From Trendscope.net
Leaders, writes psychologist Howard Gardner, tend to
have—and to need—an "inclination from
early childhood for risk-taking and a willingness to
go to great lengths—often in defiance of others,
including those in positions of authority—in order
to achieve their ends." Then, too, a "motive
to gain power—either for its own sake or in pursuit
of a specific aim—is invariably present,"
in leaders, as well as "a confidence that one will
at least sometimes attain success" and an "implacability
in the face of opposition."
In a management textbook, Donelson Forsyth outlined
several decades ago what was then the conventional wisdom of requirements
for leadership. He listed things like achievement drive, adaptability,
alertness, energy, responsibility, self-confidence and sociability.
Leadership guru John Gardner’s things leaders need to have
included physical stamina, intelligence and judgment, eagerness
to accept responsibilities, task competence, a capacity to motivate,
skill in dealing with people, the capacity to win and hold trust,
the capacity to manage and decide and set priorities—and of
course, if at all possible, charisma.
Warren Bennis’s list of leadership qualifications begins with
"a guiding vision" and includes passion, integrity, trust
(and trustworthiness), curiosity and daring, a "congruity"
between visions and a leader’s life and personality, and reliability.
His earlier list of traits not being enough of a job description,
Howard Gardner added a number of more detailed requirements. They
included "a tie to the community (or audience)"; "a
certain rhythm of life" that allows time for reflection and
renewal; "an evident relation between stories and embodiments"
in the person of the leader; and "the centrality of choice,"
exercised by followers who need to be won over.
In The Leadership Challenge, James Kouzes and Barry Bosner list
as the "five fundamental practices of exemplary leadership"
to "challenge the process," "inspire a shared vision,"
"enable others to act," "model the way," and
"encourage the heart."
Colin Powell’s well-traveled "Leadership Primer"
has eighteen points, beginning with "being responsible means
sometimes pissing people off" and continuing to …
You begin to get the point.
For people aspiring to leadership positions in organizations, or
new to them, thumbing through three or four of the leading books
in the field can be a menacing experience. Curious would-be leaders
are left with literally dozens of things that will be expected of
them in their new roles. What if, they might rightly ask, I’m
not sure if I can "encourage the heart"? What if my "rhythm
of life" is off the mark? What if I’m not charismatic
enough?
And especially, how in the world can I keep these dozens of things
in my head all the time? How can I be speaking to someone and be
thinking, Gee, am I modeling the way right now? Am I pissing people
off enough or am I seeking their approval too much?
Anyone who’s done it or studied it will be quick to admit
that leadership is far more art than science. And yet, in good social
scientific style, the leadership literature just can’t help
but try to quasi-quantify this animal by boiling it down to the
four or eight or twenty-three "essential principles."
Even if any given list were accurate, there’s one thing the
literature resolutely cannot promise you: that following it will
guarantee success. A leader might be self-confident, but in a way
that’s wrong for the context (for example, a nonprofit). She
might "model the way" too aggressively for her colleagues
in a partnership context (such as a law firm). She might deny authority
once too often and earn her way out of a firm’s inner circle.
Then, too, any given context—organizational, national, industry-wise—will
demand its own list. To lead scientists, for example, it helps an
awful lot to have been a widely-respected scientist at some point
in one’s career, much more so than the same "specialist
knowledge credibility" rule is true of, say, salespeople or
marketers.
The bottom line is that the leadership literature—even the
stuff by people who are rightly legends, like Warren Bennis and
John Gardner—does a great disservice by promoting list-mania.
We’ve quite enough of that around, in this "seven principles"
age of ours.
What makes a successful leader? God knows, most of the time. Did
Winston Churchill "enable others to act"? Did Martin Luther
King have adaptability? Did Jack Welch display adequate sociability?
More than anything, great leaders seem to embody these lists, to
reflect them naturally rather than making a study of them and pasting
them to the top of the sunshade in their car for handy reference.
They have a gut sense of what the context demands and a rough-and-ready
approximation of the timeless practices of leaders.
Bottom line? To those emerging leaders who would rely
on the insightful works in this field, perhaps it’s
best to ignore the lists. Focus on the analysis, the
stories, the case histories. Absorb something of the
flavor of these works. But no book or article will provide
any leader with the six or eight principles they need
to succeed, partly because that list is ultimately often
unique to each job. Leadership cannot be reduced to
lists.
|
