The Shape of Leadership
What do we mean by shape here? We are not talking shape in relation to our finances, nor in relation to the shapes of our bodies - impairment or otherwise. We are not even talking shape in relation to the arts organisation Shape: ‘the country’s leading disability arts organisation, [which] aims to improve access to the arts for deaf and disabled people whilst supporting deaf and disabled artists to challenge perceptions and promote Deaf and Disability Culture’ - although we are extremely fond of it, have some of their staff as members, suggest everyone checks out their website from where we got the above and signs up for their newsletter.
Here we are talking about what we think our optimum leadership ‘shape’ is.
What do we mean by shape?
Think about dwellings for a moment – houses, flats, mansions, castles, tents or even cardboard boxes if your circumstances are grim. Mark Wright, our leadership expert, reminds us that:
If we look at most aspects of how we humans build our societies and structures, we tend to prefer “bigger” with which we equate “safer”…. Building castles seems so much more sensible than living in tents.
But is bigger, best? Is it really safer? And is ‘safer’ actually what we want or get?
As disabled people we can sometimes be more passive, maybe falling into the ‘shapes’ other people set or expect, rather than flexing our own path. A bit like ending up with a semi-detached and a huge mortgage when you’d always had a hankering to live in a yurt.
So the first thing to think about in relation to the ‘shape’ of your leadership is what you really want it to look like – not what others expect it to.
Ready, steady… change
The second thing to remember is that the whole ‘bigger = safe' scenario assumes one thing: a relatively stable operating environment. But we don’t have that – we live in a increasingly dynamic and fluid world where the rules are constantly changing – and as Mark says:
…whatever it might be that makes us feel safe, [it] only works when we are all playing the same game.
Sometimes things come along which change all the rules – Facebook for example, has only been around since 2006 and yet it has changed the way in which social networking occurs worldwide. Who last year could have predicted Woolworths or Whittards going under? And this year the Arts Council of England is due to change again and maybe redraw the boundaries of the regions due to their need to reduce operating costs.
Mark says:
The idea of the “game changer” is not a new one… Cannons were to castles what lorries (via trains) were to canal barges and what pocket calculators were to long division. It seems that whenever we build a seemingly robust, established, and impregnable order of things to make us feel better, something faster and more flexible comes from left field to upset things.
What do we lose when we play safe?
If we stop to think about it, the bigger = safer logic is flawed. If we only want to get more powerful, higher up ,or simply ‘more’ then we are in danger of feeling safer, but actually reducing our options. The higher up we get, the further away from reality we can be. The less able we can become to see the changes coming, and the slower we can be to respond.
Mark reckons that as leaders, the attributes we want ‘should be foresight, adaptability, responsiveness and resilience, with all their attendant risks, over status and misplaced complacency.’
Some of our strongest leaders have created change, rather than just responded to it - think about Baroness Lockwood pushing forward the change that ensured the development of the Equal Opportunities Commission for example.
So what ‘shape’ do you aspire to? Is it status you want, or leadership? Leaders can be anywhere – its not about job title, its about what you do and who you influence.
Jo Verrent
Sync project manager
