Publications
Partners
RODRIQUEZ sings: "I wonder". sometimes I wonder too. About leadership.
Leadership is the most widely abused concept. It is blamed for both failures and successes over history, depending on the author's arguments at the time.
Every author coins a new "type" of leadership which is sold as the latest elixir to problems. We see them everywhere: African leadership, transformational leadership and more junk.
Driven by the money made by consultants, authors and experts selling techniques to influence, direct and motivate followers, abuse continues.
Thus, if you want to know your performance as leader, just ask for a 360 evaluation to tell you how good you are.
Unfortunately, the result is rarely useful in anticipation of the next fad that will make you a better leader. All of this depends on the assumption that leadership is vested in a person.
Leadership measurement is further generally inaccurate and indistinguishable from management and entrepreneurial characteristics. Research has shown leadership has no specific task different from or unique to management.
I argue that leadership cannot be measured in the person. The fundamental assumption is wrong. Leadership depends on the "situation".
So, it requires measurement of the situation. How has the situation been improved (by the so-called leader)? Thus, leadership can only be measured retrospectively by judging a past or current situation.
To do this, the leader does not have to motivate, influence or direct people. His influence focuses on the situation. He or she influences, not the people, but the situation.
Then, if the people like the situation, they follow (support) it, not the leader. This is a 25-century old principle described by Confucius and Mencius.
Fundamentally, people choose to follow the situation, not the leader. There is free choice to follow or not. The situation persuades for participation.
Case in point (over-simplified): I am part of a cycling club. Many members complained about the riding activities. One fellow decided to start his own informal riding group.
Cyclists who heard of it can participate if they want to; they join the rides, see if they like it and then make a choice. So I say, he created a situation - if people like the situation, they join in.
He does not have to motivate anyone to participate. If they don't like it, they leave. It's their choice all the time.
People make suggestions and participate because the situation allows for it. Unknowingly, they become participants in the situation rather than an audience that look from a distance to the "leader" for performance.
When the fellow is not around, others stand in to preserve the situation.
I ask you then, what situation has your "leader" left behind? Or, what are you as a leader leaving behind?
To measure if the situation improved in business for example, we need a measurement tool that can appropriately measure the difference in the before and after situation.
It could include aspects such as economic, social, moral, contextual and other appropriate aspects of the situation.
Typically the weights of the factors will contribute differently, depending on whether the situations occur in a political, business or social context.
Example: closer to home, let's start at the top. Can we say President Jacob Zuma is a poor leader? Or should we look at the ANC, with Zuma merely a figurehead?
Two scenarios
Both ways, we at least can evaluate the last four years, seeing that we need to do it retrospectively (if we use the ANC, it is since 1994).
Based on what our status is now compared to four years ago, there are two scenarios I have seen lately.
Scenario 1: As a mountain biker, I observe places around the area where I live in Gauteng. Shacks go up weekly, no services, potholes, crime's up, costs are up, employment is down, strikes are up, corruption up, poverty up and and and - no need to elaborate.
By the way, I don't cycle on toll roads. People are generally gatvol of the local government and general service provision. Who wants to follow this situation? Are there willing followers?
Scenario 2: This week, however, I have been cycling in Pondoland on the KawZulu-Natal south coast. Little crime, friendly people, no subsistence farming any more, children on their way to schools mostly have cellphones. Corruption slowly creeping in.
My informant and guide tells me since social grants, pensions and child grants, there is no more real poverty. That explains the "no farming" (barring cattle). I see no shacks and people even wear English soccer club shirts.
I see three different churches within a 200 metre radius. I can see why people stay here as the cost of living is low while all the basic needs seem satisfied.
Final question: is it Zuma or the ANC we should look at? Which situation was created by whom?
Do you want to be part of it - willingly?
- Fin24
*Dr Marius Pretorius is professor - business rescue, strategy and leadership at the Department of Business Management, University of Pretoria. Views expressed are his own.
Leadership is the most widely abused concept. It is blamed for both failures and successes over history, depending on the author's arguments at the time.
Every author coins a new "type" of leadership which is sold as the latest elixir to problems. We see them everywhere: African leadership, transformational leadership and more junk.
Driven by the money made by consultants, authors and experts selling techniques to influence, direct and motivate followers, abuse continues.
Thus, if you want to know your performance as leader, just ask for a 360 evaluation to tell you how good you are.
Unfortunately, the result is rarely useful in anticipation of the next fad that will make you a better leader. All of this depends on the assumption that leadership is vested in a person.
Leadership measurement is further generally inaccurate and indistinguishable from management and entrepreneurial characteristics. Research has shown leadership has no specific task different from or unique to management.
I argue that leadership cannot be measured in the person. The fundamental assumption is wrong. Leadership depends on the "situation".
So, it requires measurement of the situation. How has the situation been improved (by the so-called leader)? Thus, leadership can only be measured retrospectively by judging a past or current situation.
To do this, the leader does not have to motivate, influence or direct people. His influence focuses on the situation. He or she influences, not the people, but the situation.
Then, if the people like the situation, they follow (support) it, not the leader. This is a 25-century old principle described by Confucius and Mencius.
Fundamentally, people choose to follow the situation, not the leader. There is free choice to follow or not. The situation persuades for participation.
Case in point (over-simplified): I am part of a cycling club. Many members complained about the riding activities. One fellow decided to start his own informal riding group.
Cyclists who heard of it can participate if they want to; they join the rides, see if they like it and then make a choice. So I say, he created a situation - if people like the situation, they join in.
He does not have to motivate anyone to participate. If they don't like it, they leave. It's their choice all the time.
People make suggestions and participate because the situation allows for it. Unknowingly, they become participants in the situation rather than an audience that look from a distance to the "leader" for performance.
When the fellow is not around, others stand in to preserve the situation.
I ask you then, what situation has your "leader" left behind? Or, what are you as a leader leaving behind?
To measure if the situation improved in business for example, we need a measurement tool that can appropriately measure the difference in the before and after situation.
It could include aspects such as economic, social, moral, contextual and other appropriate aspects of the situation.
Typically the weights of the factors will contribute differently, depending on whether the situations occur in a political, business or social context.
Example: closer to home, let's start at the top. Can we say President Jacob Zuma is a poor leader? Or should we look at the ANC, with Zuma merely a figurehead?
Two scenarios
Both ways, we at least can evaluate the last four years, seeing that we need to do it retrospectively (if we use the ANC, it is since 1994).
Based on what our status is now compared to four years ago, there are two scenarios I have seen lately.
Scenario 1: As a mountain biker, I observe places around the area where I live in Gauteng. Shacks go up weekly, no services, potholes, crime's up, costs are up, employment is down, strikes are up, corruption up, poverty up and and and - no need to elaborate.
By the way, I don't cycle on toll roads. People are generally gatvol of the local government and general service provision. Who wants to follow this situation? Are there willing followers?
Scenario 2: This week, however, I have been cycling in Pondoland on the KawZulu-Natal south coast. Little crime, friendly people, no subsistence farming any more, children on their way to schools mostly have cellphones. Corruption slowly creeping in.
My informant and guide tells me since social grants, pensions and child grants, there is no more real poverty. That explains the "no farming" (barring cattle). I see no shacks and people even wear English soccer club shirts.
I see three different churches within a 200 metre radius. I can see why people stay here as the cost of living is low while all the basic needs seem satisfied.
Final question: is it Zuma or the ANC we should look at? Which situation was created by whom?
Do you want to be part of it - willingly?
- Fin24
*Dr Marius Pretorius is professor - business rescue, strategy and leadership at the Department of Business Management, University of Pretoria. Views expressed are his own.
