The experiences of leaders in different countries clearly shape them.  Two researchers looking at leaders in China, India and Singapore noted difference in challenging assignments, developmental relationships, dealing with hardships, education and personal experience.  All of these influences shape individuals into the leaders they are, and gaining an appreciation for each individual’s personal biography is insightful and essential for understanding their own expression of leadership with its gaps and its strong areas.

One way of understanding leadership differences is through behavior styles.  What we need is a fully descriptive, universal language for behavioral description, one that resists the bias of assigning “good” and “bad” labels to different ways that effective leaders get things done.  Two leaders, both equally effective, can take very different paths to arrive at similar results using different behavioral strategies.  Being able to describe those differences objectively, like a scientist, and avoiding personal biases allows us to expand our appreciation of different leaders and ultimately to develop more top talent for tomorrow’s leadership positions.

Research that I did with 1200 leaders in Asia led me to see clear behavior style preferences in different cultures.  In multinational companies (MNC’s), understanding these differences allows for context-specific leadership development as well as company-wide efforts to cultivate the next generation of top talent.

Some summary observations*

Leaders in India had a strong tendency to express dominance (direct, problem->solution orientation) in their leadership styles, especially in the business world.  In Korea, compliance-steadiness (detail-orientation, careful and analytical decision-making) were strong markers shared by many in the top levels of leadership.  In China, the preferred style for leaders were dominance, compliance (detail-oriented, analytical rules-based decision-making) and dominance-compliance (directness and high standards).  In these countries and across Asia there was a noticeable preference for a factual, objective approach to persuasion and motivation methods rather than extroverted, personal and humanistic approaches.

This research showed that cultural difference do indeed show up in self-expressed behavioral preferences by leaders.  However, within each culture there is still room for a diversity of styles and approaches even where one or a cluster of styles is preferred more often than others.  This has some implications for talent management and leadership development.

First, organizations have their own culture just as nations do.  Different MNC’s doing business in the same country or markets may have very different profiles or styles of leadership.  Sometimes, the preferred style imposes its own blinders on the rest of the culture.  When it comes to behavior style, diversity is a potential strength, but it must be acknowledged and managed or else decisions (and the culture) tend to reflect arbitrariness and chaotic tendencies.

Second, good talent management practices will not focus simply on “competency models” or modeling based on traits; it will be closely connected to business results, cultural awareness and experience-based learning and development.  The good news for talent management is that there are tools and proven precedents for defining what success looks like and what kind of leadership is desired for future growth; it is not simply about luck, intuition or other subjective biases.

Third, in terms of leadership development Asian leaders have historically valued a small number of close relationships and relied on personal experiences to guide them through difficult leadership trials and challenges.  A leadership style that projects personal warmth and charisma or inspiration more broadly (as North Americans are perceived to do) has not been part of their repertoire.  This is not a shortcoming or gap; it reflects preferences, comfort level and conditioning which is part of the culture.  More leadership development in Asia needs to be individualized and respect the high-context cultural reality, rather than importing Western models of executive education.

———————————-

*The leadership and behavior styles mentioned here are based on the Marston behavioral tendencies model.  For more on this and the research results mentioned you may send me an email requesting more information:  ron(at)leadskill(dot)com or use the comments box below.

That presents its own problems.  Because the market is growing and the activity level is high, there is plenty of competition among companies for scarce resources.  Attracting and retaining talent in the form of qualified employees and managers is a top concern.  Maintaining morale and high productivity is clearly another.  The competition for raw materials or inputs for the business challenges the ability to maintain healthy margins, while all of the uncertainty makes forecasting results very difficult, if not impossible.  Inaccurate forecasting causes inefficiencies and hits productivity and morale, which shows the interconnected nature of today’s challenges.

Organizations that are able to attract the best talent and that have the culture to retain and develop this talent will clearly be the winners over time.  Those that manage in a reactive mode or who focus on the short-term and neglect their people/talent practices will suffer from self-inflicted injuries.  Talent is fairly mobile in China.  Top talent is very mobile, and capable leaders will go where there are both opportunities and their own contributions are valued.

Good talent management and leadership development practices are in their early stages in China, so capitalizing on this area will create a competitive advantage for firms that get it right.  Leaders that can shift from reactive to proactive management will integrate this into their strategic vision and execute relentlessly until they get it right.  The competition for talent in China is already hot, and the temperature is only going to climb in the coming days.

The lack of strategic focus is a leadership issue, even when the leaders of an organization “live and breathe” strategy or see themselves as very strategic (but you might be surprised how many don’t).  Such organizations also find it difficult to hang on to their talent for long.

Here are some of the symptoms:

“Tell me again:  why are we doing this?”

“Strategic plan?  I’ve never seen or heard of one around here.  I think we basically do whatever Big Ed feels like doing.”

“Our competition always seems to be one step ahead of us (or several).  We’re either playing catch-up or reacting to what they’re doing.”

“Yeah, we have a strategic plan.  It’s one of those documents framed in the hallway of executive row next to our mission, vision and values that we did last year.  Or was that two years ago?”

“Balanced scorecard???  This is probably another management fad that will go away in a few months.”

These symptoms are actually signs of some common issues (beginning with the most common):

• No formal strategic planning takes place; no strategy is ever articulated
• Strategic planning is event-centered (it happens once a year, and/or takes place at a leadership or board retreat)
• Strategic planning is static and stale once it’s completed; hardly anyone updates/revisits/revises the strategic plan before the next annual event.
• Strategic plans are not effectively communicated beyond a small group at the top
• Lack of strategic thinking as an ongoing practice across the organization.

How do effective leaders address the need for strategy?  I’d like to hear some of your ideas, and then I’ll share some solutions for these common problems in an upcoming post.

I’ll get to that question in a minute, but first let me share a personal story.  I continue to be surprised by some of the misconceptions that people have about flying.  This past weekend I was in a conversation with a man who had a friend that was a pilot of a small plane.  This man’s friend took off on a trip cross country and not too far along he had an instrument failure.  The plane did not crash, but the man who told me about it obviously felt some dire anxiety for his friend and his “close call”.  I mentioned to the man that I was a pilot and that about half of all pilots do not have an instrument rating.  Even those who do don’t always choose to file an instrument flight plan, especially if they don’t plan to fly through clouds or in bad weather.

The majority of flying in small planes takes place under what are called visual flight rules:  the pilot is responsible to stay clear of clouds and to see and avoid other traffic–any other planes, helicopters, gliders or balloons that share the skies.  In fact, a competent, well-trained pilot of small planes should be able to fly their plane safely without ever having to look at the instruments.

If that’s the case, why do planes have instruments?  In a word: options.  Instruments (or other measurement systems) give us more options, and usually they offer greater accuracy.

Let’s continue our lesson from flying planes.  When a pilot receives flight training in flying by instruments, one of the first things an instructor will do is demonstrate how easy it is to trick or disorient a pilot once you remove visual cues.  Every pilot must face the humbling lesson that they are not the exception to the rule: disorientation can happen pretty easily, and if you fly in clouds or fog or at night in the mountains in a fairly short amount of time you will lose your way and get yourself in a position you don’t want to be in.  Flying by the seat of your pants, or gut instinct may sound macho or reasonable, but it’s not going to keep you alive in bad weather or when visual references are gone.

When you’re responsible for running an organization (or even a division or large team), the same rules apply.  Through years of experience you may have developed pretty good instincts or a seat-of-the-pants intuitive feel for making decisions and exercising leadership.  But what happens when the external environment suddenly changes, or a new generation with different expectations joins the workforce (and your organization), or a game-changing technology threatens your market space?  The old familiar references are gone or obscured, and if you don’t have instruments, measures or a backup system…a happy outcome is NOT very likely.

Let’s deal with another misconception here.  Any non-pilot who has looked in on a cockpit has probably been overwhelmed by the amount of instruments, dials, levers and buttons they see there.  An airliner is the extreme case, but even a small plane cockpit is daunting or mysterious to the non-pilot.  The truth is, even inexperienced pilots get overwhelmed or transfixed by the instruments in the cockpit until they develop some discipline.  There are a few primary instruments that you must use, and the rest give you additional information or other options if you need them.  The most basic–and essential, or useful–flight instruments are a compass, a clock, and your engine gauges.  A compass tells you direction and warns of drift; it is an underrated instrument.  A clock allows you to keep from running out of fuel (more predictably than fuel gauges!), make time/distance/fuel calculations, and time turns (which is important if you get into bad weather).  Engine gauges indicate engine health and performance; they give you warnings of when your plane is about to become a glider (an extremely useful piece of information).

Think about your business.  What metric/measurement helps you stay oriented the right direction?  Which metric/measurement gives the most useful information about performance, telling you you’re making good progress or warning you that you’re running out of gas?  How do you measure and keep time in your business?  Every good manager knows their three critical numbers and the other numbers that give more accuracy and specialized information.

Leaders also have a backup system for when the game suddenly changes.  Being clear on your own vision and values is the essential first step.  A well-considered strategic plan is the next step.  If these are clear, your judgment and decision making in stressful situations will be much better.  Backup systems anticipate contingencies or emergencies:  scenario planning, disaster recovery plans, succession planning, risk management plans and systems, leadership development and employee training are some of the best examples of ways to be prepared when the ground shifts underneath you and taking the right action is critical.

Flying an airplane and running a business or leading a team are not overly complex, though we can certainly make the task more complicated than it needs to be.  With the right orientation, measures and backup systems in place, these can be enjoyable and fulfilling endeavors.

Is that too bleak?  I’m not a pessimist even while I try to stay realistic.  Since the worldwide “reset” (recession, currency devaluation, drop in trade–whatever you want to call it) that began in 2008, the signs are clear that we’re looking for direction and the old order has passed.  We’re not too sure what the new order is, while many act confused, some put their heads down and soldier on while the true entrepreneurs smell opportunity and are moving aggressively into action.  You’re going to hear their stories become public in the coming years, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

What are some signs of the times?  First, lackluster performance in the markets.  Investors continue to seek places to put capital to work and get a good return, but the old rules no longer apply.  Stock markets gyrate up and down.  Currency markets are in a frothy turmoil (euro, yen or dollars anyone?).  Property prices are stagnant except for some bubbles in Asia.  After big bailouts in the US private sector in 2008-2009 (financials and autos particularly), now it’s Europe’s turn with sovereign debt (the PIIGS are ready for slaughter).

Second, geopolitical unrest.  Voter disenchantment in the US and now in the UK brought about regime change, but the “changers” have brought little that is new or innovative, just more of the same old.  The tone may be different, but the substance is the same.  The Middle East is no closer to peace and in fact destabilization in the region seems certain with Iran playing the spoiler.  Pakistan remains the premier jihadi training ground.  The brightest spot is the economic vitality of Asia as the faster developing nations (China and India principally) expand their realm of influence.  Even in Asia the picture is not all bright as Thailand finds it hard to shake it’s political unrest and Japan enters its third “lost decade”.

Third, there is the unsettling feeling that the earth itself is not resting easy.  Whether it is natural or manmade events–major earthquakes (Haiti, Chile and China), a huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a lack of consensus and will to act on climate change–the planet itself seems more restless and also vulnerable.

A real defining sign of our times is the lack of leadership.  Name 3 great leaders today.  Not famous people or inspirational people, but real leaders.  It’s tough, isn’t it?  Those in power are either disappointing us or making people madder.  Ineffective leaders linger on instead of making way for those who are more competent and able to step up and lead.  Executive pay continues to rise even as performance plateaus or declines.  Those in charge seem very capable of growing their personal power, their budget and their spending, but unable to make the tough decisions.  Even as Asia leads economically, the lack of leadership is felt acutely.  The experience and “bench strength” is just not there, so today’s leaders resort to trial and error–a slow and inefficient way to learn.

What is most needed in these uncertain times is true leadership, great leadership.  A clear mark of great leadership is looking out first for the people you lead.  This is not simply a high-minded ideal; it is essentially what all effective leaders in any time period do.  Shaun Rein recently wrote about this in Forbes, and he came to same conclusion.  Make the work, the life of those around you better, and people will follow.  Take from people, steal from them (either legally or illegally, there is little real difference), tell them untruths or half-truths, and the real truth will eventually come out.  Truly serve and you are on the path to leadership.  Take that path long enough and you’ll find yourself at the head of a line of people willingly taking the same path and following as their own lives improve.  This mark of great leadership is not complex or hidden, but it is in short supply in these times.  May more true leaders emerge soon!

But I think it’s important to look at the fuller context of this speech which I’ll show with some select quotations and my own comments as they relate to personal development.  Roosevelt addressed an educated French audience and his topic was about the kind of citizenship that makes a republic strong.

“In the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average women, does his or her duty, first in the ordinary, every-day affairs of life, and next in those great occasional cries which call for heroic virtues.”

Roosevelt knew he was addressing an audience of privileged listeners, and he warns them against an aloof attitude or being out of touch with the concerns of common people.  This is a danger for our “talking head” pundits on tv, but even more so for our CEO’s and leaders of organizations.

“A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities – all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness.”

Next comes the famous quote about the man in the arena:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Beyond this inspirational passage is another part of the speech that never gets quoted, yet I believe it holds the key to the kind of character that Roosevelt praises.  For me, it is the center of gravity of the speech, and it speaks to the personal development and mastery that are necessary for good leadership.  It really paints a picture of what it takes to develop top talent.

“There is need of a sound body, and even more of a sound mind. But above mind and above body stands character – the sum of those qualities which we mean when we speak of a man’s force and courage, of his good faith and sense of honor. I believe in exercise for the body, always provided that we keep in mind that physical development is a means and not an end. I believe, of course, in giving to all the people a good education. But the education must contain much besides book-learning in order to be really good. We must ever remember that no keenness and subtleness of intellect, no polish, no cleverness, in any way make up for the lack of the great solid qualities. Self restraint, self mastery, common sense, the power of accepting individual responsibility and yet of acting in conjunction with others, courage and resolution – these are the qualities which mark a masterful people. Without them no people can control itself, or save itself from being controlled from the outside.”

Roosevelt goes on to emphasize the need of a strong moral sense, the inner compass that must guide the true leader:

“Courage, intellect, all the masterful qualities, serve but to make a man more evil if they are merely used for that man’s own advancement, with brutal indifference to the rights of others. It speaks ill for the community if the community worships these qualities and treats their possessors as heroes regardless of whether the qualities are used rightly or wrongly.”

Finally, to keep all of this grounded and practical, Roosevelt reminds us that:

“The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize.  Let him remember also that the worth of the ideal must be largely determined by the success with which it can in practice be realized.”

What do you think about the qualities Roosevelt praises and how practical it is to develop top talent?

——————–

The full text of the speech is at http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

If you want more of the back-story to this quote, you can find it here

This speech, along with his earlier one on “The Strenuous Life”, are some of Roosevelt’s most memorable words.  (Full text of the Strenuous Life speech can be found here).

Xenophon grew up in Athens and was a direct student of Socrates in the fifth century B.C.  As a young man he joined a military expedition from Greece to Persia and went on to become a battle-tested general before retiring to southern Greece and writing on philosophy, history, economics, politics, and other subjects.  Woven throughout his writing is Xenophon’s observations and lessons about leadership.  The systematic book that Drucker mentioned was The Education of Cyrus (or Cyropedia), based roughly on the life of Cyrus the Great who lived over a hundred years before Xenophon.

Xenophon writes about his own initiation into leadership in  The March Upcountry (or Anabasis), which has been classified as military history but is actually an epic of leadership written by a participant who saw good and bad leadership at close quarters.  I first read this book in 1988, and didn’t know what a gem I had.   I’ve gone back since then and learned some important lessons.  One of those is how the military holds some great lessons for leadership.

The military as a learning laboratory for leadership?  The notion is not so far-fetched.  In my interviews with officers who served in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps (2009) and who later transitioned into civilian leadership roles in business I noticed some common themes that went far beyond admirable traits or desirable leadership characteristics.

The military does an excellent job of training and reinforcing leadership in its combat officers.  This is done through recurring education, through reinforcing good disciplines of decision-making, by job rotation and merit-based job promotions, and through reinforcing a culture of honor, sacrifice and service.   William Cohen writes about these in A Class with Drucker (2008).  Together these make a powerful combination for solid leadership development.  The military does not often get the very best raw talent to join their ranks, but their system of rigorous development allows them to produce a disproportional share of the strongest leaders in any sector of society (whether business, education, politics, healthcare, social service or entertainment).

How do they do it?  If you have had experience as a military officer this will all be familiar.  For the rest of us I’ll share a few points.

First, the military takes training seriously.  They operate on two basic assumptions  The harder you train, the better you’ll perform; and everyone carries some degree of leadership responsibility.  Anyone involved in sports understands and agrees with the first assumption.  If you want to perform well and consistently win, you have to train hard.  Businesses today hardly train their people for leadership, either formally or informally.  It creates a huge gap when real leadership is needed.  The second assumption in the military, that everyone has some degree of leadership responsibility, arises from the realities of battlefield situations.  Combat is very fluid; leaders can be killed, injured or taken out of commission in other ways.  Every soldier has to be ready to assume greater responsibility and leadership without notice when the situation changes.  In most businesses today the owner or CEO may wish that every employee was more responsible, or thought like an owner, but the ethos and expectation of leadership is missing from most organizations except at the top.

Second, jobs or roles are assigned based on merit and rigorous review.  The military is a meritocracy, which means the decision to “hire” and promote is primarily based on merit and demonstrated competence, not on personality contests or other forms of fundamentally unfair competition.  There are ongoing performance reviews and counseling, promotion boards, and practices designed to ensure that there is a rich pool of leadership talent to draw from at the higher levels.  If only more companies were so lucky…

Third, the military has a rich and meaningful culture of leadership that sets high standards for honor, character and service.  Individuals don’t always live up to those standards, but through discipline and tradition the standards are not negotiated down.  Culture is articulated and maintained by the leaders of any organization;  morale is an indicator of the health and condition of the culture at any given time.  On both counts the military pays a lot of attention to how well its leaders embody the culture and maintain high morale through example.  Good businesses that are run in a disciplined way do the same.

The best-kept leadership secrets really are out in the open.  The military is certainly not perfect, and even the practices I’ve talked about are not implemented with uniform equality.  However, if you compare them in design and in execution with any other leadership program, you’ll find it difficult to come up with a close second-place contender.

What are your thoughts and experiences with these leadership practices?

We learn some of the truths of leadership by listening to people who are great practitioners of the art of leading people.  

1.  Leadership is not about the leader. There are plenty of narcissistic “leaders” who have a strong personality cult.  As much as we find this mesmerizing, if you look at what these leaders actually use their celebrity or influence for, you learn a lot about how genuine or real their leadership is.  The truth is, leadership is not about the leader at all.  Instead it is much more about a shared vision or mission, and when a leader is possessed by a captivating or enrolling vision, it tends to infect and inspire others in a similar fashion.  In their passionate embodiment of a vision, they often display confidence and charisma and other desirable personality traits, which is one reason we often confuse those very traits with leadership.  It’s the genuine leadership that lies at the source of the traits, not vice versa.

2.  There are many paths to leadership.  When you begin to study a large number of leaders, it is striking how little they have in common in terms of their background.  Some were born to privilege, some in poverty.  Some people have lots of raw ability, others appear to have no natural gifts or advantages.  Some face great adversity, others have few bumps along the road.  For some leaders a window of opportunity opens, while others have to create their own opportunities from nothing.  The various combination of factors in different leaders is truly staggering.  The bottom line is that leadership can be learned and developed over time, and natural talent by itself is not enough to lead people effectively.  Despite where people begin, leaders end up embracing a larger vision or mission and leading others to do the same.

3.  Leadership is really about developing others. Combined with the first truth (it’s not about the leader), true leaders know that it is imperative that the vision or mission not die with them.  They must intentionally attract, hire and cultivate talented people.  Leaders are not concerned about grabbing all the attention or credit themselves; instead they generously promote their team’s accomplishments.  This builds loyalty and confidence in those they lead.  Talk to a leader about what they’ve accomplished and usually they will bring up various people around them who made it happen.  Real leaders know how to work with and through other talented people.

4.  Leadership is shown by full-spectrum communication.  Many bosses try to lead with their words.  Strong leaders know that they communicate by their own example, their actions and non-verbal behavior, how they speak, and by the decisions they make.  This full-spectrum communication is personally challenging to master, but it is the key to ensuring an entire organization is aligned and working toward a common goal.  Although leadership is not about the leader, they do become a living embodiment of the vision and higher mission that is their reason for being.  Leaders realize that they communicate in many ways besides their words, and they take this reality very seriously.

There are other truths of leadership, but these are some of the key ones I’ve observed and heard from those who are great leaders.  Have you seen these exhibited in the leaders you know?  How do these truths speak to you?

Here are six common myths of leadership that I’ve seen.

1.  Leadership is personality driven. When we describe the qualities of great leaders we often focus on their confidence, or charisma, or their outgoing personality.  Some leaders do have strong, outgoing personalities, or a sense of confidence and certainty that we admire.  However, there have been mesmerizing, magnetic and attractive tyrants, con-artists and fraudsters who had these qualities too, but we wouldn’t consider them true leaders.  In fact, false leaders are much more personality driven than true leaders.  Leadership is much more about a shared vision or mission, and when a leader is possessed by a captivating or enrolling vision, they often display confidence and charisma and other desirable personality traits.  Personality without vision is an attractive package wrapped around an empty box.

2.  Leadership is a position. How many Presidents have failed as leaders?  What about CEO’s or Executive Directors, Chief Surgeons or Chairmen?  Does being a general make someone a good leader?  If holding a position, office or title conferred leadership, why do we often see such poor leadership from those in office?  Leadership is not role-driven.  My work in organizations has often pointed me to leaders outside of the expected places and positions of power.  Position confers responsibility, but not leadership ability!  Real leadership is often demonstrated before or even in spite of having positional authority, office, or a leadership title.

3.  Leadership is a demonstration of control and dominance. Strong or effective leadership is often equated with the exercise of control, including reversion to the use of force or power if necessary.  Machiavelli wrote in The Prince (ch. XVII) that a leader should seek to be both loved and feared, but if a tradeoff is required, a leader must be feared.  “Command and control” has long been one way of practicing leadership, and leaders sometimes pride themselves on being feared or intimidating.  Control and dominance can be very effective in getting things done, especially in a crisis.  This is one leadership style, but not the only one, and not the one most effective in the majority of situations.  Deming, the father of the modern quality movement, had 14 principles for management in transforming business, one of which was “Drive out fear” (#8).  Control and dominance can be effective in some situations, but ultimately it is limiting and self-defeating in leaders.

4.  Leadership is hard-wired. The belief is still strong among many that leaders are born, or they have innate leadership ability.   If that is true, the attempt to cultivate, train or develop leaders must be futile or a hugely expensive pursuit.   Some people do have more aptitude, raw talent, or desire to lead.  I’m not disputing that.  However, these people don’t always turn out to be the best leaders.  At the same time, there are others with less aptitude, more disadvantages and adversity, or who get a late start that actually turn out to be better leaders than the “natural” leaders that we spot at an early stage.  The truth is there are many paths to leadership–raw ability, adversity, motivational drive, a window of opportunity opens– and any or several these can be exhibited in one person.

5.  Leadership is automatic. The scenario has been played out many times.  A strong, proven candidate has been screened and vetted.  A great performer has earned this promotion.  Once they are in their leadership position, the results just aren’t there.  Big disappointment ensues.  Committees or boards often make the mistake of taking people who look promising or who proved themselves in other situations and placing them in a leadership position only to see them fail.  We assume that leadership is automatic.   If you’re a great doctor, engineer, banker, policy-maker, manager, military officer, etc., you’ll be a great leader.  The same thinking is often applied to management trainees or “high potentials”: we assume advanced education or superior smarts make you a great leader, only to discover that’s not necessarily the case!  We can’t assume that leadership comes automatically or that it is always a transferable skillset.

6.  Leadership is about the Great Leader. You know who the great leaders are.  We usually identify them by one name or their initials:  Caesar, Confucius, Elizabeth, Washington, Lincoln, Gandhi, (Mother) Teresa, JFK, MLK.  As beloved as these leaders are, there is a strong human tendency to lift up leaders through hero worship or the cult of personality.  We see this in the corporate world too when the “Great Leader” is often deferred to, rarely challenged, and a personal fiefdom of loyalty emerges around them.  The myth of the “Great Leader” is coupled with the idea that leadership is rare, mystical and unquestionable.  At least it is until fashions change, the leader dies (or resigns) or the resulting conditions become intolerable.  Without fail, another leader emerges, proving there really was no leadership shortage.

These myths aren’t hard to take apart when we take time to think about it.  The problem is we don’t usually stop and examine the myth.  Exposing the myths isn’t enough, though.  I’ve been interviewing effective leaders for some time and I’ve noticed certain common principles emerge.  Stay tuned for more about the truths of leadership.

CEO pay at 18 financial companies was down 30%.  No surprises there–they are under lots of pressure from the public and the media.  At the same time, 38 financial service firms on Wall Street paid a collective $140 billion in compensation and benefits, a record number, and up from $123 billion in 2008 and the previous high-water mark of $137 billion in 2007.  What does this all tell us?

Two things:  Wall Street’s approach to compensating top talent has not changed, even as headlines seem to imply that executive compensation is down.  CEO pay may be down, but the all-out effort to retain top talent among traders, money managers and top analysts is still calculated in the simple formula of  more dollars=stay for another day.  The other point is a reflection on leadership.  The top leader (CEO) is a lightning rod for criticism, and they have to take the hit when emotions are stirred.  I expect that these CEO’s are still not going to be hurt too much.  Make-up compensation and deferred bonuses can be paid out at other times and in other ways once the public glare focuses elsewhere.

A real sign of leadership would be finding innovative ways to reward performance, manage risk and produce sustainable results.  Without leadership, you’re simply managing mercenaries and the only obvious solution is to throw ever-increasing amounts of money to the troops.