Leader? – No, thank you!
Thank you, Lorrain, for your comment to my previous entry! First I started to reply to you but then realized that my comment is too big so I decided to place it as a new entry. I share your thoughts concerning the differences between leader and the head of the department. As for another statement that “all successful companies do need a leader” I can’t more then agree! Every company DO NEED a leader BUT…. every company define leader in their own way and usually after giving their own definition it appears that company mix the term “head” with “leader”. However, as was described in previous entry they are two different terms that can’t be interchanged with each other.
There are the following evidence why I think company usually have heads instead of leaders:
- Lots of companies apply “theory of power” to teach how leaders should act with their subordinates. As Paul mentioned today, true leader will probably never apply power of position or legitimacy but use it personal power, for example.
- Almost every company develops the leadership capabilities, - so, basically, this is a way that they define a leader. However, if a true leader doesn’t fits into company’s definition, does it mean that he or she is no longer a leader?
- Big international companies do have a 360 and 180 degree assessment, where they define unofficial leaders. Often these leaders can be subordinates of the head of department, thus, to reduce any risks of conflict between official leader (head) and unofficial one, the later can be redundant. How do you like that? So even, when company identifies a leader, instead of developing his skills, they fire him! I know couple examples from my previous work experience, when leaders were forced to leave company, just because their bosses were not able to compete for the authority.
To sum up, each company defiantly DO NEED leaders, but in reality the HAVE heads of the department, who fit to the organizational structure in the best way.