Don't Compromise!

Lists of all-time great leaders are probably fatuous: a little something to appeal to our love of lists and our love of competitions. A new biography of Genghis Khan argues that we might be overlooking an important aspect of leadership when we do indulge ourselves in voting for our favourites – and other newspaper pages suggest that we might overlook it in the rest of our working lives too. The missing element? Levels of leadership.

This posting isn’t a review of the book – Leadership Secrets of Genghis Khan by John Man – nor an overview of Genghis himself. Although a man exiled as a teenager who wound up with the largest land empire in history probably has one or two lessons to teach as a legacy, even if he did die in 1227.

It’s inspired instead by a review in The Guardian, and particularly one passage:

The author, quite rightly, believes Genghis Khan might be the greatest leader in history – far better, for instance, than the short-sighted Attila the Hun. Using the categories invented by Jim Collins in his leadership book Good to Great, Man sees Attila as a leader “stuck on level 4 … egotistical, charismatic, driven by short-term gains, unable to look after his succession”. Lots of leaders, when you think about it, get stuck on level 4 – Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Tony Blair. But not Genghis Khan.”

While the squeamish or pacifistic among you might be worrying about the bodycount at this point (and it is worth raising, in all honesty), the point about levels of leadership is interesting. Looking at the different levels of leadership brings into focus the different behaviours and outlooks that more simplistic, romanticised thumbnail sketches of leadership tend to leave out.

Someone dashing and charismatic with a flair for oratory may pass as an inspiring leader at first glance, but if they are on closer inspection micro-managing furiously and failing to engage well with others or manage cultural issues, they may actually turn out to – in reality – be a dashing, charismatic, well-spoken functional manager.

Equally, they may simply be someone excellent at a functional or operational level who has yet to make the next step up in terms of leadership levels and behaviours. Leadership isn’t just about ability, it’s about behaviour.

Although media coverage – and it certainly captured their attention – of the saga of Kevin Pietersen’s resignation as English cricket captain seemed to focus on personalities, leadership behaviours might provide a more illuminating perspective. There’s no doubting that – as admirers have similarly commented on people as disparate as Wayne Rooney, Oscar Peterson and Jimi Hendrix – ‘the man can play’. From a viewpoint of captaincy, it seems Mike Brearley would be sceptical that a few behavioural modifications might help:

The ability to tap the boyhood sources of energy and illusion is essential in most highly competitive activities and one would hesitate to back a fully adult person (should one exist) in any serious contest. There is nothing like a sudden upsurge of maturity to impair the will to win.”

Cricket today, however, is not just a competitive sport. Without allowing ourselves to be sidetracked by the (alleged) Allen Stanford fraud scandal, it is a global business. The England team captain must work with the English Cricket Board and understand the importance of relationships with many individuals and organisations beyond the 10 other cricketers in the dressing room. This – a failure to lead at the right level, when all is said and done – seems to have been the problem, as alluded to by a posting on The Confidence Coach’s Sports Psychology Blog:

For Pietersen to leave his mark on the game, he must come to terms with his natural gift and its purpose. Thus, is his gift of talent just for personal advantage, to provide entertainment and pleasure for others? Or to aid in the development and evolution of the game?

The truly greats eg Pele, Ali, Bradman, Bannister and many others, got this last part. They had the humility to match the quality of their talent. Decision making came naturally to them, because their ego did not tend to cloud their judgement. They knew that their talent was not just for their personal edification. It was a gift to give to the game.”

Back in Asia, the biographers and commentators seem to argue that these weren’t mistakes that Genghis Khan made. He was apparently generous to those who served him, respectful to women, listened to everyone around him, kept promises and rewarded loyalty: ‘meritocracy’ crops up repeated in potted histories of his empire-running style. His large empire seems to have been highly tolerant of racial and religious diversity, and historians seem to have judged him as a man deeply interested in understanding the motives of rivals and competitors. All of which seem qualities one might admire in a high level leader.

But we should conclude with two notes of caution. Firstly, leadership is not behavioural karaoke: great leaders are not just mimics of earlier leaders. Looking at Genghis Khan may illuminate some timeless themes (and some that may not translate seamlessly from 12^th century Asia), but we must learn his lessons – and our own modern-day ones – for ourselves.

Secondly, as the book review concludes:

To be a great leader, it seems, you should be high born but have known hardship; you should be a fighter, but also a lover; you should dress casually; you should not be interested in wealth. Most important, you should always keep in mind that you, the leader, are not bigger than your project. These are all good points and this is a thought-provoking book. I suppose it also helps, when you are negotiating a deal, to be backed by 50,000 bloodthirsty maniacs.”

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine