Leadership is not my favorite topic in books, but I recommend a book I have been reading this week. It appeals to me because it stresses the "we" of leadership rather than identifying the traits of the "I" leader. Here's a short excerpt from The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power (Psychology Press):
[L]eadership is not about brute force, raw power, or “incentivization.” Indeed we suggest that such things are indicators and consequences of the failure of leadership. True, they can be used to affect the behavior of others. If you threaten dire punishment for disobedience and then instruct others to march off towards a particular destination, they will probably do so. Equally, if you offer them great inducements for obedience, they will probably do the same. But in either of these cases it is most unlikely that they will be truly influenced in the sense that they come to see the mission as their own. If anything, the opposite will be true. That is, they are likely to reject the imposed mission precisely because they see it as externally imposed. So, take away the stick—or the carrot—and people are liable to stop marching, or even to march off in the opposite direction in order to assert their independence. Not only do you have to expend considerable resources in order to secure compliance, but, over time, you have to devote ever-increasing resources in order to maintain that compliance.
In contrast, if one can inspire people to want to travel in a given direction, then they will continue to act even in the absence of the leader. If one is seen as articulating what people want to
do, then each act of persuasion increases the credibility of the leader and makes future persuasion both more likely and easier to achieve. In other words, instead of being self-depleting, true leadership is self-regenerating. And it is this remarkable—almost alchemic—quality that makes the topic of leadership so fascinating and so important.
...
[T]he structure of our argument can be summarized in terms of the following four principles:
First, we argue that leaders must be seen as “one of us.” That is, they have to be perceived by followers as representing the position that best distinguishes our in-group from other out-groups. ...
Second, we argue that leaders must be seen to “do it for us.” Their actions must advance the interests of the in-group. ...
Third, we argue that leaders must “craft a sense of us.” What this means is that they don’t simply work within the constraints of the pre-existing identities that are handed down to them by others. ... Good leaders need to be skilled entrepreneurs of identity.
Fourth, we argue that leaders must “make us matter.” The point of leadership is not simply to express what the group thinks.
Click to read the Preface from which that excerpt came [pdf].
Comments