Perhaps in a dispassionate review of political history in particular and in history of mankind’s development in general, inclusive of corporate history, it can be concluded that it has actually been the quality of followership that has given and produced great leaders.
Perhaps in a dispassionate review of political history in particular and in history of mankind’s development in general, inclusive of corporate history, it can be concluded that it has actually been the quality of followership that has given and produced great leaders.
No leader can claim to have achieved anything of value through his/her individual efforts. We can have great thinkers, who may have no capability to practically implement what they propound. Conversely, we may have leaders, who know the art and science of delivery of results they can’t articulate.
Given this backdrop, it is my belief as a student of human resource and business management that the ‘numero uno’ job of the leader is to produce, collect, and also retain, if possible, a great team. A great leader makes a great team, and a great team delivers great results.
There are management gurus who subscribe to the thought that it is only about the leader that matters and that it is a myth to believe that a leader’s job is to develop a cohesive and competent team. Followership is the fountainhead from where outflows the leadership. Personal power is transitory. It is bound to fade. Time takes toll on the most brilliant of leaders. The going away from the scene, of the great leader must not resonate in the demise of the thought, culture, philosophy, or the institution. And if such results occur, it is a sign of those leaders, who are shortsighted and are merely like the shooting stars in the firmament. They appear. They disappear. They leave behind no legacy. They leave no objective to be pursued. Their glory and their thought are buried in the same casket as the physical self.
The task of building a team is the most arduous challenge of a leader. The need to find in people the right balance between “loyalty” and “competence” is so very much critical in the creation of great teams. Here, the catch is to avoid the pitfall of seeking to surround oneself with more, “yes-man”, then, “dissenters". Have value for those who don’t take the leader down the garden path that climbs into thorny woods and then ends them up on the edge of a precipice, from where the only option is to go down...! Disloyalty, in corporates is an unforgivable sin, for which there are no provisions for clemency, in the business world, as well. Corporate world is not short on supply of Brutus types. In fact, they abound in great numbers in most institutions.
Emerging leadership considers its primary duty is to replace existing teams. They do so, more for impact, than for real reasons of enhancing, either efficiency or productivity. Let me illustrate this phenomenon from the world of politics first, before tying it up with similarities on the corporate platform.
Mao Tsetung, the founding father of the People's Republic of China, was a strong leader, a great man, a brilliant thinker, and philosopher, in alignment with the Confucius thought. He remained as China’s unchallenged helmsman for more than twenty-five years. While he pronounced the “thought”, he let his premier, the fearless, Chou-en-Lai to develop the team. This was the team that sowed the seeds of what China is today. A formidable act on the part of the followers, who knew how not to cross the path of “the leader” and who escaped challenge to authority through Mao’s almost lunatic cultural revolution, which to state the least was bloody and vindictive.
The duo of Mao-Chou passed away in quick succession. A leadership gap, thus stood, making China extremely vulnerable to the dynamics of international politics, dominated then by USA and USSR. The ‘Gang of Four’ took over the mantle of leadership through a soft coup, against the available and trained leadership/successor, Deng Xiao Ping. He was purged and sent to the villages, for the second time in his political career. But, undoubtedly he was a master politician. He engineered his return to Beijing, and made a comeback with a bang and deposed the usurpers. All these changes at the top were always meticulously followed by changes at the lower levels of the state machinery, political and party hierarchy. Why? It is always invariably the feeling of the new leadership that to take effective control to improve perceivable efficiency and to indicate that the sails of direction are being altered, there is need to purge and change, the existing working setup. In organisations, it is no different.
In any organisation, whenever the board brings in a new chief executive office (CEO), his behaviour is akin to politicians. The wily amongst the CEO class will also immediately indulge in witch-hunt, seeking out loyalists to previous setup and then they are made a spectacle for all to see. This is done either through sidelining or even asking some of them to set aside. It is so much easier to break down a wall that hasn’t been built by you.
The new leader feels the need to assert his/her self-hood. He does so by dislodging existing rules of the game. He puts new wine into old bottle. He lends his ears to all the “deserters”. A literal inquisition begins, as bad, as the Spanish, except the dead continue to live with no blood in their veins.
Sometimes, the changes are done for good reasons. Some power structures, that may have developed and survived in the previous setup, would need to be demolished. Few CEOs do it with gentleness and finesse, while some embark on annihilation of the entire team. Change has to be made to send the signal, “I have arrived”; it also serves the purpose of initiating new practices, without having to face resistance.
The other reason, and a truly good one, is to bring out the teams from comfort zones, they may have settled down into, with previous regime. The Islands of status quo may require submerging. Consistent performance gives unbridled license to pursue the beaten back. The newer ways of doing business, which may have been lost out, need incorporation.
The most significant reason could be the board may give a new direction to the incoming CEO to set a fresh course for the institution. A new and clear agenda may be handed out, which the existing team might find to be undoing of their past efforts and hence become repulsive to implementation; while a new team would be more than willing to wholeheartedly embrace the recommended resetting of direction. Many a times, the demand for a fresh and newer skill-set, may trigger redundancies by the new leader. This can too be done without malice.
If by chance, the leader so chosen, happens to be of the unsecured creed, then competence will take a backseat and loyalty devoid of competence, will take the wheel. Indeed, a disastrous attitude to possess. To change old ways of doing business does not require an en masse change of people.
A leader/manager is expected to treat all members of his team, whether old or new inductees with trust, respect and faith in their abilities. No act must show either preference or disdain, towards any colleagues. If done to create dissension, the leader is bound to lose, both self-respect and the colleague. Even an enlightened Nehru, as the prime minister of India, received the following contents in the resignation of the stalwart politician, Morarji Desai (he later became PM – famous for urine drinking remarks); he wrote, “Nobody is able to know where your view is about any of your colleagues and some of them find it difficult to work freely and are afraid of you also. Such discrimination in behaviour with colleagues is not proper, in my view….....… I hope and trust you will think about this matter and change your method of work and behavior”. The Oliver Cromwell, 17th century English military and political leader, type of CEO can’t be popular in this age and era. The CEO, who resembles in action a cheerleader, serves not as an inspiration.
Napoleon, Horatio Nelson, George Washington, and Lee Kuan Yew are all leaders, who welded people, with diverse skills into a well-oiled team. Abraham Lincoln takes the cake, by including in his cabinet, his most vitriolic critics. He opted for competence over personal loyalty.
Teams under sunshine or under the darkness of clouds are attacked most, the earlier for performance and the later for nonperformance, while most of the workforce is always in the average zone. A good leader knows the value of mediocrities in his team. A dream CEO can build a dream team – this misgiving can be proven correct, through honest and just management practices. The sun will set upon all.
The writer is a freelance columnist
