Managing Leadership^®

It seems odd that the place in the world that appears to get most lathered up over the essentially medieval concept of leadership is the United States. It is a great irony that we – in the land that has most pointedly turned its back on aristocracy, that most rigorously places sovereignty in the people, and that most naturally nurtures a distrust of and proclivity to challenge authority – are so eager, even desperate, to identify and celebrate individual leadership. We seek great personages in whom to place our fates, to whom to entrust our wealth, reputations – even our persons.

In most other places where the subject of leadership is approached similarly, it seems really to be more or less a reflection of the discussion in America. That is, it borrows the terminology of our business schools and press, grafting them onto foreign cultures. Unfortunately, it often thrives there, as natural authoritarian traditions are more than happy to use it to reinforce their efforts to stave off the generally growing tendency of democratic ideas to penetrate into more corners of more societies around the world.

But in many other places, other than an apparent sense that it ought to be discussed now and again simply because such a stir is being made of it in the States, the subject of individual leadership doesn’t seem to generate quite the same frenzy. In cultures, for example, where feudal class distinctions retain long historical momentum, the assumption of what we would call leadership positions in the US occurs naturally and without the perceived need for a lot of fuss. Moreover, the instinct among the rest of us to support those positions – a matter so uncomfortably addressed in America under the unsatisfying rubric of “followership” – also occasions little or no comment.

Accompanying these differences, then, is a quite interesting lack of American-style self-absorption regarding the matter. I’m not suggesting there is no arrogance – just that it tends to be less self-conscious. Further, in traditions where one’s boundaries are largely a natural feature of the cultural landscape, well-known and accommodated to by all, the tendency to exaggerate one’s influence is somewhat less pronounced.

Here’s a simple example. In the US, the television news is presented by “anchors” who view themselves as “journalists,” offering Americans their exceptional insights regarding what is important and what makes it so. One prominent news service is quite specific about this, advising us that the issue isn’t so much the facts of the story as the impression we are to take from its telling.

But in some overseas locations, particularly in the United Kingdom, the news is presented by “news readers.” How about that? People who read to us what is put before them by editors who have processed news wire dispatches and the work of real journalists. Wonderfully frank and non-self-aggrandizing.

Of course, the end effects produced by persons and news services using such distinctly different terminology to describe their presenters can be less predictable than one might have hoped. But there are nevertheless a lot of things going on here. The one we will look at in the next few days is the temptation we see so often to insert the story teller into the story – to make the reporter as or more important than the news being reported.

Of course, here on this site, we will be talking about leadership and “leaders” – and some of those who write about them. Please do join in!

—

Today’s tips: Speaking of the awkwardness of “followership,” please be sure to see this sketch of the non-complaining employee, by Michael Wade, the Execupundit. When you do, think about your role and responsibility as a manager in this dynamic.

As we continue to explore ways to expand our reach through cyber-collaboration, we might want to recall that the foundation of business – trust in others’ capacity and willingness to honor contracts – may need more than email and net-conferences to sustain. Please see this piece on evolutionary psychology from The Economist.

Also from the Economist, and related to the topic of today’s post, one of the more astute discussions of the meaning of the legacy of the late Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

—

Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.

Technorati Tags: medieval, leadership, United States, aristocracy, sovereignty, authority, America, business, school, culture, individual leadership, US, followership, influence, US, United Kingdom, employee, Michael Wade, Execupundit, manager, business, trust, contract, email, net-conference, psychology, Economist, Alexander Solzhenitsyn