Leadership is Overrated

Let me start by saying that I don't think that leadership is unimportant.  Every one of us, at some time in our lives, and most of us for most of our lives are subject to, influenced by, under the care of, organized by, and otherwise affiliated with leaders of some kind.  We've all had parents or bosses or pastors or presidents who make decisions, set priorities and influence the circumstance in which we live.  Clearly, leaders and leadership are very important.

However, a trip to the bookstore, or a glance at the newspaper or a fly-on-the-wall listening post in most any business class will leave you with the impression that leadership is not just important, but all-important.  The state of the economy is the result of poor leadership on Wall Street.  The state of the nation is the result of poor political leadership.  Our churches, schools, families, sports teams, banks, you name it; their successes, failures, gains, losses, trophies, dropped passes, converts, scandals, graduations and divorces are all attributed to the quality of their leaders and the effectiveness of their leadership.  Leadership is everything, or so it seems.

I'm suspect, though, that there is more to it.  I am not sure that every losing season is the result of poor coaching.  I am not sure that every great product launch is attributable to an outstanding CEO.  I don't believe that every teenage pregnancy is the result of poor parenting, or that every record quarter reflects the genius of the VP for Marketing.  I am convinced that leaders do not accomplish greatness, nor do they fall from grace entirely on their own.

Leaders have followers.

"Duh." you might say.  Of course leaders have followers.  The point, though, is that the followers do what the leader says.  So if they succeed, it's because the leaders told them the right things to do, and were good at getting them to do it.  If they fail, it's because the leaders gave them bad instructions, bad resources, bad advice, bad motivation.  Bad leadership.  So, good or bad, the leader gets the credit.

Ok.  Let's say you're right.  That would mean a great leader, let's say Abraham Lincoln, could take any group of followers, let's say the 1962 New York Mets, and accomplish any task, let's say developing a room-temperature nuclear fusion generator.  I know, I know.  That's ridiculous.  But that's my point.  We so easily ascribe the success of a project, or a movement, or an idea to the efforts of the leader that we often completely overlook the contribution of the followers.  

And the reality is that, quality of leadership notwithstanding, it is followers that get things done.

So, back to the original premise.  Leadership is overrated.  Not because it is unimportant in its own right, but because the other half of the equation is so underrated.  Followership is what makes leadership.  And our understanding of followership is abysmal.

Quick, before reading any more of this article, write down three important characteristics of good leadership.  My guess is that the exercise will not be difficult.  Even if you've never studied leadership, you've probably heard people talk about what makes leaders good, and you can come up with three characteristics off the top of your head.

Now, with the same amount of effort, write down three important characteristics of good followership.  My guess is that this exercise will be much harder, if you can even get past the question, "What the heck is followership anyway?"  I would even hazard to guess that you have never heard anyone give a speech, lecture or seminar, nor read a book by anyone on the topic of followership.

So how do we know?  How do we know what makes a good follower?  How do we know what characteristics to look for when building a team of people to accomplish a task?  We spend millions every year learning how to identify or become the leader side of the equation, but we ignore the follower side.  And we ignore it to our peril.

So, I suggest we start looking for an answer to the question, "What is good followership?".  I have some ideas, that I'll suggest in future posts, and I'd be interested to hear some of yours as well.

-- se

Why Should I Be A Team Player?

This is the second installment in a series of articles that introduce and explore the concepts that are addressed in my book Team Player.

It's a phrase that is abused about as often as it is used, and whether it's used in the positive or the negative it can be either a blessing or a curse.

"I just love having Jaime on staff, he's really a team player."

"I'm going to have to let Carmen go. She's just not a team player."

But is playing for the team really all it's cracked up to be? Does your boss want a yes-man, or an independent thinker? Are there truly any compelling reasons that you should aspire to be a team player? As you'll see below, the answer is yes.

First it is important to understand what a team player is and is not. A team player is not a yes-man, a suck-up, a sycophant or a corporate lackey. A team player is an employee who understands what the organization expects and meets those expectations. Putting the interests of the organization first, he or she trusts management, supports decisions, understands context, gives one hundred percent effort. And the first reason why you should be a team player is because you owe it to your employer to be one.

It may seem a little callous to put it that way, but the bottom line is that your employer pays you. You take money from your organization every month, and in exchange you owe the organization something. What your employer buys from you goes beyond the simple terms of your job description to those attitudes and perspectives that make you a valuable employee. Just as you expect friendly service at a restaurant, competent advice from your tax service and a smile from the barista at your favorite coffee shop, your employer expects value for the dollars it pays you. Being a team player is what you owe the organization in return for your pay.

You also want to be a team player because these kinds of employees create value for the organization. And creating value for the organization matters to you because a healthy, growing organization provides the financial stability that underlies your paycheck and creates opportunities for advancement. An organization that has employees that trust management, support decisions and give 100% effort, it is able to spend its time and energy on success and growth rather than on internal damage control. That success and growth benefits the entire organization, including those employees that make it possible.

In addition to creating value for the organization, being a team player makes you move valuable to the organization. The productivity of an organization is the productivity of its employees. As a result, employees who are more productive are more valuable to the organization. Being a team player means spending your time and energy pursuing those things that the organization has identified as worth pursuing. Instead of requiring the organization to spend energy in unproductive ways like providing accountability to lazy, complaining, selfish employees, a team player directs organizational energy in productive ways. Increasing organizational productivity in this way makes the team player more valuable.

The icing on the cake for most team players is the fact that this kind of approach to your role as an employee is a fast track to promotion. Organizations must continually develop new leaders to survive, especially healthy, growing organizations. The types of people that organizations seek to develop internally are those that embody the team player spirit. It is hardly necessary to point out that organizations are not likely to promote those employees that put their own interests ahead of the organization, distrust management, undermine decisions, and don't work hard. If you want to be valuable to your organization, and make yourself promotable, you want to be a team player.

The Importance of Followers: A Parable

Two armies gathered for battle on opposite sides of a broad plain. As the soldiers set up their camps and built their fires, each army pitched a large tent just out of reach of the enemy’s arrows. In these large tents, the leaders, officers and rulers gathered to hear counsel, debate ideas and draw up battle plans. The tents were large, in order to accommodate the various groups of strategists, informers, lieutenants and sub-commanders. Since the armies were equal in size, in weaponry, in courage and in ferocity, the battle was surely to be determined by planning, strategy and leadership.

During the day, a crow flew across the plain and into the tent of the eastern army’s leaders. The crow landed on the table in the center of the tent, voiced one loud, piercing screech, then flew up onto one of the supports in the top of the tent, where he stood watching the leaders debate their strategies and make their plans. Before long, those in the tent began to feel ill. The sickness took them quickly, and within the hour, everyone in the tent was dead.

The western army’s scouts had seen the entire course of events play out in the eastern army’s tent, and when, after the last man in the eastern tent had died, the crow emerged and began flying toward the west, the scouts called out the alarm. The leaders of the western army quickly pulled the flaps of their tent shut and secured them tightly. From within the safety of their tent, they could hear the crow flying back and forth, screeching and cawing in frustration. Smugly, they continued to make their plans, confident that, with the demise of the eastern army’s leadership, the battle would easily be theirs.

Some time later, the calling of the crow began to grow distant and faint, until it could no longer be heard. With the crow gone, the western army’s leadership emerged from their tent to discover that every one of their soldiers was dead.

Leaderless, the eastern army became undisciplined and chaotic. Their efforts were disorganized, the movements of their companies and regiments were uncoordinated, and their actions proceeded under no coherent plan or direction. When the sun rose the following day, the attack they launched against the western army, though zealous and enthusiastic, was possibly the clumsiest, most inept military action of all time.

The western army, with the benefit of its unparalleled planning, brilliant strategy and exceptional leadership was decimated in a matter of minutes.

What is a Team Player?

My new book, Team Player, was released last Friday on the publisher's website, with the expectation that it will hit the online retailers by early to mid November. In conjunction with the book release I am posting a series of articles that introduce and explore the concepts that are addressed in the book. This is the first installment.

What is a Team Player?

We've all heard the phrase. Sometimes it's about us. Sometimes it's about someone we know. Why didn't I get the promotion? Why didn't she get the raise? Why am I not valued in this organization?

"You're just not a team player."

Is it just an excuse? Is it an easy way for a manager to get back at someone he or she doesn't like? Or is there really something to that phrase? Just what, really, is a team player?

The truth is that there really is such a thing as a team player, and it isn't just a euphemism for a yes-man or the boss's pet. A team player is an employee that understands exactly what it is that the organization expects from them, and consistently meets that expectation. In many ways, it is a simple concept. Give the organization what it expects. Be the kind of employee the company wants. What could be easier?

In other ways, it is not so simple. Often the organization has expectations that are not clearly written into your job description. There are cultural norms that differ from organization to organization, and even from unit to unit within an organization. There are behavioral norms, traditions, and even dress codes that may be written or unwritten. Many organizations have expectations of their employees that they simply are not good at communicating. Some employees stumble across these expectations, meeting them almost by accident of personality, or because they know someone with more experience who clues them in.

There are two groups of other employees who, unfortunately, are not so lucky, and often their careers suffer for it. The first group is new professionals who regularly enter the workforce with great educational experience and credentials, but without a mature understanding of what organizations expect from their employees. All too often these new professionals eventually become the second group, middle managers whose careers have stalled because they have never been taught how to meet their organizations expectations. Both groups need to learn how to become team players.

The good news is that there are some overarching expectations that all organizations have of their employees. These expectations apply to all types of organizations and all types of employees at all levels of management.

First, your organization expects you to have its best interests at heart. The interests of individuals, offices, departments, divisions and any other subunit you can think of are secondary to the best interest of the organization as a whole. Units and people should pursue their goals and objectives, but any time there is a conflict between the interests of a unit and the interests of the larger organization, the interests of the organization win.

Second, your organization expects you to trust management. Whatever your opinion about the skills, abilities, personalities, looks or smells of you supervisors, you should keep to yourself. The organization pays your supervisors to supervise you and pays you to be supervised, and as such expects you to trust the leadership of the leaders.

Third, the organization expects you to support its decisions. You may, on occasion, be given an opportunity to have input on an organizational decision, in which case you should give your opinion competently and passionately. Once a decision has been made, however, the organization is paying you to support it, whether you agree with it or not.

Fourth, the organization expects you to understand the context that you work in. The organization does not do business or make decisions in a vacuum. There are all kinds of constraints, advantages, obstacles and opportunities both inside and outside the organization that effect and sometimes drive decisions. The organization expects you to pay enough attention to context that you can understand and effectively support organizational decisions.

Lastly, the organization expects one hundred percent effort from its employees. This seems obvious, but there are two subtleties to remember. One is that one hundred percent is an average. Just as there are down-times during which you will enjoy a lighter workload, there are also up-times during which the organization expects you to give a little extra without complaining. Also, just as the organization does not want you to consistently give eighty percent, which means you're lazy, it does not want you to consistently give one hundred and twenty percent, because that leads to burnout.

In exchange for your paycheck, your organization expects each of these five things in return. If there is any one of these things that you don't feel you can legally, ethically or morally give to your organization, you need to consider carefully whether you can continue to work for them. However, giving these five things consistently and enthusiastically will make you a valuable member of your organization.

In other words, a team player.