I originally sent this just to John, but I notice at least one of my points
(diffusion of responsibility) has already arisen in the thread--so what the
hey.
Steve
Steve Kelner
04/30/99 04:22 PM
To: "John P. Dentico" <jdentico@adnc.com>
> JC was a very smart guy. He knew leadership was all about building
> relationships. He also knew how to use symbolism. Before battle he would
> put on a scarlet cloak and walk the front lines with his men pumping them up
> for the next day. His message to me, Hey guys we are in this together.
Exactly. One of the best examples of a leadership speech I have ever
found is the St. Crispin's day speech in Shakespeare's Henry V. It fits
the idea of collaborative leadership, I think, too. Kenneth Brannaugh's
delivery is worth the cost of the video. It covers many of the same
themes, and speaks to "this band of brothers...for any man who fights with
me this day is my brother, be he ever so vile..." Pretty impressive for a
period of monarchy.
>Drucker says
>"The lessons are unambiguous. The first is that there may be "born
>leaders" but there are surely far too few to depend on them. Leadership
>must be learned and can be learned--and this, of course, is what this
>book was written for and should be used for. But the second major lesson
>is that "leadership personality", "leadership style", and "leadership
>traits" do not exist.
First point: I agree. Leadership can, should, must be taught (indeed, I
have done so). That doesn't mean you can't be born with a predilection
for it.
Second point: he is 100% flat wrong. I don't know what he is looking at,
but there are many reliable studies of leadership characteristics (see the
HBS reprint "Power Is the Great Motivator" by McClelland & Burnham for an
early take of one kind of leadership). I am astonished to hear Drucker
say such a thing. I will note, however, that there is certainly more than
one kind of leader, and we found that competencies varied with the needs
of the organizational type, context, etc. The fundamental issue was as I
said it, but the motives that empowered it (and of course the styles
required) sometimes varied.
We used to teach at Hay/McBer that leaders used whatever style was
appropriate for the individuals and the situation (behavior is a function
of the person interacting with the situation), therefore leaders are
distinguished by competencies that make the task of reading people and
situations, and applying broad ranges of behavior to situations easier.
So if Drucker is referring to one leadership personality, one leadership
style, etc., then I agree.
>He goes on to say that the one personality trait the effective ones did
>share in common was something that they did not have, they had little or
>no charisma.
This may have more to do with the organizations he studied than the
fundamental issue. I don't think you need stand-up dramatic charisma to
lead a group (e.g., Julius, JFK, whatever), but I think there is quiet
charisma as well, and I have seen that a good deal--not a fiery speaker,
but a compelling individual who knows how to maximize their impact and
influence.
>I too would question competency based coding in connection with
>leadership development, if that is what I understand you are asserting.
>I may have this wrong. Competency based coding sounds too close to the
>trait theory of leadership. Stodgill debunked the trait theory in 1947.
>While corporations do have a list of competencies which they consider
>important, this does not mean that they are in any way sound and reliable
>indicators of leadership.
>In fact, in all the leadership work that has been done, a set of traits
>or competencies which are directly associated with great leadership has
>never been established. If it were we would not be having this
>conversation, the point would be moot.
Again, not true. I think you are reading a different literature than I
am. There are certain competencies which occur over and over again in
senior leadership, and the combination of competencies (not the individual
competencies) are reliable enough indicators of business leadership, at
least, that companies use it every day to select those leaders. Good
competency research begins with differentiating the outstanding from the
average by clear and objective measures of performance (not merely
opinions) and then studying those two groups in detail to identify
contrasts. In other words, study the outstanding leaders and study the
mediocre leaders (not bad--lots of ways to be bad) and see what is
different.
Now there is a fundamental issue we have not even discussed here, which is
the definition of a leader--and frankly I don't even want to get into
that. It is a garbage can word. But for the definition I use--being able
to engage a group to work together toward a goal, sometimes modified by
"to create change" to distinguish from simple management--there are
certain competencies I commonly see. Here are a few:
>Conceptual thinking--being able to make a simple big picture (rather than
>being lost in details) from component parts. Essential for vision, too.
>Impact and Influence--of course
>Interpersonal Awareness--knowing what people are thinking and feeling
>even if not stated--required to do Impact and Influence
>Analytical thinking--not at the highest levels, but several steps of
>cause-and-effect
>Proactivity/Initiative--thinking into the future--seeing longer-term
>implications and acting on them
>Integrity--walking the talk: willing to take risks to stay consistent with
>beliefs and values (e.g., firing your top performer because he was slightly
>sleazy in approach)
>Group leadership--that is, the ability to influence a group, not just
>individuals. A related, but different, competency.
Sometimes there are variants or extended version of these competencies such as:
Finding meaning--sort of advanced Conceptual Thinking in terms of finding a
higher meaning to daily tasks.
I think you'd have a hard time finding an effective leader who did not have
these things.
>I appreciate your agreement that leadership resides in the collective
>dynamic is true and obvious. While it may be true, it is not obvious.
>plethora of writing and seminars which still seek to assert that leadership
>resides in one person, the leader is still the dominant message being sent
>by the majority of people who give these seminars. I am, by the way, not
>saying you are one of these but my experience in reviewing the leadership
>messages of many of these people tells me that they are still selling
>this type of snake oil.
Fair enough. It is certainly easier to lead (not necessarily better) from
a central source. I think too many of our ideas of leadership do come
from the military ("West Point trains leaders"--no, West Points trains
Army leaders.)
>You also wrote:
>But it is very rare to see genuine leadership come out of a committee. It
>happens, but I can think of only once or twice out of hundreds of
>firms I have seen.
>This is a very interesting point. I have lots of ideas why this may be so.
>Let me loosely state some of them. Perhaps people have been empowered to
>act, then to find themselves disempowered when the going gets tough. Only
>to be reempowered some time after. This is what I meant by inconsistency.
>Does the organization owe to a philosophy or subsidiariy? What about the
>industrial mindset of compliance? After all that is the pervading idea
>behind Fayol's, Taylor's and Weber's Ideas. The industrial models demand
>compliance, as opposed to creativity.
Or, if you prefer the psychological, Stanley Milgram's theory of obedience
(see Obedience to Authority) and Latane & Darley's "diffusion of
responsibility" theory from The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He
Help?, both classics of social psychology and rather readable as a bonus.
By the way, McClelland's book The Achieving Society attempts to treat
Weber's theory of the Protestant Reformation leading to the Industrial
Revolution as a testable hypothesis. It is a fascinating attempt to make
history into science.
I think Latane & Darley's point may be the simplest and best reason for
the dearth of committee leadership: the larger the group, the more
diffuse responsibility becomes unless someone chooses to take action.
This is the "well, there are so many people here--someone must have done
it" idea. All it takes is one person to choose to take the initiative in
order for a group to be galvanized into action in crisis. Adding to this
the factor that not everyone has a lot of Power motive, and people who do
like to have an influence on others, means that someone will step forward.
Also, to be picky, if an old theory requires the leader to be all-knowing,
a committee leading requires multiple people to be all-knowing or at least
to be communicating with each other perfectly!
>And that Steve, is where I think the difference lies in the society of
>today. Now more than ever we need effective and creative approaches to
>issues that pervade our corporations, our communities, our clubs and
>associations, our SCHOOLS, etc. Leadership to me, is about creating a
>collective dynamic whereby the creative processes are put to work and
>effective (not necessarily efficient) solutions can be discovered and
>learned. In the days of Caesar the ruling elite made the decisions, in
>essence, the elite were the only ones who has access to leadership. Today,
>more and more people must understand that they do have access to doing
>leadership, all they need to is choose to act.
But note that all male Roman nobility went through a progression of
official positions in the government and military, so that by the time
they were eligible for consul (the highest rank until the Caesars messed
things up) they were extraordinarily well versed in all aspects of the
government of the Republic. This remained even into the Imperial period,
though in reduced form as the bureaucracy flourished. While I am an
amateur of history, I know of nothing remotely similar practiced
since--certainly not in the US since the days of the Founding Fathers.
>We need thousands of leaders and collaborators in thousands of places in
>America, if we have a hope of dealing with the future in any effective
>way.
I agree completely.
Best,
Steve Kelner
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>