Unfortunately, the quality of a leader is not measured by the number of courses, seminars, or other training courses he or she has attended during his or her career. The same applies to the many managers who gravitate - the term is deliberately provocative - in companies.
Most companies regularly make two major mistakes in the choice of their managers: choosing the most qualified and/or the most competent in his or her field to ‘parachute’ him or her into the position of head of an entity. This is confusing technical quality with managerial quality.
In fact, these are completely different jobs that require different qualities and skills. Although the technical manager is essential to the workings of the company and often represents “THE reference specialist, he or she should (almost) never be entrusted with a management responsibility: this would be a recipe for disaster for the person concerned and for those around him or her.
Having leadership, having this flair, this understanding and this fine sensitivity to the functioning of a company, knowing how to delegate subtly, how to navigate tactically and politically in an often chaotic environment can be learned in part in management schools, but it is often the leader’s deep personality that designates him or her as such. One does not designate oneself as a leader, by the way…
During my (very) long career, I have been lucky enough to meet thousands of good managers, but few exceptional leaders. What is the reason for this?
First, let’s be honest: managers are often ‘victims’ of certain corporate choices - including their appointments - which opt for the easy way out or by political choice. Managers are nevertheless co-responsible, because in many cases they are aware that they are not up to the job, but do not want to refuse for many reasons (fear of being excluded, financial aspects, ego, etc.).
True leadership often scares some managers because the leader does not act according to the company’s standards, but often with less tangible references, therefore less controllable for the majority. The leader can integrate a very large number of parameters into the thinking and therefore ‘watering down’.
It is therefore easier to have subservient managers in a company than independent and free leaders. Of course, it is important to differentiate the organisational level we are talking about to think that leaders are needed at all levels of the company is a bit of a leap…
Management schools - there is no mention, quite rightly, of leadership schools - are doing an excellent job of thinking about this and conducting serious and interesting studies in these areas. The problem is at another level: to my knowledge, no institution has the power to decide on the selection of a candidate for a key position in the company at the end of the seminars organised: this is due to the business model, but above all, none of them want to take responsibility…
Finally, the governance set up in companies is the last obstacle to the establishment of real leadership: the fields of competence are becoming increasingly reduced according to an Anglo-Saxon model that dilutes responsibilities, masks the real issues behind convoluted presentations, etc. The point here is not to criticise a model, but to be aware that its implementation has a cost: that of leadership! . Have a good week, good thoughts and see you soon.