Leaders are recognized by their results
August 31, 2007 by Miki Saxon
No kidding, folks. No matter how minor the arena it’s results that count. And don’t expect brilliant rhetoric to make up for mediocre efforts.You can talk all day about who, what, where, when, why and how, but unless your walk matches your talk there will be no results—at least not the ones you predicted!
Whether you lead, manage, or both (the lead/manage discussion is for another time), no one’s going to listen to you if you don’t follow though. Worse, you’ll find that those who were taken in by your talk, and then tripped up when you didn’t walk, are a very unforgiving lot and rightly so.
I’ve had this conversation with hundreds of leaders/managers over the years, and the common response is along the lines of, “They won’t even notice <whatever>.”
Since I’m getting tired of explaining the same thing over and over, I thought I’d do it here and then just refer everyone to this post.
If you really believe that “they” won’t notice then you’re suffering from one or more of the following aberrations, AKA if the shoe fits…
- You’re smarter than everyone else: Jeff Skilling is a recent example that comes to mind.
Or the flip side
- People are stupid and don’t really pay attention: Richard Nixon is a prime example; he really didn’t believe that anyone would notice the blank spots on the tapes, and if they did, wouldn’t know what they meant.
- You don’t believe in Murphy’s Law: You’re from either another planet or leading a charmed life and have a penchant for pushing your luck.
- You’re a master obfuscator: If no one can understand your talk, then there’s no way to prove that you didn’t walk [it].
The great thing about talking and walking is that it’s part of your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy)TM, therefore within your control, and, therefore, it’s your choice.
As always, think carefully and choose wisely.
True. People will only follow leaders who prove themselves to be great through results. No one wants follow someone who doesn’t even know where to go.
“No one wants follow someone who doesn’t even know where to go.”
No, but many of us would like to *tell* them where to go!
Nice post. We have been reminded almost everyday by different people concerned about leadership, but there are still leaders who ignore it and follow their own rules.
Thanks, Howie. It seems that “leader” has as loose a definiton these days as “friend.” Just being at the front of the crowd or having followers doesn’t make one a leader.
Working as a team leader in an urban school district for many years, I soon realized I could not run a successful program without the help of my teaching team. Lead by example–understand that each member on the team has much to offer–listen to what they have to say–always show appreciation for their contributions–continue to stress that no one member has all the answers and that the students will benefit by having a strong cohesive team.We thought of ourselves as family. Hard work-concern for team members, and sharing a common goal will result in a strong team. (goal-what is best for the student)
But do great leaders always produce great results? Is there no such thing as extenuating circumstances? External factors? Sabotage, either deliberately or unintentionally, by other leaders of the organization?
I’m general very much an “internal locus of control” person, but even so…
A great sales executive can’t make up for a crappy product (should they even try?). An innovative VP outsider may be able to accomplish nothing amongst a team of old-school insiders, even if they were hired specifically for that. A brilliant entrepreneur can still be completely crushed by a better-funded competitor.
Those are just a few of the examples I’ve witnessed first-hand.
Right on, Harvey. Hopefully there are many more teachers such as you—your school is lucky to have you!
Scott, you are so right, but even in the examples you gave (and I’ve seen similar) there were still results along the way.
You can win all the battles and still lose the war for reasons beyond your control or lose the battles and win the war.
Unfortunately, bad leaders don’t always produce bad results.
I think the concept of leadership as a distributed social process has something to offer here. There are likely to be a number of leaders and followers in the group all making something happen. It is only when the individuals in the group collaborate to align the ’somethings’ in a particualr direction that somethingactuially happens. So it is not as much about the ‘leader’ (heroic or otherwise) but about the way the ‘leadership process’ unfolds across a social group.