Community Leadership

As I think about community and what that means, it strikes me that the word "leadership" probably has as many different definitions as the word "community." When I think of the kinds of partnerships that will carry my own various visions forward, that sense of working toward a common purpose seems best served by seeing eye-to-eye with another person rather than making demands or issuing orders. Of course, I still have the responsibility of carrying out my vision for my life, even though I am in partnership with other people.

A community vision is a bit different. Many people with many different ideas about the way things should be. At the very least there are likely to be different opinions about the best way to accomplish a vision. I have been in communities where everyone tries to take the lead and pursue their way of doing things, and the ensuing chaos didn't bring us any closer to our purpose. I have also been a part of communities in which no one wanted the mantle of leadership because it was viewed as carrying the burden of responsibility for doing everything successfully. That model wasn't any more effective.

My ideas about leadership have been developing over the last several months, so it only makes sense that my ideas about leadership in the context of a community have been growing. Although there are varying styles of leadership, a leader is first and foremost a vision-holder. Collective partnerships can certainly lead a community in the direction of their vision, and in a connected and purposeful community, leadership may even shift fluidly among different individuals at different times. But often it takes an individual to take a stand in order to propel things into the next step.

One thing I am realizing, however, is that a leader can help a community discover its vision. A leader can even guide a community in how to step into that vision. But a leader can only take a community where it is willing to go. Otherwise, the community will choose a different leader, by one means or another. I suppose one could try to be a chameleon, but if a leader's vision is different enough from the community of which he is a part, this seems like a short-lived solution. In fact, true leadership may involve having the integrity of personal vision to trust that communities which share a similar purpose will emerge in partnership.

Tensile Strength of Load-sharing Bundles

I had a conversation with someone last week about ways to get my music out into the world. Walking away from this short chat, I had half a dozen names and organizations that could provide some support for what I am trying to create. And I would guess that each of those names could yield even more possible partnerships. By recognizing that I don't have to do everything myself, I was able to ask for and receive some valuable support.

When I believe that I have to bear the entire weight of my dreams and goals, I reach a breaking point fairly quickly. There are just too many things in which I an inexperienced and unskilled, and I feel the pressure of time more keenly. When I realize that I am actually surrounded by people who can partner with me in some way to share the vision I am creating, the possibility of reaching a breaking point is barely a consideration for me. And I am more open to how I can be of service in their visions as well.

I believe that this is a vital characteristic of healthy communities: "Bundles" of people partnering together in support of one another are going to be stronger by far than a group of individuals all trying to do everything themselves. It's difficult for a group of people to work toward a common purpose if they are each struggling to carry the weight of their own lives. Of course, this kind of partnership requires vulnerability and trust for a community's members to receive support from one another. And it requires willingness and acceptance for a community's members to offer true support to one another.

It may seem a bit counter-cultural to offer and receive mutual support in this way. We are accustomed to a strange mixture of problem-solving, enabling, independence, and blamelessness. I suppose in many ways holding others at arm's length (or farther) looks safer, but it doesn't create strong partnerships the way mutual support can.

But that support can get messy sometimes. It isn't always supportive to approve what someone is trying to create in their lives carte blanche. Sometimes support means that we hold one another's feet to the fire, or we notice blind spots that another person is missing. It means being aware enough of one another's true aims that we can speak up truthfully when we see something that is off the mark. And it also gives us an opportunity to examine ourselves when another person is honest with us. This is how we become sharper. This is what creates a strong community of strong individuals.

Of course, not every community is practicing this kind of supportive partnership. My guess is that very few of them do. But I am wondering what would be possible if they did. What would a world of load-sharing, bundled people in community with one another look like?

Community vs. Tribalism

When a hurricane was bearing down on us last year, my neighbor commented that my side of the street always got electricity back before his side. My response was that, if that were to happen, we could run an extension cord across the road to make sure they had at least enough power for a little fridge and cell phone chargers. And that's exactly what happened. For three days, our homes were literally connected to one another.

This same neighbor cares for the yard of an elderly couple in our neighborhood. Free of charge. Just because he is a kind and caring person. Another couple down the street share vegetables that they grow in their garden. We don't pay for the vegetables, but my wife did make a care package when one of them was bed-ridden after a recent surgery.

We are connected to one another, and we respond to one another out of that connectivity. In a way, we are all on the same team, even when a month goes by without any direct interaction. We have a common purpose of living peaceably in community with one another. In the More To Life organization, people unite as a team for the short-term purpose of creating a training weekend to serve others.

The idea of being on the same team doesn't always look like my neighborhood or an act of service, though. It often gets twisted around into tribalism: We are on this team, and they are on that other team. We have our purposes, and they have theirs. And we have to fight to get what we want. We have to compete with the other tribe(s) to make sure we come out on top. Otherwise They might take advantage of us. We won't get what we want. We won't be safe. We'll be hindered from accomplishing our purpose.

So our tribe's purpose can easily become "to fight against the other tribe(s)," whatever that looks like. It might be a marketing war, cultural conflict, a military war, or a legal battle. It might even manifest as a subtle whisper campaign. In any case, when we shift into this mode, we believe that our tribe is completely justified. Our tribe is right. Our tribe is deserving.

And our tribe is afraid. Fear is the primary motivator of tribalism in any venue. And when we are fighting with the other tribe because of fear, it makes defining a sacred purpose all the more difficult. How can we honestly create something as a community when we are acting out of fear to destroy the Other? Quote something about the phoenix or Kali if you like, but I would suggest that when a tribe is fearful, there will always be apparent enemies at the gate that demand immediate attention.

The tribe mentality limits us. It turns away the unique creative gifts others could bring to the table, and it keeps us in a state of separation. Seeing the potential for partnership and connectivity is expansive. If we take "we" to the ultimate limits, there is no "them." And I believe the closer we are to that understanding, the more we engage our integrity, gracefulness, and gratitude.

Being Greedy

Over the past year, I have been committed to stretching beyond my comfort zone and engaging my full capability in the world. I'm not there yet. Granted, it's a moving target, since my capability will hopefully continue to grow in different ways. But, there are still some things that keep me from allowing myself to shine as brightly as I could be. A year ago, I was placing the blame on external circumstances, but when I look at things honestly, most of the limitations are still coming from the same place they always have been. Me.

In the noblest part of me, I want what I create to contribute to making a more harmonious world. This goes for musical creations and otherwise. I want my music to be a part of creating a sustainable culture of grace, integrity, and gratitude. So, when someone asks what I want to do with my music, the answer has been deepening even as it has grown in clarity. It's certainly a long range goal, but there is no honest reason for me to avoid working toward it right now.

It has been more challenging for me to pin down an answer to the question: How much money do you want to make from your music? In some moments, I don't really believe I deserve anything for it, and in others I am disheartened that some of my pieces haven't earned more. When I try out a dollar figure, though, it often strikes me as being greedy. I somehow lose sight of what I actually want to create when money enters the picture. It becomes a bit of a stumbling block.

What I am realizing is that, although money is not the end in and of itself, it is a significant factor in allowing my music to have the impact I want. It seems logical to conclude that if I want what I create to make a difference in the world, it would have to be out in the world being heard or experienced. And if I earn money because of royalties, it means that my music has been out in the world being heard. Which means that when I cling to a belief that I am being greedy if I want my music to earn money, I am actually working against any efforts I may take toward putting it out into the world. I am at cross purposes with myself.

While I don't know what is possible, I do know that I have been in some ways keeping myself from reaching as far as I can be. I am willing to let go of the "greedy" label. What I actually want is more valuable to me than the lie.

Community Defined

Someone I am partnering with on a project recently described a familiar scenario: Several people were involved in a discussion, and they had reached an apparent agreement. Then one person simply restated what had been agreed, only to find that people had different understandings of their agreement. What had seemed clear was revealed to be subject to varying interpretations.

Sometimes language can be used to communicate with precision and clarity, and sometimes words can obfuscate. This might be intentional in some cases, especially in the realm of marketing and advertising, but in most circumstances, I think that people typically want to be understood when they choose to communicate. It's a huge assumption on my part, but I'm going to run with it.

As I have been considering many ways in which I can partner with others, communication has been rather important. And since I am a part of several different communities, I have been looking at many different possibilities for building on the relationships that already exist for me. I thought at first that a community's purpose would play a part in how communication and partnership could play out among its members, but I am finding that people often have different definitions for some of those purposes.

Even the word community is a bit muddy. I am a part of a community of people where I live, a community of different people where I work, and several other communities of people because of various interests. My definition of a community has been a group of individuals who have a common purpose, but I admit that I don't really know the purpose of many of the folks who live in my neighborhood. For some, community may have to do first and foremost with proximity, and for others it may have to do more with attitude than anything else. I have seen people who claim to have common purposes treat one another with suspicion and even malice. By my perception, that would make it difficult to develop a sense of community, but others might see no connection at all.

So, how can a sense of community be developed unless the word itself is well-defined by its members? Communication might be a start, and it couldn't hurt for that communication to be honest and connecting. Personally, I am considering some alternative words that might be less ambiguous. Partnership is certainly one of them.