When it comes to leadership, people often think of some heroes and celebrities. Now the concept of leadership is closer to ordinary people. Rob Goffee, a professor of organizational behavior at London Business School, and his partner Gareth Jones studied the universal reality of leadership, rather than heroic leadership. They claim that if leaders can grasp people's hearts and thoughts, they can help them improve their performance, which is a performance of essential significance, rather than performance for performance's sake.
Godfrey and Jones introduced this brand-new business concept to more readers for the first time through their best-selling book "The Character of the Enterprise". He was also criticized for "why do people have to be led by your nose?" Published in Harvard Business Review. Why do people have to be led by your nose? ) and won the McKinsey Award. Godfrey said, "This problem has a shocking power. Many people stop to think when asked. In the past few years, this question has always made us feel excited, excited and often confused. " In the following interview, Goff and Jones talked about their views on this issue and their unique views on leadership.
Leadership comes from meaning.
You all studied sociology at the earliest. Why do you turn your energy to leadership?
Jones: We have always been interested in "true stories". To write a new book, we interviewed people from all walks of life. They include hospital nurses, Zimbabwean soldiers, school principals, globetrotters and many others who hold various positions in the company. We like the style of Studs Terkel, who is a famous American broadcasting artist and writer. If you associate with people, you will learn a lot from them. It doesn't matter where they exercise leadership, they will all become leaders.
This is different from the traditional style. When leadership was mentioned before, people thought of heroes and celebrities, but through cooperation with many companies, we have come into contact with various leaders who are good at inspiring and inspiring others. We are really interested in leaders who can successfully capture people's hearts and imagination. Godfrey and I are interested in charismatic leaders who are not bureaucratic. Although leaders with these qualities do not mean that they can be foolproof in their work, we think these qualities are very valuable.
But obviously, the effectiveness of leadership depends on some strict indicators. It's not just about attitude and personality, is it? Godfrey: Yes, leadership is a matter of success or failure. It has to be. Great leaders have considerable potential to inspire people to achieve extraordinary achievements. But leadership is not just a matter of performance, it is also related to meaning. This is very important, but it is often overlooked. Leaders at all levels have classified performance. They do this because they give some meaning to the performance.
This pursuit of meaning is becoming more and more important to society and individuals. With the acceleration of change, people are more willing to pursue something lasting and meaningful than ever before. We are more and more suspicious of this world dominated by pure role-players.
Jones: In various organizations, people are more and more clearly pursuing the meaning and cohesion provided by leaders. We can look at the hierarchy. The previous organization was hierarchical and flashy, and people's work was relatively stable, with clear boundaries between them. Now all this has changed. But the problem is that people now realize that the original hierarchy is not only a systematic coordination mechanism within the organization. More importantly, it also implies various meanings. At present, employees who are full of blood in the company have to deal with a very confused situation, that is, excessive recognition of an organization, which is not so much a profession as a problem. With the collapse of the hierarchy, the meaning behind it has disappeared, so we expect leaders to inject new meaning into our organization.
This process has been going on for some time. However, it is the corporate scandals that have occurred in recent years that have attracted worldwide attention. These scandals are the result of leaders' lack of moral restraint, which has great destructive power to the ideas on which the normal operation of our economic system depends. One of the side effects is that many top managers see through the world of mortals. If you ask them at work, "What makes your life more meaningful?" They will tell the latest platitudes of the company. But if you ask this at home, they will admit that because top managers are tired of coping with the pressure at work and abnormal family life, they generally feel that everything becomes meaningless.
What is the connection between leadership and meaning?
Goffin: If the purpose is not clearly stated, the meaning will be blurred. The purpose is clearly stated by the leader. This pursuit of credibility and leadership is quite prominent in various organizations. Ceos tell us that their most urgent need is to have more leaders in their organizations, that is, to act as their right-hand man. In the lower institutions, people either call on the leadership to enhance its charm, or, as usual, strongly hope that the leaders themselves can improve their leadership level. Honest leadership has become the most valuable asset of organizations and individuals.
Jones: These are exactly what we found when we asked others what skills they wanted to improve most. They all gave the same answer: help us become more efficient leaders. They see that the effectiveness of leadership has a great influence on their lives and organizational performance. When we asked CEOs what their biggest problem was, we got the same answer. Their answer is correct: we need more leaders at all levels of our organization.
Why is leadership in short supply?
Why is there a shortage of leaders?
Jones: We think there are two reasons. First, an organization may be eager for a leader, but its own rules and regulations stifle the leader's leadership ability. Too many organizations have become machines that destroy leadership. They either encourage people to obey the rules or ask everyone to do their job well. No organization has created conditions for leaders to work effectively.
The second reason is that our understanding of leadership is blind. Despite all the research on leadership, it is surprising that we still know very little. We are not criticizing our academic colleagues, but questioning whether the research methods we use and the basic assumptions on which many studies rely are correct.
Goffin: If you read the main works on leadership, you will find that they all focus on the characteristics of leaders. People have a serious psychological prejudice that the quality of leadership is innate. So the subtext is that leadership is what we do to others. But our view is that leadership is something we do with others. Leaders must always be regarded as the relationship between leaders and leaders. The inevitable result of this situation is that books on leadership should always find solutions to how to lead well. They listed a long list of leadership skills and characteristics. Anyone who reads these books will be disappointed. Because reading Jack Welch's book won't make you Welch.
In your opinion, is there really no universal leadership trait?
Jones: We think so. What is useful to one leader may not be useful to other leaders. If you want to be a leader, you need to find out what qualities you can bring into play in a leadership environment.
Do you mean that a person needs to know himself thoroughly to be a good leader?
Jones: This is what many modern articles and books on leadership suggest. However, none of the leaders we have talked about or cooperated with fully understand themselves, although they have a lot of emotional intelligence, which is undoubtedly very useful. Life and leadership should not be like this.
Godfrey: What they can do is to be full of strategic goals and fully understand their leadership potential. They don't know everything, but if they know enough, they can stop. Jones: This may sound a little too practical, but it is actually based on the recognition of three basic accepted statements about leadership. The first view is that the quality of leadership depends on conditions. The requirements for leaders are always influenced by specific and different conditions and environments. Think about "9? It is not difficult to understand Rudy Giuliani's situation after the 1 1 "terrorist attack. In the organization, those bold and high-level managers who turn the tide are often unable to command the three armed forces in the face of the need to get married and start a business.
Our second point is that the quality of leadership has nothing to do with status. Climbing to the top of an organization doesn't mean you are a good leader. Status itself is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for mastering leadership.
Goffin: You might say that certain qualities can make you a leader of a large organization, but they obviously have nothing to do with your leadership skills. People may climb to the highest position of power, not because they have real leadership qualities, but because of various reasons, including political acumen, personal ambition, qualifications and even nepotism.
So leadership is not the privilege of a few people.
Godfrey: Yes. Excellent organizations have good leaders at all levels. Successful organizations, whether hospitals, charities or enterprises, strive to extensively cultivate leadership skills and give people opportunities to exercise their leadership. Jones: Our third point about leadership is that the quality of leadership is related to others. Simply put, you can't be a good leader without the support of others. Leadership is a bilateral relationship between the leader and the led. This kind of network is very fragile and needs to be recreated constantly.
This is not to say that everything is peaceful in this relationship. That's not true. There may be some tension in some relationships, but this is because determined leaders know how to motivate their supporters to make outstanding achievements.
Leadership is moderate obedience.
On a very practical level, what does your opinion mean to those who are ambitious in their pursuit of leadership? What do they need to know and do?
Jones: The answer is simple: To be a more efficient leader, you must keep yourself more and use some skills.
First of all, to be a good leader, you must keep yourself. See how Sir Richard Branson, the boss of Virgin, uses his gfd (casual clothes, long hair and beard) to convey the idea of relaxation, harmony and unconventional. This concept has become Branson's main leadership style and Viking brand. Followers want someone's leadership and don't want to be dominated by any role or position holder or bureaucracy.
The leaders we study are very good at taking advantage of their differences by attracting followers. Branson's uniqueness conveys a message to people. His differences are real, not artificial, and obvious to all. So what we are talking about now is not personal characteristics, but an artistic and credible personality display, which is often achieved after years of practice. These personalities are likely to inspire others.
Goff: The connection between self-knowledge and self-presentation is the core and starting point of understanding effective leadership. But that's not all. Leaders must also protect themselves according to the environment. Great leaders can interpret a certain environment and take corresponding countermeasures. They are good at using existing resources and bringing more things to one side. According to the management, it is value-added. This requires a subtle combination of credibility and adaptability, personality and compliance.
The characteristic of efficient leaders is that they don't simply deal with the environment, but influence and change the environment through moderate compliance. This is a question of skill. It requires leaders to know when and where to comply. Without these two skills, leaders are unlikely to survive or establish the connections they need and successfully establish various relationships with others. In order to implement effective management, leaders need to ensure that their behavior is consistent with corporate culture enough to generate some traction, otherwise their wheels can only idle and cannot drive the people below. Can you explain in detail what "moderate compliance" means?
Goff: Leaders who can successfully change organizations will challenge conventions and customs, but rarely completely deny them and immediately overthrow them. If they don't understand the organizational environment and situation, they won't immediately fight against tradition. That's true. If you want to be stable (especially in the initial stage), you need to adapt to the established social relations and networks to some extent. If we want to implement changes, leaders, as members of the team, must first get the most basic recognition. In addition, the principles of early survival and long-term successful measures are rarely the same.
Jones: If you look at the business world, no matter the specific environment of the organization, many people have new bosses. Sometimes, they will get short-term benefits, but in the long run, sustainable change requires leaders to understand the organizational environment and be able to take advantage of this situation. Only by doing this can they have the prestige to inspire change and ensure greater success. If we ignore this point, the result will be disastrous. Think about it. There are many leaders who are indiscriminate and blindly reduce their staff. Obviously, they can't achieve long-term changes.
Goffin: The question here is, who can understand the organization well and how can they cultivate this skill? Obviously, some leaders instinctively have the ability to assess the situation mainly by virtue of battle-hardened experience. They already have the wisdom that they can't distinguish right from wrong, or even guide intervention according to the script. But in terms of organizational relations, are there some general principles that may have a certain impact on the possibility of change? We think so. According to our consulting experience, many people are looking for a model to improve their insight into the environment.
We have developed our own way of understanding the organizational environment. This method is based on treating the organization as a community. Our cognitive model is greatly influenced by classical sociology, which holds that organizations have two major cultural relations: social relations and aggregation relations. Social relationship mainly refers to the emotional relationship between individuals, who generally regard each other as friends. They often share their ideas and values and treat each other as equals. The core of social relations is that both sides pay attention to the relationship itself. This relationship is often established through face-to-face contact, but it can also be maintained through other communication methods. It is characterized by strong mutual assistance and no additional conditions.
On the contrary, aggregation is a cooperative relationship between individuals and teams to complete a certain task. This relationship does not depend on close friendship, even mutual understanding, nor does it need lasting development. It is only because both sides believe that their interests are the same, and once the interests are formed, the aggregate relationship can produce strong cohesion.
Although it seems abstract to talk about these things, social relations and aggregate relations can actually be seen everywhere around us: our families, sports teams, social clubs and communities, and so on. It is said that it is this universality that first attracted the attention of early sociologists. In fact, all of us will be involved in these relationships and affected by them. For example, who can say what an ideal family is? Usually, they will tell you that the ideal family should respect and care for each other among family members, which is the component of social relations. In difficult times, family members should be twisted into a rope, that is, an aggregate relationship.
There are many opposites and contradictions at work here. Do leaders need to be super sensitive?
Jones: Yes, there are many opposites: leaders must show their strengths, but at the same time expose their weaknesses; Not only must you have personality, but you must also follow the rules; It is necessary to establish intimate relationships and keep a distance. Managing these opposites is the core of successful leadership.
It's quite difficult. So will it be easier to imitate Welch?
Goffin: The problem is that what works for Welch may not work for you, even if it is possible. According to our experience, it is not enough to really motivate employees to do one or two of the things we talked about last time. Only when these factors interact and with the help of observing the situation can great leaders find the right style at the right time. In other words, every leader is a maverick.
Jones: It is particularly difficult to be an excellent leader. It is meaningless to pretend that the leadership style is simple and clear. Anyone who has been a leader will tell you that being a leader is a very complicated, difficult and full of personal risks. Obviously, not everyone can be a leader, and many talented people are just not interested in taking leadership responsibilities. If everyone has the pure energy, motivation and will needed to inspire the world, it is nonsense. We believe that everyone has their own characteristics, which may be used in leadership roles. Therefore, each of us should answer such a straightforward question: Do we want functions? If so, how many characteristics do we need to use in leadership work and make necessary sacrifices?
Godfrey: If you take a leadership role, you must ask, "Why do others want to be led by you? Why should we let you lead? " Effective leaders must answer these questions in their daily words and deeds. Otherwise, there will be a shortage of leaders, because their leadership style has fatal defects.