Leadership is one of those issues that, either directly or indirectly, is never far from the spotlight. Historically, many African and South African leaders have lacked credibility due to the undemocratic processes that placed them in positions of power. On an international level, the 11 September attacks have been instrumental in consolidating the leadership positions of both George Bush and Osama Bin Laden, albeit in vastly different arenas and with different agendas. At another level entirely, companies can seldom afford to take their eye off the ball in their search for the best leaders to take them into the future.
Companies can seldom afford to take their eye off the ball in their search for the best leaders to take them into the future.
Jill Hamlyn, MD of The People Business
In February 2002, the Harvard Business Review ran an article on the subject of leadership and how to identify those people who will thrive in a leadership position and who will ultimately be effective and efficient leaders. According to the authors of the article, Melvin Sorcher and James Brant, companies tend to overvalue certain traits that may ultimately prove to be the undoing of someone once he or she is in a position of leadership.
Their argument is that companies should be looking for people who are not necessarily team players, who are able to delegate, and who can work within ambiguous situations. Ambition is important, but public presentation skills tend to be overvalued. Candidates should not be overlooked because they are different in some way.
Sorcher and Brant make the point that identification of the best leader for the job is a multi-faceted operation and ideally should be done by a group of people, each of whom have dealt with the candidates and who can provide insight into each person`s suitability for the position. The people who are to work under and support the leader are very often as important as the leaders themselves.
Internal politics
To state the obvious, the types of leaders in an organisation will very much determine the future of that organisation, especially if these leaders are leading by example. This is fine if the example is a good one that the majority feel comfortable following. However, when leaders are dishonest or liars or manipulators, or continuously move the goalposts so that one never really knows where one stands, resentment builds up and the politics spiral out of control.
Few among us do not know that severe internal politics is one of the quickest ways to bring a team, division or organisation to its knees at the same time as angering clients or suppliers. Even worse is a situation in which leaders preach honesty, fidelity, loyalty and commitment and are then caught with their hands in the till. The sense of betrayal is huge and once it is gone, trust can seldom be regained.
Names that have been in the headlines recently, such as international companies Enron, Andersen and WorldCom, all point to leaders of these particular organisations who have been less than honest, both with employees and investors. An article in the Washington Post points out that such dishonesty is having a severe impact on the markets and causing a rise in scepticism regarding the probity of financial reports issued by large companies. Another Washington Post article quotes George Bush`s concerns about the impact on the economy of corporate leaders who have not upheld their responsibilities. The economy will recover, but the integrity of these leaders and their companies has been irreparably damaged.
The effects of such scandals can also be felt on the psyche of the person in the street. Consider the outcry when Hansie Cronje admitted his part in match-fixing. Feelings and emotions ranged from hurt to ire and while some were prepared to forgive, few will ever forget. And while we may recover from the sense of betrayal, the likelihood of fixing future leaders with a suspicious eye is strong. True, there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism but when this becomes hardened cynicism, potential can be stifled before it is even given a chance to flourish.
True leaders
Enter the concept of authentic leadership, embodied in people who live at the forefront of their personalities. There is no one recipe for such a concept - it is as individual as the people who hold its characteristics. The keyword is authentic, though. We find ourselves in a real economy which, although tough, is tapping undreamed of potential in many people. All the unnecessary fluff has been stripped away and all that is left is the very barest of essentials.
Authentic people thrive in authentic times, and authentic leaders hold varying combinations of integrity, morals, steadfastness, honesty, toughness and a no-nonsense approach with a dash of what Machiavelli called 'virt'u`. Although slated, Machiavelli was an astute political observer and his writings contain much wisdom about leadership. Much of what he wrote as far back as 1513 can still be applied today, with some modern twists. The term "Machiavellian" may not be as pejorative as people would like to think.
Authentic leaders are also very much determined by those who choose to follow them, so "authenticity" is a combination of being viewed as credible enough to be in a position to lead as well as that specific combination of attributes peculiar to each leader. The proverb "Tell me who you love, and I`ll tell you who you are" may be amended to read "Tell me who you lead, and I`ll tell you who you are". Swap one letter around and it captures another truth: "Tell me how you lead, and I`ll tell you who you are."
As much as we would like them to be concrete, the ideal of leadership and those attributes that make up the perfect leader are fairly nebulous. We know it when we see it and although we would like to capture the essence of it, even if we did, it would be impossible to apply it to every single situation. Each situation is as unique as each individual, and whereas one individual may thrive as a leader in one situation, another leadership situation may prove his or her undoing. It is wise, therefore, to give careful consideration to knowledge and intuition when choosing leaders, or when in a leadership position. This time, it is for real.
Share