As I have said many times in previous columns, my work takes me to diverse destinations across North America. This means I get to participate in stimulating conversations with people representing a wide variety of industries and interests.

If I was to choose what element of those conversations is constantly repeated, regardless of geography or jurisdiction, it would be the apparent leadership vacuum we currently face in many businesses.

Certainly, I concur with the prevailing perception that an acute leadership vacuum exists. I have, however, taken a slightly different tack in order to better understand the nature and possible solutions to this challenge. As a mentor of mine once said: “This is a problem of connotation, not a problem of denotation.”

The words connotation and denotation may sound similar, but there’s quite a difference in their definitions. Simply put, connotation is the emotional meaning of words and events – the meaning with baggage and almost unconscious overtones and undertones. Denotation is the more literal, dictionary-style meaning.



To create a degree of connotation in examining the leadership vacuum, I think a brief review of a particular period of history is helpful.

When the founding fathers of America sat down to consider the best structure under which to govern, while at the same time maximize the opportunities of the “new” United States, they discussed something called the division of responsibility. This division, represented in a collective national government body, was made whole through three distinct but connected facets: the Congress, the Senate and the executive branch.

Through this structure, these three facets of government were made accountable to originate, debate and execute policies and solve emerging issues while maximizing the potential of the United States. What made the structure more or less work?

I believe the answer lies in the foresight and discipline the political architects proactively applied in redefining the unique responsibilities of each branch, while still managing to recognize the higher purpose all three must serve together. When I think of the leadership vacuum with this history lesson in mind, I conclude that we have to analyze the problem from a different point of view. I believe we are suffering through a growing management vacuum that makes the leadership vacuum far more difficult.

This statement’s genesis comes from my own experience in examining my own clients’ challenges. One of the key problems they face today is the need to replenish a slate of next-generation, capable, mature and accountable management.

By extension, I believe that the only way to move forward with resolving each leadership and management deficit is to engage in a broad and honest dialogue that results in redefining the “work” of both. The alternative is as frustrating as it is debilitating.

Have you ever asked an excellent manager what it is like to work in an environment without excellent leadership? How about the reverse – have you ever conversed with an excellent leader confronting a major deficit in his or her management team?



Given the current state of the economy and the many challenges we face, it is important to frame the roles of management and leadership from a "whole accountability” point of view. When both bodies have key accountabilities that are firstly distinct (role), and then complementary of each other (collective purpose), both facets have the potential to excel within their own unique mandates while creating progress for all.

Often the roles of leadership and management are separated by function and title. However, as the latest baby boomer generation of leaders and managers begin to retire, and as organizations become flatter and less hierarchical, leadership and management will need to be seen as two sides of the same coin. We need to acknowledge that they jointly reflect the whole accountability mentioned above.

This approach will require less of a win/lose mentality within corporate structures. And it will require greater transformation that places an emphasis on multiple wins led by a higher purpose.

I admit that this sounds easy in print. It’s an idea that can be very difficult to create in a dynamic and highly competitive corporate reality. However, I believe that it is imperative that we have the constructive dialogue necessary to renew the work of both leadership and management.

Failing to do so is paramount to perpetually knocking our heads against the same corporate limitation. Without the proper reworking of leadership and management functions, while addressing the need to link their joint accountability, we marginalize both while enabling neither.

And that’s a lose-lose if I have ever seen one.



Patrick James Duffy of Edmonton is a leadership and strategic planning coach headquartered in Edmonton. He and his wife, Adrienne, own and operate the consultancy Big Futures Inc. Reach them through their website, www.moonproject.ca.