Two Philosophical Approaches to Leadership
“The mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that needs igniting.” —Plutarch
Back when I was young, hungry, and brimming with ego (my university days), I completed a Philosophy of Education course which examined two opposing points of view about how people learn. On the one hand, I was introduced to the concept that people are “empty vessels” into which a teacher can pour their knowledge and solutions to problems. At the same time I was presented with the opposing idea that people have intrinsic qualities and abilities to learn and grow, and they only require encouragement and guidance to learn, problem solve, and ultimately become the best versions of themselves.
I cannot tell you why I was thinking about the good old days, but it gave me reason to wonder whether these two philosophical approaches could be applied to leadership?
It is clear to me that in some arenas, and in some situations, leadership requires followers who are willing to be “empty vessels”. For example, the overwhelming emphasis by leaders in the military is to foster an environment where the follower is a highly disciplined, if not nearly unthinking, cog in the machine. Soldiers are systematically groomed to thoroughly understand a role which they rehearse repeatedly and meticulously. In addition to rehearsing for best-case scenarios, military leaders also have clear backup plans in place to face every possible outcome and those plans are also rehearsed. Preparing multiple contingencies means there are few – if any – unexpected outcomes; and even if a mission does not produce the desired result, there are backup plans in place to mitigate any losses. Through preparation and practice, certainty and trust are established, and so the well-trained soldier gives no thought to deviating from their role – even in the face of the direst outcomes.
On the other hand, since the hazy days of my youth, a body of literature on what has been termed transformational leadership has grown dramatically and its practice is now highly common in the world of work. Through deliberate encouragement, inspiration, and motivation from a leader, employees are given the green light to make decisions that will help shape the future success of the company. A transformational leader models authenticity, cooperation, and open communication, and they build company culture by encouraging employees to move from an attitude of self-interest to a mindset where everyone is committed to working for the common good. This form of leadership encourages followers to think critically, synthesize knowledge on their own, and it encourages subordinates to explore and come up with innovative solutions to the problems they face. In short, this form of leadership lights the fire within.
There are many reasons to be seduced into thinking of transformational leadership as the ideal. For one, the metaphor of our minds being a “vessel” suggests that there is a limit to everyone’s capacity to learn and grow. It is refreshing and even encouraging to believe that everyone can grow and develop if they are given ongoing motivation, encouragement, and support.
Additionally, transformational leaders are often charismatic and morale-boosting figures who make people feel valued and respected. These qualities enable staff to constantly aspire towards achieving an ever-expanding potential.
“Empty vessel” leaders often rely upon reward and punishment to motivate employees and much of this leadership is focused on maintaining consistency, predictability, and routine. This requires preparation, supervision, oversight, and performance-monitoring where errors and faults are closely investigated, and corrective measures are dictated.
While transformational leadership suggests the potential to take teams to brand new heights, there is also always the potential that this approach will hobble a team.
Transformational leadership is dependent on regular, excellent communication and inclusive meetings to maintain enthusiasm and direction. Not only is this exhausting for team leaders, but if the communication isn’t clear, or staff have any reason to feel out of the loop, they may lose interest in their tasks and their commitment to the vision.
Additionally, while transformational leadership encourages innovative thinking and problem solving from all levels of the team, this can lead to a lack of direction in the team and result in frequent changes in course. Many people have an aversion to frequent change and so this style of leadership can be disruptive and, if change happens regularly, more likely to produce adverse outcomes.
As I recall, my Philosophy of Education course led me to the conclusion that there is no singular, perfect way to approach teaching. Similarly, there is no single, perfect way to approach leadership. In my mind, a good leader, like a good teacher, requires proficiency with a full range of approaches and attitudes.
There are times when leadership requires unambiguous direction, supervision that borders on micro-management, and clear expectations. And there are times and people who perform better with the freedom to make strategic and executive decisions.
What do you think? When are some of the times you have had to take leadership control and “fill the vessel”, and when have you determined that “lighting the wood” is the best way to proceed?
Written by Randal Typusiak
Facilitator for Contagious Leadership | Thought Leader on Leadership & Education | Dad | Hubby | Generous Human Being
