Discussion: View Thread

Bear with me, dear readers, because I'm going to come at this in a somewhat
roundabout way.

In catching up on some old e-mail correspondence, I came across a posting
from a project management discussion list in which I remarked that the
so-called new RACI charts weren't new at all, they were simply the current
version of what was known back in the 1950s (and ever since) as Linear
Responsibility Charts (LRCs). I promised a subsequent inquirer that I
would dig out my copies of some old articles dealing with LRCs and send
along a copy (which I did today). In the course of digging out the old LRC
articles, I came across a file folder with some of my old articles in it,
including copies of letters to various editors of magazines such as
BusinessWeek, Fortune and Harvard Business Review. I keep only those
letters of mine that are published and one of them was to Walter Kiechel,
then a senior editor at Fortune, now the editorial director of Harvard
Business School Publishing. The letter, published in the June 27, 1983
issue of Fortune's Letters to Fortune, was in response to an earlier
article in Fortune about a young, associate professor who was setting off
to visit the military academies to study leadership. As a former Navyman,
I couldn't pass up the opportunity that earlier article offered. Here,
then, is my letter, exactly as it appears on page 17 of the June 27, 1983
issue of Fortune.

"As a former Navy chief petty officer who grappled with the
problems of trying to "teach" leadership to senior petty officers and
junior officers, I can safely predict what the young associate professor
who wants to visit the military academies to find out about leadership will
find: not much of anything. This is not to say that the military knows
nothing of leadership -- it knows a great deal; rather, it is to say that
he begins his search in the wrong place. He should talk first to the men
and women the academy graduates will command. To lead, one must first know
how to follow, because it is only from the viewpoint of a follower that one
can reflect on the basis of followership, which, when turned about, becomes
the essence of leadership.
My own conclusion is that one cannot train leaders, but one can
learn to lead. And the first lesson of leadership is that one does not set
out to lead -- one sets out to do something else instead.

Hmm. This list is devoted to management education and development is it
not? I wonder if that "young associate professor" has by chance wound up a
member of this list and, if so, if he or she would share what was learned
from those visits to the military academies?

nickols@safe-t.net 07/15/02 02:18PM
My own conclusion is that one cannot train leaders, but one can
learn to lead. And the first lesson of leadership is that one does not set
out to lead -- one sets out to do something else instead.
Hmm. This list is devoted to management education and development is it
not? I wonder if that "young associate professor" has by chance wound up a
member of this list and, if so, if he or she would share what was learned
from those visits to the military academies?

Fred,

While I am not "young" nor am I "young associate professor" but I have visited West Point and the Air Force Academy; I still would like to offer two comments for your consideration and - hopefully - comment.

I have developed respect your work and contributions to the list over the past couple of years. This is offered with that great respect foremost in my mind.

First, much of what the military teaches as leadership is really management. My experience is that this is a disservice to young leaders because it causes confused behavior. Both management and leadership are needed. They must operate as part of a Venn diagram. That is, leadership is needed to deal with chaotic environments where equifinality, agility, initiative, etc. are critical dynamics (e.g. the battlefield) but management is needed to provide necessary stability and discipline. A fighting force that is pure chaos is not at fighting force any more than rain drops in a thunder storm is a purposeful force - while a hydrojet that is well shaped - that is a well managed water stream - is.

What exacerbates this is that leadership is promoted at the expense of management and, often, management is pooh-poohed as too corporate. The reality of life is that to survive in a military career and, more importantly, to create effective fighting forces, one has to use management tools and dynamics effectively - IN ADDITION TO leadership; albeit the case can be made that leadership is rightly the overarching, ascendant dynamic.

Second, while I agree with the first part of your assertion (I really like the phraseology of it and its eloquence); I respectfully offer a countering viewpoint to the second part.

My experience with developing leaders is that a crucial first step to becoming a leader is to decide to lead. There is no way that anyone can lead unless they take that crucial first step. Forcing someone to lead who adamantly does not want to is like getting a two year old in the middle of temper tantrum to do something. The only difference is you are going to know exactly how the two year old feels but the impressed leader is probably going to display a lot of passive aggressive or helplessing behavior. I have seen the damage that comes from such and would never allow it if I can prevent it.

The conscious decision is even more so for SUSTAINED leadership. While I might agree that a person can create accidentally short term leadership, long term, sustained leadership takes so much energy and intelligence that a person MUST be make a absolutely sure, conscious, deliberate, and tenacious decision to do so. Promoting or creating the expectation of leadership and then not or not able to carry thru is a sure fire recipe for destroying the morale and commitment of the people in an organization.

Kind wishes.

Ed
Drive On!

Ed,

Having taught leadership to junior and potential army officers over a period
of some 10-15 years I would suggest that leadership training in the military
is not, in every country, "...really management." In our country at least
the principles of leadership and the functions (not traits or
characteristics) of leaders are taught, but the actual application of
leadership and the assessment as to whether or not these budding leaders can
actually lead is carried out on-the-job and throughout their tenure as
cadets or junior officers. This is why leadership is taught so early in the
officer training curriculum and assessed throughout the remainder of the
individual's training or career.

Having said that, I have seen some very good 'managers' come out of officer
and NCO training, some of whom graduated dux in leadership theory, but who
couldn't lead a thirsty horse to a drink in the middle of a flood. We had a
special assessment category for these people - 'Their subordinates would
only follow them out of sheer curiosity.' On the other hand, I've also seen
some hopeless managers who flunked the theory but came out tops when it came
to practical leadership.

What you've got to remember is that up until the Vietnam war most officer
training courses were cut short, or special short courses were introduced,
in order to get enough officers to the front lines. And it is these men and
women who've gone on to be the subjects of the history we teach (to
paraphrase the West Point motto). Personally I believe this proves that
there is little or no correlation between the formal training or education
that a military officer receives and his/her ability to lead men and women .

Can this theory be applied to the civilian world as well? Interesting
concept for a PhD methinks.

On another point, you also say that in your experience the first crucial
step to becoming a leader is the decision to lead. My experience, again, is
that most of those people who assume leadership (ie, as opposed to being
nominated to the job) are those who are frustrated that nobody else is
getting on and leading the group. In nearly every case, when a leader is not
appointed to a group one will eventually emerge - and, as I said, usually
out of frustration.

Anyway, as I said, this has been my experience.

Cheers

Phil Rutherford

Phil,

I have enjoyed your postings over the years. This one was no exception.

Let me clarify my thoughts on a few items.

a. First, I did not say military leadership training is "really management". I said a lot of what is taught as leadership is really management. I think the military - and corporations who are riding the leadership pendulum too far so as to tout leadership to the exclusion of management - do a disservice when they do that. Applying leadership when management is needed and applying management approaches when leadership approaches are needed can very well mean the difference between success and failure. I think any institution - military or civilian - that does not teach both and the different utilities of both, create a propensity for error.

For emphasis: Leadership and management are very different and uniquely expressed dynamics. Both leadership and management are needed. The military especially needs leadership for fluid situations like the battlefield but it needs management for the supply room, motor pool, etc. As has been discussed, leadership is more about allowing/enabling/facilitating equifinality for gaining effective decisions while management tends to be more about maintaining structure for the most direct and efficient route to a solution. In a sense leadership is a trail blazing, exploratory dynamic where the optimal solution is not clearly defined and/or obvious while management is best suited for where the path has been blazed and there is a desire to limit behavior to that path.

b. Regarding the first step to leadership being sometimes taken out of frustration, I agree. When I teach my freshman leadership class, I start the first day with a leaderless group activity. I will come into the class just before time to start and will sit in the back. My dress and gray hair makes it pretty obvious I am not a student. Yet, I say nothing. I have done this since 1994, once each semester. The results are almost always the same. The class gets quiet about the time class should start. Some step into "boxes" that define the role "student", i.e. they quiet down, waiting submissively for the authority figure to speak. Others continue with personal agendas. Some will look at me nervously. Some will even say "hi". I get other helplessing, passive aggressive, or confused behaviors. I ignore them. I wait for a the act of a leader, someone who will ask me to lead the class. If none emerges after five minutes (occasionally one does), I turn off the lights. (We later discuss how this represents a leader who comes in and maintains a high facade, ala the Johari Window.) A leader emerges. We then talk about how that decision to become the leader occurs and why, in a room full of self proclaimed leaders, others did not step up - why did people allow themselves to be uncomfortable victims. The teaching point: the absence of leadership creates a vacuum. Nature (and groups abhor a vacuum) and a leader will emerge. Importantly, the leader who emerges is a creation of the informal organization. Then we can get into discussing how the inaction or fumbling of a formal leader contributes to the lost chance to effect leadership by allowing such an informal leader to emerge. And how that sets the stage for potential formal-informal organizational-based conflict.

c. Regarding the correlation of education to leadership, I agree there probably is none or if there is one, it is very low. As I have stated elsewhere, leadership is very much a dynamic of the heart, the soul, the gut. It takes intelligence but more emotional intelligence than IQ.

Always a pleasure to "talK" to one who has fought the good fight.

Kind wishes.

Ed
Drive On!

Ed,

Thanks for clarifying the thrust of your initial post. I missed the first
half of the sentence and totally took your point out of context. Sorry.

As for the rest of your reply - well said. I couldn't agree more.

Kind regards

Phil Rutherford


----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Hampton" <ehampton@mail.ucf.edu>
To: <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] More on Leadership -- from 1983


Phil,

I have enjoyed your postings over the years. This one was no exception.

Let me clarify my thoughts on a few items.

a. First, I did not say military leadership training is "really
management". I said a lot of what is taught as leadership is really
management. I think the military - and corporations who are riding the
leadership pendulum too far so as to tout leadership to the exclusion of
management - do a disservice when they do that. Applying

Sorry to take so long in responding but I've been out of the country on
business.

Anyway, n earlier posting of mine contained this segment:

> My own conclusion is that one cannot train leaders, but one can
>learn to lead. And the first lesson of leadership is that one does not set
>out to lead -- one sets out to do something else instead.

Edward Hampton wrote in response:

>...while I agree with the first part of your assertion (I really like the
>phraseology of it and its eloquence); I respectfully offer a countering
>viewpoint to the second part.
>
>My experience with developing leaders is that a crucial first step to
>becoming a leader is to decide to lead. There is no way that anyone can
>lead unless they take that crucial first step. Forcing someone to lead
>who adamantly does not want to is like getting a two year old in the
>middle of temper tantrum to do something. The only difference is you are
>going to know exactly how the two year old feels but the impressed leader
>is probably going to display a lot of passive aggressive or helplessing
>behavior. I have seen the damage that comes from such and would never
>allow it if I can prevent it.
>
>The conscious decision is even more so for SUSTAINED leadership. While I
>might agree that a person can create accidentally short term leadership,
>long term, sustained leadership takes so much energy and intelligence that
>a person MUST be make a absolutely sure, conscious, deliberate, and
>tenacious decision to do so. Promoting or creating the expectation of
>leadership and then not or not able to carry thru is a sure fire recipe
>for destroying the morale and commitment of the people in an organization.

I think many people make a conscious decision to take the lead, to assume
the mantle or burden of leadership. I also think many people take the lead
almost instinctively and don't give it a lot of conscious, deliberate
thought. I further believe some take it up because it is more or less
forced upon them -- not necessarily by people but by circumstances. [As a
relevant aside, I believe it was Woodrow Wilson who once said something
like, "There are no extraordinary people, only extraordinary circumstances,
and ordinary people either rise to meet them or they don't." For me, there
is great insight in that statement.]

More important, I don't think a conscious, rational decision to take the
lead "counters" what I said. The goal of a leader is not to lead per se;
it is to accomplish some other end or aim. Assuming the mantle or burden
of leadership might well be necessary to achieving the end in question but
that doesn't mean that the "leader" in question set out to lead.

There might well be "leaders for all seasons," which is what I infer from
your remarks above but I suspect they are extremely rare.


Regards,

Fred Nickols
740.397.2363
nickols@safe-t.net
"Assistance at a Distance"
http://home.att.net/~nickols/articles.htm

Colleagues,

Fred Nickols wrote, "The goal of a leader is not to lead per se;
it is to accomplish some other end or aim."

This is a lesson I've learned over and over.

When I was a scientist, I thought science was an end result. As I evolved
into marketing, I told scientists, "Science is just a tool for achieving
results." Of course, I was then preaching marketing as an end result.

Now we come to leadership, and of course leadership is another tool. To say
that leadership is more or less important than science or marketing is
missing the point. Each has its place. We are more capable when we have a
richer tool set.

Leadership seems to me to be a very strategic toolkit, and marketing (the
way I do it) is more strategic than science. We can't achieve goals without
both strategy and tactics, without both thought leaders and implementers.

When I started this thread, it was and is to understand how to recognize
leadership "tools" and be able to (or help others to) put them into a kit of
other tools needed to accomplish tasks and reach goals.

Some leadership may be accidental or situational. Some leaders, however,
consciously develop their tools and work to improve them.

Best,

Gary

----------------------------

Change agent skills are as important to careers
as are professional discipline skills.

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