Just a little over a week ago I saw a television program on which a full professor of psychology was a guest. He spoke with a sort of brook-no-argument authority about what it takes to be a leader.
And there was no question about it in his view: a leader and executive must have charisma; it is a fundamental requirement. Mind you, he wasn’t talking about some sort of post-modern all-things-to-all-people charming magnetism; he was talking about a lantern-jawed, gimlet-eyed, cigar-chomping, power-radiating charisma.
Moreover, the professor added emphatically, they must be the ones who have the vision on every topic – not, mind you a central, unifying theme, or the key, important issues, or something like that. All of them.
It is most unfortunate that this sort of thinking retains the influence it has. But the sad truth is that it represents a past that – however thrilling and romantic some imagine it to have been – will not return. It is a view of leadership and leaders that represents the pre-modern, pre-organizational age, when sovereignty resided in the elite and the lot of the rest was poverty and thralldom.
Is that what you’re looking for? If you choose a leader for your organization that passes the muster of the good professor, that’s what you’ll get: first, employees reduced to dispirited, faceless peons, and then soon enough afterwards, shareholders bereft of their investment.
The modern world of organizations, as described by Peter Drucker, is every bit as revolutionary as modern political society. In the latter, sovereignty has (increasingly, around the world) migrated away from the elites and into society itself, owned and expressed by its members.
But in the former, what has done the migrating is leadership, which is now to be not just located in, but actually an inherent component of the collaborative enterprise which is the organization. The leaders of such an organization, unsurprisingly, are its members, just as the sovereigns of modern societies are its citizens.
The question remains: how often and how well do they express that leadership? The health of the organization depends on the answer to it, just as that of society does on the informed, vigilant, and conscientious exercise of sovereignty by its citizens.
There are differences, of course. A key one is that in organizations, it is up to managers to ensure that leadership thrives productively for the benefit of corporate aims. For more about this, please see the “must see” posts listed at the top of the sidebar (or, for those of you viewing this in an RSS reader or email, see here, here, and here.)
In the meanwhile, we will talk tomorrow about a little about the consequences of traditional leadership. On Wednesday we’ll close this discussion with an effort to develop a more appropriate, business-like definition of a “leader.”
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of managers, their key function, on which all else depends, is decision-making – and that can be a surprisingly interesting topic. Please see this item by Nina Simosko at her eponymous blog about how decision-making relates to opposing social systems – and, when done well, can even unify them. Then, visit this one at The Economist on how what James Surowiecki has called the “wisdom of crowds” can be replicated in each of us individually – over time; there may be something to procrastination, after all.
—
If you look at the contents section on the sidebar of the main page of this site, you will see a listing of the article series that have been published here. You can click through to view summaries of the pieces, and then read the full series or selections that are of most interest to you. Enjoy!
And while you are, please also subscribe by email or RSS reader – thanks!
—
Technorati Tags: professor, psychology, authority, leader, executive, charisma, post-modern, power, vision, influence, leadership, sovereignty, elite, poverty, thralldom, organization, employee, shareholder, investment, organization, society, sovereignty, elite, enterprise, sovereign, citizen, manager, decision-making, Nina Simosko, Economist, James Surowiecki, wisdom of crowds, Peter Drucker
Sphere: Related Content
8 Comments
Jim,
I too, am concerned about those who imply a relationship between charisma and leadership. Nice post.
I generally don’t see the relationship between leadership and charisma unless you mean care-isma, a clever play on the concept by consultant Rhett Laubach that I described in an earlier Lead Quietly post, What do you mean by charisma?
Thanks for raising this topic.
Don Frederiksen
Hello Don,
I clicked over to your linked post (I hope everyone reading this takes a well-spent moment to do so, as well) and enjoyed very much the take on “care-isma” you present there. If the manager cares about both organizational purpose and the people he or she is jointly pursuing it alongside, things could promise to go well – and, indeed, people might even be drawn to this sort of approach. It’s good – I like it!
Thanks so much for stopping by. I appreciate especially the link to your excellent writing about your intriguing perspective on leadership; I am a happy subscriber now – thanks again!
Jim,
Great piece and thanks for the referral to my Democratic Dictatorship entry. As you note, this type of thinking is somewhat old school, but still prevalent in business. I find that the new leaders are those that operate more as a strong figurehead soliciting input from those around them. Not to get political, but it is somewhat reminiscent of how Ronald Reagan served during his presidency. He surrounded himself with highly qualified Cabinet members who helped him gain a broad, clear understanding of the issues he needed to make decisions about. And then, he made his decisions.
This is the style of leadership that I subscribe to and believe is a more applicable style especially in a dispersed organization wherein knowledge / intelligence is decentralized.
Thanks again and have a wonderful 4th!
Nina
Hello Nina,
President Reagan was criticized by many for letting cabinet meetings become somewhat unruly as he waited for members to either find a consensus or surface all the issues. Either way, he had either a decision he might be able to approve, or all the available information offered and analyzed so he could make one himself. I agree, a good model.
As we’ve both noted in this context, the key role of the manager is to make decisions, and that function can’t be decentralized just because everything else – even if appropriately – is.
Thanks for your visit, your excellent insight, and your writing – enjoy your 4th of July weekend also!
This is a great post. I haven’t really given much thought to leadership and charisma.
Today’s leaders have to colloraborate with others in order to build a strong foundation in their company. Yet we still hold on and gravitate towards the charismatic leader to drive the business. Sometimes it does work, though in today’s knowledge world, a strong leader needs to include the strength of those who have the knowledge.
I wonder if different industries call for different types of leadership? I don’t believe one size fits all, and yet the new leadership has to be inclusive in their role.
Pat
Hello Pat,
I think there can be emergencies when we need someone to take charge, and to grasp the reins while we willingly settle into the traces. And, certainly, I agree with you that management styles can vary naturally across industries and even firms – sometimes quite properly employing more authoritarian systems than are generally viewed as appropriate in any circumstance by detached observers today.
Charisma, though, is all about the individual, not the organization or its aims (unless the individual is the founder still acting as CEO). Accordingly, viewing it as an acceptable leadership style under broadly general circumstances (other than certain entrepreneurial ones) strikes me as problematic. If the organization has to adapt to the arbitrary character of the “leader,” then it seems to me that we are getting things backwards.
Does that make any sense to you?
some time a leader make mistake should their followers suggest some thing?
Hello Essa,
Your suggestion depends greatly on the management environment at your place of work. Many managers – especially “leaders” – see themselves as the source of all the good ideas, and the rest of us as perhaps capable enough only to carry them out. They might be amazed and offended at being told they had made a mistake, and some may even take revenge.
This is common in situations where “leadership” is focused on the capabilities of the individual rather than the demands of the work and the collaborative struggle to achieve it. In this latter case, your suggestion to offer a correction to an error might be welcomed – even expected – by a goal-oriented manager. But, unfortunately, many “leaders” are not so open-minded.
You will want to carefully assess the management environment at your place of work before making such a suggestion. You should also be prepared to deal with the consequences of, perhaps, getting that assessment wrong – or, even, making the suggestion in an inadvertently unhelpful way.
Best of luck!
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] skepticism of the concept of the sort of singularly and exclusively exceptional individual leaders so often promoted by the modern leadership movement, it should nevertheless be noted that such persons really do [...]
Post a Comment