‘Leadersheep’

This piece is not entirely about how leadership handles crises but to the contrary it has more content on how leaders themselves can be the ‘crises’, or at least are the major provocateurs, either willingly or reluctantly, they become the perpetrators of the crises. The leader is the problem.

By Sirajuddin Aziz
April 22, 2019

This piece is not entirely about how leadership handles crises but to the contrary it has more content on how leaders themselves can be the ‘crises’, or at least are the major provocateurs, either willingly or reluctantly, they become the perpetrators of the crises. The leader is the problem.

Leaders who seek self-glorification can be the malaise of the organisation. Such leaders are self-righteous, and do not hearken to any counsel. They do not subscribe to getting feedback from the team. In fact, anyone who dares to gives a feedback, is retaliated upon, with either a transfer to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Kala Pani) of the organisation or at best is not recognised, with any perks, despite good performances. Many managers and leaders have no vision. They wobble directionless on the turbulent seas of the markets. Such leadership is what I prefer to refer as “Leader: The Pretender”, like the “Pretender” of the British history. This type of leadership is extremely dangerous, for now you are dealing, with a person who by an act of good luck is perched on the apex position of the entity, but is devoid of skills, abilities and knowledge to hold that fort. Consequently, the ‘Pretender Leader’ would take un-informed decisions with brazenness.

Advertisement

There is yet another category, a leader, who is driven by all. He lacks the spine to stand on any of his principles and is always willing to bend backwards to even unreasonable demands made upon him. I refer to them as ‘boneless wonders’. This type of leadership again is a reflection that there is a nominated leader, who has no team of his/her. There is just the leader, who is not listened to and caries no respect, especially the kind where the teammates value his words and direction behind his/her back. Obedience, in the presence of the leaders, is the greatest failing that leads the leader down to an endless garden path. Any leader, who doesn’t pronounce his vision and fails to articulate it down the hierarchy well, will invariably not be accepted by the followers. Leaders, who fail to plot their vision and strategy, become dependent on borrowed vision or imposed vision of the board. If it is not the chief executive officer’s (CEO) vision, there is little likelihood it would be acceptable for pursuit. It is therefore only intelligent and forward looking boards that make CEO a major part of the vision and strategy construction. Boards have to ensure that the CEO remains the major link for their vision; any belittling of his position, by undermining him, will result in corporate anarchy.

Leaders generally tend to forget that crises of followership create leadership crises. He/she, who is not a good communicator and conveys lack of precision, will create confusion within the teams. A leader, who looks at the organisation chart, as a chess-Board, each single day and then makes decision to change people and position, just as he would place the ‘castle’ or the ‘bishop’ to checkmate, not opponents but his own team. In confusion thrives an insecure leader/manager. In such conditions, within the organisation there is a general malaise or lack of enthusiasm. The leader, who is not willing to do any diagnostics or identification of problems and lets the sleeping dogs lie, has limited shelf-life. They fail, but after having done much damage to the institution.

A leader who busies himself with merely hiring and firing people, when faced with downturn, in budgeted business numbers, fails to recognise that it is his ability to provide a framework to the team, for seeking business. The leader lacks personal touch with the team and consequently fails to motivate teams towards better performance. I have seen abdication of ‘leadership’ at all levels of the organisation, leading to the creation of large pool of self-styled leaders, while the pool of followership continued to shrink -a case of all big chiefs and no Red Indians. More leaders, less followers; again anarchy sets in. What basic expectation should be had of the leader? He should be seen; must remain positive and optimistic and his word must carry respect, within the rank and file of the institution.

When the leader, faced with a crisis, cocoons himself and gets into hermit mentality of isolation to find answers to the besetting problems, that in my view, is the beginning of ‘leadership-led crises’ - this is the time when the leader must seek help, advice, counsel and guidance from the wider spectrum of management. The misbelief of the leader that I can solve any or all problems and crises should remain in check.

Devoid of skills and abilities, the de-jure leader indulges into wholesale deception. He starts to build an image of the self, which may be in total contradiction to reality. Far from truth is the impression given, a case of deficient and defective leadership. This situation eventually leads to deformed and defective followership. The black sheep in the herd then start to stalk in the organisation to the peril of the entity. Here, the leader is the problem, the cause of crises.

Then there is a type of leadership that works only when commanded. On their own, they prefer inertia. Such do not have self-propelling tendencies. They just happen to be designated leaders, with lack of interest, courage and zeal to work and doing hard work, is not part of their being. Leaders with such attitudes are catalysts for crisis after another. Some of these do it maliciously to keep all eyes distracted from falling business numbers. Leaders who are not agents of transformation but are in themselves “Transformers”, who can change into any available grove, for submission to others and not for charging into the market place, are a dangerous commodity to contend with.

Leadership- led crisis is a reality; its acceptance as truth will enable its tackling. No issue can be resolved before its recognition as a problem that needs management (Board) attention at a wider scale within the company.

While optimism, is a quality that leadership should possess in great quantum, but if optimism is deployed to understate the problem, then consequences can be very harmful. The required response may lack the will, the directness and the impact, that may be absolutely necessary to handle the problem.

Leadership crises emanates when the leader decides to surround himself with his band of merry-men (you see CEO’s taking the bootlickers with them, to whichever institution, they go), who are nincompoops, good for nothing and are essentially the ‘wise men of Gotham, who ultimately graduate into position of being cheer boys for the leader’s ill actions, they keep cheering too, when they have laid their leader in the casket of lost opportunities.

There is a class of leaders, who demand sacrifices from followers, without volunteering to do, what they ask of others. Recently, I heard on T.V that a minister made a remark in response to poor prevalent economic conditions, that the nation should, as part of their meals should have only a single loaf of bread (nan/roti). I wonder if the minister himself takes a single chappati or none at all, as good leaders must normally do? This is perfect case of leadership led crises! Walk the talk, undertake the recommended sacrifice, otherwise a looming leadership crises will bring the house down.

Pronouncing high sounding values in good times is easy. What leaders ignore is that, it is only in challenge that the followers watch with close scrutiny, how the values are adhered to by the leader. If a leader succumbs to the demands of showing good performance in the short-term at the expense of long term damage to the institution, is really a misnamed leader. An opportunist leader is the correct nomenclature to be used for such. Leadership is expected to show calm in distress; balance in chaotic conditions. The ability to not let stress be passed on to others must remain handy -a leader who only delegates, “stress, anxiety and tension”, is actually not a leader, he is merely the nominee of the board, designated as “leader”, with no sparks of the essentials of leadership.

Good leaders don’t cause crises. They train themselves from current experiences of opportunities and vulnerabilities. They avoid fanning flames. Instead they activate all and sundry towards a single corporate goal of success as enshrined in their respective vision statements.

The writer is a senior banker and freelance writer

Advertisement