ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP

WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP?

Organizational leadership is a dual focused management approach that works towards what is best for individuals and what is best for a group as a whole simultaneously. It is also an attitude and a work ethic that empowers an individual in any role to lead from the top, middle, or bottom of an organization. While discussing every component of organizational leadership would be well beyond the scope of this document, five key components of organizational leadership are identified below. Worldview Organizational leadership requires developing an understanding of your own worldview as well as the worldviews of others. Worldview is a composite image created from the various lenses through which individuals view the world. It is not the same as identity, political stance, or religious viewpoint, but does include these things. It incorporates everything an individual believes about the world, combining the tangible and the intangible. An individuals worldview is defined by that individuals attitudes, opinions, beliefs, and the outside forces the individual allows to influence them. Worldview is the operating instructions for how the individual interfaces with the world. One who does not take into consideration how individuals interface with the world is in a much weaker position to lead these individuals. Furthermore, organizational leadership requires an understanding of the composite worldview of the organization, which consists of the many diverse and sometimes conflicting worldviews of the individuals within that organization. Strengths Successful leadership requires capitalizing on strengths and managing around weaknesses. Strength can be defined as consistent, near perfect performance in an activity. An individual should perform an activity at around a 95% success rate in order to consider their performance of that activity a strength. Strength is not necessarily the same as ability: an ability is a strength only if you can fathom yourself doing it repeatedly, happily, and successfully. The building blocks of strengths are:

Talents naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior Knowledge facts and lessons learned Skills the steps of an activity

Developing strength in any activity requires certain natural talents. Although it is occasionally possible to build a strength without acquiring the relevant knowledge or skills, it is never possible to possess a strength without the requisite talent . The key to building a bona fide strength is to identify your dominant talents and then refine them with knowledge and skills. One need not have strength in every aspect of a role in order to excel in that role. That excellent performers must be well rounded is a pervasive myth. Excellent performers are rarely well rounded; on the contrary, they are sharp. One will excel only by maximizing ones strengths, never by fixing ones weaknesses. Excellent performers find ways to manage around their weaknesses, freeing them to hone their strengths to a sharper point. Excellent performers do not ignore their weaknesses; they work on them just enough so that they do not undermine strengths. Ethics

Organizational leadership requires ethics. Ethics aids leaders in balancing truth and loyalty, individuals and communities, short-term and long-term, and justice vs. mercy. Ethics is not an inoculation or a compromise. It is a process and a lens by which leaders approach a problem situation. Ethics call on us to be impartial, yet engaged. Effective leaders utilize ethics to look for the hidden alternative in ethically questionable situations. It is the compass by which leaders navigate not only right vs. wrong, but also right vs. right. Communication Communication is a tool for individuals to interface with one another, with groups, and with the rest of the world. It is not a text, email, phone call, or personal visit: these are methods/mediums of communication. Effective communication requires an understanding of the VABEs (Values, Assumptions, Beliefs, Expectations) of those whom with we communicate. Understanding someones worldview and VABEs enables leaders to acknowledge but look past differences, focus on areas of agreement, and to effectively listen for and hear the messages of others. Leaders are able to move beyond communication barriers (appearance, vocabulary, stutter, lisp, accent, etc) and focus on the message of the speaker. Leadership It is often the case that people dont want to be leaders for fear of rejection. Leaders are able to rise above this natural fear and lead by the example of adding value to an organization. Managers and leaders are not the same. Leaders possess strategic thinking and not only an understanding of the vision of an organization, but also the ability to effectively carry out and communicate that vision. Anyone, anywhere, at any level can be a leader. The cornerstones of leadership are:

Truth telling Promise keeping Fairness Respect for the individual

These four cornerstones combined will determine how the individual leader is perceived by others, and in the case of organizational leadership, perception is reality for all effective purposes. A manager may have been delegated responsibility over many individuals, but in failing to exhibit the cornerstones of leadership or not possessing the requisite strength, ethics, communication, or grasp of worldviews, that manager is not a leader. In fact that manager may very well manage a leader who does possess leadership traits. A simple test of leadership is to look behind yourself, do you see anyone following you? If you do not, you are not a leader! While there are many theories of leadership, Douglas McGregor, a social psychologist and Management Professor at MIT, identified two prominent management approaches/t heories which he coined as Theory X and Theory Y:

Theory X Hell or high water, were going to get it done! Assumes that workers are largely motivated by the lower order needs of Maslows hierarchy (physiological and safety needs) and that effective management requires strict and often punitive micromanagement. Theory Y I need your helphow are we going to do this? Assumes that workers are largely motivated by higher order needs of Maslows hierarchy (belonging, esteem and self -actualization) and that effective management requires creating the right conditions and organizational culture which motivates workers to pursue those needs by adding value to the organization.

Effective leaders identify the appropriate leadership theory for a given situation. In some instance a leader may use a combination of Theories X and Y. This determination is context sensitive. Consider the following levels of James G. Clawson's Level Three Leadership and associated tactics:

One visible behavior: Orders, commands, threats, intimidation, incentives, bonuses. This level is purely theory X. Two conscious thought: Arguments, rationale, data, citations, references, evidence, manipulation. This level can be a combination of theories X and Y. Three VABEs: Visioning, purpose definition, honesty, openness, emotional storytelling, anecdotes, tender emotions. This level is purely level Y.

Leaders may employ various methods of leadership. Some of the more important methods are:

Model the way (set the example) Share your vision (enlist others) Challenge the process (look for ways to grow) Enable others to act (empowerment)

Set goals/build trust (direction) Encourage the heart (positive reinforcement)

Key takeaways Successful organizational leadership includes:

Working to understand the worldviews of others Recognizing and develop your own strengths Looking for the hidden alternative Focusing on the message, not the messenger Appealing to the VABEs of others Applying the appropriate theories and methods of leadership to a given situation

What is Organizational Leadership?

If leadership in organizations really isnt an individual characteristic, then what is it, and what does it do? Its all well and good to argue that weve had it wrong all these years about how organizations are best led; its even entertaining to see the self-involved and self-congratulatory individual leader hauled over the coals for a change. But when we refocus on the issue after absorbing these ideas, there they remain: organizations. And the question remains, as well: how are they to be led? To begin with, the concept of organizational leadership, as described here, is not entirely new. For almost a century, various observers have glimpsed the self-organizing characteristics of groups, and their natural tendency, more or less of their own accord, to design and direct their own affairs. More than that, there have also been suggestions in the literature that leadership and authority are to be viewed as distinctly separate phenomena. A self-organizing better, a self-leading group may sound terrific. But if youre an owner, youre likely to have some valid reservations about surrendering the fate of your investment and goals to that process. You will want, directly or through the medium of professional executive management, to direct and control the operation of that process. This is accomplished through placing a distinct and separate authority at the top of the organization, in order to manage the otherwise self-directing leadership that exists naturally within it. That authority at the top is not leadership as commonly understood. Rather, it is command. It gives legitimate expression to the superior role of management over the inferior function of leadership. On the other hand, organizational leadership, as described in Managing Leadership, is inherent in the very nature of the organization. It arises from the peculiar relationships that form among people joined together in a collaborative effort. As such, it takes on an identity of its own, existing in these relationships, rather than merely in the individuals who enter into them. Thus, it both influences, and is influenced by, those individuals. It communicates their organizational impressions and needs throughout the organization.

In an intelligently managed organization, that leadership isnt a randomly operating process; its a propulsive force given motion by purpose, and by a joint effort to accomplish it. That is its natural tendency, its bias. But it is managements role to ensure that this organizational leadership has a substantive and meaningful core around which to form itself and to give it traction for advancing the organization toward its stated ends. Using these as a basis, organizational leadership can provide the functions of leadership to an organizationally beneficial degree that cannot be matched by individual charismatic leaders alone. It is also far more reliably focused on the organizations ability to accomplish its own purposes and ensure its own sustainability (rather than resulting in the perversion of those to the interests of senior executive leaders). In the next article, well return to a brief discussion of how managers can do that. From the basis of these initial postings, well then move on to examples both from the book and from current events, and suggested both by me and by all of you that help illustrate the concepts discussed in Managing Leadership.

Leadership vs. Management

Disciplines > Leadership > Leadership vs. Management Managers have subordinates | Leaders have followers | See also

What is the difference between management and leadership? It is a question that has been asked more than once and also answered in different ways. The biggest difference between managers and leaders is the way they motivate the people who work or follow them, and this sets the tone for most other aspects of what they do. Many people, by the way, are both. They have management jobs, but they realize that you cannot buy hearts, especially to follow them down a difficult path, and so act as leaders too. Managers have subordinates By definition, managers have subordinates - unless their title is honorary and given as a mark of seniority, in which case the title is a misnomer and their power over others is other than formal authority.
Authoritarian, transactional style

Managers have a position of authority vested in them by the company, and their subordinates work for them and largely do as they are told. Management style is transactional, in that the manager tells the subordinate what to do, and the subordinate does this not because they are a blind robot, but because they have been promised a reward (at minimum their salary) for doing so.
Work focus

Managers are paid to get things done (they are subordinates too), often within tight constraints of time and money. They thus naturally pass on this work focus to their subordinates.
Seek comfort

An interesting research finding about managers is that they tend to come from stable home backgrounds and led relatively normal and comfortable lives. This leads them to be relatively risk-averse and they will seek to avoid conflict where possible. In terms of people, they generally like to run a 'happy ship'. Leaders have followers Leaders do not have subordinates - at least not when they are leading. Many organizational leaders do have subordinates, but only because they are also managers. But when they want to lead, they have to give up formal authoritarian control, because to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.
Charismatic, transformational style

Telling people what to do does not inspire them to follow you. You have to appeal to them, showing how following them will lead to their hearts' desire. They must want to follow you enough to stop what they are doing and perhaps walk into danger and situations that they would not normally consider risking. Leaders with a stronger charisma find it easier to attract people to their cause. As a part of their persuasion they typically promise transformational benefits, such that their followers will not just receive extrinsic rewards but will somehow become better people.
People focus

Although many leaders have a charismatic style to some extent, this does not require a loud personality. They are always good with people, and quiet styles that give credit to others (and takes blame on themselves) are very effective at creating the loyalty that great leaders engender. Although leaders are good with people, this does not mean they are friendly with them. In order to keep the mystique of leadership, they often retain a degree of separation and aloofness. This does not mean that leaders do not pay attention to tasks - in fact they are often very achievement-focused. What they do realize, however, is the importance of enthusing others to work towards their vision.
Seek risk

In the same study that showed managers as risk-averse, leaders appeared as risk-seeking, although they are not blind thrill-seekers. When pursuing their vision, they consider it natural to encounter problems and hurdles that must be overcome along the way. They are thus

comfortable with risk and will see routes that others avoid as potential opportunities for advantage and will happily break rules in order to get things done. A surprising number of these leaders had some form of handicap in their lives which they had to overcome. Some had traumatic childhoods, some had problems such as dyslexia, others were shorter than average. This perhaps taught them the independence of mind that is needed to go out on a limb and not worry about what others are thinking about you. In summary This table summarizes the above (and more) and gives a sense of the differences between being a leader and being a manager. This is, of course, an illustrative characterization, and there is a whole spectrum between either ends of these scales along which each role can range. And many people lead and manage at the same time, and so may display a combination of behaviors.

Subject
Essence Focus Have Horizon Seeks Approach Decision Power Appeal to Energy Culture Dynamic

Leader
Change Leading people Followers Long-term Vision Sets direction Facilitates Personal charisma Heart Passion Shapes Proactive

Manager
Stability Managing work Subordinates Short-term Objectives Plans detail Makes Formal authority Head Control Enacts Reactive

Persuasion Style Exchange Likes Wants Risk Rules Conflict Direction Truth Concern Credit Blame

Sell Transformational Excitement for work Striving Achievement Takes Breaks Uses New roads Seeks What is right Gives Takes

Tell Transactional Money for work Action Results Minimizes Makes Avoids Existing roads Establishes Being right Takes Blames