No More Heroes

Apple PodcastsSpotifyBuzzsproutAmazon Music

Sophie: [00:00:00] Hello and welcome to Mayvin's Podcast. What does leadership look like right now? Cast your eyes across the world stage, and a pretty clear picture is emerging. Dominant, certain fast, male. In this conversation, my Mayvin colleagues, James and Carolyn. Parker are exploring what James calls no more heroes. The idea that the heroic hyper-masculine model of leadership isn't just unhelpful in the face of complexity.

It might actually be making things a lot worse. But this isn't a conversation about blame. It's more about noticing, catching ourselves in the act and asking whether discomfort might actually be a sign that we're doing something right. Welcome in.

Carolyn: So James, you recently shared, a piece of writing with us [00:01:00] internally, called No More Heroes. And you and I then had a conversation on the back of that. So I wonder if you could say a bit for our listeners about what was the inspiration for that piece of writing and maybe some of the key points that you make.

James: I mean, I think the punchline here is that there's a type of expectation of what leadership should be.

And it's got a very male shape. So it strikes me that a lot of the challenges that the world faces and that organizations face, often have a kind of very strongly gendered dimension to them, and that leadership within that is very often constructed in a heroic way.

And that we find it hard to imagine. Our leadership could be anything other, because we're so deeply ingrained with this notion of heroic leadership. And that actually that's got worse. 

Carolyn: Mm-hmm. 

James: Not [00:02:00] better in my experience in the last, you know, period of time. And that when we look at, you know, Trump, Putin, Farage, Musk, Modi, Netanyahu.

You know, the elephant in the room is male. 

Carolyn: Yeah. 

James: And I just felt moved to say something about that because nobody seemed to be talking about it much. 

Carolyn: And it is a particular type of maleness, isn't it? And a particular type That's right. Of leadership. And I, so, you know, when you say there's a privileging of heroic leadership in organizations, and in the world.

What that makes me think of and we see this in our work, is there's a real pull towards, certainty, having answers, being directive, being assertive. And in some ways I have empathy for people. 'cause I think it's a natural response to the complexity and the [00:03:00] messiness of the world right now.

Like it is so unknowable. 

James: Yeah. 

Carolyn: That in some ways I think people are trying to gain or regain some sense of control. 

James: And control is the operative word here. You know, Raywin Connell talks about hegemonic masculinity. 

Carolyn: Mm-hmm. 

James: So a type of masculinity. Which is expressed in lots of different ways and not necessarily just by men, which is about control. It's about, power and force. It's about coercion. 

Carolyn: Mm-hmm. 

James: I mean, we see it so vividly in what's happening in the world at the moment. And you see it in organizations as well. There are other types of masculinities. There are different ways of being male. There are different ways of being a leader.

But that trope, if you like, that archetype is so strong, so [00:04:00] dominant and, and as you say, the complexity of our times kind of makes people feel that they have to be even more like that when it might well be that actually we have to do the opposite. In a sense, or not the opposite, but something very different, which is about inquiry, relationships, dealing with complexity in a way that's about asking more questions rather than thinking we have the answer.

Carolyn: Which is deeply uncomfortable, right? 

James: Yeah. 

Carolyn: Deeply uncomfortable. 'cause there's an acknowledgement of. What you don't know. And I think sometimes in organizations, people look to the people that lead them to provide clarity. So there's something about what's being asked of you in your role as a leader, as well as what do you believe leadership to be?

What do you think your function as a leader is? But then there's also this kind of, I guess the other thing I'm often struck by in the work that we do is there's often not a [00:05:00] lot of space in life generally, to be in dialogue, to be in inquiry.

If you, I mean, if you look at social media, you get rewarded for taking a stand, for having a view and, you get your likes and your reposts by offering a position.

James: I think social media and now AI is very much created in the image of that type of masculinity.

It's fast, quick, dominant, black and white control. There was a wonderful article that we read wasn't there, about this notion of AI, basically being constructed like a wife. 

Carolyn: Yeah. 

James: Because it's being put together by these tech bros who basically want a, a very, you know, amenable wife in their lives.

And that's what AI agents are constructed like. And you know, again, that's so what's going on there? What's being [00:06:00] played out there? It's again, that type, that, that dominant masculinity that, hypermasculinity as we call it, that that is in some way infiltrating its way into the tech. 

And creating a kind of path dependency. That that notion that when things are laid down in a particular way. They unroll and un unfold and flow on based on the dynamics of the inception of them. 

Carolyn: I think you make a really important point. It's the hypermasculinity, isn't it? That was the particular point you were making in the writing and we spoke about it.

It was, you know, this isn't about a saying. Men are bad, right? This is about, there's a particular way in which, hyper-masculinity is being constructed and being put forward as the only way to lead or the only way to be a man that is problematic rather than yes, masculinity and men more broadly.

James: 2 important points. Firstly, I think many men reject that hypermasculinity [00:07:00] implicitly by how they live their lives, how they run their relationships, how they are with their children, how they are in their sexuality, or whatever it might be. And secondly, it's perfectly possible for women to embody that hypermasculinity as we've seen, because it infiltrates our whole culture.

And it's also possible, I would say, for men to be a victim of patriarchy or hyper-masculinity because for hyper-masculinity to work, it needs underdogs. 

Carolyn: Yeah. 

James: It needs most people to be underdogs. I mean that, you know, the one gift that Trump gives us is he shows us very, very clearly how hypermasculinity works.

It doesn't need facts. It doesn't need truth. What it needs is dominance. It's just about dominance. 

Carolyn: Mm-hmm. 

James: And nothing else really. Nothing else matters. Yeah, so it's very obvious to see it when it's being enacted [00:08:00] in an organization or in a society or globally, because it will be people exerting dominance.

Carolyn: And I suppose sometimes that dominance is really clear to see and sometimes it is, um, 

James: subtle and poisonous. 

Carolyn: Yeah, yeah, 

James: yeah. Absolutely. I can think of great examples of where it's being enacted in a way that is, sort of quite subtle looking like it's being very kind of caring and relational, but actually in action terms, it's, it's not.

I was at a, a conference the last couple of days and we were talking about communal narcissism, you know, the way in which, certain people, systems, human kind of relationships are expressed in terms of what looks like connection and relationship and harmony, the language of it.

But the action behind [00:09:00] it is, about control. I think you see that quite a lot in some organizations, that kind of communal narcissism. 

Carolyn: I suppose it makes me think that, as you say, in many ways, many men reject the notion of hyper-masculinity consciously and, as they live their lives and yet it's still possible to reproduce the kind of attributes of it, isn't it? It's still possible to pull from the same playbook, to kind of work to the same script. On the one hand we are facing this kind of heroic hyper-masculine leadership and, and you know, there's calls from some to say, well, we need an alternative to that.

But in calling for an alternative, the risk is we just reproduce it right? With a slightly different veneer. From starting from a different place of intention but still recreating. And I think that's one of the challenges of patriarchy as a system of oppression.

It's kind of invested in maintaining the status quo [00:10:00] and reproducing its patterns.

James: It's very binary. Mm. It's another symptom I think of that hypermasculine mindset is that we're either part of the problem or part of the solution we're for it or against it. You know, reminds me of Anthea Lawson's work around and being, she calls it an entangled activist.

That sometimes what happens in activist organizations and systems, so NGOs, charities, that kind of thing, is that people end up, projecting the enemy onto an enemy and then imagining themselves as in some way immune.

And yet actually the issues that they're acting out some of the very dynamics that they've set up to challenge.

Carolyn: Mm-hmm. 

James: What I talked about in the research I did for my doctorate, was about how actually the real work for me was about recognizing where I am embodying or [00:11:00] enacting that hyper-masculinity and pretending that I'm not, you know, that's the, that's the real issue is when I, when I kind of see myself as immune or, or in somewhere above it.

But actually the work very often is actually seeing how I'm manifesting it and trying to do something different in what we call mid sight. You know, noticing myself in the, catching myself in the act. 

Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. 

James: Having to do that with my children, for example is one of the places where, that showed up most for me and I talked about that in my research.

Carolyn: I just, I struck by what you were saying before around the way in which patriarchy harms men too. So in order for hyper-masculinity, to take hold, it needs to create underdogs. It needs to other, both women, but it also needs to other men within that group and, and other folk too.

And I notice in myself when I kind of hear that, I, [00:12:00] conceptually, theoretically, I truly understand that systems of oppression, harm, all people. They, they work for a very elite few. And one of the frustrations I have as a woman in this space is I see the way in which, that gets weaponized by some people, like men are victims.

There's a, there's a loneliness epidemic. And it's like, well no surprise really, because hyper-masculinity suggests that men shouldn't form intimate relationships. So I'm not surprised that men feel lonely. And I'm capable of deep empathy for that, but I'm also like, okay, but don't make that my problem to solve.

Yeah, 

James: yeah, absolutely. 

Carolyn: You know, don't make men the victim of the system that men created. 

James: It's, it's not an either or. It's not a zero sum game, you know, we're all part of the system. We need to acknowledge our position in it, you know, what's being done on us and what we do.

I mean, I often think that this type [00:13:00] of work is quite paradoxical. We end up recreating some of the dynamics in trying to change them. Mm-hmm. And that is challenging. You know, I often say that my destiny in my career has been to mansplain, feminism that I end up.

And there's, a deep irony there, there's a deep kind of paradox in that role that I seem to have played in my life. So that's interesting. Let's look at that. Let's see how that plays out and be curious and inquiring, you know, if in some way that I am the kind of perpetrator of the dynamics of hypermasculinity, then ah, that's interesting.

Noticing that and how can I notice it within it so I don't perpetuate it even more. Rather than be in denial about it. And similarly with leaders when they're in positions of power and they're trying not to be controlling and they catch themselves in the act of being controlling, that can be some [00:14:00] of the most profound learning for them.

And where they can enact change in the moment and do something different. Um, the philosopher, Elizabeth Gross talks about the nick of time. You know, it's in the moment, in the nick of time, as she calls it, that we often have the opportunity to change.

That's a feminist outlook, rather than this big picture: we need a vision and we work towards this vision. Whatever actually change is happening in the moment and in the connection in the relationship. 

Carolyn: Yeah, in the small everyday choices that we make, right? And where we find ourselves course correcting, as you say, because we catch ourselves playing into a pattern, playing into a particular way of being that is, seductive and, well ingrained, but not necessarily in best service of ourselves, right. The people that we're working with or what we need right now.

And I think it's possible to both acknowledge that men are victims and can be [00:15:00] harmed by the system of patriarchy and, not excuse the harm done by men, as they themselves are victims of that system. 

James: Absolutely. 

Carolyn: And that's true of women too. I really, um, I really do agree with your perspective and I've seen female leaders who have, embodied a very hyper-masculine way of leading in an organization, and perpetuated the behaviors.

And that's, a special kind of disappointment to me, or it was at the time, and I've since been able to kind of go, well of course, if, you know, if the system is against you, one of the ways in which you make your progress in the system is to play the game, isn't it?

It's to assimilate. So I think it's important for us to have compassion and understanding and ourselves and others to account in these spaces as well. 

James: I, I think the word compassion is vital. Expression of compassion is by it for, and again, compassion isn't a trait of hyper-masculine dominance.

It's [00:16:00]

Carolyn: no, 

James: it's just absent in that and a sign that we're in it is the double bind. You know, for women it's the damned if you do damn if you don't, you know, double bind of having a career and running a family, having to do the second shift as Arlie Hochschild calls it, you know, of coming home and still having to work.

And for men, the double bind is, you know, well, I'm either sensitive and, and engaging with, with my, significant others, but then I'm not being the type of man that society rewards. So, you know, what, what do I do with that? The double binds are actually two sides of the same coin.

Carolyn: Yeah. 

James: It's about the dominance of a particular type of masculinity. That creates those double binds in both those trajectories. So, you know, we're all stuck. 

Carolyn: And I, I'm kind of smiling to myself now 'cause I'm noticing, almost the desire to say, well, if that's not the answer, what is the answer?

James: Exactly, let's control 

Carolyn: what's [00:17:00] the thing we need to do. 

James: Yeah, absolutely. 

Carolyn: Which is exactly that. I smiled because I was like, I'm catching myself absolutely. In that pattern of we are rejecting certainty, we're rejecting the idea that they can be one single way and one answer or, or one version of leadership, and yet I want to be like.

Well, what is it then, if it's not that? What, what's, yeah. 

James: I dunno if it's the answer, but I can tell you what seems to be progress in an experience I've had recently with a senior leadership team of mostly men. One woman in there, where I've been working with them over a number of years.

When I first started working with them. They were dealing with a huge number of very complex issues. They're a public, service organization, dealing with some very complex dynamics. And when I first started working with them, they would find it quite hard to open up a space of [00:18:00] dialogue.

They'd constantly be struggling to say, we need to do this, or we need to do that, and we need to do the other. And it meant that they found it difficult to really connect around being on the same page with each other at a relational level as well as an action level. 

Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. 

James: Recently I worked with them again and we got to the end of the day and they in a very kind of relieved way, said, and there are no actions from this conversation.

What there are are a number of awareness, things we need to be aware of. People we need to connect with, groups of our stakeholders who we need to be, have a better understanding with, that we need to go out and, and, talk to and connect with and find out what they think and feel. And it was quite a natural development. And the, the air felt it had more ease in it. 

Carolyn: Mm-hmm. [00:19:00]

James: And they, it wasn't that they weren't facing the difficult problems. In fact, I think they were facing them more effectively. Cause they weren't trying to kind of whack-a-mole 'em 

Carolyn: a sense of really sitting with it with the discomfort of Right.

James: Being on the same page in that discomfort together and, compassionate, clear together about what they were facing, on the same page because they connected at a relational level. And, thinking carefully about effective action. Not leaving that meeting with a whole load of actions, which probably would've been passed on to a whole load of underlings, who would've had another load of stuff on their list, which would've sent them into another spin, which would've created more turbulence.

Which would've created more stuff. 

Carolyn: Yeah. 

James: Which is what goes on most of the time. 

Carolyn: So what I [00:20:00] really hear in that is there's something about. Creating space and slowing down for being in dialogue and inquiry with one another, not just, getting locked into this idea of like, let's nail the problem statement and come up with our 10 step action to respond.

James: Yes, exactly. I think sometimes it's slowing down. But I think it's about rhythm. 'cause sometimes we might need to speed up a bit. But I think another symptom of a kind of hyper-masculine kind of worldview is everything needs to be done, done at a hundred miles an hour. There is no rhythm. It's only pace. 

Carolyn: Yeah. 

James: And, and I think what we introduce when we introduce that kind of dynamic is rhythm, you know, faster, slower meeting the moment we're in, at the pace of the moment.

So sometimes it's slower, sometimes it's less slow. There's a rhythm to it. 

Carolyn: Yeah. I like that. And that's making me think [00:21:00] of, it's maybe the constant is resisting the urge to, to jump to an answer. And that's not to say that you don't arrive at some actions or some next steps. So you talked about in that example you know, we need to go and connect with more people.

There's something about the connectedness within that leadership team, but also then the way in which they sought to go and connect more widely outside of that room and with other folk that work with them.

And so being in relationship with yourself, with other people, with the one system. As an act of leadership and resisting the, you know, as we say, it is hugely seductive to come up with an answer when things feel so uncertain, but resisting that and staying with the conversation and the inquiry until such time as you can make an informed judgment about what's next.

James: Yeah, absolutely. I think a lot of our practices that we offer groups and teams when we're working with them are about. [00:22:00] It doesn't really matter where you start as long as you start together. And that takes that connection with each other to know how to coordinate.

Because in a complex and busy world, there's all sorts of places, all sorts of things where you can be moving towards, and it doesn't actually really matter.

What matters is that we are coordinated. That's where the connection matters.

Carolyn: Mm.

We, uh, is there anything more to say in that silence, in that pause?

I think I was reflecting on, I was having my own experience of a bit like I did earlier of like, there's not a neat way to close out this conversation. Is there, it's, it actually just needs to be an ongoing one. [00:23:00] And coming back to what you were saying around, you know, it's, it's a job in all of this is really just to notice when we feel pulled towards a particular style of leadership, a particular way of being. 

And to catch ourselves and be intentional in our choices about, about where we might go.

James: I remember, one of the things that came up in my research for my doctorate around masculinities in organizations.

Was that, um, feeling discomfort was a sign of quality. 

Carolyn: Mm. 

James: So if I feel, you know, if we pre, if we presume that, um, LE leadership is about, you know, staying, as you said, uncomfortable with the uncertainty and not just turning that into a kind of series of actions. Then [00:24:00] discomfort can sometimes, maybe not always, but sometimes be a sign of quality.

Carolyn: Yeah. 

James: And of course, a symptom of a hegemonic masculinity is often that they are very, very comfortable in their dominance. 

Carolyn: Yeah. It might be a lovely place to leave it. We need to stay uncomfortable. 

James: Yeah. Sometimes, you know, we need to stay uncomfortable. I mean, if the people at the top are comfortable and the people not at the top are uncomfortable. That's the wrong way round. 

Carolyn: Yeah. Thank you. 

James: Yeah, thank you very much.

Sophie: ​[00:25:00] Well, we rarely tie things up neatly here, and this conversation was no exception. I'm curious about your experience of this juicy topic. Did you notice yourself wanting an answer, reaching for the next step, the action, the solution, or did something in the pace and rhythm of this conversation actually meet you where you were?

We'd love to know where are you taking this conversation next, and what moment might you catch yourself in.