Managing Leadership^®

The discussion the past several days of goals was generated by the story of supposed leadership in a US Marine platoon, which turned out not really to be about individual leadership. The tale seemed to suggest that large, ambitious goals may have been behind the tremendous transformation that unit experienced, and so we considered one guru’s argument that this – the production of such lofty goals – is the quintessential role of the leader.

While goals are clearly powerful influences in the leadership environment of an organization, such a definition of individual leadership does not explain enough about that environment. There are numerous functions performed by leadership (never mind for the moment whether they are performed by individuals who are “leaders”).

The question is about what those leadership functions do for an organization. Closely related to that is the issue of where they come from.

In that light we have been looking at three possible outcomes when a group is assigned to a project and simply given its context, goal, and deadline, and then left alone to deal with it absent any traditional external direction. At one extreme, they might simply refuse to act without that direction. At the other, they may not only go right to work, but pulse the entire organization for further information and resources, completing the project in the most perfectly strategically appropriate manner possible.

These two alternatives have obvious implications about the nature of the leadership environment of an organization, not to mention of its putative leaders. But the more interesting and revealing instance is probably the more likely one: the group shows some initial interest, even haltingly conducting some discussion, research, and planning, but then stalls in the absence of external organizational direction.

Now, with in mind what we’ve discussed previously, including in the pieces referred to above, what does this suggest about this outfit’s leadership environment and the quality of the individual leadership available to it?

Is the individual leadership at fault for failing to produce a sufficiently provocative goal? Should it have been larger, more audacious – do you think that would have spurred the group beyond its hesitance to follow-through?

Or is the leadership environment generally present in the organization inadequate? Does it somehow work to constrain, rather than unleash, the natural impulse to action that one would expect to find in a group of people who have collected together to collaborate on a goal which they have been given?

Let me suggest my own opinion by returning, for just a moment, to my story of the Marine platoon that transformed from the worst to the best in the larger unit seemingly on the instant, upon being informed that they had won the right to execute an exclusive and challenging mission. It is my argument that this change resulted not from any individual leadership presented to them in the person of the “leader” who generated, earned, or announced that mission.

If it wasn’t individual leadership, then it must have been the goal. But I would venture to say that if the platoon commander had simply said, “Okay, that’s your mission: go for it.” and then left the room not to return, nothing much would have happened. There would have been some considerable excitement, discussion, analysis, even some speculative planning.

But no one would have considered going any further in the absence of direction from above. There would have been no arrangement of intelligence gathering, target mock-ups for training, and certainly not of logistical, communication, command, or other support for the actual mission.

We would have found ourselves in a situation that is probably one familiar to most of us. We would have had the makings of the unleashing of powerful leadership dynamics within the group, but they would have dissipated uselessly – maybe even harmfully – in the absence of further support.

Perhaps goals, as powerful as they are, aren’t sufficient in and of themselves, after all. But then what, exactly, is that support that seems to be the generally necessary ingredient?

Is it individual leadership? Or is it management?

We will return to the core topic on Monday with a discussion aimed at uncovering information to help us answer those questions. I look forward to seeing you back then!

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of leadership functions, the individual at the top, and the unleashing of leadership dynamics in a group, please see this terrific – even eye-opening – item, by Stuart Cross published at BNET, about why CEOs should not set strategy.

—

If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!

Technorati Tags: US, Marine, goal, leader, leadership environment, organization, individual leadership, leadership, mission, analysis, planning, training, support, management, Stuart Cross, BNET, CEO, strategy