I read an article in the Guardian last Saturday that I disagreed with. It was an analysis of the recent research conducted by The Work Foundation called ‘Exceeding Expectation: the principles of outstanding leadership’.
The analysis in the Guardian is looking to distinguish and almost set at odds either target-driven or people-focused approaches – when there will always be a mesh of the two and any experienced leader will tell you that.
No one can lead with targets if that’s what they think targets lead to – eliminating a focus on people. Good leaders need to listen to other people so that they know what the targets should be, when they should have been achieved, and when the targets need changing. If you don’t have targets you can’t delegate or work in collaboration, or indeed, strive for achievement at all. So how is it that having targets, or not, is even up for question?
Outstanding leaders focus on people as their top priority – they always have…and they also set them targets. I hardly think this is a blinding insight. One-to-one meetings are when you review targets. If ‘effective leaders should not just delegate… but should stay in touch with staff members afterwards, asking how they got on and talking through any problems’ – isn’t this the basis of a one-to-one? Not only to review tasks and goals and but wider development issues? There is also nothing more rewarding for people than achieving success, being supported to achieve it, and having that recognised.
And of course leadership can be taught – and everyone needs to be developed to realise their leadership potential, whether their job title is going to say they are a leader or not.
Leadership is complex and it is always a balancing act of hard and soft styles – and sometimes that means implementing an ‘iron touch’, which has probably never been more needed than it is now. Knowing which is appropriate is dependent on culture and circumstances, people, time, tasks and various other factors. Getting the balance right is the challenge and discussing this in terms of black and white I believe is highly irresponsible and sends people into a spectrum of extremes rather than giving inspiration on how to achieve a fusion of all these qualities, which is what defines great leaders.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Randy Pena // Jan 22, 2010 at 12:54
I’ve been reading along for a while now. I just wanted to drop you a comment to say keep up the good work.
2 Sue McBride // Jan 26, 2010 at 16:47
Interesting points but they beg the question, or even the statement – “servant leaders”
Of course there is a dichotomy of ‘listening or collaborating’ and ‘leading’. If, as Ms Middleton says outstanding/ great leaders are also highly effective listeners who identify shared goals (across different groups they represent) and then work with the trust of diverse groups to deliver on ….. then is the role of a great leader one who is open (thereby trustworthy), skilled at giving a voice to those people not normally heard, integrating that voice and helping the group they lead progress these aims whilst maintaining constant review and feedback?
Leave a Comment