Philosophie, Psychologie et Management
Mardi 23 octobre 2007
I would like today to demonstrate that leadership is a relationship that cannot be reduced to one person (the leader) or to any of his or her personal qualities.
More generally, the human person does not exist without the group since the herd existed before homo sapiens came into being but this is another and more engaging matter that would deserve a lot
more than this short essay.
Let’s imagine an isolated tribe somewhere in rainforest, with very limited contact with the outside world, surviving only by hunting (men) and gathering (women). In these primitive societies, how good you are as a hunter defines largely your status and importance within the group of men; let’s assume in this case that to be recognised as a leader in such a tribe, you have to be a good hunter. One member of this tribe is actually a very poor hunter; where most men take one day to hunt and kill a given animal, this one takes two days because he runs slowly, has difficulties to read the animal’s footprints, has a poor hearing sense, etc. He is consequently very poorly regarded by the other tribe members and other men are not inclined to hunting with him; because of that he usually hunts alone for days before being able to get back to the village with a decent capture. No way this man is ever going to be a leader of that tribe.
Now let’s assume that you and I, while flying over the tribe’s territory on a light aircraft, have to make a crash landing in the forest. We survive the crash thanks to the thickness of the canopy but everything else is destroyed or unworkable. No radio, no satellite phone, no water, no food, no compass and no idea of where to go. The forest is full of dangers and ways to feed ourselves but are totally oblivious to all that because this environment is entirely foreign and new to us. We only know our chances to survive are very slim and our hopes entirely rely on someone noticing our crash and somehow taking us back to ‘civilisation’. As we gather our senses after the crash, the lone derided hunter approaches us and makes himself visible after having understood that we pose no danger to him. He also understands that we need assistance, being vaguely aware of these people from far away who visit the tribe from time to time but do not understand at all how to survive in the forest. He is ready to help and wants to take us somewhere he knows are other people like us, at a few days walking distance. We have no way to communicate verbally with him but we understand from his body language that he wants us to follow him. And so we start walking behind him, having no idea of where he is taking us or how long it will take to get there.
For the two of us, this man is going to be the greatest leader of our lives so far because we believe he can save us. Our communication with him is extremely limited, we do not know where we are going, but we understand that if we have one chance to survive, it is by following him, eating what he is going to hunt for us (no matter how slowly), drinking what he drinks. If we make it, we will believe he is the most agile hunter and tracker to have ever lived. After having saved us though, he will return to his village where he will be nobody again. In his whole life, he would have been a leader (to our eyes) only during the days we would have followed him.
This example illustrates clearly that leadership is totally relational and circumstantial. Leadership is not to be found in any specific quality, character traits, skill, etc. of one person. This is why there is no, and will never be a generic model of a ‘leader’. Someone is a leader in such and such situation because a group decided it, for rational or irrational reasons. Change the group or change the situation and there is no leader or leadership any longer. In the example above, if you or I had known the area or been able to hunt alone, we would not have needed anyone to survive.
Obviously, if you want to communicate with someone to awake his or her conscience to a specific issue, you have to be able to express yourself clearly, to listen to what this someone says to understand where he or she is coming from and you need many other qualities. But leadership can be present without these qualities and they can be all gathered in one person without leadership being present or suddenly appearing.
Leadership (like, more generally, management) is a thus relationship and is not to be found in the leader or the follower, but in the circumstances that have allowed this relationship to happen and develop. The ‘neuroscience of leadership’, which is based upon the idea that leadership can be found in the workings of the brain of the leader, thus seems to me a misguided effort, based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the phenomenon described by that word.
Someone asked me recently what could be the added value of philosophy for management. In this case, I believe it is to help us avoid falling into the traps arising from an unaccurate usage of language.
Let’s imagine an isolated tribe somewhere in rainforest, with very limited contact with the outside world, surviving only by hunting (men) and gathering (women). In these primitive societies, how good you are as a hunter defines largely your status and importance within the group of men; let’s assume in this case that to be recognised as a leader in such a tribe, you have to be a good hunter. One member of this tribe is actually a very poor hunter; where most men take one day to hunt and kill a given animal, this one takes two days because he runs slowly, has difficulties to read the animal’s footprints, has a poor hearing sense, etc. He is consequently very poorly regarded by the other tribe members and other men are not inclined to hunting with him; because of that he usually hunts alone for days before being able to get back to the village with a decent capture. No way this man is ever going to be a leader of that tribe.
Now let’s assume that you and I, while flying over the tribe’s territory on a light aircraft, have to make a crash landing in the forest. We survive the crash thanks to the thickness of the canopy but everything else is destroyed or unworkable. No radio, no satellite phone, no water, no food, no compass and no idea of where to go. The forest is full of dangers and ways to feed ourselves but are totally oblivious to all that because this environment is entirely foreign and new to us. We only know our chances to survive are very slim and our hopes entirely rely on someone noticing our crash and somehow taking us back to ‘civilisation’. As we gather our senses after the crash, the lone derided hunter approaches us and makes himself visible after having understood that we pose no danger to him. He also understands that we need assistance, being vaguely aware of these people from far away who visit the tribe from time to time but do not understand at all how to survive in the forest. He is ready to help and wants to take us somewhere he knows are other people like us, at a few days walking distance. We have no way to communicate verbally with him but we understand from his body language that he wants us to follow him. And so we start walking behind him, having no idea of where he is taking us or how long it will take to get there.
For the two of us, this man is going to be the greatest leader of our lives so far because we believe he can save us. Our communication with him is extremely limited, we do not know where we are going, but we understand that if we have one chance to survive, it is by following him, eating what he is going to hunt for us (no matter how slowly), drinking what he drinks. If we make it, we will believe he is the most agile hunter and tracker to have ever lived. After having saved us though, he will return to his village where he will be nobody again. In his whole life, he would have been a leader (to our eyes) only during the days we would have followed him.
This example illustrates clearly that leadership is totally relational and circumstantial. Leadership is not to be found in any specific quality, character traits, skill, etc. of one person. This is why there is no, and will never be a generic model of a ‘leader’. Someone is a leader in such and such situation because a group decided it, for rational or irrational reasons. Change the group or change the situation and there is no leader or leadership any longer. In the example above, if you or I had known the area or been able to hunt alone, we would not have needed anyone to survive.
Obviously, if you want to communicate with someone to awake his or her conscience to a specific issue, you have to be able to express yourself clearly, to listen to what this someone says to understand where he or she is coming from and you need many other qualities. But leadership can be present without these qualities and they can be all gathered in one person without leadership being present or suddenly appearing.
Leadership (like, more generally, management) is a thus relationship and is not to be found in the leader or the follower, but in the circumstances that have allowed this relationship to happen and develop. The ‘neuroscience of leadership’, which is based upon the idea that leadership can be found in the workings of the brain of the leader, thus seems to me a misguided effort, based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the phenomenon described by that word.
Someone asked me recently what could be the added value of philosophy for management. In this case, I believe it is to help us avoid falling into the traps arising from an unaccurate usage of language.
NB: The theme of 'leadership' in the management literature is also briefly discussed in the text 'Human Resource Management as an Ideology' of this blog.
Par jean etienne joullié
-
Publié dans : Texts in English
-
Communauté : Management 2.0
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 0 commentaires - Recommander
Présentation
- : Philosophie, Psychologie et Management - Philosophy, Psychology and Management
-
- : Philosophie Psychologie Management Sociologie Nietzsche Culture
- : Un blog de philosophie et de psychologie appliquée au management, parfois polémique mais toujours logique. A blog dedicated to philosophy and psychology applied to management - sometimes polemical but always logical.
- Recommander ce blog
- Retour à la page d'accueil
Créer un Blog
Recherche
Articles récents
- Conscience et responsabilité
- Folie et justice
- Qu'est ce que la normalité ?
- Une semaine dans la vie d'un moine birman
- Science, morale, maladie mentale
- Le leadership, une relation comme une autre
- La personnalité comme axiome
- Pouvoir et Autorité
- Szasz : Conscience et Langage
- Autoritarisme
Calendrier
| Juillet 2009 | ||||||||||
| L | M | M | J | V | S | D | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ||||
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ||||
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | ||||
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||||
|
||||||||||