Inspirational Leadership
By Sujit Mundul
It is increasingly common to hear people say that we are facing a leadership crisis. The ways in which organisations are moving ahead can no longer be understood using the models or logical analysis that have served us in the past. The rational leader has got business where it is - they will, in all likelihood, not be able to take it where it needs to go. So it is expected that tomorrow's leaders will be required to be ordinary human beings with extraordinary talents.
The new leader will be expected to be inspired as well as inspiring. They will be able to hold a vision while enthusing others to share that vision. They will also be expected to manage complexity while instilling enough stability to ensure smooth operations. They should be able to change direction at the drop of a hat (or market) from one imagined future to another - without losing the support of associates, staff, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders. They will also be required to be able to creatively manage the emotional impact of constant change.
Now - perhaps for the first time in recorded history - business actually needs what the arts have to offer in order to survive. Creativity, imagination, flexibility, adaptability, effective communication, visionary tendencies and apparent insecurity - have always been the lot for artists; and organisations are beginning to realise that arts have more to offer compared to a night out or a sponsorship opportunity.
Stories have been used to inspire and instruct human beings since we learnt how to speak. We are able to look into a story and see ourselves as the characters and landscapes.
Let us now turn our attention towards Shakespeare. Of all his works, Henry V is the one from which we can learn the most about the nature of inspiration. I believe he wrote the play as the myth of a great leader. It is not an accurate historical picture but, it is a near-perfect story of successful leadership - one wrought in the psychological realism of tough decision making and personal challenge. It is not just the famous speeches that we can learn from but the intricate subtleties of incidents throughout the play. From the first line that calls to our imagination with its plea for 'a muse of fire', to the last scene where Henry is a victorious leader, struggling to turn a battlefield into a garden, the plot reflects invaluable insights into leadership - which may be termed as inspirational.
Henry invites a group of disparate people (his nobles) around a common goal (reclaiming the territory of France ) and manages to overcome all difficulties in his path to achieve a near-miraculous victory against the odds. So you could view the King (i.e. Henry) as an inspired leader, the nation as an organisation, the nobles as the senior management team and France as a big project. The metaphor of a big struggle is one that most people find easy to relate to their own leadership practice.
Shakespeare survives so robustly through the changing fads of every generation because he touches so consistently on the truth of human experience and helps us to draw inspiration.
(Mundul is a CEO of Standard Chartered Bank Nepal Ltd.)
Manage & Lead for Excellence
By Manohar Man Shrestha
What is the difference between management and leadership? Here are four case studies from four Nepali organisations. You have to find out which are about management and which are about leadership.
Before we proceed, a guideline for your judgments —Management is the process in which resources are planned, organised, led and controlled to produce outputs. Under management, people are viewed as one among the many resources. On the other hand, leadership is the process of influencing a group of people towards a destination that is called the ‘vision of the leader’. Management sees people as objects or forces while leadership sees people as decision-makers.
Fig 1. Individuals in an organization
Take a look at Fig 1 and imagine that the box is an organisation and the arrows are the people in the organisation. The arrows differ in direction, size and shape to indicate that people differ in terms of motives, qualifications and personalities. Currently this organisation has neither a manager nor a leader. Everybody is carrying on in their own ways and working on their own whims. I hope your organisation is not like this. Or is it? Now what would happen if you introduced a manager and a good one at that?
Fig 2. Good manager in charge of the organization
Now, take a look at Fig 2. That is it: a good manager is able to extract work or output from varied types of people because he has got an output in mind (planning), a system and a structure -- here the wheel and the axle (organising). He is able to rally his resources by taking advantages of their natural inclinations and not changing anything (leading), he makes sure the system is stable (controlling). Are you this kind of manager? I leave it to you to imagine how the above diagram would be like if the manager had poor managerial skills. Now what if a leader was placed in the organisation instead of a manager? If it is a good leader the organisation will resemble Fig 3.
Fig 3. Good leader in charge of the organization
Everybody is attracted (influenced) towards the leader and he takes them to destination B (vision of the leader). This diagram shows that the followers fully trust the leader to take them where he wants. Notice that the leader is accepting them as they are without them having to change their directions, size and shape. Also notice how, like our good manager, he expertly makes sure that no one is obstructing his duties but instead everyone is contributing towards it. Are you this kind of leader? How would this diagram look if there was a bad leader with poor leadership skills in control? It would resemble Fig 4.
Fig 4. Bad leader in charge of the organization
Now that we are clear on what management and leadership are, let us look at the four cases.
Case 1
Sarita went on her first day at work with great enthusiasm as her new company was of international standard in terms of managerial practice. It had all the policies, systems, and software in place. The interior lay-out was comfortable and made to impress employees as well as customers. Sarita met her manager who in turn took her on a tour in the office. Finally he dropped her at another colleague's desk asking the latter to brief her on her job. This colleague looked up as if asked to cut off his arm and give it to her and said, "I don't have time to teach her. I have other more important things to do." The manager went off and Sarita was left on her own. She walked around the office but she felt as if she was driving a car during a bandh. It seemed no one trusted anyone. The clocked struck 5 pm and everyone including Sarita left the office. She sent her resignation letter the very next day. Why? She said, "This is not a conducive place to work at all. It hurts to just be there. I don't want to imagine how it will be working here. Sorry."
Case 2
As you quite well know, salaries in Nepal are not so good and everybody can do with some extra cash. Ajit is the CEO of a big organisation with many divisions. He has assigned nine managers to look after hundreds of employees. Ajit deals only with the nine managers to save time. Another feature of this organisation is that he is lax on financial matters as long as it doesn't harm the company's business. It is ok if managers and staffs take some commission from suppliers or from customers (for extra service). Ajit understands Nepali mentality better than other CEOs I have met or read about. His philosophy of 'enrich the company by enriching the workers' is illustrated by the following example.
Ajeet set up a system through which every staff would get Rs.15,000 for medical expenses per year but only if he falls sick. How do you know if a staff is really sick? He has to submit bills for the medical expense. Throughout the year no one falls sick but suddenly at the end of the fiscal year, everyone seems to fall sick in such a way that everyone comes up with a medical expense bill of exactly Rs.15,000. What a coincidence! Ajeet smiles when confronted with this situation. He is no fool and knows what has happened: they are all fake bills but he pays them all.
It is with practices like these that the people working for Ajeet love him, trust him and never think of leaving him. There are very rare cases of resignation and they are triggered by irresistible offers from competitors. In those cases too, Ajeet sends them off with full honour. His organisation is doing well and his employees happily carry out their burdens and are willing to go wherever he takes them.
Case 3
Sundar is the GM of an engineering firm. The business of this firm is such that the people are mostly on the field, far away from the supervising eyes of the GM. The workers are educated, arrogant and self-centered engineers, at least in Sundar's eyes. He perceives two major threats. Since Sundar has no way of directly controlling the engineers, he fears that they might team up to steal or swindle the company. Second, he has no means of ensuring that once in the field they put in their best efforts. As a solution, Sudar decided to implement a form of 'divide and rule' strategy. He called each of the engineers separately and said: "You are the only engineer I can rely on. The others are useless and I am keeping them only because I have no other alternative. I want you to report to me and me only. I also want you to do your best in the field because you are my best engineer. I will reward you accordingly. Remember, the others are unreliable. I can count on you only."
So Sundar put each colleague against another to counteract the two threats he perceived. His strategy worked and engineers did their best and always waited for his decisions no matter how long it took to come. But the strategy soon backfired because there was no teamwork between the engineers. There was a gradual decline in quality due to the lack of synergy, and all the clients abandoned this engineering firm because it was always late on delivery as the decision making process was centered around Sundar in the corporate office far away from the work sites. The company almost collapsed and even today is faring poorly compared to its competitors.
Case 4
Buddhi is the CEO of a big and old organisation in Nepal. When he was appointed he found himself in charge of a large group of corrupt, lazy and negative-minded people whom he could not fire nor threaten. They were not performing well and the organisation was on the verge of collapse because even the basic work was not done properly. The output was nil, one could say. Buddhi studied the situation and devised a strategy very similar to what Sundar followed in the above case: divide and rule. These are the steps Buddhi undertook under his strategy:
1. Separate the bad apples from the good ones. He identified the troublemakers, the informal leaders, and the source of negative thinking and harmful behaviors. He put them in his private black list.
2. Map the network around those in the black list. Who are the other employees who are influenced by these blacklisted people and do not contribute to the bottom line or don't do the job they are paid for? Buddhi identified them all.
3. Break the friendships. He called each one of these other employees to his office and counseled them on the impact their behaviours had on the organisation as well as on the employees themselves. To encourage them and boost their self-esteem, he promised them rewards if they started putting in an honest day of work.
4. Don't give any responsibility to those who are black-listed. Now having isolated the bad people, Buddhi relieved them of any responsibility. They were given no work to do. They were just ignored.
5. Put the remaining employees through motivational training. My company Standard Icon was part of this strategy. One of its trainers conducted the training and the employees loved it. So did Buddhi as everything was working as he had planned.
6. Wait. He waited for a year and those he had black-listed started feeling boycotted and starved of responsibility. So, they came to him with a promise to change their old ways.
In this way, Buddhi's organisation was back into business producing excellent outputs.
Results
Did you guess correctly? Here are the answers:
Conclusion
What conclusions do you draw from the four cases mentioned above?
Case 1 (Sarita)
1. Sarita is too sensitive to leave for such a small reason.
2. Even though all the management systems are in place, if the leadership is not good then the employees will suffer.
3. There is no common vision for creating a great place to work in most organisations in Nepal.
4. It is not good to work in an organisation that has poor leadership.
Case 2 (Ajeet)
To be a good leader:
1. Don't try to change people, make use of their nature.
2. Be flexible.
3. Respect people.
4. Play the fool if it pays off.
Case 3 (Sundar)
1. Short-sighted strategies will ruin you in the long run.
2. Anything done with a bad intention is bound to backfire.
3. You can't manage people by putting them up against each other.
4. Management should be positive, encouraging teamwork and accountability instead of being negative and manipulative.
Case 4 (Buddhi)
1. Manipulation is required for good management.
2. Divide and rule strategy (or any other questionable strategies) can be used for the right reasons or noble intentions and it works.
3. Counselling and training are tools for good management.
A good manager is able to transform people's behaviours
Finally, having understood management, leadership and their subtle differences, both theoretically with the help of the diagrams and practically with the help of the four case studies, you should be better prepared to manage and lead for excellence. So go for it!
(Shrestha is a Senior Trainer and Advisor, Standard Icon Pvt. Ltd.)
