Dutch,
I have made some brief comments, and included my original post at the
end. Enjoy.
Regards
Dave
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, David J. Lemak wrote:
> Dutch,
> You actually reinforce the case I presented back in January - There is no
> such thing as leadership! Would be happy to re-post if anyone's
> interested.
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Dutch Driver wrote:
>
> > I thought I would share my response to Julie's question from another list,
> > since the question was raised about how do we teach leaders. For sake of
> > discussion here, I have added on some bits of wisdom I have collected in
> > regards to this question in the addendum.
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Julie wrote:
> >
> > > I am a student at the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science. I am
> > > taking a course called leadership and development. One of our assignments
> > > was to join a listserv and post a question regarding leadership. I hope
> > > someone could help me. My question is:
> > > Who do you consider to be the most influential and inspirational leader today
> > > in the United States and why?
> >
> > I know that this will be considered trite, but I nominate the person who
> > is reading this message down to this period.
> >
> > You may ask why--and you should. The person who is reading this response
> > acknowledges that there some intangible skill involved with leadership
> > that you do not yet possess. And, if you ask enough questions you will
> > understand what IT is that you are lacking IT will enable you to become
> > the leader you want to be. So you study, and read, and study, and read
> > until you understand that you have the capacity and the capability to lead
> > but you still lack the one essential ingredient. And, still IT eludes
> > your grasp. IT is just there--close enough for you to see IT, close
> > enough for you to brush IT gently with your eyelashes. You developed
> > an intimate vocabulary with IT. IT tantalizes you with its teasing
> > knowledge of your short-comings.
> >
> > Then one day, IT finds an ally and the two team-up against you. You begin
> > to lose ground in your attempt to become the choragus you desperately seek
> > to become.
To wit, I contend there is no IT (as a social science construct), but even
if there is, we can't define it,
and we certainly can't teach anyone about it (IT), or how to deal with it
or how to defeat it.
> > Each of us has our IT and its more than willing ally, Julie. The fact of
> > the matter is, when you identify your IT and defeat IT, you will be the
> > most influential leader in the U. S. I believe that the battle for
> > influence begins and ends with each single person. I did not give you
> > the easy answer you were most likely seeking, yet it is one that is truer
> > than if I had answered with _____________.
Now, if we can define IT as some recognition that most of our shortcomings
and limitations are self-imposed, I reply yea, verily and hear, hear!
> > Good luck with your paper.
> > _____________________________________
> > Addendum:
> >
> > A clay pot sitting in the sun will always be a clay pot. It has to go
> > through the white heat of the furnace to become porcelain.
> > --Mildred Witte Stouven
> >
> > So it goes with the teaching of leaders, they should be put in situations
> > where they have to step up and take command of the situation. One of the
> > courses I took in the MBA program at Texas A&M required groupwork, as a
> > student of communication, not business, I applaud the requirement despite
> > the massive physical and psychological effort it took to get it done. I
> > grew in that process thus confirming my belief in the following bit of
> > wisdom.
> >
> >
> > Do you remember being in left field? Thinking to yourself--`Don't hit the
> > ball to me. Don't hit the ball to me.'
> >
> > I believe that there is a fundemental change in a kid's life when that
> > thought changes into `Hit the ball to me. I want the ball. Hit it to
> > me.'
> > Paraphrased from Jody Powell on PBS' documentary "Baseball"
> >
> > And I believe this to be true of leaders.
Exactly - and that's why we can't teach it. See below.
______________________
> > Great Optimism,
> >
> > Dutch Driver
> > Dept. of Communication
> > McMurry University
> > Abilene, TX
> >
ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu
A repost of "There is no such thing as leadership"
What do we (as social scientists) mean by "leadership"? It is nothing more
than a construct. If a construct is to be useful (i.e., to help us
understand and predict a phenomenon), it should have some specific
properties. It should be precisely and uniquely defined, it should be
measureable, and those measurements should be reliable and valid.
At this point, let me ask a simple question. What is your definition of
"management"? While it may have a number of dimensions, most of us would
agree that it has something to do with organizing, allocating and using
resources to achieve some goal or outcome in an efficient manner.
What is "leadership?" Part of the answer can be found in the OB literature
going back to the 1950s. There is: the trait approach, the Ohio State and
Michigan studies, the Blake Mouton leadership grid, the Feidler
contingency model, the House and Mitchell path-goal model, the Schmidt and
Tannebaum behavioral model, the Vroom-Yetton-Jago model, the leader-member
exchange model, the life cycle model and now, the all new and improved
"transformational" leader model. Near as I can tell, we do not have a
unique, operational definition to even start the debate. So, how can we
proceed with the measurement of the phenomenon in any reliable and valid
way if we can't even define it? If the answer is that there are "many"
definitions, then the arguement still holds, if leadership is 'everything"
then it is nothing.
So where does that leave us? Much like the arguments about pornography - I
can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Just because leadership has
no construct validity in social science doesn't mean that there are not
certain people who can influence people to do things they might not
otherwise do, like throw themselves on live hand grenades or work 90 hour
weeks developing software. Rather, we are left to ask ourselves, what is
the nature of that phenomenon, and how do we understand it?
Going back full circle to Fayol, I would argue that those in organizations
who do managerial kinds of things sometimes exhibit that phenomenon in any
number of ways - communication skills, interpersonal skills, listening
skills, etc. All of these can be taught in management classes (or at least
practiced in the low threat environment of the classroom). Teach
leadership? I don't think so - remember, we can't even define it! Teach
management ideas/concepts-sure! Develop, hone and practice management
skills (speaking, writing working in teams, etc. - absolutely!
Anyway, I hoped to bring a new dimension to the debate. Arguing that
behavior A is manangement and behavior B is leadership is fruitless, in my
humble opinion.
Enjoy! With thanks and acknowledgement to Col Chuck Yoos, U.S. Air Force
Academy, for many bouts of intellectual jousting in this and other arenas.
Regards to all
Dave Lemak