There seems to be a peculiarly odd riddle hidden 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 raw material, or even of predicting which such material is especially amenable to such training.
Indeed, there is an abundance of evidence that many such predictions or depictions – some trumpeted with especially unfortunate prematurity – have proven decidedly and despairingly false. In acknowledgement of this, this discussion generated an observation that we only know good leadership after the fact, once it has demonstrated itself.
Is that so? If it is, then how do we determine who gets the chance to put it to the test? How do people even work their way up such a poorly mapped route to such an uncertain, high-risk opportunity for them – and, evidently, so plain a gamble for the rest of us?
In sports we have tried and tested ways of training and assessing people for their ability to perform at top levels. Whether they are producers or playmakers anywhere on the field, we can identify, develop, and put them into the game with a high degree of reliability.
But for all the vast quantity of talk and attention paid to the matter by consultants, academics, and executives, we don’t seem to be able to do that with the intensely examined, minutely engineered, and agonizingly re-constructed superlative individual leader.
Why is that? What does it say about the fact that people make it to the top under, at the very least, the pretence that they deserve to be there on the basis of their accumulation of credentials endorsed by the modern leadership movement?
We certainly have given some time to the first one previously on these pages. But the second one is very interesting; let’s take a quick look at it.
If the prescriptions of the advocates of individual leadership are not predictive, cannot reliably produce whatever we choose to imagine an individual leader to be, are unclear about how to describe or measure the meaningful attributes of such a person, and can’t really tell if they even have produced one until after the event – whatever that may be and however long it may last – then why do we continue to beach our organizational ships on the rocks of this endlessly seductive but equally false siren song?
Perhaps its because we have had the whole idea of it – leadership in organizations; what it is and how to develop it – wrong all along. Ask the coach.
Not your personal executive coach, but any local football coach. You’ll probably hear – especially if you prompt for it – the word “leadership” used a lot. Ignore it. It’s obligatory these days, and all sounds the same anyway.
Listen for where is the focus of effort in screening, identifying, testing, and developing talent. You’ll find that it is in measurable ability to contribute to advancing on or defending clearly understood goals.
Is that what your management development program does?
—
Today’s tips: Please take a moment to consider this quote: “This means recognizing that decision-making hierarchy and communication structure in organizations are two different things.” Now, please stop over to see why it caught Jamie Notter‘s attention, and how he assesses it.
And speaking of quotes, here’s another one for you: “A battle that is well-chosen is one that reasonable people would expect you to fight.” On what basis would reasonable people come to such a conclusion, and why else might a manager pick a fight? Please consider those questions as well, while you read this must-see post on the topic by Michael Wade.
Finally, please be sure to stop over to see some really excellent reading selected for you in the current Carnival of HR, hosted by Dan McCarthy. You will find yourself clicking through several links for more information. Enjoy!
—
Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.
Technorati Tags: leader, organization, leadership, opportunity, sport, training, consultant, academic, executive, football, coach, management, decision-making, communication, Jamie Notter, manager, Michael Wade, Dan McCarthy
Sphere: Related Content
Thanks, as always, for the link Jim. You are so good to me! There’s another quote from that same article I’m going to blog about that talks about “gaming the system” of post-project evaluation. But now I need to ruminate about this post here and then write something. Are you saying that at the individual level we only need to focus on nurturing talent to get things done?
Hi Jamie,
I always enjoy your commentary, and this was an excellent example of it – I look forward to the one you refer to coming next.
As for what I’m trying to say here, it’s that we need to focus on development programs that screen for, identify, and develop abilities to produce operational results by managers – more focus on their abilities, and less on secret short-cut ingredients hidden in their personalities.
Thanks for your visit – and your work and writing!
A colleague (head of psychiatry at Roosevelt Hospital) and I were haggling about something in a bar in Barcelona. He
interrupted after a while to exclaim” “Lee! We’re about to founder on the rocks of agreement!”
My thoughts about blogging.
Back to yours: Even successful leaders don’t always choose wisely. How are mediocrities going to do this? They are looking for the wrong thing.
And “talent,” I suspect, is a “red herring.”
Hello Lee,
Your colleague coined a great phrase – insightful and useful. Certainly, we can sometimes create our own tempests in these teapots of ours.
And thanks for stopping by with your own thinking on this important topic!