Slide Notes for Executive Leadership Incubator Session 1: Picking the Winning Team

The following are my slide notes for the first session of the Executive Leadership Incubator, held on the 23^rd October 2021.  This programme was organised by Toastmasters District 80, Division G, in collaboration with Division S and Division E.  As is my habit, the background notes of my slide deck are not exactly what I present, since my programmes are interactive. 

Slide 1: Definition: The Concept of Executive Leadership 

It is my habit to always begin with definitions.  It is always important for us to begin with definitions. Definitions set the parameters of what we discuss, and establish a common understanding before building on that knowledge.  Imam Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (r.a.), the Persian theologian said, to the effect, that before we even speak of a cup, we should understand what a cup is.  What we are covering here is more than a mere cup. 

How many of us have had conversations, where we thought we were talking about the same things, even used the same phrases, but meant totally different things?  George Bernard Shaw, the Irish playwright, once observed, that the United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language.  We assume we understand each other, but if the start point of our programme is different, we will arrive at vastly variant conclusions. 

There are entire books that define executive leadership.  Executive leadership is a concept, and as concepts go, there are myriad interpretations and ways to execute leadership.  While leadership is the art of inspiring and motivating a group to act towards achieving a common goal, executive leadership is the ability to manage a team, within any form of organisational structure, to fulfill organisational goals, execute strategic plans, and engage in decision making.  It is leadership within a structure, and over an extended period. 

Executive leadership works best in a hierarchical structure, where there are clear demarcations of levels of authority.  This can be a command-type structure, such as the military, in a corporation, or even a volunteer organisation.  The difference is in how we convey our thoughts and ideas.  I have served as a naval officer and an inspector of police, which are both command-type hierarchical organisations.  I have also served on the board of a volunteer welfare organisation, which is another form of hierarchical organisation.  In these cases, executive leadership is strictly expressed top down.  This contributes to organisational discipline, but does not leave room for flexibility. 

As we start this session, I want you to consider the following questions:

1. What is your motivation for being here?

2. What is your idea of executive leadership?

3. How do you plan to apply what we cover here? 

Slide 2: Contrast: Leadership is about Influence, Not Authority 

Authority is the moral or legal right of control, specific to a domain.  Influence is the power to have an effect on people.  They are not the same.  It is conceivable, indeed common, that a person would have authority by virtue of an appointment to a position, bit have no influence to effect any agenda.  Authority without influence is impotent leadership.  Influence is not gained by engaging in petty politics, creating personality cults, or engaging in strictly transactional relationships.  Influence is built by building a fortress of certainty in a landscape of uncertainty.  People are better able to relate to known quantities. 

Popularity is not a value, and not necessarily commensurate with influence.  A person could be well-liked, but discounted on account of many factors.  A person of influence is able to appeal to the other, and bring them to their side of the table, he is people-centric in his discussions with an emphasis on the other.  People open up when they feel others are genuinely interested in them.  This means influence starts at the door of service. 

Influence is built on direct personal relationships that are not transactional in nature.  This allows us to create rapport, and connect with people at a deeper level.  It is based on credibility, integrity, and mutual respect.  This carries over regardless of the power dynamic of the relationship, since people want to be validated.  When people are validated, they have a stake in the maintenance of the relationship, and this is what interpersonal influence is built on. 

These relationships can be leveraged upon, and that is how influence is exercised.  We give favours so they can be called in.  These trading of favours has no exact value to be pinned down, since the value of a favour varies according to need and consequence upon the individual.  To maintain, and grow, that relationship, it is important that effort is recognised, people are appropriately thanked, and the integrity of the arrangement made sacred.  This is a demonstration of personal integrity and values, which enhance credibility.  This functions as an influence multiplier overtime through the creation of goodwill. 

The reason we talk about influence, is because influence is the currency of power, and the building blocks of a winning team.  A winning team requires winners, and winners only want to work with other winners.  To be a credible leader, it is important to be a credible person.  That means you must be able to convince people, through past performance, that you can deliver results on a greater stage.  People do not have to like you.  They may even fear you a bit.  They may outright hate you.  But as long as they understand that you deliver, they will put their feelings aside for personal interest.  This is especially true in the corporate world.  People want results, because results means promotion and bonuses. 

Slide 3: Concept: Understanding That This is a Team Game 

A team is any group of people who perform interdependent tasks with the intent towards accomplishing a common mission, a specific objective, or a shared overarching goal.  Leadership is a team game.  A king has his counsellors and generals.  A president or prime minister has his ministers.  A leader needs his team. 

Executive leadership is too important a task to be left to one person.  A great leader, without his team, only grants ephemeral success.  We know great leaders by what they leave behind, not just what they achieve.  The moment he is gone, that team falls apart.  How many of us know about Alexander the Great?  How many of us think he was a great leader?  When Alexander the Great was asked, who would succeed him, he replied, “The Strongest.”  This lead to his empire being divided between his Diadochi, the “Successors”: Cassander, Ptolemy, Antigonus, and Seleucus.  What he built collapsed the moment he died.  The pieces of that empire all eventually faded away, conquered by Sassanid Persia and Rome. 

Alexander the Great was a great military leader, and a leader of military leaders.  He is known for his military conquests.  But when we take a closer look at his biography, he was a petulant, headstrong young man, who threw away resources and opportunities in the pursuit of immediate glory and debauchery.  His generals were like him: great fighters, poor builders.  Alexander was loved by his men, because he represented an ideal, but in the end, he left nothing behind. 

When we think great executive leaders, great statesmen, we remember people who left nations and organisations behind, stronger than when they started.  If you leave any place, any department, any organisation, stronger, you are an accomplished executive leader.  To do that, you need to build your team, your companions. 

Almost a thousand years after Alexander the Great, an orphan was born in Arabia.  We all know him as Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah (s.a.w.).  He is considered the founder of Islam, but we are not here to talk about theology.  We are here to talk about leadership.  Coincidently, according to some Muslims, tonight is considered the night of his birth, 1,500 years ago. 

When Muhammad (s.a.w.) was born, Arabia was a desolate place, a graveyard of civilisation, engaged in internecine warfare among different nomadic tribes.  When he passed away, the Rashidun Caliphate was established, and Muslim civilisation was born.  It went on to be one of the great civilisations of human history.  It conquered Sassanian Persia, and unlike Alexander, made it the heartland of the Muslim world.  For 800 years, much longer than it has ever been Christian, Sicily, Spain and Portugal, were Muslim.  They defeated the Mongols, the Eastern Romans, even the Chinese.  More importantly, these unlettered nomads birth 600 years of knowledge and advancements in human knowledge.  One man can change the world. 

I am not saying that to be an effective executive leader, we all need to start founding world religions.  But if each and every one of you, can inspire one person, to believe in your ideals, and your ideas, and build on it, you have laid the foundation to a legacy.  That is the ultimate intent of executive leadership, as a team game. 

Slide 4: Reciprocity: To Have a Team, Be a Leader People Will Follow 

What makes a good leader?  We all have ideas.  We all have our own understanding.  Consider this: In 1994, I was a merchant naval officer, a deck cadet then.  While we were crossing the Atlantic, we got caught in a storm.  Our Master, or Captain, as you landlubbers know it, stood at that bridge, and stared into the whites of nothingness in the night.  He seemed immovable, as he gave steering commands.  “Steady as she goes, helmsman.  Ride the waves.  Starboard 10.  Port 15.  Brace. …”  And so forth.  We were there for hours.  We rode 30 metre waves, the rollercoaster ride from Hell. 

Years later, when I was a commissioned officer, I realised that all he did was look like he knew what he was doing.  There is no real way to go through a storm like that except point at the waves, and pray.  And that is leadership.  Max De Pree was an American businessman and writer.  He wrote “Leadership is an Art”.  In it, he said, “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality.  The last is to say thank you.  In between, the leader is a servant.”  This was in 1987. 

A leader redefines reality for the people he leads.  He projects certainty and confidence.  A leader cannot be seen to be defeated.  He cannot shift blame.  He cannot hide.  He is the persona of everyone’s collective hope and vision.  He articulates it, he makes it real, and he points them in the right direction. 

In this age, we talk a lot about leadership.  But after all that is said and done, a lot is said, and little is done.  There are those who imagine that leadership comes from a title.  Authority comes from a title.  There are those who believe leadership comes from seniority.  Long-service awards come from seniority.  There are those think that being a leader is about being popular.  Public relations comes from popularity.  None of these is intrinsic to leadership.  So what is leadership then? 

Leadership is to be like that master mariner in a storm.  No matter how the ship is tossed in the ocean, no matter how terrified we are, no matter how the world seems to have gone mad, we look to that man, and we follow what he says.  This is not because he has a title, or a long-service award, or is popular.  This is because we want to get through that storm, and we believe he can get us there.  So we ask ourselves, when there is a crisis, or a challenge, or a problem, do people under us look to us for a solution?  If they do, then we are leaders.  Otherwise, we are merely managers. 

To be that person people will follow, you need to exude certainty, not confidence.  Confidence is for children.  Certainty is for people who have seen the world, and understand their place.  If you do not have it, then act it until you do. 

Slide 5: Recruitment: Identifying the Team 

Building a team requires two things: the people and the structure.  The structure pertains to the values and the culture.  The people fill that structure.  When we talk about team, here, we mean more than people.  A collection of people does not necessarily make a team. 

While a team is an extension of a leader, a team also covers areas that a leader is deficient in.  The team cannot be clones of the leader.  That is what we have with Alexander the Great and his Diadochi.  That was his failure.  An example of a good team would be Napoleone di Bonaparte and Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord.

Consider Napoleone di Bonaparte.  He is thought by many to be an epitome of leadership, and to an extent he was.  A man born to lesser nobility, who rose from a minor artillery officer to Emperor of France.  And yet, I consider him a failure.  He is a man who won numerous battles, but lost the war.  He died in exile, in St. Helena.  He left France bankrupt, still surrounded by enemies; and with an entire generation of sons and fathers lost to the nation.  Carl von Clausewitz understood this.  He was a Prussian general who fought in the Napoleonic Wars, including the famous Battle of Borodino.  In his famous treatise on military campaigns, Vom Kriege, he wrote, “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” 

Napoleon understood only war, and had no clear goal.  And that is a mistake many leaders make.  They get involved in the process.  They get emotionally attached to the product, the vehicle, or the institution.  It is like a man who enjoys cycling so much that he forgot to pay attention to where he is going and finds himself lost. 

Napoleon Bonaparte said that a leader is a dealer in hope.  But selling hope alone is fraud.  There has to be a basis for it, and there has to be a consideration of ethics, values and principles.  Leadership is not about merely espousing values, but living it.  That requires a certain sense of certainty and emotional strength. 

Where Napoleon excelled, was in his utilisation of resources.  He famously said that an army marches on its stomache.  Since he began as an artillery officer, he understood it intimately.  He pioneered innovative tactics using field guns.  He paid a lot of attention to the logistics of running an army.  Most importantly, he understood his greatest resource: his people. 

A leader is only as good as the people around him.  That requires either building them up, or recruiting the best, or, a bit of both.  The consideration with having competent people is that they are also leaders.  This means that we are not just supposed to be leaders of men, but leaders of leaders.  This requires leading, not from the front, but from the rear.  A successful leader always has a great lieutenant, or several. 

That man was Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord.  Talleyrand rose from Agent-Generale of the Catholic Church in France, to First Minister of France, Napoleon’s chief diplomat and spymaster.  He eventually turned on Napoleon, and survived him to have a long and rich career.  Unlike Napoleon, Talleyrand understood the winds of change, and rode them successfully.  Whilst the public remembers Napoleon, students of leadership, and the arts of war, remember Talleyrand. 

Alexander and Napoleon were halfway there.  They had a team.  In Alexander’s case, that team consisted of inferior versions of him.  In Napoleon’s case, his lieutenant outgrew him, because he did not adapt. 

Slide 6: Generals: Finding People Who Will Talk Back 

When I started my term as Division Director, it was amidst a pandemic, and the world was no longer the same.  I needed a team that would talk back.  Every leader needs that.  He needs people who have strong wills and strong ideas, and are willing to stand their ground.  A leader who cannot manage strong characters will never achieve anything.  We should always be wary of people who flatter us, and pay attention to those who criticise us.  Flattery is a distraction if you are hungry for success.  What you need is people to contend with. 

Whether it is my company, or in any other situation, I have always opened the floor to contentions, to disagreements, to objections.  There is no ego involved.  A historical example would be the Battle of Badr.  This was the very first battle between the Madinan state and the Quraysh of Makkah.  The Muslims of Madina were massively outnumbered, and lacked cavalry and weapons.  The battle was fought at the Wells of Badr.  Muhammad (s.a.w.) and his 300 Muslims arrived first, and he deployed their forces.  One of his followers asked him, “Did God tell you this, or is it you?”  Muhammad (s.a.w.) was not an experienced military strategist. So, he deferred to those who knew better.  The Muslims held the wells, and defeated a better armed force that outnumbered them three times. 

We all need people who talk back, and tell us when they know better.  We all need to be able to listen.  In that same storm, back in 1994, at one moment, we contemplated abandoning ship.  There was a discussion among the senior officers and engineers.  Our steering was damaged, and we could not keep the ship facing the wind.  We were in danger of capsizing.  In the end, it took one man, the Chief Engineer to state that we should not abandon ship just yet.  We should try to hang on for a few hours more.  Later, we learned the life boats had been smashed by the waves.  But one man talking back, even in the middle of a storm, is sometimes what we need. 

Recruitment of the team is an ongoing process.  As they grow, they may leave and start their own teams, their own organisations.  And with that growth, is the growth of influence and reach.  It is about passing on an evolving philosophy and set of values.  When I choose my team, this is my process. 

First, I take note of how people behave with those who cannot benefit them.  People who are only nice to people who can benefit them lack integrity, and cannot be trusted.  Someone who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person. 

Secondly, I look at their personal values.  Integrity, industry, intelligence is far more important than educational qualifications and a nice curriculum vitae.  The problem with degrees and diplomas is that they tell us you are good at passing examinations; not how good you really are. 

Finally, I take note of whether they can grow and work with others.  Ambition is good.  Ambition married to insecurity is a deadly combination. 

Slide 7: Culture: Leadership is a Learnable Skill 

As important as it is to have the people for the team, we must build that structure.  Inspirational leadership is a skill that may be acquired.  Leadership itself is an active, continual process of incremental improvement and striving.  Leadership does not merely happen.  It is a culmination of a lot of work and experience.  It is the sum of applied experiential knowledge.  Leadership is the art of providing direction, giving people a vision, and inspiring them to work towards that vision.  The best of leaders develop other leaders, nurture talent, and inspire them.  The best teams are teams of such inspiring leaders. 

That is this culture of excellence, this bubble of learning, that we need.  Recruitment is an ongoing process.  Now that we know the team, we have to develop our communication channels.  This means understanding how to give an evaluation of performance and development, and having that mix of criticism and praise in our feedback to them.  It has to be honest, but it must also be constructive, subscribable, addressable, and measureable. 

As part of that feedback process, it is important to be transparent about the decision-making process as well.  This is especially pertinent when addressed disputes within the team, and fixing any form of dysfunction in the team dynamic before it takes root.  All members of the team need to feel safe enough to have their point of view without the feeling that they have to defend themselves.  We need to cultivate this plurality of views to prevent groupthink. 

Now that we have addressed the team dynamic, and values, we can talk about direction.  For there to be inspiration, there has to be positive movement.  People need to feel that they are part of something greater than themselves.  This means setting long-term and short-term priorities, and creating milestones appropriate to each category that are achievable.  There is no sense being overly-ambitious, and failing to meet deadlines because of this.  It is bad for morale, and undermines leadership credibility.  Once these long-term and short-term priorities have been set, it is important to explain the overall strategic plan specific to the team, that is married to this tactical plan.  Otherwise, they would not feel invested in it as much as they should.  This also means that these goals can be adjusted as the circumstances change, allowing tactical flexibility and giving the team ownership. 

When these steps can be implemented and reinforced, we have now created a culture of excellence that is replicable.  We are not just inspiring the team, but we are giving them the tools and opportunities to grow to become leaders in their own right. 

Slide 8: Paradox: Being a Leadership without Leading 

The paradox of leadership is that a good leader creates the team and the environment where he does not need to exercise executive leadership, except in moments of need.  A manager is not always a leader.  An example of this style is how I run my team, in our company. 

Every single member of my management team is an accomplished leader, with decades of experience.  They are all extremely accomplished in their areas of expertise, some of the best in the industry.  As Chief Executive Officer, our company is a strategic consultancy.  Our clients include policy makers in regional economies, major business leaders, and politicians. 

Leading a team of leaders does not make me a better leader.  It makes me the chief articulator of strategy.  How would you handle a team of leaders?  How would you handle them, in negotiation, with another team of leaders, on a major business deal? 

I do it by not leading.  We have our discussions and preparation beforehand.  We pick someone to lead that discussion on specific areas, and we let them be the leader there.  You cannot be an effective leader, if you do not have faith in your team. 

Question: What if they make a mistake?  In such a case, you step in, and push the discussion into another direction, or state that you would like to revisit that particular clause or contention after further discussion.  The key to this is communication before, during, and after the event. 

Here is an example of leadership failure.  Communication is key.  Size alone, and an abundance of resources is meaningless without control.  Having people, no matter how talented, without discipline, is worthless.  Organisation without cohesion is chaos waiting to be unleashed.  There is no greater example of perceived strength falling apart to failure that the Battle of Karansebes.  This was the most spectacular friendly fire incident during the Austro-Turkish War of 1787–1791. 

It was 1788, as the Turks advanced, the Austro-Hungarian Empire mobilised an army that was approximately 100,000 strong.  They set up camp around the town of Karansebes.  In the current age, it is the city of Caransebeș, in Caraș-Severin County, part of the Banat region in southwestern Romania.  The vanguard of the Austro-Hungarian army was a contingent of hussars.  They crossed the Timiș River to scout for the presence of the Ottoman army.  They found no sign of the Ottoman forces.  What they did find was a group of Romani people, who sold then schnapps. 

Hours later, a group of infantry crossed the river.  They encountered the hussars, and the alcohol.  They wanted some of that schnapps.  An argument ensued because the drunken hussars refused to share what they had bought.  It escalated.  The hussars set up makeshift fortifications around the barrel, and both sides raised their weapons.  Somewhere in all that, a shot was fired.  Both groups started fighting. 

Amidst all that, it was alleged that some of the infantry began shouting “Turci!”, meaning “Turks!”.  They wanted to scare the hussars off to steal their schnapps.  The hussars fled the scene, thinking that the Ottoman army had arrived.  The infantry also retreated.  The fleeing groups went through the camp, which alerted the other portions of the army, comprising people from other parts of the empire, who barely understood each other’s language.  In an attempt to restore order amidst the chaos, the Austrian officers, who spoke German, started shouting, “Halt!”, “Stop!”.  In all that din, some of them heard “Allah”, the war cry of the Muslim Turks. 

As the hussars fled through the camps, a corps commander, it is said that General Joseph Maria von Colloredo-Mels und Wallsee, thought that it was a cavalry charge by the Ottoman army and ordered artillery fire.  The entire camp awoke to the sound of battle.  Thinking the Turks had overrun the camp, the troops started firing at each other, thinking they were the enemy.  The entire army retreated in disarray. 

Two days later, the Ottoman army arrived.  They discovered dead and wounded soldiers, and surveyed the scene of a battle in wonderment.  Someone had routed the mighty Austro-Hungarian army to flight, and it was not them.  This is failure of leadership, failure of communication, failure of having a team. 

Slide 9: Conclusion: Begin with the End in Mind 

I treat management and leadership of organisations the way I treat chess.  In chess, we are told to think “seven steps ahead”.  It does not mean literally seven steps, but to have this habit of considering the consequences of what we do. 

As we end this session, I want you to consider the following questions, just as we did at the beginning:

1. What is your motivation for being here?

2. What is your idea of executive leadership?

3. How do you plan to apply what we cover here? 

This programme is not a series of lectures.  It is intended to incubate the next generation of leaders.  We want you to think, to grow, and to surpass us, so that we can learn from you as well.