Dave Chauhan (Guest) · 32:17
It's a very complicated subject, Maz. When we look back at history, we can see what really pushed humanity this far. We have been told a different narrative of leadership, and reality has been different. And I'll tell you what the narrative is. Narrative is that leaders come with cape and hero-like posture. They come and they just win. And they know how to succeed. They are brutal. They just make decisions. They just get to where we got to. They just push everyone and they get us that far. It's very masculine definition of leadership that's been defined. But over the last, at least in a decade's time, we can see that, you know, softer elements of leadership like empathy, leadership, vulnerability, all those elements are being celebrated, are being embraced. And finally, we have started to decode what leadership means. And that's what really pushed humanity to get this point. Now, I can't comment on that better. That was because this masculine energy just wanted to control society. And we changed the narrative, the history, the way not it is, but how it's written and who it's written by. So we can see that the whole facet of leadership really changed by the narrative we've been told. We've been told the stories of Alexander the Great, and we've been told the stories of everyone who basically decided to win, not by the narrative of that how we really got from savanna in Africa and basically conquered this whole habitable planet. Was it because of of the killings we were doing, or was it because of the protection and the softer elements of leadership that humanity was being nurtured through? There's a lot of research on it that now being uncovered, and we can see there's one facet there. So from that point of view, how I see leadership, it wasn't because leadership got started because somebody said, I want to have a title. When we were living as 100 people in a tribe, and there were little tribes in savannah, somebody mentioned, I wanted a title, or I want to be leader. That's not how leadership Leadership started when one particular season we had excess of bread and we looked across, we looked at each other and we said, wait a minute, whom do I trust? So when I'm going for hunting, I can leave my bread. So when next season, when we don't have excess bread, this person will distribute bread evenly. There was no title. There wasn't a chief or a leader defined yet. And I looked across and I said, wait a minute, I don't trust you. I don't trust you. But this person gave me reasons to trust. And those were the soft elements of leadership that define trust. Those are softer elements of leadership that define that everybody started trusting this one person because they exhibited all those qualities of leaders without being leader. So we did this for decades, we did this for generations, and somehow we defined that this person is a leader. Now, from outside perspective, another tribe came, another tribe looked at us, wait a minute, we are being massacred every now and then, we die of drought and famine, what is that distinguishes us from them? Is this person. So maybe we need to choose our leader too. And what they looked at was pile of stock of bread and stone and rocks this person had that he was supposed, or she was supposed to distribute, versus I can collect all that stuff quickly, then I can be a leader. So that's one way of looking at leadership, that it became collectivistic tendency of gaining stuff so I can gain more power and more influence and hold stuff so I can be a leader. That's one way of looking at it. That's how historically leadership's narrative changed, that the tribe or the people that we decided as a leader for decades and centuries, few generations later, we forgot what leadership was. But more importantly, back in 1960s and '70s, when we started defining post-Depression period, Wall Street was looking at how we can get investors back, how we can raise money. Came Milton Friedman. He was well-celebrated economist of his time, and he defined leadership as companies success criteria. And success criteria for company, as he defined by his manifesto, was the only purpose for companies is to make value for shareholders. That was the first. And over time, over 10 years of his work, he added the word lawfully. So the definition became as long as you can create value for shareholders lawfully. Now, lawfully is a pretty flimsy word because lawfully basically sits on the tendency of what is the minimum acceptable criteria for a member to be part of the side, because when somebody breaks trust, that's when we define law. Until that time, we don't need law. Until the first person starts stealing, we don't need laws about stealing. Until the first person breaks speed limit, we don't need speed limits. So the lawfully is the minimum acceptable criteria, but Milton Friedman's definition was that's the highest criteria, that you can make money, you can create value for companies as long as— or shareholders— as long as you do it lawfully. So by the definition, when organizations define what will the success criteria for leadership, people who are leading these organizations, we have defined the lowest criteria to be members of the society. So the definition of leadership became the whole game of KPIs, numbers, profits, revenues that you can generate, and that defined your success. And I think that was one of the biggest turning points in human history that changed the definition of leadership. Now, where we are right now, I do feel through my work I can read, what I can see, what my research— it is time for us to pivot. And we really need— so relevant and so important for us as human society to fix the narrative, because if we won't, then probably it'll be the last decision that we'll be making as collective humanity together.