\nI have been working with organizations of all kinds for fifty years or more-as\na teacher and administrator in the university, as a consultant to corporations,\nas a board member, as a volunteer. Over the years, I have discussed with\nscores-perhaps even hundreds-of leaders their roles, their goals, and their\nperformance. I have worked with manufacturing giants and tiny firms, with\norganizations that span the world and others that work with severely handicapped\nchildren in one small town. I have worked with some exceedingly bright executives\nand a few dummies, with people who talk a good deal about leadership and\nothers who apparently never even think of themselves as leaders and who rarely,\nif ever, talk about leadership.<\/p>\n\n
\nThe lessons are unambiguous.<\/p>\n\n
\nThe first is that there may be “born leaders,” but there surely are far too\nfew to depend on them. Leadership must be learned and can be learned\n … <\/p>\n\n
\nThe second major lesson is that “leadership personality,” “leadership style,”\nand “leadership traits” do not exist. Among the most effective leaders I\nhave encountered and worked with in a half century, some locked themselves\ninto their office and others were ultragregarious. Some (though not many)\nwere “nice guys” and others were stern disciplinarians. Some were quick and\nimpulsive; others studied and studied again and then took forever to come\nto a decision. Some were warm and instantly “simpatico”; others remained\naloof even after years of working closely with others, not only with outsiders\nlike me but with the people within their own organization. Some immediately\nspoke of their family; others never mentioned anything apart from the task\nin hand.<\/p>\n\n
\nSome leaders were excruciatingly vain-and it did not affect their performance\n(as his spectacular vanity did not affect General Douglas MacArthur’s performance\nuntil the very end of his career). Some were self-effacing to a fault-and\nagain it did not affect their performance as leaders (as it did not affect\nthe performance of General George Marshall or Harry Truman). Some were as\naustere in their private lives as a hermit in the desert; others were\nostentatious and pleasure-loving and whooped it up at every opportunity.\nSome were good listeners, but among the most effective leaders I have worked\nwith were also a few loners who listened only to their own inner voice.<\/p>\n\n
\nThe one and only personality trait<\/em> the effective ones I have encountered\ndid have in common was something they did not<\/em> have: they had little\nor no “charisma” and little use either for the term or for what it signifies.<\/p>\n\n\n All the effective leaders I have encountered-both those I worked\nwith and those I merely watched-knew<\/em> four simple things:<\/p>\n\n \n1.<\/strong> The only definition of a leader<\/em> is someone who has\nfollowers.<\/em> Some people are thinkers. Some are prophets. Both roles\nare important and badly needed. But without followers, there can be no leaders.<\/p>\n\n \n2. <\/strong>An effective leader is not someone who is loved or admired. He\nor she is someone whose followers do the right things. Popularity is not\nleadership. Results<\/em> are.<\/p>\n\n \n3.<\/strong> Leaders are highly visible. They therefore set examples.<\/em><\/p>\n\n \n4.<\/strong> Leadership is not rank, privileges, titles, or money. It is\nresponsibility.<\/em><\/p>\n\n Regardless of their almost limitless diversity with respect to\npersonality, style, abilities, and interests, the effective leaders I have\nmet, worked with, and observed also behaved<\/em> much the same way:<\/p>\n\n \n1.<\/strong> They did not start out with the question, “What do I want?” They\nstarted out asking, “What needs to be done?<\/em>“<\/p>\n\n \n2.<\/strong> Then they asked, “What can and should I do to make a\ndifference?<\/em>” This has to be something that both needs to be done and\nfits the leader’s strengths and the way she or he is most effective.<\/p>\n\n \n3.<\/strong> They constantly asked, “What are the organization’s mission<\/em>\nand goals?<\/em> What constitutes performance<\/em> and results<\/em>\nin this organization?”<\/p>\n\n \n4.<\/strong> They were extremely tolerant of diversity in people and did not\nlook for carbon copies of themselves. It rarely even occurred to them to\nask, “Do I like or dislike this person?” But they were\ntotally-fiendishly-intolerant when it came to a person’s performance,\nstandards,<\/em> and values.<\/em><\/p>\n\n \n5.<\/strong> They were not afraid of strength<\/em> in their associates. They\ngloried in it. Whether they had heard of it or not, their motto was what\nAndrew Carnegie wanted to have put on his tombstone: “Here lies a man who\nattracted better people into his service than he was himself.”<\/p>\n\n \n6.<\/strong> One way or another, they submitted themselves to the “mirror\ntest<\/em>“-that is, they made sure that the person they saw in the mirror\nin the morning was the kind of person they wanted to be, respect, and believe\nin. This way they fortified themselves against the leader’s greatest\ntemptations-to do things that are popular rather than right and to do petty,\nmean, sleazy things.<\/p>\n\n \nFinally, these effective leaders were not preachers; they were doers.<\/em>\nIn the mid 1920s, when I was in my final high school years, a whole spate\nof books on World War I and its campaigns suddenly appeared in English, French,\nand German. For our term project, our excellent history teacher-himself a\nbadly wounded war veteran-told each of us to pick several of these books,\nread them carefully, and write a major essay on our selections. When we then\ndiscussed these essays in class, one of my fellow students said, “Every one\nof these books says that the Great War was a war of total military incompetence.\nWhy was it?<\/em>” Our teacher did not hesitate a second but shot right\nback, “Because not enough generals were killed; they stayed way behind the\nlines and let others do the fighting and dying.”<\/p>\n\nWhat leaders know<\/h2>\n
What leaders do<\/h2>\n