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!
Similar Posts:
- Leadership and organizational purpose
- Execution and leadership
- Empowering employees
- Leadership and implementing change
- Leading leadership
Technorati Tags: leadership, leader, follower, empower, authoritarian, workplace, creativity, organization, goal, innovation, creativity, inspiration, management, Miki Saxon, Leadership Turn
Sphere: Related Content
ON DECK
5 Comments
Jim, Good topic, I’ve been spending a lot of time on it over at Leadership Turn.
I think that the entire discussion tends to ignore two key items.
1. Real leadership isn’t positional.
2. The Peter Principle is alive and well.
Hi Miki,
Thanks for stopping by and for your observations - I enjoy and always look forward to your own discussions of this topic on your site!
Keep up the good work!
Hi Jim, Thanks for the kind word:) In many ways I do find it a sily argument. Managing today’s workforce without leadership skills is an uphill battle and treating leadership as an executive perk is ridiculous.
BTW, if you’re interested in the challenge of teaching today’s college students I have a knowledgable new voice posting about is on Thursday’s.
(PS, I wish you had a way to subscribe for followup comments:)
Hello again Miki!
Saw it - CandidProf - excellent! I look forward to it every Thursday!
I appreciate your note about subscribing to comments - there is a feature for that, but it’s on the sidebar - not immediately or obviously available - and, it’s for all comments - there is currently no way to subscribe to a particular thread. Good point, I’ll look into it - thanks!
Hi Jim, I’m glad you liked CandidProf’s post. I think it’s he has a lot to say that we all need to hear.
BTW, WordPress give you the comment box to check:)
10 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] the context of our broader current discussion of what leadership actually does for an organization, this is a surprisingly interesting topic. It [...]
[...] does it come from? As in so many of the other real or putative leadership functions discussed in our current context, however else you may wish to characterize the executives who generate a consistent focus on [...]
[...] since we are focusing in the current discussion on leadership and its effect on organizations, we will address the notion of its being targeted at [...]
[...] as the tumult about how to be a leader drowns out consideration of what leadership is and why we should trouble ourselves about it, the rush to ride the crest of change often begs the [...]
[...] There are, unsurprisingly, a number of peculiarly irrelevant things described as essential leadership functions. Sadly, due to the currency accorded some of these, we will be compelled to address a few of them in the coming days as part of our general discussion of the topic. [...]
[...] week we will briefly turn this conversation in another direction before bringing it to a close. But first, tomorrow we will cover one more [...]
[...] made a comment filled with fascinating insights, one of which I think is of particular relevance in our current discussion. Here’s a quote from it: Sure, there are probably many potentially better pianists out there [...]
[...] with the problematic prospect of change in an organization. We will presume, for the sake of our main discussion, that we have a perfectly valid and widely accepted change project under [...]
[...] Our questions with respect to this will be as they have been throughout this discussion: [...]
[...] of the purposes of our examination of all of this over the past several weeks and months has been to try to see if we can generate sufficient relief from the pressure of these [...]
Post a Comment