Managing Leadership^®

It can be entertaining to observe the silly permutations that the term “leadership” has undergone in the relentless efforts to lay claim to it. Many of these seem to be gravely riddled by their origin in some sort of random drive-by “insight.” Most, as a rule, fail to reach very deep, if at all, into an examination of the assumptions upon which our thinking – and acting – about leadership are based.

I have yet to find one that describes what I see happening in the leadership environments I have observed and participated in, much less how to influence them. Most place such vast and impenetrable intellectual and spiritual space between the majestic and other-worldly leaders who hover over them and the benighted “followers” who people them that we can excuse ourselves for feeling transported back to a medieval age in which “lords” were the only really fully formed and functional humans, and the peons – the rest of us rather dimly inept followers – were considered hardly to be sentient at all.

Those efforts at understanding leadership that contest this general trend – and it should be noted that there are many that consciously resist that tide – tend to argue that a “leader’s” real role is to “empower” the people. That has enough obnoxious potential, but it nevertheless can often seem an unfortunate but literal requirement in many of today’s menacingly authoritarian workplaces. Still, for all that, it does opens the way to more promising ideas.

Among these are some which promote the notion that a leader’s function is to release the energy and creativity that exists within an organization‘s members. It is 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 job.

But doesn’t it appear that we are getting tantalizingly close with such ideas? They just seem right, somehow, or to be pointing us vigorously in the right direction. But then, simply plunging after instincts like this, just like passively following supposed individual leaders, is an enterprise fraught with hazard. We risk not only looking silly, but losing sight of what really may be there, buried deeper in the insight.

One of the key things to keep an eye open for, here, is what these efforts are doing. Some, indeed, seem to be separating the leadership functions from the leader. There appears to be an increased focus on the environment which, acted upon by energized employees, produces many of the things we have come to associate with leadership as it is taught by the modern leadership movement: innovation, creativity, even inspiration.

It is this perplexing development beginning to roil the leadership field that presents the question we have begun to look at here: what does leadership do? If we can nail that slippery issue down, then maybe we can work our way back to its source.

We will make another effort at that, with some brief examinations of what are frequently noted as unique functions of leadership, as presumably distinct from those of management. Please do stop in, and be sure to offer your views on the commentary, as well as your thoughts about those functions.

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of frustration about trying to get a grip on solid, responsible discussion of this topic, please visit Miki Saxon‘s site at Leadership Turn for her latest observation on the topic, entitled appropriately “Do Leaders Lead?”

—

If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!

Technorati Tags: leadership, leader, follower, empower, authoritarian, workplace, creativity, organization, goal, innovation, creativity, inspiration, management, Miki Saxon, Leadership Turn