Leadership Video: Is this dance a movement or mob?

YouTube Preview Image

I love the virtual universe. In the blink of a mouse you can connect with a wide range of people who share your narrow set of interests. Social media Big Names like Seth Godin call this “finding your tribe.”

Tahrir Squares showed what happens when a tribe becomes a movement.

My friend Leslie Grossman, co-founder with Andrea March of the Women’s Leadership Exchange (I wrote about WLE in No Excuses as an example of power tool #7 CREATE A MOVEMENT), introduced me virtually last week to self-described “social media capitalist” Michelle Price.  Michelle, Leslie told me, helped WLE set up their new online program, and I wanted to learn more about the process and technology. I felt little prickles of excitement about this convergence.

On first e-mail, Michelle and I realized we have a tribal kinship. I resonated with her love of the leading edges of technology and she won my heart by saying my book should be sitting on every woman’s desktop. We share a mutual interest in thought leadership.

So what does one do when you meet someone new these days? Peruse her website of course. I found it full of interesting, fun, and thought provoking stuff.

One post called “Thought Leadership: How to Start a Movement and Get Your First Follower in 3 Minutes” featured the captivating video above. So I replayed it. The second time I watched, I realized I had a completely different take than the filmmaker. Here’s Michelle’s intro to the video:

So what does a 3 minute video on dancing have to do with thought leadership, launching a movement and getting YOUR first follower? Watch this video – it’s a study in human sociology at the least. You’ll see the “light of insight” flip on when you do.

One Video, Two Takes

According to the video’s narrator (with my reactions in italics):

1. A leader–in this case a guy who starts doing a weird dance solo on a grassy lawn with lot of people looking on–has to have the guts to look ridiculous.

(True, people who start movement tend to be boundary breakers.)

2. You must be easy to follow.

(I’m starting to furrow my brow because this misses the point that movements form to accomplish things too difficult for one person to do alone.)

3. The first follower has a crucial role—to publicly show the others how to follow. Calling to his friends to join in “transforms a nut into a leader.” The leader embraces him as an equal so the movement seems like it isn’t about the leader any more.

(OK, that makes sense. I’m rarely the first but am often an early adopter. Something doesn’t feel right though. Trying to “seem like it’s not about the leader” sounds manipulative–a hierarchy without acknowledging it.)

4. The third person to come in validates the first two: “a turning point—now it’s not a lone nut and then two nuts.” Three is a crowd, the voice-over says as the dancing becomes more fevered. A crowd makes it news—a movement must be public. People follow the followers not the leader.

(I notice that the first six people who join the dance are all men who have been invited in, and it isn’t till the seventh dancer that the first woman joins. I don’t want to kneejerk, but this looks more like a bunch of men creating a tribe of people with an emotional affinity than a movement with a shared purpose that systematically builds a coalition to get many diverse people involved to do things they couldn’t accomplish alone.)

5. As more people get up to dance, there comes a tipping point where it’s no longer risky to participate.  Those who join the dance “won’t stand out, they won’t be ridiculed.” It actually becomes more risky not to participate because holdouts would be ridiculed for not joining.  The moral of the piece is summed up like this: “When you find a lone nut doing something great, have the guts to be the first person to stand up and join in.”

(Yes, yes, have the courage to stand up with the lone nut doing something great—but that’s not the same as creating a movement.)

The End of the Movement? (Or Did It Never Begin?)

By this time in the video, everyone is up, writhing together in one big dancing hive that makes me think of William Golding’s book Lord of the Flies, about schoolboys stranded on an island. They form a primitive culture that turns out none too kindly.

The dance ends, the paroxysm of togetherness is complete, everyone cheers.

And that is the end of this particular movement. Participants had a great experience, but then what? They have formed a tribe of people who share a momentary affinity to be sure. Nothing wrong with that. But that’s a mashup–a mob not a movement.

Now I realize what’s been bugging me about this video as a metaphor for leadership and starting a movement.

Instead of beginning with one person doing a weird thing, I think a movement is created when one person sees an injustice or problem and reaches out to another with the purpose of doing something about it. For example, the Civil Rights movement had many individual aha’s followed by people coalescing together. They had the courage to raise issues they believed needed to be addressed: to organize a sit-in and then to create a Freedom Ride that would eventually build to changing laws and minds. They know they are stronger together—they aren’t just being manipulated to join in the dance.  And they all share risks too.

Rosa Parks, for example, wasn’t just any woman who happened to get ticked off at being sent to the back of the bus. She had long been active in the NAACP and knew the ground had been well prepared to parlay her refusal to go to the back of the bus that day into a major bus boycott that would last for over a year. It certainly wasn’t easy for African Americans in the South to find other ways to get to work—that is if their employers didn’t fire them for participating in the boycott.

A movement might grow fast, as the video says, if leaders make it easy for others to join and invite them in as equals. And symbols and emotional connection are important elements. But the dance must have a shared purpose to be a movement. And as the group grows, leadership (which will come from many places) must create systematic ways to achieve its purpose or it will flail arms at the end like tired dancers who have enjoyed a catharsis with their tribe, but accomplished little else.

Tahrir Square would have been just another mob and its energies might quickly have turned destructive without that shared sense of purpose and dispersed leadership.

Then, to sustain itself, a movement has to move, to change when needed, to continue to focus its energy on its purpose in ways that meet people’s needs today and tomorrow.

Which of these two different perspectives one takes away from the nutty dancing guy metaphor in this video has profound implications for movements and for leaders.

I can’t wait to discuss this with my new tribemate Michelle when we have our first phone conversation later this week.  Meanwhile, watch the video a couple of times. It’s infinitely fascinating. What are your observations?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GLORIA FELDT is the New York Times bestselling author of several books including No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power, a sought-after speaker and frequent contributor to major news outlets, and the Co-Founder and President of Take The LeadPeople has called her “the voice of experience,” and among the many honors she has been given, Vanity Fair called her one of America’s “Top 200 Women Legends, Leaders, and Trailblazers,” and Glamour chose her as a “Woman of the Year.”

As co-founder and president of Take The Lead, a leading women’s leadership nonprofit, her mission is to achieve gender parity by 2025 through innovative training programs, workshops, a groundbreaking 50 Women Can Change The World immersive, online courses, a free weekly newsletter, and events including a monthly Virtual Happy Hour program and a Take The Lead Day symposium that reached over 400,000 women globally in 2017.

Sex, Power, Irony, and Why Maria Shriver Will Be Back

Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has put all his movie projects on hold, including one called “Cry Macho.”

Oh the irony of that title. Let me get him a hanky so Mr. Macho himself doesn’t douse those phallic cigars he puffs on with his tears.

There’s also a yummy irony in the fact that the woman who brought down this powerful man is near the bottom rung of social power, a household worker.  Sexual hubris and belief in their own entitlement to whatever they want whenever they want it, including women’s bodies, is a common thread between men like Schwarzenegger and the recently deposed International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, also brought low by a domestic worker whom he apparently thought would be thrilled to be jumped on by a man twice her age leaping naked out of the bathroom.

Are these men like babies who think people can’t see them when they have blankets over their heads? And why don’t they understand that they can’t get away with the same bad acting they did a generation ago, thank goodness, because the women’s movement has changed both the culture and the laws?

There is certainly a qualitative difference between what seems to have been rape in the Strauss-Kahn case and what appears to have been consensual sex between Schwarzenegger and Mildred Patricia Baena who worked for 20 years in the home he shared with wife Maria Shriver. But who knows? The power differential between Baena and Schwarzenegger was inherently huge.

What strikes me as more puzzling, though, is that the power differential between Arnold and Maria was miniscule to nonexistent. She certainly didn’t need to be on the arm of any man in order to have money, prestige, or political power. As a member of the wealthy Kennedy political dynasty and a prominent journalist, she already had it all on her own.

And after the work she has done with her California Women’s Conferences to promote the idea that women are powerful, this betrayal is a terrible irony for her. Right now, the humiliation must be horribly painful. My heart goes out to her and to their children whose world has been turned upside down.

Still, I can’t get that video clip out of my mind—the one in which she so resolutely and convincingly defended her husband from a credible drumbeat of women’s claims that he had groped them YouTube Preview Image

Given the timing of the split, one can’t help but wonder what did Maria know and when did she know it, and if she knew any of it at all, why did she stay in the marriage.

To the positive, though, unlike Silda Spitzer and even Hillary Clinton, Maria Shriver isn’t standing by her man.  That alone is a step forward for womankind.

As the seasoned negotiators of SheNegotiates wrote in their Forbes.com blog,

If we do not retaliate for acts of aggression, we enter into a cycle of victimization. This is what happens to women who are cheated on over and over and over and over again if they forgive, forgive, forgive, forgive without ever taking proportionally retaliatory action when told one bright summer morning that their husband has been supporting the child he fathered with the household help for ten years.

Maria did the right thing. She packed her bags and left, leaving Arnold to his own devices and, one assumes, to contemplate what the poorly timed release of this information might do to any man’s future political career in any state other than California.

Shriver is likely to go through a great deal more public humiliation and pain before this is over. Who knows what Baena will do or say? And look, that child is her children’s half-brother. Who knows what that will mean to her family?

One thing is quite clear however. The outdated dominance model of power exemplified by Schwarzenegger’s behavior–the power over others—is passe. Maria has in her hands the more positive model, her power TO–the ability to accomplish great things for herself, her family, her country, the women of the world—as she makes the transition into whatever is next for her.  It’s the very transformational model of power she herself lauded in her recent blog post, Is the Model of Masculinity Changing in America?

My advice to Maria Shriver, were she to ask, is to use what she’s got (No Excuses power tool #3): the sympathy and support of her friends and family, the platform she has built for herself as a champion for women, her celebrity and media credentials, and the financial capability that will enable her to do whatever she chooses with the rest of her life.

In the end, Maria Shriver will have a brilliant future.  She will be back.

Hasta la vista, Arnold.

GLORIA FELDT is the New York Times bestselling author of several books including No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power, a sought-after speaker and frequent contributor to major news outlets, and the Co-Founder and President of Take The LeadPeople has called her “the voice of experience,” and among the many honors she has been given, Vanity Fair called her one of America’s “Top 200 Women Legends, Leaders, and Trailblazers,” and Glamour chose her as a “Woman of the Year.”

As co-founder and president of Take The Lead, a leading women’s leadership nonprofit, her mission is to achieve gender parity by 2025 through innovative training programs, workshops, a groundbreaking 50 Women Can Change The World immersive, online courses, a free weekly newsletter, and events including a monthly Virtual Happy Hour program and a Take The Lead Day symposium that reached over 400,000 women globally in 2017.

Dare to Compete

Have you been as mesmerized by the HBO series on John Adams as I have? The visual banquet of historical details is reason enough to watch the life and times of our second president, his family, and the men who were alternately his friends and his foes among the founding fathers. It is tempting for me to want to put the spotlight on his wife Abigail whose plea that he should “remember the ladies” in writing the new nation’s laws fell on deaf ears despite her place as Adams’ top and most erudite advisor. But I find most striking the sense of history. Adams was almost obsessed with defining the legacy that he knew he as a leader of a new nation would be creating for the generations to come.

Today, we also live in times that will define us as a nation. Watching John Adams spar with his nemesis, the calculating and complex Renaissance man Thomas Jefferson, it struck me that while technology has changed a great deal, critical elements of political leadership have changed little if at all. Nor have the challenges of cobbling together an electoral majority in our cantankerously diverse country become any easier.

This video look at the courage it takes to compete in a presidential election was sent to me by a reader of Heartfeldt Politics, KD. She or he noted the importance of this historic moment, and I thought it worth sharing.

Thanks to Vicky for posting the video…text is Gloria’s opinion.
See Media page on this website for some photos of other daring girls.

GLORIA FELDT is the New York Times bestselling author of several books including No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think About Power, a sought-after speaker and frequent contributor to major news outlets, and the Co-Founder and President of Take The LeadPeople has called her “the voice of experience,” and among the many honors she has been given, Vanity Fair called her one of America’s “Top 200 Women Legends, Leaders, and Trailblazers,” and Glamour chose her as a “Woman of the Year.”

As co-founder and president of Take The Lead, a leading women’s leadership nonprofit, her mission is to achieve gender parity by 2025 through innovative training programs, workshops, a groundbreaking 50 Women Can Change The World immersive, online courses, a free weekly newsletter, and events including a monthly Virtual Happy Hour program and a Take The Lead Day symposium that reached over 400,000 women globally in 2017.