The qualities of leadership

[Foxbat]

Many of the folks here like to write adventurous stuff and that often involves a leader of some kind. I'm currently reading Jack Campbell's Lost Fleet series and leadership is a major theme in the story.

Add to this my employer's obsession with leadership and I find that it's often on my mind. Despite pouring resources into leadership creation, there are still instances where we minions feel they've got it wrong. So, given that I read a lot of adventurous stuff (including some written here) I thought it might be interesting to ask what makes for a good leader.

Some examples I've come across in real life -

Technically superb but lacking man-management or motivational skills - often respected by their people for the knowledge but well-known for just not getting the message across.

Those that talk big but are all talk and no substance - often caught out as hypocrites in one way or another. These people do not gain much respect.
When things go wrong, they tend to kick blame down the line.

Hard working, say little, get things done, look after their team and know exactly what the true agenda is. Not good motivational speakers but command respect through dedication.

The stepping stone - it's obvious to everybody that the smile is a Joker grin. It's plastered on to serve a purpose but that purpose is self-interest.
Often staff under this type can create a symbiotic relationship but only if it suits all.
Only really concerned with problems if they have a direct impact on their own career trajectory.

Now and then, you do come across a person that combines most of the right qualities but these are few and far between (in fact, I have come across so many different leaders that I'd say this type is the rarest of all). The problem with this type is that they never last long. They are approachable, they can motivate, manage, get results, create a good, dedicated workforce and are inevitably promoted.

N.B. I know nothing about leaders (not qualified in any way to speak about them). These are just my observations that I thought might be helpful to anybody considering leaders in their stories.

Discuss or ignore.
The choice is yours

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Leadership theory is a massive area of study (which I spend a fair proportion of my working life dissecting). There are loads of different types and qualities but some of the key qualities include:

The ability to communicate well - all leaders have this and it's pretty well a base-line.
The ability to hold a vision.
The energy to work towards that vision.
Good Emotional Intelligence.

In terms of leaders a few starters for ten:

Born/made? The school of thought is that most leaders are born that way ie that the skills are not learned skills in the same way management skills are. However some leaders are born into the role (important for some fantasy where dynastic situations are used) and are shaped into it which often gives an odd leadership type supported by structures of governance. (Think how some of the old Kings and Queens stayed in post despite being, perhaps, not ideal leadership material.)

For the purposes of writing there are probably a couple of theories which give a 'type' if you like (although Steve Jobs came along and blew a lot of the conventional understanding out of the park):

Charismatic leader - attracts followers to a vision, communicates it with passion and energy - people like Gandhi (Mahatma), Hitler, Mandela fall under this.

Principle-centred - relatively new theory espoused by the late, great Steve Covey. Leaders can be led by their principles and still be effective. In business, this was relevatory (you don't have to be a b*****d to win) and still not universally loved (but where it is embraced it transforms things).

Transformational - a leader who inspires cultural change - essential to doing this are the followers they attract. Someone like Jesus, whilst being a charismatic leader, also falls into this category.

There are loads of other archetypes.

Some of the main theories/models around leadership (there are loads) would include:

Lewin's leadership types - autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire
Tannenbaum-Schmidt Continuum of Leadership behaviour which corelates leadership style to the maturity of the team being led
Hershey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Model which proposes that to lead we need a shifting paradigm of skills.

What these largely boil down to is that your leader can be as diverse as you like because the skills that make a leader are diverse.

I won't bore on any further (and believe me, I can ) but good reading on the subject would include Covey's Principle-centred leadership, Peter Drucker, John Adair (unusual book people either love it or hate it) and Charles Handy - who discusses leadership particularly strongly when correlating it with the culture the leader operates in, which again is very relevant for writing as sff has planets and organisations and micro-cultures and space ships, and governments and kingdoms and cities.

If you want any more info feel free to pm.

 

[hopewrites]

The leaders in Springs post are more my experience of real leaders, Foxbat, nothing against the leaders in your experience but your descriptions fit my experience of middle management.

 

[End of Time]

Technically superb but lacking man-management or motivational skills - often respected by their people for the knowledge but well-known for just not getting the message across.

Usually don't inspire. These are the people who end up frustrating the ones they are supposed to lead. If you cannot get your message across, you cannot bring across a vision or a direction. People look for guidance when they look at a leader.

Technically superb people usually end up on the bottom. They get trampled on. They know they lack the skills to motivate and inspire, or they just don't care, either way, they are missing one vital quality to leadership: Ambition. A loyal hard-working person who will strive to help the others on his team is the guy who everybody else knows, will get the job done, but they won't actually follow around.

Other than that, I think Springs pretty much nailed it.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Hope's probably right, actually. The functions of management and leadership do get a bit blurred but, largely, the manager plans and does and the leader envisionages and inspires. I think it depends on the story - an expedition leader, for instance, may fall under the role of manager and carry out the operational functions and be a valid main character, but if you want a memorable expedition leader then someeone like a Shackleton would spring to mind and he's very much in the leadership mould.

Technically superb but lacking man-management or motivational skills - often respected by their people for the knowledge but well-known for just not getting the message across.

This is probably closer to a specialist than a true leader. If this person is a leader they would need someone close to communicate their vision for them. And this can be the case - all leaders have strengths and weaknesses.

Those that talk big but are all talk and no substance - often caught out as hypocrites in one way or another. These people do not gain much respect.
When things go wrong, they tend to kick blame down the line.

Probably a good example of a bad leader. Douglas McGregor talks of two types of leader - a theory x who intrinsically feels that people are lazy, don't want to work and need to be forced and a theory y who believes people want to do a good job and excel if motivated. His model states that a theory y leader is the stronger and your description above is very theory x (who are also generally sad and miserable people)

Hard working, say little, get things done, look after their team and know exactly what the true agenda is. Not good motivational speakers but command respect through dedication.

This one's harder. Bill Gates never struck me as much of a leader during his time at Microsoft. An excellent corporate manager, yes, but not a leader. Then I saw him deliver a speech for his foundation and I sat up straight and realised he was a leader - it's just that his passion for the foundation seems to be closer to what inspires him. So, yes, someone like the above has the capacity to be a leader if they hit the right role, I think, but as described, are closer to an excellent manager (of which we also need more of, and should be just as respected as the sexier-for-now leadership skills.)

The stepping stone - it's obvious to everybody that the smile is a Joker grin. It's plastered on to serve a purpose but that purpose is self-interest.
Often staff under this type can create a symbiotic relationship but only if it suits all.
Only really concerned with problems if they have a direct impact on their own career trajectory.

The antithesis of a leader. Often found in beaurocratic organisations and has followed a set line of promotion. Very, very hard to manage up to (but on tht other hand their motivation is clear so there's room to shimmy.)

Now and then, you do come across a person that combines most of the right qualities but these are few and far between (in fact, I have come across so many different leaders that I'd say this type is the rarest of all). The problem with this type is that they never last long. They are approachable, they can motivate, manage, get results, create a good, dedicated workforce and are inevitably promoted.

They are few and far between. It's getting the balance of motivation, passion, communication and a few other goodies right. It's frustrating when they move up but, if they're in a role they're interested in, they'll come out at the top with a Guiding Team around them and spread their approach through the organisation. And when they do, you'll be there, remembering they're good and ready to support them. And that's how all the great leaders started, really.

N.B. I know nothing about leaders (not qualified in any way to speak about them). These are just my observations that I thought might be helpful to anybody considering leaders in their stories.

They're really interesting (for management anoraks like me, anyway) and good egs of what we tend to see in most organisations - which maybe explains why your organisation is trying to build leadership capacity, Want a good consultant?

 

[Foxbat]

Interesting comments.

The comments I made on my original post were based on real people.

Interestinger and interestinger

 

[tinkerdan]

When it comes to leaders there really are several types but there are two that predominantly figure most times.

One is the hands on type that has trouble delegating responsibility so they do a lot of things themselves and may be said to lead by example only to the point when everyone else realizes they do all the important stuff themselves. They surround themselves with people they rely on to get the little things done and sometimes might encourage team work. They direct people more than delegate.

Then there is the one who has a vast knowledge of what needs to be done and can recognize those with the ability to do those things and in many cases can motivate them to do the things that need to be done. They spend a lot of time finding out what their team needs to get the job done and then finding the people who can make all those things happen to get that team there. They truly build teams.

 

[sknox]

We should also consider that leadership may vary with cultural context. This is especially important, imo, for writers of SF & F. In addition, leadership may vary with situational context.

To take the latter first, someone might show leadership while a building burns or some other emergency. Someone might be a good leader in war but a lousy leader in peace time. Und so weiter.

With cultural context, it'd be interesting to know how leadership varies across cultures, but being a historian I think more in terms of the past. A good leader in 1214 might not make a good leader in 2014.

In short, I feel there is enough play here for the writer to construct the kind of leader needed for the story. Abstract definitions and results of surveys are really pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Tinkerdan, I think again your examples are more about managerial skills than leadership, in the sense that delegation usually sits within that plan-do cycle. But you're absolutely right, it's a skills set that many managers struggle with.

On terms of the cultural thing - I don't think that can be underplayed with leadership - the two are absolutely integral to each other. I mentioned Charles Handy earlier, he explores this in a lot of depth. For instance, the size and shape of your city/world/crew/insert your demograph here really matters because that affects the culture and the shape and feel which in turn effects the leader. Eg (and this is extremely crude, there are many more nuances within this):

Ship takes off for the brave new world and lands on the planet with a small crew - the leader will generally be in the centre of this crew and very sensitive to the nuances within it. This type of leader is referred to as a spider, with the culture that of an interlinked web.

But, eventually, the settlement flourishes and spreads and it becomes more than a web and forms around functional forms - hr, finance, health and safety - and the spider can no longer be at the centre of everything. The leader then changes into more of an overseer, on top of the roof that the functions feed into.

There are a couple of other cultures referenced, but, essentially what it says is that the leader fits the culture and vice versa. (Which is where Steve Jobs became an enigma - he was a spider in a flat/task culture, which is traditionally unusual - normally once Apple became a certain size the spider would either adapt or be ousted - as Jobs was at the traditional moment for these things. That the spider had to be brought back, and that he maintained the spider approach, made for a very unusual culture.)

I'm trying to think of egs of good leaders in sff books, and if they fall under the leadership skills mode, as opposed to that of the management role. Off the top of my head I have:

Aragon - leader, through and through
Ned Stark - leader, I think, although follower might be more accurate
Miles Vorkosigan - leader, again, although within a specific sub-culture - he was very much a spider in his mercenary role, but closer to a manager in his Auditor role. He might be a very good eg of the leader and culture affecting each other.

Any others? Any disastrous leaders in sff? I'm sure there are loads, I just haven't had coffee yet.

 

[Foxbat]

Any others? Any disastrous leaders in sff? I'm sure there are loads, I just haven't had coffee yet.

I wonder where Paul Atriedes would sit in all of those. To a certain extent he was a good leader when leading the Fremen but when things got bigger, he didn't really fit the bill any more. If writing such an epic, would it be important to know the point when to change leaders?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I wonder where Paul Atriedes would sit in all of those. To a certain extent he was a good leader when leading the Fremen but when things got bigger, he didn't really fit the bill any more. If writing such an epic, would it be important to know the point when to change leaders?

Of course: Paul! I thing he's a good eg of a charismatic leader. And yes, there is often a point where the vision they've founded becomes too big for one person and their followers take it further for them (as with Jesus' disciples and, indeed, most religions founded around an individual entity) sometimes when that happens a hierarchal structure - eg the church - replaces the original, looser, structure and the figurehead will be removed from the day to day activity. They may still be the focus of the worship but they will not be as integral to the shape of the supporting structure. And, indeed, as with Paul, they may feel that the structure is not what they sought with their original vision.

I think Herbert called it right in terms of when Paul stepped away.

 

[BelgarionOz]

Yes I have issues with this at work as well.

Being a good leader is (to me at least) not necessarily about inspiring someone but at the least making it comfortable for them to work there. Making snide jokes about other people's work ethics or skill levels, or work pace; even if you mean them as a joke is not a way to make people feel comfortable. They will inevitably feel that they are not valued, and will start asking why they should be bothered to turn up in the first place.

From a writing perspective this can be interesting, as it can create conflict, and more interesting story lines. As you can follow both sides of the equation. The leader/manager type person who feels that they are having to do everything; and the worker type person who feels that no matter how hard they work their efforts are not appreciated.

Done right I think both can be of use.

 

[paranoid marvin]

A good leader knows his people. He has two ears and one mouth, so listens twice as much as he speaks.

Even the likes of Hitler who was a great orator, made sure that he surrounded himself with people who's buttons he knew how to press. He knew who to trust and what to say to being about the maximum impact.

Quite often it isn't a case of getting everyone to want to follow you, it's getting the right people on your side.

 

[lonewolfwanderer]

A good leader isn't afraid to get his hands dirty. He is on the front lines, so to speak, getting involved in whatever it is the troops are working on, leading by example.

He takes responsibility for anything that goes wrong. He won't let the blame fall upon his troops, no matter what, even if they are at fault. He is the leader, he is responsible for his team and their actions.

CDRILS: Courage, Discipline, Respect for others, Integrity, Loyalty, and Selfless Commitment. A good leader has these aspects, and lives his life by them. However, these are for everyone, not just the leader.

 

[barrett1987]

Foxbat, your descriptions in your original post sound like managers. Leaders are different.

 

[Foxbat]

Tell my employers that, all managers are classed as leaders (along with any others that are seen to have a leadership role).

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Tell my employers that, all managers are classed as leaders (along with any others that are seen to have a leadership role).

The terms are often pretty interchangeable in companies.

When I started my consultancy a decade or so ago, all companies wanted management training - time, and stress, and change and practical stuff like that - and leadership was seen as a niche. In fact, the only leadership content asked for tended to be around motivation. Now the balance is just over to the leadership skills (but I prefer leadership so tend to take those jobs in preference) or to mixed consultancy with a bit of both.

 

[hopewrites]

Tell my employers that, all managers are classed as leaders (along with any others that are seen to have a leadership role).

That's the thing. You want managers on the ground with the employees, because A) they are less likely to realize they are employees and not real leaders B) they are less likely to usurp any real power and if they do you can easily quash them for it C) they make nice "fall-men" should anything go awry in their department.

Leaders are the one's out there starting new companies or even new fields of work. Then they delegate out the rest. Ford had a great quote that I keep hearing whenever leadership is brought up; "I know what I dont know, and hire people who do know to know it for me" in other words, you get an accountant to do the books, a foreman to watch over the assembly line, an electrician to do your wiring, a maid to dust the ficus...

the best managers I've had fell into the position rather than achieved it by ambition. They were the best in their department and so made Lead, and when the preceding manager moved on, they were the only choice that made any sense.