Leadership focuses on an envisioned tomorrow while enlisting others towards it through conviction and commitment. The art of leading others therefore also means if I forget the ultimate, I will be enslaved by the immediate. The old adage of focusing on important things in order to avoid being driven by urgent ones holds true in leading people.
If we accept that the art of leading others is about them rather than us, therefore it follows that leadership also means we lose our right to be selfish. A selfish leader is a misnomer indeed! When we abandon our highest priority, we lose our way and people suffer.
As such those of us that are entrusted with the custody of the leadership office need to always:
- Consider our actions and take care to avoid contradiction with the vision we champion
- That we work smart to ensure results in key areas of the business/organisation
- Spend funds wisely and in areas that bring the best return
- Always feel dissatisfied in our production and thereby constantly challenge ourselves to do better at all times
When leaders and people fail to maintain proper priorities, disappointment always results. Remember the paretto principle which says 80% of all output come from 20% of input. With the right priorities, 20% of our efforts will get 80% of the desired results. But with the wrong priorities, 80% of our effort will get 20% of the desired results.Priorities in leading people are not about working harder, but smarter. Getting the best out of your people and getting the best out of investment that has gone into the business, leading to happy stakeholders (colleagues, community and shareholders) is a very smart undertaking. In fact if anything, this is a responsibility that ought to be approached as a calling, the very purpose for leaders’ existence.
For a first piece, I thought it prudent to touch on an aspect of leadership that is often taken forgranted: integrity. In leading others, its always important that who we are publicly is exactly the asme as who we are privately. The degree to which these two worlds differ, is the degree to which trust is gained or lost.
Corporate Integrity: It Starts at the Top
I heard of a story about a gentleman who used to be affiliated with a construction company whose owner ordered the workers to cut corners in every way possible without getting caught. Some foremen were even chastised for taking extra care to do a good job. Did this philosophy work? No. The company did make money, but the employees who took pride in their work went elsewhere, leaving a workforce who simply was not trustworthy and a company which had a shady reputation.
View original post 502 more words
Andre Malraux one said, to command is to serve, nothing more and nothing less. I am often perplexed at how much those of us in positions of influence (structurally speaking) miss the mark in terms of what the art of leadership is especially in direct comparison to those without the formal positions of influence.
As often mentioned, I am firm a believer in leadership being a state of being rather than what we do. In other words who we are comes before what we do. It is in the moments when the formal power layers have been taken off that we see the real person. Sometimes the titles we are formally given make us not be who we are and thus rob the world of an opportunity to experience the greatness we are.
One thing I have come to appreciate is that leadership begins with the heart. A heart that is consistent in allowing the leader to live steadily while moving among the team. A heart that is contrite enough to allow humility and willingness to show humanity regardless of who witnesses it. A type of heart that is courageous enough to chart the right path without shrinking from doing the right thing.
A leader should be able to communicate his/her convictions regardless of what the implications. We have many great examples of those who led with conviction (our very own Madiba, Ghandi, Marcus Garvey, Patrice Lumumba, Martin Luther King and others are often referred to in this context).
They are committed to a course regardless of how unpopular that may be. And finally they are totally captivated by what they believe in so much so that it matters not if that survives them (being ready to die for an idea that will live than live for an idea that will die).
This makes the task of leading people quite risky as we can never really tell how we are perceived by others and therefore in a manner of speaking, “putting ourselves out there” could be in actual fact providing evidence that we cannot be trusted. For instance, a politician goes on a podium and declares that they care nothing about themselves, and all they do (including running for office) is driven by a deep sense of care for the people (something we hear all the time). They maybe saying that with the hope that they are convincing beyond shadow of a doubt. Furthermore, they maybe also hope that the audience does not include individuals who know facts that prove to the contrary.
No matter how upright a leader may strive to live their life, if they are genuine, there will always be self conscious: “did anyone see me last night?” “Does anyone in this audience recognize me from university days?” “Did people really believe that I meant everything I said?” “Will they support this new direction given the track record of the leadership team?” This constant struggle on the inside is the harsh reality that most leaders have to live with everyday: And so the wondering continues, day after day.
Beyond managing people’s perceptions, leaders (and people generally) often struggle with themselves as they attempt to manage what’s inside (thoughts, values, believes) against what’s coming out (words and deeds). Sometimes the internal world of thoughts is just not palatable for general consumption. This is because often what we think is uninhibited and uncensored as “no one will know”. Being ourselves in deed and in word, unleashing the inner voice will often times compromise us publicly. In other words, in our constant struggle for self preservation and being truthful, we justify the discord that results between who we are and who we say (and or act) we are. If we are to go with Gandhi ‘s line of thought in one of his most referred to sayings, “happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony” then most leaders (and indeed people) are not happy with their lot in life.
We do however; know that most great leaders were regarded as such because of the courage they displayed in standing for their convictions. So we go on admirably quoting and attempting to walk in the footsteps of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and so forth often without due regard for the risks they took in standing for what society frowned upon. It is the clarity and complete mental resolute to stand by their convictions that made it easy for those in power to single them out and at times not only threaten their physical safety but often negotiate them out of their convictions.
Leadership therefore is about taking risks, by making oneself available for public scrutiny, assessment of congruence between who we say we are and who we really are. Those who choose to lead with deep understanding and appreciation of this perilous reality; knowing that leadership is never about the leader, but those they lead, are a rare breed indeed and society will continue to build monuments around their persons. What will society say about you when all is said and done?
In my career, I have encountered the consequence of having great relationships that are mutually beneficial as well as those that aren’t. It’s a mistake for leaders to think that they will make it completely on their own. Healthy leaders often partner with others to reach their goals. In fact we live in an age of partnerships, both in the corporate world and non-governmental spheres.
We are encouraged to remember that there is nothing more dangerous to a leader than an unhealthy or destructive partnership. The basis of such partnerships range from greed on the one hand and striving to achieve ahead of anything else on the other.
Some of the signs of bad partnerships are:
The parties don’t share the same values. The ambition to be successful in a commercial sense is not the only basis to start a partnership.
The parties don’t agree on the goals. Chasing different objectives can frustrate a fairly solid partnership and we have enough examples in history where greatness could have been achieved yet the differing goals pushed the potential partners away from each other
One or both parties must compromise their convictions. It’s important that basic convictions are shared as a basis for a partnership. Conviction can often trump all objectives, ambition or financial success.
One party selfishly demands that the other surrender. Some people need to win in every situation and such a “winner takes all attitude” can sometimes derail a partnership.
One party benefits and the other loses. This one we often see in situations where a financially astute partner negotiates in such a way that the financial benefits are unfairly one sided yet the lead measures are equal from both partners.
Good partnerships do not foster co-dependency or independence, but interdependence. Every party feels secure, is stretched, and enjoys energy. The partnership multiplies the productivity of both parties.