Why do we lack leadership?
Because when there is a leader, we look to them to lead, and they want us to follow their ideas. If you challenge the leader, you challenge leadership, and suddenly, you are not in or on the team. If you don’t support the leader, you are seen as a problem and are not a welcome member of the inner circle. If you bring your ideas, you are seen to be competitive to the system and not aligned. If you don’t bring innovation, you are seen to lack leadership potential.
The leader sets the rules unless and until the leader loses authority or it is evident that their ideas don’t add up when a challenge to leadership and a demonstration of leadership skills becomes valid.
We know this leadership model is broken and based on old command and control thinking inherited from models of war. We have lots of new leadership models, but leaders who depend on others for ideas, skills and talent, are they really the inspiration we are seeking?
Leadership is one of the biggest written-about topics, but it focuses on the skills/ talents you need to be a leader and the characteristics you need as a leader.
So I am stuck thinking …..
in a world where war was not a foundation, what would have been a natural or dominant model for leadership?
do we lack leaders because we have leaders - because of our history?
do we love the idea of leaders more than we love leaders?
do we have leaders because of a broken model for accountability and responsibility?
do we like leadership because it is not us leading?
do we find it easier to be critical than be criticised?
is leadership sustainable?
if care for our natural world was our only job, what would leadership look like?