A Philosophical Happy Hour on the nature of a leader, the act of leading, and the concept of leadership in society.
Entering into this Happy Hour post, I saw two paths before me: the first and more immediately attractive was the literary road—to think of Hector and Achilles, Odysseus, Aeneas, Virgil in Dante or Satan in Milton, Gandalf or Aragorn, and so on and on. The second and seemingly duller path begins, instead, with the “average everyday” conception: what do “thought leaders” say about “leadership”?
But it is against a dull background that lights shine brightest. Thus, I asked Google: “what is leadership?” Among the first results was this uninspiringly titled article from McKinsey & Company. Like much found on the internet—especially that successfully navigating the practice of Search Engine Optimization—the article serves to sell McKinsey’s products and services. Little of depth can be found, here. Consider the basic definition the unknown authors give:
Leadership is a set of mindsets and behaviors that aligns people in a collective direction, enables them to work together and accomplish shared goals, and helps them adjust to changing environments.
Despite its sweeping nature, this definition signifies nothing other than the bare minimum of corporate management. It does not even define “leadership” as something belonging to a person. A set of mindsets (a set of sets?) and behaviors—of whom? Can these belong to a group, an organization, a system? Or do we not need a leader?
Who are Our Leaders?
I believe this question, in fact, is the more important one: we do not know leadership in the abstract, but from witnessing people lead. Who do we think of, when we think of great leaders? What makes them great as leaders?
My mind here turns again to the literary; but also to persons I have known in my own life, and perhaps most especially to a few priests. I think also of good fathers and a few—but only a very few—administrators in institutes of higher learning. What of politicians? Kings? Emperors? Generals? To what have they led us?
Typically, I think—and this timidly echoed in the McKinsey definition—leaders are evaluated by their ability to achieve specific goals, to “win”. But is this perhaps too narrow a criterion?
What is the Act of Leading?
That is: in what does the act of leading consist? I can say that the act of building consists in producing an edifice. The act of writing is accomplished by translating thought to a visible composition of signifiers that together constitute an intelligible meaning. Other acts are not so tangible in their effects: for I may love someone (albeit incompletely) without it being shown, or I might meditate with no evident signs at all.
What is the act of the leader? When someone completes a building or a writing, we can say: here it is, here is what he has produced. Someone who loves can describe the act through adjectives concerning emotion. The meditative practice unveils truth. But what does leading do?
Follow our Conversation
Please follow along with our conversation—or join in and lead a part!—this Wednesday (12 February 2025) for our Philosophical Happy Hour (5:45–7:15pm ET; latecomers welcome!) as seek to better understand leadership, its nature, and its characteristic acts.
philosophical happy hour
« »
Come join us for drinks (adult or otherwise) and a meaningful conversation. Open to the public! Held every Wednesday from 5:45–7:15pm ET.
No responses yet