Leadership

I have worked on this notion time again for a few years and find it difficult to be concise.  My interest is to speak on a basic philosophy of leadership and describe why it is important beyond an arrogant statement of the obvious.

Leadership is defined as “the action of leading a group of people or an organization”, which I find only partly satisfactory. Surely, a group is correct, the rest does not really tell us that much, except to re-state the problem.

The main issue that I have with the definition above is that it does not speak to destination or objective, or really anything more than it encompasses a group dynamic.  Group, surely but for our purposes we will define leadership as the influence that drives the group towards the objective.

I think that the objective requires a moment to stand in the center of the stage.  This objective, whether it be victory in a world war for the military, or the selling of soap in the business sector requires the spot of primary interest.  Which is another way to say that any individual within the group, including the boss, is not above this desired end state.  Mission first, everything else next, personal interests of the leader, last.

Up to this point, I think it is safe to assume that we have visualized and synonymized the term “Leader” with the person that is in the greater most position of authority.  I think it is well served to acknowledge that leadership- or influence- within the group does not always reside in this individual of hierarchy. In fact, “informal leaders” not in the chain of command hierarchy have more influence than the boss can ever hope to realize.

Since our definition specifies “influence” and not “command”, here that we see one of the greatest impediments to true leadership is that of authority.  One has difficulty generating influence, when he could simply exercise his own authority and order it so. As such, it is hard to be the boss, and still lead, and doing so is the greatest challenge for the person that is formally in charge.

I believe that this is one of those watershed moments of realization that is exceptionally important.  The boss gives the order, the group maybe doesn’t know how they feel about it, until it has been validated or discredited by the true leader in the group, the fellow that the group has the most trust. This is the true leader of this group and has influence that the boss can only envy.  If this informal individual’s interests are aligned with the objective, this is positive for the organization- but if this individual’s interests are not aligned with the objective, it is unaligned with the mission and dysfunctional is the product.

The greater allure of the sub-objective, the more influence that it is applied to it, the more dysfunctional the team dynamic, the more chaotic the circumstance. The greater the chaos, the further the objective. The informal leader that wishes to exercise positive and forward influence must be aware of the objective, see its importance, validate that the steps that are proper ones, and be trustful of the fellow formally in charge.

So, trust becomes the prime objective of leadership.  How trust is cultivated the single most important tenant of objective, to instill a team dynamic as the byproduct of trust, align actions and positively influences direction towards objective.  If leadership is trust, and trust is team, how does one generate a team dynamic?  First, let us talk about the team itself.

Team.  Everyone on board.  My likely over simplified version of a functional team has three competencies. The first is competency in a general form, that those on the team all have a similar competency that defines the promotes objective.  The second is that the team members have an individual competency, that the others do not necessarily possess, which can be leveraged for the good of the whole.  The last, is that the team can endure times of strife and overcome the negative, survive the uncomfortable, awful times, and bond through succeeding or at least surviving during these tough times.

The tough times deserve additional mention.  The cohesion felt by the team is the greatest, the more trying the circumstances.  The military in great measure entails organized suffering, and it is the glue that will ultimately hold the military team together.  This is also why that the military is sought to be the engine of social reform- and this notion is correct and not misplaced- but it is an entirely different subject.

In terms of the three competencies, a baseball team provides a classic example. The objective stated for a team is to win the championship, and the team’s acceptance of this is the first and common starting point.

The general competency is that everyone on the team must be able to hit the ball, providing the offensive power to score runs, which generates wins needed to fulfill the objective.  The team the scores the most wins the game, period- so hitting is important.

The second and the specific competency is that everyone on the field needs to play their position, and do so expertly, to prevent the other fellows from scoring runs necessary for a win, as the specific capability in this case avoids losses. If the team has nine expert right fielders, nine Henry Aarons, it cannot be successful, because someone has to pitch, someone has to play short, etc. Formidable offensively, surely, and maybe Mr. Aaron could play short, but we really need a Ripken to do that for us.

Lastly, through the tough times, the ability to shrug off loses, quiet the voices that claim the team is a “bunch of bums”, not argue with the Umpires, and in doing so bind together more thoroughly generating resolve with the objective in mind.  This the team. The manager is the formal leader, but we need Aarons and Ripkens, and maybe a few Nolan Ryans to pitch.  We need tough guys in sync with the boss to act as informal leaders.  Guys who have seen the elephant and know tomorrow is another day, never get a day off, can get busted in the face and stay in the game- and those individuals so galvanized towards the objective give us this leadership even though they may not be the manager.

The question then, becomes how does a formal leader generate a team dynamic?  Below is a brief list, that is not comprehensive, but certainly useful.

• Carefully cultivate the objective. This is something that the formal leader must do for the most part on his own, and it is the most important aspect of leadership.  It must be feasible, desirable, best possible outcome for the members, and hopefully motivating.  In doing so, the boss places great emphasis on those actions that support obtaining the objective, while not worrying too much or at all with those things that have no value in its accomplishment.
• The formal leader, the manager, boss, commander, must take the tough ones. If he is only present during the easy times, the team members will find their own course, which is to make it easier on themselves.  This organization will quickly become one that strives only to accomplish the minimums.   If you are the commander, and a 12 miler is scheduled, today is not the day that you go and see the dentist, you must get your butt out there and hump it with the guys.  The team needs to see you sweat. If the staff must work the weekend, you work the weekend.
• The formal leader becomes a teacher, to those that are not realizing their potential in the specific or general attributes. If your third basemen can’t pick up a ground ball, teach him how to pick up a ground ball.  If your underwriter is having trouble filling out a form, stop what you are doing, and teach him how to do it properly.  This creates a standard, and a standard of excellence is the only one befitting a team.
• The formal leader must face dissention. If the team does not understand why something must be done, why a requirement must be met, double/triple/quadruple down on communication.  Repeat yourself and do so often.  This is a tough one, and where many leaders get into trouble.  “This is what is right- you don’t agree?  Well, I’ll show you, I am the authority, and it is now mandated.”  This is laziness and shows weakness of thought and principle.
• Recognize informal leadership and support it. Your pure leaders, those without authority, want to win as badly as you do.  If they have questions or suggestions, hear them out.  If their plan is better than yours, adopt it.  It is a team, and some team members are going to be better than the boss at some of the things that must be done.  Supporting excellence is always smart and propels the team closer to objective. If one does not trust his people, will they trust him in return?
• Keep a hard line on the standard. Some people will not be able to do the things generally or specifically that support the team objective.  If you have recognized this, and trained them, taught them, mentored them, if they still cannot pick up a ground ball, they can’t play third base for you.  If you can’t find a place where their talents benefit the objective, fire them, and get a new third baseman.  One cannot cultivate trust with one, at the expense of trust with the other eight on the field. This is another of the tough ones.
• Behave in a manner that sets an example. One cannot expect compliance to a standard, when the boss does not believe the same standard of conduct applies to him.  This is another of the tough ones, as the boss cannot take a day off, or even a minute off, the established standard.
• Be emphatic when possible. It is possible to be emphatic in all things that do not impact the objective, or standards.  Understand that leadership is the people business.  If the boss treats his people as if they were machines, the product will be dispassionate and mechanical.

Now that we understand the positive team dynamic, let us talk about those things most corrosive to it, again in a likely over-simplified form.  These are the two cardinal sins that a formal leader, the boss- must avoid to create a trusting, team dynamic.

The first is vanity.  The boss that believes that the team serves and succeeds only because of his greatness is an example of a vain leader.  A vain leader cannot fathom that there are team members that are capable of doing something better than he can, and centralizes himself as the sole entity interested in the objective.  If someone does something better than the boss, why wouldn’t a boss allow such a success?  If he is resistant to this, even if it supports the team, directs the team towards objective, if it undermines this vanity and is not permitted, this is known as toxicity. Regardless of who the manager is, a Henry Aaron is still going to hit- and taking credit for his contribution from the manager’s chair is quite honestly ridiculous.

The next cardinal sin for a leader is fearfulness.  Fearing failure to such an extent that the team is made tentative, doing nothing means that nothing can be done to get the boss in trouble, this is the hallmark of a fearful leader.  Such a fellow will undermine his informal leaders, will not innovate, will be rigid and default to the course that is known and succumb to those forces that criticize.  This manager will put a Nolan Ryan in the bullpen because a newspaper said his relief corps was his weakness.  If a fellow does not trust his own judgment, then how can the team place their trust in him?  This fellow is simply not tough enough to overcome any challenges.  Ultimately, a fearful leader is so afraid of failure that he becomes fearful of success.

We have seen these two exemplified in our lives, outside of the military, and outside of baseball.  Not to poke the political bear, but we Americans have lived through a Chief Executive who could be rightly categorized as vain.  If he placed himself above objective, I cannot say with clarity, but certainly he did not take dissenting opinions well from his inner circle.  Disagree with the boss and get voted off the island, replete with a beating from the office in social media.  Regardless of the man’s accomplishments, if it didn’t come from his office, it didn’t come.  This is an example of the vain leader.

Likewise, I think we identify a leadership style from the Chief Executives’ office that is fearful.  One which much energy is spent explaining why what they did was not wrong- not necessarily right- just not wrong.  The main criticism of this approach is again, its inability to overcome the tough times- and we are certainly experiencing tough times. This leaves his team members, including me, wondering if we have lost a handle on the objective, and are stumbling around it, instead of striving towards it.  “This is why it is not my fault”, is playing a little thin. Avoiding the tough ones, explaining it away, well- that is not quite meeting the requirement, in my view and clearly undermines the good that is being done elsewhere.

Outcomes of both styles cause dysfunctionality with the team unit, and we clearly are at each other’s throats about everything even remotely political; and are likely as divided now as much as any time in our history. Politics have intruded nearly everywhere, trust non-existent, the team dynamic within the American society is now a thing of the past.  Would we rise to the occasion, and function with the cooperation, as a team, if it were necessary to overcome another 9/11- is it there?  I hope so, but I cannot say for certain.

The cure for this is leadership.  This society will remain dysfunctional until we do.