I wish to thank the kind replies of Keith Johnston and Piyali Chatterjee whose replies have caused this article. Although there’s some disagreement between us, their honesty and the time they spent replying to my suggestions were hugely appreciated.
No company has the right to make someone into a Leader
Appointed ‘leaders’ are often this way. Leaders can only be promoted from belowby followers =>
I have no argument that Leadership is important to business. My argument is that Leadership is an effect of top quality management and that it cannot be identified before results. No one has the right to call themselves a Leader. Likewise no company cannot ‘make’ someone into Leader. Promotion to leadership comes from below and not from above. The title can only be conferred by followers. ‘Cry ‘Imperator’ (leader) was the subject of the last article largely dedicated to this: The Triumph of Leadership is Nowhere in Business.
The hidden hand of unconsidered philosophy controls our thoughts
There is an emphasis on behavior as the defining aspect of leadership instead of results. Behaving the right way is thought sufficient to qualify as a Leader. This rationale might unconsciously come from Behaviorists such as BF Skinner who are held in high regard by many HR theorists.
Picking his theories apart reveals some quite shocking and arrogant implications and speaks volumes about the reason why modern HR people are often deeply loathed. He considered humans as elementally selfish, spiritless logic robots and it unprofessional to listen to how we thought we thought or felt. What people said was collected for the purposes of statistical analysis only. Behavior caused results for Skinner so the current idea that if you behave like how a leader is thought to behave, then results will, robotically and inevitably follow. Dull things like freedom of the will etc: are defined out of an equation based on humans as determined selfish logic robots.
Ironically, Behaviorism shares many of the dull deterministic assumptions about humanity with Marxism and much earlier . Marx could never bring himself to understand that pure selfishness can fall away as people age, that some off spring are either too lazy or just are not elementally selfish; he had little idea of how new ideas can derail old ways or how they come about. Marx was a product, ironically, of liberal economists before him with the early pages of Das Kapital ringing much like those in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Paradoxically, in some ways, he was a deeply conservative thinker.
Equally primitive behaviorism lurks behind most mainstream HR theory, including the Leadership approaches, currently so fashionable. The Nietzscherian theory of Ubermensch from Thus Spoke Zarathustra casts a matching long and destructive shadow. We need to get these background philosophies out into bright sunlight to reconstruct improved more sound foundations to the best approach to run companies. Letting them lurk, unquestioned but highly influential, is to be the unconscious plaything and servant to the thoughts and ideas of others.
The title of ‘Leader’ can only be conferred by followers
Leadership only comes after respect is earned based on results and it can only be conferred by followers. To appoint leaders is to undermine followers and the nature of leadership. Because many have thought something right does not necessarily mean that it is right. Leadership is the ultimate aim of all good managers; it only comes after respect is earned.
When ‘appointing’ team leaders, we look for someone already held in respect which reinforces this point; we only formalize an existing recognition in the form of a courtesy title.
The destructive denial of reality and barrier to progress
The most serious concern is that the current fashion for ‘leadership’ appears to deny discussion of major business issues because such discussion reveals its flaws. Thus, the curse of company politics, aspects of discipline, fraud, control and much more are neglected. Although a massive step, the work on Relationship Structures is considered by many as irrelevant.
Facts seem to support this case with well over 20,000 viewers and 1000 shares for a recent article about How to reveal Relationship Structures. The original title even included some quite taboo words but this did nothing to curb the very strong interest in, what some would say, is a criminally neglected subject.
Take a look to see for yourself and to see a little of the very serious damage caused by the present day $13bn US leadership and training industry. We have to get honest about all this. The real cost is not the $13bn but the gigantic on-cost of failing to address real and serious challenges causing economic inefficiency brought on by systemically bad managers calling themselves leaders.
If you call yourself a Leader you are, by definition, no leader.
The ‘all things leadership are lovely people’ have to explain is why this article proved so popular? The answer is because their fixation with bogus leaders and mistaken understanding of the nature of leadership is causing gigantic damage by denying reality and preventing real advances in good management from being taken up.
The work on Relationship Structures will never go far until business appreciates that leaders cannot be appointed, they can only be acclaimed for their successes by followers. ‘Leader’ is a courtesy title granted by others; it is not and never will be a title by right.
Leaders are promoted from below. Managers are promoted from above. You appoint a manager in the hope that they will become a leader to their followers
Recent Comments