to provide information in social settings. We learn to follow the lead in our family systems of people to whom we give authority to keep us safe or to give us guidance. That continues throughout our lives and shows up in every group setting we experience.
As we move through groups during the course of life, each one of us is transmitting emotional information to others around us as well as receiving emotional information from those same people. As we spend more time together, as when we establish a team or social group, the limbic systems of that group will learn an order of emotional listening and develop a pattern of emotions that plays out predictably when that group comes together. The key for leaders is that every group, at a deep and subconscious level, is looking for the person in that group who is the emotional leader and who will provide group direction and guidance. If there is a social hierarchy at play, those patterns help the group attune to a person more quickly and consistently. For instance, if the group knows that a particular person is “in charge”, the individuals tend to look first to that person for leadership signals before they look elsewhere. In the absence of clear leadership signals, the group will move to any strong emotion that feels compelling—but this can be very destructive.
We can see many examples of groups where the emotional leadership arises from a basis of fear. British psychoanalyst W. R. Bion said that the natural leader of a group would be the one who was the most paranoid and the first to find a reason to enter an emotional state of fight-or-flight. In context, Bion was working with British soldiers during World War II who had just been evacuated from Dunkirk and were suffering from “shell shock,” as it was called at the time. (We would now term this posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.) These men had every reason to feel traumatized and paranoid at that time, but the significance here still remains clear. Leadership of a group can come from a place of fear, distrust, and doubt. The limbic system works either way, and a group follows either way. As we talk about leadership, it becomes increasingly clear that the emotional state of a leader is absolutely critical. Also, every group will eventually find a source of leadership. Whoever is the formal leader of a group either can lead it—or watch it be led.
Daniel Goleman’s work Emotional Intelligence (1996) points out some other more positive examples of why the emotional state of the leader is important. It is clear from the research on emotions and leadership in the workplace that positive moods have a positive correlation to productivity and job performance. By the same token, moods like anger, resentment, and hostility can have a negative impact on job performance and increase turnover in the workplace. I believe that we all know this correlation from our experience in life. How many of us have found ourselves making errors at critical times, simply because we are in a bad mood? Or, when we have felt great, we’ve noticed that all of our tasks seem to be easier and faster. Many of the leaders with whom I have worked have described this correlation as intuitively obvious, to the point of labeling it with the Disney tune of “Whistle While You Work.” Indeed, intuition is a strong part of our ability as humans to lead others, to navigate social networks, and to create a path through uncharted regions. Most of us know this from experience. If we are in a relationship of any sort—work, family, romantic, or social—where the mood is unhappy, heavy, or depressing, we feel ourselves dragged down. We will feel uninspired. Conversely, if that same situation has optimism and enthusiasm, we will feel that mood moving through us as well. How often, in even the smallest ways, has a social setting inspired us to try something? People who are in emotionally safe, trusting, and supportive environments take more risks. They feel freer to be creative and spontaneous.
Try this out for yourself—based on your experience, can you feel the difference in your own performance based on mood? The Dali Lama states it this way: “Choose optimism. It feels better.”
Here, I am making a point for leadership. While there are many, many research studies that basically illustrate the correlational impact of emotions and job performance, discussing those in depth would talk to your head. In order to fully grasp the leadership concept discussed in this book, I ask you to take a different approach. The type of leader described here is balanced in approaching the world through his or her head, heart, and gut. At this point, if you can access the body and emotional memory you have of the impact of emotions on your productivity and levels of inspiration, you will begin to live from this model. That which you become aware of in yourself and consciously access will begin to shape your life. When you feel this, you begin to develop the empathy that helps you understand what a group of people needs at any given time. From there, you begin the journey of learning to lead through your presence.
LEADERSHIP AND AUTHORITY
It’s time to make another clear distinction—what we are not talking about here. Very often the word “leader” is used euphemistically to mean “boss” or other authority figure. In those cases, it is used to indicate who is in charge through his or her formal authority and also to elevate the importance of what that person is doing. In reality, a large percentage of people who have the title or designation of leader are not leading at all. They may be directing or providing managerial functions, but they are not leading. They are in positions to exercise power through authority.
Renowned sociologist Max Weber outlined three different types of authority in his “tripartite classification.” He described charismatic authority, traditional authority, and rational formal authority. Each of these is a description of how authority is established within a group of people in order to achieve consistent social behavior. All of these are useful in understanding how power is used in society and how various social behaviors can occur or not occur. He describes the charismatic authority of historical figures, such as Jesus and Mohammed, and how their deep personal beliefs and powerful presence achieved authority over society to such an extent as to have people change their beliefs and social practices to follow their way. He noted the social phenomenon of “routinization of charisma,” which occurs when others take the personal authority granted to a person and create a formal and rational authority base to replicate it. An example is the charismatic authority Jesus possessed that was later adopted into organized religions that claimed a heritage of authority based on following his teachings. In this manner, the charismatic authority was transferred into the formal authority of religion.
Yet this only describes authority and not leadership. While Jesus might have had the personal power to tell people what to say or do, it is doubtful that he would have been so direct or so controlling. It is more likely that he honored choice in every way. By the same token, when we look at the writings of the Buddha, we get the same sense of engagement with others. While he might have shown people how they could achieve enlightenment, he was not out to direct their behavior or to control what they did or did not do. Instead, both of these people presented a series of personal choices. As they stood in the place of enlightenment, they beckoned others to join them.
This distinction of authority is one of control and power. This is crucial to understanding true leadership. When we talk about leadership, we lean toward having people who follow because they want to, not because they have to. When we get into the social nuances of empowered systems, we see that this type of leadership is generous and allows others to share in the direction and to expand on their own passions as well. This allows for the synergy of groups and allows the natural phenomenon of collective consciousness to do the creative designs on its own.
In this book, leadership is described as an act and a practice. A person who is in a position of authority and who has extended impact over the lives of others must also lead. Calling a person a leader does not make him or her one. Giving a person a supervisory, managerial, or executive position does not make him or her a leader. It simply gives that person authority. This distinction is called personal and positional power. People in authority roles have positional power, but they also need to develop their personal power. Many times, this will seem paradoxical, as such people will wonder why they need to develop the ability to cause other people to take action because they want to—rather, these people may feel they have the authority to make other people take
