Leadership Is More Than A Title: Lessons from Tata
By Anisa Virji
There are many kinds of leadership styles out there...
The Autocratic Leader takes the reigns and does not let go. He uses rules, guidelines, and policies to trickle his decisions down the ranks. It's his way or no way...
The Democratic Leader allows for input from his team and makes decisions based on collective ideas while still taking responsibility for them. With this type of leadership, communication is key.
The Transformational Leader inspires and motivates their people to bring change, to be the best they can be, to use their freedom responsibly for the growth of the organisation. They set challenging expectations, give greater guidance, and propel organisations forward.
The Laissez-Faire Leader, as you can imagine, sits back and hands over responsibility to the team. The team is given free rein to find their own direction.
For each of these leadership styles, you can find real-world examples that work and some that don't.
Today, we will examine another style of leadership...
The Charismatic Leader builds or transforms an organisation around his own personality and beliefs. The beliefs of his organisation are so entrenched in the person of the leader that a smooth transfer of leadership can be next to impossible.
That's the trouble with charismatic leadership. Leadership cannot be bequeathed easily.
This, or a version of this, is what seems to have happened at Tata Sons. The company's values are so intertwined with the Tata family that passing leadership on to a non-Tata caused a catastrophe.
But there's a lesson in this. And an opportunity to study whether leadership can be passed on to the next generation without rocking the boat too much.
Disney had a long fallow period after the death of Walt Disney. Instead of looking to their new leader, Disney employees kept asking, 'What would Walt do?' This only held the company back.
Apple has also had a hard time moving on after Steve Jobs. People now look at the company and say, Steve was a visionary. Without him, Apple and its products are not the same.
When, after twenty years at the helm, Ratan Tata chose to step down and pass the leadership of a company that bears his family name to a man who does not, he was breaking a long tradition of charismatic leadership.
And now, with Cyrus Mistry's dismissal, perhaps we can see the trouble with charismatic leadership.
[Why Did I Bother with Marriage?]
Image Source: Yuganov Konstantin/Shutterstock.com
Leadership is more than a title...
After Walt, it was more than a decade before the Disney ship righted itself. That was probably because people could not move on from Walt's larger-than-life leadership.
Tata managed to give up his post and replace himself. But perhaps - in addition to preparing his people for change - he too needed accept a new way of doing things.
To pass on leadership, it is not enough to donate a title. You must find a way to bequeath the power, authority, and loyalty that goes with it. If you have used your twenty-year stint at the helm collecting these things, it is only natural that it gets accumulated in your person.
It is only natural that people will ask, 'What would Tata do?'
In fact, Cyrus Mistry claimed that, at one meeting, Tata Trusts' representatives stepped out to call Ratan Tata for guidance. He claims he was 'powerless' as chairman.
Perhaps the best guidance would have been, 'Talk to your chairman.'
Mistry felt powerless as chairman. Without enough support in Parliament, even the prime minister can't make changes. But we're talking about a corporation. While there is a place for democracy in a corporate organisation, a divided board will not help the company move forward.
It takes time, and it takes mistakes...
When a charismatic leader passes on his mantle, he has to allow the new leader time to consolidate his power, disseminate his vision, and effect change. And he has to trust that the changes the new leader makes will build on his legacy.
That doesn't mean he only trusts him when he's hitting sixer after sixer. He trusts him when he makes mistakes and blunders and 'non-performs' as well.
Tata has an advantage that Jobs and Disney did not. They could not offer guidance to their successors. This is something that perhaps Tata could have done...or at least done a better job of.
Remember why you picked him in the first place. Not because he was infallible, but because he had the potential to do great things. Sacking him for his failures is a mistake, and it makes it seem like you do not allow mistakes. Which means the team won't take risks, and growth will stall.
In his letter to the directors of Tata Sons, Cyrus wrote, 'Prior to my appointment, I was assured that I would be given a free hand. The previous chairman was to step back and be available for advice and guidance as and when needed.'
That is in fact the perfect way to pass on the mantle. But it is also very difficult for a leader to give up control.
A new way of thinking needs a lot of new buy-in...
Whereas the outgoing leader has a responsibility to support the new leader, the inheritor must realise he's inheriting an established tradition. To change things, he needs to get the team to trust in the new vision.
Mistry had to make big changes in the organisation. After all, that's why he was brought in (one would hope). A new generation, a new context, a new way of thinking...to make the tough decisions that lead to growth and evolution.
But bringing change in an organisation as big as Tata Sons is not just about making decisions and enforcing them. It requires people to believe in the new direction. And open, honest communication can make that happen. You can't simply enforce authority, you must earn it. You can't really inherit power, you must build it.
Mistry was making big changes at Tata, changes that aligned with his own vision, but contradicted those before him. Could these have been resolved with better communication?
When a charismatic leader passes on his mantle, the predecessor and the successor both have a tough task to follow. But it is not impossible.
To do it successfully, charismatic leadership must be converted, through efforts by both, into a collaborative leadership. A leadership where the wisdom of the past and the dynamism of the future can come together to build the organisation.
Is this possible? What do you think? Have you seen examples of successful transitioning from charismatic leadership? Let us know..
By Anisa Virji
There are many kinds of leadership styles out there...
The Autocratic Leader takes the reigns and does not let go. He uses rules, guidelines, and policies to trickle his decisions down the ranks. It's his way or no way...
The Democratic Leader allows for input from his team and makes decisions based on collective ideas while still taking responsibility for them. With this type of leadership, communication is key.
The Transformational Leader inspires and motivates their people to bring change, to be the best they can be, to use their freedom responsibly for the growth of the organisation. They set challenging expectations, give greater guidance, and propel organisations forward.
The Laissez-Faire Leader, as you can imagine, sits back and hands over responsibility to the team. The team is given free rein to find their own direction.
For each of these leadership styles, you can find real-world examples that work and some that don't.
Today, we will examine another style of leadership...
The Charismatic Leader builds or transforms an organisation around his own personality and beliefs. The beliefs of his organisation are so entrenched in the person of the leader that a smooth transfer of leadership can be next to impossible.
That's the trouble with charismatic leadership. Leadership cannot be bequeathed easily.
This, or a version of this, is what seems to have happened at Tata Sons. The company's values are so intertwined with the Tata family that passing leadership on to a non-Tata caused a catastrophe.
But there's a lesson in this. And an opportunity to study whether leadership can be passed on to the next generation without rocking the boat too much.
Disney had a long fallow period after the death of Walt Disney. Instead of looking to their new leader, Disney employees kept asking, 'What would Walt do?' This only held the company back.
Apple has also had a hard time moving on after Steve Jobs. People now look at the company and say, Steve was a visionary. Without him, Apple and its products are not the same.
When, after twenty years at the helm, Ratan Tata chose to step down and pass the leadership of a company that bears his family name to a man who does not, he was breaking a long tradition of charismatic leadership.
And now, with Cyrus Mistry's dismissal, perhaps we can see the trouble with charismatic leadership.
[Why Did I Bother with Marriage?]
Image Source: Yuganov Konstantin/Shutterstock.com
Leadership is more than a title...
After Walt, it was more than a decade before the Disney ship righted itself. That was probably because people could not move on from Walt's larger-than-life leadership.
Tata managed to give up his post and replace himself. But perhaps - in addition to preparing his people for change - he too needed accept a new way of doing things.
To pass on leadership, it is not enough to donate a title. You must find a way to bequeath the power, authority, and loyalty that goes with it. If you have used your twenty-year stint at the helm collecting these things, it is only natural that it gets accumulated in your person.
It is only natural that people will ask, 'What would Tata do?'
In fact, Cyrus Mistry claimed that, at one meeting, Tata Trusts' representatives stepped out to call Ratan Tata for guidance. He claims he was 'powerless' as chairman.
Perhaps the best guidance would have been, 'Talk to your chairman.'
Mistry felt powerless as chairman. Without enough support in Parliament, even the prime minister can't make changes. But we're talking about a corporation. While there is a place for democracy in a corporate organisation, a divided board will not help the company move forward.
It takes time, and it takes mistakes...
When a charismatic leader passes on his mantle, he has to allow the new leader time to consolidate his power, disseminate his vision, and effect change. And he has to trust that the changes the new leader makes will build on his legacy.
That doesn't mean he only trusts him when he's hitting sixer after sixer. He trusts him when he makes mistakes and blunders and 'non-performs' as well.
Tata has an advantage that Jobs and Disney did not. They could not offer guidance to their successors. This is something that perhaps Tata could have done...or at least done a better job of.
Remember why you picked him in the first place. Not because he was infallible, but because he had the potential to do great things. Sacking him for his failures is a mistake, and it makes it seem like you do not allow mistakes. Which means the team won't take risks, and growth will stall.
In his letter to the directors of Tata Sons, Cyrus wrote, 'Prior to my appointment, I was assured that I would be given a free hand. The previous chairman was to step back and be available for advice and guidance as and when needed.'
That is in fact the perfect way to pass on the mantle. But it is also very difficult for a leader to give up control.
A new way of thinking needs a lot of new buy-in...
Whereas the outgoing leader has a responsibility to support the new leader, the inheritor must realise he's inheriting an established tradition. To change things, he needs to get the team to trust in the new vision.
Mistry had to make big changes in the organisation. After all, that's why he was brought in (one would hope). A new generation, a new context, a new way of thinking...to make the tough decisions that lead to growth and evolution.
But bringing change in an organisation as big as Tata Sons is not just about making decisions and enforcing them. It requires people to believe in the new direction. And open, honest communication can make that happen. You can't simply enforce authority, you must earn it. You can't really inherit power, you must build it.
Mistry was making big changes at Tata, changes that aligned with his own vision, but contradicted those before him. Could these have been resolved with better communication?
When a charismatic leader passes on his mantle, the predecessor and the successor both have a tough task to follow. But it is not impossible.
To do it successfully, charismatic leadership must be converted, through efforts by both, into a collaborative leadership. A leadership where the wisdom of the past and the dynamism of the future can come together to build the organisation.
Is this possible? What do you think? Have you seen examples of successful transitioning from charismatic leadership? Let us know..
No comments:
Post a Comment