Managing Leadership^®

Yesterday we looked briefly at one of the reasons that psychoanalysis seems to be so attractive to so many in the modern leadership movement as a vehicle for approaching the subject of individual leadership. It comprehends a self-referencing and self-validating system that can easily and gracefully find ways to absorb and account for vast ranges of information. Moreover, it does this in so inherently plausible a fashion that it simply defies the need for objective verification – even in the face of mounting evidence of its inability to attain it.

But there is another reason leadership gurus like this approach. In psychoanalysis, the relationship between doctor and patient is quite one-sided. It is the former who knows what is really wrong, who decides what is relevant or not, who defines what is healthy or not, and who determines when the patient is ready to leave therapy.

Not all psychotherapy approaches take this view – on the contrary, some are definite about the patient being in charge, making all of these decisions, and the therapist being merely a guide or teacher. But not in psychoanalysis – there, the doctor is in charge, and the patient approaches treatment with hopeful, and generally passive, humility.

Unfortunately, many proponents of the concept of singular individual leadership also take the view that the leader is a vastly complex product of an impenetrably mysterious process that even the leader him- or herself cannot fully understand. Only the specially trained and skilled expert can pierce the secrets of this situation, make the diagnosis (leader, follower, or coat-holder), and explain to the patient how best to develop and actualize these otherwise possibly random, even misdirected, personality components.

For example, one such proponent recently suggested that leaders should have a healthy dose of, on the one hand, narcissism and, on the other, paranoia. You can imagine that only under the close monitoring of a fully initiated member of the psycho-leader priesthood can such an individual be guided to a proper balance between this sun and sea, gliding in the perfect leadership zone. Left to his or her own uninformed impulses, the unfortunate proto-leader might bound heedlessly into personal and organizational destruction.

So, if you are a believer in the notion of exceptional individual leadership, which are you – priest or penitent? And on what is your belief founded – faith or facts? Or, is there another way to frame the issue?

Thanks for stopping in this week. Have a terrific weekend. We’ll be back on Monday – and as always, will be looking forward to seeing you then!

—

Today’s tips: Speaking of the verifiable record of expert elite specialists and untrained ordinary practitioners, please see this excellent essay by Thomas Sowell on Townhall.com about education and free markets. Thanks to Cam Beck of ChaosScenario for the tip.

Please also stop by the always interesting Management-Issues for this report on the many reasons why confidence in leadership development programs is declining. It’s a real mess.

Finally, remember the WSJ editorial cartoon about the psychoanalyst and the dog from yesterday’s post? Well, it turns out the average person is better at teaching dogs, also – even to learn morality. Please see this fascinating article on the subject from MailOnline.

—

Did you know that as a subscriber to this blog (by either RSS reader or email), you are entitled to a free download (.pdf format, 344KB) of the first chapter from Jim’s critically-acclaimed book, Managing Leadership? Download your free chapter now! (Even if you haven’t subscribed, yet – download it anyway! – (and then subscribe!))

Technorati Tags: psychoanalysis, leadership, guru, doctor, patient, therapy, psychotherapy, therapist, individual leadership, leader, expert, narcissism, paranoia, organization, Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com, education, free markets, Cam Beck, Management-Issues, development, WSJ, MailOnline