The Key To Leadership

The history of human social evolution can be charted through the technologies of enclosure, and trespass, and mechanisms of separation and control. Our modern society is built upon principles of collectivism, but part of that collectivism involves notions of ownership, and with ownership comes differentiation (of wealth, of status, of power). Our collectivism creates separation.

Or to put it another way: if we come together to build a village, we build a wall around it.

We reinforce notions of togetherness and otherness, we can map our trust to the height of our walls.

We separate field from field, and field from wilderness. We map our boundaries, partly to know what is ours, and partly to tell others to keep their hands off it.

It’s no surprise that one of our earliest architectural innovations was the wall: to keep people out, or keep them in. Although it may have taken us significantly longer to invent the lock.

Locks represent a change state: the gate, when locked, is part of the wall, but when open is a break within it. And gateways are transition spaces. Nobody lives in the gateway (although someone may live above it, or next to it, to control movement).

Locks are a specific technology as well as elaborate art form. They don’t simply carry out the action of separation, rather they visually represent it. If i see a lock, i inherently understand that access may be denied. And if i break a lock i inherently understand that my access is trespass.

We use locks for assorted ends: to keep people out, and to keep people in. To protect something of value to us, or to separate things that cannot be put together without good cause (we lock up guns in houses with children, and we lock away medicines).

We lock up things that have worth: either financially or intrinsically, like books, bibles and baubles, as well as things that we fear, like tigers in the zoo.

We talk about common goods, things that cannot be locked away, like access to fresh air, or water, but of course these things are controlled. Or stolen from us. And we have a tragic tendency to abuse the common, to neglect it. Sometimes separation, security, is a mechanism of safety and preservation.

A lock is not necessarily a binary separation: if the door is locked, i may be able to see through the keyhole. A tantalising glimpse of what lies beyond. Or perhaps i can shout through it.

An old lock can seize up, unless maintained. Indeed, it may even rust away, with access being granted by time alone. Or it may be a time-lock, preventing the vault in a bank being opened except during normal business hours.

Where there is a lock, there is a key. Or many keys. Walk around any major city and, in the suburbs, you will see lock boxes chained to railings, housing the keys for nearby AirBnBs (the keys have to be physically separated from the property, so the tax authorities or landlords don’t discover the illicit letting of the space.

We give spare keys to friends, or ask them back from former lovers. Or, if all else fails, change the locks (or lock people out, when their password stops working).

For all this talk of locks: what is unlocking?

We talk in Leadership about ‘unlocking’ things. About unlocking potential in teams, unlocking capability at scale, unlocking innovation, or unlocking change.

I like this language. I use this language. But as part of my own practice i am revisiting my core work on Social Leadership, and considering new ideas, such as ‘Collective Capability’, and ‘Imperfect leadership’, and hence find myself pondering locks.

The idea of the Leader as gatekeepers, as key holder, these things may be true, but exist within a more formal or power based view of leadership. Within the social domain (our broader Social Context), power may be more dynamic and collective, and capability may be a networked feature.

I’m particularly interested in the emergent features of our Social Context right now: what synergies or amplifiers exist, and how we (unlock!) access them.

I’m left wondering if there is maybe a proliferation of keys, and a proliferation of locks. But that the knowledge of what fits where is contextual.

This would align with my broader perspective on the multi dimensional organisation: that we inhabit multiple systems, of power, of influence, of control, concurrently curating the relevant ‘self’ in each one. So a ‘key’ that works in one domain may be useless in another (like your ‘job title’ may grant you access to a room, but not to my trust). This would present a more three dimensional view of capability, that it’s not simply a lock and a key, but rather a lock, a context, and a key.

And maybe a connection?

Perhaps the connection is the thing here: under a model of collective capability it is not enough to hold simply knowledge, or power, but rather we need to create meaning too (the ‘creation of meaning’ is another key aspect i’m exploring separately right now), which is both an individual and collective feature, so the ability to curate a community is a core leadership skill in that context of the Social Age.

Which makes sense in a somewhat circular way, as i describe how curating the ‘self’ is also a foundational aspect of Social Leadership (this was the first chapter of the first book about the subject).

This speaks of Leadership as an act of curation – creating conditions – weaving culture – interpretation – sense making. Leadership as a fluid and distributed function. In which case, not one lock and one key.

I guess there are other interpretations and conditions too.

I remember visiting the zoo in Singapore, walking through an enclosure, and at the end were two doors. Only one of which could be open at a time. To prevent whatever was inside from getting out (i forget if it was bats, monkeys, butterflies or birds – whoever it was clearly had a vested interest in escape). This type of conditional lock may be a useful perspective as well – where our actions do not ‘unlock’ something, but create other conditions under which a thing may be unlocked. Indeed, perhaps this gives us a perspective on something like reputation, or authenticity (if it even exists).

It speaks of leadership as indirect power.

As i write this, i can feel myself sensing the way, but also struggling with ideas, which is part of #WorkingOutLoud. To sketch out a landscape and then to think within it.

#WorkingOutLoud on Social Leadership