While I think it is worthwhile to encourage a robust skepticism of the concept of the sort of singularly and exclusively exceptional individual leaders so often promoted by the modern leadership movement, it should nevertheless be noted that such persons really do exist. Some seem to occur naturally, so to speak, and others develop as a result of the writings of gurus who celebrate them.
But what are the implications of such leaders for modern organizations?
There are a number of circumstances where such leaders can arise, and have real value in unclear, turbulent times for organizational progress - even survival. The question isn’t whether or not this happens; it is whether or not we want to emulate it, to construct circumstances where it becomes the norm.
Surely, when things are uncertain, we like to hear a certain trumpet calling us to action. And when we are beset by the personal and organizational anxieties such circumstances produce, we welcome a leader who appears to have the attributes applauded by so many observers.
Moreover - and especially when we seem to be confronted with a strikingly accomplished exemplar of the type - we even have a tendency to submit to that leadership. We become willing followers, trusting in the vision of the leader, maybe even suspending belief on our faith in him or her.
Now consider this: if these are the circumstances in which we welcome such a leader, what sort of circumstances do you suppose might be prolonged, or created - or purported to be so - in order to maintain the atmosphere breathed by such a leader?
That’s the problem. Such leaders don’t come without baggage. This consists in the expectations that both those leaders and we have. Our mutual hopes and concerns combine to create - or imagine - organizational and environmental conditions suited to the presence of such leadership.
It is just such circumstances that produce so many of the peculiar additional notions designed to facilitate this concept of leadership. Among the most egregious examples is that of “followers” as that term is understood by those who advance this form of leadership. Another is that of organizations designed and operated in such a way as to give the most immediate and unfiltered expression possible to the inspired reflections of their leaders.
As fervently as such ideas are advanced by their adherents, they could hardly be more out of tune with the times. Indeed, they act inexorably to undermine the fortunes of those who venture them in the modern world. This is a world, after all, that Peter Drucker described as requiring approaches that enable ordinary people like you and me to run our organizations.
So transcendent individual leadership, despite all the attention it receives, belongs in the past. The future belongs to you and me (and has for some time!).
But the word “leader” is hard to avoid in the business context. So, we’ll try to get a better handle on it tomorrow - see you then!
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of real business leaders, please see this article from The Economist about the Bill Gates, on the occasion of his stepping down from an active role in the firm he founded. As you read it, keep our current discussion in mind.
—
Did you know that as a subscriber to this blog (by either RSS reader or email), you are entitled to a free download (.pdf format, 344KB) of the first chapter from Jim’s critically-acclaimed book, Managing Leadership? Download your free chapter now! (Even if you haven’t subscribed, yet - download it anyway!)
—
Technorati Tags: leadership, organization, progress, leader, follower, business, Economist, Bill Gates, Peter Drucker
Post a Comment