When you think of failures of leadership, what first comes to mind? There are certainly plenty of examples in the news right now to choose from, aren’t there? But what, precisely, are they, and what do they mean for us in practical terms?
Whether in politics, the military, or business, the odds are your thoughts go straight to a person. It’s his fault the organization went bankrupt, rather than was sold for billions of dollars offered just weeks ago. It’s her fault her inevitably victorious campaign collapsed, instead of marching triumphantly into history. Take your pick of these or anything in between – the point is that we look for individuals to save us, or to excoriate if things go wrong.
And that’s the real problem. Current approaches to leadership – particularly the notion of singular individual leadership – fail on two levels. First, they, quite simply, are inaccurate. Second, their prescriptions, if they have any real effect at all on the operation or fortunes of an organization, seem to be more likely to introduce destructive than productive dynamics into it.
Why is that?
It could be because we have the whole idea wrong, and yet continue to act on those errors. Perhaps we should take more seriously the fact that we cannot – despite all these years of pontificating by “experts” and “researchers” – agree on a simple definition of what leadership is or what constitutes being a “leader.”
Maybe, rather than plunging heedlessly ahead, in thrall to the siren song of surpassing individual leadership which so many of us find so satisfying, we should instead take caution from its continuously demonstrated lack of content, before we, too, hit the rocks.
The argument made on these pages is that leadership is, in fact, not an individual characteristic, but rather a phenomenon inherent in purposeful groups. This is a distinction, a description – not a definition. However, it has been taken as the latter, and found wanting. That is a misapprehension that I have contributed to, and which I hope to rectify to the degree possible in this venue.
So, we will be be attempting that. In the subsequent posts we will be examining the problems with:
- The term “leadership”
- The concept of leadership
- The existence of leadership
- The search for leaders
- The presumption of a distinction between management and leadership
- The presumption of the superiority of leadership functions to those of management
- Leadership development and training (in view of the foregoing)
We will then look again at the meaning of my contention that leadership is a characteristic of purposeful, collaborative groups – not people. I would encourage those interested in this discussion to download a free copy of the first chapter of my book, Managing Leadership, or, at the very least, to review the three “must read posts” listed in the sidebar of the main site (beginning here, for those of you viewing this in an email or RSS feed).
I hope you will join us for this, participate energetically in the debate, and ultimately even find your insight and skills as a manager (of, among everything else, leadership) improving!
—
Today’s tip: Please see this engaging and perceptive examination of the relationship between spin and substance, by Beth Robinson at Inventing Elephants.
—
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, politics, military, business, organization, individual leadership, leader, management, development, training, manager, Beth Robinson, Inventing Elephants
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments
Jim,
This is another series that I’m eagerly awaiting. And, the “hubris” title captured me today.
I read a news article yesterday pointing to the “hubris” of Lehman CEO Fuld. It related the dollar-amounts of offers received in recent months from entities wishing to buy a piece of Lehman and, therefore, provide financial support. He personally decided that his own valuation of the firm was more accurate than the investors.
Now, to your point: Could he really make those decisions as a solo act of “leadership?”
No. It required the collusion, albeit it silent, of a Board of Directors and corporate management who allowed him to hold reign because of some perceived sense of his superior perception. This makes him the lightning rod when, in fact, the groups to whom he is to be held accountable failed to exercise their responsibilities.
Those subscribing to “white knight” leadership as a solution to their lives and their organizations are, like Lehman, shunning their own responsibility for the outcome. As a result, the lack of self-leadership and personal accountability in “speaking up” becomes a sin of omission–and one that shares responsibility when the knight is thrown from the horse.
Hi Steve,
Yes – that’s actually what inspired the intro part of the post. And you are absolutely right that there is collusion in this sort of assertively independent individual leadership – by boards, institutional investors (lessening), partners, vendors, customers and even employees. It is a collusion all the more dangerous, I think, because some strands of the modern leadership movement insist it is essential to the proper functioning of the model of leadership they promote.
But, as you so effectively portray, that doesn’t alter any facts. When we see with dismay that our champion has been unhorsed – by his own hubris – we look around and there is only us still on our feet. We still have to shoulder the responsibility for our situation, and it won’t do to point at the fellow on the ground struggling to rise under the weight of his (or her) armor of self-delusion and unreasonable expectations.
Thanks for the great imagery! And also for your visit and participation in this discussion!
21 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] the upcoming discussion of leadership, outlined yesterday, we will be addressing various of the definitions generated by the modern leadership movement. But, [...]
[...] unfortunate entrepreneurial aspect of the teachings regarding modern individual leadership out of our current discussion. We will focus on the general concept of leadership as an individual characteristic. That will [...]
[...] the past few days we’ve reviewed some of the problems with the concept of individual leadership. Let’s list just a few of [...]
[...] be picking up the current leadership discussion again on Monday – see you [...]
[...] The topic of today’s post is discussed in some length in Jim’s critically acclaimed book, “Managing Leadership” (chapters 4 and 5). You may wish to download the first chapter here for free (.pdf format, 344KB), in order to get a sense of the basis of the concerns giving rise to the argument being made in our current discussion. [...]
[...] be attempting to pick this approach up again in the context of our current discussion of leadership on Monday. In the meanwhile, have a great [...]
[...] look at this question, a key element of our current discussion, from yet another angle tomorrow. Please do stop [...]
[...] have been questioning the veracity of the modern leadership movement’s various claims for individual leadership. Whichever [...]
[...] current discussion of the nature of leadership was provoked by comments made to a post published a month ago called [...]
[...] use the phrase “purposeful organization” frequently in my attempts to explain what I mean by “managing leadership.” Admittedly, it is a bit of a redundancy. That is, you [...]
[...] will return to this topic on Monday. Tomorrow we’ll be taking a brief look at a peculiar comparison between CEOs and [...]
[...] will attempt to cover these points – the heart of the current discussion, intended to address challenges presented previously by commentators – over the next two days. I [...]
[...] principle aim of the current series is to defend the argument that leadership is more productively viewed as a group – rather than as [...]
[...] origin is more complex, as is their operation and our interaction within them. We will continue the discussion by looking, tomorrow, at this latter aspect – see you [...]
[...] we will take a look at how organizational leadership fits in to this picture, in the context of our larger discussion. Please do stop [...]
[...] Tomorrow, we will take a brief look at one of the phenomena that creates and perpetuates the notion of individual leadership. Later in the week we will move on to see why “followers” are really expressing leadership. We will then bring this series to a close by revisiting the role – the preeminent role – of management in all of this. [...]
[...] argument being defended in this current series is that leadership is best viewed as an organizational, rather than an individual, characteristic. [...]
[...] we’ll conclude this series with a brief look at how you might do that. See you [...]
[...] back to work. This is the last post in this series. Tomorrow we’re going to talk a little about efforts to define or predict individual [...]
[...] in the rise of supposedly exceptional individual leaders to the top of their organizations. We have discussed here the inadequacy of the doctrines of the modern leadership movement for developing such leaders from [...]
[...] think that the cult of individual leadership encourages people to abdicate their responsibilities, ethics and actions to the positional leader [...]
Post a Comment