The Strickland Revelation

Bill Strickland: the humanitarian preaching the business of social change. Little did I know, the “business of social change” literally meant business – commercializing work meant for service.

           

I read the description, “entrepreneur and philanthropist,” and I expected to hear a tale such as that of Guy Laliberté – the theatre philanthropist and founder of Cirque du Soleil; my inspiration for all that I do in theatre and leadership. I expected to hear a story of human service, humility and caring leadership. I wanted to hear a story of strengths and weaknesses, of convictions and uncertainties, and joy of helping others.

Instead, I heard a sales pitch for a school that would boost a leader’s ego. I heard an arrogant boasting of success after success after success. I heard the details of grandiose network of fame and fortune. I heard everything but the altruistic encouragement that I was searching for.

Bill Strickland gave an hour long slide show presentation about his accomplishments, the school he built, and how his idea for the school was spreading. He gave a presentation on how all of the funding for is project was given to him seemingly under the premise that his idea was so inherently great. When asked if he had encountered resistance on his journey and how he’d handled it, he answered that of course he’d encounter resistance, but it didn’t matter because he’d already built his school and it was already a success. I almost couldn’t bear listening to him.

It is an incredible thing to have confidence and strength in your convictions. But to completely disregard all struggles, conflicts and learning opportunities is an error. I discussed in an earlier entry that leadership is not the result of freely-given success. I discussed that leadership is something that is discovered through deep internal and external struggle and growth. Although Bill Strickland’s story was inspiring on the surface, it was empty underneath. It was a shell of flashy, wow-factor technique devoid of any meaningful growth or leadership development.

I could continue – I could rant for a while about my disappointment with Bill Strickland’s presentation. But even I know criticism is wasted if you don’t learn anything from it.

It is often said that the flaws you see in other people are often the same flaws that you see in yourself. What I have been struggling with most recently is my ability to capitalize on my strengths and gain the confidence I need to be a leader while balancing that with the humility needed to connect with my followers.

Although I know not all leadership is meant to be recognized, I also know that I still feel that I need the attention. I love my job as a stage manager and I take joy in my work as I support and encourage “from the sidelines,” as I discussed in my reflections on Laurie Rospond, but I’ve also come to realize that I still feel defined by recognition. I have this need for people to know how successful I am so that I can feel empowered – but when my achievements are called to attention, I struggle to accept the compliments. Recently, I’ve begun to accuse myself of feigning humility. I’ve begun to notice that it is a habit. But I know what I need to do.  

My experiences with the fellows and the questions I’ve been discovering have been extremely humbling, and now I know why. I need to rediscover humility. From my reflections on Bill Strickland’s lecture, I’ve realized that when I can embrace the humility necessary for leadership, I can then begin to rebuild my confidence in my abilities. 

Remembering Why

“I always work out of uncertainty but when a painting's finished it becomes a fixed idea, apparently a final statement. In time though, uncertainty returns... your thought process goes on.”

- Georg Baselitz

Is uncertainty the ultimate guide – the motivator of experimentation? Or is uncertainty the enemy – the cause of wasted time?

Pauli Murray: In the Heart of the Struggle

Reflections inspired by Glenda Gilmore’s “Am I a ‘Screwball,’ or a ‘Pioneer?’ – Pauli Murray’s Civil Rights Movement.”

According to Glenda Gilmore, Pauli Murray “never won elective office. She never became famous. She never made enough money to stop worrying about making ends meet.” Gilmore characterizes Murray with “indomitable persistence and relentless self-invention;” traits that allow her to keep fighting in the face of hardship and to keep leading despite the bumps along the way.

In our discussions of Northouse, we might say that Pauli Murray was not a “successful” leader. However, it is more than possible that she was what we, and Northouse, would call an “effective” leader.

In class on Friday, I wondered if it was possible that a position of successful leadership hindered the motivation of leaders to be effective, following visions and influencing changes. Successful leaders are to given a title, and with that title, a label of leadership – whether or not the leader is leading or simply staying the course. If one has title and power and things are running smoothly, why change? Why innovate? The goals have already been set, and the goals are being met – it seems that leadership becomes easy and monotonous in these types of positions; it seems to relate to what William Deresiewicz called “hoop-jumping.”

Effective leadership, on the other hand, exists when times are hard and the waters are troubled – when a change needs to be enforced and a fight must ensue in order to do so. Again returning to Deresiewicz, he discussed the idea that the best writers have the hardest time writing because the difficulty forces them to think and plan harder than those to whom writing comes easily. In this same sense, leadership is the strongest in those leaders who are forced to struggle along the way – they are forced to work harder for what they believe is right, required to be passionate and dedicated to their causes, drawn to develop a stronger strategy to achieve their goals and visions. The best leaders are not those to whom leadership is handed, not those for whom leadership is cultivated – but they are those who discover leadership within themselves.

As Glenda Gilmore states, referring to Pauli Murray, “leaders aren’t just the few famous people who dominate the news or find their place in history books. They don’t always represent the majority. They aren’t always popular. They don’t always win, and they aren’t always remembered. Leaders such as Pauli Murray, brave and obscure men and women who act on their convictions even though they fail time and time again, sometimes change the course of history.” 

Reflecting Leadership

“There are two ways of spreading light, to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.”

- Edith Wharton

This quote is usually interpreted as an analysis of leaders and followers – leaders who shine and followers who reflect. But after Friday’s trip to Lansing, I think there may be a deeper meaning.

We arrived in Lansing dressed to the nines in our business attire. We checked in to the Romney Building ready to meet with Senator Posthumus and Bill Rosten. We were ready to ask intelligent questions and learn from some of Michigan’s big leaders. But in the midst of everything, one person stood out to me more than the important politicians who seemed to have all the answers: Laurie Rospond – the Legislative Affairs Coordinator for the Governor’s office.

Rather than being the face of a great vision, Laurie leads from the side lines; from behind the scenes – she leads through service. She plans meetings, prepares rooms, works with hospitality, provides information; she keeps the Governor’s office functioning and prepares them to lead and be successful.

Some may say that this is not leadership; that it is merely service. But Laurie is just as integral to the leadership of Michigan as Governor Snyder. Each step she takes for efficiency and preparation makes the Governor that much stronger as a leader. This strength is then reflected as her own leadership. As the Governor’s office advances and becomes stronger, Laurie advances too. But Laurie doesn’t lead for the title or for recognition of her services. She leads because of her passion for the success of Michigan; she leads because of her desire to help the Governor succeed. She works in a service-based form of leadership which is rewarding inwardly, rather than the outward glory of a traditional leader.

While talking with Dr. Z on the ride home, my acknowledgment of this form of leadership was strengthened. We discussed Michael Finney and how much more personable he seemed in our lunch with him.

“Isn’t it just attributed to stage management?” Dr. Z inquired. Seeing my confusion she continued, “I pulled him aside before lunch and told him I wanted you all to have a personal, relatable experience. I fed you all a line before the conversation started: your leadership trait.”

I’d never thought of it like that.  Dr. Z had set the stage for our meeting with President Finney and she had ensured that we got a specific experience in that situation. She had led the meeting – but not from the spotlight with President Finney. She led from the back of the room, organizing and preparing us for what was to come.

There is a position in politics called an Advance Man – a person similar to Laurie Rospond and Dr. Z during our trip to Lansing. An Advance Man travels ahead of a politician, a governor, a senator – a leader – and prepares the way for them. An Advance Man makes sure the stage is set, the people are present, etc.  An Advance Man stays when the leaders arrive to keep the event running, to provide information, etc. Without all of these things, the leader would be nothing. Without a stage, he’s just a protester on the street. Without people, he will never be heard.  Advance Men keep leaders from, for lack of a better phrase, looking like a fool. These people are leaders like Laurie Rospond and Dr. Z – they’re leaders outside of the spotlight. And just like Laurie Rospond, as the leader in the spotlight grows and advances, the Advance Men grow and advance as well. Their influence on leaders and their role in leadership is immeasurable.

These service-based leaders must be competent and intelligent; they must have the communication skills of a traditional leader; they must listen and relate to followers on a unique level; they make decisions efficiently; they empower traditional leaders to take the spotlight and guide the process form the frontlines.  These service-based leaders are passionate and devoted to their cause – and they are humble.

These service-based leaders have all of those leadership traits we discussed – but they are presented in a manner not always acknowledged in the search for leadership.   They shine with a light that is reflected – but that light is just as bright, if not brighter, than the beacon of a traditional leader.

Maybe Edith Wharton’s quote isn’t about leaders and followers – but about leaders…and leaders.