ACCEPTANCE. . .

Acceptance = favorable reception, approval.

For the leader (by role or by situation) the issue of acceptance begins as one simple, haunting question: When your effort is measured, will it be measured as leadership?  This is a basic question; its antecedents stretch all of the way back to childhood.  Do you, gentle reader, remember those dreaded playground rituals, when you would feel disappointed (or worse) if you were not quickly chosen – or God forbid, you were chosen last, by default?

As a leader, if the need is to have your effort accepted as leadership, then the accompanying fear is finding it (and you) dismissed as ‘decoration’ or, worse, as insignificant – nothing at all.  For the past forty-plus years I have spent time reading and seeking to learn from hundreds of books focusing on leaders and leadership.  Many of their authors hold up to us examples of and stories about the most effective theories of leadership or they hold up to us examples of and stories about the most ineffective theories of leadership.

One would think that the folks whose theories were complimented would be honored and that those whose theories were criticized would be upset or angered or ‘put-off.’  Actually, as far as I can determine from reading the responses of both that neither were offended.  The one’s that were offended, it seems, were those who were not mentioned at all.  The theories that never made the books were the ones that were most damaged – or ignored all together.  It seems the old adage, ‘any publicity is good publicity’ holds even here.

The other thing that can happen is that a leadership theory can be put forth and ignored for years and years and years.  Yet it can also be nurtured and sustained by a few and then by a few more and then by a growing number and then all of a sudden, it seems, it becomes the ‘new wave.’  I am thinking of Robert K. Greenleaf’s concept of ‘The Servant as Leader’ (or ‘Servant-Leadership’).

For more than twenty-five years Greenleaf’s concept was ignored and dismissed (dismissed as irrelevant by the ‘big names’ in leadership theory).  His concept was, at the same time, nurtured by a few and then by a few more and then by many more and then it became a ‘wave’ that literally washed over the world.  Some of the ‘big names’ now said that all along they had admired Greenleaf’s concept and they even began to write books about his concept – some even said that they ‘had always’ held his concept.

All leaders (by role or by situation) are charged with identifying the leadership theory that complements who they are as persons (who one is will determine the leadership style that one chooses).  In doing so they become clear – or clearer – as to who they are and as to how they will lead.  This loops us back to ‘Acceptance.’

At some point the leader’s need for acceptance will probably collide head-on with the need to ‘be who they are.’  On the surface it seems so simple: The leader wants to lead rooted in who he or she is AND the leader wants to be accepted for being so and doing so.  Think of the ‘Sesame Street’ idea: sing the song of your heart and sooner or later the world will accept and reward your authentic voice and story.  Cynics laugh at this idea and yet over time they end up buying into it along the way (as Greenleaf’s critics did).

By and large the world does recognize and reward ‘authenticity’ – the autocratic leader, the charismatic leader and the servant-leader have all been admired.  On the other hand, your acceptance might not come until after you die – you are not around to collect it (think: Greenleaf, or Melville, or Schubert or Marx or Lincoln, to name but a few).

By the by, there is a fairly straightforward explanation for this: At any given moment the world offers vastly more acceptance of what it already understands.  In our case, the acceptance of leaders and their styles that have been deemed to be worthy.  The rest are mulling about on the playground waiting to be chosen – waiting for acceptance.