The Need for Leaders is Greater Than 2.2%

 

2.2%. That is the percentage of people in the US who are managers.*

2Point2PercentCan we afford to suggest that only managers can be leaders? No. The need for leaders is far greater than 2.2%. But every time the word ‘leader’ is used as a synonym for ‘manager’ it sends a message that the other 97.8% cannot be leaders simply because they are not managers. And when ‘leader’ is used to refer to an executive manager it restricts the number even further down to 0.76% of the US population.

First of all it is unfair to managers to expect that they alone can fully meet the needs of leadership, especially considering that typically they are already laden with immense responsibilities. And it’s unfair to all those who want to make a difference but are inhibited from doing so simply because they don’t have an acceptable job title.

What percentage of people should see themselves as leaders? 100%! The longing to matter and make a difference is part of our inherent need to adapt and grow. To suggest to anyone that they cannot be a leader denies them the opportunity to live a fulfilling life.

43.6%. That is the percentage of the US population that is employed.*

Can we afford to suggest that leadership only happens in the workplace? No. The need for leadership is greater than 43.6%. Leadership doesn’t have to happen within an organization. Leadership happens in relationship, in the space between one and another.

Leadership is about so much more than business. Leadership is life size. It can come from anyone and it serves everyone. We need to talk about how leadership happens within organizations but it is just as important to talk about how leadership happens outside of organizations.

Whenever you use the word ‘leader’ or ‘leadership’ make sure that you are indeed talking about leadership. Call it what it is because it matters. The need for leaders and for leadership is far too great to stuff it inside a few boxes on an org chart. The need is 100%.

 

* The numbers are based on the 2017 US population compared to the “May 2017 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.” www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm While the numbers are only for the US the concern applies globally.

LIFE

Advertisements

Organizational Leadership?

FlyingFlock

The words ‘Organizational Leadership’ can seem incongruous.  The key elements of leadership are very personal and relational.  How does that fit within a structured group environment? Basically, leadership is leadership, and Organizational Leadership is leadership that occurs within an organization.  But it does present special challenges and opportunities, and in the context of certain leadership principles ‘Organizational Leadership’ does make sense.

Leaders lead people. 

Leaders don’t lead programs or projects or processes.  Those things are managed.  The people involved in them are led.

Organizations are people.

And like people, organizations are defined not by what they do but by who they are.  It is first and foremost about the being of the organization – the story, the beliefs, the abilities, the culture of shared values, the vision.  This is then lived out and reflected in what the organization does.  Leaders of the organization focus first on leading the organization and the individuals within it to know who they are and to become more.

Leadership isn’t found on an org chart.

There are operational concerns with organizations that need to be handled by managers.  But the responsibility of leading people should not be placed solely on these same people.  Whatever role a person has within an organization, manager or not, they will be more effective in that role the more they are capable, committed and free to lead.

Organizations exist ultimately for the benefit of the individual.

Organizations provide efficiency that allows individuals to accomplish more than they could on their own.  But more importantly organizations provide an environment that allows individuals to become more than they would ever realize on their own.

Organizational success is marked by individual growth.

Using individuals for the sake of the work of the organization will not bring sustainable success.  If individuals within the organization are not becoming more as a result of their being a part of the organization, the organization is not fulfilling its ultimate purpose.  The responsibility to fulfill this organizational purpose falls on each individual, to respond as called upon to be a leader to others around them.

Take a moment to think about each organization that you are a part of, both occupational and volunteer, and ask yourself – Am I finding personal fulfillment and growth from being a part of this organization?  Are those of us within the organization clear on who we are, and who we want to become, as an organization?  Is this honestly reflected in what we do?  How am I a leader within this organization, serving others that they may find personal fulfillment and growth?

“In organizations, real power and energy is generated through relationships. The patterns of relationships and the capacities to form them are more important than tasks, functions, roles, and positions.”  Margaret Wheatly

“An empowered organization is one in which individuals have the knowledge, skill, desire, and opportunity to personally succeed in a way that leads to collective organizational success.” Stephen R. Covey

“The quality of leadership, more than any other single factor, determines the success or failure of an organization.” Fred Fiedler & Martin Chemers

Image: Liz Noffsinger / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Do

DO  The world pivots on that little world.  Days are structured around to-do lists, lives lived with dreams of what we want to do.  We are defined, categorized and ranked by what we do.  You meet someone new and one of the first questions you will ask each other is, “So, what do you do?”  Ads remind us to “Just Do It.”

To make our doing more efficient the Industrial Age grouped individuals into organizations, each individual plugged into their part of the machine.  The engine that drives the machine is the premise that the individual will sacrifice their time and energy for the organization.  In turn the organization will compensate the individual.  Ever wonder why it’s called compensation?

Do Loop

Fueling the engine is the concept that the more an individual sacrifices for the organization, the more they will be compensated. And from the other side, the more the organization compensates the individual, the more they will sacrifice. Trouble is,

Employees are people.
And so are organizations.

What also gets sacrificed in this model is each person’s full individuality. So much of the stuff of life just doesn’t fit into the organizational machine.  We draw lines at the beginning and end of the day, and at the end of the week, with ‘life’ on this side and ‘work’ on the other.  And employees put up pictures at work to remind them of their real lives.

Unless your goal is to be the biggest gear in the corporate machine, dreams of what you really want to be doing, of what really matters to you, get thrown off to the side into a bucket labeled “Someday.”  Someday I’ll take up that hobby.  Someday I’ll spend more time with my family.  Someday I’ll take that trip.

Isn’t there a better way?

What if there was no such thing as work-life balance,
but rather work was just part of the richness of life? 

Isn’t there some way we can get done what needs to be done without dehumanizing people?  I believe there is.  Beginning with the next post we will begin exploring the Be-Do model, another way to look at how the world works.