The Myth of Leadership
By Jeffrey Nielsen
Reviewed By John W. Lovitt, Ed.D., LPC
(ISBN–13: 978–0891061991)
We seem to get along with eachother in terms of values andexpectations until we ask to be hired.The first day on the job, we learn thatthere are people who attempt to manage(leaders) and those who do thework (followers). We have just walkedinto a trap that Jeffrey Nielsen calls the“Myth of Leadership––a set of false assumptionsthat divide our efforts, limitour growth opportunities, and rob usof meaningful, dignified work.”
meaningful, dignified work.”Nielsen advocates an end to “rankbased”organizational infrastructures, which many times misusepower, foster corruptive practices and use communication as aone–way tool. He says that many of us are obsessed with a topdowncontrol philosophy and work practices that make us inefficientand very slow to change.
The new model is “peer–based” leadership, which dependson peer leadership councils and cross–functional task forcesfor planning, implementation and effective change strategies.These new focus groups and decision–making groups are dynamicand very close to the processes needing restructuringor reengineering. The task forces and peer–based councils aremore responsive to customer needs and better suited to accessingthe valuable resources of companies.
Nielsen is sure of himself regarding two observations:
- Honest, congruent, and authentic communication occurs only between equals.
- Sharing information on a need–to–know basis breeds corruption and abuse of power.
The rank–based environment seduces many managers to usepower instead of using collaboration, consensus building, andthe building of relationships on trust and two–way open communication.The old management paradigm tells us that managersare so much more valuable and make better decisions than agroup of employees (peer–based council) working together.
Research by Carnegie Mellon Business Professor Robert Kelleyshowed widespread dissatisfaction with corporate leadershipamong employees:
- 40% believed that their bosses had questionable leadership abilities.
- Slightly less than 40% believed that their bosses had ego problems.
- Less than 50% of all management inspired trust in the employees they supervised.
- Only 1 in 7 managers was viewed as a potential role model.
“We are co–creators of our collective future. It should bea future we accomplish, not through coercion and force, butthrough the subtle influence of persuasion, cooperation andjoy” (Nielsen, p. 174).
The only area not covered in this book, in my opinion, is howrank–based management could be transitioned into peer–basedphilosophy and leadership.
