"You Got the Power to Let Power Go?"

This question, rapped by Kanye West in his song "Power," is a great intro into how leadership is everyone's business.  Though Kanye may not be a model citizen in some regards, I think we can learn something from the question he asks.

*Note: The question that is my title does not show up in this video (the abbreviated version of the song)



Let's have a look at: "you got the power to let power go?".  The first thing I notice is that power here takes the form of exercising self-discipline, which is not usually the first thing that comes to mind when this topic comes up.  Authority and influence go hand-in-hand with power, and the reading does a good job clearly defining all three terms.  Additionally, control, command, clout, and supremacy are all words that we closely associate with power.  But when we think about power, are we also thinking about leadership?  And when we think about leadership, are we thinking about effective leadership?

According to the class article about power and leadership, the most effective leaderhship happens when the individual in power empowers (letting power go according to Kanye) others around them.  And who does the leader empower?  Well, everyone, or as many people as possible.  See, leadership is everyone's business, and if just one or a few hold power, many people are left without a sense of investment in the organization.



Found this energy drink online.  Pretty cool name eh?

To answer the question ProfRoc posed in the prompt: Leadership is Everyone's Business means that each individual in an organization must have some ownership or meaningful contribution to the direction or achievement of the group.  More importantly, each individual must feel like they have ownership or meaningful contribution to the direction or achievement of the group.

How can this be achieved?  That's where power comes in.  If all power rests in the person at the top, or even a few people at the top, there is no sense of ownership or meaningful contribution from everyone else.  Effective leaders "let power go" by empowering others around them to lead the group and move things in a positive direction.

The next question that needs to be asked: how does one empower someone else?  Two ways in particular struck me as especially promising.

1. High work and productivity standards
   • This ensures that those who have been given power know that much is expected of them.  With great power comes great responsibility (credit to Spider-Man's Uncle Ben and others).  By agreeing to high work and productivity standards, those who are entrusted with power know that the organization is counting on them to make a meaningful contribution.  When people are faced with a challenge and meet it, a strong sense of satisfaction with their work usually follows. 
2. Clarification of organizational missions and goals
   • This is extremely important, and failing to execute this step can lead to big problems.  It must be understood that when an individual is empowered, they are to use their new power to work congruent with the group's missions and goals.  This subject can get tricky, however, because there is a fine line between checking up to make sure mission is being followed, and micromanaging.  Effective empowerment walks this line so the empowered understand expectations and also have creative freedom.

These are the components to effective leadership and empowerment, and would serve any organization and leader well.  Notice I asked a fair amount of questions in this blog.  I feel this approach is important when dealing with power to ensure it is being used properly and effectively.  If power rests with one or a few, and they have no one questioning them, corruption could be on the horizon.  While all the questions I asked in this blog are imporant to establishing a good leadership-power relationship, I think the most telling comes from our friendly neighborhood Kanye:

"You got the power to let power go?"

Changemakers

In all honesty, I did not feel compelled to read this book until my other classmates (Neil, Kelsey, etc.) said how good it was.  All the orientation leaders received a free copy at the beginning of the summer, and I didn't so much as peek inside the front cover.  In an all-time "judging a book by its cover," I saw the words "outcasts" and  "refugee", and soccer ball, and immediately dismissed it as the type of story I would not choose to read on my own.

Once I started reading, everything changed.  Though the book was long, it was not a taxing read by any stretch.  Warren St. John does a great job setting up a character by providing powerful flashbacks into the tragedies suffered by the Fugee members.  Luma is a rock, and it amazes me how she was able to handle herself in the face of a situation anyone would consider challenging.

On now to social change, which is the reason the book was written.  There are countless examples of the Social Change Model in action, so I will do my best to illustrate a few to you all reading at home.  First, let's look at the assumptions of the social change model and see how Outcasts United fits in.
1. Leadership is socially responsible - Definitely.  While some individuals in the book sought change for their own benefit, they also worked to create change for the community of Clarkston as a whole.  I think of the store owner and police chief as prime examples.
2. Leadership is collaborative - Luma did not accomplish anything by herself.  It took other volunteers, city council, and the Fugee players to make the team simply exist, much less effect social change.
3. Leadership is a process, not a position - The person with the "most powerful" position, the mayor, was actually the least helpful in creating social change.  It took multiple individuals and groups to gradually change the culture in Clarkston.
4. Leadership is inclusive and accessible to all people - While the change makers in Clarkston hoped to make things better for the refugees, they also considered the "old Clarkston" residents and made sure everyone was on the same footing.
5. Leadership is values-based - The social change observed in Clarkston had the intent of positively changing the status quo for fair treatment of all members of the community.
6. Community involvement is a powerful vehicle for leadership - Those who became actively involved in the community (Luma, Chief Scipio, William Perrin) had a tremendous effect on Clarkston, which was necessary because the refugees could not become involved because of their work hours.

As we can see, the story meets all the criteria for the Social Change Model of Leadership.  Let's next look at specific examples from the book that demonstrate the workings of the model.

Looking at society and community values, it is plain to see how citizenship played a large role in the social change in Clarkston.  To pull from the reading, citizenship is "actively working toward change to benefit others through care, service, social responsibility and involvement."  Initially, Clarkston did not have these values of citizenship.  Certain individuals, however, began to become aware of the local issues and enact change.  Bill Mehlinger, the owner of Thriftown, finally realized that he could cater to the needs of refugees by providing different ethnic goods in his store.  This change had a profound positive impact on both Bill and refugees, and helped shape the community for the better.

A good example of group values, another component of the Social Change Model, is the Lost Boys repeatedly playing soccer at the park and repeatedly getting kicked off.  This demonstrates controversy with civility, as the Lost Boys did not simply give up after the first time they were asked to leave the park.  After countless attempts to use the park for soccer, the story eventually was made public.  This was bad PR for the mayor and Clarkston, which had an affect when Luma eventually received use of the field for six months.  Though not directly causing a change, the Lost Boys repeated run-ins with the police due to a shady policy ultimately paved the way for another group to achieve its goals.

Let's finally have an in-depth look at Luma and how her individual values helped contribute to the social change in Clarkston.  She embodied consciousness of self, congruence, and commitment extremely well, and used all three components together to work with the community.  Early in the book, Luma's self-awareness allowed her to realize that running her own restaurant was not what she wanted out of life, and it gave her the courage to file for bankruptcy even though she faced immense pressure from friends who invested in her.

Luma's congruence particularly suck out to me, as she took a hard line with each and every player on the Fugees, even going so far as to cancelling the under-15s season due to poor attitude.  Even when one of her players only knew Arabic, she tried her best to communicate to him in English so as to not appear to be playing favorites.

Luma's commitment goes without saying.  The amount of time, energy, and emotional capital she devoted to the Fugees and improving the community seemed at times inhuman.  Because she was so strong in her values and commitment to providing a safe, respectful environment to her boys, Luma was able to press on in the most difficult times.  This is what I admire most about Luma...her resolve was extraordinary.

Going back to Luma's congruence...she tried to treat every player the same because that's what they needed.  She led by being tough and unwavering, because again, that's what the players needed.  Luma knew her boys faced an uphill battle in life, so she tried to equip them with the necessary tools to succeed: hard work, discipline, respect.  She knew that if she could instill these qualities in her boys, they would be much better off than the alternative (gangs, minimum wage jobs, etc.).

Though Luma stands by her leadership style of tough love, she also made certain concessions to players.  She put up with Mandela's antics longer than others because he was good, which eventually led to a falling out between the two.  Though Luma was not proud of this, she admits to not being a perfect leader in every situation.  Another example of Luma altering her leadership style is reviving the U-15 team after previously declaring the season over.  Kanue's persistent pleading pulled at her heart, and she felt obligated to not let down the boys who had done everything she asked.  While some people have no trouble with this flexible leadership, it was difficult for Luma because of her deeply-rooted values in consistency.

As I was finishing up the book, something finally came to me.  As a freshman, I lived in Lincoln Tower, a stone's throw away from the turf fields near the RPAC.  Every night, I would see people playing soccer all night until well past midnight when the lights would go out.  These weren't just any people, though.  There were many Africans, Muslims, and boys of all different nationalities playing soccer on the fields, and I'm sure most did not attend Ohio State.  I remember thinking that it was not right that these men played soccer on fields which they did not pay a fee for like I did as an OSU student.  I now realize that those men playing soccer at Lincoln Tower Park every night were likely in similar situations as those in Clarkston.  None spoke English, but they were all out there playing a game they loved, no matter the skin color or background.  Thinking back, I feel bad that I was so narrow-minded, but now I realize that they just wanted a place to get away from life for a few hours.

Thank you, Outcasts United, for opening up my mind to look at a situation totally differently than I had in the past.  Go Fugees!