Let us discuss two more observations emanating out of our definition of leadership.
One, in the corporate arena, most of the executives - pressurised by stock options, shareholders and Board - have to develop plans to show that they are at helms. In the process they develop 'me-too' plans that are unsustainable. They look back at their 'people' and say it is all about 'execution'. Execution therefore has become a buzz word of corporate success.
On the other hand, leaders rarely spend time on on developing Part II actions (which is about executing the Part I output) that can sustain the organisation, because Part II is about developing people; developing the soft architecture of the company to generate the requisite variety. Execution to these corporate executives is about 'controlling' everything that happens on the ship: the model of a Army commander. This is exactly the opposite of what leaders practice.
Two, this brings us to the second interesting dissonance of leader; their popularity. Popularity of leaders is almost antithetical to a good leadership practice. If you realise that a true leader is the one who is not even known by those she/he leads, the popularity acts as a significant dampener in practicing leadership. Tracy Kidder's book ( Soul of new machine) about the development of first mini computer clearly shows that people who were involved in the development did not even know who was spearheading the effort of computer development.
It is not surprising to note that even the leaders of the 12 best companies ( the companies which performed significantly above average for more than 7 decades) discovered by Jim Collins were not as popular as the others who were heard in the media.
Popularity of a leader makes 'one man/woman' become more responsible for the entire effort, and transfers the contribution made by a group of people to one person. Leader knows that is not what he has done, nor people involved in the effort believe that they are being led by anyone. The concept of Servant leadership is not new, and has been in vogue for quite a long time. Robert Greenleaf's book captures it quite well.
This is an interesting dilemma for a leader. In order to practice Leadership of Part II, a leader has to let go 'popularity' because people like to take charge of themselves instead of being led. If the leader however has to sacrifice popularity, then what is the end benefit to a leader? Why should a leader practice true leadership if he/she is not even getting any credit for the end result?
Could this be the reason why true leaders are difficult to find? Are we asking too much from them? Or is it pointing us to another quality of a leader: the quality that makes them give up 'credit' because they realise that they only played their 'role'. The quality of 'humility' emanating from the understanding that we human beings are after all 'elements' of a bigger system.
One, in the corporate arena, most of the executives - pressurised by stock options, shareholders and Board - have to develop plans to show that they are at helms. In the process they develop 'me-too' plans that are unsustainable. They look back at their 'people' and say it is all about 'execution'. Execution therefore has become a buzz word of corporate success.
On the other hand, leaders rarely spend time on on developing Part II actions (which is about executing the Part I output) that can sustain the organisation, because Part II is about developing people; developing the soft architecture of the company to generate the requisite variety. Execution to these corporate executives is about 'controlling' everything that happens on the ship: the model of a Army commander. This is exactly the opposite of what leaders practice.
Two, this brings us to the second interesting dissonance of leader; their popularity. Popularity of leaders is almost antithetical to a good leadership practice. If you realise that a true leader is the one who is not even known by those she/he leads, the popularity acts as a significant dampener in practicing leadership. Tracy Kidder's book ( Soul of new machine) about the development of first mini computer clearly shows that people who were involved in the development did not even know who was spearheading the effort of computer development.
It is not surprising to note that even the leaders of the 12 best companies ( the companies which performed significantly above average for more than 7 decades) discovered by Jim Collins were not as popular as the others who were heard in the media.
Popularity of a leader makes 'one man/woman' become more responsible for the entire effort, and transfers the contribution made by a group of people to one person. Leader knows that is not what he has done, nor people involved in the effort believe that they are being led by anyone. The concept of Servant leadership is not new, and has been in vogue for quite a long time. Robert Greenleaf's book captures it quite well.
This is an interesting dilemma for a leader. In order to practice Leadership of Part II, a leader has to let go 'popularity' because people like to take charge of themselves instead of being led. If the leader however has to sacrifice popularity, then what is the end benefit to a leader? Why should a leader practice true leadership if he/she is not even getting any credit for the end result?
Could this be the reason why true leaders are difficult to find? Are we asking too much from them? Or is it pointing us to another quality of a leader: the quality that makes them give up 'credit' because they realise that they only played their 'role'. The quality of 'humility' emanating from the understanding that we human beings are after all 'elements' of a bigger system.
No comments:
Post a Comment