Posted on

Authoritative Leadership and Relational Power

 

An opportunity for Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn

A few years ago I wrote an editorial on authoritative practice in child protection. The concepts I explored in that editorial, and later developed in our 2011-14 Triennial Review of Serious Case Reviews have formed the basis of what I have striven for in my own safeguarding practice. It seems to me that these principles of authoritative leadership are what is so badly needed in today’s political storms.

At the heart of authoritative leadership are three values of authority, empathy (or compassion), and humility.

 

In her speech yesterday, Theresa May reached out to the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, offering to work with him to try and find a way forward for Brexit. In doing so, I believe that she was showing the marks of a true leader, and opening an opportunity for both of them to display the kind of authoritative leadership that our country so badly needs. She has come under intense criticism for doing so, both from the media and from her own party, with her approach being condemned as a sign of weakness.

Far from being a sign of weakness, I think Theresa May has shown both courage and integrity. I hope that Jeremy Corbyn will show the same courage and integrity in response.

 

Authority

In my 2013 Editorial, I suggested that

‘Authority, properly understood, is not assumed or unregulated power, but something that is earned, and is dependent on the holder’s character, knowledge and skills as much as their position.’

I may not agree with everything that either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn say, do, or stand for, but one thing I admire in both of them is their integrity. It seems to me that they both hold strong principles and genuinely are striving to do what is best for this country and its people. They have held to these principles, even in the face of criticism from within their own party.

It seems to me that true authority arises not from unilateral, assumed or unregulated power but from relational power, and this is what is needed in our current political climate.

‘Relational power may be seen as including three elements: the ability to be actively and intentionally open to the world around us; the capacity to create ourselves out of relationships with others; and the ability to sustain internal relationships, to influence others by having first been influenced by them.’ (Mesle, CR. 2016 Relational Power, Personhood and Organizations)

 

Empathy

To be open and attentive to the rights and needs of those around us, to actively listen and learn from them, and to support while being prepared to challenge and not collude are marks of true leadership. This is the kind of political leadership we have seen recently in New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern in her response to the shootings in Christchurch.

I was challenged recently to listen more to those who are arguing in favour of Brexit, rather than remaining entrenched in my own views; to seek to understand why others take the position they do, and to see that in terms of those who see leaving the EU as a route towards greater justice. I may not agree with their conclusions, but my friends were absolutely right – I do need to look at the other side of the coin and not dismiss those views that run counter to my own.

In her speech, Theresa May described Brexit as something ‘that the British people voted for’. It may be just a small change in language, but this came as a breath of fresh air amidst the ongoing claims that Brexit represents ‘the will of the people’. By referring to leaving the EU as what the people voted for acknowledges that this was what 17 million people voted for 3 years ago, in response to what has been shown to be a flawed referendum. It leaves the door open to recognising that this may not any longer represent the will of the people. Perhaps in this, our prime minister is showing the seeds of empathy and listening.

 

Humility

Humility is the value that is perhaps most misunderstood and frowned on in relation to authoritative leadership, and yet I believe it is the most crucial component of such leadership.

Humility needs to be understood, not in a derogatory or self‐deprecating way, but as a positive quality that enables leaders to recognise their own limitations, to acknowledge and use their skills and strengths, and to seek to improve their leadership. 

Humility recognises that none of us possesses a monopoly of knowledge and skills; that we are interdependent on each other; and that we all have weaknesses as well as strengths, so we need to be constantly seeking to learn and to grow.

So much of what I see in parliament at the moment is arrogance, entrenched positions and self-interest dominating the debates. I long to see confident humility displayed in our leaders. I believe we caught glimpses of it in Theresa May’s speech yesterday. Jeremy Corbyn has the opportunity to take the same path. And, if they come together, I believe they could find a positive way to take us forward, whatever the final outcome may be.

 

A second referendum?

If Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn wanted to show real leadership, they could do far worse than seeking to ascertain what the British public want now, in 2019, with the full facts before them and clear options to choose from. It may well be that a majority would still want to leave the EU and would support a deal to achieve that. If so, the government would have a much clearer mandate to proceed. Conversely, if a majority now voted to remain, a clear reappraisal would be needed. The government has respected the outcome of the referendum by seeking to come up with a deal; true democracy should now return to the people with that deal and any alternatives. That would be authoritative leadership in action.

 

Posted on

The leader of the free world?

Last week a reporter on the BBC news referred to the President of the United States as ‘the leader of the free world.’ The phrase was used somewhat derisively, but nevertheless, to my mind, betrays some fundamentally flawed assumptions that date back to its first use in the years following World War II, and, I suspect, remain quite widely held assumptions in many democratic, capitalist societies.

 

Assumption 1: Leadership is something conferred by virtue of position

I accept that the president of the United States, by virtue of his position, holds some leadership responsibilities within the United States. There are some things which only the incumbent of the White House can do. However, holding such responsibilities does not necessarily make that person a leader, and it certainly does not confer any leadership status beyond the United States. True leadership is earned, not conferred.

A leader is only a leader if others follow. And to achieve that the leader needs to be a person of integrity, vision, courage, compassion, and humility. To the extent that the president of the United States demonstrates any of those qualities, I would be prepared to attribute some leadership to them. Without such qualities, no matter what he, or anyone else, claims, he is not my leader nor a leader beyond those in his own country who have chosen to follow him.

 

Not the cry, but the flight of a wild duck, leads the flock to fly and follow. —Chinese Proverb

 

The same would apply to whoever sits in the Oval Office, as indeed to any other head of state or other prominent person. Unless and until other nations, heads of state and individual citizens of the so called free world choose to follow the US president, he is not, and never can be, ‘the leader of the free world.’

 

Assumption 2: Leadership is conferred by size, power and wealth

While the issues around assumption 1 have been thrown into sharp relief by the character of the current incumbent of the White House, this assumption is far more subtle, and I suspect more widespread.

According to the World Bank, the United States of America has a population of just over 320 million, exceeded only, but quite substantially, by China and India. Its Gross Domestic Product is 18 trillion US dollars, over 60% larger than the next highest country (China), and greater than the whole of the European Union put together. In terms of military strength, the USA has 1,381,250 military personnel, again only exceeded by China and India, but closely followed by North Korea and the Russian Federation. According to the Arms Control Association (www.armscontrol.org) the USA has 6,800 nuclear warheads, 45% of the world total and only exceeded by Russia.

So on population, wealth and military strength, the United States ranks within the top 3 countries of the world, and far exceeds all other countries in terms of its GDP.

But does that make it the leader of the free world?

Are size, wealth and military might really the values to which we look for our leadership?

Or, to put it another way, domination, greed and brutality?

It seems to me that, without even recognising it, we have bought into a mentality that assumes that might is right, whether that is in size, wealth or strength. And in doing so, we legitimize bullying and a disregard for the rights of others.

 

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth – Jesus Christ

Assumption 3: We (those purportedly in the ‘free world’) determine who is and is not part of the ‘free world’

As far as I can tell, the concept of ‘the free world’ was introduced during the Second World War to refer to those countries fighting against the fascist ‘Axis’ powers (Germany, Italy and Japan). During the Cold War, the term shifted to refer to non-communist countries. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the free world refers to ‘those countries whose governments have been chosen in free and fair elections and whose people have full human rights.’

But who are we to determine which countries truly are or are not part of that ‘free’ world? Would that include a country with a democratically-elected communist government? Does it exclude countries where religious prerogatives determine the course of government?

Perhaps, though, one of the biggest difficulties with this assumption is the implication that all peoples living in our self-determined ‘free world’ are free and enjoy full human rights.

I wonder how many of those now to be denied health insurance would say they enjoy free and full human rights, or those 2 million or more incarcerated in US prisons, or the residents of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation?

And perhaps there is an even deeper, more subtle assumption here. Even without flagrant disregard for human rights, am I, in my country, surrounded by advertising, my choices controlled by corporate giants, constrained by a culture that values wealth and aggressive ambition, also truly free?

 

 

An alternative view of leadership

In an interesting twist of words in different contexts, the BBC made a policy decision to refer to the group that calls itself Islamic State as ‘So called Islamic State’. In a similar vein, perhaps the president of the United States could be referred to as the ‘so called leader of the so called free world.’

But rather than acquiesce even that far to these flawed assumptions, I would much rather see all of us thinking in terms of the whole world and all humanity, not just our own little, self-defined corner of it. And I want to be someone who helps create an alternative view of leadership: one that respects all those who truly embody values of integrity, compassion, justice and humility.

So how about a movement to identify those values we truly want to promote that will lead to all people being free? And how about starting with recognising and affirming those people in whom we do see those values?