In his book “Leadership:
Theory and Practice”, Northouse describes the Trait Approach to leadership, or “great
man theory” as “focused on identifying the innate qualities and characteristics
possessed by great social, political, and military leaders.” (Northouse, 2016, p. 19) He then
goes on to cite several researchers who list several leadership traits that
have been identified over the space of the last one hundred years or so which
great leaders possess. But the key point
is that these essential qualities of a leader are “traits”; in other words,
they are qualities that leaders are born with.
So either you have them, or you don’t.
The bottom line to this theory is that some people were born to be
leaders, while others (the vast majority of others, I might add) were not. Leadership then is open only to a select few
who were born with some or all of the traits identified.
I want to state up
front that I do not agree with the Trait Approach. I believe that while certain individuals,
through the effects of their early childhood development, may possess certain
aptitudes that make leadership easier to learn and to come by, all individuals
with a desire to lead may acquire the necessary tools, knowledge, and abilities
to become a great leader. I therefore
believe more strongly in the Skills Approach as identified by Northouse in
Chapter Three of his book.
That said, my task at
hand in this Reflection is to identify some of my “traits” and to discuss the
extent to which I possess them, or my lack thereof is hindering my leadership
abilities. I will further reflect on how
the traits that I identify are important to my leadership style.
This then begs the
question: What is my leadership style? Reflecting
back over my 32-year career in acquisition program management, where I have
been a Team Lead (what was called an Integrated Product Team, or “IPT” Lead) on
several occasions, and also as a Program Director or Division Lead of a large
organization, I would have to say that my style is participatory, structured,
coaching, mission-oriented, yet servant as well. I tend to make as many decisions as I am able
with the considered inputs of team members or key section leaders within my organization. I value the opinions of others and I depend
upon the expertise of the various functional discipline leads for their sage
advice. In terms of structure, I am
mostly about centralized control and decentralized execution. I delegate and I hold people accountable
while checking up on them along the way and ensuring that I remove any
roadblocks to success. When necessary, I
provide “top cover” to my people. I
highly value coaching and mentoring and so not only do I perform those
functions as necessary, I encourage my subordinate leaders to do the same. Ultimately, I do my best to take care of my
people while ensuring that my organization and its assets are aligned to
accomplish the mission. I try to make my
enthusiasm for the mission become an infectious example for others to see and
thereby become inspired to work together and to work hard to achieve mission
success. Finally, I value servant
leadership above all else. I believe
that the highest calling of a leader is to serve not only his or her leaders,
but to serve their subordinates as well by supplying them with all of the
tools, education, and support possible to enable them to succeed in their individual
roles.
With all of that said,
what are some of the traits that I possess, and where might I be lacking? Northouse cites the work of Stodgill (1974),
particularly his second survey that included 10 characteristics or traits
associated with good leadership. The
first is a drive for responsibility and task (or mission) completion. This one, I can see in myself. Granted, I know that I have blind spots, but
for purposes of this reflection, I am going to stick with what I believe is
true of me. I am driven; I seek out
responsibility and even additional responsibility; whatever it takes for me to
assure that I complete the mission. I
learned my work and responsibility ethic from my parents, mainly my father, and
if anything, I drive too hard at times.
The second of the ten is vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals. I believe this is closely tied to my drive
for responsibility; I do have to be careful at times to not be overly
persistent. The third characteristic is
risk taking and originality in problem solving.
I am all about that.
When I was a junior
officer in the Air Force, I was put in charge of the Low Altitude Navigation
and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) Targeting Pod Production IPT. When I took this position, the program was in
serious trouble. Because of the first
Gulf War, Central Command (CENTCOM) demand for targeting pods was high. But the production program had only just
begun and we had fielded 17 pods that ended up being in 15 different
configurations due to numerous production and performance deficiencies. The support equipment did not work, and the
technical orders were generally a mess.
These things happen when you rush a new system into the field. One of my career mentors was the LANTIRN
Program Director and she told me to go pick someone at (then) Martin Marietta
to be my contractor counterpart, and then see what I could do, working with
this person and the company, to fix the program.
I picked a guy who had
some experience with the targeting pod, was several years older than myself,
but someone who was highly regarded and had the reputation of being a good and
strong leader. I should note that by
this time, we had gone through two Vice Presidents, and had even brought back a
retired VP to try to resolve the issues but all had failed. John, the man that I picked, and I hired a
process improvement and statistical process control guy, one of the best in the
country. We sent him to the production
floor and also to visit with the design engineers about all of the problems we
were having. At the same time, I flew to
Luke Air Force Base and visited with the maintainers. They had five targeting pods in the shop that
they could not fix. They showed me some
of their issues with the support equipment and tech data. I called up the VP and the Director of
Logistics and told them to get on an airplane and that I would pick them up at
the airport. When I got back to Luke
with the two of them, I drove directly to the pod shop, where the guys had put
a pod in the intermediate-level support equipment, and I handed them their own
tech data, and asked them to fix the pod.
They took off their coats and ties, rolled up their white sleeves, and
began to follow the tech data to troubleshoot and then fix the pod. In about ten minutes, I could see them
flipping back and forth among the pages of the tech data, looking confused. Within thirty minutes, they sheepishly look
at me and said, “Okay, you’ve made your point.”
I got complete buy-in from the company after that and we went to work. We began to identify the key mechanical and
performance measures on the production line and to establish statistical
process control. Eventually, we ended up
with nearly 500 measurement points. We
got the engineers involved where critical tolerances were specified and began
to align the manufacturing operations with the design to a degree that had not
been done before. We also ensured that
the support equipment in the field was calibrated to the same tolerances and
indicators that were used in the factory to measure performance. And we went to work on the tech data with the
help of the Air Force maintenance personnel.
Within 14 months, we had the number of fielded configurations down to
two, the support equipment fixed, and the tech data perfected. The program when I inherited it was 16 months
behind schedule. It went on to finish
all 454 pods one year ahead of schedule.
Now that was a long
story so that I could say this: everything that we did to fix the targeting pod
problems was a calculated risk and required the kinds of problem solving that
had never before been done within the company, or on many Air Force production
programs in general. But once we began
to achieve some successes, it caught fire.
Everyone became inspired and hugely dedicated to getting this program
fixed and superior product out the door.
This brings me to the fourth characteristic: drive to exercise initiative
in social situations.
I am an introvert by
nature. Give me a choice, and I’ll pick
the good book and a quiet afternoon, or the small gathering over the big party
any day. But that does not mean that I cannot
socialize and exhibit drive in social situations. When I am in a leadership role and working
should-to-shoulder with people to fix problems and succeed, I am in my element. When I led the Suite 5 development and
fielding (software and hardware modifications) to the A-10 aircraft fleet, I
inherited problems. Pilots and
maintainers felt that they were not being heard and that the things that they
needed were not making into configuration block upgrades. We also had a software development and
fielding process that took three years from start to finish. Luckily, I had a few counterparts within the
company that, along with me, loved a challenge.
With the lead Air Combat Command representative, all of the key software
engineers, the project managers, and the contracting officials in a big
conference room one afternoon, I and the lead company program manager led the
discussion to overhaul the process. We
then committed to the pilots and maintainers on an historically large number of
new function points and maintenance features that would be included in Suite 5. We took the gloves off, we got extremely
innovative, and without making this an overly-long story, we fielded Suite 5 in
363 days (hardware and software mods, along with complete tech data) without a
single pilot or maintainer write-up on anything. Unfortunately, due to several bureaucratic
changes, mostly on the part of the Air Force, nothing like this has ever been
accomplished since. But our efforts were
all about risk taking, drive, and initiative in intense social situations with
scores of naysayers on the outside looking in (and even some actively trying to sabotage our efforts).
The fifth
characteristic is self-confidence and sense of personal identity. I make decisions as described above with a
strong self-confidence. The trick is to
not let your personal identify get swallowed up in the larger picture. I tend to identify strongly with what I’m
doing as a leader when I know we’re moving in the right direction and I see
tangible results. In fact, my identity
gets tied up in that whole process. But
through the years, I have managed to develop and maintain a good sense of
personal identity that can remain apart from my work identity.
The sixth
characteristic is the willingness to accept consequences of decisions and
actions. I believe in this one with all
of my heart. More than once, when
briefing my Team’s or Organization’s plan to address and fix broken programs, I
have sealed the deal in telling the senior people at the table, “If I’m wrong,
fire me.” I stand behind everything that
I do and I also take responsibility for the actions of my subordinates. There is no alternative for me on that score.
The seventh characteristic
is the readiness to absorb interpersonal stress. I struggle with this one. What I try most to achieve is to head off
interpersonal stress through frank and honest conversation with the folks
involved. Talking it out up front and
early is usually a recipe for success, before things get out of hand. Twice in my career, I have had to call in the
“warring factions” and close the door, and get very blunt about their attitudes
and actions and basically tell them to knock it off. I did so with respect and decorum and the
situations were resolved. Sometimes
leaders have to do this, and I’ve found that subordinates will respect you for
it if done with their best interests at heart.
Don’t let it get to where you are actually angry with someone before you
call them in to chat.
The eighth
characteristic is willingness to tolerate frustration and delay. I struggle with this as well. I am not a terribly patient person, but I can
force it if I have to. Once my Team and
I have launched on a course of action, or comprehensive plan to achieve some
goal or mission, I have little patience for those who circle back around and
start playing the bureaucracy card on me.
I expect people to execute what we’ve all decided upon; and also to not
bring me a problem without a few alternative solutions. I am more than willing to help someone if
they are stuck. What I’m not willing to
do is to tolerate someone who sits at their desks “admiring the problem”.
The ninth
characteristic is ability to influence other people’s behavior. I have to admit that this one is becoming
more difficult with the passing years than I would like. I say this because I don’t find the same work
ethic in the majority of the workforce today that I could count on 20 or 30
years ago. When I try to influence
people’s behavior, I usually do so by appealing to their sense of personal
pride and accomplishment; or to their willingness to rise to a challenge. That personal pride and willingness to rise
to a challenge is still out there, but increasingly I find it being replaced by
a more bureaucratic mindset that wants to focus on all of the reason why we can’t
do something instead of helping to figure out how we can do something.
Finally, characteristic
number ten is capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose
at hand. I used to joke that I was a
chemical engineer, not a social engineer.
To a large extent that was true.
But from the perspective of a leader, I actually find it gratifying and
enjoyable to engineer the necessary social interaction that gets the job done
and allows people to have some fun along the way. I delight in seeing relationships spring up
and take hold within the context of an organizational construct or timely
introduction that I have made. I like to
put the right people together in a team setting to achieve success. But I play straight up. What you see is what you get. When faced with hidden agendas or
disingenuous people, I have issues and these situations are where I am prone to
losing my temper. So I am always careful
with social interaction systems to try to make sure that I’m seeing reality.
In Chapter Two,
Northouse goes on the present a table of various other traits that different
researchers have evolved. I chose to
concentrate on the ten characteristics identified above. As I said at the outset, I believe more in
the Skills Approach, where leadership abilities are open to everyone who truly
desires to learn them. In that vein, the ten "traits" that I have addressed above, to me, are actually skills that I have learned over the years from mentors, good bosses, and hard-won experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment