Before returning to the main topics in our current discussion of the problems with the prescriptions of the modern leadership movement (MLM), we’re going to take a brief look at two more types of what are generally regarded as genuine examples of “leadership” in organizations. Today, we will explain why one of these examples actually is not leadership at all as it is understood by the MLM, and why it is more accurately seen as a symptom of an unwell organization. This is the sort of leadership we see in the person who steps up and “takes charge.”
Books on individual leadership, rather amazingly, continue to come out, and continue to promise great things from the superlative leaders their secrets will help readers become. What they also all do, though, is assume that there is no controversy regarding the location of leadership: it is in individuals, and emanates from them into the organizations which they grace with their presence. Indeed, many of these observers go so far as to say that the organization exists to give expression to the leader’s leadership – or, at least, must reform itself around the unique ways each leader exhibits that leadership. William Tate, a consultant in the United Kingdom with a strong background as a senior manager, offers some long-overdue questions about these assumptions in his new book . . .
When you are in charge, however imposing your principle duties may seem, the most difficult problem you face is often the struggle to maintain perspective. That is, to remain focused on those duties, rather than to allow the hopes pinned on their accomplishment to deteriorate into hopes abjectly pinned on you . . .
Many of us have a tendency to anthropomorphize the concept of evolution. We think of it as animated by a sort of ingrained competitive instinct, or, perhaps, straining toward a pure standard of excellence, a state of perfection. But the truth is . . .
Friday, February 20, 2009
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 . . .
There has been a lot of talk lately about liberal and conservative personalities. A political analysis of the presidential race in the United States recently offered a map of the political cultures of whole states. How useful is that? And on what basis do they draw their conclusions – whether about individuals or states?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The most sensible thing Peter Drucker ever said about leadership is this: “Leadership is all hype. We’ve had three great leaders in this century – Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.” He was right. Those guys had it all . . .
