Robert French is reading his paper, now, in lecture room 14. After a quick coffee, I'm listening to Robert is talking about monks, friendship, ardent longing, the 'desire to see your faces', the 'yearning for kisses' - these as a discourse from people who don't know each other, but somehow share a language and an intensity in friendship. Robert here is making a delicious distinction between pre-modern and modern discourses that value friendship: this pre-modern notion of friendship is now lost in the modern world. What is the place of friendship in organisations and leadership? Is it too late? Is the way from knowledge to action via friendship (addressing the theme of the conference)? Look at the acknowledgement sections of paper's and books, where friends are valued in "I'd like to thank my friends and colleagues..." French cites friendship as the site of some organisational successes, i.e companies (Innocent Drinks) and charities start as a bunch of friends.
Robert is sat, propped against the front desk of this lecture room, talking in a very friendly manner - so commensurate with his topic. He's on the topic of hospitality now (I'm thinking of Derrida and The Politics of Friendship): food and drink and conviviality as a site of friendship; then into the commodification of friendship, such as at the checkout of Waitrose who urge staff to greet, pack and thank the customers they serve. Now conversation; the point of friendship or the mechanism of friendship, where the 'con-' in conversation and convivial is the 'with' or alterity of otherness. Is friendship more important than justice, is friendship more of a foundational candidate? Over to the flip chart now and Robert has written the word 'parrrhesia' - frankness of speech, or as Foucault says 'fearless speech', where the speaker risks his life in using frankness. Or Blake, "opposition is true friendship". Fearless speech is a strong idea, especially in the Middle Ages: there were no institutionalise channels for decision making, so friendship acts as a structure to enable decisions to be made. Flattery rather than parrhesia, where politicians and some leaders would rather have complimentary comments made of them rather than frankness.
Friendship is usually 2 or 3, rather than many: true of the Christian church. This builds intimacy and immediacy and points to its requirement in leadership. So the task we could undertake is to identify the aspects of this friendship state of mind, the elements, the rituals, the cutting-across elements of friendship, to building a culture of friendship for leadership development.
Questions: can you have truth telling without the friendship? Not sure: it's a bit like arranged marriage versus romantic marriage; we opt for the latter. On the topic of scale, and power dynamics, how do ideas of friendship map onto the realities of power? There's a Kantian imperative, deontological basis of French's response - how would you welcome a friend and what institutional mechanisms can be replicated in the guise of friendship. Consider the 'Society of Friends', the Quakers? How does their egalitarian notion of friend impact leadership? From hero to host, from Margaret Wheatley, with the shift from friend to host.
Robert is sat, propped against the front desk of this lecture room, talking in a very friendly manner - so commensurate with his topic. He's on the topic of hospitality now (I'm thinking of Derrida and The Politics of Friendship): food and drink and conviviality as a site of friendship; then into the commodification of friendship, such as at the checkout of Waitrose who urge staff to greet, pack and thank the customers they serve. Now conversation; the point of friendship or the mechanism of friendship, where the 'con-' in conversation and convivial is the 'with' or alterity of otherness. Is friendship more important than justice, is friendship more of a foundational candidate? Over to the flip chart now and Robert has written the word 'parrrhesia' - frankness of speech, or as Foucault says 'fearless speech', where the speaker risks his life in using frankness. Or Blake, "opposition is true friendship". Fearless speech is a strong idea, especially in the Middle Ages: there were no institutionalise channels for decision making, so friendship acts as a structure to enable decisions to be made. Flattery rather than parrhesia, where politicians and some leaders would rather have complimentary comments made of them rather than frankness.
Friendship is usually 2 or 3, rather than many: true of the Christian church. This builds intimacy and immediacy and points to its requirement in leadership. So the task we could undertake is to identify the aspects of this friendship state of mind, the elements, the rituals, the cutting-across elements of friendship, to building a culture of friendship for leadership development.
Questions: can you have truth telling without the friendship? Not sure: it's a bit like arranged marriage versus romantic marriage; we opt for the latter. On the topic of scale, and power dynamics, how do ideas of friendship map onto the realities of power? There's a Kantian imperative, deontological basis of French's response - how would you welcome a friend and what institutional mechanisms can be replicated in the guise of friendship. Consider the 'Society of Friends', the Quakers? How does their egalitarian notion of friend impact leadership? From hero to host, from Margaret Wheatley, with the shift from friend to host.
3 comments:
There's just been an announcement that Centrica will make 1500 redundant. It makes me think that friendship in a work context is always fragile. Do you trust and open up to someone that will put you on the redundancy list? Can friendship taint the decision process? Should it?
Coming from a military background I am well aware of the strength of friendships / commradeship and the additional dimension that they bring - this can lead to incredible leaderships acts (see latest Victoria Cross citation). Friendship elevates leadership decision making above the rather mechanical process which is driven purely by IQ, above that of empathetic relationships enshrined in EQ and launches into a Spiritual Intelligence (SQ)leadership space in which we are comfortable, engaged and truthful. By creating friendships, leadership decisions are enabled as everyone involved understands the basis on which they are made. (truth, understanding and faithfulness). Friendships based on SQ do not taint the decision process, as tough decisions are still tough - none come tougher than issuing orders to your friends that may result in their deaths, but the friendships mean that they know the action is essential. Firing someone is easy, it doesn't kill them.
I'm reminded of the Triangle of involvement. At the base is facts - we feel safe exchanging facts with people as long as they are relatively risk free - where I work, where I live, how I get to work, where I was before here and so on. Next level up is shared interests. This is safe ground - we can talk for hours because our kids are at the same school or we both support the same footy team, or we both work at the same place and know the same people,watch the same politics. This is the staple of friendships - but of course it's not enough. Beyond shared interests lie conversations, friendships on the values level. Do we feel/believe the same theings? Do the same things make us laugh or weep? It's at this level that I believe freindship and leadership becoem interwoven. I want to work with people and be led by people who share my values. I can only truly explore the degree to which they do through friendship.
Post a Comment