Albeit, the role and responsibilities of a manager and a leader are quite distinct in the study of management sciences, however for this piece, the two are used interchangeably. There is a reason to do so. Both have to possess and demonstrate almost similar skill sets, including the aspects relating to personality traits, which are not too significantly different.
Albeit, the role and responsibilities of a manager and a leader are quite distinct in the study of management sciences, however for this piece, the two are used interchangeably. There is a reason to do so. Both have to possess and demonstrate almost similar skill sets, including the aspects relating to personality traits, which are not too significantly different.
Both the manager and a leader have the inherent task, encapsulated within the domains of their positions, that of leading and guiding a set of people. The followers can be one or could be many.
Followership places numerous demands upon the leader/manager. These demands can range from specific business objectives to the expectations of how and what they would like to see in their supervisors. Consequently, the leader and his/her actions are constantly under microscopic examination by the team members.
In a research study conducted by Ruth, Gouchii and Gallup covering over 10,000 respondents, the following traits emerged as the most significant ones that followers expect to find in their leaders, viz, trust, compassion, stability and hope.
Additionally, followers like to see the characteristic of ‘courage’ in their leadership. Cowards can never have genuine followers. Timidity and weakness in resolve exposes the leader and puts him/her in a bad frame. A leader who fears decision making, will be more furiously scared of the consequences of the decision taken. Such leaders tend not to take any responsibility, hence on a wholesale basis, they indulge in indecisiveness. They just refuse to take a position or a decision.
Some leaders are quite adept at procrastination. In doing so, they hope with full and false sense of confidence, that over time, matters or issues, will resolve by themselves; it is also true that in some few and far cases, they actually get unbundled; but largely they simmer and ultimately erupt like the uncontrollable volcanic outburst of fire and lava. In such situations, the organisation and teams end up paying heavy price for the indecisiveness of the leader.
Followers, in the minimum, expect the Leader/manager/supervisor to be "truthful", in both situations of being present before them or behind them. There is no room to lie. A lie is a blatant aspect of bad behaviour. Some people tend to be compulsive liars. They do so, not for any benefits to be derived, but more as a matter of habit. When they are not lying openly, they resort to ambiguity, in verbal and written communication.
Many managers, even when the need is to be candidly clear, in conveying decisions indulge in doublespeak. They mask their decisions,with provisos, which in itself are ambiguous and obscure in content, to a degree that the recipient doesn’t even get to understand what the decision is!
Leaders must necessarily not be just good in communication, both verbal and non-verbal, but they must also seriously demonstrate great "listening" skills. Those who do not listen, get no sound advice or counsel.
Goals and objectives must be set out clearly and also be communicated with equal clarity to all constituents. There should be no cobwebs surrounding the message.
The language used in communications is characteristically and deliberately euphemistic. It is only when a manager or follower decides to exit from the entity, that the truth comes to sit on their lips ; otherwise expedient silence is observed. This attitude if found in a leader is of criminal proportions. A leader/manager’s truth should need no evidence.
Doublespeak and disregard to commitments made is the domain of third rate politicians. Leaders in this segment remain convinced that expedient duplicity is a norm and requirement to remain relevant as politicians. Since childhood, I have heard commitments and promises being made by politicians of all shades, hue and colour, that if voted into power, they would ensure,’ food, clothing and shelter’. This scribe has become old, to see, food scarcity ( expensive); low number of homeowners and as regards, the promise of clothing, this is done by the populace out of compulsions of societal requirements, despite these becoming expensive; and not because the state has provided for clothing.
In the corporate and business sector, promises have to be delivered upon, regardless of what they may relate to, starting from meeting basic service standards to providing a decent return on equity (ROE) to the stakeholders. No manager can afford to be deceitful or untruthful in these matters.
Followers look up to the leaders to provide 'Hope' ... when the chips are down, it is the element of Hope that keeps the entity moving forward. If hope is lost ,all is lost. It goes without saying that hope must reside and be anchored in reason. Hope is not meant to be made a tool of deceit and deception that a leader can afford to deploy on the followers.
Trust is fragile, just as character is; it has to be encased extremely carefully. The followers must have complete faith and trust in whatever the leader says or does. Teammates demand consistency of thought and action. No leader can play see-saw for any good length of time. Invariably decisions would have to be made by the leader; failing which, someone, other than the nominated leader , would step in, to take a view and then execute. Decisions are expected to be in conformity with corporate goals and objectives, inconsistencies will render the decisions to be in isolation, which in turn will result in impairing the institution's growth opportunities.
If the leader is found to be untrusting of his own faith and conviction about the vision and corporate interests of the entity there would be no takers of his views.
Marriane Moore, in her poem titled, “In Distrust of Merits”, says, "As contagion of sickness makes sickness; contagion of trust makes trust".
Teams desire to have supervisors who are not only professionally smart but are also at the same time,an extremely good reflection of organisation’s poise and elegance. The aloofness, if any, that may be noticed in a supervisor, must not make him/her inaccessible. Discipline is a necessity but not at the cost of insult of one by the other.
Leaders and managers are expected to inspire and motivate. Hence, what and how should the leader provide for this expectation? One aspect of great criticality is honesty and the quality of commitment of the leader. Their actions must reflect these two traits in a pronounced manner. The major attributes that come into play are: do the followers feel that the management considers them as a critical resource and that the output they give will stand to be appreciated. Workers expect consistency of principles in both appreciation and reprimand.
In isolation, it is impossible to think of leadership, without contextualising it with humility, fair play, tolerance, respect and endurance. Followers expectations include, the ability of the leader to possess a sense of self assessment and self evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses; once this is found, the leader then can command his way to plug through teammates his own weaknesses and boost the output of theirs by infusion of his strength.
Followers offer unalloyed and unmasked respect to those leaders who they know and see, by deed and actions, as compassionate and humble individuals.
Leaders who fail to demonstrate these basic traits to their followers lose very quickly their respect and attention, leading up to loss of the Leadership position.
The writer is a senior banker & freelance columnist
