February 4, 2010 by Robin Dickinson | 163 views | Comments (24)
Us and them
Notes:
This post builds on the conversation started on How social media is redefining leadership, and is inspired by the following comment made by Scott Gould:
“It’s often not “I lead, you follow” – it is “we lead”. For instance, you and I. Neither of us is exclusively leading the other – we are in mutual leadership.”
Your thoughts…
In your opinion, can leadership be shared?
More RADSMARTS
Share your opinion by commenting on another ILLUSTRATED discussion
Get a 1-minute business boost by watching BLACK CHAIR Business Mentoring TV
Stay inspired, motivated and right up-to-date by subscribing to RADSMARTS
24 Responses to this post
February 4, 2010 at 4:06 pm |
A good example of shared leadership is the stereotypical Mum and Dad of a family with kids – the kind of family you might see in a movie or TV show from the 60s or 70s. Dad does the Major household purchases, the big household repairs and maintenance; Mum does the daily living, the wellbeing and social organising. Each does their stuff without too much cross-referencing. When it comes to really big issues – buying a new house or major holiday – they collaborate, reach agreement and then move ahead.
Their ‘common ground’ is seeking a solid, harmonious, safe and enjoyable family life, and each leader approaches that endpoint from a different direction.
February 5, 2010 at 7:21 pm |
Robert,
Very good point about Mother and Father roles. Each is a leader, fulfilling different roles. Much like a CEO, COO, CTO, etc
So then, in a people-to-people world, we naturally have different leadership roles that we take on as equals. I’m sure theres tons of frameworks on this!
February 5, 2010 at 8:00 pm |
Thanks, Robert. That’s an excellent example.
In your scenario, “When it comes to really big issues…they collaborate, reach agreement and then move ahead.”
I think I conceptually understand what you mean. How does that work in reality – especially when stalemates occur?
In your opinion, is there a case for one of the couple taking the role of ‘default’ leader in the case of an impasse?
Best to you, Robin
February 5, 2010 at 9:11 pm |
Robin,
Continuing the traditional family-role example, what happens when 1 ‘leader’ wants to take the family on a holiday to the beach and the other wants to fly to NZ?
I guess there is a healthy debate about costs, benefits, etc and a pair of mature shared leaders would do NZ this year and beach next year – perhaps by the tossing of a coin.
The alternative – where 1 leader demands the right to make the final decision of the beach (to the total exclusion of a beach holiday) – would indicate to me that leadership is not in fact shared at all.
Another example of shared leadership is a comedy duo – 1 comic + 1 straightman. Each person is the leader of their half, and if they don’t do it well, then the duo falls apart.
Robert
February 5, 2010 at 9:16 pm |
That’s excellent, Robert. And I’m a huge fan of comic duos!
Thank you for giving those specific examples. There’s something refreshingly powerful about functional adult-adult leader behaviours.
Well done.
Best, Robin
February 5, 2010 at 11:00 pm |
Robert- off point somewhat – but to jump in. In your holiday example – it is statistically proven that the WOMAN is the decision maker when it comes to holidays. So, in this specific case, shared leadership is a moot point. ’tis the Missues.
!!
Right – off to book that holiday now.
(Great points throught this – I have been “raised” by two leaders in my working life – have not thought about postives or otherwise on this. will do now!).
February 4, 2010 at 4:16 pm |
hahaha! 2 words Robin: Herculean Love.
I was thinking of stopping there Robin
‘Nuff said, right? lol.
In my humble opinion my friend, leadership I believe is within all of us Robin. It’s like a seed. The seed of life including leadership. Our entire being is the soil to nurture those seeds.
Leadership is not shared per se on an individual level. Wisdom is shared. Wisdom and knowledge is what nurtures the seeds of leadership. It’s a choice (conscious or subconscious) whether we accept the wisdom and knowledge to enable germination of those seeds thereby growing the fruits of leadership.
Everybody notices the fruit Robin but how many appreciate the roots?
Not everyone becomes a fruit, however they do support the fruit as it is. Everyone is important in this process to supporting the success of a leader. Without the roots, the leaves, the branches, the stem, you have no fruit.
Thanks for the great visual Robin.
All the best!
February 5, 2010 at 8:08 pm |
Thanks Mahei,
It was wonderful to meet you this week, and your generous comment is greatly appreciated. You make a very wise point and paint a vivid picture. I’m tempted to want to draw it.
“Not everyone becomes a fruit” – in your experience, what happens to those who are probably more suited to taking the role of ‘root’, ‘branch’, ‘leaf’ or ‘stem’, but insist on being regarded as ‘fruit’?
Best to you, my friend.
Robin
February 5, 2010 at 10:16 pm |
It is a tough one Robin.
I share this with you:
“The greatest good you can do for another is not just to share your riches but to reveal to them their own. ~Benjamin Disraeli”
This applies to the ‘leaders’ that you referred too. Everyone has the capacity to change especially them. The challenge is ‘how’.
One word: Herculeanlove.
February 4, 2010 at 7:34 pm |
Hi Rob,
In this discussion, I believe we are talking about the word Leadership in it’s descriptor form which refers to the actions and qualities of a Leader. (As opposed to the denomination given to a body of people who lead a group, eg “The Leadership Team”)
In my mind, you cannot share Leadership. It is simply paradoxical. (Semantically, you can share the qualities of Leadership with another person; however, this denotes a commonality not an apportionment.) The only thing you can share are the tasks *associated with* the actions of leadership & being a leader. But you are both still leaders in your own right, and exhibiting leadership as individuals. Two collaborative leaders should be able to concur on the equitable division of task and may even be able to agree on a decision or solution to correct an issue. But is that really shared leadership? Maybe mutually agreeable leadership I suppose.
I may think differently after noodling some more, but my verdict at this time is: Fantasy.
Cheers!
Carolyne
February 5, 2010 at 7:32 pm |
Hi Carolyne
The way that Robin and I see it is how our relationship works. We lead each other through ideas, talking, etc – and are both walking a long a path that we are both in charge of guiding each other on.
I guess it’s an informal model of how a company has a COO, CEO, CTO, etc.
Mutually agreeable leadership / shared leadership – I’m not too sure what you mean by the semantics here. Can you provide some real life examples?
Scott
February 5, 2010 at 8:15 pm |
Hi Carolyne,
That distinction in useful because it’s broadened the scope of my understanding of leadership.
In your opinion, are leaders made or born – nature or nurture?
Building on Scott’s point. I have never regarded myself as a leader – a solid right-hand man, but never a leader.
In a business situation, I’m always keen for there to be an ultimate decision-maker. One who will step forward and lead the charge once all is said and done.
Best to you, Robin
February 5, 2010 at 9:38 am |
Hi Robin,
I think if you’re talking about thought leadership, the idea of shared leadership is certainly manifesting itself time and time again, especially in the social media sphere.
The nature of the social media platform naturally allows people who have developed mutually respectful relatiionships to share their ideas, build on the ideas of others and create new thoughts that eventually become adopted as way of the future.
So, in that respect I think that shared leadership is now becoming fact.
Karen
February 5, 2010 at 8:21 pm |
Thanks, Karen. It’s wonderful to have your thoughtful input.
Yes, thought leadership is a great distinction. The image that comes to mind is a continual leap-frogging or ‘lead-frogging’
as leaders stretch and encourage each other to better, richer insights and understanding.
This is more how I have felt about the dialog that happens on this blog. You contribute a leading thought and others use it to stimulate their thinking and ‘lead’ the discussion into fresh and different areas.
What about in business, Karen? Do you think leadership can be shared?
Best to you, Robin
February 5, 2010 at 10:14 am |
Well, Robin, you must know this is a favorite subject of mine by the number of times I’ve responded to the mention of it! So, here goes one attempt at making sense of it (mostly for myself).
I’m not going to address the semantics of it. Webster’s has that. And wikipedia has yet another, more conceptual, definition.
For me, at one point in the process “leadership” has evolved to be, more or less, synonymous with catalyst. The people whom I admire and, consider, “leaders” are catalysts, instigators. They have an idea or recognize a need and move to fill it, inspire others with their actions, and create the collaboration. And, in my mind, if they’re truly leaders, they can then leave it to others to carry on.
But wait! Then there are the “leaders” who actually make something happen by doing. And, I will admit here, I am an ideas person, who has found great and necessary collaboration with those who can further the process by making the ideas actually become reality.
So, who is the leader here, the catalyst or the champion? Neither and both, in my book.
Far too often, I feel that naming leaders means abdicating responsibilities to others. I use “abdication” purposely rather than delegation. It took many years for me to let go of my upbringing of “if you want a job done right do it yourself” perfectionism. And I’ve always had an intrinsic distaste for what I’ve considered the cultishness of “leadership”.
What I’ve found is a true joy in collaboration that has brought a real sense of freedom. Now I have a deep satisfaction in shared responsibility. That’s not to say that there isn’t delegation, there is. But everyone is 100% responsible for their actions and their success. In that way we are all are leaders and, yet, no one is. Truly win-win, and in my world, not a fantasy (with all due respect to Carolyne!).
It’s an interesting discussion, Robin, and, as usual, we all approach it from our differing experiences and perceptions. Sometimes, these discussions on your blog are so multi-faceted that it’s interesting to read how one word, in English, can have so many different meanings for us!
And, by the way, just for the record, I’m completely not about design by committee!:-)
Best Regards,
Kristina
February 5, 2010 at 8:35 pm |
Thanks, Kristina.
You’ve provided a lexicon with which to clarify my own thoughts.
You’ve also articulated how I feel about leadership, having never been comfortable with using it as a label to describe my role.
I understand the role of catalyst, and am very comfortable with the notion of shared responsibility.
Interestingly, I love to work with people who regard themselves as leaders – people with so called ultimate responsibility for an organisation or business. They interest me enormously. I’m fascinated by their strengths, weaknesses and how they make decisions.
So, moving away from the idea of ‘consensus culture’, when the catalyst and the champion work together and share responsibility, who makes the ultimate decision?
Kristina, I really appreciate your generous inputs and learn so much from them.
Best to you, Robin
February 5, 2010 at 9:54 pm |
Hi Kristina,
I believe you have actually made the point that I was trying to make, but much more skillfully. “Everyone is 100% responsible for their own actions and success” This is why I feel that the term we are dissecting, Shared Leadership, is a fuzzy, feel-good fallacy. A crutch for people who aspire to be true “leaders” yet are not courageous enough to stand on their own and accept full responsibility for their decisions and actions.
Collaborators, yes. Absolutely. Digesting another person’s thoughts and accepting them as a cogent influence on your own decision making process? Yes. Actively seeking sagacious discussion and exchange of ideas to continuously fill the data vessel and thus exponentially increase your chances of generating accurate and intelligent output – a resounding yes, we must!
But is this truly shared leadership? Not in my opinion. At the end of the day, when we all lay in bed and crawl inside our own heads again, we all stand alone. And we are all 100% percent responsible for our own decisions and actions. Maybe the person that accepts this wholly, without excuse or justification, is the rightful owner of the label “leader.”
I thank you for your grounding, Kristina, and for your always humble, truly authentic contributions to these discussions.
Cheers, Carolyne
February 6, 2010 at 10:15 am |
“Interestingly, I love to work with people who regard themselves as leaders – people with so called ultimate responsibility for an organisation or business. They interest me enormously. I’m fascinated by their strengths, weaknesses and how they make decisions.”
Yes, Robin, exactly! I love working with those people, also! In fact, they are THE people I want to work with. What I find is that those people don’t want followers, they want to work with peers. They don’t want to be telling people what to do, they want to be having others be part of the whole, taking responsiblity (and blame), and MAKING IT WORK!
And I’m not sure that I often put consensus and collaboration in the same sentence. I find that strong-willed associates often have intense dialogue in pursuit of excellence. Consensus brings to mind compromise which is definitely what I’m not about.
I think in the world of solopreneurs and independent contractors collaboration of the very best is the name of the game. So, this brings me to the fun part- terms of venery: just exactly what is a group of leaders called? A gaggle of leaders? No, gaggle of geese. Clowder of leaders? No, clowder of cats? I give up. Do you know?
And, also, for the fun of it, this line from Ted Turner has been running through my mind, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way!”
February 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm |
Robin
My initial thought was “you’re dreaming”! Then I thought a little harder, and it comes down to a question:
“Who are the Philosopher Kings?”
Each organisation has its Philosopher Kings, the thought leaders. It’s often based on the company culture. For example a sales driven organisation the Philosopher Kings in a sales function, particularly in the B2B space. An FMCG company will have “Brand Manager Philosopher Kings” and Telco’s either having them in engineering or sales.
But for ‘shared leadership’ the true leader (e.g. CEO) and the Philosopher Kings must be on the same page. In many instances members of the Philosopher Kings ‘Club’ become the leader.
Unfortunately it means that people, departments and even the CEO not be aligned, accepted or recognised by the Philosopher Kings can feel disengaged – a common issue.
So in summary, there can be shared leadership but only between the Philosopher Kings and the CEO.
February 5, 2010 at 8:48 pm |
Excellent input, Leighton. You bring a fresh dimension to the discussion. Thank you.
In your opinion, how realistic is it for organizations to indulge these wisdom-loving Philosopher Kings their idle star gazing (apologies to Plato)?
Or is it more the case that the leader will tolerate them as long as the quarterly metrics are delivered. How is it that so many large companies can go for so long without delivering any real innovation? Where are their Philosopher Kings?
Best to you, Robin
February 5, 2010 at 9:05 pm |
Thanks Robin for your reply.
You asked:
“Not everyone becomes a fruit” – in your experience, what happens to those who are probably more suited to taking the role of ‘root’, ‘branch’, ‘leaf’ or ’stem’, but insist on being regarded as ‘fruit’?
You love them as fruit and empower them to be the best they can be. It’s amazing how when you genuinely believe in people and tell them how much you believe in them and what they can achieve, they invariably surprise you with what they can do.
What is your experience with this Robin?
Regards
February 5, 2010 at 9:24 pm |
It’s a tough one.
I’ve been in a situation very recently where many very good people have been treated badly by a ‘leader’ who clearly is not leadership material.
I agree wholeheartedly with compassionate leadership/followership, and have seen that demonstrated by the direct reports in the above situation to little effect (short-term). People get tired of being mis-lead by those who get promoted beyond their coded competence.
Worse for me is the knowledge that such despotic behaviour is tolerated by the most senior leaders in the organisation as long as the numbers are being delivered. The direct reports get reluctant to speak out for fear of losing their jobs and income on which their dependents rely.
No easy answer, my friend.
Thanks for sharing.
Have a Herculean weekend!
Best of life, Robin
February 6, 2010 at 2:31 pm |
Hi Rob
Good questions. The Philosopher Kings might be better considered to be the inner circle, or in a large organisation the inner sanctum of the inner circle.
My read on your question and maybe on the cartoon influenced me here was “Shared Leadership: Fact or Fantasy (in a big company)”.
Obviously this is made up of lots of individuals needing to show individual leadership that goes up and down the organisation, but sometimes this takes too long. Consider the saga of Telstra and Sol Trujillo – his inner sanctum of key lieutenants were in the main people he had worked with before and imported into key roles at the company. He probably read into the company history that it was slow moving and bureaucratic, built on a good engineering base. So he leveraged this engineering base to bring new products to market quickly and tried to turn it into a more customer facing organisation.
This might be an example of a company in crisis so you bring in the ‘Homeric Hero ‘with all his failings to do radical surgery on the business. But as you note, some large organisations have momentum due to size, revenue etc. They can grow by small incremental strategies and copying competitors (aka as benchmarking and world best practice). Their Philosopher Kings are in the inner circle and have their shot at the top spot and happy to play the game, minimise risky career moves or innovate outside the square.
As the old saying goes, you should never accept a KPI you didn’t write for yourself.
Trackbacks