If I ask you to give me a English definition of desk or table, you may not be able to articulate it well enough. But you will easily point out desk and table in a room without any mistake. For ostentatious concepts, which can be visibly seen by our eyes, concepts need not be clearly defined. Even if the distinction is not clear in the 'mind', this lack of clarity does not matter, because when in doubt, one can easily point at the 'desk' or 'table'.
But as we gain more knowledge and learn concepts that are far from ostentatious concepts, such as concept of 'human being', it becomes more important to 'define' concepts. We cannot define human being with such visibly seen differences like two legs, because many other animals may also fall in that category. In the absence of clear definition, we may get lost in the maze of ideas and not know that we are making a mistake. For instance, we promote many ideas that go against our characteristics of being a human! Such mistakes are also difficult to correct, because there is nothing visible in the physical world to see and differentiate. This is what happening in the companies for so many years.
In a company, if you ask someone to define 'Leader, they point to someone designated as 'Vice President' and above. Leader is defined by designated positions in an organisation. Anyone lesser than that level, by default, is called as Manager. If you ask them if Gandhiji was a leader, they agree but they cannot specify the common essence between a social and corporate leader. They take a short cut and claim that there is no commonality between a corporate and social leader. The definition of leader remains unclear in the mind. Instead of 'practice' of a person defining leader, Position of a person defines a leader.
If you think that 'defining' a leader is an armchair task of an academician, pause for a moment. If you think that this definition does not make any difference to a real physical world, look at the money that is wasted in 'leadership development' in companies. ( One of the research company has put a figure of 8 billion US $ that is being spent on leadership development!) If you think that this distinction between leader and manager is not critical, look at the way individuals fail to spot the 'leadership' qualities in their bosses and fail to utilise the opportunities that come their way. If you think that leadership is only defined by number of people reporting to a person, you miss the opportunity of exercising leadership through your 'thought'.
Due to misunderstanding of the concept of 'leader', companies do not practice thought leadership seriously. Every company writes about 'thought leadership' in their vision and mission statements, but because the definition of 'leader' is not understood accurately, companies rarely appreciate the ramifications of their ignorance. They understand only when it is too late. For instance, Americans understood their ignorance of 'TQM' concept, only when they lost their market position of automobile industry to Japan. And who brought this concept of TQM to Japanese companies? You are right. He was an American, Edward Demmings.
In other words, understanding exact definition of leader is important for companies who want better 'leaders' to lead them, but also promote the right 'thoughts' to carry them forward.(To see how the wrong concept of 'talent' has misdirected companies, read Gladwell's article 'Myth of Talent').
As a careerologist, i have found that misunderstanding of the concept of leader impacts individuals the most. On the one hand, individuals fail to spot an opportunity knocking at their door, while on the other, they fail to realise their potential because they do not understand the impact of their 'thought' beyond immediate circle of influence!
But as we gain more knowledge and learn concepts that are far from ostentatious concepts, such as concept of 'human being', it becomes more important to 'define' concepts. We cannot define human being with such visibly seen differences like two legs, because many other animals may also fall in that category. In the absence of clear definition, we may get lost in the maze of ideas and not know that we are making a mistake. For instance, we promote many ideas that go against our characteristics of being a human! Such mistakes are also difficult to correct, because there is nothing visible in the physical world to see and differentiate. This is what happening in the companies for so many years.
In a company, if you ask someone to define 'Leader, they point to someone designated as 'Vice President' and above. Leader is defined by designated positions in an organisation. Anyone lesser than that level, by default, is called as Manager. If you ask them if Gandhiji was a leader, they agree but they cannot specify the common essence between a social and corporate leader. They take a short cut and claim that there is no commonality between a corporate and social leader. The definition of leader remains unclear in the mind. Instead of 'practice' of a person defining leader, Position of a person defines a leader.
If you think that 'defining' a leader is an armchair task of an academician, pause for a moment. If you think that this definition does not make any difference to a real physical world, look at the money that is wasted in 'leadership development' in companies. ( One of the research company has put a figure of 8 billion US $ that is being spent on leadership development!) If you think that this distinction between leader and manager is not critical, look at the way individuals fail to spot the 'leadership' qualities in their bosses and fail to utilise the opportunities that come their way. If you think that leadership is only defined by number of people reporting to a person, you miss the opportunity of exercising leadership through your 'thought'.
Due to misunderstanding of the concept of 'leader', companies do not practice thought leadership seriously. Every company writes about 'thought leadership' in their vision and mission statements, but because the definition of 'leader' is not understood accurately, companies rarely appreciate the ramifications of their ignorance. They understand only when it is too late. For instance, Americans understood their ignorance of 'TQM' concept, only when they lost their market position of automobile industry to Japan. And who brought this concept of TQM to Japanese companies? You are right. He was an American, Edward Demmings.
In other words, understanding exact definition of leader is important for companies who want better 'leaders' to lead them, but also promote the right 'thoughts' to carry them forward.(To see how the wrong concept of 'talent' has misdirected companies, read Gladwell's article 'Myth of Talent').
As a careerologist, i have found that misunderstanding of the concept of leader impacts individuals the most. On the one hand, individuals fail to spot an opportunity knocking at their door, while on the other, they fail to realise their potential because they do not understand the impact of their 'thought' beyond immediate circle of influence!
