Amplifiers. Tom Finegan
Читать онлайн книгу.
people to fill the leadership gap left by their managers? Some employees are motivated by their own career aspirations, seeing the void as an opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities. Others are motivated by serving the customer out of a need to simply do the right thing. These employees are driven by the greater purpose their organization is pursuing.
Titled managers or executives have power. Simply by nature of their title or position, these bosses can get others to do their work. Confusing this with leadership can lead to disastrous results. Some companies mistakenly have managers run leadership development training sessions. Such training sessions likely merge the concepts of leadership and management, but these two disciplines require very different skills. Companies can and should train separately for good management and for good leadership. Far too often, companies conflate the two and they wonder why the results are suboptimal.
Leaders do not need to be good managers, but depending on how high up in the organization the position, good management requires leadership. We have seen many good leaders who cannot manage well. If these good leaders are self-actualized, they recognize that they need to have good followers who are also good managers. They can delegate the management skill far more effectively than a follower can fill a leadership void.
Management Matters
There is an abundance of research on the science of management, and much has been written about how to manage more effectively. The “modern” father of management discipline is Peter Drucker in his 1973 book, Management. A significant amount of derivative work has been written based on his principles. Many of the current-day management philosophies are driven by his concepts. Even as these management practices have evolved over the past decades since Drucker wrote his material, little work has been done to discover traits that make great workers great.
Unlike theories on management, which focus on the “elite few,” very little has been written on individual contributors. Yet these individuals—those who are being managed—make up the majority of employees at many companies and are largely responsible for carrying out the organization's strategic goals. Understanding workers—whether they are subordinates or followers—is a worthwhile study for any leader or manager. Flipping the management theory coin and taking a closer look at employees who are being managed reveals greater insight into how to achieve higher performance from those teams.
Delving into the prevailing wisdom on management highlights several key gaps. We are increasingly operating in a world with a greater number of remote or virtual workers, especially because we've experienced a forced work-from-home environment during the global COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Managing these remote workers requires a different set of tools. Managers cannot manage by walking around, pulling subordinates in for quick conversations in real time, or interacting easily with workers in an informal manner. Culture trumps strategy, and building a strong culture with remote workers is difficult. All these factors and others necessitate the use of differing methods and tools to connect with workers. The effectiveness of these tools remains questionable as the modern workforce grapples with how best to deploy them.
Another change in how knowledge workers get work done is the agile method of running projects and accomplishing work. This style democratizes the nature of work, placing more emphasis on the workers responsible for getting the work done than on the managers overseeing the teams. The following summarizes a few key characteristics of good workers.
Subject Matter Aspects
Subject matter expertise or competency
Accreditation and special training
Company and industry knowledge
Technical Aspects
Project planning and oversight
Team construction and oversight
Problem deconstruction and solving
Risk management and contingency planning
Nontechnical and People Aspects
Communication
Performance management
Professional development
Administrative Aspects
Risk and issue resolution and management
Budgeting and forecasting
Goal setting and tracking
Compliance
Traditional Leadership
“If you think you are a leader and you are out there and turn around and there's nobody behind you, you're not a leader, just a guy out there taking a walk.”
—John Hope Bryant
There is so much confusion regarding what leadership is and what it is not. There is an abundance of books and articles written about leadership. Many universities have courses devoted to studying leadership. But far too often we miss the point. Simply because someone occupies a chair does not make them a leader. Additionally, leaders with charisma or popularity can seduce employees by their style. When we follow these individuals, we often find ourselves in regrettable positions.
What's more, we often feel that leadership is good when that is not necessarily the case. I was in a bookstore several years ago browsing business books and noticed the title of the book, Bad Leadership written by Barbara Kellerman. The main premise of the book is that there have been some great leaders, who have inspired countless followers, into horrible outcomes. This is true on the world stage, as shown by Adolph Hitler, as well as in the business world, as shown by Dennis Kozlowski at Tyco or Jeffrey Skilling at Enron. I used to think of these individuals as horrible leaders. However, when evaluating them in the context of their ability to persuade others to follow, they were actually great leaders with bad motives or bad styles that led to horrible outcomes. Although we may not agree with the direction a leader is taking, it is dangerous to deny that individual is a leader. They, in fact, check many of the leadership boxes, display numerous leadership traits, and ultimately are successful as measured by the number of followers they amass.
Let's take a fresh look at leadership. Leadership is tricky. The ways in which some leaders successfully inspire followers could be disastrous approaches for others. We also need to look at leadership within the context of time. The leadership examples Kellerman uses in her book clearly show leadership capabilities, but are they lasting? What is the shelf life of leadership? History reveals truly great leaders that produced great outcomes. History also reveals the flash-in-the-pan leadership, the kind of leadership that sprouts up to fill some void or deficiency in an organization but does not last. We don't have the benefit of hindsight in the moment. And unfortunately, many people don't fully exercise their critical thinking when they're in the moment. These followers may be overcome by emotion, false information, echo chambers, delusion, greed, power, or other self-serving motives.
One of my favorite debates is whether a trait such as leadership or entrepreneurialism is born or learned behavior. It's hard to watch toddlers, barely able to walk, in a playground and not see leaders and followers in action. There is already something psychologically at play with these children causing one to lead and another to follow. Could it have been the development for the first twelve months or is it DNA? It is likely a bit of both. There is an instinct, environment, and development aspect for leadership.
Leaders ascend to their role in a variety of ways. They may inherit the role, as in the case of King Gustav Adolf (see the introduction), or they may be appointed, elected, or promoted based on the Peter principle, when people tend to rise only to their level of competence. Over the years in my consulting assignments, I've been able to work with some of the world's most respected global companies. I'm amazed that no