Systems Thinking and Leadership

Summary

The speaker explores the concept of leadership beyond the traditional definitions found in popular literature. Starting with an observation of dogs at a lake, they question whether leadership is truly as complex as books suggest or if it's merely dominance. This leads to a historical journey, examining the evolution of leadership ideas from the communal focus of ancient civilizations to the virtue-based leadership of 'Lao Tzu', the 'feminine approach', and the shift towards individualism with Plato and Machiavelli. The speaker critiques the 'Great Man Theory' and modern literature's emphasis on 'dietic influence', suggesting these promote a return to selfish individualism. They advocate for a systems thinking approach to leadership, emphasizing collective action and collaboration over dominance. The talk concludes with a call to consider leadership as a system-wide contribution rather than an individual trait, potentially leading to more effective and collaborative outcomes.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The concept of leadership may be more nuanced than what is presented in popular literature.
• 🐾 Observations from nature, such as dogs at play, can provide insights into leadership dynamics.
• 📚 Early thoughts on leadership, like those from Laozi, emphasized virtue and community improvement.
• 🧍‍♂️ Plato introduced the idea of a philosopher king, suggesting leadership is about guiding those who cannot see the whole picture.
• 👑 Machiavelli's 'The Prince' shifted the focus to the leader's goals, reflecting a more self-centered view of leadership.
• 👴 Thomas Carlyle's 'Great Man Theory' posited that history is shaped by the actions of a few influential individuals.
• 🤨 Critics argue the 'Great Man Theory' overlooks the impact of systemic factors on historical events.
• 💭 Modern leadership literature often focuses on 'dietic influence', where leaders manipulate followers to achieve their goals.
• 🌐 Systems thinking encourages a broader perspective, considering the entire system and its interrelated parts, rather than just the leader.
• 🤝 A collective approach to leadership, where everyone in the system contributes, may lead to more effective and collaborative outcomes.
• 🌟 The speaker suggests that true leadership might be about enhancing collaboration and moving away from dominance.

Q & A

What is the speaker's initial observation about leadership that sparked their research?

The speaker's initial observation was about a dog that seemed to naturally assume a leadership role among other dogs at a park, which made them question the complexity of leadership as described in literature.

How does the speaker describe the shift in the concept of leadership from the past to the present?

The speaker describes a shift from a focus on collective action and community in ancient times to a more individualistic and dominance-focused approach in modern leadership theories, with an emphasis on the leader's goals rather than the followers' well-being.

Who is Daniel Smil, and what does he discuss in the context of the speaker's talk?

Daniel Smil is a historian who talks about 'deep history,' a period with no records but significant for the beginning of meaningful community and civilization. The speaker uses Smil's insights to emphasize that communities created our humanness, not the other way around.

What is the 'Dao De Jing' and how does it relate to the speaker's discussion on leadership?

The 'Dao De Jing' is an ancient Chinese text written by Lao Tzu that emphasizes virtue and a feminine, networked, and gentle approach to leadership. It is significant in the speaker's discussion as it represents an early view of leadership focused on improving the lives of followers.

How does the speaker connect the ideas of Plato and the 'great man theory' of leadership?

The speaker connects Plato's ideas to the 'great man theory' by highlighting Plato's metaphor of the cave, where he suggests that a philosopher king, who has experienced reality, should lead the rest. This represents a shift towards the idea that history is shaped by great individuals, rather than collective efforts.

What is the Machiavellian view of leadership as described by the speaker?

The Machiavellian view of leadership, as described by the speaker, is one where followers exist to accomplish the leader's goals, rather than the leader working to improve the situation of the followers. This perspective is seen as a return to selfish individualism.

Who is Thomas Carlyle, and what is his contribution to the concept of leadership discussed by the speaker?

Thomas Carlyle is a historian who coined the term 'great man theory of leadership.' He proposed that every significant event in history can be attributed to the actions of one or a few great men, which the speaker critiques for not considering systemic factors.

What is the speaker's perspective on the current literature's focus on systems thinking in leadership?

The speaker believes that while systems thinking is important, some authors mistakenly focus on the leader as the central agent of the system. The speaker argues that a true systems approach requires looking at the entire system and the interactions of all agents within it.

How does the speaker propose that leadership should be understood in the context of systems thinking?

The speaker proposes that leadership should be understood as a system where everyone contributes rather than being the domain of a single individual. This approach emphasizes collaboration over dominance and aligns with the collective nature of humanity.

What is the speaker's conclusion about the nature of leadership?

The speaker concludes that leadership might be better understood as a collective effort rather than an individual trait. They suggest that focusing on collaboration and the contributions of everyone in the system could lead to better outcomes and a more accurate representation of human nature.

Why does the speaker believe it's important to reevaluate our understanding of leadership?

The speaker believes it's important to reevaluate our understanding of leadership because it could lead to enhanced experiences, greater results, and a more collaborative approach that aligns with the collective nature of human communities.

What does the speaker suggest as a potential flaw in the way leadership is often portrayed in literature?

The speaker suggests that a potential flaw in the way leadership is often portrayed is the focus on dominance and individualism, which may not accurately reflect the collaborative and collective nature of effective leadership within human systems.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Exploring Leadership Beyond Traditional Views

The speaker begins by sharing a personal insight about leadership, questioning if it's more than what is described in popular literature. They recount an observation of dogs at a lake, where one dog naturally assumed a leadership role, which sparked a research journey. The speaker discusses the evolution of leadership concepts from the formation of early communities around 10,000 years ago, emphasizing the significance of collective action and collaboration in defining humanity. They reference Daniel Smil's 'deep history' and the idea that communities created humanness. The speaker also explores ancient perspectives on leadership, such as the virtue-focused approach of Laozi in the 'Tao Te Ching' and the contrasting views of Plato and Machiavelli, with the latter introducing a shift towards leaders using followers to achieve personal goals, akin to dominance rather than mutual benefit.

05:01

📚 The Shift in Leadership Philosophy Over Time

This paragraph delves into the transformation of leadership philosophy from the past to the present. The speaker mentions the shift initiated by Machiavelli, where leadership became about accomplishing the leader's goals rather than improving the followers' situation. They discuss how this perspective contrasts with earlier views, such as those of Laozi, which emphasized virtue and a community-focused approach. The speaker also touches on Thomas Carlyle's 'Great Man' theory, which attributes historical events to the actions of a few key individuals, and acknowledges the criticism that this theory neglects other systemic factors. The paragraph concludes with an observation of modern leadership literature, which often focuses on systems thinking and the interplay of all agents within a system, rather than just the leader. The speaker suggests that a systems approach to leadership could lead to a more collaborative and less domineering style, which might yield better results.

10:02

🏁 Concluding Thoughts on a Collaborative Approach to Leadership

The speaker concludes their discourse on leadership by reiterating the importance of considering leadership as a collaborative effort within a system, rather than as a one-person show. They express their belief that by viewing leadership as a collective endeavor, we can enhance our abilities and achieve better outcomes through collaboration rather than through dominance. The speaker humbly states that they do not claim to have the one right answer and encourages further thought on the topic, emphasizing the value of considering a systems-based approach to leadership.

Keywords

💡Leadership

Leadership in the context of the video is a complex concept that the speaker is reevaluating beyond traditional definitions found in literature. It is presented as potentially more than dominance and is explored through various historical perspectives, including the idea that everyone in a system contributes to leadership rather than it being an attribute of a single individual.

💡Dominance

Dominance is used to describe a behavior where one individual controls or influences others, often for personal gain. In the video, it is contrasted with leadership, particularly when discussing the dog scenario and the shift in leadership perspectives over history, such as in Machiavelli's 'The Prince'.

💡Collective Action

Collective action refers to the coordinated efforts of a group to achieve a common goal. The video emphasizes the importance of collaboration in defining humanity and leadership, suggesting that true leadership involves the participation and contribution of all members within a system.

💡Virtue

Virtue, as discussed in the video in relation to the 'Tao Te Ching' by Lao Tzu, is a moral quality that guides the behavior of a leader. It is associated with the idea that a leader should aim to improve the lives of those who follow, rather than focusing on personal goals.

💡Feminine Approach

The feminine approach to leadership, as mentioned in the video, is a style that is networked, gentler, and more collaborative, as opposed to the dominant, masculine approach. It is suggested that this approach is more aligned with the collective and community-focused nature of true leadership.

💡Philosopher King

The concept of a philosopher king, introduced by Plato in 'The Republic', is a leader who has experienced reality and returns to guide the rest of society. This metaphor is used in the video to illustrate a shift in the perception of leadership towards a more individualistic and less community-focused model.

💡Great Man Theory

The Great Man Theory, as coined by Thomas Carlyle, suggests that history is shaped by the actions of great individuals. The video critiques this theory for overlooking systemic factors and instead advocates for a systems thinking approach to leadership.

💡

💡Systems Thinking

Systems thinking is an interdisciplinary approach that focuses on the understanding of systems as a whole. It is highlighted in the video as a way to view leadership, emphasizing that the actions and interactions of all agents within a system are important, not just the leader.

💡Diegetic Influence

Diegetic influence, as discussed in the video, refers to the impact a leader has on followers to achieve the leader's goals. The speaker questions whether this is truly leadership or merely dominance, and suggests that true leadership should be more collaborative.

💡Selfish Individualism

Selfish individualism is the focus on personal goals and interests over those of the community. The video contrasts this with the collaborative nature of humanity and leadership, suggesting that the shift towards collective action is what made us truly human.

💡Humanity

Humanity, as used in the video, refers to the state of being human and is closely tied to the idea of community and collaboration. The speaker argues that it was the formation of communities that led to the development of our humanness, not the other way around.

Highlights

The speaker suggests that leadership might be more than what is portrayed in conventional literature.

The idea for reevaluating leadership was sparked by observing a dog's natural leadership among other dogs at a lake.

The speaker questions if what is often seen as leadership is actually dominance.

Leadership is explored through a historical lens, starting from the formation of communities 10,000 years ago.

Daniel Smil's concept of 'deep history' is introduced to discuss the origins of meaningful community and civilization.

The importance of community in defining humanity is emphasized, rather than humans creating communities.

The Da De Jing by Lao Tzu is mentioned as one of the earliest writings on leadership, focusing on virtue and community.

Lao Tzu's work contrasts with later views, advocating a feminine, networked, and gentler approach to leadership.

Plato's 'The Republic' introduces a shift towards a more individualistic view of leadership with the philosopher king concept.

Machiavelli's 'The Prince' is discussed as a significant shift in leadership philosophy, focusing on the leader's goals rather than the followers' well-being.

Thomas Carlyle's 'great man theory of leadership' is critiqued for not considering systemic factors.

The modern literature on leadership is criticized for promoting a return to selfish individualism.

The concept of systems thinking is introduced, suggesting that leadership should be understood as a collective system rather than an individual trait.

The speaker argues that true leadership should involve collaboration over dominance for better results.

The talk concludes with a call to rethink leadership as a system-wide contribution rather than an individual's dominance.

The speaker humbly positions their perspective as a contribution to the discourse on leadership, rather than the definitive answer.

The talk humorously ends with the speaker expressing uncertainty about who or where TED is.

Transcripts

so I have this idea and I've had this

idea for a while and I the idea is that

leadership might be something other than

or even something more than they say it

is in those books you buy in the airport

um and I I've been thinking this for a

while and the the thought is has driven

a fair bit of research um on my part and

I can go back a number of years to when

I first started thinking this and I it

was actually a moment that I remember

quite well I I was walking around a lake

I I lived close to a lake at the time

and uh at one end of this Lake there was

this big field where people would take

their dogs and the dogs would uh go off

the leash and play and I noticed that um

in this one particular group of dogs

that was chasing ball uh that one of the

dogs seemed to be the leader which I

thought was odd the other dogs were

deferring to it they would let this one

dog catch the ball even if the other

dogs were running faster and I thought

isn't it interesting how the one dog

seemed to assume the mantle of

leadership so easily

even when leadership seemed to be so

complicated and so complex I've been

studying leadership even then I'd been

studying it for a couple of years uh and

I thought it seems that seems too easy

because the literature was telling me

that leadership was much more difficult

than that so I thought maybe what I was

looking at with the dogs wasn't

leadership at all I thought maybe what I

was looking at with the dogs was just

dominance so so I thought well if that's

just dominance and yet yet it looked so

much like leadership I thought maybe

much of what we see as leadership in our

world is just

dominance and like I said that drove me

down a path of research that took many

years um and so I want to talk a little

bit about that research I want to go

back in history in fact I want to take a

journey through history looking at our

attitudes towards

leadership so if we start 10,000 years

ago maybe even more uh 10,000 plus years

ago what we see is in different places

in the world the beginning of meaningful

Community the beginning of what we think

of is civilization uh a a historian

named Daniel smil talks about this

period of History calls it deep history

uh because there are no records uh but

he's making some assumptions and what he

said was sometime back around then uh

our

ancestors came in out of the Jungle or

they came in off the Savannah or they

came down out of the trees and they came

together to create civilization or they

came together in meaningful

community and it wasn't until then that

they became truly human so it was this

coming together in community that gave

rise to our

Humanity it's not the other way around

and that's significant I think it wasn't

that humans created human

communities it was that communities

created our

humanness so it was this focus on

collaboration uh a focus on Collective

action that defined our humanness and it

was when we let go of our selfish

individualism that we became truly

human we'll come back to that later on

in history maybe about 2500 years ago um

as far as I know that's when the first

book basically on leadership was written

and uh the book was called the da de

ching uh it was written by uh a fellow

named Lau in China and lau wrote about

the importance of virtue following a

path of virtue so the leader and he

spoke quite a bit about leadership in

this book The Leader um is trying to

improve the lives and improve the

situation of those who follow so once

again we're seeing this focus on

community also significantly

significantly Lau talked about feminine

approach Roes to leadership as opposed

to the dominant masculine approach Lau

was talking about a feminine approach to

leadership a more networked gentler

approach to leadership a couple of

hundred years later in history uh in a

different part of the world Plato wrote

the

Republic now Plato's perspective was a

little bit different he still talked

about virtue although he used the word

justice um but his Focus became a little

bit uh more

clearly on the leader so you probably

remember from your philosophy 101 class

uh the Cave the metaphor of the cave and

so he was suggesting that most of us are

like we're in a cave and chain to the

wall and only able to look at the back

wall of the

cave um and what happens is we can only

see Shadows of reality because the

reality is coming in behind us we can't

look out of the cave we can only see the

shadows of of the wall I'm sorry the

Shadows on the wall of reality and what

we need to do is we need to raise a

great man a philosopher king uh up out

of the cave to experience reality and

come back down to lead us so now we're

seeing the beginning of the great man

theory of

leadership so we're seeing a slight

shift away from what Lau was talking

about hundreds of years later uh in the

early 16th century uh gentleman named uh

nicholo Machiavelli uh as you'll recall

uh wrote a book called The Prince and in

the prince he shifts the nature of

leadership entirely it's not him that

did this he was simply writing about a

process that had been going on for for

many years but he shifted the focus of

leadership entirely when he said that

the followers are there to accomplish

the leader goals as opposed to the

leader being there to improve the

situation of followers it was the other

way around and we're seeing more of a

return to selfish individualism because

the leader is getting their goals met

through the actions of the followers

that's a little bit more like what I saw

by the lake that day when the one dog

was dominating the other

dogs I think we still have that

Machiavellian view of leadership even

though we're we're approaching

leadership with a Kinder gentler hand I

think we're still looking at having the

leader goals accomplished through the

actions of the

followers few hundred years later we're

almost there few hundred years later we

see a guy named Thomas Carlile a doer

old Scotsman uh and Thomas car

uh actually coined the term the great

man theory of leadership and Thomas

carile said that every event throughout

history can be attributed to just uh one

or a few great men that were involved in

that

event now the criticism of of the great

man Theory the criticism is that it

doesn't take into account other systemic

factors that were occurring at the same

time so uh we can't simply attribute

every action throughout history or every

event throughout history to a great man

uh practicing what we call dietic

influence so the great man is

influencing someone else to do what the

great man thinks is important we're now

we're really seeing this focus on uh uh

on on dominance just as the dogs did um

we're seeing people do it now only

people are now calling it

leadership now if we come forward into

into the into our current reality uh

what we see is that uh many of the

authors

are writing about dietic influence and

calling it leadership they're saying

that what the leader needs to do to

accomplish a certain goal is behave in

this way so that the followers uh will

accomplish the leader

goals and that seems to me that it's

possible that it might be a return to

the selfish

individualism uh that we had 10,000

years

ago also if you look at the literature

today uh one of the things that the

literature focuses on is uh systems

thinking and systems thinking tells us

very clearly that you can't understand a

system a human system you can't

understand it by looking at just one or

two or three of the Agents of the system

rather you have to look at all of the

Agents of the system and how they're

interacting uh and uh

interrelating so some of these even some

of these systems thinkers make the

mistake then of going back and saying so

what the leader needs to do what the

leader needs to understand is

and I think to myself wait a minute you

just said that we can't understand the

system by focusing on just one aspect of

the system or just one agent of the

system you said we have to look at the

whole system and if we do that and we

really allow ourselves to to take

systems thinking seriously what we see

is that in order to understand

leadership we need to look at everyone

in the system not just one person and it

takes a bit of a focus off the leader

and puts it rather on the collective

which which takes us back to what Daniel

smil was talking about when he said uh

humanity is about how we are

together and it takes us away from what

the dogs were doing by the lake uh and

takes our Focus off of dietic influence

and puts it onto the

system and I believe that that's what

systems or that's what leadership is I'm

not saying I have the one right answer

I'm not saying that uh that everybody

else is writing about leadership is

incorrect uh I'm not saying that I have

the one true Way Forward what I am

saying is that I think that it's

worthwhile thinking about this that if

we look at leadership as something that

towards which everyone in the system

contributes but not anything that anyone

does I think we might increase uh our

abilities I think we might uh enhance

our experience and I think we might

achieve greater results simply through

collaborating rather than

dominating that's my TED Talk I don't

know where Ted is I don't even know who

Ted is I'm

done