I’ve never thought of leadership as not being linked to change. Is it the sum of your interactions with other entities? Whether we like it or not things change by the fact we interact with them (or if we choose not to they are changed by our absence).

At the heart of this is a twist in perception. Are we actors in society or passive recipients of what goes on around us? This argument comes up in so many guises. Stephen Covey talks about proactivity as the first stage of becoming an effective person. Within his concept he talks of the need to become aware of the relationship between stimulus and response. Once a person has done this they can begin to exercise choice. Hence they become active (and in Covey’s eyes, effective). By default this means those who don’t recognise this space they have for choice are passive and not as effective in making things happen.

The ability a person has to respond to any given situation could also be seen as their ability to lead. The greater their ability to respond then the better a leader they are. i.e. the more able they are to exercise choice over their future and the future of people and other entities around them, the better they are at leading.

Much work in leadership development works on developing people’s self-awareness, ability to become more aware of their prejudices, raise awareness of how they are too reactive, or give them any number of strategies for developing new ideas, businesses and managing projects. I think this misses the heart of leadership. The heart of leadership is this very idea that we are part of something bigger than just ourselves, that we have a connection to something beyond ourselves and therefore the personal will or desire to act on and effect more than just our immediate surroundings.

Eventually everyone can accept they have some choice over things around them, that they can improve how they communicate, how they bring people together to get things done etc. What is harder is to connect to the very society they are part of. This is what compels a person to become more active and create change.

What I’m getting at is that individuals play a role in making society the way it is. We always have done and always will do, hence you can’t separate leadership from change.

The extent of our connection to society around us makes this anxiety greater or lesser. The more connected, the more we understand it, the more we realise we are part of a system. In realising this we can figure out the role we play and how we can effect change. Either to better ourselves, our family, our community our organisation or any part of the wider system. It’s this realisation that is the first step to becoming a leader.

Some people would talk about this as a sense of belonging, feeling connected, part of something bigger. I always remember someone telling me that inspiration was about connecting to something beyond yourself, or your immediate known surroundings. It can inspire you to new heights, to make new things happen. I notice it happens with me. Whenever I’m taken into new surroundings that make me see something different, that challenge how I saw things before I am more motivated, interested, inclined to be involved.

Of course this often gets placed in the arena of social and political education, or more recently education for sustainable development. This of course can produce lots of people who are just angry about what they see and connect to. They become unhappy with it and start to blame others, or organisation and people out side of their immediate circle of influence. If the connections are complete and leaders see the two way interaction between themselves and the system and vice versa though leaders can begin to accept they are part of the whole, that there is no inside or outside the system. Not distance themselves from it as though there is a set of good and bad, a part they can blame. This is the secret to being motivated towards positive change within a system.

The leadership phrase of keeping your eyes on the hills and feet on the ground speaks well to this. Keeping your eyes on the hills keeps you inspired, connected to the bigger picture. Keeping your feet on the ground prevents the disconnect and stress that can be created by aiming too high. It is what helps you translate the dream to realistic actions and steps.

The best model I’ve come across to explain this is that of creative tension, used by Peter Senge and others. It’s the description of the creative tension that I believe to be crucial in the design of a leadership programme. Many will grasp what I’ve written above and use it as the basis for fantastic awareness raising programmes. But can they turn the new found tension into something more than frustration with the system?

Oliver Mack