The following comment was received recently from a fellow consultant in Australia responding to our piece "Leadership Is Passé." Some editing of the original message and response was done to better fit our Web site format. The "I" in the response is Don Summers.
Comment: I am a consultant currently grappling with a problem (in a manufacturing environment) where associates consider their biggest problem lack of direction/leadership from their managing director (MD). I question your suggestion that leadership is unnecessary. In this instance the managing director constantly talks about "partnerships" and spends his time "innovating," "developing strategic alliances," and "anticipating market trends."
The divisional managers have the freedom and encouragement to be leaders and the managing director thinks they should be able to lead themselves. But, his team tells me they want direction and leadership. Because there is not a "natural" leader amongst them I've observed that they are reticent to "own" their respective [goals]. They "talk" teams and partnerships but essentially do their own thing. I might add they're so busy being "operational" that they have little time to do or consider any thing else.
Effective leadership need not imply old-fashioned "control" but isn't control/direction essential for any company? How do you feel about the idea "lead first and manage later?"
Response: I don't disagree with anything you say. Our point in "Leadership is Passé" is simply that conditions are changing so quickly today that leadership has to include people at all levels in an organization. Here are four points in response to your comments:
Point #1 -- Clear Direction: There needs to be leadership, I'd say strong leadership -- especially clear overall direction. The best work that I have seen in setting clear, compelling direction always includes a broad base of employees ("partners") in the development and implementation of direction. Often when that is not done, the business doesn't receive sufficient support to move to the next level.
I have recently done work where the CEO and his reports developed the overall direction, and then cascaded this work down the organization in planning sessions at the business-unit level. Every, single employee was involved in interpreting the new direction into plans for their business units and their individual work. The result: Every employee became a partner in putting in play a new direction for the company and applying it to what they were to be held accountable to accomplish. The level of commitment has been strong. Partners are clear as to what they must do, and they are enthused in carrying through on commitments made. As the plans were being cascaded down the organization, employees influenced their final form.
Point #2 -- Natural leaders: Unless you have clear direction from on high, it's very difficult to get people down the line to take hold and "lead the charge." You bring up a very interesting and perplexing point. What happens when you don't have natural leaders? I have found it very difficult for a business under changing conditions to operate effectively unless you have some natural leadership beyond the top person. If your MD looks out and concludes that he/she has no natural leadership to back him/her up, then you may have to make changes in the lineup. Often leadership capabilities are there and simply need to be developed. Your MD's team members might include persons who have latent leadership capabilities. In that case setting up a plan to enhance leadership would be appropriate.
Point #3 -- Structure the work: The way I would bring senior managers into the equation more fully is to work with them on a plan -- a plan that they all agree with. Then I'd figure out what support they need to carry out their responsibilities. Then I'd hold them accountable to get the results. The team you describe sounds as if the members are whining, quite frankly. If true, whining comes often when people are insecure. When people are in over their heads, you have to decide if they can rise to occasion with help/support or whether the job is beyond them. "Leading first" to me is setting direction with key players, establishing very sound plans, and then working to make the team members successful. In my mind, the most important job of the top person is to make everyone successful.
Paragraph #4 -- Need for good followers: Finally, I have come to a conclusions lately: When you develop outstanding followers, you will create very fine leaders. The beauty of the work I've done in partnership is that we have offered "followers" a broader, bigger, more interesting role in organizations. In the process, many of these followers have been transformed into very fine leaders. In one project that has extended over the past two years, we developed a People Plan to identify how to utilize people better and more strategically. A sampling from that plan is posted on this Web site under Planning. We developed a Partnership Course from inside the company and used people all the way down to the frontline to facilitate the course. The role of the managing partners has become more participatory/inclusive and the role of the non-managing partners has been to take on leadership in a variety of situations. This kind of organizational transformation requires strong commitment from executive management and lots of hard work to get it off the ground and keep it flying.
Peter Block's book Stewardship is an excellent backdrop for what I have presented here. There is also a good book on followership by Ira Chaleff (The Courageous Follower) -- and another one by Robert Kelley (The Power of Followership). These books are useful counterpoints to leadership.
