I've found myself wondering at length lately about what it means to be a leader and what good leadership is. I certainly don't think that I'm a very good leader these days because my attitude, frankly, sucks. It's certainly not an easy thing to be a leader, though there are certain behaviors that I think are endemic to leadership that should be taken as serious factors.
First off, I think it's instructive to explore where I think that I've succeeded and failed as a leader myself. In terms of failure, as already mentioned, my current attitude is not productive or useful, though it may be understandable, and even excusable, to a degree. To be quite honest, I'm a little burned out these days, not just from work load, but also from what seems like a lack of good, quality leadership around me. Let me come back to that.
Where I think that I've succeeded as a leader is in not accepting first answers as a given, in being a good example for performance (attitude aside), and in becoming moderate in emotion (most of the time), while maintaining passion and direction. I try very hard to ask thought-provoking questions, and I simply do not accept "that's the way it's always been" or "that's how we do things here" as valid explanations. If you weren't present for the decision to do something, and you don't understand why the decision was made, then you should be asking questions, not defending it. I digress...
I think that true leaders demonstrate certain qualities, including:
- strategic vision
- an ability and willingness to communicate in all directions
- transparency
- being inspirational and inspiring
- willing to make the hard decisions, even if they contradict yourself
- trusting your people (sort of like empowerment, but better)
- good, honest attitude
- willingness to assert oneself when necessary
- recognized as "getting there the right way"
- having a certain degree of cluefulness (credibility)
Allow me to expound on each of these topics.
strategic vision
I think perhaps the single most important aspect to a leader - especially a leader in a management role - is the ability to have a strategic division for where your team and company are going. You need to have an internalized, gut instinct about what your organization is doing, and then act as a lightning rod to energize your team into alignment with that vision. This concept was discussed at length in the Facilitative Leadership course that I took last winter/spring. More than a mission statement, it's of the utmost importance that you visualize where it is you want to go. What does success look like?
I've unfortunately seen a couple types of failure over the years in this specific area. The first, and perhaps most frustrating, failure is in the area of communication. I don't care how good your vision is, if you can't communicate that vision in a meaningful way, then you might as well forget about it; pack up and go home. Many people will glom onto a charismatic leader/manager and follow them ardently, but it seems to be exceedingly unique that a true leader has - and effectively articulates to others - the vision that is being sought.
Another area where I've seen failure in this area of strategic vision is in not having one at all. When this occurs, I attribute it to pretend leadership. Just because you're in charge does not mean you're a leader. If you don't have a vision of any sort for the future, then why should anybody follow you?
Now, there can be several reasons for this lack of vision. For example, there's the old Peter Principle that talks about people rising to the level of their own incompetence. An incompetent manager is unlikely to have a strategic vision. There may be other causes, too. For instance, perhaps your organization has been riddled with constant change. Maybe your own direct manager has changed almost as many times as you change socks. It can be very difficult to develop and hold a strategic vision in such circumstances. A leader, however, will recognize this difficult and still formulate and communicate a vision for their team that is both consistent (in the moment) with the business direction du jour, while also being malleable so as to support the changing trade winds. Failing to act is still a decision, and one that indicates a failure of leadership.
There's a third failure in strategic vision, which may be worse than the other two. That would be having a strategic vision that is so skewed from reality, or self-serving, or just plain wrong, that it ends up hurting the organization. Such as situation is both tragic and damnable. Any responsible business leader higher in the food chain should actively seek to make sure their vision is understood by their directs, and then work hard to root out those delegates who do not share the vision of the organization. Misalignment can, and should, be fatal to a career, within reason. I'm a firm believe in second chances, but failing that, ineffectual "leaders" (or, really, manager) must be removed.
an ability and willingness to communicate in all directions
One negative attribute that I've noted in some leaders is a sense of elitism. They find their inner circle and then circle the wagons tightly. They then only communicate to those with whom they absolutely must, and view it as a great burden to have to deal with the "little people" (you know, those poor souls who actually get work done). I'm a firm believer in the old cliché pride goeth before the fall. Put another way, if your nose is so far in the air that you see nothing but clouds, then beware the traps you may fall into.
An good leader will not only be able to speak to anyone in an organization, regardless of level, but they'll also seek out opportunities to speak with everyone possible. In a large organization it's not reasonable to expect the CEO or president to talk to every single employee. However, down in the ranks, I do think it's realistic that leaders will seek out all their employees on a regular basis. Too much abstraction from the front line can lead to misinformed opinions and misperceptions about what life is really like in the trenches. In other words, a grounding in reality is necessary to prevent that circle from creating a fairy tale world where you can do no wrong and everything is peaches and cream.
transparency
Another one of my leadership pet peeves is a lack of transparency. My personal motto is that I live an open life; it's when I start pulling back and keeping secrets that you should become concerned. The same goes for leaders. I understand that some information cannot be divulged because of requirements set by the business. Fine. But there should be transparency on as much as possible. What's the fiscal situation? What's the strategic vision? How's staffing? How's morale? Are you concerned about the direction of the company? What concerns are keeping you up at night? And so on...
From an intelligence standpoint, I also believe that this approach is highly beneficial for keeping secrets. If you proliferate an abundance of information about what is going on in the company, then people will be far less likely to wonder what's being held back. However, if you hold everything back, only revealing little tidbits when you absolutely must do so, well... why should anybody trust you?
being inspirational and inspiring
This quality will perhaps be the easiest and hardest to understand. I am not talking here about charisma. Charismatic leaders attract droves of followers, but oftentimes those followers are lemmings. Let's take Senator Obama, for example. I've seen bits of his speeches, I have his book (The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
Carrying along the other points here (above and below), it is the job of a leader to be inspirational and to inspire. Why do I mention both terms? Being inspirational ties into the charisma concept, to a degree. It means setting a positive example, setting that strategic vision, and acting on it fearlessly. To me, that's being inspirational.
To inspire, however, means much more. It means challenging people to think differently. It means challenging the status quo and not accepting "can't" as an answer. To inspire me means to not only motivate me to follow, but also to aspire to becoming the best that I can be (including to become a good leader). This second quality is perhaps more important than being inspirational. You could conceivably be a quiet, reserved leader who does not generally have much charisma. Yet, your warmth and generosity may be, in and of itself, inspirational to others. At the same time, though, you can ask those hard questions, make difficult decisions, doing it all in a transparent manner, and inspire people to rise to the challenge.
For example, your company anticipates a shortfall for the quarter. How do you make it up? Inspire your people to find solutions. Are there perks that can be voluntarily abandoned? Are there ways to decrease operational costs that have not been previously considered or attempted? Leaders do not have all the answers, so, to roughly quote Jack Welch, they need to ask good questions so as to inspire great answers from their team.
willing to make the hard decisions, even if they contradict yourself
Today you go out and, looking at the best data available, you make a decision. Tomorrow, new data comes out that indicates that your decision wasn't such a good one. A good leader will look at those decisions, analyze the data, crunch the numbers, and may very well decide to pull a 180. Good leaders will not be so stuck in the past that they're completely unable to get to the future.
One of the lessons that was taught in Engineering Economics (one of my last courses in grad school) was that economics deals with the future, not with the past. While you may factor in past performance to build your models, your models do not start with historical data. They start with current data and then project that data into the future. Good leaders must do the same thing across the board.
A perfect real-world example: at a previous ISP, I left for a period of time, and then came back. Before I left, my boss had decided to purchase a piece of monitoring software that was a) very expensive, b) not very good, and c) tremendous overkill for our environment. Even the vendor consultants couldn't get the stupid package running. I had been opposed to the purchase in the first place, but was never given an opportunity to propose alternatives.
When I returned to work for them after a few months, the first thing I asked about was that software. Whatever happened with that? It turns out, it was sitting on the shelf unused. He lamented it's disuse and suggested that I should give it a try. My response was thus: the money is already spent and cannot be recouped. Is it worth now spending more money on trying to force that square peg into the round hole, or should we instead look at our requirements and then find the best solution to match it? He agreed to the latter. I recommended he look at the open-source package Nagios and, two days later, he had network monitoring in place that was more than adequate.
The point here is not that I was right. The point is that, just because something seemed like a good idea before, we should not feel obligated to stick by those decisions; especially when they end up being detrimental to the organization. However, to make these hard decisions requires courage and a willingness to acknowledge "hey, I made a bad decision." As the old clichés go: two wrongs don't make a right and if you're going to fail, fail big.
trusting your people (sort of like empowerment, but better)
I'm a big fan of trusting people. It's in my nature to trust that people will do the right thing, act honestly, and not betray my faith in them. Some would call this a character flaw, but I view it as a necessary quality in a good leader. It's simply not adequate to tell people that they're empowered to do things. Moreover, it's been argued that the more you tell people they're empowered, the less empowered they must really be.
On the other hand, placing trust in your people to do the right thing, without question, hand-holding, babysitting, or micro-management, is a huge task, but one that can be greatly rewarding. It also requires a high degree of flexibility on the part of the leader. Oftentimes there's more than one way to solve a problem, and it's very difficult for us to perhaps accept that someone else's solution is "right." Trust people to come up with "right" solutions, even if they vary from your approach.
It is imperative that you inherently trust your people (until given a reason not to do so). Your people cannot be empowered until they are entrusted to act smartly and responsibly. This tenet is the basis of good faith, which fosters good will amongst peers.
good, honest attitude
Ok, so, here's this little thing about attitude, and has many different nuances. As this post is getting long and the hour is getting late, I'm going to gloss over it a bit. What I do not mean in this point is that a good leader drinks the company Koolaid with both fists and does nothing but spouts the company line. A bunch of hogwash that is, and I greatly resent those Koolaid drinkers who think they're doing right be anyone by acting this way.
The sober fact is that, as much as we need to trust our employees, we also need them to trust us. And, one of the best ways to engender trust is to do all the other listed here, including having a good, honest attitude. This attitude notion also plays into work ethic a bit, though not as much as one might think. Leading by example is important, but in this what I'm really talking about is leading by example from the perspective of maintaining a good attitude about work.
Work is work, not fun. If it was supposed to be fun, they would have called it fun, and work would be something different. I'm not talking about being a cheerleader here so much as demonstrating in a positive manner that you not only have faith in your people, but also that you have faith in the future success of the company. I'm also talking here about being open and honest. The second you appear to be holding back or telling half truths is the second you've lost credibility and trust.
I guess what this point is really all about is acting in a trustworthy manner and having a good attitude about work. Why show up if you don't want to be there on a regular basis? Get that across to your people.
One example is to put the hours in. There's nothing more annoying than a leader who comes in after you and leaves with or before you. Why should you work so hard if they don't have to do so? Good attitude means getting into the office and putting in your time and demonstrating that it's good to be where you're at.
BTW, this does not mean putting on a facade of happiness. People see right through that and then interpret it as blatant dishonesty. Cross that line and people will be very hesitant to follow you.
willingness to assert oneself when necessary
Leadership means leading, not following. As such, it's important to recognize that sometimes you'll have to put your foot down and assert a direction. Hey, it's all part of those hard decisions that need to be made.
One of the best ways I know to erode credibility is by appearing to sit back and wait for stuff to come in. If you're not initiating change, then why are you in a leadership position? You need to find that strategic vision, get the right people onboard, and then assert that direction to get people moving after it. Lead! Even eagles need a push!
recognized as "getting there the right way"
Have you ever known a manager who got promoted because they'd been there the longest, or simply because management didn't know what else to do with them? This point, as many of the others, goes towards credibility. The essence here is that, if given a choice between short-circuiting the process to get into a leadership position and running the gauntlet to demonstrate your worthiness as a leader, please, please, please opt for the latter. Deep selections (exceptional promotions) aside, it is very important that a leader be perceived as being worth of their leadership role. If you can't demonstrate within a reasonable period of time that you deserve to be where you are, then don't be surprised when people feel disinclined to follow.
having a certain degree of cluefulness (credibility)
Last, but certainly not least, is the final credibility factor for good leaders. If you run an organization and cannot speak intelligently to your own people about what it is your org does, you have a severe problem. That's not say that good business leaders can't come in from other industries and be effective. Quite the contrary. A good leader, when inserted into a position where they do not have a fundamental understanding of the core business, will work overtime to thoroughly indoctrinate themselves into that new (to them) core business.
Putting this all a different way... if you cannot demonstrate to your people that you have a clue about what's going on, you really need to step back and ask yourself "why am I hear? what good am I doing? what am I leading?". I can't think of any situation where the blind leading the blind has ever worked out well in the end. Maybe the three blind mice can say otherwise.
I've personally been in positions over the years where I've looked to leadership and wondered "how can you be in charge if you don't know what we do or what's going on?" In fact, I actually got burned by a former employer because our VP had been intentionally misled about my role and was so lacking in cluefulness that, when asked to approve a work arrangement, denied it outright because it would set a bad precedent for colleagues with complete different job functions and responsibilities. Not good.
A good leader will understand what's going on, or if not, they will aggressively seek an understanding. They won't sit back and delegate to avoid gaining understanding. They will work overtime to establish and hold credibility with their people. Because, in the end, it's all about credibility, and if you ain't got it, then you ain't gonna be getting many followers.
I hope this far-too-long train of thought has been of value to you. I've not gone back and proof-read the post (given the late hour), so hopefully it's coherent enough to be followed. Comments welcomed and encouraged! What do you think makes a good leader?
