It has begun

I left my first class last week fairly exhausted and overwhelmed. My first course is Foundations of Organizational Leadership. I realized, after much reflection, that I had really signed on for the "organizational ethics" bit of the program, and hadn't given a whole lot of thought to the leadership part. Oops.

But upon reflection, I realized that while my surface definition of leadership is fairly narrow, I have done a great deal of reading and reflecting on true leadership. I forced myself to do the reading by Sunday, and I didn't write my first assignment, my Personal Concept of Leadership until today. On purpose. Pretty much figured I had to have the maximum amount of time to process before I could pull something coherent out of my ass. Pardon my French.

This whole APA format thing is also kicking my ass, but I'm developing a plan.

So here it is. My first assignment. I'll post the final version at the end of the semester. Enjoy!

Personal Concept of Leadership (Preliminary)

Leadership is the process of communicating or directing the creation of a collective vision of the future or a future endeavor; the ability to facilitate group cohesion and mobilization towards enacting this vision; and engaging and sustaining group energy and commitment through demonstrating and communicating faith in the goal, the process, and the people who will enact the outcome of the vision.

The ability to clearly communicate vision is crucial to garnering buy-in and support. If the outcome is unclear or the goal is nebulous, the leader must rely solely on personal qualities such as charisma and “personality” to gain attention, or methods that are more coercive if the leader is in a position of authority. In the first case, he may create initial excitement about his ideas, but will ultimately be unable to effectively organize anyone to his cause. In the latter, it is likely that while participation is mandated, any enthusiasm or truly personal contributions from others will be few, and the outcome may lack richness or resonance as a result. If instead, the leader can truly articulate his vision, can visualize and communicate ways it might be enacted, and can clearly express the positive outcomes possible, he can garner support that is voluntary and potentially sustainable.

Leadership is often associated with specific personality traits, gender and age. Examples of the typical American leader would include Presidents Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton. Both possessed charm and magnetism. They were extroverted, persuasive and charismatic. They engendered fiercely loyal support from their supporters, even in the face of scandal and controversy. They were both men, over the age of 50, who looked good on television. They embodied what we consider “leadership qualities” in America.

The surface qualities we typically associate with leaders are also often the qualities innate in people with narcissistic tendencies. Narcissists do not have internal flexibility – they see any action pertaining to their vision as a reflection on themselves – a good idea or outcome is one they will want credit for, and a poor idea or outcome will be met with recrimination, distain, or disassociation. This leaves very little room for innovation within an organization, and can be demoralizing.

Leadership is not just about creating initial support; it is about delivering quantifiable results. Many people who lack so-called “leadership qualities” are highly effective leaders, regardless of age, gender, or personality type. To deliver results a leader must do more than create excitement or enthusiasm; she must facilitate the organizational process. An effective leader understands the strengths of the people she leads, and can help them to bring their “best selves” to the creation process. She must also be self-aware and self-realized enough to allow and encourage innovation, though it might change the specifics of how her idea will come to pass. This requires flexibility, adaptability, and a measure of emotional maturity, regardless of age. The ownership of the vision must, at some point pass from the leader to the group in order for it to be fully synthesized and then acted upon.

This transference of vision from the domain of the leader to the domain of the group is crucial to the success of the project, and to the success of the leader. The role of the leader then becomes one of support and guidance, rather than rigid control and direction. If the leader is reluctant to relinquish ownership of his vision to the collective, he and his project will become bogged down in details, or will become derailed or diminished by the inevitable setbacks and delays that occur. If, however, transference takes place, every team member is in some area a leader, and can bring all manner of talents to bear. No one person possesses every available quality, but a group can encompass a great many. Perhaps the leader is an excellent communicator, but is easily frustrated when dealing with bureaucracy. A team member may be adept at traversing the tricky waters of red tape, or may have beneficial relationships in the department that is causing delay. If the leader is unable to relinquish control, he will not be able to take full advantage of the unique qualities of his team. If he is comfortable with sharing ownership and credit, he will have access to all the talents of the members of his organization, and they will have a share in the credit and satisfaction derived from a successful outcome.

To summarize, effective leadership must be visionary, compelling and clear. It must empower those called to follow, and it must be flexible, adaptable and equitable. Leadership is a fluid quality that should pass from the domain of the few to the many with ease, and not be dependant on the personality or ego of any one person.

copyright 2006, Michelann Oster

Pre-School reading

I've been reading three books on the corporate experience. The Corporation, Working with Emotional Intelligence, and Built to Last. All three deal with ethics in business, but from vastly different perspectives.

The Corporation talks about the origin of the modern corporation, and how it evolved from what used to be essentially extended partnerships. The idea that the owners of an organization (the shareholders) would not be participants was originally regarded as immoral and was legislated against. The basic message of the book is that corporations are legal entities, the way citizens are legal entities, but they are not subject to the same rules as citizens. They exist solely to profit the stockholders, and any activity that does not forward that end is, in the context of the corporate system, "immoral". Therefore, a corporation cannot be subject to human rules or laws of ethical conduct, because it is contrary to the pillars of the business. The author makes a strong case, but loses me when his solution is to return to strict government regulation. While this might be the best answer, I think it's highly unlikely, and I think changing the culture within the corporation is going to be the only option.

Built to Last is a book that studies the characteristics of "visionary" companies, as defined by the authors. Visionary companies are long-lived, have core values that never completely disappear, and are able to roll with internal and external changes better than their counterparts. The authors hold, sort of, that ethical behavior and rules are very much part of the cultures and literature of visionary companies, but they tend to ignore some of the grosser exceptions to this rule. There's no mention of Wal-Mart's labor practices, or Phillip Morris's health policies. The authors seem to believe that ethical business and employment practices are usually by-products of visionary companies, and that the exceptions are few and far between. While I don't believe they are entirely mutually exclusive, I agree with the author of The Corporation, in that any policy must further the corporation's bottom line, regarless of how ethical or unethical it is, in order to be successful.

Working with Emotional Intelligence is much more psychology based. The author believes that raising an individual or group's EQ level, has widespread positive outcomes for a business that will ultimately positively effect the bottom line. EQ consists of a combination of critical thinking skills, ability to recognize strong impulses and control them, social awareness, adaptability and several other skills that pretty much all fall under the category of emotional maturity. He lays out several core competencies that he believes are necessary for success, and provides examples. The weakness of the book is it provides information on training others, but not on evaluating and improving EQ levels for the reader himself. He also provides some compelling examples of how organizations acted in and emotionally intelligent way when faced with a difficult moral quandary. I've been considering recommending this book to the career development person at my work, because I think it builds on a lot of the ideas put forth by other books in our library, but the lack of actual hands-on activities or even evaluations lessens it's helpfulness quite a bit.

All three books have helped me hone and develop my own ideas about ethics and business and how they do and don't mix. School starts tomorrow, so I won't be reading much that isn't assigned for a while.