Leadership is a generic word that can be prefixed to any occupation, vocation or profession. An ordinary definition of the word implies, leading a group of people or an organisation. It is generally seen to be an apex position. In reality, it isn’t so. There are several layers in management, be it a business entity, social welfare organisation or even political parties; for each of these divisions, there is always a nominated person, who supervises the work of other co- workers, by virtue of which , that person acquires the mantle of being a leader. The concept is of distributed leadership or more appropriately participative leadership.
Leadership is a generic word that can be prefixed to any occupation, vocation or profession. An ordinary definition of the word implies, leading a group of people or an organisation. It is generally seen to be an apex position. In reality, it isn’t so. There are several layers in management, be it a business entity, social welfare organisation or even political parties; for each of these divisions, there is always a nominated person, who supervises the work of other co- workers, by virtue of which , that person acquires the mantle of being a leader. The concept is of distributed leadership or more appropriately participative leadership.
The traits of leadership hence cuts through all the disciplines; this is regardless of position on the hierarchy. Further, the traits of leadership are common, be it the manager in a corporate set up or be it someone who is a politician of any creed. The basic tenets of leadership are identical.
Integrity and character are not synonymous. They are different. Character generally is, within the realms of a moral and ethical code, but it is living by that code which defines integrity. Almost regularly we hear of the Evangelists, The Rabbis, the Pundits and the Mullahs, who are caught for moral lapses, this decline from that sublime position of being recognised as a person of character, is the failure to lead a life by the code professed. In the world of business, those managers, whose word and deed has a yawning gap, end up as being both characterless and devoid of integrity. The foundation of character is integrity. Character is a moral and ethical compass, while integrity is part and parcel of character. It is the ‘pattern of intentions, inclinations, and virtues that provides the ethical or moral foundation of behaviour,’that goes towards constituting character.
Integrity is defined as ethical behaviour of doing the right thing,even behind closed doors. Webster’s dictionary says, ‘ integrity implies trustworthiness and in comparability to a degree that one is capable of being false to trust, responsibility or pledge. The representative characteristics of integrity are loyalty, honesty, good judgment and respect. A culture of integrity and accountability within an organisation is created, when the management supports truth, even under distressing business circumstances or when the usage of truth becomes unpopular. Leaders remain committed to principles, irrespective of the conditions being one of prosperity or adversity.
Integrity which is the cornerstone of character gets reflected in our everyday behaviour. Those who know how to manage and keep secrets confided in them; display impeccable honesty, are fair in conversation, who avoid talking behind the backs of others and who remain consistently focused on promises undertaken. All persons of integrity, live in accordance to the respective culture of their deepest values, honesty towards all, and by keeping their commitments.
Integrity is not a tangible skill; it resides within the purview of intangibles, invisible, albeit, dominantly visible by our words and actions --- it can become a skill, if practiced naturally, and not for public display and appreciation. Managers/ leaders who possess a high degree of moral or artistic values, operate on the shop floor, with their colleagues in a pristine state of uprightness, righteousness, probity, decency and morality. Since ethics determines behaviour, a sense of integrity makes us lead a life of adhering to the highest ethical principles. Humility and integrity go hand in glove. Integrity gives the leader a strong sense of moral power and authority. Possessed of moral authority, rather than de jure authority alone, lends courage to the leadership to stand in support of truth. Morally compromised leadership will lack the power of inspiration, to motivate teams, towards common objectives. Their word would not stand the test of authenticity, because of contrary behavioral attitude, on a day to day basis.
Leadership must have the quality to be cognisant that good character is the essential end of life, and not mere delights of temporal life. A leader that recognises the value of the code of ethics and integrity will ensure that there is no compromise of it, for in its compromise is the utter ruin of character. The lack of applicability of principles, both in, private and in public, is a sign of decadent leadership. A simple example is the attempt to ignore issues of conflict of interest. Board meetings make a mockery of the concept of ‘ transactions at arm’s length ‘. There is blatant disregard by leaders, particularly politicians, to this concept. A disdain towards ethical transactions gives the opportunity for corruption, bribery, favoritism and nepotism.
Leaders with strong characters indulge into decision making based on conviction and not on what would be considered popular. In the corporate environment it is important for the CEO and the teammates to remind themselves often that they are not in any popularity contest. An attitude to curry favour with the masses at the cost of compromising principles is the forte of politicians, it cannot be practiced in business.
Integrity is the foundation stone of character building. Abraham Lincoln as a leader stands out for his unwavering, resolute and unflinching stance towards ethical and moral principles. He remarked once, “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have”.
Leaders are expected to be intelligent to know that their character is on display, both in speech and in silence; in action and in inertia; the expressions are a reflection of the character. By our actions as leaders we in fact handout a confession of it, being good or otherwise. During my Hong Kong years in a management discussion a young Chinese colleague made a remark, “Listen to a man’s words and look at the pupil of his eyes. How can a man conceal his character “(she was quoting Mencius). What is bred in the bone will come out in the flesh. Changing human nature is more difficult than changing the course of mighty rivers. Fig leaves cannot hide or mask a sinful nature and attitude. Fox can only grow old, but never good.
The first pinch of anxiety exhibits the true character of the person. Instead of a strong sense of integrity, managers put on show, by their words, deeds, actions and decisions, a baffling behaviour that is brimming with duplicity, intrigue and tricks. Their route to success is built upon skeletons. Any colleague who succumbs to a tyrant supervisor by way of allowing him to de-robe him of his honour, is actually granting permission and licence , for his life to be taken , once and for all; character is easier to maintain but impossible to retrieve. Damaged character is hardly repairable. Leaders must be wary of the risks their character is exposed to.
Honesty is truly the best policy, but like all other good policies, it is also stored in vaults of forgotten values, and is in most organisations and more so in government is gathering heaps of dust, in the lowest drawers of the treasury chest.
Twisted minds cannot make for a good leader, they cannot think straight, their minds wander like the crab on the beaches. There are supervisors who take no responsibility in circumstances where the results are not in step with targeted goals. They do not demonstrate either character or integrity; instead they point fingers and blame their reports. Here, I am reminded of supervisors, whose behaviour represents, the description of an opponent by Irving Stone, “His mind was like a soup dish, wide and shallow; it could hold a small amount of nearly anything, but the slightest jarring spilled the soup into somebody’s lap”. Leaders with conviction of strong character hold the hands of their teammates in difficult times. That’s true leadership.
A class of leaders, who possess a virtuous mind but a filthy tongue, are the most dangerous species of leadership. Such leaders are present in all segments of the society. In business they have to be traced and tracked. Their opposites, that is a manager, who is possessed with a filthy mind but a virtuous tongue are no less dangerous, in fact they are a nth more treacherous. Honey laced conversations do not add any gleam to character. No amount of white washing can add beauty to a deformed character.
Eagles do not breed doves. The enormous lack of character in any individual cannot remain in obscurity by an apparent exterior of pleasant disposition. The exterior cracks in quick time. Heart of Oak and feet of clay is an impossible combination. Only one of the two can be true.
Leaders must develop character of substance. ‘Live so that when your children think of fairness, caring and integrity, they think of you’. My Father, I think of you in that frame only, all the time.
The writer is a senior banker and freelance columnist
