Fourth Classic Tenet of Leadership

Leaders control students and staff (educational setting) or all employees
 
Merriam Webster’s definition of Control:
1: to exercise restraining or directing influence over
2: to have power over

This tenet of leadership is the hardest for me to think about. My initial reaction to the word control is that is goes against my understanding of leadership in my realm of influence. The classic thought of controlling students, staff or all employees brings to my mind an archaic system of lordship that could easily be misused by corrupt leaders. Breaking past this initial recoil is my challenge.

If I was an elementary teacher, I would embrace this tenet since I believe that teachers do need to keep control of their classroom. And children do need to be controlled until they develop their own internal controls. But my perspective is from an adult educator training other adults with advanced degrees. And while I have control in my classroom setting, I do not control the learners themselves. I guide them, I mentor them, and I partner with them to help them to their goals. 
 
I think perhaps I would agree more with this tenet if the focus is on leaders controlling themselves. A good leader would lead by example, so self-control would be a factor in their remaining in a position to be followed. This thought would follow one of the definitions of control which is “exercising a directing influence” on someone. If you have self-control and are leading by example, you may have influence on others to follow your example. If you do not have self-control, others will not follow you and you lead no one.

Third Classic Tenet of Leadership

Leaders manage a rational system of management that takes into account structures, routine, outcomes, personnel and action.

So far my picture of a leader is someone who has the knowledge needed to lead someone else toward a specific goal and the capability of imparting knowledge to them. This next tenet speaks to how the leader approaches the goal. Managing a rational system of management means the leader would first need to understand what is rational and what is not. Possessing the intelligence necessary to understand the difference between a reasonable system of management and a non-rational system suggests the need for experience and a complete understanding of the situation.

A good leader needs to be able to look at a project in the big picture, taking in to account the possible outcomes and future impacts of their actions. They must be able to understand the social structure they are working in and the parameters of the routine or course of procedure. The structures and routines may be the more static of the considerations, while the understanding of the personnel tends to be more shifting and changing. A good leader should be able to understand the people they are leading, looking at their characteristics, levels of comprehension, learning styles and motivations. While leading, these qualities can change and a good leader must be able to recognize and adapt to the changes within individuals.

All these requirements together paint a picture of a leader that can multi-task, one that can concentrate on the goals yet simultaneously step back to see the whole picture and one that can adjust to changing situations. In essence, a good leader would be learning to lead while leading to learn.

The Next Tenet of Leadership

Leaders have superior expertise and information.

To examine this tenet of leadership I again go to Merriam Webster for clarification on the meaning of the words.

The meaning of Expertise:

1 : expert opinion or commentary
2 : the skill of an expert

The meaning of Expert:

having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience

The meaning of Information:

1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction

In the previous blog I noted that in order to lead someone you must know where you are going. It is interesting that the first definition of expertise is not the possession of knowledge, but the ability to covey that knowledge with opinion or commentary. This affirms my previous blog stating that good leaders need to know how to teach, how to transfer knowledge effectively. Being an expert is not good enough. Possessing the information is not leading unless you can guide others to the same understanding. But is this always true?

I think this tenet is true if you are leading someone in an environment that makes use of the information that you possess. I could be an expert in one field but not be able to lead someone in another field unless my expertise was somehow related to their goal. Being a good leader does not mean you can lead in every circumstance. Perhaps being a good leader entails knowing when to lead and when to follow. And I think when a leader is following they are learning and attaining new knowledge that may allow them to expand their leadership capabilities. 

Assumptions of leadership

Everyone has the right, responsibility, and capability to be a leader.
This first assumption of leadership sparks me to think deeper about leadership and what it means. At first glance I thought that I was not sure I agreed with this assumption as it implies that everyone should be a leader. To dig deeper, I decided to revisit the meanings of the words.

According to Merriam-Webster, the word lead means:

a. to guide on a way especially by going in advance
b. to direct on a course or in a direction
c. to direct the operations, activity, or performance of


To be a leader one must guide the way especially by going in advance. To do this, one must know where they are, where they are going, and what they are doing. To effectively guide someone, the leader must know how to speak the same language so to be understood. To have someone follow means that they are coming with you, not being carried by you and not just pointed in a direction. I would argue that not everyone who knows where they are and where they are going can be a leader if they do not know how to guide someone. On the same line, not every subject matter expert is a teacher, if they can not effectively explain their concepts to someone else. Part of being a good teacher is being able to guide or lead others through understanding. It sounds to me like a leader is essentially a good teacher. I agree that if someone is a good teacher then they have the right, responsibility, and capability to be a leader.

Classical tenets of Leadership

I have been thinking about the tenets of classical leadership as given to me by Jim Lehmann.

Leaders having:

Formal authority

Overarching roles

Full control of staff

I clearly remember working under similar leadership constraints in the 1980-1990s at various organizations. For the most part, employees had little say in how the business was run or changes that should be made to processes. While this leadership style could work well with the right kind of leader, it more often creates an environment where the workers feel oppressed and inefficient processes stay in place simply because of inept leaders. I witnessed this happen at one organization that I worked for in the 1990s. 

It was a software company and the style of management was very much in line with the classical tenets. Directors called the shots in every department and most managers pushed those decisions onto the employees even if they did not agree with the decision. Employees who tried to suggest improvements were told by managers not to rock the boat. I was working as a trainer to customers for the software, and after I left the company I heard that conditions got even worse. My former manager, who was not as puppet-like as the other managers, was replaced by someone who would conform. Under the new manager, the software support employees and trainers were given scripts to follow with customers and were not allowed to deviate from those scripts.  She went so far as recording every call with made and chastising any employee who uttered anything that was not on the script. Customer satisfaction plummeted and the employees were blamed for it, even though it was a direct consequence of a bad a management decision.

Over the last thirty years I have slowly seen the leadership team concept creep into different organizations, where managers are not the all powerful boss and employees are consulted and respected for their input in to the business functions.