Leadership

Okay, so the prompt for this one came from the NYT Room for Debate column.  It was inspired by the nascent "Lean In" campaign, er -  movement, er, I mean, "movement."  The headline wondered if women had what it took to be leaders.  I noticed first that the reaction to the question provoked an outcry, and then looked at the column itself (which I had somehow not noticed the other day, but, one must actually, sometimes, work).  Anyway, once I saw the headlines of the responding essays I decided not to read them, seeing as how the titles, were (i) inane, (ii) irritating, or (iii) both at once.

I managed a dojo for over 14 years.  I never made decisions in a vacuum in the sense that important stuff either came up for a vote of the yudanshakai, or that at the very least one or more of the senior members were made aware of whatever the decision was and if they had any objections, modifications were made.  We tried for consensus, but that was reserved for only really important decisions.  When it came to day-to-day stuff, a decision was simply made - by me.  When no one stepped forward to organize the teacher visit or demonstration, I did it.  I may have asked people what they wanted to do; and in the case of teacher visits I may have had to cajole people into doing something, but at the end of the day, the buck stopped with me. 

I did not especially like my leadership role all that much.  I consider myself a teacher, and after things were up and running after a few years, I kept trying to get someone else to take over the role.  Guess what?  No one wanted it.  The best I was able to do was spin off the treasurer function (which made better business sense anyway), and I succeeded in that, though sometimes I needed to intervene, as in the time when a drop off in membership dues resulted in a big depletion of capital before I was made aware of it.  The treasurer waited until the bleeding got really bad before he told me.  I had to step in and stop it, and I did; and we righted the ship before it went broke.  And the daisempai?  We never mentioned it to him, because we never needed to.

The treasurer held the checkbook, but he was not a leader.  When there was a problem, he could not solve it.  He was a nice guy, but he needed guidance.  He needed a leader.  It was me.

This is my first point to all the NYT's handwringers - there are not that many people, male or female, who can handle leadership.  Even rarer are the ones who can handle leadership and be responsible (think about all the "empty suit" stories we hear about CEO's bailing with bags of money after running some place or other into the ground).  Lean in all you want - most of you have neither the talent nor the inclination (and they are not the same thing).

Second point (very important) - styles of leadership are as variable as the leaders.  I was not a "nurturing" consensus builder.  I was a hardass.  A reluctant hardass most of the time, to be sure, but a hardass nonetheless.  Managing the dojo was not my first leadership role; and in both cases, hardass was what was called for.  As a professional theatre stage manager, I can categorically say I did not have any friends among the company members, but I did a damn good job.  I did not step on any toes that did not need stepping on, but when it was necessary, I wore boots, because that is how the job had to be done. 

Was I happy kicking butt?  Not really.  It actually is lonely at the top, if you are a real leader, I think.  You never get to relax, really, because the next decision is always sitting there, waiting for you.  And it won't necessarily wait until you are ready to take care of it.  You may need to take care of it right now.  I was never not the stage manager, or the dojocho.  And for me, at least, the pay sucked.

So if you are looking to be liked, leadership is probably not what you want.  If you like to complain, ditto.  As the leader, there is no one to complain to.  Will people complain about you?  Absolutely.

(And, as a side note, the role of micro-manager is not compatible with that of leader.  Micro-managers, by definition, cannot see the big picture.  It's like a stage manager worrying about getting through a rehearsal, when you need to worry about getting through to the last performance; or in the case of my experience, an entire season of performances.  The leader delegates; the micro-manager has to do everything herself!) 

I notice, of course, that "manager" not CEO, was in both of these relevant titles.  I can also say that I was not inspiring in either role (except to a very few people who actually appreciated what I was doing), which is somehow a trait associated with leaders.  It is - with political leaders, for example (or church leaders, I suppose).  But if guiding and moving an organization in a good direction is what makes a leader, then I was one, FWIW.

As I said, I was reluctant, and now for the moment at least, I do not have to be a leader who moves things along.  I am hoping, in a way, that I will have more time now, to inspire - as a teacher.