Emotional Intelligence | INSYNC Management Solutions

Good Follower?

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.

Stoic Leadership

Being a leader is hard work. You always need to be out in front, inspiring your followers with your enthusiasm, motivation, and drive. You need to be the one with the vision for where your organisation needs to be in three, five, ten, and thirty years. You need to be a mentor to your peers and subordinate leaders, a teacher for junior leaders, and a role model to all. Intelligent, charismatic, connected, empathetic and compassionate, a great communicator with high integrity; but also self-motivated and driven. The buck stops with you. You are both responsible and accountable for the success or failure of everything you preside over.

How best to cope with this tremendous burden of responsibility? In my view, the answer is not in the future but in the teaching of the great stoics of the past. Embracing the wisdom and teaching of the stoics gives leaders the ability to remain calm and focus on what they can control and accept what they can not. It provides clarity of mind and resilience of character, especially in times of crisis.

For leaders, stoicism is the ability to separate emotions from feelings and disassociate emotions from the situation. This is not to say that stoics ignore emotions, rather they acknowledge them but choose not to allow them, or those of others, to direct their decisions or actions. Emotions are judgements that involve beliefs about value. We often apply disproportionate value to things we deem important or sacred to us and this drives our behaviour. Being stoic is to remain objective and use logic rather than emotion to shape action.

This is often easier said than done as the more important the issue or sacred the artefact, the higher the emotional response will be and the harder it is to remain objective.

Centred around the time of the Vietnam War, society was transforming from a generation that valued morality and self-control to one where freedom of expression was paramount. Young people were disenfranchised and resorted to the use of mind-altering drugs and spiritual pursuits. The influence of Libertarianism, the Hippie Movement and the expression of free love saw a shift from the ’stiff upper lip’ mindset of the WWII generation to that of the more emotionally expressive Baby Boomers. The push for people, men in particular, to express their feelings and share their emotions has continued to be the advice of psychologists and gurus alike.

The belief that bottling up your emotions will result in you becoming overwhelmed by them and eventually ‘exploding’ is widely held. However, practitioners of stoicism seem to miraculously and relatively easily cope with their emotions by understanding that they are nothing more than feelings that can be acknowledged, understood, and moved past.

This is not to say that strong feelings and emotions don’t have a chemical impact on the body, they do, if you let them. However, those who can control their emotions are also able to greatly reduce the rise of cortisol and take advantage of the power of adrenaline, rather than being reduced to a whimpering mess lying in a corner in the foetal position.

Research shows that leaders who are able to control their emotions and respond effectively to difficult situations are more likely to be successful. This is because they are better equipped to handle stress, make objective decisions, communicate effectively, and build trust with their team. These skills are crucial for success as a leader and are associated with higher levels of emotional intelligence and self-awareness.

Additionally, leaders who can regulate their emotions and respond appropriately in challenging situations are perceived as more credible, trustworthy, and effective by their followers.

However, the increased representation and impact of diverse perspectives in the workforce has contributed to a growing emphasis on emotional expression in the workplace. Historically, the vast majority of leadership positions in corporations were dominated by men, with many women pursuing careers in caring fields such as nursing, teaching, and childcare. As more women have taken on leadership positions in corporations, norms regarding emotional expression and expectations have shifted.

Nowadays, it is more widely accepted for individuals of all genders to express their emotions in the workplace, including crying. However, this does not necessarily reflect a healthy response to adversity and can stem from a wider cultural influence that reflects a sort of social neuroticism that has become prevalent in modern times.

The push for emotional expression in the workplace aims to create a more inclusive and equal environment, where all individuals feel comfortable sharing their feelings. This shift has been facilitated by the increased prominence of Human Resource Management (HR), as a trusted leadership advisory function within the boardroom and has likely been influenced by the growing dominance of women in senior HR roles.

Emotions drive us and can be involuntary responses to stimuli. Adopting a stoic approach to leadership does not mean ignoring emotions, but rather recognising and acknowledging them while choosing to make decisions based on logic and without excessive displays of emotions.

Displaying these and succumbing to your emotions will not help you deal with the situation or be a better leader. Rather, they will weigh heavily on you in the future when you reflect on how you handled the situation and how you conducted yourself. Being stoic means remaining true to your values and beliefs but not falling apart if these are challenged or threatened by an external force. It means being true to yourself and maintaining your moral character and virtue above all else.

The four Stoic Virtues are courage, justice, moderation (temperance), and wisdom.

Courage: Leaders can exhibit courage by standing up for what they believe in and not being afraid to take calculated risks.

Justice: Leaders can embody justice by being fair and impartial in their decision-making and treating others with respect and kindness.

Moderation: Leaders can practice moderation by avoiding excess and finding balance in their actions and decisions.

Wisdom: Leaders can incorporate wisdom by continually seeking out knowledge and understanding, as well as using reason and critical thinking when making decisions.

Incorporating these virtues can help leaders make ethical decisions, inspire trust and respect among their team members, and lead by example. They can also help leaders stay calm and level-headed during difficult times.

The ability to remain calm and stay focused also has a way of soothing others and is a powerful form of leading by example. Being a stoic leader does not mean leading without empathy or compassion and requires the leader to possess a high degree of Emotional Intelligence.

Stoicism is the ultimate form of self-regulation and when coupled with the other elements of Emotional Intelligence sets the leader apart from those with less self-control.

We could all benefit from more stoic leadership. If you want to know more about leading in a more stoic manner, I recommend checking out the Daily Stoic

Political Correctness (PC) Gone Mad

Are organisations today acting as good corporate citizen or a “social justice warrior”? When most of us think about Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) we think about gender, race, disability, and LGBTQI+… We don’t tend to think about diversity of views or freedom of expression. But is this PC world we live in suppressing innovation and preventing necessary dialogue, in fear of offending individuals or minority groups; and is this good for business? Is ‘left’ the only direction we can drive business today? Is it only ‘ok’ to have your own views so long as they fully align with those of the organistion and are leaders leading, or following current trends? The Diversity Council Australia used the term “PC Gone Mad” in their 2019-2020 Inclusion@Work Index Report but did they go far enough?

Dr Kevin Donnelly AM, wrote ‘How Political Correctness is Destroying Australia’ released in January 2018, where he discusses the threat posed by the cultural-left to Australia and Western civilisation and explores the rise of political correctness in Australia including: the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism; Safe Schools, same-sex marriage and the LGBTQI sexuality and gender agenda; and what it means to be Australian.

Is it no longer safe to have your own thoughts or speak your mind, or do our current cohort of leaders need to stand up, apply commonsense and demonstrate genuine leadership!

Vulnerable Leadership

Why would leaders think being vulnerable is good leadership – it’s not!

A lot has been written about the importance of leaders allowing themselves to be vulnerable. Check out this Harvard Business Review article by Jeffrey Cohn and U. Srinivasa Rangan

Using the word “vulnerable” to describe leaders who display good traits such as being open, transparent, and willing to share lessons they have learned, is a misuse of language. Webster’s Dictionary defines being vulnerable as ‘capable of being physically or emotionally wounded‘ and ‘open to attack or damage: Assailable’. Is this what we expect from our leaders, or is this a linguistic reflection of the victim culture plaguing society today?

There is a fine line between what followers view as ‘vulnerability’ and what is in fact just ‘weak, emotion-driven leadership’. What the HBR article promotes, is that CEOs need to prepare prodigies and aspiring leaders for the challenges of becoming a future leader, which is prudent.

Unfortunately, these sorts of articles use language that allows them to be misinterpreted and gives rise to emotive decision-making and leadership paralysis. Military leaders at all levels are trained to operate under significant pressure, often in a VUCA environment, and this requires stoicism. To quote DavidGoggins, it requires a ‘callusing of the mind‘.

Today’s leaders are expected to demonstrate a high degree of empathy, be supportive, be ‘politically correct”, generous, and agreeable. These are all great leadership traits, but like anything, there needs to be balance. Many leaders now struggle to make hard decisions and are often too afraid to actually lead. They spend too much time being ‘vulnerable’ when they should be thinking critically, planning with purpose, and leading by example. It’s important not to confuse leaders who foster psychological safety and speak freely with subordinate leaders and followers, with leaders who are vulnerable. These are very different scenarios and lead to divergent outcomes.

I often reflect on how much more I respected and trusted the strong leadership of 30, 40 and 50 years ago compared to what I see as weak leadership today. It’s not that the leaders of the past were better people or led more effectively. Many of them could have done with a little more empathy and political correctness and I guess that’s the point. A little more, not the massive pendulum swing commonly applied to social issues today. I’m fighting a losing battle as many leaders today don’t like conflict and find it terrifying to make any decisions, let alone hard decisions. They are unwilling to exercise what Jocko Willink refers to as “Extreme Ownership“. Do yourself a tremendous favour and read Jocko’s book.

I’m not suggesting leaders don’t accept failure or seek to identify their blind spots, and they should have discussions with subordinate leaders and general staff about risks and issues. Leaders who openly display their anxiety and fear do not demonstrate courage or instil much-needed confidence in their staff or their organisations.

As a proponent of critical thinking, the way words are used is important to me. I ask everyone to think critically when they are told they need to be ‘vulnerable’ and to understand what that really means.

We need to stop promoting the idea that being vulnerable is good. It’s not. Being a mature, stoic leader, who is considered, driven to action, open, empathetic, and willing to share lessons learned should be what we’re aiming for.

If we accept ‘vulnerable leadership’ into the vernacular it is a slippery slope to accepting excuses and emotion-led decision making and that’s just plain bad leadership.

A Race to the Bottom vs Inspired Leadership

There’s been a disturbing trend on social media and in online leadership articles of late. A trend that sends a misguided message to upcoming and incumbent female leaders. A subliminal ‘call to arms’ for female leaders to adopt traits that are undesirable for any leader. Traits such as being aggressive, bossy, uncompromising, and non-collaborative and normalising this behavior by reframing the language and promoting the female leader as strong and powerful. There is also the notion that women are criticised and even penalised for demonstrating the same behaviors and characteristics as their male counterparts. The same behaviors and characteristics that everyone agrees are undesirable in male leaders. If they are being criticised, it’s because they are emulating the bad leadership demonstrated by many male leaders; behavior that shouldn’t be tolerated regardless of gender.

There are many articles and media posts promoting the idea that these bad behaviors are solely male traits and that women wanting to climb the corporate ladder need to embrace them. Check out this Forbes article by Liz Elting where she discusses the “five traits every woman leader needs to embrace”. Many articles like this have been published in recent times, and we get it! Women want to be respected and treated the same as their male counterparts.

The hard thing to understand is the notion that the bad behavior we despise in some high profile, inept male leaders, the aggressive, arrogant, condescending, and non-collaborative behavior, is somehow what female leaders should aspire to and emulate. Anecdotally, bad leadership is not expressly the domain of male leaders, and every leader should strive to set the moral and character example for their organisation and their community. Too often nowadays, bad leadership behavior is displayed by both genders, at every level of leadership and across both the private and public sectors. What is most difficult to understand is why anyone would think the opposite of bad leadership is worse leadership!

This is not to suggest that women should be timid or passive leaders. The hope is that they don’t try to copy their male counterparts and raise the leadership bar and provide a more empathetic, collaborative, and considered approach to how leadership is performed.

We need to change the message and the language we use to inspire women, and men, to be better leaders. Good leadership is underpinned by good character and we should all be striving to be better leaders, not worse; otherwise, we become that which you despise.