+61 8 8123 0393 info@insyncms.com.au

The Power of Empathy in Leadership

Empathy, a cornerstone of emotional intelligence, holds the key to fostering connections and enhancing leadership effectiveness. While the term “empathy” is commonly used, it encompasses three distinct types: Emotional Empathy, Cognitive Empathy, and Empathic Concern. As leaders, delving into each type of empathy, understanding their intricacies, and appreciating their impact on leadership is essential.

Emotional Empathy: Stepping into Others’ Emotions

Emotional Empathy, also known as affective empathy, is the ability to grasp and share the emotions of others. It’s akin to immersing oneself in another’s emotional state, experiencing their feelings as if they were one’s own. Leaders employing emotional empathy build profound connections with team members, fostering trust and rapport.

Benefits of High Emotional Empathy for Leaders:

Strengthened Bonds: Emotional empathy fortifies relationships, crafting an environment where individuals feel acknowledged and comprehended.

Conflict Resolution: Leaders adept in emotional empathy navigate conflicts more adeptly by empathizing with all parties’ emotions and perspectives.

Employee Well-being: Demonstrating emotional empathy cultivates a positive work culture, promoting well-being and reducing stress among employees.

Challenges of Emotional Empathy for Leaders:

Emotional Fatigue: Experiencing others’ intense emotions can drain leaders emotionally, especially when boundaries are challenging to establish.

Bias in Decision-Making: Over-identifying with emotions might skew decision-making, potentially prioritizing feelings over rationality.

Cognitive Empathy: Viewing the World Through Others’ Eyes

Cognitive Empathy, often called perspective-taking, involves understanding another’s thoughts and viewpoints without necessarily sharing their emotions. It means adopting their perspective intellectually and seeing the world from their standpoint. Leaders with cognitive empathy excel in comprehending diverse outlooks, enhancing their communication and problem-solving skills.

Benefits of High Cognitive Empathy for Leaders:

Inclusive Leadership: Cognitive empathy enables leaders to embrace diversity, appreciating team members’ unique viewpoints.

Effective Communication: Leaders practicing cognitive empathy tailor their communication, improving clarity and understanding across various audiences.

Collaborative Problem Solving: This form of empathy equips leaders to tackle challenges by anticipating the needs and concerns of various stakeholders.

Potential Drawbacks of Cognitive Empathy for Leaders:

Emotional Disconnect: Relying solely on cognitive empathy might hinder emotional bonding with team members, impeding the creation of strong relationships.

Misinterpretations: Misunderstanding emotions and underestimating their influence on decisions can lead to misunderstandings and misaligned expectations.

Empathic Concern: Beyond Understanding to Action

Empathic concern, or compassionate empathy, transcends grasping emotions or perspectives. It’s about genuinely caring for others’ well-being and being driven to alleviate their suffering and enhance their happiness. This form of empathy compels individuals to actively support others in meaningful ways.

Positive Impact of Empathic Concern for Leaders:

Fostering Relationships: Leaders showing empathic concern build profound relationships with team members. When employees sense genuine care from their leader, they feel valued and engaged.

Boosting Morale: Empathic leaders cultivate a supportive work environment, addressing team members’ concerns and enhancing unity and morale.

Resolving Conflicts: Empathic concern equips leaders to understand all parties’ emotions in conflicts, facilitating effective and sensitive resolution.

Enhanced Communication: Genuine concern enhances leaders’ listening and communication, preventing misunderstandings and nurturing trust.

Challenges of Empathic Concern for Leaders:

Emotional Strain: Deep investment in others’ well-being can lead to emotional exhaustion, affecting decision-making and overall effectiveness.

Balancing Objectivity: While valuable, empathic concern must not overshadow rational decisions necessary for the organization’s greater good.

Boundary Dilemmas: Balancing empathy with professional boundaries is complex, potentially blurring lines between personal and professional relationships.

Perceived Weakness: High empathic concern might be misconstrued as weakness, undermining leaders’ authority and effectiveness.

Putting this Knowledge into Action to Aid Leaders’ Interactions

Understanding these forms of empathy empowers leaders to interact more effectively with their followers. By recognizing the nuances of emotional empathy, cognitive empathy, and empathic concern, leaders can tailor their approaches to different situations. Balancing empathy with rational decision-making ensures effective leadership that builds strong relationships, nurtures team morale, and resolves conflicts, while avoiding pitfalls like emotional exhaustion and perceived weakness. Empathy, when harnessed adeptly, paves the way for impactful leadership that drives both personal and organizational growth.

Situational Leadership

The saying “one size fits all” really doesn’t work when it comes to leadership. Afterall, we are all different and unique. We have different beliefs, values, abilities, motivations, and aspirations. So, as leaders, why do we assume we can lead everyone in the same way? We can’t.

Imagine you’re fresh out of school and it’s your first day at a new job. You have no real understanding of what your role requires of you and therefore no idea how to achieve the list of outcomes on your new position description, if you’re lucky enough to have one. You complete some notional induction training and tick off some items on a HR check list and then you’re off. Your new boss comes over to you and rattles off 10 lines of instructions with no context or explanation then disappears into his office. How do you think you will perform? Not great I bet.

Now imagine you have been working in your role for 10 years. You have completed multiple advanced training courses and regularly provide advice and guidance to more junior staff. What goes through your mind when your boss continuously insists on explaining what she needs you to do and how she requires you to do it? Pretty annoyed and undervalued I’d bet.

Now we’re somewhat conflating leadership with management here, after all its rare that you’ll be just a leader or a manager, can you see how each of these staff members have different needs and hence need to be led in different ways?

In 1969, researchers Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard created their ‘life cycle theory of leadership’ while working on Management of Organizational Behaviour. During the mid 1970’s the theory was renamed Situational Leadership Theory.

The origins of Situational Leadership stem from related research conducted at Ohio State University on what they referred to as the two-factor theory of leadership. The researchers postured that leadership styles are dependent on task behaviour and relationship behaviour.

In the early 1980s, Hersey and Blanchard both developed their own slightly divergent versions of the Situational Leadership Theory. Hersey developed the Situational Leadership Model while Blanchard expanded the theory and developed the Situational Leadership II model, in popular use today.

The fundamental principle of the situational leadership model is that there is no single style of leadership that is effective in every situation. To be effective, the leadership style used needs to be task-relevant, and the most successful leaders are those who can adapt their leadership style to the performance level of the individual or group they lead, in terms of their ability and willingness. Effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group being led, but also based on the task, job, or function that needs to be performed.

The Situational Leadership Model has two fundamental concepts: leadership style and the individual or group’s performance readiness level, also referred to as their development level.

The figure below shows the relationship between the individual’s development level and the level of leader support they require.

As you move around the model, you’ll see that those at the Development Level 1 (D1), require the leader to demonstrate a high level of Directing Behaviour. That is to say that those who are new to a role, task, or scenario will need to be told what to do and how to do it and will require the highest level of support and direction compared to someone with much more training and experience.

As the individual gains more experience, they will move to Development Level 2 (D2), where the support they require from their leader is less directing and more coaching. At this level, the individual understands the principles of the task but lacks the full knowledge for how to complete the task on their own. At the D2 level the individual no longer needs to be told what to do but may need to be reminded how to perform certain aspects of the task. At this level the leader should promote more autonomy and lead by coaching the individual to recall their training and to put it into action. There may also be a need to confirm the training and even go back over certain aspects that may not have been fully understood.

Once the individual becomes competent, they may still lack the experience and confidence needed to function in a totally autonomous fashion. At this Development Level 3 (D3), the individual is capable of completing the task or performing their role, but may need reassurance, affirmation, and varying degrees of leader support.

At Development Level 4 (D4), the individual is highly competent and capable of completing the task or their role independently, with little or no direction. Here, the leader need only delegate the task and seek status reports on progress.

Situational Leadership Model

The basic directing and supporting behaviours for each Development Level are detailed in the table below. You will see how leaders can be seen to be ‘micromanaging’ their staff when they may be simply treating everyone as if they are stuck at Development Level 1 (D1).

Inversely, the busy leader who assumes their staff are all at Development Level 4 (D4), may seem to be absent and to be delegating or even abdicating their responsibilities, by staff who need their support.

Situational Leadership Support Behaviours

This is a very brief overview of Situational Leadership Theory designed to stimulate thought and discussion. There are several criticisms of the theory with the main one being that it’s possible for individuals to be at a level D3 or D4 for some tasks while still being at a level D1 or D2 for others. The Leader would therefore need to have and maintain a very high degree of awareness of each individual team member’s Development Level and the amount of support they need. Situational Leadership is also difficult to apply to a team scenario when the individuals within the team are at different Development Levels.

Despite these and other criticisms, it is useful for leaders to know that each member of their team will likely be at different Development Levels and will therefore require different levels of support from Directing, to Coaching, Supporting and Delegating.

Once you are familiar with Situational Leadership Theory, you may find yourself spending more time observing those you lead, assessing their Development Levels, and trying to provide the support you feel they need. Be careful that you don’t attempt to implement Situational Leadership as a wholesale leadership style.

Having a basic knowledge of Situational Leadership Theory allows leaders to understand that the leadership style they use and the level of support they provide, should be tailored to match the needs of those they lead.

Servant Leadership

Author Tony Mackay
Sir Richard Branson Serving a Customer - Credit CNN Travel

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.

True Resilience

A lot has been written about the need for leaders to be resilient, and for good reason. Leadership is hard and the business world and life, in general, can be brutal and unforgiving, but what does it really mean to be resilient? Websters’ dictionary defines resilience as: 

  • the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress; and

  • an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.

Both of these definitions are predicated on reacting to some force, misfortune, or change that has impacted the object, in this case the leader, and the object’s ability to recover and adapt to the force or change. 

Despite not having a thick hide or razor-sharp claws and teeth, humans have adapted to natural forces and changes for thousands of years and survived to become the dominant species on the planet. 

This has been due, in part, to our large brains, our endurance, and our reliance on our social networks, our tribes. It was also because we were able to evolve and adapt to the harsh climate and environment. Since the origins of mankind, our evolution has aligned perfectly with Darwin’s theory of evolution which states that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. 

 It’s our ability to endure physical and emotional stress and to incrementally adapt to it, that has allowed us to evolve and succeed as a species. In essence, our evolution and survival has really been a case of “what didn’t kill us, truly did make us stronger”.  

 Resilience is a critical ability needed by all leaders in order to deal with the myriad of forces that impact them on a daily basis. 

 So why is it some leaders seem to be more resilient than others? What’s their secret? 

Well, it might just be that the need to be resilient has been over-stated, as it is far better to build your capacity and strength to deal with these forces and changes at the time and not be impacted in a way that takes you down resulting in needing to get back up. Leaders need to be mentally, physically, and spiritually tough. They need to be able to take a punch and keep punching back. Applying the current guidance, resilience would be the equivalent of being a boxer who gets knocked down and gets back up and continues this cycle until he can’t get back up anymore. 

 It’s far better to spend time learning how to anticipate the punches, and training to develop your physical strength and mental toughness so you don’t get knocked down at all. 

How we respond to modern forces and changes and the stresses they thrust upon us, impact how our bodies cope with the release of stress hormones. The primary hormonal mediators of the stress response, glucocorticoids and catecholamines, have both protective and damaging effects on the body. In the short term, glucocorticoids promote the conversion of protein and lipids to usable carbohydrates. Glucocorticoids also act on the brain to increase appetite for food and to increase locomotor activity and food seeking behaviour (Leibowitz and Hoebel 1997). This can adversely affect regulating behaviours that control energy input and expenditure. 

Glucocorticoids can be an essential source of energy if you need to run a kilometre to evade a predator but will likely have negative health effects if the stress is caused by a business deadline that has you stuck behind your keyboard eating junk food and drinking soft drink or coffee, for hours on end. 

Being inactive whilst having chronically elevated levels of glucocorticoids can interfere with the action of insulin and reduce glucose uptake causing insulin levels to increase. The combination of elevated levels of insulin and glucocorticoids cause an increase in body fat deposits and can cause the formation of atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries (Brindley and Rolland 1989). 

So how do we train ourselves to be better able to deal with stress and be more resilient?

Sports science has embraced and used incremental physical stress (exertion) as a means of adapting the body to ever increasing loads or effort. This exertion has a neurological impact on the body through the nervous system but does not result in the sort of anxiety disorders, depressive illness, hostile and aggressive states, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cardiovascular disease (CVD) and other systemic disorders related to mental stress. This is an important distinction as stress is stress, regardless of whether it is physical or mental. 

So why doesn’t physical stress cause illness? Well it can and it does; however, the brain will generally not allow the body to accept more physical stress than it’s comfortable dealing with, as a safeguard to prevent injury. 

Elite military units and Special Forces know this, and invest heavily in the development of their troop’s mental toughness. They know that the mind will give in well before the body. The Navy Seals have called this the 40% Rule. This is where most ‘normal’ people will give up when physical activity seems too hard, even though they have only used 40% of their energy reserves.  It is possible to train your mind to override your natural instinct to quit and keep ‘pushing through the pain’ if you have the determination and grit to do so. This can be very dangerous and it’s critical that you honestly know your limits otherwise, you can suffer from Rhabdo-my-olysis, the breakdown of skeletal muscle commonly known as muscle-meltdown. Muscle breakdown causes the release of myoglobin into the bloodstream. Myoglobin is the protein that stores oxygen in your muscles. If you have too much myoglobin in your blood, it can cause renal failure, kidney damage, and death. This is just one example of how overstressing the body can result in very dire consequences. 

But humans often and very deliberately subject themselves to high levels of physical stress we call exercise and the result, very more often than not, is an increase in physical strength, speed, endurance, or whatever physical attribute is enhanced by the specific activity undertaken. The body adapts to the activity. This is known as the SAID principle (Specific Adaption to Imposed Demands). In other words, the body adapts to whatever stress it is subjected to. The more the body is exposed to the activity, the less it is negatively impacted. 

It is of course possible to overtrain and become injured. The incremental improvements to the body occur over long periods and require not only the stimulus of exercise but also the recovery provided by adequate rest and nutrition. 

The mental stress endured by people working long hours under poor conditions with no ability to take a break from the stress is what causes negative health effects. Unlike exercise where you undertake a high degree of physical stress for a relatively short period, followed by rest and nutrition, people often work under very high stress loads for long periods of time and this is not good. 

There are only really three things that can be done to change this. You can quit your job and find something to do that doesn’t cause you a high level of mental stress, but this is not particularly desirable or even possible for most people especially if you have invested a lot of time and effort in advancing your chosen career. The second way is to create a work environment where there is an understanding of the negative effects of stress on workers. In this scenario, the leaders in the organisation must understand the impact they have on the employee’s levels of stress and take real and positive steps to monitor and manage stress levels. The third way is to develop the mental toughness needed to be able to cope with elevated levels of stress so that over time these stress levels become normalised in the same way as incremental increases in exercise effort develops muscle. 

In my experience, the best way to deal with stress in the workplace is a combination of good leadership and the development of mental toughness. 

Being mentally tough and resilient is critically important so you can weather incremental forces and changes, and adapt to them over time. The way to develop your mental toughness is through exposure to periods of adversity over long spans of time. It’s also worth noting that practicing techniques for reducing stress such as meditation and mindfulness provide rest and recovery for the mind. Keeping fit through regular exercise and eating a healthy diet where you limit or abstain from coffee, soft-drink and alcohol, and definitely from smoking, will contribute to your overall health, well-being, and resilience. 

I hope this has given you a different perspective on what it means to be resilient and a couple of ideas for how you can increase your personal resilience. But remember, as leaders it’s our responsibility to ensure that those we lead are kept safe from unnecessary stress and are given the opportunity to develop the mental toughness they need to cope when the conditions that cause stress are unavoidable.  

The Power of Self-belief

It doesn’t just matter what you think, it also matters what you think about what you think!

There is a correlation between an individual’s confidence and their success and earnings? So, it makes sense that if you want to be successful, raise your status within an organisation or group, and increase your earnings you should turn your attention to developing and growing your confidence. And who doesn’t want to be confident, successful and earn more money, right! 

As humans, we have an amazing ability to identify if someone lacks confidence. We can easily see the tell-tail signs of their nervousness when they speak, in the way they ‘carry themselves and how they cope under pressure or when they are challenged. This is certainly not how you want to be viewed if you are a leader and won’t instil confidence in your followers. Why is it then, some people exude confidence when others with similar experience, skills and knowledge struggle?  Well, the answer may lay in whether or not they believe in themself.  That’s right, no surprise! In order to develop self-confidence you first need to develop self-belief. Some of us have experienced a time when we were so sure of ourselves, so certain of our ability, that we could actually see an image in our mind of our success. When we reflect on that occasion, we recall everything just fell into place, a sense of momentum carried us forward and we felt an abundance of confidence. Unfortunately, many of us have much more experience where despite knowing what needed to be done and how to do it, we did not believe in ourselves and we lack the confidence to excel. We felt we were not up to the challenge and possibly like we were imposters and doomed to fail. This is the effect that having or not having self-belief can have on your confidence and a lack or abundance of confidence can have on your success.

Developing a strong belief in one’s self is both a process and a practice. I’m not talking about self-affirmation, although this can be a very powerful tool to get you over a hump or through a short-term challenge like an impromptu public speaking event. Developing a positive self-image and genuine belief in yourself requires self-awareness, self-reflection, honesty, and a genuine desire and the effort required to address any shortfalls.   

An important distinction though. People often confuse self-belief with self-esteem and confidence, and these are not the same thing. Self-esteem is important. It’s how we see ourselves fitting into society, and according to Maslow, it’s a higher order need. It is, however, possible to have high self-esteem but low confidence. For example, you can ask someone if they are a good person and they may say ‘yes’ but if you ask them “are you really a good person” they might say ‘I’m not that sure that I am”. This might indicate a low level of confidence in their own self-image. Inversely you could ask someone what kind of person they are, and they may say “I’m a terrible person”, and if you ask them are they sure, they may say ‘yep, I’m certain that I’m a terrible person. Therefore, they have a high degree of confidence in their low self-esteem. The risk here, is they may be confident about negative aspects about themselves and that’s not good. This is particularly worrying if the person’s self-image is very bad and their confidence in that self-image is very high, as it could lead to self-harm or worse.

So, it’s important that we understand that confidence, self-belief and self-esteem are not the same things and being confident in your negative self-image or self-belief will have a corresponding negative impact on your performance. 

It doesn’t just matter what you think, it also matters what you think about what you think! 

The relationship between confidence and success is best shown graphically.

Confidence VS Success

The evidence that confidence is critical to success is irrefutable. As confidence rises so does success. The question then is how to build your confidence?

A good start is to develop a positive self-image and belief in yourself. Your own positive view of your self-worth, your value, your ability, and your place in the universe (status) all influence your self-belief, which in turn will underpin and bolster your confidence. It may well be that one of the most important investments you ever make is in your own self-belief, so it is well worth allocating regular periods of time to work on your self-image and self-belief. 

Probably the best example of the benefits of positive self-belief is the impact that “positive-discrimination” has had on the success of females in leadership roles. Whilst males and females are very different in terms of physical attributes and emotional response, they are both equally capable of leading people and organisations and perform better or worse depending on how those they lead need to be led. In recent years women have experienced a significant amount of positive affirmation through government policies, educational institutions, social media and so forth. This has helped catapult them into leadership roles that 20 or 30 years ago would have seemed out of their reach. The effects of gender based positive discrimination has; however, also had the inverse, negative effect on males and stereotyping such as labelling normal masculine traits as “toxic masculinity” has impacted on how men view themselves. 

This is a simple example of how manipulating people’s self-belief can have a positive or negative impact on their performance, their desire to strive to achieve and on actual outcomes. In this example, neither men or women are any better or worse at leading, just different. The development of self-belief has allowed women to have the confidence to challenge the status quo and rise to meet the challenge.

Five Level of Leadership

According to John C. Maxwell, we all have what he refers to as a lid; a leadership lid that is. In his best-selling book, the 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, John describes the “Law of the Lid”, what the lid is, and how it can impact leaders and their organisation.

When explaining the Law of the Lid, John speaks about how organisations can’t rise above the level of its leader’s lid. What he means by this is that the success of the business will always be limited by the ability and capacity of its leaders. This is a very important leadership law to grasp as leaders often attribute a lack of business success to other factors such as market conditions or poor staff performance and results. What they often fail to acknowledge is their leadership lid and that it’s responsible for the business failing.

So, what can be done to raise the lid on your leadership and invariably the success of your business? Well, the first thing is to understand your leadership level and the leadership level of your people.  Below, I paraphrase John’s five levels of leadership so you can determine your current level and identify what you can do to be a better leader and grow your business.

Level 1 – Position. This is the lowest level of leadership. It takes no real leadership knowledge, people skills, or effort to be a level 1 leader. Anyone can be appointed to a leadership position and they often are based on their previous achievements in technical or administrative roles. At level 1, the leader relies on people following them because of their position. This only works because the leader has power over their followers who risk losing their job if they don’t do as they are told. This leadership style is directive and controlling, and stifles innovation and creativity. People who remain at level 1, will find it difficult to work with volunteers because they don’t have power over them and can’t influence them. Volunteers will only follow a leader they want to.

We all start out as level one leaders and not just in our first leadership position. This is because moving past level one requires the building of trust with our followers and that takes time and actions that allow your followers to believe in you as a leader. Level 1 is a prime time to invest in developing your leadership style and growing your potential as a leader. It’s astonishing how many leaders never move beyond level 1, but there’s good news. If you use your time at this level wisely and learn to lead yourself through priorities and self-discipline, you can transition to the next level.

Level 2 – Permission. At this level, leadership is based on relationships and followers choose to follow because they want to. They give the leader permission to lead them. At this level, the leader takes an interest in his or her people and really connects with them at a personal level. You like them and they like you, which is helpful because you can’t lead without followers, so you better learn to like people if you’re going to be a good leader.

If you treat your followers as individuals who are important and have value, you will develop positive influence with them. You will develop trust which will grow into mutual respect and create a positive environment. This holds true at all levels of relationships including family, sports, clubs, and volunteer organisations as it does in the workplace. Level 2 is where lasting relationships are formed which allows you to move to the next level.

Level 3 – Production. The best leaders know that success, be it in business, sport, family, or any enterprise is measured in the deepness of relationships and results achieved. Level 3 leaders inspire and motivate their followers to be highly productive and achieve the desired results. Leveraging relationships to achieve results really is the art of Level 3 leadership. At this level, people still follow the leader because of their relationship but they become highly productive because of the leader’s example.

Level 3 is where the leader is really able to effect change and significantly improve results. Motivation is high, morale goes up and everyone pulls together to improve profits, reduce churn, and achieve the mission. Momentum is created, difficult problems are solved, and bottlenecks are removed. Influencing others to achieve their best is now the game you’re playing and leading becomes enjoyable for you and your followers. Everyone can see the progress and are inspired to be more effective and efficient and achieve more.  

Level 4 – People Development. This level is all about succession and producing the next cohort of leaders.  At Level 4, you identify and develop as many leaders as possible. You invest time, resources, and money in their development to help them grow. Organisations rise and fall on leadership, so it makes sense to have as many good leaders as possible. This will allow your organisation to achieve its mission and be more successful overall.

To be truly effective at this level you need to prioritise investing in your future leaders through deliberate training, structured mentoring, and relevant coaching. Do this continuously and over time you benefit greatly from your investment.

The added benefit of growing leaders within your organisation is that you will have more good leaders, and good leadership is contagious. At this level, you can change the entire culture of the organisation and inspire others to want to be better leaders, and also better followers. Learning to be a better leader is a lifelong pursuit and the mentoring relationships you develop are likely to endure beyond your current organisation.

Level 5 – Pinnacle. The highest level of leadership is also the hardest to attain. It requires a lifelong dedication to investing in the development of others. If you are dedicated and focus on growing yourself and others as you transition through each level of leadership, you will develop other leaders who are willing and able to develop other leaders. By doing this you will eventually reach the leadership pinnacle. Level 5 leaders develop whole organisations. They set the culture and values and create opportunities other leaders don’t. People follow them because of what they stand for and who they are. They develop a reputation as a great leader and inspire others to do the same. Because of this, “Level 5 leaders often transcend their position, their organisation, and sometimes their industry”.

As you transition through the 5 levels of leadership, you don’t discard the previous levels as you move forward. Rather you build upon each previous level by adding new leadership techniques and strategies.

7 Essential Attributes Found in all Great Leaders

Great leaders are characterised by a great number of traits, qualities, and attributes. Here is my pick of the 7 essential attributes found in all great leaders. Developing and applying these 7 attributes will help take you from being a good leader to being a great leader. Reflect on these attributes regularly. Work them into your day-to-day leadership and notice the difference they make straight away.

Wisdom

Wisdom is born of experience, develops as common sense, grows into knowledge, and matures as foresight. Great leaders are lifelong learners who cherish the wisdom of others and constantly look for opportunities to grow their knowledge and share what they’ve learned. If knowledge is power, wisdom is the way leaders share their power.

Optimism

Like master archers of old and the keenest marksmen of today, more often than not we hit the targets we aim for. Hence, it’s best to aim for the results we want rather than to focus on those we don’t. Insidious self-talk and self-doubt are not only destructive to their host but are also damaging in the way they affect others when verbalized. Great leaders know this and look for the good in any situation. Positive, upbeat leaders inspire others with their ability to remain focused on goals and they stay the course in a way that is infectious.

Acceptance of Responsibility

Great leaders accept responsibility. They know the buck stops with them and no one else. They don’t blame market conditions, or the dominance of their competitors and they know there are no bad teams just bad leaders. If their team fails to achieve the results necessary it’s because the leader failed to provide the right direction, guidance, support, tools, funding or opportunities, and may not have provided the correct training or the right resources.

Courage

Leaders are at the helm of all organisations and industries and operate across a large variety of different environments, each with its own unique challenges, threats, and risks. Some environments are physically demanding, remote, or isolated and pose physical dangers such as Defence and law enforcement. Other environments may be less dramatic but can still result in the loss of life or serious injuries such as operating theatres, mining, and firefighting. Regardless of the industry, all leaders need to demonstrate courage and not allow the gravity of the situation to paralyse them and prevent them from taking the necessary action to achieve crucial outcomes. Courage takes many forms, from the Corporal leading his men into battle to the corporate executive briefing shareholders on poor financial results. Courage is an essential quality for any great leader.

Humility

Great leaders are not meek or timid, but they are humble. They don’t speak in terms of “I” or me, they speak in terms of ‘us’ and ‘we’. They know that their role is to set the direction for their team or organisation and then to serve those charged with delivering the outcomes. Humble leaders do not seek the accolades for their success, rather they push them through to their team. When great leaders speak about their success, they praise the hard work and dedication of their team. These leaders are secure in themselves and realise that others know the role they play in setting the direction and supporting their team.

Selflessness

Great leaders are selfless. They put the needs of their team before their own because they understand that the team delivers the outcomes and they merely steer the team in the right direction. Great leaders serve their teams by removing bottlenecks and roadblocks and creating relationships and opportunities. They create a safe environment and encourage their team to stretch themselves knowing they have ‘top cover’ should something go wrong. Great leaders are the first in and last out and always put the welfare of their team ahead of their own. In the military, leaders stay at the back of the line until their troops are fed. If someone is going to miss out, it’s the leader!

Drive

Great leaders set the pace for their organisations. They drive results through their determination, tireless effort, and absolute belief that their plans will yield their desired outcomes. Great leaders monitor the tempo to ensure that they don’t burnout resources or wear out equipment. They are cautious to ensure they maintain ‘one foot on the ground’ as they push forward so they don’t outpace the organisation’s capability or capacity.

Words of wisdom from Jim Rohn

Education

Formal education will make you a living. Self-education will make you a fortune.

Skills

Don’t wish it was easier – wish you were better. Don’t wish for less problems – wish for more skills. Don’t wish for less challenges – wish for more wisdom.

Growth

Don’t join an easy crowd – you won’t grow. Go where the expectations and demands to perform and achieve are high.

Change

We generally change ourselves for one of two reasons. Inspiration or desperation.

Activity

The few who do are the envy of the many who watch.

Success

Success is what you attract by the person you become.

Jim Rohn

Learning from Failure

Learning From Failure…. by Professor Peter Shergold AC, former Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (2002-07).

This report was a review into public administration of major programs and projects such as the Home Insulation Program (HIP), National Broadband Network (NBN Co.) and Building Education Revolution (BER).

Whilst much of what is contained in the report will be generally considered long and drawn out to those of you with little or no interest in public sector process, it contains some real nuggets of gold, such as stressing the need for Government and the Australian Public Service (APS) to not only recognise the importance of adopting and integrating proper program and project management in the design and delivery of public policy (major programs and projects), but also about the role the private sector can and should play in enhancing the Government’s policy agenda.

The review is also a good insight into the inner-workings of the machinery of Government from the ‘provision of advice’ perspective as well as providing some good monolog on accepting advice and leadership. I strongly encourage anyone with an interest in public sector program and project management to read this report.

Learning from Failure

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial