The Four Functions of Leadership

In the early 1980s the Army was investing much time and attention to the development and teaching of a new leadership doctrine.  It was a blend of the best that the private sector had to offer along with tried and true military leadership principles.  I was fortunate then to be a leadership instructor at a school for mid-career officers and had previously been a company commander on two occasions.

The curriculum separated "management" from "leadership" while emphasizing that both were critical for military officers to understand and practice.  There were two private sector leadership guru's at the time who were freely quoted and taught.  They were, Blake and Mouton (The Managerial Grid) and Hersey and Blanchard (Situational Leadership).  Warren Bennis was also mentioned, especially his tome that "managers focus on doing things right; leaders focus on doing the right things."  That principle hit home with Army officers, as it was clear that to succeed as an officer one had to balance both, equally.  In other words, management and leadership were of equal importance.  That said, it was also the opinion of most students in our program that leadership was the skill that was most important to commanding troops.

We blended some purely military leadership principles with the best the private sector had to offer.  We taught that a military leader must exhibit four traits:  Courage, Competence, Candor and Commitment.  Courage was clearly aimed at behavior under fire, but it also pertained to moral courage, i.e., being willing to say what needed to be said, regardless of personal consequences.  Then there were the four functions of leadership.  They were that a leader is a Teacher, Counselor, Manager and Coach.  These functions were real eye openers for our students.  Until introduced to this concept, most military leaders focused on management. We taught that an officer manages resources and leads people; that leadership is an influencing process and management is a control process.  They understood the "control" principle, and appreciated the "influence" principle, but it was clear from their experience that the teaching points needed to focus on those other leadership principles.  The addition of teaching, counseling and coaching to the leadership equation drove home the teaching point that leadership is an influencing process.  Teachers, counselors and coaches are all about influencing.   The best of our students "got it."  They knew that the secret to their success to that point in their careers had been their leadership strengths.  Most had already served as unit commanders at the platoon and company level prior to attending our six-month course and understood that commanders do not inspire their soldiers through management; they inspire them through leadership.

When I left the military to join the private sector as a director of staff and organization development for a division of a Fortune 100 company, I brought these principles with me.  It came as a complete surprise to me that these values were not reinforced in the corporate world.  Management was (and remains) by far the greater emphasized function of leadership.  Yet when we examine what motivates and demotivates people, it often zeros in on workers' relationships with their bosses.  The majority of those being managed and led today look for authenticity and transparency in their bosses.  In short, most people want to be led; few people relish being managed. This has a bearing on employee retention and productivity (among other things).

I am encouraged that the better MBA programs are putting a renewed emphasis on leadership.  Its about time.

http:www.michaelkburroughs.com