Eugene Taurman replied to LO17748 and this has been a most interesting
thread for me.
I want to reply to his rather involved message. First, Gene thanks for
your reply and your message, it has given me a lot of stuff to work with
and a lot to reply to. Forgive the critical commentary but I want to
demonstrate the difference between what you are saying and what I would
say, that is the difference between the industrial notion of leadership
and what could be called the postindustrial or using the term I like, the
collaborative leadership perspective.
First, I know Joe Rost would agree with me here, I would say much of what
you said is industrial in its flavor and intent.
Let me give you specifics.
First In your opening paragraph you said "Leadership consists of a
process,methods and skills both acquired and natural. It is common to all
leaders from street gangs to nations."
Upon what do you base this comment? Great Man theory? This has been
resoundedly debunked. Leadership is not what great men do! Trait theory?
Sorry, this has also been resoundedly debunked. Actually, it was first
done by Ralph Stodgill in 1946, we have never been able to collect or
collate a describable and consistent set of traits which can be
catagorized and looked upon as THE SET of traits which describes what
leaders do. By the way, Peter Drucker agrees with this as well. Steven
Covey's assertion of what leadership is? Hardly, Covey is also an
industralist, and one who speaks, at least in my opinion not of leadership
development but human development. So I am at a loss when you talk about
commonality of process, methods and skills.
Next, comment.
You say in your What do Leaders Do that "leaders provide purpose" and
then you reiterate that again by saying that leaders provide purpose and
worthy goals.
Again, this is the industrial perspective, and one which is in my opinion,
congruent with the needs of learning organizations about to enter the 21st
Century.
You see Gene, the industrial perspecitive is all about what the leader, as
the sole actor in a leadership dynamic does. What about the followers?
Well, in the industrial perspective the followers are just that followers,
as you imply in your comments. In the postindustrial or collaborative
perspective, the term followers is not used, we use collaborators or
partners. There is a major difference because these folks are truly
active in the relationship. So instead of the leader establishing
purpose, the group establishes and reaffirms what is called a mutual
purpose. That is why we say Leadership is a relationship, leadership is
what people DO TOGETHER. This is very different from what leadership is
what the leader alone mobilizes us to do.
Your paragraph Two, "ALIGN the interests of the organization and the
individual. Show people how to fill their individual needs by meeting the
needs of the organization. Involve followers in the pursuit of the
purpose. This means understanding and accepting the purpose as your own"
Most people can figure out if the organization is meeting their needs.
What the organization must do is to state their intentions with a
statement of purpose, based on a given set of values, and then stick to
it. Yeah, yeah I know mission statements are a dime a dozen, they are
when organizations do what Argyris says in his explanation of theories
espoused and theories in use. The espoused theory must also be that which
gives meaning to the organization. It is up to the each individual to
acknowledge and accept whether or not the values espoused are congruent
with theirs. People are smart, they can figure this out. Many times,
when organizations do not act in accordance with that which they preach is
when dissatisfaction with the organization occurs. Optimally, the
organization and the people together develop a mutual purpose, then
alignment occurs because all have been involved in learning together what
their purpose shall be.
Please do not take this as a slam, but your paragraph two smacks of
manipulation. That is, I have got to get you to somehow believe in the
organization by aligning your needs with it. I give people a great deal
more credit for being able to figure this out. They know, don't you? I
don't criticize you for this perspective, after all this is what we have
told people it is ok to do, manipulate. Take Situational Leadership for
example, that is an underlying message. Don't take my word for it, take a
look at Jim O'Toole's "Leading Change". Jossey-Bass 1995. Now there is
critical leadership commentary.
Paragraph four, about personal skills, I wonder what you mean by that, the
skill sets for leadership in the industrial era, as opposed to the
postindustrial era, is different, so I want to know more about what you
mean by that. One other thing, here, in the industrial era, leadership
and management were terms that were used interchangably. This is not the
case in the postindustrial era, leadership is a different process distinct
from management. What is the difference. Management is about making
incremental change, and leadership is about making transforming change.
James MacGregor Burns and Joe Rost lay this out in a very completely.
Burns in "Leadership" and Rost in "Leadership for the 21st Century".
Lastly, (my fingers are tired) your note about Hitler and gangs is very
interesting. I want to tell you that this is a perennial discussion item
in the leadership experiences and the classes I have taken as well. So
allow me my opinion here, I would say that Hitler and Gang leaders do not
do leadership because of the element of coercion which coexists with their
ideals or purpose. Really, how much dissention or disagreement did or do
these characters allow? Coercion is a managerial methodology, used during
the industrial era and as we all know the industrial era is over. So from
this perspective technically, I would say that this cats were not leaders
per se. But tyrannists who built their following on coercion.
OK, so I am finished at least for now. I guess what I owe everyone on
this list is a fundamental answer to the question OK, smart guy why should
your perspective work? What is the foundation to your ideas? Good
question and I will provide this in a couple of days.
Gene, sorry if I come off as being too direct, I was born and raised in
the ghettos of New York City and some habits are just hard to break. Oh
yeah, I am also really frustrated with the idea that people who are trying
to implement the tenets of the learning organization retreat to the
strategies of the industrial revolution to do so. As Einstein is credited
with saying it is time to change our level of thinking.
>From Overcast and Cloudy Point Loma, California I bid you good day
John P. Dentico
Avatar Leadership Simulations
P.O. Box 6305
San Diego, CA 92166-0305
619-300-3080 Ph
619-523-3068 Fax
www.leadsimm.com
--"John P. Dentico" <jdentico@adnc.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>