It may be useful, after our discussions earlier this week about the potentially destructive dynamics between certain types of leaders and their followers, to consider one more aspect of the problem. It has to do with the “ability” of leaders to attract legions of inspired, impassioned, dedicated followers. This sounds like a wondrous thing, especially if you aspire to be such a leader, yourself. . .
Have you ever negotiated with someone – a potential customer or partner, a boss or colleague – who just can’t bear to say “no?” Desperate to avert an unpleasant confrontation, not wanting to hurt your feelings, and struggling to evade personal responsibility for either of these, this person instead expresses admiration for your plans and support for your proposals. So off you go, busily filling in details, mobilizing resources, and preparing for implementation. But when you return to your negotiating partner . . .
An improbably small, resource-poor island-state unleashed stunningly powerful military force across vast stretches of sea and shore, bringing vast swathes of the planet’s largest continent under occupation and delivering a staggering blow to its strongest nation. This state’s leadership produced brilliant campaigns executed with lightening speed and unprecedented efficiency. It was inexhaustibly energetic and vibrant, leading in technology, focus, will, and, inevitably, morale. It appeared unstoppable. But it had what turned out to be a fatal weakness. . .
A major aim behind the contemporary emphasis on leadership in business is the virtual permeation of an organization with the visionary, inspirational influence of an individual leader. And please do bear in mind that if this sort of leadership is expected from the top, there can be no genuinely independent, individual leaders at all beneath that lofty summit – only followers of one rank or another. So, think about that: the entire outfit really does depend on the leadership of a single person . . .
There is a strong and general instinct, as we noted Friday, to ascribe positive values to what we have determined to be examples of leadership. In a world that so often confuses forcefulness with leadership, this can be – and frequently is, in fact, revealed to be – an exceedingly dangerous habit. It’s a real problem. But it works the other way, also. . .
One of the problems with the word “leadership” is that it is pretty slippery. You can define it to mean whatever you wish to emphasize, under whatever circumstances you face, at any given moment. So, let’s just consider the two basic categories into which definitions of leadership, or its presumed components, tend to fall . . .
We have seen that a manager cannot delegate responsibility, but can delegate authority without losing any of it – and without losing any control, into the bargain. So, how does this relate to the commonly made suggestion that employees should be given “ownership” of decisions? To begin with, it points to something that is key to a proper understanding of delegating . . .
Or:
Jim Stroup's Business card:
Come visit the Managing Leadership
Managing Leadership® is a registered trademark of the author
Bad Behavior has blocked 259 access attempts in the last 7 days.
