Heroic leaders versus multiagent leadership

A few blogs have appeared in response to my working paper on heroic leadership. It is great to see a discussion of this subject in the development domain. It is also important to see different views being expressed, as the area of leadership is one where I think we need much more work to get our story straight.

I wanted to put a few points down to straighten my story out.

I believe that every case of development and change is really about multiagent leadership experiences where many agents engaged in new and creative ways--some directly in teams and tight coalitions and some indirectly in loose coalitions and network arrangements. Let me explain why:

• I believe that we can identify a vital set of roles or functions that need to be played in these multiagent leadership solutions. Some agents have substantive functions (identifying and packaging the problems that act as entry points for change, coming up with new ideas to change towards, bringing an implementation perspective and skill into he mix). Some functions are procedural in nature (agents who give authority to the change process, or who provide money or other resources, and who motivate and inspire and empower others). Finally, there are what the functional leadership school calls 'maintenance' functions (agents who convene and connect others).
• I do not believe that these many functions can be provided by one single agent and I do not believe that change can happen without the functions. Authority is provided by those with power. Problems are typically identified by those outside of power. Those in power must be connected to those identifying problems (and many more) to foster change.

These beliefs are based on evidence I have gathered over the past few years that make me convinced that in every case where one thinks a heroic leader led change you will find a group of agents behind the process. Notice that there are functions we might call the hero or champion function (the official authorizer who gets his or her name on a new law, for instance, or the motivator or inspirer who makes profound speeches and is seen as the face of a change process). But notice that these are just roles, and part of a broader multiagent solution.

The thing about my work so far is that I find these roles are not as important as others. The most important see, to be what I would call the mobilizes, which include he inspirer/ motivator agents plus the conveners and connectors. They hold the key to effective leadership solutions, in my mind.

So here is a challenge: tell me who you think proves this story wrong, and lets work together to see if the experience you refer to is about a heroic individual or a multiagent group. Let's look at Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King or Lee Kuan Yew or Sergio Fajardo... I bet you every one of these stories has such men playing important roles in a multiagent group where others played roles at least as vital.

Posted with Blogsy