Artists, writers, and the exercise of leadership

Earlier this spring, as part of my year of fellowship through the Rhode Island Foundation, I had the opportunity to participate in an executive education session at Harvard’s Kennedy School, called, “Leadership for the 21st Century: Chaos, Conflict, and Courage.” Led by Martin Linksy, and his colleagues at the KSG and HBS, there were several underlying principles that have stayed with me and that I have tried to think about these last several months.

First, authority (position / title) has nothing necessarily to do with the exercise of leadership. Second, that all systems – teams, organizations, families – are set up to generate exactly the results that they are getting, and to preserve themselves exactly as they are. Change is – from the perspective of the “system” (more on that later) – not welcome. Third, that titles and authority are the rewards that we are given when we live up to the expectations of the system that rewards us. They are not bestowed upon us because we have exercised leadership – rather, because we have met the expectations of those who are invested in the system remaining the same. And finally, the exercise of leadership exists at the margins of our authority. We are most likely not exercising leadership if no one is at least a little bit upset. The phrase we were given as a working definition of the exercise of leadership: “disappointing your own people at a rate they can absorb.”

If one can suspend any accusations of irredeemable cynicism and any accompanying hand-wringing, one might ask, “why, then, would anyone ever exercise leadership?”

The answer is purpose.

Those who exercise leadership as it is described here, do so because they are driven by a sense of purpose that transcends a traditional system of rewards (think: job security, financial security, societal recognition, even physical safety in some circumstances). They are motivated by a clarity of purpose so that the challenges presented to them do not sway them from their work. They are willing to forego comfort (in its myriad manifestations) in service to their purpose.

As I reflected on these ideas, it seems to me that artists do this. Artists – and I mean the term to describe serious-minded individuals who make a life commitment to their craft, whatever it might be – pursue their work not because of any guarantee of financial security. Not because their friends and families will be thrilled they’ve chosen this path. Not because they will live in comfort with societal admiration, and rich rewards. Many artists spend their entire careers in relative obscurity and isolation.

To describe an artist as exercising leadership does not exclude leadership in other forms. Political figures, organization heads, corporate CEOs – it is possible, of course, for individuals in positions of authority to exercise leadership. One can’t help but wonder, however, if the positions of authority themselves serve to inhibit the practice.