Matthew Richter posts daily comments in LinkedIn—well, almost daily. You can follow him and join the conversation by going to http://linkedin.com/in/matthew-richter-0738b84.
For the benefit of our readers, we decide to compile and reprint some of his provocative pieces from the past. Let us know what you think.
Leadership
How do we know someone has led successfully? How do we know someone has even led? I like the MacGregor Burns’ definition that it is the act of arousing people to mobilize from point A to point B. Having the intent to lead does not make one a leader. There has to be a result. An outcome. That outcome must be described and shared. A story. Think of the metaphor of a tree falling in the woods. So, one cannot be a leader until one has actually led, and then, that leadership can only be assigned retroactively. The people evaluating leaders are either followers, journalists, historians, or acolytes. Someone must tell the story, frame the leadership event, as leadership. The story may never spread. Or, as it gets told, a mythology begins. The person is defined by others as a leader. Regardless of fact, sometimes the story is even stronger than the absolute truth of what happened. Leadership is marketing. It’s branding. It’s powerful, It’s the story that helps perpetuate motion from A to B. The mythology of Ronald Reagan as a great leader didn’t exist before or even during the beginning of his Presidency. He was lampooned as an actor. His leadership story grew immensely once he left office. It is irrelevant whether it is fact or fiction irrelevant.
More About Leadership
We are too nonchalant in using the term “leadership”. We use it to mean position, à la “the leadership team.” We use it interchangeably with managing a project, à la “lead a project team.” Or, we discuss leadership as some vague, nebulous set of competencies we can develop in others— assuming they have the control over their environments. But, leadership, to be a useful concept, needs finer definition and scope. The OED simply refers to leading as to “organize and direct.” Certainly not what we refer to in politics or business. James MacGregor Burns’ definition has always been my favorite and to me, the most useful... “Leadership over human beings is exercised when persons with certain motives and purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of followers.” In other words, not managing or executing a project. Not a specific set of competencies, but an outcome derived in a myriad of ways. Leadership is complex. Leadership is not a set of four or five principles. It is not a soundbite. It is complex and multi-disciplinary. In other words, the goal is to get people up and off the couch, doing something they weren’t already doing, happily.
Another Discussion of Leadership
You can’t tell someone to lead. You can’t predict if someone will lead. You can’t teach someone to lead. If that were true, all championship sports coaches would be champions regardless of players, teams, and competition. The problem with telling someone to lead, is the circumstances and contexts dictate whether she can more so than the desire to do so. Predicting leadership implies we know all the variables at play with regard to leadership. And, while I can teach behaviors that may correlate to leadership, I cannot prepare someone to handle those same variables. Historical leaders like FDR, Churchill, Lincoln, and others were not well regarded prior to their leadership moments. They were either held in contempt, ridiculed as lightweights, or dismissed as compromisers. It is only in retrospect that we regard leaders as leaders. Leadership requires a person to lead. Sure. But, even more importantly, it requires the right circumstances for that person to lead, followers who recognize her leadership as leadership, and a little bit of luck.