Perils of Leadership!

Ernst Hemmingway, the much acclaimed and celebrated American author, was asked as to why he deserted his wife and little child for another woman. Hemmingway simply said ‘Because I’m a bastard!’Do we remember, Hemmingway today, as a scumbag or as a great author, who won the Nobel Prize? The latter would be true, I think.
Mahatma Gandhi will go down as one of the world’s greatest transformational leaders of all time and is remembered for that, not for the neglect that his family went through due to his enormous sacrifice. Leadership comes at a steep price that many a mortal is not ready to bear.
Winston Churchill was a washed up back bencher, when Hitler started World War 2, resurrecting his dead career. Churchill seized the moment and went on to become a great politician.
Adolf Hitler was an effective leader; till his megalomania took hold and he lost it all.
As I teach leadership, I grapple with multiple facets to a leader and leadership. Leadership is a complex area, contextual and situational, where the results determine the leader’s efficacy. There is no room for an also ran……….
Paul Gauguin the genius and post impressionist painter fled France for Tahiti, deserting his family,by sea, where he created his masterpieces..........what if the ship had sunk onvoyage.Would we have heard, of Gaugin the genius? It might have well been Gaugin the wretch!

The boss!

Yesterday my friend and colleague, Dr.Gopinath, invited me to his lecture on Leadership. He spoke about Field Marshal Montgomery ( Monty ), a Brit, who was a brilliant strategist and turned the tide of WW 2, in favor of the Allies, by defeating Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps. Rommel himself was no spring chicken.
Monty was a man who was loved by his troops and the quintessential leader. You want to talk leadership, and then you head for Monty, no questions asked. Montgomery showed an ability to stay on top of the details under pressure that suggested he was suitable for high command.

Winston Churchill was convinced that the battle of El Alamein marked the turning point in the war and ordered the ringing of church bells all over Britain. As he said later: "Before Alamein we never had a victory, after Alamein we never had a defeat."

Monty was a dandy and much admired man. Just to ingest a little interest, I spoke a little about General Patton, the American tank commander. Abrasive, tough and rigid Patton was generally disliked by everybody. However without exception, soldiers wanted to serve under his command, because the causalities that he took in war were the least. He trained his troops very well, indeed!
The question is, 'Do you want to work with a tough, hard driving boss, who will guide you well and protect you or a boss who will be soft upon you?'Not to suggest that Monty was soft!

I left the class on that note.............a tough question to answer!

A story of Schnapps!

A few days ago, I noticed a bottle of Schnapps, in a liquor store. For the uninitiated Schnapps, is a fruit brandy and one that requires an acquired taste. As a liquor it is popular in Germany & the immediate vicinity. While I did not buy the bottle, this story centres around the spirit!

While many of us waffle about great teams & team dynamics, it is rarely that we come across great teams, particularly great teams that remain great under intense pressure. More often than not we see teams that fracture and crack under strain.

The army of the Austrian empire in the 18th century had seen, days of of glory and was a lumbering, sizable force of soldiers who had a deep mistrust for each other and their abilities. The situation came to a comic pass at the battle of Karansebes in present day Romania.

The Austrian Emperor, Joseph II,( Holy Roman Emperor ) decided that his mission in life was to rid the world of barbarians ( Read Muslim Ottoman Turks ). He started by attacking the Turks in Transylvania. After camping in some marshland, 172,000 of his troops caught malaria, of which 33,000 died. When he heard that the Turkish Grand Vizier was on his way, Joseph took half his army to meet him near the town of Karansebes, in the September of 1788.

Of the many mercenaries, that populated the Austrian army, the flamboyant Hussars were a few. The Hussars, out on a scouting patrol, restless and bored, in waiting for battle, bought what is thought to be Schnapps from local folk & were in little time tipsy and raucous. Their behaviour drew sharp censure from Austrian Officers.
The men took offence, and, in order to frighten the officers away, started shouting out that the Turks were upon them. The officers fell for it, and raised the false alarm too. In the confusion, some body heard the word 'Allah', panic spread throughout the army and a stampede ensued. In the dark, Austrians started fighting Austrians and many men were also drowned in the river or crushed. By daybreak, it became apparent that the Austrians had killed 10,000 of their own number. The Turks had still not even arrived. The battle was over before it had begun & the Austrians limped back home with their tail between their legs. Joseph II suffered the ignominy of being pushed into a stream in the melee! Two days later the Turk army did arrive only to find ten thousand dead Austrian soldiers!

Great teams are built on implicit trust, great communication and sound leadership, not on numbers or grand plans. I'm also sure that the Austrians would have steered clear of Schnapps for quite a while...................

Universal Leadership?

When I talk 'Leadership' in class, it's like a walk in the park, because, I have a host of leaders to choose from. Leaders from industry, military and politics as well. However it recently struck me as to how appropriate is this? Can leadership be juxtaposed and expected to work?

Can a country be run in a similar way to running a business? Does corporate leadership equate to political leadership? The point is debatable but the contextual difference is important to note when considering leadership in general.

A crucial difference in the two sectors is that the CEO must operate to the satisfaction of the shareholders, regardless of the humanistic and social agenda that he professes. A politician must serve for the benefit of the people, regardless of the political views held as this social obligation originates with the public office. Politicians have room to manoeuvre not given to CEO because not all the citizens subscribe to the same values. The more diverse a country, the better it is for a politician. In the corporate world there is a clearly visible commitment to the bottom line and at the end of the day, that is what matters the most. It is possibly the reason why, politicians in India can get away with almost anything, a luxury barely afforded to folks in industry.

In a different England, it seems that the newly elected coalition government is starting to prepare for a social capitalism – capitalism with a human edge. The path to economic restabilisation will be difficult and, according to the newspapers on 8 June 2010, the government is set to call on the services of the former CEO of BP, Lord John Browne.

Now it may be recalled, that Lord Browne, has been severely criticized in the past, for his policies in BP, to which are linked, many of the disasters, including the imbroglio in the Gulf of Mexico, which has the United States in a tizzy & President Obama peevishly asking ' Whose ass should I kick?'. I'm fairly certain, the American's will get their man, but it is unlikely to be Lord Browne's.

I think leadership is situational and it is being simplistic if we assume, that any leader would be a good fit in any position! In India too, there has been a trend to move industrialists, into Government. The move has been received with enormous media hype & joy, but I would advocate a little caution, before we uncork the champagne!

Khan of Khans!

Leadership is a nebulous trait, difficult to learn and even more difficult to practice.In various areas, we have seen leaders who have stamped their undeniable mark, for posterity. One such leader surely was Chengiz Khan.

At his death Chengiz Khan, ruled an empire four times the size of Alexander the 'Greats' and twice the size of the Roman Empire at its peak.

A close look at the Khan would tell you why he was such a great leader.......

#1 : Domain Knowledge: A brilliant military strategist & warrior, he reorganized his army and tactics.He learnt his fighting on the battle ground!

#2: Vision: Mongols ruling the world, with Karakorum its political & cultural capital.

#3: Mission: To achieve his vision within his span of life.

#4: Goals: To conquer, every major civilizations or get them to accept his kinship.

#5: Strategy: A brilliant force, utilizing every natural strength of the Mongols, he was utterly ruthless. Invading China, he laid siege to Beijing & starved the city. On Beijing being taken his troops are said to have burnt, looted, raped & mercilessly killed the citizens, of this great city. European ambassadors, who visited the Chinese capital a month later, recorded that the roads in Beijing were slippery with human fat........and just outside the city, was a mountain of bones.Ghastly!

The Chinese were protected by the awesome Great Wall, impregnable, or so they thought. The Mongols solved the problem, by going around it! Many years later, one Adolf Hitler did that to the French & their Maginot Line. History repeats itself.

#6: People's man: He was close to his troops and believed only in merit. A carpenter's son was one of his foremost generals! Chengiz Khan , is said to have provided each of his soldiers, with a silk shirt ( silk was very, very expensive )Why? Arrows did not break through silk, so when a soldier was pierced by an arrow, the shaft could be easily extracted! Such care, for the common soldier! In dangerous campaigns he got captured enemy soldiers to lead from the front, protecting his troops.

#7: Careful:Though powerful, he was always protected by an elite, handpicked, guard of 10000 Mongol warriors, who were his personal body guard.

Did Chengiz Khan, have faults? Yes he did..........his empire unravelled & disappeared a mere 100 years post his death. He did not believe too much in succession planning!

Chengiz Khan, also comes across as a vain man, who spent a great deal of time, trying to get immortal, in vain of course!

He also comes across as a crass, bloodthirsty monarch and pales in comparison to Asoka, Alexander or the Cesar's.

An enduring mystery is why, the Khan did not invade India! Chengiz Khan, gave India one of its finest rulers, in Akbar, three centuries later....................& what of the Mongols today? They continue to be simple sheep rearing folk, with faint echoes of the great Khan, who once lead them!

A spirit that never dies!

Only babes in the woods would suggest that politics and sport are not mixed. ‘Invictus’ is one flick of the genre which reinforces that they are. South African sport, went through a roller coaster ride, from 1970, when they refused to play an English cricket team, which had a former South African, who was not white, to winning the Rugby World Cup in 1995. Refusal to play the English team resulted in South Africa being shunned by all sporting nations and they were the skunks of sport.
In 1995 South Africa hosted the Rugby World Cup. Their team known as the Springboks (“Antelopes”) was made up of white players and one colored. Many black South Africans saw the team as a product of the apartheid era and wanted it dismantled and replaced, possibly with black players. Mandela disagreed and saw the situation as a means of bringing about greater unity among his people. He called for the captain of the team, Francois Pienaar, encouraging him to reach out to the community in a bid to gain support for the coming competitions. The team responded by going to the slums and teaching black boys how to play the game.
As South Africa prepared for the World Cup, the Minister of Sports told Mandela: “According to the experts, we will reach the quarterfinals, and no further.” Mandela replied: “According to the experts, you and I should still be in jail.” Just before the start of the games, he gave to team captain Pienaar a copy of the poem “Invictus.”

The last stanza reads:

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate
I am the captain of my soul………………………

In the finals, South Africa went on to defeat the heavily favored and marauding New Zealand All-Blacks in overtime, with their captain Francois Pienaar, leading from the front, cheered on by their president Nelson Mandela & a frenzied but united black & white crowd. The one event helped unite a nation, divided by suspicion, fear and acrimony!

“Invictus” was written in 1875 by English poet William Ernest Henley from a hospital bed after undergoing amputation of a leg due to tuberculosis of the bone. It originally bore no title, being part of a series of poems, but a few years later Arthur Quiller-Couch added the title “Invictus” (Latin for “unconquered”). Apparently it was Nelson Mandela’s favorite poem and helped him through the twenty seven years that he was imprisoned on ‘Robin Island’. The win by a South Africa reeling under a divided population, where hate was the predominant emotion must go down as the triumph of spirit over all odds!
Two disparate people inspired a nation, one an aging legend, Mandela and the other a determined sportsman Pienaar.Both men lead from the front. For me the book and movie are classics and show how the spirit of the soul can get you across all odds……………and it once gain underlines the importance of sport in our lives and campuses. Sport exposes one to diverse management concepts from leadership, to team work & teaches one to accept both defeat and victory with grace, including an ability to stand up and be counted when the chips are down! Even if it a game like rugby, which is said to be a hooligan's game played by gentleman.

It is sad to see sport disappearing from campuses........................

Did I play Rugby? It is one sport that I hated, but after Invictus, have developed a modicum of respect, for the rough & tumble!

Conscientiousness!

A conscientious person is a manager's dream and conscientiousness is a personality trait that many interviewers look for in a candidate? What is it? Conscientiousness is the trait of being painstaking and careful, or the quality of acting according to the dictates of one's conscience. It includes such elements as self-discipline, carefulness, thoroughness, organization, deliberation (the tendency to think carefully before acting), and need for achievement. It is an aspect of what has traditionally been called character. Conscientious individuals are generally hard working and reliable. When taken to an extreme, they may also be workaholics, perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior. People who are low on conscientiousness are not necessarily lazy or immoral, but they tend to be more laid back, less goal oriented, and less driven by success.
During my time I have seen, interacted and read about some amazingly conscientious people but to my mind, Ernst Shackleton would easily walk away with all the prizes. Shackleton was the explorers explorer & attempted to reach the final frontier, the South Pole by sea. The expedition was doomed and his ship the 'Endurance' was crushed between ice floes, but amidst desperately trying circumstances, Shackleton brought each of his 27 men back home alive, after being stranded on pack ice for over a couple of years. His men trusted him with their lives because they knew that he would never cut them loose to save his own skin.Shackleton's crew subsisted on penguin and seal blubber, for months together in biting cold but the team never lost its morale.
In 1914, Shackleton made his third trip to the Antarctic with the ship 'Endurance', planning to cross Antarctica via the South Pole. Early in 1915, 'Endurance' became trapped in the ice, and ten months later sank. Shackleton's crew had already abandoned the ship to live on the floating ice. In April 1916, they set off in three small boats, eventually reaching Elephant Island. Taking five crew members, Shackleton went to find help. In a small boat, the six men spent 16 days crossing 1,300 km of ocean to reach South Georgia and then trekked across the island to a whaling station. The remaining men from the 'Endurance' were rescued in August 1916. Not one member of the expedition died.
The story of Shackleton & his ship ( a wood hull one at that ) captured the collective imagination of the world and today Ernst Shackleton is celebrated as a great leader,and many a management school has run leadership courses on his expedition to the South Pole. Shackleton failed in his endeavour and lost his ship the Endurance, but in doing so became legend and to me remains the epitome of conscientiousness. In my book a conscientious person would stand taller than a brilliant one and I guess most HR Managers would agree!

Success & Self efficacy!

The azure waters of the Mediterranean Sea, slightly choppy, a fair skinned youth with a broad brow & aquiline nose lying on the deck of a pirate sloop.The year 76 BC.
Pirates who had captured the noble looking youngster, were pleased, as their catch would fetch them a ransom of at least twenty talents. After all he spelt nobility.
When the prisoner, heard the ransom, he laughed! Twenty talents, he was worth fifty he said and further added that he would be back to see the pirates hang.
Julius Cesar did return, capture the pirates in a naval expedition & watch each one of them hang! Dealing with pirates was his first major success.
That was Cesar, the epitome of confidence and a man who was always open to learning. He learnt everywhere & from everything.
Self efficacy & Openness to learning are fundamental parameters for success, in any field. It is not surprising that Julius Cesar was successful at almost everything that he took a shot at: Politician, General,Governor & then Emperor of Rome.
Cesar's high self confidence came from his high self efficacy which in turn came from past success. It is the reason why managers, must celebrate every small success of subordinates. It builds the platform for greater success.Nothing succeeds like success.
Like most great leaders Cesar was so steeped in his own pursuits, that he ignored the environment and when assassinated in the Senate,it was a sad swift end.He had ignored jealous conspirators! With his last breath he gasped, 'Kai, su teknon?', as Brutus drove a dagger into his loins.The phrase translates, to 'Even you my son', driving historians to speculate that Brutus was his illegitimate son.
Later Mark Antony, said, at Cesar's funeral pyre ' Often the good that men do lies interred with their bones'.An impassioned cry to the masses.( The rostrum, from where he is said to have made his speech, can still be seen in Rome)
Not for Cesar! He remains on of my favourite leaders for his ability to manage men, through trying circumstances.He was the architect of the 'Julian Calendar' and from the 'Czar to Kaiser', kings adopted his name.Most of all he was brilliant tactician.
As for Brutus, he committed suicide, not long after & his good, if he did any, lies interred with his bones!