One of the problems with traditional views of leadership is the tendency to confuse other characteristics with it. A common way we do this is by becoming so impressed by the seemingly powerful presence of one or another trait presumptively indicative of leadership as to uncritically assume that there is more behind it than there may actually be – sometimes even simply equating it with leadership, itself. . .
In attempting to make the case for my argument that leadership is best viewed as an organizational – rather than as an individual – characteristic, an intermediate purpose has been to reduce the false distinction made by many between leadership and management. The thing is, though, that this sort of thinking is a tough nut to crack. . .
I use the phrase “purposeful organization” frequently in my attempts to explain what I mean by “managing leadership.” Admittedly, it is a bit of a redundancy. That is, you don’t organize an effort – create an organization – without a purpose for it in mind. The intent behind pairing the words, however, is twofold. . .
Our current discussion of the nature of leadership was provoked by comments made by to a post published a month ago called “Great Leader Theory.” Interestingly, while most of those comments expressed dissatisfaction to one degree or another with my efforts to present my view of leadership, they also implied disagreement with key contentions of the modern leadership movement. . .
Possibly the most impractical and unhelpful – not to mention annoying – “insight” of the past several decades was the “discovery” that management and leadership are different – so much so, in fact, as to be essentially incompatible individual functions. Of course, they are also supposed to be unequal, with leadership superior to management. And thus the modern leadership movement, its members champions in their various incoherent ways of the individual leader, was born. . .
Politics is a good place to look for lessons regarding the notion of “followership,” which we have been discussing the past few days. It’s worth bearing in mind that much of the blissful prose written about leadership and followership in business ignores the shotgun always present at that wedding. We shouldn’t presume too easily that we fully understand what is producing the effects we think we see. But in politics, it is easier to examine the veracity of the leadership-followership dynamic as depicted by the modern leadership movement. . .
“Leaders” don’t enter a group with any inherent authority that arises from their peculiar personal natural traits or learned behaviors. Indeed, they are even unable, really, to assume this lofty state on the basis of their formal contracted mandate. What happens in real life is that the so-called “followers” determine who will accorded their confidence and loyalty – not those who presume themselves to be mystically possessed of leadership skills, not those who have been taught the supposed leadership behaviors by gurus of all types and in various venues, and not even by those who are widely believed to have demonstrated or earned this epithet in previous assignments. . .
Or:
Jim Stroup's Business card:
Come visit the Managing Leadership
Managing Leadership® is a registered trademark of the author
Bad Behavior has blocked 261 access attempts in the last 7 days.
