I have always thought leadership starts at the margins, drawing the system outward rather than inward. In this way, positive marginality becomes an asset.
Yet a lot of today’s management is all about holding the center of the system. Management likes stability, predictability, and harmony because they make the system more productive. Uncertainty and change hinder this managerial viewpoint.
Often, we see leadership “collapse” into management. In this case, organizational leaders act more like managers. The focus is on short-term metrics (like profit), and leaders ignore the long-term implications of their actions. Innovation disappears. The needs of the environment and future generations are an afterthought if considered at all.
Leadership is always about change. Because of that, it should embrace possibilities, tensions, uncertainty, and controversy that are part of any transformational process.
The essence of leadership is imagining a better future and working to bring that future into reality. By framing leadership this way, we open ourselves to a new perspective on marginality. We stop viewing ideas that occur at the margins as unpopular or non-essential to the system. People operating at the margins are no longer ostracized. Marginality becomes a positive thing.
What happens with positive marginality?
Positive marginality offers a fresh interpretation of these “outsider” people and ideas. Innovation at the system’s edge is often crucial to its resilience. That’s why successful leaders embrace positive marginality. They lead from the edge, not the center. These transformative visionaries redefine what is core and what is peripheral. This translates into an incredibly vibrant vision of leadership and a more resilient, adaptive, and evolving organization.
Positive marginality is essential in any living system. Living systems are dynamic, and Nature is designed to evolve. We can learn more about this concept by examining the different types within ecologies and how they make systems less fragile and more adaptive.
- Type 1 ecologies involve ecosystems where the soil supports short-lived weeds and annuals. As plants die, this process amends the soil and, over time, builds more nutrients. As a result, the soil becomes richer in nutrients, and the ecosystem evolves to support more life.
- In a Type 2 ecology, we see an ecosystem that supports perennials, tuber roots, shrubs, and short-lived trees. This ecosystem builds root systems that store energy and nutrients so the plants and trees can bloom in the next season.
- The living system continues to diversify and eventually evolves into a Type 3 ecosystem, where we find old-growth forests, mature prairies, and mature coral reefs.
*As a side note, if you’re interested in old-growth forests, check out a fascinating curation of research on old forests in British Columbia here.)
This succession is just one example of how ecosystems become more complex, diverse, and resilient as they evolve. Nature adapts to changing circumstances in the external environment and evolves through these adaptations, responding to information and feedback. Each living system is filled with species that self-organize and support a larger shared purpose of creating conditions that support the life of future generations. Change happens organically from the edges, not from a controlled center.
Leadership and evolution in a living system
Leaders are crucial in guiding the system’s evolution in a living system. Unlike change, which can be random, evolution is intentional and directional. In Nature, it helps the system become more regenerative and resilient, and leadership is the driving force behind this evolution. In much the same way, positive marginality has a powerful impact on leadership within human living systems. When we embrace positive marginality, leadership becomes the voice of resilience and adaptation for our living systems.
As leaders, I think we need to ask ourselves some important questions:
- How can we use assets to foster positive change instead of safeguarding (or even hoarding) wealth and power?
- What if we viewed positive marginality as the voice of evolution, not dissension?
- How can we develop the courage to lead from the edge?
What are some questions that come to mind for you right now?
As usual your examination of what it means to lead gives us a panoramic view of the subject while simultaneously inviting a deeper probing and understanding of leadership. I would like a continued exploration of the question, “How can we develop the courage to lead from the edge?” There is no lack of conceptual frameworks in existence that explain what leadership is; what I find missing in most is the preparation needed for effective practice. We think of courage as boldness; what if it is also vulnerability? Holding such tensions together in the moment is essential to leading for the edge. (There are more) The ability to lead from the edge or the center cannot be separated from developing the Self. See you in Chicago to engage in more conversation! (I will be in a Pre-Con on “Leading in the Gap”).
Katherine, Wonderful questions and I agree that our ability to develop ourselves is essential to leading from the edge. And our sophistication and nuance of developing ourselves as leaders who also develop others as part of their leadership needs a significant upgrade! I would love to have further conversations about what we might influence around these topics. See you in Chicago.
As always these are great insights