It is well known that worthwhile goals exercise a strong force in the dynamics of a collaborative group. Ever on the lookout for characteristics, special skills, or unique insights that distinguish the great individual leader, the modern leadership movement has latched on to this phenomenon, as well. Indeed, in perhaps one of the crassest things ever said about modern organizational design and leadership, a prominent guru recently announced that the principle role of a leader is to create “Big Hairy Audacious Goals.”
There are two things this assertion brings up that are of interest to us in the current conversation. First is the oft-visited one that anything you do that is intended to reflect on yourself is doomed to disaster from the outset. If you believe this “thought leader’s” suggestion – that the creation of audacious goals is the role of the leader – then you necessarily must set out to create them. But not because they are intrinsically relevant or appropriate for your organization. Rather, you do it because it is what leaders – great leaders – do.
Please put that sort of thing aside. If you do things because you believe they are what great leaders do, you will learn about the true loneliness of false leadership in short enough order.
So here is the second item: are large, ambitious goals inherently uplifting or inspiring? Do they set in motion the sort of positive, constructive dynamic in a group that we are looking for in a way that run-of-the-mill, otherwise unimaginative goals do not?
The short answer is no, they don’t. The goals that work are the right goals. But that’s where the rub is: When is a goal of this, rather than that, scope appropriate? When, even, is an impressively large goal actually irresponsible and dangerous – and when is it vital to organizational survival? When is an ordinary one sufficient to get the creative organizational juices flowing and productivity flying, and when does it silently drain the organization of its energy?
How do you know? Who decides? How does the group sort this out? How do they distinguish manipulative nonsense from vital direction? Is there a role here for a “leader” as we tend to understand that concept? Or is this just another analytic, communicative role of a manager?
We can pretty much dispense with juvenile prattle about the singular force of grandiose goals. But having done that, we can’t just move on; there really is a baby in that bath water. Goals actually are a major – intrinsic – element of organizational leadership.
We will take a brief look at why later in the week. Please do stop in!
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of the confusing issue of establishing goals which fit corporate purpose, and which appropriately drive organizational dynamics, see this piece, from the Economist, which describes a new form of corporate activism in a way that throws some interesting light on the issue.
—
We appreciate your visits here very much, and would love to have you as a regular reader. Please take a moment to subscribe, either by email or via an RSS reader, using the options available just below or at the upper right. And welcome aboard!
Technorati Tags: goal, insight, leader, leadership, organization, productivity, energy, manager, corporate, purpose, Economist, activism
Sphere: Related Content
4 Comments
Jim, I wonder about goals, really artificial or numeric goals, that are set by those outside of the organization and for which there is no real urgency. I am thinking for example of the arbitrary goal of reaching a predetermined new score for a school, the goal of which is created outside of the organization and imposed by legislation or law. The goal (raise test scores) is decided by others, imposed by others, arbitrary in nature (go up such and such amount), and not connected to the every day function of the organization (teaching vs. testing), and is evaluated and measured on one day’s results. What role does organizational leadership play in this case?
Hello Rob,
Thank you for this really excellent observation – it presents the problem in a wholly different light, with many angles that call for examination – I will be picking it up in the next few days to see if I can address it adequately.
Thanks again!
Having input into the vision and the goals that flow from that vision, as well as the values that help us navigate our course toward the attainment of both will greatly assist in ownership and engagement.
One of the key roles the leader (at all levels in organisationss) can play, is in being able to facilitate people’s input in such a way that they feel heard, and that that their views are genuinely considered.
There are numerous processes available to assist leaders in building their capability to do this, but it requires genuine interest by leaders in the input of others that will fuel “buy in”
Hello Jon,
Thank you for your visit and your observations.
Ownership – metaphorically – and engagement are indeed key and mutually reinforcing elements here. Interest in input, I certainly agree, is also vital, although I might define the origin of that interest a bit differently. But maybe not – we’ll see as the topic progresses.
I hope you’ll stop back – and thanks again for your contribution – “fueling ‘buy in’” – that is what we’re looking for!
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] that, like leadership more generally, there is a lot of talk about what goals ought to be (as we have seen, this is not always very enlightening), somewhat less about the function they perform (although [...]
[...] this subtheme of leadership that produces the goal-producing duty of the leader that we have been looking at recently. But, as we have seen, that alone is typically insufficient to the [...]
Post a Comment