A part of us has an almost primeval desire to worship leaders. It places them on pedestals propped up on expectations. When the leaders fail, it ruthlessly tears them down. It does not however give up on the charming idea of ‘the leader as panacea of all problems’. It seeks new heroes to fill the vacant pedestals.
Even the corporate world with its emphasis on collectivity is not immune to the desire for a towering personality who can bring order out of chaos, purpose out of meaninglessness and hope out of despair. In such a setting, success and failure are believed to hinge entirely on the leader’s vision. In the event of a debacle, the blame is placed squarely on the leader. At least, the major part of it. The team stands almost absolved. The thinking here is that the team is only as good as its leader.
And then, a contrasting part of us trashes the idea of leaders as drivers of change and progress. It believes a leader is only as good as his team. HR experts say organisations may be unconsciously subscribing to either of the two viewpoints. The majority of them may be following the middle path. Each of these viewpoints has its appeal.
ADVERTISEMENT
Arguing for ‘the team is only as good as its leader’, Aashish Singh, vice-president and head, global HR services, First Advantage, says a leader’s mandate is to get his team to meet organisational goals in the best possibly way. It is a grand call, one that sets his job above all the mundane jobs.
“The leader has to bridge the gap between capabilities and goals. There could be a technical gap, a behavioural gap or both. To deal with a behavioural gap, he may have to use motivation or any other behaviour correction tool,” he says.
The major part of the challenge facing a leader is that he should turn any team at his disposal into a winning team. A leader may not get to choose his team entirely. He may inherit it. He cannot however offer that as an excuse for not creating an efficient team.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The majority of teams don’t consist entirely of A players. It’s realistic to expect a team to have A players, B players and C players. The leader has to figure out how each functions effectively within a structure and a process that help meet the organisation’s goals,” says Aashish.
He however does not rule out dream teams, where every member brings an exemplary quality to the table. Belonging to Generation X and clued into cricket, he is familiar with the dream West Indies team that Clive Lloyd led in the 1970s and 1980s.
Aashish says if the leader has such a team, his job becomes easy. However, his leadership skills are put to the test only when he has to work with a run-of-the-mill team.
He cites the example of Subhas Chandra Bose, who “did not have an organised army” but stitched together a fighting unit through his irresistible personality, the power of his conviction and a dedication to his goals which easily won followers.
Arguing for ‘the leader is only as good as his team’, Saras Bhaskar, a counselling psychologist and corporate coach, says successful organisations are those which create space for situational leadership. Here, leadership does not strictly follow the hierarchical order. In such an organisation, enough freedom exists for each member to act as a leader while functioning within his/her sphere of work.
“Leadership skill is fostered in each member of the team by acknowledging, accepting and respecting individual differences,” she says, adding that this is possible only in a flat organisation.
“Here, factors such as hierarchy, experience and seniority are valued. They are however kept flexible enough to allow ideas from a young think tank to be absorbed into what constitutes its style of functioning,” she says.
From the arguments offered in support of each viewpoint, here’s probably how the matter could be settled.
A team cannot do without a leader who brings vision and charisma to his/her job. He/she enables the team to move forward in synchronicity and speak in one voice. At the same time, team members should be empowered to act decisively whenever a situation demands it.
However, the freedom should be administered in right doses to prevent the team from striking discordant notes. Most teams walk the middle ground, with a slight inclination towards one of the two positions.
How is your team inclined?