Discussion: View Thread

I have followed with great interest and equal amounts of confusion, the
theme of leadership and how it has been contrasted with management. I
had also promised to respond to Ken Friedman's very thoughtful response
to my earlier posting. Lack of time and other duties kept me from the
latter. Now I wish to attempt a response...to keep the conversation
going.

I won't repeat Ken's response (because of it's length), but I do
recommend those who still have it to re-read it. Also to re-read some
of the other postings related to the topic. I will, however, integrate
some of the key passages.

Ken responded to my posting concerning the contrast between "process
leadership" and "outcome leadership", (with Hitler and Christ given as
examples.) I realized as I read and re-read Ken's posting, that we had
failed to define exactly what we meant by "leader". I sought through
other postings to see if anyone had defined what we were discussing.
Sure enough, someone had, but I hadn't paid sufficient attention to it.

Erwin Rausch penned the following insight:
"The word 'leadership' has evaded an acceptable definition because it is
just a word - and nothing more. It takes on meaning only from the
definition of the writer whose work is slanted by an advance opinion, or
results from the direction of the respective research question or
hypothesis."

In the absence of a definitive challenge to this statement, or an offer
of a clear definition, I concluded that we have been discussing
something, about which we have exchanged little agreement.

Once we add a descriptive term to "leader" such as good or bad, moral or
immoral, autocratic or democratic, manipulative, etc., we move into the
realm of value judgment and confirm Erwin's insight. Gary Lundquist has
shared some interesting insights on these value judgments, so I won't
repeat them here.

What then is "a leader"? Is there a common definition we can agree on?
Or will we continue to use a term that "takes on meaning only from the
definition of the writer whose work is slanted by an advance opinion"?
I believe our "disagreements" stem from this lack of clarity, in
addition to the inclusion of value judgments we have added.

The dictionary defines the term "leader" as "a person that leads"; "a
person who directs a military force or unit"; "a person who has
commanding authority or influence". No doubt, other terms could be
included.

When I made the distinction between "process and outcome" leader, and
included the examples of Hitler and Jesus, my intent was to describe
characteristics. However, I realize now that I introduced value
judgments, which may have clouded the issue. So let's clarify some of
those values. Perhaps we can explore this with a few questions:

1. What makes for a GOOD leader?
2. Do GOOD OUTCOMES equate with GOOD PROCESS and vice versa?

3. Does the END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? Or the MEANS JUSTIFY THE END?
4. What is the role of INTENTION? Must the leader intend to lead, and
the followers intend to follow?
5. Must FREE CONSENT be given by followers/those ruled?
6. If leadership must be seen in HISTORICAL CONTEXT, what is the
difference between current and revisionist interpretation?


What makes for a GOOD leader?

"Christ was a great leader." "Hitler was a terrible leader." Sadam
Hussein, Osamma bin Laden, Gadhaffi, and Castro would probably all be on
the same list with Hitler. These men are perceived as evil,
manipulative, deceitful, intimidators. Mother Theresa, Ghandi, and
Martin Luther King would, on the other hand, be on the list with Christ
because they were gentle, loving, supportive and morally upright.

What makes one good and the other evil? Their actions...or our
preconceived (value based) judgment? Their methods of leading...or the
outcomes? If by their outcomes, what happens if/when a person has many
followers at one stage in their life, but looses them later? Or if
historians look back on them and reveal different aspects of their
character or behavior that their loyal followers didn't know. (JF
Kennedy and Bill Clinton come to mind). Is historical reinterpretation
more valid than contemporary support?

What is the role of INTENTION?

"The good guys govern/lead with the consent of their followers. The bad
guys are coercive, and rule with deceit and intimidation." At the time
of Christ, the Romans conquered the world, and were at times ruled
ruthlessly. Did that make the Emperors any less leaders? Did the Jews
and other peoples of that time simply acquiesce, or did they use the
situation to further their own goals, given the set of circumstances
they were under?

Gary shared the following:

"The autocratic leader (drill-sear type) might declare value to be
the absence of punishment, and lead by threat. That type of leader
hasn't received any support from this group.
The charlatan convinces us for a time with smooth talk that seems so
leader-like. If we focus on value, searching for the mutual wins, we
can diagnose this type. (Trust what they do, not what they say.)
The manipulator can seem value driven, yet takes far more from the
relationship than the followers. (CEOs paid tens of millions while
staff lose their retirement.) Follow the sign of the $. They are
driven by personal profit, not mutual gain.
The selfless leader sacrifices everything for a cause. The
principle of value suggests a better way.
The balanced leader puts the relationship first, giving and drawing
from the strengths of the team to accomplish goals of recognized, mutual
value."

Is a person less a leader because he uses threat, smooth talk, or
manipulation? Can we dismiss foreign heads of state because their
countries do not uphold democratic principles? Are people any less
loyal followers because they are duped or lacking in full
awareness?

Sorry, I am not proposing answers. I have many more questions. I
struggle with these. Can some offer new insights? Can we keep this
thread alive?

Colleagues,

Bob Carr has reopened the leadership dialog with new and interesting questions. It is no trivial matter to assimilate the work we've already done and synthesize a summary.

Bob suggested that part of our problem is that we haven't defined " leader." If I've gained anything from this thread, it is that "leader" and "leadership" are very fluid concepts.
A friend who teaches leadership commercially says that leaders are defined by the questions they ask.

I'm beginning to see a few points of consensus from our dialog to date:

Abilities: Leaders have suites of knowledge, skills, and capabilities (including processes). Some of those can be taught; others may need to be learned in practice. (One key skill is decision making.) Even a boiled down list from our work will probably contain two dozen core abilities.

Balance: Leaders both set directions and convince others to follow. Leaders both use processes and achieve outcomes. Leaders balance listening with directing, learning with informing. Leading per se needs management to achieve goals. I'd guess I'll find a dozen or so balance concepts in our work so far.

Focus: A leader has a vision that sets direction, and the leader believes strongly in that vision. Leaders may invent their visions or use ones developed by others. We talk about morality and rightness of vision, yet we can all agree that excellent leadership can be used for visions we don't agree with.
Focus includes the leader's sense of mission, sense of image, clarity of vision, ability to see the future through the eyes of stakeholders, and more.

Influence: Leaders achieve goals by influencing people, cultures, beliefs, behaviors, organizations, and sometimes whole civilizations. They inspire, cajole, corrupt, teach, mentor, and otherwise motivate.
Influence implies change. Leaders initiate and sustain change by influencing others to cooperate in that change.

Each of the four categories contain a wide range of characteristics which can be described by some level of strength or weakness. Strengths vary with leader, experience, and a wide range of situation factors. Sometimes certain strengths are key to success; other times the same strengths are wasted energy.

I'd argue that any effective leader (who consistently achieves results through a followership) has strengths in all four categories. I'm not sure that these four categories completely characterize leadership.

Bob asked, "What makes for a GOOD LEADER?"
I'd now say, the right leader for the time is the person (or perhaps team) with the right mix of abilities, balance, focus, and influence.

Bob asked, "Do GOOD OUTCOMES equate with GOOD PROCESS and vice versa?"
I'd now say, process is a strategy, a method used to achieve desired outcomes. Without process strengths (capabilities), leaders will be less effective in delivering desired outcomes.
On the other hand, a process for building followership may be sufficient - if the followers have the required process strengths. (e.g., a non-military leader who attracts followers with military process strengths)

Fabrizio Maimone asked about "Top/down leadership vs down/top leadership" and "shared leadership".
I see this question again as one of capabilities. Is the leader a learner? Can the leader learn from followers? Can the leader truly delegate responsibility and, in that domain, accept leadership of others with greater capabilities strengths?
One can accept discipline leadership without giving up focus leadership. The influence of a team is likely to be larger than the influence of one person.

Fabrizio asked about the impact of culture on leadership.
I see culture (national, social, corporate) as emphasizing certain strengths over others and, perhaps, structuring the environment to enable some strengths and disable others.
Again, the best leader is the one with the "right stuff" for the situation.

Enough for now.

Best to all,

Gary
----------------------------
Strategy accelerates planning accelerates performance.
Strategic Pre-planning (Rich Visioning)
Adaptive Planning (Businesses, products)
Precise Performance (Strategies, tactics)
Leadership accelerates management accelerates operations.

Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
303-840-9929 www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com