I read this about 17 times and kept coming back to it. I’m having a hard time swallowing the way this message is projected.
There’s a huge difference between being vulnerable and being aware that, you too, can be vulnerable, at times. Being a vulnerable leader will set you up for failure.
Please, follow me for a minute here.
Defined: Susceptible to physical or emotional attack or harm.
Use a military leader for example. Better yet, a good military leader. Being vulnerable will get you nowhere; however, being a human, having charisma, having respect, being emotionally aware, having solid interpersonal skills, being loyal, being transparent, showing empathy, showing selfless service, being resilient, et cetera … will.
With that all said, I’m not suggesting that realizing that you are human and realizing that we can all be vulnerable at times, is weak (as you discussed in your article). What I am suggesting is, being a vulnerable leader is weak.
Be, know, do. They’re all different. (You quoted Starbucks CEO, Howard Shultz. He said, showing and demonstrating, not being.)
You stated, “we have all been wired to have authority over others.” We have? You also stated that, “we have been trained to not ask for help.” We have? Finally, you stated that “vulnerability means to trust yourself.” It does?
And I’m not sure who Lolly Daskal is, but she stated, “…to discover we can be vulnerable…” according to your quote. Not, be vulnerable.
I’m no expert, my friend. My intent is to simply offer constructive criticism that can be applied for all to benefit. I hope to hear from you soon.