Prior
to taking my executive MBA course in Global Leadership in Singapore, the
students (many of whom are middle or senior managers working for global firms) are
required to complete a brief assignment and answer several questions. One of
these questions is why it is important for them to want to be a leader. Over the
years, I have compiled over hundreds of these responses, and they tend to
cluster in three different categories. About a third refer to students’
ambitions to be promoted and move up to senior management positions, and to
have a successful professional career. Another third are about their strong
drive to achieve challenging goals. And about a third are about their
motivation to help or to be part of a larger mission (they are the “givers”
rather than “takers,” in Adam Grant’s terminology). The following is a sample
of answers from this third group of students:
I enjoy the challenge of helping
others to succeed and take pride in my ability to develop and empower people. I
also like building high performing teams that have a common goal with each
member understanding their vital role in achieving that goal - “the golden
thread.”
I believe that I want to be a leader so that I can help
others and improve the well-being of others.
Yes, it
would give me immense satisfaction to look back and recognize that my
leadership has developed a set of capable individuals and has contributed
towards the growth of the company.
I enjoy seeing my contributions producing greater impact
to a wider audience and seeing results. Being a leader is about being a
knowledgeable servant, a change initiator, an adaptable learner, a good
communicator and a person of action.
I enjoy helping people grow, by mutually sharing
knowledge and experiences, building on their strengths and developing the areas
where they need help. I get a lot of energy from looking at what we have today,
and what we need to succeed in the next 3-5 years, and building plans to bring
that vision to life.
From
my experience having worked for over 30 years in Fortune 500 companies and
continuing to coach and consult with executives, I’m not surprised at this
distribution of responses. While only a third see their motivation in terms of
a larger mission, it is this group of future leaders who are vitally important
to the long-term success of their organizations.
Now
for those of you who have an MBA, who have gone through any leadership programs
or courses, or have read books on leadership, I am sure you are familiar with
the many explanations and theories of leadership. Amazon last month alone had
over 30,000 book results on this subject. As a professor who teaches leadership
in a business school, and as a consultant who coaches managers and executives
to become better leaders, I am reasonably acquainted with many of the debates
about leadership (e.g., whether leaders are born or made, whether we need
management or leadership, whether leadership really makes a difference in
organizations). In a new book very critical of the Harvard Business School (and
many other business schools, by implication), the writer Duff McDonald
resurrects many of these criticisms in a chapter entitled “Can Leaders Be
Manufactured?”
What
exactly are his arguments against the business school approach to leadership and
leadership education? First, he claims that there is no general agreement on a
definition of leadership. Perhaps, he argues, this is because leadership cannot
be taught in the same way as other business topics (such as accounting) because
it is “… more of an emergent quality and context-specific.” In other words, leadership
cannot be defined because it is something that a person either has or does not
have in a particular situation.
Second,
by emphasizing the individual qualities of the leader (that is, the leader as a
heroic individual), HBS and other business schools are ignoring the
collaborative aspects of leadership. Third, leadership cannot be boiled down into a
set of skills or placed in a pedestal as a virtue because it (see earlier
argument above) “… severs the whole notion of leadership from its ties to
identity, community, and context.” For McDonald, leadership cannot be reduced to
a number or packaged into some kind of checklist.
And
fourth, business schools “conflate” leadership with formal authority and
hierarchical supervision. In other words, he claims that business schools teach
students that to be a leader, they have to be a boss first. Furthermore, business
schools (especially HBS) teach students to be leaders so they can advance their
careers and improve corporate financial performance. As evidence that HBS has
not produced leaders who have made a difference in making the world better, he
points out that their graduates tend to “horde together” in similar industries
depending on where they can make the most money.
McDonald’s
blistering critique of the business school approach to leadership seems
over-the-top (as is much of the book) and he is selective in citing quotations
and books that support his arguments. His bias against teaching leadership (and
by extension, organizational behavior) is exemplified with his statement that
starting in the 1950s, when corporations decided to outsource leadership
training to business schools, this was proof positive indicating that they (and
human resources) were merely showing “a feigned interest in the human side of
corporate life.”
Based
on my reading of his book, I doubt that McDonald has reviewed the extensive
scientific literature on leadership, sat in on some recent classes on
leadership, or interviewed recent business school graduates who have taken
courses in organizational behavior. In fact, his view of leadership can be summarized
succinctly when he states, in another section of the book: “Most of us can
agree that leadership is an emergent quality; it reveals itself in the moment,
and you either rise to the challenge or you don’t.” (p. 197) To paraphrase
McDonald: Really? Is that all there is? That leadership is all about just
stepping up when the situation calls for it? On this one point, I agree that rising
to the challenge is certainly part of being a leader. As management guru
Marshall Goldsmith likes to point out, courses in leadership and company
programs to develop leaders won’t do a bit of good unless the person himself or
herself makes a decision to become a better leader. However, to modify an
established psychological principle, PL = M x A x E. In other words, your
performance as a leader (PF) is a function not only of your Motivation (Do you
want to be a leader? Do you have the desire? Do you have the courage?) but also
of your Ability (or more generally, your skill set) and the Environment (Does
the situation help or hinder the exercise of leadership, e.g., does your
organization encourage you to grow as a leader, do you have role models or
others who have influenced you?). For McDonald, leadership seems to be all
about the M. In my experience in coaching leaders, it seems that many
individuals don’t necessarily make a conscious decision to become a leader.
Leadership for them becomes more of a process and a discovery, where over time
(as they form a direction or point of view, try to influence others or get
encouragement from role models), they increase their self-awareness and find
out they want to do this, and/or they might be good at this.
I
also agree with his criticism of what passes for much of leadership education
these days in business schools, where such leadership courses seem isolated and
unintegrated with courses such as finance and marketing. There is much more
that can be done to embed leadership perspectives in these functional courses. The
other major criticism that McDonald has about business schools like HBS is what
he considers to be an almost total reliance on the case method. This is not
quite fair; many business schools have supplemented their lectures and cases
with simulations and experiential activities such as role plays so students can
get behavioral feedback. They have taken to heart the research findings (and
common sense) indicating that much of adult learning comes from experience and
learning from others. Many business schools have designed structured
experiences so that students get feedback, reflect on what they have done, and
raise their self-awareness. This is especially important for leadership
courses, where students need to observe, practice and get feedback about their
leadership mind-set and skills.
Rather
than addressing his arguments point-by-point, I’d like to offer several
observations about leadership and leadership education. First, despite what
McDonald claims, there has been emerging consensus over the past two decades on
what constitutes leadership and leadership effectiveness. There are several
excellent and well-researched books on leadership that summarize these
findings, including Leadership in
Organizations by social scientist Gary Yukl (2010). Although there are
indeed many definitions of leadership, almost all organizational psychologists
would agree with Yukl’s conclusion that “most definitions share the assumption
that (leadership) involves an influence process concerned with facilitating the
performance of a collective task.” (p. 23), and that this influence is for a
direction (some would say “vision” or “point of view”) that the leader has in
mind. He then summarizes ten behaviors of effective leaders, based on the
overwhelming research evidence to date. I’ve included these below, along with the
eight behaviors of effective managers that Google identified recently based on
the extensive data they collected internally on what differentiates effective
from average managers (Garvin, 2013). There is a strong overlap in these two
lists (as well as several others that have emerged in the literature).
Furthermore, most social scientists agree that leadership can be defined as a
set of behaviors that can be learned and practiced (e.g., Kouzes and Posner, 2007),
and that effective leadership does lead to better engagement, motivation, and
performance. In other words, good leaders do make a difference not only to the
individuals but also to their teams, their organizations, and to their
communities and societies.
Second,
contrary to what McDonald asserts, the great majority of contemporary research
and practice on leadership stresses the importance of collaborative versus
authoritarian leadership. The Jack Welches of the world are still around but
they are a minority among executives today. I remember reading in an interview
a few years ago when Jeff Immelt, Welch’s successor and current CEO of GE,
commented that if he had to give a direct order more than five times a year, he
felt he was not being an effective leader. In fact, there is no respectable
social scientist today who would argue that leadership is synonymous with
hierarchy, formal authority, or a command-and-control view. Perhaps the best
contemporary examples of this collaborative approach to leadership development
are coming not from the corporate world but from the military, and specifically
West Point. From conversations I have had with faculty and students there, as
well as books by and interviews with West Point graduates (just as one example,
former general Stanley McChrystal wrote a book recently on shared power and
leadership and has a successful consulting practice helping companies), their
approach to leadership as collaborative and as a set of behaviors that can be
learned is consistent with the evidence from social science research.
Of
course, there are still many executives today who view leadership as a raw grab
for power and exercise of authority. These are reflected in the comments from
some of my students, and there are many examples of these ego-driven and
narcissistic types in organizations today. But for the most part, managers as
well as senior executives in different types of organizations recognize that
they need a different kind of leadership these days to be effective.
In
summary: 1) leaders are both born and made; in other words, while some may have
traits that help them to become leaders, many of us can build and improve on
our leadership skills; 2) leadership can be exercised at many levels of an
organization, and is not dependent solely on power or status; 3) those with
collaborative skills and concern for others (along with technical skills and
the right kinds of experiences) tend to become more effective leaders in the
long run, 4) for many, becoming a leader is more of a process rather than a
single act or decision that defines them as a leader, with self-awareness being
a critical aspect of this journey, and 5) learning from experience and from
others (such as role models) can greatly influence one’s growth and development
as a leader. Many years ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger, when he was still a
bodybuilder, used to tell his fans that they were never going to build up their
bodies simply by reading his books and watching his videos (of which he had
quite a few). You had to go and actually exercise and practice. The best
approaches to leadership education today focus on those critical behaviors
constituting leadership and provide students with the knowledge and skills to
practice and improve their effectiveness as leaders in the context of their
specific situation.
What Effective Leaders Do (Yukl)
·
Help
interpret the meaning of events
·
Create
alignment on objectives and strategies
·
Build
task commitment and optimism
·
Build
mutual trust and cooperation
·
Strengthen
collective identity
·
Organize
and coordinate activities
·
Encourage
and facilitate collective learning
·
Obtain
necessary resources and support
·
Develop
and empower people
·
Promote
social justice and morality
|
What an Effective Leader
Does (Google)
· Is a good coach
· Empowers the team and does
not micromanage
· Expresses interest in and
concern for team members’ success and personal well-being
· Is productive and
results-oriented
· Is a good
communicator—listens and shares information
· Helps with career
development
· Has a clear vision and
strategy for the team
· Has key technical skills
that help him or her advise the team
|
Garvin, D. (2013). How Google Sold Its
Engineers on Management. Harvard Business
Review, December.
Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (2007). The Leadership Challenge. New York:
Wiley.
McDonald, D. (2017). The Golden Passport. New York: HarperCollins.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment