{"id":5492,"date":"2019-02-10T01:20:56","date_gmt":"2019-02-10T01:20:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/arielsheen.com\/?p=5492"},"modified":"2019-02-10T01:20:56","modified_gmt":"2019-02-10T01:20:56","slug":"review-of-reinventing-leadership-making-the-connection-between-business-and-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/2019\/02\/10\/review-of-reinventing-leadership-making-the-connection-between-business-and-politics\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of Reinventing Leadership: Making the Connection Between Business and Politics"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u201cThe distinctions between leadership and management constitute a major shift in our thinking about how the private sector should be organized. A mere [six] decades ago, leadership was a conception business and industry generally chose to ignore. But now the best and brightest afree that leadership belongs in the private sector as much as it does in the public one. The only question is how exactly leadership and management should be defined\u201d (147)<\/p>\n

Reinventing Leadership: Making the Connection Between Business and Politics<\/a> by Barbara Kellerman was published by the State University of New York press in 1999 and is volume in the SUNY series in Leadership Studies. At the time of the book\u2019s publication, she was the Director of the Center for the Advanced Study of Leadership at the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland.<\/p>\n

While an academic work, the book\u2019s message is also directed to leaders and managers in both the upper reaches of the private sector as well as the public sector \u2013 something that is reflected in its style. The first premise of the book is that a number of significant failures of government has shown that earlier models of political leadership are inadequate. The second is that changes in social norms and conceptions of leadership wrought by political events have made traditional notions of management that came into prominence in the period of the 1950s to the early 1970s no longer relevant. The third and final premise is about the advantages of the convergence and synthesis of leadership values that embraces traditional government and business positions. Given the increased necessity of business and government leaders to communicate and collaborate this helps to develop a common language so as to better understand each other and the interests they represent \u2013 the public and private capital interests.<\/p>\n

Kellerman defines management as the efforts of those who hold a position of authority at some level to ensure that the activities of a firm continue as needed and that leaders are those that engage followers in the mutual pursuit of agreed-on goal representing, usually, significant and not merely incremental change. These two conceptual inputs for the synthesis she believes is now needed were defined by various authors writing for either the professional or government leader\/manager. By showing the typical continuing education paths for both the professional and the government official and analyzing professional literature \u2013 such as Harvard Business Review publications as well as an impressively large list of books on management and leadership in corporate America \u2013 Kellerman shows how divergently the ideals character traits and habits of thought for each social actor was first conceived \u2013 and how large political scandals and failures drew the two together in a way that more contemporary theorists would categorize as a mix of neoliberal or technocratic with a human face.<\/p>\n

Whereas previously managers did not view their role as to influence \u2013 simply to command, control and if necessary to coerce \u2013 the changes in cultural and legal norms mean that this no longer was valid. In some workplaces where there hasn\u2019t been much change wrought by America\u2019s changing labor laws, such as extraction and agricultural industries, these were few alteration in norms. In worksites dealing with more intangible goods and services, like those of the many value-added business-to-business industries, the impact was significant and well commented on in the journalism and editorials of the professional and government press.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

A number of seminal business leaders from the 1960s to the 1980s are presented as case studies to show the varying trends in how leadership was approached as a theory and practice and a number of common threads highlighted. One such theme found in the private industry, but not in that of the public, was of the need for management to \u201cknow themselves\u201d in a way that included rigorous self-assessment so as to become more aware of the interpersonal dynamics at the workplace and within the market in general. If this all sounds curiously \u201cnew-agey,\u201d or vaguely psychotherapeutic in nature\u201d Kellerman says in one of her many amusing asides, \u201cthat\u2019s because it is\u201d (76).<\/p>\n

Another of Kellerman\u2019s observations is that while egalitarian ideas increasing permeated literature on leadership in business that in practice a noticeable change in work relations towards something that might be defined as \u201cworkplace democracy\u201d never materialized. In its stead there became an infatuation with \u201ccollaboration\u201d and \u201cteams\u201d. While anachronistic to this book, a good modern example of this is found in Agile, Scrum, and DevOps, coding and testing team practices associated with software development firms that shown in their literature and practice to be highly consultative and communicative in nature. The scandals of presidents and CEOs as well as changed in legal regulation \u2013 especially the opening of borders for trade \u2013 all feed into the changing workplace dynamics. Because certain types of labor could be more easily moved in the face of organized discontent by workers, which increased the reserve army of labor able to replace those in other, less at risk sectors, there was an additional shift in those work cites as well. Not a point which is gone into in detail \u2013 it seems that the effects of this would be another large influence for the imperative to blur the lines between public and private leaders and managers. And on this topic, Kellerman cites three specific imperatives wrought by the new, post-NAFTA globalized:<\/p>\n