opinion

‘Home’ when you’re an asylum seeker

I recently had the opportunity to spend time with a newly-married couple – one of them Iraqui Kurdish and the other Iranian Kurdish in origin – who had arrived in the UK, at different times, as asylum seekers. In the time that the husband has been here, after a journey from political persecution that was traumatic (both psychologically and physically), he has studied both English and law from scratch. His English is now excellent, and he has qualified as a lawyer. He is contributing to both UK society and to the economy. His wife spent 9 years in Norway before they were able to marry a few months ago, and she only recently arrived in the UK. Her English is improving and she wants to train as a dentist. Both of their families and all of their long-established friendships remain in Iraqui Kurdistan. Meanwhile, they are creating meaningful and settled lives in the UK, albeit they haven’t yet found other Kurds with whom they connect.

It struck me forcefully that the notion of ‘home’ for this couple isn’t simple, and seems to me multifaceted: where they consider ‘home’ to be may vary from context to context, albeit that they are working hard to make the UK their home in a geographical and logistical sense. I’m curious: what does ‘home’ mean for them?

I’ve also been wondering what they – indeed, any of us – will tolerate or sacrifice in order to find home. What danger, isolation, loneliness or lack of rootedness is acceptable? What might we cling on to from any previous sense of home that we have had?

‘Home’ is more than geography alone

The need or wish to leave ‘home’ can be a part of what I have come to realise is a complex notion: sometimes ‘home’ is somewhere you need to leave for reasons of your very survival, not just physical, but also perhaps mental, political or spiritual.

While ‘home’ might be a physical space, it can also be a location in time (a past time and its associations with experiences or people – happinesses, ease, safety, peace, relationships) in which one feels at home, but which may have long since passed.

For some leaders work is ‘home’ in the sense that it provides the basis of their sense of identity, competence and / or status which others recognise them for. Equally their colleagues may feel like family.

And importantly, home can be a knowing of oneself, a clarity about who one really is, and a feeling of not only familiarity, but also ease with that, as well as home in terms of a knowing of the systems one exists as part of. This is, it seems to me, critical for the leader if they are to lead with assurance, with empathy and compassion, with insight and versatility, and with the capacity to recognise and manage the challenges of complexity.

The impact for – and of – the leader who is (or isn’t) at home

When an individual leaves the home in which they grew up, they may do so because their stage of maturity makes that appropriate, when circumstances contrive to make that leaving unavoidable, when safety demands it, or perhaps as an experiment.

In my experience of working with leaders and observing leaders I’ve been struck that when the leader is not at home in the figurative sense, they lack the rootedness and stability that come with feeling ‘at home’ with themselves. A well-developed sense of self-awareness, and an awareness of the systems they form part of, almost implicitly bring a sense of acceptance of both self and system which can be very steadying to be with, including through turbulent, difficult, challenging or uncertain times. And my sense is that that acceptance is a significant component of the leader feeling at home and being at home.

By acceptance I don’t mean complacency. Rather this being at home enables an open attitude of curiosity, learning and a willingness to take measured risks and to experiment, which all create broader possibilities – an expansion of ‘home’.

Importantly, the leader who isn’t at home with themselves – or who has left home and not found an alternative – in the sense of not being self-aware and systemically-aware, will find it harder to be open to learning, to a broader palette of perceiving or engaging with possibilities, to being an adaptive leader, or to uncertainty or emergence. The result for them personally could be a lack of balance or stability, inconsistency or feeling adrift, a lack of perspective, confusion or lack of direction, a lack of capacity to see reality for what it is, and an unwillingness to engage with even measured risk. Being and feeling at home is the converse of any and all of this.

The impact for the leader’s teams may mirror the impact for the individual leader – and likewise for the effectiveness of both.

This summer I participated in a mindfulness meditation retreat themed ‘Trusting the Way Home’. Both during the five days of the retreat and since, I’ve experienced a sense of stability and acceptance which have re-set my perspective. It’s only just occurred to me, in the writing of this piece, quite how the impact was connected to my experience (some of it subconscious) of finding my way towards a reinvigorated sense of home.

The essence of ‘home’

While I creep towards what I think ‘home’ means, it’s seeming to me that safety, ease and a relative sense of personal peace are contributing factors. That peace is a platform for energy and an expansion into more of what one might be.

Now I’m interested in what the hidden paradoxes and complexities are that I haven’t yet seen or understood.

^{Photo by} ^{Ritchie Valens}^{on Unsplash}

Home: what does it mean for the leader?

What does ‘home’ actually mean? What will we tolerate or sacrifice in order to find home? What isolation, loneliness or lack of rootedness is acceptable? What might we cling on to from any previous sense of home that we have had? Home can be a knowing of oneself, a clarity about who one really is, and a feeling of not only familiarity, but also ease with that, as well as home in terms of a knowing of the systems one exists as part of. This is, it seems to me, critical for the leader if they are to lead with assurance, with empathy and compassion, with insight and versatility, and with the capacity to recognise and manage complexity. When the leader is not at home in the figurative sense, they lack the rootedness and stability that come with feeling ‘at home’ with themselves. A well-developed sense of self-awareness, and an awareness of the systems they form part of, almost implicitly bring a sense of acceptance of both self and system which can be very steadying to be with, including through turbulent, difficult, challenging or uncertain times. And my sense is that that acceptance is a significant component of the leader feeling at home and being at home. The impact for the leader’s teams may mirror any or all of the impact for the individual leader – and likewise for the effectiveness of both.

Out of control

Two topics relevant to leadership have arisen for me: on the one hand, some leaders’ effort (and expectation) to control, and, on the other, the reality that all organisations and teams operate in a context of complex systems. In fact, success in the quest for control is impossible because all organisations consist of constantly moving parts in interrelationship with each other. The constant moving creates changes in the interrelationships and therefore in the interdependencies. This approach to leadership doesn’t usually lead to engagement or discretionary effort. It may lead to compliance, but it doesn’t lead to flourishing, health or vibrancy in an organisation. One way of seeing how systems work is through systemic constellations: when one element moves its position, so do all the others. Their relationships to each other change, which will have implications for what needs attention at any given moment, and what kind of attention. Control, or an attempt to control, simply doesn’t work: the system has a life of its own.

What holds me back?

For some time I’ve been in conversation with Julian Burton, change consultant, creative artist, facilitator and leadership coach. Julian has created a number of pictures that have reflected scenarios we’ve each been witness to in our work and conversations that we have co-facilitated with public sector leaders – and the one at the head of this piece is amongst his latest. Some of what I find striking about it is what I see, some is what I experience, and some is thought and curiosity. I’m curious about what you may see, experience and think when you look at the picture. If you’re a public sector leader, a safe and spacious space for conversation and for nurturing hope with like-minded leaders can make a significant difference. This is the kind of conversation that Julian and I enable and facilitate. If you’d like to join us, please drop me an e-mail at lw@lindsaywittenberg.co.uk

Either-or, us or them: the perils of polarisation

A polarised position is characterised by a certainty. Boundaries are created which become increasingly strong, rigid and immovable with the passage of time and the reinforcement of the conviction of being right. In these contexts I notice a lack of critical, objective thinking and of curious enquiry. One ‘side’ is split off from the other by a stubborn blindness. Difference from ‘the other’ is reinforced too: the sense of ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ morphs into ‘I’m good and you’re bad’, which in turn morphs into ‘I’m acceptable and you’re unacceptable’. This can also move into the idealisation of one’s own leader and the demonisation of the other’s leader. Those who take a polarised stance usually don’t recognise it. Neither are they open to rationalisation, compromise, or any nuancing of belief, so no amount or persuasiveness of data makes any impact. On a team or at an organisational level it can seriously inhibit effectiveness and flourishing. It can be very difficult for a person taking a polarised position to engage in dialogue because they come from a conviction of already being right rather than seeking collaborative thinking which can offer them learning if they are willing to open their minds to unfamiliar and unwanted perspectives.

Creating psychological safety for yourself

Feeling psychologically unsafe evokes a range of emotions and behaviours: anxiety, lack of trust, loss of motivation, indecisiveness, reticence, withdrawal and loss of engagement, to name but a few. It’s bad news for a team or an organisation. Professor Amy Edmondson’s globally-recognised and ground-breaking work in The Fearless Organization brings insight to the experience and realisation of psychological safety, and allows it to be measured. That measurement in a team can be debriefed, and the behavioural and attitudinal sources of the scores explored through facilitation that supports teams to capitalise on it and/or improve it. A different challenge arises when a team member experiences a lack of psychological safety, and when that very lack makes it impossible to share honestly with anyone, least of all with the leader, who may themselves be the source of the lack of safety. There are a number of possible approaches that can help.

Being before doing

It’s so easy to get sucked down the rabbit hole of ‘doing’ in order just to get through every day, forgetting engagement with the bigger picture - what it’s about, where we’re really going, what our guiding principles are, and – so importantly – the interconnecting, systemic and interdependent factors and features that underpin any given situation and that circumscribe inevitable complexity. Coaching clients have ended their programmes realising that they have been able to become more of who they really were, and, as part of the journey, to discover how important ‘being’ was to them. Executive coaching has at its heart the relationship between the client and myself: a relational process. A central part of this relational process is the expansion of awareness beyond thinking alone: moving into a space where both client and I let go of knowing, and experience the emergence of different types of awareness that can bring deep insights on which they can then act. They relate to their situations, their possibilities and their options from new, expanded perspectives. That’s real change – real transformation.

Being different - and vertical development

We are living in times of unprecedented, and growing, complexity, which it is the leader’s role to manage, negotiate and enable their people to flourish in. Vertical development recognises that adults develop, from childhood onwards, through stages of cognitive, attitudinal and emotional development which research over decades has shown to be definable and predictable. As leaders move through the stages they can develop their capacities to deal with complexity, ambiguity, uncertainty and volatility. Children mature, and, as adults, they become capable of doing more complex tasks through further stages of development and new capabilities and perspectives. When leaders have a sense of not fitting in, the reason can be a dislocation between their individual stage of development and the stage of development of their peers, their seniors or the organisational culture as a whole. The leader at a later stage can feel lonely and isolated, but they may find that they can relate more easily by, on the one hand using concepts and language that will be meaningful to their colleagues at the stage those colleagues are at, and by finding or creating outlets for themselves – new, interesting activities, especially with others at a similar developmental stage.

The leader's profile

There’s a common perception that the effective leader is the leader with an imposing presence. It can be easy to assume that the expressive, obvious character in the room is also the most obvious leader. Introverts have a particular challenge when they need to raise their profiles, especially when it comes to developing their careers and strengthening their network connections of stakeholders. Introverts can find engaging with others in meetings tiring and costly in terms of energy. There are endless practical tips on raising profile. However, this ignores an important – and arguably more powerful - area: how to ‘just be’. To find comfort and safety in the authenticity, ease and truth of being yourself without trying to match anyone else, and without trying to match the imagined expectations or assumptions of other people. That comfort with being yourself – being happy in your own skin - conveys natural confidence and gravitas.

Conflict

Conflict is usually costly, painful and damaging. What are the alternatives? Some might say compassion. Others might say community, cohesion, or connection. Others might opt for peace or safety or kindness. Or collaboration or cooperation. Conflicts can pass in a moment and leave no apparent trace, or they can leave deep and long-lasting physical, emotional, mental, social, or economic wounds – and at its worst, individual or collective trauma. Not being in conflict brings a greater chance of wellbeing, of efficiency, of a sense of safety and of organisational or societal health. Besides needing emotional intelligence, not being in conflict, or defusing conflict, can take humility, a willingness to be vulnerable, and psychological safety. We can do worse than be guided by Marshal Rosenberg’s principles of non-violent communication, and a shift in thinking and conceptualisation from ‘you and I’ to ‘we’.

Time as gift or tyranny?

The author of ‘Time Shelter’, Georgi Gospodinov, treats time as a gift to the sufferer of memory loss, rather than the enemy it so often seems to be as a factor in our working lives. This perception of time as something we can have power over contrasts strikingly with the relationship that many leaders and managers – and indeed organisational cultures – seem to have with it: a perception that treats time almost as a ‘thing’, and that sees us as victims of it. Our relationship with time enshrines an intimate connection with achievement. In turn, achievement is connected to a sense of self-worth. We can feel like we are at the mercy of time, in contrast to a sense of emergence, but there is a richness in the emergence, enabling the capacity to perceive, accommodate and integrate a broader perspective. This is important for the task of leadership: to step back and see more interdependencies and more viewpoints.

opinion

Recent Posts