What Makes a Successful Leader - Essay Example

This paper attempts to critically evaluate the ment: “If you dont truly care about people, you should get out of leadership; it will save a lot of people a lot of trouble and maybe even a heart attack” by James Autry by reviewing the assigned readings by Boyett and Boyett (1998) and by Kellerman (2005). The topic of leadership has indeed attracted many management “gurus” and experts to put forth what they think are the essential traits and attributes that define a successful leader. As the reading by Boyett points out, the business of leadership coaching is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and one that sees a huge churn of books and manuals on the art and science of leadership every year. The focus throughout this paper is to contrast Autry’s statement with the opinions expressed by Boyett and Boyett and Kellerman along with my personal views on what makes a successful leader. The first and foremost task is to define what leadership is and who is a leader? Boyett and Boyett go to great lengths to define a leader from the perspectives of different experts on management. They list several attributes and traits as set forth by the management experts from Drucker to Stephen Covey. There is a whole section in the reading that is devoted to checklists on the attributes and traits of successful leaders. The point here is that the authors do a good job in introducing the topic of leadership by examining the writings of other experts. And as we shall see in the subsequent paragraphs, Boyett and Boyett go further than merely rehashing what other experts have written about leadership and instead devise their own theory of what leadership means. According to Boyett and Boyett, to be a leader means to have i) natural allies or followers ii) have a field of interaction and iii) the process of leadership must occur as an event. The point here is that leadership is something that is a process that occurs in discrete events as well as a continuum that has a common thread tying it all in. the discrete events that typify leadership is the impermanence of leadership that makes Lee Iacocca a president at Ford and then be fired and again rejuvenate as a leader at Chrysler. Hence, the point made by Boyett and Boyett is that leadership need not be permanent as can be seen from the fact that some leaders are leaders today and not leaders tomorrow. However, what ties in leaders into developing traits and attributes that last in all places and contexts is the bond that they have with people. And it is here that Autry’s statement needs to be examined in a thorough manner. As long as leaders have bonds with their followers, the leader is strong and once the bond is broken, the leader’s role ends. Leadership is all about people. This truism may sound like a cliché but it is the case that unless leaders have followers, they cannot be leaders. Hence, the amount of time and effort that leaders invest in cultivating followers determines their success at leadership. As can be seen from the examples of democratic countries, leaders are made and unmade by each election result. This makes it possible for say, Barack Obama to continue his leadership whereas John McCain would be remembered as someone who was a challenger but not yet there. This fickle nature of the “relationship” between the leaders and followers also makes it possible for McCain to reinvent himself in another setting and for Obama to fall from grace because he could not deliver on some of his promises. As Boyett and Boyett put it, there is the question of duties and responsibilities for the leader. They define three such roles: i) strategist to visionary ii) commander to storyteller iii) systems architect to change agent and servant. It is the way in which leaders manage this evolutionary process that determines their success or otherwise. We all love to hear stories about ourselves and about others. Hence, a leader is one who tells a good story that is believable as well as verifiable. Note the emphasis on integrity and authenticity. The use of “Joe the Plumber” by the McCain camp during the 2008 Presidential Election is a good example of how imagery works in the modern leadership context. Till now, we have seen the definition of leadership as given by Boyett and Boyett. However, the twist in the tale is when we consider Kellerman’s article on Leadership which deals with the question of bad leadership and the reason for followers to continue following bad leaders. While Boyett and Boyett have expounded on what makes a great leader and so on, Kellerman focuses on something that has relevance to the modern world i.e. of leaders having the same failings that all of us and why theory must explain the apparent lack of morals in leaders in whom we have invested so much. She makes the point that the 20th century and the early 21st century have both witnesses leaders who were unethical, immoral and worse cruel as can be seen from the examples she cites of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot on the one extreme and the disgraced CEO’s of Enron, WorldCom and other companies that saw their leaders failing them on the issue of ethics. To return to the thesis statement about leadership being all about people, it is worthwhile to note that just as followers tolerate good leaders, they tolerate bad leaders as well. Hence, Kellerman’s point about a need for a theory to explain this seeming contradiction must be applauded. Though training programs may be conducted and millions of dollars spent on coaching leaders, the disconnect between theory and practice is something that needs elaboration and explanation. We all have heard the phrase “in the real world” often. In my opinion, this represents a demarcation between what we read in the books and how it is “out there”. Hence, “in the real world” leaders cook books, have affairs and just about do everything that theory states they should not do. Both Boyett and Boyett and Kellerman challenge mainstream notions of leadership in different ways. Whereas Boyett and Boyett seem to distinguish the traits of leaders as given by mainstream experts from those that appear to be closer to reality, Kellerman goes one step further and questions the basis of mainstream discourse about leadership. She does so by pointing out the spate of corporate scandals that have shaken the US and wonders whether the management experts have got it wrong. While it is certainly not the case that theory can be totally wrong, it must be remembered that at most times, it is best an approximation of real world behavior with the good guys always winning. My understanding of business leadership is that leadership is situational, context dependant and a balancing act. A good leader adapts to the situation and there is no “right” way that applies to all situations. Hence, a leader is one who is nimble to spot the opportunities and act on them. The statement that leadership is all about people is indeed valid in so far as the above qualifiers of situation, context and balance between competing stakeholders are taken into consideration. In conclusion, the readings are indeed illuminating as they stimulate thinking and throw open several issues that need to be debated in order to arrive at a nuanced understanding of leadership. These readings have certainly helped me frame the issue of leadership in perspective. References Boyett, J.H & Boyett, J.T. (1998). Leadership. In The guru guide: the best ideas of the top management thinkers). New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, pp. 1-44 Kellerman, B. (2005). Leadership - Warts and all. In Harvard Business Review on The mind of the leader. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 1-13. Read More