weLEAD Online Magazine
leadingtoday.org
Copyright 2005 ã weLEAD, Inc.
weLEAD
Leadership Series
Exclusive
interview with
Jim Stroup
Interviewed
by Greg Thomas
Jim
is a retired
1. Thank you
Jim for all the foresight and effort you put into writing Managing
Leadership. I enjoyed reading it and could sense some heartfelt
passion in your writing. What events or experiences stirred your interest in
the topic of leadership?
Early
on in my work life, I was surprised to sometimes see distinct
differences between policies announced by management, and work practices as
actually applied on the shop floor. Once, I was struck by something that
happened after some new work rules were announced by the shift foreman. At the
lunch break, these rules were discussed carefully by my fellow workers - but it
was the reasons behind them that were investigated and analyzed for their
validity and conformance with the employees' interests and needs. The workers
were not only deciding how to apply the rules, but also whether they even
should, and if so, which ones.
This
was when I began to notice the presence of an informal chain of command on the
shop floor that existed independently of management. It arose on its own, with
its own rules of behavior and sanctions, and it could exert a strong influence.
I also noticed that management was usually either blissfully unaware of this
unofficial force, or willfully ignored its presence. In such cases it could
become a powerful negative force on the organization, creating stress and
reducing productivity.
I
hadn't expected to see this occurring inside the organizations that I worked
in, and it fascinated me. In particular, I found it odd that the
workforce would apply its own agenda to its activities in the organization,
which might not conform with - and which might even conflict with - those of
management. Ever since then, I have tried to pay close attention to both
the planned and unplanned, the formally arranged and the spontaneously
generated forces that arise in and flow through organizations. I have
tried to understand what these forces say about the ability of an organization
to accomplish its overtly stated purpose - and the abilities of the other
formal or informal institutions within it to accomplish their own goals.
Initially,
I associated the ability to understand this phenomenon in an
organization with the ability to lead it. Later, I learned to see this
phenomenon as, itself, leadership spontaneously generating from within the
organization. The effort to lead from the top while blind to the irrepressible
expression of leadership arising from within is what led to
much of the resistance and conflict I observed. In time, I came
to understand that leadership can neither be suppressed when it
arises from within, nor can it successfully be imposed from above. These
efforts describe power struggles - not leadership. Leadership is, in fact, a
natural feature of an organization that exists everywhere within it. It is an
organizational asset.
2.
In chapter 2 of Managing Leadership you boldly challenge the
"modern leadership movement" with a discussion of what is wrong
with it and why. Tell our readers how you came to this conclusion.
Management
studies initially focused on an organization's mission and purpose, and the
structures and processes necessary to pursue them. Early in the 20th century,
however, researchers began to notice the influence on organizational
effectiveness of policies directed at human resources. Still, in the first half
of the century, even in those organizations headed by singular administrators -
even titans of industry - these administrators were known and discussed
principally for their hard, focused management skills - not
the ethereal individual leadership characteristics celebrated by the
modern leadership movement.
After
the Second World War, scholars increasingly turned to examining the effective
harnessing of human forces to the purposes of the organization. As time passed,
the administrative attention and management of these forces by the senior
administrator became identified specifically as leadership,
conducted by that person.
Unfortunately,
the discovery of a collaborative impulse, natural creative energy, and a work
ethic in the work force was not recognized as a sign of the presence of a
nascent form of leadership inherent in the organization, despite the fact that
clues to this had been provided as long ago as the 1920’s by Mary Parker
Follett. Instead, habitual thinking, reinforced by the examples of singular
individual leadership from the Second World War, led us naturally to
assign the leadership role to the senior executives of our organizations.
Toward
the end of the century, the US economy transformed and took off. It seemed
a time of great undertakings, with larger-than-life personalities daring tremendous
risks for extraordinary rewards. Much was promised by these individuals, and
much was made of them by the press and other observers.
Unfortunately, scholars and consultants became swept up in the
excitement of these tumultuous and promising times, and offered
a theoretical framework for explaining these individuals that seemed both
to explain their exceptional accomplishments and to
justify their huge rewards.
At
this juncture, the emerging modern leadership movement had matured. It abandoned
the goal-focused approaches of its predecessors - even the organizational
focus. It concentrated its efforts on understanding and elaborating the
extraordinary personal characteristics of those it had identified as singularly
great leaders. Unavoidably, this discussion turned the focus of attention away
from the organization - its owners, and its purpose - to the leader
- and his or her personal characteristics, special skills, and needs. The
organization became not an institution he or she served, but a
vehicle for expression of those singular personal abilities.
For
a while, these leaders and the modern leadership movement fed on each
other's needs and wants, inflating the image and role of the "leader"
in step with the inflation of the stock market. Ultimately, however, the
bubble popped, the stock market collapsed, and the revelation of grave and
surprisingly widespread collusion in fiduciary malfeasance among many
previously heralded as exemplary leaders struck a blow to our confidence in the
integrity of our institutions, and of those who provided them with much of the
theoretical structure and justification for their behavior.
3. Tell
us why the "quasi-cult of the modern charismatic leader" is so harmful in our organizations and perhaps society as a
whole?
Unfortunately,
the focus on the "leader" at the top has come at the cost of focus on
the organization and its purpose - even at the cost of the so-called
"followers" of the extraordinary leader. Consulting solutions
such as process re-engineering returned employees to dehumanized objects
to be manipulated like an assembly-line layout. And the focus on the
superlative nature of the singular individual executive at the
top led to the formation of the "quasi-cult of the modern
charismatic leader." The leader has become the focus - the center of
attention. Everything depends on his or her abilities and their effective
organizational expression. Nothing must be allowed to constrain
him or her, every effort must be bent toward
giving shape to his or her inspired vision. On the one hand, as a
major guru of the movement goes so far as to argue, an organization should
be designed and managed in such a way as to give the most direct and immediate
expression possible to the "inspired musings" of the visionary
leader. On the other hand, the visionary nature of this leader is described as
the ability to see what ordinary people - certainly, ordinary managers - cannot
see. Thus, the very inability of even board members to comprehend the
"inspired musings" of these visionaries is taken as evidence of their
prodigious vision. As a result, both the organization below and the board above
are left with no recourse but thralldom to this charismatic leader. No advice,
intermediation, direction, checks and balances - no control is to be exercised
over this individual. This incredible focus on the exceptionalism of
the modern charismatic leader has removed him or her from the context
of position and duty - and from accountability, as well. There is really only
one eventual result of that. And the leadership scandals we see reported,
even today, with such dispiriting frequency cannot be but evidence of it.
This
damage has been exacerbated not only by the extension of this
cult vertically within the organization, but by its horizontal
penetration into society, as well. In the immediate vicinity of
the "great leader" organization, vendors, communities,
governments, regulatory agencies - even customers - have been drawn into
the uncritical admiration of these leaders. They succumbed
to the powerful pressure to acknowledge the unique but
incomprehensible perception and skills of these charismatic executives, to
have faith and to continue investing their time, effort, production, infrastructure - their very reputations - in them.
As the bubble burst, many of them, along with the organization's employees
and shareholders, have been left holding the bag - and even that had been
looted by many of these characters, with the credulous aid of auditors and
consultants who had also been swept up in the excitement generated by
participation in the cultic liturgy.
It
is difficult, sometimes, in the midst of such power, wealth, and economic
and social stability that we have managed to generate in the
4. As
you begin Part II of your fine book, you caution the reader about drawing
lessons derived from military leadership and applying them to non-military
organizations. I appreciated your emphasis of this point! I have often bristled
when reading some authors apply principles from a unique organization like the
military, to business organizations. Explain why this caution is necessary and
how some have misused the examples.
I think there are two principle reasons why one
should be very careful about uncritical application of military leadership
principles to non-military situations. One has to do with the environment in which military commanders operate, and the
other with the very nature of the way leadership actually operates in a
military organization; there is a tendency here - even among military people -
to confuse leadership with command.
It
cannot be denied that military formations operate in an environment distinctly
different than that of non-military organizations. Plainly, the military is
organized and trained to take action when the nation is in extremis, and all
other avenues of relief have proven inadequate to the task. At this point,
and not to put to fine a point on it, the military is called upon to apply
deadly force to attain vital national objectives. Under such circumstances, the
head of a military unit is being asked not merely to apply deadly force, but to
subject the unit's members - and the country's citizens - to its
application by our foes. There is no head of any non-military organization tasked
with confronting and executing such behavior. Even the president
who, as commander-in-chief, orders the action, does not personally direct it.
As a result, the singular responsibilities and facilities accorded to
military commanders must be seen as arising from the peculiar gravity of their
duties. The unconsidered attribution of those responsibilities and
facilities to senior executives operating in any circumstances short
of warfighting represents a distortion that cannot help but have
disruptive consequences in non-military organizations.
With
more particular reference to military leadership, there are two additional
problems. One is that leadership is actually widely distributed throughout
military organizations, and is not expected to emerge solely from the top, with
all the other unit's members passively awaiting its articulation so that
they can give expression to it. Individual leadership traits and
principles are taught to everyone, from private to general, and are expected to
be unhesitatingly exhibited by all of them in accordance
with the circumstances which occur when it is either
thrust upon them - or when it needs to be seized by
them. Military history is replete with stories of non-rated soldiers
who have saved the day, as well as of generals who
have felt privileged to honor them for that. In such circumstances,
it is not personal leadership characteristics that set apart the head of a
military unit - all the members are expected to have and exhibit those -
the senior officer's distinguishing features are attributes of command, or
command presence, enabling the creation of a command environment in which such
leadership can communicate and flourish.
The
other problem with the generally held view of military leadership is
rooted in the traditional combination of military and political
leadership. Historically, political leaders were generally princes
whose leadership was exhibited mainly through military adventure. They created,
enlarged, and maintained their realms through martial force. Moreover, the
object of the application of this force was no greater an entity than the
prince himself. The prince was not the servant of the state - rather,
the state was the creature of the prince. This commingling of state and
individual authority, and of political and military leadership into the person
of a single individual extends in a more or less straight line directly from
the emperors and pharaohs of earliest China and Egypt, right up to the
colossal contests of the early 20th century. Thus, the identification of
leadership with the exploits of military generals tends to cloak not only
a political authority, but a political identity that not only does not
exist, but that is wholly out of place in modern non-military organizations.
Certainly, then, the application of lessons drawn from the personal
characteristics of such individuals to modern non-military life ought to
be engaged in with the utmost caution.
Nevertheless, despite
the extremity of the environment in which they operate, military
organizations themselves are much like any organization. The group
dynamics that occur in them - and the leadership that arises from
within them - have much to teach us, and can often be more clearly observed and
analyzed against the background of the dramatic events amongst which
they develop.
It
is only natural to examine an institution with such a long and intense
relationship with the phenomenon of leadership as the military. As we have
seen, however, it should indeed be done with caution, and a proper regard for
both the source of the lessons, and for the intended target of their
application. Unfortunately, many - the modern leadership movement in particular
- have taken lessons about the personal characteristics of military leaders
throughout history and proposed them, unalloyed, for the heads
of modern civilian organizations. The assignment of so much power
and freedom of movement in circumstances that do not call for them and to
individuals who do not possess the requisite political responsibility or
authority for their use disrupts the integrity of every element of the
organizational structure. It also leads to confusion about the proper
relations and roles of all parties involved, including the putative
leaders. All too often, the result is fiduciary malfeasance by the very
people in whom we have invested so much faith, and who have had
the hubris to take it on. It is well past time to re-examine
this.
5. The
rest of your book proposes an entirely different approach to organizational
leadership and how to really manage it. Please give us a brief
synopsis of your philosophy and teaching. Tell us what is different about
it.
Managing
Leadership argues that leadership is inherent in the very nature of an
organization. It arises naturally from the dynamics set in motion by people
joining together to engage in a collaborative endeavor. As group cohesion
develops in the enterprise, it begins to communicate itself among and through
everyone in the organization. It is important to note that it is not simply a
spirit of camaraderie or good will among people sharing the
same circumstances - it is a propulsive, creative force given impetus by
the organizational goal and the assembly of individuals to
accomplish it, and the natural instinct people have to contribute
meaningfully to enterprises greater than themselves. It is not mere group
solidarity, such as arises from kinship. It is group ambition, generated from
joint purpose and motion.
In
such an collective environment, organizational
leadership begins to emerge from within. It is not simply the sum of the
initiative and creativity of the members. It develops an identity of its own as
it is communicated throughout the organization and is expressed through each
individual. Individuals find themselves analyzing events, experiencing
concerns, and discovering opportunities in ways that they would never
consider or encounter as individuals in their private lives, or in their
social lives outside the organization. The vitality of this leadership from
within tends to vary with the strength of the group cohesion from which it
arises. As it operates, it is both influenced by, and influences, the
individual members of the organization. It has a latent and
natural tendency to attempt to understand the organization's environment
- to attain a strategic appreciation of its strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats - and to advance its purpose, as that is
understood from within the organization.
This
is where management comes in. While organizational leadership from
within has a normal bias to be a positive influence, it can sometimes turn
out otherwise. It can be more or less taken over by discontent or ill
will. If neglected, it can drift, causing an unwitting obstacle to
management initiatives. It can even develop an identity based on resistance to
what is perceived as willfully inept or dangerous mismanagement. However, even
under the most benign circumstances, since it arises from within the organization,
to operate fully as a positive force for it, it needs to be informed about the
evolving purposes and procedures of the organization - what in the military is
called "commander's intent." Leadership from within can inform and
influence this, but it cannot assume it. This is what managers do,
and they do it by identifying, mobilizing, and managing all of the
resources available to the organization - including its leadership.
Generally,
current theories of leadership tend to infuse it improperly with the
fundamental responsibility that can only reside in ownership or its proper
delegatees (such as a board of directors). They then place undue expectations
of it either in the individual at the top, or in all of those within the
organization. In the first case, untenable burdens are placed on individual
executives, and stresses are created which corrupt the integrity of
organizational relationships in all dimensions. In the second case, instead of
imposing leadership from the top, the expectation of leadership behavior is
imposed from the top. This effort tends to create a confused, demoralized
atmosphere in an organization, and a sense of cynical manipulation. In either
event, the inappropriate association of degrees of fundamental responsibility
(which can really only be expressed at the owner or owner-delegatee level)
further confuses and distorts the proper role and expression of leadership in
an organization. The truth is, boards or owners cannot
evade responsibility for their organizations. Senior executives cannot arrogate
to themselves historical levels of leadership the sources of which have no
place in modern organizations. And leadership will arise from within the
organization in any event.
6.
How do you think the servant leadership concept matches or
departs from your personal philosophy regarding leadership?
The
concept of servant leadership turns the traditional idea of leadership on its
head. According to this view, the role of the leader is not to be served, but
to serve. Rather than directing the actions of others in support of the
leader's initiatives, the leader supports the activities and develops the
capabilities of the organization's members. The idea is that employees
who are thus supported, as well as encouraged and aided in achieving their full
potential, will be more productive, loyal, and valuable members of the
organization.
Some
of the most effective military officers I knew while I served in the Marine
Corps took a view of leadership much like this. In fact, this view tends to
arise naturally from the way modern military organizations work. It can produce
powerful effects, with electrifying group cohesion, loyalty, and energy.
However, it should be pointed out that "servant leadership" is
sometimes interpreted or understood as a dedication to the development and
welfare of employees as an end in itself. In the military, a cardinal rule is
that in any list of priorities, everything else must follow these top
two: first is accomplishment of the mission, followed closely by the welfare
of the soldiers. It is this combination, this pinning of all our efforts
- including the efforts of all of us from the commander on down in support
of each other - to the unit purpose that invests the whole enterprise
with meaning and integrity, holding together the entire leadership
structure and the processes that constitute it. When understood and
expressed this way, the concept of servant leadership can be a powerfully
positive influence in organizations of all kinds.
The
ideas about leadership from within discussed in Managing Leadership are similar
to the concept of servant leadership in two ways. First, they
both acknowledge the powerful potential in the employees and the
importance of benefiting from these. Second, they both react to the
inordinate importance and misplaced prestige invested in the senior executive
by placing him or her firmly in a supporting role. The higher one climbs in an
organization, the more important it is to recognize how much greater are
the responsibilities and larger the measure of subservience one is really
taking on; this helps to maintain the perspective that can contribute
to one's success, the lack of which tends to contribute to
self-destruction.
However,
these two concepts differ in a few ways, also. For one, organizational
leadership from within stresses the need for it to be managed from the
perspective of ownership, which generally resides outside the organization. This,
it would seem, can sometimes be overlooked by some advocates
of servant leadership. Additionally, organizational
leadership from within focuses on the organizational - or collective - nature
of leadership. It is concerned with the presence of leadership within
the organization with an identity of its own, separate from that of the individuals
who make it up, although it communicates itself among and is expressed through
them. Thus, it neither directly promotes nor addresses personal fulfillment or
development of employees. The reason for this is that doing so, absent the
corporate rationale for such efforts, tends to deprive them of the
organizational integrity that invests them with useful meaning - even for
the beneficiaries. Thus, employee support must always be considered and
generated within the context of organizational purpose. In practice, it is
generally best to interpret this generously. As a result, I think that in such
discussions we can often appear to arrive at distinctions with no discernable
differences. While I see those distinctions, I also have seen the
unquestionable and powerfully positive benefits of the concepts of servant
leadership as applied in real organizations; it has my support.
It should be said, however, that the key point I
have hoped to make with the publication of Managing Leadership
is that there needs to be a thorough and comprehensive
reexamination of what leadership in organizations really is. Certainly, I have
spent a lifetime of observation, study, and practice which has led me to the
conclusions I am promoting in this book and follow-on projects, and I am
confident of their validity and usefulness to practicing
managers. However, what I would really like to see is a serious
reorientation of the way we structure and administer our organizations in a
manner that results in more effective governance and management. This will
inevitably increase the welfare of all involved, from shareholders to
employees, and from consumers to the wider community.
Before I
go, I want to impose on you with a few more lines to express my gratitude to
you, Greg, for your gracious extension of the opportunity for this interview,
and for the really valuable contribution you provide through your
wonderful weLEAD
Leadership Online Site, and the weLEAD Online Magazine. Both provide a wealth of
features and venues for studying and understanding leadership for students
and practitioners of the topic at all levels. I enjoy
visiting both sites frequently and recommend them highly to my
friends and colleagues. Thank you!
Thanks
Jim for your kind words about weLEAD and for sharing your insight about
leadership with us!
Comments
to: editor@leadingtoday.org
BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE