Leaders vs Managers - The Disengaged Leader

Some employees are leaders due to their behavioral preferences, while others are leaders due to organisational position and circumstances (ie managers), however regardless of how we come to lead it is important for leaders to bring the tribe along for the journey. The benefits of having a leader engaged and connected with their organisation are obvious, but many who are leaders due to their organisational position (management) often get caught up in their own ego and fail to practice what they preach. Putting it bluntly, there are no benefits to be gained by leaders arriving at the office very day, sitting in the same spot for nine or ten hours and then going home having only spoken to their assistant and the cleaner ( Once upon a time I actually had an EVP who the staff referred to as “Casper” as in Casper the ghost as nobody ever saw him).

Leaders who are out of touch with their organisation manage from a position of weakness (especially those who are executives) and I don’t think I have ever met a leader who wouldn’t have benefited from being more meaningfully engaged on a broader and deeper basis.

For executives, being engaged is more than just walking the floors and chatting with staff in the tea room – these activities are viewed as tokenism and often make employees feel awkward. The easiest path to engagement is to routinely pick strategic initiatives at the operational level and get involved as a participant and not a leader. The lessons learnt both technical and personal are invaluable and when you are presenting at an executive or board meeting you are not merely sprouting out the findings of a report undertaken by someone else, but on content on which you have a deep understanding and can speak on with authority.

However, a problem we see all the time is managerial leaders (especially CEO’s) who become so disconnected from operations that they have absolutely no clue of how their organisation is tracking in softer measurements such as organisational culture. Often behavioral traits and ego are the cause, so lets look at a few of the types:

• The Optimistic Leader: These are the leaders who only see what they want to see – the positive aspects. They will believe what they want to believe regardless of what they hear or what they observe. Even in the worst of times they believe nothing to be insurmountable. While optimism is generally a great quality for a leader to possess, there is a point at which unbridled optimism can disconnect a person from reality.
• The Arrogant Leader: These leaders believe they can will their view into reality in spite of circumstances, situations, or events. The arrogant leader doesn’t value the input of line and staff management. These leaders see management opinions as inconsequential, unless of course, they happen to be in alignment with their own beliefs and opinions.
• The Unaware Leader: These leaders will take any report or piece of information at face value. These leaders are overly trusting, and often politically naive. They fail to seek clarification, validation, or proof supporting the information they have been fed. This is a very unhealthy state of mind for a leader hoping to survive over the long haul.
• The Fearful Leader: These leaders hide in fear of making a mistake, revealing shortcomings or inadequacies, or in an attempt at managing perceptions. They usually have a high level of self-doubt and are guided by fear often suffer from indecision and analysis paralysis. The worst thing about a fearful leader, is that executives who refuse to make decisions and take risks will transfer that thinking to others within the organization. Leadership is a contagion – good or bad. Oddly enough, the biggest sign of a fearful leader is when a leader fails to engage. Leaders who avoid personal interaction, or shy away from social media for all the wrong reasons are likely fearful leaders.
• The Disconnected Leader: Unlike leaders who understand how to leverage time and resources via delegation while remaining connected to management and staff, the disconnected leader does just the opposite. They have reclusive tendencies which cause them to often completely abdicate responsibility and remain disconnected from management. Sticking one’s head in the sand will not make the circumstances of a particular situation go away, rather that type of thinking will likely on exacerbate the issue.
• The Molly Coddled Leader: Some leaders are fantastic at engagement, but surround themselves with “yes men” and fools. These “yes men” and fools march ahead of the leader and sugarcoat and sanitise the reality of how an organisation is performing. The leader may feel they are engaged and understand the health and culture of an organisation, but in reality they have placed too much trust in those around them and are being taken advantage of.

All good leaders maintain a connection and rapport with both line and staff. Furthermore, savvy leaders are always working to refine their intuitive senses. A good leader demands accountability and transparency and endeavors to drive out organisational secrecy. Savvy leaders challenge everything of consequence and do not accept general statements or ambiguity and are acutely aware of hidden agendas. Engaged leaders are very visible and very active leaders – they question, listen, assess and react. I can promise you one thing – leaders who don’t have a clear read on the pulse of the organization, won’t have a healthy pulse for very long.

What are your thoughts?