Leadership is
looked upon as the ultimate capability to succeed. Leadership is unique in that
its success comes from the success of the teams that leaders lead. Leadership
is, therefore, nothing but influencing the teams to perform to their full
potential. Leaders typically possess a set of skills and attributes which they
deploy in certain styles to lead the teams. Though leadership is, in part,
contextual the broad set of leadership competencies remains the same. Many
times leadership is based on excellence in a few attributes relative to others.
The attributes of relative excellence could be any or some of the following
(illustrative): conceptualization, strategy, decision making, execution, public
speaking, memory, agility, perfection, empathy. The ability of the leader to
influence his or her team members to succeed, based on such attributes, creates
a leadership charisma.
Leadership
charisma reinforces the success competencies of a leader leading to a virtuous
cycle of success and charisma, in an ever increasing trajectory. Along with
that comes a sense of infallibility and invincibility, fuelled by relative
superiority. In some leaders it just remains as a streak and in some leaders it
starts becoming a dominant stream. When the latter happens, leaders start
committing certain mistakes with the assumption that their supremacy is
unchallenged. This approach, in the long run, becomes counterproductive to the
leaders and their organizations because, more often than not, the team
comprises potential leaders who with time and given the space could step into
the leader’s shoes. The sense of relative superiority, which is a result of
self-perpetuating cognatic bias of a leader, prompts him or her to commit certain
mistakes. Discussed below are five of the serious mistakes a leader can ever
make, and should never make.
Competing with team
This is the
most common mistake successful leaders make. A wise leader recognises that his
direct subordinates could be better than he himself is on certain attributes
and together the reporting team could be better than the leader. This awareness
amongst the subordinates develops based on individual and team successes and
group collaboration. A leader who is always out to prove that he is superior to
his team would hardly give credit to his team for successes. A leader who is
always attempting to prove his superiority over his colleagues ends up using
his positional power to achieve this, given the fact that he may not be
intellectually superior on all counts. There are several negative consequences
of a leader competing with his team.
Firstly, the
team becomes acquiescent, if not obsequious, denying the organization the
benefit of collective wisdom. Secondly, it places too much power in the hands
of one individual who has started trading his wisdom to aggrandisement.
Thirdly, the broader organization becomes centrally driven diluting the
authority and relevance of a whole team of leaders. Two things happen as a
result. Potential leaders become blind followers, passive aggressors or take up
early exits. By the time the leader and the Board come to realize the folly,
mostly through some failures, they would find that the organization has no
potential leaders. Eventually, the reputation of the leader as a concentrator of
power would inhibit entry of external leadership talent.
Joker(s) in the pack
Though not very
apt, the leadership team can be seen as a pack of cards utilized by the leader
to win the game of business competition, majorly through skill but partly also
through luck. As we know, the joker card which has no sequential or set
attribute has enormous value to be used as any card to make a set or sequence.
Leaders tend to have a team member who is loyal to the core and who fulfils the
role of a joker in the pack for the leader. It is not uncommon even in great
corporations to have a joker in the leadership pack; they do contribute to forward
movement by adding their word (usually at the behest of their leader) to
certain solutions desired by the leader. The trouble arises when the leader
tends to have too many jokers in the pack.
Like in a card
game, too many jokers in the leadership game rob the game of business any competitive
strength. A leadership team filled with members of blind loyalty, even with substance,
would add little to the long term strength of the company. Very soon there
would be no issues to debate and no decisions to make. A leader who fills his
pack with too many jokers would find it difficult to reconstitute the deck even
if wisdom dawns on him because unlike the competent ones jokers tend to stay on
for a lifetime! There is probably only one way to deal with an excess of
jokers; offer them sinecure positions and make them lead inconsequential
non-mainstream divisions.
Drawing the blinds
A company, more
so its headquarters which houses its leadership team, is like a cozy home. It
stays in its community (the supply base or the marketplace) but also could be a
mini-community by itself. It is important for any house to draw in, from outside,
sunshine and breeze so that the residents are healthy. A home may protect its
residents but unless residents go out and are able to live their external life
they would eventually become weak. The fate of headquarter leadership is also
similar. Unless leaders undertake periodic viewing and listening tours in their
fields they are likely to be isolated, and lose their touch with competitive
pulse. Being blinded to realities is the worst handicap that a leader can
inflict upon himself.
The third
mistake leaders commit is to draw blinds on their homes, shutting out the view
on and feel of outside developments. Artificial light and air conditioning may
not only substitute the natural sources and be more comfortable. They may even
give a false sense of control over them. They are, however, expensive and
inappropriate; like artificial light can never help in vitamin D synthesis in a
person as natural sunshine does. A leader who runs a headquarters that is
isolated from its environment does more harm than good to the vitality of the
leadership team and agility of the company. It is not enough for one or two
potential leaders to foray into the environment. There must be continuous
openness for all the team members.
Decoupling with peers
A peer is
someone at one’s own level. A leader, if he is hierarchy bound, and in addition
has a mistaken feeling of superiority may never see anyone as his peer. It is
important for a leader to appreciate that aspirant leaders who are one level
below him organizationally, and even managers several levels below, can be
peers based on intellectual capabilities. Organizational structures and
processes are designed, despite their bureaucratic nature, provide several
opportunities to couple with executives, managers and leaders of shared or
overlapping processes.
The fourth
mistake leaders commit is to decouple themselves from their peers despite organizational
opportunities. Decoupling occurs in two ways; one is going through interactions
in a mechanical manner and the second is to build silos around himself and
allow other leaders to build silos around the divisions they head. Leaders who
think of themselves to be superior or carry needless burdens of their weaknesses
tend to deliberately decouple themselves from their peers; hierarchial or
intellectual. A leader who does deliberate decoupling only downgrades his potential.
Tunnelling the vision
Leaders are
charged with a rather sublime duty of conceptualizing a vision. Vision is not a
definition of a future business. Vision is more an expression of how a business
would build itself and endure over a really long time. Apple’s vision is to
lead a digital revolution. Google’s vision is to organize all data to be
useful. Microsoft’s vision is to seek diversity and inclusion in its business.
Ikea’s vision is to create a better everyday life for people. Amazon’s vision
is to be the world’s most customer-centric company. General Electric’s vision
is to bring good things to life. Vision, in a way, represents a superordinate
philosophy of a company. A leader’s differentiation will be evident in the
nature of vision statement.
The fourth
mistake of a leader is to tunnel a vision; an oxymoron of sorts. Vision needs
to be expansive as open sky horizon and capable of lasting in perpetuity.
Expressing a vision in terms of products and businesses is a hallmark
characteristics of leaders with tunnel vision. This leadership mistake
restrains an organization from absorbing its fundamental purpose and
establishing a perpetual connect with its stakeholders. It is not expected that
a leader should develop a vision by himself. If the leader does not make the
mistakes mentioned earlier he would be in a position to develop his leadership
bench, bring out their inner and innate potential, and seek contributions from
his team members to develop awesome vision.
Board role
The role of
apex leaders, among many other important things, is to be a model of
leadership, and keep organizational processes on track. If the apex leaders,
the Chief Executive Officers and other C-Suite Officers, themselves make any or
all of the above five mistakes, it is difficult for others in the organization
to correct such leaders. As mentioned earlier, the subordinate leaders and
managers may just comply or exit. If leaders do not realize the need to avoid
the five mistakes, the Board of Directors becomes the only hope.
The Board is
the institutional framework that can mentor and coach the apex leaders to live
their leadership role in totality, avoiding the above five mistakes. To be able
to play that mentoring role, the directors on the board themselves must be
seasoned and wise enough to understand the five mistakes that leaders could
commit and they themselves should not have committed them. The Board’s role is
not just review of performance, or even ensuring governance but is enabling the
apex leader to do the right things and avoid mistakes, and reach the fullest
potential.
Posted by Dr CB
Rao on June 12, 2016