Comparing Armored Leadership to Daring Leadership

Armored and Daring Leadership

Armored leadership tends to weaponize fear, while daring leadership acknowledges, names and normalizes fear (p. 68). This example really stood out to me as the single biggest difference between the two styles of leadership, for it is fear that really drives much of our decision-making. When fear is used to beat someone up and to prevent them from thinking and acting according to their capacity, it becomes a harmful weapon wrongfully used by a bad leader. When fear, on the other hand, is acknowledged and admitted, named and normalized—i.e., accepted as commonplace and nothing to be ashamed of—it becomes a kind of inspiration, a challenge that fuels the passion to grow, learn, succeed, and perform against all odds. This is definitely the example that stands out as the biggest distinction between the two.

That is why armored leadership is numbing and daring leadership enlivening. Armored leadership is a style that is focused on safety and security. This type of leadership can be numbing, as it often involves following rules and regulations. In contrast, daring leadership is a style that emphasizes taking risks. This type of leadership can be enlivening, as it encourages creativity and outside-the-box thinking. While both styles have their merits, daring leadership is more likely to produce innovative results. As such, it is a style that is more likely to be successful in today's rapidly changing world. Armored leadership will hide behind cynicism and sarcasm to protect itself; it does not allow itself to be vulnerable; yet daring leadership is alive to life, is alive to threats, and does not seek to hide its own heart. It accepts pain and suffering as part of the process of growing and maturing. It realizes that nothing big can be won without putting one’s own heart on the line.