Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The Leader as Conductor: What can conducting teach us about leadership?

Leading an Organization’s Score, Instrumentalists, & Performance to Success

The conductor of an orchestra is, by definition, a leader. With a quick move of their baton, conductors decide when and how the sound starts and stops. Yet, conducting is far more complex than merely starting and stopping sound. Perhaps best described by Dr. Fountain, my conducting professor at Blair, conducting is “an art of leadership.” As we learned in class, conducting involves all of the core components involved in successful business leadership: Vision, communication, trust, mobilization, etc. Similar to leading a business, the conductor must strategically use key musical components (i.e., rhythm, style, interpretation, etc.) to achieve short-term technical goals, a unified musical product, and long-term musical vision. Conductor and leadership consultant, Itay Talgam, recently spoke at TED about using this conductor/musician analogy to improve organizational leadership. Given that they face the ultimate leadership challenge - creating perfect harmony without saying a word- I agree with Talgam that conductors have something valuable to teach us about leadership.

Just as CEOs uphold company mission statements, conductors work to support the uniqueness and value of the musical score. Originally conceived by the composer, the score creates the musical foundation of the ensemble and the boundaries it must adhere to. Similar with company mission statements, the conductor treats the score as sacred, using it to guide his ensemble to successful performances. Although he may slightly adapt it to fit his interpretation/vision, the score essentially remains true to its original form and intent. The conductor’s then must balance the interplay between the collective orchestra and the individual instrumentalists to give way to a unified sound. Although the instruments vary in tone color & playing technique, the conductor blends their unique timbres together into a single musical sound while giving each instrument the opportunity to shine on its own. Similar to the leader mobilizing others through a shared mission, the successful conductor uses communication and vision to unite the instrumentalists through a collective purpose – to deliver exceptional musical performances.

In his presentation, Talgam explains that the great conductors were successful because they enabled players to tell their own musical “stories” simultaneously, as a community. As Talgam put it, the best conductors are “doing without doing it,” acting as Theory Y enablers rather than Theory X controllers. Trusting that their players know how to play their music correctly, the great conductor refrains from stomping out the beats, but rather assumes a coordinating, “co-adventurer” role (Kelley). This enabling process resonates with De Pree’s view of leadership as the process of “liberating and enabling” others’ talents, ideas, and skills. Conductor leadership is a relationship (Stogdill, 1948 & Rost, 1991); the conductor knows what he wants from each instrument, but doesn’t personally make the music – that is the responsibility of the individual players who are the masters of their instruments. Dr. Fountain taught us that the conductor must communicate ongoing interpretive vision and direction to his musicians. Words may be used to communicate this, but the real test is communicating vision through non-verbal conducting. He explained that the conductor must communicate vision and musical goals through his gait, facial expressions, posture, breathing, and gestures- everything must be aligned. This nonverbal communication illustrates Hackman & Johnson’s view of leadership as an interactive process through which leaders and follows develop a strategy to achieve shared goals. “Matching their behaviors with their goals,” successful conductors use goal-driven communication to benefit the collective orchestra and better reach their shared vision and goals (1991).

Leaders should gain inspiration from the conductor’s ability to lead nonverbally. Using this metaphor, leaders should remember not only to communicate vision but to embody their vision and goals. We are also reminded to lead without doing or micromanaging- as leaders, we provide vision and guidance while our followers make it happen. Like the successful conductor, the leader needs to engage followers in their overall vision and, at the same time, offer them the independence to use their creativity and expertise to achieve that vision.

How would leading an organization entirely comprised of "creative types," such as musicians, be different and/or more challenging than leading a broadly diverse group of people?

In what ways can we apply the conducting model to leadership?

What other theories and concepts does the conducting metaphor bring to mind?



Richard Branson and the Virgin Group

Richard Branson, CEO and founder of the mega-corporation, Virgin Group is very vocal about what he thinks works for his company. First, that good ideas come from everywhere, not just in the boardroom. Second, that his employees are central to his success, and finally that he has to use his authority as a leader.

It is in his seemingly carefree spirit that he has no formal business headquarters, does not hold regular board meetings and supposedly doesn’t know how to use a computer. This attitude does not mean that he isn’t incredibly involved or busy. It is somewhat of an allusion, but one that lends itself to a creative workplace that has allowed him to use his brand in a little bit of everything from music to air travel to environmental protection efforts and make it one of the most licensed in the world. The leadership attributes that Mumford points to as important characteristics are: “openness, tolerance of ambiguity, and curiosity” (22). By utilizing these in an open work environment Branson has been able to foster a creative work environment that really does accept ideas from all levels. In the article, “The Knowledge-Creating Company”, Nonaka points to the importance of freedom of knowledge for the very reason of fostering such an environment.

Like Choi’s idea of a Charismatic leader having empathetic qualities, Branson sees the importance of this in his leadership style. “Having a personality of caring about people is important,” says Branson. “You can’t be a good leader unless you generally like people. That is how you bring out the best in them.” Because of his openness and empathy it is apparent that he recognizes the importance of his employees. He goes on to say, “A company is people…employees want to know…am I being listened to or am I a cog in the wheel? People really need to feel wanted.” He gives his employees a stake in the ventures that they were a part of creating. In the same vein as Florida and Goodnight’s idea of creative capital and viewing employees as assets, Branson has built his brand by employing people he can involve in the process.

He is adventurous and curious, but also realizes he cannot agree to everything. Branson has noted how difficult it is to say no to his employees because he does not want to discourage their creativity. He explains that he had to learn how to say ‘no’ and make the tough decisions like McGregor explains in “The Boss Must Boss”. McGregor says he, “finally began to realize that a leader cannot avoid the exercise of authority”. Branson had shaped his mission of fostering creativity.

The great success of Branson’s leadership can stand as an example for many leaders even outside of entrepreneurship. His attitude of inclusion and equity grounds him as a leader who is highly approachable. This benefits both the employees and the organization.

The Mentoring Project

In Portland, Oregon there is an author and teacher named Donald Miller who founded The Belmont Foundation, “a not-for-profit foundation working to recruit ten-thousand mentors through one-thousand churches as an answer to the crisis of fatherlessness in America.” The Mentoring Project (TMP), The Belmont Foundation’s main project, seeks to accomplish this endeavor “by inspiring and equipping faith communities to mentor fatherless boys” by providing mentor training and resources, and consultation to the volunteers as well as financial assistance to the mothers of the mentored children.
After reading his biography and part of his memoir, Blue Like Jazz, it’s clear that Don founded TMP, and serves on President Obama’s task force of Fatherhood and Healthy Families, so that young boys in America can live healthier, more-fulfilling lives than he lived while growing up without a father. His personal experience is a key motivating factor for his service to the fatherless youth in America.

Regarding TMP alone, and leaving out his writings, book tours, lectures, etc., I see Don as having some aspects of a few key leadership theories, but does not fit perfectly into any one of these alone: servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1991), visionary leadership (Sashkin, 1989), transformational leadership (Burns, 1978), and leadership as relationship (Burns, 1978, McGregor, 1966, Stogdill 1948).

Nowhere in Don’s biography or websites is he referred to as a leader, but instead, as one who serves a greater need in our nation. Is Don a servant leader because he is the founder of TMP or is he the founder of TMP because he is a servant leader? (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002). Or do neither one of these premises hold true for Don? It is my opinion that Don is a servant leader, and then founder of TMP, because he is visionary and wants to make a positive change in the lives of fatherless boys and more broadly, in America. He became the founder after he first made the decision to serve in this ‘crisis’. With that, can Don change the world through his servant leadership? In the lives of the boys who are mentored, yes, the foundation changes their world. Mentors help the fatherless boys by fulfilling their lower level needs and moving them toward self-actualization, which Smith defines as the success of servant leadership (2004). In conjunction with this, mentors also serve as role models to the boys; supporting optimism and utilizing two-way personalized communication, which Smith defines as elements of transformational leadership (2004).

The mission and goals of TMP, to inspire and equip…to answer to the crises, etc., is also visionary in that the founder not only communicates the vision though numerous outlets, but acts on it himself, and makes the vision possible in several ways and places, such as through the giving of time by mentoring, financially supporting the program, or volunteering consultation skill and time to improving the mentorship process (Sashkin, 1989).
I’m not sure that Don would go as far as calling himself a leader because he founded TMP, and if he did call himself a leader, it would probably be in sarcasm because he is a bit of a comedian, which, on a side note, is one small element of why I also think of him as a charismatic leader. Despite his awareness of being a leader or not, Don aligns with Greenleaf’s philosophy of servant-leadership because The Belmont Foundation emerged through his searching, listening, and expecting that a better life for these fatherless boys was possible, and this expectation for a ‘better life’ is now in the making (1991). When he started this foundation, Don was not seeking to help himself, but instead, was devoted toward the needs of fatherless boys. At the same time, Don’s motivation and passion to serve others in this capacity emerged largely because of his personal experience of being a fatherless boy. Does this direct personal interest make his endeavor through TMP any less servant-minded? I don’t think so. The leader’s values help form the leader’s vision.

Don’s vision is bigger than just helping the fatherless through reliable quality time and mentorship. He is attempting to raise our value of mentorship through this project by explaining it as a step toward positively transforming the communities of our nation. Burns would likely refer to Don as a transformational leader because TMP has already mobilized hundreds of people toward the vision and changed the lives of several fatherless boys and single mothers, thus passing the test of leadership (1978).

Lastly, regarding leadership as relationship, Don seeks to develop the relationship between the TMP mentors, the children and mothers, the communities in which they live, and the churches of America that Don challenges to meet the needs of the foundation’s causes. Essentially, as Burns, McGregor, and Stogdill would agree, the leadership relationship is complex and is not about the individual, but about the situation at large.

In considering all the ways that Don fits partially into a few leadership frameworks, is it possible that he is not a leader, but simply a determined role model on a mission?

References and photo: