dispatches from the new world of work

A Fruitless, Nay Dangerous, Search

Read two superb articles in the Arts section of the New York Times yesterday. One, on the playwright-director David Mamet (whom I've loved since Glengarry Glen Ross). The other, "Ms. Monk's Master Class," on the successful composer Meredith Monk. Both are indeed supremely successful, and both have moved beyond solo paper-and-pencil work to leading artists who perform their works. Forget the details, the two have very different "leadership styles." Which got me thinking about Francis Coppola, Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, TR, FDR (cousins no less) and the fact that the pursuit of the "one best way" of leadership is sheer madness, and a great disservice. Jim Collins and I agree about a lot of stuff but depart over the leadership issue. He prefers "quiet, humble, stoic" (though determined) leaders. I lean toward the Welches, Gerstners, Churchills, and those for whom words such as "quiet" and "humble" are rather inappropriate. Well, obviously, there's room—lots of—for both. But surely there are some constants—e.g., the way the winners treat people. Well, I'd love to think so, but even that's far from the truth. Lord Nelson was beloved. Gerstner was feared. The same guy is different—even in the eyes of those closest to him. The two most famous people who died with Robert Falcon Scott in Antarctica were Titus Oates and Dr Edward Wilson. Oates on Scott: "I dislike Scott intensely. He is not straight. It is himself first, the rest nowhere, and when he has got what he can out of you, it is shift for yourself." Wilson on Scott: "There is nothing I would not do for him. He is a really good man. He is thoughtful for each individual, and I have never known him to be unfair." Try to distill "Scott's Leadership Principles" from that!

And the point? Just this: Beware of "universal prescriptions" for anything—but perhaps leadership topping the list. (But you knew that already—it's just that these two NYT articles, and my re-immersion in Scott following my Christchurch NZ visit, led me to remind myself; so I thought I'd pass it along.)

Tom Peters posted this on 01/30/06.

Comments

Mr. Peters,

My name is Stephen Prather and I am a first year MBA student at Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt is currently in the process of designing a Leadership Development program. I would be very interested in your thoughts on what type of classes and what sort of subjects should be taught in a Leadership Development program. I think so many MBA programs fall flat on their faces when it comes to leadership, and I just want to try and make sure that Vanderbilt does this right.

Best,

Stephen Prather

Posted by Stephen Prather at January 30, 2006 3:43 PM

I think you nailed this to the wall Tom. Leadership isn't about cliches and specific styles which is what too many vendors are trying to sell as leadership development courses. What is more productive is pursuing Execution as Charan and Bossidy describe. What matters is what a leader achieves. I agree with Drucker, character matters, but it should be viewed under the umbrella of results and how they got those results. Can you imagine studing the different character styles of great artists and then training those character traits as the way to achieve great works of art?

Posted by Greg Davidson at January 30, 2006 7:07 PM

The only common thread of great leaders for me is that they led in their own style.

Posted by PaulH at January 31, 2006 6:01 AM

I agree with Paul. Leadership is individual.

I worry about leadership courses that seem to assume if you send someone through a 'learn to lead' course for 6 weeks suddenly you will have leaders coming out the other end â€“ WRONG!

Sometimes I believe â€˜quietâ€™ leadership is appropriate and sometime beating the drum leadership is appropriate. I played soccer for many years (still do actually at 53!!) and the effective captains were not those who 'balled people out' on the pitch. The best captains were those who knew everyone in the team as an individual and knew how to get the best out of us all. Sure sometimes the captain would shout and if so we deserved it but most of the time the most effective captain quietly got on with his own job and knew when to put the arm around someone needing help. Ahhh memories â€¦. :-)

In a nutshell I believe the best person to judge an effective leader is a follower.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 31, 2006 7:29 AM

I am not sure if leadership can be taught. What can be taught is how to better understand your followers, how to use various decision processes, and what has worked for other leaders; then it must all be internalized and individualized. I think that what makes a leader successful is their ability to adapt their leadership style to the situation and the people they are leading. Leadership is also about learning from one's failures, so that mistakes are not repeated.

Stephen, a course that should be stressed in leadership is ethics. I don't believe that one can be a good leader without strong ethics. Good luck at Vanderbilt.

Posted by Rick G at January 31, 2006 11:40 AM

Just to agree violently with the previous posters' spot-on insights: Leadership, like management, has to be in context with the environment, the situation and the individuals one is leading (and with oneself).

Balancing authenticity ("true to yourself") and play-acting to provide the team a face it needs at the moment is THE giant challenge of good management and leadership both. To bring this back to where it started, David Mamet. His film "Heist" (which also happens to be the finest elaboration of deft contingency planning available) is all about balancing the two: being true to your own ethics and humanity while doing what needs to be done.

The ability to display multiple kinds of operant behaviors is, in the end, the key to "leadership" success. Life won't afford any leader a single way of being that will work. This year's Chicago White Sox (Trevor, insert footy equivalent) had the best season record and won the World Series based not on any one overwhelming strength, but on the ability to adapt successfully to all kinds of situations.

Posted by jeff angus at January 31, 2006 12:30 PM

Wonderful analogy Jeff and sport so often provides us with examples. Twenty five years ago over here Nottingham Forest won everything going in soccer and there was not really one huge mega star player in the entire team - just a gifted manager in Brian Clough whose talents included getting the best out of ordinary players. When all that was put together there was a team that was unbeatable. No obvious stars among the eleven players but in fact they were all stars!

Effective leadership makes ordinary folks feel special and that is a rare talent among leaders today in business in my experience. In my career I have worked for very few people who have inspired me and left me open mouthed saying â€œWow what a great leader that person isâ€ â€¦ Let me re phrase that â€“ no one has inspired me that much!

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 31, 2006 12:43 PM

Once again I agree with the venerable Dr. Richard Farson who claims that there are no leaders, there is only leadership.

All groups are self-organizing, in fact we owe much to the brillant self-organizing feature of nature. Out of this organization comes leadership opportunities as defined by the group. (Churchill during WWII. Not before and not after.)

I see effective leaders and Seth (with Squidoo) would appreciate this . . . I see leaders as a "lens" manifested by an inherent sense of wonder that magnifies the interests and goals of the group filtered by his or her own values and character.

Okay then. take care

Posted by Robert Ballard at January 31, 2006 6:57 PM

Tom - not a comment on leadership, just on Glengarry Glen Ross. The film version changed my life. I was a (rather miserable) salesperson when I saw it. It helped me to understand I needed to be great at the job in order to leave it. So I got great(ish), left it and I'm now doing what I really wanted to.

Point is: learning to be a good salesperson has helped me tremendously in everything I've done since. So thank-you David Mamet!

Posted by Richard Young at February 1, 2006 6:16 AM

If you been to NZ and that made you remember of South Pole explorations, why not remember Amundsen? That's an achiever!

Posted by Pedro Wolff at February 2, 2006 1:56 PM

I believe the style can be quite flexible as long as every decision, action, and behavior accomplish the following:
effectively use AND develop the resources of the organization over the LONG term (especially the human resources - intellectual, social, human & organizational capital).
I learned from a bad example that you can't build a great organization if you are damaging its members with your methods.

Posted by Mike Beyerlein at February 12, 2006 8:59 AM