Leaders Make Things Better

“Real leaders are not people who can point out what is wrong. Almost anyone can do that. Real leaders are people who can make things better.”

Marshall Goldsmith, Quoted from a column in Workforce Performance Solutions Magazine, August 2005

So true, so true.

I know that I have poo-poed to-do lists in the past, but I also know you all still have them. So put this item on your to-do list every day.

Make things better.

Comments

[Bob Ashley]

Don't we ever tire of the aphoristic style of management discourse? Why are we endlessly enthralled by endless streams of pithy Shakespearean-like propositions such as Marshall Goldsmith's? Is it a swaddling comfort in what appears to be the rhetoric of clever closure? Is it a fantasy fulfillment of our longing for final certainty?

I admit that I'm a sucker for the alluring axiom. Trouble is, like fresh-cut flowers, their vivid impact in the vase dies in days.

Let me theorize a connection between aphoristic allure and management theory's ostensible penchant for chasing, then chiding, the next fashion of the day.

There's nothing more beautiful than dying flowers in a vase. But my impression is that this isn't the normal impression. The normal impression looks upon the next bloom of management aphorisms as commandments inscribed in stone. They attract disciples. Which is why we call their aphorism-makers "management gurus".

Management readers thus seem to suffer from historical amnesia. Pathologically, this audience forgets that the guru's pretty, pithy, rainbow phrases always turn to dust in days. But there's always more flowers to pick from the garden of tomorrow's guru. So why worry?

In conclusion, I think we're enthralled with the aphoristic "form", but repeatedly mistake it for "content".

An exemplar of the aphoristic management writer is Tom Peters. He's good. His genius is form, however, much in way Shakespeare mastered the form of the sonnet. But what content do we really remember of Peters or Shakespeare's sonnets? I submit, practically nothing. What we never forget, however, is their way with words, their mastery of their respective "forms". When they speak, we swoon.

Let me try my own retaliatorial variation on the theme--notice how most saws set up, then tear down a straw man?

"Neither is leadership about making things better, nor about pointing out errors. Leadership is about the art of refreshing its followers with effective, economical persuasion--the well-wrought aphorism delivers on both counts."

or

"Leadership inhales language. It exhales aphorisms which minister to the follower's need for inspiration to get going, to get things done."

[Lisa Haneberg]

Bob - Like you, I think that a focus on getting things done and resisting flavor-of-the-month stuff is wise.

But I think you are seeing things too black or white. A very important force in business is the catalyst - I would put rants from Top Peters and such in this category. Guys like Peter and Goldsmith can help shift mindsets, and this can shift actions and results. A while most people will be jacked up for a day/week/month, there will be a percentage of people who shift their mindset for good. And these people can make significant contributions to organizations.

I think there is no replacement for solid and consistent training on how to lead and manage. I also see lots of room for brining in sparks of thought that might help ignite passions and creativity.

I don't see this as dying flowers in a vase, but rather the twice yearly fertalization you give to your garden (with the methodical watering, pruning, and such being the core).

[Lisa Haneberg]

One more thing - I do believe it is a CORE job responsibility for leaders to make things better. What does this mean?

Removing barriers
Providing training
Being a good conduit between strategy and implementation
Solving problems

[Bob Ashley]

Lisa, your perspective adds some welcomed local color. I like your 'fertilizer' angle.

This angle, like mine, reinforces the "formal" properties of leadership moreso than the content within the form.

I wonder about the shifting mindsets. Is a shifted mindset necessarily an improvement? Maybe sometimes, but at other times a shift might act as a distraction, a distortion, or worse, a retardant.

That said, I keep reading, and probably for the reason you frame as 'catalytic'. The critical faculty is then left to evaluate the pros and cons of the results impelled by the catalyst.

I still think, however, that a huge gap in the management literature is the absence of a robust critique of its rhetoric. Studying its heavy dependence on an aphoristic style of rhetoric might lead to useful knowledge about management itself. What I'm saying is that such a study might provide some ideas on achieving more effective ways for management to deliver its message.

Another example, apart from the aphorism, is the numbered list, like, 'The 7 habits...blah, blah' , The 21 Irrefutable Laws of...' By providing a numbered list, the rhetoric proposes a bounded domain. It presupposes knowledge in a containment field, and therefore, makes it seem conquerable. The subtext of the numbered list promises closure, "Once I've mastered the 7 habits, I will be done."
Rhetorically, too, the mere invocation of numbers co-opts the authority of quantitative measurement from hard sciences. Linguistically speaking, the typical management book also invokes thousands upon thousands of imperative clauses, like 'Do this..' 'Never do that...', 'Learn this...' 'Make this a part of your that'. No human mind could remember, let alone practice the overspilling buckets of command phrases poured into the reader's mind.

I dunno, I guess I'm just curious about the formal properties of management talk. It's full of unchanging patterns, even if the content is always changing.

In this formal sense, 'Think and Grow Rich' is as up to date as "Getting Things Done".

Bob

[Lisa Haneberg]

Bob:

You are putting your brain to far too much work on this weekend! :-)

Shifting mindsets can certainly be good or bad or even neutral. That said, when things get stuck or stalled, it is a good place to start.

You speak of the "absence of a robust critique of its rhetoric." I agree that this might be fun and enlightening. I would guess that it could be broadened to business rhetoric as you see similar themes and trends in the world of sales, marketing, operations, and HR.

Perhaps it is all marketing, really. The trend you cite of books with numbers - 7 Secrets, etc... Much of this is a result of publishers who see these books sell better than non numbered books. And we seem to buy them. The finite list appeals to our sense of manageability, I think. I don't think these titles presume that knowledge is bound or finite - it is more that we desire a fixed number. And I don't think the authors of these books would be so vain as to say that they are covering the whole of the topic. It's a way of chunking so that we can chew on it.

You have an interesting ribbon of thought, perhap you should dig deeper and write a book or start a blog. You could call it 10 Patterns of Management Talk. Only kidding. :-)

[Adrian Trenholm]

I think Bob has definitely got something here, and one might add that mangement books are probably that bit too reliant on success stories. We rarely get to hear about the managers who apply a technique and fail, only about those who succeed. But who needs data, when there is a good anecdote to support your argument?

To a great extent, it's all about sales. The "7 habits..." style is really a marketing trick. Writers - and if not the writers, then certainly editors and publishers - know that style of title sells, probably for all the reasons talked about above: a finite list, closure and so on.

That is not to say there is no good management writing out there, just that the economic imperatives of book publishing mean we are unlikely to see "A nuanced look at management, backed by data and examples of both positive and negative experiences" on our bookshelves any time soon.

I agree with Lisa: Bob, please start a blog. You know you want to ;-)