Your turn to score the goal,
Not for competition or petty ties,
But rather to humble me with your skill,
Your turn to score the goal,
Not as a test or a silly game,
Not for anything more,
Than to keep me an equal in your eyes,
For I will not provide the help that creates dependency,
I will not create a pedastal to deny you who you are,
I will not be a 'great leader' who diminishes the common spirit we share,
Your turn to score the goal.
My turn to pass the ball,
Not for lack of guts or selflessness,
But rather to play a different role,
My turn to pass the ball,
Not as a test or a silly game,
Not for anything more,
Than to keep you as an equal in my eyes,
For I love to watch you score your goals,
I love to see you being who you are,
Creating a pedastal from which you will shout,
"My turn to the pass the ball!"
(Like 'The Hinterland', this is a poem about relationships. It is only through relationships that we can experience who we are. 'The Hinterland' spoke of the risk of dominating or being dominated in our relationships. 'Partnerships' describes an alternative mode - a mode where the relationship has gone beyond dependency and independence to inter-dependence. It is no coincidence that the company Bill Barry and I co-founded in 2004 is called '121partners' for it is partnership relationships that we aspire to create with each other, with our clients and with our colleagues. Partnerships are the essence of the 'flat' organisation, which is much spoken about as a structure but not as clearly understood as a set of behaviours in my experience. The poem uses the metaphor of a sports team to describe a partnership relationship. The goal scorer is interchangeable and the goal-scorer refuses to be the only person scoring the goals even though they could monopolise that role if they wanted to. As in sport so in leadership where the 'great leader' can monopolise that leadership role denying others and themselves the opportnuity to work in a genuine partnership of shared responsbility. As the poem alludes, the motivation for 'passing the ball' is 100% focused upon refusing to 'buy into' a belief system that puts one person above another, that creates pedastals from which people fall. As Marianne Williamson says in her wonderful book 'A Return to Love' - '..and as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we're liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.' ( see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Return-Love-Reflections-Principles-Miracles/dp/0722532997/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257413537&sr=1-1 ))
A comment from my friend, Nick Turnbull:-
ReplyDelete'There has been a need for collaboration in most areas of human activity since time immemorial and without such a high level of collaboration the species would not have survived. Since the industrial revolution our interdependence and need to collaborate has if anything gathered pace. In lines 7 and 18, the importance of an equal partnership is reminiscent of the statement “have no friends not equal to yourself”, attributed to Confucius, and reinforced by line 9 which conveys the undesirability of creating a pedestal for either “player”. In line 13, the poet denies that he is being selfless and the palpable delight he has in setting up a fellow player to score a metaphorical goal is akin to the delight experienced by a father watching his son score a literal goal! Selfless behaviour can appear counterintuitive but it is this built in instinct to nurture and support others which we see so successfully transferred to successful partnerships. When we engage in dialogue we not only experience the joy of expressing ourselves but we get a rise out of “setting up” our interlocutor to respond in kind. To see a fellow “player” “score” a beautiful “goal” offsets the disappointment we may experience at not “scoring” ourselves and, after all, a “win” for the “team” is akin to the desirable “equilibrium point”, referred to in Game Theory, which states that an equilibrium is strong if no coalition of players can gain by a simultaneous deviation while players outside the coalition maintain their strategies. The Nash Equilibrium, devised by John Nash of “Beautiful Mind” fame, embodies one of the most important and fundamental ideas of economics ,that people act in accordance with their incentives. It takes a global threat to force a coalition to change its behaviour and to form in the first place. For example, the two horrific world wars which began in Europe were a root cause of the formation of the European Community. There has been a lot of talk about scoring “goals” but who is the opposition? Could it be ignorance?? Where do we stand in the ‘big match’ between ‘Enlightenment United’ and ‘Ignorance Wanderers’. The need to avoid a defeat by ignorance is paramount yet we have to acknowledge that ignorance, like entropy, is pervasive. Even Socrates was wise enough to declare “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance”. Will ignorance be the victor when the final whistle blows?'