I have been struggling to articulate the right definition of 'leadership'. If you have been reading this blog, you would have observed my journey in teasing out the 'exact' definition of leadership.
At the risk of repeating, i am going to quickly recap the journey. Technical definition of 'leadership' (leadership is managing the open system) hit the right button. But because the concept of 'open system' requires extensive elaboration, the definition lacked clarity and precision. My second attempt at defining leadership as Part I ( of developing the strategy) and Part II ( and executing it), although captured the concept from a different window, simplified the concept too much without capturing the requisite complexity.
Last week, i suddenly got the right articulation of leadership. ( This is the third and final attempt, i guess!)
Leadership is managing the dilemma of balancing short term benefits with long term benefits constantly, while 'managership' is resolving the same dilemma always in favour of short term benefits.
William Tate's new book, The Search for leadership, defines leading as 'protecting the future' while managing as 'maintaining the present'. I thanked him for bringing clarity to my definition by using the above distinction. The book acted like a last straw on the camel's shoulder for me.
I have used his definition to clarify leadership. Leadership is balancing short term benefits ( instead of maintaining the present) with long term benefits ( protecting the future). The critical world is 'balancing'. It also means that sometimes, with deliberate intention, leaders chose to prioritise short term benefits, such as when they are trying to save a bleeding organisation. And it also means that Leaders choose to create an alternative for a beneficial long term plan when the long term plan is risky.
Based on this, there are alternative definitions of leadership. Leading is doing the right thing while managing is always doing politically-appropriate thing. Leading is therefore about behaving 'ethically', while managing is about behaving 'legally'. Leading is about constantly managing the dilemma of what should be done versus what can be done. Leading is about managing the dilemma of important versus urgent.
Surprisingly, every job in an organisation can have a component of short term and long term benefits in it. For instance, even a junior programmer can 'hard code' ( which delivers immediate returns at less cost and time) or code with 'configurable parameters' (which deliver long term returns). Either forcibly or willingly, each of us resolves this dilemma one way or another. But most of us resolves the dilemma in a narrower boundary of job. But leaders almost always resolve this dilemma on a much wider scale - in terms of time, people, and resources. That requires a wider set of skills, maturity and knowledge.
Four important characteristics of leadership
I wish to highlight four distinctions at this point. Firstly, by their very defintion, leading and managing are individual-driven processes, not organisational-driven. These processes can be helped or hindered by organisation, not generated by the organisation. For the first time, because of this clear definition of leadership, we can now design policies and checks that will help leadership to flourish in an organisation.
Secondly, leading can happen only after managing. Managing can however be done without leading. Because managing is short term, present-maintaining and legal oriented, most of the stakeholders in the organisation ( with backing from shareholders) always support it. Because leading is long term, future-protecting and ethical, organisation's support is not guaranteed. Leadership is unknowingly discouraged.
Thirdly, as the tasks of leading are more context-dependent than the tasks of managing, an executive can learn the skill of managing and apply it in different organisations with lesser effort. On the other hand , as leading-tasks are context-dependent, the skills of leading are less transferable from one organisation to another. As managing is more easier than leading, you will always find more managers than leaders in an organisation. Managership again wins.
Fourthly, as a job position has both component of leading and managing within it, leading can be practiced at different levels in a restricted manner to an organisation. Unlike the practice of managing, leading practice can also be exercised without positional power. This is a boon in disguise as it enables some executives, despite all the constraints, learn the practice of leading and be ready to demonstrate leadership, when the right organisational situation & time arise. Management practitioners like us get confused and profess different theories to explain this phenomenon.
Having understood the underpinnings of leadership, I believe we are now ready to develop leadership 'practice' in an organisation by practicing complementary policies at the individual level and the organisational level. If we do this properly, we can actually make leadership 'work' in an organisation, and not just pronounce bombastic intentions and wishful claims.
Welcome to the practical world of becoming a leader !
At the risk of repeating, i am going to quickly recap the journey. Technical definition of 'leadership' (leadership is managing the open system) hit the right button. But because the concept of 'open system' requires extensive elaboration, the definition lacked clarity and precision. My second attempt at defining leadership as Part I ( of developing the strategy) and Part II ( and executing it), although captured the concept from a different window, simplified the concept too much without capturing the requisite complexity.
Last week, i suddenly got the right articulation of leadership. ( This is the third and final attempt, i guess!)
Leadership is managing the dilemma of balancing short term benefits with long term benefits constantly, while 'managership' is resolving the same dilemma always in favour of short term benefits.
William Tate's new book, The Search for leadership, defines leading as 'protecting the future' while managing as 'maintaining the present'. I thanked him for bringing clarity to my definition by using the above distinction. The book acted like a last straw on the camel's shoulder for me.
I have used his definition to clarify leadership. Leadership is balancing short term benefits ( instead of maintaining the present) with long term benefits ( protecting the future). The critical world is 'balancing'. It also means that sometimes, with deliberate intention, leaders chose to prioritise short term benefits, such as when they are trying to save a bleeding organisation. And it also means that Leaders choose to create an alternative for a beneficial long term plan when the long term plan is risky.
Based on this, there are alternative definitions of leadership. Leading is doing the right thing while managing is always doing politically-appropriate thing. Leading is therefore about behaving 'ethically', while managing is about behaving 'legally'. Leading is about constantly managing the dilemma of what should be done versus what can be done. Leading is about managing the dilemma of important versus urgent.
Surprisingly, every job in an organisation can have a component of short term and long term benefits in it. For instance, even a junior programmer can 'hard code' ( which delivers immediate returns at less cost and time) or code with 'configurable parameters' (which deliver long term returns). Either forcibly or willingly, each of us resolves this dilemma one way or another. But most of us resolves the dilemma in a narrower boundary of job. But leaders almost always resolve this dilemma on a much wider scale - in terms of time, people, and resources. That requires a wider set of skills, maturity and knowledge.
Four important characteristics of leadership
I wish to highlight four distinctions at this point. Firstly, by their very defintion, leading and managing are individual-driven processes, not organisational-driven. These processes can be helped or hindered by organisation, not generated by the organisation. For the first time, because of this clear definition of leadership, we can now design policies and checks that will help leadership to flourish in an organisation.
Secondly, leading can happen only after managing. Managing can however be done without leading. Because managing is short term, present-maintaining and legal oriented, most of the stakeholders in the organisation ( with backing from shareholders) always support it. Because leading is long term, future-protecting and ethical, organisation's support is not guaranteed. Leadership is unknowingly discouraged.
Thirdly, as the tasks of leading are more context-dependent than the tasks of managing, an executive can learn the skill of managing and apply it in different organisations with lesser effort. On the other hand , as leading-tasks are context-dependent, the skills of leading are less transferable from one organisation to another. As managing is more easier than leading, you will always find more managers than leaders in an organisation. Managership again wins.
Fourthly, as a job position has both component of leading and managing within it, leading can be practiced at different levels in a restricted manner to an organisation. Unlike the practice of managing, leading practice can also be exercised without positional power. This is a boon in disguise as it enables some executives, despite all the constraints, learn the practice of leading and be ready to demonstrate leadership, when the right organisational situation & time arise. Management practitioners like us get confused and profess different theories to explain this phenomenon.
Having understood the underpinnings of leadership, I believe we are now ready to develop leadership 'practice' in an organisation by practicing complementary policies at the individual level and the organisational level. If we do this properly, we can actually make leadership 'work' in an organisation, and not just pronounce bombastic intentions and wishful claims.
Welcome to the practical world of becoming a leader !
