|
|
|
|
Your Personal Leadership Journey
So you wish to be a leader. Now why would that be? Might it be that you seek the status that you attribute to a leader? Might it be because you feel that leaders somehow gain a larger share of the payoff, the honors, the blessing of management? The transformation from follower to leader is one that ought not to be undertaken lightly. There is much commitment required of the person who would take on the mantle of leadership. If folks follow you naturally, that is one thing - you can generally do no wrong. But if you become a leader by fiat, by someone's encouragement, or perhaps by your own ambition, you have some significant work ahead of you, for the mantle of leadership is not bestowed, nor is it assumed, lightly. The led may be largely self-starters, but they must still be led. The direction in which they must be led, the speed of the journey, the cooperation required to make the journey, the cost of the journey, and the results of the journey will require that you do something very specific vis-à-vis the participation of your organization of followers. As a leader, you are not a manager, yet you must manage. You are not a worker, yet you must work. You are not royalty, yet you must reign. You are not a slave, yet you must often serve. For years, leadership has been perceived as super-management, and it has been the role of these super-managers to plan, organize, command (direct), coordinate, and control. The standard paradigm, ever since Peter Drucker's Practice of Management was written, required that there be one figurehead, assisted by innumerable associates, supported by assistant figureheads, themselves assisted by innumerable associates, to exert control over middle-level figureheads. These were assisted generally by a secretary, and in turn exerted control over foremen, shift "leaders," and coordinators, until finally the working people became a part of the total picture. "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians" was a statement that became a part of many an organizational culture. The organization, federation, amalgamation, or gathering of people in the traditional sense has always been but a group of people whose reward has been structured upon its willingness to follow direction. The figurehead makes a decision as to direction and speed, and the people wait around for these decisions to be announced, often moving under protest and with much derision. Traditionally, followers have been loyal to their leader. They do whatever the leader wants them to do, go where the leader wants them to go. And they do this in exchange for whatever salary, privilege, respect, or accomplishment that may be bestowed upon them by the leader and his cadre of associates. The problem with the approach was that while it was a testament to the capabilities of the figurehead, it often really meant that people did only what they were told to do, placing little if any of themselves into the work. Success, if it found these people at all, came at the expense of the furtherance of the so-called mission of the organization. Worse than that, it made the figurehead a workaholic, pushing a traditional workday into extended hours, requiring Shylock's pound of flesh. Recall Tennessee Ernie Ford's song that said, "I owe my soul to the company store." The Ownership Environment Somewhere in the late 1970's we began to witness a shift in the paradigm from organized leadership/followership to collective participation, what might easily be called "team building." We awakened to the fact that what we really wanted was a group of responsible, independent workers, one that could take direction but who would commit themselves to the establishment of a collectively determined goal and a mission mentality that permitted autonomy in its accomplishment. The leadership experience came to be built around these principles: * Leaders transfer ownership for work to those who will execute the work. * Leaders create the environment for the ownership of the goal whereby the people who are being led want to accept the responsibility to pull in harness collectively with their peers. * Leaders coach the followers' development of capabilities - personal where applicable, organizational where necessary. * Leaders acquire speed in learning and share that learning with those who are led, encouraging them also to share their learning with others. * Leaders develop additional leaders among the followers, not only for pursuit of the followers' goals, but also with a view toward their own ultimate replacement. Selecting And Selling Your Vision Ask any entrepreneur what his or her major frustration is, short of perpetually inadequate finances, and the response will often be simply that nobody can do the job as well as the entrepreneur. They, after all, own the place. It is upon their skill that the foundation of the business has been laid. The direction of the business, the speed of movement, the accomplishment of tasks, and the support of the mission all emanate from the entrepreneur's own vision. Look around and it may become apparent that there is a disinterest in work in general and in the work of this business in particular. This does not mean that the workforce is ineffective. It may mean that it is simply not self-obligated to the degree of the commitment given by the one who has "sold the farm" to get here. The problem is that many such owners see a huge gap between the position of the business as it is and the point where survivability is no longer a question. To some, this concern might be competition. To others, efficiency of production might offer the answer. In our own situation, to be realistic, expansion of the organization becomes our primary concern, followed closely by the reward made available by the productivity of the individual people in the expanded organization. It would be easy to attribute the poor performance of others to some fatalistic expression about how times have changed or that others care little about their own responsibilities. In the final analysis, we could feel, others' efforts may contribute to the accomplishment of our goals, but if those goals are to be completed, we'll just have to do the bulk of the activity ourselves. After all, if it is to be done right, it probably would have to be done by ourselves. In a command situation, such as the military, this is done by edict. Leadership is done as a function of the rank one has achieved and the obedience required by the rules under which both parties function, the violation of which can result in time in the brig for the malingerer. In an employment situation, the concept isn't radically different, except that the leverage to achieve this kind of leadership is entangled in favor, reward, opportunity, and, obviously salary. In both instances, however, it is possible to withhold personal contribution and commitment to the goal. In another time and place, I had the opportunity to interview the leader of a largely voluntary organization, a big city church. I asked him what his leadership/management responsibilities were. His responses were insightful: * To decide what has to be done. * To tell somebody to do it. * To listen to reasons why it should not be done, why somebody else should do it, or why it should be done in a different way. * To follow up to see if it has been done. * To discover that it has not been done. * To inquire why it has not been done. * To listen to excuses from the person who should have done it. * To follow up to see that is has been done, only to discover that it has been done incorrectly. * To point out how it should have been done. * To conclude that as long as it has been done, it might as well be left where it is. * To wonder if it is all right to get rid of a person who cannot do a thing right. * To reflect that he or she may have a family and responsibilities and any successor would probably be just as bad and perhaps even worse. * To consider how much simpler and better it would have been done if you'd done it yourself in the first place. * To reflect sadly that one could have done it right in twenty minutes, and now one must spend two days to find out why it has taken three weeks for somebody else to do it wrong. * To resolve that the next time you (will or will not) do it yourself. As may be obvious, this leader's perspective dealt with a series of one-on-one relationships with each and every subordinate or volunteer individually. Though it may seem somewhat less than obvious, those being led are waiting to be led, are "marching in place" waiting for the General to command "forward," and are demonstrating a willingness for somebody else to make all the decisions, cause the necessary movement, apply pressure to ensure achievement, and to go before the group as the journey progresses. And just as clearly, such a form of leadership will not be effective for your purposes. Thus it becomes imperative that the effective leader of today must have a vision of accomplishment and to achieve that vision must be able to sell the concept to a voluntary team-oriented organization. Tomorrow Night -- Leadership and Management |
