For the past decade, I have had regular conversations with a woman who leads an academic department in a US university. She was a long time insider, suffering under the yoke of the previous leader, and was thrilled to be appointed chair of the department when he retired. She was determined not to repeat his mistakes and to put her stamp on things, clean up the financial mess he had left and change the culture. She would be reasonable, where he had been capricious, transparent where he had been obtuse, energetic where he had been lazy, and communicative where he had been absent, concerned about his own affairs rather than the department’s. In short, she wanted to be a transformative leader and this would be the pinnacle of her career.
She did indeed create change, much of which could be measured objectively. The finances improved radically, all the space occupied by the department was cleaned and spruced up with fresh paint, the output of her department increased and student satisfaction improved demonstrably. As her competence and confidence grew, she began to believe her leadership would outlast even her tenure. So secure was she in how well she had done, that she announced, two years ahead of schedule, that she planned to retire, honoring her values of open communication and rational planning.
But often there are unintended consequences of our decisions, and some faulty assumptions. When the remaining faculty and staff started holding meetings and sending emails about the future, she found their behavior tactless and unseemly. “I’m not dead yet” she would tell them, failing to recognize that they felt worried about the future and were simply trying to put a decent succession plan in place that they could live with, rather than have one foisted on them by the institution. She experienced each new initiative, each new idea, as a personal affront, an attack on all she stood for and everything she had accomplished.
She neither anticipated what happens when people sense a leadership vacuum (even when it is two years away), nor realized the extent of the appetite for change that had slowly been building over the years. Her strong personality and charismatic, visionary leadership style were exactly what was needed at the start of her leadership tenure. No-one would dispute her passion or single-minded devotion and dedication to her own concept of service to the department, but these same characteristics could inspire some and alienate others. She was unaware that she might be seen as mercurial and dictatorial, that she could ride roughshod over dissenting views, and could be quite polarizing, with favorites allowed into the inner circle, while others were not to share the spotlight.
She was horrified to learn that the next leadership iteration the department was seeking was a more consensus based, low-key form. Stepping back and seeing the situation through a less personal lens, she would see that the department had evolved and changed, and now was ready for something different. No single individual wanted to carry the load of leadership, but they all wanted to participate in making sense of things, articulating the vision for the future and making decisions about how the department would be run. Their concern was for equity, balance, collaboration and participation, for responsibilities – and credit – to be distributed across the leadership team and not concentrated in a single person’s hands. They may well face conflict or analysis paralysis when run by a committee, as she scathingly predicts, but they are looking forward to the change.
The biggest aha for me from this story was the temporary nature of leadership, no matter how successfully it is exercised. It is important to realize that this is a prize you may achieve in your career, but do not fall into the trap of believing that you will hold it in perpetuity or that your influence will last forever. The pharaohs, emperors and kings of the past, and the dictators and democratically elected heads of government in the present, all have to cede their crown sooner or later. And as countries, institutions and organizations evolve, their need for different types of leadership shifts.
So, if you are aspiring to or in a leadership position in your organization, remember that it is a transitory phase in your career and ask yourself how you can hold it as well as you can and then let go with elegance.
Here are some questions you can ask yourself:
- What impact do you want to have as a leader?
- What strengths do you bring to the role?
- What is your “signature” leadership style?
- What are the organization’s current leadership needs?
- What gaps are there?
- How can you best shore them up?
- What legacy do you want to leave behind?
- What are your succession plans for the next leader to step into your shoes?