Leadership seems to be one of those subjects which people sometimes approach with an element of trepidation. Could that be because it is seen as something mysterious, deep or complex or as something elitist or discriminatory – and thus to be avoided – or because it is not taught much today or explained to those who haven’t studied it? For all these reasons, is it often misunderstood?, asks Professor Simon Bridge.

Consequently, when it is considered, I suspect that there are two temptations in thinking about it which are not helpful. One is to view the leader’s role more as that of a figurehead more than that of an active commander and the other is to see a leadership position as a reward for past achievement or, at least, effort.

Leadership

To an outsider the figurehead of a boat may indeed be more visible than the captain – being in an obvious leading position out in front and with the rest following it. But that figurehead is only symbolic and plays no role in the actual operation of the ship. It may look fine and even be inspirational but has no input into how the boat is actually run.

If it is to sail successfully a boat needs to be commanded, navigated and steered from the bridge under the direction of the captain – and it is from the captain that the crew should take their lead and it from him or her, it is to be hoped, that they gain their example, discipline, enthusiasm and morale – and thus their willingness to contribute to the success of the voyage.

Nevertheless that contribution required from a leader often seems to be ignored, not least when promotion to a position of leadership is seen as an appropriate and deserved reward for past effort, achievement and/or as an entitlement – a view that would suit the ‘figurehead’ interpretation but not that of the ‘leader’ who actually leads.

Instead I suggest that appointment to such a position should be viewed as an opportunity to try to serve at a higher level, and thus should reflect an expected ability to function well at that level, and not as a reward for performance at the lower level.

Clearly that is often not followed in practice – because otherwise the Peter Principle would not have been formulated: ‘Based on their success in previous jobs, people in an organisation tend to be promoted until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent’.

The difference between performing well at a lower level and having the ability to deliver at a higher level has also been recognised in studies of military failings – such as that by Norman Dixon in his book On the Psychology of Military Incompetence.

In this he describes how the qualities that often get people to the top of a military organisation are not the ones they need when they get there. Conformity and fitting in well may get them to the top – but then, when there, they need to deal appropriately with new situations when following precedent is no help. (And Dixon suggested that also applies in business but, while military audiences tended to accept the truth of his message, industrial ones often rejected it.)

So what is leadership?

To borrow again from Dixon, essentially it is no more than exercising such an influence upon others that they tend to act in concert towards achieving a goal which they might not have achieved so readily had they been left to their own devices. How to do that has been variously studied and analysed and thoughts about it have filled many books.

However a possible starting point is to recognise that a key sign of good leadership is maintaining the morale of those you seek to lead – and, as a guide to this, I like the example of the points which General (later Field Marshall) Slim said guided what he tried to communicate to his successful 14^th Army:

Spiritual – There must be a great and noble object, its achievement must be vital and the method of achievement must be active. Also those involved in achieving it must feel that what they are and what they do matters directly towards the attainment of the object.

Intellectual – Soldiers must be convinced that the object can be attained and is not out of reach. They must see, too, that the organization to which they belong and which is striving to attain the object is an efficient one.

They must also have confidence in their leaders and know that whatever dangers and hardships they are called upon to suffer, their efforts will not be lightly flung away.

Material – Soldiers must feel that they will get a fair deal from their commanders and from the army generally. They must, as far as humanly possible, be given the best weapons and equipment for his task. And their living and working conditions must be made as good as they can be.

Slim was an exception to Dixon’s general observation: a soldier who was competent and successful at the highest level of commend – because he had both a credible vision of victory and was able to persuade other people to follow him in working energetically towards it.

Of course, if you want to persuade people to follow you, you need good plans of the current context, rather than just repeats of what has been done before, but you also need to behave appropriately – and that, I suggest, should include the following (which are necessary for effective leadership in any situation, including in business and in politics):

Judgement – A leader should have the ability to make appropriate decisions, both big and small, based on a realistic assessment of the needs, priorities, limitations and options.

Example and accepting responsibility – The leader should clearly demonstrate by his/her own actions the behaviour required, for instance upholding agreed procedures (especially if s/he has helped to determine them): both insisting that rules are followed and showing a clear example in doing so. This should also be accompanied by accepting responsibility for what is done by them and those working under their direction.

Honesty – To gain trust a leader must be truthful in what s/he says, even if uncomfortable, and honestly admit adverse situations, events, errors and failures.