Strategic thinking in business

In the modern business world, success is not merely a matter of hard work and dedication. While these qualities are essential, they must be coupled with a strategic mindset that allows organisations to navigate the complexities of the market, anticipate challenges, and seize opportunities. Strategic thinking is the driving force behind the most successful enterprises, enabling them to chart a course that leads to sustainable growth, profitability, and competitive advantage.

At its core, strategic thinking is the ability to analyse the present conditions, envision the desired future state, and formulate a plan to bridge the gap between the two. It involves taking a holistic view of the organisation, its resources, its competitive environment, and its long-term objectives. By cultivating this mindset, business leaders can make informed decisions that align with their overarching goals, rather than reacting to short-term pressures or pursuing tactical Band-Aid solutions.

This article delves into the critical aspects of strategic thinking, exploring the key concepts that underpin this vital discipline. We will examine the role of vision and foresight, the importance of analysing the competitive landscape, the value of strategic planning, and the necessity of adaptability in an ever-changing world. Throughout this exploration, we will emphasise the broad principles that extend beyond specific industries or organisational structures, providing a useful framework for strategic thinking that can be applied across diverse business contexts.

The Power of Vision and Foresight

Effective strategic thinking begins with a clear and compelling vision – a picture of the desired future state that the organisation aspires to achieve. This vision serves as a focal point, helping stakeholders understand and rally around a common purpose. The process is neither quick nor easy; crafting a compelling vision requires a deep consideration of the organisation's core strengths, values, and competitive advantages, as well as a keen awareness of the broader market trends and societal shifts that may shape the future.

Foresight is another critical component of strategic thinking. It involves scanning the horizon for emerging opportunities and threats, analysing potential scenarios, and developing contingency plans to mitigate risks and capitalise on favourable conditions. By cultivating foresight, organisations can stay ahead of the curve, positioning themselves to seize emerging market opportunities before their competitors.

One powerful tool for enhancing foresight is scenario planning. This is a structured process that explores multiple plausible futures and their implications for the organisation – both good and bad. By considering a range of potential outcomes, scenario planning helps organisations identify blind spots, challenge assumptions, and develop robust strategies that can withstand a variety of circumstances.

Analysing the Competitive Landscape

No organisation operates in a vacuum; every business exists within a complex ecosystem of competitors, suppliers, customers, and regulatory bodies. Effective strategic thinking requires a thorough understanding of this competitive landscape, including the strengths, weaknesses, and strategies of key players, as well as the broader industry dynamics and market forces at play.

Conducting a comprehensive competitive analysis is crucial for identifying opportunities for differentiation, uncovering potential threats, and developing strategies to gain a sustainable advantage. This analysis should extend beyond direct competitors to encompass substitute products or services, potential new entrants, and the bargaining power of suppliers and customers.

One powerful framework for competitive analysis is Michael Porter's Five Forces Model, which evaluates the intensity of competition within an industry by examining the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers, the threat of new entrants and substitute products or services, and the rivalry among existing competitors. By applying this model, organisations can gain valuable insights into the competitive pressures they face and develop strategies to mitigate those pressures or leverage them to their advantage.

The Importance of Strategic Planning

While vision and foresight provide the inspiration and direction for an organisation's strategic endeavours, strategic planning translates these aspirations into actionable steps. Strategic planning is the process of defining the organisation's long-term objectives, allocating resources, and formulating a roadmap to achieve those objectives.

Effective strategic planning requires a deep understanding of the organisation's current position, including its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (commonly referred to as a SWOT analysis). This analysis provides the foundation for developing strategies that leverage the organisation's strengths, address its weaknesses, capitalise on opportunities, and mitigate potential threats.

One widely adopted framework for strategic planning is the Balanced Scorecard, developed by Robert Kaplan and David Norton. This approach encourages organisations to consider their strategy from four perspectives: financial, customer, internal processes, and learning and growth. By balancing these perspectives, the Balanced Scorecard helps organisations translate their strategic objectives into specific, measurable targets and initiatives across various functional areas.

Adaptability in an Ever-Changing World

While strategic planning is essential for charting a course toward long-term objectives, successful organisations must also cultivate a spirit of adaptability. The business landscape is constantly shifting, with new technologies, changing consumer preferences, regulatory shifts, and unexpected disruptions—e.g. COVID—continually altering the playing field. Strategic thinking, therefore, must be an ongoing process, one that embraces flexibility and agility in response to these evolving conditions. 

Adaptability requires a willingness to question long-held assumptions, challenge established paradigms, and embrace change as an opportunity for growth and innovation. It involves continuously monitoring the external environment, gathering feedback from stakeholders, and making course corrections as necessary to align with shifting realities.

One approach that promotes adaptability is the lean startup methodology, which emphasises iterative development, customer feedback, and rapid experimentation. By embracing a cycle of "build, measure, learn," organisations can quickly validate or invalidate their assumptions, pivot strategies as needed, and remain responsive to changing market conditions.

Organisational Alignment and Execution

Even the most brilliant strategy is ultimately rendered ineffective if it is not successfully executed throughout the organisation. Strategic thinking must extend beyond the boardroom and permeate every level of the enterprise, ensuring that employees at all levels understand the organisation's vision, objectives, and strategic priorities.

Achieving this organisational alignment requires clear communication, effective change management, and a culture that fosters accountability and collaboration. Leaders must articulate the strategic vision in a compelling and relatable manner, demonstrating how individual roles and responsibilities contribute to the overall success of the organisation.

Successful execution also hinges on robust systems for monitoring progress, measuring performance, and making data-driven decisions. By establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) aligned with strategic objectives, organisations can track their progress, identify areas for improvement, and make informed adjustments as needed.

The Role of Leadership

While strategic thinking encompasses a broad range of concepts and practices, effective leadership is the catalyst that brings these elements together. Strategic leaders possess the ability to inspire a shared vision, foster a culture of innovation and adaptability, and navigate the complexities of the business landscape with decisiveness and foresight.

Successful strategic leaders are not merely skilled in analysis and planning; they are also adept at cultivating a strategic mindset throughout the organisation. They encourage diverse perspectives, challenge conventional wisdom, and empower their teams to think critically, challenge assumptions, and embrace change as an opportunity for growth.

Moreover, strategic leaders understand the importance of continuous learning and self-improvement. They seek out new knowledge, embrace feedback, and actively work to expand their strategic capabilities, recognising that the business landscape is ever-evolving, and complacency can quickly lead to obsolescence.

Conclusion

In the dynamic and competitive world of business, strategic thinking is not a luxury. It is a necessity. It is the compass that guides organisations through the complexities of the market, enabling them to navigate challenges, seize opportunities, and chart a course toward sustainable success.

By cultivating a strategic mindset, organisations can develop a clear vision, analyse their competitive landscape, engage in effective strategic planning, and remain adaptable in the face of change. Moreover, strategic thinking fosters organisational alignment, ensuring that every employee understands and contributes to the organisation's overarching objectives.

Ultimately, strategic thinking is a continuous journey, one that requires ongoing learning, adaptation, and a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. It is a discipline that demands foresight, critical thinking, and a deep understanding of the complex interplay between an organisation and its external environment.

As we navigate the ever-changing business landscape, the ability to think strategically will remain a fundamental differentiator, separating those organisations that merely react to change from those that anticipate and shape it. By embracing the principles of strategic thinking, business leaders can position their organisations for long-term success, navigating the challenges of today while actively shaping the opportunities of tomorrow.

Ethical leadership in the boardroom

As the corporate landscape evolves, and organisations strive for success in an ever-changing world, the importance of instilling a leadership ethic at all levels becomes increasingly paramount. Contemporary boards are tasked with fostering a culture of leadership that goes beyond the executive suite, yet they often face challenges in doing so. This article explores these challenges and presents insights for modern board members to overcome them, using a recent historical example to illustrate a path to successful leadership transformation.

The Challenge of Instilling a Leadership Ethic

Contemporary boards are confronted with several hurdles when instilling a leadership ethic within their organisations:

1. Cultural Inertia: Many organisations have deeply entrenched cultures that resist change. Inculcating leadership values and ethics can be met with resistance from employees who are accustomed to the status quo. Conversely, this can be protective – a strong cultural bias towards ethical behaviour can stop unethical behaviour before it gains traction.

2. Short-Term Pressures: The relentless pursuit of short-term results can undermine the long-term focus necessary for a robust leadership ethic. Boards often grapple with the tension between immediate gains and sustainable leadership development; a tension often created when the board’s requirement to ensure shareholders returns are maximised conflicts with the requirement to ensure future shareholder’s value is protected.

3. Leadership Skill Gap: Identifying and nurturing leaders at all levels is challenging. Not all employees desire to assume leadership roles, and organisations may lack comprehensive leadership development programmes.

4. Compliance vs. Values: Boards often prioritise compliance and risk management over ethical leadership. The focus on avoiding legal issues can overshadow the importance of fostering an ethical culture. Too often, compliance is easy and safe; regulations dictate decisions and replace strategic planning, which is unstructured and difficult.

A Recent Example: The Boeing 737 MAX

The Boeing 737 MAX crisis is an illustrative example of the challenges faced by contemporary boards in promoting a leadership ethic. This crisis revealed a series of deficiencies in Boeing's leadership culture that ultimately led to two tragic crashes, resulting in significant loss of life and immense damage to the company's reputation.

Boeing's board and senior leadership were grappling with challenges that are common in many large organisations. They faced immense competitive pressures, had short-term financial goals, and grappled with a complex regulatory environment. However, they also encountered issues specific to their leadership ethic:

1. Overemphasis on Profitability: Boeing was heavily focused on delivering a competitive aircraft. However, this led to shortcuts in the aircraft's development process, ultimately compromising safety for short-term financial gains.

2. Ineffective Communication: There was a lack of transparent communication between the technical teams, regulators, and management. Critical safety information did not flow as it should have, indicating a breakdown in the leadership's duty to prioritise safety and ethics. Arguably, it also highlights the board’s failure in their duty of oversight—itself a symptom of ineffective communication.

3. Insufficient Accountability: The board was slow to hold senior executives accountable for the failures related to the 737 MAX, and the lack of a robust ethical leadership culture allowed these issues to persist.

Overcoming the Challenges

To overcome the challenges of instilling a leadership ethic, contemporary boards could consider the following strategies:

1. Leadership Development Programmes: Boards should invest in comprehensive leadership development programmes that identify potential leaders and provide them with the necessary skills and values. Directors should also remember that their own leadership skills will set the tone for the company, and that their own professional development as leaders must not be ignored.

2. Clear Ethical Frameworks: Establish clear ethical frameworks and codes of conduct that guide decision-making at all levels of the organisation, emphasising integrity, transparency, and accountability. As a fish rots from the head, too often a company’s ethical tone is set by the board and the executives; this is where the framework is most important.

3. Balancing Short-Term and Long-Term Goals: Boards must strike a balance between short-term profitability and long-term sustainability. Ethical leadership prioritises the latter, and boards should ensure this is reflected in the company's mission and strategy.

4. Effective Oversight and Accountability: Implement robust oversight mechanisms, including regular evaluations of leadership's adherence to ethical principles. Boards must be willing to hold executives accountable for ethical lapses. This is the highest priority for a board, and their own accountability is the centrepiece of effective oversight.

Conclusion

Instilling a leadership ethic in contemporary organisations is a complex and ongoing challenge. The Boeing 737 MAX crisis serves as a stark reminder of the consequences when leadership values are not prioritised. However, it also offers valuable lessons for boards and organisations seeking to navigate these challenges successfully. By investing in leadership development, fostering a culture of ethical decision-making, and balancing short-term pressures with long-term vision, boards can build organisations that thrive in today's dynamic world while upholding the highest ethical standards. In doing so, they not only protect their organisations but also contribute to a healthier, more sustainable corporate environment.

Social Identity Theory in leadership

Social Identity Theory (SIT) is one framework that helps us understand how humans interact and relate to each other. In a previous article, we examined the basics of SIT and how it affects our perceptions of ourselves and others. As a short refresher, we draw our understanding of who we are based on the groups we identify with, and judge others based on the groups we believe they are affiliated with. By identifying as a certain in-group member, e.g. someone who does Crossfit, we assume certain characteristics about ourselves (I am fit, I am healthy, I look after myself) and about others who are out-group members (slovenly, ill-disciplined, unhealthy).

SIT has been applied to leadership theory as well. Over the years, academics have identified many implications for understanding how SIT affects leadership dynamics within groups and organisations. This article will look at some of the ways SIT applies to leadership, and discuss two examples of how contemporary leaders have used SIT to better influence others.

SIT applications in leadership

Leader as In-Group Representative: Leaders often represent the archetypal in-group member. They are seen as the embodiment of the group’s values, goals, and aspirations. Their leadership role strengthens the social identity of the group and contributes to a sense of cohesion and belonging. Leaders can leverage their position to reinforce positive social identities and promote a sense of pride and loyalty among group members. If you have ever been proud to work in an organisation because of your boss, you’ve seen this effect in action.

Leadership and In-Group Favouritism: Social Identity Theory suggests that individuals tend to show favouritism towards their in-group. This bias can influence leadership behaviours, as leaders may be more inclined to allocate resources, opportunities, and rewards to in-group members. It is important for leaders to be aware of this bias and strive for fairness, equity, and inclusivity in their decision-making processes. An example of this in action could be a coach picking a representative team, who unintentionally favours members of her own club.

Leadership and Group Identity Formation: Leaders contribute to the formation and development of group identities. Through their actions, communication, and vision, leaders shape the social identity of the group and influence how members perceive themselves in relation to the larger organisation or community. You may notice leaders, especially senior corporate leaders or politicians, using the collective ‘we’ when they address groups. This is designed to make the in-group clear, and to include the audience in their group to better gain influence over otherwise disparate individuals.

Leadership and Social Identity-Based Motivation: SIT suggests that individuals derive motivation from their group memberships and the desire to maintain a positive social identity. Leaders can tap into this motivation by aligning goals and tasks with the group's identity, emphasizing shared values and collective achievements. By fostering a sense of identity and purpose, leaders can inspire and mobilise their team towards common objectives. The classic Australian trait of not wanting to let your mates down has been used for decades to motivate and inspire people towards achieving certain goals, from winning at sports to cleaning up rubbish.

Leadership and Reducing Out-Group Bias: SIT recognizes the tendency for individuals to perceive out-groups as less favourable or homogenous. Leaders can actively work to reduce out-group bias by encouraging intergroup contact, promoting diversity and inclusion, and challenging stereotypes and prejudices. They can create a culture of respect, appreciation for differences, and collaboration across groups. If your workplace has advocacy forums, you’ve seen this in action – giving people a voice to break through barriers that are often subconsciously constructed around different in-groups (e.g. managers in a workplace).

These are just some of the ways in which SIT can be practically applied in leadership. By understanding the theory, leaders of all types are empowered to identify where SIT is affecting their teams, and make changes if needed. By knowing how people can be drawn together and inspired, organisations can be motivated and influenced to achieve more, together. Conversely, where teams are underperforming or struggling with their cohesion, an external review may identify a lack of in-group identity that can be addressed efficiently and effectively.

SIT examples

Nelson Mandela

Of course, it’s easy to describe a theory and make it sound like the cure-all for the management woes of the contemporary workplace. SIT is one tool—albeit a powerful one—amongst many, and there are some examples we can use to demonstrate how it has been applied in the past. It’s unlikely that these leaders consciously used SIT to improve their influence, but it’s effectiveness can be seen and, armed with the knowledge that it can be powerful, we can choose to apply it ourselves.

The first example of an individual who leveraged social identity to be a better leader is Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa. Mandela utilised social identity to lead the movement against apartheid, and to unite a divided nation in its wake.

During the apartheid era, South Africa was deeply divided along racial lines, with a white minority government implementing oppressive policies that marginalised and discriminated against the Black majority. Mandela, as a prominent leader of the African National Congress (ANC), recognised the power of social identity (the concept, not the academic SIT) in mobilising and inspiring his fellow black South Africans.

Mandela tapped into the shared experiences, values, and aspirations of black South Africans to build a strong sense of social identity among his followers and emphasised a collective Black identity rooted in the struggle for justice, equality, and freedom. Mandela himself embodied this identity, and spent 27 years in prison for his anti-apartheid activism.

By leveraging social identity, Mandela was able to galvanize support, mobilise large numbers of people, and sustain the anti-apartheid movement both before and after the policy was abandoned. He rallied his followers around the vision of a united, non-racial South Africa where everyone would be treated equally and enjoy fundamental rights and opportunities.

Mandela's leadership was characterized by inclusivity, forgiveness, and reconciliation. He recognised the importance of bridging divides and creating a shared national identity that transcended racial, ethnic, and cultural differences. Despite his long imprisonment, Mandela reached out to white South Africans, appealing to their sense of shared humanity and the common goal of building a democratic and prosperous nation.

His ability to unite diverse groups under a collective identity played a crucial role in the successful transition from apartheid to democracy in South Africa. Mandela's social identity-based leadership not only brought about significant political change but also fostered healing, reconciliation, and the building of a new social fabric for the nation. By appealing to shared values, experiences, and aspirations, leaders like Mandela can create a sense of belonging and purpose, leading to positive change and transformation within societies.

Almost every leadership theorist can use Mandela to make their point. His leadership and inspiration are legendary, and can be applied to lots of leadership theories, even the Great Man theory that has been largely debunked. While he remains a good example of how SIT can be a powerful leadership tool, it’s important that we look closer to home, and to a less obvious—but no less important—example of the theory in action.

Eddie Mabo

The second example of a leader who effectively applied SIT is Eddie Mabo, an Indigenous Australian activist who played a pivotal role in the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights.

Mabo, a Torres Strait Islander, challenged the concept of "terra nullius" (land belonging to no one) in Australian law, which denied the existence of Indigenous land rights. He sought to reclaim the social identity and land rights of Indigenous Australians, who had experienced dispossession and marginalisation. This is almost a perfect example of an out-group; indigenous Australians had been classified as basically not existing as a collective people under colonial Australian law. You can’t get further out-group than that.

Mabo's leadership centred on asserting the rights and cultural identity of Indigenous Australians. He highlighted the deep connection Indigenous peoples had with their ancestral lands, their cultural heritage, and the significance of land in their social, spiritual, and economic lives. He drew the picture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as a group, one with identifiable characteristics that until then had been overlooked, ignored, or suppressed.

Through the Mabo v Queensland case, which reached the High Court of Australia in 1992, Mabo challenged the legal fiction of terra nullius. The court's decision recognised the existence of native title, acknowledging Indigenous Australians' rights to their traditional lands and establishing a framework for land rights claims.

Mabo's leadership was instrumental in raising awareness and mobilising support for Indigenous land rights. He engaged in public advocacy, highlighting the historical injustices faced by Indigenous communities and promoting reconciliation and recognition of their social identity and rights. He lowered the barriers between in-groups of white Australians and the dispossessed original inhabitants, and did so without violence or vitriol.

By reclaiming and asserting the social identity of Indigenous Australians as the traditional custodians of the land, Mabo empowered and inspired Indigenous communities across Australia. His leadership contributed to a significant shift in public opinion, leading to greater recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights and fostering a national dialogue on reconciliation.

Mabo's legacy continues to shape Australia's understanding of Indigenous rights and land ownership. His leadership exemplifies the power of social identity in mobilising and empowering marginalized communities to assert their rights, challenge unjust systems, and seek justice and equality. Generations of Australians now know of the Mabo decision – even if they know little about Eddie Mabo – as the right thing to do.

CONCLUSION

SIT is a leadership tool for anyone. You don’t need to be a world leader like Mandela, or an inspirational change-bringer like Eddie Mabo. All of us, in our daily lives can take the opportunity to influence our groups for the better. By working to represent a group, to build motivation through collective cohesion, and to identify and reduce out-group friction, we can all leverage SIT as leaders within our groups. 

The leadership SCARF

The SCARF Framework: Empowering Leadership through Neuroscience

Leadership is a complex interplay of human behaviour, emotions, and social interactions. To effectively lead and motivate others, it is essential to understand the underlying drivers that influence people's perceptions and responses. The SCARF framework, developed by Dr. David Rock, is a tool that can provide valuable insights from neuroscience. These insights can be applied to leadership practices to help leaders at all levels improve their interactions and understanding of their team members – and themselves. 

The SCARF framework is an acronym that uses five drivers of human behaviour: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness. Dr. Rock explains in his book how these five drivers work in two directions; they can create the desire to work towards ‘more’ of them, or the desire to move away from threats to them. This drive – away from a perceived threat – is stronger than the drive towards when the two conflict. In this article, we explore how the SCARF framework can be applied to leadership and how it can enhance our ability to lead and inspire others.

Status:

Status is an innate human need to feel respected, valued, and recognised for one's contributions. As a leader, recognising and affirming the status of your team members is crucial. Provide opportunities for growth and advancement, acknowledge their expertise, and actively involve them in decision-making processes. By fostering a sense of status, you empower individuals and enhance their motivation and commitment.

Status is an incredibly strong driver of human behaviour. When you take an objective look at many of our actions, status underpins so many decisions we make. No-one wants to be the leader of a nation because they love being lambasted in the media, or making decisions whether to approve road transportation budgets or health department funding requests. They seek the status that comes with the office. Leaders can ensure they approach situations in a manner that preserves the perceived status of anyone involved, as any perceived threat to that status may derail influence before it can be established. 

Certainty:

Uncertainty can trigger fear and anxiety, affecting performance and motivation. Humans have an innate desire to know what’s next – this allows us to regulate our cortisol and maintain a balanced and calm aspect. We learn and grow when we feel secure, and certainty can provide that feeling of security. When that security is lost, and certainty is threatened, we lose the ability to plan or to forecast, which undermines motivation. Why strive for a goal if we’re not sure it’s a real thing?

As a leader, provide clarity in expectations, goals, and organisational changes. Communicate transparently, sharing information, and updates regularly. By reducing uncertainty, you create a sense of security, enabling your team to focus on their work and perform at their best.

Autonomy:

Autonomy refers to the degree of control individuals have over their work and decision-making. Granting autonomy empowers your team members, fostering a sense of ownership and accountability. Another way to consider autonomy in the workplace is giving our team a sense of ownership in their goals and desired outcomes. As humans, we feel closer to the goals and outcomes that we’ve had a hand in generating, and take pride in a successful outcome.

As a leader, delegate responsibilities, encourage innovative thinking, and provide opportunities for self-direction. By respecting autonomy, you inspire creativity, motivation, and personal growth.

Relatedness:

Humans are inherently social beings, and a sense of belonging and connection is essential for well-being and engagement. Our ancestral history is one of collaboration and tight relationships with those in our immediate group. Only by working together could the group survive, and being cast out meant death for our forebears. This drive to be part of the group and to be accepted remains as strong as ever.

As a leader, cultivate an inclusive and supportive work environment, where team members feel connected to each other and to the organisation's purpose. Encourage collaboration, provide opportunities for team-building activities, and show genuine interest in the personal and professional lives of your team. By nurturing relatedness, you foster a positive and cohesive team dynamic.

Fairness:

Fairness involves treating individuals equitably and justly. Leaders must ensure fairness in processes, resource allocation, and recognition. We recognise this driver very early in our lives – hearing kids argue about what’s fair is a staple in every playground. To threaten fairness is to create a strong drive away from the threat, and to undermine any hope of communication or collaboration.

As a leader, avoid favouritism and bias, promote meritocracy, and establish clear and transparent performance evaluation criteria. By demonstrating fairness, you build trust, loyalty, and a culture of integrity within your team.

By applying the principles of the SCARF framework, leaders can create a positive and empowering work environment, enhance team collaboration, and motivate individuals to achieve their best. Understanding the SCARF framework and its application to leadership provides valuable insights into the social and emotional needs of individuals in the workplace. By focusing on status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness, leaders can create an environment that inspires and motivates their team members. Empowering leadership through the SCARF framework promotes collaboration, engagement, and personal growth, ultimately leading to enhanced organisational performance and success.

 If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do. 

Leadership and followership

Leadership and followership are two interconnected roles within a team or organization. While leadership often takes centre stage, followership plays a critical role in driving collective success. Understanding the dynamics between leadership and followership is essential for fostering collaboration, achieving goals, and maximising team potential. In this article, we explore the distinct characteristics and mutual dependencies of leadership and followership, highlighting the importance of both roles in creating high-performing teams.

Followership is the act of willingly supporting and contributing to the leadership of others. Followers play an active role in the team's success by offering their skills, expertise, and dedication. Effective followers display qualities such as active engagement, trust, commitment, adaptability, and a willingness to contribute their ideas and perspectives.

Let’s break this definition down a little further. First; ‘willingly.’ Followers are active participants who consciously choose what they do. They are rational agents with freedom to choose. Those who are coerced – whether implicitly or explicitly – are not willing and fall short of our definition. Secondly; ‘support’. If someone doesn’t obstruct, that doesn’t mean they are a supporter. Support requires explicit actions and affirmation to be valid. This leads to ‘contributing’ – followership is about actively contributing. To be a follower, you must make the choice willingly, show your support overtly, and take actions to help further the team towards the goals.

Leadership and followership are mutually dependent and interconnected. Leaders rely on the commitment and support of their followers to translate their vision into reality. Meanwhile, followers depend on effective leadership to provide direction, inspiration, and a sense of purpose. The relationship between leaders and followers is dynamic and symbiotic, as each role complements and strengthens the other.

It is easy to assume that the leader-follower relationship is always one way, but real followership (and by extension, real leadership) means that this is not the case. A leader seeks and takes direction, guidance, and advice from their followers. There are interactions between leaders and followers where the roles are reversed. Hence, the relationship is dynamic and symbiotic – it requires followers to actively participate, and for leaders to acknowledge the contributions of followers as equal to their own.

Here are some ways leadership and followership contribute to a better organisation:

Shared Vision: Effective leadership requires the ability to communicate a compelling vision and inspire followers to embrace it. Followership involves aligning personal goals with the shared vision, actively contributing to its realisation, and maintaining commitment throughout the journey. A good follower feels a sense of ownership and self-interest in their teams’ goal – and a good leader imbues and maintains those feelings.

Collaboration: Leaders and followers collaborate to leverage their collective strengths and expertise. Leaders provide guidance and structure, while followers contribute their skills, insights, and diverse perspectives. This synergy fosters innovation, problem-solving, and enhanced decision-making. A leader who requires that they are the smartest person in the room, or that their ideas have an innate superiority, will not have many followers for very long.

Trust and Communication: Trust is the foundation of successful leadership and followership. Leaders must earn the trust of their followers through open communication, transparency, and consistent actions. In turn, followers must trust their leaders' intentions, competence, and ability to make informed decisions.

Empowerment: Effective leaders empower their followers by delegating responsibilities, providing autonomy, and fostering a supportive environment. Empowered followers, in turn, exhibit initiative, take ownership, and contribute their best efforts to achieve shared goals.

Continuous Growth: Leadership and followership involve a commitment to personal and professional growth. Leaders should encourage and support the development of their followers, providing mentorship, feedback, and growth opportunities. Likewise, followers should actively seek growth by learning from their leaders, seeking feedback, and continuously developing their skills and abilities.

It is important to remember that leadership and followership are not opposite ends of a spectrum or some kind of either/or functions. Every leader is a follower and remembering that fact helps us form better teams and achieve better outcomes. Ultimately, leadership and followership are labels we give to the way we interact with others, and improving these interactions not only enhances organisational performance, it makes us happier as humans.

Leadership and followership are not opposing roles; they are interdependent and synergistic. Effective leadership requires active followership, and effective followership requires skilled leadership. By recognising the importance of followership and understanding the dynamics between leaders and followers, teams can achieve higher levels of collaboration, engagement, and success. Embracing both roles within a team fosters a culture of shared purpose, collaboration, and continuous growth, ultimately leading to enhanced performance, achievement of collective goals, and a happier workplace.

 If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do. 

Ten leadership behaviours

Effective leadership is often touted as the cornerstone of successful organisations, superior teams, and important individuals. It goes beyond just managing tasks; it involves inspiring and empowering others to achieve their full potential. Despite the plethora of research and learned discussion, the challenge of starting as a leader can be daunting. New leaders often wonder how they can develop their leadership skills to inspire and empower their teams.

 In this article, we will explore ten key leadership strategies that can elevate your leadership effectiveness and make a positive impact on those you lead. This is by no means a complete list; there are probably thousands of other skills you can develop to improve your leadership. But everyone needs to start somewhere, so here’s a few helpful prompts to help you at the start of a long and rewarding journey.

1. Lead by Example:

One of the most powerful leadership behaviours is leading by example. Demonstrate the behaviours, values, and work ethic you expect from your team members. Your actions speak louder than words, and when you model the behaviour you want to see, it creates a culture of accountability and trust.

Leading by example starts by knowing what example needs to be set. Your personal values, the organisational values and team culture all play a role here. Make sure you have a firm understanding of all three – both as they are, and more importantly, as they should be. Then, as Marcus Aurelius would say, don’t spend your time wondering what it means to be a good person – be one.

2. Communicate Openly and Transparently:

Effective leaders understand the importance of clear and transparent communication. Share information openly, listen actively, and encourage open dialogue within the team. Regularly communicate goals, expectations, and progress updates to keep everyone aligned and engaged.

Many of us have come across people who treat information as power, and refuse to share it. Don’t be that person. General Stan McCrystal developed a culture within his organisation in Iraq that turned “you don’t need to know” into “who needs to know?” Sharing information is a powerful leadership behaviour for anyone who seeks to be better as a leader.

3. Foster a Culture of Collaboration 

Encourage collaboration and teamwork among your team members. Create an environment where diverse perspectives are valued and encouraged. Promote a culture that values cooperation, open discussion, and mutual support, fostering creativity and innovation.

To foster this culture means removing implicit competition. For example, if there’s a ranking system in your company’s annual performance reports, you can’t expect people to collaborate in a meaningful way. Make sure rewards are tailored to team performance, not just individual KPIs. Only when people feel recognised for their input into collective efforts can we expect them to contribute to these efforts.

4. Provide Purpose and Meaning:

Good leaders inspire their team members by providing a sense of purpose and meaning in their work. Connect individual tasks and goals to the broader organisational mission. Help team members understand how their contributions make a difference, fostering a sense of pride and motivation.

Those of you familiar with Steven Covey’s 7 Rules of Highly Effective People might recognise this as ‘starting with the end in mind.’ To exercise this behaviour, remind your team regularly how their contribution helps everyone get closer to the outcome. By linking their daily or weekly efforts to a long term goal, everyone is reminded of the meaning behind their inputs and can derive purpose in their work.

5. Empower through delegation:

Effective leaders empower their team members by delegating authority and responsibility. Trust your team members to take ownership of their work and provide them with the resources and support they need to succeed. This not only develops their skills, it also fosters a sense of ownership and – most importantly – trust.

Trust is the currency of leadership. It underpins many, if not all, of the leadership behaviours in this article. By delegating your responsibilities, you foster trust within your team. When you remain accountable for your team’s actions and outcomes despite delegating these responsibilities, you reinforce that trust.  Good leaders do only the things that only they can do. For the other responsibilities they have, they delegate and demonstrate trust. Figure out what it is that only you can do – and only do that.

6. Develop and Mentor Others:

Invest in the growth and development of your team members. Provide coaching, mentorship, and opportunities for learning and advancement. Help them identify their strengths and areas for improvement, and provide constructive feedback to foster their professional growth.

Regardless of what it may say on your job statement, one of your key roles is to identify and train your replacement. Even better is to work yourself out of a job – develop your team so that they don’t need your oversight and input. The resistance to this behaviour often comes from fear; if my team don’t need me, I’m redundant and might be fired. In reality, it’s more likely that if you develop a team who can do your job, your potential is eminently evident and you will progress within your career – just like you’re helping your team to do.

7. Embrace Flexibility and Adaptability:

In a rapidly changing world, effective leaders embrace flexibility and adaptability. Be open to new ideas, embrace change, and encourage your team members to do the same. Cultivate a culture of continuous learning and improvement, where adapting to new circumstances is seen as an opportunity rather than a challenge.

There are no leaders of renown who opposed positive change. To be effective as leaders, we need to be willing to listen to all ideas, and apply the good ones based on the direction we need to go, not the person who came up with it. To demonstrate this behaviour, actively listen to your team’s ideas, and encourage them to provide their thoughts on what changes are likely – and how the organisation can be ready to embrace them.

8. Recognise and Celebrate Achievements:

Acknowledge and celebrate the achievements and contributions of your team members. Recognise their efforts publicly and provide genuine appreciation for their hard work. Celebrating successes fosters a positive and motivating work environment, reinforcing a sense of accomplishment and team spirit.

Demonstrating this behaviour can be relatively easy, and is a high-payoff for a low investment. Publicly and genuinely acknowledging positive contributions can be as simple as a heartfelt ‘thank you’ stated in a team meeting, or as public as a press release or social media post that shouts it out to the world.

9. Lead with Empathy and Emotional Intelligence:

Effective leaders understand the importance of empathy and emotional intelligence. Practice active listening, show genuine concern for the well-being of your team members, and provide support during challenging times. By demonstrating empathy, you build strong relationships and create a supportive work environment.

Showing empathy is one of the skills that isn’t taught in schools, and isn’t well-fostered in our society. To help you, here’s a handy reckoner; if you’re saying ‘sorry’ about an event, that’s sympathy. If you’re reflecting the emotions of someone else, that’s empathy. For example, if a teammate’s car is damaged and they are frustrated, show them you share their frustration. Make sure it’s genuine, and don’t wallow in it – but never dismiss it either, or you’ll undermine the trust you’ve built.

10. Continuously Reflect and Improve:

Good leaders are committed to their own growth and improvement. Continuously reflect on your leadership approach, seek feedback, and be open to self-improvement. Identify areas for growth, set goals, and actively work towards becoming an even better leader.

If you want to know where to improve, seek feedback. Most people will tell you where you can work on, and if all the news is good, you’re faced with two possibilities; one, that you’ve mastered leadership and can start the speaking circuit. More likely though, that you’ve created a power imbalance that your team are uncomfortable covering and telling you the truth. If this is the case, it’s powerful feedback in itself, and you have your first area to improve.

 Conclusion

By implementing these ten effective leadership behaviours, you can elevate your leadership impact and inspire those around you. As noted earlier, there are many, many more effective leadership behaviours that can help you to do a better job as a leader. Remember that these behaviours take time to implement, and practice to get right. There will be days you don’t get it right. But a genuine desire to do better, and to be better, will hold you in excellent stead for your leadership journey.  

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

Leadership theories

Who is a leader? This is a question that we’ve debated for decades, perhaps centuries. With these debates have come formal theories about leadership and what makes a good leader. As we’ve researched and tested these theories, they have evolved, updated and, where necessary, been shelved for better ideas and updated understanding. It is worth reviewing the development of our understanding of leadership theories. This article will briefly describe each one, the time they were most influential, and some of the reasons they weren’t the best explanation for the interactions around leadership.

Upfront, it is critical to review each theory in its appropriate context. It is not useful to deride early theories as uninformed or narrow. A key aspect of the change in the theories has been the changes in society. This is not to say that each theory describes how leadership was done in that period; rather, it is to show that our ability to understand leadership is easily constrained by inherent assumptions and biases that affect our everyday thinking. It then leads to the obvious question – what are we blind to now that will affect our understanding in the future?

Leadership Theories

Trait Theory (Early 20th Century and before):

Early leadership theories focused on identifying specific personal traits or characteristics that distinguished effective leaders. Researchers sought to pinpoint inherent qualities such as intelligence, charisma, and confidence that were believed to contribute to effective leadership. Also known as the ‘great man’ theory, it was assumed that leadership was something that some special people were born with, or that they developed those specific traits that enabled them to lead when the majority would follow.

This theory is incredibly persuasive and, despite how much the research and evidence have moved on, society often falls back on it to explain everyday leadership. When we think of leaders, we often think of presidents, generals, coaches, CEOs, and other people in powerful positions. Then we assume that these people got to their positions based on their personalities, so their leadership must be personality based. It’s easy logic – but that doesn’t make it right. Indeed, time and time again, research has shown that this logic is false. The great man theory of trait leadership is easy, but too shallow to be useful.

Behavioural Theories (1940s-1950s):

Behavioural theories shifted the focus from inherent traits to observable behaviours of leaders. Researchers examined how leaders' actions and behaviours influenced their effectiveness. Two prominent perspectives emerged during this period: the Ohio State studies, which identified initiating structure and consideration as key leadership behaviours, and the University of Michigan studies, which emphasised employee-centred and job-centred leadership styles.

Contingency and Situational Theories (1960s-1970s):

Contingency theories recognized that effective leadership is contingent upon various situational factors. The most notable theory was Fred Fiedler's Contingency Model, which emphasized the match between a leader's style (task-oriented or relationship-oriented) and the situational favourableness. Situational leadership theories by Hersey and Blanchard and Vroom and Yetton also gained prominence during this period.

The idea of situational leadership is another one that has become easy to fall back on when thinking about everyday leadership. We believe that certain situations require certain leadership behaviours. For example, in high-stress, time-constrained environments, we often believe that directive behaviours (that is, giving curt commands and being short and sharp) is the best way to get the job done. In other situations, where time is less pressing, we can slow down and be empathetic with followers. Again though, this popular belief doesn’t tell the full story. It might be part of the narrative, but there’s far more to add.

Transformational and Transactional Leadership (1980s-1990s):

Transformational leadership theory, introduced by James MacGregor Burns, highlighted leaders' ability to inspire and motivate followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes. This approach emphasised visionary leadership, charisma, and the ability to empower and develop others. Concurrently, transactional leadership theory, proposed by Bernard Bass, focused on the exchange relationship between leaders and followers, emphasising rewards, punishments, and goal setting.

These two theories remain popular and are often seen as mutually exclusive. They are also extrapolated and deep inferences drawn that aren’t necessarily accurate – often in the manufactured tension between leadership and management. This tension often contends that ‘leaders’ are transformational visionaries who inspire, whereas ‘managers’ are transactional only, with no ability to evoke any positive feeling of influence. In reality, they are not mutually exclusive, and as with so many other theories, there is a spectrum and context of application. Leaders and managers (and these two terms are far from being mutually exclusive as well) must use both transformational and transactional techniques in their roles to be successful.

Authentic and Servant Leadership (Late 20th Century-2000s):

As interest in ethics and morality as part of leadership grew, theories such as authentic leadership and servant leadership emerged. Authentic leadership emphasises leaders' genuine and transparent behaviour, aligning their actions with their values. It is sometimes referred to as ‘values-based leadership.’ Servant leadership emphasises leaders' commitment to serving others and their focus on followers' well-being, growth, and development.

These two theories are closely aligned, and in many ways, hark back to the trait theory of leadership. The greatest difference is the point of reference; these two theories look at the leader’s actions as they affect the followers, and how the leader makes the followers feel. Servant leadership in particular is follower-centric in its outlook. Interestingly, these theories are perhaps the first time that the leadership research starts to examine the leader-follower relationship in detail. It’s funny that it took this long to formally realise that a leader needs followers!  

Complexity and Adaptive Leadership (2000s-2010s):

With the recognition of increasing complexity in organisations, leadership theories began to address adaptive challenges. Complexity theory and adaptive leadership approaches, proposed by Ronald Heifetz and others, focused on leaders' ability to navigate uncertainty, facilitate change, and mobilise collective efforts to address complex problems. These theories emphasised the importance of collaboration, learning, and flexibility.

Positive and Ethical Leadership (2010s-Present):

In recent years, leadership theories have increasingly emphasised the positive impact leaders can have on individuals and organisations. Positive leadership theory highlights the importance of strengths, well-being, and positive relationships in leadership effectiveness. Ethical leadership theories focus on leaders' moral and ethical behaviour, emphasizing integrity, transparency, and social responsibility.

If you are thinking that this looks a lot like values-based leadership, you’re not far off the mark. There are two key themes to draw from these approaches; first, as noted above, there’s an emphasis on positive relationships. Not leader-follower dyads, not boss-subordinate interactions – positive relationships. The second theme is that leadership is about being a decent human, and encouraging and supporting those around you to do the same. It’s never about the power, the rewards, the trappings, or anything else that is position-centric. Those things are nice, and you can enjoy them. But, never forget, leadership is about others – not you.

Summary

Overall, leadership theory has evolved from trait-based approaches to more complex, context-dependent perspectives that consider the interplay between leaders, followers, and the surrounding environment. Modern theories emphasize the importance of values, ethics, authenticity, adaptability, and the positive impact of leaders on individuals and organisations.

The key change perhaps has been the shift from ego-based ideals to understanding that leadership is broad, positive, and helpful. These theories barely touch the surface of the complexity and nuance that encompasses leadership, and if you are interested in learning more, consider signing up for monthly emails to help navigate this journey called leadership.

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

Social Identity Theory

Leadership is about humans. There’s probably a school of thought on how leadership relates to AI, but for today’s practitioners, that’s too disconnected from daily reality to affect our lives. Everyday leadership, the type of leadership that matters now, is all about how humans interact with each other. That makes understanding other humans – and ourselves – incredibly important. If we understand how humans interact, we can better appreciate how to lead (and to follow).

Before we get too far into this article, take a moment to think about someone you dislike. Don’t think too hard about them or why you dislike them. Just think about who they are, and whether your low opinion of them is fixed forever. At the end of this, there will be some questions about them – and you. 

There is a plethora of models and frameworks that help us understand how humans interact, and how we think about ourselves and each other. One such is known as Social Identity Theory. It’s an intuitive model once you get the hang of it, but it can take some time to get your mind around how it works and how it can be used. This article will explain a little bit about the theory behind the Theory, and in the next article, we’ll look at how it applies in leadership.

Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory (SIT), developed by social psychologist Henri Tajfel, explores how individuals derive a sense of identity and self-esteem from their membership in social groups. In other words, we consider who we are as a person based on the groups we are in.

SIT also explains how group membership influences our behaviour, attitudes, and intergroup relations. According to the theory, people strive to maintain a positive social identity by enhancing the status of their particular in-group and differentiating it from out-groups. In plain terms, humans want to do things that make them more like stereotypical members of groups they think they are a part of.

Let’s have a look at some of the key academic concepts of the theory, then we’ll pull it together to better understand how it plays out in real life.

Key Concepts of Social Identity Theory

Social Categorisation: Individuals categorise themselves and others into social groups based on shared characteristics such as nationality, race, gender, occupation, or even fandoms. This categorisation helps simplify and organize the social world. Put simply, we all continuously classify ourselves and others into socially identifiable groups, e.g. males, or Australians, or netball players, or Nissan drivers.

Social Identity: Social identity refers to the part of an individual's self-concept that is derived from their membership in a particular group. It involves a sense of belonging, pride, and value associated with the group. For example, someone may identify strongly as a "cricket fan" or a "Nissan driver." We often tie this identity to our jobs – we think of ourselves as our career title, and define others by theirs e.g. “Tim is a pilot.”

In-Group Favouritism: People tend to show a preference and favouritism towards their own in-group (the group they personally identify with). They may display positive attitudes and behaviours towards in-group members and perceive their group as superior to out-groups. This bias can lead to intergroup conflicts and discrimination. If you’ve ever seen Holden vs. Ford rivalries, or AFL vs. netball, or opposing political party affiliates arguing, you have seen this in action.

Out-Group Homogeneity: Out-group homogeneity refers to the tendency to perceive members of out-groups as more similar to each other than they actually are. This perception can lead to stereotyping and generalisations about out-group members. Unfortunately, this plays out often; think of the tropes about Asian drivers, or Italian mums, or indigenous youths. We tar people with a brush based on them not being like us.

Social Comparison: Individuals engage in social comparison processes to enhance their self-esteem. They compare their in-group with relevant out-groups, striving to perceive their in-group as superior or more favourable in various domains, such as intelligence, competence, or moral values. Lots of social interactions revolve around these comparisons, especially in a competitive business setting, or when workers discuss management decisions.

Intergroup Conflict: Social Identity Theory explains how intergroup conflicts can arise due to competition for resources, status, or power between different social groups. Negative stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination often emerge because of these conflicts. A quick scan of the news shows any number of examples, perhaps none so prevalent as the growing divide between political parties in many countries.

Applications of Social Identity Theory

We can see from the theory of the Theory that there are a wide range of applications. Social Identity Theory can be applied to marketing, leadership, followership, and even friendship. It helps us understand the world around us, and our interactions with other humans as we go about our daily lives.

Here are some examples of Social Identity Theory in action. You can derive others from these, and from the information above; this is just a small list of possible applications that you might observe. 

Intergroup Relations: The theory helps explain intergroup conflicts, prejudice, and discrimination. Someone who identifies as a straight white male is likely to judge homosexual black females before they know them personally, and generally speaking, the judgement will be both negative, and wrong. Understanding social identity processes can contribute to interventions aimed at reducing conflicts and promoting positive intergroup relations. If we remember that people are humans first, and that our judgement is instinctively based on group membership, we can get to know them as a person rather than judging them based on their group memberships.

Organisational Behaviour: Social Identity Theory is relevant to understanding group dynamics, leadership, and organisational culture. We can see this in the workplace, at schools, in club sports or any other group. It provides insights into how group identities and social categorisations influence behaviour and employee engagement. The classic line for identifying how SIT plays out in an organisation is, “this is the way we do things around here.” As soon as there’s a ‘we’ used in the sentence, the speaker is drawing group boundaries, and defining the group’s culture and behaviours.

Consumer Behaviour: Social Identity Theory is a salesperson’s or marketing expert’s bread and butter – even if they don’t know it. By inferring that someone is a member of a certain group, they can be influenced into certain behaviours – like buying certain products. If we strengthen those group affiliations, we can generate lifelong customers. If someone identifies themselves as a Woolworths shopper, they’ll probably avoid Coles even when it’s easier or cheaper to buy there. A rusted-on Ford driver will never consider buying a GM product, even if it’s better quality or better suited to the driver.

Health and Well-being: Social Identity Theory can be leveraged to help people maintain a healthy lifestyle, or sometimes, to maintain an unhealthy one. People who identify as a cigarette smoker will act to affirm that belief. But, if that belief is altered, the behaviours can be changed. If someone changes their identity from “smoker” to “non-smoker”, then there’s a higher chance they’ll quit. Individuals who join fitness clubs with a strong sense of belonging (think Crossfit) may be positively influenced to train more often and participate in more healthy behaviours like diet modifications.

In summary, Social Identity Theory explains how group membership shapes our sense of self, influences intergroup relations, and impacts behaviour and attitudes. It highlights the importance of understanding group dynamics and the role of social identities in various domains of human interaction. We are who we think we are based on the groups we are part of. We judge others based on who we think they are, which we derive from the groups we believe they are part of. These groups then are compared to our groups, and we make a judgement about the other person.

Armed with this knowledge, we can change the way we look at the world, and potentially change the way we interact with others. A simple example might be to review the perception we have of someone we dislike – is it based on a genuine disagreement about fundamental values, or have we assumed their values based on the groups we’ve classified them into? It’s easy to infer that because they look and act differently, they must be wrong somehow.

To finish, try this thought experiment; the person you thought of at the start of this article is probably part of several different groups to you – out-groups to your subconscious mind. Now try to consciously place them in a group you are both part of. Do you both drive Toyotas? Follow a certain sporting code, or team? Born in the same state or city? Try to determine an in-group that includes you both, then decide whether your opinion remains fixed about them. Can you change your opinion? And if so – how can you apply this to your leadership?

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

Toxic Leadership

In every organisation, there are leaders who inspire, empower, and foster a positive work environment. Unfortunately, there are also people in leadership positions who are the opposite; they poison their workplace and make working with them a miserable affair. They are known as toxic leaders – all too common in modern day workplaces.

This article sheds light on the characteristics and detrimental effects of a toxic leader on their team. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for organisations to recognise and address toxic leadership before it erodes employee morale, productivity, and ultimately, the company's success. 

At its heart, leadership is a selfless endeavour. The benefit of the team is paramount, and a good leader operates under the notion that people are not a means to an end, but rather they are ends in themselves. A toxic leader, however, usually operates with a self-centered mindset, prioritising personal gain over the well-being of their team.

It leads to the question; how can you recognise a toxic leader? It’s not that hard – indeed, you may already know some. They exhibit a range of harmful traits that poison the workplace, including:

Lack of Empathy: Toxic leaders disregard the feelings, concerns, and well-being of their team members. They fail to understand the impact of their decisions and actions on others, leading to a culture of indifference and resentment. As noted above, they treat others as means to an end, and only value workers for what they can do, not who they are.

Micromanagement: Toxic leaders have a need for control and constantly micromanage their team, thereby stifling creativity, autonomy, and innovation. This behaviour creates an environment of fear and suffocates individual growth. They often believe that only they can do a task correctly, that others will not meet their standards. Micromanagement is usually a sign of low trust, and says more about the manager than it does the skills of their team.

Bullying and Intimidation: Toxic leaders resort to bullying tactics, belittling, and intimidating their subordinates. They use fear as a means to exert power, eroding trust and self-confidence within the team. They leverage their positional authority to offset their own sense of being an imposter in the role. As in the playground, bullying in the workplace often comes from low self-esteem.

Lack of Accountability: Toxic leaders rarely take responsibility for their own mistakes or failures. Instead, they shift blame onto others, creating a culture of scapegoating and fostering a sense of insecurity among team members. They often assume their position will protect them and that they can label their team as underperforming when questioned. Conversely, any positive reporting and feedback is greedily hoarded for themselves, never shared with the team who produced the results.

Manipulation and Favouritism: Toxic leaders play politics, manipulating situations and favouring certain individuals based on personal biases. This fosters a toxic work environment rife with favouritism, resentment, and reduced teamwork. A workplace with cliques and an entrenched ‘us vs. them’ mindset is difficult to focus on the bigger vision and to make collaborative approaches to workplace problems. Toxic leaders, being about themselves and not the collective, too often fall into the belief that other employees are obstacles. They seek out ways to undermine or remove these people instead of directing efforts towards collective success.

The impact of a toxic leader on their team – and indeed, an entire organisation – can be severe and far-reaching. Some of the impacts toxic leadership can have include:

Decreased Morale: Constant exposure to a toxic leader erodes team morale, leaving employees feeling undervalued, demotivated, and emotionally drained. This negativity spreads throughout the workplace, affecting overall team performance.

High Turnover: Toxic leadership contributes to a high turnover rate as talented individuals seek healthier work environments. The loss of skilled employees results in increased recruitment costs and decreased productivity.

Lack of Collaboration: Toxic leaders create an atmosphere of competition rather than collaboration. Team members become guarded, reluctant to share ideas or support one another, hindering teamwork and innovation.

Reduced Productivity: Toxic leaders stifle creativity and initiative, resulting in reduced productivity. Employees become disengaged, simply going through the motions without offering their full potential.

Health and Well-being Impact: Toxic leaders contribute to increased stress levels among their team members, leading to burnout, decreased job satisfaction, and even physical and mental health issues.

Lose not all hope, ye who work here. Toxic leadership can be addressed. Organisations must take proactive measures to identify and address toxic leadership. Some actions include:

Encourage Open Communication: Foster an environment where employees feel safe to voice concerns and provide feedback without fear of retribution. This needs to extend throughout the workplace, from CEO to the brand-new entries. It takes time to build this culture, so expect hurdles along the way. The result is worth it though.

Training and Development: Provide leadership development programs that emphasise emotional intelligence, empathy, and effective communication to prevent toxic behaviours. It’s important to remember that toxic leaders don’t think they are toxic. They were promoted or hired for a reason, and there’s a good chance that they have the potential to turn their approach to leadership around. With training and assistance, they may turn the corner and regain their value to the team.

Accountability and Consequences: Hold leaders accountable for their actions and implement consequences for toxic behaviour, creating a culture of professionalism and respect. Some people were not meant to be leaders, and some employees aren’t worth retaining regardless of skills or knowledge. If there is clear evidence that a leader in the organisation is a toxic person, not just a toxic leader, then a quick separation is usually in the company’s best interest.

Seek Feedback: Regularly collect feedback from team members to identify potential toxic leadership patterns and address them promptly. If necessary, the feedback cab be anonymous. An option for many workplaces is to introduce a form of 360° reporting, where managers and supervisors receive feedback on their performance from their boss, their peers, and their team.

Lead by Example: Promote and celebrate positive leadership behaviours, fostering a culture that values empathy, collaboration, and fairness. Workplace culture thrives in an environment of positive leadership, starting from the top. It’s much easier to build a sense of ‘who we are’ and ‘how we do things in this organisation’ when these beliefs are demonstrated daily and can be emulated by the team. 

It is worth noting that toxic leaders aren’t necessarily bad people. Some are, and as noted earlier, these individuals should be removed as efficiently as possible. Often, however, toxic leaders in the workplace are good humans who aren’t entirely sure how to use the leadership tools at their disposal. A simple litmus test for this might be to ask whether a leader is someone you would: work for; work with; catch up socially; avoid altogether. If they are someone you can work with or have a coffee with, there’s a high chance they are unaware of their leadership behaviours, and that with training and development, their potential can be released.

Too many employees have felt the negative effects of toxic leadership. Toxic leaders have a destructive impact on their teams and organisations. Recognising the signs of toxic leadership and taking action to address it is vital for creating a healthy, productive work environment. By promoting positive leadership traits and addressing toxic behaviour promptly, organisations can nurture a culture that empowers and inspires their employees to reach their full potential and achieve collective success.

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

Leadership myths

Corporate leadership is a dynamic and multifaceted domain that often carries its fair share of myths and misconceptions. These misconceptions can cloud our understanding of effective leadership practices, hindering the growth and development of leaders within organisations. In this article, we debunk common myths about corporate leadership, shedding light on the realities that shape successful leadership in today's business world.

Myth #1: Leaders are Born, Not Made:

One prevalent myth is that leadership is an innate trait bestowed upon a select few. In reality, most people have the potential to be excellent leaders. Their leadership skills can be developed and refined through learning, practice, and experience. Effective leadership is a result of continuous growth, self-awareness, and the willingness to learn from both successes and failures.

Myth #2: Leaders Have All the Answers:

Contrary to popular belief, leaders do not need to have all the answers. In fact, good leaders embrace collaboration and actively seek input from their teams. They value diverse perspectives and understand that the collective intelligence of their team members can lead to better decision-making and innovative solutions.

Myth #3: Leadership is All About Authority:

Leadership is not solely defined by hierarchical authority. True leadership is based on influence, inspiration, and the ability to motivate others towards a common goal. Effective leaders build trust, establish strong relationships, and earn the respect of their team members through their actions, communication, and ethical behaviour.

Myth #4: Leaders Must Be Extroverts:

Another common misconception is that leaders must be charismatic, outgoing, and extroverted. While these traits can be beneficial, introverted leaders can also excel in their roles. Introverted leaders often possess strengths such as deep listening skills, thoughtful decision-making, and a focus on individual development. Effective leadership transcends personality types and encompasses a range of diverse strengths.

Myth #5: Leaders Don't Make Mistakes:

Leaders, like everyone else, are fallible human beings. They make mistakes, face challenges, and experience setbacks. What might set a better leader apart is their ability to learn from their mistakes, take responsibility, and adapt. Effective leaders are resilient, embrace a growth mindset, and use failures as opportunities for personal and organisational growth.

Myth #6: Leadership is a Solo Journey

Leadership is not a solitary journey; it is a collective effort. Successful leaders recognise the importance of building and nurturing strong teams. They empower their team members, provide mentorship, and foster an environment of collaboration and trust. Leadership is about creating a shared vision and inspiring others to contribute their unique talents towards its realisation.

Myth #7: Leaders Must Always Be in Control:

There is a misconception that leaders must maintain complete control over every aspect of their team or organisation. In reality, effective leaders never micromanage. They understand the importance of delegation and empowering their team members. They trust their team to take ownership and make decisions within their areas of expertise. By empowering others, leaders foster a sense of ownership, encourage growth, and create opportunities for innovative thinking.

Myth #8: Leaders Must Always Be Serious and Stoic:

There is a misconception that leaders must maintain a serious and stoic demeanor at all times. Nothing could be further from the truth; good leaders act who they are. They understand the importance of emotional intelligence and the power of authenticity. Leaders who are approachable, display empathy, and show vulnerability create stronger connections with their teams. By fostering a positive and inclusive work environment, leaders can enhance morale, engagement, and productivity.

Too many myths like these stifle good employees from seeking leadership positions. They also tend to stifle management decisions about who should be promoted or hired into leadership positions, potentially becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reality is that leaders are as diverse as leadership. By fostering strong and positive workplace cultures, encouraging employees to contribute, and developing leaders at all levels, companies can undermine these pervasive myths and shape their own reality.

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

Are you a bad boss?

Here’s an interesting anecdote.

A room full of army officers were asked a question. These army officers were students on the Advanced Operations Couse (AOC), which is reserved for those majors who have been identified for progression within the organisation. They are considered the cream of their cohort, with potential to end up leading units or brigades in the future.

These officers were asked, ‘how many of you have ever had a bad boss?” Nods and hands raised from the entire group. None had made it through their career – and all had at least 15 years of service, some many more – without being subordinate to a boss they recognised as embodying poor leadership. But this was not the interesting question. That was next.

“How many of you ARE a bad boss?”

No hands were raised, no heads were nodded. Silence was the only answer.

The implication was clear. For this many people to have had so many poor bosses in their career, there was no chance at all that some of them weren’t, themselves, bosses that others would have thought of when asked the first question. No one wanted to acknowledge this truth – but it rang out clearly in the room, and all present heard it.

It is easy to recognise those leadership traits in others that do not inspire trust, confidence, or caring. It is far harder to realise – or accept – when we do not inspire those feelings in others.

I have found throughout my career that bottom-up feedback is scarce, but incredibly valuable. Top-down feedback is more prolific, usually more critical, and based on observations that are removed from the experience of direct reports. Often, answering the question of whether we’re someone’s bad boss requires seeking out the knowledge. People won’t necessarily be afraid to tell you (and if they are, you have your answer anyway). And you won’t be seen as egotistical (unless you are, in which case you have your answer anyway).

Feedback is a gift, and it’s one of the rare ones you can ask people to give you. Asking is hard, there’s no doubt. Harder than not knowing if you’re a bad boss? That’s a question you’ll have to ask yourself. And harder still – knowing what to do with the answer. But you can do less without it – and asking the question is the first step to improvement.

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

Setting the standard

There was a viral video years ago from the Chief of the Australian Army, in which he made the statement that the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. It’s an interesting one, and on examination, I think he’s right - but only half right.

Humans tend to behave in certain ways. While there’s a lot of art to leadership, there’s also some science. Psychology and social science can teach us some things that are pretty certain when it comes to how we behave in certain circumstances. One thing we tend to lock on to is status. And who has status tends to be who sets standards.

A recent experiment - an uncontrolled one, but instructive - was run with a group of managers in a large organisation. The managers were brought in from every department for a training course, and as part of the course, a messenger chat was set up to pass information about the course between the trainee managers. Another group was set up for the training staff to pass on changes to the training program or details about meeting rooms and the like. These two messenger chats were seperate; the supervising trainers only had access to one group, while the trainee managers had access to both.

The organisation is in a male-dominated industry, but females have been making up a larger percentage of the workforce over the last couple of decades as senior managers look to expand their skill bases and skilled recruiting pool. This particular training course was one of the first where there were a significant number of women among the trainee managers, while the supervising trainers were exclusively male. One of the trainers was a former senior VP within the organisation, who was invited to review the training being conducted. He brought with him decades of experience, and the status to match.

Halfway through the week-long course, it became obvious that there was a spectrum of behaviours from the trainee managers. Some were progressive in their thinking, and looked for opportunities to improve and include everyone. Others identified more strongly with the organisation’s historic male-dominated culture, and were less accepting of the increased number of women in their developing demographic. As the course continued, the trainee manager’s group chat became a means to pass derogatory memes and comments. These were kept to the trainee’s chat only, with the training staff not aware at first.

As the memes proliferated, individuals in the trainee managers group faced a choice. In the words of the Army general, they could walk past the standard, or confront it. But as social scientists and psychologists will point out, confronting a group is not easy. In fact, it’s very not easy - some would say it’s extremely difficult. But it seemed that confrontation was not to be needed; in a classic 2021 mistake, someone posted a meme on both the group chats, which most of the trainee managers thought would stop the memes and see the offending managers called out.

But they weren’t. The meme was ignored, and by default, it was tacitly accepted. While none of the trainers endorsed it, they neither derided it nor called out the behaviour of those who created and posted it. This set the standard. The status of the group was held most by the trainers, and by walking past a standard, they had set it for the entire group.

It’s not enough as a leader to not do the wrong thing. It’s not enough to set the standard for yourself, and trust others to follow suit. As a leader, the standard you set it is the standard others will accept. The standard you walk past is the standard that everyone in the organisation will see as acceptable. Most of all, this standard must be public, and it must be consistent. If you berate and correct others for poor behaviour, but are seen laughing at inappropriate jokes at a later date, you’ve set the standard at the lowest level. There can not be two standards, and the lower one will always be the one others see as acceptable.

For members of a group, it’s hard to set the standard for the group. Status plays a huge part in who sets the group standards, and without formal authority, the group’s standards can be hard fought or easily transgressed with little repercussions. As a leader, the standard of the group is the standard you set. Others will see it as the way things are done around here; the bedrock of culture, of defining what it means to be a member of that group. Beware the standard you walk past, for it is the standard not just for you, but for all.

A remake of the viral video now might be more accurately stated as: the standard you walk past is the standard an individual accepts. The standard a leader walks past, is the standard everyone accepts.

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

Brain filtering

There’s a myth that we all seem to accept as kids; that we only use 10% of our brain. This myth gives rise to some fanciful stories about people who use more of their brains, and are therefore smarter, while also providing fuel for many an insult about people who use less than 10%, and are therefore less intellectually formidable. But the truth is that all of us use all of our brains, just in different ways at different times. The human brain has been described as the most complex object in existence. And without an owner’s manual, there’s a good chance we’re not taking advantage of its complexity.

Our brains tend to work in layers. Like onions, parfait, and ogres, layers are an analogy for our brains that we can use to understand a little bit more what’s going on in this super-computer. The first layer is our immediate consciousness. It’s what you’re thinking of right now. Hopefully, for you dear reader, the top layer is the words you see on the screen in front of you. Immediately below this is the peripheral consciousness. This is all the things going on around you that you are aware of, but aren’t paying full attention to. If you’re reading this on the bus, you are aware of movement, but it’s not in the front of your mind. If you are at home, you might have music on in the background - you might even be humming along - but if asked, you might not be able to immediately name the song. Slightly deeper, you’re aware that you are awake, upright (probably) and vaguely aware of the temperature. These are the things that you can quickly shift your attention to in order to bring them to the top layer. It’s this middle layer that we’ll come back to.

The last layer that we’ll briefly look at is the bottom layer. You can give it the label of your subconscious if you like; it’s the thoughts that you don’t know you’re thinking, and that you may or may not even be able to access. And it’s FAST. One example of the thousands that exist is catching a ball. You see the ball coming and you put your hand up. In this bottom layer though, a thousand equations have been solved in a split second to calculate everything about the ball; its velocity, trajectory, the likely effect of gravity, the effect of wind, it’s probable weight, and it’s surface texture. Then a series of commands has been sent to your body to: set your feet, balance your stance, extend your arm and fingers, and close them at just the right moment to capture the ball. On the top layer, you probably thought, ‘I’ll catch that,’ but deeper down, you just earned a Nobel prize in physics.

There are many differences between these layers, and one of the biggest differences is processing power. The top layers are single channel processors; one task at a time. Multi-tasking in the top layer is really just task-switching. But for the bottom layer, it’s all about parallel processing. At the same time it’s figuring out how to calculate every computation for catching a ball, it’s also figuring out how to talk, breathe, balance, squint into the sun, and a thousand other tasks that keep you functioning as a human. You might be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, but that’s because your subconscious is doing them both for you. Simultaneously.

Another way to think about the differences between these layers is bandwidth. You can only consciously think about one thing at a time, and hold another seven or so in working memory. Using our earlier analogy, the top layer has one item in its memory banks, and the middle layer holds a few more. But this isn’t even a fraction of the sensory inputs we are receiving, and it’s a very select group. Are you sitting down? If so, are you aware of the chair beneath you? You are now; you’ve replaced an item in your top layer with this new awareness. Soon, it will drift into the middle layer as you again engross yourself in these words, and then it will silently slip back into the subconscious, replaced by other thoughts until recalled again when you rise and realise you have a numb butt.

With all that goes on around us, we’ve learned to filter the inputs we get into two main areas; regard and disregard. Our subconscious takes care of the disregard part, and we think we’ve ignored it, even when we haven’t. You might not pay attention to the temperature around you (or the chair beneath you) but your subconscious will adjust your internal cooling mechanisms regardless of whether you actively notice that you’re warm. At some point, some inputs are automatically passed from the ‘disregard’ status to the ‘regard’ status. As you get really warm, you might all of a sudden remark how hot is is and look for an active way to cool down. Similarly, when walking on a crowded footpath, you don’t notice the people in the crowd around you, but if you see a familiar face, you react. In effect, there is a filter between the layers in our brain that sorts out what goes into our conscious thinking. And that filter is incredibly important.

Have you ever bought a new car? When you decided on the make and model to buy, did you all of a sudden notice that type of car everywhere around you? Until this point, the information wasn’t very relevant or important, and was therefore filtered out. When the information became relevant, the filter adjusted to allow it to pass into your middle layer for holding as you were near other cars, then the top layer for examination when you saw one. Our filters are adjustable; but rarely adjusted.

The subconscious is incredibly powerful, but with great power comes great hunger. To conserve energy, our brains try to operate on idle as much as possible. For most of our actions, this works fine. But the filter between our layers is a potential power draw, so we use habit to make it efficient too. The effect of this is that we tend to pay attention to the things we normally pay attention to. And unless forced to change, the information passed up through the filter remains very similar. This is totally fine for much of our lives, but there are times it’s better to examine the filter, and see if it needs reshaping.

Our attitudes tend to be a product of our thoughts. And our thoughts, as we’ve seen, are often a byproduct of our habits. This feedback loop is part of the reason for our disposition; we see some people as perennially happy, or morose, or sceptical, or laconic. Part of this - but by no means the whole reason - is the filter we apply to our thinking. If, when confronted with a novel event, we filter for happy thoughts and optimistic outcomes, these will influence our approach. Our brains can’t hold enough information to try and be simultaneously happy and morose in response to a given event. It can’t be wholly mad and wholly laconic. If we train ourselves to filter the world around us in a certain way, that approach becomes habit, and affects our attitude generally.

It’s hard to be reactively selective in our filtering though. We can’t choose happiness as a response to a new event if our general outlook is sombre. Rather, we need to train ourselves to look for happiness in our normal thinking, and set the filter in response. Just like seeing a make and model of car we are interested in, if we are interested in the positive outlook in the world we move through, our subconscious will adjust the filter to suit. If we look for ill intent in others, then we should hardly be surprised to find it.

This is a hugely simplified explanation of course. The most complex object in existence cannot be summarised so easily, and there are scholars who weep for the analogies above. Despite this, the takeaway is clear; if we seek out the positives around us, we will find them, and eventually, the filter that passes information to our conscious brains will adjust to bias towards this outlook. Conversely, if we expect the negatives to happen, we cannot be surprised when they are all we filter for, and in turn, are all we perceive. Ultimately, we choose which habit we form, which filter we set, which attitude we adopt.

As leaders, you can choose to believe that people working with you are doing their level best to perform well and support the organisation. Or you can choose to expect poor performance, and look for fault and blame around you. Either way, you shouldn’t be surprised with the make and model of team mate you see most often.

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

The Big Boss

Most of have a shared experience - a meeting with the big boss. Not our day to day supervisor, or their manager, but the Big Kahuna themselves. Sometimes, this is like a brush with celebrity. It’s always refreshing to get a chance to tell people who make the decisions about how it is at the coalface. But what about when you’re the big boss? How do you ensure these opportunities go well?

Leadership takes some ego. We have to have a certain level of self confidence and self belief to be able to out ourselves out as leaders, and to influence others. For some, it’s a necessary evil, a price to pay for the opportunity to help others by assuming a leadership role. For others, it’s a pleasure, and the ego can grow as far as others will let it. This is obviously a dangerous path - hearing only what we want to hear, in the end, does no-one any favours. For those who can keep their ego in check, it’s an immensely rewarding experience. The first tip for being the big boss is to find something that grounds you. For some, it’s a hobby or sport. It’s hard to pretend you’re important when you’re trying as hard as everyone else to win. For others, it’s a trusted insider who will let you know if your head starts to swell. Whatever it might be, find something that reminds you that you work for your team at the same time that they work for you.

It’s only natural to be proud of our work. We’ve put our effort into it, and this often brings with it a desire to have others see our work and take some pleasure in it too. When that person is the big boss, it takes on another aspect; this person can most likely stop the flow of resources that enable us to do our work, or they can find ways to increase our share and do more. If you’re the boss, remember that people want to show you the good that they do. Take pride in their pride; it’s a great sign that the company is on track. The second tip for being the big boss is to show pride in your team. Let them know when they’re doing a good job. And tell them if you need them to lift their game; if you’ve found something that needs fixing, it shows you’re interested and engaged. That doesn’t mean that you try to find things to correct - but don’t hold back if you do.

One of the best feelings we have is that of being seen. It’s easy to dismiss the decisions made in remote buildings, or even in remote cities or countries, by faceless people with important titles. It’s harder to do so when you know that the boss has been to your workplace and seen what you do, and takes an interest. Chances are, if the boss visits, they’ll learn something and adopt a better way to understand your work. So, if you’re the boss, be visible. Part of feeling appreciated is being seen, and there’s no better way to make someone feel seen than to go and see them. Ask questions, and take an interest in the workplace. The impact will be lasting. The third tip for being the big boss is to make time to meet the team in their workplace. Don’t find the time - that won’t happen. People will tell you it’s ok, you’re busy, they understand. Don’t let this stop you; make the time.

It is said that first impressions are the most powerful. When you’re the big boss, you don’t get to make many impressions on the majority of the workforce. When you visit others you get to interact with a wide variety of people and they have little chance to make a big impact. For them though, there are very few opportunities to interact with the big boss, and therefore any interactions will be larger and more meaningful from their perspective. Their entire impression of you might be based on something as simple as whether you greet them with a smile and thank them for their time. It can be hard to be present for every interaction, and to treat every one as though they are the centre of your attention. It’s also hard to claw back a bad impression and engender loyalty in a group you’ve brushed off. The final tip for being the big boss is to be authentic. Treat everyone you interact with as though they’re your boss. If you’re doing your job right; they are.

If you’re the boss, appreciate that people will always want to impress you. So be impressed. Get out and visit the team, and when you do, take the time to listen and understand the differences between what you might think, and what your team thinks. When it’s different, find out why and explain to the team why these differences might exist. Be open and honest. For most of us, especially in Australia, there’s a good chance that no-one thinks you’re special, even if you are the big boss. They know that you put your pants on one leg at a time, so don’t pretend to be better than them. Your job as the big boss isn’t to impress people, it’s to help them. We do this by learning. Enjoy the experience, and take every chance you get - it is a fact of the job that there won’t be enough of them.

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

Communicate or perish

If there’s one thing that seems to get people offside in a workplace, it’s communication. You’ve probably heard of the expression ‘being treated like a mushroom.’ If you’re not familiar with the phrase, think about how you grow these fungi; you put them in the dark, and feed them manure. Workers relate - being kept out of the communication loop can make it seem like you’re a mushroom in the organisation, privy only to the leftover crumbs of information. This has two significant impacts on the workforce; it undermines a sense of contribution, and it reinforces status barriers. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

The best thing about living in the twenty-first century has got to be the ubiquitous access to communication. In fact, many organisations now struggle with communicating; there are too many ways to pass information. Email, Slack, IM, direct meetings - the list goes on. Despite this, there’s often no real passage of information. People make decisions and don’t communicate their intentions down the chain, expecting it to instead get passed from one level to the next like a game of pass the message. Sometimes, we overlook the tools that could help us the most.

Correcting this issue can be fairly simple - although with all things leadership, nothing is truly simple; after all, there are humans involved, with all their variety and nuance. But there are certain actions that can lessen the friction.

Initially, decide on the medium. Your organisation likely has a normal means for passing information, and in many cases, it’s probably email. Sometimes, there are better options; engagement can be increased by using YouTube videos, information can be accessed easily through Slack or you might prefer to go old school and gather the team for a meeting. Making this decision though, remember one thing; it’s about the audience. Who are you communicating to, and how will they access the information? And don’t forget that the medium sends a message in itself; if you’re passing on bad news, it’s always best to do this in person.

Next, consider the breadth of the message. How far into the organisation do you want the message to get? Is this something you can send to the entire workforce, or is this relevant only to a small section? For those that might consider themselves mushrooms, how do you open a window and make sure they get the information they crave - the information that they need to do a better job? Most communication mediums now make it easy to share information widely, which empowers people to make decisions and act quickly. If in doubt, share widely.

Don’t forget to add context. Passing on a decision without explaining why a decision was made leaves people with information, but no way to use it. Effectively, this is the manure you feed mushrooms; it sustains operations, but it doesn’t grow oak trees. Without context, people can’t add their own knowledge and experience to the information and in doing so, use it to the organisation’s best advantage. Conversely, if people understand the rationale behind decisions, it’s much easier to anticipate what happens next, and to move in the right direction. By explaining the why, it gives a sense of purpose, and empowers people to do more. Knowledge is not power until you share it.

Information empowers people. It’s entirely natural to want to contribute. By ensuring that information flows smoothly through an organisation, leaders can enable their workforce to see opportunities and act on fleeting circumstances. This translates to speed in reaction, which puts the organisation at an advantage. Knowing what’s happening also provides a sense of belonging, empowering people to contribute and reinforcing their sense of status.

The best solution to communication issues, as it often is to organisational issues, is simply to seek feedback. Engage with the team to find out if they know enough, and if they understand why certain decisions are made. Often, there’s a sense that bad decisions need to be held closely in case people are unhappy with the news, but this undersells the ability for well-informed workers to understand context and appreciate being kept in the loop. Ask the team what’s working and what isn’t - then use the feedback to improve.

The Industrial Age was marked by a sense that managers only passed on the information that workers needed to do their jobs. As a result, improvements - if any - were iterative and slow. In the twenty-first century, any organisation that operates in such a backward way will go the same way as the steam train and the telegram. Don’t be a steam train, and don’t let your organisation create mushrooms.

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

Death by PowerPoint

‘Death by PowerPoint.’ It’s a phrase so common it has become a cliché. But, despite knowing how painful PowerPoint use can be, we don’t appear to learn. Every time we need to give a presentation, we seem to go straight to our computers and build slides. Why do we default to this, even when we know that we are risking boring our audience to, if not death, at least the point where our message is completely ignored? As leaders, we need to be communicators. As communicators, we need to better employ PowerPoint in order to influence our teams. 

It is often a case of not knowing better – this is the way it’s always been done. Far too many people have endured education where lessons are based on PowerPoint, before entering workplaces where PowerPoint is the default means for passing on information. PowerPoint can be a great tool. But, like any tool, it needs to be used properly. And like any other tool, it works best when wielded by someone who knows how, and when, to use it. Have you ever looked at the range of hammers available? You could choose a ball peen, sledge, claw, mallet; and these are just a few. But, you have to pick the right hammer for the job you are doing – just because it’s the biggest and heaviest (and the most fun to use), doesn’t mean a sledgehammer is always the best way to solve a problem. So too with PowerPoint; it’s simply one tool that can be used, and there are times it isn’t the appropriate choice. 

Leaders are influencers. To influence a group, the leader needs to communicate effectively, which often means making presentations. It is for this reason that leaders must know how to better employ PowerPoint and use it as a tool for influence. Ultimately though, no audience will be swayed by slides. They will listen to an authentic leader who knows how to engage and evoke emotion. Leadership is not a trait, nor is it a discreet skill. Leadership is the effect that leaders have and is based on many various skills sets. One of these, potentially the most important, is communication. 

Pause now for a moment, and think about the last time someone presented information to you with PowerPoint. Was it a lecture? A meeting? A pitch? What do you remember about it? As you cast your mind back, expand your recollection to remember a period in your life when you were constantly inundated with PowerPoint. Maybe at university, or school, or as the default backdrop at your workplace’s daily update. How many slides were you shown every day? And how many of them can you now remember?

If my own experience is anything to go by, you probably remember little of any PowerPoint presentation you’ve ever been shown. This is because PowerPoint is not a good way to pass on a powerful message that people will remember. The human brain is amazing in its capacity to learn and retain information, but even the universes’ most complex network has limits. A PowerPoint slide cannot save a boring presentation – even with clever animations. 

Humans need to be encouraged to remember things. Fortunately, we are blessed through the miracle of evolution with the ability to encode information and recall it. This ability hinges on one thing – emotion. When we feel something, our brains tag the situation and store the experience in a series of connections across the network of cells that make up the organ between our ears. The felt emotion is critical to the process of storing a memory. 

This can be shown through a simple experiment. Try now to recall any memory you can, anything at all that comes to mind. Don’t worry, I’ll wait. 

It is a safe bet that you did not recall your breakfast from three Mondays ago. Unless there was an unusual set of circumstances that made that specific meal stand out, it was probably just an ordinary event and you had no reason to retain that memory after your hunger was sated. I’ll bet the event you remembered (instead of a random breakfast) had an emotional attachment that led to its being stored as a memory. The emotion is the key to the memory. To get a message across and create the trigger for your audience to store the information you are trying to communicate in their memory, it can’t be another boring PowerPoint that people have sat through too many times. These events get filed with our routine events that aren’t worth recalling, and the information is lost. 

To communicate effectively, you need to engage the emotions of the audience. As humans, we respond to emotion and tend to better remember those events that involve an emotional response. This is the key to using PowerPoint - don’t base your presentation around the slides, base the slides around your presentation. You, as the presenter, are the bard who crafts the story and evokes the emotion through the same means that humans have done through the ages; use stories, vary your rhythm, volume, tone and pitch, emphasise non-verbal communication. This means not using PowerPoint as the crutch for the presentation – that is, letting the slides carry the information and simply reading back what the audience can see is written already. We’ve all had the unfortunate experience of sitting through presentations where this has occurred. It’s no surprise then that this is the surest way to ensure an audience never connects to the content of the presentation and recalls exactly 0% of the information being conveyed. 

If you decide to use PowerPoint, there are a couple of techniques that will ensure it is employed effectively. Firstly, go big, go bold, and keep it basic. Long lists or slides full of words are useless. In fact, they are worse than useless – they detract from the presentation and distract the audience. If you can’t take in the information on a slide in a matter of seconds, you’ve got too much on there. Secondly, think like a marketer. Advertisements are a great corollary for PowerPoint slides. Marketers need to get an audience to remember their information and recall it later – that’s the same effect good presenters desire. The best ads are simple, they tell a story, they evoke an emotion and they pass on information quickly. Your PowerPoint should achieve the same effect in a similar time as someone perusing a magazine ad. A useful analogy is to consider the presentation as the product you are selling, and the slide is the ad supporting the sale. To sell your information, tell a story and evoke an emotion like a marketing genius. 

Leaders set the example and the tone for their teams. When team members see how presentations can be done well, and how PowerPoint can complement a presentation instead of driving it, they will be better placed to do so themselves. When team members use PowerPoint as a crutch, leaders can engage and demonstrate a better way. In this way, team members will understand what good looks like, and can increase their own ability to communicate. Leaders teach their teams to be leaders in many different ways, and this is another where a team can grow under a leader’s guidance and example. 

PowerPoint is a tool for leaders to communicate, and as with the other skills that underpin leadership, it is a tool that can be wielded well, or poorly – only the leader can decide whether to improve their use of the tool. Leaders who use the tool well will increase their influence and improve their outcome. Those that do not risk seeing their audiences shuffle from this mortal coil, victims of a crime that may one day be criminal; death by PowerPoint.  

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

What are you a leader of?

What are you a leader of? 

So, you’re a leader. Good for you! Leadership comes in many shapes and forms, and for a person to identify themselves as a leader is to admit that you have influence in the world. But, the big question is; over whom do you have influence? 

It seems pretty obvious that to be a leader, there needs to be two conditions that are met. Firstly, there needs to be a group of people (or at the very least, a person). And secondly, that this group is influenced by someone – that someone is the leader. We know from research that groups are groups because they identify as such; in other words, someone is a member of a collective based on their belief that they belong to said collective. A case in point would be the fans of a netball team. Simply by identifying as a fan, one is a member of the group. That doesn’t mean that everyone in the group accepts that person as one of them, but importantly, it does mean that if someone identifies as a member of a group, they are likely to adhere to the group’s rules. So, if there’s a recognised leader of that group, then people who believe they are part of the group will tend to be influenced by the group’s recognised leader. 

People within a group will look to other group members to try and establish what group membership entails. People don’t look at other groups to figure out how they should act, or who they should be influenced by. As an example, the principal of a school is the leader of the staff (and hopefully the students). People who identify as belonging to the group that makes up the staff will associate the individual who is principal as the leader of their group. But when that individual is in a different group – let’s say that they are a member of a cover band in their spare time – they aren’t the leader of the band by default. The band members don’t identify as school staff, so there’s no reason for the principal to have influence based on other leadership positions. To be a leader then, one must be part of the group. And this is the key idea here – leaders exist within certain groups. They are identified as leaders as a result of being part of that group, and not because of something they do outside it. Only within an agreed group is the individual a leader – not in general. 

When we say we’re a leader then, we need to be specific. Included in the definition must be the group that we lead. To say ‘I am a leader’ is incomplete; there needs to be a group involved. It’s far more accurate to say ‘I lead within my workplace as a supervisor’ or ‘I am a leader because I am captain of my club hockey team.’ 

The understanding that we are leaders only within certain groups – that is, only in certain contexts – is hugely important. It should ground and guide leaders in their group interactions. Fundamentally, they need to be active members of the group, and understand that they are reflective of group norms. 

As we saw before, leaders need to be part of the group; and this includes not being above it. If a leader believes themselves to be above the group by virtue of position or influence, they will eventually find out they are party correct – they won’t be part of the group for long. And you cannot lead a group from the outside. Groups can be influenced only by people that the group accepts belong within the identified group. Only by being part of a group – and having the group believe they are part of the group – can an individual wield influence.  

If you’re a leader, you’re a member of a group. It behoves you then to act like it, and to put the group’s needs ahead of your own. Failure to do so will see you ejected from the group, and stripped of any influence. This ejection might not be formal, but if the group mentally decides you’re out, your influence is over. Even when people are placed in positions of power and authority, failure to appreciate the requirement to be part of the group will result in exclusion from the group, and an inability to influence the group. You may coerce, but you will not lead. The idea that management are a separate entity within an organisation is as old as management itself – they often don’t integrate themselves as part of the group. This often means that change is met with resistance as people believe that changes are being imposed by non-group members. Far better to be an accepted influencer within the group, and bring them on a journey, than to impose your will and force compliance. 

For groups to be influenced, they must be led by someone from within the group. If you believe you are a leader, you believe you are a member of a group, and that implies the requirement to put collective needs ahead of your own. Leading from the inside is the only way to gain willing and cohesive influence. This article started by asking if you’re a leader, over whom do you have influence – but this is in fact the wrong question for leaders to ask. The question is neither ‘are you a leader?’, nor ‘whom do you lead?’ but rather how do you show your group that you are one of them, and exercise your influence through the group – and not over them. 

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

What makes a good leader?

Was Hitler a good leader? 

I’ve heard this question over and over again during my career. Or variations thereof, all trying to explain the difference between the effect that a person can have on a group versus the use of the word ‘good’. 

Spoiler alert: Hitler was not a good leader. 

I can hear now the counter-arguments that this statement has provoked. If he wasn’t a good leader, then how did he influence so many people towards his goals? How could he sway the collective thoughts of an entire nation if he was such a bad leader? 

This is the whole point to the question of what makes a good leader. It’s not just about their ability to influence a group. The word good has two meanings: it can mean effective at achieving an outcome or it can mean the opposite of bad. When it comes to being a good leader though, we need it to mean both. 

Hitler was effective at influence. He was the recognised holder of a position of power within an organised group. By these narrow strictures then, he was a ‘good leader.’ But – and it’s a huge ‘but’ here – he was an evil, evil person. He remains the archetypical personification of evil for almost everyone alive, reviled as few have ever been before. Influential, yes. But a good leader? No. 

For a leader to be good, they must not just be effective at influence, they need also to be decent human beings. It’s important that we think this way, because words define our thoughts, and if we allow ourselves to call evil people good leaders, we mentally allow the shortcut of decreasing the disgust we should hold for those who use power and influence for unethical ends, or in unethical ways. 

Our brains are lazy. Given the option between thinking hard or applying a quick heuristic – a mental shortcut - our neurons take the shortcut every time. When we associate evil people with being good leaders, we let our brains take the easy leap from good leader to good person. Rather than really thinking through what we’re actually saying – a thoroughly evil person had some redeeming features – we let it slide because it’s easier than actually kicking up the processing power. And, in doing so, we gradually let fade the horror we should feel at the thought that someone might ever be in a position again to influence so many people towards evil ends. 

What makes a good leader then? A decent person who acts in a manner that seeks to influence a group towards decent ends in a decent way. I use the word decent deliberately, rather than the word good. Good is too abstract, too easy to drop into the semantics and undercut. Decent on the other hand, implies someone who makes mistakes, but gets it right more often than not. Who tries to steer the ship according to some principles that not everyone will agree with, but that a reasonably objective observer would agree are justifiable. 

We should stop asking what makes a good leader. If the person motivating, influencing, directing a group is decent, if they aim to achieve ends that are generally agreed as being worthwhile, and they do so in a manner that can be agreed does not seek to exploit their followers, then they are a leader. If they are doing so in a manner that seeks to achieve immoral ends, or using ways that a reasonable person could not justify as being decent, then let’s not call them leaders at all. Let’s change the language we use for these people, and take the power away from the position they hold. We see this in other areas of life; king hits are now called coward punches, terrorists are called extremists, and so forth. We know that words have power; let’s apply that to our leaders. 

So, Hitler wasn’t a good leader. He was a bastard with influence. Pol Pot? He was a bastard with influence. There are hundreds of examples of these bastards throughout history. Some of them weren’t men, but regardless of gender, they were true bastards. I’d argue that there are plenty of examples of bastards with influence right now across the world; using people as pawns in their power games, seeking only to advance their own agendas, and shaping others to believe in them despite caring nothing for the group or its members. 

A leader is someone who is a part of the group, not only by virtue of position, but by having internalised the group’s norms and working to uphold those as they guide and influence the group towards ends, and through the use of ways, that will ultimately benefit the group without causing undue harm to others as a result. We don’t need to say they are ‘good’; we can train our brains to associate the word leader with a concept of doing good, and let it stay lazy. 

Only decent humans can hope to be good leaders. Others may influence a group, but they aren’t leaders, just bastards with some form of influence. Leaders are necessarily acting in a manner that puts others on a footing equal with their own, something bastards with power never do. We teach our kids from an early age that sharing is good, selfishness is bad; so too with influence and power. Decent people will share their power and influence, while bastards will always hold it closely and never share. 

Hitler was not a good leader. He wasn’t a leader at all. He might have had followers, but that alone is a poor measurement of leadership. In any language, by any measure, Hitler was a bastard. Let’s use the words we have to shape the world we desire, and don’t associate the bastards we sometimes see in power with the decent humans that we call leaders. 

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

Born to lead - and communicate

Humans are born leaders. Whether or not you think of yourself as a leader, and regardless of where you stand on the “leaders are born, not made” debate, it’s a fact of life that members of the species Homo Sapiens evolved in a manner that made us all natural leaders. And the proof is that you’re reading this. 

Humans are different from other animals. A large part of this difference comes from one thing that we tend to take for granted – our ability to communicate. Sure, there are lots of animals that communicate. But only humans communicate with the efficiency and effectiveness that allows for the transmission and interpretation of highly complex messages. This ability underpinned the ability of our ancestors to survive in an environment when every other animal was faster, fiercer, stronger or deadlier than they were. 

Our ability to communicate gave us an advantage that no other animal could overcome, despite teeth, claws and muscles that make ours look puny by comparison. Our weapons were the ability to coordinate our actions and bring the collective strength and wisdom of a group together to solve our problems. Whether it was the tight-knit hunting party acting as a team or the passing of knowledge from one generation to the next, our ability to transmit messages to each other was the tool we used to find food, warn of danger, care for each other and defend ourselves from threats. 

Together, humans are far more capable that they are separately – and it is our communication that brings us together. 

Humans still communicate. Despite the monumental shift in human society since we lived in hunter-gatherer tribes on the African savannah, there are many aspects of our lives that remain anchored to our ancestry. We might not think we use our communication skills for quite the same reasons now, but this is analogous to the fish who forgets that they are surrounded by water; it’s so ubiquitous that we tend to look straight past it. Try to get dinner ready tonight without communicating! 

Everybody communicates, and we do it all the time. We do it to influence others and to get what we want. There are many occasions where this influence is subtle and transactional. Think of a typical interaction at a shop; you ask for what you want, the vendor provides it, and you exchange items of value to conclude the transaction. Not necessarily the inspiring stuff we associate with the idea of leadership, but influence nonetheless. Both parties in this case were primed to influence in a certain manner, but it took communication to make this happen; without communicating, neither party could have attained their goal, whether it be dinner or dollars. 

In order to influence, we need to communicate. It is at the heart of every interaction we have, and it is the means by which we gain the willing consent of others. So, if you want to be an effective leader, you need to be an effective communicator. 

Communication is far more than just talking. In fact, there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that spoken communication accounts for only a fraction of the messages that pass between us. In 2019, that’s probably an understatement; most of us seem to get far more emails than we do phone calls. But it’s more than that too. So many of the messages we send, we do so without really thinking about it. Take your appearance. You might not think of your appearance as sending a message, but chances are that if you’re reading this, you have short hair, a largish watch, no beard, and a relatively fit physique. Why? Because those things say something. They communicate to others who you are before you say a word. Your clothes are most likely neat and well-kept. You are a medium for a message just by standing up. And the message is clear to those who can interpret it. 

And there’s far more to communication than sending messages. Humans tend to think of communication as a series of messages they send, and pauses where they think about the next thing to send. But – and stay with me here – research has conclusively proven that real communication involves reception and interpretation of the sent messages. And that means you need to listen. As you can see above, it’s not just about listening with your ears; most of the message you’re receiving probably isn’t in the content of the spoken words. Don’t get me wrong, active listening is a key component of communication; it shows you’re engaged and provides feedback to the speaker that they are being understood. But you also need to receive with your eyes the non-verbal communication, and go beyond the spoken words you hear to the tone, rhythm, volume and speed of those words. The words might be “I’m fine”, but everyone knows that with the wrong tone, the message is the opposite of the words used. 

Leadership is about communication. And that means going beyond a token effort to listen, or delivering the occasional piece of rhetoric. If you want to really understand how to influence, you need to understand how humans communicate, and how you can do it better than you do now. What messages are you really sending with your speech about work-life balance that everyone knows you wrote at 8 pm on a Friday while still at work? What message are you actually receiving if a conversation is really just you waiting for a break so you can tell your own story? You simply cannot influence others without communicating effectively; and despite what you think, if you haven’t spent time and effort learning how to communicate, you’re not doing it as effectively as you should be. 

Take this as a challenge. Go and learn how to be a better communicator in order to be a better influencer. Read widely. Study how famous orators give speeches. Sit and watch people in a café try and get their point across to each other. Practice. Take notes. Look for the message that is sent simply through people trying to encode messages. And analyse how you might better create the shared mental model that is effective communication, a tool more important to the human race than fire, flint, steel or sword. Your ancestors gave you the legacy of language – it’s time to get beyond the savannah, and really shape the world. 

Our ancestors were born leaders. They influenced each other to find food, shelter, partners and take care of those that needed it. They developed communication because they had to; it gave them the tools they needed to outwit, outlast and outthink the competition. It made them leaders. Their legacy is our advantage; it would be a shame to waste it. 

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.