Re: Leadership Can be Taught? LO1706

DwBuff@aol.com
Mon, 19 Jun 1995 21:06:07 -0400

Replying to LO1550 --

Ivan says:

> I believe that there are at least two different areas of
> leadership that we must differentiate. When we talk about learning to be
> a leader, one first needs to learn some basic theories related to the area
> of leadership, facilitating collective action, etc. Then one must "see"
> those theories in action, and I think that the must effective way for this
> to happen is to some kind of mentor that shows the way initially, and then
> lets you fly solo! These two are could take place simultaneously too, or
> in the reverse order.

I'd like to pose an adder of something else on leadership which has been
bugging me for years. I am one who says it may be possible to teach
principles of leadership without the totality of the concept ever coming
to rest WITHIN the person attempting to learn leadership.

In many writings about leadership, common patterns of acting are espoused
- vision, values, purpose, communications, bias for action (versus
reflection) etc. I've seen excellent leaders and POORER leaders both
capable of doing the prescription. To me, what distinguishes LEADERSHIP is
written about in only a few books. Many of these distinguishing features
appear to be more tacit in nature than simply having a written vision
statement, or clear guiding principles. These kinds of principles are
necessary, but I do not believe them sufficient.

Here are some observations on some tacit points of my favorite leaders.

They all had a passion for what they were doing.

They all gave trust and let me either prove worthy of it or not.

They all developed a personal relationship with me and cared about me.

They always gave credit, NEVER taking it themselves.

Talking about "failures" was as important as talking about success.

They all listened and respected my input (as a human being). We call it
dialogue.

They shared themselves and worked with me (we were servants to each
other).

We were equals (all of us human beings doing our best). Instead of being
the boss, they were coaches, but were also willing to be coached.

They wanted to hear the truth. All of them were good at spotting B.S. at
10 miles and pointing it out to the B.S.'er in some non-threatening way.

They took responsibility and accountability for results but gave their
reports authority for decision-making. (This is fun!!)

They were rarely critical of the individual. They were extremely likely to
focus on process or system.

Their actions were consistent with their words.

They liked to have fun! A couple were almost playful at work.

For all of our management mantra of vision, purpose, values,
communications, these folks did only the communications part of that. Yet,
under their LEADERSHIP, the groups I was with prospered. Why? They
encouraged learning and curiosity and honesty. Seeking these, we got
smarter without trying real hard. It was just plain fun to get smarter
about what we were doing. These leaders were like that themselves and we
followed. The leaders were even willing to collaborate with us and be in
awe at discoveries which were made.

(Am I describing some of the Model II behavior Argyris writes about? I
have not read enough of what his work to see a clear picture yet.)

No question in my mind these leaders would have been even greater with
crisp, clear shared vision, values, and purpose. However, they were very
effective since the tacit side of leadership was what they did so
powerfully. And, I question if this passion, this caring can be taught.

Food for thought!! Comments?

--
Dave Buffenbarger
TQM Consultant
(517) 638-7080
Dow Chemical Company
dwbuff@aol.com