In my post, “Forward Thinking about Leadership” I proposed a set of questions that come to mind when we begin thinking about leadership as part of a system rather than as a set of personality attributes assignable to individuals. Here are some thoughts about possible answers to the first question. (I would very much like to hear other people’s thoughts on this subject as well.)
If we were actually capable of independent action, there would be no need for leadership. I would do my thing, and you would do yours. Life would be a random walk of every-man-for-himself. But in the course of our lives, we are never independent actors. We are inexorably woven into a set of collaborative relations consisting of family, friends, workplace, community, nation, and world.
As an extreme-case mind experiment, try to imagine an action you have taken or might take that is in some way, not systematically interconnected with the actions of others.
In 2004 I crossed several thousand miles of ocean as a solo sailor. At first blush, it seems that this qualifies as independent action. Not really. My course was set for some distant safe harbor, built and inhabited by others. My boat and all the tools on my boat were the embodiment of designs envisioned and realized by others. The navigation charts I used and books I read were ongoing conversations with others. Even my brief periods of sleep were punctuated by dreams populated with imagined others.
My solo sailing venture entailed a system of action in which I served as both leader and follower. In leading, I made decisions about where and when to go. As a follower, I was led by the designers of my boat, equipment, charts and guides, and the wisdom of the many others who had shaped my knowledge and understanding of seafaring. I was never alone. I was always leading and following. My seemingly self-aimed actions were led by the system of tools and knowledge that I had acquired from others in the course of a lifetime of sailing.
One conclusion to be drawn from this example is that leading and following are always present in every human enterprise. You simply can’t escape it.
So what is the part we call leading?
Leading is the pointy end of human action. When the tasks of leading are properly executed, the balance of action follows in the wake of the process. The key tasks in the process of leading are aiming, predicting, and deciding. All of these actions are necessary components of leading and they are tightly interwoven into a self-correcting feedback system.
Aiming: Aiming is the dynamic process of determining a direction of travel from a theoretically infinite set of possible directions. Paradoxically, the leader is not free to choose any aim. The leader must be led by others in order to discover those aims to which followers can subscribe. This requires the creation of a consensus regarding the value and values to be realized by the enterprise. If followers do not subscribe to an aim defined by a leader, then the system of leading and following collapses and the system of enterprise becomes factionalized and anarchic.
The aiming function of leadership should not be confused with the setting of targets, goals, and objectives, which can be useful as tests of method, but are better employed as tools for process improvement. Targets, goals, and objectives specify outcomes to which all actions become subordinated. When this happens, the interaction between the elements of leading become biased to that outcome and the self-correcting feedback loop is broken.
For example, in sailing we say that the course to a destination is not set, it is shaped, and the shaping process is ongoing. This shaping begins with a general idea about how move forward, but is constantly revised by weather, sea, crew, and boat performance.Sailors aim to make safe harbor but the harbor arrived at is not always the one targeted at the beginning of the voyage. A sailor who subordinates the system of sailing to his target ports, will sooner or later, founder.
Aiming in the absence of the other elements of leading is a popular sport favored by writers of opinion columns, television pundits, radio hosts, bar room philosophers and other opinion makers.
Predicting: Prediction is based in some theory of causation. A theory is a prediction and a plan is a theory. Given some aim, the leader must envision some predictable system of action that will enable travel in the desired direction. This entails a systematic process of study that ranges widely. Various theories must be compared. As much evidence as possible must be gathered that supports and/or refutes competing theories. Furthermore, each theory must be considered in terms of what is technically, economically, morally, and ethically practical from the standpoint of the followers.
Although no theory, irrespective of how well supported by evidence, will provide the leader with certainty, the degree of belief in the predictive value of one must rise above all others. If this fails to happen, the leader, relegated to a toss of the dice, fails the task of leadership.
In sailing, a theory of action consists of a plan by which to make way along a course. The plan envisions weather and sea conditions, crew skills, watch schedules, provisions, and allowances for unforeseen events.Ocean passage-making always entails risk. It is the captain’s responsibility to adopt and employ a theory of action that will fulfill the aims of the voyage without precipitating disaster. It’s a risky business.
Predicting in the absence of the other elements of leading is the occupation of academics and soothsayers.
Deciding: The process of prediction involves a process of study that has no built-in endpoint. Since certainty is unattainable, there can only be a degree of belief that rises to an actionable level in a given circumstance. This is the point at which the leader, in his or her best judgement, must decide to commit his followers to action, based in theory.
The essence of deciding is time. While some decisions allow for a protracted period of study, others must be taken in the heat of the moment. Decisions not made due to a paralysis of analysis or as a result of the stress of a demanding moment, cause the system of enterprise to collapse into an anarchy of every-man-for-himself.
Timely decision making is the crux of the matter for many sailors. Many would-be voyagers never leave the dock because they become paralyzed by a process of analysis and preparation. At the other extreme, captains, in time of crisis, fail to make decisions in fear of being wrong. In abdicating their leadership role, these captains condemn their boat at crew to a disastrous fate.
Deciding in the absence of the other elements of leading is the province tyrants, bullies, cowboys, and other fools — ready, FIRE, aim.
In thinking about leading as a process, it starts to become clear that the personality traits of a leader have very little to do with the process of leading. Aiming, predicting, and deciding are all processes that invite us to devise methods that can be specified and improved. I have drawn the line at these three processes but there are clearly many ancillary functions that support the business of leading, but these are largely situational. For example, the job of leading an enterprise with many followers requires a well developed system of command,communication, and control. But these processes pertain to managing the flow of information rather than to the core functions of leading.
In summary, at its core, the process of leading focuses shared intentions, envisions and adopts a practical theory for action, and commits the members of the enterprise to action in the context of uncertainty and risk that is deemed reasonable given the circumstances at hand.
Pingback: Forward Thinking about Leadership | Three Sigma Systems
I agree that leadership is a community process. The community is defined by a commonality of interest, communication, and capability. Leadership is the process by which the community achieves one or more objectives. It works bi-directionally. The leadership role is an attribute arising out of the followership action of the rest of the community, as long as the two are compatible. However, leadership is never permanent. The best example comes from a flock of birds in flight. The lead bird confronts the most intense air pressure. The trailing birds are almost in a vacuum. But the birds continually circulate, taking the lead role in turn. With humans, and other animals, leadership is similarly circumstantial. Members of the community group assume roles depending on the current issue and the current personal strategy for responding to the percieved issue. Sometimes conflict can occur because community views are not compatible, or because the leadership role rises to a level of importance beyond group objectives. Usually this is because members of a community do not look closely at birds in flight.
Bertie, great comment! We see the subject of leadership in much the same way. I have a blog on the subject of the interchangeability of leadership coming soon!