I would like to register that "one chuckle" sought by Phillip Rutherford.
As an undergraduate, I experienced the oddity of the same message from two
disciplines - ancient history and Old Testament studies on the one hand and
administrative theory and specifically Herbert Simon and his treatment of
axioms on the other - both suggested facile generalisations about ideal
behaviour, like proverbs, tend to occur in mutually contradictory pairs.
Context-free discussion of "leadership" tends to fall into the same
category and deserves lampooning.
Roger Scott
12:31 AM 7/15/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>There are 6 messages totalling 353 lines in this issue.
>
>Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Characterizing leaders and leadership (5)
> 2. Characterizing leadership and leaders
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:57:09 +1000
>From: Phillip Rutherford <
robnphil@ozemail.com.au>
>Subject: Re: Characterizing leaders and leadership
>
>I have been teaching leadership for over twenty years here and overseas and
>have seen just about every theory, truism or guess about what makes a good
>leader so I will reiterate my comment that there doesn't appear to be any
>singular truth about leadership. Translate that whichever way you want but
>the preponderance of theories and books about so-called exceptional leaders
>who, on closer inspection, are in many cases diametrically opposed to each
>other is all the proof I'm going to put forward as the basis for my comment.
>
>Having said that, I'd like to offer another theory, based on Jean-Marc's
>thoughtful list of what makes up a good leader. Before I do so, however, I
>must emphasise that this list is offered with tongue firmly planted in
>cheek. It is not meant to be taken seriously.
>
>Jean-Marc gives us a "simple list of abilities that characterize strong
>leaders" which I repeat here with my added theory:
> >
> > (a) the ability to quickly grasp the essentials of what's happening and
> > formulate a "best plan" (not necessarily "THE" best and only plan, but
> > something that contributes to positive action);
>
>In other words, a good leader is someone who has a short fuse and gets so
>fed up with nobody else coming up with a plan of action that he/she gets in
>and does it. A good leader therefore is someone with little patience and is
>quite happy to override annointed leaders or the plans (including the plan
>to do nothing) of others.
>
> >
> > (b) flexibility of thought and an open mind that looks for and accepts
> > alternatives, the unconventional or simply the possible, that accepts and
> > learns from mistakes;
>
>A good leader is also a lateral thinker but more likely to be irrational to
>the point of not accepting of the status quo. In many cases, the good
>leader's impatience sees him/her inventing solutions just to see which one
>works. Unfortunately at times these solutions have already been discarded as
>causing too much collateral damage but, to a good leader, collateral damage
>is something that others clean up.
>
> >
> > (c) enough self-worth and self-assurance to share leadership and welcome
> > other, possibly better input;
> >
>This point emphasises the fact that a good leader has a huge ego, but not
>the patience to wait until a good plan an innovative solution comes to
>mind - he/she has to ask others to help out. This intimates that he/she is
>prepared to take the risk of rushing out ahead of the pack but needs to
>confirm that the decision to do so was the right one. Egotistical with a
>touch of self-doubt.
>
> > (d) the ability to establish and maintain effective interpersonal
> > relations for good leader-follower dynamics; and
> >
>An impatient egoist will generally be the one who measures the quality of
>interpersonal relations against his/her own criteria therefore, like all
>communications processes, he/she is the one who says whether or not the
>relations are effective. A good follower never agrees that everything is
>working at its optimum level (especially interpersonal relationships and
>communications) but a pushy egotistical leader probably wouldn't listen
>anyway.
>
> > (e) the capacity to deal with risk and uncertainty.
> >
>Risk management is all about either avoiding risk, minimising it, deflecting
>it to others, or accepting it. The timeframe and the urgency of the task
>will determine which of these management techniques is used. But, if we have
>a pushy, egotistical, impatient non-communicator then quite often he/she
>will be a risk taker, but the self-doubter in him/her could see the need to
>share the risk with others, especially the risk that the plan won't work or,
>it will work but no-one will notice.
>
>So, in summary, a good leader is someone with a high opinion of him/herself,
>is impatient with the status-quo, is prepared to override established
>communications channels (or ignore them altogether), and is a dangerous risk
>taker with a certain amount of self-doubt. Hmm. Don't think I'd like to be
>known as a good leader then.
>
>If you've read all the way to here I hope I hear at least one chuckle.
>
>Phil Rutherford
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 09:52:19 -0400
>From: Charles Wankel <
wankelc@optonline.net>
>Subject: Re: Characterizing leaders and leadership
>
>From: NIREN SANGANI [mailto:
nirensangani@hotmail.com]
>
>With Respect
>
>Why no one has covered the Financial aspect to become a True Leader ,
>every
>leader whether in an organisation or in any other field always has a
>good
>financial support of his own or from outside.,Financial Independence (
>to my
>little knowledge) nowadays, is the major factor for any successful
>leadership, besides the inherent and external capabilities.
>
>If wrongly observed, Can you please check me ?
>
>Best Regards
>
>niren
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:02:28 -0600
>From: Gary Lundquist <
garyl@market-engineering.com>
>Subject: Re: Characterizing leaders and leadership
>
>Colleagues,
>
>Thank you all for your ongoing contributions to this thread. Some lurkers
>are still just lurking.
>
>Phil Rutherford suggests there is no truth about leadership.
>
>I'd tend to agree that there are not absolute truths. Both leadership and
>context for leadership vary too much.
>
>I've developed over the years a method for characterizing things and
>processes. I call it "Intrinsics".
> I develop characteristics as nouns.
> Then for each case, I modify the nouns with adjectives that represent
>the specific instance or situation.
> To organize the nouns, I create four categories of description that
>ensure a full characterization.
>So to describe a product:
> Features (What it is or does): Size
> Capabilities (what one can do with it): Catch fish
> Benefits (results of meeting needs with it): Feed oneself
> Intangibles (image and reputation): Brand image
>
>As I follow this dialog, I find lots of nouns and many useful adjectives. I
>still struggle with naming four category headings that grow from basic
>attributes up to inspiration/genius.
> My first pass was:
> Presence
> Practice
> Perception
> Passion
>I don't think this begins to capture leadership.
>
>The point is that I'm attempting to characterize leadership in a way that
>forces me to think beyond the obvious. At the same time, I'm trying for
>something complete enough to characterize leadership (good, bad,
>indifferent) in any situation.
>
>My method for products is amazingly powerful for marketing. I hope to find
>something just as useful for leadership.
>
>Best,
>
>Gary
>----------------------------
>
>The only way to manage change... is with change.(tm)
>
>Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
>303-840-9929
www.market-engineering.com
>
garyl@market-engineering.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:45:05 +1000
>From: "MARTIN, Amanda" <
Amanda.Martin@qed.qld.gov.au>
>Subject: Re: Characterizing leaders and leadership
>
>Hi all
>
>As a lurker who has been involved in leader development for 8 years and
>around 4,000 people, I agree that there is no absolute truth about
>leadership that I can write.
>
>However, I can almost immediately tell a good one when I see them in action,
>either in the workplace or in a leadership program. They shine.
>
>I think it's difficult for us to put into the written word what is
>attractive about them as leaders. I think it's like the vision thing - as
>soon as you put it into writing, it loses something and others then respond
>to the words, and not the spirit behind the words. So it's experiential for
>me.
>
>warm regards
>
>Amanda
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gary Lundquist [mailto:
garyl@market-engineering.com]
>Sent: Monday, 15 July 2002 8:02 AM
>To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: Characterizing leaders and leadership
>
>
>Colleagues,
>
>Thank you all for your ongoing contributions to this thread. Some lurkers
>are still just lurking.
>
>Phil Rutherford suggests there is no truth about leadership.
>
>I'd tend to agree that there are not absolute truths. Both leadership and
>context for leadership vary too much.
>
>I've developed over the years a method for characterizing things and
>processes. I call it "Intrinsics".
> I develop characteristics as nouns.
> Then for each case, I modify the nouns with adjectives that represent
>the specific instance or situation.
> To organize the nouns, I create four categories of description that
>ensure a full characterization.
>So to describe a product:
> Features (What it is or does): Size
> Capabilities (what one can do with it): Catch fish
> Benefits (results of meeting needs with it): Feed oneself
> Intangibles (image and reputation): Brand image
>
>As I follow this dialog, I find lots of nouns and many useful adjectives. I
>still struggle with naming four category headings that grow from basic
>attributes up to inspiration/genius.
> My first pass was:
> Presence
> Practice
> Perception
> Passion
>I don't think this begins to capture leadership.
>
>The point is that I'm attempting to characterize leadership in a way that
>forces me to think beyond the obvious. At the same time, I'm trying for
>something complete enough to characterize leadership (good, bad,
>indifferent) in any situation.
>
>My method for products is amazingly powerful for marketing. I hope to find
>something just as useful for leadership.
>
>Best,
>
>Gary
>----------------------------
>
>The only way to manage change... is with change.(tm)
>
>Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
>303-840-9929
www.market-engineering.com
>
garyl@market-engineering.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:35:40 -0600
>From: Gary Lundquist <
garyl@market-engineering.com>
>Subject: Re: Characterizing leadership and leaders
>
>Colleagues,
>
>George Graen wrote, " If you seek to be seen as a leader in your
>organization, build, inherit or fall into a well developed partnership
>network."
>
>By your note, George, I would conclude that relationships are the key to
>leadership. Or perhaps more conservatively, that leaders succeed in large
>part by developing relationships.
>
>A few years ago, I consulted for British Petroleum, in their internal
>technology group. They asked me to find out how their customers (inside BP)
>chose their service providers. I did the required market research, and drew
>the following figure:
>
> Relationships
> >> <<
> >> >>
>Trust Opportunities
> << <<
> << <<
> Performance
>
>At the time, I didn't think much about it. Later, I had to write a whole
>book about it. I call this "the basic opportunity system". Simply stated,
>it says that:
> Relationships deliver opportunities.
> Opportunities enable relationships.
>
>If we don't "do" relationships, we find ourselves without opportunities.
>Now George would say, we also find ourselves without followers.
>
>I must agree. It seems my system for marketing is a system for leadership.
>Fascinating.
>
>Thanks George.
>----------------------------
>Pre-planning 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
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:44:50 EDT
>From: George Graen <
Lmxlotus@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: Characterizing leaders and leadership
>
>Phil,
>
>I strongly agree with your experience-based conclusions regarding "Romantic
>Leadership". But, I just as strongly disagree that we know nothing about the
>partnership based augmentation of team influence that we call LMX leadership.
>
>According to our view, LMX leadership resides in teams of two or more and is
>defined as an increment in influence contributed by team partnerships.
>
>In a military squad context, it is the difference between a squad of
>strangers and a squad of partners: the strangers only do their jobs and the
>partners do their jobs and more. Moreover, the former perform as expected
>and the latter exceed expectations.
>
>GBG
>/jag
>George Graen, Ph.D.
>University of Louisiana Lafayette
>Management Department
>(479) 631-9394
>(479) 631-9365 (Fax)
>
lmxlotus@aol.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of MG-ED-DV Digest - 12 Jul 2002 to 14 Jul 2002 (#2002-149)
>***************************************************************