Command | INSYNC Management Solutions

Servant Leadership

Author Tony Mackay

Servant Leadership is a term that was first introduced into the leadership vernacular in 1970 by retired AT&T executive Robert K. Greenleaf. Greenleaf coined the term to describe what he believed was a type of leadership that was missing in corporations at the time. Greenleaf identified the need for a type of leadership where the leader’s role was to facilitate the success of their followers for the greater good of the organisation. It was Greenleaf’s belief that leadership should be based on serving the needs of others and helping them to serve those who they lead so that they would in turn become Servant Leaders themselves.

But Greenleaf did not invent the concept of Servant Leadership. One of the earliest examples of Servant Leadership is captured in biblical scriptures describing Jesus washing the feet of his disciples and telling them to wash each other’s feet. This was a demonstration by Jesus, that leadership is not about having power over others, but rather giving power to them. Within the military context, one of the most crucial ranks in most armies is that of the Sergeant. The word Sergeant derives its origins from the Latin word Serviens, which means to serve.

Greenleaf worked on the concept of Servant Leadership for 20 years, but it did not gain popular status until Greenleaf passed away in 1990. While there has been a lot written about the concept of Servant Leadership since 1970, it has been criticised due to the lack of published empirical research on the topic.

While most people would interpret and understand Greenleaf’s concept of Servant Leadership, as the ‘leader as servant’, his notion of the ‘servant as leader’ may be less understood. This is a very important distinction as the ‘servant as leader’ draws a very different image of the role of the leader. This misinterpretation has happened because like so many leadership concepts, much of the research and literature has not been fully read or understood by those espousing it. This is evident in the common abbreviation of Greenleaf’s seminal essay on the subject entitled “The Servant as Leader” to “Servant Leadership”. Greenleaf never intended for the Servant as Leader to be interpreted literally as the Servant Leader, which conjures images of leaders being subservient to their followers and where the leader needs to transform into a servant. Rather, Greenleaf inferred that servants can, and should lead and that this mindset of the Servant as Leader should be front of mind for all leaders as they ascend the leadership ladder.

Supporters of Servant Leadership see it as an altruistic form of leadership where the leader acts as steward and influences their followers through the demonstration of leadership behaviours and characteristics such as integrity, honesty, and empathy manifested as a genuine concern for their followers. Hence, as humans are not autonotoms and perform better when they are able to relate to their leader and feel a sense of belonging to a group or organisation, it is logical to assert that the application of Servant Leadership will help leaders influence their followers.

Greenleaf wrote about the Servant Leader being a servant first and referenced ‘Leo’ a character from a story Greenleaf read about Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the East. In this story, Leo served a wealthy family and was central to maintaining harmony and proper functioning of the group. At a certain point, Leo disappears and the family falls into disarray. Later Hesse finds Leo leading a group of his own people and realises that it was Leo’s leadership and influence that had unified the family.

Servant Leadership begins with a natural desire to serve first. Then conscious choice, the situation, and time allows the servant to grow and want to lead. A person who is a servant first is very different from one who is a leader first. One who desires to lead first may desire this based on a feeling or need for power, or merely to acquire material possessions. In some cases this person may later choose to serve after leadership is established.

“The leader-first and the servant first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature”.
Robert K. Greenleaf

The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the Servant Leader to ensure other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best way to think about Servant Leadership is to ask if those being led grow as people because of the Servant Leader’s leadership? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived? This is where Servant Leaders need to be careful not to desire the adoration of their followers to the point of being weak or soft on bad behaviour or poor performance. This is what I refer to as the “Nice Leader Fallacy”.

Critics of Servant Leadership cite the lack of published research on the efficacy of the concept and infer that so long as leadership is associated with power, leaders will not be able or willing, to adopt a higher standard of leadership. It is especially true of leaders in business and in politics that the task of achieving ever greater returns for shareholders or winning the next election means there is a significant focus on the task or mission rather than on the welfare of the followers. In this scenario, the followers, aka workers or voters are merely tools for the leader to achieve their goals.

At the end of the 20th Century, there were at least 650 definitions of leadership. While there is no consensus on the meaning of the word leadership, most would agree that leadership is the process of influencing people to achieve shared goals and deliver a vision.

This implies that the followers, follow the leader not because they are forced to, or because they are being paid, but rather because they believe in the leader and the leader’s vision.

Leadership is a very broad discipline and covers self-leadership, often in the context of self-discipline and self-actualisation or transcendence, religious organisations, sporting teams, charities and non-profit organisations, emergency services, and the military, politics, and business.

Some examples of true leaders include Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa. These leaders were able to mobilise large groups of people to follow them and indeed to participate in the execution of their missions and visions, without being paid or coerced, and without fear of punishment for non-compliance.

Based on the above ‘common definition’ and examples, true leadership can only exist if there is an absence of authority, with no consequence for the followers who choose not to comply or follow. This is because where the ‘leader’ has authority over the followers, they are not truly leading them, they are directing them. In this scenario, if the follower chooses not to follow, there are consequences. These might be being overlooked for a promotion or being found unsuitable to continue in the organisation, and in some situations could result in more dire consequences such as imprisonment or worse.

Does this mean that the concept of Servant Leadership is not valid in modern society? I don’t believe so. I believe strongly in Servant Leadership as a concept and an approach to leading. In my view Servant Leadership is a logical approach to empowering others to achieve results and for the leader to clear the path and provide the support necessary. I can’t think of a circumstance where this type of leadership would be seen as anything other than appropriate. I do, however, acknowledge that leaders who do not feel secure or safe in their positions will succumb to the pressure to return results more rapidly or in line with unreasonable projections. These leaders are likely to revert to a more authoritarian style of leadership.

This is not a failure of Servant Leadership, but rather a failure of the individual leader. Anyone can apply Servant Leadership and lead high performing teams during an economically prosperous time and within a stable industry. Reverse the circumstances and ask the same leader to lead in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous time and they will likely adopt a much more authoritarian leadership style.

This purist version of leadership, where the leader influences their followers through willing consent is very different to the type of leadership delivered in virtually all business settings. Hence, I submit that there are almost no cases where “business leaders” are in fact leaders at all. Herein lies the dilemma for the future of leadership within a business context, as business leaders do indeed have authority over their followers and there are consequences for followers who choose not to follow.

Business leaders can direct their followers, known as employees, to perform the actions laid down within their employment contracts, which they have agreed to. Therefore, in this context, this type of leadership is not leadership at all, but rather a form of what I refer to as ‘Corporate Command’.

Business tends to follow social trends and the current trend, which has been growing for more than 20 years and seems to be gaining mass, is that of a more socialist, left-wing ideology. For business leaders, most of whom are currently of older generations, this presents a significant challenge.

The challenge for leaders will be how to drive results and maximise shareholder profits while attracting and retaining top talent? I believe the answer lies in the culture of modern organisations, the moral character of the leaders and the attitude and loyalty of the followers.

Organisations and their leaders need to keep pace with changing social attitudes if they are to offer new entrants into their organisations the type of workplace experience expected by those now entering the job market. My own observations of Millennials and Gen Z, indicates they are less focused on salary and status and more focused on job satisfaction and inclusion. They have also grown up in affluent times, are more educated than previous generations, and enter the workforce with little or no previous work experience. Whilst these have been my observations and perceptions, I acknowledge there is little empirical research on the topic.

Business is changing rapidly. Technological advances, social change, geopolitical instability, quantitative-easing and hyper-inflation, the rapid push to ‘green energy’, and the “long pandemic”, all represent an enormous challenge for current and emerging leaders. But change is not a new phenomenon, and while the rate of change today is unarguably greater than at any time in history, the challenge for leaders remains fundamentally the same. How best to lead?

In the 1960’s, Laurance J. Peter established the ‘Peter Principle’ where he asserted that “in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to the level of incompetence”. Anecdotally, many leaders of company’s start their careers in technical or administrative fields, in which they excel. Over time, these individuals are promoted into leadership roles where the skills needed are very different from those of their previous roles. Leaders who expect to be experts in all facets of their business and remain up to date on the latest technologies and social trends will have little time left to lead. Leaders need to focus on the future and on leading, and need to place trust in the other members of the organisation to play their part.

If leaders are to rise to the challenge and lead in a humanistic yet effective manner, they will need to put aside their authority and their egos and discover the power of giving away their power. This is not to say that leaders should ignore underperformance or tolerate bad attitudes or behaviour. Followers have a role to play, and that role comes in the form of ‘servant as leader’.

One way that leaders can better lead during times of rapid change is to adopt a technique used by the military, known as Contributory Dissent. This is where the leader elicits and demands that followers challenge the status quo and contribute through constructive arguments, to discover the best way forward. Everything is on the table until it’s not. Contributory Dissent requires trust and a high level of psychological safety that gives followers the confidence and authority to propose all options. However, once a decision is made, everyone must accept the decision as if it were their own.

Another way that leaders can adapt to rapid change is to adopt a more principled based approach to business management and leadership. This is where the organisation adopts a ‘purpose over process’ approach which emphasises doing what’s right rather than blindly following orders or processes. This requires the leader to make their intent known and to empower and trust followers to make their own decisions and do what’s right. Followers should be encouraged to explore new ways to do business all the while supporting the leader’s intent and remaining firmly focused on the mission and vision.

Conclusion

While there is little empirical evidence that Servant Leadership is effective within the contextual framework of business leadership, it is a form of leadership that helps to distribute leadership throughout the organisation by empowering followers to also act as leaders. Probably the largest criticism of Servant Leadership, other than the lack of empirical research into its efficacy, is that it requires leaders to put aside their egos and relinquish their power and this is difficult for most leaders to do.

In dealing with a future that is changing so rapidly, I believe leaders need to understand the influences of social, generational, technological, environmental, and geopolitical forces on business and on people and adapt to a more humanistic form of leadership.

A final word on Servant Leadership.

The most significant criticism of Servant Leadership is its lack of efficacy. I have personally found that this can be addressed by concurrently employing other forms of leadership such as Situational Leadership developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in the 1970’s.

Delegation

Delegation generally refers to the assigning of responsibility of a function, activity, or task to another individual. Delegating responsibility has the effect of “scaling” the leader’s capacity by removing some burden and reallocating it to another person, freeing the leader up to attend to the most important matters with the knowledge that the subordinate matters are well taken care of.

Leaders, businesses, and organisations need to place trust in the professional ability of their staff, and particularly in their junior leaders. As with the maintenance of standards, leaders and managers must ensure those working for them are not only equipped to carry out those tasks assigned to them but that they do so in a manner appropriate to the required outcome and the circumstance at the time.

Careful observation is necessary to ensure that it is not just the outcome that is considered, but that the path to that outcome is also subject to review. While this may appear to run counter to the accepted philosophy of Mission Command, it should form an important part of the process. A task undertaken does not mean that it has been effectively and safely carried out.

Whilst the leader can delegate responsibility for the performance of a function, activity, or task, he or she cannot hand off accountability for the outcome or the way the delegate achieves that outcome. This accountability inherently resides with the leader and is an ethical, moral, and legal obligation. Leaders may delegate tasks to subordinates, but they cannot delegate their responsibilities.

Delegation is not Abdication.

Junior leaders must uphold the standards set by the organisation and/or senior leaders. Responsibility for the overall performance of an organisation or group remains the responsibility of the individuals occupying senior leadership roles. Leaders should ensure that they do not simply rely on their “orders, directives or intent” being carried out. The high standard expected by senior and junior leaders alike should be similarly expected through all levels and aspects of the organisation. Leaders cannot expect their subordinate leaders and followers to suddenly ‘switch on’ in a crisis or time of high demand if they have not received the training and conditioning necessary for higher end operations.

For delegation to be effective the following conditions need to be established, documented, and understood:

WHO – Formal, documented assignment of responsibility to an individual who is deemed competent, and possesses the requisite skills, knowledge, and experience to properly execute the assigned delegation.

WHAT – Clear and unambiguous statement of intent from the leader to the delegate.

WHERE – Identification of any boundaries for the assigned responsibilities.

WHEN – Notice for when the delegation starts and ends.

HOW – Details of any specific methods or expectations associated with the delegation.

LIMITS – Clearly stated limits of responsibility and authority.

It is crucial to follow this process and set in place these conditions for all delegations, not just for senior leadership roles and management positions. Taking the time to delegate responsibility effectively is important and will ensure the subordinate leader is clear about their responsibilities and how they are expected to carry them out. Failure to delegate effectively is also setting up the subordinate leader to fail in the execution of their delegated responsibility and will result in you spending time to resolve issues or need to continually assist the delegate to perform their assigned duties.

Once all necessary conditions have been set in place and the leader can trust that their delegates are properly equipped to perform their assigned responsibility in the manner expected, it is essential that the leader not only delegates responsibility to act but also the authority to do so without the need to constantly seek higher approval. This is the fundamental basis and essence of Decentralised Command.

Directive Control

For the past 20 years or so, the focus of most modern leadership theorists has been on the need for leaders to create an environment where followers feel safe to contribute fully without fear of ridicule or reprisal. Thus, the transition to the 21^st century has also been a time to transition our approach to leadership and to introduce the concept of Psychological Safety.

Psychological Safety was popularised by organisational behavioural scientist, Amy Edmondson in the early 2000s but its origins extend back to Schein and Bennis in the 1960s. The concept of Psychological Safety has, in-kind, been incorporated into systems such as “Safety Culture” and the Toyota Total Production System (TPS) and is represented in the “Andon Cord” system.

What is Psychological Safety?

Psychological Safety is the ability to “show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences of self-image, status or career” (Kahn 1990, p. 708). It fosters a sense of value in what individuals and teams have to contribute, endows them with a sense of belonging, and empowers them to speak up, collaborate, and experiment.

But this post isn’t about Psychological Safety. Rather it’s concerned with the notion that Directive Control no longer has a place in the leader’s tool kit, and that’s wrong.

The wide adoption of Psychological Safety and the desire of leaders to demonstrate inclusivity may have caused them to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. At the same time as Psychological Safety was experiencing rapid take up throughout the corporate world, society was experiencing a significant shift in behavioural expectations. This shift was seeing diversity and inclusion experience an elevated sense of value and bullying and harassment being called out as inappropriate behaviour and rightly, worthy of punishment.

However, the problem is that the negative bullying and harassment behaviour prevalent at the time has been conflated with the leadership technique known as Directive Control.

The term Directive Control comes from the German ‘Auftragstaktik’ (literally, “mission tactics”) and was the precursor to Mission Command. It is a form of ‘command and control’ developed initially for use by the military and is predicated on the commander giving directions to their subordinates based on their intent. That is, the orders given describe the objective or outcome required, but does not prescribe how to achieve the outcome.

Directive Control tends to conjure images of military commanders yelling orders and punishing subordinates who fail to comply or achieve the objective. But this is a mischaracterisation which has been propagated by ill-informed, self-professed gurus in the leadership consulting circuit, pedalling their own leadership systems and ideologies.

The problem is, Directive Control has become synonymous with poor leadership due to the barrage of articles written that denounce and demonise it and those who employ it.

Directive Control, Mission Command and Command and Control are generally misunderstood terms. This is likely due to the terminology used to label the techniques which seems to imply autocratic, exclusive, and micro-managing forms of dictatorial rule. But this is an incorrect interpretation of these valuable leadership and management techniques.

To properly understand why these techniques are not evil and the value they offer, we need to understand the role of a leader.

While there is no universally accepted definition of leadership it is generally agreed that a leader is someone who creates a vision and influences followers to achieve the objectives required to realise that vision.

Commander’s Intent

Once a leader has formed a vision, which is a view of some desired future state, they will generally express their intent for achieving the vision. This is not detailed planning. Rather this is the ‘what’ to achieve not the ‘how’ to achieve it. The role of subordinate leaders is to take the leader’s intent and create detailed plans.

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

When the military develops plans, they seek out the widest available input from all relevant, credible sources. This is a very inclusive process but deliberately restricts input from those who are not properly informed, positioned or experienced to contribute. At all levels of planning, commanders encourage what the military calls ‘contributary descent’. This is a technique where anyone and everyone involved in the planning is required to raise any concerns or issues they have with the plan. A kind of continuous Debono ‘Black Hat’ review. Once the plan has been agreed and finalised, however, everyone is expected to adhere to it.

Directive Control

Directive Control is a system of leadership where the leader expresses their intent and provides direction to followers on the objectives to be achieved and then empowers them to achieve the necessary outcome within the parameters of a set of ‘freedoms and constraints’[1]. To be truly effective, the leader must educate and mentor their followers for sufficient time to develop trust in their ability to make decisions and the leader must vary their leadership style according to the evolution of the situation.

Decentralised Execution

Decentralised execution is the delegation of decision-making authority to followers, so they may make and implement decisions and adjust their assigned tasks in fluid and rapidly changing situations.

Follower decisions should be ethically based and within the framework of their higher leader’s intent. Decentralised execution is essential to seizing, retaining, and exploiting the operational initiative during operations in environments where conditions rapidly change, and uncertainty is the norm as has become the case in today’s VUCA[2] business world.

Rapidly changing situations and uncertainty are inherent in business where leaders seek to establish a tempo and intensity that their competitors, cannot match.

Decentralised execution requires disseminating information to the lowest possible level so followers can make informed decisions based on a shared understanding of both the situation and their leader’s intent. This empowers followers operating in rapidly changing conditions to exercise disciplined initiative within their leader’s intent.

Generally, the more dynamic the circumstances, the greater the need for initiative to make decisions at lower levels. It is the duty of followers to exercise initiative to achieve their leader’s intent. It is the leader’s responsibility to issue appropriate intent and ensure followers are prepared in terms of education, training, and experience to exercise initiative.

The leader’s intent provides a unifying idea that allows decentralised execution within an overarching framework. It provides guidance within which individuals may exercise initiative to accomplish the desired end-state. Understanding the leader’s intent two levels up further enhances unity of effort while providing the basis for decentralised decision making and execution throughout the depth of the organisation. Followers who understand the leader’s intent are far more likely to exercise initiative effectively in unexpected situations. Under the Mission Command approach to command and control, followers have both responsibility and authority to fulfil the leader’s intent.

Now that we have a shared understanding of the term Directive Control and how it is employed through decentralised execution, you can see how the philosophy of Directive Control is fully congruent with that of Psychological Safety. Hopefully, this has inspired you to consider researching more about Directive Control and Mission Command with the intent of incorporating their philosophies into your leadership style rather than excluding them due to the stigma created by ill-informed leadership gurus.

[1] Freedoms and constraints set out the rules, regulations, and limits of the mission or activity.
[2] Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous (VUCA).

Principles of War

Karl Von Clausewitz (1780-1831) was a Prussian who fought in the Russian Army in the early 19^th century and rose to the rank of General. He started his military training at the age of 12 as a member of the officers’ corps of the Prussian Army and witness some of the most decisive European battles of the times. He was a renowned German military leader and strategist and documented his theories and observations from the battlefields into what is now referred to as the 9 Principles of War.

These 9 principles, or variations thereof, have become standard doctrine for most military forces and are taught to military leaders at all levels. They have endured significant changes in the way war is waged and are as relevant today as on the battlefield at the advent of firearms and artillery.

It’s not too difficult to draw a comparison between Clausewitz and the modern business theorist, Peter Drucker who established many of the guiding principles of modern business management and leadership. Whilst comparing business to battle is a long bow to draw, there are some very similar challenges faced by leaders in the board room as on the battlefield.

Here are the 9 Principles of War as composed by Clausewitz and modified to provide some context for business. See if you can draw a comparison between your workplace and leadership challenges and how they may be used to help you lead your troops to success.

Objective. In battle, the objective is the feature that must be seized, captured, or destroyed. It is the purpose of the mission and the reason for the battle. It is vital that the commander has a clear understanding of the objective and communicates it effectively to every officer and soldier in his command in order to take the objective. The development of clear objectives is equally important in business as is the need to communicate them to all staff in a clear and concise manner. In the business context, the objective is often written as a mission or purpose statement. It’s important that the objective is achievable and than everyone in the organisation is clear about their part to play in capturing the objective.

Offensive. The offensive is the strategy executed to achieve the objective. It should be the most decisive way to seize, capture or destroy the objective. There are often many simultaneous battles waged within the ‘theatre of war’, so it is critical that all troops understand their freedoms and constraints and the limits of exploitation to prevent blue-on-blue clashes or interference with other missions. In business, you must also develop an effective strategy and execute that strategy decisively without overreaching.

Mass. Mass refers to the employment of your full combat power on to the objective rather than just the concentration of forces at a set time and place. This is referred to as synchronisation and is a more holistic approach to the use of force than to converge troops onto the objective. This reduces the exposure of your troops to enemy fire and allows you to achieve more decisive results. In business be careful not to concentrate all your effort on one sector of the market. Where you do focus your efforts, use the breath of your entire organisational capability to secure the victory rather than concentrating the effort of one branch.

Economy of Force. In contrast to the use of mass, economy of force is the offset needed to conserve combat capability. These two principles must be employed in balance to prevent the premature reduction or loss of combat power. Ensure you know how much of your business resources you can afford to dedicate to taking your objective and what your limit of exploitation is. In other words, know when to hold back, stop or even redeploy your efforts.

Manoeuvre. Manoeuvre is the shaping of the battlefield by the deployment and redeployment of troops and military equipment in relation to the enemy, for the purpose of gaining advantage over the objective. Manoeuvre is used to exploit enemy weaknesses, preserve own troops’ freedom of action, and direct firepower for best effect. Being flexible and able to pivot is critical to business in the modern world. Ensure your business is prepared to embrace change and that manoeuvre is core to your long-term business strategy.

Unity of Command. The decisive action necessary for the achievement of the objective requires all troops to fight under the direction of a single commander. This is not to say that there is only one leader responsible for directing forces, but rather there is one commander who is the ultimate decision-maker and executor of the mission. All other leaders and followers must support the commander’s intent if the objective is to be taken. This can be very challenging in the current business climate. The adoption of Servant Leadership as the dominant approach to leading and juggling decentralised command or “employee empowerment”, doesn’t remove the responsibility of the leader to issue clear directions or subordinate leaders and employees from following them.

Security. The best defence is a good offence, but never forget to maintain security as it enhances your freedom of action. You must identify your vulnerabilities and mitigate enemy attacks before they can disrupt your operations. Security is developed from the market intelligence you gather, and the surveillance of your competition. It allows you to anticipate their actions and manoeuvre to counter their disruption of the market or impact on your business.

Surprise. You should always attack your enemy at a time and place of your choosing when he is least prepared or able to defend or counter-attack. Surprise and the swift application of mass can upset the enemy’s momentum and shift the balance of power in your favour. Innovation and speed to market are two effective ways to use the principle of surprise in a business context.

Simplicity. Your battle plans must be clear, concise, and complete, leaving no doubt in the minds of your troops as to what needs to be done to take the objective. The development of simple plans is not easy and requires the removal of uncertainty and complexity through wargaming and other similar techniques. In the same way, your business plan must be clear and easily understood by everyone in your organisation. Developing simple plans helps to overcome the inertia that prevents the effective execution of so many business plans.

Accountability

Whenever staff hear executives and leaders use the “A word”, that’s ‘accountability, they collectively become defensive and feel targeted for blame. Their shoulders drop, they look down and feel the burden of responsibility for all past, present or future business failures.

In business, the term accountability has taken on a very negative connotation because of the way it’s being used. The Oxford Dictionary defines being accountable as being:

“responsible for your decisions or actions and expected to explain them when you are asked”

The words used in this definition are very important and deliberately do not mention results or outcomes. That’s not to say that we should never be held responsible for the result of our actions and there are many examples where we should. Acting inappropriately, unethically, negligently or illegally are examples where individuals or groups must be held to account, not only for their actions but also their outcomes.

However, in business we need our people to feel comfortable and empowered to extend themselves, try new approaches, be innovative, and take appropriate risks. No one is going to do this if their leaders hold them accountable for the outcome when things go wrong. There are many factors that affect results and outcomes that are completely outside the control of the individual; thus, leaders should only hold their staff accountable for those things that are in their control. To coin a military phrase, this is because “the enemy has a say in your plan”. If outcomes were guaranteed and forgone conclusions, every business would be equally successful. What we want from our staff is that they perform their duties in a manner that maximizes the likelihood of success and reduces the risk of failure.

Leaders need to be very clear with their staff about exactly what they mean when they tell them that they are accountable. Doing this correctly sets clear expectations and builds trust.

“People perform at their best when they feel at their best”

Daniel Goleman

Being accountable means doing what’s right to the best of your ability. It means treating others with respect, being of good character, being loyal to your organization, your leadership and your colleagues, and living according to your values and those of the organization. It means making well informed decisions and preforming actions based on those decisions. These are the non-negotiable accountable items. If you do these well, the chance of the outcome being positive is greatly improved, but if not successful, it is clear that you did everything you could and that’s all you could be expected to do.

The message leaders should tell their staff is that being accountable is about being of good character, being loyal, and doing what’s right. It’s about making informed decisions and acting accordingly and it’s about living your values. These are the things you are accountable for.

Group Think

Have you ever experienced a situation where you have been part of a well-intentioned group of people who have made an irrational or sub-optimal decision because you felt the need to conform to what you thought the group wanted or because not conforming seemed wrong or impossible? You may have succumbed to what’s known as Group Think.

Group Think can cause individuals to go against their personal beliefs and form a consensus with the group. This can be caused by a compelling narrative or a specific agenda as is often seen in both left-wing socialist organisations such as universities and many businesses today, to alt-right-wing supremacist groups.

Group Think is not new and can be traced back to the earliest times in human evolution, but it wasn’t until 1971 when Irving Janis published an article on the subject in a prominent psychological journal, that the phenomenon was properly characterised and given the term “Group Think”. Janis’s research found that decisions made by groups, particularly under stressful conditions, tended to be based on a desire for harmony rather than on critical thinking.

Individuals often reframe from expressing their true thoughts and tend to be more ‘agreeable’ and less likely to express doubts or exercise their better judgment. The desire for harmony, fear of criticism, and avoidance of conflict lead to conformance with the popular narrative and can result in decisions being made that seem reasonable but are ethically and morally questionable.

Group Think plays out across the full spectrum of society from dogmatic political and religious ideology, school bullies, fanatical sports fans, and organisations that implement policies to conform with current business and social trends.

Group Think also extends to those who accept group decisions by not objecting to them. This can be as subtle as walking past someone being bullied and doing nothing, or agreeing with a poor decision in order to be seen as loyal to a friend, spouse, boss, or organisation. To paraphrase Jack Welch, today’s lack of candor is the dirty little secret of business.

When Group Think is prevalent, the group tends to act in solidarity and can ostracise those who are not part of the group or who think differently. At an organisational level, Group Think can lead to poor decision making and is synonymous with operating in an “Echo Chamber”. The impacts of decisions made as a result of Group Think can be significant and range from common business decisions like ‘positive discrimination’ or ‘minority balancing’ to social policy or even riots and war.

It’s up to leaders to develop, support, and even demand open, honest, and frank discourse as a means to prevent Group Think from tainting their decision-making process. The next time you are in a meeting really think about the topic being discussed and have the courage and conviction to state your views without fear and with the knowledge that others are probably thinking the same thing but aren’t prepared to speak up. If you don’t feel you can do this, you should reconsider if you are part of an organisation that values you, your experience, and your input.

Fit not Fix

Good leaders leverage the strengths of those in their charge and render their weaknesses irrelevant. They ‘fit’ them to roles that suit their strengths rather than try to fix their weaknesses.

Too often leaders feel that any employee should be able to do any job that they are tasked with. This is just not right. This is the same as trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Is it any wonder why there are so many performance issues in organisations today.

Leaders need to understand that people possess specific and unique skills that differ from person to person. Some people possess skills more appropriate to working in collaboration in large groups whilst other people possess skills more suited to working individually and on analytic tasks. Effective leaders identify individual’s skills and strengths and match those individuals with the right tasks. Ineffective leaders waste valuable time and effort trying to shape people in ways they aren’t suited.

A great sports metaphor speaks of playing to your strengths and this is the same in business. This doesn’t mean it’s OK to ignore weakness; however, believing that you will turn and individual’s weakness into their strength is false hope. It is far better to identify individual areas of strength and to further develop those than it is to expect transformational change based on an amount of ‘gap training’. As it’s rare in organisations for any effort to be based on an individual rather than a team, identifying each person’s strengths and directing them accordingly will return the best results.

Teams are only as strong as their weakest member. Having each member of the team work at their highest and best potential means engaging them in their specific areas of strength. Any perceived weakness of any of the individuals in the team should be addressed by allocating a team member who has the requisite strength in that area. While this may sound like identifying a problem and ignoring it, this is more akin to ensuring that each individual team member is employed to utilise their specific experience, knowledge, and skills to their best effect.

Leading in, and out of a crisis

Despite the day to day challenges faced by business leaders, rarely, very rarely do business leaders have to lead their organisations in what the military refers to as a VUCA environment.

The acronym VUCA stands for Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous and was first coined by PROF Warren Bennis in 1987, and quickly adopted by the US Army War College. Hence, the term VUCA is most commonly associate with the chaos of war. The COVID-19 pandemic impacting the world and more narrowly impacting business has produced a VUCA environment.

Most larger organisation have well-developed business continuity and disaster recovery plans able to deal with short term ICT issues, the need to vacate their buildings and work from home or implement some other short term plan. I wonder how many organisations can truly say their plans were developed to cope with prolonged periods operating in a VUCA environment, potentially for months, years, or longer? Plans are absolutely vital, especially in emergencies, but strong, decisive leadership is what will see organistaions through an extended VUCA period.

Leaders leading in a VUCA environment need to possess and demonstrate courage, stoicism, and the ability to apply critical thinking to solve what seems like insurmountable problems. The character traits of great leaders are forged over time based on their experiences, but the ability to stop, observe, gather facts, confirm assumptions and use deductive reasoning to inform decisions, is a process that can be learned and applied to great effect.

This simple process can also be applied during Business as Usual (BAU) to rationally solve any problem by applying logic, void of emotion. This does not mean that the leader should be emotionless, but rather not let their emotions override the logic and their better judgment. The ability to stop, relax, observe, gather facts, confirm assumptions, and used deductive reasoning is an easy process to learn but is even easier to forget when making decisions under pressure.

Planning Process

If you’ve spent time working in middle or upper management in any business, you would have participated in, or possibly led a planning session. I’m also going to bet, most of you have been involved in a planning session where it was crystal clear that the person in charge had absolutely no idea what they were doing and everything seemed made up then and there!

I hear this complaint so often I’m sharing the technique I use, and teach, for how to facilitate a planning session. I’m not talking about the simple, ad hoc ‘who, what, where, when, how, and how much’, planning sessions, although they are also problematic so follow the link to my article on developing Immediate Action Plans. I’m talking about detailed and often complex planning, necessary to effect change, implement a new initiative, or solve a “Wicked Problem“.

Whether the planning needed is very simple or extremely complex you need a process to follow; otherwise, you really don’t know what you are doing! Imagine if you had a simple, repeatable, scalable process to guide you through your planning session anytime you need to be “that person in charge”.

You’d be surprised how many organisations don’t have structured planning processes in place. Some organisations use processes such as the Observe, Orientate, Decide , Act Loop, ( OODA-loop), Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), or even Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA).

Being a former member of the Australian Army, I’ve been trained in the use of the Military Appreciation Process (MAP), and in the years since leaving the military, I have used an adaptation of the MAP to help structure my planning. I have also taught this process to clients to help them add structure to their planning sessions.

I have included my version of the MAP based planning process in this article as a model you can use to guide you through your future planning session. This planning model is deliberately basic on the surface to make it easy to interpret and allow you to start using it straight away. With a little training, you can dive into the detail, unpack its power and use it to guide you through the development of very complex plans to address even the most difficult problems.

To employ the model, start in the centre, work your way out, and then work clockwise from blue to red, to orange, and finally green. Like most processes, this model is iterative, so when you get to the end, you may choose to continue to use the model to further refine your plans over time.

“In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”

General Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Good Follower?

Credit to Scott Adams

There can be no leadership without followers. The problem is, some followers are better than others!

Some followers follow a leader out of necessity, such as their lives depend on it, others follow out of a genuine belief in the cause or the message, whilst some follow out of sheer curiosity! Some will refuse to follow or will be disruptive and difficult because they don’t trust or believe in the leader, or they feel they should be the leader. Aristotle said:

“He who cannot be a good follower cannot be a good leader.”

This is as true today as at any time in history. But does this mean being a follower is an experience necessary for becoming a good leader?

Many people are able to understand how their subordinates think and feel, and don’t need to experience good or bad leadership to know the difference. They possess the ability to lead well through their empathy, genuine good character, and the application of sound leadership principles. An example of this is Officer training in the military. I have seen some very good leaders who started their careers as Officer Cadets, having never followed a leader outside of the home, school, or sporting teams.

I have also seen some not-so-good leaders who served as soldiers before transferring to become Officers. This is not to say that it plays out one way or the other all of the time and I know many outstanding converts. However, it is likely that effective leaders who start their journey higher up the leadership ladder already possessing the foundations needed to be a good leader will climb higher.

I always stress to clients and mentees that there are no born leaders. Leaders are shaped by their environment, their experience, their conditioning, and the wisdom of their mentors. Starting out higher up the leader ladder doesn’t contradict Aristotle’s notion that you must first be a good follower.

No matter where you start your leadership journey, you will almost always be subordinate to one or more other leaders; thus, you may be a leader to some, but you will likely be a follower to others. Those who ascend directly to positions of leadership still need the ability to be good followers or at least understand what it takes to be loyal to a leader. After all, we all wear different ‘hats’ as we ascend as leaders and it is rare that anyone reports to no one! If you have empathy for those who follow you, you don’t need to spend as much time being a follower in order to become a good leader. However, if you are a leader of some and a follower of others, as most are, you need to be loyal to your leader and always strive to align your leadership of others with your “leader’s intent”.

The risk of being a long-term follower with no leadership responsibility is that it can have the unintended consequence of conditioning you to believe that you are not cut out to be a leader. Being a follower can be a comfortable existence, especially if you are led by a highly competent leader who is truly empathetic and takes care of all your needs. Prolonged periods of ‘servitude’ to such a leader may condition you to need others to make decisions for you and not allow you to develop self-belief and confidence in your ability to lead. If you can’t visualise yourself out in front, taking charge and making decisions, you probably can’t lead.

Whilst you don’t strictly need to have been a follower to be a good leader, you do need to know how to follow first. It’s comparable to being an academic such as a teacher with no real-world experience in the subjects you teach.

As you mature as a leader you will likely come to realise that Servant Leadership is arguably the most effective way to lead. Servant Leaders understand that the role of a leader is to enable and grow your followers by serving them. This is not to say that you are their servant, but rather, you take on the role of the leader who ensures your followers are given every opportunity to succeed and you clear any roadblocks for them. Your position as a leader is both a privilege and a responsibility, not a right or a reward.