Managing Leadership^®

This topic has captured the imagination of the modern leadership movement like few – perhaps no – other. Some argue that, at bottom, the fundamental role of a leader is just that: to implement change; in organizations, people, or both. Others declare boldly that there is a new heaven in the firmament of transcendent hero-leaders, this one populated by “change-agents,” a supreme level of the priesthood whose novitiates are mysteriously elected from among the leaders who previously thought they were already at the crown and roof of things.

The notion that the leader’s role is to change people is a particularly disturbing one for modern societies to seriously entertain. But it nevertheless is widely and enthusiastically embraced by many proponents and their practicing disciples; not much word yet from the objects of their tender attentions.

However, since we are focusing in the current discussion on leadership and its effect on organizations, we will address the notion of its being targeted at individuals later. For now, it is sufficient to say this, generally, about the frothy ecstasy that seems to descend upon certain gurus and observers at the very mention of change and leadership:

Managers do nothing for its own sake. They do not implement change of any kind simply out of some sophomoric belief that it is the core element or experience of the universe, and that one must either meld with or be rendered irrelevant by it.

Managers (or leaders, if you must) pursue strategic execution. The manner in which they do that is dictated by what is required under current and anticipated circumstances. Change is not always or inevitably one of those things.

Certainly, it sometimes – in some environments even often – is. When that is the case, it is useful to approach it thoughtfully and intelligently. But elevating it with uncritical exuberance to the very essence of management (or leadership), without which everything else is doomed to failure, or which can be left to be disposed of by lesser beings, doesn’t meet those criteria.

Nothing supersedes execution of strategic objectives. Everything else – from their generation to the specific means adopted, or adapted, for reaching them – flows from and is subordinate to that central managerial activity.

So, there’s that. Tomorrow we’ll look more specifically at the question of change as a leadership function and its effect on organizations. See you then!

—

Today’s tip: For thinking about change that does meet, and exceed, the referenced criteria of thoughtful and intelligent attention, please see Steve Roesler‘s writing on the topic, at All Things Workplace.

—

Want to read articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica for free? Take a moment to scroll down the sidebar on the main site a bit: right below my current readings you will see a dynamically renewing box pointing to articles on capitalism from the Britannica. These are typically available only by paid subscription, but if you click through to an article from here, you will be able to read it for free. Try it!

And speaking of subscriptions, ours here are always free! Why not subscribe by email or RSS reader now?

Technorati Tags: leadership, leader, change, organization, change-agent, execution, management, Steve Roesler, All Things Workplace