Our current discussion of the nature of leadership was provoked by comments made to a post published a month ago called “Great Leader Theory.” Interestingly, while most of those comments expressed dissatisfaction to one degree or another with my efforts to present my view of leadership, they also implied disagreement with key contentions of the modern leadership movement.
For example, Lee Thayer, while maintaining great faith in the singular importance to an organization of exceptional individual leadership, describes management as a “universal function,” and leadership as an “anomaly.” He means by this to emphasize both the rarity and the importance of the latter relative to the former. In this he shares the view that leadership is superior, but seems to cast doubt on the idea that it can be concretely described and replicated.
Similarly, Steve Roesler argues that, while there may not be a single reliable “leadership profile,” we are generally able nonetheless to clearly identify whether or not someone has demonstrated leadership “after the fact.” Steve recently published a post pointing unmistakably to the fragility of leadership or management development programs or policies compared to more fundamental forces that shape behavior, even among top bosses, in the workplace.
This accords with something that I also argue: among other things managers do, they powerfully influence the dynamics – including the leadership dynamics – exhibited in the workplace through the work environment that they – consciously or otherwise – cultivate. Indeed, in my view this is a major vehicle by which managers can manage organizational leadership.
But rather than joining me in that view, Lee and Steve seem to be taking a practical approach to some of what they see as the more realistic elements of the modern leadership movement’s prescriptions. They agree that individual leadership is distinct and uniquely necessary, particularly in an atmosphere of change or uncertainty. But they seem to reject the claim that we can provide that leadership through the implementation of routine leadership development steps or by screening for reliable indicators of its presence in specific individuals.
Rather, they appear to suggest that we can teach many of the things that do seem to be inevitably associated – to one degree or in one circumstance or another – with the occurrence of individual leadership. After that, we can attempt to cultivate its expression, identify it as and where it reveals itself, and then focus our efforts to support its continued growth and development in our organizations.
If the modern leadership movement restricted itself to constructively thoughtful and results-oriented approaches like this (instead of enthusing boundlessly about and with essentially exclusive reference to the “leader,” with scant regard for the work), there would likely be much less of a gap between the rhetoric and the reality of the matter to get exercised about. It represents a view of the subject that touches on what truth there may be in the concept of individual leadership by connecting it with the work expected of those individuals in purposefully collaborative organizations.
But, then, it also means that I still have work to do to convince you to come to see leadership as naturally originating in, rather than needing to be injected into, such organizations. We will try to close the circle by returning to that topic tomorrow. Please do stop by!
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of getting exercised about current events, please see this opinion piece in the WSJ by Gary Becker, about why the present financial crisis is not the death knell of global capitalism. It also contains some important observations about the wisdom of certain features of the bailout program. Read this to better inform your thinking and participation in the inevitable debates about the rapidly moving situation.
—
Please do take a moment to subscribe, either by email or RSS reader, to be sure you receive future articles as they’re published.
—
Technorati Tags: leadership, organization, individual leadership, management, development, boss, workplace, manager, organizational leadership, leadership development, WSJ, Gary Becker, capitalism, Lee Thayer, Steve Roesler
Sphere: Related Content
Note:
Hi, Jim,
I was reflecting on your closing line about “leadership as naturally originating in, rather than needing to be injected into, such organizations.”
You were referring to “purposefully collaborative organizations.” My experience is this: Organizations may decided to be purposefully collaborative. However, they may not be effective in their quest because they don’t have a critical mass of individuals who know how to make it work; they lack the leadership needed.
In these cases, I’ve only seen successful outcomes when people with the ability to lead effectively are brought in from the “outside.” Now, here is the kicker:
Once the critical mass of effective leadership is in place, people learn by watching and responding to their example.
“The way business is done” then changes. And a new generation of people who do “get it” can emerge from within in the way you describe.
This isn’t the *only* way such things happen, but it is a frequent-enough phenomenon to be taken seriously.
Great discussion. Keep writing, Jim.
Hello Steve,
You bring up the great point that it sometimes seems necessary to bring someone in from the outside to provide new thinking, or even to shake things up if they seem to have gotten stuck in a rut.
The thing is, this is sometimes done when not necessary. For example, a division may not be stuck – its manager just may not be as enamored of the CEO’s latest enthusiasm as the latter is, or a board may simply make a strategic change of direction that it believes requires a change of the team at the top.
On the other hand, there may really be a problem, but there is no guarantee that the person brought in will solve it, and certainly not because of his or her putative leadership qualities. I have seen countless “rescues” fail because they were perceived as dismissively manipulative by staff, or because they were plainly wrong-headed and just couldn’t work given market or other competitive circumstances.
What’s more, the reason for a unit or business getting “stuck” is often because of an inability to surmount the gap between strategy and execution that sometimes opens up when “leaders” are not good managers. This calls for the injection – not of leadership as it is commonly understood, but of effective, professional management.
But when outside rescues do work, or seem to, they are, of course, imputed to the rescuer’s supposed “leadership,” lending more momentum to the myth of this magic solution.
As for “purposefully collaborative organizations,” I mean by that term to refer to those assembled to pursue a corporate aim, rather than those with more static intentions such as, say, a venue for social gatherings (although even most of these can be perceived as purposeful groups).
Also, leadership “injected” into an organization doesn’t refer just to outsiders coming in to do it – it refers to those at the top injecting it downward into the organization, where it is presumed to not otherwise exist.
So, once again, you have pointed to shortcomings in my presentation of my argument that I will need to address. Moreover, for all my protestations above, you are certainly correct that the situation you pose happens often enough to warrant respectful consideration as support for current notions of individual leadership.
More post topics! Thanks, as always, Steve!