Where Art and Leadership Meet

Leaders have repeatedly been compared with artists. The way leaders see the world and create something new, how they integrate aspects of the status quo with their vision of the future and communicate their goals is indeed similar to the creative process of artists. Some authors* have tried to pin down certain factors in the work of leaders and artists that allow for this comparison. The existence of a vision is an obvious common factor; leaders and artists are more sensitive to the world around them and are able to envision the future in new ways. In both cases, having the vision is equally crucial as the process of its communication to others, and its practical implementation. Another similarity would be the act of composition, where the leader utilizes different sources for the execution of the plan, as much as the artist uses certain tools to create a tangible piece of art.

As opposed to looking at the ways leaders are artists, I would like to emphasize the way artists can be leaders. The way they are able to lead their audience is different from the typical request for followership by other leaders. In their own right, artists can be thought-leaders and do so most effectively when they are authentic.

Authentic art as invitation to follow

Leadership and art are both about effect. If an artist has created a piece of art that has an effect on the audience by provoking new thoughts or emotions, it is leading change. The artistic process results in the tangible expression of the artist’s inner life, so what we see or hear reflects the artist’s own feelings and thoughts in response to their experience of the world. At best, the creator’s authenticity shines through his artifact with a message and an unspoken invitation to follow.

Most recently I have come to know the work of American painter Joe Lovett. His latest painting is a meaningful masterpiece that tells his own take on the story of our time. In it we recognize another leadership aspect of art: artists, like leaders, can capture the world on our behalf and thereby create a feeling of solidarity through the embodied message. With “Stretch the Strangle Hold”, Lovett created a painting as much as a statement, one that respectfully disregards its audience and yet creates a home for those who feel the same. In many ways it provides an example for the way art can take on a leadership function, albeit it is claimed gently and cautiously.

Where art and leadership meet and part

Most striking for the analogy between art and leadership is the authentic persona that stands in the center of good art, and good leadership. Using my example, Lovett’s work is authentic and hence, effectual, mainly because it is a true representation of his personal worldview. Like with authentic leadership, authentic art depends on the creating individual:

“The artist’s own individuality as a person is a determining factor in this different view of the world; what is seen is modified by the artist’s thought, thus producing both a window to the world and a window to the artist’s mind.” **

Hence, art can teach us about leadership in terms of two important aspects: the awareness of one’s values, expressed through self-awareness, and the ability to communicate one’s world view effectively to others, otherwise known as transparency. Both are crucial for the effectiveness of the message that is to be brought across, by leaders and artists alike. Of course, there are limits to the commonalities between art and leadership, most fundamentally in terms of the nature of social interactions. Whilst both art and leadership require others to be recognized in their respective role, the need for functioning relationships is greater in leadership than in art. For example, as long as an audience recognizes the artist as such they also know that their input into the artist’s future work could be minimal. Taken to the extreme, this could put the artist at risk of self-absorbance because she does not require others as justification for her work. Leadership, on the other hand, entails not only the ascription by others but the joint journey of leader and followers.

Still, these differences should not distract from the notion that art can be an act of authentic leadership, and leaders can look at artists for guidance. In both cases, it will be up to the audience to follow.

Reference:

*Cadenhead, K., & Fischer, G. (2000). Leader as Artist. Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies, 7(2), 75-87

** ibid. p. 76

Official Role Models

We’ve heard a lot about Role Modeling in connection with Authentic Leadership. In short, this crucial quality of authentic leaders refers to the ability to act in accordance with the values they communicate. The integrity, energy and braveness that leaders need to act upon their principles make them authentic. If they follow their own rules with consistency and passion, their behaviors will inspire others, resulting in a role model effect.

Now, there is plenty of room for discussion in regards to the demand to acting on strong values. For example, how far should a leader go by insisting on certain principles, despite potential pressure from their environment? Or, you could ask: was Hitler an authentic leader because he strictly followed his twisted principles? The list of possible challenging questions about this issue could go on, but let’s save this discussion for another time. The premise I’m making is this: authentic leadership involves having strong values about certain issues, communicating them and acting upon them. And by doing so, leaders set examples for their followers, to do the same. They become Role Models.

This time I’d like to bring this philosophical question closer to life and focus on a simple example. To start with, I’m asking why only hierarchically recognized leaders could be role models. What about teachers? Or doctors? Or, to get the story rolling – police officers?

Police Officers and Road Safety

I am in a love-hate relationship with my cell phone. It’s an ancient model that only survives for the lack of use and is tolerated in my handbag for its potential role as savior in an emergency situation. I have yet to find out more about the nature of the crucial discussions that many people (Americans mainly, sorry!) have on their cell phones whilst walking their dogs, riding bikes, strolling with their kids or, the worst of all, driving their cars. Put the question of content aside I don’t think driving and being on the cell phone is a healthy combination. Apart from the fact that it looks dangerous to me, other people seem to agree.

My argument/question is this: assuming that it is true that ‘cell phone driving’ is dangerous, and further assuming that police officers enforce (road) safety, can we conclude that police officers should definitely not be on the cell phone whilst driving? And second: do police officers have a certain position in our society that would render them role models, which would mean in this context that in order to enforce road safety they should not be caught by ordinary citizens on the phone whilst driving? That would at least be my expectation, an expectation that clashes with reality on a daily basis. I see police officers on the road and talking cheerily on their cell phones on a regular basis. Now you are asking yourself “Well, where does she live? Maybe the job of police officers requires them to have important telephone conversations whilst they are driving?” To answer your question: No, I don’t live in Chicago where officers are in the middle of a high-profile mafia operation and their ‘cell phone driving’ helps them find the bad guys. And no, I also don’t live in Los Angeles, where police officers are fighting dangerous gangs and ‘cell phone driving’ is a matter of life and death. I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan with a wonderfully low crime statistic.

Role Models, Offically

Bottom line: even people that are in no classical leadership position can and should view themselves as role models. In the above mentioned case I’m referring to those members of society that (at least in my eyes) enjoy the respect of citizens because they have a hard job keeping us relatively safe and secure. I like the police, and never had a problem with them. But I wish more officers in our town would see themselves as role models by not driving and talking on the cell phone at the same time. If they view their job as important as most ordinary citizens do, then they should be able to feel pride in their job and the awareness of their responsibility as role models.

And I’m sure that those police officers, who feel like that about their job, do exactly that. They know what’s safe and what isn’t and they will not just preach water and drink wine (an unfortunate saying in the context, I know). If they act authentically and genuinely believe that cell phone driving is dangerous (I hope they do), they can make the most of their position to keep the rest of us safer by behaving like real role models. Officially, so to speak.

You consider this notion as problematic? Then I look especially forward to your comment. You can also send me an email to andrea@derlercoaching.com. Thank you!