Over the past
four years or so I have posted several blogs on the general subject of
leadership, that intangible factor which so many of us seek.
In fact I have,
like many others, collected a plethora of sayings, articles, comments,
statements, concepts and much else on the topic and I have gallantly refrained
from publishing the findings under the heading of “50 Great Habits of
Successful Leaders” or similar.
The question
is: can we define leadership or is it one of those intangibles that we sort of
know when we see it but can’t put into words?
One of the
maxims that we use in Vistage about recruiting people is that we “hire on
skills and fire on attitude” and that always has some resonance for me.
Many leaders in
business and I emphasise, in business, arrive at the throne of leadership by
form of osmosis which seems to take them through functional success in sales or
finance or technology or whatever to the top of the business where the daily
demands are completely different from the norm of running a function.
Some years ago
I was instructed with around 60 other senior management to attend a three day
session presented by an eminent professor from a major university assisted by a
group of academics. This being corporate
land I accepted the invitation.
One of the
sessions was listed a group problem solving exercise. We broke out into six groups of ten watched
over by one of the academics, and were given a notionally intractable problem to
discuss and to offer the best solution.
Each of the
groups was allocated a Director of the company as a member so that fairness
would prevail.
We were
instructed to elect a chairman, which we duly did by electing our Director and
then proceeded to ignore him while someone else acted de facto as chairman.
When we
returned to base for the debrief we were told that we hadn’t actually been
problem solving and the observer was in fact a psychologist, the whole exercise
being one of group dynamics.
Amazingly (or
not as the case may be) every one of the groups behaved in exactly the same way,
which didn’t say much for the leadership capabilities of the various directors.
The somewhat
laboured point I am making is that leadership comprises two major aspects, one
of which is inborn and natural, and one which is based on defined shills and
abilities.
The inborn
aspects, the province of the business leader, include such factors as:
- · Vision
- · Self-confidence
- · Determination
- · Clarity of thought
- · Desire
- · Drive
none of which
can be taught or indeed learnt. These
are traits of character it seems sensible to devise a list and ensure that each
of the facets are constantly developed and valued. It is a matter of constant personal awareness
of the existence and value of these traits.
On the other
hand there are features of leadership which are just as valuable and which can
and should be learnt and developed.
Typically these could include:
- · Building relationships
- · Encouraging upward communication
- · Handling conflict
- · Developing engagement of the people
- · Recruiting and retaining talented people
- · Building relationships with the customers and the market
I am dubious
about the validity of formal training for leadership. By far the best way to develop and most
importantly learn is by joining a peer group.
In this environment leaders can test issues and learn how others have
developed their skills.
Is it a matter
of nature or nurture? It is both. Leaders need to be aware of their inborn
abilities and how they can develop them, which is, essentially, an
auto-didactic exercise.
In addition
join a peer group. That way leadership
sills can be honed, tested, developed and put into action.
Download my book"Leading to Success" from Amazon
Visit the Vistage UK website
No comments:
Post a Comment