Messing with Myths

Thomas Jefferson provides a particularly poignant example of the danger -- and ultimate futility -- of attempting to reconcile a heroic image with the historical figure that inspired it. In Jefferson's case, historical scrutiny of his character and actions suggests that he was anything but admirable by today's standards, and perhaps not even by contemporary standards as anything other than a supremely gifted writer. Contradictions abound throughout his writings and actions. Yet his image is held with reverence as a symbol of the American dream, the voice of liberty standing forth and asserting itself as the natural condition of all human beings.

People get understandably upset when you mess with their myths -- they represent what we hold most dear. When we honor our myths and heroes, we are celebrating images that evoke those things for which our souls most yearn. We are in effect reaffirming our identity. To attack someone's hero is (at a psychological level) to attack their very existence.

We often speak of historical figures who ascend into the pantheon of Heroes, but this is a false image. It might be a less troublesome formulation, if somewhat less poetic, to speak of a historical figure giving rise to a heroic image, for the fact is that while the Hero takes on a life of her own, the historical figure remains a fixed reference.

So too it is with celebrities; forgetting the distinction between one's public image and one's private self can cause no end of anguish for all involved.

This points to the central problem with any attempt to reconcile history with myth: history is a reflection of past events of which we are simply observers, whereas our myths are a reflection of ourselves.

Taken in this light, debate over the historical accuracy of the Bible is a further example of our tendency to confuse historical figures with the images they create, or worse, to deny that there is a difference.

This is not to suggest that historical study is unimportant, or to undermine the legitimacy of any mythical figure. It is only to point out that these two entities are distinct, that we have fundamentally different relationships with them, and that our understanding of each is driven by different forces.

Historians may feel that their subjects are distorted -- even maligned -- by popular imagery. Conversely, devotees may feel that historians are attempting to destroy their heroes with inconvenient and irrelevant facts. Ironically, living heroes may feel that their identity has been hijacked and their own reality cast aside through the admiration of the public, causing no end of anguish for all involved. This is a failure to admit the separate existence of a mythical image, based on the historical person, but now entirely distinct and owned exclusively by the public that created it.

It may be thought tragic that we go to such lengths to deny the existence of a distinction between the historical and the mythical, preferring instead to secure the Truth for ourselves: this formulation necessarily pits one camp against another in a fight to the death, since two contradicting understandings of the "same thing" cannot both be True.

But we are complex beings, and we improve ourselves sometimes by looking outward, deriving new insights by analyzing the past, and other times we look inward, increasing our wisdom by understanding ourselves.

Learning to Lead

I recently came across an article that listed five qualities that are statistically common among leaders.

1. Character - this is the most important characteristic that holds up the "leadership tent"
2. Interpersonal skills
3. Leading change
4. Focus on results
5. Personal capability

I began to wonder, how useful is this information? If I identify these qualities in a person, can I assume that this person will be a good leader? If I focus on developing these qualities in myself, will I be a better leader? Let's have a closer look:

1. Character (this is the most important characteristic that holds up the "leadership tent")

Nope. Thomas Jefferson was – and was widely know to be – quite the duplicitous character. If by "Character" we mean an alignment between one’s convictions and one’s actions, Mr. Jefferson would probably not qualify. And yet he was, in many ways, a great leader.

Possession of an admirable character can (and often does) aid in one’s ability to lead by attracting the goodwill of workers. But will the pursuit of character make one a better leader? Or will recognition of character in another qualify that person as a leader? No. Unfortunately, the fact that most leaders that we admire are generally thought to have good character just isn’t very useful in making new leaders.

2. Interpersonal skills

The ability to communicate is vital, but again not sufficient. Will developing my interpersonal skills necessarily make me a better leader? Maybe. Will identifying someone with extraordinary interpersonal skills qualify that person as a leader? Nope.

3. Leading change

Well, "Leading" at least, but "Change" is pretty vague. But how does one lead? Does promoting change make me a leader? Or just a heckler?

4. Focus on results

Of the five qualities listed here, I believe this one comes closest to giving an aspiring leader something to work with. But it still falls short. What, exactly, is a leader’s necessary role regarding results? More to the point, in what way do I need to "Focus on Results" in order to become a more effective leader?

5. Personal capability

See "Character". Industry by itself does not a leader make.

One way to describe the job of a leader might be this (rather clinical) definition: Leading is the act of identifying a possible (but not inevitable) future, and enlisting others to bring that future into being.

If you do that, you are leading. If you don’t do that, you are not leading. And there are MANY ways to skin THAT cat.

This is a point that is all too often missed – what is a leader’s job? How do you know if you’re doing it well or poorly? How do you improve? Like golf, it’s a simple game, but endlessly complex in the forms, styles, and approaches one can employ successfully, and even more fraught with blind alleys and pitfalls. But at the end of the day, its all about fulfilling an extraordinarily simple objective.