Is It Time to Re-Frame our Criteria for Leadership?
To paraphrase Napoleon Dynamite, "(We) only like guys who have great skills." He's right. We love talent. Raw, God-given, 10,000 hours of expert-level talent. We place considerable value on one's ability to perform exceptionally well at a particular task, and rightfully so. The brilliant surgeon. The salesperson who's a born closer. The dynamic, eloquent public speaker. We marvel at the skill of the piano virtuoso and the elite professional athlete. These skills are often apparent at a quick glance, at times even tangible. These individuals have usually honed their expertise with countless hours of refinement. It's obvious they are top performers in their field. So, when it comes time to select someone to fill a leadership role, who do we consider first? The superstar, right? They're the best at what they do; better than all their peers. But, how do we know if the surgeon is fit to be Chief of Staff? Can the top salesperson be effective as the new VP of Sales? Is the charismatic orator worthy of my vote for public office? Sometimes, we get lucky. The person is indeed up for the task, or perhaps they grow into the role over time. In other instances, inserting that top performer into a leadership position leads to abject failure. And not just for the individual, but for the group as a whole. Unfortunately, often times we don't know until it's too late. We give them the benefit of the doubt. Cut them plenty of slack, especially early on, to account for the adjustment period or requisite learning curve. But, eventually, we're faced with the unpleasant realization that maybe the most talented player wasn't the right choice to be team captain.
Now what do we do? Where did we go wrong? Anyone who has hired for a leadership role can tell you just how detrimental making the wrong decision can be to your culture, your continuity and your bottom line. The failure doesn't end when the inept leader is replaced, either. It often takes years to unwind the clock when new leadership takes over. New processes have to be put in place, often times staffing changes follow, and all of this takes time, which we all know equates to money. Conversely, making the right decision re: leadership? Incredibly impactful. Hard to quantify in some respects, very much palpable in others. So, how do we go about getting better at making these decisions? How do we know who should be our team captain, Chief of Staff, or President? We need to reassess our values when it comes to leadership.
What qualities equate to sound, effective leadership? Certainly some of it can be dependent on the arena, but by and large, there are fundamental tenets that facilitate genuine, transformational leadership. Before we explore some of those areas, it's important to acknowledge one thing: there can be (and often is) a distinction between "success" and leadership. They can be mutually exclusive, depending on your definition of each. Profit margins can grow without leadership. Games can be won without leadership. We can absolutely prioritize results over process. But leadership is rooted in process. It's the how and the why that define leaders.
Dwight Eisenhower said, "Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it." Doesn't that sound a little manipulative? Like you're leveraging your authority to trick a subordinate into completing a task? On the contrary. The key term in Eisenhower's choice of words here is "art". While there are fundamental properties--"science", if you will--upon which all transformational leadership must be built, the ability to connect, to motivate, to inspire, to lead--is very much an art.
Before we get to the art, let's touch on the science. Think of the process of baking a cake. There are basic ingredients you need and rules that you must follow in order to make the cake rise, to make it hold together, to make it taste like, well, cake. After that, is it going to be a child's birthday cake? A wedding cake? Chocolate frosting? Vanilla? Buttercream with sprinkles in the shape of a unicorn? Once you have the basics figured out, you can tailor the rest of the details to suit the occasion or individual tastes. But, no matter how pretty that cake is, no matter how fancily it's decorated or how delicious it smells, without the proper foundation, it will cave in upon itself. The same holds true for leadership. Good leaders are able to adapt their styles to a specific group, individual or goal. They may allow circumstance to dictate their tactic, but ultimately everything they do is built upon a solid foundation of key ingredients. Instead of flour, sugar, eggs, and milk, the leader starts with the bedrock of integrity, humility, empathy, and emotional intelligence.
You'll notice none of these have anything to do with skill. Rather, each is an innate quality that can help establish, deepen, and sustain meaningful relationships with others. It's this connection that makes a leader so impactful. Integrity is rooted in principle. It's a moral compass and a consistency in thought and action. You may not always like what the person says, but you know you a person with integrity is a person you can trust. If we have trust, we have something to work with. Humility can manifest itself in various ways. People who have a growth mindset are humble. People who are open-minded are humble. People who ask a lot of questions and (here's the key) listen to the answers tend to be humble. Ultimately, humility is recognizing that you don't have all the answers. I'd go a step further and say it's embracing that fact. Empathy gives us the ability to "walk in someone else's shoes"; to understand and be sensitive to a teammate's feelings or thoughts. We've all been around someone who lacked empathy. It isn't much fun. Emotional intelligence takes it a step further and is not only the capacity to be aware of, control and express one's emotions, but also helps provide the road map for how to navigate the complex emotions and experiences of interpersonal relationships. These hallmarks of leadership can manifest themselves in different ways, vary depending on individual experiences or personalities, and some may be more prevalent and overt in certain leaders than others. But rest assured, all good leaders have them, whether they even consciously recognize it themselves. And, again, not many of us would consider these "skills".
Where does that leave the class valedictorian? The elite military marksman? The best-in-class CPA at a top accounting firm? As top performers and valuable, important members of successful teams. But not necessarily as the class president, general, or CFO. The ability to effectively lead is tied neither to technical proficiency nor elite skill. In fact, the capacity to lead is a unique ability unto itself. There are various personality assessments that can help us identify some of these traits, but again, putting things into practice is often more art than science. There is a quote that has been attributed to multiple people that captures a management theory consistent with this prioritization of character: "Hire for character, train for skill." First, we need to fully appreciate the importance of these qualities; to appropriately value them in the professional world. Then, we need to be on the lookout for them; to hunt them like we do high quarterly earnings, sales productivity, and MBA's from elite schools. We already inherently look for these traits in our friends. Isn't it time we prioritize them in our leaders?