Re: Leadership & Personality LO2607

tim smith (timsmith@RedShift.Com)
Mon, 28 Aug 1995 14:07:09 +0000

Replying to LO2584 --

Clyde Howell writes: --

(much deletia)

>Leaders are out in front. I perform a teambuilding activity with my
clients wherein a group is blindfolded and placed on a rope. Everyone
MUST maintain their relative position on the rope. One is selected from
the group to lead the group. The catch is that the leader is the only one
who can speak. I have never seen a leader who was effective leading from
the side or the rear. This is often translated into walking their talk.<

>Managers and commanders work from the side and the rear. Effective
leaders work from the front. If you remember the movies Gettysburg and
Glory, the officers led from the front. That's why COL Shaw died as he
did. His death inspired his command to continue in the face of impossible
odds. That's why so many officers were killed during Gettysburg. These
days officers (and executives) seem to be pushed more into the commander
role and operate away from the main action.<

----------------in reply:

In regards to the exercise; is it possible that the setup itself is the
cause of the results you observe? In the real world, leadership may
emerge from any quarter and at any time. I must confess to a certain
dismay at the continuing use of the 'military' model as a paradigm for
leadership development. As you note Clyde, it has flaws, and it has
certain value, but its perspective is out of date in a world where
resources are not centralized nor is the mission always so clear. (By the
way, I was trained in grad school by the heads of the Army OE school at
Ft. Ord, who, upon retiring, did a little teaching along with their
consulting practices)

The work of managers and commanders may be different than the 'work' of
leaders. Yet, it does not preclude them from a leadership role. Who, in
fact, is 'leading' those to the side and rear, if not these same people?
In another place, I argue for dropping the useless dualisms of
leader/manager. I fail to see what is gained in the distinction. Each
time we create another barrier, label, compartment to slip someone into,
we create the very conditions that keep them stuck. In my work, I seek to
help clients, regardless of their position in the organization, to
discover their leadership potential. Not one of them will likely reach
the exalted heights of President or CEO, yet hundreds of them have
influenced others in the organization to grow and perfrom personally and
professionally much more than the nominal 'leader' has done.

I think we need a less heirarchical model of leadership and one that looks
more like a hub and spoke arrrangement (hence Wheelwright) wherein
influence runs from the inside out and vice versa. You know as well as I
do that the guy out front of the platoon, organization, household etc. is
not necessarily a leader, but just happens to be there (too often true in
organizations where politics are suited to the structure and the game is
static within the pyramid). He or she may learn/discover their potential
or they may not. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon; the map
is not the territory.

--
Timothy Smith
Principal, Wheelwright Associates
Organization Transformation Consultants
P.O. Box 221668, Carmel, California 93922
Phone/Fax (408) 624-8138
timsmith@redshift.com