Managing Leadership^®

Nearly a century ago Mary Parker Follett noted two things relevant to our current discussion. First, the presumption that industrial-age labor lacked initiative or the instinct to quality work was belied by the tradition of self-managed craftsmanship of which these workers were the heirs.

Second, she noted that workers transposed from that tradition into factory work tended, still, to self-manage their duties. They did this both individually and collectively, arranging their own work schedules and patterns, as well as doing so in such a manner that they conformed with those of others where these intersected. More importantly, they would tend to recognize and solve group problems on their own.

They did this in the absence, for whatever reason, of managerial attention. Recall that Follett observed and wrote in the early days of the age of organizations, when the process of managing them was only just sorting itself out. So, there were plenty of such instances.

In order, then, to do that, the workers had to imagine why their work was being done. They needed to envision the outcomes that they were intended to produce, the follow-on processes these were expected to contribute to, and how these activities made sense in the context of the work of the larger organization.

That is, they didn’t just start climbing ladders or doing things right – they considered the larger purpose, deduced their contributions to it, and designed solutions. They determined where the ladders should go, what were the right things to do.

They led, managed, and did. Themselves, by themselves. And without a lot of fuss about it. Just part of the job.

They didn’t necessarily do these things because they were, or saw themselves, as individuals distinct from the organizations in which they were employed, as leaders, managers, or workers. Rather, they did them – as we observed yesterday – naturally, instinctively, because it was called for by the situation in which they found themselves.

Had such situations not obtained, they would not have troubled themselves with behaviors that weren’t called for. The leadership they displayed, then, was exhibited by them, but it was called forth by the circumstances they confronted.

They confronted these not incidentally as individuals, but as an inherent function of their membership in an organization. They didn’t respond to them disinterestedly as independently self-actuating leaders, managers, or workers, but in the various and sundry appropriate manners called forth by the dynamics deriving from their organization and its confrontation with problems as it pursued its purpose.

This approaches what I mean by leadership being best viewed as an organizational, rather than an individual, characteristic. We will pick this up again on Monday.

Tomorrow, it seems that it will be useful to briefly revisit the topic of the purported management/leadership distinction. See you then!

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of not making a fuss of things, sometimes it’s best if we do. Please see this essay by Carl Icahn about boards, management teams, and crises.

And speaking of crises, as well as of panicked hyperbole about their outcomes, please also see this WSJ opinion piece by Brett Stephens, about Gullivers and Lilliputians.

—

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: labor, initiative, craftsmanship, worker, work, organization, purpose, leader, manager, leadership, Carl Icahn, management, WSJ, Brett Stephens, Mary Parker Follett