Whilst the dictionary definition of leadership might be simple, it is clear that in 2024, what it means to lead is more challenging to articulate and perhaps asks more questions than it does to offer answers.
On the 18th of July, One Question, in partnership with Substack, Professional Lunch, authored by communicator Marshall Manson, hosted the first in a series of Conversations Over Lunch, inviting leaders across business and society, industry and organisation to develop real-life relationships, share challenges and find new opportunities in conversation, through the lens of a single question.
For our inaugural conversation, we asked, “Do we lead determined by how we were led?”
Have our experiences of leadership, whether throughout our careers, politically or economically, shaped our leadership styles today?
How does our leadership differ by gender, generation, or culture?
How do we define what it means to lead?
Is the true definition of leadership the difference between being anointed—being voted into a leadership position—and simply garnering influence in society? When we think of a leader today, do we think of President Obama, Taylor Swift, or those who teach our children?
In business, leadership is defined as being in a position of authority to make change or a figurehead representing others’ leadership, a leader by proxy. But this begs the question: Can you lead if you aren’t empowered?
The most apparent example is political leadership versus corporate leadership. The latter rarely votes in those who lead and, therefore, must seek support upstream to assert influence while inspiring followers downstream to forge a path to success. However, we might define it.
Therefore, being crowned a leader rather than earning a position is perhaps the most challenging version of leadership.
“Leadership is only possible if you are empowered to empower others.” Bethany Wheatley, Brunswick Group.
The domino effect of leadership is intrinsic to the success of any business, government, or community, but perhaps modelling this in business is easier said than done. Are businesses structured to empower, be it bottom-up or top-down?
Our attempts to reach a clear definition over lunch show that leadership is contextual, determined by how we are asked to lead, the conflicting values and desires of those we lead, and the different definitions of success—making leadership in 2024 the new unicorn.
What makes a good leader?
This is a trick question. My version of good is going to be different from yours. And as I type this, we are living the whiplash of American politics. For some, Donald Trump exuded leadership at the recent Republican Convention to an almost cult-like following. And in a matter of days, for others, President Biden demonstrated leadership in service of something much bigger than himself.
And that was our most robust definition of good leadership.
“For me, leadership is to serve in something bigger than itself. Managers tend to be in service to securing station and position, while leaders have a view and a north star, which is usually not in service to themselves.” James Scroggs, Founder of NWC, Chair of One Question.
While the desire to follow someone in service to something bigger than themselves might be the goal, is it too romantic? Does this manifest itself in society?
Throughout history, we have been encouraged to follow those who omit power and success, believing their success would eventually become ours—something playing out in the Republican Party as we convened over lunch.
As hard a pill it is to swallow, Donald Trump is leading; whether he is leading in service of something greater than greed or ego is pretty clear to me, but he has a large following of people who believe that he is leading in their interest, to make America great again. To achieve this, he has whipped up support from those who can see what they stand to gain at the end of the republican rainbow, be it his new running mate or salubrious British characters hanging off his coattails.
But in direct contrast, the Democratic party is making a case for a model of leadership that is no longer about individual gain but about collective reward, and that is in service of something bigger than any one person.
This is a shift we may also be experiencing in the UK. As the conversation moved to the recent election, for many, the difference between being of service to yourself and in service to something bigger than yourself was the difference between the UK under fourteen years of a Conservative Government and a matter of weeks under a new Labour Leadership.
As our PM continues to serve the British people and the juggernaut of US politics continues across the pond, with the first African American-Indian female contender for the most powerful seat in the world, are we testing new leadership models in real-time?
The question is, which one will prevail?
Is leadership predetermined?
As we turn to John C. Maxwell and his five tenets of leadership, how do we learn to evolve and adapt our leadership style while remaining consistent in our mission? Can we balance the need for instruction versus inspiration alongside the ability to be self-aware enough to take criticism, leave our ego at the door, and follow our North Star?
If we pass on our leadership style to those we lead in our careers, then the challenge of ineffective leadership for some is the inability to be consistent. The leaders who can remain focused on the end goal and lead with consistency whilst adapting to curve balls are perhaps unicorns in their own right, but the stark alternative of inconsistency, mixed messages and mixed truths can only lead to a lack of confidence, not just in our leadership style but in those you are leading.
This is ineffective for any business and risks becoming a cultural trait of the organisation, “which is like hanging a parachute off the back of a car and hoping you can go fast.”
The leaders I have most respect for have been those who can balance adaptability with changeability. The former is necessary for any leadership; the latter is destructive. Marshall Manson, Communicator.
This led to the timely provocation: How do we lead when our leadership values are not aligned with those of our organisation or institution?
For some, the answer was obvious: You are not leading. If you are not leading in alignment with your values, then quite simply, you are not leading. While this might be true, the reality is not that binary. I would hasten to argue that challenging the environment in which you lead is much easier for men than women, much easier for white men. Irrespective of who we are leading, bias exists. This may be our next One Question.
“All leadership needs some level of adversity to fully realise its potential. Whether internal or external. I think being challenged is a good thing, provided it does not distract from the ultimate goal or purpose.” Karrelle Dixon
But by the very definition of leadership, those around you still expect you to lead and therein lies the tension. Increasingly, leaders are voting with their feet in the act of quiet quitting, and followers are resorting to protest to be heard.
It is clear that, like many aspects of our lives, how we were led determines how we lead today, but we evolve with age and experience. We adapt to economic, societal and political shifts, but empathy and emotional intelligence again rear their heads as the only constant.
“To be a good leader, we must be comfortable with who we are, the good, the bad and the ugly and articulate that, allowing people to share their vulnerability.” Natasha Plowman, Communication Consultant.
Can business catch up?
Are businesses equipped to reap the rewards of a new model of leadership? One which is not about hierarchy but about collaboration. Can all businesses, but perhaps more critically heritage businesses, evolve to an environment that understands and invests in the idea that collective leadership is far more profitable than individual short-term wins?
Whilst the constant pressure to navigate a world of me, myself, and I & to compete over collaborate is not new, technological innovations are doubling down to encourage us to focus on our individual needs versus our collective needs. And orchestrating tension between our innate human need to connect, relate and be part of a wider community, with the ever-increasing pressure of an always-on 21st-century society focus on individual economic success and societal standing.
But if the best leader knows herself, understands her insecurities, egos, and experiences, and enables people to share in that vulnerability while forging a path towards a shared north star, can businesses adapt their thinking and evolve company structures to support this?
“I realised early on in my career that how I thought I was leading and how my leadership was perceived were at odds. There was some kind of zen-ness that I was missing that was diminishing my ability to lead.” David Shriver, former Director of Reputation.
Are we developing enough data points and disruptive businesses to prove that organisations that lead collaboratively and competitively, empower those downstream, challenge those upstream, and innovate with technology alongside investing in people will be the most profitable?
We all shape our values based on our experiences and insecurities and align ourselves with those who mirror them. And as we have seen from President Biden this week, when we lead with our ego or self-interest, we run the risk of compromising our legacy.
Conversations over Lunch is hosted by Sarah Parsonage, One Question and Marshall Manson, author of Professional Lunch.
This critical thinking feature includes thoughts from David Shriver, Ocado Group; Natasha Plowman, Communication Consultant; James Scroggs, NWC; Karrelle Dixon, St Edmunds College and Prep School; and Bethany Wheatley, Brunswick Group.
To join a future Conversation over Lunch, register here.