Leadership DNA

iUniverse, Inc.

Contents

Introduction: Bottom Line, Up Front............................................................................11: Leadership: Is It Science or Art............................................................................72: Leadership Defies Definition................................................................................133: Examining the Motives and Behavior Patterns for Leadership..................................................174: Levels of Leadership Talent Vary by Individual..............................................................255: We Are All Born with DNA Talent Bank Accounts...............................................................316: Leaders Drive a Clear Direction and Set of Guiding Principles...............................................357: Identifying and Selecting Natural-Born Leaders..............................................................418: Leaders Old and New Are on an Island, Separate and Yet Inseparable from Their Employees.....................459: Challenges for a New Leader: Delegating.....................................................................5110: Challenges for a New Leader: Communicating.................................................................5511: Challenges for a New Leader: Coaching......................................................................5912: Chasing Reality When Obtaining Feedback for Leaders........................................................6713: The Impact of Higher-Level Leaders on an Organization......................................................7514: Dealing with Poor Leaders, Especially First-Time Leaders...................................................81Epilogue: A New Direction for Leadership in the Twenty-First Century: The Choice Is Ours.......................89

Chapter One

Science generally is the rigorous observation and investigation of the universe with the intent of discovering the facts and principles that accurately describe and define what is occurring and why. Science starts with a theory or hypothesis about a particular occurrence and then systematically tests that hypothesis in an attempt to validate it. After it is validated, scientists can then develop principles and formulas that if followed, will generate consistent and predictable results.

For example, consider the mass production of the automobile. Engineers started with a theory of combustion and propulsion, developed a prototype engine, tested their theory, validated the results, created an assembly line, and began to produce automobiles based on a validated set of scientific principles. These principles were then further refined into exact formulas that the assembly line followed to mass-produce automobiles that are essentially identical. By following scientific formulas you can reliably predict the outcome of the event, which in this case is an automobile produced with specific specifications capable of transporting a person.

Art, on the other hand, is personal creative ability or talent. While science seeks to dispassionately define the world and universe, art seeks to passionately express itself in music, painting, poetry, drawing, dance, sports, and other fields of human endeavor. Science produces tested formulas for mass application. Art is the release of human creativity for individual expression. A scientist studies a body of knowledge and the resulting reliable and established formulas that are generated from this study. An artist taps into her personal reservoir of ability or talent and generates a level of creativity that a scientific formula with its predictable level of success cannot define. Science is in universal facts; art is in individual DNA.

Given the characteristics of science and art, where does leadership belong? The way society views leadership today, it clearly is 90 percent science and 10 percent art. This perception of leadership as a science has been the overwhelming result of a seemingly endless list of leadership books, academic programs, forty-hour courses of leadership training, and speaking tours by proclaimed leadership gurus, all teaching and preaching that with leadership training, personal desire, and commitment, anyone can be made into a leader. This drumbeat regarding the nature of leadership has been occurring for generations, and it has effectively drowned out any other discussion on the topic. This is quite understandable given the all-encompassing effort ongoing for centuries to examine and reexamine the universe using the scientific process of observation and investigation and to put everything under the microscope from atoms to humans.

Consequently, researchers and leadership gurus see leadership itself as just another occurrence in the universe to study and discover the principles of how and why it exists and functions. And, given the research and writings of psychologists and leadership gurus, they believe that they have discovered the factual hows and whys of leadership and synthesized them into formulas and recipes, with the conclusion that anyone can become a good leader if they are trained in and follow these formulas for leadership creation and development.

However, after using this scientific approach to leadership for decades, it has failed to live up to its promise to be able to create leaders, individually or en mass. Instead, we have individuals occupying leadership positions who, while holding the title of leader, have not demonstrated the level of leadership talent required to be successful in the positions they occupy. This reality has created a leadership gap between the number of leadership positions and the number of available good leaders to fill those positions.

The ongoing leadership training that dispenses these pseudoscientific formulas has only aggravated the problem by mass-producing civilian and military personnel who are more manager than leader in an attempt to fill in the gap. This has resulted in the widespread proliferation of managers, not leaders, who are focused on overseeing, organizing, and controlling work being performed. Managers say, "Follow what I say." Leaders say, "Follow me." Leaders rely on their personal presence, not their position or rank; on persuasion, not directives or orders; and on a clear direction and set of guiding principles, not rules and regulations. Leaders are few in number; managers are everywhere. Leadership can be nurtured, but it can't be taught. It can be recognized, but it can't be defined. Leadership is an art and not a science, and as such it can have a thousand different expressions with no definitive single recipe or formula. Leadership isn't the result of applying a formula; it is an expression of a person's own God-given leadership talent or DNA, and it cannot be bestowed upon someone with a diploma.

People gravitate to leaders in response to their innate leadership talent. You can feel it, you can see it, and you can hear it. But, being an art, you can't define it or reduce it to a formula or recipe.

The problem is that we have equated managers with leaders, and they definitely are not the same. We have attempted to turn the art of leadership into a scientific formula that promises to create leaders regardless of a person's level or lack of leadership talent. We can create...