|
Not long ago I was consulting with a company undergoing major and dramatic change. The pace was frantic. The scale, colossal. And the old guard leadership had either been fired or had quit.
“What can we do to keep this change from demoralizing our employees and shutting down our business until it’s over?” the executives asked.
I told them it was time to take a look around the company’s own backyard.
Within weeks we had cut a diagonal slice down the organization searching for leaders in some of the most unlikely places. The executive ranks. Administration. Even the mailroom manager. Did they have the right characteristics to get the job done? Did their colleagues already respect them and turn to them for advice?
In the end we found 150 new managers/leaders who probably would have never been discovered if we hadn’t gone looking.
If this story shows us anything, it’s that there is a new vision of leadership. For a generation, theorists concentrated on identifying characteristics associated with great leadership. At first it seemed obvious. Great leaders are exceptionally intelligent, usually energetic, and great ability in public speaking. However, when the characteristics were subjected to tests, they all proved false.
Leaders didn’t prove to be that much more intelligent than anyone else. They did seem to be a bit more energetic and dynamic – but not enough to create any significant findings. And the overall advantage of their public speaking ability didn’t prove to be that great.
Each of these and other leadership truths seem to be more of a half-truth or total myth that evaporated under scientific scrutiny. What followed was a focus on the behavior of leaders. The key findings of this study clearly showed that leaders must have two types of behavior: behavior centered on task accomplishments and behavior directed toward interpersonal relations.
No longer are employees content to simply follow the high-profile extrovert who gets people roused up during the big speech each quarter. Employees want more. They want leaders on the floor who show their true face and offer humility. In turn, successful leaders know leadership is about engaging an organization so it can function at its best.
Although society’s view of what makes a great leader is radically changing, we continue to hold onto leadership half-truths or myths that ultimately hold organizations in the past.
Leadership Is a Science
This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there. While it is possible to develop leadership skills, leadership is not just a body of rational management theory that you can follow like paint by numbers. Leadership is actually science and art and situation. Many leaders are uncovered only when a situation arises that forces them to take a leadership role.
People want to work with a leader who believes in something and in whom they can believe – whose commitment they know is strong enough so they can follow it while their own commitment matures. We continuously observe that the person with a sound value system, a moral orientation and a stewardship role as a leader can be effective even if his or her technique or style is unsophisticated or “not textbook” compared to conventional wisdom.
Leaders Are Born, Not Made
So if leadership is not a science, does that mean it is impossible to teach employees to lead? Not at all. Our society’s preoccupation with leadership has borne a large industry devoted to leadership training and leadership development proving you can teach some employees to lead.
Yes, some people seem to have an innate ability to lead others to success with their pure energy and conviction. If we stop there and only make leaders out of the extroverts, for example, we are surely missing out on an untapped pool of leaders in waiting – those who may not fit the classic model who may be quiet or restrained, but nevertheless show conviction, dedication, business expertise and provide a moral compass that others respect and aim to follow.
Leadership Is about the Leader
People are changing jobs much faster, customers are shopping around much more than they used to and shareholders who were once loyal are churning portfolios at amazing rates. The time of ego-driven leaders who come into an organization with the “big fix” has passed. By suddenly implementing radical change within a company without offering employees the chance to speak or present differing opinions, the leader becomes an autocrat controlling the masses. Employees are not engaged. They feel less connected to the organization and are usually unwilling to do more to ensure its success. This ensures that the leaders underperform, perhaps even fail.
The company who found 150 new leader-coaches, however, knew that engaging its employees helped them feel they belonged. The employees suddenly had a personal stake in guaranteeing the company’s success.
Leadership Is Top Down
As I mentioned before, employees want to feel they are an integrated part of the company. They want to belong at a body and soul level, but rarely do they ever feel that way. This is one of the main reasons why we see so much attrition today and people bounce around from job to job. People simply don’t trust organizational will anymore unless it fosters a deep sense of rooted ness and belonging. The only way that happens is if leadership is interactive. It has to be two-way, and leaders need to be “on the floor” and engaged themselves and taking a real interest in day-to-day operations.
In Jeffrey E. Garten’s book Mind of the CEO there is a great example of a leader who is wholly involved in his companies – Richard Branson, Chairman of Virgin Management, the $5 billion Virgin business empire encompassing airlines, trains, records, soft drinks, financial services and more. Branson, who dropped out of school at 15, formed his business philosophy in the anti-establishment counterculture of the 1960s that claimed, “I think the number one, most important role for anybody running a company is finding the time for the people who are out on the front line making things work.”
Branson makes a point to stay in touch with employees he doesn’t see by writing 20 to 25 letters a day to people who work for various Virgin companies. Those letters are critical to him in getting feedback to make sure management is making the right decisions.
The Common Thread
There does seem to be commonalities among successful leaders. These include conscientiousness (which includes dependability), the need to achieve, perseverance, self-confidence, dominance, energy, being agreeable (offering flexibility and encouraging a sense of trust), openness to experience (including genuine value of diversity) and emotional stability.
Great leaders seek continuous improvement. They seek improvement of self, their core of coworkers and all other stakeholders – customers, suppliers, consultants and the rest.
They seek to enlarge the pool of self-led leaders.
More Myths about Leadership
- Great leaders can lead any kind of enterprise: Great leadership is about understanding the fundamentals, character and personality of the business. There are many examples of great leaders from “outside.” But usually, great (and unexpected) leaders come with deep and specific business knowledge. You must spend time in the industry to develop that understanding. Henry Ford said, “The question, ‘Who’s out to be boss?’ is like asking, ‘Who ought to be the tenor in the quartet?’ Obviously the man who can sing tenor.”
- Leadership is always strategic: It’s actually strategic and operational. That means the leader who spends time on the floor truly understands the business and can lead with 20/20 vision. Every day, leaders help illustrate and demonstrate how the day to day makes the future real.
- Leadership is steely jawed, strong and unflinching: There is little doubt that becoming a leader can be difficult for some people who wrongly assume they have to give up their true personality to put on a corporate, stony face to be taken seriously. Leadership is about knowing when to lead, and when to stand back and allow people to discover their own skills and talent. Leadership is also about being yourself as opposed to putting on the “game face” we have come to expect based on conventional wisdom.
|
