The tragic novels of Franz Kafka bear stark testimony to the debilitating effects of bureaucracy. But even this has a very mixed record in the twentieth century. Although there have been inspirational and transformational wartime leaders, there have also been charismatic leaders like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung who committed horrendous atrocities.
Thus, for both pragmatic and philosophic reasons, an intense interest in the concept of leadership began to develop. And indeed, in the s, the first serious research started. The first leadership theory—trait theory—attempted to identify the common characteristics of effective leaders. To that end, leaders were weighed and measured and subjected to a battery of psychological tests. But no one could identify what effective leaders had in common. Trait theory fell into disfavor soon after expensive studies concluded that effective leaders were either above-average height or below.
Trait theory was replaced by style theory in the s, primarily in the United States. One particular style of leadership was singled out as having the most potential.
It was a hail-fellow-well-met democratic style of leadership, and thousands of American executives were sent to training courses to learn how to behave this way. There was only one drawback. Suddenly, everyone was encouraged to behave like a Cold War warrior!
The poor executive was completely confused. Recent leadership thinking is dominated by contingency theory, which says that leadership is dependent on a particular situation. Once again, the beleaguered executive looking for a model to help him is hopelessly lost.
For this article, we ransacked all the leadership theories to come up with the four essential leadership qualities. Like Weber, we look at leadership that is primarily antibureaucratic and charismatic.
From trait theory, we derived the qualities of weaknesses and differences. Unlike the original trait theorists, however, we do not believe that all leaders have the same weaknesses; our research only showed that all leaders expose some flaws. Tough empathy grew out of style theory, which looked at different kinds of relationships between leaders and their followers.
Finally, context theory set the stage for needing to know what skills to use in various circumstances. When leaders reveal their weaknesses, they show us who they are—warts and all. Such admissions work because people need to see leaders own up to some flaw before they participate willingly in an endeavor. Exposing a weakness establishes trust and thus helps get folks on board. Beyond creating trust and a collaborative atmosphere, communicating a weakness also builds solidarity between followers and leaders.
Consider a senior executive we know at a global management consultancy. He agreed to give a major presentation despite being badly afflicted by physical shaking caused by a medical condition. The otherwise highly critical audience greeted this courageous display of weakness with a standing ovation. Richard Branson, the founder of Virgin, is a brilliant businessman and a hero in the United Kingdom.
Indeed, the Virgin brand is so linked to him personally that succession is a significant issue. Branson is particularly effective at communicating his vulnerability. He is ill at ease and fumbles incessantly when interviewed in public. Another advantage to exposing a weakness is that it offers a leader valuable protection. Celebrities and politicians have always known this. Princess Diana may have aired her eating disorder in public, but she died with her reputation intact, indeed even enhanced.
That said, the most effective leaders know that exposing a weakness must be done carefully. They own up to selective weaknesses. Knowing which weakness to disclose is a highly honed art. The golden rule is never to expose a weakness that will be seen as a fatal flaw—by which we mean a flaw that jeopardizes central aspects of your professional role.
Consider the new finance director of a major corporation. A leader should reveal only a tangential flaw—and perhaps even several of them. Paradoxically, this admission will help divert attention away from major weaknesses. Another well-known strategy is to pick a weakness that can in some ways be considered a strength, such as being a workaholic. Instead he will open himself up to derision and scorn. One scenario we saw repeatedly in our research was one in which a CEO feigns absentmindedness to conceal his inconsistency or even dishonesty.
This is a sure way to alienate followers who will remember accurately what happened or what was said. Inspirational leaders rely heavily on their instincts to know when to reveal a weakness or a difference. We call them good situation sensors, and by that we mean that they can collect and interpret soft data. He is highly accomplished in detecting shifts in climate and ambience; he can read subtle cues and sense underlying currents of opinion that elude less perceptive people.
Humer says he developed this skill as a tour guide in his mid-twenties when he was responsible for groups of or more. The process is complex, and as anyone who has ever encountered it knows, the results are impressive. Consider a human resources executive we worked with in a multinational entertainment company. As he was thinking about how to hide the information temporarily from the Paris-based CEO while he worked on a solution, the phone rang.
He had his networks, of course. He could read the silences and pick up on nonverbal cues in the organization. Not surprisingly, the most impressive business leaders we have worked with are all very refined sensors. Ray van Schaik, the chairman of Heineken in the early s, is a good example.
While leaders must be great sensors, sensing can create problems. The political situation in Northern Ireland is a powerful example. Over the past two years, several leaders—David Trimble, Gerry Adams, and Tony Blair, together with George Mitchell—have taken unprecedented initiatives toward peace. At every step of the way, these leaders had to sense how far they could go without losing their electorates. In business, think of mergers and acquisitions.
Unless organizational leaders and negotiators can convince their followers in a timely way that the move is positive, value and goodwill quickly erode. This is the situation recently faced by Vodafone and France Telecom in the sale and purchase of Orange.
Sensing can create problems. In making fine judgments about how far they can go, leaders risk losing their followers. There is another danger associated with sensing skills. By definition, sensing a situation involves projection—that state of mind whereby you attribute your own ideas to other people and things.
Imagine a radio that picks up any number of signals, many of which are weak and distorted. The employee who sees her boss distracted and leaps to the conclusion that she is going to be fired is a classic example. Most skills become heightened under threat, but particularly during situation sensing. Such oversensitivity in a leader can be a recipe for disaster. For this reason, sensing capability must always be framed by reality testing. Even the most gifted sensor may need to validate his perceptions with a trusted adviser or a member of his inner team.
Real leaders empathize fiercely with the people they lead. They also care intensely about the work their employees do. Although he often comes across as a rather aloof intellectual, Levy is well able to close the distance between himself and his followers. On one occasion, he helped some junior record executives in Australia choose singles off albums. Picking singles is a critical task in the music business: the selection of a song can make or break the album. Levy sat down with the young people and took on the work with passion.
Clearly, as the above example illustrates, we do not believe that the empathy of inspirational leaders is the soft kind described in so much of the management literature.
On the contrary, we feel that real leaders manage through a unique approach we call tough empathy. Organizations like the Marine Corps and consulting firms specialize in tough empathy. Chris Satterwaite, the CEO of Bell Pottinger Communications and a former chief executive of several ad agencies, understands what tough empathy is all about.
They recognize that leadership is not a popularity contest, and instead remain somewhat aloof. The point: effective leaders differentiate themselves from the crowd to preserve and build their influence. While the authors' points are interesting, what are leaders to do with them? It seems to me that some leaders are born with these attributes; others will never have them. Can they be learned? Training someone to be authentic or to genuinely care about those they lead presents obvious problems.
However, any leader can dramatically improve his or her leadership influence and skill by recognizing their importance, learning techniques to increase self-awareness and interpersonal prowess, and acquiring the ability to effectively communicate the authentic respect and passion they already possess. Questions about Winter quarter? Text us at ! Two internationally acclaimed experts, Professor Robert Goffee and Professor Gareth Jones, from London Business School , have spent more than 20 years researching the characteristics of successful leadership.
Based on their findings, they came up with four key elements that followers want from leaders:. Followers want to feel like a part of a community. Human beings have a deep-rooted desire to belong, to feel like a part of something bigger, to relate to others. We are social beings who cannot function effectively without a social system that is larger than ourselves.
I invite the reader to ask themselves:. Do I engender a sense of belonging? Am I a community builder? Do I help people to connect to each other and to the purpose of the organization? I encourage leaders to ask themselves: How well do I know myself? Am I clear about the differences that attract people to follow me?
Do I communicate these differences skillfully to others? Followers need to feel significant. In simple terms, they need recognition for their contribution. A tough, money-driven leader can still take time to personally give positive feedback and recognition to their team members. He would thank colleagues for a job well done or simply encourage them to even greater efforts.
He took the time to write those notes by hand to his team members, despite his heavy workload and responsibility. Do I make them feel that what they are trying to achieve is important? Do I make them feel that they have a vital role to play? Followers need a sense of excitement. Effective leaders are often able to excite others through their passionate commitment to their values and vision.
0コメント