Leadership and Conversation: The Sixth Discipline
I once heard 'conversation' described as the 'Sixth Discipline' - a reference to Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline - implying that conversation is the great secret, ignored discipine that managers and leaders need to get better at, and fast. I absolutely agree.
Manager's spend 63-69% of their day in conversation (I've got a reference for that somewhere. I'll find it. Ah, here it is: "The essential action of leaders and managers occur almost entirely in conversations...If we could develop a foundation discipline based on conversation, it might become the much sought-after sixth discipline." - Synan and Black, writing in the magazine Accountancy Age, building on the thinking of Australian management thinker Alan Sieler, Chile's Fernando Flores and others).
Anyway, George Ambler, over in his Practice of Leadership blog, wrote a terrific post encapsulating this subject this week:
Shaping Conversation As a Leadership Practice
Conversation is an important part of effective leadership and change for the following reasons:
- Vision must be shared, before it can be lived… this requires conversation.
- Change is underpinned by conversation. Organisations change, when people change…. and … people change one conversation at a time…..
- Employee engagement is driven by meaning and purpose… this requires conversation.
- Execution requires alignment of action…. this requires conversation.
Read more of George's post here: The Practice of Leadership
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo- PhilDourado's blog
- Login or register to post comments
And into dialogue
Conversation is indeed important.
My grandmother was an inspiration as she struggled patiently to understand the younger generation. We had different values and interests, yet she was always curious and accepting of those differences.
Closely related is dialogue, particularly in the Bohm sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue
I've used this principle in communication training to great effect. When judgment is removed from conversation, it can soar to another level.
:D
Leadership - Other Issues
Dear David,
This query or thought is not particulary pertaining to the above post. If one were to really distill most of the leadership attributes, it boils down to saying that a leader needs to be good 'Human Being' and history has shown that these leaders are still respected and followed. If that were the case, then why is it that the present day 'leaders' in the political and religious space are leading their people to fight and kill? and they also seem to have huge followers! So, are all these leadership principles more diplayed and applicable only in the corporate domain? I seek your thoughts on this one.
Rajesh Krishnan
Following
A simply good distillation, Rajesh.
Leaders have followers. And I won't follow anyone I think is bad. Still, it does seem to happen, from the Hitlers of the world to gangs at school. Followers of 'bad' leaders sometimes do so out of fear and sometime because they are bad too.
Perhaps there's something about values. I will follow someone who has similar values to me or those which I respect. If I had criminal values, then perhaps I'd follow another criminal.
:D
Exactly. People follow
Exactly.
People follow freely out of common ground or perceived reward.
Our opinions on "good" and "bad" are just that; opinions. As they say everybody has them. These values are what we project onto things rather than being innate properties of things/people.
As easy as it is for one person to say "leader x" is bad so i won't follow him, it is just as easy for the next to say the opposite.
There then of course the effects of group dynamics.
"People hardly ever make use of the freedom the have. For example, the freedom of thought. Instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation."
Soren Kierkegaard
Leader & followers
I think your mixing good leaders with persons with the ability to persuade individual or groups and build a following thus making themselves a leader. They are able to do this by pointing to specific issues and slowly manipulating the group and if the group doesn’t exercise their freedom of thought and actions you get a leader like Hitler. You see that again in religious leaders and political ones as well. We forget that a leader is not a leader unless we allow them to lead and if a chosen leader looks to control open education, communication and freedom of thought the follows must question and respond accordingly. This same behavior occurs in business and we may change employers if we see we can not change the direction and the current direction opposes our beliefs.
Leaders
A leader is one who leads by example rather than coercion. He/she loves their staff, has a clear vision of the goals or outcomes to which they are tasked, develops teams and offers guidance rather than force in achieving outcomes. To be allowed to lead is a privilege and a weighty responsibility. To lead effectively takes self-discipline, polished organizational skills, plenty of empathy, and a profound appreciation and deep respect for the gifts others bring to a project.
Robert Wawee
University of Houston Downtown
Cell: 281-704-4151
Email: rwawee@gmail.com
The construction of good and evil
What is 'good'? Does it exist in the forest when nobody is there? Is it 'good' that the owl kills the mouse? I guess it depends on your viewpoint.
Good is a human construction and has a lot to do with values. If something aligns with my values, with what I think is right, then I call it good. And vice versa.
A common construction of good and bad has to do with selflessness and selfishness. Yet self-sacrifice can also be seen as foolishness.
And what is evil? The same principle applies, though perhaps in a more extreme way. Evil, as we make it, is perhaps where selfishness crosses into not only lack of care for others but delight in their discomfort. Power has something to say her, in the corruption that can lead to evil. Perhaps Hitler did start with good intent, as did many cult leaders, caring more about others. But when you are hailed as a great leader it can too go to your head and the fruit there rots.
It's a tricky subject and all the more messy as much happens in the infathomable depths of the subconscious.
Dave
On good leaders and 'Good' leaders
Absolutely, David. A key area where we tend to get muddy is the two definitions of the word 'good' (and the two definitions of 'bad'), which we tend to slip and slide between.
There are two meanings to the question "Was Hitler a good leader?" as there are two meanings to the question "Was Hitler a bad leader?"
Was he 'good' as in 'effective'? Well, unfortunately, yes. (Though before other ex-historians start slinging statistics at me, I know he never got more than a third of the popular vote when it was a free vote, so in that sense you can't measure who 'followed' out of loyalty and who 'followed' out of fear or no choice...and my son just stuck his head around the door and said 'Yeah, and his handling of the economy wasn't all it was cracked up to be, either, if you look closely enough...'Even so...he was, unfortunately, effective in a lot of areas).
Was he 'Good' as in morally so? Of course not. But evil leaders - however you define it - rarely think of themselves as evil.
Barbara Kellerman, who has spent a lot of time studying 'bad' leadership of both kinds, says "Even the word 'leadership' is assumed to be good...I do not assume that. I assume it is a functional term...the academic world has not spent enough time studying bad leadership."
good point phil, i tend to
good point phil,
i tend to only look at leadership as what you quoted as a functional term. I forget sometimes to account for when people look at it emotionally or morally.
"People hardly ever make use of the freedom the have. For example, the freedom of thought. Instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation."
Soren Kierkegaard