Catarina's World

Empathetic leaders are in high demand in the US. In the Nordic countries however, where empathy is an aspect of leadership, the debate is instead if leaders have become too compassionate.

How empathetic should a leader be? Will future leaders be compassionate or firm?

Is the grass always greener on the other side?

It seems you can’t win. Isn’t it interesting that when empathetic leadership is the norm, it’s benefits are being questioned while in countries with less considerate leadership styles it’s considered ideal? Some Americans even go as far as stating that the era of empathy is upon us.

Empathy a handicap?

In the Nordic countries empathy has long been part of management. Leaders have had to be considerate, weather they wanted to or not. Now however, some Scandinavians argue that being considerate is a weakness because it makes it hard to be firm and take tough decisions.

The ideal US boss is empathetic

Harvard Business Review concluded that empathy is high currency for a leader as is softer and more compassionate leadership styles. When it comes to CEOs being considerate, understanding and sympathise with employees and their feelings is considered optimal.

If you google empathic leader and empathetic leadership you get about 6,500 hits. And in general they are about leaders needing to be more considerate. The author Daniel Pink in his book “A whole new mind” writes that in the future empathy will be crucial for success.

Scandinavia a step further?

So have Sweden and Norway with their generally speaking more empathetic leaders taken the debate a step further by questioning if it’s a handicap? Or is it a step back to question if leadership have become to considerate?

Some claim that considerate leaders worry too much and can even be negatively affected by their environment as a result. If so, does that handicap them as leaders?

It’s common sense that leadership is facilitated by compassion. But taking the current debate in Scandinavia into account, maybe empathy combined with an ability to take tough decisions when necessary is ideal?

Most leaders either adopt a persona that’s excessively tough or overly empathetic, or feared or loved, if you like. Obviously neither leadership style is ideal. Maybe a leader focusing on helping other people to achieve their full potential would be best? A happy medium is obviously the ultimate but how many leaders are both compassionate and tough?

Do you believe empathy is an asset or a handicap for a leader? Will we see more empathetic leaders in the future? If so, will the considerate trend then, like in Scandinavia, be questioned because such leaders worry too much which has a negative effect on their ability to manage? What lies ahead for leadership? Will it, like it always has and still is, be a mix of different kinds of leadership styles? Empathetic – to be or not to be – that’s the question leaders have to ask themselves. Or maybe the debate about the ideal leader has gone to far? The different debates going on in the US and Nordic countries certainly makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Maybe it’s time to accept that leaders are different and empathy works for some and not for others?

Photo: Flickr -The White House

Being a leader is different from being a manager and Jack Welch is right when he says that leaders are born and then develop by learning. IQ and energy we are born with. What we call charm and charisma is actually energy. And having that kind of energy is a crucial aspect of a natural leader that people follow without even realizing it.  So much so that natural leaders, unlike managers, don’t even need to ask people to do something, merely suggest and people follow.

Would Mandela have achieved what he did if he was just an educated, but not natural, leader?

Charming people actually make others feel satisfied with themselves. Most women fell in love with JFK and the majority of men did anything they could to make him happy. And that’s exactly what happens with natural leaders.

How do you change your energy?

Leadership also comes from education and training but the “cherry on the ice cream” that, for instance, JFK had can not be learnt. Another word for it is star quality, but you are either born with that kind of energy or you are not. And without it leadership is much more difficult.

A good example is the difference between Nelson Mandela and his successor Thabo Mbeki. The latter is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, if not the most intelligent. But Nelson Mandela, like, for instance, Bill Clinton and JFK, fills up the room. Mbeki does not and hence failed to make the amazing connection with the South African people, and people around the world for that matter, that Mandela has.

Leaders make others feel good about themselves

Like all effective leaders, Mandela makes others feel good about themselves as well as the work they are doing. He has a vision of what he wants to achieve and can communicate it to others in ways that makes them want to be part of it.

Passion is crucial to leadership

Back in school we all had teachers that were natural leaders and passionate about what they were doing. Even without being told what to do, we loved what we were doing, learnt a lot from them and got high grades. Don’t need to mention all the terrible teachers we had that made us fall asleep and loose interest in the subject. And they were all educated and trained to teach.

Emotional intelligence makes a difference

In many companies today people who are not born leaders are in charge and it is definitely having a negative impact on their results. Managers who are also leaders use their influence to coach and mentor others to make the most of their potential. They are more likely to be strategic and integrated planners, thus spending less time putting out fires and more time streamlining and planning ahead. In general, employees are more attracted to managers with excellent leadership skills as they are more emotionally intelligent.

Why are natural leaders not better utilized?

Personally I can not understand why educated natural leaders are not better utilized in business since they would really have a tremendously positive impact on results. In some companies top management unfortunately feels threatened by natural leaders who are hence not allowed to lead. Can’t help wondering what shareholders would have to say about that if they knew? Another reason is that the first step in evaluating candidates usually is looking at their CV/resume. And there is no way of judging if a person is a natural leader or not just by looking at their CV. So by the time top management meets the candidates for a C-level position there often isn’t a natural leader amongst them.

Imagine the massive positive impact more educated leaders to whom leadership comes natural would have on companies world-wide. Results would increase significantly while at the same time making employees happier to work.

Let’s hope we will see more educated people with leadership qualities in key positions. Why this amazing resource is overlooked I can not comprehend. It is a fantastic asset that should be utilized to its full potential. Eisenhower put it very well when he said “you do not lead by hitting people over the head – that’s assault, not leadership”. And in today’s world we really should be civilized enough to move beyond that.

(Photo Flickr Pan African News Wire File Photos)

The truth is hard to find, not least if you are in charge. Your colleagues will frequently, whether they are conscious about it or not, give you the answer they believe you want.

Which ones of your colleagues will be completely honest with you?

On the other hand there are those who always contradict and complain to demonstrate that they are not yes sayers.

Then the defenders who are protective of themselves, members of their own department or whatever is important to them. On top of it, the ones looking after number one will say whatever it takes to further themselves.

Neither category are of help to a leader trying to find out what’s really going on or if an idea or proposal is of value to the company. Nor is the fact that we all interpret what we see or hear in different ways. Most people actually see and hear what they want or fear.

Do your colleagues feel safe enough to be honest?

If you are a good leader your colleagues know that they can tell you the truth. But even so, leaders fall into a different category than employees and it’s difficult to achieve the kind of complete openness you can have with close friends.

Employees are to some extent dependent on the leader. Even in a country like Sweden where it’s difficult to fire anyone getting the whole truth from colleagues is easier said than done.

So how do you overcome the fact that your colleagues are to some extent reliant on you and enable openness?

Let them be anonymous

Sometimes it’s a good idea to let staff give their opinion, or account of what’s going on, anonymously. That enables both constructive criticism and may bring out honesty in those afraid to appear like yes sayers. And anonymity could stop people from, say, protecting someone in their department.

Having said that, the kind of system some companies have where employees report colleagues for something they believe is wrong can also be abused by someone who, for instance, want to be promoted, simply doesn’t get along with a colleague or want to take revenge.

Leaders need to have psychological insight and intuition

It’s essential for a leader to be a good judge of character and have a gut feeling about what motivates another person and what’s going on. But unfortunately not all leaders have such qualities.

What can be done short of spying?

Apart from spying on staff, is it really possible for a leader to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Questionable, isn’t it?

The truth is in the eye of the beholder

Whenever something takes place and you have ten witnesses you have ten different accounts of what really happened. So maybe the closest it’s possible to get to the truth in such cases is what the accounts of the majority have in common? It’s hence important for a leader to have the judgement to make the best possible conclusion of what really happened.

As a leader you need to talk to someone who is not dependent on you and will be truly honest. Someone who gives you constructive positive and negative feedback. Who tells you the whole truth and gives you constructive criticism? Do you feel you get valuable and honest feedback from colleagues on proposals and ideas? How do you determine the whole truth about what’s really going on in a department where there is a problem? Do you know, or have a feeling about, who’s honest with you and who’s not? Is it ever possible for a leader to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Photo: World Economic Forum – Flickr

Can’t help wondering why so many people on social media are just parroting others? Copying and pasting. And what’s worse that seems to account for part of what’s called creativity today.

A copy is never as good as the original. No parroting in the world will turn you into Marilyn Monroe. So be yourself.

What happened to creativity?

Have a section of humanity stopped being creative? Or is it just that too many people are lazy and hence just copy others? Don’t they realize that they will not impress the people they are trying to impress? Only ignorant people will buy what the parrots are doing. If you don’t have anything new to contribute, to say a discussion, don’t just re-write what someone else has already said. Coping and pasting from say, Harvard Business Review to make you look intellectual is not a great idea either. What’s wrong with saying that you agree or disagree?

Original ideas

If imitating others were just a social media phenomena it would be one thing. But unfortunately you have an abundance of people selling services online that haven’t got any ideas of their own. They just copy what others have done and charge for doing so. And we should not forget the copy and paste that’s becoming a problem in academia. A prominent European policician was recently caught having copied and pasted into his thesis.

But a copy is never as good as the original. No parroting in the world will change that. It may work short term but long term it will work against you. The European politician is a good example. He had to step down. Doubt that his future is as bright as it would have been if he hadn’t copied and pasted. Am sure he regrets what he did. But sincerely he should have thought of it before he cheated. Can’t help wondering if parrots, like him, have really stopped thinking for themselves?

Hard sell on social media

The amount of parroting on social media most likely boils down to people believing they have to sell themselves aggressively online. Can understand that to some degree. But don’t they understand that it’s obvious to others what they are doing? Am active on social media and almost every day someone re-writes what someone has already written to make it appear to be their new idea. One interesting phenomena are the people who are experts on all issues relating to all countries in the world, regardless of the fact that they have never even visited the country in question. But copying and pasting they certainly know how to do. Nobody, including myself, knows everything so what’s the point in pretending you do? People only lose respect for you.

Current buzz words leader, expert, entrepreneurial & innovative

The fact that many people believe they have to portray themselves in what they consider to be the right way is a major reason for all the parroting. Wouldn’t it be much better to have an honest look at yourself and decide what your strengths are? If you are not say, innovative, describing yourself so will work against you since you will be found out. Read in The New York Times that 70% of high school graduates in the US believe they have more than average leadership skills. Only 2% considered themselves below average. Truly wish their assessments were correct, but unfortunately 70% of them are not leaders and will never be leading anything. If this applied to the United States only, i.e. approximately 5% of the world’s population, it wouldn’t be too bad. But unfortunately it applies to the remaining 95% of mankind as well.

Use social media to portray the real you

What’s wrong with having talents that are currently not in fashion? Whatever talents you have you can create a lucrative niche for yourself. Why does everyone feel they have to portray themselves as business tycoons? Looking at profiles on social media today you easily get the impression that the majority of people in this world are on par with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. It’s normal for children to imitate, but grown ups really should give up that habit.

Social media is a wonderful thing and I have met many fantastic people online, mainly thanks to my blog and Linkedin. If the parrots were just themselves and stopped pretending to be what they are not they would also start reaping positive benefits of social media. To start with they would gain respect. We are all unique and can contribute to society in different ways. That’s the beauty of humanity. Imagine how boring it would be if we were all parroting each other.

Photo: mseckington – Flickr