The Leadership Hype and How It Affects You

Leadership cannot be learnt.

Why do I say this?

Because learning would require either emulating someone or inculcating best practices. It could also mean learning from experience.

There are two aspects to consider:

1) Empirically,
Leader = function of (follower, circumstances)

To be a leader you need followers (recruits in military are not followers nor are employees in the company). And there have to be circumstances that propel a person as a leader. Since each of the variables (follower, circumstances) will differ in time and space, emulating or best practices is at best guidelines.

But even the guidelines won't work. See point 2 below.

2) The sample size is too small and biased. I take off from "Fooled By Randomness". We can study the characteristics of a set of leaders and come to a set of parameters - such as vision, belief in him/herself, values, etc. And come to a conclusion. But we are studying only those who have become leaders having all these characteristics. We do not know of all those who had these characteristics but could not become leaders because they did not have the right followers and the circumstances were not right ("ahead of his time" people would say later) . To put it more "scientifically", we cannot establish a causal relation between these characteristics and leadership.

To summarise. Leadership cannot be learnt. In fact we should not even make an attempt to learn it.

What I recommend is as follows:

a) Being a manager can be learnt. Be an excellent manager.
b) In your role as manager you will come across situations where leadership needs to be exercised. You will evolve as you learn from the mistakes and correct things done to deal with the circumstances.
c) Keep an eye open for windows of opportunity.
d) When it comes, go for it.
e) You may emerge as a great leader.

It is more or less accepted by all that the leadership as a function is distinct from management. There are areas of overlap but by and large when one talks of leadership it is very clear that one is not talking of management. (In fact, there is a tendency to look down upon management - what is your reaction to a kid who says, "When I grow up I want to be a leader" and to a kid who says "when I grow up I want to be a leader"?)

The easiest way to explain the distinction is by putting it in term of "are we doing things right?" (management) versus "are we doing the right things?" (leadership). This may be crude but I think summarises the distinction well. (By the way, this very definition - doing the things right v/s doing the right things - can be used to define Verification and Validation.)

Once we know that the functionalities differ, the next important step is of course to list down the attributes of a leader. Tomes have been written on this. The deluge of material on what makes a great leader is matched only by the material on Leadership styles. Just go here to see the 12 leadership styles that are in existence. There is also a charter of leadership that lists 10 essential qualities of a leader, the first of which is "Leading by example ..." which seems to me like a explaining leadership in terms of leadership.

In any case, so many styles of leadership only goes to prove that leadership is situational. But what has been irking me most, of late, is the attempt to define characteristics / attribute / charter of a leader. Apart from the fact that we are being "fooled by randomness", this defining of attributes of a leader means that we are able to distill out those characteristics that make a great leader and are as easy as pills to ingest and digest. This assumes that qualities in human beings are separable and do not interact with each other.

A human being - any human being - is a product of ALL its attributes. They cannot be separated into water-tight compartment. If a person is irascible and is able to take effective decisions, we cannot say that the attribute we need to imbibe from that great person is "capability of taking effective decisions". It is as if once we "learn" how to take effective decisions, we can continue to act normally except when decision has to be taken. Then we just turn on the required attribute and apply. I wish it were that easy.

The essential element of a leadership scenario is followers or those who are being led. The rationale behind "being led" could be only that the follower believes that the leader will lead him/her to his/her goals (whatever they might be). So the only invariant is the followers willingness to follow. Hence, the leader only needs to convince the follower by his deed and actions that he will lead the follower to the cherished goal(s).

That was one long preface ...
Now let us take this in context of our work. Each of us have leadership qualities. When we take an initiative we display such qualities. When we come up with a plan to resolve a problem, we do it again. When we convince our subordinates to stick to the plan even though at first it doesn't seem to be working at first, we are leaders at that moment of time. What is left is the respect you need to gain from your followers. That's where my previous post comes in. As you continue to perform well as managers, the opportunities - however insignificant - for displaying leadership skills will arise. Every good decision will make you more confident of your skills and at the same time lift you in the eyes of your eventual follower(s).

A good manager may or may not go on to become a great leader but a bad manager will never be a great leader. And that is something I know for sure.

Hard Facts ... has a complete chapter (Are Great Leaders In Control Of Their Companies?) dedicated to leadership where it explores (explodes?) the myths of leadership.  I reproduce a few relevant text.

History is filled with leaders who make a big difference in the world: Gandhi ... Martin Luther King Jr. ... Queen Elizabeth I ... Winston Churchill ... and Lyndon Johnson[.] ... Leaders make a difference on a smaller organizational scale, as well. [S]ystematic quantitative research demonstrates that leadership can influence organizational performance. ... Leaders not only influence indicators of performance such as sales, profits, productivity, or budget allocations, they also affect their organization's interpersonal climate and the satisfaction and mental well-being of those they lead. ...

Nonetheless, leaders and managers often have far less influence over the performance than most people think. ... One study of the performance of 167 companies over a 20-year period sought to allocate variation in performance to the effects of industry, year (time period, which presumably measures general economic conditions), company-specific effects, and the change in leadership. Not surprisingly, the conclusion was that company and industry had much larger effects on variation in sales, profits, and profit margins than did changes in leadership. [M]ost [scholars] agree that the effects of leadership on performance are modest under most conditions, strong under a few conditions, and absent in others. 

I could go on and on quoting this book to prove my point that leadership is a function of followers and circumstances.
By the way, Hard Facts ... goes on to list fundamental guidelines for what leaders should do. It is a good read.