“What I am saying is this: As a whole the leadership industry is self-satisfied, self-perpetuating, and poorly policed; that leadership programs tend to proliferate without objective assessment; that leadership as an area of intellectual inquiry remains thin; and that little original thought has been given to what leader learning in the second decade of the twenty-first century should look like. There have, of course, been curricular revisions, adjustments here and there to the existing model.  But in spike of the widespread disappointment in and distrust of leaders in the society at large, and despite the seismic changes in culture and technology, there has been scant alteration to the prevailing paradigm of learning how to lead.” (p. 169)

Reference

Kellerman, B. (2012).  The end of leadership.  New York: Harper Business.

“Leading in America has never been easy. But now it is more difficult than ever – not only because we have too many bad leaders, but because we have too many bad followers. Many of us don’t vote at all, or vote along strict or even extreme ideological lines, making it hard for political leaders to do what they must – to collaborate to compromise. And many of us are too timid, too alienated, and/or, too disorganized to speak up and speak out, making it easy for corporate leaders to do what they want – to do what’s best for them and their bank accounts. Whatever it is that ails us, in other words, it not only about those at the top falling down on the job, but also about those in the middle and at the bottom falling down on theirs.” (Kellerman, 2012, p. 123)

Reference

Kellerman, B. (2012).  The end of leadership.  New York: Harper Business.

“In government we have leaders who are perceived by and large as unable to do what they are supposed to do, to lead. In business we have leaders who are perceived by and large as able to do what they are supposed to do, to lead, but who nevertheless do so in ways that disappoint and dishearten. This is an important distinction, one not usually made by the leadership industry, which tends anyway to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, and to teach how to lead as if one size fits all.” (Kellerman, 2012, p. 116)

Reference

Kellerman, B. (2012).  The end of leadership.  New York: Harper Business.

“After years of studying leaders and their traits, I believe that leadership begins and ends with authenticity. It’s being yourself; being the person you were created to be. This is not what most of the literature on leadership says, nor is it what the experts in corporate America teach. Instead, they develop lists of leadership characteristics one is supposed to emulate. They describe the styles of leaders and suggest that you adopt them. This is the opposite of authenticity. It is about developing the image or persona of a leader.” (George, 2003, p. 11)

Reference

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

In his 2010 Harvard Business Review article, Jeffrey Pfeffer made an astute observation about many leadership books when he stated:

“Most books by well-known executives and many lectures and courses about leadership should be stamped “Caution: This material can be hazardous to your organizational survival.” That’s because many leaders touting their careers as models to be emulated gloss over the power plays they used to get to the top. The teaching on leadership is filled with prescriptions about following your inner compass, being truthful, letting your feelings show, being modest and self-effacing, not behaving in bullying or abusive ways – in short, prescriptions that reflect how people wish those in positions of power behaved. There is no doubt that the world would be a much better place if people were always authentic, modest, truthful, and concerned about others, instead of simply pursuing their own aims. But wishing that’s how people behaved won’t make it so.” (p. 88)

Reference

Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power play. Harvard Business Review, 88(7/8), 84-92.

“In a perfect world, we would be blessed with transforming leaders and servant leaders, who live and breathe for the benefit of their followers. In a somewhat less perfect world, we would have leaders who mirrored their followers, who represented them honestly and authentically.”

…

“But in the world in which we actually live, leaders tend to put self-interest ahead of the public interest. In such a circumstance, no one assumes that leaders are morally superior, or that they care fervently about their followers. Rather, we know on some level that leaders and followers are more or less alike – both are plain people, no less and no more beneficent than the rest.” (Kellerman, 2012, p. 98)

Reference

Kellerman, B. (2012).  The end of leadership.  New York: Harper Business.