Leadership in corporate world is a word
that is tossed about like a Frisbee in a park on a hot summer day. You hear it
all of the time in management circles, articles, surveys and in training
classes. In my experience, this is one of the most misunderstood, least effectively
applied and yet one of the most important aspects of survival within corporate America
I
continuously wonder about the mystery of leadership. I have worked for years
trying to define leadership—beyond the simplistic dictionary explanation. As a manager
for more than 30 years, I’ve attended various leadership classes, sat at the
feet of authors on this and related topics (James M. Kouzes, Barry Z. Posner, Tom Peters, Dr. Edwards
Deming, among others) and read many leadership books. Within this quest to
learn, however, authors seem to offer many characteristics
of leadership and can provide a litany of good leaders, yet they seem to avoid positing a
definition.
Some scholars
indicate that leadership is something that is provided. Some indicate that leadership cannot be taught; you
either have it or not. Very few schools
have classes on the topic, yet simultaneously offer studies about great leaders and stress the
importance of effective leadership. In many cases, large organizations seem to
make the tacit assumption that high-ranked managers are also good leaders (how
else could they have achieved such lofty status?). Value judgments are
typically associated with leadership being of the positive nature and not the
vice. The paradox is that the many
axioms of leadership are simply fabricated notions with little or no empirical
data for substantiation. Short-term positive organizational results (profits,
market share, earnings per share, customer satisfaction, group morale, etc.)
are typically correlated with
effective leadership comments, but over the long-term, such results may not be
sustainable. Let’s look at a few of these so-called axioms, or more accurately
termed, myths.
Leadership Myths:
1.
High ranked managers/officials/officers typically
are good leaders.
2.
You are either a good leader or a good follower.
3. Leadership is
about getting people to follow you.
4. There exists
no solid leadership acumen.
1.) High
ranked managers/officials/officers typically are good leaders.
This myth
stems from simple logic that if one is promoted to a position of authority,
then clearly such an individual must
possess some leadership attributes. The simple logic continues and then
appoints such individuals to teach on the subject where the myth is perpetuated
and substantiated through the positional power of the presenter. Our recent CIO was not a good leader. People
everywhere made fun of him and even passed very politically incorrect cartoons
depicting the man. It became quite embarrassing. At some of our large
department meetings (called Tea Talks), people would ask him pointed questions
of which he had no answers! He looked like a buffoon in front of the department!
Our recent CIO achieved many accomplishments, however, and won many industry
awards based upon these accomplishments. Ironically enough, he even gave
seminars on the topic of leadership! Was he a good leader? Not in my
estimation. Did he get a lot of things accomplished for the organization? Absolutely. People followed him because they had to, not
because they had respect for him or that they wanted to go in the direction
that he was headed.
Positional
power or authority wields mandated followership,
else pay the consequences! (In the example above, failing to follow would
result in losing one’s job.) I manage,
therefore, I lead. Our business world is replete with examples of powerful
managers that get short-term results, yet may or may not be effective long-term
leaders. People do not genuinely follow
such managers; they simply obey commands. “Obeying
commands” is simply a self-preservation activity, which may/may not be
associated with the concept of “following” someone because we like where he or
she is going. This type of leadership is
pure, consistent with behavior and values of the leader and truly motivates
people to follow. Examples of this type of leadership can be found in
professional sports teams where players will be traded to another team such
that they can be under the leadership of a desired coach. Depending on our age,
we may all be able to reflect about someone that we really wanted to follow.
Think about the following questions within the context of this individual’s
leadership style and why it was that you wanted to go her/his direction:
v What attracted you to this individual?
v Was this individual “walking her/his
talk?”
v Did you trust this individual? (Acid
test for trust: would you let this individual baby-sit your two-year old child
for a weekend?)
v Was it easy to follow this person?
v Was the individual’s motivation
altruistic?
v Did they motivate you without even
knowing it?
v Did you genuinely care for the success
of this individual?
v Did you genuinely feel that this
individual cared for your success?
v Did this individual flaunt power or was
this individual arrogant and proud?
v Did this individual “give up” credit for
accomplishments?
v Did this individual periodically let
other people take the helm of leadership?
By whipping
through some of the above questions it should become clear whether or not this
person was a genuine leader, or merely a manager with positional authority (or
simply a manipulator).
The corollary
to myth #1 is that some of the most keen and brilliant leadership is
demonstrated in the lowest
(organizationally speaking only!) echelons of organizations between and within small
groups or teams. Rarely are these brilliant talents either recognized or
harvested but instead are simply mislabeled as teamwork or some other
non-descriptive term. This is probably why performance evaluations fail to
contain evaluative leadership language at the lower echelons of organizations.
After all, why would the hourly production worker need any leadership skills?
Theirs is to follow, not lead!
Clearly we all have examples of people we know that work entry-level
type of jobs, but are stellar at what they do. They lead by their performance.
These informal leaders are one of the organization’s greatest assets, yet
rarely are groomed for higher level positions because they may or may not possess
the ‘appropriate degree paper-work.’
Probably the best example of a very powerful leader that worked for one
of my production lines was a young man by the name of Colby. Colby was a single
guy that was also a volunteer fire-fighter for our community. He took no crap
from no one and was a very tough, but kind young man. Each day on my daily
rounds on the floor, 90% of my information for that day was obtained directly
from Colby. He knew where the bottle-necks were, where they would be at 3PM and
who was hung over from partying too long last night. Colby also influenced the
group morale and output very significantly. Colby was my best leader and had an
inside ‘line’ to management via me. We knew this and it worked fine.
2) You are
either a good leader or a good follower.
Leadership =
Followership. This is the complete model of leadership, knowing when to do
either. Followership, however, must be a desired condition, not a forced one.
If one desires to follow another there must be a foundation of trust.
Effective
leadership requires effective Followership and the quality of leadership knows when to do either. It’s a dynamic model
shifting as needed. Wisdom, experience, humility and the desire to succeed help
each of us determine when to be a leader and when to be a follower. Wisdom is knowing when to follow and when to lead.
3)
Leadership is about getting people to follow you.
If this myth
is true, then the pied piper was a brilliant leader. I would submit that to simply get people to follow is managerial
at best and manipulative at worst. This
is a very shallow perception/definition of leadership, one that fails to grasp
the totality of deep and true leadership. Leadership isn’t about artificially
coaxing people to follow. Leadership is about creating a future environment that becomes another’s
shared aspiration or vision. While it is true that an effective leader
garners the respect of people and results in people desiring to follow, such
results of “garnered followership” are a byproduct versus the end result. In short the leader’s goal is not to get
people to follow, but to provision people a future direction.
4) There
exist no solid leadership acumen.
Leadership is
the art of
affecting change. Leadership is neither good nor bad. Leadership
produces change in a non-manipulative, non-threatening manner that is not
solely based on power. Leadership is relationship centric and will only exist
where trust has been banked for
a substantial amount of time. Leadership cannot exist in an environment that is
even slightly littered with behavioral inconsistencies, lack of individual
respect or ineffectual communication.
TRUST--> RELATIONSHIPS --> DESIRE TO FOLLOW --> CHANGE -->CONFIRMATION---> TRUST...
The Leadership Success Spiral is built
on the foundation of trust, which is defined as a reliance on the integrity,
ability, or character of a person. Trust takes years to build and nano-seconds
to lose. Once trust is broken, the Leadership Spiral is halted; until such time
that the trust is restored or re-manufactured. The degree to which the trust is
lost is a function of the perceived severity of the trust infraction.
After a solid trust foundation is built,
a leadership-relationship may be established. This relationship may be personal
in nature or span across an entire organization. The relationship always rests
on the foundation of trust in all cases.
Next in the Spiral is the genuine desire
to follow. This desire stems from a heartfelt desire to follow the leader. This
supports the aforementioned notion that some of the most effective and
influential leaders are found within the lower echelons of the organization. As
mentioned above, Colby’s informal leadership helped the group center on their
work, accomplish their objectives and keep happy.
The genuine desire to follow then
enables the follower to seek out change. Seeking out change is taking a
proactive role toward change itself, being
in control of events and destiny. The typical response to change is usually
negative; given people feel a loss of control. Seeking out change turns this
reaction into a proactive process of self-destiny selection. Affirmations are
created, soon to be fulfilled. Having
control over one’s destiny breeds security and feeds upon itself.
The final step involves
individual/organizational affirmations coming to fruition. This comes as no
surprise to the individual/organization and serves to simply confirm and
bolster the faith in the leader, resulting in more banked trust.
As time moves on and such trust is
continually banked by repeated
Spirals of Success, the maturity and mental health of the
individual/organization becomes solid. The art of affecting change may even
move dynamically from the leader to the follower where their roles swap. This
symbiotic relationship continues to grow, allowing the leadership to move to
the most logical position within the organism (large scale or small), where
change may best be orchestrated. At this
point in the maturity of the organization/organism, power is never a central
issue and control is dynamically shared where it is most needed.
Clearly, the above model is seldom
achieved, due to external factors that may impede the Spiral to succeed. Some
of these factors include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Political positioning or gamesmanship
- Cut throat competitiveness
- Lack of teamwork in favor of self gratification
- Overall lack of consistency of purpose
- Lack of mission understanding
- Lack of vision
- Lack of faith in the future
- Too much focus on management activities v. leadership
- Power imbalances
- Low individual/organizational self esteem
The foundation of trust is built upon
the consistency of behavior and communications. Many call this “walking the
talk.” When so-called leaders say one
thing, then behave in a manner that is inconsistent with their message, the
“trust bank” is robbed and will take many time periods to re-build, depending
on the magnitude and severity of the inconsistency. Once, however, the “trust
bank” is large, it grows upon its interest much like a cash savings account;
the greater the bank account balance, the faster it grows. Furthermore, as the
“trust bank” becomes larger, it can withstand some inconsistencies, still
continuing to grow over time. As the
foundation is built and as the “trust bank” continues to grow, the natural
leadership model emerges allowing people to be comfortable either leading or
following. The trust, therefore, is bi-directional; leaders trusting their
followers and followers trusting their leaders.
Leadership, or the ability to affect change, is a massive asset for any organization, if realized and harvested at all levels within the organization. Getting caught up in the politics of work many times occludes objective reasoning when trying to move the change needle. Acknowledging what leadership truly is, dispelling the myriad of myths, is one small step in truly seeking out effective leadership. Once the organization has a clear distinction between the differences of management versus leadership, progress may be achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment