The argument being defended in this current series is that leadership is best viewed as an organizational, rather than an individual, characteristic. This, aside from more accurately framing the dynamics that generate leadership in an organization, allows us to focus on those dynamics and the organization that produces them – rather than on what we presume to be the extraordinary person who radiates this peculiarly portable, context-free thing called individual leadership.
And yet, there do seem to be people in our organizations who are leaders – to whom we turn for ideas and direction, particularly in times of confusion or, even, urgency. Is that, after all, what they really are?
My contention is that they are not leaders in the sense promoted by the modern leadership movement. There are at least three reasons for this.
First, the occasion for and logic of leadership come from the existence and conditions of the group – not from any individual in it or who parachutes into it. This organizational leadership is an instinct that permeates the group and its members as an element of its corporate culture. It is this that inspires individual members to perceive, anticipate, and respond to events in a manner that we recognize as leadership.
Second, if there are people who nevertheless seem to regularly be providing much-needed leadership under varying circumstances, I would still describe them as expressing, rather than originating, that leadership. As in so many other things, people have varying capabilities and proclivities, and sensitivity and responsiveness to group dynamics are among these. The people we recognize as leaders are simply at the high end of these tendencies.
Note that this does not qualify them as leaders in the sense meant by the modern leadership movement. Their actions come from immersion in – not superiority over or dominance of – the group culture. They do not bring individually inspired vision, transformational communication skills, or other of the various sorts of charisma into the picture from outside, or strictly from within themselves, and then impose these on the organization, or use them to act on or change it. They, to the extent that they possess such individual characteristics, use them to recognize, interpret, and apply the leadership logic of the situation – or, perhaps, what Mary Parker Follett called the law of the situation – to the matter at hand.
Third, the personal expression they provide of the organizational leadership operating in the situation does not represent all of the leadership taking place there. Leadership is a far more comprehensive and fluid dynamic than we commonly appreciate.
That is why, as we will see tomorrow, “followers” really aren’t followers at all. See you then!
—
Today’s tips: Speaking of reflexively quick – and wrong – answers please see the latest U.S. News & World Report column by Michael Wade, author of Execupundit.com – as always, a concise and potent expression of an idea that will take you just a moment to read, but will leave you pondering its application in your life for a good while.
And speaking of the danger of confusing the presence of one characteristic for the presence of another, please see this thoughtful essay by Todd Zywicki, at The Volokh Conspiracy. It discusses the issue in the context of a current theme in the US presidential elections, but don’t let that dissuade you regardless of your personal political leanings; it is reasonably and evenly presented, and effectively offers a lesson well worth considering in all the judgement- and decision-making aspects of our lives.
—
Did you know that as a subscriber to this blog (by either RSS reader or email), you are entitled to a FREE download (.pdf format, 344KB) of the first chapter from Jim’s critically-acclaimed book, Managing Leadership? Download your free chapter now! (Even if you haven’t subscribed, yet – download it anyway! – (and then subscribe!))
—
Technorati Tags: leadership, organization, individual leadership, leader, organizational leadership, corporate culture, vision, communication, charisma, law of the situation, follower, U.S. News & World Report, Michael Wade, Todd Zywicki, The Volokh Conspiracy, US, judgement, decision-making, Mary Parker Follett
Sphere: Related Content
Note:
In most organizations I’ve encountered thee were individuals who were “leaders without position.” Others listened to them. They influenced the actions of others and, sometimes, the course of the organization. In some, rare cases that influence extended beyond their actual presence.
Art Jones was the best police sergeant I ever spent time with or even heard of. He retired from the San Leandro Police Department, but that was not the end of his influence. For years afterward, people would ask “What would Art think?” as a way to test any ideas.
Such individuals as you describe make up an “unofficial chain of command” that can be more influential in important ways than the official one – it is one of the organizational phenomena that managers should be aware of and should manage. You touched on this once before when noting that in order to understand an outfit’s culture you observe who is instinctively glanced at during a meeting when a decision is called for.
People like Art Jones combine ability and character as colleagues in a way that makes them much more meaningful and influential leaders in our personal and professional lives, I think, than the contrived and self-referential constructs of individual leadership promoted by the modern leadership movement.
Thanks, as always Wally, for a powerful observation.