I was deeply disturbed & irritated by this inundating leadership flux in the form of books, seminars, trainings, programs, ubiquitous passé discussions. Traits, styles, charisma, visions, some fancy number of effective habits and what not are spewed out by all these studies, books and researches. In fact, I had interviewed some of the global managers (two from EU and one from India) on the very subject. But for an iota of implementable truth, it was again an exhibition of fancy management vocabulary, flattered colours of egos and Stone Age clichés. For me, any learning or information is transformed into active knowledge only when my mind believes, comprehends and deeply reflects on it. Only then I can extrapolate, experiment, implement and dissect in the context of my life. Only then I can say the knowledge is internalized.
Though I was liberally exposed to a lot of stuff about leadership...I was far from much-needed internalization. This cognitive tension kindled my quest for the MEANING. Below is an abstract of my internal dialogue after the relentless pusrsuit.
Let us understand the three universal traits of leaders precisely
·Vision: So a leader is the one who holds a clear vision
I am sure we might have heard it 1000s of times but what is it exactly?? Vision is NOT long-term planning and goals. It is a function of direction and positive change. It is about setting directions to create future realties that meet, if not betters, the needs, rights and emotions of the considered community. So a vision is a mental image of how that reality should be. Visions are complex, qualitative and intangible (whereas goals are quantitative and can be measured). This doesn’t mean that visions have to be brilliantly innovative, mystical or complicated. It could even be a simple idea.
·Inspire People
Visions are much more complex than concrete goals and so are communicating it. Hence the ability to inspire people by articulating a vision in such a way the concerned people understand and embrace it, is one of the universal qualities of a leader. It is usually achieved by creating an environment using communication, empathy and alignment (not organizing). As a result people are inspired and feel that their actions are so valuable and meaningful.
·Risk Taking
Leaders always facilitate the emergence of novelty (realizing vision), which is opposite to stability. There is high risk in realizing visions and the process preceding it involves uncertainty and hence strong resistance. People involved might doubt or lose momentum. Hence leaders build high levels of trust by their integrity; conscientiousness and constant communication (listen a lot).
Leader by definition “leads”. But what does she/he lead?? Is it people, process, organization?
Leader leads the CHANGE. In other words, he creates a system where people are empowered, process/strategies are designed and both are aligned so that CHANGE emerges out of it.
Is it by choice, force, natural behaviour, call of a duty, or by situational thrust??
I realized through my quest that any of them is possible. May be that’s why the quote.
Is it contextual?? A person is a leader specific to a context and not a leader once she is out of context??
Context could be time, era, place, culture, function or situation. So it was very difficult to come to some concrete conclusion. If you take a military context, people have to be under managed and over led. If you take a freedom fighter like Mahatma Gandhi, it was about creating a system where entire nation was involved in actualizing the vision: freedom. If you take Wangari Mathai, who planted millions of trees across Africa, it had nothing to do with her other contexts. In all these examples, people associated with the vision bestowed the respect on leaders. They were given that respect not after the realization of the vision but during the process. So Leadership is the respect EARNED due to the sum total of one’s character and its manifestation through the process. So leadership is a relationship. Sorry for high sounding examples such as Mahatma Gandhi and Wangari Mathai. Anybody anywhere can be a leader. It is just a role. Tribes in forests, farmers, managers in AI organizations, teachers, musicians, scientists, students, artists, workers, you and me..everybody can be a leader.
Is it an evolution?? Is it an emergent?
Both are true
Is it related to effectiveness and power??
Then we can call Osama bin laden as leader!! I believe that ethics distinguish a leader. Hence my concept of leadership is not morally neutral. But this makes the concept more complicated as ethics are subjective and contextual. So mankind’s peace, stakeholders betterment, sustainability should be ethical yardsticks in assessing any person’s leadership.
How is leadership, management and team works related?
In such context, I learnt recently that top management of most of the companies work as non teams. Leadership obviously makes sense to any organization when it is effective and sustainable. Hence leadership should engender wide distribution of power and potential throughout the organization. Management is all about solving problems and making decisions, to cheat the entropy of the organization in order to actualize immediate goals. So both leadership and management are complementary. Strong leadership and weak management is no better than strong management and weak leadership.
My Parting Shot
Reading, discussions and arguments triggered a sense of urgency in my quest. As a result my reflections got deeper and a clear understanding dawned upon me, reinforcing some of my beliefs and distorting most of them. I understand now that “leader” or “leadership” is not something big, great or mystical. At the same time, it is not mundane and common. And it is not about power but influence. It is all about purpose, inclusion and direction towards positive change. I define that it is a relationship hence it has million styles, millions flavours and millions contexts. It can and cannot be continuum.
Sometimes I wish all the dots are joined