Can leadership be taught?
 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. |
 |
Lane Wallace's blog at the Atlantic just had a post with the title:"Can good leadership be learned?" I think that's probably not the original title because the URL shows "can good leadership be taught."
The post has valuable insights and observations. But I'm caught by what I think was the original title. And I think it comes down to what you mean by "taught."
You teach subjects like geography one way. You can teach leadership that way, too. Then the person being taught will get a lot of theory and perhaps some history of leadership. That's not bad, but it's not close to teaching leadership.
Leadership is not a subject. You can think of it as a way of doing things.
So you may think that you can teach it like you teach swimming. You'd be partially right.
You teach swimming by teaching individual moves, then combining them, then putting the student into the pool to try them. Then the student develops skill, hopefully with helpful feedback.
There are parts of leadership that you can teach that way. In class and my Working Supervisor's Support Kit, I teach some of them. I can teach you how to analyze a supervisory situation and how to talk to a team member about performance and how to write good documentation.
But leadership is not simply a set of behaviors. You can think of it as a way of viewing the world, making judgments, and making a difference.
Then you have a more complex problem. These parts of leadership can be learned, but they're almost impossible to teach. And it's even harder to teach someone how to do them well.
That is why leadership is an apprentice trade. You learn mostly by doing it. You will learn faster if you seek out development opportunities, choose what you do based on what works for the masters, and get lots of feedback that you apply.
Boss's Bottom Line
Leadership is a performance art that you learn while you do it. Seek out mentors and role models to give you ideas of what to do. Read and go to classes to get more ideas. Seek opportunities to develop your skills. Critique your performance. Get feedback. Keep getting better.
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.
Categories: leadership development,Leadership Learning
Tags: Leadership Development
Interesting post, Wally.
Since I write for a university that has degrees in leadership at every level, I certainly agree with the idea that leadership can be taught. One of the things that sets Mountain State's leadership programs apart is that they are action oriented. Students bring real life situations from their on the job experiences to the classroom and brainstorm solutions in with their cohort. They are truly "learning by doing" and they are also building a foundation of leadership knowledge and skills by reading and interacting with books, theories, and concepts.
Reply to this
Good comment, Becky. Look at what you described as the process used to "teach."
"Students bring real life situations from their on the job experiences to the classroom and brainstorm solutions in with their cohort. They are truly 'learning by doing'"
That seems like the process I described only using a structured environment to accelerate the development process. I think you can learn about leadership in a classroom, you can analyze situations and prepare for going onto the job, but you learn leadership by doing it and that happens in a real situation.
Reply to this
I strongly believe leadership can be taught, because as you said, it is essentially a set of behaviors - skills. But I can teach a monkey how to mimic behavior I want to see. The real issue for me is what's in the heart and mind. That to me is the core of leadership. If your heart and mind are not in the right place, I personally have no interest in teaching you a set of behaviors that you can use to "lead" people into the abyss.
I know you might not like this, but philosophy is very important to me but you can't copy philosophy as easy as you can behavior. That's why individual's and companies that have a good and strong purpose can sustain their competitive advantage.
Keep up the good work, Wally. Bret
Reply to this
I'm definitely with you that it gets interesting when you get to what you call "philosophy" and what I would probably call "values." But as a disciple of Michael Polanyi, I buy into the idea that "you haven't learned something until you can use it to create a result." For me that means you have to take the philosophy or values that have been taught and apply them. And the application happens beyond the reach of the teacher.
What say you?
Reply to this
Concur. But I usually hear the "results" pitch as an excuse to discount heart and mind. As "teachers" we will rarely be around to witness the results of our labor. But show me what you have done and I can tell you what you have learned. Great stuff, Wally! Bret
Reply to this
"Discounting heart and mind" is the Taylorist Heresy. It assumes that you treat people like parts, with a "doing" part but no "feeling" or "aspiring" parts.
But if you accept the premise that our team members are people. Then you have to treat them like people, complete with emotions on their part, complete with concern for their care on your own.
Reply to this
I'll be the third academic to chime in. I was about to agree with Becky and Bret and say that I think leadership can be taught. But I hesitate to say it this way. I'd rather say it that leadership can be learned. A minor, but I think important distinction.
When teaching leadership in the classroom, I always start the class by telling students that I'm making the course about them (the individual them). I then spend the entire course trying to help the students to develop their own self leadership development programs; something they can either abandon once they've gotten their grade, or, as I would like to believe, take with them and continue working on as they find additional mentors and role models.
I like to think of it as providing them with the mostly empty toolbox that they can then continue to fill up as they experience the leadership of others and their own leadership experiences.
Reply to this
Thanks for chiming in, Tom. I think the taught/learned distinction is key. And, for me, the learned can't happen without some actual doing of leadership work. So when Becky describes a program that, helps people "do" in their regular settings, I think it's a good thing.
Reply to this
I like what Tom added here. I know for me I learn the most when I DO something new, but my strongest drive to DO always originates when my heart and mind are in it 100%. When my heart and mind show up, I can do just about anything I need to do. When they don't show up, it is a struggle.
Reply to this
Thanks, Bret. I can definitely relate to that. Doing new things can be harder or easier depending on the energy and commitment we bring to the new task.
Reply to this
As both a practitioner and a professor, I agree with the subtle yet significant (and some may argue semantic) differentiations between teaching and learning.
Teaching is one-way, learning is two-way (or multi-way). Teaching is a monologue, learning is a dialogue. Teaching requires hearing, learning requires listening.
I use teaching methodologies that serve as a catalyst for learning, but I haven't really done my job if the student doesn't learn and apply.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding your voice, Angie. I like the one-way/two-way description. It will certainly affect the way I think of teaching and learning.
Reply to this
Wally,
I think that you have a great take on the idea that leadership can be taught. I also believe that there is a balance of things that you can teach and actually applying leadership skills. However, I would also have to agree with Bret, that there is some part of leadership that requires the person to have the right heart and mind to be in that kind of position. At any rate, I think there are two very valid points to learning and teaching leadership; ones that i will keep in mind as I move through my educational and professional careers.
Reply to this
Hi Danielle. Thanks for the kind words and your comments on leadership. You're right that I disagree with the position, even though it has a noble pedigree. As far as I know it was first stated by James MacGregor Burns in his classic and seminal book, Leadership, thirty years ago. Burns thought that if you were going to call something "leadership" it had to serve a higher moral purpose. For Burns Franklin Roosevelt was a leader, but Hitler was not.
I see leadership as the work of providing a concept of how things will change for a group. For me, "leadership" is value-neutral. With you and with Bret, I want the people who lead teams, companies and nations to adhere to high moral standards. But I think there are leaders that do and leaders that don't
Reply to this
Good blog and thread.
Not to take off on a tangent, but do you consider Hitler a leader who learned how to be one? What about Stalin or Thatcher or Patton? Leadership should also include judgement and knowing when to take advantage of opportunities to forward an agenda. Can this be taught? Yes, but it takes experience through trial and error to get it right after all, Hitler tried to rise to prominence before but failed did he not? What if Nixon had not been caught? Would he have been considered a good leader? Knowing when to exercise leadership and being responsible when you are one are hard lessons that often can only be learned through experience. So, although most things can be taught - not everything will be learned unless you live it.
Reply to this
There are lots of interesting questions there, Dexter. I'll just tackle the one I've thought about. I like to say that leaders are sometimes born, but always made. No matter how much skill or talent a leader starts with there's always a lot to learn. And no matter how much you learn or how long you are a leader, there's always a lot more to learn.
One thing I've always found fascinating is that the most effective leaders seem to be the ones who are also the most enthusiastic about getting even better. My experience with leaders is much like my father's with pastors. He always said that if there was a workshop on preaching skills, all the best preachers would show up and none of the worst ones would.
Reply to this
I do believe that leadership can be taught, but I don't believe that it can be taught by just anyone. It takes A LEADER to teach true leadership. The best teachers of a particular subject are the ones who have a great grasp on the matter -- these people tend to practically "eat, live, and breathe" everything about it. I believe the subject of leadership falls in this category.
The ones who naturally function as a leader (no matter where they are or who they are with) teach by simply living their life. If someone were to watch their actions, behaviors, and decisions, then the person is bound to pick up something new/different, which may actually affect his/her own style of leadership. Again, I will say that leadership can be taught. HOWEVER, since leadership is an art that is understood best through experience, I think it's safe to say that what students get from the lessons they are taught is proportional to what they have already lived through life.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding that. Personally, I have a problem with terms like "true leader." I find Bret's way of talking about philosophy/values/heart issues clarifies things.
Reply to this
I find this interesting personally. In every organization that I've been involved with, I have at one time or another found my way into leadership positions. So I apparently have leadership tendencies. As I have gone down the professional path of leadership development I find that I gravitate towards those leadership topics and issues that mesh best with my own "actions, behaviors and decisions". So I would like to believe that if others were to follow me they would be picking up those aspects of my own leadership "style" which also happen to match to particular aspects that I tend to "teach" directly.
Reply to this
I have to confess that my first thought reading your comment was, "Of course he wound up in leadership roles. Companies promote smart people into leadership roles." That's true, but, of course I have no idea if it's even relevant to your history. So, please excuse.
What is more fascinating about your comment is that you appear to be one of those people who has not only practiced the craft, but chosen to study it and (if I remember correctly) teach it.
I'm sure those who have "followed you down the path" have picked up bits of your style and philosophy. That's the magical and scary thing about leading, people pay attention to what you say and do. Some of them emulate it, often without doing so consciously.
Reply to this
I have to respond with as much humility as I can muster
It's funny...the old saying those that can, do those that can't teach has bothered me since I became an educator. I teach because my passion is help others be the best they can be and the only way I know how is to share myself and my experience. It has just seemed like such a natural progression to me...be it, learn more to be better at it and teach others to do it too.
Reply to this
I've always thought that "those that can't do, teach" was a way for some people to say that what they did was so special that it was beyond explanation. I've always thought that the best teachers of practical arts (like leadership) were like the best baseball managers. They played, but they weren't stars. They studied the game though and relished the intricacies.
The fact is that I don't want a great leader to teach about what he or she does if the leader is a crappy teacher. But I don't want a teacher of something like leadership (or dance or martial arts or cooking) who hasn't done a bit of it. That's the only way to understand how messy and imperfect the practice of the craft really is.
Reply to this
I guess on the most basic of fundamentals, leadership must be learned just like everything else you know. You were not born with it, you observed it and learned early on. I agree that one must learn the basics of leadership, but like so many other things in life, experience will help you in becoming a better leader.
Reply to this
I think it's also important to note that leadership is complex work practiced in a dynamic environment where every situation is different.
Reply to this
Wally,
What do you think about natural leaders? With all the talk about leadership, learning and teaching is there any truth to the term natural leader? It is something that we have all heard many times. Teachers often use the term to describe students in their classroom or children on a playing field. But as adults is still terminology still acceptable? Are those of us who were always coined as natural leaders still in the same category? I understand that no one can really remain in the same position without learning new skills and adjusting their behavior with environment but do you think there are individuals who do this naturally? My personal thoughts are that natural leaders probably like to take control of their own situations, doing whatever they see fit to remain in control and comfortable in their situations. This would mean learning new leadership skills….
Reply to this
I think the term "natural leaders" gets used in two different ways.
In some cases, as you describe, it refers to the people that others just seem to listen to. There's a lot of research on why that happens, covering factors like voice quality, height, manner of speaking and more. Used this way, I think the term is an accurate description of something that happens naturally, rather than a description of the people.
The other use of the term "natural leader' is to describe someone who springs from womb with all leadership qualities ready to go, no need to training or development. In that sense, it's a dangerous term. There are differences in the aptitudes that people bring for different leadership work. And there are personality factors that seem fixed from young adulthood on. But this is simply a craft where there's too much to learn to do well. It takes a lifetime and it takes work. Nobody does it automatically.
Reply to this
Wally,
Well put. I am a retired U.S. Navy Chief and can tell you that you are right on. Leaders are not born, they are developed over time. Each of us has our own leadership style, which we develop through emulation, teaching, and learning (i.e. doing). And don’t forget that there is no one size fits all leader, as everyone has their own opinion (likes/dis-likes) as to who, what, and why they will follow a particular leader.
However, there is no doubt that some people are born with characteristics that make it easy for others to follow, but we have all experienced the situation of someone who claims to be a "natural leader" and or looks like a natural leader, and then the first word comes out of their mouth and you look and or run for the closest exit....
Jon
Reply to this
Thanks, Chief. I agree that there is no one size fits all leader. The specific mix of traits and behaviors and beliefs that works well in one situation is not guaranteed to work in another.
Reply to this
This is a great post. I will chime in and agree with some of the others here that leadership can be taught. But, in order to do so, you have to have students who are ready, willing, and able to learn. If you have a student who is just going through the motions to get a degree or credential, you may be teaching, but the student probably is not learning anything. As you point out, to learn leadership you have to invest yourself in it. You have to try out what you are taught, make mistakes, and ultimately, learn how to succeed in a leadership role. So I think that before we try and figure out whether a person can be taught leadership skills, we have to figure out why that person is seeking that training in the first place. Are they in class because they truly want to be good leaders or are they there because they believe they will get some tangible benefit, such as a raise, a promotion, or perhaps a new job, from having undertaken the training outside of becoming a good leader. I think the former can be taught, because they truly want to learn. But the later? I'm not so sure about them. It will depend on how invested in the lesson they believe they have to be in order to reap the benefits they believe the training will provide.
Reply to this
I think that the reason why people are in class varies. For those pursuing a degree, the class is part of a program that will lead to an achievement. I suspect that most are there for the achievement and the commitment to individual classes will vary. For programs like the one Becky represents, the subject is leadership development throughout. For Bret's MBA students, leadership is one of many topics. Most of the people that I had in class over the years were there because they had been promoted and needed to learn some of the basic skills for their new job. Others were more senior leaders who were there for continuing ed and working on specific parts of their job.
Reply to this
A good post, but I disagree that leadership can be taught, leaders are forged. In the comfort of a classroom or corporate training you can learn the techniques and leadership strategies, but you will not become a leader there, because in my opinion being a leader takes a heart and a steel power of will.
I come from judo, and where I come from your rank strictly depends on your performance on tournaments. We do not have exams after which you’re being awarded a title (so that every 5 year old has the black belt). You win the tournament in order to be ranked higher. That being said, I’ve seen people training for years, performing various techniques on the training, and being brutally broken on the tournaments.
At some point in a proper fight/challenge you reach a point when you’re exhausted, and it seems that there are no more options left except surrender. And at that point you have a choice to surrender or to push forward disregarding the pain and sometimes putting everything at stake. It’s a breaking point, and only by reaching that point and going beyond it and making the appropriate sacrifice you can find your heart. Trainings, case studies, various strategies cannot replicate that sort of an environment.
My example comes from an individual sports, but again in my opinion, to be a leader, first you need to have heart, and to find it you need to face your demons and defeat them. Only after that you can try leading others.
My first post here, sounds a bit radical, I hope I will not get banned right on. Good blog, though.
Reply to this
I like the term "forged." It matches up well with the idea of the "crucible" learning experience mentioned in Warren Bennis' Geeks and Geezers and covered extensively in Robert Thomas Crucibles of Leadership.
Reply to this
Wally, certainly a lot of comments on a topic of great importance. I agree with your comments, in that individuals will emerge with natural talents that give them a strong skill base to work from for leadership. The reality is learning from mistakes, growing through challenging times, working with diverse talents all mold leaders strengths over time to be better leaders. The starting point typically has a foundation (instinct, talent) - is it not the learning that enhances the versatility?- Great discussion-
Reply to this
Thanks. You're right the discussion is really good because we're peeling back the onion on words we often use, like "teaching" and "learning" but also "leadership" itself.
I think one key that's embedded in your comment is "working over time." The best leaders I've experienced and observed are constantly seeking out ways to be better.
Reply to this
After writing two books on Leadership, people tend to assume I'm an expert, but I'm not. My talent is observing and sharing what I've seen. And from my vantage point, the rudiments of leadership can be learned, practiced and implemented, just as the basics of sculpture can be learned, practiced and implemented. And, like sculpture, there are those who go through the motions and those who have a masterpiece inside them. My observation is that there are a great many who aspire to leadership and very few who actually succeed. Many who want to leaders, or believe themselves to be leaders by virtue of their position, are merely managers or administrators - and there's nothing wrong with that.
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing those insights, Jim. One thing we haven't discussed here is that many people choose a management career path because it's the only way to increased pay and prestige in many companies. When you combine that with a tendency to promote people to leadership work based on their performance in something else, you wind up with a lot of folks who might be better doing something else.
Reply to this
Yes - you hit the nail squarely with that one - folks take promotions to take home more pay. Certainly nothing wrong with wanting or needing more income - but it can lead to lots of people on top who shouldn't be. WHAT IF - pay scales were more balanced and honored those who build things at the same level as those who lead? BOTH have equal value and BOTH are worth less without the other.
Reply to this
True, true, true. You can't be a leader all by yourself.
Reply to this
Leadership being taught...hmmm...I'm a little torn on this one. Leadership can be mimicked for sure, and people can teach the principles of leadership while showing examples. With that said, I believe that leadership is in the moment and not rehearsed. I remember the movie Twister and the two storm chasers that led their teams; one to success and another to death. One of the characters was a true leader equipped with instincts and experience, the other was a follower that misled his team and eventually perished.
Therefore, as you've alluded to, leaders have the ability to learn, and can therefore be taught.
I happen to define leaders more by their followers than the person. With that said, there are as many bad leaders as good.
Reply to this
Thanks, Scott. One thing I would lift from your post is the line that "leadership is in the moment." That's a critical understanding. Everything else is preparation or critique.
Reply to this
Wally...always to the point,as all your posts! I feel this way about coaching, too. It is an "apprentice trade" not a set of skills, or how to ask questions. It is about presence, being with people in a certain way. Leadership is about so much more than skill. Some leaders come into it simply because of their passion and clarity in what they seek. They become leaders through influencing others with the way they are. For bosses, it is not the case. Being handed the role of leader makes it difficult sometimes that it is about building who you are. Thanks for the spot-on reminder.
Reply to this
Thanks, Monica. I like the connection you make with coaching.
Reply to this
Can leadership be taught? A most interesting question. I agree, behaviors can be taught, however, personality is the foundation of any leader. Some people just do not possess the personality traits needed to be a successful leader, such as being outgoing or being intuitive. You cannot teach something that intrinsic.
As I interview for jobs, I try to ask questions that help me determine the personality of my future boss and/or leader. Personality conflicts can be unresolvable and knowing my personality helps me avoid a potential conflict.
I really enjoy your thought-provoking blogs and this one really stirs up my thoughts.
Thanks!
Elaine
Reply to this
Thanks for coming by, Elaine. I'm glad we stirred up your thinking. Good luck in that job search.
Reply to this
Wally, I'm always surprised when the word leadership surfaces, how many tenets and tentacles emerge from it. Here hundreds of books are written every year, yet there is no difinitive book on it. I find that interesting. It also tells me it is part art, and part science. The science part can be taught. The art component most likely needs an experiential component. Therefore from my perspective, components of leadership can absolutely be taught, just not all of the components. And its the art component that can make leadership and leaders truly special or remarkably awful.
Reply to this
Good points, Rodney. I think one cause of the tenets and tentacles phenomenon is that we've raised leadership to an exalted status instead of treating it like a kind of work.
Reply to this
I have always liked this question. I feel you can teach what leadership is but you can't teach how to lead. The what and the how are two totally different aspects in opinion. it can be said that good leaders diffuse situations that way or that but being able to actually perform the task is the other side. I agree that " leadership is an apprentice trade" and the only way leaders become good leaders is being leading and trial by error.
Reply to this
Thanks Kyle. I think the distinction between "what leadership is" and "how to lead" is very helpful.
Reply to this
Great point Wally. I think the point you are making is that the classroom is no replacement for real world experience. As an MBA student in a part-time program, I really value the input that my fellow students bring to the classroom because they also work. It really blends the theory and practice.
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing that Brian. I can relate because I got my degree while I worked fulltime. There's a real advantage to having experience you can mix with the book learning and a place to try out the ideas you get in class.
Reply to this
I think ultimately what must be transferred for leadership to be learned is not just what to do, ie, the skills and practices of effective leadership, but how to think,i.e., the beliefs and mindsets of effective leaders. Leadership can only become natural when we have ingrained the beliefs that enable us to make those moment to moment choices to act as a leader.
So can leadership be taught? Definitely. Yet I think a lot of why the apprenticeship model you suggest is essential is because it is only in those moments that we can observe not only our actions, but the thinking behind them, that we can even see we can make a choice to change and adopt a new belief. The context for observing yourself and your own personal context for leadership can be transferred in a classroom, but I do think it ultimately takes real-time observation and experimentation to shift our thinking.
Reply to this
Thanks for that thoughtful addition to the conversation. While I agree with everything you said, I want to push back on a couple of points.
I think there's far more learning than teaching going on in leadership development. So many times things aren't "transferred," they're simply learned.
And while I agree about the importance of ingraining the beliefs that make for successful leadership, I think there's also a need to drive effective behaviors down into the mid-brain so they don't need to be consciously chosen when they're needed.
Reply to this
Can we really train leaders? is a very good question and I like your answer, Wally.
Perhaps another question is: Which types of developmental activities will have the greatest impact on increasing executives’ effectiveness? How can leaders achieve positive long-term changes in behavior? Lured by the promise of instant success, many companies are writing checks without asking critical questions about program design and actual accomplishments.
Leadership programs work very well if they use a multi-tiered approach. Most fall into one of four types:
Personal growth programs
Skill-building programs
Feedback programs
Conceptual awareness programs
Reply to this
Thanks, John. I like your categories. My impression is that many companies have a collection of things they do that they hope/think will develop leaders, but they don't have a leadership development program.
Reply to this
Nicely written...leadership is an art and a science and therefore can be taught, to some extent.
Leadership is the art of mobilizing others toward shared aspirations, by taking care of employees who, in turn, are responsible for taking care of customers, stakeholders, and others, such as the government, the community, the environment, etc., in an ethical manner. This results in an increase in the welfare of all parties involved.
Great leaders are visionaries whose intuition helps them to recognize and capitalize on business opportunities in a timely manner. Their success is based on surrounding themselves with professionals who complement them to help reinforce their strengths and eliminate their weaknesses. This is in direct contrast to mediocre leaders who surround themselves with yes-people who, by their very nature, are unable to contribute positively to the bottom line!
The wisdom of effective leaders enables them to appreciate the views of their inner circle and others. In situations where consensus cannot be reached, they have an uncanny ability to cut to the chase and make informed decisions. They foster an environment that encourages the sharing of ideas while realizing that innovation need not be preceded by the existence of committees.
True leaders place a great deal of emphasis on culture and shared values. They realize that business involves human beings and that profitable growth results from fruitful relationships. They normally possess both formal and informal power. Formal power is entrusted to them by virtue of their position in the company. Informal power results from their core belief system. They lead by example, thus earning the respect and admiration of their peers and subordinates. As a result, employees are enthusiastic about going beyond the call of duty for “their” leaders.
Great leaders build organizations that are vibrant and performance driven. They structure employee compensation packages in a way that promotes and reinforces the right behaviors and rewards people on the basis of individual as well as team performance. They believe that a base salary pays the bills, whereas variable compensation, including earnings before interest, taxes, dividends and amortization (EBITDA)-based bonuses, motivates employees to challenge themselves and increase their contribution to the firm on a consistent basis. These leaders find reasons to pay bonuses as opposed to those leaders who find reasons to deprive employees of bonuses they truly deserve!
"Ethical leadership" - is this an oxymoron (?!) - calls for morals, fairness, caring, sharing, no false promises or unreasonable demands on others, etc.
I have a policy of distributing free abridged versions of my books on leadership, ethics, teamwork, motivation, women, sexual harassment, trade unions, etc., to anyone who sends a request to crespin79 (at) hotmail (dot) com.
Maxwell Pinto, Business Author
http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/Management-TidbitsForTheNewMillenium.html
Reply to this
Thank you for sharing your comments. I confess that language like that compares "great leaders" with "mediocre leaders" and that uses the term "true leaders" seems like the writings of a leadership cult of some sort. You describe "great leaders" as those in charge of companies, "visionaries" and ethical beings who, somehow, all subscribe to the same model for employee compensation. It's all too theological for me.
I think that leadership is a kind of work, along with management and supervision. Some people are better at it than others, but the vast majority are within a standard deviation of the mean. They work hard to do right by their employer and their team members. They're looking for things they can do to do better.
Reply to this
I feel you can teach what leadership is but you can't teach how to lead. The what and the how are two totally different aspects in opinion. it can be said that good leaders diffuse situations that way or that but being able to actually perform the task is the other side. I agree that " leadership is an apprentice trade" and the only way leaders become good leaders is being leading and trial by error.......Thanks...
Reply to this
That's a great way to put it. Thanks for coming by and sharing your comments.
Reply to this
First, I would ultimately agree with one of your comments near the end of the post, "...leadership is an apprentice trade." With that said, in any apprentice trade there is a dual aspect in their on-the-job training -- knowledge and application. So, yes it can be taught but also must be applied. Learning takes place from both perspectives in the limitations of the environment. The trick is knowing all the variables that can create the best leadership development training both from a knowledge and application/growth perspective.
Nonetheless, I recall personal experiences from leadership where both my peers and I went through the same leadership development training (both from a knowledge and application perspective) and the end result or outcomes were different. From that experience, I was able to ascertain for myself what drove me verses what drove the others. Some of these traits were mentioned in the original referenced article (e.g. "...focus; empathy; relentless authenticity; belief not only in themselves, but also in others and in change itself; resilience; and dogged persistence.") These things are what drove me to do what you referenced in your bottom-line: "Seek out mentors and role models to give you ideas of what to do. Read and go to classes to get more ideas. Seek opportunities to develop your skills. Critique your performance. Get feedback. Keep getting better." As for others, they just went through the motions of what was required to be taught and learned. So it appears to me that there are some intrinsic traits that may propel one to be both taught and learn leadership as an on-going self improvement or a lifestyle verses a job requirement.
Reply to this
Thanks for that insightful post. Marshall Goldsmith did some research a few years ago to determine who got the most from a training program. The answer was (not surprisingly) the people who returned from the program and tried to apply what they had learned or heard about. When you put that on paper it looks obvious, but that obviousness masks the bias for action that probably separated you from your peers.
Reply to this