Friendship

For the ancients, friendship was “the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue” (C. S. Lewis, 1960, 69). Today, by contrast, it is seen as just another interpersonal relationship. Exclusively located in the private sphere, its significance in relation to ethics, justice, and public affairs is seldom discussed. Despite its vital contribution—for better or for worse—to the working atmosphere of groups, teams, and even whole organizations, friendship seldom features in textbooks or training courses—or on the agendas of management meetings.

Several major historical trends have served to make friendship seem at best irrelevant to organizational life, or, at worst, a threat to order and efficiency. These include Fordism and Taylorism, bureaucracy, utilitarianism, individualism, and the influence of the romantic movement. In contrast to these, the contribution of friendship to our understanding of leadership is precisely that it emphasizes the relational over the technical, connectedness over separation and individualism, and truth over power and control.

For example, a pivotal leader in the history of Western society is David, the king of Israel, who became the model for both Jewish and Christian leadership. His leadership is contrasted with that of Saul; the key difference between them being the friendship between David and Jonathan, Saul's son. Where Saul attempted to rule on the basis of power alone, David's leadership was modeled on friendship. Because friendship has its own order, it is also effective as an organizing principle for leadership (French & Moore, 2004).

The classical tradition describes different levels of friendship. The most basic is friendship based on utility, an exchange relationship, where both sides have something to gain. In turbulent times—and our own may be a case in point (Pahl, 2000)—friendship has acted as a kind of “glue” to hold together unstable social and political structures. Following the death of Alexander the Great, for example, the new monarchies of Egypt, Macedonia, and Greece lacked a traditional aristocracy on which they could rely. Instead, leaders chose from among the most able men around them a group of close advisors to support them in the day-to-day running of their kingdoms, a kind of inner cabinet. These were called “The Friends.” To think of such alliances as a form of friendship, rather than as micropolitics or “networking,” can shed a different light on one's own behavior or motivation, as well as that of others. However, the emphasis in our day on the democratization of the workplace and on equality of opportunity, has led to a deep suspicion of elitism, favoritism (nepotism), and “patronage,” with which such alliances can be associated.

The second level of friendship is pleasure. To enjoy the company of friends, people will choose a career, stay in a job they do not like, move location, or start up a new enterprise. The pleasures of friendship can also be fraught with danger, however, as is clear from the gossip columns of newspapers and [Page 526]magazines. Rumors of the abuse of friendship, or its “descent” into a sexualized relationship, and the envy of those who see others enjoying friendship, mean that all organizational members must behave with care. This can contribute to the sense of isolation that often accompanies the role of leader.

...