We’ve all had inept bosses who ultimately succeeded because they put heart and soul into their work, and who abandoned any formal technique and just learned to cope with whatever came at them. And we’ve all had bosses who were either “natural” leaders, or who had learned their lessons well — but who failed because they never gave themselves completely over to the task at hand or to the people they led.
You can be taught the ten skills of great leaders, and the importance of establishing clear objectives and maintaining communications with your people — but not how to convince your people not be afraid, when you yourself are shaking inside; how to get them to believe in you when you yourself are filled with doubt, and most of all how to convince a normally incompatible group of people to become a team and work for a goal greater than themselves.
Leadership, I’ve come to believe, is not about knowledge, but character. And not necessarily good character — but rather, the character necessary to lead to victory. Leadership is not about ideas, but process. It is not about preparation, but execution. It is not about strategy, but adaptation. And in the end it is not about attitude, but success. That’s how some of the biggest jerks we know can be among the most successful and admired leaders of our time. In the world of leadership, nice guys don’t finish last, but neither do they finish first — indeed, as hard as it is to admit, perhaps neither niceness nor goodness have much to do with it at all.
And that brings me to the most important question of all: are real leaders born, or are they made? Can that character, that commitment, be taught? No, I think not. No more than a religious studies course can make you believe in God. That takes an epiphany that can only come from within. But once you’ve made that leap of faith, the door of leadership is to open to anyone.
Think about it: A Chicago talk-show host or a Cupertino telephone hacker, a Stanford assistant football coach or a Seattle code writer . . .anyone can become a successful leader. And if leaders are born, not made — over the long term, those who make that commitment ultimately re-make themselves.
When I think back about that hitchhiker, I hope that he finally made his own leap and at last put pen to page. I like to imagine that he became a famous writer whose name we all know, and whose work we have all read. Wishful thinking, perhaps. But then, it is on such wishes that leaps of faith of every kind are made. Including the choice to lead.
Adapted from Leader’s Legacy award speech, Santa Clara University Leavey Business School
Absolutely off the mark. Leaders are not born, although some have talent for it. Leaders develop.
What makes a leader is the willingness to stand for something. It is not enough to speak it, one must do it. “Lead” is a verb, not a noun.
The essence of that willingness is faith, the most powerful force in the world. Faith displaces fear. It is why you may be afraid, but your followers will not be, because they have faith in you.
In my experience, one of the best qualities of a good leader, is willingness to accept blame, even when they themselves may not be technically at fault.
A good leader is willing to protect his team.
Another big quality is the willingness to allow others to get the credit.
Oops. Somehow posted it before I was done.
Yes, it is a matter of character… not morality, but character. Hitler was vile, but he was a leader nonetheless. Willingness to stand on principle is a character trait. (Do not confuse it with stubborness, which means unreasonable.) Your principles might stink, but they motivate you to take action when others would quail, even if that action is simply to stand up, which is the hardest of all things.
Faith is the basis of being principled. Faith is a verb, not a noun. You cannot really have faith without it causing you to act. Standing tall on principle is leadership.
I think it has something to do with not being paralyzed by perfectionism, and also with not being afraid of failure.
Does leadership occur when an idiot with big ears and a tongue that goes like a bell clapper in the south end of a goose knows how to convince 50+ million followers its classy to leave their toilet paper sitting on the window sill while they go to the polls and vote for him..?
Management is doing things “through” people. Leadership is inspiring people to “do” things. “Follow me, do as I do” is the motto of the Infantry leader (whether a private who takes charge in catastrophe, or the Field grade officer who takes the risks to inspire his command). What we see in today’s society is risk averse managers who will never take actions when words will distract. And of course they are doing their best to import that spinelessness into the military (where lack of leadership kills).
I went through leadership training when I was in the military. Many volumes have been written about leadership, yet it is an elusive quality to find in people. There were theory and simple practical exercises designed to bring the problems presented to leadership into focus.
Leadership is, obviously, a function of a wide variety of skills. So a lack in one area can be made up for in another.
A key aspect of leadership is recognizing the talent that others bring to the game. Frequently that includes a great deal of faith that others will step into the gap on time with a full measure of their ability.
Some other key traits are communication, personal ability, likable, the ability to mentally collate seemingly unrelated events, prioritize, turn necessity into correct action, the willingness to do what is needed in the face of adversity during and potentially after.
These are only a few of the many qualities one may find in a real leader. But it takes the crucible of experience to hone and bring these to the surface. These abilities may lay dormant in most people their entire lives while they await some of the necessary ingredients to complete the recipe.
Being able to discern between leadership and bluster is also a key quality trait that most of us would do well to develop, also.
It also requires the character to admit a mistake, and not repeat it. This is a virtue that seems sorely lacking in modern “leaders”, notably the lot running the U.S. right now.
When something doesn’t work, a genuine leader finds out why it didn’t, and corrects it. If the original plan was flawed, he changes it to reflect what the old Red Army used to call “objective conditions”.
(Incidentally, their leadership in World War Two varied from the inept, such as Voroshilov, who tried to fight German Panzers with unsupported infantry and Cossack cavalry, to the inspired, such as Zhukov, who took the nearly-shattered army Voroshilov left him, and in under two years turned it around, rebuilt it, and won the Battle of Kursk with it.)
If the problem is with implementation, i.e. how the plan was executed, a real leader changes the implementation. If the problem is inept operators or ones with conflicting agendas, he replaces them.
Now, compare this to modern political leadership as shown by the ones in charge here. When their plans fail, due to any of the above factors, they;
1. Claim that other people didn’t try hard enough.
2. Claim other people didn’t “believe” hard enough.
3. Claim we didn’t “properly fund” their plan.
4. Claim the rest of us are stupid, or bigoted, or lazy, etc.
5. If all else fails, claim they were “sabotaged” by those omnipotent, omniscient, never-to-be-sufficiently-damned “reactionaries”- in the party which has control of exactly no parts of the Federal Government right now.
I see all this as a complex, multi-layered defense mechanism, rather like those used by hard-core alcoholics and drug addicts to justify their inability to kick the habit. Blaming everyone else allows them to avoid admitting the truth- that their grand plans simply were a bad idea to begin with. And/or that they just don’t have the mental chops to run a hot-dog stand, let alone a country.
I have a better idea- maybe. How about, when we see a “leader” exhibiting any of these counterproductive traits, we fire the silly sod and replace him with someone with actual ability?
Who, if they screw up, will stand up and admit it. In public. On a nationwide hookup.
clear ether
eon
Well put; when I was an Army officer, the saying was “a good leader gives credit and takes blame.”
You said it better than I did. And thank you for your service, Sir.
cheers
eon
Well – can you provide an example of this? At least for the present times, times of edifying enlightenment?
To be a leader, one must first have the vision (see and set the goal). After that it’s salesmanship.
To be a leader, one must first have the vision (see and set the goal). After that it’s salesmanship and perseverance.
Yep. I’m from the South SF Bay Area. There are tons of techie smart people there who are in fact morons. The problem is that because they have a technical skill or were good in Real Estate, they think that means they are smart enough to rule.
Doesn’t work like that. You want character, just study Sarah Palin. She’s got it. Obama doesn’t.
Sarah a leader, eh? So she was leading the state of Alaska…and then she wasn’t. Sure there were reasons for quitting, but I think that those reasons are close to the opposite of leadership.
The argument that, in essence, Palin is a “quitter” because she left office – voluntarily – half-way through her term, has been put to rest so many times, I’m surprised that certain types dig it up to pound it into the ground all over again!
Palin sought to (1) avoid personal bankruptcy from the 26-plus FRIVOLOUS law suits that were purposedly filed to attempt to not only discredit her, but to destroy her (all that has been fully documented, of course); and (2) to cut the considerable losses ($2M and counting) that were incurred by her beloved State of Alaska from even having to respond/handle these same frivolous lawsuits. Furthermore, as a wise and intelligent leader, she knew that Sean Parnell, her Lt. Governor, who shared her political beliefs and her administration’s policies, would make an outstanding leader for the State. And, in a most innovative – and, frankly, brave – decision, she willingly (but not without a great deal of thought and, ultimately, sadness/regret) stepped down and gave up the position she had fought so hard to obtain, in order to NOT bring the ship of State down with her and to stop the bloodletting. She also saw her role as NOT being put out to pasture, but to fight back in the only honorable way she knew: Namely, by supporting candidates across the country who share her same beliefs & vision. As an unfairly “targeted” Governor of AK, she could not have been nearly as effective – or nearly the leader she has obviously become – if shse had remained in office.
In her case, character DEFINITELY counts! Character and “native smarts” are in short supply in DC these days, but not in Sarah Palin’s camp!!!
well said.
A person who put ego ahead of responsibility would have stayed and fought in order to clear their name. Without giving a second of thought to who would be hurt by such a move.
A leader seeks what is best for the organization.
When frivolous lawsuits by moonbats made it impossible for her to concentrate on her job of running the state, she left and allowed her second in command to take over.
Leadership is a function of necessity. In politics, a good leader should be reluctant. He or she should have to be convinced to take the burden of leadship. Beware the one eager to lead.
As Mark malone commented, leaders develop. learning from their prior mistakes and eventually succeeding.
The late Vice Admiral David Farragut (there are thousands, obviously) was initally headstrong though fought a disastrous campaign at Port Hudson.
He later redeemed himself i.e. by exuding faith to him and his crew when giving the command, ‘Damn the torpedoes! Four bells…”! Resulting in defeating Admiral Buchanan’s defensive.
Today, there are very few men, women I’d attach ‘Leader’ in that context.
Great leaders are born, not made. And the best leaders are those that are thrown into a crisis and have the confidence, the stamina, and the unbeatable desire to succeed. Failure also never enters their vocabulary. They will keep plugging away until they succeed with their plans.
But the major point is that, great leaders can convince the majority of their followers in the “rightness” of their cause, meaning that the cause has to basically be right or just for the people to follow it. If the people never buy into the cause, no amount of leadership will persuade them. For example, if nobody in the United States believed in the Allied cause during World War II, no leader, no matter how talented, could succeed in convincing the public to risk their lives for a cause nobody believed in. But good leaders can make a just cause even greater, thereby allowing them to convince people to follow them no matter what the leader wants them to do, even if it involves risking their lives.
I disagree here. You can learn to be a leader. We teach it in the boyscouts. I’ve seen multiple young men receive the training and employ it successfully. Do some fail – yep, but that is generally due to lack of applying what they’ve been taught.
Now – a “great” leader. Maybe not. However, working in Silicon Valley as I do – I’ve seen what Mr. Malone is talking about over and over again. He makes some good points.
Steve:
As an old Eagle Scout and current Assistant Scoutmaster, I truly believe that Scouting is the best leadership training program for boys and girls that we’ve got. But the point of my essay is that no amount of training in leadership matters unless the individual hasn’t first made a deep commitment to become a leader — whether it’s a 12 year-old patrol leader or the 60 year-old CEO of a Fortune 50 company. And that commitment is not something that can be taught; rather it arises from one’s character.
– Mike Malone, editor
A true leader is someone who takes absolute internal ownership of a project – while giving all the credit externally. A true leader is strong and confident enough to not need the credit – and he knows that generously giving all the credit to the people who supported him in the effort will inspire those people to even greater efforts in the future.
A true leader is something like a MVP quarterback who after carrying the entire team to victory almost single handedly – when interviewed on TV after the game about his incredible performance tells the interviewer that this was a team effort and immediately focuses the interview on the performance of the defense, the line and the receivers.
A true leader is the quarterback of the loosing team – who after an afternoon of blown coverages, perfectly placed dropped balls and nonexistent defense – makes the loss about him and promises to do better.
There are two keys – one is not a leader AT ALL until one accepts complete ownership of what intends to do. Yes there are other influences and even random chance – but until one is ready to tell the world and ones self that one is above all that – one is not a leader.
The second key – One is not a GREAT leader until one is above needing personal credit for successes. Great leaders know that assigning credit for success is the best of all possible motivational tools. A modicum of humility (even false humility) adds to the perceived greatness of a leader. People who receive more credit that they deserve will sing your praises for you.
Our current President is the opposite of this definition of leadership. All failures are either simply denied – or are the fault of some previous leader or (most often) the fault of some poorly defined “they”. Credit is taken for the efforts of others and for the most random and trivial of positive events.
It is not difficult to understand this weakness of leadership in our current President. It is, quite simply, that he has never done this before in any context what so ever. He has never been a leader. He is in a pressure cooker of unbelievable responsibility and he has no relevant experience to fall back upon.
Frankly – I don’t blame him in this regard. You don’t know what you don’t know. He cannot evaluate his lack of a quality that he doesn’t understand. It is like trying to discuss subtle color differences with someone who was born blind. He simply does not have the frame of reference to participate in the discussion. No my friends – this is our fault. We hired this president based solely on ideology. We forgot that presidents need incredible experience and a very specific skill set in order to execute that ideology. They need wide ranging senior leadership experience to even begin to understand the role of President. I hope we learn our lesson before it is too late.
A great article. Character rules,something we don’t have much of.
True leaders EARN respect. Never expecting/demanding respect. A trait TOTALLY lost on our President, Speaker, Senate Majority Leader and the more than 3 dozen wielding powers whereas these ‘Czars’ were not elected. There are plenty more in the senate, House, etc., to mention in ALL parties. Pitiful.
Like Barbara “Call me SENATOR” Boxer.
Being a reader of some of the works that went over much of how Silicon Valley and the entire technology community developed, there is also another part of leadership: doing what you need to do. There have been three different types of leaders in corporations: start-up leaders, growing leaders and corporate position leaders.
The start-ups vary across a gamut, but are usually driven by their ‘dream’ or by something that interests them as a concept. Most look at Gates or Jobs, but Cisco Systems started out as a true home start-up that had bare marketing skills and yet gained customers quickly. Their concept of interconnecting computers via a neutral system that could talk with all other computers was a major mover in the tech world. They soon grew out of their basement, livingroom, garage and every friend they could hire and had to find someone to help them get to the next stage of company. That would break up the team that brought the dream together due to the in-fighting that resulted. Yet what had to be done was done. Similarly Intel was started out by a group of disgruntled Fairchild engineers who decided to leverage a contract for making a calculator on a chip to making a generalized processor on a chip that could work in many different devices. That would create an industrial giant out of a tiny memory chip company.
Rare is the company leader who can go from the start-up to the major growth expansion phase. Gary Kildall could not do it, even though he had the best OS for microprocessors around in the 1970′s. Cisco couldn’t do that. HP had its problems. Wozniak left Apple and when Apple needed to greatly expand marketshare, Jobs left, too. Entrusting your dream to a someone capable of growing it is a hard process to go through.
Finally moving to an entrenched, well known firm able to defend marketshare is one of the hardest transitions as all the easy markets are exhausted and now it is the start-up competitors you worry about. In the silicon world there is Bill Gates for doing all three, perhaps none of them well, but each just well enough to succeed. In the process he took some damned nasty tactics, and yet still the company continued to grow. Only someone like Ford or Edison compares to that… rarities.
Yet corporate leadership is not, exactly, equivalent to political or military leadership. There are cross-overs, yes, but the venues are far different and while Coca Cola would not die on New Coke, a politician can have their aspirations for higher office or continuing to serve dashed on one ill judgment. And one major mistake by a military commander could lead to a harsh turn of fortune in the course of a battle or a war.
A leader who knows how to lead knows how to listen to smarter people than he is, take in their ideas, respect them, and ensure that those ideas presented are sound. George Washington relied on his staff to help form up the major decisions that would decide the course of a war and Nation, and he was beloved and respected for that. Intel had to depend on their depth of knowledge to succeed and expand. Apple would change directions and motivation with the return of Jobs who talked with many others in his time away from the company to take a fresh approach to it. Any leader can make a mistake, but it is the recovery from it and listening to others, then taking their commments and criticisms to heart that define a leader.
That does, indeed, take character: to admit to one’s faults, one’s strengths, and one’s limitations and then work with them. That is why the military and companies make sure that those ‘going throught the ranks’ can actually operate on many levels – it builds character to do so. In politics the unseasoned can gain acclaim for being unseasoned… and their lack of demonstrated skill and competence overlooked and a great gamble taken with the fortunes of those who elect such a one to office. Better to do that with the PTA than the Presidency…
Leadership comes from not being afraid to try new things, making the all-but-inevitable mistakes, and then–and this is the critical step–learning from those mistakes and trying again.
All too many stop before that third, critical, step. They may think they’re leaders, but they’re really not, and in their heart, I think they know it… that’s why they insist on fancy titles (as in “call me Senator”).
The US is not a Corporate State, yet; Hopefully never.
The US needs an honest administration, not a CEO savior,
with transparency and subsidiarity as first principles.
The manufactured leader vs. the born leader. The idea that you can become a leader by coaching, or study, has been pervasive enough to raise a whole industry of electoral experts and campaign managers, as well as self-help books and seminars. All of this can only train the aspiring leader to “look like a leader”, “act like a leader”, etc… (the whole godamm “image” business), but not to become one. This is how fake leaders, (the real McDecoy, methinks), are cultivated. Productive leaders are different, because they have investing themselves into a goal, assuming responsibility for its attainment, so his or her followers are shielded from the risk of receiving the blame if the goal is not reached.
The true leaders are those who assume the risks which their followers cannot afford, for whatever reason. Before you decide to throw your lot with a new leader, you need to feel safe in the sense that you can depend on him or her when the chips are down. Either you fall for the pretender, or you pick an authentic leader. If you should have the good fortune to select a capable leader, it’s probably because your antennae for character were well developed at the time. So, yes, in the best of cases, character is the critical attribute. By the way, may I suggest that the last election reveals some growing up to do in this department?
History shows that extraordinary circumstances reveal the unexpected existence of extraordinary leaders. They are just like the parents who discover an unexpected incurable condition in their child, and somehow find it in themselves to step up to the plate. Up to this point, they might have been characterized as “ordinary folks”. After their resolution to measure up, and their full dedication to the challenge, they are seen as heroes. I propose that the great leaders are like this. They are not born in the original meaning of the word. They birth themselves by committing to a worthy cause.
All of us can become leaders, when we discover our purpose in life. Methinks the curse of humanity is not having as many good leaders as we could use, because so many folks never find the purpose of their on life.
Senator: What is the worth of someone?..J.P. Morgan: I’ve known a man to come into my office, and I have given him a check for a million dollars when I knew they had not a cent in the world..Senator: That is not business? ..J.P. Morgan: Yes,unfortunately it is. I do not think it is good business, though..Senator: Is not commercial credit based primarily upon money or property?..J.P. Morgan: No sir; first thing is character..Senator: Before money or property?..J.P. Morgan: Before money or property or anything else. Money cannot buy it….From the book “Morgan” by Jean Strouse published 1999..
Let’s hope that Obama gets some leadership skills, other than reading well from a Teleprompter, really soon?
Michael: Character is a major factor when it comes to leadership. Let’s watch for that when electing people to represent us in congress.
There are two personality types that aspire to stand before us in a directing capacity, leaders and politicians. Leaders are those who do not allow politicians to stand in the path of success nor obscure that path with pretense.
A leader is not one who blames anhyone and everyone for the failures on his/her watch.
A leader is one who can see the character in others and put them in positions of real responiblity and then back them to the hilt.
A leader is one who listens to many options, many ideas and then picks the best one, the one that is right and runs with it, even if it won’t get him/her more votes, money or applause.
I liked the article. However I do believe leaders can be made. And once they are made, I guess someone will say “he was born for it”.
People are willing to follow leaders. Therefore leaders must be able to persuade followers they’ll get where they want to go, or accomplish that to which they aspire.
Leaders deflect praise and assume criticism to the extent that it gives others breathing room to do their jobs.
Leaders assign blame and take corrective action without fear of backlash when the situation warrants.
Leaders imagine the next step, and the one after that. They prepare for the range of possibilities beyond that.
Leaders foster a positive culture through transparency. They encourage buy-in by letting their subordinates know what’s really at stake. No one feels more important and empowered than when trusted with a secret.
Leaders get involved. They don’t fake getting their hands dirty when they know they simply can’t do the job of the guy on the assembly line. But they relentlessly ask questions and don’t fear appearing stupid as they keep digging until they ask the right question.
Leaders help people grow and achieve their potential. They understand that very valuable people don’t necessarily have unlimited potential. They understand some deficiencies and limitations can be mitigated or even turned into strengths, others can be worked around for the benefit of having access to the person’s strengths, and others are fatal and cannot be redeemed.
A leader knows not to bite off more than can be chewed, but every so often, on the right project, does it anyway.
A leader’s instincts are right a high percentage of the time, and he or she is not afraid to reverse course when it becomes obvious the initial decision was wrong.
A leader is organized, has a knack for finding effective lieutenants to delegate to, gives them the freedom to learn from their mistakes, but knows that only one head is on the chopping block for the really big stuff.
A leader never stops learning, growing, improvising and envisioning.
A leader understands obstacles always, ALWAYS relentlessly present themselves, and that the job description requires they be overcome.
A leader is committed to the mission. More than to the next job. At critical times, more than to his or her family. More than to the investment account or the stock options. A leader may or may not be unafraid to take risks, but takes them nevertheless when circumstances warrant, innately confident that leadership skills will somehow apply to the next opportunity, if that’s the path that must be pursued.
A leader holds the collective vision…
Then has the guts, endurance, people skills and determination to see the vision manifest.
Leaders are communicators. They have vision, are short, succint and to the point. They don’t let anything deter them. President Obama is not a leader. He presides, he attempts to make excuses and tries to shape the words to his vision. He does not lead because to lead you have to be willing to adapt to a changing situation. Obama spends too much time thinking and while that may be a signal that he is smart, it is not leadership.
Many excellent posts, I think though that it’s easiest to understand leaders when contrasted to managers. All of us have more experience with managers. Leaders and managers share many traits, and a very similar skill set, but leaders are different because they are willing to take risks. It is that willingness that inspires others to follow. It’s easy to propose something daring, it’s harder to be the first man over the top to make that plan work.