Critique of "The work of leadership" by Heifetz and Laurie

¶ … business structures are so highly complex and competitive that the old paradigm -- improving efficiency and the bottom line, is no longer all it takes to be successful. Instead, continued reinvention of both the company's product line and industry capabilities is not only necessary, but will help decide which companies succeed and which fail. Too, because the half-life of technology is so short, radical and category breaking innovation is needed not just to compete, but to provide the global environment with positive growth. With this change in paradigm, also comes a change in the concept and constructs of leadership. In an age in which information and data are complex commodities, it is far more important to understand organizational behavior through the role of asking the right questions, leading by example, and understanding the most appropriate way to delegate than ever before. Indeed, the type of leadership that will succeed in this new age has far more to do with encouraging dissent and questioning than ever before.

Through a fairly exhaustive list of real-world examples, authors Heifetz and Laurie (1997) present ideas that are not only innovative for the lay person, but particularly insightful for the modern executive. Realizing that innovation must be radical, not incremental, the true test of any organization's success in the global world is to not only develop strategic actions, but tactical innovation in getting a new product and service to market. Unfortunately, because individuals are so different in their approach to change, there is no one set pattern for leadership that engenders successful change management. More often than not, it seems, many companies, particularly those multinationals that have been in business for decades, see innovation as being synonymous with efficiency and in struggling to make their organizations more efficient, they often kill any real chance for innovative behavior. Goal orientation and efficiency, according to the authors, are most assuredly not the same thing although they may, on the surface, seem that way.

Too, innovation is rarely clean, neat, and completely linear. Instead, because it is new and unique, it is disruptive to most of the current patterns and procedures within any organization, and often takes the form of dissent -- individuals or groups preferring to buck the status quo. The difficulty for most contemporary leaders (and frankly most managers at all levels), is to encourage proactive and positive dissent without feeling threatened by it -- part of the ability to ask the right questions that tend to engender new and creative answers. A wise CEO thus says, "I don't shoot messengers -- that's why I have them."