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.
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.
1 comment:
This sounds very good. And i am happy that finally a new effort of defining leadership has started.
Another view, in organization most of the actions are either accidental, reactive (pressure driven). And we may not be able to find a leader who really thinks about the "large system" except VP or CEO level.
So do we mean to say that the rest do not lead? Also in organization most of the people are trying to do a "job" to make a good life. And hence look at work as a task list at hand and boss's demand. If thats the behavior generated by the same "organization system" then how do we first change that.
Because till the time thats the connotation attached with working then practicing leadership the way you are defining, doesn't fit in.
It will only fit in when the employees are shown the positive impact of leading in that way, which i feel is possible only when
a. A great leader supports out theory
b. We incorporate this definition and practical benefits of this definition in Training
c. And when people actually practice and begin to share the benefits with othere. ( here you have a volunteer, thats me, i believe i am trying to do that)
www.rajmali.typepad.com
Raj
Post a Comment