That is absolutely the right question!
And if this is your attitude, you are already in a different league.
However, there is a caveat.
And the caveat is that you need to visualize leadership, not as an absolute (meaning, either you have it or you dont) but as a spectrum.
What the hell does that mean?
The question is more likely to be asked by Army officers in particular, as they generally tend to think of themselves as such kick-ass leaders as to be closed to any suggestion that there may be something more to learn about the subject! When you are jumping out into civvy street, an open mind is your parachute.
In the military, traditional leadership has been necessarily of the autocratic "command and control" type, especially in active operations.
However, you might have already realized that, either consciously or unconsciously, you changed your "leadership style" when dealing with peacetime routine. You tend to be more democratic and flexible, you are more open to solutions or view points of your team members and you encouraged participation. This is when you wear your "mentor" hat, so essential in nurturing future leaders in your organization.
Over the years, you would have also noticed that as the battlefield evolved and the environment became more complex, diffused and technologically advanced, your leadership style has also evolved. Your dependence on your subordinate team members has increased exponentially. Trust has become a key factor and your approach is more laissez-faire. You are increasingly compelled (and happy) to delegate authority for decisions, even though it is your neck on the line and the military continues to hold you responsible for their outcomes.
Many of us would have invariably run into the leader who is a stickler for rules and policies, which though appropriate in the context of administrative fairplay, has negative connotations when applied in situations where a fair amount of lattitude or discretion is the norm. When this "bureaucratic style" of leadership is applied indiscriminately, this type of leader is classified as an appropriate 'body part'. So much so, it has even inspired people to write books about them.
The bottomline is that there is a spectrum of leadership styles, each appropriate in a certain context, and this is important to keep in mind. In civvy street (infer corporate sector), there will never be a situation where you have to resort to the "command and control" style of leadership. It will be highly inappropriate and counter-culture. Even if you are an entrepreneur and own the company, you will never resort to the "command and control" style. As a matter of fact, you may find that in most of your leadership actions, you would seek to build a consensus, aligning, more often than not, with the style at the other end of the spectrum.
This is tough initially. Especially when in your assessment, a situation calls for quick and decisive action, you will find an appalling drift, sometimes even at the very top of the organization. Don't get your knickers in a twist, unless you are sure someone is going to get hurt. Don't even complain! And never volunteer to do someone else work. If you do volunteer, the chances are that a majority will think you don't have enough to do. Funnily, your proactive actions may even open up the possibility of your eventual redundancy!
So what should you do? I would suggest that you mention it, informally and in passing, to the colleague who is responsible, and then just get on with your work, even if it means allowing a very visible situation to deteriorate. There may be a method behind the madness that you may not quite understand yet, but make allowance for the person closest to the problem to get around to it. If you act, or complain, before this person has had a chance to address the problem, it may show him in poor light and he will never forgive you for it! On the other hand, if you referred it to him, offered to help, suggested how you might address it, but untimately left it to him to resolve it, he might well become your greatest supporter the next time your nuts are in the fire.
That's politics, you might say! Yes, indeed. And that's a strange world for soldiers! It's also good learning, and as the old song goes:
"If you're gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right.
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run."
On the other hand, you may continue to take the initiative and act decisively with your other dealings such as, with problems in your community, or personal life, or in support of social causes.
The emphasis here is on your mindset - specifically - your ability to adapt. Your leadership style has to adapt and be in consonance, not only with the group you lead, but also with the specifics of each situation. And the "life or death" situations in civvy street is most commonly associated with margins or market share. They do matter, but not in the way you have been trained to think.
The most common mistake leaders make is to maintain a single leadership style, without giving any thought to the capabilities of the group they lead or the attributes of the situation. This is especially significant when a task-typed leader is put into a different context. The such leaders tend to assume that what worked for them in the past will continue to work in the future, a classic case of "situating the appreciation" from your combat school days. It is no wonder then, that so many business leaders who have done extremely well for themselves in a particular field or situation, fail so miserably when they take up new assignments. The departures of Carly Fiorina from Hewlett Packard, Carol Bartz from Yahoo! and Jeff Kindler from Pfizer are a few recent instances that comes to my mind immediately. They all provide valuable lessons for us to learn.
This change in context is also the main reason why military leaders sometime fail in civvy street as their leadership style is so deeply ingrained or internalized, that they fail to even recognize the compelling need to adapt.
There are numerous biographical accounts of great business leaders and these must find place in your pre-retirement reading list. Not only are these books deeply insightful and revealing, they humanize these very accomplished individuals and give you a top level perspective on the day to day challenges of running some of the worlds most respected companies.
And if this is your attitude, you are already in a different league.
However, there is a caveat.
And the caveat is that you need to visualize leadership, not as an absolute (meaning, either you have it or you dont) but as a spectrum.
What the hell does that mean?
The question is more likely to be asked by Army officers in particular, as they generally tend to think of themselves as such kick-ass leaders as to be closed to any suggestion that there may be something more to learn about the subject! When you are jumping out into civvy street, an open mind is your parachute.
In the military, traditional leadership has been necessarily of the autocratic "command and control" type, especially in active operations.
However, you might have already realized that, either consciously or unconsciously, you changed your "leadership style" when dealing with peacetime routine. You tend to be more democratic and flexible, you are more open to solutions or view points of your team members and you encouraged participation. This is when you wear your "mentor" hat, so essential in nurturing future leaders in your organization.
Over the years, you would have also noticed that as the battlefield evolved and the environment became more complex, diffused and technologically advanced, your leadership style has also evolved. Your dependence on your subordinate team members has increased exponentially. Trust has become a key factor and your approach is more laissez-faire. You are increasingly compelled (and happy) to delegate authority for decisions, even though it is your neck on the line and the military continues to hold you responsible for their outcomes.
Many of us would have invariably run into the leader who is a stickler for rules and policies, which though appropriate in the context of administrative fairplay, has negative connotations when applied in situations where a fair amount of lattitude or discretion is the norm. When this "bureaucratic style" of leadership is applied indiscriminately, this type of leader is classified as an appropriate 'body part'. So much so, it has even inspired people to write books about them.
The bottomline is that there is a spectrum of leadership styles, each appropriate in a certain context, and this is important to keep in mind. In civvy street (infer corporate sector), there will never be a situation where you have to resort to the "command and control" style of leadership. It will be highly inappropriate and counter-culture. Even if you are an entrepreneur and own the company, you will never resort to the "command and control" style. As a matter of fact, you may find that in most of your leadership actions, you would seek to build a consensus, aligning, more often than not, with the style at the other end of the spectrum.
This is tough initially. Especially when in your assessment, a situation calls for quick and decisive action, you will find an appalling drift, sometimes even at the very top of the organization. Don't get your knickers in a twist, unless you are sure someone is going to get hurt. Don't even complain! And never volunteer to do someone else work. If you do volunteer, the chances are that a majority will think you don't have enough to do. Funnily, your proactive actions may even open up the possibility of your eventual redundancy!
So what should you do? I would suggest that you mention it, informally and in passing, to the colleague who is responsible, and then just get on with your work, even if it means allowing a very visible situation to deteriorate. There may be a method behind the madness that you may not quite understand yet, but make allowance for the person closest to the problem to get around to it. If you act, or complain, before this person has had a chance to address the problem, it may show him in poor light and he will never forgive you for it! On the other hand, if you referred it to him, offered to help, suggested how you might address it, but untimately left it to him to resolve it, he might well become your greatest supporter the next time your nuts are in the fire.
That's politics, you might say! Yes, indeed. And that's a strange world for soldiers! It's also good learning, and as the old song goes:
"If you're gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right.
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run."
The emphasis here is on your mindset - specifically - your ability to adapt. Your leadership style has to adapt and be in consonance, not only with the group you lead, but also with the specifics of each situation. And the "life or death" situations in civvy street is most commonly associated with margins or market share. They do matter, but not in the way you have been trained to think.
This change in context is also the main reason why military leaders sometime fail in civvy street as their leadership style is so deeply ingrained or internalized, that they fail to even recognize the compelling need to adapt.
There are numerous biographical accounts of great business leaders and these must find place in your pre-retirement reading list. Not only are these books deeply insightful and revealing, they humanize these very accomplished individuals and give you a top level perspective on the day to day challenges of running some of the worlds most respected companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment