The chief executive of any organisation has the most critical role to play. The success of the business depends on this one person. This is not to say only this person, but without dynamic leadership, the cause of the organisation will be lost.
In the contemporary organisation the one person will have arrived in the position by mandate—an appointment, selection or election—having risen to the top in an orderly succession process.
In less bureaucratic organisations this may be open to overt contest and influence. This is also the case in the political process where contenders vie for leadership of the party and then lead the party to government (or opposition). In countries in a state of flux, there may be less process certainty and the contest may become disruptive, even violent.
Orderly or otherwise, the case for radical change may be in the offing, so small organisation or large, how does the leader emerge?
In post-WWII USA, Eric Hoffer posited a model that still holds water today. It has as much relevance to the leadership of a country or a company.
Hoffer talks about 3 key behaviours for 3 distinct phases. This usually means 3 different people, but on rare occasions, 1 person fits the first 2 and even more rarely, fits all 3:
1. The militant Wo/Man of Words is a recognised talker/writer who undermines the organisation, creates a yearning for and articulation of the new. In the organisational context such behaviour may be seen as a betrayal of the existing leadership and the person given short shrift. In more enlightened cultures, radical new ideas may be welcomed and there may be a forum for such exposition and discussion—revolutionary changes can be made to the existing order without killing the business. This is rare. If subtle and measured influence is used, such a person may be successful. More often than not, however, this militant person of words leaves to start their own organisation or acts as an oracle for other people to pick up the ideas and convert them into their own revolution. (Historical figures in this phase have been Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky.)
2. The Fanatic thriving on the chaos and search for a new direction, hijacks the revolution to define it in his own image. In business there is grave danger of the organisation being completely decimated or even destroyed. This is a desperate state of affairs. If it is a listed company, the investors would be streaming out the door. A government-owned enterprise of a not-for-profit would be closed down. For the sake of survival, if it is going to happen at all, this needs to be a very quick phase—the more destruction, the less likely anything can be salvaged for the future. As this phase relies heavily on the charisma of the leader, it is also likely that the original idea put by the man of words, will be distorted or even lost. People will crave order. (Historical figures: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin.)
3. To avert disintegration, the Wo/Man of Action creates unity and stability to consolidate the revolution, developing new institutions and a sense of duty. In the business context the chief executive will instill a sense of belonging a vision and goals to be achieved. This leader will provide a welcome relief from the chaos of the previous phases and there will be a renewed sense of direction and an urgency for orderly reconstruction. The new state of being may be quite different from that espoused by either the Woman of Words or the Fanatic as the theoretical plan rarely, if ever, can be directly converted into action as was first thought or articulated. This will be the Wo/Man of Action’s own solution writ large and in her/his image—if initially successful, is effects will likely be felt for generations. (Historical figures: Theodore Roosevelt, Jawaharlal Nehru.)
Now ask yourself:
1. Where is your organisation today?
2. Where could it be tomorrow?
3. What will be your role?
Could you lead a revolution?