One of the interesting outcomes I’ve observed when engaging truly thoughtful people in the process of understanding the role of a leader and the commitment required for success, is that some people decide it’s not a good fit.
They decide to become great followers instead of great leaders. And they feel relieved.
We Tend to Make Saying “No to Leadership” Difficult:
I’ve learned from a number of individuals who walked to the edge of the leadership path and then turned back, that we often make it difficult for them to say, “no.”
- There’s pressure inside organizations to show growth and increase contribution by taking on formal leadership responsibilities.
- Yes, there are still working environments where the only way to increased financial reward is through directly managing others.
- In our zeal for the support and development of great leaders, we (existing leaders, leadership writers etc.) tend to mythologize the role of the leader and position it as an aspirational goal for everyone. Leadership is built up to be the noble end-goal, while the decision to not pursue a leadership life is to carry a negative connotation…a kind of Scarlett Letter that brands the individual for everyone to see.
Three Key Reminders for All of Us:
1. Not everyone should lead. Some people lack the skills and appropriate intelligences (social and emotional) to lead. Others simply want to cultivate their skills in an area they are passionate about, and a voluntary or forced decision to move away from that passion is like a prison sentence. As a promoting manager, it’s your job to help assess all of these issues. Don’t force people into unnatural roles.
2. More money is a lousy motivation to lead. Do I really have to explain this one? For those of you working in firms where the compensations structure was defined in the 1950’s, it’s time to start pushing for something that eliminates the dollar need and greed as motivation to pursue a leadership role. Start with a dual-track system that supports professional and financial development for leaders and individual contributors.
3. Great leaders require great followers. You don’t win championships in sports without critical role players, and you don’t win in the business world without people committed to working and contributing according to their strengths.
The Bottom-Line for Now:
Perhaps it’s time to start offering “followership” training and mentoring along with all of our leadership offerings. Kudos to those who decide that leading is not for them. No more unnatural acts, please. It’s OK not to lead.
Only differ on one point, Art. I think EVERYONE should set their mind to behave in ways that merit others looking at them and imagine them as a leader. If we allow people to cop out developing this critical skill we do our organizations a disservice. Not everyone will get the call to lead, but I would not hire anyone that was not constantly training for the call. Thanks! Bret
Bret, thanks for jumping in here. I’m on record in about 5,784 posts (or something like that) about the fact that we all need to cultivate these skills. They are essential for success and survival, so in that we are agreed. This post..or at least my intent with this post is very separate and distinct from the issue you describe. I’m laser focused on a critical life and career choice and the process of reaching this decision. In several current cases, the individuals have truly agonized over this topic. Just the process alone of exploring this and coming to a tough decision in the face of external pressure, shows me these individuals are functioning with good, clear leadership minds! Best, -Art
Art,
your post comes at an opportune moment for me. I happened to spend a couple of hours over the weekend at a presentation by Warren Bennis. One of the things he discussed was that when he started his career, he wanted to be a University President. He became president of the University of NY at Buffalo and then president of the University of Cincinnati. While he was president/provost of U of C, he realized that “being” president wasn’t what he wanted to “do”.
One of the insights he and Stephen Sample wrote about was that many people mix up “being” with “doing”. One of the first requirements for leadership is to really want it, to want it more than anything else. That begs the question, is it the being that you want or the doing?
If it’s the being that someone wants, it’s probably good advice to avoid that person. If it’s the doing that someone wants, whether they become a leader or famous or anything else is immaterial, they’ll probably be successful and help the people around them.
If you are doing something you really enjoy, many other things might occur that might make you a leader. Fate, luck, God and hard work all need to intervene to make that person a leader – and they have to really want it, but it doesn’t matter. If you’re doing what you enjoy, that’s what really counts. Maybe you become a leader, maybe you become famous, but does any of that matter?
Personally, I’ve seen many people make themselves miserable wanting to “be” something – a leader; much more productive to focus on the doing and not worry about “being” – methinks.
Andrew, what a great opportunity to see/hear Warren Bennis! I’m insanely jealous. You didn’t invite me, because… ? : )
Thoughtful and thought-provoking comment as always! And next time, remember your leadership blogging friend back here!
Best, -Art
Art – This is a good point. I know for me I have been raised to always strive for the top. If I wanted to be a nurse my mom would say well you can be a doctor instead. Or she still tells me, you can be a CEO of a company, even though I don’t want to do that. So it’s really ingrained in our cultural beliefs. I think for someone to recognize where their strengths are and not always try to go down the path defined by our society or culture – it’s very hard. These people have to have a strong internal locus of control and be high self-monitoring to know their limitations and to say no and be ok with the outcome. I highly commend their decisions because I understand the difficulty of coming to those conclusions. Thanks, Kira
Kira, I look forward to your comments on every post. Well said! -Art
Art, Thanks for a great post. I agree that the aspiration for leadership as a position is not always desired. Some people don’t want to be managers or supervise the people doing the work. They enjoy the work.
However almost all of those people want to be outstanding or remarkable. They want to lead, just not to manage or supervise people. They want to exercise leadership as influence and many want to maximize their contribution if for not other reason than to make more money. They just don’t want positional leadership that requires them to serve others and the responsibilities that come with that.
Organizations need to create career paths for people who “do the work” so that they can keep growing without becoming a people manager. Otherwise, they can expect their best talent to go stale and eventually even get crusty.
Mike…
Mike, well said! While I seemed to have struck a chord with a few folks here on leaving out the need to “lead” in a broader sense, I was truly focusing on the people resisting the pressure to lead others from a supervisory sense. As always, Mike, you have a great way of making your points! Well said in particular on the need for dual career paths! Thanks for commenting. Best, -Art
I’m sort of halfway in between. I agree with Bret that EVERYONE should work to cultivate those skills…but I sincerely agree that not everyone should lead. I think we’re getting into a lot of trouble pouring leadership training down the throat of everyone. It is not the cure-all some snake oil salesman proclaim it to be.
David, thanks as always for reading and commenting. I’m sticking with my theme of perhaps we need more followership training. Sounds like another blog post brewing on this topic! Best, -Art
Hi Art,
I agree with you that not everyone should be in a leadership position. However, unfortunately, in most corporations, there’s only one way to advance – and that’s into a management position. The motivation to move into management is not just the increase in pay, which is significant, but also the opportunity for growth and professional advancement. The reality is, there’s nowhere to move, unless it’s up.
Over the years, I’ve seen a lot of bright people move into management who had absolutely no desire to be a leader, simply because there were no other options for reward and advancement. Remaining a follower wasn’t a choice.
Some innovative companies have designed career options that don’t force people into management. But they are few and far between. The challenge is not just for the individual to choose the right path, but also for companies to provide a viable path. Otherwise, they will promote people without the aptitude or appetite required to successful guide the organization.
Jesse, in moments of wishful thinking I look forward to the demise of micro-managing bosses and single track compensation systems. I agree the systems are still in place (as unfortunately are too many micro-managing bosses!), and everyone in those organizations should be screaming about this. In a tough economy however, outrage tends to remain silent. I’ve had the good fortune of working to eradicate the single-track in two businesses, and we at least gave our managers the tools the needed to help people pursue roles they were truly interested in filling.
Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us! Best, -Art
Great post Art! For some, choosing not to assume a leadership role is leading. Like every organization must accurately assess their capabilities, so must individuals. Often times, people assume, due to the pressure from our business structure, that they have to be a leader in order to succeed. Additionally, followers have been very under-valued and our society is not publicly reflecting the importance of the supporting role. Thanks for the post!
Well said Art, and a good message. Although, I think Mike Henry Sr. really touched on an aspect of the message I would like to explore. I see a firm assumption that being on the management team means that one is on the leadership team, and really mostly what I see is the opposite. Meaning managers are not leaders.
Management seems focused on holding the status quo, keeping things steady, in-line with established policy, and ensuring chaos is held to an acceptable level. That is great, we need that role, but mostly they don’t lead the organization anywhere, and to your point Art don’t have the talent to lead. They mange, and because they manage well, they continue up the management ranks, providing faux leadership.
Once the administrative role of management stops being equated to leadership that should drive a new corporate structure that does not force people into positions that are not a good match for their skills. Allowing leaders, followers, and managers to live happy separate corporate lives.
Thanks for the post Art!
[…] It’s not on exactly the same theme, but you should also read Art Petty’s “When Leading is an Unnatural Act” where he addresses how a potential manager can decide if leadership is the right […]