Follow You, Follow Me
Why do you lead?
Why do you want to be a leader?
Related but different questions that are often conflated. Often, it is assumed ‘Leaders’ lead and that ‘Leadership’ is about being a ‘Leader’. We confuse the role, the title and the status with the act.
Much of the dialogue around leading and leadership is confused and misleading because of the lack of clarity about the language and the associations and baggage the terms bring with them (which are different for each person).
Let’s take the first one - why do you lead?
Some lead because they believe that’s what they are good at, that it should be them that lead ( possibly because they’ve been brought up to believe that). We all know people like this. Often, their self-belief exceeds their abilities and actually prevents them from being able to learn and improve.
Some lead because they like being in charge, being the centre of attention. They like the feeling of power and control. It makes them feel superior (perhaps compensating for their low feeling of self-esteem). They like the performance of leading, even if they aren’t very good at it.
Some lead because someone has to. They see a gap and they fill it because they are committed to achieving the outcome, to righting the wrong, to fixing the things that is evidently broken. They see how things could be better, they feel they have to act and no-one else has stepped up, so they do.
Some lead because someone else tells them to. They get a gentle shove in the back, a vote of confidence from someone else who sees the potential in them or just thinks they are the best person for that role at that moment.
It can be any of these or a mix of them. It’s not an exhaustive list. The point is that each of these reasons generally means a different way of leading, with different strengths and weaknesses. Why you do it matters.
And here we get into another terminological quagmire. What do we mean by ‘lead’? I’m referring to the act of leading but it can take many forms.
It can be taking a formal role, running a project or chairing a committee. It can be simply stepping forward in the moment, organising people to meet an objective or providing the expertise and experience required to solve a problem. It can be setting an example, calling out bad behaviour, reminding people of the agreed norms or the objective being sought.
It can even be stepping back and allowing someone else to lead.
Leader Of The Pack
OK, it’s multifaceted and situational and individual. It’s complicated.
So let’s look at the other question. Why do you want to be a leader?
Or rather, why do you want to be a ‘Leader’?
That is, not some who leads, but someone who holds the formal position, who has the status and recognition.
Is it to satisfy your ego?
Is it because that’s a necessary condition of being able to lead?
Is it so you can have control over others?
Or is it so you have power to do something, to have more impact?
Is it for the trappings and the rewards?
Is it because that’s ‘the next step’?
Is it because you’re trying to fill a hole inside?
Or is it that you’ve never really asked yourself why, it’s just what people like you do?
It can be a mix of these but whatever your reasons, it affects how you show up, it shapes the way in which you lead.
We are acutely aware of what drives others but how often we examine our own motives? Is it because we are scared we might not like the answer? Few are willing to admit just how much their ego is involved, or how much they like the rewards that go with it. They fear being judged, being looked down on as shallow, perhaps?
But it can just be the starting point. If we understand what got us here, we can grow and develop and surface other motivations, ones we perhaps consider more noble or meaningful.
Without this self-examination, you will continue in the same unthinking way and that might lead you to somewhere you really don’t want to be.
Perhaps next time people start talking about leadership, you might question a bit more deeply what they are actually talking about, what they are really saying. Althugh you might realise they are not really saying anything of much substance at all, just using lots of important sounding buzzwords in an attempt to sound clever. Which, to me, is where quite a lot of the discourse on leadership seems to be.
Cry Me A River
I’ve written lots about the stupidity of the Office/Work From Home arguments and I am pretty sure I declared the debate over some months ago, with hybrid working coming out on top (and then, only as a way point to more dynamic and distributed working).
That didn’t stop CEOs issuing Return To Office mandates, even whilst their employees showed they were very much opposed to them. That was fine, it gave me plenty to write about and people to make fun of but it was essentially pointless. Employees either just refused to comply or found ways around it, like ‘coffee badging’, or found jobs with organisations that provided the work flexibility they wanted.
Two of the more recent CEOs to do this in the UK have been Mark Read of WPP and Seb James of Boots. Well, it turns out doing something that is clearly against the will of your employees and will make your business less effective is a bit of a dumb move, especially when said businesses are already struggling. Both are leaving their organisations, no doubt to spend more time with their money.
Gloating is not a good look, so I’m going to call it Schadenfreude and appear all European and sophisticated.
But am I going to wallow in it? Oh yeah.
Try A Little Tenderness
I feel like I’m always saying that work has got progressively worse over the past 40 years, to the point that it’s a miserable experience for many today. Even if you enjoy the work, there are a myriad irritations that suck the joy from it, that take away your time, attention and energy for no apparent reason.
One of things that makes work a better experience is the people you meet and work with, the human interactions that brighten your day (of course, these can all be horrible too, in which case, get out or get therapy!) When I started work (before computers - I know, ancient), you spent a lot of time speaking to people because that was pretty much the only way to communicate (you would not believe how hard it was to send a paper memo or a letter). You’d either phone them up or meet face-to-face.
Now, the majority of that communication has move onto screens, so you have far fewer interpersonal interactions, much less human-to-human time. One of the most important of that diminishing number of relationships is with your boss and it has has a huge impact on your work experience (over 50% of people leave because of that relationship being bad).
That relationship is built through the 1-2-1s that you have. I always recommend having weekly 1-2-1, which can be largely about operational matters, with a longer monthly one to discuss broader issues of development, progression, how they are getting on generally. I always made this a top priority. If they had to be moved, they would be postponed but never cancelled. To me, it’s one of the most important part of the manager’s job, to build that human relationship.
So what do you think someone is suggesting you should automate with AI?
Yep, you’ve guessed it - 1-2-1s.
Because what we need more of in our working day is screen-based interaction and conversations intermediated by a computer system, right?
“Who needs those pesky conversations with other humans anyway, they’re so unstructured and emotional and, well, random! Sheesh, be glad to be shot of them!” seems to be the underlying attitude behind this proposal.
Don’t do this.
This is how AI will kill organisations. It will be applied to things that are not seen as important but are crucial to the organisation’s integrity. It will be used to replace connections that are essential for the functioning of the organisation. Like ivy, it will grow between the bricks and force them apart until, one day, the whole structure will fall apart.
The problem in organisations today is not that there are too many conversations, it’s that there are not enough. A secondary problem is that many of the conversations that do happen are low-quality. AI may be able to help with some of that but often it is a skill problem on the part of the manager, and also the employee. (It’s not the only problem but it is a common one.)
AI can perhaps help with the progress and co-ordination updates but that’s not where the value of 1-2-1s really lies. It’s in the relationship building and that’s a very human capacity. (Recent stories of people falling in love with their chatbots or using them as therapist that tells a recovering addict they need a little bit of meth to get them through the day show the dangers of letting AI in there).
Anyway, if you’re not building relationships with your team, what the hell are you doing?
Have a say!
We’re approaching the 200th edition of this Not-Newsletter and I have been thinking about a refresh.
I’d like to know what you like and dislike about it as it is. Length, frequency, topics, that sort of thing. What’s been most valuable and most annoying? What else would you like to see covered?
Are there any extra things you’d like to see? Would an audio version be good? (No, it won’t be an AI generated one.)
All input will be appreciated (even the mean and snarky stuff!). My contact details are below.