A leader cannot be blind to organizational Politics. This would be true of the Aspirational leader too because remember he is now a leader not just an employee who Aspirational by the definition of this article. Difficult to believe that any positive contribution can be made in an environment in which the Politcal leader openly embarasses managers simply because they are trying to advance in the way that the Political leader did. As pointed out in an earlier comment here, risk taking and wholehearted enthusiasm will be extinguished. How can a company grow in these circumstances? Unless you assume that only the very short term exists in business today.
First you make an unabiguous recommendation and then end your piece by recommending leaders to strike a balance. Also, your terminology has me confused....all leaders "aspire"...it is just that the "political" kind have aspirations that,more often than not, intimidate others while those of the other kind are more energising, inclusive and in ways that are widely-embraced for their purposefullness.
Today, leaders operate in a complex world that calls for building credibility with multiple stake-holders and the "political" kind are faced with the challenge of having to unlearn their "old" ways and learn to construct (and live by)new beliefs -- and this is perhaps the "balance" you talk about in your end-piece.
On the other hand, "authentic" leaders (and I hope you will allow mw to change your terminolgy) are anything but naive about politics -- and "political" leaders because they know that being "political" is inherent to human nature. They are not blind to it -- much less blinded by it -- but are aware of its existence at work place and deal with it constructive ways - and even firmly, at times. They do not strike a balance but astute about dealing with it.
How wearisome, these tidbits of pop business, er, "wisdom". Please spare us, CBS News, the promise of some useful information only to be greeted with a waste of time that you are trying to market as valuable business content.
There should be a balance between the too. If you are too political, your employees (good ones) would likely leave you. If you are too aspirational, your employees would likely abuse you.
It is imperative to note that a manager is not necessary a leader. A leader considers his/her constituency, the time and space when choosing the appropriate leadership style.
A manager is simply a person upon whom the responsibility of leadership has been levied. Such a person basically succeeds in his/her position by ruling while looking to precedence for guidance.
After all is said and done, a leader must be consistent, impartial, sagacious, firm and fair, and possess the ability to provide a cogent argument in support of his/her decisions whether politically correct or not.
One of the first rules of leadership - it is not necessary to be liked, but it is necessary to be trusted and respected. From your description, the Political guy is neither. Interesting save at the end though ... you have to be a bit of both.
Mr. Logan is accurate that a combination of the two types is likely to be most effective in the long run. However, we have Steve Jobs as the poster child for Political Leader and the numbers show that this type is best suited to our current business climate. In fact, he and his type created it and are therefore also best suited to succeed. This is business Darwinism and the very nature of American business today. And it won't be changing anytime in the near future nor should it, if innovation is to keep pace with economics and technology. As much as the more enlightened among us might like to see a kinder, gentler model, we're stuck competing in a world that has already put Political Leader in the winner's circle.
After working at major corporations for 30 years, FUD is not a great motivator - in my observation and direct experience, the Politico approach creates a 'duck and cover' workforce, driving out innovation and risk-taking necessary for growth and employee satisfaction. Its not pretty when you watch hard-working and passionate people become numb automatons - mediocrity is the result -- this is not the path to profitable growth and longevity. Instead its the path to continual downsizing, attrition and eventually the competition eating your lunch. Politicos are short-term flash in the pans, it may work for a while but they seem to be found out eventually.
Aspirational leadership is harder, slower to impact, and results in higher satisfaction and creativity. If winning is everything, this is the proverbial tortoise vs. the hare - the tortoise wins in the long run.
"Its not pretty when you watch hard-working and passionate people become numb automatons - mediocrity is the result -- this is not the path to profitable growth and longevity. Instead its the path to continual downsizing, attrition and eventually the competition eating your lunch."
I would tend to agree on the basis of my own experience. Declining businesses may cling to extreme Political types described here. Also as Stephen Isienyi May 22, 2012 9:14 PM EDT says managers are different from leaders. You need a growing - and therefore energetic, imaginative and risk taking - organization even for leaders to be leaders as opposed to organizational minimizers of error.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Today, leaders operate in a complex world that calls for building credibility with multiple stake-holders and the "political" kind are faced with the challenge of having to unlearn their "old" ways and learn to construct (and live by)new beliefs -- and this is perhaps the "balance" you talk about in your end-piece.
On the other hand, "authentic" leaders (and I hope you will allow mw to change your terminolgy) are anything but naive about politics -- and "political" leaders because they know that being "political" is inherent to human nature. They are not blind to it -- much less blinded by it -- but are aware of its existence at work place and deal with it constructive ways - and even firmly, at times. They do not strike a balance but astute about dealing with it.
It is imperative to note that a manager is not necessary a leader. A leader considers his/her constituency, the time and space when choosing the appropriate leadership style.
A manager is simply a person upon whom the responsibility of leadership has been levied. Such a person basically succeeds in his/her position by ruling while looking to precedence for guidance.
After all is said and done, a leader must be consistent, impartial, sagacious, firm and fair, and possess the ability to provide a cogent argument in support of his/her decisions whether politically correct or not.
Aspirational leadership is harder, slower to impact, and results in higher satisfaction and creativity. If winning is everything, this is the proverbial tortoise vs. the hare - the tortoise wins in the long run.
I would tend to agree on the basis of my own experience. Declining businesses may cling to extreme Political types described here. Also as Stephen Isienyi May 22, 2012 9:14 PM EDT says managers are different from leaders. You need a growing - and therefore energetic, imaginative and risk taking - organization even for leaders to be leaders as opposed to organizational minimizers of error.