Strategic CIO // IT Strategy
Commentary
7/3/2014
09:06 AM
David Wagner
David Wagner
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Our Definitions Of Leadership Are Mostly Wrong

We don't have enough strong leaders. No wonder. We can't even define the term.

Business technology sites such as this one have long exhorted CIOs to take on a bigger leadership role in their companies. It's a capital idea except for one problem: No one seems to know what the heck leadership is.

There are more leadership quotes, definitions, and explanations than there are strong leaders. Before we settle on a good one, let's examine why so many of them are wrong in the first place.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines leadership as "the action of leading a group or people in an organization." No help there -- what's the definition of lead? The OED says it means to "be in charge or command of."

I'm pretty sure 21st century business leaders will find that definition lacking. Simply being in charge of something doesn't make you a leader.

Let's turn to one of the great leadership gurus of the 20th century, Peter Drucker, one of the founding fathers of management literature and theory. Drucker said: "The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers."

OK, but there's an obvious problem with that definition, and it's one we're going to see repeated again and again: It relies on knowledge after the fact. A successful leader does draw followers. A bad one loses them. It's easy to call Eisenhower a good leader, because he led an Allied victory in World War II and went on to get elected President. That's a lot of followers. But there was a moment before Eisenhower had followers where he had leadership potential, a set of skills and knowledge that would turn him into an effective leader. The trick is to find and cultivate leadership before it becomes obvious.

Consider a few other famous quotes on leadership:

The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it. – Theodore Roosevelt

Leadership is influence -- nothing more, nothing less. – John Maxwell, author of more than 60 books, mostly on leadership

Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership. – Gen. Colin Powell

All these definitions have something in common: They don't tell people how to lead. They just describe it after the fact. A leader picks "good men." Great, how do you identify them? Presumably after the good men do their good job. "Leadership is influence." Great, how does one exert influence before he or she is a known leader, or measure the impact of influence until after the job is done? "Leaders stop being leaders when their people don't ask them for help anymore." OK, so at what point did the leader stop being a leader? Clearly, somewhere before all the failure. It just took everyone awhile to notice.

[Wars require leaders -- and technology. View our slideshow: 7 Surprising Technologies From World War I.]

Let me share one more long definition of leadership, from one of America's great writers, David Foster Wallace. For me, this is the Platonic bad definition of leadership:

The weird thing is that the word "leader" itself is cliche; and boring, but when you come across somebody who actually is a real leader, that person isn't cliche or boring at all; in fact he's sort of the opposite of cliche and boring.

Obviously, a real leader isn't just somebody who has ideas you agree with, nor is it just somebody you happen to believe is a good guy. Think about it. A real leader is somebody who, because of his own particular power and charisma and example, is able to inspire people, with "inspire" being used here in a serious and non-cliche way. A real leader can somehow get us to do certain things that deep down we think are good and want to be able to do but usually can't get ourselves to do on our own. It's a mysterious quality, hard to define, but we always know it when we see it, even as kids.

I'm especially unhappy with this definition because it commits the cardinal sins of so many leadership definitions: It tells no one how to lead; it assumes quality after the fact; and it assumes people are born to be leaders.

People in leadership positions like definitions such as this one because it imbues them with special and mysterious powers. It helps them maintain their power because it creates the illusion that not everyone can be a leader. You are either a born leader or not. And obviously if you have risen to a leadership position, you were born with the qualities that got you there and are therefore beyond question.

Anyone can cherry-pick bad definitions, but I think I've picked representative examples. The links I've provided offer dozens more definitions that commit many of the same sins.

What we really need is a definition that states what leadership is, how to do it, and how to see it before it's obvious the job is done.

Here's a definition that, while not perfect, offers a starting point for discussion:

Leadership is inspiring others to pursue your vision within the parameters you set, to the extent that it becomes a shared effort, a shared vision, and a shared success. – Steve Zeitchik, CEO of Focal Point Strategies

This definition implies a skill set -- having a strategic vision, communicating that vision, and knowing how to delegate. It implies success like most of the other definitions, but doesn't equate that success to the leadership itself as much as to the shared vision and effort.

Still, I'm not completely happy. Its "how to" advice is still a bit vague. And leadership doesn't come only in times of success. One only had to watch the leadership of goaltender Tim Howard during the US World Cup loss against Belgium -- and hear his modest, team-first comments after the match -- to understand that leadership can come in defeat.

But for now, it's the best definition I've found in my 10-plus years of covering leadership for a living. What's your favorite definition? How do you define leadership? What are the qualities you look for? Tell us what you think in a comment below.

Our InformationWeek Elite 100 issue -- our 26th ranking of technology innovators -- shines a spotlight on businesses that are succeeding because of their digital strategies. We take a close at look at the top five companies in this year's ranking and the eight winners of our Business Innovation awards, and offer 20 great ideas that you can use in your company. We also provide a ranked list of our Elite 100 innovators. Read our InformationWeek Elite 100 issue today.

David has been writing on business and technology for over 10 years and was most recently Managing Editor at Enterpriseefficiency.com. Before that he was an Assistant Editor at MIT Sloan Management Review, where he covered a wide range of business topics including IT, ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
kstaron
50%
50%
kstaron,
User Rank: Moderator
7/31/2014 | 2:04:13 PM
a few characteristics of a good leader
Unfortunately even the word leader has enough connotations that it's hard to define. If you are assigned a group to lead, you are a leader, but it don't make uyou a good leader or one people would naturally follow. Everyone has known an inept leader or two in their lives. no matter what the job title a leader has a certain skill set.
  • They have the ability to inspire, cajole, or demand others to do as they ask without complaint
  • They are organized enough to direct people to do small tasks that will come together as a larger whole at a given time.
  • They have enough vision to not only see the larger goal but the small steps to get there.
  • They have enough people skills to deal with energizing their people, dealing with minor disputes and inturruptions, and makingthe people want to work on their tasks.

What other characteristics of good leadership should go here?
SaneIT
50%
50%
SaneIT,
User Rank: Ninja
7/30/2014 | 7:38:43 AM
Re: Words are not enough
@SunitaT0, I'm going through this right now.  I've got a better suited to me HR staff this time though and they are looking for exactly what I asked them to look for.  The last time I was hiring I felt like I was going crazy because only a very few candidates were anything like what I was looking for.  I think that it's not just HR systems but HR personnel who shape what they think a hiring manager is asking for.
SunitaT0
50%
50%
SunitaT0,
User Rank: Moderator
7/29/2014 | 5:47:20 PM
Re: A Leader Needs Adjectives
@LUFU: Most leaders are honed by experience. Many people have many different definitions of ?what makes a good leader? but I think a leader is someone who can bring out what parameters will motivate that employee to work the fullest.
SunitaT0
50%
50%
SunitaT0,
User Rank: Moderator
7/29/2014 | 5:38:21 PM
Re: Words are not enough
@SaneIT: I?ve also had this kind of an experience. Most of the applications are passed through the HR filter which filters out talented individuals based on their surface presentations and this also makes IT leaders pretty angry. Actually the whole process of selection is pretty confusing to the company construct. There are HR rounds, there are technical rounds, and there are GD rounds you have to qualify and whatnot. I think the HR department is there because they want to find the candidate having the qualities of ?I can play along? and ?team player? because otherwise IT leaders would later complain that their teams cannot accomplish any task.
SaneIT
50%
50%
SaneIT,
User Rank: Ninja
7/11/2014 | 7:45:26 AM
Re: Words are not enough
I guess every company has their own methods.  I've worked for two very very large companies and turned down a position with another where I had an interview with a panel of IT folks two days after submitting my application.  With those companies I didn't spend much time talking to HR, just one call to verify information answer a few knockout questions and schedule the next interview.  I'm not saying that in some cases having HR more involved in the process is bad, I'm just wondering how a department head feels about filtered results. 
LUFU
50%
50%
LUFU,
User Rank: Strategist
7/10/2014 | 6:10:09 PM
Re: A Leader Needs Adjectives
@David - This is a bit related to the age-old "nature vs nurture" discourse. I believe that facets of leadership can be taught and can make some people effective leaders or managers. If not, then many of the Executive Leadership-type extension programs offered at the Stanfords, the Whartons, and Harvards would be invalidated. Leaders are not necessarily born that way but may have the inclination that can be honed by experience and training.
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Strategist
7/10/2014 | 1:10:09 PM
Re: Words are not enough
@SaneIT- I don't feel like it is right to say who one of the companies were, but let's just say it was one of the top 5 tech companies in the world. I can't say if it was universal for the whole company or just my potential poistion. I can tell you that while i think the interview went really well, they told me that the hiring folks were split and they wanted HR to give them more people to look at and keep me on the list. I politely passed for another job.

If that is stanadrd at this giant company, clealry it works for them on a macro level. But it definitely didn't work on a microlevel. 
SaneIT
50%
50%
SaneIT,
User Rank: Ninja
7/10/2014 | 7:21:41 AM
Re: Words are not enough
@David, that sounds horrible.  Even at the biggest companies I've worked for it only took one HR interview, usually over the phone before I met with the hiring manager.  I wonder how the hiring managers feel about having HR only delivering them the "top 3".  I do have HR drop some candidates before they get to me through knockout questions but if they only gave me a top 3 I'd be a bit upset.
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 3:59:02 PM
Re: A Leader Needs Adjectives
And clearly there are organizaitons who think they can teach leadership and have a track record for doing so-- the military and GE come immediately to mind.
David Wagner
50%
50%
David Wagner,
User Rank: Strategist
7/9/2014 | 3:58:24 PM
Re: A Leader Needs Adjectives
@lufu- I get that you are being entertaining with your quote. But I think there is a real problem if we settle on that. If that's the way we do it, then we can't teach it. And I believe leadership can be taught. If not literally from the ground up, at least it can be honed. 

If we settle on "we know it when we see it" it becomes much more difficult to teach. And if we can't teach it then we're stuck with the number of leaders we have which is not enough in my opinion. 
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Transformative CIOs Organize for Success
Transformative CIOs Organize for Success
Trying to meet today’s business technology needs with yesterday’s IT organizational structure is like driving a Model T at the Indy 500. Time for a reset.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest - August 27, 2014
Who wins in cloud price wars? Short answer: not IT. Enterprises don't want bare-bones IaaS. Providers must focus on support, not undercutting rivals.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.