{(Foreword: In this article, I cite the actual example of a successful sales leader of an international financial services conglomerate in Singapore.  The contents represent my observations of his structured leadership model, as documented in my personal file while I was holding a business management role. Although his model was aimed at developing his team members toward achieving sales scores, yet the example offers some methodology insights which can be adopted by leaders of other vocations. I believe similarities prevail as a matter of leadership process, regardless whichever field a leader is in.}}

To be an astute leader, a structured leadership process or system must be at hand. The process may either be administered by the leader himself or by sub-leaders under his overview cast, depending on team size. An upper echelon corporate leader managing a large team may delegate the grooming efforts directed at ordinary subordinates to his sub-leaders based on his set parameters. However, he should regularly guide his sub-leaders to ensure they play their role effectively. Occasionally, when warranted so, he executes some aspects personally to create better impact.

Let us now study the model practised by the Singapore leader. We can then translate the example into a generic structure for relating to other leadership roles. Be highlighted that the model consists of two segments – one for leading new team members (less than six months after induction), the other for encouraging senior/incumbent members (more than six months in the team).

**LEADERSHIP PROCESS APPLICABLE TO NEW MEMBERS

**LEADERSHIP PROCESS APPLICABLE TO INCUMBENT MEMBERS

(Note: Incumbents are mature enough to carry out their tasks more independently, unlike newcomers. Hence their programmes are less intense.)

As the overall size of this “supreme” leader’s direct team and sub-teams was large (a few hundred members at the time of my observation study on his model), he appointed a few seniors to assist in implementing the various programmes. He would personally go hands-on for special occasions which required his personal attention.

Obviously, his model was directed at two prong purposes:

This real example, in my opinion, may pose as a generic structured leadership prototype for other vocations and enterprises to emulate, in the form of the following sequential steps:

# Establish a proper reinforcement programme for leading and developing both new and incumbent personnel.

# Appoint moderators and assistants to help in implementing the various aspects of the programme.

# Formulate a “memorandum of understanding” which spells out the members’ commitment for full participation and the leadership’s commitment for diligent delivery over a set time-table.

# Plan achievement recognitions for the year to honour achievers.

# Adhere to the principle of primarily relying on the three key “pillars”, plus harnessing selected supplementary factors befitting the work environment, that bolster efforts to achieve the individual and team goals. Refer to the graphic below………

Revered leadership entails a structured process for executing various development activities benefiting a team. As emphasised in my previous sharing on “Define Leader & Leadership”, it is not as simplistic as A-B-C.

Look around at lasting successful leaders you know – you would acknowledge they have a system in place, whether very orderly structured or with some flexibility. The more orderly, the more vibrant the result scores. Comparatively, ad-hoc and random leadership activities will only bring in ad-hoc and random results – the best attainment will be fluke shots that are transient, without any lasting impression.

Change in leadership due to retirement, resignation, or other reasons is normal in the corporate world. If a sound structure is already in place, the new leader should have no qualms to follow through the same process. If one is not yet available, then the new leader appointed to maneuver the helm imperatively needs to establish a model to cater for the team’s objectives. Any new leader may have the prerogative to revamp an existing structure for purpose of meeting new business requirements and trends – provided the proposed revamped model is better than the old.

Of course, a leader must first be equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills before he could even define his structure for him to lead vibrantly. This means it is essential he upgrades his prowess as the fundamental leadership prerequisite.

The focal point is this ………. so-called leaders who act randomly without relying on an infallible process are never profound at leading. A model must prevail for effectively and efficiently goading team members toward achieving personal and team goals. That is the noble leadership objective.

Reflective Quotes:

“A person who is worthy of being a leader wants power not for himself, but in order to be of service.” (Sam J Ervin – US Senator 1954 – 74)

“The growth and development of people is the highest calling of leadership.” (Harvey Firestone)

“What you do has far greater impact than what you say.” (Steven Covey)

“Processes sometimes include tools that help create and reinforce desired behaviours or habits.” (Steven Covey)

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:

On Leadership:

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: