Leading from Behind

Leading from Behind

1:35 PM Wednesday May 5, 2010

(Editor's note: This post is part of a six-week blog series on how leadership might look in the future. The conversations generated by these posts will help shape the agenda of a symposium on the topic in June 2010, hosted by HBS's Nitin Nohria, Rakesh Khurana, and Scott Snook.)



For now and into coming decade or so, the most effective leaders will lead from behind, not from the front — a phrase I've borrowed from none other than Nelson Mandela. In his autobiography, Mandela equated a great leader with a shepherd: "He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind."

It's a concept whose time has come, given several realities:

The psychological contract between companies and employees is changing. Among other things, people are looking for more meaning and purpose in their work lives. They want and increasingly expect to be valued for who they are and to be able to contribute to something larger than themselves. People expect to have the opportunity to co-author their organization's purpose. They want to be associated with organizations that serve as positive forces in the world.

Innovation — not simply incremental but continual breakthrough innovation — will be a key driver of competitiveness. Society's notion of the brilliant innovator, the solitary genius with a sudden flash of creative insights is hard to shake. But, after all, an iPod or a Pixar movie is not the product of a single person's vision or labors. Most innovation is the result of collaborative work involving a diverse group and a collective process of iteration and discovery. Those in positions of authority have been taught to think that it's their job to come up with the big idea — but sustained innovation comes when everyone has an opportunity to demonstrate a "slice of genius" (an idea that has evolved from my research with Greg Brandeau, the CTO of the Walt Disney Studios, and my research associate Emily Stecker). Breakthroughs come when seemingly ordinary people make extraordinary contributions.

Leaders can encourage breakthrough ideas not by cultivating followers who can execute but building communities that can innovate. Of course, leaders do need to act as direction-setters and vision-makers, and we need to prepare them for those roles. But we often emphasize these skills at the expense of others that are growing in importance. If you're looking for innovation, it doesn't make much sense to say that the leader's job is to set the course and mobilize people to follow them there. If you want your team to produce something truly original, you don't know where you're going, almost by definition. The traditional leadership model just doesn't work.

Leading from behind doesn't mean abrogating your leadership responsibilities. After all, the shepherd makes sure that the flock stays together. He uses his staff to nudge and prod if the flock strays too far off course or into danger. For leaders, it's a matter of harnessing people's collective genius. Doing so entails two primary responsibilities — and they are not easy to get right.

First, leaders must ensure their organizations are willing to innovate. This is fundamentally about building community. Some leaders refer to this function as "creating a world to which people want to belong." In these communities, people are valued for who they are and have the opportunity to contribute to something larger than themselves. These communities have a common purpose, values and rules of engagement about how people should interact and problem-solve together. A shared purpose brings the people together and makes them willing to do the hard work of innovation.

Second, leaders must build the organizational capabilities necessary for engaging in the innovation process. The three essential organizational capabilities are: creative abrasion (the ability to generate ideas through intellectual discourse and debate); creative agility (the ability to test and refine ideas through quick pursuit); and creative resolution (the ability to make decisions in an integrative manner).

Those who are exceptional at leading from behind are likely to be different than those who excelled at leading from the front. And this raises the question: are we identifying and developing the leaders who can tap the power of collective genius?

Linda A. Hill is the Wallace Brett Dunham Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, and Faculty Chair of the Leadership Initiative.


(Editor's note: This post is part of a six-week blog series on how leadership might look in the future. The conversations generated by these posts will help shape the agenda of a symposium on the topic in June 2010, hosted by HBS's Nitin Nohria, Rakesh Khurana, and Scott Snook.)

http://blogs.hbr.org/imagining-the-future-of-leadership/2010/05/leading-from-behind.html


=====================================================
Ravichander Rao 1 year ago

Leadership at the top model is not delivering a holistic solution, and is leaving employees and societies unsatisfied with the companies. The need of the hour probably is - philospher-managers at the topmost level. Their responsibility will not only be to meets the objectives and take the company to the next levels, but also to deliberate about the social and environmental responsibilites.

Leaders are inspirational and effect changes, but without the philosphical aptitude the focus towards holistics does not get enough attention. The bottom line and company growth seem to be the center of the focus, rather than for whom the company exists and what larger purpose it serves.

Leading from the front or behind is a situational based strategy. A shepherd leads from behind because he does not need the followers to get inspired to do something or take a risk. Moreover, he is well aware of the terrain, which enables him to lead from behind. But, most of the corporates might not be working under the same setup. Most of the warriors lead from the front because they face the exactly opposite situation to that of a shepherd. Since most of the companies want a piece from the same pie, they have employed this wartime strategy.

In my view, what the newage corporates need is a good blend of philosopher-managers, a few leaders in every functional teams, and excited followers.
Flag
4 people liked this. Like
Reply
Bonniejv 9 months ago in reply to Ravichander Rao

Sometimes internal motivation of followers comes from being in front. Additionally, it gives those who are in front a new view of thier surroundings. As long as the leader is truely behind them (in other words transferring leadership to them and supporting, mentoring and believing in them), I believe that leading from behind CAN be motivational. Part of this is that the follower who is leading the pack out in front feels that the leader behind has confidence in them and their abilities.

1 person liked this. Like
Reply
Ansgar Gerstner 1 year ago

I'd say leading from behind is a pretty old idea. But this makes it by no means obsolete. I think it is as relevant as it was two and a half thousand years ago:

“When sages are in front of people, they place themselves behind them. When they are on top of people, they are humble.” (Tao Te Ching, chapter 66, GD Bamboo A)

Best wishes from Shanghai,
Ansgar Gerstner, author of The Tao of Business

1 person liked this. Like
Reply
Tom Sadtler 1 year ago


Leading from Behind is an essential need in today's world, when we are facing challenges of a magnitude that the world has not faced before, such as how to deal with climate change. I was glad to see this included as a topic for the June Leadership Conference.



Jim Collins in "Built to Last" makes the argument that companies, which have the greatest ability for sustained success are often ones where the leader focuses on building a strong successful culture rather than being in the news.



From my own experience, HP and David Packard's 11 Simple Rules come to mind.



-Tom Sadtler

1 person liked this. Like
Reply
Chris 1 year ago


I am also a member of Gen Y and agree with Renee that Linda's vision of leading from behind is indeed accurate. This article resonates deeply with me and, I would imagine, with many of my new professional colleagues.



However, I also feel the same sense of futility as OSA. I work in a very large, very bureaucratic organization, which is so firmly rooted in old ways, I am often discouraged.



I have had the good fortune of leading some initiatives towards the type of organizational leadership that Linda has outlined (emphasis on individual and organizational learning, shared leadership, cultivating a sense of purpose, etc.), but I fear that, beyond a small group of dedicated people who have made this a priority, these efforts are almost entirely useless in the face of traditional ways of thinking and those responsible for the management of the organizational system.



While I wholeheartedly endorse Linda's articulation and call for leading from behind, increasingly, I am of the opinion that we will simply have to wait for boomers to retire in order to realize true change.


1 person liked this. Like
Reply
Ashish 1 year ago


Very interesting idea and strong inherent appeal.



However, I have a question.



Do you believe that the idea applies to leadership in any situation or only / more strongly in specific situations.



One of my frustrations with literature on Leadership has been that often it omits the context, which in my view shapes the required Leadership behaviour immensely.



Mandela's quote is probably a direct result of his experiencein leading S Africa since his release.



As companies are getting larger, in many ways they are getting more centralized not less. Regulations like Sarbanes Oxley have played a key role in this but so has the fear of reputational risk of many kinds.



I would very luch like to hear from people in many different industries / countries with a diverse set of contexts re applicability of leading from behind or front.

Like
Reply
Rohan Kumar 1 year ago


This is indeed a great article and supporting and non supporting it is an issue of what you take out of this article.



When we talk about leading from behind and the Shepherd managing the flock, the target customer here is the leader in control, the person who can make a difference. If the entire organization in already following the stereotype model of leading..then the impetus has to come from the very top and it would be a very cumbersome process. But if the majority workforce is young or are flexible to change, in my opinion the best time to change is now... because we know that its very tough to change personality and character at a latter stage (i.e. The downstream stage in a supply chain).



Again, my comments are based on the plot that the shepherd can actually control the sheeps.. or the leader stays at back so as to lift or heal anyone who falls behind or drops down...help them till the whole organization is moving at a sustainable growth rate ( as discussed in boardrooms).



If the above is the case and the sheeps are given the right guidance

and training the sheeps can all transform themselves and hence the organization into a agile and strong force. When the sheeps are on their own ..they will need to be prodded with two sticks..one which is used mostly..lets say 90% of the time to put them in the direction of perfection...the other would be 10% of the time to make them realize that they are still in competition though locked with the vows of brotherhood.

Like
Reply
Patrick Khamadi 1 year ago


Many thanks for thoughts shared in this article. This article solidly reinforces that gone are the days when we had only a ‘very few thinking‘in the organization and the rest ‘only acting on pre-set semi cast in stone actions’. I see it in my kids… the younger generations values are 360 and will remain so even in the work place are we are beginning to see.

So, competitive advantage will increasingly depend and also demand leaders actively pursue the integrative gelling points from the team as mentioned in this article. Thanks for thoughts again!!


Like
Reply
osa 1 year ago


so how do you manage to break through in an organisation which stifles you and your ideas with bureaucratic, high-handed, micro-managing leaders?

Like
Reply
sundaramany 1 year ago


In a world of specializations, leaders emerge from the middle. These are people who can pull together various resources around them and create a whole bigger than the sum of the individual components.

Like
Reply
ABHISHEK SYAL 1 year ago


It was said that in a war, the leader who stays at front has more chances of winning.



Today, in war, strategists and top officers stay in front of the devices which inform them about the enemy's moves and whereabouts. Technology has helped us redefine warfare.



Similarly, technology has also helped us redefine the simple process of introductions. Many of the introductions today start off through internet (social networking), phone or chat. This implies, virtual personna is becoming as important if not more than real personna.



As the interaction styles and media for developing human or customer relationships change, hence, it is bound to affect the work styles as well as leading styles.



What was leading from front then, we cannot say that it now has become leading from behind. The leader still needs to maintain his image at the forefront, being able to inspire his followers by his vision, his image and his speeches/conversations. This is imperative to induce faith and motivation in his followers.



However, i do agree with the concept that it is going to be redefined. Most of the leader's work is now not at the front, but rather at the back-end. If we see the innovation processes today, many healthy companies have implemented bottom-up innovation after scraping the op-down approach and merging it with bottom-up. This makes sense as the futuristic developments are made more effective through consumer feedback and analyses.



Leaders need to initiate this process, as well as nudge when needed, but they must also give the freedom to the employees to have the freedom to use creative methodologies to bring up information for making decisions on business strategy.



And through blogging, it is now possible for employees to contribute and share their ideas, as well as develop others' and the best ones could be decided by the leader to be implemented.



Hence, more of the work of the leader and the role is now redefined through technology breakthroughs and greater information access as more people seek for purpose and freedom of thinking and doing "thinking" and "smart work" in their jobs. However, the leader's visions as well as prediction of future trends and his image must always be at the forefront to motivate employees and workers to deliver their best. This way, it is ensured that any organization also has a sense of coherent purpose.

Like
Reply
Viktor O. Ledenyov, Ukraine 1 year ago


The future of leadership may be based on a number of advanced concepts, including the Leading from Behind hypothesis. The real problem is that the new hi-tech innovative businesses will certainly require the deep technical skills, which can not be observed in a big number of the EMBA/MBA graduates from reputable business schools in the USA! The Innovation in Leadership may need very different set of skills, which can be gained in Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and P.R. China only! That is why the prosperity in emerging markets is growing at time, when the crisis in developed nations is spreading.



The Town of Bar, Vinnytsia Region, Ukraine

http://www.vininvest.gov.ua/geo/index.php?point=736&lv=en

Like
Reply
Suzy 1 year ago


Linda, Great work! Its inspiring to read such thoughts on the topic of leadership which makes you think beyond the obvious. I recently heard the podcast of Vineet Nayar on Dan Mulhern radio show. He shared a lot of interesting unique new concepts on leadership roles and Gen Y. You might be interested to listen to this. http://www.vineetnayar.com/everyday-leadership-with-dan-mulhern/