Zeitgeist leadership.

Harvard Business School, Boston, USA.
Harvard business review (Impact Factor: 1.27). 11/2005; 83(10):45-60, 156.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Companies and leaders don't succeed or fail in a vacuum. When it comes to longterm success, the ability to understand and adapt to changing business conditions is at least as important as any particular personality trait or competency. A clear picture of how powerful the zeitgeist can be emerges from the authors' comprehensive study of the way the business landscape in the United States evolved, decade by decade, throughout the twentieth century. Six contextual factors in particular, they found, most affected the prospects for business: the level of government intervention in business, global events, demographics, shifts in social mores, developments in technology, and the strength or weakness of the labor movement. A lack of contextual sensitivity can trip up even the most brilliant executive. No less a luminary than Alfred P. Sloan was relieved of GM's day-to-day management in the 1930s because he was unwilling to meet with the new UAW. Conversely, an understanding of the zeitgeist can play a crucial but unheralded role in business performance. Jack Welch is widely credited with GE's remarkable success during the 1980s and 1990s, for example, but far less attention has been paid to his predecessor, the statesmanlike and prudent Reginald Jones, who sustained strong revenue and profit growth during the heavily regulated stagflation of the 1970s. To better understand this connection between business performance and context, the authors studied 1,000 great U.S. business leaders of the twentieth century and identified three distinct archetypes: Entrepreneurs, often ahead of their time, overcame dire challenges to build something new. Managers excelled at reading and exploiting the existing zeitgeist to grow their businesses. Leaders defied context to identify latent potential in businesses others considered mature, stagnant, or in decline. In every decade, all three archetypes were vital. It is the ongoing regeneration of this pattern in the business life cycle that ultimately sustains development and progress.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are little data characterizing leadership roles within Canadian Urology. The importance of these positions in urology underscores the need for further investigation to provide insight for recruitment, development, and success. All Canadian Urology Program Directors and Division/Department Heads were invited to complete an online leadership survey as part of a larger national cohort from 11 other surgical specialties. Response rate was 62% (13/21), the majority of whom were Caucasian (77%) and male (92%). Only 8% of respondents in urology hold an advanced degree compared with 45% in other specialties. Additional leadership training was done by 54% of the respondents. Residency was completed in Canada by 92%, but 62% completed fellowships abroad. A majority reported no well-defined job description for their role (54%). The top responsibility reported by leaders was mentoring residents (67%), followed by advising staff (62%). Excellence in patient care and teaching were seen as the most important professional characteristics, whereas integrity was the personal quality felt most important. Leaders reported 17% of their income came from their leadership role, equivalent to the time required for position duties (19%). "Time management" was listed as the greatest challenge faced (54%). Leadership style was reported as "democratic" by 92%. Leaders in urology most often self-rated their leadership skills lower than leaders from other surgical specialties (7 vs 8/10). Positions of leadership in urology are disproportionately represented by Caucasian males and comparatively few hold relevant advanced degrees. Excellence in the areas of teaching and patient care, and high personal integrity are felt to be the most important characteristics for success. Time management issues are viewed as the greatest challenge. These preliminary data may prove useful for the mentoring, recruitment, and success of future leaders in our specialty.
    Journal of Surgical Education 09/2013; 70(5):606-12. · 1.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – Argues that three basic archetypes – managers, entrepreneurs and leaders – must exist within the “ambidextrous organization” where a balance must be found between managing the present while preparing for the future. Introduces the MEL-Index, a measurement tool that represents the managerial, entrepreneurial and leadership capabilities of both individuals and institutions. Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual framework suggests that the interactive roles of the MEL archetypes have a profound impact on the innovation profile of the organization. To test this idea in-depth, case studies with a sample of SME's and large companies in North America and Western Europe was conducted. Findings – Although still at an early stage of data collection, initial findings suggest that: it is difficult for strong managers to co-exist with visionary entrepreneurs without the facilitating role of leaders; there may be a difference in the balance of archetypes needed in private versus, publicly owned companies; the measurement tool was easy to administer and has strong face validity. Research limitations/implications – The findings of this project are not generalizable to the greater population of businesses in Europe and North America due to the convenience nature of the sample. However, as we continue to collect data confidence will grow at the inferences drawn from our case-based examples. Practical implications – By using the results from an MEL project, companies can adjust their balance of capabilities through more targeted recruitment, focused executive development programs and better internal allocation of personnel. Originality/value – Very little applied research has been undertaken to explore the combination of skills required of executives to guide the ambidextrous organization. Exploration of the MEL interface opens an exciting, applied research stream within management studies.
    Journal of Business Strategy 09/2010; 31(5):49-58.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A long‐standing debate in organization studies has centered on the tension between paradigmatic consensus and theoretical pluralism in an academic field, but little attention has been paid to the underlying processes of field development that account for this. Using a mechanisms‐based approach, we examined the field of leadership over the last 50 years (1957–2007) focusing on: scholarly consensus on theory and methods; models and variables; and examinations of the state of the field. In spite of considerable advances in research, we find a general lack of commensuration or standards by which theories can be compared or synthesized; an emphasis on leaders’ effects on performance rather than meaning‐making or value infusion; and sparse instances of taking stock of the overall field. We conclude by proposing three research strategies for the future—theoretical compartmentalization, theoretical integration, and theoretical novelty—and advocating greater methodological variety.
    The Academy of Management Annals 01/2010; 4(1):359-401. · 7.33 Impact Factor


Available from