One of Business professor Henry Mintzberg's major arguments is that MBA's have cultivated the next generation of business leaders into thinking that they are the indispensible ingredient in business success. In combination with the business press, which breathlessly (well, maybe a little less breathlessly, after Enron and Worldcom) waits for business leaders to work magical turnarounds, and single-handedly create profits out of thin air.
It is ludicrous when you think about it. Many headlines of business turnarounds, or good results in general attribute the success entirely to the CEO, the leader, or the management group - ignoring the complex interrelated efforts of the company's diverse and numerous employees, not to mention prevailing economic conditions, and, Mintzberg adds...luck. Mintzberg is a bit unfair, since, just as the praise is unfair for results executives aren't entirely responsible so too are corporate disasters often not directly attributable to management failure of some kind. Economic conditions, consumer confidence declines, strikes, or unforeseen fiscal problems can wreck a company's prospects as surely as management incompetence.
Mintzberg is undoubtedly drawing from, and perhaps part of, the anti-leadership school of management thinking - the notion that leadership isn't all that its cracked up to be. In actual fact, I think Mintzberg is a proponent of leadership, just not the glamorized, artificial kind that makes the front covers of the business press (not that all business media are at fault...just any article that begins with...when x took over from y at company c, it was on the verge of chapter 11, and then in 60 days, miraculous results....)
So yes, Quiet Leadership is what Mintzberg proposes as a replacement for Ken Lay style corporate white-knight-ism. Leadership which creates lasting enduring change and real results lasting far beyond a leader's tenure. As Mintzberg notes, the best measure of a leader's stewardship is to look at how a company is doing a decade after they left the helm. Its an interesting point. It isn't likely to mesh particularly well with an equity sector that places such tremendous pressure on short-term earnings targets, but it's a much-needed recommendation.
To go back to my own management education so far, I think it has in fact changed since Mintzberg's crusade against glamorized celebrity leaders. Many courses emphasize the ability to make decisions based on as much practical evidence as possible, analyzing a wide variety of factors in making decisions and broadening knowledge of the different kinds of operating environments, goals and strategy needed to at different times and by different businesses. However, the courses on managing people - human resources - have emphasized that creating an artificial and self-serving leadership cult is unlikely to motivate people, create job satisfaction or boost productivity. It helps to have visionary leadership, and having identified organizational goals is crucial, but people need recognition and inclusion in the organizational direction. They shouldn't perceive themselves as extraneous to the CEO's personal quest to deliver results. Ultimately, whether a person attempts to create lasting change, or practice quiet leadership depends on the latitude they have in their managerial role, and on the goals of the organization itself.
Some organizations prosper because of glamorized, celebrity leadership. Richard Branson, where would Virgin be without you? Of course, Branson's celebrity coincides with an industry-leading faith in the people he appoints to manage his divisions. It may not be quiet leadership, but it works.








Recent Comments