Reflections on leadership: introduction

A few months ago, I finished a two-year stint on the board of directors for a small, not for profit organization. During the second of those two years, I served as president. Those experiences have given me the chance to reflect on leadership. I'd like to share some of those reflections with you. It would take too long to put all the reflections in one post, so I'll try to do it in the occasional post, as the mood strikes me.

I was originally going to title this series "Lessons in leadership." But I believe these are better described as "reflections" rather than "lessons." Much of what I supposedly learned, I already on some level knew or believed before I "learned" it. More important, my "reflections" are just as often opinions about leadership that are contestable. To call those opinions "lessons" is to make them seem stronger and less assailable than they probably are. A lesson usually connotes "something true that is learned" while my opinions are conclusions that are debatable even when informed by thought and experience.

This post is an introduction to the series. And like all "series" I write (e.g., "advice to DEI trainers"), I'll engage the series when I feel like it and am moved to. So I can't promise how often I'll do it.

Necessary disclosures

Before I go further, I should alert you of a few things.

I shall deliberately obfuscate details about the organization. I want to avoid doxxing myself. For example, I call myself the "president," but that wasn't my exact title. I call the body I served on a "board of directors," but that wasn't its name. And both terms--"president" and "board of directors"--are probably grandiose compared to what the actual terms.

In this series, I may occasionally speak about issues of controversy in that organization. I may represent views that other members of the board or of the organization might disagree with, sometimes very strongly. I may also relate situations where I acted poorly and said things in a way that probably offended my fellow board members. If I choose to relate those events, I'll try to represent their views fairly, but I'll almost definitely fail to do so completely.

About the organization

The organization was very small. Our budget and assets were in the mid four figures, and our income was in the low four figures. (Among other things, that meant we had a "structural deficit." But I digress.) The purpose of the organization was primarily for professional networking, through social events, forums, mini-conferences, and discussion groups about issues of the day relevant to my profession. All its leaders are volunteers.

Although I was president of the board of directors, I wasn't the only leader of the organization, and I was probably not even its "real" leader. The board itself was mostly in place so the organization could say it had a board of directors. Each board member pretty much did what they had the time and energy to do, and several did a lot more work than I did as president. What's more, most of the work of the organization was actually done by non-members of the board. I'm referring to the heads of autonomous or mostly autonomous committees and groups of the organization.

Why I left

The short answer to why I left the leadership position was that my term of service was up.

The longer answer is that leadership, at least in a formal capacity, is not my strong suit. That's not false modesty. It's my honest assessment of my strengths. I was mostly a caretaker, especially when I was president. I got the job pretty much because no one else on the board wanted it. I did what I could to keep the (metaphorical) lights running and little more.

Being president was exhausting, too. That's strange to say, especially because the position probably required, at most, about 10 hours of work per month during the busiest months, and probably a lot less than that most of the rest of the year. But it's true nevertheless.

Another reason I stepped down was that the values of the organization--and especially the values of its leaders, the most active and most vocal members, and perhaps the majority of the membership--have diverged more and more from my own values. Or perhaps it's the other way around. Maybe it's my values that are diverging.

The main point of divergence was over concerns that relate to diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racist activism. It wasn't so much that I disagreed with the notions of diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism. But I found my colleagues tended to define those those terms, the goals relating to those terms, and the means to achieve those goals in ways that were increasingly at odds with what I thought was right. In part it was a disagreement over tactics. In part it was a deeper disagreement.

At any rate, that divergence counts as one reason I left. Would I have left for that reason alone if, for instance, I enjoyed being president more or if I decided I had more time to devote to the organization? Possibly, but I cannot say for sure.

To be clear, I was eligible to run for reelection. I probably would have won, not so much because I'm so great but because it's perennially hard to find anyone willing to run. If reelected, I could have and probably would have remained president. The board selects its own president, and its members tend not to have the time to take on the additional duties the presidency requires.

I'm still a member of that organization. But I'm a mostly silent member. I contemplate leaving the organization altogether, again because I'm not sure to what extent I endorse the trend in which it is moving. That said, those specific "values" concerns aren't everything the organization is about. And while I see many of the issues differently, none of the perspectives I've seen advanced is so beyond-the-pale wrong or dangerous that it shocks the conscience. It's almost completely an issue of people trying to do right as they see it.

I am grateful for the opportunity to serve. I have learned much. I admire and respect my former colleagues. Even though I think many of them are mistaken on some important points, they're decent people and incredibly hardworking While some of them may get a cv-padding benefit from saying they're engaged in "professional service," probably all of them volunteer because they're honorable members of the profession, because they sincerely believe in the organization, and because they want to contribute. I cannot fault them for their dedication and their willingness to give of their time.