Speaking of Leadership . . .

Are Leaders Born or Made? 

by Robert B. Denhardt

Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Tanya:  I know this is an old, old question, but I'm interested in how you would approach this.  Do you think leaders are born or made?  I'm 24 years old.  Do you think my leadership approach is already set in stone?

Bob:  I think there are certain skills and certain personal qualities that leaders possess that cause others to follow.  Some people just seem to come by these naturally.  For example, a friend and a vice-president at the Fruit of the Loom company recently told me: "Bob, people keep coming up to me and complimenting me on my leadership   And I don't know what they are talking about.  I'm just being me."

For this person - and for many others - the basic skills of leadership just seem to come naturally.  For many others that's not at all the case.  They (we!) have to work hard to develop those essential skills of leadership. But they (we) can do so.

So if you think of the skills and personal qualities associated with leadership along a continuum from "not many" to a "whole bunch," there are some people that naturally fall closer to the "not many" end and others that fall much more toward the "whole bunch" end.

But wherever you start, you can improve your leadership over time.  Now, it takes a lot of hard work - not just reading about leaders or watching leaders perform - but spending careful and extended time in analyzing your own experiences and reflecting in a very personal way about how those experiences might help you become a more effective leader.  

I say that is hard work because I can't imagine many things more difficult than self-critique and self-reflection. Both challenge our natural tendency to protect our own view of the world; they force us to ask really difficult and personal questions about ourselves; and they can set us on a path to deep personal change - which is, for most, really scary.

Leadership is all about "becoming," becoming all that you can be (to borrow a well-worn phrase).  It's about becoming a more fully integrated person.

So, no, I don't think you are locked into a particular set of leadership skills and qualities when you are 24 or 44 or 64 or 84.  Indeed, if you don't constantly change and evolve in your leadership, it's not going to work anyway.  Leadership is not static; it has to change.  You have to change.

To be a better leader, you have to relate to the particular time and culture in which you live.  That time and that culture are constantly changing.  And your leadership must change as well. In fact, the best leaders are those who can match their personal growth and development with the changing world around them.

Ironically, then, those who start the leadership journey with a "natural" set of skills and qualities - those leaning toward the "whole bunch" end of the continuum - may have more difficulty in further developing their leadership than those that seemingly start out somewhat "behind."  When leadership comes too easy, it can become petrified - it just seems to work, so why change it?

But if you don't constantly develop your leadership - wherever you start - you'll soon become out of touch - and less than effective. Change is all around us - but change has to be inside us as well.  At least when it comes to leadership.

Robert Denhardt is the Director of Leadership Programs in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC) and Director of the Executive Master of Leadership program at USC. He is the author of a dozen books on leadership and management, including, The Dance ofLeadership (with Janet Denhardt), Book: Just Plain Good Management, and Book: The Pursuit of Significance.

Speaking of Leadership . . .

Creating Leadership

by Robert B. Denhardt

Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Question – I know you are interested in the creative process and what leaders can do to promote creativity and innovation in their organizations. But how can leaders be creative about leadership itself?  That is, where are we going with this idea of creative leadership?

Bob - As I work with students and executives, I have come to believe that future leaders will need to improve their own creative capacities and encourage others in the organization to unleash their creative powers.  But they must also exhibit creativity in their own leadership.  Fortunately, there are many leaders who are already modeling creative leadership and from whom we can learn a great deal.  Interestingly, what we learn first, is that these creative leaders “lead from the inside.”  That is, they have or have developed personal qualities or “aspects of character” that support their creative leadership. 

As individual leaders grow, mature, and evolve, their impact on their organizations grows as well.  The Greek historian Plutarch once said, “What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality.” By changing your inner world, you will impact the outer world. Hintendra Madhwah of the Columbia Business School writes that, to be an exceptional leader, you “need to be both flexible and at the same time, centered and grounded – anchored in a sense of direction and purpose….great leaders need to have the capacity to be both adaptive and resilient and to surround this ability around a stable core, an inner anchor.”

Creativity often begins as we see a crack in an existing reality. But creativity can occur in other ways as well. For example, if you were able to suspend the realities you have accepted, you would be forced to come up with creative or novel solutions to the problems or opportunities you face. While it’s probably not possible to completely suspend those realities, there are ways that they can be reduced in terms of their constraints on your actions. Many suggest that mindfulness and meditation comprise a practice that opens the possibility for clearing away those realities that have been imposed on you.  Others talk about the importance of a curious, playful attitude, an almost child-like ability to be open to anything.

And, finally, simply “being present to the moment,” that is, fully engaged in the existing moment without regard for past or future, allows you to suspend old realities and create new possibilities. That, in turn, may produce the feeling of “flow” that musicians, dancers, and even leaders often experience. Here is where you lose the boundaries between yourself and the external world, and simply let the words, the ideas, and the social energy flow through you and into the external world.  Only then will you be able to grow and develop, communicate empathetically, integrate your values with your actions, and maintain a sense of confidence and humility. You will be creating leadership!

Robert Denhardt is the Director of Leadership Programs in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC) and Director of the Executive Master of Leadership program at USC. He is the author of a dozen books on leadership and management, including, The Dance ofLeadership (with Janet Denhardt), Book: Just Plain Good Management, and Book: The Pursuit of Significance.

What I Learned in Graduate School . . .

From being “Right”  to being “Effective”

by Michael J. Humara

USC Executive Master of Leadership

I am not sure from where my innate need to be right originated, but I assume that I am not the only one in the workplace that has this compulsion. Often individual action or inaction gives preference to dooming the program for failure rather than risk not being right. Surely successful leaders do not pursue careers in organizations where failure is an acceptable outcome so long as they were right? So how does this idea of being “right” fit in?

 It may be self-evident that a heterogeneous organization where everybody is set on always being “right” is culturally doomed for failure. For high reliability organizations “being right” could be the critical trait for success.  An incorrect technical decision could result in catastrophe and therefore may require heated debate and even refusal to comply with a direction. But as we move through a spectrum from technical specification/practices, to management processes, and leading change the issue becomes messier.

Consider a manager’s statement, “That person will be a good/bad fit in leading that team.” It is highly probable that somebody would disagree with the manager, and both will come up with objective data that supports what ultimately is a subjective decision often ending in contempt. Of course data can be collected after the fact to allow for vindication. There lies the rub.

I propose another angle to view “being right” as a value. A variation of Jim Collin’s Good to Great concept, “Would you continue to be right if it was no longer valuable to do so?” Personal ego may allow some of us to answer yes, but I in the context of an organization it would be impossible to align with the organization if this were that case all the time. How many mission statements include something akin to the following?

To make sure that our employees and management are proven to be right, in all decisions with which they disagree, regardless of the success of the organization.

In fact most, if not all, modern organizations see the value of “being wrong” long before “being right,” and would place integrity and loyalty far above “being right” in any list of organizational values. The desire to be right is a selfish condition where we give priority to our ego above that of the team and the organization.  

In Leading Change: an Argument for Values Based Leadership, James O’Toole argues that effective leadership stems from integrity, trust, and listening.  While this is a very elevated look at effective leadership, our ego could clash with any one of these principles and undercut any foundation we could hope to establish as a leader. So what do we do about it?

Humility jumps out to me as the obvious trait, but easier said than attained. At USC in the EML program, we start with understand the “self” and what our values are. For instance, I categorize myself as one of those who want to be right all the time, yes, the very type of person I am condemning for placing ego above the organization. Digging deeper to what I truly value is not being right, but knowledge and it did not take much analysis to understand the difference between the two. 

The next practice of the USC EML program is essential: Reflection. Reflection is painful and it requires us to take the uncomfortable look at ourselves and challenge our ego with our values. These two practices are at the core of the transition of the individual that desires to “be right” to a leader that strives to “be effective.”

Photo: Michael J. Humara – Executive Master of Leadership (EML) graduate.

To learn how an Executive Master of Leadership (EML) at the University of Southern California (USC) would benefit you in your career or development as a leader, please visit: priceschool.usc.edu/programs/masters/eml/