Bennis was right when he said that as a society we have refused to give up on the idea of “great men.” “Our mythology refuses to catch up with our reality,” Bennis states to sum up who American cultural views on leadership. Although collaboration has grown and expanded into more and more aspects of organizational structure it is still under recognized by our mythos. We look for individuals to “save the day” in a crisis and for a scapegoat when things go wrong. We ignore the value and ability of what groups achieve, focusing on the individuals that play tiny parts.
Bennis describes an affective group as like-minded creative think-tanks working towards a tangible goal, with its leader perceived as one among equals. This reminds me of something mentioned on the first day of class, improv comedy groups. When reflecting on the reading it became apparent to me that the way Bennis describes the affective group’s operations is very similar to the way an affective improv group operates. Transparency abounds, as nothing has been prepared before hand and the audience is privy to the actor’s creative process. The leader of the group often plays an equal role in the charades on stage. The group recognizes each of it’s members greatness. The show would not go on if the members of the group as well as its leader did not believe in their ability to achieve their dream.
Scott Snook describes a triangle that sums up the support structure of our addiction to heroic individual leadership. How do we challenge this triangle? How do break it authoritarian hold over the idea of greatness in our society? I am not sure. A good place to start would be to lift the veil of our heroic mythos. We need to explain that the heroes and great people of our past present and future do not act alone commanding lesser people from a tower built of bureaucracy and ideology. Instead, good leadership happens among equal peers. When people can join forces to not only accomplish common goals but to innovate and create fascinating new ideas.
