This week I would like to offer a short series of items about some of the concepts inherent in the widely promoted – and, it must be said, subscribed – modern notions of leadership.
The idea that there is such a thing as a distinct leadership personality is based on or accompanied by several presumptions:
- There are characteristics that reliably distinguish a leader.
- These characteristics can be developed by individuals, who will thus become “leaders.”
- These characteristics can be recognized, thus enabling us to identify and assign “leaders” into leadership positions.
- Leaders bring unique talents and abilities to positions of authority in organizations.
- Leaders should be given generous freedom from constraints or restrictive oversight in order to permit their leadership characteristics free rein to express themselves.
The first of these, despite having been rejected by researchers for decades, is so inherently attractive an idea that it continues to thrive. Much is written about it, and eagerly absorbed by a wide public in many fields, hoping to find the keys – if not the shortcuts – to success.
The next two inevitably follow from the first. After all, if the putative leadership characteristics do not bear an inevitable relationship with leaders, then what’s the point in identifying those characteristics? The assumption is implicit that the presence of these characteristics in “leaders” is two-way: the leaders have these specific characteristics which are specifically what make them leaders.
The only real purpose for making such a fuss over these traits, then, would be to help us generate and identify leaders. The expectation is that by understanding leadership in this way, we can each learn to develop ourselves as individual leaders, and to identify others as leaders based on their possession of the leadership traits.
The last two also receive quite a bit of attention. Obviously, we associate leadership with a positive ability to head organizations of many types. Moreover, the modern leadership movement is pretty clear about identifying it as something distinct from, and generally superior to, management. As a result, it should be accorded privileges – and even given leeway – commensurate with its elevated status.
We will subject these ideas to examination this week. I will present my own take on them, and welcome yours, either as comments directly to these posts or to each other. I look forward to hearing from you, and hope to see you actively observing and participating in the discussion.
—
Here are all the posts in this series:
- The argument for individual leadership
- Humility? Check. Sincerity? Check . . .
- Passionate? Check. Inspirational? Check . . .
- All hat, no cattle
- We’re here to help you
- The lengthened shadow of the leader
- Sticks and stones
—
Today’s tip: An interesting topic has popped up in a couple of sources, today. Both the WSJ and The Becker-Posner Blog offer commentary addressing the suggestion that academic specialists in ethics may apply their assessments and prescriptions with less rigor to their own community than to actors in non-academic endeavors. One must always be alert for the agenda behind the messages that various sources deliver, particularly when their authors work to obscure the nature, or even deny the very existence, of such an agenda. These items are well worth a visit with that thought in mind.
—
Did you know that there is now a mobile-friendly version of the Managing Leadership Blog that you can view on your internet-capable phone or pocket computer? Just use the “Get Mobile Version” link at the upper right of this page to have the address sent to your device or, for those of you reading this in your email client or RSS reader, go to http://fdm8.com/managingleadership to view the site (you can visit it right here from your computer to get an idea of what it will look like on your portable device). Try it now!
And, don’t forget to subscribe, so you’ll always get the latest posts.
Technorati Tags: leadership, leadership personality, leader, leadership positions, talent, leadership characteristic, individual leader, leadership trait, organization, management
Sphere: Related Content
Hello,
This is a very interesting subject that has always been a project of mine, in fact I’ve even wrote a book on a similar subject. One of the areas that I have been published on is the subject of “Collaborative Intelligence” or (CQ).
The subject of collaboration in the work place goes hand in hand with individual leadership.
I try and teach management how to use practical “CQ Tools” and processes that help teams and leaders:
- Attract & retain high quality team members
- Create a sense of meaningful participation
- Collaborate in highly effective ways
- Connect to a strong sense of purpose
- Balance leadership and followship
If you would like to know more about my writings, feel free to go to StephanJamesJoyce.com or feel free to Google my book “Teaching an Anthill to Fetch.”
I look forward to your future blogs!
Stephen Joyce
Hello Stephen,
Thanks for stopping by, and for your thoughtful addition. I would say that the cornerstone in your list of building blocks for what you call CQ is the statement: “Connect to a strong sense of purpose” – Nothing really survives the failure to do that, because there is no reason to do anything else in the absence of that.
I like your catchphrase – CQ or Collaborative Intelligence – I think it captures perhaps the core issues in the management of people in organizations – that is, in what are, after all, collaborative enterprises.
I look forward to learning more about your thinking by visiting your site, and will pick up your book on my next visit to the States.
Thanks again for your visit, your thoughtful comments, and, certainly, for your work as well!