Ahead of the Curve?

I had something of a brainstorm the other day. Looking ahead, I thought about what I might want to do later, in 20 years, at a point when I might want to stop working full time. I’ve seen ads for college and business school teachers, and I think that might be fun.

I’ll have the experience, no doubt about that. But I’ll need the degree. I have part of an MBA under my belt, but never finished. Every time I got involved in a program I either got sent to an out-of-town long term assignment or had to change priorities due to something my ex needed or wanted. This was before the age of the Internet and online classes at reputable schools. In recent years most of my continuing education has focused on keeping up with the skills required to maintain my professional certification: new technologies and project management.

This new idea has me thinking again about a degree program. I’ve just started looking; my MBA work is so old there’s probably not much advantage from that standpoint in continuing it over pursuing some other degree if I find something else I’m really interested in studying. But last week in the library while looking for something new to listen to on a trip, I ran across Ahead of the Curve: Two Years at Harvard Business School by Phillip Delves Broughton, unabridged. Whatever degree I get will be from a Chicago-area school, but this sounded interesting, and maybe it would help me figure out whether an MBA is what I want to pursue.

I don’t think it is. Not a Harvard MBA, at least. I have no interest in being an investment banker or hedge fund manager, nor the kind of consultant described in the book. I have many years of successful consulting experience already and have never once treated (or cheated) a client in the fashion described. I would be interested in understanding some areas better than I do, and the case approach sounds interesting, but I absolutely don’t want to be part of the elite, arrogant, snobbish world of the Harvard Business School graduates.

The thing is, business is what I might like to teach, from a different perspective. I’d like to teach what I know: troubleshooting, problem solving, building and motivating teams, project management, using technology as a tool to support business. I’m not done with the recording yet, so maybe the program will redeem itself in my eyes, but so far even the descriptions of leadership coursework doesn’t sound like leadership to me.

The book is fascinating, and I’ll finish it. Maybe I’ll feel better when it’s done. Stay tuned.

Thoughts on Leadership

Not long ago I read a posting on one of my LinkedIn groups that was titled “The Myths of Leadership”.  The poster went on to say, basically, that all this leadership hype meant that everyone wanted to be a chief and nobody was willing to be Indians anymore.  I was so stunned I didn’t post a response.  I found I couldn’t write one without sounding like I thought the guy was an idiot – which is in fact what I think. 

How, in this day, can anyone still be confused about the difference between leadership and being in charge?   Sure, the buck has to stop somewhere.  But when I run a project or lead a team, I want EVERYONE on it, from my management lieutenants down to the intern maintaining our document repository, to have a clear sense of what s/he means to the success of the enterprise and the knowledge that I want them all to be leaders. 

There are lots and lots of good leadership books out there.  I happen to like Ed Oakley and Doug Krug, who wrote Enlightened Leadership and Leadership Made Simple.  I also like Steven Covey’s Principle-Centered Leadership.  Perhaps I like these precisely because they don’t target higher management.  They address the individual and show how anyone, regardless of title, can lead – by example, by initiative, by communication.

What’s worse, this guy is a consultant.  The FIRST thing a consultant needs to learn (assuming, of course, that s/he knows the subject area) is that consultants never have any real authority.  You have to communicate, cajole, convince.  You have to LEAD, because you can’t order people around.  If you can’t bring people on board and have them all moving toward the same goal, you aren’t going to get anywhere. 

Steven Covey puts it well when he talks about “shared mission and values”.  I suppose there are folks who think that’s pretty hokey, but it really resonates with me.  That’s why, when I’m researching an organization as a potential employer, the first thing I do is see what mission is posted on their website.  It will take more work to find out if they really live that mission, but if there isn’t one there in the first place that’s a huge red flag for me.  Ditto for the consultancy of anyone I would hire to help me solve a problem or implement a project.  I’m sure you can guess that this person’s solo consultancy website has nothing I’d look for.  One thing it does say, without explaining what he means, is “Better People”  Really?  I can’t think of very many things more demoralizing than communicating the attitude “I’m the leader and you’re all followers, so just do what you’re told.”

I went back to look at the discussion on LinkedIn, which is now more than a week old.  He only has one comment, a rambling, quasi-apologetic piece from someone I’ve heard speak at local AITP meetings.  She spent a lot of time talking about how she “looks at leadership differently” and how “we can all agree to disagree”.  True, perhaps, but useless.  I have to go one step farther, and that is, “If that’s your definition of leadership, I don’t want you anywhere near my team.”