"Strong leadership, as studied by Goleman and Boyatzis et al, is dependent on effective employee engagement." This statement, published in HR Magazine yesterday, stopped me in my tracks.
As a result, I have posted it in a number of forums to see what others make of it.
Certainly it seems to me that the dependency here has been completely inverted. Surely employee engagement is the consequence rather than the cause of effective leadership (rather than "strong leadership")? Is it not? I just cannot imagine the quality of leadership improving because people are more engaged. Can you? Now, I wouldn't for a moment argue with anyone who told me that the quality of leadership had an effect on employee engagement and hence on results but this is just the opposite.
The only way the statement can be true is if the word leadership is used in a wider, more liberal context to refer to the collective leadership that happens when everyone in the organisation is empowered to use their own discretion. Please tell me that is the case! Because if not, the HR profession is promoting and buying into empty solutions. And if that is so, the problem of employee engagement is never going to be solved.