Throughout my various careers and work places, I’ve noticed something that has permeated nearly every organization. I’ve seen it in government, educational institutions, profit and nonprofit. The leadership often doesn’t seem to be, or need to be, very smart. This doesn’t mean that they are mentally challenged; it more likely means that they don’t see “the big picture.”
So how do these people get to be leaders? Some of them even have advanced degrees in whatever discipline that is related to the organization’s primary function. There seems to be a difference, however, in a person’s ability to “regurgitate” information taken from a textbook, and their true ability to react to real-life situations. Some people “test” well, and some don’t. Some people can function at a high level in daily challenges, and others don’t.
In addition to this observation, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is often much more important how things appear, than the true reality of the situation; i.e. what it looks like we are doing, is more important than what we are doing.
So the question might be how do we secure better leaders in our top level positions? The answer might lie in the selection criteria. Is a doctor, always the best administrator of a hospital? Is a teacher always the best person to be a principal? Is a military officer the best person to be a president?
Some American Indian tribes drew a distinction between who should lead them in domestic policy, and who should lead them during war. The thought here is that the war chief may make good decisions regarding the use of violence, but this knowledge would not make him more capable in peaceful negotiations. In fact, the war chief might be the last person who should create domestic policy. Yet, in the USA, the President is the leader of domestic policy as well as the Commander-in-Chief.
Perhaps more important, is the fact that leaders are often appointed to power, based on a narrow set of criteria. For instance, an individual voter may use one issue, such as abortion, as the sole criteria to cast his/her vote for President. An administrator might choose someone for a subordinate position, based on the individual’s likelihood to cooperate with his/her “superiors.” These criteria are based on people’s personal biases and desires, rather than on someone’s true ability to be a creative, effective and fair leader.
So in the end, unless we change the “status quo,” many leaders are likely to continue to be lacking in ability, creativity and knowledge. Unfortunately, this often leads to bad decisions with personnel and resources—as these leaders lookout for their own interests instead of the common good.
KJC
So how do these people get to be leaders? Some of them even have advanced degrees in whatever discipline that is related to the organization’s primary function. There seems to be a difference, however, in a person’s ability to “regurgitate” information taken from a textbook, and their true ability to react to real-life situations. Some people “test” well, and some don’t. Some people can function at a high level in daily challenges, and others don’t.
In addition to this observation, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is often much more important how things appear, than the true reality of the situation; i.e. what it looks like we are doing, is more important than what we are doing.
So the question might be how do we secure better leaders in our top level positions? The answer might lie in the selection criteria. Is a doctor, always the best administrator of a hospital? Is a teacher always the best person to be a principal? Is a military officer the best person to be a president?
Some American Indian tribes drew a distinction between who should lead them in domestic policy, and who should lead them during war. The thought here is that the war chief may make good decisions regarding the use of violence, but this knowledge would not make him more capable in peaceful negotiations. In fact, the war chief might be the last person who should create domestic policy. Yet, in the USA, the President is the leader of domestic policy as well as the Commander-in-Chief.
Perhaps more important, is the fact that leaders are often appointed to power, based on a narrow set of criteria. For instance, an individual voter may use one issue, such as abortion, as the sole criteria to cast his/her vote for President. An administrator might choose someone for a subordinate position, based on the individual’s likelihood to cooperate with his/her “superiors.” These criteria are based on people’s personal biases and desires, rather than on someone’s true ability to be a creative, effective and fair leader.
So in the end, unless we change the “status quo,” many leaders are likely to continue to be lacking in ability, creativity and knowledge. Unfortunately, this often leads to bad decisions with personnel and resources—as these leaders lookout for their own interests instead of the common good.
KJC
Comments