By Nicole Brauckmann
In a time of major turbulence and uncertainty, emotional outbursts – displays of misbehaviour considered outside the norms of conventional social and professional interactions – seem to have become more frequent. How can leaders tune into what is really going on and respond in a way that is constructive and helpful?
What does it say about a country when the two people rallying to be the next “leader of the free world”, as the US presidency has been known for decades, engage in a presidential debate described as a “dark horrifying unwatchable fever dream … the first line of America’s obituary”?[1]
What does it say about a country whose COVID-19 death toll ranks 21st globally (Johns Hopkins University, Corona Resource Center) when a sizeable number of its citizens do not agree with governmental measures to keep a second wave at bay and instead take to the streets to protest, drowning out the majority who think the government is right (even if they sometimes forget to adhere to the rules themselves)?[2]
What does it say about a federal state when a minister of police and domestic security comes under immense scrutiny for appointing antidemocratic, extreme-right figures to key positions in the police force and other civil servant groups, and resorts to extreme and foul language to describe his state of mind in a parliamentary session?[3]
This article does not wish to determine which of these complaints are justified and which are wrong. This is not about debating facts and fake news. And it does not claim to have the answers to these issues.
Rather this article invites a systemic perception of these eruptions and suggests viewing them as a fractal of the whole – a yearning for something to be seen and acknowledged. This article describes how leaders can tune into the turmoil and the noise that occurs in any human system, particularly when under some form of transformational pressure.
In many cases, a habitual response to seeing something that doesn’t fit with our understanding of how things should be is often to discard it as irrelevant, irrational, wrong or unacceptable. However, any such response is unlikely to yield understanding or agreement between parties.
So, what would be a more constructive way of looking at these eruptions?
A fractal of the whole
Download the latest issue and read the full article now.
[1] BBC.COM, News: Presidential Debate: How the world’s media reacted, Sept 30, 2020
[2] Berlin and other cities, Aug-Sept 2020
[3] Minister of Inner Affairs at NRW Federal Parliament on Oct 8, 2020
