Forster N. - Maximum performance (2005)(en)

2 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

This opening chapter also acts as the foundation for the remainder of the book, by summarizing the most relevant and salient aspects of the 20th century literature on organizational leadership and people management.

Introduction

Of the many decisions an executive makes, none are as important as the decisions they make about people because they, above all else, determine the performance capacity of the organization.

(Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive, 1966)

One thing that can be said with confidence about leadership and people management is that there have been enough books and articles written on these topics over the last 20 years to bemuse, perplex and confuse anyone looking for either clarity or new insights into these often mysterious and complex fusions of personal qualities, attributes, characteristics, skills and competencies. Indeed, one of the first things to strike anyone who has studied these for some time is how confusing they can be, and how critical some commentators have been about these concepts in the past. For example,

Leadership, as a concept at least, has failed us. Despite the earnest efforts of business leaders and management writers to ennoble and dignify it, understandings of leadership have become cheapened by overuse. Leadership has been rendered impotent to deliver its promises.

(Sinclair, 1998: 1)

Even in the wayward, spluttering world of management theory, no subject has produced more waffle than leadership [ ] The value of academic research to the complexities of the chaotic situations that most business leaders and managers find themselves in today is practically zero.

(Micklethwaite and Woolridge, 1997: 11)

Leadership is an intangible quality with no clear definition. That’s probably a good thing, because if the people being led knew the definition, they would hunt down their leaders and kill them. Some cynics might say that a leader is someone who gets people to do things that benefit the leader. But that can’t be a good definition because there are so many exceptions, as you well know.

(Adams, 1997: 287)

[No] unequivocal understanding exists as to what distinguishes leaders from non-leaders . . . Never have so many laboured so long to say so little. (Bennis and Nanus, 1985: 4)

Leadership is the worst defined and least understood personal attribute sometimes possessed by human beings [ ] There are as many definitions of leadership as there are writers on the subject.

(Lippitt, 1982: 395)

So, how can we move forward from this somewhat inauspicious start? At the beginning of our journey, let’s look at some definitions. In the opening to this chapter, you were asked to think about your understanding of three concepts that will be used many times throughout this book: ‘leadership’, ‘management’ and ‘organization’. Please compare your definitions with these:

Leadership in English-speaking countries is derived from an old AngloSaxon word, loedan, meaning a way, road, path or journey. This ancient definition of leadership is used throughout the book.

Management is derived from the Italian manaeggio (a riding school), originating in the Latin word for hand, manus. So, to manufacture something means, literally, to make things by hand, and in the 19th century workers were employed by manufactories. Both management and manufacture may already be outdated terms that should be replaced by mentoring, mentofacturing or technofacturing. It has been suggested that these words better reflect the realities of the current transition from bureaucratic industrial capitalism: from an era when we did indeed make many things by hand, to a new world where knowledge management, intellectual capital, innovation and new technologies are fast becoming the primary drivers of organizational performance and success.

Organization is derived from the Greek word organon, meaning a tool or device. So an organization can be viewed simply as a device for getting things done as efficiently and effectively as possible. However, this is a static definition. As we will see throughout this book, the leaders of the most successful companies of the 20th and early 21st centuries understand a basic, but extremely important principle: all organizations are works in progress. Hence an organization is defined simply as an evolutionary device for achieving complex tasks as efficiently and effectively as possible. This broad definition encompasses all small, medium and large businesses and companies, as well as organizations in the public and not-for-profit sectors.

Why bother with definitions? More than 2400 years ago, the Greek philosopher Socrates observed that ‘The beginning of wisdom lies in the definition of terms’. For Socrates, great leadership was not possible without wisdom, and he regarded this as the foundation of all knowledge and philosophical thinking (from the Greek, philosophia, meaning ‘love of wisdom’). Clarity of definitions is important because many commentators on leadership and management routinely provide complex and lengthy definitions of what these things ‘are’. A principle underlying this book is that such definitions are of little practical use

4 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

when their meanings have already been described, understood and utilized by people for millennia, in many different cultures and civilizations. And, as we will see later, many of the insights into leadership and people management contained in this book have been known and used by our ancestors for thousands of years. This is because most of the qualities, skills and competencies we associate with present-day leadership and management, such as communication, cooperation, negotiation skills, teamwork, the use of power and influence, and the ability to envision the future, were also essential for the survival and evolution of our ancient ancestors. These primal leadership skills are as relevant today as they have always been.

Let’s now turn to describing leaders and leadership in more detail. Although research into organizational and business leadership can be traced back to the 1920s, there are only three facets of leadership that all writers on this subject appear to have agreed on during these 80 years: (a) leaders have followers (b) leadership has something to do with controlling or directing human behaviour (c) leaders describe reality to their followers and, sometimes, suggest alternative or new realities.

If this is all that is universally agreed about leadership, where do we go from here? Let’s return briefly to the ancient definition of leadership on the preceding page: a way, road, path or journey. On many levels, this simple definition makes good operational sense. For almost all of the time that modern humans, Homo sapiens (‘wise man’), have inhabited this planet (about 130 000 years according to the most recent estimates), the primary function of leaders was to act as the heads of nomadic tribes, leading them from one region to another as the seasons changed, as animals migrated or as the environment changed. In fact, the origin of the word ‘leadership’ in all cultures throughout the world is – you guessed it – a way, road, path or journey. We will return to this ancient understanding of leadership throughout this book.

Hence, even in modern business or organizational contexts, leadership can still be viewed in terms of the process of guiding employees down the right ways, roads or paths, thereby ensuring that their efforts are in line with broader organizational goals and objectives. In this context, a leader can be described as anyone who has responsibility for coordinating or directing the actions of other people, and who has the ability to encourage them to do more than they might be expected to do without a leader. This also means that leaders have to possess the ability to lead followers on new journeys into the future, whenever this is required. And, as we will see later, while leaders do perform a variety of roles in modern organizations, the ability to lead others is built on a relatively small number of core qualities, attributes, skills and competencies.

If this describes leadership, what is management? Is this the same as leadership, a part of leadership or something quite different? Business leaders, management commentators and academics often use these words interchangeably, but there continue to be important differences between the two terms.

1Leadership is usually concerned with what needs to be done – management often focuses on how things should be done. Hence a manager would focus on how quickly and efficiently an employee climbs up and down a ladder to perform a task. A leader would be primarily concerned with determining whether the task was appropriate in the first place, or if the ladder was leaning against the right wall.

2Leadership is primarily concerned with relationships – management is often concerned with tasks. Hence a manager dealing with conflict between two subordinates would tend to rely on positional power and procedural rules to resolve this. A leader would tend to use their personal power and authority, communication skills and an ability to appeal to the hearts and minds of their followers to resolve the conflict.

3Leaders have to think outside the square – managers usually think within it. Hence management is about employee efficiency in the here and now, but leadership is about making changes that will enable their staff to be efficient in the future.

4Leaders try to find ways to enhance and improve their employees’ performance – managers are primarily concerned with controlling and monitoring performance. Hence, managers will tend to push their staff towards goals they have set for them. Leaders will focus their energies on pulling their staff towards goals they have agreed with them (this subtle but important distinction is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7).

5Leaders are comfortable with change and possess a change-oriented, outward-looking view of the future. Managers may feel uncomfortable about the prospect of change, and often focus on maintaining the status quo or ‘the way we do things around here’.

6Leaders are able to step into the unknown – managers often have to be shown why they should take such a step. Hence leadership is often concerned with the creation of new paradigms – management is often focused on operating within existing paradigms.1

While there are times when it can be important to distinguish between leadership and management, it’s equally important not to get hung up on the differences between the two terms. For example, there are some effective leaders who are not great managers, but have the ability to recruit enough good managers to work for them. There are some leaders

studies had not been able to locate any traits that consistently differentiated leaders from non-leaders. They also observed that the traits they had identified appeared to come and go at random, varied from leader to leader, and only became apparent after people had achieved leadership positions. This was a natural consequence of the fact that they could only look at leaders after the event, when they had already become leaders. Further research indicated that the correlation between specific psychological traits and leadership is low, accounting for only about 10 per cent of the factors that predict whether someone was a leader or not (Stogdill, 1974). Surprisingly, subsequent research has failed to answer definitively the question that opened this section, ‘Are leaders born or made?’ and this remains a topic of heated debate amongst academics. In terms of this continuing nature/nurture debate, there are three basic positions that have been adopted by academic researchers, reflecting the intellectual subjectivity of their disciplinary backgrounds.

1Our potential for leadership is entirely determined by the genetic programming we inherit from our natural parents (many geneticists).

2Our potential for leadership is determined by a combination of genetic predispositions, psychological development and socialization experiences (particularly during childhood), school and peer group influences, social class and culture (all psychologists and social psychologists).

3Our potential for leadership is determined by the socialization processes we experience after birth and social–psychological development (particularly during childhood), school and peer group influences, social class and culture (most sociologists).

So, who’s right? Recent advances in evolutionary psychology and genetic mapping leave little doubt that our genetic inheritance has an influence on our physical and psychological development in life. Some studies of twins, raised separately, show that genetics shape personality; in particular, key psychological characteristics such as introversion and extroversion. Furthermore, twins raised apart often show stunning similarities in their scholastic achievements, choice of occupations, clothing, hobbies, musical preferences and even their choice of spouses. Advances in genetic mapping have also confirmed that there is a genetic component to the human Intelligence Quotient (IQ), although at birth this is simply potential: it still has to be ‘actualized’ through learning and socialization. For example, in Albert Einstein’s case, the two areas of his brain involved in the generation and manipulation of spatial images were 1cm larger than those of a normally intelligent person. This meant that he possessed an ‘extra’ 15 per cent brain processing capacity. He was also born without one of the deep

8 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

grooves that separate the left and right hemispheres of the brain. As a result, he had many more neural connections between the logical/linear and spatial/creative parts of his brain than would be found in a more typical human brain. In other words, the unique combined genetic inheritance he acquired from his parents gave him a propensity to be a paradigm-breaking genius, although he was not regarded as being an academically outstanding student at school or university.

In a similar vein, the ability to produce seratonin has a genetic basis. It has been suggested that this is linked to leadership potential because it is known to be a key modulator of mood and emotions. In other words, certain people have a genetic predisposition to produce this natural ‘drug’ when under pressure and, as a result, are better equipped to deal with uncertain situations, competing demands, interpersonal conflict and stress (Goleman et al., 2002). There is also some evidence to suggest that genetic predispositions can have an influence on the careers we choose and the environments we choose to work in (Nicholson, 2000: 97–127). In other words, there may be a kind of autopilot – at the genetic level – that impels us to ‘choose’ particular careers and professions, and which can also influence the particular leadership and people management styles that we utilize as adults. Edward O. Wilson best described this process when he argued that the human mind was not a blank slate to be simply ‘filled in’ by experience, as most sociologists would argue, but ‘an exposed negative waiting to be slipped into developer fluid’ (cited by Uren, 1999). Some commentators have taken this suggestion one stage further and argued that, while social influences and life experiences may modify our innate genetic programming, these can affect the development of our basic personalities and the operation of our brains only in so far as they inhibit or activate propensities that were already there at birth (for example, Ridley, 2003; Stock, 2002).

Another way of looking at the influence of innate ‘programming’ and environmental influences on our psychological development is with the hardware/software analogy. The hardware represents the raw genetic material we inherit from our parents at conception. The software represents the ‘files’ of information, knowledge and feedback that we receive from the environment before and after birth, and during our formative years. Without these, the hardware cannot ever be activated and actualized. Conversely, without functional hardware, no amount of software is going to work. Having said this, the evidence concerning genetic influences on human personalities and psychologies still does not tell us if leadership is something we are born with. Complex organisms like human beings are not simply the sum of their

genes, nor do genes alone build an individual’s unique personality and psychology. These certainly have an influence, but represent at birth a set of potentialities, nothing more. They operate in complex and symbiotic relationships with environmental, social and cultural influences; relationships that researchers are only now beginning to unravel and understand. The most powerful example that can be cited to support this statement is the radical transformation of the role of women in management and business leadership over the last 30 years in industrialized countries. Their collective genetic make-up has not changed one iota during this period of time, and yet their collective beliefs about what they are capable of have changed enormously, as have the beliefs of some men about the capabilities of women (see Chapter 6). There is also research which has shown that the first wave of women to reach senior leadership positions in the 1970s and 1980s grew up in family environments that insulated or dissuaded them from accepting social and cultural stereotypes about their ‘correct’ roles and potential in life. These women were then able to develop the drive, ambition and tenacity that enabled them to battle their way to the top of male-dominated professions and organizations (Sinclair and Wilson, 2002; Sinclair, 1998: 80).

And while there is a genetic component underpinning intelligence – as measured by IQ tests – there is little evidence that a high IQ is needed for leadership. Under some conditions, a very high IQ may occasionally be useful, but it is not essential for leaders. In fact, there is a body of evidence that suggests that very high intelligence is closely associated with psychopathology and deviant behaviour (an issue we return to later in this chapter). Furthermore, IQ is only one form of ‘intelligence’. We now know that there are many other forms of human intelligence, including linguistic, interpersonal, spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, creative, musical, logical/mathematical and naturalistic intelligences (Gardner, 1993). To these we could also add moral/ethical and social intelligences, which we will return to in Chapter 12. These other types of intelligence can only be developed though the complex processes of human learning and socialization and, of equal importance, can be developed in adulthood (Goleman et al., 2002). As we progress through this book, we will show how these forms of intelligence can be enhanced throughout life. For example, do you believe that you are not particularly innovative or creative? Why do you believe this? Who first told you that you were not creative? How many opportunities have you had to acquire these skills? In Chapter 9, we will see how almost anyone can learn to be better at lateral thinking and, thereby, become more creative and innovative. Another example is public speaking. Do you believe that you are not particularly good at this (perhaps because you are ‘introverted’)? Why do you believe this? In Chapter 3 we will