by Peter A. Arthur-Smith, Leadership Solutions, Inc.®
“It’s not a faith in technology. It’s faith in people.” Steve Jobs, Co-founder of Apple.
Many more than a thousand times has this writer found himself talking to technology entrepreneurs, executive-level interviewees, or leadership development candidates about their leadership approach. Although he has not specifically cataloged the exact ratio; at least 70-80% of them have initially focused on their specific technical expertise and prowess – be that in business, finance, technology, operations, sales, marketing, medical and so on. The people aspects of their leader role largely appeared to be secondary.
In those meetings, we have appropriately delved into their thoughts about team member needs and then somehow got hung up on their role’s technical challenges. Often we try to land on the topic of two-way communication regarding his/her team members and end up instead reviewing their system’s technical ineffici-encies. It can be a little frustrating, although it must be even more frustrating for senior colleagues outside that particular expert’s space – that alone for their own team members – who might feel there’s something missing. Does it have to be this way?
Such mindsets must be even more perplexing for their overall organization leaders, who are trying to integrate their venture’s various components into an exciting organization journey. They and other senior players want to wrap their minds around tomorrow’s organizational issues and their “expert” executives seem to be in a world of their own. Too often they seem oblivious to or bypass inevitable political currents that accompany their organizational activities, because they are too hung-up on their latest “expertise” project. Current overall priorities seem to pass them by, since they’re mind-laden with the latest technical features.
To be valuable, “expertise” executives clearly need a decent conceptual understanding of their current technical architecture. Simultaneously, they should realize that their overall role has dramatically shifted toward engaging their people and helping their senior colleagues resolve overall organization issues; where their technical expertise can play a useful part. As true strategic leaders, however, it’s likely that only 20% of their time should be devoted to “expert” issues, while the remaining 80% should be concentrated on people-engagement and colleague-organization matters. That seems to be a significant stretch for most “expert” executives this writer has ever had the opportunity to interact with. Their undoubted early expertise got them onto their leader-track and so they increasingly burnish it, mistakenly, so as to hopefully reinforce their value.
Too often they want to be expertise-champions rather than people leaders. Perhaps they feel more secure with the former rather than the latter. People are often more fuzzy and confusing than expertise issues. Unfortunately, many times they don’t take the time to comprehend their people’s challenges to the same degree that they devote to technical ones. They’re among the many executives who are inclined to place theirexpertise-cart before their people-horse.
Take a real live case your writer has just experienced. He went to his local emergency, street-clinic to obtain a precautionary Covid test prior to travel. It was clear from the get-go that reception and other staff members were under a lot of pressure – they would either not smile or be hostile in their responses…this was his experience with not just one, but all four professionals he interacted with. A staff member later confirmed that his team was supervised either by a nurse supervisor or a physician depending on rotations.
Owing to the current rise in new Covid cases, confirmed by the visual number of people visiting this office; it was likely the office was under a lot of natural, critical pressure. That cannot easily be avoided in the circumstances. It left your writer wondering, as he waited for the results of his test, what he would do as a team leader in that particular scenario. He resolved that he would likely pursue four people strategies, as follows: 1) clarify that current staff levels were duly proportionate to the situation, 2) find regular moments to talk with staff to show caring and appreciation for their efforts, 3) ensure staff get adequate meal and “unwind” breaks, and 4) arrange a weekly “happy hour” where everyone available can relax and share their “positive moments.” This is what people-leaders would do and morale would likely be sustained accordingly.
When he discussed his experience with his veterinarian wife, her immediate reaction was: “That’s corporate!” Does this imply that “corporate” is not interested in sustaining good morale at its offices; it’s only interested in churning out the numbers, where its people are “just-pairs-of-hands”? Such outcomes are usually consistent with organizations run by “expert” rather than “people-leaders:” where circumstantial, operational pressure, and meeting the numbers is the order of the day rather than inspiring people to rise to the occasion and put their best foot forward. Real-life examples like this, which are unfortunately all too commonplace, indicate that we still have a long way to go toward building more enlightened leadership work environments.
To learn more about enlightened leadership, talk with: