Managing Leadership^®

Yesterday, we covered a key stumbling-block to the notion that there is value (or, even, validity) in developing and attempting to emulate lists of leadership characteristics. Today we’ll cover what is perhaps the most troubling aspect of such efforts:

• They are inwardly focused, without meaningful reference to the work, and to the work habits and mastery of tasks that get it done.

Peter Drucker said, in Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, (see review here) that management exists “only in contemplation of performance.” But other than general “technical competence” and the like (which don’t really belong there), how many items on the leadership lists you’ve seen really contemplate the work to be done?

They seem, rather, to focus on the development of excruciating self-involvement, and the cultivation of a rare, exclusive personality that separates one from, raises one above, others. It is this tendency that is their most troublesome quality, and their greatest fault.

Consider the oft-noted ability to “inspire” people. Think about this a minute: In the typical business organization, how many “leaders” do you know who you would describe as “inspirational?” Why would you find them so?

For the most part, people who are effectively inspirational in a genuinely organizational sense, are really just those who can effectively convey the value of certain organizational goals or endeavors to you, so that they make sense and inform your action. This can sometimes feel so liberating, that you feel a certain affinity for those people, and return to them to help you continue find the underlying meaning and value in what you do.

But, really, that’s just communication. Some people may be better at it than others, but that’s all they’re doing. And when you get right down to it, it is a core function – not of a leader – but of a manager engaged in making decisions and translating them into execution.

Communication is the lifeblood of organizations, informing planning, conveying instructions, generating and incorporating feedback, directing assets to where they’re needed, refining processes, keeping the whole effort apprised of environmental influences. Managers do that.

When leadership gurus try to elevate the inspirational personality to a position of self-referential virtue, what you may find yourself dealing with is a cult-like tendency to organize people around loyalty to a particular individual, rather than around the tasks that they are, all of them, assembled to pursue. This is a classic problem with study of the leadership personality – it is too often about the person, and not the work.

If that example doesn’t work for you, consider this one: passion. What does it mean when we say that leaders need to be passionate, so that they can infect others with that passion? Leadership characteristics like this one are presumed to be personal traits that distinguish people as leaders, and that they bring with them from one position to the next. So, what does it mean when a new CEO comes into your organization, bringing his or her “passion” along?

Passion is not really a personal characteristic. It is a sense of devotion that is provoked by an external source. People can develop a passion about what they do for a living – they can even be specific about choosing work for which they already feel such passion – and this can certainly help awaken similar passion in others. But they cannot really, in general, be passionate.

If a new boss walks into an organization and dutifully starts radiating passion all over the place, it will likely be recognized by the staff for the obnoxiously pretentious effort to manipulate them that it really is.

People who have that kind of passion should probably be medicated, not entrusted with serious work – a concept they rarely encounter in the lists they’ve consulted to prepare themselves for leadership over you.

—

Here are all the posts in this series:

1. The argument for individual leadership
2. Humility? Check. Sincerity? Check . . .
3. Passionate? Check. Inspirational? Check . . .
4. All hat, no cattle
5. We’re here to help you
6. The lengthened shadow of the leader
7. Sticks and stones

—

Today’s tip: Krishna Kumar, at Thought Clusters, gets another tip this week for an insightful examination of the mistakes managers sometimes make in assessing capability and motivation in staff. You may not agree with all of it, but you had best read it and think about it. You will benefit, as well, from considering the thoughtful advice offered for how to avoid these mistakes.

—

Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.

—

Technorati Tags: leadership characteristic, work, task, management, leadership, business, organization, leader, inspiration, communication, manager, decision, execution, planning, instruction, feedback, process, leadership guru, cult, loyalty, leadership personality, passion, CEO, Krishna Kumar, motivation, Peter Drucker