Although I have never used the term, I would not disagree with your notion of a “rogue leader” as someone who, to paraphrase your comments, intentionally shifts influence and focus towards personal objectives.

The purpose of my first comment was to suggest that all leadership – rogue or otherwise – is about influencing others to act in particular ways. And that this is unavoidably a political process. As you say, the normal assumption when people are hired is that they will “pull toward the corporate objective”. This is why I said that the ‘legitimate’ role of those in formal leadership positions, throughout the organization, is to seek to “build active coalitions of support for organizationally beneficial ways of working”. What this means in practice, of course, is much more complex than is implied by the conventional – clearly focused, singularly aligned and benignly collaborative – view of organizational dynamics.

What one person (or group) believes to be organizationally beneficial is likely to differ – often significantly – from what other people might think. This is an inevitable result of their take on the specific organizational challenges they are facing; the particular local circumstances in which they are acting; the relationships of which they are part; their personal idiosyncrasies and socially formed ‘frame of reference’ on the world; and so on. And these differing perspectives will both shape and be shaped by the ongoing conversations and interactions that constitute everyday organizational life.

Outcomes emerge from this messy, self-organizing process of conversational interaction, which is punctuated by the formal, ‘set-piece’ meetings, forums and processes. The latter add the formal ‘veneer’ and endorsement to what are largely informally constructed propositions, around which a sufficiently powerful coalition of support has been built. It is in this way, I would suggest, that formal missions, visions, strategies, structures, processes, systems, procedures and so on come into being. When formally adopted, these both enable and constrain ongoing interactions – to some extent in the ways intended but also in unforeseen and often surprising ways. Even Jack Welch argued that, “… like the kitchens in the best run restaurants, all business is messy and chaotic.”

This process is enacted by people from within the Executive to those on the front line – albeit (as you imply) with differing power relations, quality of insight and leadership skill at play. And, in any interaction, three ‘constituencies of interest’ are involved: the individual themselves, significant others that are involved and the organization ‘as a whole’. Skilful, “savvy” and ethical political action requires paying attention to all three constituencies (including one’s own self-interest) during the give-and-take of everyday interactions. Problems occur when a serious imbalance arises – such as a shift towards a wholly self-serving, manipulative or ‘Machiavellian’ stance, or to one in which people collude with others in practices that place their own self-interests above those of the organization. This is what I would see as, in your terms, “going rogue”. And this can occur, of course, anywhere in the organization; although the wider impact of such action will differ significantly from case to case.

My main point, I guess, is that these dynamics are universal. I would argue that they explain both the continuity of organizational activity and, at the same time, how change originates. And it is the capacity for shifts to occur in the ‘established’ patterns of understanding and action – i.e. for novelty to emerge and change to take place – that sets up the very conditions in which what you are calling “rogue leadership” can arise. In sum, you can’t have one without the risk of the other.

Regards, Chris.

I respectfully do not agree with your assessment of rogue leadership. Now, we may simply be squabbling over semantics, but here’s my explanation. I believe any influencer within an organization was at some point hired for their talent and ability and under the pretense that they would pull toward the corporate objectives. Which they no doubt agreed to – otherwise I don’t think they would have been hired in the first place. Clear or not at the time of hiring, they were probably hired around these kinds of ideas. If that leader, later intentionally redirects his efforts and followers around an alternate agenda – he’s gone rogue.

Out of a group of 100 people in a mid-sized company probably 50 or more could tell you what is wrong with the company and what is correctly needed to fix it, but statistically less than 5 have the relational influence, patience and leadership skill to enact those corrections over time. Dealing with a rogue leader, in my opinion, has less to do with embracing change or better ways to make a widget – and more to do with intentional shifts of influence and focus toward personal objectives.

Allan Kelsey http://www.leadingleaders.net I Achiever, Strategic, Focus, Input, Intellection Twitter Facebook Linked In YouTube I (817) 217-8189 mobile

Without clarity in desired outcome and even process, in certain instances, measurement becomes impossible.

Allan Kelsey http://www.leadingleaders.net I Achiever, Strategic, Focus, Input, Intellection Twitter Facebook Linked In YouTube I (817) 217-8189 mobile

Allan Kelsey http://www.leadingleaders.net I Achiever, Strategic, Focus, Input, Intellection Twitter Facebook Linked In YouTube I (817) 217-8189 mobile

All change arises from the mobilization of action behind an idea that runs counter to the current legitimacy. This is how the current purpose, strategy, ‘vision’ and so on came about in the first place.

You refer to this current authodoxy as “the originally agreed ideal”. And that is just what it is – an ideal (and generalized) statement of what is (was?) thought to be required at the time it was developed. But this has to be particularized by people in the moment-to-moment interactions that comprise everyday organizational life.

Through their everyday conversations and interactions, people make sense of what is going on and decide how they are going to act – in the ‘real world’ conditions in which they find themselves. They will tend to coalesce around particular vtews of the world, with the aim of initiating, supporting or frustrating particular objectives and ways of working. And it is through the organization-wide interplay of this myriad of ‘local’ (i.e. one-to-one and small group) conversations that outcomes emerge.

The activity that you describe as “rogue ledership” is therefore going on all of the time – practised both by those in formal leadership positions and others who are not. It is a natural dynamic of organizations, And it is through this process that all progress (as well as stagnation and decline, of course) happens.

The real challenge for those in formal leadership positions – throughout the organization – is to actively engage with this ongoing sensemaking and action-taking process in a deliberate and infomed way, The aim in doing so is to build active coalitions of support for organizationally beneficial ways of working. In some instances this will involve mobilizing the actions of their own staff behind agreed policies, processes and practices. In others, it might mean seeking to shift the status quo in some way.

Even then, these leaders can act with intention but wiyh no certainty of outcome.

Cheers, Chris

I believe that lack of clarity in communicating not only the company’s vision but also what is and what is not required by leaders leads to the situation you described.

Leaders are not to be blamed unless they have gone rogue knowing that they are harming the organization.

On the other hand, if you want a growing, vibrant, innovative organization, make sure those rogues are fed and tended. Properly nutured, these will be the people who come up with the breakthrough ideas for new approaches to customers, employees, products, and services.

Let’s be careful with the Rogues!