The 19th century French politician, Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, is widely ridiculed for having said, “There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.” This quote, in various forms, is used by today’s leadership gurus to demonstrate what leadership isn’t.
It certainly was an unfortunate choice of words, but the truth is – especially for political “leaders” – it’s not far off the mark. The great political leaders of our nation, from Washington to Lincoln, and from Teddy to Franklin Roosevelt, and beyond, contrary to oft-promoted legend, did not generate their own personal visions of what the country ought to stand for and then carry the people there along with them by virtue of their superlative leadership skills.
What they did is personally identify with and tap into a deep well of national feeling in the people, and then manage the diverse and seemingly contrary resources of the nation to promote that agenda. In other words, they weren’t “leaders” in the singular, visionary sense that modern leadership consultants promote and that modern CEOs wish to emulate. They were alert, deeply aware and in-touch managers – and that’s what contemporary executives ought to be seeking to pattern themselves after.
Consider Washington. He was a highly respected figure of uncompromising integrity and steady purpose, and he generated confidence and trust in all who met him. However, he can scarcely be remembered for an original idea of his own. He is remembered for what he did and for his service (such as for the daring raid across the Delaware River when hopes were fading for the continued success of the revolt, and for his election as our first president), but not for what are promoted today as the characteristics of the celebrity leader.
Washington simply was a most determined and exceptional manager. He saw the winds of change building strength. He, in his career previously and his personal studies, had become intimately aware of the nature and depth of this movement, and came to personally identify with it. With this deep and detailed awareness of the nature of the sentiment of the country, and his continued contact with it, he was able to manage it – to cultivate, marshal, and deploy it – in an ultimately effective manner.
Lincoln is known more for his ideas. But it is useful to recall they they didn’t always originate with him. For example, there was a strong and growing abolitionist movement in the US – in the North especially, but not exclusively – for decades, even in pre-revolution, colonial days. Once while working on the Mississipi River, he saw a slave beaten, and this fired his personal identification with this larger national sentiment.
Lincoln didn’t create this group, or propose this idea of abolition – or even of preserving the Union in the face of Southern secession; he did, however, strongly identify with it, and dedicated his political life to promoting and managing its course. He identified his people, became personally and intimately aware of the depth and direction of the thinking he and they shared, and only then did he “lead” them. Indeed, the Southern states began to secede upon his election – before his inauguration – because they knew of his devotion to this cause.
It can be very helpful to study biographies of accomplished individuals. Certainly, executives who wish to be effective themselves are welcome to examine and attempt to ascertain the elements that led to the success of such singular figures as many of our great presidents have been.
It is important, however, to be sure we are not learning the wrong lessons, or seeking validation for what isn’t really there, but that we so desperately want to find. Leadership did not come from these presidents – they didn’t make anyone do anything they weren’t already highly motivated to do or that they wouldn’t have done for someone else who asked it of them. In some cases, they weren’t even considered likely to be good “leaders” to begin with – consider Grant as commander of the Union forces, for example.
What they did do, is understand the movement they stepped in front of, and managed its course and development, assisting it to realize its aims. They created nothing out of raw cloth, as is so often imputed to “great” individual leaders; they successfully managed the right causes – already highly developed in and of themselves. That’s great enough.
Modern executives should abandon the destructive idea that they are or must be the font of all creativity and leadership in their organizations. They should seek the movements and trends that point to the future of their organizations from within the staff, competitors, vendors, consumers, and the general political and social environment as it affects their organization, and they should formulate that into a “vision” which they then manage. They will be much more effective for it.
Perhaps, one day, they’ll even be remembered as great leaders! That sometimes happens to those who most distance themselves from that specific effort, focusing on being good managers, instead.
—
If you feel you gained some useful insight from this post, please take a moment to subscribe, and to use the “Share This” icon below to share it with your friends and colleagues. And, thanks for stopping by!
Technorati Tags: Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, leadership gurus, leadership, Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, CEO, managers, executives, presidents, Grant, Union, creativity
Sphere: Related Content
