Part 4.

Great Leaders Don’t Fit the Models

The Ongoing Debate: What traits make a leader?

• Without the tools we’ve just thrown away, how can we identify the future leaders of the company?

• The risk is that the company will turn mediocre and then irrelevant.

• Current “leadership development programs” assume there’s a specific set of capabilities that can be learned, and this includes personal attributes (“self-awareness”).

• Assumptions: leadership ability can be broken down in components; leaders possess the same set of skills and attributes that can be developed if one doesn’t possess them already. [already funny, right?]

• Regardless of different models of CEO traits, all of them are based on the belief that leaders can be made. [A small conflict of interest as the developers of these models sell consulting services.]

What Are Leadership Assessments Actually Assessing?

• The outcome is a list of strengths [to develop further] and weaknesses [to address].

• Assessment of attributes often makes it into performance reviews.

• Some companies have training programs to master some of these skills.

• (And how not to confuse narcissist behaviour for confidence?)

• Every rule is elusive as there are lots of other successful leaders breaking it.

We Use Teams Because One Person Can’t Be Good at Everything

• People adapt to strengths and weaknesses of themselves and others; surrounding people with strengths balancing your weaknesses is important.

• Followers also adapt to the weaknesses of their leaders.

• Great companies’ CEOs recognise and exploit potential of good ideas and people.

• The goal is maximising the good qualities of a team and at the same time minimising their weaknesses.

• Instead of focusing on a collection of skills from different employees, companies try to develop all skills in all of them, which is a mistake.

• Drive + talent are the two defining skills.

Trying to Be Good at Everything Is the Way to Achieve Mediocrity

• True, companies investing into employees outperform those that don’t.

• Trying to get everyone to be better at everything inhibits leadership development.

• People may get discouraged by having to take topics/subjects they don’t want or have no use for.

• Training programs may limit the horizons due to the focus on wrong topics instead of expanding them.

• Training programs also lag the actual speed of world development. They also must not be a replacement for people’s natural curiosity.

There’s No Recipe or Checklist for Self-Actualisation

• None of the things that bring a person forward are company or school sanctioned.

• Having children teaches to deal with other people on their terms. [MK: couldn’t agree more]

• Not fitting in the job, but getting trained on something one doesn’t need does nothing to find passion and self-actualise.

But what can work?

• Do offer training, but make it a mix of in-house, external and “you get to choose” classes.

• Internal programs: determine up to 5 skills you would like all participants to master.

• Coaching, feedback and conflict resolution are good skills to master.

• Onboarding and manager training are a good idea, too.

• Encourage employees to seek training and conferences of their own choosing (usually – outside of the immediate area of responsibility) and ask them to share with others. [MK: we’ve had this in Aviasales from very early days]

• Look for people who get the job done and volunteer to help others and with information – and promote them.

• Also (optionally) offer employees to apply to leadership programs requiring a lengthy application process to weed out those without ambition.

Part 6.