Subject: Dilemmas in leadership development
Some of the questions and dilemmas I think need exploring further in the context of developing
the capacity for local leadership are:
1.The competency approach to leadership development: Do we have any evidence that the
leaders we regard as exemplary arrived there as a result of a competency based approach to
their development? They didn't What are the transformatory experiences in the lives of great
leaders? Moments of great challenge on their own paradigm of life
What evidence is there to support the proposition that leadership might be developed through
story telling, dialogue or action learning/appreciative enquiry approaches? This IS the way - as it
'moves' people - it is not TELLING them to change it is offering a different aspect which
they might want to consider - and so they then DO think about it as no-one is forcing it
upon them.
The Hopi Indians have a saying
"The storytellers will change the world" - it is true.
That's why books are so key to leadership - people tell stories - biggest growing area in
bookstores - self help!!!
2. Leadership development is strongly focussed at present on the skills and attributes of
individual leaders (which implicitly buys into the 'leader as hero' not true in many instances the real hero is a servant and not hero - it is the followers who turn them into a hero but
they don't see themselves as that - Christ / Mandela / Ghandi / et al idea). How can we
develop the relationships through which leadership is performed....between cabinet and
scrutiny, officers and members, local government and central government, health and social
services etc etc It will only be developed through some people leading their own lives better
and therefore influencing others through their stories of their challenges and how they got
through it - this creates trust which is the foundation of ANY relationship. Trust is the glue
of leadership
3. Leadership of organisations arguably calls forth different qualities and than leadership in a
partnership context (or leadership in diverse political contexts).What are the distinctive
differences and what are their implications? The right leaders will appear when they are
required - because they want to serve - try to intellectualise it and you have killed the
climate of leadership - as local and central government ahs done.
Bottom line - you really can't have leadership in local and central government because the
top people (who are not leaders) set the tone - political / self / vested interest mistrust - it
IS NOT possible.
Politicians are the least trusted in society after journalists - they deserve each other!
4. What is the unit of development that is likely to yield the biggest change in productivity....the
individual? the team? the organisation? the local partnership? Are we going to get the best value
by investing in individuals while neglecting more whole system approaches? YES YES AND
AGAIN YES>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>t can only be the individual all other stem from that - it is
that simple but not easy. If there is no individual responsibility there can be no team or
organisational responsibility - when are we going to learn the bloody basics instead of the
intellectuals trying to create something new each year which can't work as it doesn't start
with the smallest ' molecule' - so how can the bigger atom be better if the nucleus hasn't
cjhhanged??????????????
5. Are the leaders we have today a good guide to the leaders we need tomorrow? If things
change so rapidly,might we be in danger of developing the leaders we needed yesterday? Firstly
do you have any leaders or are they all mangers?
Secondly the servant leaders don't change from one year to the next - they are there to
serve - so if we get it right - leadership NEVER changes - it ALWAYS serves the bigger
picture of life and the universe - NEVER EVER yourself or your team - always the bigger
picture which equals sustainability.
Nature = wisdom and wisdom = nature
6. To what extent is the development of leadership a 'training issue' at all? How can we (as
training advisers, consultants etc) ensure that attention is paid to then other factors that affect the
development of leadership....e.g.the protection (and reward) of those who experiment (whether or
not they succeed) BY being servant leaders first - setting the example - if you don't you
exemplify management and competencies and IQ - and unfortunately most will - not
through any real fault of their own - but because society is that way and it takes great
energy / passiion and belief to change.
So if trainers - and that is the wrong name for leadership development anyway - facilitators
it needs to be - words mean so much - are to lead - they must change first - by
exemplifying leadership behaviour - openness honest trust - IQ words but powerful
actions. See Institute of management report I referred to - leadership IS 95% EQ - who you
are as a human being not what you are in your role!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7. Does the competency approach assume that jobs are definable in terms that have a
reasonably long shelf life? How well does a competency approach serve those whose work
cannot be described in such reliable ways? - It doesn't serve EQ - it can act as a support for
those wondering about certain things - but in its present form to try to 'find out what works
- another IQ process.
8. Some of the imagery about leadership is changing dramatically....e.g. (post)modern leadership
is often likened to a jazz band....conjuring up a picture of connected improvisation....rather
different from the leaders as hero notion. How do you develop excellent jazz bands? Spot on leadership Jazz is a great book - how do you create it
People must want to do it
People must feel safe
There is no script (as we heard from Dolphin stuff)
There is no real measurement
It is about the person
There is no process
Each trusts the other
There is passion and joy
No-one takes control
Each is a leader whenever they want to be - when it best serves the group/
Jazz is a great analogy