A review of The Leaders We Need

Citation

Bokeno, R.M. (2010), "A review of The Leaders We Need", Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 24 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/dlo.2010.08124eae.001

A review of The Leaders We Need

Article Type: Book Review From: Development and Learning in Organizations, Volume 24, Issue 5

The Leaders We NeedMichael Maccoby2007Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA249pp., Index, Chapter, References, Appendix

For the special theme of this issue of DLO, I have chosen to review Michael Maccoby’s The Leaders We Need. In a turbulent time when direction and accomplishment seem to be tantamount for business organizations as well as life in general, Maccoby reminds us of the changing nature and function of both leadership and followership.

I am neither thrilled nor disappointed by this book. I am not disappointed because Maccoby’s intellectual trip through the history of leadership theory and development, supported by plenty of his own research examples, adds considerably fine academic texture to a story that many get only via bulleted training handouts. I am not thrilled because this intellectual trip is mostly an archaeology of where we’ve been and why this or that does not work now. Indeed, his primary point is that the nature of work and people has changed so drastically that that a reconception of leadership is immediately in order.

Specifically, Maccoby not only links leadership with followership, but links effective leadership to an acute understanding of the social character of today’s followers; and, a more pointed kind of social character at that: interactive social character. Maccoby believes that the interactive nature of social character – as exemplified by the past two generations of workers/followers – today defines a brand new set of concerns for effective leaders.

As those familiar with Maccoby’s work would surmise, psycholanalytic theory grounds much of the argument in The Leaders We Need. Followership is a matter of transference: the qualities/ characteristics of a parent figure are “transferred to” (sought after) in potential leaders. Maccoby’s point in this book is that both the nature of followership has changed, and the qualities of the transference have changed as well. The change from a bureaucratic social character to the “interactive” social character, is essentially a change in transference from an authoritarian father figure to a more collaborative sibling figure:

Unlike the bureaucratic social characters who want a good father – like boss who gives them objectives, leaves them alone to accomplish these objectives, and then evaluates them, Interactives typically work in teams where everyone is expected to push each other to get results (p. 67).

Perhaps the most informative part of the book is Chapter 4, where Maccoby spells out the differences between bureaucratic social character and interactive social character in some detail, including not only the “nature” of each but assets and liabilities of each type. There is also an appendix to this end, supported by a corresponding guide with developmental stages. With apologies for any damage to the nuances, essentially we get a picture of interactive social characters as:

• •

  networked;

• •

  promiscuously role-adaptive;

• •

  collaborative;

• •

  results-focused, if they can see the value of the results – hence the meaningfulness of their work – rather than objectives set by someone else; and

• •

  having sort of an entitlement to a turn at “leadership”, primarily because they see themselves easily as “experts” having been enabled and cheered by their parents.

Interactives know that much of their personal and professional success will come from “telling people what they want to hear.”

Indeed, a new set of concerns for organization leaders. In chapters 5-6, Maccoby sets this new set of concerns in the knowledge industry, arguably the prevailing work context for this generation of workers. In chapters 7-8, he articulates this new set of concerns in the healthcare and education industries.

In chapter 10, Maccoby develops a sort of plan for becoming the leader the new generation needs: develop both Strategic Intelligence and Personality Intelligence. The latter is cultivated from activities such as deep listening, developing the heart, clearing the mind from ideological assumptions, and learning how to respond others. In others words, it is imperative to understand and adapt to the various personality constituents that would follow you, rather than expect them to comply with/conform to expected roles, objectives and tasks.

My take on all this is that I just shrug my shoulders. Maccoby is dead-on accurate in his assessment of the personality types of contemporary workers, including the interactive needs and characteristics of the current generation. His suggestions for developing leaders we need also seems viable. Yet, I’m wondering where this gets us.

The critical theorist in me wants to see this as eventuating in a scary refinement of insidious, covertly controlling, mangerialist practices, some of the results of which we have seen in the news. But when the results don’t end up disastrously, they end up in only a better “show.” Indeed, as Maccoby himself suspects: “ The question remains of how Interactives will perform in leadership roles when they need to take charge” (p. 70). What Aristotle saw as a necessary skill set for success in law courts, seems elevated to a necessary leadership quality. Aristotle defined what we now call communication as “ the art of discovering in any given case the available means of persuasion.” Interactives, presumably, see that as the only skill they need to be successful in work and life.

Whenever I read about leadership, I am always wistful and tempted to compare with Wolfe’s The Right Stuff. Has the quiet but substantial competence of a Chuck Yeager character simply disappeared (maybe to John Galt’s valley in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged) and left in its place a show for the pubic? Maccoby seems to be saying that the show IS the right stuff today.

And, ultimately, he is right. Understand the interactive social character? Certainly. Learn to lead them differently? Probably. Adapt to them, so they can learn to lead? Maybe. Like it? I just shrug my old, arthritic shoulders.

R. Michael BokenoProfessor of Organizational Communication and BB&T Fellow in the College of Business, Murray State University, Murray, KY, USA.