Hello Steve,
I really don't know when I have had more fun.
Well I am glad to see we agree in many areas, your Julius Caesar example
is clarfied for me and I appreciate that.
JC was a very smart guy. He knew leadership was all about building
relationships. He also knew how to use symbolism. Before battle he would
put on a scarlet cloak and walk the front lines with his men pumping them
up for the next day. His message to me, Hey guys we are in this together.
But I have a couple of more things for you to think about in reference to
your last letter.
You said:
But I have done, read, or competency-coded detailed critical incident
interviews with hundreds of leaders in organizations including Catholic
healthcare execs, government agencies, IBM, mortgage companies, PepsiCo,
assembly line toy factory workers, petrochemical firms, consultants, etc.,
etc., etc., and while the styles vary radically, the core I think is still
the same--tap into that inner motivation of the people, whatever it
happens to beso that the group can move forward together.
May I quote Peter Drucker here. From the Forward to Leader of the Future,
Jossey-Bass, 1996 In speaking about his work with organizations for 50
years, and his discussions with hundreds of leaders in their roles, their
goals, and their performance. Drucker says
"The lessons are unambiguous. The first is that there may be "born
leaders" but there are surely far too few to depend on them. Leadership
must be learned and can be learned--and this, of course, is what this book
was written for and should be used for. But the second major lesson is
that "leadership personality", "leadership style", and "leadership traits"
do not exist.
He goes on to say that the one personality trait the effective ones did
share in common was something that they did not have, they had little or
no charisma.
I too would question competency based coding in connection with leadership
development, if that is what I understand you are asserting. I may have
this wrong. Competency based coding sounds too close to the trait theory
of leadership. Stodgill debunked the trait theory in 1947. While
corporations do have a list of competencies which they consider important,
this does not mean that they are in any way sound and reliable indicators
of leadership. In fact, in all the leadership work that has been done, a
set of traits or competencies which are directly associated with great
leadership has never been established. If it were we would not be having
this conversation, the point would be moot.
I appreciate your agreement that leadership resides in the collective
dynamic is true and obvious. While it may be true, it is not obvious.
The plethora of writing and seminars which still seek to assert that
leadership resides in one person, the leader is still the dominant message
being sent by the majority of people who give these seminars. I am, by
the way, not saying you are one of these but my experience in reviewing
the leadership messages of many of these people tells me that they are
still selling this type of snake oil.
You also wrote:
But it is very rare to see genuine leadership come out of a committee. It
happens, but I can think of only once or twice out of hundreds of firms I
have seen.
This is a very interesting point. I have lots of ideas why this may be
so. Let me loosely state some of them. Perhaps people have been
empowered to act, then to find themselves disempowered when the going gets
tough. Only to be reempowered some time after. This is what I meant by
inconsistency. Does the organization owe to a philosophy or subsidiariy?
What about the industrial mindset of compliance? After all that is the
pervading idea behind Fayol's, Taylor's and Weber's Ideas. The industrial
models demand compliance, as opposed to creativity.
And that Steve, is where I think the difference lies in the society of
today. Now more than ever we need effective and creative approaches to
issues that pervade our corporations, our communities, our clubs and
associations, our SCHOOLS, etc. Leadership to me, is about creating a
collective dynamic whereby the creative processes are put to work and
effective (not necessarily efficient) solutions can be discovered and
learned. In the days of Caesar the ruling elite made the decisions, in
essence, the elite were the only ones who has access to leadership.
Today, more and more people must understand that they do have access to
doing leadership, all they need to is choose to act.
We need thousands of leaders and collaborators in thousands of places in
America, if we have a hope of dealing with the future in any effective
way.
Ok I am finished.
My Best to you
John D
--"John P. Dentico" <jdentico@adnc.com>
[Host's Note: In association with Amazon.com, these links...
The Leader of the Future : New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for the Next Era (The Drucker Foundation Future Series) Frances Hesselbein(Editor) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787909351/learningorg paperback http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787901806/learningorg hardcover
...Rick]
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>