The Essence of Leadership
Posted by Dr. Earl R. Smith II in Leadership, tags: adviser, advisory board, angel investor, board of directors, CEO, chairman, coaching, consulting, director, earl r smith ii, earl smith, Executive Coaching, federal circle, federal contracting, funding, Governance, government contractor, investing, investment, investor, Leadership, leadership assessment, leadership coaching, leadership development, leadership styles, management assessment, managing partner, Personal Growth, the federal circle, turnaround, Turnaround Management, Venture CapitalDr. Earl R. Smith II
Managing Partner, The Federal Circle
DrSmith@Dr-Smith.com
Dr-Smith.com
Given all the articles, book, lectures and discussions about leadership, you might hope that CEOs – particularly young ones – might have some idea about what it means to be a leader and, more particularly, what it means for them to be a leader. Such hopes founder on the rocks of the legalistic – and often formalistic – rationalizing that often spews forth from CEO’s trying to assert their ‘authority’ over the team. There are a number of variations on this theme:
- I am the leader because I am the founder
- I am the leader because I own the most stock
- I am the leader because the investors say I am
- I am the leader because somebody has to manage the business
Whatever the variation, the core of the argument rests on a misunderstanding of that it means to be a leader.
Recently I worked with two different CEOs. I was building a sales organization for each. Both engagements went extremely well. Within six weeks, I had brought A-level sales people onto both teams. As the sales teams began to settle in, the difference between the experience and understanding of the two CEOs began to surface.
The first CEO had almost two decades of increasingly expansive experience. He knew that his authority arose from what he personally could accomplish – what he could deliver. He also understood that he should bear responsibility for his own failures to perform. As a result, the dynamic at hand-over – my fading away – was both professional and without incident.
As I reflected on why this went so easily, I realized that this person was:
- confident of his own capabilities
- in the habit of leading by example
- knew that leadership comes from trust that is built up through cumulative experience
- not threatened by the fact that, at the beginning of building the team, I knew his sales people better than he did
The second experience was somewhat different. In this case, the experience levels of the sales people were much more extensive than that of the CEO. He had never built a team or led one successfully. In the past, he had shown a tendency towards expediency – a willingness to have others pay for his inability to deliver. As a result, the dynamic at hand-over focused on legalistic interpretations of authority accompanied by a plea that I ‘not undercut’ his leadership.
In this case, it was clear that this person was:
- not confident in his own abilities
- in the habit of leading by dictate rather than example
- thought of leadership as something that one put on – as a coat
- was threatened by the relationships that had built up during the recruiting process
These two experiences got me to thinking about leadership – what makes for a leader and whether you can teach leadership. On the second question, I suspect that the ideas behind leadership might be teachable but leadership is not. For me, it is much like trying to teach someone how to be ‘human’. Those of you who have spent much time in the anti-humanist technology sector will understand what I am getting at. For people who see others as objects to best of ‘manage’, the concepts of ethical treatment or compassion may roll off the tongue but the behaviors seldom change.
The high-relief version of the question is ‘is talking the talk enough’. People who mouth the words – who talk confidently and knowingly about leadership – but do not seem to be able to get anybody to follow them – what would you call them – leaders? It seems to me that education is not near enough – knowledge is not power when it comes to leadership. Power comes from being a leader that people will follow – not reading about and talking about being a leader that people will follow.
So, to return to my first question – what makes a leader – over the years, I have come to realize that the followers grant leadership. We have words for the alternatives – we call them tyrants, dictators and bullies.
- Leadership begins with a self-confidence based on experience – you know what you can do, why it is important to the company/team and are willing to take responsibility for your failure to deliver
- Leaders have an ability to see their team members as individuals – know what motivates them, correctly estimate their strengths and weaknesses
- Leaders do not allow others to suffer because of their failures – I know one CEO who regularly docks his own paycheck when he came up short
- Leaders realize that they must earn the right to lead a team – earn the trust and faith of the team members – and earning means producing
- Good leaders have an inherent sense of fairness – one that they will not violate under any circumstances. Those that contribute will be recognized and rewarded – those that do not will be dismissed and will not be rewarded
In the end, the test of any leader is in the strength of the dedication of their followers. Leaders are made by followers – defined by the trust that they are willing to invest in their leader.
© Dr. Earl R. Smith II
Related Articles:
- Nine Steps to Becoming a Great Leader
- Leadership Development – Assembling a Team
- Leadership Development – Commitments and Results
- Leadership – Teams of Leaders
- Leadership – The Subtle Dance
- Leadership and Following
- Leadership – a Sense Outside of the Self
Dr. Smith is Managing Partner of The Federal Circle. The Federal Circle partners with teams and existing companies. We help them up their game and win big in the Federal space. We also arrange funding for acquisitions and expansion by acquisition. Our model is based on the belief that, if you select the very best and work with them in a highly professional and focused manner, the results will be truly amazing. He is the author of Amazing Pace: Turbo-charged Business Development – a book that shows how Advisory Boards can dramatically increase revenue. Dr. Smith is also the author of Dream Walk: Parables for the Living – a book of Raven Tales and exploration.
Entries (RSS)
Sean McCauley wrote:
Dr. Smith, Interesting article. I would modify one aspect of a good leaser. Good leaders view those under their direction as an extension of themselves. As a team leader, I will not ask one of my team members to do something I would not or will not do myself. I also show them the respect they deserve and I expect in return. As a team leader, I assume the responsibility of my team member’s success and I take that very seriously. If one of my team fails it is because I have failed them. Perhaps through insufficient motivation, training or selecting the wrong person to be a member of the team. Ultimately team success or failure is the responsibility of its leader. Good article. Sean McCauley wrote:
John Varnell wrote:
Global world economy or not, the general principals of building influence, which is the very essence of leadership and/or being able to lead, is extremely simple no matter which continent you are on. The methods which may be used to build influence may differ and if that is what you are trying to discuss, I can see how that may further the discussion. Methods used in Spain may differ than those in Columbia and / or Mexico. All of which might affect the sphere of influence which is how leadership is measured.
There are those that have influence over themselves. There are others thay may hold influence with their immediate family and / or friends. There are others that may wield influence over communitities. Their sphere of influence may grow to even a national or global level but the number of global leaders is quite small.
Over history we’ve seen many examples of leaders, some which history has judged as “good” and other who have been judged as “bad” or even evil. All of whome are leaders, none the less.
I would love to hear how Dr. Mueller describes those methods used in Europe, the US and/or other cultures to grow influence and what examples of leaders that use these methods.
Ewald Mueller, PhD, MBA wrote:
Earl, you will demand in the real world only the general accepted math principles. When you are in Europe you will verify the amount of Euros you receive for a given amount of US dollars subject to the current USD/EUR exchange rate. I have serious doubts that you would accept a tellers excuse that math works differently in Europe.
I respect that the subject leadership is more complex than a currency exchange rate issue. However, inherent complexity should not prevent us to thrive for a more general understanding of leadership. We are living in a global wotld.
I am interested in a copy if your PhD thesis. – Dr. Mueller
Ewald, Given you comment, I think that your goal of a ‘leadership model’ may be unachievable. My PhD thesis was focused on developing an alternative to comparative cultural analysis. The conclusion I came to was that a ‘one size fits all’ theory became so broad that it was of little use in specific situations. It became a curiosity but little else. Dr. Smith
Ewald Mueller, PhD, MBA wrote:
I like to inject some very different thoughts into the discussion. The leadership qualities are most times discussed on the American cultural background. The average European is rather cautious when a “leader” tries to explain what is good for the individual or an organization. Why does an individual need a leader when a reliable alternative, the own brain is fully functional?
My basic thought is that all leadership models are incomplete as long as not every continent, country or cultural entity is included equitable in the leadership model.
Swapnil Patil wrote:
I would be pleassure to put my thoughts on “A Leader” to Dr. Earl Smith II, according to me a leader is a person who demonstrate the skills to influence people/resources to accomplish various objective for betterment of society/organization with true sense of integrity and desire.
People will only accept you as leader if you do something for society.
John Varnell wrote:
You’ve all made wonderful points but most relate to characteristics of someone they would like to have in a leader. A leader has influence. The perceived characteristics of that person albeit integrity, a servant’s heart, humility, knowledge, strength of will, charisma, charm and/or the ability to manage are all characteristics of people we may like in a leader but John Maxwell got this right when he said leadership is defined as influence. Nothing more and nothing less than influence.
Martyn Poller wrote:
Great article Earl and I also agree with the comments from the people above. I would only add that Leaders are not afraid to surround themselves with people who are better than them in areas they potentially have weaknesses. They are never contrained by current business limitations and (as you rightly point out) NEVER have to ask people to follow
Thanks Tyrone. Your point is very well taken. I have worked with CEOs who have seemed to loath themselves. It is like taking a long journey with someone you can’t stand to be around. When in an advisory role, I begin by helping them seek that internal peace which comes with acceptance of then affection for ones self. That initial victory makes what follows so much easier. Dr. Smith.
Tyrone Brackens wrote:
Nice piece of writing. It is critical that a leader develop and understand how to follow in order to lead. A leader must posses many qualities and therefore think on his feet and motivate those around him. As a leader it is allways good to love thyself then move forward into your journey that awaits you.
Thanks to all for adding to the discussion. Prashanth makes a very good point. The focus should be on the process of developing into the leadership role. I also agree with Hans that integrity is a big factor. Those without it seldom build stable, a-level teams. Dr. Smith
Prashanth Kulkarni wrote:
Good article. I do agree that leadership is an art more than a science. It is about making your team members comfortable and connecting at an emotional level. It is about giving them the freedom to perform to the best of their ability within a set boundary. It is giving them the credit for success and the leader taking blame for the mistakes. It is to build a culture of trust and ethics among the team. It is knowing when to be tough and when to be soft with the team members. It is leading by example. It is being humble and grounded.
Michael Paik wrote:
Asking questions rather than giving answers.
Hans Wolters wrote:
This is a difficult question. Integrity is certainly important within the company, and even more so when dealing with the people you lead. If I see someone acting in a way that I perceive to be lacking integrity then I lose some respect for that person. That sounds pretty absolute and dogmatic and I see your point about the limits, but I have problems with the concept that you can have integrity in one setting but lack it in others.
Thanks for great comments – they were all very interesting and helpful. The whole idea of integrity seems to be a challenge to many current leaders. How would you apply it to say the CEOs of the health insurance companies who regularly make decisions to raise premiums and deny coverage. This is not meant to be a political question – it is focused on the limits of integrity. Is integrity only important within the company or does it carry a societal component?
Jean-David Hirschy wrote:
I completely agree with Hans on integrity, you can only be a leader if your team can trust you and rely on you. You need also to share knowledge with them and agree with them if you are wrong or if they may have a better idea than yours. A bad leader creates frustration a good leader creates positive energy.
Bases of the leadership are very difficult to be learned because you recognize really who is a leader in difficult times where you have to react without to “play the role” or to use “the methods” you have learned, … it is something you have genetically in you, you can improve it but if you do not have it, it will be much more difficult.
I have been able to see that both in the Army and in the civil life … I have seen disasters where people in charge were not “natural born leaders” and they ruined a team or a department. This has a significant impact in terms of costs and productivity.
BTW, Earl I forgot to mention that your article is excellent it summarize very well a lot of situations.
I strongly recommend everyone to read it and to forward it around, it should help to open the eyes of some people who really need it
Mats Abatzidis wrote:
You are only a leader if you want to be a leader, just as a follower is someone who wants to be led – it all starts with you! Once you have answered all the important questions in your own mind and converted them into genuine beliefs your actions will subsequently automatically demonstrate what you represent. Leadership has nothing to do with your position within the hierarchy – it has to do with what you have to offer in order for your followers to achieve what they truly want!
Hans Wolters wrote:
To be a leader you have to have integrity. This then implies doing many things: give credit where appropriate,do not ever sell out your team, etc. I like your final conclusion though: followers make a leader, I would add that the following must be willingly not forced.
Great comments all – and very helpful. Thanks to all of you for taking the time to let me know what you think about this important topic. this is a great group – glad to be a part of it.
Matt Aguilar wrote:
All excellent takes. I tend to gravitate more towards Bob’s thought process about (4) behavioral examples. As one who has held leadership roles in military combat situations, equally tense police actions, and now in leadership roles in the private sector, I couldn’t agree more. My thoughts on those (4) tenets;
1. They are visionary. They clearly see the big picture and the road that needs to be taken.
– Who hasn’t worked with a business that plans from quarter to quarter? Great call-out! in my experience, the BEST leaders have been those who can see things at the 10,000 foot level and can seamlessly parachute down to the tactical level with equal agility.
2. They have a strong moral compass and can communicate those values to the organization.
– Touchy subject that shouldn’t be. Doing the right thing every time should not be a problem for true leaders.
3. They can inspire people to achieve more than they think they are capable.
– I think I like this one most. In my line of work, getting people to think differently is essential to transformational change leading to repeatable and quantifiable business results. And SO much of it involved with simply encouraging the doers who suffer daily because their bosses just like the way things have always been done. I live this one every day!
4. They are decision makers
– Decision by committee eliminates the threat of ownership. Being a leader, especially in thw workplace, means taking all the best data and facts available and making the call.
As we all are hard-wired similarly here, I’m sure we could talk about this stuff all day.
Matt~
Bob Wilkes wrote:
I agree with the comments around leadership; trust, integrity, visionary, believing in people to do the right thing, letting them lead and most importantly – a history of delievering results – execution. When I think back to those who I admired as leaders and as developers of people ( a key skill set) several thoughts come to mind.
- Leaders are patient
- Leaders hire people smarter than them (usually a fear)
- Leaders hire a diverse team to encourage and maximize “What’s possible”
- Leaders learn to delegate and let go
- Leaders teach their people the above 4 points
- To do the above, leaders have to be fearless, they own their decisions.There might be many definitions of this in each mind, one of my favorites is they are not afraid to be fired or wrong.
Finally, I always ask myself, is this a person I would be in a foxhole with? The essence of this question is do I have complete trust in this person and how often do I have to look over my shoulder to see if they have my back, check your gut. The power you feel when you don’t have to look over your shoulder and knowing they will help clear the way is liberating.
Ricardo Carrillo wrote:
Trust.
Leadership is about earning and maintaining trust. The other skills of management help in the implementation of tasks and the organization of personnel.
People trust someone who exemplifies all the qualities discussed by the other respondants. Clear direction allows for people to trust someone and to support the actions called for, especially when those actions are presented in a way that supports the actors.
Trust is usually gained over time and by actions consistent with rhetoric. This ability to gain trust can be used to achieve a great many goods and evils. Firstly, people must trust themselves and then leadership will be effective. However, when people don’t trust themselves, they will latch on to any action that mimics or provides any level of leadership, even if it is to their demise. Trust is often mislaid upon individuals whose credentials state one thing (hence trust by association and consensus) and whose actions differ from their stated vision. Another deception is a partial vision and a lack of transparency. Trust is precious, often manipulated, so people should trust themselves first to ensure the leadership they support is what they desire.