By Robert J. (Bob) Reid
Is there a relationship between leadership and power or one’s position within an organization? It has been said that power is the ability to exercise influence while authority is the right to do so. This would seem to suggest that power and authority are different topics, possibly different capacities. So, are genuine leaders inherently powerful people? Often, people are thought to be good leaders if they are able to influence people to follow them. What about positional power? Does leadership come from those out-front, from behind, or in a side-by-side concept such as often observed in team sports?
Having “led” many turnarounds on troubled or failed healthcare organizations, I learned a great deal about effective and sustainable leadership in settings where others were much better prepared to contribute to strategy than their “leader.” These were remarkable experiences where I learned that leadership is often shared. Being humble consistent with genuine, but significant limitations, important dimensions of leadership became apparent in ways that might not otherwise have been obvious. What follows are observations about leadership derived from multiple turnaround experiences. These lessons came from many of the people I “led,” who taught me much.
Jack Welch was rightfully thought a brilliant business strategist, but to what effect would his acumen have been without his ability to attract and influence people who follow. Not all leaders are great strategists nor all great strategists are necessarily effective leaders. Yet, the capacity of leadership would seem reasonably dependent upon the existence of people who, and their willingness to, follow. Can people with significant leadership skill overcome other functional knowledge deficiencies and limited ability to shape effective strategy? Can followers contribute strategy needed to enable effective leadership? Is the contribution of strategy from organizational members an example of leading from behind, thereby a shared experience of leadership?
Another interesting question is the where power that fuels leadership actually derives. If leaders need followers, is it possible that followers can influence the power leaders wield? I would argue that power is actually deferred upon leaders by followers. This raises important questions about the source and nature of power in leadership. Is leadership power deferential and temporal? If authority is not necessarily the same thing as power, is it reasonable that people markedly influential in organizations can fall short of occupying positions of genuine authority? Such people may defer power to organizational leaders so long as such leaders remain relevant and credible. Can they subsequently rescind power deference? If so, does this support the notion of temporal power? Do followers revolt against ineffective leadership by merely withholding their engagement, deferential sharing of power?
Effective leadership would seem to require ability to exercise influence over followers. In contrast to iconic business leaders such as Jack Welch or Steve Jobs, possession of leadership ability does not necessarily coexist with business acumen, ability to anticipate new markets, or ability to create effective strategy. History is full of examples of people with considerable leadership capability who lacked capacity for developing effective strategy. When leaders fall short of delivering beneficial influence and/or lose personal credibility, will they progressively lose the power derived from followers, disrupting their leadership dynamics?
It seems that truly effective leaders understand the temporal and deferential nature of the power they occupy, as well as their personal limitations. Sustainable leadership would then necessarily share power, actively engage and encourage organizational members to contribute knowledge, skill and strategy. Effective leaders often possess sufficient humility to empower others to contribute meaningfully toward the greater good of their organizations. Leaders are not necessarily the smartest people in an organization – they may often not serve such a role. Awareness of this simple fact is typically facilitated by personal character including a utilitarian-inspired basis of humility. After all, the capability of an organization is the sum of knowledge, skill and talent focused in a fashion that responds to an organization’s purpose, desires and objectives.
Leaders contribute organizational coherence and context in inspiring and soliciting relevant member contributions and when encouraging collective efforts channeled toward desired outcomes. In doing so, leaders catalyze a sense of organizational purpose, ambition, and culture. These seem genuine leadership functions. Thus, real leaders lead flexibly from out-front, behind the scenes, or side-by-side. Sustainable leadership is far more complex than simply outsmarting a market or colleagues. Real leaders must know their limitations, but be unwilling to allow their organizations to be constrained by them. They understand that leadership is a form of service to others, not a state of privilege or rite of passage. Further, leaders understand that the power they may occupy is deferred upon them and conditionally temporal. In the end, sustainable leaders share power effectively with organizational members in an intentional, flexible and prudent fashion. Hence, sustainable leadership seems reciprocal with followers.
