Management Is a Science and Leadership Is an Art

Leadership Is an Fine art Leadership is a phenomenon that is hard to describe or quantify. Like musical talent or able-bodied ability, leadership is innate -- some have information technology, some don't.

Leadership Is a Scientific discipline With the active research in neuroscience, the secrets of leadership are existence revealed. Those who aspire to lead effectively will utilise the emerging neuroscience to inspire their followers to focus, learn, perform, and build social bonds, thus leading to organizational success.

"Well-nigh will say that leadership is more than art than science and volition always be an art course -- greatly successful leadership being rare and confined to unusual people in unusual circumstances. This romantic view of leadership is like the view of illness earlier the invention of the microscope and penicillin."

-- Lynne Ellyn, Invitee Editor

Opening Argument

When we think of leaders, we may think of charismatic politicians similar John F. Kennedy, successful corporate executives like Jack Welch, or inspiring leaders like Mahatma Gandhi. What do these people have in common, if anything? What made them successful at getting others to vote for them, work for them -- even trek across a vast country with them? Can leaders in Information technology and business learn from these successful leaders, or were they just born with leadership ability?

What most toxic leaders like Joseph Stalin, Slobodan Milosovec, and Adolph Hitler? While they were manifestly powerfully evil people, how did they manage to inspire their followers to heinous acts against humanity? Is there a parallel in the business earth? When we come across negative -- fifty-fifty toxic -- leadership in business organization, how do we explain the willingness of many followers to sell phony derivatives, burn incriminating documents, or steal corporate secrets? If leadership is an art, can information technology exist a black art?

This month's Cutter IT Journal asks, "Is leadership a scientific discipline?" Most will say that leadership is more art than science and will always be an art form -- profoundly successful leadership being rare and confined to unusual people in unusual circumstances. This romantic view of leadership is like the view of illness before the invention of the microscope and penicillin. Before scientific tools and methods, doctors had no germ theory of disease, and thus their unwashed hands and instruments carried infection from patient to patient. After the invention of the microscope and identification of microbes, meticulous hygiene became standard medical practice.

In a similar way, neuroscience research is replacing many complex theories of human being and organizational behavior. With functional MRI (fMRI) technology, researchers can now run into the "aha!" moment of insight happen in the brain and have documented the circumstances about conducive to it.¹ Neuroscientists have examined the encephalon'southward fear center (the amygdala) and the brain'south extensive reward circuitry. While research is ongoing, it is generally accepted that the fear and mistake detection circuitry in the encephalon has five times as much brain real manor as the reward circuitry. This means that it is incredibly like shooting fish in a barrel to induce fear and negative emotions in others. We accept seen toxic corporate leaders, fear-mongering politicians, and murderous tyrants exploit this sensitive encephalon circuitry to create explosive us-versus-them dramas. Subtle differences in the size of the amygdala may even influence political orientation. A contempo British study showed that people who were politically conservative had a larger amygdala than those who had more liberal political orientations.^two A larger amygdala suggests that it is easier to motivate the behavior of some people based on fright and may explain the foreign nature of politics.

In the workplace, motivating out of fear is conspicuously possible, but outcomes may not support the corporate agenda well. When the amygdala "lights up," the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) goes offline. The executive functions located in the PFC -- judgment, problem solving, discernment -- are impaired when the amygdala is on high alarm. It is pretty clear that work environments filled with threats are not conducive to optimal encephalon functioning or, by inference, optimal performance.

Other findings about the brain that are emerging from the research suggest the tremendous importance of social connections. Since Mother Nature does not waste material limited resource (brain size is express by the skull), it is significant that there are many different neural circuits devoted to various aspects of social relatedness. In humans, the social networks are highly specialized and redundant. As 1 researcher commented, "Humans are an exquisitely social species."³

Much has been written in the popular press about the discovery of mirror neurons -- i of the social networks that humans and primates have in mutual. Mirror neurons in our brains light upward when nosotros observe another person performing a physical task. In other words, when we watch someone drinking coffee, mirror neurons in our brain burn in the same design as though we were lifting the loving cup and swallowing the coffee. New inquiry shows that a mirroring organisation exists that allows us to experience the emotion expressed in the face of some other. This is the basis of empathy, and, in the workplace, a leader needs to be aware that emotions are contagious. A negative, discouraged attitude can spread through a team and lead to employee disengagement, reducing productivity and profitability. On the other hand, a can-practise, happy, energetic emotional climate is also contagious. Leaders demand to manage the emotional tone of the surroundings effectively. In social club to do that, they must be very skilled at their own emotional regulation. The good news is that with mindfulness preparation and practice, everyone tin improve their power to self-regulate their emotions.

David Rock has created a leadership framework chosen SCARF -- for Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness -- based on the emerging insights in neuroscience.^iv The SCARF framework is a autograph way of remembering what the brain needs in order to perform finer:

• Status, in terms of SCARF, has a very specific meaning. It isn't about existence high ranking per se; it is about being and feeling recognized and valued for your contributions. It is having "continuing" with your peers and bosses.

• Certainty is hard to reach in most fast-moving environments, especially with big alter initiatives. A expert way to think virtually certainty is the way the Gallup organization surveys it in their famous employee engagement survey: "Do I know what is expected of me at piece of work?" In environments where the majority of employees strongly agree that they know what is expected of them at work, performance soars. In contrast, doubt leads to "amygdala hijack," raising stress hormones and shutting downward effective PFC action. This, in turn, impairs judgment and interferes with focus and learning. If leaders invest in providing certainty to each and every employee, they tin can take care of one of the most bones brain needs.

• Autonomy is disquisitional for the encephalon. No one likes to be micromanaged -- it'southward stressful. Stress is a productivity killer and is obstructive to inventiveness, innovation, and those aha! moments of deep insight. Good leaders know that telling people what needs to be washed creates certainty and clarity. Telling skilled employees how to do their job is disengaging and feels insulting.

• Relatedness is all nigh the multiple and redundant social networks that make us "exquisitely social" creatures. Employees who build bonds with their coworkers, clients, bosses, and peers are non but happier at piece of work, they are more committed and engaged. The Gallup organization has documented this with their seemingly strange question, "Practice I have a best friend at piece of work?" I have used the Gallup survey in a number of companies, and this question always gets the nearly agitated responses. Many people, particularly IT people, will say this is a dumb question -- they'll insist their all-time friend is their spouse, their dog, their college roommate, etc. Yet, the higher the percentage of employees who strongly agree that they have a best friend at work, the higher the productivity and success of the organization. Creating an environment where people feel safe and supported in building social relationships creates the potential for employees to form deep social attachments. This feeling of community leads to high employee engagement and support for organizational objectives.

• Fairness is a perennial concern. What leader hasn't been challenged by fairness issues or at least the perception of them? Neuroscience studies accept shown that even minor acts of unfairness light up the amygdala. Enquiry subjects who play a game with another person where the other player gets to make up one's mind on how to split up a reward accept very negative reactions when the reward is not split fairly.^v In one such game, the decider gets to split $10. The recipient tin can accept the offer or reject it. If they reject it, neither player gets anything. Recipients non only bear witness brain activeness indicating anger and "fault detection," they will also reject offers that are unfair. In other words, they will forgo a financial advantage to spite an unfair team player. This has deep implications for squad rewards and individual recognition.

Leaders tin can apply the SCARF framework in the workplace and amend productivity and results.

IN THIS ISSUE

Let's become dorsum to our original question: is leadership a science? This month's result presents some various thoughts about leadership and its nature -- science, art, or who knows what?

In our showtime commodity, David Chan and Marker Woodman dispute the thought that leadership is a scientific discipline but admit the contribution neuroscience may make to understanding leadership. They assert that leadership is situational and provide many examples. Fair enough. However, the examples given from history are basically military in nature -- certainly a very different situation from trying to implement SAP or complete code reviews for a new product. I would advise that it is time to drop the war/sports/conquest context for leadership and focus on employees and business concern leaders trying to make a living and find meaning in their work. And, as Chan and Woodman note, we tin definitely skip the "wild, drunken orgies" every bit a means of team building!

Adjacent, Cutter Fellow Robert Charette and coauthor Kerry Gentry accept on the differences between direction and leadership and tell us some depressing tales of modern leadership failures in concern and authorities. They affirm that the failures signal a dearth of leadership and an backlog of management. In the end they provide us with a useful model -- the Leadership Wheel -- for assessing leadership traits and emphatically argue that leadership is a science!

In their well-researched commodity, Richard and Douglas Houston propose "a scientific approach to leadership" and explain how organizations can develop a leadership competency model to bring this about. Cartoon on their deep experience and database of thousands of leadership profiles, they provide a useful, empirical framework for assessing and improving leadership skills.

Unlike the authors of our previous two articles, Craig McComb discounts the notion of leadership every bit science and declares instead that "leadership is an attempt of passion." While skills are necessary -- and McComb makes a strong case that technical knowledge is required to pb well in It -- he insists that leaders demand passion to succeed. I would agree, since leadership can be so challenging and exhausting. McComb provides usa with some of his personal story, relating how his passion for leadership development collection his quest to become a ameliorate leader.

Finally, Michael Hughes reminds u.s.a. not to forget the team and how they learn. While team learning might seem somewhat tangential to the topic of leadership, Hughes persuasively argues that "it movement[south] the bug of understanding and managing squad dynamics out of the sometimes glace realm of 'soft' leadership skills -- with their emphasis on interaction styles -- into the more prescriptive science of learning theory." Through the use of learning theory, IT leaders are better able "to manage their teams for the correct balance of innovation and efficiency."

And then there you take information technology. Whether you lot subscribe to the notion of leadership as science or consider it more of an art, we promise that this issue of Cutter It Journal volition provide tools and insights to improve leadership development in your own organization.

ENDNOTES

¹ Jung-Beeman, Mark, Azurii Collier, and John Kounios. "How Insight Happens: Learning from the Brain." NeuroLeadership Journal, Vol. 1, No. one, 2008, pp. 20-25.

² Hairdresser, Nigel. "Conservatives Big on Fear, Encephalon Study Finds." Psychology Today, 19 Apr 2011.

^three Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Laila Craighero. "Mirror Neuron: A Neurological Approach to Empathy." In Neurobiology of Homo Values, edited by Jean-Pierre Changeux, Antonio Damasio, and Wolf Singer. Reprint edition. Springer, 2010, pp. 107-124.

⁴ Stone, David. "SCARF: A Brain-Based Model for Collaborating With and Influencing Others." NeuroLeadership Journal, Vol. one. No. 1, 2008, pp. 296-320.

^v Tabibnia, Golnaz, and Matthew D. Lieberman. "Fairness and Cooperation Are Rewarding: Evidence from Social Cognitive Neuroscience." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1118, 2007, pp. ninety-101.

ABOUT THE Author

schmittblaccurity.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.cutter.com/journal/leadership-science-487301

Share this post