Over the past few days we’ve reviewed some of the problems with the concept of individual leadership. Let’s list just a few of them:
- No generally-agreed definition of what individual leadership is or of what a “leader” is
- Definitions that exist often conflict
- Persistence of discredited theories (principally, trait theory)
- Continuous redefinitions attempting to accommodate inconvenient evidence
- Entrepreneurial leadership is a false foundation for the broader concept of individual leadership
And yet, as we all know, we continue to cling to the notion of individual leadership as something essential and inevitable in organizations. Why is that?
What is it about the notion of leadership that drives us immediately to think that it must be a characteristic of individuals? What, in fact, can such an idea really mean? Do individual leaders exist in the absence of anything to lead, in the absence of a group or an aim for it to collaboratively accomplish?
Imagine your ideal leader – all the traits, whatever agglomeration of them has settled around whichever theory you like best. Now, imagine your leader is between jobs. Is he or she still a leader? How so? Does he or she have vision in the absence of purpose? Is he or she radiating inspiration in the absence of staff? Does he or she positively glow with leadership even in the organizational dark?
That’s nonsense, of course, but we nevertheless cling to the belief that such people exist. We persist in the conviction that they have a “natural” ability to express these leadership functions, if only we would give them the means to.
In fact, our inclination to do so is, we imagine, evidence of those leadership qualities: they simply attract followers to them even in the form of investors: “I’m a leader, fund me and I’ll make something happen for you – it doesn’t really matter what. Context or purpose aren’t the issue – all that matters is my personal quality as a leader.”
When we think about it we can, of course, understand that leadership does not exist in the absence of a purposeful group. But we continue stubbornly to ascribe it to individuals.
And that’s the problem: the modern leadership movement’s definitions of leadership – however artfully contrived – either inherently or in practical effect simply drive the issue of leadership into the individual – more specifically, special individuals. That is, it is at bottom (whether you get there directly or not) about the person of the leader – not the work or the organization.
It is considerations like these that have helped me to understand that leadership, ultimately, is not an individual characteristic, but rather is inherent in a purposeful group, arising from its formation and given shape and expression by the interactions of all of its members, together with external forces acting on it. We will be looking a bit more closely at this in the coming days – please do join in!
—
Today’s tip: Please take a moment of your time to see Steve Roesler‘s must-read two-post series, starting here, on introducing organizational change. Learn why it’s not about the change – it’s about the reason for change.
—
Why not try out this feature provided here by Answers.com: If you double-click on any (non-hypertext-linked) word on the main page of the site, a window will open providing definitions or encyclopedic material about that term, together with links to additional sources of information. Try it out – it’s interesting and fun.
And, of course, while you’re clicking around, don’t forget to click on your choice of an email or RSS-feed subscription to these pages – we’ll be proud to have you join us!
Technorati Tags: individual leadership, leadership, leader, trait theory, organization, vision, purpose, inspiration, leadership function, Steve Roesler, change
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments
What a fascinating series, Jim. Let me push back just a bit.
I think that defining “leadership” as a trait or set of traits leads you to the point you make here. Its not the traits of the leader that measure or define leadership. But that doesn’t mean leadership doesn’t exist.
We know that there is no leadership without followers It’s about the only thing most definition of leadership can agree on. It’s the least controversial of all the leadership points or principles.
But we also know that leaders can and do make a difference in the behavior and performance of groups. One good test of leadership, that I first heard from Jim Pancero about sales managers, is “What’s the difference between how the group performs with the leader and without?” This is fairly well accepted but often not stated.
The classic example of this is the NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA. But any group whose performance changes with a new boss will do.
We also have evidence that there are no truly “leaderless groups.” “Purposeful groups” as you describe them almost always have a person who defines direction and purpose. They may pass that work around, but it’s almost always there.
Those are reasons why I like to define leadership as a kind of work. That work is most often mostly done by a single person, but it can be distributed to some degree. That happens even in democratic workplaces like Semco.
How do those observations strike you?
Hello Wally,
Thanks for providing this angle to the discussion!
I agree that leadership exists – I just dispute that it is best thought of as an individual characteristic, or even something that originates in separate individuals – or even, necessarily, particular, special individuals.
I also agree that the boss can make a difference – no argument at all there. I just maintain that if he or she attempts to do so as a singular leader or font of leadership, that difference is likely, ultimately, to be an unhappy one both for the leader and the group. That difference is best made as a manager, not a specially qualified being with skills superior to our own.
Moreover, the difference (with respect to much of what we have come to expect from leadership) is best accomplished not by diktat or raining leadership manna on the staff (and I know you advocate no such thing), but by establishing an environment in which the group’s performance and behavior can more intelligently and effectively inform the initiative and abilities of all of its members. To me, this is classic, mature, essential management – not self-absorbed and inwardly-focused individual leadership. It (the former) is what I think of when I see (with great relief, compared to so much other writing on the topic) your reference to “leadership as a kind of work.”
To me, that is also the message of the successful turnaround at NUMMI. Same people, facilities – even same unions – and yes, a new boss, but more relevantly, a new management regime – one that focused on releasing the leadership inherent in the group. They managed that leadership in all the senses that management concerns itself with the identification, cultivation, and deployment of assets and resources (although they may not have envisioned what they were doing in the terms I’m using here).
Your focus on the need for there to be a boss – no “leaderless” groups – and followers is a great topic. I think I will be offering my response in the form of a few posts. Briefly, I definitely agree that there absolutely must be a boss – I part with SEMCO in that regard – but I argue that that boss is best a manager, not a leader. Moreover, it is my belief that what we think of as “followers” are far more involved in the overall leadership process – and far more vital not just to its operation, but to its very nature and direction – than we commonly believe – again, I’ll expand on that in a post or two in the future, probably as part of this series.
Some of this may turn out to seem mere semantic manipulation, but I don’t think so – I think it is a distinction with a meaningful and actionable difference.
Of course, if I’m right, I should at some point enjoy some success in persuading people of it! I hope this is responsive to what you are driving at in your comment – please let me know. And thanks for giving me the opportunity to try again!
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] view of the individual leader for which it serves the necessary role of the foil? Indeed, what does this additional failure amidst the uncountable volumes of “work” in the field of leadership say about the view of it [...]
Post a Comment