The Noble Art

Going - and staying - in the arena. 

 

When Theodore Roosevelt delivered what is now known as his “man in the arena” speech, he advocated for more than a strenuous life. He praised the daring ones who time and again learnt from their failures and fought for what they cared about. In this speech, the President’s choice of words is rather virile and masculine, looking at worthy endeavours like boxing matches.

Indeed, keen practitioners of the ‘noble art’ know that three qualities are essential in a fight: power, technique, and stamina. If the relative importance of these qualities could define leadership patterns, existing or aspiring leaders need to reflect on what their source of power is, how they can improve their technique and how they can increase their endurance. 

All three qualities are a subtle consequence of personal qualities, external factors, and overall experience. Yet a crucial difference can be made in how leaders manage their energy. Knowing when to take the hit, and when to hit, when to sprint ahead and when to pace oneself. This makes a big difference in one’s ability to leverage power or technique. 

“What are the limits of framing leaders as fighters?”, asked the Mouse.

Juxtaposing leadership with a strong fighting spirit may reflect a rather male perspective on things. This is unsurprising coming from the man who stormed San Juan Hill. Still, Roosevelt’s metaphor is useful, and definitely helpful.

First, and it’s a truism, but the choice of arena is very telling, as what is considered worth fighting for not only says something about one’s journey or personality, but it also allows them to invoke a community of people who consider such arena equally worthy of a fight. Similarly, who we empower as a referee, i.e., the rules we abide by, make for a strong moral statement.

What’s more, leaders are shaped by the very subjects or topics they apply their leadership to, and not necessarily in a hurtful way like in boxing. This reciprocity in the exercise of leadership is humbling and empowering at the same time.  

Indeed, one cannot lead without the consent of her constituency, and objectifying the people we lead, in a power-reliant positional approach, is more likely to create frictions, and hurt the leader in return. Also, considering every leadership act as a learning opportunity, by inviting feedback for instance, can strengthen one’s leadership in a virtuous cycle.

However, the limit to reciprocity lies in the willingness of parties to collaborate. It is not enough for leaders to have a collaborative mindset for virtuous professional and personal growth to happen. Hence, leaders need to assess the possibility of reciprocity on every occasion. 

Cramped collaboration can be explained by the nature and level of the stakes, differences in perceptions or socio-cultural dynamics, or misalignment in core values. In the latter circumstances, the importance of leadership takes all its meaning, as leaders need to strike the right balance between asserting their worldviews, preserving their moral integrity and keeping open the possibility of collaboration later. 

Modern-day management and current events provide plenty of examples of the necessity and the difficulty of this balancing act, justifying why the ‘Noble Art’ deserves its name: what is more noble than protecting what we believe in while remaining courteous towards those who don’t share our values?

Baptiste Raymond - 05/2022.