Dear Organlearners,
Greetings to all of you.
Part 3. Leadership is a "one-to-many-mapping".
People with ambition usually become leaders.
The word ambition has two meanings according to the dictionaries. The
major meaning of ambition is pretty much described by its etymology. It
comes from the Latin "ambio"=to-solicit-votes. This kind of ambition does
not ensure a leader with, for example, a well formed character (true,
good, right, etc.) It often leads to an autocratic leader. In other words,
we have here to do with "autocratic ambition".
The minor meaning of ambition refers to a person who passionately set out
to achieve something of great character, quantitative and qualitative.
When this ambition involves fellow workers, such a person will sooner or
later have to decide whether to become a leader or not. In other words, we
have here to do with "compassionate ambition".
It seems that leadership is a "one-to-two-mapping" when we use ambition
and its two meanings as criterion. However, the etymology of the suffix
"-ship" in leadership has also an important bearing on the relationship
between leaders and creativity. The "-ship" comes from the Saxon verb
"sciepen". It meant two things: (1) to scoop with an open container (2) to
create! What can this "-ship" tell us about leadership?
Leaders with creativeless leadership are like empty containers who scoop
up whatever they can. But what about leaders with creative leadership?
Those who follow the path of constructive creativity share their spiritual
riches with their followers. But those who follow the path of destructive
creativity lead their followers into a future of increasing destruction.
Hence it seems that leadership is a "one-to-three-mapping" -- the
scoopers, the creators and the destroyers.
What we have done above with two examples, is to distinguish between
different kinds of leadership by using as criterion the meanings of a word
associated with leadership. This technique allow us to cover with many
such words most of the pitfalls of leadership. It is often used by
consultants on leadership. But it does not help us much to understand
leadership, nor to give a systematic account of leadership.
How will we understand leadership? To understand any thing, we have to
learn that thing authentically. There is vast difference between rote
learning and authentic learning. In rote learning a person memorises what
the experts have claimed and then seek applications for these claims. But
in authentic learning the person understand by creating or exploring self
that which has to be learned. Since creativity is a "one-to-many-mapping",
any authentic learning based on it is also a "one-to-many-mapping". What
then does this have to do with leadership?
If leadership means "to lead with creativity", then leadership must also
be a "one-to-many-mapping". What a strange, yet compelling, description of
leadership is this not? The leader will know what all the followers need
when the leader has walked in the shoes of every kind of follower. Then
every kind of follower will respond with "This leader is of our kind,
worthy of our commitment". They will not even notice that the leader is
different to each kind of follower. The leader's adaptation to otherness
("quality-variety") will be natural to them. This is a distinguishing
feature of leadership.
In complex organisations leaders surround themselves with expert advisors
on topics. Will this ensure leadership? It will not if the leader employs
them in a "many-to-one-mapping". The leader will have to employ them in a
"one-to-many- mapping". But even then there is a grave danger. What if
these experts do not self walk in the shoes of every kind of follower, but
follow the "one-to-one-mapping" from expert to topic. The danger is that
in the minds of these experts people will become displaced by topics. Such
experts are without leadership because leadership always involves all the
people.
It cannot be stressed enough that leadership always involves all the
people. Creativity and authentic learning are both "one-to-many-mappings".
Leaders have to lead by their creativity and authentic learning. But the
prime "one-to-many-mapping" of leadership is that of connecting
effectively to all kinds of followers. This fruitfulness ("connect-beget")
with followers of whatever kind is another distinguishing feature of
leadership.
Leaders aware of their need for leadership often make use of consultants
on leadership. It is here where a bewildering panorama unfolds itself just
as on creativity or learning. Some consultants sell each their own
treasure maps. In natural sciences like physics, chemistry, geology,
microbiology, botany, zoology and physiology there is some systematic,
coherent and ordered account of facts -- systems thinking we may call it.
But in accounts of leadership, like of creativity and even learning, there
is more chaos than order. Some consultants now even cash in on this fact
by selling the treasure map "living on the edge of chaos". A systematic
account of leadership is needed.
There cannot be any systems thinking without any "one-to-many-mapping".
The systems thinking act as the "one" while the incredible diversity of
changes in reality to be managed act as the "many". Thus systems thinking
maps itself onto the many changing faces of reality. Many consultants on
leadership try to employ systems thinking, but often their
"one-to-many-mapping" of "one"=leadership to the
"many"=needs-of-different-kinds-of-followers is far too narrow. This has
serious consequences.
The leader, after having heard many such consultants, has to put all their
viewpoints together in a "many-to-one-mapping". Only afterwards can the
leader pursue leadership which is a "one-to-many-mapping". In other words,
the leader has to do the systems thinking which the consultants should
have done in the first place. This places another burden on the leader who
already carries the heavy burden of leading.
A few consultants declare themselves as leaders on leadership consulting.
They point out prominently in their CV all the leading companies and
foremost agencies who have consulted them. Although this
"one-to-many-mapping" is impressive, it does not tell of leadership in
leadership consulting. It lacks consultation to small businesses and
offices. It is exactly here where the children become separated from the
adults in leadership consultation. Leaders who seek authentic leadership
should be aware of this marketing strategy.
Nobody can sell leadership just as no one can sell creativity. The deep
art of "one-to-many-mapping" comes from within, whether leadership,
creativity or authentic learning. The consultant can act merely as a
midwife to this deep art. Thus letters telling long afterwards how
valuable this midwifery had been have much more meaning than an impressive
list of clients.
It reminds me of teaching. Some teachers point out how good teachers they
are by citing the number of students who got distinctions under their
teaching. But for me the good teacher is that person who also helped
failing students to become successful again, irrespective of their
intelligence. Those students will remember that teacher and his/her
teachership for the rest of their lives.
A leader has to be foremost among the followers as a learner. Rote
learning involving the cramming of information from many sources is a
"many-to-one-mapping" whereas authentic learning is a
"one-to-many-mapping". The surest way of the "one" exploring the "many" is
to ask questions incessantly. Since the followers do not know this, it
poses a difficult problem to the leader. A leader who ask questions in
public is not considered as a leader, but merely as an follower trying to
act as a leader.
Allow me to give you examples of the questions which I have in mind.
Consider the demolition of a building by an earthquake, construction error
or some bomb. What do you think will become of the leader when he/she asks
the following questions in public?
Did the evil minded terrorist and the brave minded soldier not each knew
what the bomb will do? Did the bomb not do what it is exactly responsible
to do, namely to set free the nuclear or chemical energy designed and
manufactured into it? Why condemn the evil minded terrorist and praise the
brave minded soldier when both struck at innocent victims? Why keep the
designers and manufacturers of bombs out of the picture? Did the
earthquake not happen as a result of a structural fault in the earth's
crust? Did nature not do what it is exactly responsible to do, namely
relieve the tension which built up between two moving tectonic plates? Did
not both the construction engineer and nature let the innocent suffer? Why
keep the "designer and manufacturer" of moving tectonic plates out of the
picture? By what reason could the evil minded terrorist have prevented
exploding the bomb, but the brave minded soldier not in killing innocent
bystanders? By what reason could the construction engineer have prevented
the structural fault, but nature not?
The outcome is clear. When leaders ask too many probing questions in
public, the followers will consider it as sacrilege. Sacrilege of what?
The collection of outer information which has to be conserved in the
"many-to-one-mapping" of dogma. Followers are not aware that creativity
and all its constructive emergents like authentic learning and believing
are "one-to-many-mappings". Leaders should be aware of this ignorance and
find ways to avoid such a judgemental conclusion by followers. How sad is
it not when people, when indoctrinated by some dogma, judge the
questioning of such dogma as sacrilege.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.