In a time of pulling apart and pulling together, we need inbetween leaders to bring unity

Interested in more careers-related content? Check out our new weekly Work Life newsletter. Sent every Monday afternoon.

Former federal minister of justice and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould believes we are living in a time when a myriad of forces are pulling us together and also pulling us apart. That means we need leaders who are “inbetweeners,” a term coined by reconciliation expert Roshan Danesh to describe individuals who walk between people and groups, translate between and break down silos.

“When one is an inbetweener, acting in a unity-based manner is not easy. It takes courage. It demands being uncomfortable. It often means breaking away from and out of expectations. In other words, it demands being a leader,” she writes in The Inbetween Leader, co-written with Mr. Danesh but in her voice.

While she has been a public figure and their work on reconciliation involves national concerns, the paradox raised of simultaneously being pulled apart and pulling together also applies for leaders in most organizations. She notes we live and work in spaces – physical and virtual – that are increasingly diverse, supported by technology that allow us to engage with anyone, anywhere and at any time. Silos abound, but an interconnected, integrated countercurrent is also at play. Social media – and more broadly, modern communications – can pull us together and simultaneously pull us apart. Diversity can lead to connection or division.

When people are caught between polarities, disoriented and anxious, she says “they must harness the power of integration, break through the silos and sense of division and have the courage to demonstrate how achieving balance through connection is possible.”

Inbetween leaders must open themselves up to new possibilities of what leadership might mean and being a leader might look like. She offers two different three-part models for such reflection and understanding.

Our overwhelming tendency is to reflexively imagine leaders as somehow above us – strong and in control. Workplace organizational charts are linear hierarchies, delineating who is above whom. During her time in government, when interacting with the public, she sensed a separation – an unwelcome dynamic placing her somehow distant and apart, above.

But there is a contrary notion that leadership comes from below: The servant leader, the leader who eats last after everyone else is taken care of. The Bible told us “The last shall be first” and that idea has roots in many religious traditions. Surveys show people want traits in their leaders such as empathy, encouragement, trust and openness that are usually associated with below rather than above leadership. Yet she notes that sometimes below leadership is ineffectual as necessary action is avoided. As well, perhaps in order to address the fear and insecurity we feel, some of us seek leaders who project control and even domination.

The inbetween leader is a third spatial metaphor, even if not one we commonly consider. But as a member of the Kwakwaka’wakw nation, it was part of her tradition. She was raised from birth to be aware of the responsibility to lead. A leader is part of the group, their well-being dependent on the well-being of the collectivity. A strong leader helps guide the people to consensus. “In this model if one divides, one is not a leader. If one tries to force people to bend to one’s own will, one is not a leader,” she says.

The second model of leadership she examines – again a powerful influence – involves three world views. A person with an authoritarian worldview believes the world around them is dangerous and threatening; to achieve safety and security, control and domination is needed. That leads to rigidity, us versus them thinking, insistence on conformity and the use of force. Many of us, she notes, experience this worldview directly when on teams dominated and controlled by an individual.

A competitive worldview, on the other hand, revolves around struggle and conflict, as people try to achieve self-interest. An individual must outperform and outgain others. Co-operation is conditional, limited and strategic, used to secure strength and advantage over others. As lawyers, she and Mr. Danesh were trained to thrive in a system built around competitiveness. In the Canadian cabinet, she expected consensual decision-making but found when decisions weren’t already pre-made they were fought out, competitively.

Instead of those two worldviews, she asks you to embrace a unity perspective, in which the world within which you lead is not fundamentally threatening or conflict-ridden. Instead, a fundamental connection and interdependence underlies the fabric of our lives. “I believe unity-based worldviews are common and pervasive, and in many ways innate to who we are as human beings,” she says. “In a way, I think unity is so close to us, so ingrained in aspects of our lives that we sometimes fail to fully see it.”

Unity, she stresses, does not mean uniformity or sameness. That’s actually part of the authoritarian worldview. In a unity-based worldview, differences and diversity are essential. “By recognizing this, and figuring out how to build connection and cohesion amongst those with different backgrounds and experiences, we also identify ways to learn from and draw on the strengths of and capacities of everyone,” she says.

The two schemas show how difficult it will be for those who want to jettison prevailing mindsets for an alternative path. But in a world where forces are pulling people apart, a unity-inspired, inbetween leader framework, may be essential.

Cannonball

• The idea of inbetween leadership dovetails with a breakthrough model of management McGill University professor Henry Mintzberg presented in his 2009 book, Managing. Instead of managers atop a hierarchy, he placed them at the centre, between the unit for which he or she has formal responsibilities and its surroundings, both in the rest or the organization and beyond the organization.
• Canmore, Alta. workplace consultant Michael Kerr, who likes to mix humour with inspiration, suggests developing some fun employee recognition awards such as: The Houdini award, to someone who made a big problem magically disappear; I Got Your Back award, to whoever best looks out for their colleagues’ physical and mental well-being; The Ha Ha, to whoever keeps everyone laughing during a busy or stressful event; The Almost Hit It Out of the Ballpark award, for someone who took a big swing with a new idea; and The Bridge Builder, to whoever best connects people across departments.
• Don’t rely too much on your reference checking. Recruiting specialist John Sullivan notes that academic studies have shown reference checks don’t accurately predict the quality of a new employee. Among the many problems: Each reference check is handled differently, without a rigorous organization-wide system, and employees handling them tend to be lenient, knowing that if they come up with negative information they will face more digging.