Like millions of others, we have been thrilled and terrified by the unexpected and unprecedented news coming out of Egypt in recent weeks. As editors who work at a company specializing in, among other matters, how to lead, we've been fascinated by how assiduously various forces, for various reasons, have been trying to anoint a leader on a movement that has been aggressive about not having one. Whether it's Mohamed ElBaradei, someone from the Muslim Brotherhood, Google's Wael Ghonim, or someone else, it seems hard for many in the media to grasp the idea of a movement without a recognizable, charismatic figure (a Nelson Mandela or an Aung San Suu Kyi, or maybe even a Julian Assange) in front of it. If ever a country needed a Jim Collins-style Level 5 leader who also embodies Daniel Goleman's notions of emotional intelligence and Peter Drucker's ideas about effectiveness, it's Egypt right now.
But it's not just the media (and let's not forget that "media" is a plural word) scouring Tahrir Square for someone to take charge. We want someone to be in charge. There is, after all, plenty of evidence that leaderless organizations can dissolve into chaos just as easily as those run by dictators. But the favorite book of the U.S. Tea Partiers, other than the Constitution, is The Starfish and the Spider, which does a good job of showcasing how nontraditional organizations can thrive (unless, of course, they're co-opted). Organizations as diverse as Ushahidi and file-sharing sites show how plenty can be accomplished without an explicitly hierarchical structure. And let's not forget, as Barbara Kellerman and others have pointed out, you can't have leaders without followers. In the most enlightened organizations, the lines between the two can be almost invisible.
Of course countries don't exist without a head of state. In Egypt, it appears that the military will take that role for now, and it's too soon to tell whether that's a welcome transitional development or an ominous one. But as the world waits to see who will take over from generations of authoritarian rule, it's worth wondering: why do we take for granted that there's got to be someone at the top? Is it a social construct? Are we hard-wired for it? What do you think?
But it's not just the media (and let's not forget that "media" is a plural word) scouring Tahrir Square for someone to take charge. We want someone to be in charge. There is, after all, plenty of evidence that leaderless organizations can dissolve into chaos just as easily as those run by dictators. But the favorite book of the U.S. Tea Partiers, other than the Constitution, is The Starfish and the Spider, which does a good job of showcasing how nontraditional organizations can thrive (unless, of course, they're co-opted). Organizations as diverse as Ushahidi and file-sharing sites show how plenty can be accomplished without an explicitly hierarchical structure. And let's not forget, as Barbara Kellerman and others have pointed out, you can't have leaders without followers. In the most enlightened organizations, the lines between the two can be almost invisible.
Of course countries don't exist without a head of state. In Egypt, it appears that the military will take that role for now, and it's too soon to tell whether that's a welcome transitional development or an ominous one. But as the world waits to see who will take over from generations of authoritarian rule, it's worth wondering: why do we take for granted that there's got to be someone at the top? Is it a social construct? Are we hard-wired for it? What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment