Responses
I believe after reading your response the problem is in my inability to
communicate the concept not the separation of the process from methods
used.
The idea was developed over several years by asking my CI classes, 'What
do leaders do and how do they do it?" The points made in the discussions
that followed are summarized in the process steps. It also became clear
that there were separate parts: the process, the methods and the skills
both learned and natural.
The CI classes included a discussion about leadership because Deming told
us to adopt leadership so we had to come to an understanding about what it
is and what is different about it than managing.
>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.
No simply observing what leaders have done. Once you start thinking a
process it is easy to identify the steps they take to gather a following .
Then study separately the methods used and to identify the methods they
used.
>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.
I did not mean to imply that a leader must do this alone. though
apparently I did. Like it or not it is the leaders choice how this is
done. But it must be done how it is done is method. Leaders ,alone or in
concert, establish purpose. Some involve the followers and some do not.
But all see that purpose is established.
>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.
And if it is not there will not be followers.
>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.
Of course but if they are not congruent then squirlly behavior is the result.
> 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.
Some times doing it together is best sometimes not depends on many
factors. Doing it together is one good way to develop acceptance and
understanding.
>Please do not take this as a slam, but your paragraph two smacks of
>manipulation.
that depends on the methods used. Manipulation can be wrong and cause more
problems. Manipulation is the method of some leaders. Some not. In all
cases the leaders must take steps to see that the followers understand and
can fill their personal needs by filling the needs of the organization or
there will not be followers.
>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?
Sure they know and great leaders will be certain to establish purpose that
can and will be accepted.
>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,
I mean whatever skills are necessary for the purpose of the organization
and the fulfillment of the individual needs. An organization that neglects
to train and educate in the technology of it's business is n trouble. Just
as an army that neglected to train in the methods for storming a hill
would suffer great losses when the command is given. Education is
essential fro the life blood of the organization.
> theskill sets for leadership in the industrial era, as opposed to the
>post industrial 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".
Skills required vary vastly form time tome and organization organization.
What ever they are the leaders must interest them selves in developing the
right one in the right people.
>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.
> Soallow 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.
Again separate methods from process.
>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.
Coercion is simply a different method in the process of leading. Coercion
is not acceptable to me but a method that has worked .
>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
--Eugene Taurman <ilx@execpc.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>