Leaders from this perspective, know that their knowledge is humanly limited, and they are not omnipotent. They don’t favour any preferred group as an ‘in-group’ over the rest as an ‘out-group’.
A FRANCIS OFM
The old behavioral pattern of the so-called ‘romance of leadership’, the term coined by leadership scholar James R. Meindl, which placed undue credit on the leader, is not so much in trend, today. The millennials even consider the concept of ‘one leader and many followers’ ingrained deeply at the heart of the ‘autocratic leadership’ as largely archaic and harmful.
Going against the conventional human penchant, many individuals today favour the ‘relationship-oriented leadership style’. It is a leadership built on meaningful ethical relationships in which the leader and the led work together to make everyone a leader than a follower, as in the words of Tom Peters, the author of the book, In Search of Excellence, “Leaders don’t create followers, they create more leaders.” Factually speaking, leadership experts and psychologists provide us with the data that the most effective leadership style that brings out the best outcome is none other than the relationally-oriented leadership.
Individuals who are raised in traditional communities that appreciate the virtue of blind obedience, just like the herd following the leader even though they don’t know where they are going to, find the postmodern leadership ideals - respect for inclusivity, recognition of people’s values and emotions, and denunciation of any type of hegemony of one person’s superiority over the other- as chaotic and absurd! They hold on to autocratic leadership as much as they romanticize the so-called proverbial wisdom, “too many cooks spoil the soup.”
To this, the millennials have an unapologetic response: “If the soup gets spoiled, let it so! We are creative enough to add more ingredients, and make it a pot of delicious soup, like the ‘minestrone’, (a traditional Italian soup) that has no set recipe! Moreover, our pallets are good enough to appreciate diverse tastes, except that it does not tolerate the gross taste of condescension and control!”
The hardnosed autocratic leaders, many of whom we see around, without any qualms of conscience impose control and condescension on their followers. Such leaders seldom consider the opinions and feelings of others. They have their surveillance cameras all around to watch their subordinates, and have the audacity to present themselves as the all-knowing, omnipotent individuals. A lot of them demonstrate little or no ethics, which makes it easy for them to lie, and treat people as objects, to the extent of calling them as ‘liability’, and ‘useless’. We witnessed the grotesque form of this abominable leadership behabviour, not so long ago from the former U.S. President, who called the foreign nationals with no legal status as ‘animals!’
The millennial penchant for the ‘relational’ over the ‘autocratic’ leadership can’t just be perceived as a haphazard hippie style unrest. It cannot either be dismissed as the ‘rebellion’ of the youth upending the existing customs, practices, and traditions. It is, in fact, a natural outcome, somewhat an ‘evolutionary’ phenomenon, of seeking to advance from the circumstance of a debilitating imposition to a transforming experience of growth, connection and relationship. From this perspective, it is a survival necessity, as suggested by Franklin Roosevelt, the former US president, “If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace.”
The Relational Leadership
Although the theoretical model of relational leadership was conceptualized in the latter part of the 90s, human history never lacked relationship-oriented leaders. Gandhi, King, Mandela are a few towering examples.
It is at the turn of the century, the model actually gained a gliding momentum, particularly with the theoretical instrumentality of relational psychology, feminism, relational systems thinking and intersubjectivity. An equally important component was Daniel Goleman’s formulation of the theory of emotional intelligence that provided a new lens to understand people through emotional awareness.
The relational approach views leadership as a co-constructed experience between the leader and the led, working together in trust, respect and mutual appreciation. It is the kind of leadership that highlights people first. People are consulted, valued and respected for their opinions, experience and expertise. Emotional bond, connection and relationship between those who lead and being led are carefully co-created.
Leaders from this perspective, know that their knowledge is humanly limited, and they are not omnipotent. They don’t favour any preferred group as an ‘in-group’ over the rest as an ‘out-group’.
Inclusivity and openness are their hallmark; fear tactics are shunned openly at all costs that everyone feels the same sense of belonging, and importance which entails them to be motivated to contribute in accordance with the best of their abilities.
More than all, the relational leader relies on emotional intelligence to understand the feelings and needs of people which this model highlights as a vital component for decision-making. Like the words of Lao Tzu, the Chinese philosopher, “to lead people, walk behind them,” the relational leader provides one-to-one mentoring, particularly, to those who struggle in their performance; for they believe, as the postmodern theories postulate, in the infinite possibilities of people for change: people are not the problem, but the problem is the problem. Hence tackle the problem and not the people!
∎
