The attempt to define leadership is important. Consequently, those who claim to have accomplished it ought to be put through their paces.
The thing is that the modern leadership movement has been in full throat for several decades now. And during all that time we have generally allowed an awful lot of the most peculiar stuff to be thrown about on the subject, often with the most pompous self assurance, largely unchallenged. What sort of stuff?
Well, purported leaders have explained how they do it. Consultants have promised to reveal its secrets as culled from the legends of everyone from Attila the Hun to – literally – Santa Clause. Academics have even been appointed to professorships of leadership in order to organize research, discover the lessons to be found in the “data,” and to teach them to the rest of us. Books, seminars, and education programs of all types, lengths, and ambitions crowd a thriving, bustling market for leadership training. And after all of this, it is fair to ask, “Where are we?”
Here’s where we are: No one knows.
Really. There is no consensus about what leadership even is, much less about who is a leader or what one does. Moreover, there is no commonly held vocabulary that facilitates productive discussion of the topic. And still, every voice emerging from this cacophony is imbued with unshakable certainty that it is the one with the answer.
That is a major problem: the assertion of certainty in an effort to distract attention from its absence. The problem is that it is insufficient in the face of the sustained inability to support it, and of the mounting evidence that it is insupportable.
On the contrary, there is a slowly growing consensus that the emphasis on leadership emanating wonderfully from the singular leader at the top – or even from such special beings as “leaders” in general – is misplaced.
But is there no role for the boss unique to his or her position? And, if we still suspect that leadership really does exists and really is important, then what do with those beliefs?
We will take a brief look at these over the next couple of days. Please do join in!
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of making claims you may come to regret, please see this excellent essay on the importance of carefully considered communication, by Nina Simosko.
—
If you look at the contents section on the sidebar of the main page of this site, you will see a listing of the article series that have been published here. You can click through to view summaries of the pieces, and then read the full series or selections that are of most interest to you. Enjoy!
And while you are, please also subscribe by email or RSS reader – thanks!
Technorati Tags: leadership, Consultant, Attila, Hun, Santa Clause, research, education, training, leader, Nina Simosko
Sphere: Related Content
Jim,
As always, great insights and sincere appreciation for the reference to my essay. Keep on educating me my friend!!
Regards,
Nina
Hi Jim, great opening salvo. Thanks for getting this party started. You’re right that far too many leaders in business today are just dictators, frankly.
And you’re right that there are some things that are different about leaders. The personal challenge facing all of us, though, is figuring out what leadership means to us. What our personal leadership style is.
A guy asked me three years ago what he ought to do, or start doing, to become a great leader. I didn’t know how to respond for a moment, then out of nowhere I said maybe it’s not about what we ought to START doing. Maybe to be a good leader you just have to figure out what we should STOP doing. Maybe some of us need to get out of our own way.
With my wife Jacqueline Moore I wrote ‘The Seven Failings of Really Useless Leaders’ as a stab at this idea. Anyhow, good luck with this conversation. I look forward to hearing more over the next few days.
Where do you stand on this, Jim? You kept your opinions out of the post pretty well, I’d say.
Take care
Steven
If I may offer a slightly refined version of John Maxwell’s definition…
Leadership is moral influence. That is to say, it is not defined as influencing the morals of people (though it may do that), but it is defined as the influence of others in a way that conforms with universal and objectively discoverable morality.
Leadership is hard to define I suppose. Sort of like pornography. I know it when I see it!
Hi Nina,
Thanks for stopping by with your kind words – and, as always, for your excellent work and writing!
Hello Steven,
I appreciate very much your visit and your thought-provoking take on this. I linked over to your sites (which is to be encouraged) – “The Death of Leadership” – that’s good! I look forward to more learning more about what you mean by it.
As for me, I am generally not a fan of the concept of individual leadership – I think it does considerably more damage than good – at least to the intended beneficiaries, which are organizations, their shareholders, and their employees – and particularly as promoted by the modern leadership movement and as sought after by their market.
I see far more productive use in bosses seeing themselves as managers rather than leaders. Moreover, I see leadership as something that transcends individuals – especially those at the top – and which is best managed – not expressed – by managers.
Please continue your visits so we can discuss this further (I have also subscribed to your site).
Thanks again for your visit!
Hello Cam,
I like your distinction between moral influence and morals. Another way to view moral influence is as an operating social environment in which people collaborate. In that context, the “objectively discoverable morality” you refer to might be the organizational culture that provides the best outcome.
This strikes me as an excellent goal for management to bend its efforts toward.
Those are just some thoughts springing into view from your comment – as you always do, you’ve provided a lot to think about – thanks!
Hi Rob!
Your use of these two terms together is instructive. I would agree that I sometimes feel as though I recognize the one in much the same way as the other.
You made my day – thanks!
When I started out training new supervisors we spent an hour defining leadership. I don’t do that anymore. I quit that exercise because I found that it didn’t really help people do a better job and it took up valuable time early in the program.
Now I offer them a selection of definitions from thoughtful people and tell them to pick any or all that they find helpful. I share Drucker’s idea that the only thing we can say for sure about leaders is that they have followers.
Then we move on to defining what leaders do. The exercise involves identifying a time when they experienced effective leadership. Work groups develop lists of what great leaders DO, based on their experience.
Whenever someone resorts to an abstract concept, others ask, “What did that leader do that gets you to describe him/her that way?”
Wally, this is excellent. I’m not sure how many people teaching leadership are as alert as this to the practical value in application of that instruction – many might not even think it worthwhile to consider the matter to that length.
The method you use now is terrific – Socratic – drawing self-generated, from abstract thought to personal experience, definitions of leadership into practical, concrete examples of action and its effects at work. What a great way to get people thinking in useful ways about what leadership at work really is – forcing them not just to navel-gaze about it, but to put it to work – really great! I wish I could have an opportunity to observe what happens in these classes!
Thanks – thoughtful and thought-provoking stuff here.