As we head to the end of the year and people look at the organizational bottom line, there is another kind of assessment we should give attention to: the leadership bottom line.

Great leaders ask, “How did I develop in my ability to lead others, lead my peers and lead myself?” But what are the categories or areas of focus to evaluate? By looking at successful, strong leaders we can gain some insights into what they care about, and it can inform our own evaluation.

One thing in particular seems to mark great leaders – how they view themselves in relationship to others in the organization. Are they there to serve others, or to have others serve them?

Great leaders move from “I” to “We” in their leadership. No one likes working with, or for, a narcissist. Unfortunately, many top leaders fit the bill. It may not be totally their fault, however. Others are looking to them to lead, to take ultimate responsibility for the organization or make the difficult decisions average leaders prefer to avoid. So we expect a lot from them, and make them the center of attention.

Others started the venture and in the early days it WAS all about them – it had to be! From making sales to designing the support systems to hiring the first employees, these leaders did not have an organization…they WERE the organization.

But the question is, “As you mature in leadership, can you move from I to we?

Harvard’s Bill George says,

 “…if we believe that leadership is just about getting others to follow us and do our bidding as we climb the organization ladder, we risk being derailed.”

I have seen the inability of the senior leader(s) to move toward a “we” culture first hand, and it is devastating to the staff and customers alike.

To move to “we” instead of the proverbial “it all depends on me” requires three important shifts in your approach to leadership.

1) Give credit instead of taking credit. Even when they deserve some of the credit, great leaders pass it off to others. I am working with a CEO who really gets this concept. In the 360-degree evaluation I recently completed for him and his team, it was clear that he deflected praise to the team. In contrast, is the senior leader who requires constant affirmation and praise, even when others do most of the real work. This is so de-motivating to other leaders.

By using personal notes, email and public affirmations, my CEO friend gives credit frequently and authentically, and does not have to be at the center of the universe. His ability to share success with the team, remind others of their great contribution, and give control to others marks him as a great leader – and his people love him for it.

Want to get the real story about a leader? Ask the people who used to work for him or her. Would they return? Was it a healthy environment? Would they readily partner with them again? Or was the leader manipulative, condescending, inauthentic, self-focused, always posturing and more concerned with image control? Did he or she readily give the spotlight to others and praise them in public?

Henry Cloud, in his book Integrity, refers to this as a leader’s “wake” – what they leave behind after a meeting, a decision, or a departure. In many cases the character wake is ugly. We have all heard our share of stories of disillusioned staff members who felt betrayed, deceived, manipulated and outright lied to by a senior leader or manager. And in most cases, narcissism was at the root of it all. The desire for personal praise and prominence left a destructive wake.

2) Share the load versus dumping the load. Some leaders believe the best way to empower new leaders is to give them a greater challenge. This is a good approach…if the emerging leader has the gifts, talents and savvy to handle it. But if not, it can be a disaster, and you will be shuffling leaders around the organization or shoving them out the door.  I have seen many poor leadership calls in the last few years. In each case the pattern was the same. Give a newer leader a huge challenge, and throw them into the fire with a slap on the back and a “Good luck…Don’t screw up!” This is foolish.  It is actually a testimony of the senior person’s lack of leadership, versus the inability of the underling to perform under fire.

This method may work on occasion, but fails when the new leader is not wired for the new job, has no passion for the nature of the work, and is incapable of sharing leadership responsibilities with others. Lot’s of people drown with this “throw them in the deep end and see if they can swim” approach to leader development.  As a result they have no developmental pattern to follow, and have acquired no skill for sharing the overwhelming leadership challenges with anyone. So they roll up their sleeves and give it their best – and fail. Such leaders become gun-shy, wondering if they really were leaders in the first place. And the senior leader blames them, instead of himself.  The result is a climate of fear, disappointment, and steady turnover.

Developing and mentoring people is hard work. And few top leaders take the time to do it well. Most have a quick “teaching session” with a new leader or direct report and assume that will do the trick. The remain in steadfast control of all things, never moving from “I” to “We” as described in #1 above, making all the important decisions and using people to foster their personal goals.

3) Take responsibility for the bad news, not just the good news.  I know an organization that had to lay off 30-40 people (almost a third of the team). People working there were fired with little or no warning. Some of this was done in response to the bad economy. But it was clear from insiders and outside observes alike that a big part of the downturn was the result of poor leadership decisions. Senior leaders had ignored many warning signs communicated by employees, and had not listened to what the market was saying for years. As Jim Collins describes in How the Mighty Fall, hubris was at the core of the problem. There was an inability to see the truth because of self-obsession with past success and personal agendas (instead of organizational realities). As a result, it all came crashing down.

When it came time to make the layoffs, the Chairman and the President both were absent while the bad news was communicated. It was hard for employees to believe. And, upon their return to town, at the first gathering of the shell-shocked survivors, there was virtually no processing of the layoffs. The Chairman did not even have the courtesy to show up. It was a major trust-buster, and the survivors have lost much of their motivation.

When courageous leadership was required, there was none to be found.

But when there was good news to report, they were there to communicate it and celebrate it. Rightly so. But leaving the bad news and tough conversations to others left a major stain on the integrity of the leaders involved.

As you look to 2012, commit to give credit, share the leadership load and take responsibility for results – good or bad. That’s what great business leaders do. Your team will respect you for it and eagerly join you in moving the organization forward.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post