The Elitist Undertones of Leadership

Bob Corlett pointed me to an article by Henry Mintzberg that challenges the distinction between Leadership and Management. He argues that the financial crisis we are experiencing is at least partly due to "leaders" who considered themselves above the nitty gritty of management. By staying above the fray, they miss key messages from the front lines and they end up focusing more externally than internally, and our organizations have paid the price. I like this quote:

America has much rebuilding to do, beyond bailing out its largest, sickest companies. Many businesses will have to be restored as communities, which to my mind means from the middle out, not the top down. Being an engaged leaders means you must be reflective while staying in the fray--the hectic, fragmented, never-ending world of managing. The reward: access to the ideas flowing around you. As Stanford University emeritus professor James G. March put it: "Leadership involves plumbing as well as poetry." Instead of distinguishing leaders from managers, we should encourage all managers to be leaders.

Community. Middle out. Plumbing as well as poetry. This is not consistent with the traditional pyramid view of leadership (leaders are the top of the pyramid). This is consistent with what I have been saying for some time now about leadership as a system capacity, rather than a position on the organizational chart. We need to encourage managers to be leaders because they ARE leaders. And so are front line employees. 

But Mintzberg's points about being "above the fray" made me think of something bigger. This pyramid notion is deeply ingrained in our society. We are taught from day one that we are to progress, to move up, to climb the ladder. We aspire to be the precious few who get into Harvard, who have the corner office, who get to supervise people. And we know that as a reward for progressing to the next level, we get to discard the parts of the previous level that we don't like (the fray of management, for instance). 

There is nothing wrong with progression (or Harvard). There is nothing wrong with having one group of people do one set of activities, and another group do a different set of activities. And unlike in Lake Wobegon, not everyone is above average.

But leaders are not as rare as we make them out to be, and I'm not sure they (we) are as deserving of the privileges we're bestowing upon them. The privilege of not being in the fray. The privilege of controlling other's schedule via "manager time." The privilege of social status that allows them to be distant and secretive. Leaders are not an elite club of people who are the only ones smart enough to direct things. 

But that's what we want them to be. That's we want US to be. I think we should work on changing that.

Comments

[Randy Hall]

Jamie,

Great post and you bring up some key points about the perception that leaders are at the top of the organization. In any organization that builds sustainable success you will find leaders at every level. Leadership and management are very different things but they are not mutually exclusive and many jobs require that we do both well to be successful.

Leaders change the way people think and cause them to take different actions because of that. And they can do that from anywhere.

Thanks for sharing this,

Randy

[Ted]

Hello! Our selection committee compiled an exclusive list of the Top Association Management food Blogs, and yours was included in the Top 100!Check it out at http://thedailyreviewer.com/top/Association-Management

You can claim your Top 100 Blogs Award Badge at http://thedailyreviewer.com/pages/badges