Barbara Kellerman

«Nos contamos historias para vivir», escribió una vez Joan Didion, para explicar el optimismo infundado que muestran los seres humanos. Las buenas historias hacen que el mundo sea más llevadero. Inevitablemente, por lo tanto, queremos contar (y que nos cuenten) historias que nos hagan sentir mejor, aunque eso signifique que no tenemos un panorama tan completo como necesitamos.

0RS4NG74LXOyupPe2rUnAKe077zqdseNg7z26yfaw8VrsIze8xWSPPBTzL+xUrRs8JW6XPgwfAPFE2wygEj2R0NGU7hg0zwN+JxChH1vj/d7AMrus7/M36A+ozF+J6Fe

Reprint: R0401C 

Does using Tyco&#8217;s funds to purchase a $6,000 shower curtain and a $15,000 dog-shaped umbrella stand make Dennis Kozlowski a bad leader? Is Martha Stewart&#8217;s career any less instructive because she may have sold some shares on the basis of a tip-off? Is leadership synonymous with moral leadership?
Before 1970, the answer from most leadership theorists would certainly have been no. Look at Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung&#8212;great leaders all, but hardly good men. In fact, capricious, murderous, high-handed, corrupt, and evil leaders are effective and commonplace. Machiavelli celebrated them; the U.S. constitution built in safeguards against them. Everywhere, power goes hand in hand with corruption&#8212;everywhere, that is, except in the literature of business leadership.
To read Tom Peters, Jay Conger, John Kotter, and most of their colleagues, leaders are, as Warren Bennis puts it, individuals who create shared meaning, have a distinctive voice, have the capacity to adapt, and have integrity. According to today&#8217;s business literature, to be a leader is, by definition, to be benevolent.
But leadership is not a moral concept, and it is high time we acknowledge that fact. We have as much to learn from those we would regard as bad examples as we do from the far fewer good examples we&#8217;re presented with these days.
Leaders are like the rest of us: trustworthy and deceitful, cowardly and brave, greedy and generous. To assume that all good leaders are good people is to be willfully blind to the reality of the human condition, and it severely limits our ability to become better leaders. Worse, it may cause senior executives to think that, because they are leaders, they are never deceitful, cowardly, or greedy. That way lies disaster.
For information on an audio conference with Barbara Kellerman based on the concepts in this article, visit <a href="http://conferences.harvardbusinessonline.org">http://conferences.harvardbusinessonline.org</a>

Leadership—Warts and All

Reimpresión: R0401C ¿Usar los fondos de Tyco para comprar una cortina de ducha de 6.000 dólares y un paragüero con forma de perro de 15.000 dólares convierte a Dennis Kozlowski en un mal líder? ¿La carrera de Martha Stewart es menos instructiva porque puede que haya vendido algunas acciones por un aviso? ¿Liderazgo es sinónimo de liderazgo moral? Antes de 1970, la respuesta de la mayoría de los teóricos del liderazgo sin duda habría sido no. Mire a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung: todos grandes líderes, pero no buenos hombres. De hecho, los líderes caprichosos, asesinos, prepotentes, corruptos y malvados son efectivos y comunes. Maquiavelo los celebró; la Constitución de los Estados Unidos incorporó salvaguardias en su contra. En todas partes, el poder va de la mano de la corrupción, en todas partes, es decir, excepto en la literatura sobre el liderazgo empresarial. Para leer a Tom Peters, Jay Conger, John Kotter y la mayoría de sus colegas, los líderes son, como dice Warren Bennis, personas que crean un significado compartido, tienen una voz distintiva, tienen la capacidad de adaptarse y tienen integridad. Según la literatura empresarial actual, ser líder es, por definición, ser benevolente. Pero el liderazgo no es un concepto moral y ya es hora de que lo reconozcamos. Tenemos tanto que aprender de los que consideraríamos malos ejemplos como de los muchos menos ejemplos buenos que se nos presentan hoy en día. Los líderes son como el resto de nosotros: confiables y engañosos, cobardes y valientes, codiciosos y generosos. Asumir que todos los buenos líderes son buenas personas es cegarse deliberadamente ante la realidad de la condición humana y limita gravemente nuestra capacidad de convertirnos en mejores líderes. Peor aún, puede hacer que los altos ejecutivos piensen que, por ser líderes, nunca son engañosos, cobardes o codiciosos. En ese sentido se encuentra el desastre. Para obtener información sobre una audioconferencia con Barbara Kellerman basada en los conceptos de este artículo, visite<a href="http://conferences.harvardbusinessonline.org"> http://conferences.harvardbusinessonline.org</a>

Liderazgo: con todos sus defectos

Reprint: R0401C Does using Tyco’s funds to purchase a $6,000 shower curtain and a $15,000 dog-shaped umbrella stand make Dennis Kozlowski a bad leader? Is Martha Stewart’s career any less instructive because she may have sold some shares on the basis of a tip-off? Is leadership synonymous with moral leadership? Before 1970, the answer from most leadership theorists would certainly have been no. Look at Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung—great leaders all, but hardly good men. In fact, capricious, murderous, high-handed, corrupt, and evil leaders are effective and commonplace. Machiavelli celebrated them; the U.S. constitution built in safeguards against them. Everywhere, power goes hand in hand with corruption—everywhere, that is, except in the literature of business leadership. To read Tom Peters, Jay Conger, John Kotter, and most of their colleagues, leaders are, as Warren Bennis puts it, individuals who create shared meaning, have a distinctive voice, have the capacity to adapt, and have integrity. According to today’s business literature, to be a leader is, by definition, to be benevolent. But leadership is not a moral concept, and it is high time we acknowledge that fact. We have as much to learn from those we would regard as bad examples as we do from the far fewer good examples we’re presented with these days. Leaders are like the rest of us: trustworthy and deceitful, cowardly and brave, greedy and generous. To assume that all good leaders are good people is to be willfully blind to the reality of the human condition, and it severely limits our ability to become better leaders. Worse, it may cause senior executives to think that, because they are leaders, they are never deceitful, cowardly, or greedy. That way lies disaster. For information on an audio conference with Barbara Kellerman based on the concepts in this article, visit http://conferences.harvardbusinessonline.org

Liderazgo: con todos sus defectos

Resumen.

Partner Center