Radical Leadership

Interesting post, but I'm not sure I agree with most of it.

I think at primal levels people follow the person who commands leadership (ie the one with answers), even if that person sucks at leadership. I also think leadership in primal situations was done more often with a big stick, false bravado, or maybe some henchmen, rather than any map. Then it was up to some challenger(s) (maybe with a bigger or better stick) to replace them, or in rare cases the group would revolt and choose some other schmuck.

I guarantee the leader of today is as “lost” as the follower, the reason they appear to be found, is because they've found their passion and follow it taking risks where others wouldn't. The follower is lost without passion and thus clings to a leader who has it, hoping that leader will share their passion with them. And they often can and do, but eventually the follower loses themselves, or starts to drag on the leader and they get left behind.

Of course, when a group of passion leaders share together, is where the most amazing things happen. Even if one stands “above” the rest, everyone is leading not just the one. The energy in this situation is boundless and magic seems to occur around them.

I can't see any “era of the conceptual emergency”. I see an era of hyper-connected, apathetic, rich people, maintaining old problems they are comfortable with. Then they keep building new stuff on top of it. This is the perceived complexity. They end up too afraid to even try a simple solution, for fear it will throw our civilization into some sort of abyss, or some other nonsense.

I do agree with your conclusion, except the “complex world” is not new and good leaders have been asking questions for centuries. I'd also prefer they nurture responsibility then collective action. Good call on the wisdom though, I hope to make more of that readily available soon.

Thanks for writing, hope I wasn't too harsh.

ps I prefer “totally tubular” to radical, any day. Cowabunga dudes!

I want to challenge some of your assumptions. I may read into some of what you are saying, feel free to enlighten me if I get it wrong(it happens often). I've also decided to use our mutually agreed on form of leadership to give us common ground. I hope it works

a) Leadership has to do with choice or control
Q: Is there a dictatorship, monarchy, family, democracy, or tyranny that operates without a leader or leaders?

b) Command and control structures can't deal with complex problems.
Q: If we had a global government that stopped all oil production would civilization end or, after the massive instability, would it continue and find a new way? Clearly a more comprehensive set of solutions is required, but no matter who puts forward the solution a command and control structure would be the fastest way to get it done. People seem to be clamoring for a fast solution, so maybe they want one world government, even as they claim to fear and abhor the idea. I wonder why we ask for fast solutions and then refuse to take the risk of implementing them?

c) We have passed the limits for growth.
Q) Have we really? I see lots of planet left around me. I think we are close to passing the limit for pollution growth. However, I would suggest that the growth of wealth can continue infinitely and will speed up as we decide to stop spreading physically, like a virus. I'm actually impressed that the population is naturally stabilizing as people realize they can be “richer” by having less offspring. It's quite hopeful and shows that we are smarter than we know.

d) We need “deep system level transformation”.
Do we need to transform it or simply decide to use it in a way that works better? I used to think the system was broken, but it clearly works very well. Take a moment to drop all your knowledge and assumptions and just use your senses to see what is directly around you. Do you feel threatened or unsafe. Are you in distracting discomfort that stops you from thinking clearly. Do you have some desire that remains unmet, that you know you can not achieve, because the system won't let you?

e) Shifting the perspectives of people (one or billions) is complex.
Q: Have any of my questions shifted your perspective? Was it complicated? It may seem daunting that there are billions of people who need to shift, but it can be done. You may think we don't have time to do it, but if we are methodical and persistent we will succeed. Plus, people are catching on faster and faster these days, as you may have noticed.

f) The US is focused.
Q: Isn't the US more of a model for unfocused? US political and business leadership is focused on maintaining their dominance and subsequent wealth, but they don't have a long term goal. Democracy is absurdly unfocused and is the number one reason China is becoming a world leader in focused power. Capitalism, on the other hand, is extremely focused. However it maybe blinded by it's tunnel vision for unsustainable growth.

Q) What do you mean by embodied awareness? Sounds like the default state of affairs, even if its currently ruled by the subconscious more than the conscious. What about disembodied awareness? That may be hard for most of us to grasp.

Thanks for the response, I'm enjoying the conversation.

It is not so much a question leadership, but primarily one of vision. We have leaders, but there is no over arching vision, from the Establishment that is, to deal with the complexities of a world that has outgrown cultural regionalism.

This is the situation J. Campbell was referring to when he spoke of the planetary myth. We are now a global society and our enthnocentric methods of doing business as usual have reached their limits. We are searching for a story, a vision, that will carry us forward into the next epoch of human cultural evolution as a global society dealing with the complexities of 6.7 billion people & counting. We need a vision incorporating existing cultural variances that at the same provides for the needs of those ready to become planetary citizens and accommodates the reality we must change certain aspects of the dominant cultural paradigm. I agree that no one individual has has all the answers.

But I do not agree with the statement ‘in which the world we have created has outstripped our capacity to understand it‘. My website is dedicated to that understanding and it is also dedicated to a vision of the immediate and near future. I do offer a “radical” vision addresses the big picture. The details are to be worked by “the peoples congress” ” the committee” the round table or the local community. Those interested may review my proposal entitled “A Movement to Unite all Good Will Movements. A Call for a Coalition of the Just.” I outline “the problem” and the big picture steps needed to arrive a solution capable of addressing the global predicament. http://bit.ly/OTXN8

The new leadership model
is collective, circular, cross referential and gender balanced.

I thank you David for deepening the conversation.

For human evolution to continue, the conversation must deepen.” – Margaret Mead

As you suggest in your tweet on this post, the concept of meta-leadership developed by Dr. Leonard Marcus and his colleagues at Harvard is a good place to start. Meta-leadership begins with understanding yourself — because you have to be able to lead yourself before you can lead anyone else — and then takes a systems-based view of all of the multi-dimensional, interconnected and interdependent relationships involved in contemporary leadership. There's more on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-leadership and http://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/npli/