The true nature of leadership

I recently took part in a discussion about leadership. A top research organisation was presenting some initial findings of whom members of the public considered to be leaders and what they thought the characteristics of leadership actually were. Many of the usual suspects, like Churchill, figured highly as well as a few less likely people such as Princess Diana. And given the public’s ideas of who most personified the idea of leadership it came as no great surprise that the top two characteristics identified were integrity and decisiveness.

The discussion itself was lively and centred mainly around whether true leadership was about dynamic, energetic decision-making or more about nurturing, empowering and team-building. It struck me that there is a consensus growing around the idea that leadership is less about doing per se and more about creating the climate in which things can be done. Slowly but surely the myth that leaders are born and that they a special breed is being debunked. The purposeful walkers and strategic decision-makers are becoming to be seen as less capable of true leadership.

Society today is increasingly complex. Issues rarely fit into nice neat boxes. Binary yes or no scenarios have given way to various shades of grey. It’s often all about context and all about nuance. Navigating through the various ‘what ifs’ requires a greater level of understanding and emotional maturity than the traditional, uncompromising, ‘just do it’ school of management. The leadership qualities required to succeed in such environments are often the softer ones including empathy, listening and, most importantly, team building.

One particular point was raised that I’ve been thinking about a great deal since. A participant said that in tough times what people wanted most was decisive leadership. I can understand that point: it is indeed what most people want. However, it is often not what they need. What they need most is vision, understanding and a sense of direction. They need to understand the context and what they need to do as a result. It was Kennedy who said that rather than asking what your country can do for you, one should ask “…what you can do for your country.” Too often we see that decisive leadership can create a dependency culture. In many organisations decisions are upwardly delegated leading to both paralysis and the creation of personality cults around the leader. Society and organisations need more people to recognise that true leadership is for everyone and not just for a clique of the ambitious. True leadership is about taking control of ones own life and surroundings and making a positive contribution. It is not about waiting for someone else to decide for you. And so for those who have risen to positions of influence and authority, their primary role must be to help create the right climate. Rather than being the telegenic, celebrity Chief Entertainment Officer, the true leaders are starting to see nurturing as their key role.

Adults at work

One of the most fulfilling of my many roles is mentoring. I act as a, often unofficial, mentor to a number of people and have done so throughout my career. Giving people the confidence to see issues differently is, I like to think, one of my key strengths.

A number of recent conversations have all had a common theme and have led me to relook at a book I first read 20 years ago. In the book, called “I’m ok – you’re ok”, Thomas Harris introduced the idea of Transactional Analysis. In a nutshell his point is that interactions based on adult to child, child to adult, and child to child approaches all lead to or result from dysfunctional behaviour, and that it is only when a relationship is on a proper adult to adult footing that true understanding can be found.

This came back to my mind because, listening to some recent stories of workplace issues, it was extraordinary how many were clearly the result of defective relationships. I heard examples of how the petulant attitude of one senior executive towards another had led to spiteful child to child reactions. So-called delegation and leadership was invariably of the adult to child sort (‘I don’t care what you think, I want this presentation ready by tonight’). Of course, this type of behaviour is neither new nor unusual, but it does demonstrate how despite small fortunes having been spent on training, development and talent management, so many workplace issues still come down to poor standards of human interaction.

One area where the interaction is still invariably child to adult is career counselling (‘please, Miss, can I have a promotion?’). Too many people seem content to delegate their work-life to someone else. There are paternalistic organisations that genuinely have their employees’ best interests at heart but many still see careers as being something linear, based on gaining experiences and progressing through an organisation that is based on hierarchies. However, I’m not sure whether this is still relevant. This struck me when one of my mentees said that their boss was recommending they take a job that they didn’t want and that they didn’t feel suited to because it would be seen by others to be a good thing. Their boss was suggesting two years of unfulfilment for the possibility of a better job in the future. Obviously it is important to invest in one’s career but this case made me wonder whether the paterfamilias model was more about creating a dependency model.

Nowadays the old management models of command and control are beginning to creak, under assault from both declining levels of trust and the increasing democratisation of information. Organisations of the future will be characterised by loose structures, collaborative working, and greater flexibility; status will be defined more by output than by hierarchically-imposed organisational charts. Perhaps then we will see the end of work relationships based solely on authority. Maybe it was hierarchical structures that led to the adult-child behaviour rather than the other way around, and so it is conceivable that as the formal structures start to erode, genuinely adult to adult workplace relationships, based on mutual respect and trust, will start to emerge in their place.

Today's CMO - Innovating or following?

That's the apt and challenging title of a publication produced today by the IBM Institute for Business Value in cooperation with the Economist Intelligence Unit. It's intended to provoke thought in the board room and it does just that.

The paper argues that there is an emerging distinction between two distinct groups of CMOs, labelled for this report as 'Innovators' and 'Adopters'. Not surprisingly, the 'Innovators' are characterised as leaders and all-round good guys while the majority 'Adopters' are simply playing catch-up when it comes to using data, insight and social media.

It's an international survey based on 299 executives, most of whom are called "Chief Marketing Officer" so its conclusions are well worth serious consideration. We warm to it because the findings closely match those from our own experience with top level marketers and their people.

The study suggests that, while most marketers have influence over production and promotion, comparatively few have much influence over price or place. In our experience this has less to do with marketer attitudes or competence than with organisational structures and the priority roles which Marketing is expected to fulfil.

We know from our work with leading companies how to help marketers up the scale from 'adopter' to 'innovator' but success requires a fresh approach across the organisation and from all members of the C-suite not just the CMO. Effective change has to come from within the whole organisation not just within Marketing.

Team work, leadership and the Rugby World Cup

It was Bill Shankly who famously said that football was not a matter of life and death. It was, he added, more important than that. I’ve never really understood the round ball game; I don’t see why they can’t just pick the ball up and run with it. Well, the arrival of the rugby world cup means that for the next five weeks we rugby fans will be fixated on events in New Zealand. For the day of the final I have rather optimistically pencilled in my diary Wales versus tbc. A classic case of the heart ruling the head. I also have a coffee mug emblazoned with the words: ‘I’d rather be watching Wales.’ In fact it should say, as any true rugby fan will agree, ‘I’d rather be watching France’. They play the game with a beguiling combination of éclat, insouciance, and brute force. Marvellous to watch.

Plenty of books have been written about what businesses can learn from sport, and many former sportsmen have made a living giving motivational speeches, talking of dedication, commitment, bonding, even thinking under pressure. This led to the creation of a whole industry around the idea of senior executives as corporate athletes. The modern interpretation of mens sana in corpore sano led to hundreds of CEOs swapping opera and golf for marathon running and personal trainers. Nutritionists devised special diets and Cartier watches were ditched in favour of heart monitors, all designed to ensure that these executives were in peak condition to run their organisations.

There is no doubt that the focus on the physical well-being of those who work under pressure has been a good thing. However, there are two areas where I feel more could be done. The first is mental health. That many people work too hard and experience high levels of stress is not in doubt. Physical exercise can help mitigate the worst symptoms but they don’t address the root cause. Proper relaxation, through techniques such as meditation, can help enormously to put things into context. Much activity in organisations is focused on doing things. Proper reflection can help bring a sense of perspective to issues that otherwise remain clouded by the haze of constant activity.

The second issue is the often misunderstood idea of leadership. The mythology of the leader as being a special person - a mythology perpetuated by business schools, talent managers and headhunters – has led to a dilution in the importance of the team. Leadership isn’t about doing; it is about creating the climate in which things can be done. The rugby world cup will be won by a squad of wholly inter-dependent players, supported by a host of professionals. It won’t be one player, not even the captain. It won’t be the coach, and it won’t be the fitness advisor. It will be the best team. A team of generalists and specialists; a team that comes in all shapes and sizes but that respect and complement each others skills. It is teams that win, teams that recognise that every member is, at any given time, the leader.

Not everyone, of course, agrees. And so the final word must surely go to the New Zealand schoolgirl who, in 1995 wrote to the All Blacks and said: “I want each of you to remember that rugby is a team game. And that means all 14 of you passing the ball to Jonah Lomu.”