Thread by @GastroOneIndia

#Leadership
The Leadership Paradigm: By Example, by Empowerment and by Educating.

India awaits a new Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) 75 days after Gen.Bipin Rawat tragically died in a helicopter crash. It would seem the government is unable to decide?

What should we be looking for in the next CDS?

From bees to dolphins to elephants, many wild animals live in cooperative groups ruled by a single leader. And, as is the case in human societies, these rulers take different pathways to power.

In the animal world, pack leadership is by natural selection. You are born an alpha or you fight for leadership. When it comes to groups’ nature has decided that they are better off led by one or a few. What differentiate these groups are the pathways to leadership.

Depending on their size and personalities, chimpanzees either use brute force or build coalitions to get ahead. The top dogs of some species, such as spotted hyenas, are determined by sex or by lineage, much as rulers ascend in a monarchy.

Stickleback fish simply follow the best looking of the bunch. Among spotted hyenas and elephants the leadership lineage is always matriarchal, like in some human societies too.

Evolutionary scientists have also determined that animals that have effective leader-follower systems do better than groups that do not have a leader.

Evolutionary scientists claim is that leadership is the result of a Darwinian process of evolution via natural selection whereby groups of animals – be it mammals, insects, birds or fish – that form effective leader-follower relations do better than groups that fail to…

…coordinate around a leader. By taking an evolutionary approach, it is immediately obvious that there may be parallels between leadership in humans and in nonhumans, particularly for species that, like us, pursue group activities.

For instance, the chimpanzee, our closest genetic relative – with whom we shared a common ancestor some 6 million years ago – go on border patrols to defend their territory against other communities.

Small groups of males move to the periphery of their range and scan the environment for intruders and if they find one they will hurt or even kill them. Some chimps are more likely to lead such patrols than others and they have more status and mating success in their community.

As they evolved with time, more knowledge and technology, more cultural accumulation and laws, the selection of leaders is increasing less Darwinian and involve more complex systems of selection in demonstrated or perceived capabilities, and ability to manipulate selectors,…

…masses or layers of leaders. Thus, human societies invest hugely in developing leadership by imparting skills, techniques and attributes, as well as broadening multi-disciplinary knowledge. We see such institutions all across our landscape.

The bureaucracy, military and business communities all have their own institutions devoted to this. In these structured human organizations the rise up the leadership ladder is supposed to be by objective assessments of demonstrated capabilities and attributes.

We know it’s not always or even usually like that.

Throughout human history there have been leaders. We have had political, military and religious leaders. The basis of their leadership has always been a goal.

In 1790 BC, the Babylonian ruler Hammurabi created codified laws, which unified his people under one set of laws applicable to all. Military leaders rely on external and internal threats to unify their forces and sometimes their people.

Sun Tzu, a military general, however in “Art of War” postulated on how to avoid war by focusing on policies and strategies to do that.

In the nuclear age the avoidance of war becomes critical and military leaders need to emphasize it by preparing to meet all reasonable contingencies. Religious have always had the greatest impact on societies all through our history.

They do it with a combination of prescribed morality, laid down customary habits, and by ideating a theology that makes us fear the back and beyond.

Leadership theory is a dynamic phenomenon and continues to change over time.

It has been studied extensively over the years and several theories have emerged. Traditional leadership theories include the Great Man theory, which maintains that leaders are born to lead thus possessing certain inherent characteristics that destines them to lead.

Trait theory evolved from the Great Man theory and specifies that leaders are can be born or made and that the combination of certain characteristics is needed to be an effective leader.

Behavioral theory then followed, asserting that leaders are largely made with a focus on the actions of the leader as opposed to their personality traits.

There was then recognition that certain environmental factors are important and contingency and situational theories were added to the mix.

The modern era followed and involved a shift from focusing on the leaders and their attributes to considering the complex and continuous interactions and interrelationships among the leader, the followers and the situation.

The resulting theories include shared, collective and collaborative leadership as well as inclusive leadership. Finally, complexity leadership also emerged, focusing on the whole system of an organization.

In its “Leadership” course introduction the Harvard Business School tells us that there are a variety of attributes and abilities associated with leadership, and these vary from leader to leader. Some leaders are great orators, others great writers.

Some leaders are very quiet, but the force of their logic or passion wins the day. The difference between a good leader and a great leader is partly the number of leadership skills they have developed.

The other part is their ability to apply those skills properly to those who would follow.

When the external conditions change leadership requirements too change.

That’s why governments have war cabinets and bureaucracies, military, civil or corporate, have crisis management groups. This is because decision-making lines and periods have to be compressed. The personality attributes too change.

That’s why the Cheyenne, a Native American tribe from the Great Plains, have war and peace leaders and different men occupy these roles.

War leaders are young, brave, aggressive men who lead raids against other tribes, whereas the peace leaders are older men from esteemed families in the tribe.

Modern battlefield organizations are more complex and the abilities to plan and co-ordinate rather that hot-headedness are at premium.

Montgomery famously remarked about Eisenhower: “nice fellow, but no general!” What Patton thought might not be printable, but in wartime leadership of big formations self-effacement is a major attribute.

When German and Soviet tanks rumbled across Poland to start the war in September 1939, Ike had been a mere lieutenant colonel (and a major, stuck in rank for 12 consecutive years before that).

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, bringing the United States into the conflagration, he had been promoted to a one-star brigadier general only a few short months before.

Yet Eisenhower concluded the war as a five-star general, the architect of Operation Overlord—the allied invasion of Normandy—and the indispensable man who had balanced the interests and egos of a galaxy of generals and political leaders.

In November 1945, Eisenhower returned to Washington to replace Marshall as Chief of Staff of the Army.
Marshall lays out the four qualities required to be a successful leader in a war situation, and notably two of them overlap with what Warren Buffett looks for in a person.

What strikes us most about them is that they are neither complicated nor available to a select few nor specific to war at all. They are simply hard.

And if Marshall’s life is a testament to anything, it’s that the ability to do hard things at the right time is the essence of a great leader.

“To be a highly successful leader in war four things are essential, assuming that you possess good common sense, have studied your profession and are physically strong.

When conditions are difficult, the command is depressed and everyone seems critical and pessimistic, you must be especially cheerful and optimistic.

When evening comes and all are exhausted, hungry and possibly dispirited, particularly in unfavorable weather at the end of a march or in battle, you must put aside any thought of personal fatigue and display marked energy in looking after the comfort of your organization,…

…inspecting your lines and preparing for tomorrow.

Make a point of extreme loyalty, in thought and deed, to your chiefs personally; and in your efforts to carry out their plans or policies, the less you approve the more energy you must direct to their accomplishment.

The more alarming and disquieting the reports received or the conditions viewed in battle, the more determined must be your attitude. Never ask for the relief of your unit and never hesitate to attack.’

In a television interview after leaving office, Truman was asked which American he thought had made the greatest contribution of the preceding thirty years.

Without hesitation, Truman picked Marshall, adding "I don't think in this age in which I have lived, that there has been a man who has been a greater administrator; a man with a knowledge of military affairs equal to General Marshall."

Orson Welles said in a 1970 interview with the talk host Dick Cavett that "Marshall is the greatest man I ever met... I think he was the greatest human being who was also a great man... He was a tremendous gentleman, an old fashioned institution which isn't with us anymore."

The story Welles related to Cavett to illustrate his point was about a time he saw Marshall take the time to speak with a young American soldier who had accidentally entered the same room. Marshall spoke to the soldier and asked him his name and from where he came from.

Successful military commanders evolve their own leadership style, motivating their troops and getting the best out of their staff in their own way. Sam Maneckshaw had his own unique style of commanding men and imprinting his personality on them.

His style was flamboyant yet carefully thought out characterized by extreme loyalty to senior and subordinate alike. He believed in taking troops into confidence and motivating them to undertake the toughest of tasks with their welfare being uppermost in his mind.

“Never happier than when in the company of his men, Maneckshaw had a must uplifting effect on them, their devotion in turn spurring him on to greater heights.

He thought nothing of bypassing military protocol to speak with unit commanders or the man on the spot, his channels of information and communication giving him insights into tricky situations.

Sam despised yes-men and encouraged his juniors to express dissent when they felt they were right.”

But here’s the problem, says Stanford Graduate School of Business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer: “None of that is working.

Organizations are filled with disengaged, dissatisfied employees who don’t trust their leaders, and those leaders, in turn, face shortened job tenures, career derailments, and dismissals.

Pfeffer confronts this paradox in his new book, “Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time.”

“The leadership industry has failed,” he says. “There is little evidence that any of these recommendations have had a positive impact.”

Pfeffer’s book points to the ways in which those prescriptions have actually been problematic for leaders and proved themselves to be invalid. Many of them come from the inspirational leadership success stories we love.

As a culture, we’re fascinated by the legends — think Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg — but those are just stories, says Pfeffer, and nothing more.

People generally want to see and hear only good things about their leaders, so they tend to ignore contradictory evidence and failures. “There’s all this mythologizing that besets leadership, as people try to generalize and learn from exceptional cases,” he says.

“But that has resulted in this enormous disconnect between what actually makes individuals successful and what we think makes them successful.”

Pfeffer argues that one reason the leadership industry has not been successful is that its recommendations are based on an ideal world, rather than on the real world.

Among the prescriptions for better leadership, for example, is that leaders need to be truthful, when in reality, the ability to lie can be very useful for getting ahead. Skill at manipulation, writes Pfeffer, “is a foundation of social power.”

In fact, he says, there is a reciprocal relationship between power and lying: The powerful deceive more often, and the ability to deceive effectively creates social power.

While the management phenomenon examines processes, functionality, orientation and physiology, the concept of organization is more about formalism, structures and anatomy. For this reason, organizational structure determines the management phenomenon adopted.

The basic dimensions of management can be summarized as planning, organizing, directing, and evaluating. Management can basically be defined as one business activity through others.

Commanders should know enough people, history, geography and culture to comprehend the architecture of the war area and the spirit and requirements of military service. Analyses done without knowledge about the people in the area and its geography and culture are of no use.

Above all, commanding in war requires a good knowledge of the geography involved, geopolitics, politics, the economy, and the technology of the period.

Clearly, there is no one way to great or successful leadership.

Lao Tzu said: “A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say we did it ourselves.” He is clearly stressing organization, delegation and strategy. He is not preaching self-abnegation.

Bill Gates who built one of the great organizations of modern times also stresses this saying: “As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others.”