Today I want to share stories about four people, three dead and one living.
We’ll start with the living. Lynn Passarella is principal of the Bronx Theater Arts Production Company School and has taken her school so far beyond grade inflation that it is being investigated.
“When I interviewed for the school,” said Sam Buchbinder, a history teacher, “it was made very clear: this is a school that doesn’t believe in anyone failing.”
Have you noticed that when historical information is released by a Presidential Library what surfaces is not new, more so of whatever was there before? That is certainly is true when it comes to the newly released Nixon tapes, in fact you might find yourself wondering if Mel Gibson is channeling him.
Nixon said he was not prejudiced but continued: “I’ve just recognized that, you know, all people have certain traits.” … “The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality.”
Reaching still further back in history, we have Mary Todd Lincoln, nicknamed “The Hellcat” because of her temper. She threw a tantrum during am ill-timed shopping trip just before the succession because she was asked to pay for her train ticket. It was her son that who calmed the troubled waters, but the media had a field day.
“My name is Bob Lincoln; I’m a son of Old Abe — the old woman is in the cars raising h-ll about her passes — I wish you would attend to her.”
Finally, there is Donald Tyson, the driving force behind Tyson Foods, lauded as a visionary entrepreneur and leader and it seems like a lot of current CEOs are channeling his methods.
But it [the contested purchase of Holly Farms] also led to risky deals, questionable business practices and political ties that produced legal entanglements for him and the company. … Environmentalists accused Tyson of fouling waterways. Animal rights groups said it raised chickens in cruel conditions. Regulators said it discriminated against women and blacks and cheated workers out of wages.
More evidence that being designated a leader isn’t proof that someone is worth following.
Jim Stroup is one of my favorite leadership commentators; additionally, he writes one of the most erudite blogs in cyberspace. He was kind enough to offer this post to introduce you to his thinking. He is well worth any time you spend with him. I highly recommend a subscription to his blog as well as his book, Managing Leadership, which I reviewed here.
Summarizing the fallacy of individual leadership
I’ve covered a lot of ground over the past several years on Managing Leadership. I’ve talked about everything from free-market capitalism to history – even physics. But at bottom, it all has been about management and leadership; in particular, how the former is a proper and honorable individual undertaking in an organization, and how the latter is, not to put to fine a point on it, neither.
I will be talking more about what leadership in an organization really is, and how to manage it at my blog, but for this post, I’d like to take a moment to summarize the fundamental problems with the current state of things – the intractable contradictions inextricably woven into the concept of individual leadership:
It is inescapably about the person – not the work. It encourages personal ties which rise to the level of cultishness. It describes these ties as existing between the “leader” and his or her “followers” – not among colleagues and their businesses or organizations.
It suggests that individual leadership can be developed. There is, however, no proof whatever for this contention.
It fails to connect leadership (especially inspirational or charismatic) with successful business management.
It is filled with fallacious proofs consisting of examples that seem to support it, but which ignore the multiples of examples that satisfy the posited parameters while still failing to support it, or that even contradict it.
Neither its presence nor its potential can be predicted.
It encourages adults to attempt to develop personality characteristics that may not be natural to them. This has not been demonstrated as possible; it may actually be harmful.
It further encourages adults to focus on developing these personal characteristics in order to attain a personally aggrandizing persona, rather than to improve their ability to contribute as part of a team to organizational work.
By seeking a universal individual leadership model it fails to see how individuals in “leadership” positions learn on their own to evaluate what’s working, what isn’t, and how to adapt to keep things going or to improve them.
It is irretrievably run through with contradictions – the most obvious being those among the widely touted and disparate lists of “essential” leadership traits.
It (often actively) encourages unaccountability by its recourse to superlative leadership skills and “intuition” beyond the ken of the rest of us.
As a really rather obvious result, it is irrelevant, distracting, and thus destructive on numerous levels.
Flowing inevitably from the above, in its lack of system, resistance to definition, and inability to develop practitioners or predict outcomes, it is inherently unprofessional.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now read Jim’s complimentary post, Exuding something, that looks at the flip side of individual leadership.
Easily among the most disagreeable aspects of the generally disagreeable concept of exceptional individual leadership is the noxious notion of “followership.”
Have you ever heard anyone talk about what a great follower they are? Or that they bought a book/took a class/signed up for a seminar on how to follow?
People often talk about ‘supporting’ someone’s agenda, ‘aligning’ themselves with another’s views or that they are ‘in the same camp’, but not that they follow.
Subtly or not, intentionally or not, ‘follower’ indicates a role of lesser value and few people see themselves as of lesser value.
That leaves us with everyone studying/aspiring/jockeying to be a leader. This can actually be amusing as they often accomplish it by using leadership terminology to describe everything they do.
Those who don’t aspire frequently play Monday morning quarterback on leadership roles about which they have no clue and will never fill—not that that stops them. This is especially true regarding roles such as President, whether of a country or a company.
There is no easier way to lead than through 20/20 hindsight and no safer way than critiquing others from the depths of one’s own ignorance.
To make matters worse, these quarterbacks are known to relentlessly argue their contrary point of view and defend it at all costs.
A defense based not on cognitive bias, but as carefully thought out idiocy drawn from the depths of their inexperience.
Think about it and in the future don’t hesitate to follow, just choose whom you follow with care, knowing that who you follow reflects who you are.
A few months ago The Conference Board published a study that showed that US workers were more dissatisfied now than at any time in the previous 20 years. James Heskett, Baker Foundation Professor, Emeritus, at Harvard Business School, used that study as part of the basis for a discussion about the growing dissatisfaction. Heskett poses intriguing ideas, but the greater value is in the comments he draws from his audience.
Speaking of American workers, do you know what their favorite new TV show is? A show that is a giant hit with young viewers and even beats Desperate Housewives? It’s Undercover Boss and I highly recommend it. Tomorrow is the season finale (I think) and it should be good. The company is 1-800-Flowers and according to the blurb the boss gets outed.
Next a little insight that could increase job satisfaction. Do you pride yourself on your poker face or are your emotions as obvious as a TV show? Or do you censor some and share the others? Research has proven that facial expressions are important to social interaction and current studies of people with facial paralysis offers some great insights for the rest of us.
Saturday I recommended spending some of your valuable time on TED, so I thought I’d offer a sample of it that I really liked.
Derek Sivers received a standing ovation for his 3 minute talk on leadership using the video below.
Too often people over focus on the moving pictures, so be sure to pay full attention to what Sivers is saying in conjunction with what is happening in the video.
Because the words are so important you can read a transcript at Siver’s site (along with other good stuff). I hope you take a moment to do so.
I’m not backing down on my contention that leadership is for all, but I completely agree that everyone can’t be leaders simultaneously and that following is just as important, if not more so.
Leadership is over-glorified.
Yes it started with the shirtless guy, and he’ll get all the credit, but you saw what really happened:
It was the first follower that transformed a lone nut into a leader.
There is no movement without the first follower.
We’re told we all need to be leaders, but that would be really ineffective.
The best way to make a movement, if you really care, is to courageously follow and show others how to follow.
When you find a lone nut doing something great, have the guts to be the first person to stand up and join in.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
Jim Stroup is one of my favorite leadership commentators; additionally, he writes one of the 
Have you ever heard anyone talk about what a great follower they are? Or that they bought a book/took a class/signed up for a seminar on how to follow?
Is there someone in your world who you consider your leader?
