Leadership is not about power. It is about responsibility. At some stage in our professional lives, personal excellence has to take a back seat; it is not to suggest that knowledge and skills must not be beefed up continually, but that in itself as an objective, should not remain pre-dominant, because managers and leaders are required to get the best out of their team members, and not merely their own selves. Taking the team’s performance to its excellence is the primary job and responsibility of the leader.
Prior to seeking excellence, the leader/ manager has to have complete clarity of his goals, vision and the cause of his organisation he is to serve, with absolute perspicuity to himself and his team.
Amongst the class of managers / leaders there are those who are open to meeting, anybody and everybody, at any time. Against this species are those who make conscious and deliberate effort to not inter-act with their teams or for that matter any colleague in the organisation. By and large, these are the two extreme types of leadership models-all that is in between them, is more a matter of either situation or an issue of personality make-up.
Many amongst the type that are desirous to remain aloof of people are those who suffer from major demons of insecurity that haunt them perennially, and therefore they build around themselves a false aura of invincibility . The purpose of doing so could be that by nature’s design they possess an introverted personality or it could be an attempt harbouring closely to deception and deceit, by which mechanism they hide or try to camouflage; and therefore not let any to discover their personal inadequacies.
These type of managers would be sticklers of time management; the intent is not to seek efficiency; in my view and experience, this smoke-screen is developed to prevent intrusion into the false halo of impermeability or unassailability. You would find them meticulously, filling up their diary with colourful scheduling of back to back meetings. By this they look to be so busy, that the underlying reason of not wanting to interact appears to all, so well justified. These managers/ leaders also make sure not to give allowance for indulgence into small talk-they would refrain from inquiring about anything, relating to the person, except raw business specific details or numbers- while it is universally acknowledged by all management gurus that small talk in the corridors, with the staff regardless of their position, rank or status, gives the leader more insight than any board room multimedia presentation can offer. But it is avoided to secure the insecurities of weaknesses possessed. Such are cowards. A leader, who doesn’t treat his team as family, will invariably fail to have their unalloyed commitment. Proximity to the team allows a leader to get first hand and quick reaction to business policies pursued; any required correction can take place with speed and at least cost or damage.
I read recently that an Ex-MD of a financial institution went to the branch office of the bank, he once headed and to his chagrin; he had to with difficulty introduce himself to the new generation of staff, who knew nothing about the great work he had done, in the past, to build the institution. I presume, he was chained to his office cabin. A leader or manager mustn’t forget, that someday, they too will be ordinary men.
Those who do not intermingle with their respective teams and remain closed inside board rooms, will not be able to provoke an inspired effort to achieve the goals and vision of the company.
Leaders know that office held is temporary but relationships are permanent. Charles de Gaulle, the giant man, who normally was reticent in conversations, would do the silliest of things to bring a smile on the face of his physically and mentally challenged daughter Anne; the austere dignity was shed by him in her presence. Great leaders know when it is important to be disciplined in protocol and when it makes sense to break from the inhibitions of office and protocol, to achieve and have confidence of team mates. Our own Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who otherwise in cabinet meetings was very seriously focused would sometimes upon return from an overseas visit, do a mimicry of the leaders he met; this was creation of a light environment to bridge the gulf of distance between the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Leaders must keep in perspective the fine difference, the narrow distinction between management and leadership. For good reasons, Richard Nixon had said, management is prose; leadership is poetry. We have a cricketer-turned politician as PM; he never managed a corporate entity ever, but he is a leader. For management, he ought to surround himself with those who understand the techniques of management, within the ambit of statecraft. If God-forbid, he starts to manage, to the exception of leading, the consequences will be disastrous. As a leader, Imran Khan resonates the sentiments of the masses.
I during my Hong Kong years would always go to witness the world famous Dragon Boat Race. Watching closely, I realised that while skill and dexterity in using the oars was an absolute essential. However for winning the race, I noticed another feature, which significantly contributed, was the constant “yelling”- exhortation from the man perched on the bow of the boat; his job was purely to motivate to the sounds of the drums, the rowers of the boat. More than the captain of the boat, who wasn’t visible to the rowers, was the man, the informal leader, usually made the difference, in winning or losing. For success a manger must be seen with the team; no leadership from obscurity can succeed.
A classic example of distanced leadership is to have designated elevators as, “for CEO and senior executives”; sometimes this extends to usage of washroom too. I have seen this happen. I have availed of it myself. I did not reverse, when in position to do so, this outright inhuman practice of distinction, based on rank and status. Privilege of distancing protocols are intoxicating; all fall prey to them. Not all CEO, president’s, MD’s etc are remembered in posterity. Those considered great, many a times are adjudged as not good; and those who were good, weren’t necessarily great. Churchill wrote in, “Great contemporaries” that, “one mark of a great man is the power of making lasting impression upon people he meets”. The critical factor to impress is to meet. No manager can succeed if he fails to impress upon his co-workers by way of interactions, where he can let his charisma, talent, skill, ability , intelligence or a combination of all these traits, emerge freely far across the board visibility. Without making a circus clown of himself or act as a court jester, a wise leader steps out to meet and crack casual, but decent jokes or use pun remarks, with colleagues at various levels of hierarchy.
A perfect match between tenacity and audacity is one of the best traits to be had as a leader. Tenacity to pursue, unrelentingly the objectives and audacity to challenge and overcome, all obstacles, impediment and blockades, on the pathway to success.
In today’s business or any other environment, no manager can remain consigned to aloofness; they just can afford to remain distanced with their teams; they will need to associate closely and move out of their silent zones.
I recently read an apt quip, the client is not important, the employee is; it is the employee who makes the client important. Pay attention, where it is due, as a leader.
The writer is a banker and freelance contributor