Confronting Leadership

In our search to become a leader, we run into diverse views on leadership. Executive coach James Scouller identifies three levels of leadership—Public Leadership (how to influence many; 34 traits), Private Leadership (how to influence one-on-one; another 14 behaviours), and Personal Leadership (inner level; 3 more). One too many, I dare say.

There are no leaders; there is only leadership. I say this for two reasons: First, it is our inability to perceive leadership in the abstract which makes us latch on to the person quintessentially demonstrating leadership. In the perpetual conflict between our heart (trying to identify and love the person, i.e., the leader) and our mind (trying to grapple the abstract, i.e. leadership quality), the heart wins. Even political parties based on great ideologies dissolve into larger-than-life leaders.

Second, leaders do not always or continuously demonstrate leadership. They are not magical beings, but human beings with human frailties. The faultless, consummate leader is a myth. In their lives too, poor leadership is inevitable, and we can be misled if we focus on the leader. That is why it is futile to patch oneself up along Amy Cuddy’s Fake It Till You Make It or through executive leadership programs that build a leader’s façade.

To become a leader, it would be far better to understand what leadership is.

Leadership is a mix of four elements: Vision, Commitment, Inspirational, and Decisiveness. Each by itself does not convey leadership; together, they constitute leadership.

• Vision: An ability to look ahead—see a future and a purpose. The vision need not be original; you can borrow it from another visionary. But the ability to see the future and change from the status quo is integral to leadership. And as organisational consultant Simon Synek said, followers always seek the why and follow the one who can clearly articulate the why.
• Commitment: Fire in the belly, self-motivation, self-belief, guts or gumption to do, take your pick. Leadership requires having conviction in one’s vision, and then taking the responsibility to drive and make it happen. The commitment brushes away every challenge that one has to confront.
• Influence: The vision is not achieved by a one-man army, but with the sustained help of willing followers. Hence leadership involves the ability to inspire and influence people. This is done not by ramming one’s ideas through people, but by facilitation—generating views and voices among stakeholders.
• Decisiveness: Fundamentally, leadership is about the ability to take good decisions. We think that if we have all the data at our disposal, anyone can do a decent job of choosing. But you are not spared the luxury of time, nor is comprehensive data provided. Leadership not only constantly confronts choices, but also makes and owns the decisions. You have a responsibility to choose right, and without wavering, be decisive about it.

Of these, the last is the most important element of leadership. Like the brain that decides for the rest of the body, decision-making by leaders is essential for a group’s collective progress. From time immemorial, every society, irrespective of the type of social contract (aristocracy, autocracy, democracy), has been forced to have leaders to make choices on their behalf. Societies rely on leaders because we cannot separate out and select an abstract entity (leadership); we can only settle for imperfect personifications (leaders). Guidelines, such as charters, constitutions, and cultural pillars, exist for decision-making, but as weak reminders.

There is an interesting twist, though. Although we think that leadership is not within us, most of us are forced into leadership. By evolution. As parents, we take bottom-line responsibility for our offspring—we envision their future, motivate ourselves to plan for and toil to achieve that vision for them, inspire our kids when the chips are down, and along the way, decisively confront choices.

Leadership, then, is not a rare quality, but essentially in everyone. It involves responsibility and pain. Often, in a workplace or society, between leading or being led, most of us prefer the comfort of switching off and following. After all, we have enjoyed the leadership of parents in our childhood, and the propensity to shift responsibility comes to us naturally.

Are we born with it or can leadership be taught? Both are valid, I guess. But there can also be a third possibility—it can be awakened, as when our innate sense of leadership surfaces during parenthood. Leadership seems to be a mode in each of us, which can be kindled. It need not be taught or inherited; a calling or a vision to do something can switch it on.

How do we address the Hamlet moments of leadership? Should we be nice to people who look up to us? It is difficult to initially digest Sloan Jr, that only performance matters, even to the point of letting go of people (echoed by Ray Dario [in Principles] and Jack Welch). Our moral baggage can weigh us down, telling us to be nice and empathetic, and give inefficiency and ineptitude another chance. This is probably because many of us are thrust into management first and only later into leadership.

Slowly it dawns on you, that if you have a skin in the game, i.e., responsibility, you cannot afford to amuse yourself around a coterie of ‘yes’ men or a self-imagery of gentlemanliness. You cannot quit on the responsibility, but being dispassionate is cutting too close to heartlessness. Leadership cannot be a job. Bringing up your own kids is not a job. So, when the time comes, you need to make tough calls and pull up; but when you do, be humane about it. You should be able to look in the eye and honestly say why and what you are doing is right; it should not be precipitated by some helplessness that you are not a part of.

Doesn’t leadership involve ethics and integrity? Leadership has an underbelly. Selfless leadership or a Buddha’s version would be rare. No one is born a king. In the ascent to leadership, talent and luck would have helped; sustaining the leadership will need infinite more talent and luck. Negotiating the system would have called for an insatiable love for power and gain; as with Lincoln in Team of Rivals, staying motivated will need great political astuteness. Ryszard Kapuscinski remarked, ‘The essential nature of power is to display it’. Hence power play and manipulation are unavoidable to retain leadership. Most leaders might have begun well with good intentions (the joy of creating something), but success can corrupt and make politics and power play essential tools for furtherance. Very few leaders have given up leadership willingly. Leadership is not about being good and naïve.