Christmas 2004 is almost over, I guess, technically, it is over as it is 12:20 AM on the 26th. The issues of leadership have continued to press themselves upon my awareness over the last few months. Leadership and management, while having some functions in common are not the same thing. What I see more often than not is individuals with some skill at management, to varying degrees, proving to be somewhat competent, and therefore, being perceived as being a leader. Leadership is one of the functions of management, however, it is leadership within the confines of the organizational blueprint - the smooth functioning of and incremental improvement of the organization along the path designated. This pseudoleadership is important to the organization, but must not be confused with true leadership. True leaders may have some competency in management, if the organization is lucky, but their primary function IS the future and the strategic plan. The plain truth is that anyone who can exhibit any aspect of leadership and the willingness to take on responsibility will eventually move up in thier company, or move to another where they can move up. This is because leadership is in short supply - everywhere.

Lately I have been thinking about how personality contributes to leadership. I'm not speaking of personality types such as sanguine, melancholoy, etc. Instead, I'm wondering if there might not be a specific personality type for leaders (and, therefore, one for followers, and one more for those who are basically clueless).

If there is a personality type: "Leader" then, is it the type which simply is (e.g. sanguine, melancholoy, etc) or is it one which can be acquired. How does one acquire it. Obviously training in leadership principles can make one more aware of what the personality type looks like, however, I am coming to the conclusion that actually acquiring the personality of Leader hinges on two factors:

1. Choose to participate. Leaders participate in every process of which they are a part. You could sooner keep a duck from quacking than to keep a leader from participating. It is part of who they are. I remember when I choose to start participating. I was in a college class and I knew if I didn't participate, I would fall asleep. I became active not only in that class but in every class and that choice has become my nature.

2. Choose to take responsibility. Leaders initiate taking responsibility. They take responsibility for group functions. They take responsibility and process it in a way which benefits the group as a whole.

I haven't refined these concepts yet but I believe that all the other data about leadership may hinge more on these two factors than be the answers themselves.

John Kotter in Leading Change cites eight reasons why transitions (planned change) in firms fail: 1) They allow too much complacency, 2) They fail to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition, 3) They underestimate the power of VISION, 4) They undercommunicate the VISION by a facgtor of 10 (or 100 or even 1,000), 5) They permit pbstacles to block the new vision, 6) They fail to create short-term wins, 7) They declare victory too soon (and quit trying), and, finally, 8) They neglect to anchor changes in the corporate culture.

I wonder which of these points you could point to as the main reason the last change plan you were involved with failed. Obviously planned change may require more from leadership than a simple mandate if it is to become a long-term reality. It is interesting that VISION is mentioned in two of the point cited by Kotter: underestimating the power of VISION and undercommunicating the VISION. I suppose this makes sense when one considers that it was VISION which decided the course of the change to begin with.

It amazes me what passes for leadership . . . and the significant lack thereof. Probably the best book I have read recently discussing one aspect of leadership has been Leading Change by Kotter. The concepts presented in this book are universal and if considered will assist any leader in facilitating change within the organization. Key, of course to change is the create the sense of urgency that change, although possibly not desirable, is certainly unavoidable - what can be avoided, with some effort, is negative change. For example, the economic situation may mean that a business will definitely suffer financial reversals UNLESS some change occurs. With the inevitability of change coming, all that remains is to determine which changes can bring forth positive returns instead of negative, for the largest number of stakeholders. This, of course, recognizes that not all stakeholders will benefit or even survive the change, at least in their current incarnation.