What is this blog for? Why does it exist?
In this world of information overload, my purpose is to offer a quietly stimulating and intellectually rewarding space for collaborative thinking. The core template is this:
As we think, so shall we be.
And as we are, so shall we do.
That's why the full title of my first book is Leadership: Thinking, Being, Doing.
Thinking about what?
About leadership and all the subjects that swirl around it ... about organizational and personal performance, about the artistry (alchemy?) of leadership itself, about where it comes from and where it goes.
About people and about followership.
Leadership and followership
are mutually interdependent.
Aren't they?
About the role of purpose, and of competence. About passion and perseverance. About how visions get transformed into reality. About why 20,000 attempts to pin leadership down have not been either wholly successful, or wholly satisfactory.
About problems. About choices and decisions. About systems. About leadership measurement. About leadership development.
About making great -- or high performance -- organizations. About what it means to the people involved. About what it means -- or should mean -- to all the rest of us.
If civilizations (or organizations) rise,
or fall, depending on the capabilities
of followers, where are we headed?
There is no subject which is not informed by our thinking about leadership. How we understand all of those other subjects bears upon how we think about and talk about leadership. And how we think about leadership will determine what kind of lives we will have, and what kind of world we, and our children, and our children's children, are going to be living in.
That's what this conversation is for.
Let us create it.
And may we never fail to provoke the learning of all who join us in this ongoing symposium.
As noted in your new book, Lee, the world is a perverse playground - and if we do not match perversity with like kind, we must suffer the consequences. However, when 'thinking' leadership, where does the kinder, gentler leader come in? My friend, David Wolfe, writes about such leaders in his new book, Firms of Endearment. In your world, it's all about performance... and yet, one wonders where personality comes in. Does the good guy always finish last?
Posted by: Yvonne DiVita | January 13, 2007 at 07:48 AM
That question really messes with our master myth that the good guys always win--or should win--doesn't it? The underlying implication is that being a kinder, gentler leader will make your company more successful and/or more secure in the marketplace. In other words, we are urged to see it as THE means to that end.
In his most recent book, "How You Got Here Won't Get You There" (great title!), our most notorious executive coach Marchall Goldsmith makes much of his assertion that he gets paid only if he greatly improves the "scores" of his clients' 360-degree feedback. Same problem. It's as if we had all OD'd on pop psychology. Nowhere in his book (that I could find) does he offer any substantial research evidence that raising the feedback scores actually contributes to any competitive advantage or to sustainable organizational performance out there in the real world. (Although he does hedge a bit late in the book.)
Yes, it IS all about performance. That's the only thing that can be reliably measured. To some, a character like Zorro (or Don Quixote) was a good guy. To others, he was the bad guy. Who "wins" in the real world depends on many factors other than the players' personalities.
Posted by: Lee Thayer | January 16, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Zorro & Don Q. as leadership models, eh? And still "rattling cages" after all these years--that's great! But as my PhD mentor might have reminded me many years ago, the notion of reliably measuring performance, as a pretext to defining leadership, is a Gumpian view at water's edge. "Supid is as stupid does" ain't a stupid mantra--certainly not, if you can model it, publish articles, lead symposia, and coax followers into ... leading the way along the shore. Of course, looking back from the mother-ship, way out on the surf's horizon, near history, the view is downright confused. Whether leaders lead or followers follow is merely a p.o.v., isn't it? The only good definition of leadership, it seems to me, has to be embodied in the leader's role as "the guide in a journey." And, I must confess, if performance is only or mostly a matter of destination, then I'd probably choose to stay home with other like-minded, fellow travelers. Holding a whip over my back or dangling a steak in my face would be about equally ineffective, under normal circumstances. On the other hand, if you can show me the way to a great place to visit and we have a helluva time getting there, then ... maybe I'll help you lead me? Ah, what a great time in history to be alive, when one can while away an hour shooting at such bear.... Please don't blog me & keep up the good work making followers of leaders. Cheers, Lee!
Posted by: Stephen Martin | April 05, 2007 at 03:21 PM