With the hyperpolarisation and the seemingly intensifying tribal politicization becoming evermore evident in the entanglement of our common affairs, we find ourselves undoubtedly wading and navigating the unprecedented storms of a societal climate that is patently unusual and peculiarly distinct. Perhaps yielding an unintended secondary effect as of this contentious era, and possibly strangely enough, a notion that has emerged towards the forefront in the general consciousness being incessantly subjected to scrutinisation, examination, and dissection is the question of leadership. Politicians and CEOs-- one only need turning on any form of media to see quips or rows between cross executives and elected officials embroiled in exchanges and confrontations, whether it be from opposition forces or the general populace. Chief Executives are oft targeted and the focus of many interchanges laden with social commentary, whilst national leaders jostle with their constituents and peers in gladiatorial fashion, making for a brand of reality television that is uniformly distressing irrespective of where you may lie. In many cases, these worlds of public and private sectors converge in overtly adversarial manners. As forewarning, I attempt not to answer these questions, as I wish not to joust in the political arena.
In increasing fragmentation, we uniquely have come to uniformly ask common questions but arriving at loud, passionate dissention, dragging long-established idealistic pillars into question and trial. Wherefore, much of conventionality is interrogated at large, we find ourselves at an imperative crossroads standing amidst a query casting a long shadow--
What is leadership? What is a leader? How is one a leader? What does one need as a leader?
Perhaps we are furiously pondering these questions because, unconsciously, we are succinctly clamouring for leadership more than ever.
Surely, even now, in reading this you have come to your own formulations as to what constitutes a proper response to these questions. As for my own envisioning, I believe something that isn't talked about enough is how crucial, how universally imperative timing and tact are when in the charge of those entrusted to you. In my many musings and ramblings regarding intangibles, I view this as no different as the former.
Visualise a racing car coursing, weaving, and pacing through a track. Finely tuned machinery governed by finely tuned inputs derived from expertise and instinct. As the power plant soars through its redline, met with its eventual end and new beginning at the juncture of every gear change, the pilotage of a racing athlete must know when to steer and measure its angle. The pilot must know when to push the limits of grip, exert their will over the throttle, and command the brakes-- the pilot must recognise when to engage and disengage. When things do wrong, the driver must make a plan of action faster than the speed travelled on track, coupled with knowing what buttons to press and what dials to turn. Overall, in short, the driver must identify key markers and crucial bits of information at speed in order to understand when to engage and disengage and do so with complete serenity. Such is the difference between success and failure. Failure often culminates with the wager of possibly lost life-- and certainly with the cost of lost opportunity, with the chariot given into the wall. Racing is a gladiatorial game of hitting your marks in every phase over and over again with machine-like precision; piecing together apex after apex, corner after corner, lap after lap to bring together the whole of a race whilst guiding your vessel through the competitive obstacles and, therein, forging steady, consistent success.
As somewhat of a racing driver myself, I understand these risks.
As professionals, leadership is no different.
At minimum, knowing when to engage and disengage is a crucial asset for any leader. An organisation is an organic, collective machine. As an organic, collective machine, we need bearing in mind that the most crucial asset and resource that an organisation has is its people. When machines are running optimally, we require not intervene nor do much outside of the requisite inspection, identifying needed preventative manoeuvres, and routine maintenance to keep things charging along, lest we risk damaging or misaligning the synchronicity of the operation. As for the inverse, it is imperative and paramount knowing where and how to step in to relieve burdens off personnel by taking the reins, turning wrenches with them, and getting into the trenches of the fight with grit and tenacity to turn the tide to fix what may hamper the team and the mission. As such, it is needfully tantamount to adopt a servant-leader mentality that engenders humility, modesty, patience, vision, and compassion that melds together with a brand of calm yet dogged feist, resolve, and inner strength. To shepherd and wrangle, one must not just with their flock but, to be in their flock. Ironically, speaking in functional contradictory juxtapositions-- when needs be a wolf, wolves lead their pack from the rear unseen, always keeping an eye on their clan and rising to the defence of their family when impediments and dangers arise.
In the arena known as the workplace, we as leaders must be both wolves and shepherds. In my view, a good leader is one that is seldom seen except for perfunctory appearances to monitor the pulse of the culture and organisation, communicating key pieces of information, or when sailing through perilous tides. Allowing and trusting your people-- your teammates-- to do their charge, and, knowing when to resist needless intervention, feigning disguise as proactivity. The timing of your appearances and interventions can be the prime meridian between overbearing dictator and skilful leader. The impressions you leave on your crewmates is and shall be a compounding effect. That is the difference between having a regiment of warriors willing to go to war united with and for you, versus derelict mercenaries abandoning you at whim. Returning to the previous metaphor of machinery-- do not tighten or loosen bolts needlessly simply because you felt so. Throwing a spanner, or wrench, into the works harms everything more than help. Turn a wrench after identifying needs, listening to your people, and be proactive when you have analysed with objective foresight a dire, preventative need that will cascade later. Turn a wrench and rise to the fight when there is a fight to be had. Throwing punches in the ring aimlessly is an assured way to lose in combat.
Consider timing, and efficiency in timing, a needed facet in governance.
How you intervene is an equally impactful skill.
Contemplate a surgeon, or really; any medical doctor. If you are operating on a patient and the matter of operation is non-invasively removing tissue-- you'd surely consider it ridiculous to conduct procedure with a chainsaw, no? Ergo, it is likewise just as ridiculous to fix a broken water line with a sledgehammer or, even sillier still, a hand grenade.
Going into situations, it is best we react with tempered reticence and measured restraint. Adopting such an attitude affords, and even, forces one to maintain an equal, stable, calm, and objective yet firm approach that exudes confidence and stability. It allows for one to expend energy on problem-solving rather than contributing to the metastasising of trouble. If needed, we can enact difficult-- possibly unpopular-- decisions in difficult moments with relative ease and necessary grace. Slow to anger and haste, makes one the desired leader, teacher, mentor, and coach to confide in.
In my own personal journey, there is a particularly peculiar example of when these ideals were irrefutably tested and exercised.
--
There was a older gentleman named “Bill”, who'd been one of the best professionals I have ever seen. A gentle, simple, yet gregarious older man who plied his trade in sales but easily could have been an orator in a play or an entertainer at galas and parties from his flowing charisma, wit, and charm. As a human being, he was a delight to be around and as a professional he was exceptional. His performance and metrics were head and shoulders above the others, with automatic replication every month. The sun would rise and set, the tides would change, and Bill would be number one across the board.
Until he wasn't.
And he wasn't again.
And then, as the page changed thrice, he was nowhere to be found on the ledgers. He wasn't showing up to work, following that.
Then, procedures beckoned.
Bill faced counselling, or possibly, dismissal.
Many within our realms and ranks wanted to outright terminate him, as that was the suggestion from above and below myself.
As for myself, I knew something was wrong. I asked, "how does a consistent performer suddenly lose his way?" Were his sudden, lacking performances grounds for dismissal? According to SOPs, yes. But, however, blindly reacting; or rather overreacting-- to difficulties based on written tomes like an automaton isn't really how operations based on human assets should function. To not exercise human intellect is a grave crime in of itself. To paraphrase Søren Kierkegaard, to not use the freedom of thought can lead to dangerous and embarrassing outcomes. Metrics are empirical strata and trends, that serve as superficial clues to what lies beneath the surface. In line with that philosophy, I had asked Bill in a private, informal conversation what was going on.
In short, what happened to Bill?
His wife was killed in a carjacking coming back from the grocery store, getting Bill his favourite whiskey as a present.
Imagine what would be had we not asked that question? Imagine how poor of a choice it would have been to react instead of examine? Instead of simply asking and being human? What disservice we would have done to him and, overall, the organisation?
Bill faced no counseling, no corrective action, no dismissal. He was given time away, and all the support we could muster to give him. In turn, Bill felt like he had people in all aspects of his life behind him. The culture we had built intuitively bound together to help him. We were a true team.
From an organisational perspective: we retained top talent and avoided the expensive cost of rehiring and training a new hire. We avoided negatively changing the culture and the dynamics of our teams. It motivated every single person to work harder. We circumvented losing clientele and referrals. If people are happy, business takes care of itself.
In all, it was better for Bill. It was better for us.
That is good business.
And as far as I have been told..
That is good leadership.
Remember, tact and timing make for good stewardship, mentorship, and strong leaders. There is great strength in intellect and restraint.