Gary, Ed and others who have responded and those yet to respond,
I think that leadership is one of those topics that really deserves a
dialogue/discussion because it is not a neat and clean subject that can be
defined and categorized as many would like it to be. Leadership is one of
those messy, hard-to-pin-down topics that really reflects the messiness of
humans. I spent a good deal of my life in an organization that prided itself
on developing leaders as a bi-product of its being: the Army. I attended
numerous schools that taught leadership, learned theories and what to do and
not to do. There were a couple of schools that really focused on leadership
without ever teaching a class on the theories of leadership! These school
required us to accomplish tasks and get those with us to participate. What I
gathered out of these was that leadership is a very personal thing. What
works for one may not nor probably will not work for others. We all dig deep
down when required to and pull out those actions that we feel will work best
for us. Robert Quinn's book "Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within"
does an excellent job of describing and providing tools for recognizing what
we each have to bring to the 'leadership table'. Leadership probably appears
differently at different levels, tactical vs. operational vs., strategic,
but I think there may be some commonalities that stretch across all of the
levels.
Gary asked for stories of good, bad, lack of, etc. leadership and I think
that may be the best way to understand leadership is through stories,
examples, folk lore, books and movies. I like to use movies that depict
leaders in various situations in a course I teach on leadership because they
can really depict what it is all about. Both true and fictional accounts
work as they may be better (or worse) at describing leadership but they
convey the lack of structure or finiteness of the topic. Books also place
leadership and leaders into the context in which they demonstrate their
leadership and we get to see how messy and chaotic it can be while they
clear up the situations they are faced with. I think great books such as
Anton Myrer's fictional "Once and Eagle" and Dave Hackworth's similar true
story "About Face" , Hal Moore's "We Were Soldiers Once and Young", Michael
Useem's "The Leadership Moment", Stephen Ambrose's "Band of Brothers"., Dave
Hackworth's "Steel My Soldier's Hearts" are all great examples of both
wild, flamboyant type leaders and those that are solid, strict and
demanding. "We Were Soldiers Once" is also a great movie despite minor
changes from the book. There is a tendency to focus on Hal Moore (Mel
Gibson's role) but by looking in deeper we see the leadership portrayed by
Moore's wife as she handled the other wives back home and the notification
of the families of the KIAs or the old, crusty Sergeant Major who exuded
confidence and cool under fire or a number of other 'leaders' regardless of
their organizational position. Another great (in my opinion) movie is
"Remember the Titans" not only for the role played by Denzel Washington but
the actions of others on the staff and the team. Others include Gladiator,
Heart Break Ridge, Hackers, Apollo 13, Norma Rae, Toy Story, among the many
that depict leadership in one form or another.
Its difficult to explain why these people were 'good' leaders but by
watching them or retelling the story, we begin to understand. This may very
well be one of those topics that never really is quite explained to anyone's
satisfaction but those of us who have experienced it will know what it is or
isn't. Its just the daunting task of passing that on (teaching is just not
strong enough to convey it) to others. I have read and heard that good
leaders are good story tellers and maybe that is the first step to
understanding leadership is that we have to talk about it, talk about what
we have seen and experienced, and try begin to understand it.
Ken Rossi, Ed.D.
Asst. Professor of Information Systems
Hawaii Pacific University
Honolulu, Hawaii
(808) 544-1412
rossik001@hawaii.rr.com
krossi@hpu.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Hampton" <
ehampton@mail.ucf.edu>
To: <
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Characterizing leaders and leadership
Gary,
Great question.
Some random insights that I have gained working and teaching in this area:
a. Leaders do not automatically nor necessarily create leadership
b. Leadership is a synergistic dynamic that chiefly affects the
organization/group thru influence. It operates as a field.
c. Leadership and Management are both needed. They operate as a
dissipative structure, i.e. are in dynamic homeostasis
d. Leadership is a creates very loose, fluid controls that allow
equifinality to operate. Management is structure-oriented and, hence,
dampens equifinality
e. A key factor in leadership is where the locus of control rests. In
leadership, the locus of control is shared between leader and follower in a
symbiotic and dynamic homeostasis. In management, the locus of control
rests with the manager.
f. Leadership does not necessarily come from the leader or,
necessarily a human being for that matter. Leadership can come from
inanimate things like organizational structure, icons, values, etc. (For
example, go stand in a church or library in the dawning of a Sunday morning
and observe the influence.)
g. Leadership encompasses the messy parts of human beings, the heart
and guts, that management treats as burden or cost.
h. A fundamental pre-requisite for leadership is trust
i. Leadership is more risk tolerant than management.
j. The continued existence of the state of leadership very much depends
upon a sound value structure
k. People often make the mistake of treating leadership as a monolith.
In fact, leadership behaves very different at the tactical, operational, and
strategic levels. Leadership at the tactical level operates largely thru in
terpersonal dynamic. Leadership at the operational level operates thru the
interactions of activities. Leadership at the strategic level is about the
interplay of icons.
l. Leadership is very inefficient but, I think, in many settings is
more effective than management - - particularly those in which the decision
context is uncertainty or things are generally in chaos (absent of patterns,
patterns are deteriorating, or patterns are just emerging)
There is much more to be said, of course, but the above is what comes to
mind at the moment.
Kind wishes.
Ed
Drive On!
>>>
wankelc@optonline.net 07/02/02 10:11AM >>>
From: Gary Lundquist [mailto:
garyl@market-engineering.com]
Colleagues,
Webster's Dictionary suggests that the person at the head of a moving
line
is a leader.
Military practice grants leader status to anyone authorized to
command.
Some companies promote people into the ranks of "leadership."
Dozens of business books characterize leadership, each from an unique
perspective. It's dizzying.
I want to open a dialog about leadership. I'd like to hear from a wide
range of people.
Concept of leadership.
Stories of leadership. (or the lack of leadership)
Especially... characterization of leadership (or lack thereof)
Especially... processes of leadership or actions taken by leaders.
(or
processes or actions not part of leading)
For those out there who lurk... Please "unlurk" for a few minutes and
share
your views. Share the views of those you respect. The broader the
dialog,
the more valuable our mutual learning will be.
I'll begin:
All leadership is change leadership.
While leading, all leaders have a vision - a mental picture of a
desired
end result.
Peter Drucker, "Managing in Turbulent Times": "Management is doing
things right. Leadership is doing the right things."
I'd like to see 50 people share their views. Or 100.
Thank you.
Gary
----------------------------
Pre-planning accelerates planning accelerates performance.
Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
303-840-9929
www.market-engineering.com
garyl@market-engineering.com