How Does a Leader Behave?

L for loneliness.

This is the first self-reflection and decision every leader faces. Major Dick Winters  (portrayed in “Band of Brothers”) reflected that he did not hang out with his men. He loved the men under his command, but maintained distance and detachment. Leadership can be an isolated and isolating role, so I always tell young and emerging leaders you can either be popular, or you can be a leader, but you can’t have both.

E for execution.

Sooner or later, action must be taken; plans must be executed. Leaders zero in on the deliverables, and how those can be achieved. Without this driving sense of execution, all you have is “panel discussion.”

A for acuity.

They’re visionary and intellectual; they like to see things evolve from one stage to the next. Leaders often see things others can’t; they maintain the proverbial “bigger picture” in their heads. Not everyone who “gets it” is a leader; but every effective leader I know is a person who “gets it.”

D for delegation.

Leaders understand delegation is for the greater good, not merely a mechanism of authority. Sure, it may be easier to just do the task yourself, but if you delegate, there’s substantial group learning to be gained. And it’s important to delegate tasks to the right individuals. Also, a strong leader understands that each of us needs time and space to use our imagination and creativity when asked to do a job, so once a task is delegated, they leave you alone to do it (which may be why my favorite leaders have not been micromanagers).

E (again) for ego.

Outsized egos may appear commanding, but egotistical leaders don’t last: sooner or later, their narcissism creates relationship failures. Seasoned leaders do not let power or authority go to their heads, and they don’t worry about who receives the credit. If they receive credit as an individual, they’ll quickly refer to the team effort.

R for respect, reflection, and resilience.

Again, I defer to Dick Winters, whose men often said they’d happily follow him into hell:

• You win respect not because of rank or position, but because you’re a leader of character.
• Look in the mirror every night and ask yourself if you did your best.
• Hang tough! Never, ever, give up.

What Defines a Leader?

Since challenging circumstances often need a variety of approaches, a leader is someone who sees and defines what has to be done, and then deploys the most suitable leadership approach so the goal of the mission is served, along with the needs of those who’ll be accountable for providing the solution.

A leader may not come up with the answer, but she’ll coach and support the collective search for it. A leader also tracks and observes group dynamics, to make sure people are assigned, included, and given safe forum to work out process problems.

A leader likes to execute, to take action, and to evaluate those actions so wasteful effort is eliminated, and successful actions studied for repetition and gain. 

The truly great leaders know to lead by example—perhaps in small acts of civility, such as making sure everyone gets heard, or intervening when tempers are starting to fray.

And, like literary heroes, any time a leader goes out on a limb to risk something, he takes what’s been learned back to the group so the lesson can be shared. Whatever benefits the group will not be jealously hoarded by a good leader as evidence of her own value. Great leaders share and spread credit as much as possible.

Typically our society has revered single-note leaders with that one winning formula, but as the world continues to change, we need as much versatility of thought and action from our leaders as we see in the diversity of humanity.

Leadership Series: Take Me to Your Leader

Within every workgroup, you have some staples: there’s the slacker, who can’t be counted on for anything except to show up when the job’s done, in an effort to soak up accolades…the willing but uninspired follower who’ll do whatever’s necessary, but has to be told what to do at every step…the constant critic, who knows how everything should be done, but isn’t crazy about assuming any real responsibilities because he’s already overcommitted to so many things requiring his brilliance.

And then there’s that mysterious, elusive character — the leader. Amid the flow of personalities and work, very few understand what it really means to be a leader.

Good leadership is often hard to define, but everyone knows when they’re working with a good leader just like they know when they’re operating in a leadership vacuum.

Some leaders are natural managers, which is the job of making sure processes are running efficiently and regularly improved.

Others are visionaries, less effective with day-to-day operations, but impressive innovators and new-thought pioneers.

There are contradictions as well: take-charge personalities don’t always make the best leaders, and folks who made straight A’s in school often become better specialists than generals of men and women.

Some group circumstances thrive from servant-leaders, those low-key people who bring up the rear rather than charge from the front, because that’s how they gather insight on what has to be done, and how it can be sustainably done. Individuals may have influence but few leadership skills, just as formal leaders may have authority but fail miserably at behaving responsibly.

And, very often, people with robust leadership abilities do not collaborate well with other strong leaders like themselves. Queen bees have been known to fight to the death.

So what’s a plausible working definition of a leader?

Over the next couple blogs, I’ll be discussing this.

Planning a Good Murder

This is one of my favorite stories, from a veteran high school teacher, Mr. R., who was covering an ethics unit for a senior [critical thinking] class.

After covering the fine points of ethical thought and behavior, the big assignment was to get into small workgroups to plan the perfect murder.

Students who’d been disengaged lit up and got involved. Individuals who hated group projects re-engaged with enthusiasm. Kids in other classes said, “Awww…I wish I had that class.” For a couple days, even Facebook was deserted in favor of this assignment.

By deadline, these bloodthirsty students had their Powerpointed schemes all worked out. That is, until Mr. R. asked the showstopper question:

“This is a unit on ethics. Did anyone at any point speak up against this?”

They stared at him the way a lab full of monkeys would stare when all the bananas are inexplicably removed.

 “But you sort of gave us permission,” argued one student, “when you made it a homework assignment.”

“And we all know it’s not for real,” said another. “No one really gets hurt.”

I know that in business many things can be forgiven if the right outcomes ($$$) are produced, and in recent years it’s become socially acceptable, even hip, to laugh over the “cleverness” of people who win profits by pulling off some ethical sleight-of-hand.

But here are the questions that teacher posed:

• If someone in a position of authority initiates or sanctions what you know to be wrongdoing, does that make it all right?

• If you’re told that it’s not for real, if you can’t see the victim, or are assured the wrongdoing is a victimless crime, does that then make it all right?

This teacher told me every once in a while he’d have a student who’d raise their hand and say, “Hey, Mr. R., I don’t get this. We’re studying ethics so why do you have us planning a murder? Isn’t that wrong?”

Bingo—automatic “A” for that unit.