Refining Leadership: Attempt 2

Let me recapture the last week's attempt to refine leadership. We said that leadership practice requires two criteria to be met

Part I: Understand large open system ( of which the operating system is a part) to chose the 'mountain' ( that will enable the operating system to influence the open system in a sustained manner)
Part II: Enable the 'large operating system' to scale the mountain so that system elements follow appropriate course/path in a self-sustained manner ( which includes the ability to course-correct in a cohesive manner) irrespective of the changing circumstances( which may include the change of the mountain)

I know the definition is still too long and complicated. We need to achieve the simplicity without sacrificing the salient 'complexity' inherent in the definition. So let us explore the dissonances, three of part I and three of part II.

One, a CEO of a company selling ball bearing, exclusively to automobile industry, has to understand a large open system involved, as well as a CEO working in a General Motors. What is the difference? Intuitively, one can sense the difference. But we need to capture this difference in exact words.

Two, a senior executive heading an important support department like training or finance faces a different set of open systems to decide the mountain, while a senior executive of a SBU facing a customer faces different set of open systems to decide the mountain to scale. What is the difference in complexity? Once again, we can easily sense the difference, but we cannot define it.

Three, many executives lack the skill of first part. They follow 'me-too' strategies which can be replicated easily and therefore cannot be sustained. Or they just believe that 'hard work' alone can help them scale the mountain. In both cases, the leadership has suffered, although few analysts point it out.

Four, the second part assumes that the leader understands the current operating system 'realisitically' to determine what needs to be done. An entrepreneur often fails in understanding his/her realistic limitations as well as his/her team, while an executive often fails to understand the 'power' he or she realistically can muster to carry out the 'milestone actions' to reach the mountain.Does the executive need more 'leadership capability' because of this additional 'skill'? A leader practicing in a social arena needs this skill even more. Is this an important differentiator therefore?

Five, the ability to self-sustain the course to reach the action is often taken as an ability of the leader to develop his/her team which can function without him/her. We have seen many well intentioned initiatives suffer when the 'hero' leader leaves the team without developing his/her team sufficiently. Even best of the teams in the companies suffer from this malady; many small companies remain 'small' because of this lack. Should creating sustainable teams and organisations be an inherent task of a leader? The answer seems to be yes here.

Six, many strategies ( arrived after understanding the open system) are impractical to implement because they require many system elements to converge with the 'goal'. Mostly leaders are completely ignorant of how to achieve this. For instance, very few executives know how 'vision and values' can help many system elements to converge. Many leaders do not spend enough time in strengthening system elements, because 'action' is more preached than 'action plus thought'.

So here we are with six observations. Some are creating convergence, some divergence. But we are definitely few steps ahead of last week. Do you agree or disagree?

Refining Leadership further

Having defined leadership practice as a practice to influence open system in a sustained manner, i have been trying to find chinks in the definition. Is there a reason to refine?

One of my friend argues that we should not define leadership because we may fall in the pit of claiming that there is only 'one' definition of leadership. On the other hand knowledge cannot be built until one defines something 'precisely'. Not defining precisely makes it easier to claim 'anything and everything' as leadership, which is happening right now. So let us take the risk of defining leadership for the sake of creating knowledge.

If Leadership practice is influencing open system in a sustained manner, then influencing a 'close relationship' can also be termed as leadership. However we do not want to term ' managing relationship' as a leadership practice.

In order to arrive at a definition of leadership, let us say add one more criteria: that the system should be influenced by 'multiple' systems. But even a close relationship with spouse is influenced by multiple systems like finance, kids, friends and so on. This criteria is not enough to define leadership.

Let us add another criteria: System should be large. How do we define 'largeness'? Largeness can be defined by physical boundary, such as eco system. Eco systems are difficult to study simply because of their largeness. How does one define 'largeness' in a virtual system? We need to explore the definition of 'largeness'.

Largeness alone does not seem enough to differentiate leadership practice though. A freelance entrepreneur ( such as a doctor working in a clinic, or a photographer working in entertainment industry) also must understand the large system ( of which he is part of) to find how can he influence it in a sustained manner. What differentiates a freelance entrepreneur with an executive who is managing a large organisation?

It is the latter's ability to influence the 'internal open' system to execute the 'strategy' that he has deciphered from understanding the 'external open' system.

In other words, a leadership practice requires both the abilities: one, to understand the 'external open' system well enough to 'decide' what is required to influence, and two, the ability to 'execute' that decision by influencing the 'internal open' system.

'Execution' requires consensus of the direction to take. Imagine what Gandhiji could have gone through to develop a consensus that independence to India should be pursued by following the path of 'non-violence'.

Consensus is also required to create 'enough variety' in the system. 'Variety' is the ability to understand the requisite variables in the environment and respond appropriately. If variety is not enough, each person in an organisation may follow different path, halting the progress of an organisation in a specific direction. If too much time is required to generate the consensus though, the opportunity window may close. How to trade off? This is perhaps a bigger dilemma of a leader.

Let us explore this further in the next write up. Please feel free to share or pick holes in the argument.

Building leadership in companies

Leadership is a much misunderstood concept in corporate world. We are further confused with the different versions.

Trainers add to the confusion by 'labelling' many of their programs as 'leadership development programs'. They go a step further by claiming that leadership can be practiced at any level: junior, middle or senior. This is the Western view of human development: you can do anything if you have the willingness and drive to achieve it. This view creates heroic individuals who may perform heroic acts, but can also create deputees who cannot even think for themselves.

The confusion is fed by reluctance of researchers who refuse to define leadership. Researchers interview and study CEO's and political leaders, decipher common traits and behaviour, and claim to discover the common denominator of a leader without defining leadership. In their quest to define leadership traits, they may even forget that many of the CEO's and leaders they interviewed may have been 'adminstrators'.

Rudolph Giuliani's resurrecation of New York after 9/11 is one such example. Reviving a city/institution after such a tragedy requires extraordinary capabilities to bring together all stakeholders, chalk out an action plan and execute it. But is this leadership?

Is 'removing terrorism' same as 'removing terrorist'? Is countering the practice of anti dowry same as passing the 'anti-dowry' law in the parliament? Is instituting 'secured transport' in a city after 11 pm same as instituting police practices to catch criminals in the city?

If you observe closely the similarity in the second and first act, you will understand the concept of leadership. The first act requires understanding of ' interrelated systems', while the second requires understanding of 'linear systems'. The first act requires a far difficult juxtaposition of different initiatives and weaving amongst different stakeholders, while the second requires a 'one dimension action' against the dissidents. The first act requires dealing with dynamic complexity while the second act is dealing with static complexity.

In short, the first act requires the ability to deal with 'Systems'. ( please do not confuse system with department or process. It is a word which has precise definition, derived from a practice called Systems thinking.)More so it requires an ability to understand and deal with open systems and that too multiple systems at one time.

This is where we have a definition of leadership. Leadership practice is an ability to influence open system(s) in a sustained manner. Sustained manner means not just one time action; but an action which can be sustained after the initial trigger is off.

This definition tells us where leadership cannot be practiced. If, for instance, not a single system is 'kept' open at a junior level in a company, one may not be able to practice leadership at a junior position in that company. You will also realise that one may not be able to 'practice' leadership even at senior positions in certain organisations at certain times. For instance, in difficult times, one may just need to bring someone to 'rectify' the situation, such as Louis Gestener did when he was brought to revive IBM. Louis Gestener also had a wisdom to relinquish the position because he intuitively understood what constitutes leadership.

With a precise definition of leadership, HR can develop leaders and then also provide them the 'practice ground' to practice leadership. HR will know whom to expect to practice leadership and what it needs to do in an orgnisation to help them practice leadership. HR will set realistic expectations. HR will invest more carefully in training and developing the right people, instead of trying to practice it all levels.