I have led, and I have followed, and there have been times when I have totally lost the perspective of my position. These lost times have made me contemplative on the topic of leadership; they have honed my viewpoint as I have had to question the most fundamental aspects of leadership to regain perspective. My wonderings, musings, observations, research, study, and self-mediated debates—although never to hear the final rebuttal—have yielded two radical characteristics of leadership.
Leadership and leaders—the embodiment of leadership—exist to effect positive change. If we were all satisfied with the way things are in the world, there would be no need for leaders. We would still need managers to oversee the individuals who maintain the status quo, and we would still need supervisors to oversee the tasks and processes associated with that maintenance.
But, of course, we’re not satisfied. We see endless possibilities for continuous improvement and change. Part of this is based on our baser requirement for survival, and part based on our human desire to strive toward perfection in most any endeavor we pursue.
Something that has impressed me most about effective leaders is their ability to lead change while preserving stability within the changing enterprise. I draw upon the automotive industry for a prime example.
The story of Studebaker has always fascinated me. Studebaker produced American automobiles from the early 1900’s to the mid 1960’s. The company was formed in the 1850’s, and produced wagons and carriages before transitioning to automobiles. Studebaker was the only manufacturer of wagons and carriages to transition to a top-ranked automobile producer. John Mohler Studebaker embraced the change, knowing that only through this change would the company survive. This culture of change-driven leadership was reinforced after World War II, when Studebaker was the first company to introduce new styles as opposed to re-introduced pre-war models. Even at the company’s imminent demise, Studebaker introduced the Avanti in 1962. It was heralded as a stylistic breakthrough. Unfortunately, it did not save the company; however, as a testimony to the appeal of the automobile, replicas continue to be produced 40 years after Studebaker closed its doors.
What a comprehensive legacy of leadership – transitioning to automobiles, surviving the Great Depression and World War II, competing against much larger automobile manufacturers, and fighting to the very end. I’m certain that John Mohler Studebaker and many of his successors could teach us a great deal about introducing change while preserving stability in unstable times.
Leadership is mostly learned, and it is a life-long learning and teaching endeavor. We should all accept that we will never be the fully actualized leader. There will always be requirements for change, which means there will always be opportunities to learn.
I recall a personal incident, when I was well-taught by a colleague of mine on the subject of learning and leadership. As a member of the senior leadership team in the University of Georgia’s premier Information Technology division, I was informed that I would be attending a leadership seminar. After grousing a bit about having to attend yet one more leadership seminar—foolishly thinking that I had all the leadership skills I would ever need—my friend and colleague made a very insightful comment. “Even Lee Iacoca,” said my friend, “needs a refresher course every now and then.”
These words, among many others, have guided my learning, now grounded in these two fundamental principles:
You learn more from following then you do from leading. Consider this principle a natural corollary to “you learn more from listening than talking.” By following, observing, and most importantly, being receptive to mentoring do we learn most from those who lead us well. To lead, then, becomes the practice of what we have learned by following. Leading is not possible without following, and following well those who teach us well.
You can learn from “bad leaders” as well as “good leaders,” but you can always learn more from good leaders. It has become rather cliché to say that you can learn as much from bad leaders as from good leaders. I am, however, someone hesitant to even use the phrase “bad leaders.” In fact, I believe there are no bad leaders. There are true leaders and false leaders. Individuals in positions of authority who understand their responsibilities and function, who understand that they serve whom they lead by creating and supporting a climate of sustainable, secure, change-driven success are true leaders. All others are simply those in a position of authority who do not understand their role and purpose.
While you can certainly learn how not to do things from a false leader, you learn much more from a true leader. The key reason, again, is mentoring. Those who lead well mentor well; they give of their knowledge as they give of themselves to those whom they lead. Leaders are never selfish of their knowledge, wisdom, time, experience, or expertise.
And besides, who strives to attain a “Worst Practices Award”? It is, of course, the best practices we learn from and do well to apply.
From these two basic characteristics of leadership I have derived several associated attributes of leadership. Though a number of common themes run throughout these attributes, which characterize true leaders as multi-threaded, diverse thinkers with vision and passion who create an emotional connection that creates a society of supported and sustainable change within an organization, a number of differences between management and leadership also emerge.
It has been my experience that we all understand that there is a very fundamental difference between leadership and management; however, it seems just as universal that we have difficulty articulating those differences. Simply stated, and I believe the following attributes support, the most fundamental difference: Management is a contract among people; leadership is a bond.
No comments:
Post a Comment