Publications

Enough of leaders!!!

Where will they stop?

In 1985, two North American researchers listed more than 5,000 definitions of leadership in management literature. The 10,000 bar was probably reached before the year 2000. Is this an enviable record that shows the vitality of the research in this field? Or is it a sad statement that reveals a scientific vagueness and the poor conceptual ways of its advocates? More pragmatically, how do you find your way through all this? And who or what do you believe in?

Is there such a thing as leadership?
Yes, on condition that you view it has a mental construct that can help people to describe and understand the phenomena of attraction and influence between individuals and groups. No, if the point is to erect it into a managerial method, or worse a universal cure-all. So how should one approach the phenomenon?

The single characteristic that defines a leader, is that he/she has "followers", or supporters. Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi had them, and they still do. Hitler too, unfortunately. Scholars claim that these "great men" were all born twice. They lived through extreme, traumatic experiences that changed their vision of the world and themselves and strengthened them, where common mortals (followers) do not survive, or survive and don't learn. The same scholars are quick to recognize that great leaders (at least those "recent" enough to have induced clear-sighted biographies) are fairly unbearable for those they live with (authoritarian, irritable, secretive, even Machiavellian). And they have a hard time standing each other whenever their convictions conflict.

Are these the people that corporations need? Bungee jumping or walking on coals to overcome your managerial "fears"? Developing competition between internal leaders, whether consciously or not, at the risk of stigmatizing positions, and leading one group of "followers" against another?

Before the call to arms of June 18 th , De Gaulle was, to say the least, not greatly known to the masses. Yet he had spent 20 years attempting to convince both politicians that by humiliating the vanquished, the Versailles Treaty would only lead to another war, and the military, of the tremendous strategic mistake that the Maginot line represented (designed for position warfare, whereas movement would be the key to the next conflict). We know the rest, but we sometimes forget the 13 years he spent in a political wilderness before he returned to power in 1958. And again, in the heart of a crisis (the Algerian War), he proposed another "innovative" solution: decolonization. "Great men" are paradoxically individuals with unshakeable convictions, who cause others to change their beliefs, values, attitudes and behavior. They are "one step ahead" and offer a different view of reality, which followers adhere to in the crunch of a crisis. With highs and lows, according to the whims of the latter, but always over the long term. In fact, that is the only visible difference with the pseudo-leadership exercised over teenagers by the most recent winner of " Star Academy " or "Loft" TV shows.

And managers in all this?
Need they be Gaullistic (he will emerge from a crisis, then quickly leave, before returning... perhaps), or like Loanna from Star Academy, all glitter and silicone, ready to vanish into eternal oblivion when the masses or the shareholders are tired of the show? Many corporations experiencing deep crises need drastic changes, but not "visionary" leadership. Streamlining and shifting back to the core business can sometimes be enough. Others need to completely reinvent themselves: in this case, they either need a "savior" ushering in radical change, or they face their death.

For 99% or more of all managers and executives, including the collaborators of our saviors, leadership is their ability to influence, either positively or negatively, those directly around them, in other words the ability to mobilize, coordinate and develop team(s). In a dynamic, unpredictable environment, they mostly need entrepreneurial skills: they must be strategists, curious, calculate risks, make decisions, and be open to learning and change. All this combined with administrative skills for handling financial, technical and human resources that are increasingly scarce, and processes that are increasingly complex. They must also be versatile communicators, networkers.

Under such conditions, leadership is mainly expressed in the way managers enable their collaborators to make decisions and act, according to their commitment and their skills, while adapting to circumstances. Tannenbaum and Schmidt analyzed this fact perfectly in an article that is more relevant now than ever. They wrote it in 1957.

What if the leadership fad was a sham designed to make people swallow the bitter potion that empowerment failed to do: "Manager Friend, do more with less, and if it doesn't work, you're the leader!"