Over the length and breadth of my career, I have come across many people who believe that leadership is a role rather than an activity. In that the leaders of an organisation are the people designated as forming the 'Senior Leadership Team' or 'Executive Leadership Team' and hold titles such as CEO, CFO, Head of, Manager etc. Even if I had not made an active study of leadership, I would have known this role based definition to be utter rubbish because even children can apprehend the essence of leadership. An essence that can be asserted as a person we feel compelled to follow not because they are in a position of authority, but because it makes sense to follow them.
Since taking on formal management roles another lightbulb has clicked on. That my management capacities — not to be confused with capabilities — are symbiotically linked to the leadership capabilities of my team. Meaning that informal leadership is a source of competitive advantage — when effectively managed — and should be developed accordingly.
Some organisations invest a little and some a lot in developing their managers' leadership abilities. But the most interesting category of organisations are those that invest meaningfully. In that they not only invest in developing their managers but take the time to develop leadership capabilities in a wider employee base than only people with positional authority.
However, engaging in staff development of this nature is much easier said than done, once we realise that fostering informal leadership involves leveraging concepts such as Simmelian Tie Theory (STT) and Discretionary Boundary Spanning (DBS), and culminates in the relationship between different types of informal leadership and the perceptions managers have of their employees' leadership performance. Spoiler alert, some managers feel incredibly threatened by informal leadership.
