Being a leader is not easy. Besides the scrutiny, you are subjected to performance pressures and above all the need to be accepted as a leader. While a lot goes into making a good leader, this short post discusses what derails even the best of the leaders. The most noticeable nuance of all these 5 derailers is the fact that they are context independent. Irrespective of the context, culture and need of the hour, they will amount to inappropriate and risky behaviours.
Inconsistency
Research speaks volumes on the role consistency of behaviour plays in making a leader successful. The problem is that one strong inconsistent message is enough to ruin what you have worked hard to create. Consistent behaviour makes leaders seem predictable by their followers. This amounts to a feeling of security and faith in the contingent consequence of behaviours exhibited by them. Inconsistent leaders make their teams anxious. Many subordinates might even consider inconsistent leaders to be lacking integrity.
The higher the levels of leadership, higher is the expectation and need for consistency in behaviour. Needless to say extreme situations will demand you to indulge in necessary exceptions. My advice would be to ensure that the team and organization appreciates the fact that this is an exceptional behaviour keeping with the need of the hour and not mere inconsistency.
Sycophancy
It is amazing how need for power both fuels and destroys the need for hunger. As a leader, the last thing you want to do is to be surrounded by sycophants who will almost every time agree to everything that you have to say and caress your power image. Research suggests, that narcissistic leaders are the most likely to patronise sycophants around them. Recent research also suggests that the best and most talented people quit leaders who indulge in sycophancy. It is therefore necessary to encourage others especially those the most junior in your team to challenge you in a healthy manner.
Many a times, leaders appear to be unapproachable and hence subordinates might find them to be closed to newer ideas. In such cases, teams will have tacit need to comply to whatever the leader says. And while you might desire that your team challenges you, they will not. That would lead us to the next derailer, the pair of ears that hear but not listen.
‘I hear them out’ syndrome
I wish I had a penny for every time a manager told me “I do hear them out”. Hearing rarely amounts to understanding. Add a little empathy to hearing and you have listening as the product. Listening provides the rich perspective leaders need. The smallest of cues and the subtlest of hints that enable them to know the true picture. Leaders also need to deal with all kinds of knowledge to be able to make decisions. Specialised knowledge from multiple streams may not always be available with the leaders. Listening in this manner, helps them to learn and improvise. Leaders that know what they are doing and seek opinions only to be liked, do more harm than good. The frequent problem here is the fact that most leaders who are not good at listening, are blind to this weakness.
Performance favouritism
Most leaders exercise some form of favouritism or the other. Most leaders will justify by saying that favouritism based on merit isn’t really favouritism. What leaders reward becomes attitude of the team in the long run. While performance must be rewarded in monetary terms, individual relationships should not reflect performance. When competence is linked with leaders’ affiliation, teams become risk averse, less innovative and competitive while individuals suffer from low self esteem and low morale. Favouritism on any ground leads to the similar problems.
Dwelling in uncertainty
While it is necessary to be immune to ambiguity, it must be noted that followers look up to their leaders for certainty and stability. As a rule, only external environment or the customer must be allowed to increase the ambiguity within system. While leaders must deal with uncertainty, they must not let it thrive. Leaders must be responsible for reducing the uncertainty of the system. This contribution is central to the leader member exchange theory. A leader that reduces ambiguity is seen as competent and respected by the followers. When, uncertainty is necessary depending on situations, leader must reduce the risk and fears of those following them. A typical mark of high performing incompetent leaders is that they off load the risks due to uncertainties to the people under them. Good leaders clearly evaluate the needed uncertainty and hedge their followers against the risks imposed by their decisions.
Many a leaders, due to their innate preferences and personalities seek uncertainty to thrive. A remedial approach would be to allow subordinates to dynamically scope the uncertainties and if possible address them. Such leaders would be benefited by letting their subordinates deal with uncertainties while actively supporting them.
These five sins must be cautioned against independent of industry, context, problem at hand and situation. While the success factors are many, these hygiene issues must be taken care of. These are key to holding people together and winning their respect.