Managing Leadership^®

Perhaps there is more than meets the eye to last year’s aside, in the Valentine’s Day post, that “leadership pheromones” may be behind the unaccountable behavior exhibited by some people in the presence of presumptive leaders. Last month, Nina Simosko offered a serious discussion of this phenomenon, using that phrase as a stand-in for more realistic, but perhaps equally subconscious, cues triggering our instinctive acknowledgment of the presence of “leaders” among us.

There is an argument for the existence of such people, who have qualities of one sort or another that attract others and encourage them to follow. They may, as Nina argues, be genuinely positive and constructive attributes. But we know that they can be equally compelling even when they are not. And as Wally Bock points out in a recent comment, there may indeed be real leaders, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re any good at anything.

That’s all at least understandable, if not particularly comforting. The odd thing, though, is that there remains a peculiarly obstinate devotion to the idea of the singular individual leader even in contexts where it seems otherwise specifically ruled out. It is as though this concept really does cast an irresistible spell over people who are otherwise more-or-less self-possessed.

I recently read perhaps the most frustrating management book of all in this regard. It is the oddest mixture of awful editing, ideas that are quite good and well illustrated, desperate exaggeration of the most ordinary management functions, genuinely valuable and uncommon insight, and drooling gibberish that I have encountered.

The authors’ central idea is quite strong, even important. Its main lesson seems to be that any company can instill an important strategic quality into its culture – or a manager into his or her operational method – through a true focus on the proper object of work, and the development of disciplined practices derived from that.

That’s what we need to hear. The important element of competitive advantage they champion is available to anyone who starts from the correct perspective (that of the customer) and builds back from there. Indeed, this element originates in that focus and radiates into the organization from it, not outward to the consumer from the organization. This book presents a really good depiction of this excellent way of looking at the matter.

As it happens, though, much of the evidence the authors present for the importance and nature of this ability actually undermines their assertions regarding its genesis. For example, much of their argument seems to be that the fortunes of certain companies changed dramatically with the implementation of specific practices instituted by specific individuals. Yet, a good part – perhaps even the better part – of the examples they pointedly offer of those practices quite clearly, per their own descriptions, predate the arrival of those individuals in their positions of influence, sometimes by decades. Some really careless presentation and editing, here.

But the worst problem is that the generally valuable message is sorely diluted by its impregnation with peculiar discussions of individual leadership of the sort that they insist – despite the key theme, and even evidence, of the text – to be vital to generate that competitive characteristic. In fact, the beginning and, especially, the end of the book offer some of the most inexplicably awful thinking and writing on this topic available anywhere.

One particularly unfortunate passage consists entirely of apparently random and unconnected pithy phrases, each a pronouncement of one or another widely touted quality of superlative individual leadership. There is no discernible theme tying the patchwork of egregious encomiums to each other, much less to the surrounding text. Moreover, the entire discussion is jarringly inconsistent with – even contrary to – the principle theme of the book.

The really remarkable thing is that these authors are among the most highly regarded and influential figures in business and in management consulting. For the most part, these reputations are well-earned and deserved. But in this book, they decidedly have saved them neither from fallacious argumentation, nor from falling in thrall to the pheromones.

Perhaps they should carry some snuff as a defence. Perhaps we all should.

At the least, the rest of us should remember to always assess an argument on its own merits, not on those of the arguer. The latter consideration only guides you as to whether or not it might be worthwhile to open the door. The sales pitch must then stand or fall on its own.

—

Today’s tips: Speaking of vices and virtues, one of the problems is that the one shimmers, and the other, we imagine, snores. But please view this article about building employee morale by Molly DiBianca, at The Delaware Employment Law Blog, to see which one will cost you more, and which one will take you farther.

And speaking of figuring out what is the vice and what the virtue in tumultuous times, please see this piece by Wally Bock, of Three Star Leadership, about one management team that works hard to sort it all out.

—

Did you know you can click on the green “Share This” icon below and uplink this post to any of the major social content sites, or email it to your friends and colleagues – give it a try right now!

And, while you’re at it, don’t forget to subscribe, and encourage your friends and colleagues to do so, as well!

Technorati Tags: leadership, leader, Nina Simosko, Wally Bock, individual leader, management, insight, manager, competitive advantage, customer, organization, employee, morale, Molly DiBianca, Delaware Employment Law Blog, Three Star Leadership