Leadership is an
acquired art, not a science, and myths
about its traits cloud our thinking
|
Newsroom • Write a
Letter to the Editor
Related
news from the Web
Find
it online at Topix.net. |
By
Casey Hurley
published:
Go to any bookstore and you will find hundreds of titles on
leadership.
Peter Northouse noted that over the last six years, "the public's
fascination with leadership has grown exponentially."
Why are we so interested in leadership? And why is so much written
about it?
One reason is that many people, including those who write the books,
promote
the following three leadership myths.
Myth #1 is "Middle- and high-level managers can be leaders." This
is a myth because only the person at the top is in a position to lead.
By
virtue of an organization's hierarchical structure, all others
(including high
level managers) are subordinates, whose job is to manage, not to lead.
Many history writers recognize this. Their books about leadership
focus on
the person at the top - Abraham Lincoln, Bill Clinton, Lee Iacocca,
Donald
Trump, Dean Smith, etc.
Other leadership writers, however, presume to teach middle- and
high-level
managers how to lead. These are the "how to become a leader" books.
Although they offer little evidence for claiming that managers can be
leaders,
they promote this myth in order to increase the audience for their
books and
training programs.
When I teach about Myth #1 in graduate classes, I ask two questions.
The
first is, "In your experience, how often do middle- and upper-level
managers lead, and how often do they manage?" In other
words, before agreeing that managers can be leaders, leadership
students should
review their own experience while realizing that leading and managing
are
different functions.
The second question is, "Who gains financially from the belief that
managers can be leaders?" In other words, students should "follow the
money." A financial incentive may explain why the book authors teach
that
managers can be leaders.
Myth #2 is that leadership can be learned from reading books and
attending
training programs. A small part of this belief is true. Effective
leadership
emerges from a leader's wisdom, imagination, strength, courage,
humility and
generosity. The first and second of these qualities can be enhanced by
reading
books and attending leadership training. The others cannot; they are
developed
through experience and soul-searching.
Many leadership programs recognize that even the wisdom and
imagination
learned in academic settings is limited. These programs engage
participants in
role-playing activities. Role playing, however, cannot simulate the
deep
knowledge that leaders use in real life - knowledge about the history
and
culture of an organization, and about the psychology and capabilities
of its
members. So role plays engage participants in the unimportant details
of
organizational situations.
When teaching about Myth #2, I tell students, "In all situations, it
depends on the situation." In other words, they cannot find the answer
to
any specific organizational problem in an academic setting or in the
leadership
literature, no matter how insightful the book may be.
This often prompts students to ask, "If that is all you can tell us,
why are we sitting in a leadership class for 45 hours?" My response has
to
do with the third myth.
Myth #3 is that organizational leadership is an applied social
science. It
is not; it is an art. The "how to become a leader" books and
leadership training programs are based on theories derived from social
science
research. These studies often include the suggestion that more research
is
needed to improve our understanding of leadership. We need to gain more
understanding of leadership, but more research is not what is needed.
Instead, because leading is an art, and because leadership emerges
from deep
within a leader, an improved understanding of leadership results from
an
improved understanding of our humanity.
When teaching about myth #3, I tell students that our leadership
metaphors
for leading should be artistic and aesthetic, not social scientific. So
my
answer to why we spend 45 hours in a leadership class is that it takes
a long
time for us to become human enough to be effective leaders, and our 45
hours
together is a small part of that time.
But one question remains. Why do so many well-educated,
well-intentioned
people promote these myths?
I already pointed out that financial interests are served by these
myths.
Another reason is that leadership authors fail to recognize the
powerful effect
that organizational structure has on leadership opportunities. Our
hierarchical
organizations are designed for stability and self-preservation, not
change.
The self-preserving nature of hierarchical organizations is
reflected in the
first three rules of organizational life: Observe the hierarchy. Serve
the
hierarchy. Preserve the hierarchy. But these rules are ignored in the
books.
That is why former President Clinton wrote in "My Life: The Early
Years" about one of the most memorable lessons he learned from
Professor
Quigley at
"The problem, according to Quigley, is that all instruments
eventually
become 'institutionalized' - that is, vested interests more committed
to
preserving their own prerogatives than to meeting the needs for which
they were
created. Once this happens, change can come only through reform or
circumvention of the institutions."
Quigley's insight was about the power of the first three rules of
organizational life. And he was right about it being "the problem."
Unfortunately, the books that purport to teach us how to lead the way
toward a
better world ignore "the problem," which is that our organizational
structures preserve the world as it is.
Casey Hurley is a professor of educational administration at