etc. And I don't think this is a negative thing. It shows respect and humility on our part, and reminds those who have greater ability of their responsibility to appropriately utilize that ability, both leading effectively and mentoring future leaders.
Power-hungry, tyrannical leaders, proud of their position and power, have given a bad name and reputation to leaders everywhere. The Lord taught Joseph Smith that many are called, but few are chosen. The reason they are not chosen is because of pride. They are thus precluded from enjoying greater blessings than they otherwise might have known.
Comments