I’ve just got home, exhausted, after being
responsible for a 3-day youth camp for 71 excited 14 to 16 year olds. But it was a wonderful team of 17, mostly
young (mid-twenties), team leaders that did the work and carried the camp to
great success, despite some rather trying circumstances. In fact, one of the
highlights of the experience was the way in which everyone adapted to suddenly
changed conditions, without even a hint of panic. Although, no mobile phones,
electronic devices and the like, was probably more of a challenge for our
teenagers than not being able to have a shower or see in the dark. And their
thumbs got a chance to have a rest for 3-days.
As you might expect the camp involved lots
of team-based activities. What was wonderful to watch was how leaders popped up
like jack-in-the-box and carried their team. Sometimes there was more than one
of these leaders in a team and it was interesting to watch them compete or
co-operate, depending on their wont. In some teams leaders didn’t emerge
straight away and the adult team leaders had their work cut out for them trying
to stimulate leadership. Sometimes a reluctant leader would emerge but it
wasn’t spontaneous and they would need help. The climate of these two groups,
those with spontaneous leaders and those without, was different, in terms of enthusiasm
and output.
What was interesting, and important, about
this leadership talent that I saw was that it was very raw in terms of skill. It
was driven by personality characteristics rather than anything else and some
were more skillful than others, presumably having learned from direct and
vicarious experience.
The research on human personality is
pointing towards the fact that it is based on our genes, initially, and then
shaped by experience. We appear to have genes for certain traits and the extent
to which they are turned on or off is determined by our environment and our
experience. So, for example, a person might have a genetic predisposition for
being very compassionate but it will be modified by what happens to the person:
probably (but not exclusively) in the first few years of life. So, for example,
if the person is raised in a violent, abusive family that trait may well not
manifest itself at all. This can result in what I call intrapsychic
conflict and the source of psychological
distress but that’s another blog altogether.
The research on leadership is much the
same. The recent research on the human brain supports the notion that some of
us have better developed areas for judgment, emotional responsiveness, relationship
ability, adaptation and so on, than others
Organisations that run leadership programs
take great delight in touting that about 30% of leadership ability is genetic
while the other 70% is learned. Of course this makes sense: how else would they
make a living?
Of course people can learn certain
leadership skills. As a psychologist I would often teach people with Asperger’s
syndrome (think Sheldon in Big Bang Theory) how to fake empathy, attentive
listening and other relationship skills. And they would be able to use the
skills, much to the delight of their families.
The point is that the 30%, or whatever it
is (I’m sure this number was taken out of a Chinese fortune cookie) is
critical. It’s the bit you need on which to build skills. One of the
characteristics of personality is that under stress, we tend to revert to type.
That is, we forget what we have learnt as our brain becomes more focused on
survival.
Does it matter? Well, I think it does. One
of the big mistakes organisations make is that they are more inclined to hire
or promote people due to their technical skills than they are their leadership
skills. In fact, the latter can get very short shrift during the hiring
process, which (sadly) may only consist of an interview and some reference
checks with the candidate’s best friends and mother. In most leadership roles
the technical skills are less important. It is the leadership skills, that are
personality based, that are the most critical-as many organisations have found
or not found, to their detriment.
It’s the quality of the leadership that
accounts for organizational culture, which in turn is responsible for employee
engagement. Hopefully, you don’t need me to tell you about how important
engagement is in the quantity and quality of widgets produced by your
organization.
Select your leaders more carefully is my
suggestion and on personality rather than technical skill or even reputation.
Get the best fit for your organization, no matter how big or small. And do this
by having the person spend some time
with the organization, getting to know them and watching how they respond. The
interview is very unreliable and easy to manipulate. Trust me, I’ve
successfully done it many times.
