Many authors who have a focus on ‘leadership’ as their chosen writing topic within the LinkedIn environment advocate that “everyone” within an organisation should be considered potential effective leaders – that each of us has “leadership potential” inbuilt in us, that only needs to be nurtured in the right way for it to come forth.
The key point that I wish to raise in this article is that despite all the training possible/ available that is engaged in by or delivered to budding leaders, at the end of the day there will always be a graduated scale of leadership capability in any organisation – like it or not.
In my view and experience, those people who demonstrate leadership as a natural (innate)core quality/ character attribute, will (at least should) fulfill the most senior leadership roles in the organisation. They come into the given organisation with the natural ability to lead – they don’t need to be “groomed”/ developed in order to become a leader because they already are a leader (and most likely have been for many years – if not, their entire life).
And the above perspective got me thinking about the horticulture industry (and apple trees in particular). Currently many apple orchardists across New Zealand are in the throes of preparing their orchards for new Spring growth. In the case of mature/ maturing trees this means pruning lateral branches so as to optimise the chances of growing apples of a specification that is known to meet market demands/ expectations. Where fruit size is concerned, many of New Zealand’s export markets for apples are looking for mid-sized fruit – in technical terms this reflects what is termed a ‘Count Size’ in the range 100 – 120 (which means respectively that the fruit is of such a size that 100 to 120 fruit can fit into an industry standard sized carton).
What we find where pruning of apple trees is concerned is that often strengthening “leaders” (e.g. a branch with a diameter of around 10mm or greater) have grown vertically during the course of the past growing season, and if allowed to keep growing in this vertical format – because of their sheer number and vertical format – when fruit develops on them it can in fact lead to over-crowding of fruit…resulting in small and/ or defective fruit at the time of harvest…fruit sizing that is not in high demand by many export countries, and therefore will deliver a financial return to the grower which can be materially less than in the case of the more sought after sizes referred to above.
So to avoid this situation of “overcrowding of leaders” compromising the overall performance of the affected apple tree, the person pruning the tree will cull (prune out) many of the emerging leaders (vertically growing branches) or train them to grow in a direction that is not vertical, in order that those branches that are already growing at an appropriate angle from the trunk/ lateral that they are attached to can flourish and develop fruit of a size which is sought after. Consequently the overall tree develops a larger average sized fruit and the financial returns to the grower are greater versus if the ancillary leaders had not been culled or trained to grow in a different direction.
The more I thought about this pruning process during the course of last week the more I started to view it as a wonderful analogy for human organisation structures – and leadership roles in particular.
If we regard the greater (whole) organisation as being the tree, the branches of a tree as being the different functions within an organisation (e.g. marketing, finance, product procurement, etc) and the vertical competing leaders being say middle management; then a key role of the pruner (governance) is to ensure that the more natural appropriately directed (growing) leaders are permitted to flourish (receive all the light/ guidance/ governance support they need) – and by doing so optimise the performance and achievements of the overall organisation.
But rather than cull the emerging “ancillary” (middle management) leaders, governance needs to provide these people with career routes that do not compete with those of their peers or the appointed senior leader – but rather which are synergistic with and complementary to the defined leadership roles of their peers.
Yes, it is a “governance” responsibility (working with the CEO/ GM) to identify and set the parameters for middle management roles. Why ? Because ultimately it is governance that has ultimate responsibility for the viability, profitability and sustainability of the organisation that they are elected to make prudent governance decisions in the best interests of. A second very important reason why these role allocation decisions are not left to the senior manager (CEO/ GM) alone to make is that the senior manager’s role allocation decisions may be biased based on considerations such as the degree of threat a particular individual poses to them personally.
In summary, leadership is a graduated scale of capability/ talent; and if the governance of an organisation structures the operations of the organisation correctly by ensuring minimal “contesting for leadership” among or by “ancillary leaders”, then the appointed senior leader can get on and focus on executing their pivotal leadership role with as few distractions as possible.