Most observers and commentators argue that true leadership is a rare commodity. Many of these contend that the reason is that true leaders possess rare characteristics that are innate and present in a only small fraction of the population. Some even go so far as to suggest that leadership arises through mutation and that mankind's default psychology is to follow.

The opposing view is that leadership may require innate components but these are not sufficient and leadership attributes are developed mainly through empirical activities.

From your analysis of the Great American Leadership DB could it be argued that many of business leaders you identify are more appropriately classified as competent managers in that their methodology is grounded in practicing systematic control through the formulation of structure and rules?

My prejudiced position is that true leaders tend to be individuals who behave in a radically different manner to successful managers and often unconventionally and in counter intuitive ways.

Comments/observations?

In our analysis of 1,000 business leaders in the 20th century, we found that there were in deed many classic managers - individuals who focused on efficiency, standardization, and processes to either sustain a position of dominance within an industry or to maximize the growth potential of a company. Though these individuals focused on more process related tasks, their focus was appropriate for the lifecycle stage of their company and/or industry. Their vision for the business may not have been radical, but it was appropriately aligned with the context of the situation. To me, that alignment is a sign of a great business leader.

Sir,

Though vision (and mission) have become a "must" in every organization's website and published material, very few in reality convey these in a manner that makes sense to different stakeholders.

There can be differences in interpretation but it appears to me that vision is an individual's aspiration while mission is an organizational construct. For a vision to mean something significant, it must satisfy the following:

1. It must envisage a future state that most others cannot see.
2. It must be sufficiently articulated with passion such that the organization embraces the vision with enthusiasm.
3. It must stretch the organization to perform exceptionally.

As an example, one may consider Samuel Walton's vision in 1990 for his retail chain. When revenues had not even touched US$ 50 billion, he envisaged revenues of US$ 125 billion by the year 2000. Many people laughed at the idea. Competitors scoffed at the audacity. All the critics were silenced when the vision was realized in 1996, four years ahead of schedule.

One may not like the business model or the HR practices or the procurement policies. But one cannot overlook the profoundity of the vision and the passion with which it was executed.

Business success in the twenty-first century would depend to a great extent on the ability of the leader to craft a meaningful vision, and equally, the courage of conviction to execute an appropriate strategy to realize the vision.

Warm regards

Hello Tony

Thank you for your contribution.

We are currently engaged in a 'futures' study of leadership. In short we examine the assumptions underpinning existing models, emerging themes in the literature, drivers for change, pendulum swings etc. to identify plausible and desirable futures.

Two related trends that we have noted include:
* A pendulum swing back to seeing leadership a subset of management
* The rise of more self-effacing, non transformational leaders focused on thriving in the present rather than creating new futures.

We do not argue that change will not remain a reality, but the assumption that leadership is about change whilst managers worry about the here and now may not be adequate. What forms of leadership will be needed to help staff thrive within the status quo? Will vision matter in the future and if so in what ways?

I have oversimplified our study and deliberately highlighted the more extreme views, which do not necessarily represent our on-balance findings to prompt discussion. If you are will willing I would appreciate your thoughts on these questions.

Thank you for your comments. I believe that leadership and management both require vision, risk taking, and the ability to change. The whole notion of context-based leadership is predicated on the fact that great leaders (or managers) are able to anticipate the changing contextual landscape, to influence the contextual landscape in some meaningful way, or to react to changes to ensure the success and viability of their organization. Companies need individuals who can both anticipate (set vision) and implement (direct action towards the vision). We sometimes see this dual ability in the same person, but more likely than not, we see it in a team or group of individuals.