Leadership

That headline should get some attention (and the algorithm jumping).

But what is it?  How do you do it?  What does good, great or successful leadership (the process and outcome) look like? 

With the few lines I write here, my intent isn’t to answer those questions.

It’s simply my take on it, when I think about and reflect on my own career journey, ideas and practice of leadership.

See, the world is already teeming with experts on the subject (some of whom really are), millions of lines of online copy and the very real prospect (and I hope, uncheckable fact) that if all the leadership books ever written and printed were stacked, you could walk to Jupiter and back. 

And yet, while I never profess to be an expert in the subject of leadership, through my own experience and execution of my style of it at least, I believe that the core attributes can be distilled to just 3, inexorably linked things.

They are awareness, authenticity and courage.

AWARENESS: awareness is an absolute base when it comes to maneuvering through the unique nuances of people and situations, and these are things that are unavoidable in any context (i.e. no two of either are really the same).

I’m a fan of a chart (a version of which I’ve included) that’s invariably used to visualise a Situational Leadership model, which is a way of studying leadership style proposed by Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey.  It focuses on developmental stages of individuals, though how it is enabled by awareness as an attribute of leadership is what I most like.

What it also achieves is to guide better engagement in the process of leadership and from that point of view it’s a good model for honing leadership craft.

Properly executed against the backdrop of well-defined individual strengths (I'm a fan of Gallup's CliftonsStrengths), a team that’s led this way will always beat one that’s led like a factory, churning out the same ideas, the same way, irrespective of inputs and with no respect for beauty in the differences. 

That said, even without strengths defined it can help to tune awareness, with little more than the desire to care about what’s happening around the leader and to drop clues about how to respond.

AUTHENTICITY: if the leader doesn’t have a genuine, deep, value-driven belief for the task or cause, then it shows and won’t inspire, let alone attract, people to join the cause.

They aren’t going to hitch their wagon to a vision or direction in any true sense when there’s even the slightest perception of disingenuity. Sure they might do as you say, but that’s management and not leadership.

One needs little more proof of this than to think of a time when a manager tried to be a leader and the rousing response from team was “yeah, nah”, with subsequent effect on culture, environment and the way work is done (or often, not).

People always have a choice, even in organisations and work, which is why authenticity is important.

Authenticity shows through things like enthusiasm for what’s being pursued, for the people engaged in its delivery, consistency with the strategy or plan and vision for what the future looks like as a result of the work.  

Being led with authenticity shows, because everyone feels important and valued in their contribution to the cause.  Not through incentives, team building events, performance reviews, back slaps or any of the other lazy crutches on which many corporate “leaders” seem to entirely lean, but through genuine enthusiasm for the work, brand and the people who are part of its strength.

That’s not to say those things are wrong, though without leadership (or at the very least, good management) they’re pointless wastes of time.

COURAGE: finally and bound by a thick tie to authenticity is courage, because only authenticity driven by the deepest values will be backed with courage and it shows too.

Courage is seen in the positive disruptors that hold true to their belief, standing toe to toe with those who don’t in the spirit of persuasion and, opposite to the uncourageous, won’t shake and capitulate at even the slightest fear or challenge to that belief.

That said, humans react. It’s natural.  Even the calmest most unwavering personalities, so long as a pulse is present, will jitter at some point.  Ergo, some jitter more than others though it’s courage of conviction that keeps the jittering to a minimum, so as not to snap.

Courage is doing what’s right even if it’s unpopular and maintaining that position. Sometimes it takes courage to stick to a plan or strategy even when it may seem not to be delivering in the short term, when impatience is poking at your lizard brain either from external influences or your own thought processes.

In that context, complete courage is in recognising when you're wrong, owning up and adjusting course. 

The point is that courage is fairly easy to spot in the true leader, as equally when it’s present as when it’s absent.

So it’s these three things, awareness, authenticity and courage that are, in my humblest, the bedrock of a great leader and in their absence leadership can’t exist.

Support and the provision of it, along with the gaining and giving of trust, openness to communicate, conviction and inspiration, praise and guidance, the ability to push an individual to discomfort with them knowing that a net of support will keep them from falling all the way over are bed fellow elements of these three attributes, and draw their own strength from them.

In conclusion, the best leaders I’ve experienced, studied or been in conversation about have always exhibited these things in spades and that’s why I believe that they’re core.

When the attributes are present, leaders are invisible, yet present, in the sense you know they’re there, they have your back and equally you know that they’re aware of you.  You know what to do and they stay out of your way. They’re enthusiastic without being over the top and you can feel their influence through their planning, vision and clarity of direction.

They steer you back when you’re off course (and sometimes before you even are).  It’s a form of negative feedback that’s absolutely necessary to ensure the vision remains your true north and not off to the side, distracted by some other shiny beacon of false achievement.

Finally, they also hold a deep regard for people, and not only the people they lead directly but humility for the people they impact as a result of their leadership.  They draw strength and purpose from this.

As a footnote, to this point in my career I’ve had the opportunity and privilege to lead, mentor and influence the development of some amazing people, both directly and indirectly.

Through their development (several into positions of management and leadership themselves), each of them is, in part an outcome of the application of my leadership style, based on what I’ve learned from others and grounded in the three attributes I described.  It’s a hybrid of delegation and direction, which really what most leadership styles are.

I’m proud to have had a hand in their success, and if not more grateful for what they’ve taught me along the way.

To me at least, it’s a key measure of success and a little indulgent pride.