Tag Archives: Martin Luther King

Leadership

Demystifying The Six Misunderstandings About Servant Leadership

1. Servant leadership is a new age movement.

The concept of servant leadership isn’t new, and most certainly, it isn’t the product of our age and generation. It is as old as human history. In ancient times, many philosophers, poets, and writers admired the serving kings and masters.

In the beginning of the first century, Jesus of Nazareth underlined the importance of serving. He embodied servant leadership by serving the physical, emotional, health, and spiritual needs of his followers. At one point, he even washed the feet of his students.

In recent history, leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela dedicated their lives in serving the social and freedom needs of others. Leaders like Mother Theresa left their comfort zone and devoted their lives to serve the physical, health, and emotional needs of the needy.

However, the father of modern era servant leadership who first coined the term in the late 60’s and early 70’s is none other than Robert K. Greenleaf. He advocated the leader as a servant in his classic work “The Servant as Leader”.

2. Servant leadership is irrelevant to the corporate world.

Servant leadership has been well embraced within the religious, academic, and research circles. It attracted a great deal of interest from leaders, scholars, and students from these circles. Unfortunately, some reports show that servant leadership hasn’t gained the attention and priority it deserves, especially from the corporate world.

Nonetheless, though their number is fairly small, there were and still are some great corporate leaders like the former CEO of Herman Miller- Max DePree. In his extraordinary book ‘Leadership is an Art’, Depree said, “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between, the leader is a servant.” There is no wonder why employees of this wonderful company take ownership and serve it back with great commitment and delight.

Like Herman Miller and other similar corporations, today’s businesses should adopt servant leadership as one of their leadership styles, and enjoy its full benefits. However, in order to experience the full-scale benefits that come from adopting servant leadership, the following requirements and more should be met:

 

  • Service should be one of the shared values of the organization
  • The corporate culture should be able to create conducive atmosphere for servant leaders to flourish.
  • Training and development programs should incorporate the theme servant leadership.
  • The promotion system should consider serving as one of the important parameters.
  • The incentive system should favor the serving leaders, and more

 

3. Servant leadership is all about meeting the physical needs of people.

Some people limit the scope of servant leadership as if it is all about meeting the physical needs of people. Some even narrow it down to washing feet. In many parts of the world, unlike in the agrarian era, the contemporary generation doesn’t have this need every night. I am not criticizing the act of those who practice feet washing as a sign of humility. I rather admire their commitment and they should continue to do it but here, I am putting things in perspective, that is, servant leadership’s scope should go beyond meeting the physical needs of people.

The real needs of the generation are beyond meeting physical needs. The 21st C generation is overwhelmed with so many new challenges specific to the information age, and therefore, servant leaders should also serve the intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs of their constituencies.

4. Servant leadership is serving once and then getting service forever.

Some people think that you should first serve (follow) before you take leadership. Leadership begins in our childhood, the moment we take some responsibilities in our family. We shouldn’t wait forever to take leadership, and become a servant leader. On the other hand, there is no scenario where someone follows (serves) once and then remains a leader afterwards. Following someone’s lead continues in the life of the leader. As much as the latter has people under his influence, he is also a follower of someone somewhere. That is to say, there is no precedence, and tit for tat in servant leadership. It is a lifetime commitment where a servant leader serves throughout her leadership journey.

5. Servant leadership is about extinguishing any fire of need that comes on the servant’s way.

One of the invaluable services in an urban setting is its fire department. Wherever there is a need to fight fire or accident, they are there to serve. I watched some episodes that allowed me to appreciate the critical roles firemen play. In some circles, they believe that servant leaders are fire extinguishers. They should be where there are needs. Such servants will quickly burnout. A servant leader should serve from his strength. The firemen had lots of choices to make but they chose a particular service for which they have passion and strength. A servant leader doesn’t mean she goes out to serve everyone, everywhere, and on everything. A servant leader should know her mission, and that should dictate whom & where to serve, and the kind of service she should render.

6. Servant leadership is about feeding/serving others first.

Servant leadership is a selfless style of leadership but can a servant leader undermine his/her own needs and go out to meet the needs of others without a consequence? Can that kind of approach remain sustainable and relevant in the long run? I like Tim Elmore’s metaphor entitled “The starving baker”. This baker is a servant who is busy feeding others while neglecting to eat himself, and in turn ended up starving. In order to generate lasting impact and serve continually, servant leaders should also look after their own needs, especially their personal development needs.

Assegid Habtewold (Dr.) is the lead coach, consultant, and facilitator at Success Pathways, LLC. He is also the author of “Redefining Leadership: Navigating the Path from Birthright to Fulfillment in Life!” For more information about his book, please visit http://www.successpws.com/?page_id=25

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Assegid_Habtewold/1218809

 

Leadership

Why You Might Be Failing At Leadership

I remember getting my very first leadership opportunity. I was thrilled because this is what I’d been working towards for many years and boy oh boy did I suck! I thought I understood all I needed to know because, after all, I’d read all the books and gave an awesome interview so why was I floundering so badly? I couldn’t understand why my team wasn’t jumping on board and hanging onto my every word. It was at this point that I was firmly pressed up against reality and I quickly realised that I didn’t have the skills that I thought I had. My boss, who seemed quite successful in building a team, told me that the team had to want to follow me and that no title was going to give me that. That’s where his advice ended, not because he was short on giving advice, but because he didn’t understand what made him a good leader and he, through no fault of his own, lacked the skills to grow leaders under him. It was like being thrown into a pool to learn to swim but no one was there to teach me. Looking back it was largely this experience that led me on the journey to discover what makes great leaders. I was no longer satisfied with the theory alone, I wanted to the tools to grow a team and to be able to lead them to be high performers.

As you’ve often heard me say in the past, the first step is awareness of yourself and, in this instance, awareness of your default leadership style. We all have a default and with every style there are positives and negatives in how they are used and there are also specific times when each style should be ‘consciously’ drawn upon. More on this later but for now, let’s look at the different core leadership styles.

 

Debate is common about which leadership style is most effective. The answer, of course,… it all depends. ~ Thomas Kohntopp

 

Visionary Leadership Style

The Visionary Leader moves people towards a shared dream/vision. This style is particularly effective when a business is adrift-it comes naturally to transformational leaders, those who seek to radically change an organisation. Of all the leadership styles, this style appears to be the most strongly positive. Examples of Visionary Leaders include Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and Barrack Obama. The key personality traits of these leaders are empathy, self-confidence, and honesty/integrity and they act as a change agent and are big on transparency.

A note of caution: This style can fail when the leader is working with a team of experts or peers who are more experienced than he/she and may be viewed as someone with a grand vision or someone who is misaligned with the existing agenda. It can cause cynicism which can lead to poor performance. The leader can come across as overbearing and can undermine the spirit of the team.

Coaching Leadership Style

The Coaching Leader connects what a person wants with the organisation’s goals. This is a highly positive leadership style. The focus is less so on the “bottom-line” but tends to promote loyalty and a strong culture which, in an indirect way, leads to “bottom-line” results. The personality traits of this style of leader are emotional self-awareness, empathy, rapport building, and listening. When done well, coaching improves the team member’s capabilities, self-confidence, autonomy, and performance. This style is the most lacking in leaders. Having a deep conversation with a team member goes beyond the immediate short-term concerns and instead explores a person’s life, including dreams, life goals, and career hopes… this takes time and effort.

A note of caution: When executed poorly the coaching approach can look more like micromanaging or excessive control of the team member. This can impact on the team member’s self-confidence and be detrimental to performance.

Affiliative Leadership Style

The Affiliative Leader creates harmony by connecting people to each other. This leadership style has a positive impact on the environment. It heightens team harmony, increases morale, improves communication and repairs broken trust in an organisation. This leadership style tends to value people and their feelings-putting less emphasis on accomplishing tasks and goals, and more on team member’s emotional needs. They strive to keep people happy, to create harmony and to build team resonance. But, it should not be used alone. When coupled with the Visionary Leadership Style it can be a highly potent combination. This style is best used to heal rifts in a team, motivate during stressful times, or strengthen connections.

A note of caution: When using this style alone poor performance can go uncorrected and lead to a culture of mediocrity.

Democratic Leadership Style

The Democratic Leader values people’s input and gets commitment through participation. It has a positive impact on the environment and keeps morale high by spending time one-on-one and in meetings listening to the concerns of team members. The democratic approach works best when the leader is uncertain about what direction to take and needs ideas from able employees. Even if there is a strong vision, this style works well to surface ideas about how to implement that vision or to generate fresh ideas for executing it. Please Note: In order for this to be effective, team members have to be well-informed and competent. This approach should not be used in times of crisis and when urgent events demand on-the-spot decisions.

A note of caution: Over reliance on this style can be exasperating leading to endless meetings to gain consensus, delayed decision making, confusion and lack of direction leading to delays and escalating conflicts.

The next couple of leadership styles, although they have their place, need to be used sparingly and because of the incorrect use of these, they are deemed highly negative… I’m speaking from experience here!

Pace Setting Leadership Style

The Pace Setting Leader meets challenging and exiting goals. Because this style is frequently poorly executed, it has a highly negative impact on the environment. When used excessively or in the wrong setting, team members can feel pushed too hard, morale drops and the result is discord. This style works well with a team of highly competent, motivated individuals who need little direction and it makes sense during the entrepreneurial/growth phase of a company. It can also be effective for short deadlines but continued high pressure can lead to increased anxiety and a drop in performance.

This approach is synonymous with the leader needing to dive into the detail, reluctant to delegate and taking over from others who are not performing (rather trusting they could improve with guidance). The continued high pressure can constrict innovative thinking.

The underlying foundational characteristics of this style include the drive to achieve, a high initiative to seize opportunities, striving to increase their own performance and those of their team. Leaders who default to this style are motivated, not by external rewards, but by a strong need to meet their own high standards of excellence. Use with caution!

Commanding Leadership Style

The Commanding Leadership Style soothes fears by giving clear direction in an emergency. This is the least effective style in most situations. This style contaminates the teams mood and impacts performance, feedback tends to focus on what people did wrong. It is useful, however, in a crisis, to kick-start a turnaround, or with problem employees (when all else fails). The Commanding Leadership Style undermines the ability to give people the sense that their job fits into a grand, shared mission. This leads to people feeling less committed (even alienated) from their jobs and thinking, “Why does any of this matter?”

It comes from the old military command and control hierarchies used in the twentieth century… interestingly enough, this style is now even cross-pollinated with other styles in the modern military. Again, use with caution!

As you can see, each style has it’s uses and can be effective when applied at the right times. Each style also has it’s drawbacks and it’s useful to be aware of these too. Earlier I mentioned that ‘each style should be consciously drawn on’ and by this I mean that in order to be an effective leader you have to rely more on a range of leadership styles and apply them intelligently rather than just having your default style. If I was to ask a project manager why they included a section on Risk Management in their project management plan I expect them to be able to tell me. In the same manner, if I was to ask you why you choose to behave one way under certain conditions and another under other conditions I would expect you to be able to articulate the leadership style you are consciously applying and why. Don’t leave your leadership development to chance. Consciously take control of it and become the best leader you can be!

I wish I knew about the importance of flexing my leadership style back then, it would’ve made a world of a difference.

Knowing what you know now: What’s your default leadership style? What are the challenges you face with your team and what style would be most appropriate in this situation?

Knowing what you know now: You don’t have to have a title to lead, how can you apply these styles in what you do? What styles do you recognise in your peers and leaders in your organisation and what impact do they have on their teams?

If you’d like to know more about how you can embed this powerful principle into your life, or if you’d like to learn a little more about what coaching can offer you, please contact us at any time for a free consultation:

e: results@setantaconsulting.com

m: +64 (0) 21 592 445

Skype: SetantaCoach

[http://www.setantaconsulting.com]

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Cillin_David_Hearns/1376757

 

Leadership

Leadership As a Human Service

What is leadership or who is a leader? The common knowledge about leadership definition is to influence the thoughts and behaviors of other people by motivating and inspiring with the purpose to utilize resources (human & material) so as to build organizations, communities, nations and the globe. The bottom-line is to put people into a service willingly and happily through a leadership talent. Now, it is not difficult to define who is a leader or what is a leader all about. A leader is someone who inspires, motivates and utilizes both human and materials resources wisely or effectively. This very definition carries a wisdom that supersedes the literal definition of leadership. If we think critically and analyze the essence of leadership, it is all about human service-the universal service.

At the surface, the definition of leadership seems a piece of cake to understand and far from complexity. However, it is not easy to serve organization, communities, nations and the world without the wisdom of leadership. The very essence of leadership is service. By service it means that to devote one’s life wholeheartedly to the entire humanity without segregation. Leadership is a choice to serve. It has nothing to do with a position, good office or title. Hence, good leaders deliberately choose to serve, not to be served.

Leadership is wide in scope, complex in nature and abundant in service. It is also a universal truth that humanity needs to survive and flourish. Humanity merely flourishes, if it starts to serve itself; otherwise, without service the devil is too big to overcome. Without visionary leaders, tomorrow is too obscure and more uncertain. Humanity needs not managers or administers, but leaders who can reconnect yesterday to today, and today to tomorrow, for service is not one time event. This is meant to say that genuine leaders have the enormous power to connect cultures and histories to the promising future.

Indeed, life is a service. The foundation or the root of life is service. Jesus Christ, the leader of leaders, served humanity to death. He is still the iconic model of leadership for those who want to serve life entirely. He sweated blood and served humanity to death. He served, but He was not served in return. During His time, on the planet, He taught humanity to love and serve itself. Even in His last time, before He departed, He deeply interceded the disciples to go to the world and serve humanity to death. This is the moral and wisdom of leadership that we learn from Jesus. In accordance with this, we had also a number of leaders who sacrificed their lives for service, such as Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln and mother Teresa. These three people had a lot in common. Three of them consumed their lives in serving humanity. Even Nelson Mandela, the living leader, is also one of the best leaders ever Africa produced. If we look back to their histories, we find freedom, love, liberation, prosperity, truth, but to the extreme their histories carry an absolute service to humanity. Truly, humanity is blessed and flourished to freedom through their leadership services. The service is diverse in kind, but universal toward the path of prosperity. Their echoes and traces are still behind them and helping us to enjoy the beauty of life. Hence, their histories are the assets of leadership and by far the figures or model of service.

If leadership is about service, who wants to serve? Apparently, we all want to be served, and don’t want to serve humanity. We are ego-centric or selfish spirit. Selfish spirit wants this and that, never gratifies. For someone to be a good leader, the self-concept must be overlooked and become the true him in order to be an instrument of service. Service is an innate, but selfishness is an induced spirit from the outside world.

True leaders are original, unshakable, unified, lived spirit and flow like a river to serve and reconstruct the planet, and also understand the very nature of life as a service rendering to the whole humanity irrespective of race, religion, ideology or nationality. Such deeper understanding happens to be because of leadership discovery. Leadership is special, but subtle and complex, because leaders should discover the talents, gifts, abilities and skills within the ‘being’. It is true that for someone who has not discovered the inner treasures, has nothing to offer, but a lot to take from others through selfish spirit. If by chance he or she comes to a position to lead a nation, the whole country’s treasure will be put into his/her personal account. We can take dictators as an example in this situation. Dictators draw the whole countries’ assets into their personal interest and assume little responsibility. Under dictatorship leadership a considerable human resources can easily be exploited, wasted or misused. Dictators are unrealized leaders and threat to human civilization. The failure to discover their inner leadership talents and gifts resulted to a nations’ definite backwardness, diseases, illiteracy, tribal conflict, tyranny, sordid poverty and many other problems that are pertaining to human issues. Such dilemma is more visible in countries under dictatorship leadership, particularly in the developing countries.

Dictators and leaders are diametrically opposite. There is no a commonplace between them. It is like the difference between the sky and earth. When one goes up, the other goes down, or vice versa. Leaders are realized talents, whereas dictators are unrealized talents. Leaders produce whereas dictators waste or abuse. Leaders render service whereas dictators take away. Leaders are visionary whereas dictators are shortsighted mind. Leaders aim high whereas dictators aim personal. Leaders are change agents whereas dictators are deteriorate agents. Leaders build whereas dictators destroy. Leaders die for service, whereas dictators die for the self.

It is the same talent that works in both. The same energy builds or destroys, or the same energy makes a leader or a dictator. It depends on how it is wisely or foolishly used. The same water can cultivate or destroy vegetations at the same time. Hence, the usage matters a lot more. Leaders discover the talents from within and use them wisely for human service and future generation.

Leaders are not made or born from the outside world. Leaders are born from within. Some leadership authors adhere to the idea that leadership is a learned or acquired. However, if we look back to human history, we find a lot of learned leaders who have committed a colossal errors and tortured humanity to death. Education has nothing to do with genuine leaders, though it is important as a stimulus to cause the leader within everyone to be born. Even intelligence is not an indispensable unless it is tuned up by the spirit of leadership. For instance let’s take Adolf Hitler, the butcher of humanity. Hitler’s IQ was around 140, but he ended up against human gene. He had the wrong spirit though he was genius and courageous.

True leaders are holy spirited, visionary, born from within, shone from in-out and dedicated to the purpose of human service. The service is universal for common purpose in reference to human prosperity and rebuilding of the planet. Leaders have an infinite potential to serve, create, change, innovate and develop nations to the heights of civilization.

In the 21st century, we don’t need administrators or managers, but deadly we need leaders. Nations are over administered or managed, but little change, innovation and development. The absence of leadership resulted to nations’ stagnation, tribal conflict, genocide, tyranny and problem of implementations. All the global issues, such as nuclear weapon, economic crisis, epidemic diseases, global warming, ideological conflicts, severe corruption and many others, are also byproduct of poor leadership capacity. The new brand of leadership that points towards service is the solution to all these global issues. The new brand of leadership makes the clear-cut between leadership by consent and force, and calls for the deeper relationship between leaders and followers, employers and employees. This kind of leadership will help the world to enter into new era of potential realization, and the downfall and disappearance of dictators and kings.

Leadership as a service emanates from within, assumes a considerable responsibility, and characterizes by loyalty, trustworthiness, unwavering courage, definiteness of decisions and plans, cooperation, change, innovation, solid personality, sympathy, sense of justice and the like. It dismisses also the threats of human survival, and is more powerful than any form of leadership, for it helps humanity to prosper, cooperate, function, realize and reach the heights of civilizations.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Berhane_A_Tedla/1257974

 

Leadership

Leadership Myths and Demons

We think we understand leaders and leadership. And I suppose to some extent we do. But we also work with a lot of leadership mythology-curious ideas developed over time like urban legends-and demons-either blaming leaders for evil in the world or looking upon leadership with suspicion.

Leadership myths are pervasive and persistent. What makes them troubling is that people who believe them usually fail to reach their leadership potential-and they sometimes hold others back as well. The myths and demons get in the way like barriers on an obstacle course.

Consider these myths:

 

  • Leaders are born.
  • Leaders are men.
  • Leaders are wealthy.
  • Leaders are especially charismatic.
  • Leaders are White.
  • Leaders are superb communicators.
  • Leaders are just managers who have more power.
  • Leadership is authority.
  • Leadership is hierarchical or positional.
  • Leadership can’t be taught.

 

You may be able to cite single examples for all of these statements, but one example does not make a law. On the other hand, one example to the contrary will invalidate what someone thinks is a law and we can point to plenty of exceptions. None of these statements may be generalized to all leadership in all times and cultures.

For example, I’ve never met a leader who hadn’t been born, so proclaiming “Leaders are born” like it’s a breakthrough discovery is silly. But many people still believe leadership attributes and skills are instilled at birth and that’s it. If you didn’t get the leadership gene from the stork, so the argument goes, you’re never going to be a leader.

This idea is reminiscent of the feudal perspectives of the Middle Ages all the way back to the divine right of kings. But claiming leaders are born and never “made” doesn’t stand the test of experience.

Leaders are men, and wealthy men at that. Oh really? Joan of Arc was neither a man nor wealthy. Same can be said for Harriet Tubman and Mother Teresa. Have a disproportionate number of leaders been men and have many leaders been wealthy? Sure. But this historical fact says more about lack of access for women in certain times and cultures than it does about innate ability. And more than one wife has led from behind the scenes when her husband, the elected or expected leader, wouldn’t or couldn’t lead. Ask Mrs. Woodrow Wilson.

Leaders aren’t leaders unless they exude charisma. Wrong again. President Calvin Coolidge was a smart man, but charisma certainly isn’t a word associated with his memory. Charisma isn’t essential. Non-charismatic “Silent Cal” still got a few things done.

Leaders are as different in personality and gifts as the leaves in a forest of trees. Gifted Native American speakers Tecumseh and later Chief Joseph were leaders in a lost cause, and they weren’t White. Neither was Martin Luther King, Jr., an orator of the first rank and the most important leader of the American Civil Rights Movement. The biblical Moses, arguably one of the greatest leaders who ever lived, at least initially struggled with poor communication skills.

Leaders are just hyped-up managers. No, leaders may be good managers, and some managers may possess leadership skills. But leaders are more than just managers with more clout. Leaders lead, and managers, well, they manage. We need them both.

Leadership isn’t just for those who possess formal authority, have amassed power, or hold a position. Talent and tenacity trump titles any day. That’s one lesson from the American Revolutionary War. Ragtag colonists took nearly eight years to do it, but they succeeded in chasing the Redcoats and chastening the King. Women without power or position-yet leaders-from Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Susan B. Anthony, worked throughout the Nineteenth Century to secure American women’s right to vote, finally granted in 1920 in the Nineteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Even “title-less” leaders get things done.

Consider these demons:

 

  • Leaders are robber barons.
  • Leaders are anti-democratic.
  • Leadership is Machiavellian, i.e. manipulative.
  • Leadership is tyrannical.
  • Leadership is intimidation or coercion.
  • Leadership is controlling, dictating.
  • Leadership contradicts service or “servanthood.”

 

For some reason, our ideas about leadership get twisted up with our image of “bad guys” and their desire to conquer the world. Lex Luthor in the Superman movies. Adolph Hitler in real history. Some people can’t seem to think about leaders without wincing. In this view, leaders are self-promoters, “politicians” who can’t be trusted. Only “the people” will ultimately be in the right.

Some of this attitude toward leadership is fostered by American democratic culture. We haven’t fully trusted a leader since we threw off England’s King George and our George left the first presidency.

Some of this suspicious attitude is justifiable. A few leaders haven’t deserved the allegiance and power they commanded or usurped, and some leaders have left lasting bitterness in their wake. Richard Nixon is America’s highest profile recent example. And historically, the world has certainly endured evil leaders-from the Old Testament King Jehoram, about whom it was said, “He passed away, to no one’s regret,” to Genghis Khan to Nero to Pol Pot to Saddam Hussein to Kim Jong-il. Sadly, the rogue’s gallery is full.

Dishonest, anti-democratic, manipulative, tyrannical, coercive, and dictatorial demagogues are the bad people. Yet their record shows us morally questionable individuals holding leadership positions, not a record of something intrinsically irredeemable about leadership in general.

Leadership is a tool. As free moral agents human beings can use leadership for good or for evil. Leadership always gets back to character.

As people who can choose, we can choose to lead. None of these common myths or demons ultimately hold water and none of them should stop anyone from becoming a leader if desire and opportunity calls for it.

Part of what makes leadership so fascinating is that leaders come from all walks and byways of life. No one is excluded. For this we can be grateful to God and to a democratic and open country where individuals matter.

Tom Brokaw described an entire generation as leaders. He noted in his book The Greatest Generation that America is losing several thousand per day who survived the Great Depression and World War II. This generation was the “greatest” because they answered the call time and again. They led by example, commitment, and participation. These men and women took the measure of their challenges and in some cases gave “the last full measure” to defend what they believed in.

The question we now face is who will take the Greatest Generation’s place of leadership? It can be you, and false mythologies and demons shouldn’t get in your way.

Dr. Rex Rogers is President, SAT-7 USA, the American advancement arm of SAT-7, a Christian satellite television organization based in Cyprus, which reaches 22 countries across 7 time zones via four channels in Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish. He is former president, Cornerstone University, and writes a column, “Good News from the Middle East.” Contact him at w http://rexmrogers.com/ or http://www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Rex_Rogers/180433

 

Leadership

The Relationship Between Leadership and Influence

What is the relationship between leadership and influence? Is leadership always influence and is influence always leadership?

To say that leadership always entails influence is like saying that all snow is white. It’s true but the inference doesn’t work the other way. That is, not all white things are snow. Similarly, although all leadership is influence, there are lots of types of influence that don’t count as leadership. Here are a few examples:

– Intimidating or forcing someone to do something.
– Bribing someone to do your bidding.
– Paying for things you want someone to do for you.
– Teaching a student to behave better in a classroom.
– Encouraging your children to eat their vegetables.

The last two examples are not leadership because they have nothing to do with a group striving to achieve a goal. Teaching students and encouraging children to eat vegetables is for their own interest, not for the good of a larger group. Similarly, salespeople may be very influential but their influence is self-interested. The salesperson and the customer do not constitute a group.

Formal Authority and Leadership Influence

Suppose you are the boss and you decide to ramp up production by 50%, requiring everyone to work faster and longer hours without overtime. Is this leadership? No, it may be influence but it is not leadership because the employees had no choice. To say that leadership is informal influence means that followers have a free choice to follow or not.

What are some prime examples of true leadership influence? One of the most familiar is Martin Luther King’s demonstrations against segregation on buses which led the U.S. Supreme Court to outlaw this practice. King had no formal authority or other power to move the U.S. government. This is the real meaning of leadership.

Another example of genuine leadership influence was the Sony employee who influenced management to adopt his idea for PlayStation despite their feeling that Sony wasn’t into making toys.

Whenever you convince your colleagues or your boss to adopt a new idea, you have shown them leadership. Or, you might simply set a good example for others and, if they follow, you have shown leadership.

Market leading businesses influence their competitors to change course, another example of real leadership.

When executives make decisions that take their teams in new directions, they are taking managerial actions, NOT showing leadership because employees have no choice.

To count as leadership, influence must be informal and followers must get on board completely of their own free will. Leadership is also a group phenomenon and is aimed at serving some unselfish purpose, something to improve the group’s effectiveness.

For this reason, even if your children willingly follow your plea to eat their vegetables, you haven’t shown leadership because you and your kids are not a group working toward a common goal.

Informal leadership and Influence

We often distinguish between formal and informal leadership. The only difference between these concepts is that the informal leader takes charge informally. The formal leader has been given formal authority to govern the group while the informal leader is granted this role by the group itself. The informal leader has personal power – charisma, knowledge or some form of expertise that the group values.

It is vital to recognize that the conventional concept of informal leadership is not the same thing as saying that all leadership influence is informal. The conventional concept, formal or informal, is all about being in charge of the group. The claim made here is that real leadership is independent of position, as it was in the case of Martin Luther King. He was not an informal leader in the conventional sense – the Supreme Court didn’t recognize him as their informal leader. As another example, a technical geek might influence his peers to adopt a new piece of software. He has influenced them informally. However, this geek might be so disinclined to manage the group that they might never view him as their informal leader – someone who they would turn to for help in organizing their day to day work, who they would look to for advice and the resolution of conflict. The geek’s informal leadership is a one-off act, not an ongoing role. His influence is informal but he is not what we normally call an informal leader because he has no interest or ability to take charge of the group in a managerial sense.

So what? By reformulating the meaning of leadership, I am saying that the old distinction between formal and informal leadership is outdated. There is really only formal and informal management because all leadership is informal where this term refers to willingly following someone’s lead NOT to informally taking charge of the group.

Conclusion

Leadership influence involves a group changing direction because of someone’s informal influence. It is always disinterested because, if you influence people to support you by appealing to their needs, you are effectively operating as a salesperson, not a leader. True leadership asks people to set aside their personal needs and do something for the good of the group. Think again of Martin Luther King. He was campaigning for justice, not to be elected U.S. president. His leadership entailed personal sacrifice in the interest of a higher cause.

See http://www.leadersdirect.com for more information on this and related topics. Mitch McCrimmon has over 30 years experience in executive assessment and coaching. His latest book, Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes, 2006, challenges conventional thinking on leadership. Warning: you might find it annoying if you are committed to the usual platitudes about leadership.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Mitch_McCrimmon/79532