Leadership: Can it be Taught?

Now, there's an old saw. In his recent book, Henry Mintzberg "slams B-schools for teaching leadership," according to Rob on Business Pundit (23 October last fall). Other than the fact that Henry has made a career out of "slamming" things leaderly and managerially, there's more at stake here than a jibe at B-schools for simply catering to their marketplace.

As soon as anything is made into an academic subject, it becomes fair game for the predators out there to stake their claim. Some do this by presuming to be the keepers of the keys to the vault. Others by stalking and exposing those who do so. Another way of looking at this is that "leadership" has been a celebrity concept now for several years. And you know that celebrities are fair game for critics and the business press papparazzi. In this case, teaching "leadership" is a bit like teaching the esoterics of philosophy or of advanced calculus just in case someone may someday have a need for the one or the other.

We don't have a shortfall of leaders. Ranging from adequate to horrible, we are overwhelmed with people ready to be seen as "leaders." What we do have is a shortage of competent followers--whether as citizens or as thinkers. So far as I know, there are no courses in B-schools (or elsewhere in universities or corporate training programs) on "followership." One pundit observed that we have 25,000 books on managing and leading, but only four on following. If we define "following" as learning the competencies for providing leadership, we would have a glimpse of reality. A competent follower always trumps an incompetent leader.

So, could anyone suppose that we actually need more of the latter?

Comments

[Steve Roesler]

Hi there, Lee,

Finally...another voice in the wilderness crying out for "followership!"

Some time ago I did a post on that notion (will have to dip into the archives and find which one).

The real essence of it was this: I have never seen an effective leader who didn't first know how to be an effective follower.

The crux of the issue is that it is virtually impossible for a manager/leader to be able to understand the implications of a decision or the dynamics of a situation without having lived in a submissive role. Yes, I said "submissive."

While participation and maximizing people's talents is the growth goal for mature organizations (and people), learning to submit to authority is an equally developmental task. I'm not suggesting blind obedience to things that are morally or ethically wrong. I am saying that in hierarchical structures, the people above us have bosses and directors and shareholders who make demands.

Learning to live with x number of decisions that have had to be made--with deliberation and thoughtfulness--for the greater good, is part of being a member of a community.

You won't always be happy. You won't always agree. You may even leave the organization if those decisions are too numerous and too consistently wrong.

But you will have gained wisdom and discernment for the future.

Thanks, Lee...keep writing.

[Lee Thayer]

Steve, thanks for your comment. Sorry to for the delay in my reply. You're absolutely right, I believe, to take the position that the core of any leader's self-understanding is knowing how she affects others - and particularly how subordinates see her and the organization from where they are. My own long-standing belief is that the best leaders almost invariably come from the ranks of the best followers. This may be one reason why West Point alums hold a disproportionate number of top-level leadership roles compared to any other undergraduate (or graduate) school in the country.

Having launched the first (so far as I know) "followership" program in any organization in the US, I'm curious to watch what happens to these 2nd and 3rd tier folks in terms of their awareness of their impact. We begin with this premise: "A great follower is one who has figured out how to make of her boss a great leader." This is not being "submissive," but the proactive learning that comes from figuring out what leadership is all about. Colin Powell dealt well with this when he said that he relished the debate prior to any decision, but once the decision has been made, he would expect his staff to implement the decision as if it were there own.