In the first post of this series, No More Heroes? #1, I introduced the concept of post-heroic leadership and gave some reasons for its rise.  I also suggested that I have a problem with it, and here it is.  I don’t like the name.Now this might strike you as rather feeble.  Who cares what a thing is named?  It’s the meaning that matters!  The purpose of a name is to point to the reality.  Of itself, a name is insignificant.

The problem with this analysis is that it underestimates the power of words.  Especially a word like hero, which is a deeply evocative, emotive word, an archetypal word, a word that resonates with meaning in the collective unconsciousness of all humanity.

Proof?  Imagine these scenarios.  The CEO of a large organisation stands up to make a speech in front of her staff.

Scenario 1: “There are no more heroes in this organisation.  We’re beyond that stage now.  Everyone has to take greater responsibility and solve their own problems.”

Effect?  Internal groans, apprehension about an added workload and therefore paper-load,  the beginnings of panic should support fail, and scepticism over management motives.

Scenario 2: “Everyone is a hero in this organisation.  You don’t need management to tell you what needs done.  We’re going to give you the freedom to get on and do it.”

Effect? Increased self-esteem due to management appreciation of ability, excitement about future initiatives, and a sense of relief!

To be fair, I think that this is a point that John Huey himself anticipated when he wrote about the post-heroic leadership model:

“It still requires many of the attributes that have always distinguished the best leaders – intelligence, commitment, energy, courage of conviction, integrity.  But here’s the big difference: it expects those qualities of just about everyone in the organization.”

In other words, instead of an organisation with a few heroes at the top of the pyramid, now we have organisations in which everyone is a hero!

So my suggestion?  Call it something different.  Call it pan-heroic leadership.

I don’t think we will ever get to a stage in society or work where the concept of herohood becomes obsolete.  Even in this cynical, post-modern age in which The Stranglers sing for ‘No More Heroes’, we are up to our necks in Z-list celebrities and third rate politicians with heroic pretensions.  A more apt song is surely ‘Search For The Hero Inside Yourself’ by M People.

Which organisation in its right mind would refuse a workforce self-motivated by the heroic ideals of resourcefulness, integrity, confidence and self-sacrifice for a greater cause?  A workforce of entrepreneurial heroes?

Beyond heroic leadership?  Undesirable and at any rate impossible.

Leadership where all are heroes?  Now that’s a tale worth telling!

Image credit: Stinkie Pinkie.

Next week, I’ll be speaking at one of Legal Island’s Business for Breakfast seminars, at silly o’clock in the morning on the above topic.  If you are attending, please make any suggestions in a comment below.

When?  16 March 2010, 07:30 – 09:00

Where? Island Centre, Legal Island, Antrim

About what?

Twitter is celebrated as the latest online phenomenon in PR and brand-building. But what about meeting new collaborators and suppliers or developing meaningful ways of communicating with customers? Want to know more?

Click here to book your place.

The latest next big thing in management is something called ‘post heroic leadership’ (PHL).  ‘Post’ is one of those trendy prefixes – much like meta and multi – that keeps popping up everywhere.  Of course, it means after or subsequent to.  This being the case, just what exactly is ‘heroic leadership’?

A guy called John Huey was one of the first to make the distinction in a 1994 Fortune article called The new post-heroic leadership.  He described PHL as a style of ‘virtual leadership’ in which those in power delegate responsibility out to the staff.  How?  By creating a working environment in which staff have the resources to solve their own problems.  Staff do not depend on a ‘hero’ to intervene and ’save’ them.  But these new leaders do take on themselves the responsibility of modeling those values that the organisation espouses.

Twinned with this is a strong distinction between ‘leaders’ and ‘managers’ that allows workers to be the first without the second.  This is just acknowledging what we know to be true anyway – the line of leadership cuts across a manager/staff distinction regularly.  While management is about keeping the organisation running, leadership involves ‘getting things started and facilitating change’.

This new paradigm of leadership is expressed in phrases like the following:

• “Leadership is a verb, not a noun”
• “Leadership is defined by what you do, not who you are”
• “Leaders are those whom others follow”

And the reasons for this shift?  Traditional hierarchies are breaking down, and power based on position alone looks ridiculous given the frequently equal educational levels of team members.  As the quantity and scope of workplace tasks increase, successful delegation must become institutionalised, the rule rather than the exception.  And for an organisation to succeed in the 21st century, it must employ the talents of the all, not the few.

It sounds great.  Who could object?  Well me, actually.  And I’ll explain why in the next blog in this two-part series.

Until then, here are a few other articles on the PHL model.

A Framework for 21st Century Leadership

Leadership and Intelligence: The Essential Traits for Leadership Effectiveness

POST-HEROIC LEADERSHIP: Managing the Virtual Organization

The Greatly Exaggerated Demise of Heroic Leadership: Gender, Power, and the Myth of the Female Advantage

Image credit: Stinkie Pinkie.