1. WHAT IS THE SITUATION?
Leadership is much more than a fancy, yet often misunderstood, word in organizational sciences. It is essentially the everyday practice of responsibility and knowledge. It means caring for the consequences of individual and collective actions, and knowing what you’re doing instead of just randomly throwing deeds in good (or bad) hope. Leadership is needed, as without it, the world is a reckless playground where every day is Groundhog Day.
As a consequence, leadership as an institution has huge potential not only in the business world, but in any context where one or more people take action. Looking around at a societal and economical system that can no longer hold its promises, it is apparent that the world needs more and better leadership to make more sense. The good news is: It is filled with people wanting to be leaders, and schools, universities and companies alike are addressing this need with leadership training of various kinds.
However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the current leadership paradigm is not helping us get where we need to be: In a more civil world, where egos no longer rule over common sense, and in a more humane global economy, where work and efforts are incentivized sensibly and no human destinies are sacrificed at the altar of the never-ending greed of those who have too much to feel it. Evidence for this is not hard to find: Events of the 2008 financial crisis tell one sad story of leadership in the financial industry, while reactions to it in various other fields such as politics, the legal system and public administration convey a message of a broader lack of real leadership in the world.
As a consequence, leadership as an institution has huge potential not only in the business world, but in any context where one or more people take action. Looking around at a societal and economical system that can no longer hold its promises, it is apparent that the world needs more and better leadership to make more sense. The good news is: It is filled with people wanting to be leaders, and schools, universities and companies alike are addressing this need with leadership training of various kinds.
However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the current leadership paradigm is not helping us get where we need to be: In a more civil world, where egos no longer rule over common sense, and in a more humane global economy, where work and efforts are incentivized sensibly and no human destinies are sacrificed at the altar of the never-ending greed of those who have too much to feel it. Evidence for this is not hard to find: Events of the 2008 financial crisis tell one sad story of leadership in the financial industry, while reactions to it in various other fields such as politics, the legal system and public administration convey a message of a broader lack of real leadership in the world.
|
|
To get to a leadership paradigm that does not lead the human kind to devastate itself (or at least all human well-being), we need to start to understand what is wrong with leadership today. My thesis is: As a society, we are not good at incentivizing leadership that combines ability to make things happen in the society and spiritual maturity. At the same time, it is virtually impossible to be able to come up with truly wise solutions to tough situations if you are lacking in one of these areas.
I suggest we look at our current leadership pool in a simple matrix organized by its will and skill to 1) get things done in our society, and 2) grow spiritually. I call it:
I suggest we look at our current leadership pool in a simple matrix organized by its will and skill to 1) get things done in our society, and 2) grow spiritually. I call it:
THE WILL & SKILL FRAMEWORK
|
|
Looking at the picture, we can say a word or two about the current situation. In short, things are well on the Y-axis, but not on the X-axis. The majority of our society’s leaders are (relatively) good at getting things done (as that is how we judge them and hence incentivize their reaching of leadership roles), whereas spiritual growth is a luxury item few have even started to explore. The current leaders are simply not measured in this, and advancement on the X-axis is not expected from them.
Why is this so, then? The answer is: We live in a society which loves speed. We measure economical development in turnover and profit of companies, while lacking yardsticks to evaluate where these achievements are bringing us as a society at large, i.e., what the holistic impact of that human action is.
The second reason why we appreciate speed over direction is that the former is much easier to optimise than the latter. Determining how to do is not easy, but much more straight-forward: We can rely on examples from other contexts (e.g. the past, other organisations, other geographies) from doing the same thing, and we have ample norms on measures of efficiency and effectiveness. Determining what to do requires being able to make a decision without relying on any dogma: There are no handy rules of right-or-wrong textbooks to help us on the X-axis. The complicating truth is: Dogma cannot lead us to rise above the shortcomings of mankind. Individual, situation-specific use of intelligence, judgment and spiritual maturity is needed in every relevant "what" decision.
It is important to note that the message is not that the Y-axis is not needed. It is, indeed, in a very big way (and type A leadership is no more useful or noble than type C). The message is: The Y-axis is overemphasised, whereas the X-axis remains undervalued and under-measured while being equally important, real, and relevant.
Why is this so, then? The answer is: We live in a society which loves speed. We measure economical development in turnover and profit of companies, while lacking yardsticks to evaluate where these achievements are bringing us as a society at large, i.e., what the holistic impact of that human action is.
The second reason why we appreciate speed over direction is that the former is much easier to optimise than the latter. Determining how to do is not easy, but much more straight-forward: We can rely on examples from other contexts (e.g. the past, other organisations, other geographies) from doing the same thing, and we have ample norms on measures of efficiency and effectiveness. Determining what to do requires being able to make a decision without relying on any dogma: There are no handy rules of right-or-wrong textbooks to help us on the X-axis. The complicating truth is: Dogma cannot lead us to rise above the shortcomings of mankind. Individual, situation-specific use of intelligence, judgment and spiritual maturity is needed in every relevant "what" decision.
It is important to note that the message is not that the Y-axis is not needed. It is, indeed, in a very big way (and type A leadership is no more useful or noble than type C). The message is: The Y-axis is overemphasised, whereas the X-axis remains undervalued and under-measured while being equally important, real, and relevant.
|
|
Back to Home.