Have you ever noticed that when people talk about leadership, the unspoken but overpowering assumption is that it is a positive and constructive force? Have you ever questioned that presumed relationship? If you have, what sort of reaction did you get?
The falsity of this putatively inviolable connection is among the most grave of the many very serious problems with the modern leadership movement’s (MLM) concept of individual leadership in organizations.
It is most important to see that to the extent that there are naturally magnetic leaders – whether self-developed, indentified as latently promising and cultivated, or even somehow just plain taught – there is absolutely no inherent connection between the nature of that leadership in those individuals, and the value placed in your organization’s goals by its owners and its customers. Indeed, it might be argued that the very hypnotic power to cause people to rapturously drink the Kool-Aid is itself highly suggestive of leadership of which you ought to be most skeptical.
As noted here previously, Peter Drucker once said, “Leadership is all hype. We’ve had three great leaders in this century – Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.”
Consider this: when the assorted MLM gurus trot out their exemplars of the various representations they offer of the “essential” leadership characteristics, they tend to use one such ideal for each trait. Ever notice that? The thing is, if you look closer, you will find that many of those celebrated for their expression of one “vital” trait simply don’t have many of the others so described – or even, in truth, are infamous for having the opposite of such another trait.
But Drucker’s alarmingly influential trio and countless other such examples throughout political, military, and business history, ancient and modern, tend to be the complete package – virtual poster-children for MLM depictions of leadership. From passion to vision to humility to, in their own tortuously distorted ways, integrity and honesty. Certainly even today it is disturbingly easy to find such individuals who manifestly have it all.
Does anyone in your organization have them all? Are you sure you want them there? How about the “leaders” you believe you are selecting and developing in your training programs? How wise is it to instill in such as them the inevitable sense of entitlement and expectation of followership, and then to release them back into your units? Similarly, how sure are you that those outside candidates you recruit so confidently because they most completely fit the trait templates for leadership are really safe to set loose on your organizations?
Whenever you discuss the notion of individual leadership in organizations – especially in your organizations – be sure to address as well the question of what it is, to challenge the demonstrably untenable assumption that it is somehow an inherently constructive force in your midst. Do not engage in discussion of leadership on its terms. Insist on doing so on the basis of your own carefully determined and delineated requirements. You may be surprised what you actually begin to see.
—
Today’s tip: But don’t just take my word for it. See this sensible dispersion of much of the hype surrounding leadership in this essay by Mark Henricks at BNET.
—
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!))
Sphere: Related Content
7 Comments
Thanks for pointing out that we seem to always assume that effective leadership is a good thing. You’ve outlined why re-thinking that assumption is worthwhile.
That’s why I included this post in my weekly selection of top leadership posts from the independent business blogs.
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2011/05/18/51811-a-midweek-look-at-the-independent-business-blogs.aspx
I don’t think Leadership DNA exists. Often I meet leaders whom I think inspire people, listen and are passionate. Yet their organisation is falling apart. I also meet leaders who seem on the surface to be most unlikely leadership stock, yet they lead successful companies.
The lesson for me is not to make assumptions! I wrote about this in this article Personal Leadership
Thanks for the post.
Best wishes
Aled
I have to disagree with part of this and bring up other issues as well.
I think your first sentence is flawed. Whereas I do believe most people see “leadership” as a constructive force, I don’t think they necessarily see it as a “positive” force; they certainly don’t if they live in the United States, where leaders so often fail us. Of course one could get into the argument that not all people perceived as leaders really are leaders but that becomes a semantics discussion that takes away from a direct conversation of what you brought up here.
Also, I don’t believe everyone touts one leadership principle above all others as you stated, although I know you didn’t mean it as you said it. If leadership was so easy to capture, everyone would at least understand it, even if they still couldn’t master it. I do find it interesting that in your words you seem to castigate “leadership gurus” in general, yet love Drucker; wouldn’t he be considered one as well?
Finally, this has nothing to do with leadership but terminology and keeping up with the norm. Probably every other person in the world sees MLM and thinks “multi-level marketing”, and that’s where my mind went when I saw this post. Even though I saw you calling it something else, every time I saw it my mind went to the other definition. Actually, some of what you said fits the MLM supposed gurus I’ve heard of more than the people that talk about leadership; now that’s an interesting thought to explore.
You make an important point. We assume that all leadership is good leadership or if it isn’t then it is not leadership. The fact is, there is good leadership and bad leadership. All the more reason we are reflective about what we are doing. ( http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadingblog/leadology/ )
In the BNET article, André Spicer’s comments are true. However, the article falls into the trap so often seen, and that is confusing title and position with leadership. Some people want the title because of the entitlements they assume is carries with it. That’s not leadership, that’s self-interest and self-promotion. We’re talking about two different motivations.
As you note, Drucker was correct. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were leaders, but while they may have been good at the practice of leadership, they were morally bad leaders. Again, motivation was the issue.
Thanks for the article Jim.
Michael
Hello Aled,
Thank you very much for your visit, your excellent comments, and the link to your post on the topic.
Hope to see you again as the discussion continues . . .
Hello Mitch,
Thank you for your thoughtful observations. I’m sure you will appreciate that this topic is so diffuse with multiple understandings and definitions of leadership that change – even when held by the same person – according to context and circumstance, that it should hardly be surprising that one of the greatest difficulties in discussing it would arise from semantic mix-ups. I have tried to address this in the component posts of this and other discussions here on these pages; I am compelled to hope that readers have seen these in preceding essays, in order to avoid subsequent ones becoming weighted down with their constant repetition.
Moreover, when discussing what the “MLM” as a whole propounds about leadership, one will inevitably engage in generalizations. I believe that those I have used are valid and actionable bases for discussion, and also that the exceptions, which themselves come from the MLM, are also objectionable, even if they require a different sort of criticism than those in the “mainstream” MLM.
Speaking of Peter Drucker and the subject of leadership, it is my view that he was neither a “leadership guru” nor an advocate of the notion of individual leadership in modern organizations. There are those that are very interested in seeing reasons to disagree about that, but the disagreement remains.
These are interesting points you bring up, and will require more attention in the future – thanks again!
Hello Michael,
Thank you for your comments as well as the link to your excellent article.
I think you are right to identify motivation as a key issue in the discussion. It is my view, indeed, that it is the motivation of those who do or aspire to identify themselves as (MLM-style) leaders that is, for that very reason, likely to be suspect.
My concern overall is with the egocentrism of the notion of individual leadership, its identification as an individual characteristic independent of an organizational context, and what I think are the inevitably problematic consequences for both organizations and the multitude of individuals caught up in the issue in one way or another.
Thanks again for your visit and your observations – hoping to see you as the discussion proceeds!
3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] started Thursday when I read a marvelous post from Jim Stroup at Managing Leadership that elegantly blew a hole in the myth that leadership is always a positive and constructive [...]
[...] is much talk these days among what Jim Stroup calls the modern leadership movement (MLM) that leadership is all about [...]
[...] http://managingleadership.com/blog/2011/05/12/whence-leadership [...]
Post a Comment