A key and persistent assumption about leadership is that it typically emanates from specifically skilled or capable individuals. It then is more or less passively received by others, acting on them in a way to spur a focus and energy that would not otherwise exist among them.
But consider this, from the humorist “Texas” Bix Bender: “If you’re ridin’ ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it’s still there.”
The thing is, they might not be. They may have lost interest or confidence in you. Even where they are required by the provisions of their employment to heed your “leadership,” they may find it sufficiently unimpressive or irrelevant to either ignore or, even worse, undermine.
They do, you know, have minds of their own. They do not merely “follow” your leadership – they evaluate it.
I have found that the dynamic is often far more interactive than even that. Moreover where it’s not, it should – and can – be. That is, so called “followers” are, or ought to be, actively – even proactively – involved in the leadership process. By assessing the leadership that occurs in the workplace, and calibrating their responses to it, they are actually engaging as collaborators in organizational leadership – not merely responding as sheep to individual leadership.
If you begin to think about the issue this way, it is easier to see how specific instances of leadership can arise from various points, as appropriate or called for, throughout the organization, rather than be passively awaited or sought from particular “leaders.” It is also possible to begin to see why, rather than trying to be great “leaders,” the best thing for bosses to do is to concentrate on being good managers of all their assets, including the leadership operating in their organizations.
After all, a whole herd of heads is better than one, right?
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of staff with options, please be sure not to miss this article by John Phillips about how to intelligently (or not) identify and address those choices – and thus to help retain quality employees.
—
The topic of today’s post is discussed in some length in Jim’s critically acclaimed book, “Managing Leadership” (chapters 4 and 5). You may wish to download the first chapter here for free (.pdf format, 344KB), in order to get a sense of the basis of the concerns giving rise to the argument being made in our current discussion.
Download your free chapter now! And while you’re at it, why not also subscribe to this blog for access to ongoing discussion of the book’s subject matter in contemporary contexts?
Technorati Tags: leadership, Bix Bender, employment, workplace, organizational leadership, individual leadership, organization, leader, boss, manager, John Phillips, employee
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments
Another fine post, Jim. Groups can be good at judgment calls. But you can’t count on it. That’s one place where the leader has work to do. He or she should draw on and draw out the wisdom of the group and make sure the sharing doesn’t turn into groupthink.
But groups are often awful at making a decision. Then the leader’s work is decide. That’s why it’s important to pick people for leadership roles who are willing to decide.
I think that the best leaders do both. They draw out the wisdom of the group and make sure their team members are part of the decision process whenever possible. But if a decision needs to be made and the group can provide background but can’t decide then the leader needs to.
I love the quote from Woody Morcott, CEO of the Dana Corporation: “Why did we hire 55,000 brains and only use three of them?” But when he moved to involve more people in the decision processes of his company, he didn’t give up the role or responsibility of CEO.
Hi Wally,
It is interesting that you introduce the topic of group decision-making here, in this post about group dynamics. They are two quite different things, although they certainly can be influenced by each other.
I agree, as it happens, completely with you regarding the caution a manager must take with respect to the infallibility it is fashionable recently to ascribe to group decisions. Under certain circumstances, they can be effective, but we often base our confidence in our hopes rather than in the fact of our having established those conditions – moreover, we don’t yet fully understand the nature and scope of those conditions. Further, the drive to this can be seen both as a mindless nod to “cutting edge” “science” and as yet another wishful effort to dodge the work of management.
On the one hand, I agree completely with you that the fundamental role of the manager is to make decisions. On the other, I do not agree that “ownership” of decision-making can be disseminated beyond those responsible for it (although, I’m not really sure that is what you have said). A wide net can and should be cast for advice, information, and input, but the person controlling that net and sorting the catch can only be the manager.
It is clear, then, that I have yet again failed not only to make my point, but to establish the general topic (group dynamics rather than group decision-making). I was attempting here to refer to the interactions between so-called “followers” and “leaders” that point to a broader definition of organizational leadership. So, I appreciate learning that I have yet to do that – I’ll try again! Thanks!
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] from the perspective of the inescapably accompanying concept of “followership.” Yesterday, I attempted to make the argument that “leaders” don’t enter a group with any inherent [...]
Post a Comment