Motivations in life are extremely hard to determine. Hence, knowing and deciphering out who would be loyal and who would not, while building or managing an existing team, is indeed, a very tough call to make. It begins by laying the ‘vision thing’ before the team for seeking their commitment. Once had, the manager can focus on his job and he can actually enjoy the allegiance and loyalty of the team.
Motivations in life are extremely hard to determine. Hence, knowing and deciphering out who would be loyal and who would not, while building or managing an existing team, is indeed, a very tough call to make. It begins by laying the ‘vision thing’ before the team for seeking their commitment. Once had, the manager can focus on his job and he can actually enjoy the allegiance and loyalty of the team.
Corporate leadership cannot be had through power and force, unlike political leadership of the past. In the past loyalty was bought through the barrel or the fine edge of the sword, but today you have either a willing follower or a ‘disruptive follower’ or even the ‘disinterested’ follower.
Productivity is dependent upon others. So the job of the manager is to select the right people. And who are these right people; the highly educated; the no-nonsense technocrats; the proficient or the uncontrollable destroyers. None of these, with isolated traits will become productive team members. In addition to all possible technical traits of the related profession, the person has to be ‘likeable’. Those detested can never be contributory. They will become sooner than later, the burden on the team, leading to decline and lower productivity.
In the, 'history lessons’, Jonathan Gifford writes, “There is no hierarchy of talents for management; some managers have certain strengths, others have other strengths. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine a successful manager who is not able to bring people with them”. Bringing people, is not a single skill set, it is multi-set skill/ability.
A case in history of how things are shaped by the leader, while creating team, is the story of Elizabeth-I. She was barely 25 years old when she succeeded her foster-sister, Mary, the Queen of Scots. Upon ascension she found herself surrounded by ‘advisers’ who had unqualified faith and expectation, that she will follow tooth and nail, their recommendations. And attempt to make her a sitting duck ruler. She did not let them do that, and instead to the dismay of the council, she delayed appointments to crucial positions... she exercised her own thoughts, with no pre-conceived opinions of others. Even before the funeral of Mary, she had fired all the deadwood of councillors, who were, what I would like to refer later as, those who impede the progressive thought. Elizabeth gave scant respect for anybody considered ‘eminent’, her cabinet knew, who she thought were mere monkeys!
Three weeks after her ascension, to put her under subservience the parliament sent a delegation, requesting her to take a husband, so that she could lighten for herself, the labours of being a ruler, a job they thought suited, only men. Hearing this request, history records Elizabeth pointing towards her coronation ring and calmly saying, “I am already bound unto a husband, which is the Kingdom of England, and that all those present before her, were her children”. Here we learn how a young leader suddenly catapults into a position of calling herself a parent to the nation. CEO’s should also start parenting at their organisations when required; the results will be astounding and heavily positive.
Some managers are obsessed with this notion that they can buy loyalty of their team members. No price has ever been fixed for loyalty by human history. It is invaluable. It will remain a moving target and hence it is a purposeless pursuit to put a price tag to it. To the contrary, it is “demanding and challenging” work / assignment / job that brings undiluted loyalty.
Within any given team, there are a minimum of four types of members. They are ‘the performers’, ‘the doubter’, ‘the disinterested’ and the lethal, ‘the trouble makers’. The performer is always at the fore-front. He knows his direction accurately. He is responsible, accountable, enthusiastic, and useful, is committed to progression and is never despondent, regardless of the turbulent challenges of the market. The visible traits of a performer are he is active, a live-wire, who believes in action; has the capacity and willing to lose, willing to retreat with absolute confidence that a fresh charge later will yield him success. Such a team member must be molly coddled and retained.
Then there is the class of ‘doubters’, who are average performers. Such do not believe that success can actually befriend them, someday. They are not a lost cause. With some guidance and visibly shown interest by the supervisor, they can climb up to being performers. The potential has to be tapped. Their slow approach can be changed to active participation. Train them, enthuse them.
The ‘disinterested’ team member doesn’t know whether he is coming or going. He is a below average performer, who does things mechanically, with no heart and spirit, at the right place. Drains productivity! Is slow in reaction. To make such member productive, a high dosage of regular and repeated coaching is required. He is prone to cross over the fence to being the trouble maker. Mark and identify them.
That brings me to the ‘trouble maker’. He is a bully to fellow colleagues; a belligerent subordinate, sometimes dangerously masks his negative intent of causing harm to the organisation; is never a team player. He is never shy of putting impediments to progress. Is a spoiler of the concept of ‘Esprit de corps’. He creates dissension in ranks. I would classify this category on the bandwagon as a major threat to the bandwagon (organisation). An alert manager should identify these rebels with masks and chuck them out of the organisation, with no regrets.
A close cousin to the ‘disinterested’ is the “procrastinator”. They are usually pessimists. They love to delay things. Put everything on the back-burner is their creed of work ethics. They believe, problems arise and solve by themselves.
A learned manager will have a committed team who recognises that not all are embodiment of perfection, not all are the same, they can be different---the manager must enjoy and use to fullest extent the element of diversity, within the team. The manager must push his pencil on the paper to create teams. It is therefore important to cautiously sift between performers, average performers, the doubters and the trouble makers. Learn to eliminate. Fear of failure must be cured through action, not inaction. That’s how teams are made!
The writer is a freelance columnist
