Sirajuddin Aziz
Leadership is about the ability to guide, influence, and motivate a group of people towards achieving common and shared goals and objectives. To be able to guide, influence, and motivate, the person who leads has to have at minimum some essential characteristics and traits. The most common denominators of any leadership definition of the required traits include skills in planning, organising, directing, and control, besides decision-making.
In addition, a leader is expected to possess a self-confident character, strong communication skills, and a willingness to delegate. Leadership across human history has been so romanticised that the expectation is of nothing short of a “superman/woman.” In reality, there exists no such individual.
Foolhardy is the thought that a single individual will combine in his/her persona a plethora of largely positive characteristics. Every leader, in some way or the other, has several inadequacies, either in terms of personal traits or in relation to technical proficiencies. No individual is a complete man.
Leaders, in my view, essentially are ‘Dream Merchants’. They sell their vision (ideas) to a group of followers, who demonstrate faith in the achievability of that vision through dedicated efforts. But the development of following (followers) is dependent upon a leader’s realistic approach to achieving the vision, which has to be fortified through traits like clarity in communications, honesty, integrity, patience, passion, expertise, intelligence (from intellect to emotional to spiritual), and a powerful streak of infusing inspiration in the rank and file of the colleagues/workers.
Management studies that began in the early part of the 19th century searched for that “one person” who would combine all the required leadership traits in them, more as a gift from nature than acquisition by training and experience. The cliché “born leaders” had gained much currency. This theory of presence of traits remained largely untouched and unchallenged through the 20th century.
With the advent of the 21st century, there was tremendous growth in the application of technology in both businesses and government. The speed in communication and in the ease of conducting business led to looking at leadership on a fragmented basis.
Management gurus went on a rampage of hair-splitting the concept of leadership. This led to the emergence of concepts like “Situational Leadership”, “Transformational”, “Transactional”, “Functional” Leadership, etc. This fine hair-splitting went to the extent of creating theory of “Authentic Leadership” and “Servant-Leader”, etc.
Positional power arises from the rank, office, or title held. Positional power is not dependent upon skills, characteristics, or qualities; however, possessing some basic skills adds value to the decision-making abilities. Positional power confers upon the title holder influence over actions of others, relating directly from guidance, planning, organising to direction and control.
The impermanence of positional power must be recognised by those wielding it. Such power lasts only up to the time the rank or title is held, or if one was to move from one organisation to another. In contrast, those leaders who lead and influence others through their innate personal qualities are in possession of personal power. There is greater permanence of personal power than positional power. Nobody can deprive an individual of the qualities, either blessed or acquired through toil and hard work.
Positional power is authority acquired on a de jure basis, while personal power is a consequence of being able to influence others without holding a rank or title—such command is a de facto leadership position.
The power associated with the position lends authority to hire and fire, reward and reprimand. The appendage to positional power is the availability of associated coercive power—the authority to take punitive action or enforce punishments in the entity.
As a CEO, I was recipient to many invitations to various types of events; in choosing which one to attend, I normally used the discretion of determining who was being invited—was it me or the CEO? Unless driven by business compulsions, my choice fell on those invitations that were meant for the person I am. The invitations meant for CEO are for the office, not you… that clarity must exist.
The wedding of a CEO’s offspring is not a corporate event… vendors to the organisation cannot be or should not be part of the guest list. The cover-up and excuse of being “friends” with suppliers is a hollow hoax. Personal power will control and limit the presence of such invitees. The guest list to such events must have names who are moved by your personal power and not the rank, title, or position. In the simplest terms, recognition of the ‘principle of conflict of interest’ must exist while extending invitations.
To get invited to events of purpose and substance, the holding of a rank or title helps and is an easier route for social recognition. However, developing social presence based on personal power and skills takes a longer period of time. It is also a given that recognition based on personal traits, characteristics, and reputation has long-term sustainability and stability. Positional power recognition has limited shelf life. On a genuine basis, no harm is done to tap upon positional power to enhance social accessibility; the objective being increasing the network of business.
Leaders who bask in positional power have tendencies to ‘demand’ respect from colleagues; if and when it is not forthcoming, they can resort to abusing the power. In a meeting, I heard a remark by a Board member, in reference to a senior member of management, “Does he know who puts the butter on his toast?” The nature and character of these types of leaders is one of being abusive in the application of tools of command and control—fear and reprimand—against colleagues.
As leaders (CEOs, MDs, Chairpersons, etc.) of organisations, the imperative need is to use positional power for strengthening the personal power base, through focus and attention towards acquiring new skills and abilities. To be an effective CEO, it is a necessity to be good in communication; should there be any inadequacy of traits, then efforts must be made towards improving oneself while on the job/position. The skills so acquired would last beyond the tenure of office held.
As an antidote to both types of leadership—one derived through the de jure process and the other obtained through personal power or de facto basis—is the domineering presence of “hereditary leadership.” Hereditary power is lethal. It is neither dependent upon legality nor due to presence of any special skills—the heir apparent just descends upon the institution and takes the reserved “Royal Chair.” The “Crown Prince or Prince of Wales” of companies, even those that are listed, consider themselves a ‘gift from divinity’… they take charge, with or without skills, abilities, or even attitude. This is a cultural aspect—an issue that prevails. It is more pronounced here locally than in the East or West—not to suggest it is not prevalent in those societies—the difference is that lineage is a given, but the position has to be “earned.” Unlike our environment, where self-coronation takes place with no regrets.
Colleagues must hold the leader in awe, not because of fear but for reasons of admiration that must sprout from the entrenched qualities of honesty, integrity, principled behaviour, positive attitude, and a general amenable nature.
Positional power can never yield loyalty. Personal power begets loyalty and long-term commitment.
A perfect blending of positional power and personal power in a leader will ensure the healthy growth of the organisation. A perfect leader of substance will combine in his/her persona a fair balance between power derived through the position held and the power of innate qualities of heart, mind, and soul.
The writer is a Senior Banker & Freelance Columnist.
