Integer Leadership Consulting

Regardless of what you may think of the accomplishments and legacy of Benazir Bhutto, her death is a tremendous tragedy in ways too numerous to count. Though I have been deeply moved and saddened by her death for many reasons, there is one monumental insight that has emerged for me (this is no new epiphany but rather a powerful reminder of the fundamental nature of legitimate or legitimized leadership).

Bhutto, for all her failings and questions surrounding her political dynasty, had, as the New York Times put it, “electoral credibility.” She was twice elected by the people which is far more than President Pervez Musharraf can claim. His dictatorial grip on power is nothing more than a reflection of his own understanding that he could in no way garner enough electoral credibility to remain in power. The unscrupulous seizing of power and the maintaining of that power through military control and intimidation is how illegitimate leaders maintain their grip on power.

My point is this: while organizational leadership is not predicated upon electoral credibility and while those under the direction of organizational leaders “must” follow because they are paid to do so, should these leaders nonetheless work diligently to build a ground swell of “electoral credibility” throughout the entire organization as opposed to maintaining power though dictatorial and authoritarian leverage? Clearly the answer is a resounding “yes.” Yet, the reality in many organizations and within the mental framework of many leader’s mindsets is that credibility, that is, becoming a “legitimate” leader in the eyes of those who follow, is a non issue. As a result, followers suffer, organizational morale suffers, performance despondency and performance anomie takes root and hold.

I see this as an ongoing vexing dilemma for leadership today and it is rare to see the leader who understands this issue. It is incredibly irresponsible for leaders (and unhealthy ultimately for their organizations) to pay no attention to winning the hearts and minds of those they lead. While they are paid to lead and followers are paid to follow, this should never remove the burden and responsibility for senior leaders to forge meaningful and supportive relationships with those throughout the organization. Though they are not “commanded” to do so they feel “compelled” to lead in this manner. People clearly know when they are being lead by an indifferent tyrant versus a benevolent champion.

Bhutto had won the hearts of the middle- and poor-classes from the beginning of her political involvement up until the day she was killed. She understood that democracy must include all voices especially those who are often summarily dismissed and ignored.

While organizations are not often characterized as democratic enterprises, leaders would do very well to treat them as such. In so doing, deep and broad support is built over time and only adds to the willingness of followers to “lay down their lives” for the leader.

Lisa Belkin writes a thoughtful reflection on the key role that CEO’s should play when it comes to “modeling” the importance of valuing life away from the workplace in addition to valuing the importance of work itself. She pinpoints the ongoing dilemma of many a CEO when it comes to walking the talk of taking care of oneself away from work and encouraging others to do the same. To this end, Belkin cites the thoughts of a few others that are worthy of mentioning in my blog today.

Regarding flex schedules, Cathleen Benko makes the point that they can act as a process of “de facto marginalization…making the workers seem like exceptions to the norm, and providing no way for them to dial their schedule backup.”

Regarding how employers treat Gen-X and Gen-Y men, Joan Williams makes the point that these fathers are determined to play a larger role in their children’s lives than their fathers did in theirs. Employers who recognize this will create Gen-X and Gen-Y loyalists who will stay around much longer.

Finally regarding integrating Generation Y into the workplace, Penelope Trunk observes that people should be managed “based on their contribution, not their rank. At some point, the 40 years of experience someone has does not count. At some point, it’s new ideas that count.”

The bottom line in Belkin’s article is to authentically and genuinely create real-time space and recognition for people who take their personal lives as seriously as they do their careers. More than any other figure, it is the CEO who can validate and “bless” this balance.

What CEOs must understand is that they would do well to once again familiarize themselves with McGregor’s concept of Theory X and Theory Y. Those who work in our organizations are not inherently lazy and not to be trusted (though this will always be true of a minuscule few). Rather when people are treated with the deep respect and recognition that they deeply covet (the very thing that feeds esteem and worth), they will continually outperform any and all organizational performance standards….something that Belkin makes clear…yet again.