I guess the sentiment in that statement is that you can't really teach what the full gamut of leadership really is in a "course" or "lecture", but only by hard lessons learned in life. Or through other's lives, which we can read about in books, which "lectures" or "courses" try to condense in a manner that is palatable to the majority.
I like this article, although I think that some people have a higher tendency to be a leader. Based on personal experience these are the types of people that grew up being able to manage their peers. This transcends into the workplace. These types of people still will need the same sort of education as described in this article, it just may come more naturally to them. Regardless, I think that being a good manager/CEO is a skill that can be acquired much like any other skill with studying and practice.
I think that regardless of tendencies, some of the most inspiring and successful people (on any path in life) have been those who are authentic and comfortable with themselves.
That said, the world seems to have a real deficit of sincere and authentic leaders.
There is an element of 'Become great, and then just do what comes naturally' here, though. Its both insightful and somewhat problematic, in the sense that inauthenticity is a red-flag, but authentic != good, so the converse is not true (not-inauthentic is not 'good', per-se).
I am an introvert and I manage a group of 22 employees in my now 8 year company. I have learned that the best way to connect with people is not to take myself too seriously. Also, make their time worthwhile when talking to them, don't ever over-promise and really, genuinely care about what they say to you.
Ego is often mixed up with self confidence, I agree that people should not themselves too seriously and to realize that in the grand scheme of things, we are all so insignificant individually.
Being a good listener is so essential in communication - We've all been on the other side of feeling disregarded in a conversation because of a distraction, text, time, wandering minds -- it's disrespectful and works in negative ways.
I'm an introvert as well and I found out that it can be an advantage. Most startup employees (especially developers) are introverts as well and find it much easier to relate to someone like them. Most people are not looking for the typical 'manager' type.
I am an introvert and I manage a group of 22 employees in my now 8 year company. I have learned that the best way to connect with people is not to take myself too seriously. Also, make their time worthwhile when talking to them, don't ever over-promise and really, genuinely care about what they say to you.
the ceo of my last company took it as an article of faith that "you don't need to be liked in order to get results" (which, of course, was his self-justification for being an asshole to everyone, but he had really managed to convince himself of it). i was never able to explain to him how wrong it was, he just dismissed it as me being a techie who "didn't understand people".
I honestly struggled with this question for years. Your former boss seems to be missing some perspective, without a doubt, but isn't it possible to take likability too far? Isn't it the case that getting things done inevitably means stepping on some toes?
With some experience and hindsight, it seems to me now that some kind of balance is what's required. What I strive for today as a manager is fairness and consistency during those tough moments when a team just isn't getting it done. And without a doubt, inspiration gets you much further than admonition. But when real money--and people's jobs--are at stake, sometimes it seems like the right thing is to disregard bruised egos.
Is there a right answer? I don't think so. Isn't what matters whether or not what you're doing works for you? If being an asshole is what worked for your ex-boss, do you think he would have been successful any other way?
the sad thing is, it didn't work for him. he alienated everyone in the company, so many of whom ultimately decided they'd had enough and left that an entire office was closed down and the one or two remaining people transferred elsewhere.
as for taking likability too far, being liked doesn't involve being a pushover, or not making hard calls. your subordinates aren't idiots; they know that sometimes being the boss involves requiring people to do things they are disinclined to, and letting people who aren't performing or making too many mistakes know in no uncertain terms that there is a problem that needs addressing. but the manner in which you do it makes a world of difference. getting in people's faces and yelling at the top of your voice, or harping on for ages about every minor screwup, isn't "getting things done", even if it may provide the immediate illusion of having taken care of the problem.
> isn't it possible to take likability too far? Isn't it the case that getting things done inevitably means stepping on some toes?
The key is in why you're liked. If you're liked because you're tough but fair, that's a good reason to be liked. (Open to debate, but it's an example.) If you're liked because you're constantly bribing your way into everyone's good graces, that's not.
Really, the trick is to not care about whether or not you're liked, as that boss thought. Where he got it wrong is what you do instead. Competence involves people management, and people management involves both massaging and bruising egos. You need to be competent, to "get results", and if you do that by breaking as few eggs as possible to get there, people will back your play, will recognize the inevitable necessity of those eggs and not make a huge deal out of it. Competence can't come at the cost of competence: that's literally self-defeating.
Or, I just thought of a simpler, and better known aphorism:
Make them look good.
As a boss, you make your team look good. As a business, you make your customer look good. As a team member, you make your leader look good. And so on. Accept credit when it's offered, precisely because giving that credit makes them look good, and share that credit because public praise is good.
I really like this article. It reinforces my belief that the best companies are run by genuinely good people with genuinely good intentions - in other words, that the idea of business as dominated by sleaze and cynicism is either a myth or a partial and declining truth.
The section "Nix multi-task listening" really struck a chord for me. It can be challenging to really focus on listening to someone, especially if you have a busy and easily-excited mind. But it is crucial to put the effort in. I've seen people do some shocking things before - once I saw a friend say hi and ask another friend how she was, then instantly, as the person began talking, look down and start using her phone. Incredibly painful to watch someone start to talk then just fade out as they realise the other person isn't even paying attention. Needless to say, people like that better change their ways if they want to be likable and successful.
The article is good but touches secondary skills. Primary skill of CEO is being able to define strategy and execute. In my opinion the most important thing is to be able to model the environment (including outside and inside of your business) and analyse it. Soft skills are more visible yet secondary.
They didn’t sweat. They didn’t cry. They squirmed in their own skin, playing a role of their own inventing. A leader in times of crisis can’t have an iota of fakeness in him.
I love this quote, and it doesn't just apply to leaders or CEOs, it applies to people. Most people I know squirm in their own skin in their personal lives, playing a role of their own inventing. Very, very few people are comfortable enough with themselves to let the people around them peek inside. Interestingly, letting people see you squirm tends to have extremely therapeutic effect, so all that energy you wasted on putting up a facade was completely unnecessary.
That being said, I think there is a very fine line here, and excessive honesty can be disastrous. If you try to snatch the curtain away in one fell swoop while you're still uncomfortable in your own skin, what you think will seem authentic, will almost certainly be perceived as an outright panic (because that's what it is). You can't do it too early -- it's a gradual, often painful process of learning, self-acceptance, and building authentic relationships with other people. You're too scared to let the people see your inner self because you're weak, so you lift the curtain a little bit. Doing that gives you insights about yourself and about others, which in turn builds strength. Then you can lift the curtain a little more. Rinse, and repeat, hopefully for the rest of your life.
That being said, some people have a natural inclination to go through this process much, much quicker than others. It has certainly been a difficult process for me, and I'm still nowhere near the finish line (in fact, I think this process is asymptotic, and I am just now beginning see the asymptote somewhere in the distance).
It's not safe, at least the business world or towards strangers, to open yourself up to vulnerable or moments where you're powerless - because you won't have any idea how people will react, and many people are assholes. Hopefully with family, friends, and hopefully a close-knit team of people who respect and trust you, they too, will be safe to open yourself up to being vulnerable and show your powerlessness in certain situations. This is when I believe a team could become even stronger, when people have the opportunity to come together and problem solve. You hit right on the mark with mentioning building authentic relationships. It takes time to learn how to do that though, as you said - and I too see the process giving you exponential gains as you move along; I'm getting better at it as I go.
Great article, and great quote. I would definitely recommend reading the whole book Winning by Jack Welch -- I personally just finished it. It provides great insight to management and the behind-the-scenes look of GE at an executive level.
I thought there would be more content in an article with that title.
I don't think that good leaders need to learn how to be authentic or how to appear authentic to others.
I think that educated, intelligent, capable, ethical and self-confident people are naturally authentic in that they aren't so insecure as to try to hide their errors and are wise enough to know that insincere speech or behavior will be detected and detrimental.
I mean, I guess a lot of people really do need to be told this stuff, but I would rather be led by someone who had figured that stuff on their own by default (_without_ needing a lot of executive experience). And those people are out there.
There are piles and piles written on this subject. Harvard Business Review is just full of research and essays on it. Every now and then, an article like this surfaces, a "case study" that is the result of survivorship bias - a description of one or two people that succeeded, their "advice", and values. What I think the community of entrepreneurs needs, is a more methodical research and insights taken from much larger samples. See for example Roger Martin's "Fixing the Game".
The last thing and skill that 99% of today's fascist corporate CEO's want to do is practice leadership. Their main skill is the con. Conning their way into their positions, and then using the resulting power to eliminate any potential rivals. That is what 99% of today's CEO spend their time on. Talking about leadership is kind of like salving their ego's to convince themselves they provide any value at all to the social equation.
33 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 84.4 ms ] thread"Leadership cannot be taught or learned."[1]
Which is funny, because the article itself is a lesson about what is required to become a leader.
[1]- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mV3XM28AdoIC
That said, the world seems to have a real deficit of sincere and authentic leaders.
TLDR: you need authentic (+) goodness, together.
Being a good listener is so essential in communication - We've all been on the other side of feeling disregarded in a conversation because of a distraction, text, time, wandering minds -- it's disrespectful and works in negative ways.
With some experience and hindsight, it seems to me now that some kind of balance is what's required. What I strive for today as a manager is fairness and consistency during those tough moments when a team just isn't getting it done. And without a doubt, inspiration gets you much further than admonition. But when real money--and people's jobs--are at stake, sometimes it seems like the right thing is to disregard bruised egos.
Is there a right answer? I don't think so. Isn't what matters whether or not what you're doing works for you? If being an asshole is what worked for your ex-boss, do you think he would have been successful any other way?
as for taking likability too far, being liked doesn't involve being a pushover, or not making hard calls. your subordinates aren't idiots; they know that sometimes being the boss involves requiring people to do things they are disinclined to, and letting people who aren't performing or making too many mistakes know in no uncertain terms that there is a problem that needs addressing. but the manner in which you do it makes a world of difference. getting in people's faces and yelling at the top of your voice, or harping on for ages about every minor screwup, isn't "getting things done", even if it may provide the immediate illusion of having taken care of the problem.
The key is in why you're liked. If you're liked because you're tough but fair, that's a good reason to be liked. (Open to debate, but it's an example.) If you're liked because you're constantly bribing your way into everyone's good graces, that's not.
Really, the trick is to not care about whether or not you're liked, as that boss thought. Where he got it wrong is what you do instead. Competence involves people management, and people management involves both massaging and bruising egos. You need to be competent, to "get results", and if you do that by breaking as few eggs as possible to get there, people will back your play, will recognize the inevitable necessity of those eggs and not make a huge deal out of it. Competence can't come at the cost of competence: that's literally self-defeating.
Make them look good.
As a boss, you make your team look good. As a business, you make your customer look good. As a team member, you make your leader look good. And so on. Accept credit when it's offered, precisely because giving that credit makes them look good, and share that credit because public praise is good.
The section "Nix multi-task listening" really struck a chord for me. It can be challenging to really focus on listening to someone, especially if you have a busy and easily-excited mind. But it is crucial to put the effort in. I've seen people do some shocking things before - once I saw a friend say hi and ask another friend how she was, then instantly, as the person began talking, look down and start using her phone. Incredibly painful to watch someone start to talk then just fade out as they realise the other person isn't even paying attention. Needless to say, people like that better change their ways if they want to be likable and successful.
That conclusion can't be drawn from that premise, and the premise is shaky.
I love this quote, and it doesn't just apply to leaders or CEOs, it applies to people. Most people I know squirm in their own skin in their personal lives, playing a role of their own inventing. Very, very few people are comfortable enough with themselves to let the people around them peek inside. Interestingly, letting people see you squirm tends to have extremely therapeutic effect, so all that energy you wasted on putting up a facade was completely unnecessary.
That being said, I think there is a very fine line here, and excessive honesty can be disastrous. If you try to snatch the curtain away in one fell swoop while you're still uncomfortable in your own skin, what you think will seem authentic, will almost certainly be perceived as an outright panic (because that's what it is). You can't do it too early -- it's a gradual, often painful process of learning, self-acceptance, and building authentic relationships with other people. You're too scared to let the people see your inner self because you're weak, so you lift the curtain a little bit. Doing that gives you insights about yourself and about others, which in turn builds strength. Then you can lift the curtain a little more. Rinse, and repeat, hopefully for the rest of your life.
That being said, some people have a natural inclination to go through this process much, much quicker than others. It has certainly been a difficult process for me, and I'm still nowhere near the finish line (in fact, I think this process is asymptotic, and I am just now beginning see the asymptote somewhere in the distance).
I don't think that good leaders need to learn how to be authentic or how to appear authentic to others.
I think that educated, intelligent, capable, ethical and self-confident people are naturally authentic in that they aren't so insecure as to try to hide their errors and are wise enough to know that insincere speech or behavior will be detected and detrimental.
I mean, I guess a lot of people really do need to be told this stuff, but I would rather be led by someone who had figured that stuff on their own by default (_without_ needing a lot of executive experience). And those people are out there.