Courageous Leaders acknowledge issues and demonstrate determination to see them resolved, becoming change makers and building trust.
Leadership is one of those things which can mean many different things to different people.
To me leadership is about how we serve others and the impact we can generate by bringing people together.
This article is a collaboration between myself and Dorelle Cryer-Whitehead (my mum). We have discussed good quality leadership at great length in many forums over our combined 50ish years of working in the diversity space. But we speak more about the examples of poor leadership, as they often have more impact on our lived experience.
A faceless survey recently asked...
"What is courageous leadership?"
This is something many organisations and government bodies are trying to determine and include in their leadership criteria and training.
It Is interesting, as I think both what is determined to be “courageous” and what is determined to be “leadership” are subjective, often complex and viewpoints on it are likely to be as individual as the number of people expressing opinions.
To ask officers/staff to encapsulate that in a “short sentence” seems a little optimistic as it would appear that what is being requested is a “soundbite” a short sharp slogan…preferably positive. So, here’s my stab at it.
“Courageous leadership is the kind of leadership, which deals well/effectively with criticism and complaints. “
It’s easy to appear courageous in leading, when everyone is offering praise, patting you (personally, organisationally) on the back and lauding you for a job well done. “Courageous leadership” occurs, when the shortcomings of the organisation or individuals within it are discovered, raised and require a timely, effective and meaningful response.
Believe me the response isn’t;
• “I find that hard to believe”, or
• “That’s a very serious allegation”
• “The reason group A (insert protected characteristic here), is being treated poorly is because of group B (insert a different protected characteristic here)”
All the above have been real responses to issues raised, at different times in differing contexts, but what they make clear is, you (whoever you are) are out of step, you are presenting us with something we find uncomfortable to hear and are even less comfortable to address.
So, the first response is:
• To shut you down, by making the raising of the issue the problem.
• Offer some distraction by for example, pointing to another under represented to group as being the problem, rather than issue raised.
In the hope whilst upset/concerned you will go away taking the issue with you. It suggests, they are not going to waste time, investigating a potential hornet’s nest, of whatever type, because if they do, they might have to do something about it and they are not really prepared to do that.
I accept, that often people giving the responses, like those above, haven’t thought it through, nor consciously made the decision not to address the problem/s. It is often an expression of discomfort, what popular media call a “pearl clutching moment” a sort of reflexive indignation and desire to distance themselves from the issue. However, it frequently translates to the person, group or community raising the issue/s, as an indicator that they are not believed and are unlikely to be supported or see an objective process of investigation, mediation or resolution result from any interaction.
Having leaders who can acknowledge issues, express a determination to see them resolved is very important, not only to those within the organisation but, to the communities it serves.
Learn about being an Inclusive Leader by registering for our CPD certified training.
Take care and #BeTheChange
Sabrina