Politicians are not leaders (at least not all of them)

In the wake of the BJP’s electoral dominance (at least in the Lok Sabha elections), most of India’s Opposition parties appear to be in disarray. Several political commentators and even ordinary citizens consistently point to the lack of credible Opposition “leaders”. This refrain continues despite the fact that there are still many veteran politicians in the ranks of the Opposition. Clearly, then, all politicians are not seen as “leaders”. Therefore, who is a “leader”?

In politics, we have largely come to see “leaders” as people who have lots of “followers” (and are thus able to win votes). That is certainly one indication, but the deeper and more relevant question is why so many people choose to follow that individual politician. In most cases, it is because of their hope that these leaders can help them in some way. The nature of help that the leader is expected to deliver defines whether it is an individual, a family or a set of people with common interests that become followers.

In India, an individual voter expects that an elected MLA/MP will sign a certificate that will provide him/her family with certain benefits. This is one reason why a certain politician has a following. People of a certain caste who seek reservation may believe that voting for a certain individual will increase the probability of such reservation. That is another example. Such behavior is by no means limited to India. Candidate Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” is a good example of a resonating message used effectively to garner support. But it’s important to understand that “leadership” goes much beyond coining slogans or even one-time actions.

Here are six key traits that leaders (whether in the political sphere or elsewhere) must possess.

Ability to envision a better future

A key leadership trait is the ability to envision a future state. A state that will be seen as desirable by a number of people because it represents improvement vis-a-vis the current state of those people. Leadership means possessing the ability to paint a picture of positive change. A corollary is that the bigger and bolder the vision, the greater the circle of potential influence- and hence, larger the number of people who will be attracted as followers. Teenage environmental champion Greta Thunberg is perhaps a good example of someone exhibiting leadership of this kind. Her vision transcends religion, national boundaries, language, gender, age or pretty much any classification criteria (except perhaps those who believe that climate change is not for real).

Inspire followers to subscribe to the vision

A leader’s vision must enthuse people to do what it takes to realize the vision. A leader must thus possess the ability to inspire people to subscribe to the vision of the future state. This also means convincing people who do not share the vision to see why the vision represents a better future worth fighting for. Such convincing should not be by force (remember Hitler or Stalin?) but through open, transparent exchange of ideas.

Good communication skills

To facilitate an effective exchange of ideas leaders must possess strong communication skills. Most of us understand the need for strong speaking and writing skills, but we often forget listening, which is perhaps the most critical communication skill for a leader. This is simply because no individual can be an expert in every field. This means there may be points of view or perspectives that a leader has not considered when formulating the vision. By listening to others, a leader has the opportunity to take on board differing views and incorporating relevant aspects into a revised vision. Leaders simply must not exhibit the “Not invented here” syndrome, as this would only impede making the vision the best it possibly can be.

Action focus and relentless follow-through

Leadership goes beyond slogans, speeches and election manifestos. Effective leadership demands constant actions to ensure that the vision remains relevant and that all actions being taken by the cohort are indeed in the desired direction.

Open to a constantly-evolving path towards the vision

Leaders understand the “context” of any situation well, and appreciate that contexts can and do change. When they formulate and declare their vision, leaders do not always know the detailed route map to get there. They usually only have a general idea of the broad direction. A leader who listens can more easily assimilate information and use relevant elements to define/refine the path ahead.

Self-confidence and resilience in the face of failure

Leaders are not immune to failure. What distinguishes good leaders is their ability to bounce back. They see failures as temporary setbacks, analyse the situation to identify what may have gone wrong and most important, do not hesitate to make course corrections. This may mean changing the proposed roadmap or even recasting their visions as and when necessary because the context has changed. All through such change, leaders maintain their self-belief and confidence- even when people around them start to worry and fret.

Authentic and humble

Sadly, most politicians come with a halo of hubris and an aura of inconsistency: they speak with forked tongues. That is not the “flexibility” that leaders must exhibit. They must embrace certain core values and remain authentic to them come what may. Sadly, many of us give up our values when it is convenient to do so for short-term gains. The hubris comes in the way of even listening to alternative narratives, forget acknowledging them.

Although it can be argued that there may be some genetic/epigenetic considerations, it is fair to assert that the above traits can be learnt through discipline and hard work.

Armed with the above, let’s take another look at India’s political scenario. Are there politicians who possess the above traits? If not, what prevents at least the younger politicians from developing and honing the above abilities? If there are some who do possess these traits, do they exhibit them consistently or do they change based on which way the wind is blowing? What prevents all our politicians from painting bold visions of where they want our country to be in 5 years or 10 years? And here, I do not mean visions in the limited sense of short-term political gains (reservations, presenting only one view of history, finger-pointing etc.). Their visions may be different, but let them enunciate them and let people choose what they believe is most appealing to them based on aspirational relevance. Then, let the power of democratic processes kick in. May the best leaders win!

PS: The above traits are as relevant to leaders in the corporate world as they are to politicians. Sadly, what is happening is the permeation of political machinations into companies instead of leadership qualities among our politicians.

Do your team members clearly understand the goals you have set them?

The best visions, strategies and tactics too cannot deliver unless they are executed well. Effective and efficient execution requires everyone in the team to punch above their weight and find new and better ways of working so as to improve productivity, reduce costs, enhance customer delight, accelerate innovation and so on. This means questioning status quo, thinking outside the box and doing things differently (and maybe even doing different things). A team member’s ability and willingness to do so depends on not just whether clear goals have been set for him/her, but how well he/she actually understands those goals in the context of the bigger picture.

Enough has been written about the need for goals to be “SMART”. But how well do people know how their work impacts the outcomes of the company’s strategy? Simply setting “SMART goals” is not enough. Managers must use goal-setting as an opportunity to explain why these goals are important not just for the individual’s own growth, but also to the company’s progress. For instance, at a software company, zero defect code is not just a project level goal- it has implications for customer satisfaction, the ability to deliver faster, creating reusable assets etc. Similarly, a recruitment team’s goal to fill vacancies with the best possible talent within the shortest possible time without a huge jump in compensation is another example of a goal that impacts the larger organization.

When goals are explained in the context of the bigger picture, they start to make more sense to people. They spur people to go beyond what they are doing- and it is this raising of the bar by individuals that ultimately delivers superior outcomes for customers and the company. This is one area where many managers can do better. More managers should explain every SMART goal they set their teams at three levels:

• impact on individual (i.e. KPIs/KRAs and how individual performance will be measured);
• effect on team performance (and perception); and
• how achievement of the goals will contribute to the larger objectives of the department, business unit or organization.

The above may seem quite obvious, but it’s not done very commonly. Most managers simply set goals that do not let their team members see the big picture linkages. Another benefit that organizations will derive from managers taking such an approach is that company strategies, priorities etc. will get more frequently articulated, shared and discussed. In the process, not only will they become more understood and internalized, but also, new data, perspectives and insights may emerge, allowing fine-tuning of strategies. In turn, this can enable the team/company reach a higher level of performance in a shorter time.

Don’t take goal-setting lightly. It is a critical managerial activity and needs time so you can think through not just the relevance of the goal but also how to articulate it for maximum clarity (and minimum ambiguity) and ease of understanding. As the person setting a goal, it may be clear in your head; but the person for whom you are setting the goal must be clear too. Otherwise, come appraisal time, the conversation will be more about missed goals and the consequences, instead of focusing more on development and the road ahead. Of course, giving and receiving feedback is an art too, but that’s for another time.

With apologies to Alistair MacLean, fear is not the key- overcoming it is!

I am a voracious reader of English fiction. I started with Enid Blyton’s stories when I was about 5 years of age, and recall reading my first Alistair MacLean novel (Where Eagles Dare) when I was about 14 years old. Over the next couple of years, I devoured most of the books he wrote in the 1950s-70s- The Guns of Navarone, Force 10 from Navarone, Ice Station Zebra, Fear is the Key, Circus, Breakheart Pass and so many more. Thank you, Mr. MacLean, for your inimitable writing style that has kept memories of your books fresh even after 30 years!

In 25+ years of my corporate career and more recently as a freelance trainer and writer, I have learned many things and have often had the opportunity and privilege to share my perspectives. One strand that seems to affect many people but manifests in different ways is Fear. Most of us are afraid of taking actions for fear that we may be seen as incompetent, dumb or somehow inadequate. Fear stops us from taking even simple actions like asking for clarifications or additional instructions if something is not clear. Fear is what suppresses our ability to speak up at a meeting to articulate our ideas and opinions (even though in our heads we know that our ideas merit attention because they are as good as the ones being discussed).

Fear impedes our judgement and decision-making when it comes to addressing inter-personal issues between team members. For example, as a Manager, we may find that someone in our team whom we consider to be more valuable (or less dispensable, if you will) is in the wrong. But we tend to overlook the problem or go easy on the person because of the halo of performance, perceived strengths or just plain loyalty. The result: you give the wrongdoer the confidence that s/he can get away with transgressions. You send a signal to everyone in the team (including the person who has been wronged), that you are not fair or that you are willing to compromise on organizational/personal values. Finally, your action gives others the space to potentially commit similar (or other) transgressions- because they have a precedent to cite. In hindsight, answering “why was that OK but not this?” can be very difficult.

Another common everyday situation where fear comes in the way is when we have to push back on something that is wrong or unreasonable or otherwise detrimental to the team or organization. Fear causes us to imagine and project scenarios that are usually pessimistic. “If I ask a client for a higher price after one year, he may balk and terminate the contract”. Or “If I tell my boss that I am halfway through some other task assigned to me and can take up this new task only tomorrow, I may be seen as inefficient”. This fear then drives an imaginary evaluation process in our heads and stops us from pushing back- which would have been the right thing to do. Instead, we end up in an unhappy place, full of anger and resentment that in turn impact our performance. We hold the price at the cost of margins or by forcing our teams to work unreasonably long hours (thereby raising the risk of a shoddy job). Or we accept more work, and not knowing how to prioritize, end up doing below-average work all round. The result: our fear impacts performance and leaves room for others to point out that we did not do well. In other words, it creates a vicious circle of “projection” driving “reality” further reinforcing “perception”.

The key to performance is to overcome fear- the fear of failure or the fear of being perceived as weak or incompetent or whatever other negative descriptors your mind conjures up at the time. Fear shackles our faculties in hidden but insidious ways; it takes away from our joy and self-esteem. Work on being conscious of your emotions- including fear, for anger, disappointment, envy and low self-esteem are all manifestations of fear. Be afraid… be very afraid of living in fear, for it will hold you back from being the best person (and hence leader) you can be.

Leadership lessons from Germany’s shock exit at the Group Stage of FIFA World Cup 2018

Following their heart-breaking loss to South Korea, Germany, the defending champions and the top-ranked side failed to qualify for the Round of 16- the so-called “business end” of the tournament. This is the first time since 1938 that West Germany/Germany is absent from the 16. Understandably, fans are shattered (as must be the players, the coaches and the support staff). Rival fans are gloating and the word “schadenfreude” (a German word that means to feel happy at someone else’s failure or trouble) is all but trending on social media.

I will leave it to football pundits to debate if Germany’s team composition was right, if VAR is really useful, whether dropping Muller in that game was warranted, if including Ozil was a good idea or even whether Neuer had any business being so far away from where he ought to have been etc.

Admittedly, hindsight is always 20/20 and it is easy for armchair experts to say “I told you so” after the fact. But to me, team sports represent the best paradigm to learn about leadership (and managing teams in particular). My intention is not to critique any specific aspect of what the German football team did (or did not do); my limited purpose in writing this piece is to draw parallels with leadership in the corporate world.

A good leader must create a unifying sense of purpose that is powerful enough to overcome any other forces that may promote divisive behavior. German coach Joachim Low is reported to have said “We really had the feeling that our team wanted to move ahead and qualify for the knockout stages….”. Unlike previous German teams, this team did not appear to be fully united. There have been rumors for a while about there being more than one “camp” in the team. Why such camps came up in the first place is irrelevant here; what is key is that their effects were palpable, and the team’s leaders were unable to meld the players into a cohesive unit. Alan Shearer, former England captain was quoted as saying  “I am amazed at the lack of energy and hunger this team showed.”

Leaders must anticipate. But information will never be perfect. Germany did not start well, losing their first match to Mexico. Even against Sweden, the team did not have a look of solidity or class. Perhaps it was time to think outside the box. And maybe that is what Low intended, by deciding to keep Thomas Muller out of the starting line-up and ringing in as many as five changes overall. But things did not work out.

Not everything will go to plan every time. The key is to bounce back from the failure, honestly analyze possible causes and make changes that are deemed necessary. Leaders must always assess the context in which they are making decisions. Certain decisions may have worked in the past- but how sure can a leader be that the context has not changed? Would what worked when Low was a player (with a different set of fellow players and different dynamics on and off the field) continue to work when he transitioned from player to Coach? Does everyone in the current team have the right attitude? Were they in a space where they played as a team to win? Did they all buy into Low’s strategies? Numerous questions can be raised and indeed, they must be asked, so that German football is put back on track.

Leaders must consciously build resilience in their organizations, allowing them to bounce back from failures, because they are bound to happen. Remember that the success of any strategy can only be assessed in hindsight. All that leaders can do is to anticipate the operating environment and competitor actions and plan to counter them as best as they can. And if things don’t work to plan, don’t remain stuck in the past. Seek input from the team, analyze, communicate the findings (with the team), modify strategies and move on to fight another day.

Former German captain Michael Ballack’s tweet is on target. Read it here

 

Don’t just know; act!

Why do some people seem to “do better” than others? What “better” means, on what scale and using what indicators may vary with individual perception. There are always examples of classmates or batchmates or colleagues at work who seem to be able to achieve the results that we are struggling to achieve. We may attribute this to various factors such as destiny, luck, being at the right place at the right time, biased performance evaluations, policy changes or whatever else. But those are all mere excuses. Why do we not accept the possibility that there is perhaps something else at work that has to do with us and not something external?

That “something else” is more fundamental than just Knowledge. To me, it is Intent, which is what connects Knowledge with Action and powers them both. Unless people know, they cannot act. However, although Knowledge is necessary, it is not sufficient to cause action. Most of us know what needs to be done, but we don’t always do it, do we?  For instance, are those who do not exercise regularly not aware of the risks of a sedentary lifestyle? All forward movement is possible only if there is action, and only when knowledge is driven by Intent will it cause the individual to take action.

A strong Intent creates a positive feedback loop that allows individuals to assess their own actions and actual results vis-a-vis targeted outcomes, thereby enabling them to make necessary course corrections. Indeed, it is Intent that guides individuals to seek and acquire additional relevant knowledge and insights beyond what they already have. A powerful Intent will open up pathways of creative thought to enable people to think outside the box and come up with alternative approaches that deliver better outcomes. It is Intent that builds the attitude to embrace change, and the resilience to fight another day despite setbacks. It is this Intent to constantly improve that sustainably drives self-awareness and actions directed at higher levels of performance.

The next time you feel like griping about broken resolutions or the unfairness of the system, look within; you may well find the root cause inside of you. Happy introspection!

Extraordinary is when Ordinary does Extra

The hallmark of good leaders is their ability to deliver extraordinary results despite the constraints imposed by “ordinary”, i.e. limited resources and conventional ways of thinking and doing. What separates extraordinary leaders from others is their ability to inspire and motivate people to do “extra”- not just once or twice, but as a matter of habit.

To achieve the above leaders know they must find something that fuels the collective passion of the team while also transcending (and subsuming) individual goals and aspirations of people in the organization. It is to create precisely such a rallying point that leaders rely on enunciating a Purpose that is simple to understand and yet has the ability to ignite the creative capabilities of people. Typically, it is articulated in the form of a “higher goal” such as societal improvement or even perhaps “eradicating world hunger”.

A Purpose transcends typical corporate goals such as financial performance, market share or employee productivity.  Indeed, it is something that everyone in the organization feels so strongly about that they are motivated to spend their waking hours (and sleeping hours too)  to finding ways to move towards that Purpose- without relying on external rewards.

The notion of Purpose applies to all types of organization- business, not-for-profit, government and even political parties. An inspiring Purpose propels people associated with it to do their best at all times and go the extra mile as a matter of routine. It makes it possible for people in the team to think outside the box to come up with innovative and creative solutions. It also motivates people to work as one team, setting aside the differences and silos that tend to get created by organizational structures, policies, personalities and what is conveniently labeled “culture”.

A well thought-out and articulated Purpose is an articulation of what the entire team collectively seeks to achieve. As such, it is a powerful tool that leaders can use to guide the organization towards its destination:

• It is a useful touchstone to help determine what actions to take (and not to take). This is especially useful when the leader has to deal with two contrasting views expressed by his people. In other words, a decision may be a go (or no go) based on say financial considerations- but does it hold up against the light of the organization’s Purpose?
• It is the glue that holds together disparate individuals and groups that perform specific functions and tasks. During times of rapid change or crisis, leaders can use the Purpose to come up with new ideas to cut costs, enhance customer delight
• It is a navigational aid that can helps leaders adjust course in response to changes in the environment.

Leadership begins at home

As a trainer in areas such as Leadership, Communication, Account Management etc. I have often waxed eloquent to executives about the importance of listening and the risk of carrying pre-conceived notions. But as the Bible points out, “Physician, heal thyself”. I realized how easy it is for us to not practise what we preach. This lesson was reinforced during a recent conversation I was having at home.

My daughter had just returned from college and was full of news about various things that happened. As parents, our job is to listen, so my wife dutifully switched off the TV while I put down the book I was reading. We were all ears. Our daughter started off and just as she was warming to the theme, I interjected and attempted to complete what she was saying. “No dad”, she replied, her face showing just that little hint of annoyance at her free-flowing thoughts having encountered a roadblock. But after a brief pause, she continued. Barely two minutes after she renewed her narrative, I butted in again saying something like “so when this happened, this must have been the reaction and so…”. My daughter stopped speaking. My wife chided me saying “Let her speak, will you?”.

My daughter, quite visibly exasperated by now, got up to leave, when I said “hey, finish what you were saying… don’t just leave”. She gave me a hard stare and continued her exit. As she was about to leave the room, she paused, turned and said “Dad, you were the one who has told me so often to listen patiently and not second-guess. And yet here you are, breaking your own rules. Since you seem to know what happened in my college even though you were not there, great… all power to you”. Now, she may not have phrased it exactly this way, but I am sure you get the gist. With that, she went into her room and shut the door. I felt bad, but I also knew I was wrong.

That is when it struck me… not only was I wrong, but my daughter was right. As she was speaking, I had jumped to my own conclusions despite not having all the data- and therefore running the risk of being incorrect. I immediately went to her door and apologized immediately, but the mood had been vitiated. Needless to say, she did not wish to complete the narrative. I do not blame her, but I do thank her for giving me a valuable lesson.

This scenario is often exactly how things often pan out at work. People make assumptions about how they want the story to proceed (or how they imagine it in their heads). The next step is that they impose their thoughts on those around them (in meetings or other discussions). And guess what? Those people who are offering their views or suggestions get upset, clam up and disengage- leaving their Managers and Leaders wondering why there isn’t more participation from the team.

So folks- while you should not carry work home, do apply the principles of leadership at home. After all, people are people, and by and large, will respond in broadly similar ways. If we are not good listeners at home, chances are we are not good at listening to people at work either.

Insecurity impedes the ability to lead

There are many reasons why people are not effective leaders. These could include lack of the ability to imagine the future and paint a vision, inability to communicate the vision and get people on board, the tendency to lose confidence in the face of adversity etc.

Another important, but commonly-observable behavioral trait that impedes the ability to lead is the individual’s personal insecurities. Irrespective of its underlying causes, insecurities usually manifest in certain typical ways. I list below some behavioral traits that I have observed in the course of my experience.

Insecure people pretend to know it all

A leader is focused on the vision and achieving it. It does not matter who comes up with the ideas to get there. But insecurity comes in the way of such openness. It makes people pretend that they know even things that they don’t. This is risk at many levels- especially with the younger employees, who admire and respect knowledge and expertise. And if employees do not respect the leader, the process of creating buy-in gets that much harder.

“I” more than “We” and predilection for self-aggrandizement

Leaders recognize that all progress is almost always the result of collective efforts by everyone in the team/organization. The trouble with insecure people is that they tend to hog all the credit (deserved or not) and project everything in terms of “I did this….” And “I did that…”. This is not only unlikely to be true, but it also erodes morale and reduces the team members’ enthusiasm to do more in the future. Beware the tell-tale sign of self-aggrandizement- more often than not, it is indicative of insecurity and lack of self-esteem, which is disastrous for leaders.

Unwillingness to delegate

In many cases, leaders have more experience than their team members. It is thus natural for them to know more about certain subjects/situations by dint of the number of times they have “been there, done that”. But a key leadership responsibility is to develop his/her followers. This requires leaders to delegate tasks to others (and provided tips on how best they can approach them). Insecure people in leadership roles are not very comfortable delegating even when they are otherwise busy and may not be able to devote enough attention and time to the task. This trait is rooted in the belief that only they can do a good enough job. This desire to feel self-important is also linked to the next trait which I describe below.

Insecure leaders do not let others grow

Good leaders are so focused on achieving the vision that they proactively seek advice and assistance from anyone who they believe can help. This includes listening to junior team members who have the talent or are willing to stand up and take responsibility. In turn, this calls for recognizing the contributions of such people and rewarding them through personal growth opportunities. But insecure leaders worry about being upstaged and supplanted by people around them. This fear prevents them from being open to suggestions or gracious enough to give credit to others where it is due. Over a period of time, this turns off the brighter team members, who seek to disengage from the leader (and by extension, the organisation too in most cases).

Instructions from insecure leaders are often limited to the “what”, and seldom get into the “how” or “why”

Leaders are not expected to know the answers to every question out there. But they must give their people enough context and guidelines and the confidence that they are free to ask questions if ever in doubt. But when insecure leaders assign tasks to people, they swing from one extreme to another. They either give them detailed instructions or no instructions at all. This stifles innovation, perpetuates inefficiencies or just confuses people who end up wasting time on trying to second guess what is the best way to get the task done. And in the process what suffers? The team or the organization- and by extension, its members.

Anyone who is serious about being a leader must lose these traits at the earliest, for they will unquestionably weigh him/her down in the quest to achieve bigger things in life.

There may well be other behaviors exhibited by insecure leaders. I would love to hear from you if you have examples to share.

Does leading millennials need a different approach?

A couple of days ago, I was asked if leading millennials was different from leading those who came from earlier generations and if so, in what ways?

Millennials, by the way, is the term used to refer to those who were born between 1982 and 2002. Many of those born in the first decade of this period have already entered the work force, with some of them already in managerial positions. Others who chose to pursue advanced degrees too will soon enter the work force.

My immediate response to the rather interesting question that had been posed was on the lines of “I don’t think so… after all, people are people… and leadership is about ensuring that the people you lead buy into the vision and collectively work towards getting there…”.

But having had some time to mull over the seemingly simple question, I am beginning to believe that while the broader principles of leadership are invariant, leaders would be well advised to change the way they apply the principles. Let me offer some explanation of what I mean. Corporate Leaders (most of whom are likely in their 40s or beyond) must realize that generally speaking, they grew up in a very different environment from the one their direct reports (dare I call them “Followers”?) were raised in. This has consequences for how they- and the millennials- approach life.

Millennials are inherently more familiar with all things digital. They are quite comfortable playing around with a new app or a new software and getting the hang of how they are to be used, even without referring to instruction manuals or waiting for formal training. They are also far more irreverent in life. All this has implications for how leaders should engage with them. Here are three specific areas that come to mind.

Set goals but do not micromanage

Very few of us like to be told in detail how to do what we are told to do. We need to be told what is to be done, but do not appreciate detailed instructions if the task relates to our areas of expertise. This is just as true for the millennials. Therefore, as leaders of millenials, set clear goals and offer them tips drawn from your experience, but do not micromanage by insisting that they show you what they have done every now and then or report back daily on what progress they have made.

But do schedule periodic checkpoints with the objective of ensuring that adequate progress is indeed being made in the right direction and to signal that you are available to discuss roadblocks and find ways to circumvent them. Tell them to come up with their suggestions on how to overcome the hurdles faced, and not just inform you of the problem.

Monetary rewards have even more limited appeal

Evan 5-6 years ago, a higher salary or bonus used to go a long way in “motivating” employees to perform better. I am not saying that the principle of “more is better” is no longer valid when it comes to monetary rewards; however, in my view, it is less so than in the case of the previous generation of workforce. The millennials are more passionate about interests outside work- and being allowed the time to pursue these passions is arguably more likely to promote loyalty and performance than higher raises. Of course, when dealing with people, one must keep in mind individual contexts and avoid mass generalization.

Let the millennials take the lead on new age projects

Set a thief to catch a thief, they say. Or only a diamond can cut a diamond, to be more politically correct. The point is that when it comes to ideating around digital stuff, millennials, being truly “digital natives”, are perhaps more naturally equipped. Also, because they come with no baggage on the lines of “this is how we’ve always done it here”, even for rethinking processes or policy changes, their input may well be valuable. After all, these are all areas where “seniority” may not do much for knowledge. And millennials probably respect knowledge more than position power or authority drawn from a box in an organizational chart.

Therefore, I would suggest that leaders encourage younger employees to take the lead on new age projects- working closely with senior executives who have greater authority and access to organizational resources.

It is perhaps true that previous generations of employees too would have benefited if their leaders had taken the above approach. That a majority of leaders did not apply the practices mentioned above (and that the followers did not care too much about this) is perhaps because the pace of change was much slower. There was thus not much difference between the core knowledge that say a GM had vis-à-vis the most recent employees in their team (who were perhaps 10-15 years younger). [I am not talking about diversity of experience here, but am referring simply to the toolkit of analysis and other techniques available]. Incrementalism was therefore adequate- and satisficing was an accepted strategy. But in the current environment of rapid and often unpredictable change, radical transformation is needed- not just to keep up with competitors, but also to blaze new trails.

Unless leaders transform themselves, it is difficult to expect that organizations can (or will) transform themselves.