What does it take to be a good leader? This, and many questions about good leadership have been discussed many times and in many places. For sure, there is no simple answer to good leadership.

To add just one more morsel to the soup, here is a little story which I hope will shed just a little more light to the subject. It is a little vague to protect the identities of the people involved.

One day, this lady, let’s call her Ms C, heard that there was a complaint about her performance in one of the classes she was teaching. So, she consulted with her partner and they decided to approach their supervisor. Without saying anything, he simply told them that they should adhere closely to the teaching principles and promptly passed them the “Manual”. Both of them pored over the “Manual” and were puzzled. As far as they could tell, they have followed the protocol and stuck to the recommended practices in almost every case. Not able to discover the source of the complain, and since no one brought up the issue, it was decided that the issue was closed.

What do you think?

Obviously, the leader felt that he had dispensed his duty by reminding the two hapless teachers of their duty. But without a clear explanation, with no resolution to the matter, no follow up, not even an inkling of what the original complain was about; how can you expect your staff to improve?

There are many duties expected of a leader. Leadership is not only about being the front man. It is not only about giving orders. It is not even about taking the blame. Good leadership is a demanding, all rounder role that requires commitment, skill, intelligence and most important of all, leadership qualities.

How’s that for coming around in one big circle?

When things go wrong, the bosses blame the workers, and the workers blame the bosses. When things go right, the bosses take the credit and the workers do the clean up work.

Yes, many of you will say that the above is a cliched scenario that no longer happens today. Well, dream on.

All managers want to have good subordinates. A lot has been written about this topic. It is not only about the authority of the boss, but in many cases, it is about the ability to lead. Leadership is so very different from being bossy.

Some bosses think that good leadership means that they set a good example. If they set a good example, they are good leaders. I think that is a little too simplistic.

Recently, I overhead this discussion and I want to share it with you. Names, places and some details were changed to maintain anonymity.

One manager was joking about another colleague who got his iPhone and only knew how to use it to receive and make calls, nothing else. After a nice round of chuckles, one of the directors suddenly asked “Where did he get the iPhone?”

Apparently, the iPhone came as part of the package when the corporate mobile phone plan was renewed. Immediately, the director then said, “That iPhone belongs to the company, he should surrender it since the company is paying the phone bills.”

Interesting, isn’t it? What would you have done?

By the letter of the law, that last statement is not wrong. However, think about the message that you are sending to your people. Here are a few points to consider as a leader:

1. The guy is working FOR you. That phone is already being used in service of the company.
2. The guy did not break any rules or bent any to “get” the iPhone, it was simply a part of the Corporate Plan which the company was subscribing to.
3. Taking away the iPhone and keeping it in the cupboard would appear to be a spiteful, petty “management” action that does not seem to have any bearing on improving productivity or any thing positive.

Is this how you would inspire your subordinates? By demonstrating how legalistic and by-the-book you are?

Would you be surprised if the guy told you that he knocks off at 5pm and refused to lift a finger to answer the phone at 5.01pm? After all, you set the example.

If you want good subordinates, you must first be a good leader. That leadership extends to many aspects of your interaction with and your management of, the people.

This is probably worth a case study, but since this is just a blog, let us leave it at that. Your comments would be most welcomed!

Here is an interesting one – how do you think out of the box? More importantly, how do managers and business owners get their people to think out of the box?

Whether you are in marketing, sales, or operations; the ability to think out of the box is very important, right? Wrong.

Our entire education has been geared towards putting us INTO a box. We are taught the Laws of Physics, we are taught the Rules of Grammer and we are taught there is only one right answer – the one that scores the marks during an examination.

When you first start working, you are taught to toe the line, that your boss is always right; my way or the highway…

Suddenly, you are asked to think out of the box. Sure, you can do it, just tell me… which box?

That is the irony of it all. Bosses want employees who can toe the line, be team players, not rock the boat; then, when the going gets tough, you suddenly want these self-same people to think out of the box?

“Yes, Sir! Certainly Sir! What box might that be sir!?”

Creativity, initiative and so on is not a one-time exercise. It has to be part of the work culture, part of the value system. Nurture is important.

If you want your people to think out of the box, the easiest way to achieve this is as follows:

Don’t create the box in the first place.

Here is an interesting one for all leaders and followers to consider – is there such a thing as leadership by consensus?

I mean, if you had consensus, do you need a leader? Or look at it another way, do you call a person a leader if he needs the ratification of others?

Think about this. You select some one as your leader. He is going to be your guiding light and bring you across the desert. You celebrate your new leader. Then the party is over and the journey begins. What happens? If this were a democracy, then the leader proposes a direction, say, north, and everyone votes on it. If it were Moses, he just ups and moves on and everyone follows.

One is a leader, the other is a coordinator.

Do you own a car that is red on the front and polka dotted pink behind? You would if you allowed your 3 year old girl to decide on half the colors. If you did not paint the back polka dotted pink, she will be unhappy. At some point, a leader has to take responsibility for his decisions. If some says, the color of your car is ugly, do you then say “Oh, my wife chose it…”?

That statement in itself could be a truth. Yes, the wife chose it, but you made the decision to go with it. The true leader will say “Oh, my wife chose it, and I agreed. You don’t like it?”.

Everyone will have their own opinions. A good leader understands and accepts that. To insist that everyone shares exactly the same opinion and everyone to have the same decision, is not true leadership. We are humans, not robots. Even if you do not agree with the leader, you still follow, believing that he can lead you where you need to go. If you no longer believe that, you leave. Or, you try to change the leader. There are many possible dynamics, but we are not going to discuss them here.

What we want to put down clearly is this – leadership by consensus is BS. OK, let me spell that out – b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t. OK, that should get me censored somewhere, I guess. But then, let’s call a spade a spade. Either you are a leader, or you are not.

When we think of leaders, we think of someone who has vision. He has the “big picture”. He knows where he is going.

The difference between the strategic view and the tactical view is quite straight-forward. The tactical is concerned with the here and now, while the strategic view takes into consideration the longer term. If you have heard the saying “Win the battle, lose the war”; then you get a vague idea of this.

But having a vision is good, so what is this about “strategic competency”? Isn’t is strange to think that you have to be competent to know where you want to go?

Strategic competency is arguably the cornerstone of leadership. Without this, there is no leader. Even the situational leaders have some kind of end-goal in mind. That is precisely why a leader needs stategic competence. Anyone can have a goal. However, a good leader not only has a goal, but sticks to it. The whole world could be going one way, but the leader pushes on towards his own goals.

The ability to do that, the tenacity to hold on to the strategic goal; that is strategic competence. Too often, weak leader let go of their plans in the midst of opposing views. When the going gets tough, some people go – away. Too often, leaders get stymied by negative opinions, resistance to change and even simple lethargy. People like to stick to the “good old ways” and leaders find this one of the greatest challenge.

Strategic competence is the ability to put all the other leadership competencies together, weave them into a powerful, compelling force. The leader not only must be able to see the end-goal, he must be able to communicate it, work out a plan, gather the necessary resources and skills; and to last the distance.

Leaders are not necessary. This might come as a surprise, but it is true. A good manager need not be a good leader – in some circumstances.

You would see this most often in large, bureaucratic organisations. Management is about efficiency and effectiveness. Leaderhip is about inspiration and vision. Leaders deal with people. Managers deal with processes.

Which is why, to be a good leader, you need to have a good level of people handling skills. There are some dominant leaders who simply bull-doze their way through the team. In a crisis situation, that might work. But it can only be sustained for a short while. Imagine yourself under the tyranny of your supervisor, day in and day out; would you stand for it?

To be a good leader, you need to understand your people. But to be a great leader, you need to not only understand them, but to know how to bring out the best in them. Before you can inspire and motivate, you need to understand. However, if you stop at merely understanding them, but not knowing how to bring them to the next level, then you are a hapless leader.

Arguably, people competence is a pre-requisite for good leaders. But there are leaders who are in leadership positions because of their extreme technical capabilities, or their financial savvy or any other reasons. Without people competency, those leaders will not last very long. Or rather, their teams will not last very long.

Just a note about management. Managers are authority figures. They must be obeyed. They are in their positions through seniority, loyalty to the company or a zillion other reasons good and bad. Leaders, on the other hand, are people whom the group chooses to follow. They may have no organisational authority, but they inspire the group with their vision and passion. Sometimes, when natural leaders emerge, managers feel threatened, especially if its their group that is involved.

A good manager knows how to use and control the natural leaders. The weak managers simply get nasty. Leaders beware.

I almost cried when I read this excellent article: “Of Cell Phones, Maps and Mental Models: Why Doing What Was Right Is Sometimes Completely Wrong” from the Wharton website.

This article hits it squarely on the head. It is an excerpt from the book: “It Starts with One: Changing Individuals Changes Organizations” by authors J. Stewart Black and Hal B. Gregersen.

I am terrified to read the book. I might weep. Many times, we wonder why great leaders fumble. We look at the great companies and watch them fall. The Chinese have a saying “The bystander sees the clearest”. Why then, do these brilliant leaders fail to see?

From the corporate level, to the division level, down to the departmental level and even to individuals; the principles apply. We are blinded by the light of what we currently know. You should go read the article. Heck, buy the book: Starts with One, It: Changing Individuals Changes Organizations But for now, let me leave you with this quote:

Consider the transition from individual contributor to manager of individual contributors. Managers consistently tell us it is one of the most difficult. Why? Simplified, as an individual contributor you get things done by doing them yourself. If you are a salesperson, you get the sale by going out and making the pitch and closing the deal yourself. Over time, you establish a personalized set of maps for navigating this individual contributor territory. However, as a sales team manager, you must transition from doing things yourself to getting them done through others; you must change from motivating yourself to motivating others. Because the situation has changed (you’ve been promoted), what was clearly the right thing before (i.e., doing things yourself) has become the wrong thing, but you are still very good at doing it.

If you think about it, running a business really isn’t that difficult. I mean, it breaks down to be as simple as:

Now, how complicated can that be, right?

If you would just take a look at the many companies around, apparently, this is not as easy as it looks. To keep a business running smoothly, to keep a team running smoothly; there are processes and controls that need to be in place. To be a good leader, you must be familiar with how it all works.

Can you imagine not knowing how money is collected? You think it is as easy as picking up the phone, asking for the accounts department, quoting your invoice number and viola! you are paid? Maybe. But do you know for sure?

You must be intimately familiar with how things are run. The higher up you are in the organisation, the more you need to have a feel of things in general. Let me clarify something here. Being an expert at all things operational can sometimes make leaders into “micro managers”. These are the bosses who seem to be breathing down everyone’s necks, either telling them what to do, or how to do it. Love those, eh?

The leader needs to understand and be comfortable with the operations. This will enable him to see solutions when problems arise and to spot opportunities. It will require a heavy text to go through all the various details, but know this – operational competency will make you a better leader.

One other word of caution – don’t abuse others with your operational competency. Allow others to do their work, their way. A leader is not there to tell everyone what and how to do. The good leader allows his team to work their way out of challenges and to be on hand to assist and guide.

I would like to propose that for anyone to be a good leader, there are certain basic competencies that are needed.

A lot of focus has always been put on the charisma of a leader, the tasks and the roles f a leader. These are important or not important, depending on what theory you subscribe to. However, I would suggest that there are some basics that any leader must have. This is regardless of the leadership type, leadership style and so on.

There are basic competencies that a leader ought to have. I have tried to sort them out and have put them into five basic “competencies”

• technical competence
• operational competence
• financial competence
• people competence
• strategic competence

If you think about it, anyone without any single one of the above, would be a weak leader. In fact, it would be surprising to find them in leadership positions at all. OK, brown-nosing don’t count.

Next week, we will explore Technical Competencies of a Leader and what that means.

When we look at the giants, it is usually in awe. But once in a while, we stare in wonder and shake our heads at the strange spectacle of their self destruction.

Ever since Motorola came up with the RAZR, nothing else came out that was even close to the success of that range. Wondered why. Now we know. Over at Engadget, Ryan has written this post “Motorola insider tells all about the fall of a technology icon” – which publishes a letter by the late Geoffrey Frost’s personal adviser at Motorola; until Frost’s death in 2005, Numair Faraz worked under the Motorola’s former CMO.

This here is yet another lesson in leadership. It is hard to lead when you do not really know where you are going, isn’t it?

I heard something interesting today, and would like to “muse” about the modern leader.

It seems that current corporate leadership thinking is moving right along with the concept of heroes in terms of its treatment of leaders. Remember the definition of a “hero”? The strong, silent type; riding into town, killing the bad guys and riding off into the sunset?

Well, the new hero would ride in, network with the people, and empower them to take positive action to eliminate or maybe mitigate the threat (not bad guys, threat) and then ride off into the sunset with a forwarding address in case they wanted to communicate.

It seems that the modern leader is no longer the commanding presence, but a collaborative one. Traits like

Collaboration
Influence
Flexibility
Inspiration

Now take precedence as opposed to the older, more hierarchical leadership roles. In my child’s mind, the leader shouts “Follow me!” and they follow. How does the modern leader to it?

Will the modern leader shout? “Follow me!” seems like its all about you. Shame on you. So, the modern leader, in a collaborative, flexible, inspirational kind of way, tells everyone to get in line, hold hands and “… let’s move forward together.”

Yeah, right.

Laura has listed 5 characteristics which she feels a leader ought to have over at her post: “Are you a work at home leader?”

I believe these are relevant for anyone who are looking at leadership behaviour or how a leader ought to be. But in the end, it is important to note that none of these 5 characteristics point at other people. A leader and leadership traits are based on what is inside you. In other words, who you are and what you are largely dictates how you behave. And how you behave will ultimately display your leadership (or lack of) to the people around you.

Thanks Laura, I am flattered that you read my posts!

Technorati Tags: good leadership, characteristics of a leader, leader behaviour