Leaders don’t set things on fire.
I am struggling. I have been looking at so much research about leadership and leaders and so much news and information about the topic that I find it remarkable that there still doesn’t seem to be a definition of leadership or what a leader actually is.
What I do know is that there is a fervour amongst leadership devotees that their particular brand of leadership is the best (for which read) the only one. And anyone who has an alternative view of leadership is simply wrong. I have seen friendlier debates between the US and Iran.
Leadership has become a battle ground. And like 24/7 television news channels what many in the corporate world are calling leadership is actually the ability to be seen, regularly, shouting loudly to as many people as possible. Leadership has become confused with the amount of noise that a person can create. The one thing that 24/7 leaders are good at is getting their face in front of important people, and regrettably often at the expense of others. For the 24/7 leader has to be in the corporate public eye continuously and it doesn’t matter who gets in the way.
And in almost all cases the noisier the leader, my experience would tell me, the less effective that actually are in being a ‘Leader.’ Shouting is not leadership despite many ‘leaders’ convincing themselves otherwise.
How do you identify and 24/7 leader? One way I decide on a leader is to find their position on the Burning Platform Index. Creating a ‘Burning Platform’ is an old fashioned leadership trick based around the idea that a burning platform is something that any individual will inherently want to leap from and you can use this motivation to make big changes in an organisation. The more ‘Burning Platforms’ a leader has created the higher up the index the leader will be and the more likely the leader will be a 24/7 leader. All about noise and action but no leadership.
There seem to me to be two fundamental problems with burning platforms. The first is that many leaders let a situation get so bad that creating a burning platform becomes the only thing they can do. But creating a crisis does make it pretty clear that the leader has not been focusing on continually making the business better. The second flaw is that people on a burning platform do tend to rush to the edge and leap off – self preservation is a pretty strong motivation in real and in corporate life. The problem is that 24/7 leader who created the crisis and demanded action is now left with people running in all directions leaping for whatever lifeboat they can find. Whether that is in the direction the company needs, or the 24/7 leader wanted is irrelevant. So lots of people run about (the platform is after all on fire) in all directions but does anything actually change?
Who knows because after creating the burning platform the 24/7 leaders attention wanders off towards next. And the real problem then appears – creating burning platforms is like a drug. And 24/7 leaders need bigger and more regular hits. More and more people are caught up on burning platforms until they, and I am sure their customers, vote with their feet.
This message from the CEO of Nokia encapuslates my argument rather well.
A definition of leadership that I think most people would understand is that a leader changes things. Its really that simple. Leaders don’t shout or create burning platforms, they don’t aspire to be on the corporate equivalent of the 24/7 news channels, and they don’t get things done by shouting at people. Leaders know what is going on in their business, what might have to change to keep the business fresh and alive and how to communicate that to their people. Leaders have followers, they have a sense of purpose and they are individuals who can communicate and change things.
And the most important aspect is for a leader to work with people to get things done.
Does anyone think differently? What have you seen leaders do well? Or badly?
The Burble 