Why Leadership Fails. Except When There’s Context & Truth-To-Power Teams.

Enterprise Tech Why Leadership Fails. Except When There’s Context & Truth-To-Power Teams. Steve Andriole Contributor Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

I help execs optimize digital & educate nextgen technology pros. Following New! Follow this author to stay notified about their latest stories. Got it! Oct 5, 2022, 12:37am EDT | New! Click on the conversation bubble to join the conversation Got it! Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Share to Linkedin Aspects of Leadership getty Everyone talks about leadership, but there’s really not that much of it out there.

In spite thousands of degrees, courses, seminars, coaches, workshops, certificates, books, articles, novels, movies, documentaries and interviews of so-called great leaders, good leadership remains elusive. The exception? When leadership is defined around context and when leaders are surrounded by teams of competent truth-tellers who share leadership duties. Oh, and then there are the outcomes everyone wants.

Not to mention how leadership morphs over time: what was great leadership today will be horrible leadership tomorrow. Leadership has a shelf life. Which is why tone-deaf executives get fired.

Useless All-Purpose Advice The number of books alone on leadership is staggering. How is it possible that there are thousands of definitions of leadership? How many of the thousands of books offer unique perspectives on leadership? How many of the books – not to mention articles, courses, seminars, workshops and certificates – diagnose leadership failures? Can you find yourself somewhere in there? Are you looking for explanations of why your leadership skills are fabulous – or horrible? Do you look in the mirror when your leadership is questioned? Here’s some all-purpose behavioral leadership advice: Listen. Be empathetic.

Smile a lot. Be approachable. Tell the truth.

Don’t assault. Be consistent. Be present.

Be available. Be smart. Be tactical.

Be strategic. Be fair. Does that about cover it? No? Here’s more: Be decisive.

Be strong. Be transparent. Be trustworthy.

Be a visionary. Be humble. Be arrogant – when you must – and that’s what makes these lists irrelevant.

Oh, and the books. All the books. They just keep coming.

It’s almost as if we’ve all discovered “leadership” at the same time, for the first time. There are more books on leadership than there are on cancer. How many of the consultancies have leadership academies, leadership institutes and leadership centers of excellence? How many colleges and universities teach leadership? With all this attention, why are there so many awful leaders? MORE FOR YOU Livestream Shopping Stays Hot As Whatnot Valuation More Than Doubles To $3.

7 Billion Today’s ‘Heardle’ Song, Answers And Clues For Wednesday, October 5 Today’s ‘Quordle’ Words, Answers And Clues For Wednesday, October 5 Leadership “styles”? That’s another cottage industry. There are activist leaders, innovative leaders, passivist leaders, democratic leaders, visionary leaders, mentor leaders and dictatorial leaders. These lists make even less sense than the behavioral ones – especially because styles are issues-based, that is, change depending on the volatility, urgency and seriousness of problems.

We all know “leaders” who are tough when it comes to sales performance, but weak when it comes to under-performing friends. Contextual Leadership Generalized leadership skills are fun, but irrelevant. Leadership can only be defined around context.

Here are just a few contextual features that determine if anyone leads well or poorly: Type of industry Status of company (private, public, not-for-profit, etc. ) Type of business offerings (product, service, etc. ) Composition and activism of stakeholders # and effectiveness of competitors Regulatory controls Nature and frequency of crises Stage of the business (start-up, early stage, etc.

) Digital maturity National, global or both Condition of the business (making revenue projections, etc. ) Definitions of success Organizational structure # of “tenured” employees Expected outcomes … I have no idea how anyone defines, teaches or practices leadership out of context. It you down-select from the above list you can assemble as many context combinations as you like – all with different leadership requirements.

When the LBOs guys come to town, leadership smells differently. When private equity venture capitalists look for investments, leadership looks differently. When a company is cruising along, leadership behaves differently than when a company’s revenues are crashing.

R&D leadership is altogether different from sales leadership. HR has a particular brand of leadership. When a company is under investigation, leadership is especially different.

Styles too. When new products are are late, styles become urgent, impatient and decisive. Outcomes? When investment banks need to sell a distressed property, leadership is defined completely around purchase prices.

Same for gluing companies back together after a former leader has crashed and burned the company. How about when stakeholders want to sell the company? Or take the company public? Leadership here is very different. What about quarterly earnings reports? Leadership here requires a mix of skills and competencies.

It’s All Fluid Good leadership today many be horrible leadership tomorrow. The best leaders morph as quickly as their company’s requirements demand. Things always change.

Leadership characteristics and styles should change as situations and desired outcomes change. Some leaders see change – and lead accordingly – and some don’t. Truth-Talking Teams This is the toughest leadership assignment there is because it needs encouragement, talent and confidence.

How many truth-talkers do you have? Leaders always need help. But if the help stays quiet, they’re no help at all. Good leaders surround themselves with confident teams encouraged to look their bosses in the eye and tell them when they’re making mistakes – without recrimination.

This is especially tough for bad leaders who make lots of mistakes. The higher the executive level the less likely truth-talking occurs if for no reason than team members have too much to lose financially: it pays to keep one’s mouth shut. Imagine a situation when the boss makes lots of mistakes and team members are constantly reminding the boss that he or she is making mistakes all over the place.

How long do you think that truth-talker will survive? Nevertheless, good leaders always need grounding. But few of them actually have it. In my experience, I’ve seen very few truth-talking teams.

I’ve seen a few truth-talkers. I’ve had a few myself – and they were invaluable. When I made mistakes, they made sure I knew about them.

But much more importantly, they prevented me from making mistakes. In one case, I made sure I vetted decisions (with Bob) before announcing them. His sense of the corporate culture and the players was better than mine, so I relied upon him to check my plans before launching them.

I didn’t mind when he told me the plans were horrible which he did quite directly. At the End of the Day Leadership is obviously complicated, which is why I guess there are so many degrees, courses, seminars, workshops, coaches, certificates, books, articles, novels, movies, documentaries and interviews about leadership. Maybe there’s a book about “situational leadership” I could write.

My publisher would tell me it’s a crowded space with way too much competition. But people still buy all these books, right? Books aside, just keep in mind that in addition to a good personality and wide and deep connections, good leadership requires context, fluidity, flexibility and truth-talking teams. If any of these is missing, leadership will fail.

Check out my website . Steve Andriole Editorial Standards Print Reprints & Permissions.