Leadership without Position
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
| The Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. |
| Follow me on Twitter |
| For weekly tips and resources pointers, check Wally's Three Star Leadership Letter |
| Find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention. |
| Find out more about Wally's coaching services. |
 |
Whether you have position or not, you lead when you use what you say and do to influence the behavior and performance of others. But leadership without position is different in fundamental ways from leadership with position.
If you have a leadership position, you have the authority to make decisions about what others will do. If you don't have a position, you can't make those decisions.
If you have a leadership position, you have the organizational sanction to marshal positive and negative organizational consequences. If you don't have a position, you can't do that.
Most importantly, if you have a leadership position you are both responsible and accountable for the performance of the group you lead. If you don't have a position, you're off the hook.
Before leadership became a magic word and being a leader became an exalted state, we didn't have to worry about this. Then we realized that people in leadership positions were responsible for the fruits of their influence, while other people were not.
By equating leadership with influence we've gotten away from the idea that leaders are responsible for group performance. And we've made it harder to leaders (the exalted ones) to let others assume a leadership role.
Boss's Bottom Line
You are responsible for the behavior and performance of your team. You are evaluated based on the team's performance.
The irony is that very often you will lead more effectively by leading less. The team will perform better when you can step back and allow people with competence and commitment to influence the team. It's another way to build on strengths and help people develop at the same time.
Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.
Great article, also found another good one over at the Barclays website on leadership, definately worth a read called Leadership in a recession.
Reply to this
Thanks, Chris, for the comments and the link.
Reply to this
My favorite "concept" of leadership is that it is an influence *relationship*. Power is at the core of leadership, but in right relationship that power is shared. Leaders and followers have different roles and responsibilities for sure, but they are equally important.
Thought you might also enjoy this post that appeared today on Incentive Intelligence about influence.
Reply to this
Thanks for the comments and the link to Paul Hebert's post.
I like the term "influence relationship" because it gets at two important aspects of how things work. Thanks for a term I'll be sure to use again.
The idea of power at the core is, well, powerful. But as Dee Hock said, "True power is never used." Ricardo Semler discusses this at slightly more length in The Seven Day Weekend where he notes that as the "owner" of Semco, he could overrule anyone at anytime, but that if he did so, it would change the democratic workplace of Semco forever. My father would say that it would ring the bell which then can't be unrung.
Reply to this
You mentioned this in a comment on my blog recently and I have been thinking about it because it is one of those things that I think gets glossed over.
There is a big difference between using your influence from a context of personal responsibility vs. accountability. We can lead through our influence regardless of our position and be personally responsible for the impact of our influence. When we live and lead from a context of personal responsibility we are never off the hook, but that is our choice. It is not a promise we make to anyone but ourselves. Yet when we have a position that entrusts us with accountability for results which involves the work of others it creates an entirely different context for our influence. We are not just making a personal choice, we have made a promise. And sometimes when we make a promise and other people are not doing what we need them to do, instead of using the art of influence we can unwittingly fall into the trap of using tactics that give "leadership" a bad name. On the flip side, sometimes the people who work for us negatively interpret our actions believing we are coming from authority or power despite our best intentions.
Your last statement really resonates with me. Sometimes leaders have the most influence when they have the good sense to step back and leave the influencing to the committed and competent in your group.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding that important perspective, Susan. I think this is the core of it: "from a context of personal responsibility we are never off the hook, but that is our choice." If we're going to be honorable human beings, we need to take responsibility for what we do. As you say, "we're never off the hook."
Reply to this
Hey, this is good stuff. Really like what Susan has to say and your reply. Hope folks will drill down and read this comment. Keep up the good work! Bret
Reply to this
Thanks for the kind words, Bret. I agree about Susan's comment. It added a crucial bit of insight to the conversation.
Reply to this
Good article on how to differentiate between a leader with position and a leader without a position. Leaders can also be divided as leader with and without leadership qualities. It is very easy for a leader with leadership quality to assert himself and stamp his authority. A leader without position will always have some problem to assert his authority.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding to the discussion. I've read that at WL Gore you become a leader when people come to your meetings. It's an informal, but effective measure of influence.
Reply to this
Great Post
Particularly lead more with less...
Often new leaders think they need to be a Prick - ly person and they could not be more wrong. Pull the string, stop pushing it.
I discuss this in my blog post: http://nosmokeandmirrors.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/12-mentor-moments-to-help-leaders-grow-their-businesses-profitably/ and click on #2.
Great job!
Mark Allen Roberts
Reply to this
Overall this rings true, but I'm not sure I buy into your statement that "If you don't have a position, you're off the hook." While official responsibility may carry very specific rewards/penalties with it, I've been involved in many team environments where the strongest leader in the room did not have the official title. In situations like that I would think that there is a very specific shared responsibility that often should be recognized organizationally if only to prevent an 'I wash my hands of it' result.
Reply to this
I think I understand where you're coming from Fred, but I think we may have to disagree on this one. In situations I've seen someone who's not formally in charge can offer opinions make a case for all kinds of issues, but it's the person in the boss's seat that has to decide and move forward. If the boss takes that team member's advice and things turn out badly, the only one who really takes a hit is the boss.
Reply to this
I may just be mixing a desire for folks to take personal responsibility in addition to the official responsibility that exists. May also be the effect of some experiences where that official responsibility was a little fuzzier than it should have been.
Reply to this
Susan Mazza noted that I missed the personal responsibility part of this in her comment earlier. She said things better than I could have.
What I think you just added is the issue of fuzzy responsibility. If it's not clear who had the responsibility, then it's not clear who makes the decisions that matter.
Reply to this
Hi Wally,
let me share with you thoughts as i am now being non-position generation Yer leader
giving a marshal stick will not make anyone a marshal, it might have somehow passed few years back but not now. if people will not see you are worth to follow, they will find other place to hang around. leaders who are in leading position just because someone appointed them are having really stressful life as it simply doesn't suit them and they should read your bottom line: to sit back and empower team to work tasks out. they are simply worried that someone will be better than them, but not knowing that least thing we care about is their seat!
cheers from Slovakia,
i.
Reply to this
Thanks for stopping by, Ivana. I think you can be a force for good from anywhere in the organization. I think you can extend a kind of leadership from anywhere as well. But the person in charge still is more exposed and, for that reason, usually has more rewards as well.
As for the marshal's baton. It's a symbol of rank. If the organization confers it on you, then you're a Marshal. You may not be a good one. You be ineffective or dangerous. You may even have won your position though unfair means, but you're still the Marshal. The history of the world's armies is riddled with stories of incompetents with rank.
Reply to this
Leadership means ability to influence others and ‘position’ plays a great role in that. It is theoretically possible to lead without position but it would be like road less traveling and much harder.
Practically, average leadership with good position gives immediate results than good leadership with no position. This is perhaps due to the associated 'Authority' with the position.
In today’s world, more than 50% from influence comes from Authority which is the root cause of identification of leadership as 'leadership' - what say?
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing your comments. That last comment, that 50 percent of influence comes from authority gives me pause. To respond I'd need to know the source and what influence and authority mean in that specific context. My guess is that influence is situational and perceived authority in some situations is based on knowledge.
Reply to this
More than 50 percent influence is my observation of working closely with several small businesses in Western India and a few companies in Europe.
By 'Authority' I entailed authority married with the position by default. Here, I wanted to say that if the person has a position which gives him authority, it is easier for him to influence others with mediocre leadership abilities in many situations.
And I concur that influence is situational - and it is possible that leadership without position may shine in select situations.
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing that observation. I'd guess that a lot of what you see is explained by Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions, particularly the Power Distance Index. This varies quite a bit by country, but might explain what you're seeing, especially if the European country is France. If you were looking at most US or Australian businesses, I think you'd observe that position/authority has less of an impact.
Reply to this
I work for a good leader and I believe he does what you suggest, where as his boss doesn't. I believe he has a good grasp on who is competent and committed and he leaves them alone. But, I think my coworkers may not think the way I do though because my boss is always there. He is very sneaky and he will end right beside you if you are not paying attention. I believe I am competent and committed and I think he would agree with me, so I do not have to worry if sneaks up on me. I stay on top of things and give him an update on the action. Where as a couple of my coworkers are often surprised and unprepared.
Reply to this
Thanks, Greg. In general, I think I might be with your co-workers on this one. I don't think anyone likes to be "caught" or spied on. I try to get the people I coach and train to be as transparent as possible.
Reply to this
Great post, Wally! In addition, let me add that some people think they are leaders just by virtue of their position. It becomes a "leadership" entitlement. When that happens, you may be more likely to use authoritarian tactics, reduce relationship quality, and really relegate yourself to nothing but a manager.
Reply to this
Thanks, Doc. I'd quibble with the language a bit. For me the fact that you have a position makes you a leader because you have followers. What it doesn't do is make you any good and, as you point out, there are lots of folks who seem to think that getting promoted is a kind of anointing that confers magical powers. I've had them in my programs and they're really tough to deal with because they don't think anything needs to be fixed.
Reply to this
My mentor, Will Schutz expressed this issue beautifully when he said he had always thought that it was unfair to fire a coach for a teams' poor performance until he realized what the task of the leader was. The leader is there for the team to perform, whether that means laying back or leading from further ahead!
Reply to this
That's a wonderful way to put it, Monica. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Reply to this
I like this story to illustrate this concept.
I tell folks the difference between leaders and Leaders is that the latter can be or will be fired for the team/department/function's non-performance. The former does not.
Cheers,
Reply to this
Thank you for sharing that. The distinction between leaders and Leaders is a short way to make the point. Nice job.
Reply to this
Excellent post Wally! I love the idea that leaders can be more effective not by exerting the power of their positions, but rather by empowering their team members to positively influence the direction of the team.
I've featured your post in my Rainmaker 'Fab Five' blog picks of the week (found here: http://www.maximizepossibility.com/employee_retention/2009/09/the-rainmaker-fab-five-blog-picks-of-the-week-2.html) to share this important concept with my readers
Be well Wally!
Reply to this
Thanks, Chris. It's always an honor to make your carefully-selected list.
Reply to this
Leadership has always been based on power, usually the power to ascend to, and maintain, a dominant position in a group. So-called formal leadership meant holding onto a position of power for a period of time.
Reply to this
I have to disagree somewhat, Den. There is leadership without position. The dynamics are different, but it's still leadership.
Reply to this
I'm having trouble with this one. It seems to me we're using "leadership position" synonymously with "authoritative position." I think, not necessarily the same thing.
Equating leadership with influence can be just as dangerous as equating authority with leadership.
Reply to this
Thanks for commenting. We may have to disagree on this one, Jamie. My question for you would be, "If leadership isn't influence, what is it?"
Reply to this
Influence has lots to do with it. But as you suggest, it's not everything: "By equating leadership with influence we've gotten away from the idea that leaders are responsible for group performance."
Interesting question though.
Reply to this
Ah, now I've got it. Thanks for the clarification.
What I was trying to get to was that if you have a leadership/authority position you influence behavior AND you are responsible for the performance of a group. If you don't have a position like that, you can still influence group behavior and performance, but you're not responsible for it. Thanks for helping me sharpen that.
Reply to this