One of curious things about the modern cult of individual leadership is the jargon. When its initiates slip into the peculiarly grandiose thralldom that characterizes so many of those who worship at this alter, they almost spontaneously start speaking in terms that make increasing sense to them with repetition, despite the fact that this mysterious language really is, essentially, perfect gibberish.
To them, for example, leadership is about heart. It’s about change. Or courage. Leadership means having vision, being creative. It’s about relationships. Leaders transform people. They, evidently unlike others, do the right thing. They inspire. They are innovative; they think outside the box. They thrive on chaos. They are the calm at the center of the storm. They see beyond the horizons that limit the view and perception of the rest of us. They are change agents. They are (my favorite) edge walkers.
Who do leaders use as their role models? Santa Claus. Or Attila the Hun. Perhaps Machiavelli, or other figures from military or political history, myth or fable. Many even offer themselves up as modern paragons of business leaders for others to emulate (be sure to check the morning news before committing to that).
They seek inner peace from Oriental rock gardens, or wisdom from their childhood toy boxes. They climb mountains or sail the oceans in order to discover themselves. They find their center, their inner voice. Their passion. Their love. They show the way.
And we? We follow. We repeat the incantations, sway, become hypnotically enchanted by the rhythmic music of the liturgy. We accept the sacrament. And finally a veil is lifted: we see, it all makes sense.
Does it make sense to you? Can you explain it in language that speaks to the rest of us – that speaks to the work at hand? When we have problems to solve, can you use it to tell us what to do, instead of who we need to submit to?
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of using language and reputation to create a perception of something that may not really be there, guess who’s lining up at the government trough – filled, by the way, with your tax dollars – please see this WSJ piece about who is getting ready to hop on the bailout bandwagon.
—
Have you noticed the blue “Sphere” icon, below? When you click on it, it will produce a window offering you content related to today’s item from other blogs and the regular media. Give it a try!
And, while you’re clicking around down there, don’t forget to subscribe, by email or RSS reader!
Technorati Tags: individual leadership, jargon, leadership, change, courage, vision, change agent, edge walker, Santa Claus, Attila the Hun, Machiavelli, military, political, history, business, leader, passion, work, government, WSJ, bailout
Sphere: Related Content
What a marvelous, frustrated post, Jim. I think part of the problem is that we treat leadership much like the Roman Catholic Church treats the priesthood. It is a state of being. Because of that we get bogged down in traits and characteristics.
In my classes for new supervisors, there is a slide with a bumble bee covered by the international “no” symbols. The words beneath the graphic read: “There is no be. There is only do.”
If you use your behavior to influence the behavior and performance of others, you are a leader. That’s the dictionary definition: “Leader, one who leads.” There’s nothing there about whether you’re any good, but leadership is not a state of being or an exalted state of humanness. It’s something you do.
Hi Wally,
Your right! The post is about frustration with individual leadership advocates who continue to line up, lemming-like, to drink the kool-aid even after seeing continuing evidence of its destructiveness – even its self-destructiveness.
I am absolutely with you on the “do” not “be” message. I often find myself forced, though, to emphasize that the doing is best focused forward on the thing done, not backward on the doer. As soon as the latter happens, people tend to confuse themselves with the work and begin to get their perspectives and priorities mixed up. It just doesn’t seem to be helpful in most cases.
Your description of a leader makes the role almost incidental – which is what it should be. You do what the work requires – wherever you are in the organization. That may be providing leadership (or attempting to) or accepting and supporting that provided by another – or, as is often the case, doing both simultaneously in various contexts. Then you move on. But it is always about the work and your efforts to advance it. It’s just part of the job.
Great perspective, Wally – thanks – for your comments and the memorable “no bee” image!