Skip to content

Purposeful organizations

I 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 don’t organize an effort – create an organization – without a purpose for it in mind. The intent behind pairing the words, however, is twofold.

First, I want to emphasize the very redundancy: the purpose of an organization is inherent in its creation; it is not provided after the fact by a “leader” who wanders or parachutes into the group. In this sense, it is the leader – viewed as someone whose presence is required in order to invest an organization with purpose (expressed in your derivative term of choice – vision, for example) – that is redundant.

Certainly, that purpose can and often should be modified – sometimes even changed altogether. However, in my view it is not the place of someone other than the owner – even if you refer to such a person as a visionary leader – to unilaterally make alterations like these. Only the owners or their agents can legitimately do that. To the extent that this fundamental element of organizational integrity is violated by the modern CEO/leader (even with the complicity of the owners or their agents), we open many doors to many moral hazards. We have seen waves of varying sorts of these over the past decade or two.

Second, I hope to draw attention to the self-organizing and self-managing characteristics of organizations, so well elaborated by the brilliant Mary Parker Follett three-quarters of a century ago. When people join organizations, they have a tendency to immediately seek ways to order their activities in a way that conforms with and contributes to the larger efforts and aims of the group. Moreover, in the absence of specific guidance regarding how to do this, normal people in normal situations don’t just shut down like conflicted robots; they tend to develop their own solutions, whether individually or collaboratively.

There is a very close relationship between this phenomenon and the expression of leadership within an organization. We will talk about that briefly tomorrow. For now, it is worth noting that self-management and self-leadership can be both encouraged and given direction by senior management, or suppressed by it and arrogated to the top management team.

It is also useful to note that the tendency of groups to self-organize, self-manage, and even self-lead does not mean that we have no use for top-down direction or management. The role of senior executives is vital; my argument, however, includes the contention that executives deplete the vitality of that role by arrogating organizational leadership exclusively (or even just primarily) to themselves, rather than enhancing it by building upon and managing the leadership inherent in the very nature of the purposeful, collaborative organization.

Please stop in tomorrow as we continue elaborating this line of the argument. And please also don’t hesitate to dispute it – the resulting dialogue can only sharpen the thinking and improve the effectiveness at work of all of us.

Today’s tip: Speaking of forcing our assumptions, intentionally or otherwise, down certain paths of docility, please take a look at this eye-opening piece by John Phillips, who authors The Word on Employment Law, about our ongoing relationship with the company store.

Want to read articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica for free? Take a moment to scroll down the sidebar on the main site a bit: right below my current readings you will see a dynamically renewing box pointing to articles on capitalism from the Britannica. These are typically available only by paid subscription, but if you click through to an article from here, you will be able to read it for free. Try it!

And speaking of subscriptions, ours here are always free! Why not subscribe by email or RSS reader now?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sphere: Related Content

4 Comments

  1. I am curious what is the point to this series of post? What problem are you suggesting that this “organizational leadership” will or needs to be invoked to effect?

    I have suggested that leadership, apart from and figured into an organizational structure leadership is expressed through the expression of a specific philosophic temperament or voice. http://reputationist.com/2007/02/leadership-and-culture.html and that in general the mood of our current time requires some adaptation of a post modern voice – because the fragmentation of the current state of trust or the lack there of demands such.

    So I am very interested in the problem you see for the frame work of your leadership describition.

    Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm | Permalink
  2. Jim Stroup wrote:

    Thank you very much for stopping by with this question – yet more evidence that I have much work to do in this regard!

    For the purposes of this response, I will say that my overarching aim here is to further my argument that leadership in organizations is best thought of as not originating in individuals, but rather in the purposefully collaborative organizations themselves. It is my hope that this will become more clear as the argument unfolds over the next several posts.

    In the meanwhile, I might point you to the three “must read” posts in the sidebar of the main page.

    Thank you for the link to your piece on leadership and culture. It is an excellent presentation of your point of view, and I hope visitors here will click through to it.

    Thanks again for your visit – I hope you’ll continue to visit and to offer you thinking!

    Thursday, October 9, 2008 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
  3. I accept your gracious invitation to continue reviewing your site. I appreciate your sensibilities for letting leadership take shape from those involved in the organization. The assumption that must be in place for that to take shape is some overarching presence to form the boundaries for those involved to serve as the the cohesive. If not such the boundary must be so threating that to the option of leaving the group is unthinkably dangerous.

    Dangerous in this context – fear of the sort of the unknowable – like lightning strike or planes dropping out of the sky on a particular two foot area.

    I have to admit that collaboration is very important to me and my notions regarding leadership – that is after the leader has formed or in the forming of a strategic conversation http://reputationist.com/2008/01/strategic-conversations.html .

    Friday, October 10, 2008 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
  4. Jim Stroup wrote:

    Thanks for stopping in, taking the time to look around, and offering your thinking and links to your own work!

    Friday, October 10, 2008 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*

Bad Behavior has blocked 261 access attempts in the last 7 days.