Online exclusive
Sandy Burgham is a principal at Play Contemporary Leadership CoLab, a consultancy practice specialising in leadership development and organisational culture. She writes for listener.co.nz about her observations of modern corporate life.
When I consider the handful of outstanding leaders in the corporate sector I have worked with who are at the upper echelons of the patriarchy, they could all be written off by a less discerning and experienced eye as being pale, male, stale.
On a socio-economic scale, they would be the top 1% of the top 1%, which makes it all the more irritating for many. I have also this year been interviewing community leaders around the globe for a side-interest podcast I am involved in. Again, the first four I met were lily-white men in their 50s and 60s. Pale and male for sure. But stale?
While in the second or third act of their lives, each of these wise men has been adept at navigating the tricky politics of small-town parochialism to lead out a social, economic and environmental transformation of their community. They give their time for very little pay to leave a legacy and they are doing it with humility, warmth and generosity.
Clearly I am not saying that men are more effective leaders than women. In fact, a previous column explored compelling research that suggests the reverse is true, and my last column discussed the #metoo incidents that are alive and well, even on our own doorstep. One could argue that the reason the wealthy group are the top of the patriarchy is because women have been subjugated to the lower rungs. Yet, in the organisations these men lead, women are faring well in leadership numbers.
The point is that sweeping categorisations like pale, male, stale suggest a whole generation of men align to the Donald Trump school of leadership. Trust me, there are many who do and those who don’t might not be very good at their leadership gigs generally. But that goes for women, too. I have met and worked with amazing women in the managerial ranks of the corporate sector but have also met some really suspect ones at the higher echelons.
Around a decade ago, perplexed by notions of gender I saw playing out in my working life, I parallel-processed a degree in gender and history, ostensibly to more fully understand how we got ourselves into this polarised mess.
Initially there was eye-rolling from the men in leadership that I was surrounded by. “Oh god, you’re not doing ‘women’s studies’ are you? We thought you were better than that!” And then a few years in, the eye-rolling came from girlfriends. “Bloody hell, calm down love, university has radicalised you!”
Indeed, it did feel for a while there that I was a professional feminist. I am, of course, still a feminist - aren’t you? - but now my work has taken me into the fascinating and complex world of systems transformations and within this the role of gender as “a technology of power”.
What is meant by the latter is that women and men use gender, consciously and unconsciously, in such a way that prevents a “systems change” that is better for most people. I am fascinated by notions of identity and where, how and why gender plays a role in this. It interests me that an intersectional lens that factors in race/ethnicity and class, troubles the simplistic framings of gender in a way that unsettles white women who are often doing the bidding for a fictitious global sisterhood.
And where this has led me is a deep interest in stages of adult development and the possibilities that lie beyond the identity politics that tend to polarise.
What inspires my colleagues and me is the conceptualisation of a collective consciousness where we integrate our humanity with a deep awareness of the inherent unity of all things. This might sound like hippy drippy nonsense but even as a researcher I can say that the evidence is irrefutable.
There are 5% of leaders that have the internal capacity needed to transform polarised systems. Bob Anderson, the chief knowledge officer at The Leadership Circle, the global organisation whose data I always fall back on because it is so robust, considers these fair few as “Integral leaders”, those rare leaders who are, “capable of catalysing breakthrough innovation that not only transforms technology, products and services, but also the economic, organisational, political and social systems that herald a new, emergent, higher-order, sustainable and thriving future for the planet and all living beings.”
Wow.
I’ve met a few. Again, 5% of the hundreds I have met and worked with. I don’t judge them on their gender, colour of their skin or age. Yes, they are pale and male but I couldn’t care if they were chimpanzees.
If we make one lot right and the other lot wrong, we are missing the bigger picture. It is important to look beyond simple gender constructs into the person within - their decency, their curiosity, their self-awareness and above all else, their relationship to service for the communities and worlds they operate in.
To quote the opening lines of a poem by Sufi poet Rumi: “Out beyond the ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field, I’ll meet you there.”
