The Phenomenon of Leadership 7
were not characterized as having particularly strong or forceful personalities, nor
were they seen as visionaries. Often shy and self-effacing, they were typically
uncomfortable in the limelight and did not call attention to themselves or their
personal achievements. Collins describes this as the paradox of personal humility
and professional will. These executives brought a powerful level of commitment,
unparalleled determination, and excellent managerial skills to their responsi-
bilities, but the focus was always primarily on organizational purposes and goals.
These chief executives tended to lead by (1) raising questions, not providing
answers; (2) using debate and dialogue, not coercion; (3) conducting autopsies
on mistakes without placing blame; and (4) building red-flag problem indicators
into their systems of information.
To be sure, a simple, compelling vision was a crucial component of leader-
ship in these cases, but it was the result of a collective process, open debate,
and intense discussions, often over a long period of time. The focus of the dia-
logue was not rhetoric about being the best company in the industry. Rather, the
preoccupation was using analytical methods and collaborative processes to find
those specific spheres of activity or product lines in which the company actually
excelled, or could excel, to become the very best in the world. The idea that a
bold leader imposes a dazzling vision on an acquiescent organization would ring
false to the top executives of these companies. “Yes, leadership is about vision.
But leadership is equally about creating a climate where truth is heard and the
brutal facts confronted” (Collins 2001, 74). Drawing these findings together in
a sharp, ironic reversal of traditional thinking about leadership, Collins offers
these conclusions: “The moment a leader allows himself to become the primary
reality people worry about... you have a recipe for mediocrity, or worse.... Less
charismatic leaders often produce better long-term results than their more char-
ismatic counterparts” (2001, 72). So, charisma is a liability that effective leader-
ship can overcome!
As we shall see in the brief phenomenology of relational leadership that fol-
lows, Collins’s findings are largely consistent with the interpretations of leadership
that have emerged in the past several decades in many fields. The personalities
and styles of effective leaders come in all sizes and shapes. Often they are skilled
in delegating authority, but not infrequently they are immersed in the details of
the enterprise. What matters most are their practices and commitments and the
disciplined processes of leadership that they embed in their organizations.
TOWARD A PHENOMENOLOGY OF
RELATIONAL LEADERSHIP
This sample of Collins’s research and reflection opens up a vast sea of con-
temporary findings about leaders and leadership. Some twenty-five years ago one
of the most influential students of leadership, James MacGregor Burns, made a
succinct claim to which scholars have tried to respond ever since: “Leadership is
one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth” (1978, 2).