After a time man finds that it is not happiness, but knowledge, towards which he is going, and that pleasure and pain are great teachers. As pleasure and pain pass before his soul they leave upon it different pictures, and the combined impressions is called man’s “character”… it is really but the aggregate of tendencies, the sum total of the bent of his mind… In studying the great characters the world has produced, I dare say, in the vast majority of cases, it would be found that it was misery that taught more than happiness, it was poverty that taught more than wealth, it was blows that brought out their inner fire more than praise.
Swami Vivekananda
Last week, we presented some thoughts on the important subject of leadership. We noted that leadership is about creating opportunities and providing incentives for people to give of their best. It is about winning hearts and minds, and empowering and motivating them to rise to their full potential. It is about influencing ordinary people to perform extraordinary feats. It is about creating and sharing a vision that followers or subordinates enthusiastically embrace. As Warren Bennis puts it, leaders create shared meaning, have a distinctive voice, have the capacity to adapt, and have integrity. Abraham Zaleznik considers them both inspirational and aspirational.
Transformational leadership is about people and relationships. It involves possessing charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, as discussed in last week’s article. On the other hand, transactional leadership provides for followers to be motivated by the leader’s promises, praise, and reward, based on what the leader and followers have “transacted” to do. Negative feedback, reproof, threats, or disciplinary actions are used as correction tools where performance is not considered satisfactory.
Most leaders have a profile of the full range of leadership that includes both transformational and transactional factors.The best of leadership is both transformational and transactional. However, in their defining moments, such leaders are transformational.
Transformational leadership (cont’d)
In leadership, character matters. Bass and Steidmeier assert that leadership provides a moral compass and, over the long-term, both personal development and the common good are best served by a moral compass that reads true. An important element of transformational leadership is that all authority emanates from the consent of the governed. There is no morally valid leadership without the consent of the led, and only socialized leaders concerned for the common good can be truly transformational leaders. Personalised leaders, primarily concerned with their own self-interest, are not. The authors describe as pseudotransformational leadership, the kind of transformational leadership that tramples upon such tenets as morality; ethical norms and behavioural ideals; the search for truth; encouragement of questioning and creativity; and motivation growing out of authentic inward commitment.
Barbara Kellerman, in response to the question: Is leadership synonymous with moral leardership? gives the following response: “Before 1970, the answer from most leadership theorists would certainly have been no. Look at Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung – great leaders all, but hardly good men. In fact, capricious, murderous, high-handed, corrupt, and evil leaders are effective and commonplace. Machiavelli celebrated them. Everywhere, power goes hand in hand with corruption – everywhere, that is, except in the literature of business leadership.”
Some writers argue that to succeed, all leaders must be manipulative. However, it is the pseudotransformational leaders who are deceptive and manipulative. While some manipulation may be necessary for what may be viewed as the common good, it is the infrequent practice of transformational leaders. Pseudotransformational leaders overweight authority and underweight reason. They feed on the ignorance of their followers and look like giants to people of minor intellect. They create the impression that they are doing the right thing but will secretly fail to do so when the right things conflict with their own narcissistic interests. They substitute emotional argumentation for rational discourse.
Transformational leadership is not without its criticisms mainly due to its appeal to emotion rather than to reason. The main shortcomings identified include:
* It makes use of impression management;
* It is antithetical to organizational learning and development involving shared leadership, equality, consensus and participatory decision-making;
* It emotionally engages followers irrationally in pursuit of ends that may be contrary to their best interests;
* It manipulates followers along a path in which they lose more than they gain; and
* It lacks checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and power to avoid dictatorship and oppression of a majority by a minority.
Barbara Kellerman further argues that leaders are like the rest of us: trustworthy and deceitful, cowardly and brave, greedy and generous. She asserts that, “To assume that all good leaders are good people is to be willfully blind to the reality of human condition, and it severely limits our ability to become better leaders. Worse, it may cause senior executives to think that, because they are leaders, they are never deceitful, cowardly, or greedy. That way lies the disaster.”
Narcissistic leadership
The word “narcissism” can be traced to Greek mythology. A handsome young man named Narcissus rejected the desperate advances of nymph Echo and instead fell in love with himself. He caught his reflection in a pool and kept gazing at it hour after hour until he ended up drowning in the pool.
Narcissism is a personality trait that is characterized by egotism, vanity, pride and selfishness. We are all somewhat narcissistic in order to survive or assert our needs.
However, according to Maccoby, narcissists are good for organisations in extraordinary times: “those that need people with the passion and daring to take them in new directions”. Because they are people with vision, they see the bigger picture. They try to understand the future and sometimes seek to create it. Some people see things and ask “why?” However, the narcissist would ask “who not?” Narcissists possess charisma, are skillful orators, and can attract followers. Productive narcissism is good for organizations that require courage and stubborn persistence, among others, to see the task through to fruition.
Narcissists can, however, lead organizations into ruin by refusing to listen to advice and warnings of their managers. According to Freud, the dark side of narcissists is that they are emotionally isolated and highly distrustful. They also lack empathy and any perceived threats can trigger a rage. Achievements can also feed feelings of grandiosity. This is why a narcissist, having accomplished his/her task, should leave as quickly as possible to allow for more stable leadership to carry on. With each passing day beyond this point, the risk of the dark side of narcissism manifesting itself is real. It is like Clint Eastwood riding off to the horizon after rescuing the town from bandits without one moment of looking back.
Leadership traits and effective leadership
Are leaders born? Various theories about leadership traits have evolved over the years. However, there is a lack of consensus as to what precisely those traits should be. Possessing certain traits is not a guarantee, but a mere precondition, for successful leadership, implying that there is a greater need to acquire leadership skills. A person endowed with certain leadership traits is nevertheless at an advantage vis-à-vis someone who does not. The latter has to devote more energy at acquiring such skills.
Warren Bennis was more emphatic when he asserts that, “The most dangerous leadership myth is that leaders are born – there is a genetic factor to leadership. That’s nonsense; in fact, the opposite is true. Leaders are made rather born.” Stephen Covey, on the other hand, was more somber in his argument that leadership results from a combination of leadership traits; the acquisition of leadership skills; and being at the right place at the right time. However, one needs to distinguish between great leadership and effective leadership.
History is replete with effective leaders who were without morals and scruples. Leaders must be seen to be genuine, sincere and authentic in whatever they do or say. They must be natural. They must be humble. They must not be afraid to let some of their shortcomings be known. Above all, they must be themselves.
Effective leadership revolves around the following:
* Keeping your eye on the ball i.e. staying focused;
* Being your real self i.e. being authentic.
* Standing your ground despite obstacles strewn your way i.e. being courageous;
* Having the interest and well-being of your people at heart i.e. displaying empathy; and
* Above all, striking when the iron is hot i.e. the right timing of your actions.
In reality, effective leadership is far more complex than the above five observable facets. It is like looking at a diamond and upon closer observation, other facets become observable.
Communication, accountability and trust are the foundation pillar for successful leadership. Accountability is central to effective performance at both the individual and organisational levels. By holding subordinates accountable, respect is earned while trust is facilitated through openness, integrity, humility and a display of quiet competence. The ultimate goal is to foster a sense of shared purpose that can not only make subordinates rise and unleash their initiative, creativity, and innovative and full potential but can also result in a quantum leap in organisational performance.
Next week, we will consider another important topic: decision-making. Meanwhile I leave you with the following reminder:
Leaders who can stay optimistic and upbeat, even under intense pressure, radiate the positive feelings that create resonance. By staying in control of their feelings and impulses, they craft an environment of trust, comforts and fairness. And that self-management has a trickle down effect from the leader.
Daniel Goleman
