Managing Leadership^®

In the most recent post in this current series on the fallacy of individual leadership, we noted that, among the types of leadership we seem to genuinely see in organizations, there is at least one that is, more or less in fact, both organizationally relevant and valid. Valid, because this type has the legal and moral right to give expression to personal leadership in the organization with no concern for violation of fiduciary duty (this is a real and fundamental problem with the modern concept of individual leadership, which we will discuss later in this series). Organizationally relevant, because it does indeed serve as the basis for the formation and operation of the organization.

This type is the founding owner. Many such business owners have come to be seen as virtually synonymous with the word “leadership,” and the putative lessons derived from their experiences are routinely assembled and marketed to the rest of us for our own application at work.

However, the rest of us generally are not the founding owners where we work, and the lessons from such sources recommended to us will thus serve us poorly there indeed. Moreover, there are several other vital points to bear in mind about these examplars, apparently genuine leaders though they may be, that should give us pause before setting out to emulate them.

First, they are the few survivors of an incalculably large cohort of entrepreneurs of similar character, drive, ambition, vision, and inspiration who simply didn’t make it, and about whom we hear not a word. So, it would be unwise of us to conclude that these few achieved their success due to so-called leadership personality traits shared by legions of others who did not succeed. Rather, perhaps, their success was due to the luck of the draw, fortuitous timing, more fundamental management skills, or some other thing or combination of things entirely. “Studies” of this miniscule group of exceptions should not be mistaken by the rest of us as establishing the rules.

Second, for all that their putative leadership traits might not be the source of their success, they do make up the shape and momentum of their leadership style at the helm of their businesses, which have succeeded. As such, they do – as long as these founding owners remain at the helm – legitimately serve as the themes around which the rest of the workforce can and should assemble and guide its actions. As followers. The notional leadership behavior under discussion here only applies to the founding owners while in that role. As a department manager, you would be ill-advised to try mimicking what you presume to be the leadership characteristics of the founding owner of your business. You likely would find that you neither serve – nor amuse – him or her overmuch.

Third, just as it is unclear what, if any, relationship there is between the founding owner’s supposed leadership style and his or her business success, it surely is far from established that this or that leadership character exhibited by the founding owner of this or that business is portable. That is saying more than that the leadership style may not be effective in a different company, industry, or culture. It means that the leadership presumably exhibited by an individual who founded a successful business may merely be an incidental environmental factor tolerated by a company that is successful for wholly unrelated reasons. In a different setting, whether exhibited by that same person or emulated by another, the same leadership style may not be so easily tolerated (or ignored); it, in fact, should not be surprising to discover it to be distracting or even destructive.

So, founding owners can be viewed validly as “real” leaders of their organizations. They are welcome, if they must, to ascribe their success to this characterization, and their employees can even freely and genuinely respond to them as such. What’s more, whatever may actually be responsible for the emergence of their businesses as thriving enterprises, a founding owner’s putative expression of personal leadership can continue to legitimately and distinctively shape the operational characteristics and culture of the company.

But, does that mean that there’s a lesson in all of this for the rest of us? If so, are we sure we know what it might be?

Before moving on to those questions, we will take a brief look next at another example of genuine leadership sometimes perceived in more mature organizations. See you soon.

—

Today’s tips: Speaking of not getting too full of ourselves, please see this WSJ essay by Peggy Noonan, undoubtedly inspired by a Simpson’s episode, on why the President’s Cabinet might need a new Office of Keeping it Real.

And speaking of founding owners who are widely viewed as modern individual leaders, please see this revealing review, also from the WSJ, by Bill Gates contesting some of the main themes of Matt Ridley’s recent book, “The Rational Optimist.”

Finally, please take a look at this fascinating piece from The Economist essentially asking why we need leadership – or, even, centralized command and control – at all.

—

Note: This blog was recently acknowledged as a Top 50 Leadership Blog for 2010 – many thanks to Evan Carmichael at The Entrepreneur Blog.

—

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: leadership, organization, individual leadership, owner, business, work, entrepreneur, character, ambition, vision, inspiration, trait, management, workforce, follower, manager, company, industry, culture, WSJ, Peggy Noonan, WSJ, Bill Gates, Matt Ridley, Economist, command, control, Evan Carmichael