Advocates of individual leadership typically simply state their positions regarding it, then their prescriptions. There appears to be so little doubt about the veracity of their assumptions regarding all of this that they seem to find it unnecessary – even mildly embarrassing – to advance them.
So, we’ve made an effort over the past few days to reverse-engineer the missing – or, at least, unstated – premise for the notion of individual leadership. Here’s what we came up with:
The promotion of the concept of future-directed superlative individual leadership as vital for the success and growth of contemporary organizations is based on the following four assumptions regarding it:
- Rarity; it requires such surpassing abilities that, for all its presumptive universal attainability, it is rarely attained.
- The need for unrestrained expression; in order to realize its great promise it must be freed of the bonds used to direct and control ordinary people. Moreover, it cannot be subjected to the oversight of those who, by definition, are unable to comprehend it.
- Exclusivity; a fundamental immobility between leadership and followership classes. This reinforces the freedom from constraints extended to the one, and the concomitant imposition of them on the other – the latter is the mechanism for the expression of the former’s unique abilities – both creatively free leaders and followers submissively bound to them are indispensible to the leadership process.
- An emotional bond between leaders and followers; this arises from the felt need of the latter for the former, whether caused independently by the contingencies of the situation perceived by the latter, or by the persuasive narration of those by the former. It both gives rise to the dynamics from which spring individual leadership, and reinforces the mechanics that keep it operating.
How’s that sound? Any thoughts? Looking forward to hearing them.
We’ll proceed with this discussion shortly. Tomorrow, we’ll take a break for a very brief look at a topic suggested by recent reading. See you then!
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of unchallenged assumptions and unanchored practices, please see this piece from The Economist about executive pay, performance, and government oversight.
—
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: individual leadership, assumption, premise, leadership, success, growth, organization, direct, control, oversight, immobility, followership, freedom, constraint, leader, follower, process, Economist, executive, pay, performance, government
Sphere: Related Content
Sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me and it does not match what I have witnessed in people. I admit that it took me quite a few years to even begin to see the truth.
What I experienced in 30+ years of managing people is that every person can be a leader. Though the vast majority are followers, most can be converted to being non-followers or leaders as you call them. In addition, the emotional bond does not exist because no one likes to take orders or be treated like a robot and everyone wants to do their own thing they way they want to do it.
Great business success can easily be achieved by releasing followers (~95%) from the bondage of following to the power of their own motivations, to being self-directed self-starters. Followers waste much of their brainpower following, while non-followers, being self-directed, expend all of their brainpower on their work, thus all their natural creativity, innovation, productivity, motivation and commitment. This monster store of untapped capability can make any company hugely successful.
Best regards, Ben
Hello Ben,
I certainly don’t approve of the sentiments in this premise, either. There are two things about it, though: One is that it seems the unavoidable set of assumptions on which modern models of individual leadership must be based – otherwise, they just don’t make sense, and are reduced to unanchored ramblings.
The other is that this sort of behavior can be observed in people in organizations – particularly in those that are either managed, or “led,” with a heavy hand, or are poorly or under-managed. People, especially employees or organization members – trapped in such situations often do hope to be, and appreciate being, “rescued” by a strong mind and voice, to the point where they will submit to this in a manner approaching abjectness.
This is the peculiar nature of the emotional bond I refer to, that is clearly sought by many despondent followers, seized upon by alert leaders, and exploited by those who promote the concept of individual leadership as we are discussing it here. It clearly does exist, and if you cast your attention just a little wider, it is not at all difficult to see it in operation right now, to a surprising and alarming degree, in the broader society.
But if a manager takes the approach you outline in your last paragraph, I agree, he or she is, thankfully, not likely to observe the problem, because the dynamics you suggest are only waiting to be released – even, often, by those who have happily languished in “followership.”
Thanks for stopping in with this!
The assumptions have a tenor similar to those of Theory X as related by Douglas McGregor in his book “The Human Side of Enterprise”. People will do anything to survive and top-down management forces them to appear to have the characteristics of Theory X.
But by nature people have all the characteristics of Theory Y, not X. Those who treat them as if they are X’s will not be able to learn the truth. Only those who treat them as if they are Y’s will see the truth.
Best regards, Ben
That’s a very interesting connection – hadn’t thought of it, but it certainly adds a potent irony to the point. Excellent – thanks!
And I agree entirely with you that it reflects a decidedly unproductive – if not dangerous – misapprehension of what actually animates people – all of us – in the workplace and society in general.
Thanks for stopping by with this, Ben!