Leadership and Consequence

I have been very fortunate thus far in life to be exposed to some outstanding leaders. Not just outstanding leaders in the business realm, but also outside of work. I’m fortunate to be friends with those who have served in our military—some within combat roles, some within special operation—where the stakes of leadership are literally life and death. I’ve participated in very challenging team endurance events, where leadership is challenged constantly by fatigue and intentionally impossible situations. I’ve played on high performing sports teams, where the team was effectively led and rallied to perform significantly better than the sum of our parts. On the other side of this coin, I’ve also been fortunate to have been exposed to poor leadership. I’ve played on teams where the individuals were significantly better than the team’s performance. I’ve been part of endurance events that were made significantly more difficult because of infighting and bickering. I’ve been in professional environments where poor leadership has damaged bottom line results. Why then do I say I was fortunate to have worked under poor leadership? Because it gives me better perspective on not only what makes a great leader—but also what makes a poor one and some of the consequences associated to that. Poor leadership has significant consequence—which we’ll explore in this paper.

My friend who served in the Marines gave me the best definition of leadership that I personally have read or heard. He says that, “Leaders are people who develop those around them through selfless action, integrity and concrete results. He went further to say, “A leader is dependable through adverse conditions and is somebody who takes action before requiring it from those around.” The reason I like this definition is because it can apply to any craft. This isn’t just a military application of leadership—this could be leveraged for sports teams, endurance events, work, relationships, business, governance, etc. In my view, these are universal truths for who and what leaders are.

For further context on my views of leadership—I also don’t believe in bad teams; bad teams are a result of poor leadership. If a team is underperforming, it is not being effectively led. A leader’s job is to optimize a team—that sometimes means removing bad players—that doesn’t necessarily mean low skill players, though it might—but generally it means removing those that aren’t working to the benefit of the unit. It also means putting people in positions where they’ll be most successful in their ability to help the team. Leadership is hard. It requires confidence, empathy, daring, grit, and intelligence. That said, with effective leadership, tremendous feats may be accomplished. Teams have the potential to achieve more than the sum of their parts—leaders are those who reveal the synergies needed to unlock that potential. Leaders are the ones that take something from being static and make it dynamic. They put things into motion. It’s easy to push a car once it’s moving; leaders are the ones that have to put in the extra effort to get the car moving so that the team can rally and push.

It’s important to preface that my definition of leadership is not the defacto one. There are many other excellent views and versions of leadership, and I won’t be so naive to say mine is universally better than all others. This definition resonates well with me, and it’s something I can visualize and affect. It’s important to find your own definition that does the same for you.

Here are a few qualities of a poor leader (sometimes it’s easier to start with shaping a definition by polarity):

·        Poor leaders don’t communicate

·        Poor leaders don’t take ownership and shun accountability

·        Poor leaders don’t empathize

·        Poor leaders focus on their challenges/problems, not the team’s

·        Poor leaders don’t create opportunities for those on the team to lead

·        Poor leaders require titles and fear, not initiative and influence

·        Poor leaders don’t think through decisions in relation to how they impact the team—they’re more concerned with how it effects them or a smaller group of people

·        Poor leaders don’t listen

·        Poor leaders lead through ego and insult, not through purpose and objectives

This list could continue on—but you probably see a trend: Poor leaders are selfish. They hoard information because they don’t trust others around them to understand it as well as they do. They think that if they solve their problems that they solve the team’s problems. They will generally say they’re “results oriented,” but really that’s just the excuse they give themselves to justify solving their problem at the detriment of the team.

Leadership is about creating opportunity for those around the leader to excel. It’s about putting people in the right place, and picking them back up when they fall and empowering them to try again. Leaders build trust and confidence. Leaders err, and through their mistakes, they learn and improve. They are comfortable being the “man (or woman) in the arena”. They share their mistakes so that those on the team learn—they aren’t concerned about the perception of failure because good leaders trust and are trusted by their team. There is absolutely no place for ego in leadership—ego destroys teams—good leaders understand this and are humble but confident. Leader serve their team.

Steven Pressfield wrote a fantastic book (Gates of Fire) about the Spartans and their battle to prevent the Persians from conquering Greece at the battle of Thermopylae—this was the battle of 300 Spartans (and about 5,000 Thespians) against nearly 1 million Persians. Gates of Fire explores many concepts of leadership and what makes effective leaders (I would highly recommend reading it)—here’s what Pressfield wrote regarding King Leonidas:

“A king does not abide within his tent while his men bleed and die upon the field. A king does not dine while his men go hungry, nor sleep when they stand at watch upon the wall. A king does not command his men's loyalty through fear nor purchase it with gold; he earns their love by the sweat of his own back and the pains he endures for their sake. That which comprises the harshest burden, a king lifts first and sets down last. A king does not require service of those he leads but provides it to them...A king does not expend his substance to enslave men, but by his conduct and example makes them free.” 

Leadership is not comfortable. Leadership is not where you move to once you’re tired of being an individual contributor or want a pay raise. Leadership is not a title—it’s an action and responsibility. The burden of leadership should always be taken seriously and nurtured—because teams depend on leaders. Leaders will have to make hard decisions; they’ll have to be steadfast during difficult times; they’ll have to push people’s limits and boundaries; they’ll have to work to create a common purpose amongst a diverse team and drive to it; leaders are the ones who have to rise above the noise and eliminate distractions from the team—meaning, they’re generally the shield that takes the brunt of criticisms. Being a leader can be rewarding, but that doesn’t mean it’s always fun.

Stanley McChrystal in his book Team of Teams has this to say on leading:

“The temptation to lead as a chess master, controlling each move of the organization, must give way to an approach as a gardener, enabling rather than directing. A gardening approach to leadership is anything but passive. The leader acts as an “Eyes-On, Hands-Off” enabler who creates and maintains an ecosystem in which the organization operates.”

The gardener metaphor is an excellent one. Gardeners nurture. They plant seeds and help them grow. They remove weeds and other contaminants that would otherwise prevent their garden from being healthy. The gardener also grooms the space and environment in which their gardens grow—meaning, they create the objectives and purpose for their team to operate within. Here’s what McChrystal has to say on that:

“Purpose affirms trust, trust affirms purpose, and together they forge individuals into a working team.” 

Leadership is about relationships. Relationships are about trust. Trust is built through mutual care, empathy, and progress towards a shared goal. Teams operating with tight relationships are generally the most effective teams. Leaders unite and rally teams to these causes, objectives, and most importantly, to its constituents.

The consequences of poor leadership are far reaching and long lasting; here are just a few situations and effects:

·        Leaders who don’t listen to their teams create an environment where innovation dies. Teams that don’t innovate will become obsolete.

·        Leaders who don’t take accountability create an environment where teammates are afraid to take risks and make decisions because they know their leadership won’t support them. Environments like this won’t excel because teammates become nothing more than order takers. Initiative dies.

·        Leaders who don’t empathize create an environment where teammates feel un-appreciated or misunderstood. This creates a disconnect that will result in poor performance and team attrition due to the team not feeling those in leadership care about them. This creates an environment of apathy.

·        Leaders who don’t create opportunity for others to lead create an environment where there are too many single points of failure and where the team feels mitigated opportunity for growth. Leaders need to challenge their teams to do more with less and enable the team to surprise itself with accomplishing what they once thought wasn’t possible.  

·        Leaders who don’t communicate create an environment of speculation and uncertainty—this is probably one of the most dangerous plights of poor leadership. There is no purpose or objective without communication. Uncertainty creates hesitancy which kills ideas and initiative. Teams need to be fast moving and adaptive—without communication, they are slow and immutable. Communication is a critical ingredient to any successful relationship, which means it’s a critical ingredient to successful leadership.

The purpose of this paper is to help those reading it frame up his or her personal definition of leadership. My friend supplied me with one that resonated extremely well for me personally and a definition that I work every day to understand better and practice. Leadership is a perishable skill—without focus and effort, it will decay. Think about your own definitions of leadership. Think about situations in which you were on a team or led a team that exceeded expectations. What was different? What allowed that team to do that? Think about team’s that missed deadlines, deliverables, or under-performed—what happened? I would encourage those who read this to write down their ideas of leadership—that is why I wrote this paper, to help me better formulate my thoughts, opinions, and concepts of leadership.

In closing—being a leader is a very important responsibility, one which isn’t always glamourous or rewarding. In my opinion, leadership shouldn’t be glamourous (but it should be rewarding in the sense that you help others achieve greater things than they otherwise would). Leaders are there for their team. They’re there to enable their team’s growth. Teams shine—leaders shouldn’t. Focus on building trust. Focus on building accountability. Focus on building cohesive communication. Focus on driving towards an objective that the team understands and is bought into. Make the complex and complicated simple. Be willing to follow. Be willing to listen to ideas you don’t like or understand. Ask questions. Push, pull, fight, scrap—do what is needed in order to protect and enable the team. Take on responsibility for the team and accountability for the deliverable and lead.