We might not usually make the connection, but educating a toddler might teach us a lot about our leadership qualities
We know that a child's thirst for knowledge seems unquenchable. Often, random questions can catch us off guard, making it hard for us to respond. Imagine a boy of about five years of age who suddenly asks you, "Where does the wind come from?" How would you respond?
1.) Most of us wouldn't know an answer, let alone a scientifically correct one. Why, then, is it so difficult for us to just admit and say that we don't know? Why aren't we honest about the gaps in our knowledge? Why don't we teach our children that adults do not know everything and that that is not a problem since no one is perfect?
2.) Let's assume that we do know a good answer and we have an understanding of zones of high and low air pressure which cause the air in between to move to counteract the imbalance. What would be the point of explaining that to the child who just confronted us with that question? Based on a lack of prior experience, they can't have the necessary knowledge to fathom what we are explaining. Instead, our answer might confuse more than it would satisfy. What good would that do for the child? Wouldn't the only point be that we ourselves want to appear smart and superior?
3.) We might not know a good answer, but we might make one up anyway. For some reason, we feel like we have to deliver when a child asks a question. Again, what would that do for the child? We would foster the lie that adults always have an answer. In addition, we would manifest the misleading belief in whatever we just pulled out of thin air.
4.) We could answer honestly and admit that we don't know the answer, but we could return the question: "Do you have an idea where the wind comes from?" Just like any human being, children can't stand not having an answer, so they might come up with one themselves: "I believe that the wind comes from the trees, because whenever the leaves move, there is wind." Now the real challenge begins: How do we respond to an assumption that we know is wrong without discouraging the child?
Correcting yourself - a gentle but powerful force
At this point, no rebuttal you might have in mind might please our little explorer. After all, he just told you how he sees the world. Simply disagreeing with his answer would be as upsetting as telling a devout Christian that God doesn't exist. In their worldview, God is as real as the soil you walk on. Of course, we don't make that connection, because we are often blind to the damage our words cause in children, while we are more careful with debate partners who speak back.
So should we agree even though the boy's answer is wrong? No, of course not. The goal is not to manifest faulty knowledge. The challenge is to find an opportunity for the child to correct itself. That way, they will learn and won't feel upset. They might even feel empowered.
"Hm, your answer sounds interesting, but I don't know if it is correct. Maybe we can test it sometime?" We show that we take the boy and his ideas seriously, but at the same time leave the door open for corrections. What would be the test? If we get in a situation with that boy where we feel wind but no trees are around such as in a city or on a field, we could address that observation: "Do you remember your question about the wind? I can feel the wind now, but there are no trees around. What do you think?" "Hm, maybe the wind isn't made by trees..." The boy still won't know the perfect answer, but you just helped him eliminate an illusion. The best thing is: They might feel that they got to this stage themselves. They might feel empowered - and motivated to learn and test more.
Education should not be about making you follow. It should be about assisting you to learn how to go ahead.
The difference between ruling and leading
Ok, cute story, but what does that have to do with leadership qualities? As leaders, we might find ourselves also in situations where we don't have a good answer. What would we do?
1.) We wouldn't admit it, since we would not want to risk that it might be interpreted as weakness or incompetence. Alas, we would miss a chance to bond with our colleagues on equal grounds, showing them that true strength comes through combining all minds and efforts of the team.
2.) We might have an answer, but due to its complexity not all members of our team might understand it. If that is the case, what is the point of mentioning it when it might cause confusion? Making the people around us feel poorly educated is detrimental to their motivation.
3.) We are the boss, so we'll come up with an answer no matter what. We want to appear in charge at all costs and neglect the risk that our response might cause more problems than it solves. Our team wouldn't benefit from it, of course, since it might send them on the wrong track.
4.) We could be honest and admit that we don't have a good answer. Instead, we'd appreciate the contributions of the team for a combined effort. Here, too, someone could come up with an answer we know is wrong, but how should we react?
We won't have the time and resources to go outside to chase the wind, and yet I believe that the basic mechanism is the same. If we just tell someone that their ideas are wrong and then show or tell them what is right, we might risk two things: First, the learning effect might not be sustainable since the problem was solved for them, not by them. Second, the feeling of being wrong might be detrimental to their motivation and productivity. After all, regardless of our age, nobody wants to feel stupid.
Instead, sometimes it might be possible to assist a person in correcting themselves by asking questions or designing tasks that lead to a certain outcome. Correcting ourselves is more sustainable since it is not connected to negative emotions. It might actually be connected to positive ones. As a leader, we might achieve two goals at once: We might increase the ability of our team to correct themselves and solve problems (thus becoming more productive), and we might keep morale up at the same time. We are all susceptible to the gratifying feeling of success, no matter how small it may be.
The primary distinction between rulers and leaders is their ability to make decisions. You choose to follow a leader, but you are forced to submit to a ruler. I think it is obvious which one will be better for the atmosphere in your team. Willing obedience always beats forced obedience. If you understand what it takes to support a child and make them feel appreciated, you'll also understand what it takes to be a good leader. There is no doubt that you are in charge and that you'll ultimately make the final decision, but in both cases you might be able to let the other person feel like they are part of the success story.
Just like a sports referee, a leader shouldn't focus on being the center of attention. Instead, he or she should try their best to let the other players shine.
Comments