What motivates people to seek leadership roles? Well, some people who wind up in leadership roles don’t seek them at all but find themselves accepting leadership through accidents of fate or circumstance. Some simply enjoy relationships in groups and like working with followers and peers. Some seek power, prestige, and other forms of ego gratification.
Over the long haul, however, the most effective leaders tend to be motivated by achievement and problem solving.
A number of years ago, a psychologist named David MacClellan did a series of studies which suggest that a very important motive for many people in leadership roles is achievement. Subsequent studies seem to agree that some people simply like to accomplish things and take great satisfaction in setting and achieving goals.
Business leaders and entrepreneurs seem to be particularly driven by achievement motives, even more so than by dreams of wealth or material comfort. The most effective leaders of all, in fact, seem driven not only to solve problems for their group or community but also to seek new problems to solve. Such leaders are particularly effective because they never cease to help their group or community to identify and address the problems confronting them.
Solutions to social problems always contain the seeds of new and different problems, so leaders who rest on their laurels don’t stay leaders very long.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Harmony, Not Unity
In the contentious, partisan environment currently swamping our political culture, we hear plaintive calls for calm, compromise, and unity. Unfortunately, we hear at least as many angry calls for total victory by one side over the other.
The current situation here in Wisconsin offers an instructive look at the main outlines of the problem and may hint at solutions. After weeks of bitter dispute over the new governor’s budget and plans to strip bargaining rights from public union members, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a thoughtful and refreshing column written by two prominent Wisconsin citizens on opposite sides of the dispute.
The column, signed by Kevin Conroy and Jim Connelly, a Democrat and a Republican, concluded that “We need to show individual leadership by calling for a decrease in partisan shouting and by getting directly involved in bipartisan business growth initiatives. One thing is very obvious: We can’t do it divided.”
My only quibble with that column is in the headline: “Wisconsin’s Prosperity Requires Unity.” That headline, of course, was probably written by a headline writer and not by the authors of the column itself. Nonetheless, the issue is worth attention. I would suggest that “unity” is a misleading and elusive goal. I would rather we aim for harmony.
Aiming for unity suggests that we should all agree on most if not all strategies and tactics, which of course also assumes that we agree on goals and objectives. To point a metaphor, people unified on political and economic issues is a lot like a choir singing in unison. Everyone sings the same notes at the same time. That assumes that sopranos can sing bass notes and basses can sing soprano notes.
Harmony, however, requires us to sing different notes in a coordinated effort, as long as we agree to sing the same song in the same key at the same tempo. The concept of harmony respects the integrity of each section – bass, tenor, alto, soprano – in the service of richer, more complex, and ultimately more satisfying music.
Aiming for unity asks us to choose one of the following alternatives: ask or force the other side to give up its integrity, surrender integrity for the sake of unity, or concoct a compromise which both sides can support. The more deeply each side is committed to its own principles, the less likely they are to settle for any of these alternatives.
Aiming for harmony starts with the simple act of listening to the other side and choosing to get to know people on the other side in all their complex humanity. Aiming for harmony asks us to quit demonizing the people on the other side and to quit distorting their arguments. It requires some measure of empathy, the driving force of all moral and ethical behavior. It requires us to look for verifiable information and to quit spouting unverifiable ideology. It is worth noting, by the way, that all ideology is unverifiable. That’s what makes it ideology rather than information, knowledge, or wisdom.
Collaborative leadership always starts with relationship building and agreement on basic principles like democratic process and empirical evidence, which can take a long time. It is, however, worth the effort, since it promotes harmony – coordinated action in pursuit of shared goals while maintaining the integrity of the participants. It helps us avoid the toxic and fruitless condition of “us versus them” and it helps us remember that our political adversaries are also our neighbors and fellow citizens.
The current situation here in Wisconsin offers an instructive look at the main outlines of the problem and may hint at solutions. After weeks of bitter dispute over the new governor’s budget and plans to strip bargaining rights from public union members, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a thoughtful and refreshing column written by two prominent Wisconsin citizens on opposite sides of the dispute.
The column, signed by Kevin Conroy and Jim Connelly, a Democrat and a Republican, concluded that “We need to show individual leadership by calling for a decrease in partisan shouting and by getting directly involved in bipartisan business growth initiatives. One thing is very obvious: We can’t do it divided.”
My only quibble with that column is in the headline: “Wisconsin’s Prosperity Requires Unity.” That headline, of course, was probably written by a headline writer and not by the authors of the column itself. Nonetheless, the issue is worth attention. I would suggest that “unity” is a misleading and elusive goal. I would rather we aim for harmony.
Aiming for unity suggests that we should all agree on most if not all strategies and tactics, which of course also assumes that we agree on goals and objectives. To point a metaphor, people unified on political and economic issues is a lot like a choir singing in unison. Everyone sings the same notes at the same time. That assumes that sopranos can sing bass notes and basses can sing soprano notes.
Harmony, however, requires us to sing different notes in a coordinated effort, as long as we agree to sing the same song in the same key at the same tempo. The concept of harmony respects the integrity of each section – bass, tenor, alto, soprano – in the service of richer, more complex, and ultimately more satisfying music.
Aiming for unity asks us to choose one of the following alternatives: ask or force the other side to give up its integrity, surrender integrity for the sake of unity, or concoct a compromise which both sides can support. The more deeply each side is committed to its own principles, the less likely they are to settle for any of these alternatives.
Aiming for harmony starts with the simple act of listening to the other side and choosing to get to know people on the other side in all their complex humanity. Aiming for harmony asks us to quit demonizing the people on the other side and to quit distorting their arguments. It requires some measure of empathy, the driving force of all moral and ethical behavior. It requires us to look for verifiable information and to quit spouting unverifiable ideology. It is worth noting, by the way, that all ideology is unverifiable. That’s what makes it ideology rather than information, knowledge, or wisdom.
Collaborative leadership always starts with relationship building and agreement on basic principles like democratic process and empirical evidence, which can take a long time. It is, however, worth the effort, since it promotes harmony – coordinated action in pursuit of shared goals while maintaining the integrity of the participants. It helps us avoid the toxic and fruitless condition of “us versus them” and it helps us remember that our political adversaries are also our neighbors and fellow citizens.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
What Is Leadership?
The English language has included the word “leader” for a very long time. But the word “leadership” didn’t make it into the dictionary until around the year 1800. The new word reflected the emergence of a new approach to human organization and governance: democracy. Since then all sorts of definitions of leadership have cropped up – some good, some less good, and some downright silly.
Back in the nineteen sixties, a scholar at the Ohio State University program in leadership studies set out to categorize all the supposedly scientific definitions of the term “leadership” that he could find. He found about 130 different kinds of definitions. That’s not 130 different definitions, it’s 130 different kinds of definitions. Some focused on the traits of leaders, some on the power of leaders, and some on the roles and responsibilities that leaders share. One social scientist had the audacity to claim that leadership is whatever social scientists say it is.
I like to define leadership as a reciprocal process of mobilizing resources and motivating individuals in pursuit of goals shared by leaders and followers alike. My emphasis is on reciprocity between leaders and followers and on shared goals. But I must say I am partial to some of the more interesting statements made by people who have lived with the realities of leadership in important places. Harry Truman’s summation is one of my favorites. Truman said that a leader is a person who gets other people to do what they don’t want to do and like it. But probably the most quoted description of leadership isn’t a definition at all, but a paradoxical statement by an ancient Oriental philosopher and politician named Lao Tsu. The best of all leaders, he said, is the one who helps people so that, eventually, they don’t need him. Then comes the one they love and admire. Then comes the one they fear. The worst is the one who lets people push him around. Where there is no trust, he said, people will act in bad faith. The best leader doesn’t say much, but what he says carries weight. When he is finished with his work, the people say “we did it ourselves.”
Lao’s ideal leader sounds a bit like Harry Truman’s.
Back in the nineteen sixties, a scholar at the Ohio State University program in leadership studies set out to categorize all the supposedly scientific definitions of the term “leadership” that he could find. He found about 130 different kinds of definitions. That’s not 130 different definitions, it’s 130 different kinds of definitions. Some focused on the traits of leaders, some on the power of leaders, and some on the roles and responsibilities that leaders share. One social scientist had the audacity to claim that leadership is whatever social scientists say it is.
I like to define leadership as a reciprocal process of mobilizing resources and motivating individuals in pursuit of goals shared by leaders and followers alike. My emphasis is on reciprocity between leaders and followers and on shared goals. But I must say I am partial to some of the more interesting statements made by people who have lived with the realities of leadership in important places. Harry Truman’s summation is one of my favorites. Truman said that a leader is a person who gets other people to do what they don’t want to do and like it. But probably the most quoted description of leadership isn’t a definition at all, but a paradoxical statement by an ancient Oriental philosopher and politician named Lao Tsu. The best of all leaders, he said, is the one who helps people so that, eventually, they don’t need him. Then comes the one they love and admire. Then comes the one they fear. The worst is the one who lets people push him around. Where there is no trust, he said, people will act in bad faith. The best leader doesn’t say much, but what he says carries weight. When he is finished with his work, the people say “we did it ourselves.”
Lao’s ideal leader sounds a bit like Harry Truman’s.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The Power of Persistence
Some people are never satisfied unless they’re starting something new. Some people refuse to give up no matter how many times they seem to be down for the count. Some people just don’t take no for an answer. Such a man was Captain David P. Mapes, principal founder of the city in which I live – Ripon, Wisconsin.
After founding the city of Carbondale in Pennsylvania, David Mapes moved on to New York City, where he operated a commercial steamboat and took to calling himself Captain. Before long, his steamboat and worldly fortune sank in New York’s East River.
Undaunted, Mapes packed up and headed west. He didn’t stop until he reached the Valley of Ceresco, ninety miles north of Milwaukee, where a band of utopian socialists led by a visionary named Warren Chase had founded a community the called the Wisconsin Phalanx. Mapes struck a deal with the largest landowner in the area, former Acting Governor of the Michigan Territory John Scott Horner, to sell plots of land to settlers in a brand-new city. They named their city Ripon, after the English cathedral town which was Horner’s ancestral home. Mapes’s primary method of attracting settlers was to flag down passing wagons heading westward and talk up the virtues and advantages of living in Ripon. He was a crackerjack promoter who seldom took no for an answer.
For about two years, a rivalry flourished between Chase, the founder of the Ceresco Commune, and Mapes, the founder of Ripon over the future of their adjacent communities. As the commune faltered around 1850, however, the pioneer spirit of competition gave way to the pioneer spirit of cooperation, and Ceresco was eventually absorbed by Ripon. Mapes soon laid plans to attract responsible settlers by building a college on Ripon’s highest hill. Originally named Brockway College after a man who donated the largest founding gift ($250), the school eventually took its name from the city it lived in – Ripon College. Thus within four years of losing everything he owned, Captain David Mapes had founded a city and a college that have lasted for more than 160 years.
After founding the city of Carbondale in Pennsylvania, David Mapes moved on to New York City, where he operated a commercial steamboat and took to calling himself Captain. Before long, his steamboat and worldly fortune sank in New York’s East River.
Undaunted, Mapes packed up and headed west. He didn’t stop until he reached the Valley of Ceresco, ninety miles north of Milwaukee, where a band of utopian socialists led by a visionary named Warren Chase had founded a community the called the Wisconsin Phalanx. Mapes struck a deal with the largest landowner in the area, former Acting Governor of the Michigan Territory John Scott Horner, to sell plots of land to settlers in a brand-new city. They named their city Ripon, after the English cathedral town which was Horner’s ancestral home. Mapes’s primary method of attracting settlers was to flag down passing wagons heading westward and talk up the virtues and advantages of living in Ripon. He was a crackerjack promoter who seldom took no for an answer.
For about two years, a rivalry flourished between Chase, the founder of the Ceresco Commune, and Mapes, the founder of Ripon over the future of their adjacent communities. As the commune faltered around 1850, however, the pioneer spirit of competition gave way to the pioneer spirit of cooperation, and Ceresco was eventually absorbed by Ripon. Mapes soon laid plans to attract responsible settlers by building a college on Ripon’s highest hill. Originally named Brockway College after a man who donated the largest founding gift ($250), the school eventually took its name from the city it lived in – Ripon College. Thus within four years of losing everything he owned, Captain David Mapes had founded a city and a college that have lasted for more than 160 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)