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
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!