Re: Leadership and Personality LO2622

DwBuff@aol.com
Tue, 29 Aug 1995 23:03:41 -0400

In LO2607, Tim Smith writes..

>>As you note Clyde, it has flaws, and it has
certain value, but its perspective is out of date in a world where
resources are not centralized nor is the mission always so clear.
(By the way, I was trained in grad school by the heads of the
Army OE school at Ft. Ord, who, upon retiring, did a little
teaching along with their consulting practices)<<

Hi Tim,

Not sure why an organizations mission should not be clear. I
read some inference about clear missions not being possible
in today's world? I fear for those folks who won't spend time on
it. Tell us more where and how this can occur.

The part of military I was a member of 23 years ago was less
centralized and with a clearer mission than most of today's
organizations. From my spot as a first line supervisor to the
commander of the Army was 8 layers of people. This was so in a
HUGE organization, 23 YEARS AGO. Perhaps the fascination
with the military is that they have done and continue to do some
very right things.

In some LO circles, we ache for scenario development. For those
of us who have seen a war room, or participated in simple
military planning, we wonder why the military can do it for the
sake of learning (planning as learning) and preparation, yet
today's well-informed organizations can only laugh at those
military fools for wasting so much of their taxpayers money. Too
bad we can't force organization chiefs to spend a least a few
hours a month simply THINKING about their own behavior,
their organization's futures, people and customers. But, these org
chiefs can't waste their time doing that. They are action (elbows
and legs flailing) oriented.

>You know as well as I do that the guy out front of the platoon,
organization, household etc. is not necessarily a leader, but just
happens to be there (too often true in organizations where politics
are suited to the structure and the game is static within the
pyramid). <

You may know this but I do not. I use "out front" in a less literal
sense. As I saw the writing from Clyde, it really was that leaders are
OUT FRONT. Not necessarily physically as we might see in marching.
Not necessarily first, foremost we think of when we imagine people
who are first to talk, first to act; compulsiveness par excellence.
No, out front in the metaphorical sense, meaningful sense.

My meaning for "out front" (and in a Learning Organization) is a
person who formally or informally helps others to feel comfortable
taking a risk now and then, helps people dig out what is in them to
offer a better future for mankind, a person who says if you need to
someone to go first - I'll go; a person who is a risk taker, a person
who first offers love, truth, trust expecting nothing in return except
a recipient who felt better for the moment about what their life is, a
person ... I could go on and on.

I stay with the distinction between leader and manager. I like what
Clyde added to my thinking. I find it useful to refer to the manager
who "just happens to be there". Leadership is not appointed by
management. A leader is only anointed as such by their followers.
Being physically "out front" is only a way to tease the manager into
thinking they may have something to contribute - control of
intelligent human beings.

Have a great day and a creative life!!

--
Dave Buffenbarger
Organizational Improvement Coach
Dow Chemical Company
dwbuff@aol.com
(517) 638-7080