By Mike Pardee, Director of gcLi Research; English and Humanities Faculty, The Crefeld School in Philadelphia, PA
A version of this article was originally published in CSEE’s Connections Quarterly, February 2008 Vol. XXVII, No. 5
My experience is that teenagers love coining oxymorons and deconstructing paradoxes. Like Holden Caulfield, they are ever on the alert to expose hypocrisy (usually the adult kind!) or to point out logical inconsistencies. They tend to relish F. Scott Fitzgerald’s oft-quoted quip that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” Fortunately, since the phenomenon of leadership is so rife with paradox, those of us who mentor student leaders can use these paradoxes strategically as hooks for engaging teenagers to consider some of the inherently self-contradictory dynamics of leadership.
Pulitzer Prize-winning scholar James MacGregor Burns, for instance, devotes a whole chapter in his Transformation Leadership to “the Leaders-Follower Paradox.” Professor Burns is the unofficial dean of American historians who study leadership. Although this particular insight is hardly original, the field is full of examples of times when “followers may lead and leaders follow” (Transforming Leadership, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003, p. 171). As a result, some teachers and practitioners eschew using words like “followers” and “leaders” when discussing how leadership actually emerges and functions in groups. Using instead terms like “collaborators,” they try to collapse the false dichotomy that the more polarizing contrast suggests.
If leaders and followers in the highest-functioning groups become truly interdependent–perhaps even interchangeable–a related paradox flows from that. This other paradox can be tangibly embodied in the mobius strip. A mobius strip appears at first glance to be constructed of a looping continuum with two sides. As a result of how the loop is twisted, however, on further inspection, the loop reveals just a single, continuous side. Concepts like “leaders” and “followers,” in other words, do not express different sides of a coin. Rather, they–paradoxically–belong on the same side of a truly collaborative process, as the mobius strip represents.
It is hardly a coincidence, then, that The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership used a mobius strip for its logo and organizational brand. Founded to honor and nurture the path-breaking, paradigm-shifting work of Robert Greenleaf, the Center’s mission is “to advance the awareness, understanding, and practice of servant leadership for a more just and caring society.” The paradoxical term “servant leader” was coined and first popularized by Greenleaf himself. He means it to suggest the kinds of leaders who see performing their role(s) as servants to be more important than affirming their own identity as leaders.
For many of our most conscientious and talented students with ambitious college aspirations, the appeal of assuming prestigious leadership roles and titles can come before or even trump their genuine urges to serve a given group or cause. By introducing them to paradoxical concepts like “servant leadership,” however, we can reinforce the importance of their attending to both these essential sides of the leadership equation.
A few other paradoxes of leadership flow from our natural human ambivalence toward our designated leaders and from being members of groups. On the one hand, we all want to belong, to be needed, loved, and connected closely with others. On the other hand, we cherish our independence, our uniqueness, our importance as autonomous individuals. So much for our inherent ambivalence about being members of particular groups. We also tend to project profoundly self-contradictory feelings onto our various groups or organizational leaders. On the one hand, we want them to take care of us, to inspire us, to mobilize us for effective action while keeping us entirely safe from harm. On the other hand, we resent it whenever we feel they are too decisive or directive, depriving us of our natural birthright to manage our own selves freely.
Apprentice student leaders are often immensely relieved to learn that much of this ambivalence and these fundamental paradoxes are simply hard-wired into human nature. When they encounter the frustration that these conflicting dynamics inevitably bring, they tend–at least at first–to feel unduly responsible for circumstances that may be partly beyond their control. Novice leaders also tend to underestimate the extent to which leaders can first be idealized and then become lightning rods for groups’ general frustration or discontent. The very groups that may have once embraced them as heroes or saviors to lead them to their version of the promised land can just as easily–and quickly–turn on their recognized leaders, callously scapegoating or martyring them in the process.
Some of these paradoxes seem to draw less immediate attention than others from aspiring student leaders. These lesser-known aspects tend to lurk in the looming shadows of leadership, instead. For those like CSEE and gcLi–with a special interest in exercising ethical, not just effective–leadership, these paradoxes require that we all acknowledge the shadow side of our own ethical natures. Is human nature fundamentally evil? Or noble? Or both? Fortunately for those of us who wish to teach them about leadership and mentor them as they practice it, teenage student leaders tend to be equally intrigued by existential questions like these.
—-
Mike Pardee teaches 9th and 10th grade English and serves as an Advisor at The Crefeld School in Philadelphia. He formerly taught Transdisciplinary Humanities as the Program Director at Revolution School in Philadelphia’s Center City. Prior to that, he was the founding Associate Director and Dean of Faculty at Lab Atlanta, an innovative, experiential semester school engaging enterprising 10th graders from throughout the city in a place-based educational program. Mr. Pardee served previously as the Associate Director of Community Engagement of the Boniuk Institute for Religious Tolerance at Rice University; as Director of Character Education at the Kinkaid School in Houston, Texas; and as Executive Director of the Leadership Initiative at Suffield Academy in Connecticut. He also has several years’ experience teaching and coaching at various independent schools, including Albuquerque Academy in New Mexico and Concord Academy in Massachusetts. He did his undergraduate work at Princeton University, earned his M.A. in American Studies from Boston University, and a second M.A. in private school leadership from Columbia Teachers College in New York City. His years of research and first-hand experience inspire his exploration of both the theoretical and practical applications of leadership training and character development at the gcLi Leadership Lab.