Sarah’s Symbolism: a lesson in distant leadership

For those of you who haven’t heard: Sarah Palin once again put her foot in her mouth. I’m not talking about the “blood libel” incident. I’m pointing at a much more interesting aspect of her leadership, one that has peaked in the latest shootings in Arizona and the following heated debate about the current political atmosphere in America.

For once, Sarah actually underestimates her influence on those who are proud to be her followers. She underestimates the power of the values she embodies and which she symbolizes with her every move. This is leadership at its worst.

Gun Sights on Democrats: Palin’s Targets

Here is what happened: in trying to pump up her image as nature-loving, bear-hunting individual, good old Sarah didn’t think much of it when she authorized the publication of a web page, showing a map of the USA with those Democratic politicians under graphic gun sights that she wanted to ‘target’ as her political opponents. And promptly, last week, a mentally disturbed person went ahead and shot several people during a political meeting. To make matters worse: one of the people shot, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, was on Palin’s map. The heated debate that followed these executions basically twists and turns around the question if and to what extent Sarah Palin’s whole political strategy could have prepared the way to this outrageous act of violence.

Sarah’s symbols, or: when followers misunderstand

Sarah does not understand that, as leader she has a tremendous amount of responsibility. What she does, says, likes and dislikes has symbolic meaning to those who follow her. Nannerl O. Keohane refers to ‘distinctive symbolic links’ between leaders and thousands or millions of distant followers (as is the the case in national politics):

“Symbolic linkages between leaders and followers, the impact of the views and actions of followers in limiting or expanding options open to the leaders, and the responsibility of leaders for their followers are all crucial aspects of leadership.”

That means that leaders cannot say, and do what they like at any time and then be surprised if someone who follows in their footsteps, takes a wrong turn. Because what Sarah’s followers see and hear is her aggressive public conduct which nurtures an angry “they-we” divide between Republicans and Democrats. For example, she intentionally - or mindlessly - talks about “arms” [saying ‘votes’ and meaning ‘weapons’], or writes: "This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington...". There is not much room for interpretation for her less critical followers and for those who are looking to justify violent acts of their own.

As leader, her responsibilities do not involve to control their actions but to influence their thoughts.

Bottom Line

Whilst it is obviously not Sarah’s direct fault that the shootings have occurred, she cannot rid herself of the deep responsibility for these actions, due to the symbolic interaction every (political) leader has with their followers. A lack of awareness of this linkage between her personality, conduct and communications is not uncommon amongst leaders, and sometimes it ends in such tragedy.

Reference:
Keohane, N. O. (2010). Thinking about Leadership. Princeton University Press.