Lasting Power - It is time to reflect on what makes a truly powerful and influential Leader (July 1)

article online

With the release of our Power 100 list coinciding with the finals of the 2012 European Football tournament, much time has been spent this week reflecting on what it is to have power and influence and what makes a good leader.

Lyndon B. Johnson once commented succinctly that “the only real power available to a leader is the power of persuasion.

In this region, where we are acting in a multi-cultural environment, persuasion is particularly complicated; understanding power structures, whose interests to appeal to, even what these interests are exactly.

On top of that, language barriers can exacerbate the breakdown in communication, particularly if you are unable to access the right audience and communicate clearly.

Many of the most influential in the Middle East, though never mentioned on any power lists, wield considerable power in terms of the ability to indirectly determine courses of action by having the ears and trust of decision makers.

When it comes to having the power to get your will through, there is much to be said about empathy, understanding and humility.

We talk a lot about learning from our mistakes even though we repeat them over and over again.

Not because we do not know any better, but because many do not want to lose face by admitting a mistake the first time around. Pride can get the best of us, and can break down relationships for no good reason; whether between nations, business partners or co-workers.

Interviewed in 2004, the secretary of defense under JFK, Robert McNamara said: “In the case of Vietnam, we did not know them well enough to empathise.

They believed that we had simply replaced the French as a colonial power, and we were seeking to subject South and North Vietnam to our colonial interests, which was absolutely absurd.

And we, we saw Vietnam as an element of the Cold War. Not what they saw it as: a civil war.”

It is harrowing to hear this man, responsible for the war at the height of its intensity, now admitting, or seemingly coming to the ultimate realisation that it was fundamentally a matter of a simple misunderstanding.

When misconceptions from history’s greatest leaders can lead to devastation on this scale, it is somehow a consolation when hearing about joint ventures faltering due to incorrect assumptions about the incentives and motives of people and organisations.

A key component of business is the ability to align interests and maintain stable relations between partners and not let pride become a factor. There is an irony in how success, especially if it comes quickly and unexpectedly, can be the cause of downfall.

When profits and organisations grow, egos tend to follow along the same kind of path, with interests on status and recognition becoming narrower. I think we have all seen organisations becoming handicapped by a culture of self-promotion due to taking undue credit, shifting blame or finding scapegoats. It is easy to give in to the temptation of attributing too much of a company’s success to one’s own input and start feeling entitled to an unreasonable amount of credit.

Many philosophies of management, like Taylorism, even seem to encourage a paternalistic approach that overestimates the ability to command and control outcomes. Being able to maintain a work atmosphere where he or she who takes credit is perceived as secondary to the task at hand.

Making team members feel that their mutual interests are aligned, and also that they are part of a greater cause and purpose, is far larger than mere self-interest.

Being able to achieve that balance is the real mettle of leadership and lasting power. It is with these thoughts in mind that we hope you enjoy this year’s Power 100 list, which we are sure will generate much debate as to the true qualities of leadership, and the values attached to these.

Communication and Management: Knowing where to set the balance between good cop, bad cop is a difficult balance for a manager to get right

 

Knowing where to set the balance between good cop, bad cop is a difficult balance for a manager to get right

 Defining an outline of standards of which the organisation’s members are to live up to is what the art of management is often understood to consist of. That, and using the right balance of carrot and stick to get the desired results from employees. In practice, however the ambition level that you define for others to live up will tend to have a limited impact on their actual performance. Particularly in multicultural work environments, it often risks belittling people if they are held out to feel insufficient in the light of targets they can’t achieve. This is even in cases where they have actually performed at the very top of their potential. The consequence is that instead of maximising potential it stunts and demoralises team members. 

Unquestionably, pushing the limits by setting high expectations is a must. Knowing how to be inspirational and optimistic is pitted against the need for being critical and realistic to an organisation’s weaknesses. To be effective as a leader, it is imperative to have a very accurate estimation of what the actual potential really is. That can be very tricky. Having enough empathy to inspire the confidence that allows the lines of communication throughout a company to offer an undistorted reflection of what the key factors and issues are that determine performance. This skill is not so much about being the most intelligent with superior analytical abilities. It is more valuable to be in touch with and have the trust of the organisation to get the relevant information to analyse. 

On the one hand I see the diagnosis of this problem being a matter of interpersonal skills. One needs understanding and empathy to both see and be told of the real situation being faced by those on the frontlines. While it is very easy for anyone to relate to the concept of a person born with exceptional talent and motivation, we are very reluctant to see any person as having inherent constraints to his abilities. We rather excuse any/every shortcoming with a blanket explanation of being a matter of education. While many like to see this is an expression of tolerance, it is rather the reason for miscommunication and severe miscalculations of expected outcomes from mismatching the required competencies with the task at hand.

 On the other hand, I see these types of disconnects in organisations as the consequence of an ingrained legacy from colonial times. The common idea is that any manager needs to uphold an image of superior knowledge compared to the others in his team. This quickly becomes a handicap in that communication is stilted in fear of revealing uncertainty and doubt. I see this mindset as probably stemming from the entrenched ways of how colonies were managed. Organisational structures were impeccably designed to monitor and micro-manage labour that carried out minutely standardised tasks. A consequence and requisite for these multilayered hierarchies was distancing between those in power from those carrying out the work. 

Today, this kind of approach is rarely beneficial to any activity besides the possible exception of assembly lines. Yet, the same thinking is seen all over the world. Standards are still being mistaken for standardisation.

 The reality of the marketplace today is that companies are more dependent than ever on a diversity of talents if they are to compete. And for talents to flourish, a degree of trust is required to shift from an environment shackled in conformity to one of freedom that makes creativity possible. Power, as with mastery of any art, is revealed in the control one has without having to resort to frameworks and monitoring. 

A good sign of organisational health is where being fault and blame-free is deemed as lacking initiative and not as a virtue. 

Oscar Wendel is the conference manager of Construction Week.