Managing Leadership^®

Much of what the modern leadership movement teaches about individual leadership is misplaced precisely because it identifies leadership as an individual characteristic of singular importance in the person at the top. But Michael Wade has posted, today, a brief review of a book that argues that it is not the source, but the nature of those characteristics that current leadership gurus have gotten mixed up.

This author does not challenge the widely-held notion that leadership is an individual characteristic that is of peculiar importance in the boss. What he does do, evidently, is reject much of the now almost politically-correct hype taught by the modern leadership movement about the messianic qualities supposedly required of such bosses. He appears to assert that, due to over-wrought new-age sensibilities, we are in denial about many of the hard-nosed qualities – such as, he offers, unapologetic political skills, blatant self-interest, even nepotism – that he insists remain the hidden secrets of successful leadership.

I maintain my argument that as long as we focus on the cultivation of individual characteristics (whether heroicly saintly, or titillatingly roguish) reputed to create exceptional leadership at the top of our organizations, we will fail to achieve fully functional leadership in our organizations. Nevertheless, any challenge that promises to reopen an examination of this topic is welcome.

In a similar vein, BusinessWeek published, today, an essay about the contributions of Alfred Chandler, a Harvard professor who passed away last week. Chandler, like Peter Drucker, was a student of the modern organization, and the lessons to be learned from how it rose and gave shape to the 20^th century.

In particular, he argued that the rise of professional managers is what made the growth and productivity of the last century possible – something that would not have been so had owners remained in control, and, somewhat controversially with respect to conventional wisdom today, if managers were coopted by being forced to become owners. His position is that it is not the immersion of management in ownership, but the preservation of it as a distinct discipline, combined with its unique pairing with ownership in the modern corporate structure, that make the marriage magic.

The standard take on management/ownership relations currently is that managers need to take an ownership stake of one form or another in order to cause their interests to be aligned appropriately with those of owners. The problem is that the combination of this ownership stake with possession of the levers of control often leads to behavior driven, if you will, by “blatant self-interest,” much of which is the source of the scandals we are trying to cope with today.

Managers’ interests need to be aligned – not conflated – with those of owners. Combining them weakens and blurs the fundamental organizational principal it attempts to support: unity of command. It does this by confusing the roles of the key players in the strategic equation – the managers. Aligning their interests, on the other hand, maintains the distinct identities and professional contributions of managers and owners (directors), while enabling them to combine in a meaningful collaboration operated with fiduciary integrity.

Certainly, widely held assumptions need to be challenged periodically, in order to either perpetuate their validity or replace them with more solid foundations upon which to base our actions. With this in mind, you may want to visit both of today’s linked items to help further enrich your own thinking on these important topics – and be sure to stop back to let us know how that develops.

Before you go, though, please do consider subscribing to these pages, either via email or RSS feed, by selecting your preference at the upper right corner of this page. We look forward to your joining us!

Technorati Tags: Michael Wade, BusinessWeek, Peter Drucker, Alfred Chandler, Boards, CEOs, Corporate Governance, Professionalism, Management