DEFINE "LEADER" & "LEADERSHIP

The word “leader” is a common word easily perceived by anybody with reasonable English proficiency, as referring to a person in charge or controlling a group. And “leadership” refers to authority and acts of a leader calling all the shots for his group.  Both sound simple to relate, is it not? But is it really that simple? 

Let me pose the following questions for your thought before we move on:

# How would you portray “leadership” in your own words? Or aptly put, what do you perceive the overall role should cover in entirety?

# What does the act of leading entail? Or aptly put, how and by what ways to lead people?

# Is there a prerequisite of a minimum group size before a person in charge can be called a leader? Can a supervisor of only one subordinate be deemed a leader?

# Should an individual be esteemed as a leader because of appointment, assigned mandate and spelt-out job functions? Or should it be based on the calibre and virtues of the individual?

Now, it sounds a bit complex as the above questions relate to in-depth perspectives. Actually, the practical interpretations of “leader” and “leadership” are not that simplistic. However, most definitions or descriptions from common sources at best depict brief superficial narratives, without delivering more depth. 

Let us look at a few phrases extracted from different websites.

On Leader:

-          - Holds a dominant position and exerts control over some others.

-         -  Guides or directs a group.

-         -  Helps others do the right things in the right way.

On Leadership:

-         -  Getting someone else to complete a task well according to expectations.

-          - Involves providing guided direction and setting a positive example for a group to follow.

-          - Ability to influence others.

Let me paraphrase by combining the underlined parts and then you judge whether the revised descriptions cast better insights than brief superficial phrases.

“A leader is an individual holding a dominant position, enabling him to help a group under his control do the right things in the right way by guiding or directing them.”

“Leadership is the art of influencing others in order to get someone else complete a task according to expectations, via guided direction and setting a positive example for a group to follow. “

The combined paraphrased narratives deliver more profound definitions, right? Even then, the paraphrases are yet not encompassing enough. I am driving emphatically the point that a leader is not a real leader by just heading a group of subordinates; neither is leadership merely telling other people what to do.  The role is far more elaborate than simplistic superficial definitions presenting superficial functional overviews. A real leader is not adjudged because of his appointment and mandate; rather it is by how he acts specifically to spur other people perform well. For example, he needs to know how to effectively help, guide, direct, influence and set the positive example for his team to perform according to expectations. The tasks require techniques coupled with skilled experiences. 

In actuality, leading requires a host of many “ingredients” – more than the few acts cited in the preceding paragraph – viz. steering, explaining, demonstrating, grooming, encouraging, motivating, monitoring, supervising, appraising, sometimes training if needed, counseling, disciplining, admonishing, complimenting etc., etc. Which particular ingredient/s should be applied will depend on the subordinate or situation concerned. Obviously, leading is not as simplistic as A-B-C because such multi acts necessitate the “art” for executing the tasks. 

AND ETC, ETC.

It is fallacious to assume leadership comes about only if there is a minimum group size under the purview of a group head. To me, any person who supervises at least one subordinate or even train a peer correctly can be deemed a leader. I do not know of any reference authority which stipulates a leader must manage a specified minimum team size. A sub-leader is also a leader in a smaller capacity.

Leadership reverence dos not rest on job title, rank or post. A high ranking corporate officer will not be regarded as a real leader if he lacks the leadership qualities despite overseeing a large team. He needs to earn respect from his team members. He may be the boss but not automatically the leader.

The main essence of leadership quality is comprised of: (1) Sound technical knowledge (of the relevant field). (2) Sufficient hands-on experience (on the overall functions of the team). (3) Charisma (for drawing devotion and attracting attention). (4) Driving enthusiasm (to lead with full commitment and resilience). The four components must co-exist to cater for leadership wholesomeness.  For example, a superior may possess the first three strengths but still will not be able to lead vibrantly if complacent or not resilient enough (lacking driving enthusiasm).

The first two components of the main essence must relate to the relevant field and role jurisdiction which an officer is in before being respected as an astute leader.  For example, previous technical knowledge and experience not related to the new functional scopes of the leader will not carry impact.

Since I was in the financial services sector for many years, I can cite two real episodes involving the so-called leaders who could not make good after opting for role change. 

Episode 1: A prominent leader of an agency sales team (on agency contract) tied with a financial institution (as the principal). Having scored successful results over some years, he opted to take up the position of chief sales officer (senior executive staff appointment) in the same institution.  The new role involved a major shift in work relationship interaction. Previously as contracted agency leader, he managed his own agency team. But subsequently as chief sales officer, he had to interact with other agency leaders and agents to drive overall sales contribution from all agencies toward the targets of the institution. 

Managing an own agency team was a vast difference from managing other contracted agency teams.  He had never been exposed to the latter. He could command his own agency easily but faced difficulties to command other agencies whose leaders donned their own sales modus operandi independently.  In the end, after about three years’ stint in the latter endeavour, he resigned out of frustration. Obviously, his main essence did not match his appointment as chief sales officer. 

Episode 2: The scenario was like the other way round of scenario 1 – a senior corporate officer in charge of agency sales force opted out to be a contracted agency manager running his own agency. He thought he could do good based on his hitherto activities in driving the overall agency force sales contribution for the institution he represented. Alas, after some time, he then recognised it was a different ball game. 

In his previous role, he supported various agencies behind the scene to encourage their sales growth. Now, he had to conduct personal sales in addition to doing joint field work with his agents. He also realised it was not that easy to personally attract in new agents, which he had never done before in his previous corporate position. Like episode 1, his main essence did not match the new playing field he opted for.  After three consecutive years of failing to meet the minimum performance expectations stipulated by his agency contract, he gave up hope and left the institution. 

You can see that leadership is not as simple as merely giving directives. In fact, leadership prerequisites are quite complex. Not any individual heading a team can become a true leader until and unless he is imbued with the necessary acumen.

I end this chapter on leadership by sharing a few excerpts extracted from The Star (Malaysia), published in April 2017. The news article reported the advice of Tan Sri Dr. Zeti Akhtar Aziz - the highly respected former Bank Negara  Malaysia (Central Bank of Malaysia) governor - shared at a key forum.

Key Excerpts:

-         She said one aspect of leadership is, knowing the business and having in-depth knowledge, including the experiences and wisdom.

-          “There is no short cut to developing leaders. You need to have on-the-job training,” said Zeti. 

-          “The ability to have integrated thinking, coordination, communication – these are new skills you need…….You’ve to be able to articulate,” said Zeti.