Very recently, I posted about how leadership isn’t about status, but about the service you can provide to others, no matter what role you have.
It is one of those things I often have to explain when I say it. I don’t blame people for connecting leadership with status. After all, that idea has been ingrained in us for quite a long time. When we hear the word “leader”, we tend to picture a manager, a director, a CEO, or someone else sitting in a position of authority.
I see it differently. When I think of leadership, I see the people in the weeds, too. The people who are doing the work, supporting others, taking responsibility and helping move things forward, alongside those who traditionally fit the definition of a leader.
But I have also seen the other way around: people in positions of authority who are not, in fact, leaders. And somehow, that is even more perplexing to me than having to explain why I believe everybody is, in fact, a leader.
Why do bosses have to be leaders?
I could debate and explain at length why everybody is, and needs to be, a leader. But for the purpose of this article, I want to focus on why people in traditionally recognised leadership roles need to actually be leaders, because having the role does not magically make the wheels turn.
There are two types of people who lack leadership skills: those who are aware of it and genuinely want to improve, and those who are oblivious to it, sometimes even blinded by the role itself.
So, let me tell you straight: the boss who tells you that you cannot leave five minutes early to pick up your kids is not a leader. The one who keeps count of your sick days isn’t either. But the person who supports you, encourages you, invests in your development, and still holds you accountable for doing your work with ethics and principles? That is the leader most people would want to work for.
This is why organisations need to take leadership development seriously and build the leadership skills of everyone in positions of authority. It is not just about the benefit of the organisation; it is about everyone within it.
When times get tough, difficult decisions need to be made, or a major transformation or ambitious goal needs to be delivered, the people equipped with strong leadership qualities are the ones who can hold the ground while continuing to move forward.
That is what leadership should bring to an organisation: the ability to navigate uncertainty, support people through change, make difficult decisions with integrity, and keep moving towards the goal without losing sight of the people along the way. While this need is more pressing than ever, I can’t help but get the sense that the lack of leadership qualities is becoming increasingly evident. If that weren’t the case, this level of fear and uncertainty in tech, for example, wouldn’t be happening at quite the scale we are seeing today.
The technology industry is going through enormous change, and while some of that uncertainty is inevitable, the way people experience and respond to it is also shaped by leadership. When people are left feeling replaceable, unheard or uncertain about their future, we have to ask whether we are seeing a technology problem, or a leadership problem.
A story from the trenches
Some while ago, I was an observer at a tech company that wanted to catch the AI wave, although they seemed largely unprepared for it. What I found most interesting during that transition was the stark contrast between two very different sets of leaders I encountered.
One of them was a part-owner of the company. He was authoritarian, old-school and aggressive in his approach to leadership. As a counterpart, one of the department leaders had a very calm demeanour and an effortless way of dealing with obstacles and leading people through them.
It was no surprise that the department manager had so much support from the people around him, even while introducing something as disruptive as AI. People trusted him and were willing to listen to him.
The first was a classical boss: a title without substance. The second was a natural leader: someone people genuinely wanted to listen to and follow. Nobody had anything to say about him yelling at people or being rude. The first one, however, had plenty of stories attached to his name, to put it politely. And usually, people who are as brutish as he was don’t understand why people are, as they put it, “resistant to change”. But I don’t think change itself is the only thing that makes people worried. It is the behaviour. The dismissiveness. The way people are spoken to. The fear of being humiliated, undermined or even fired. These things leave a mark. And when people feel that way, something important happens: when their knowledge and experience need to shine, this type of boss won’t be able to get it from them.
People may have valuable ideas, years of experience and the exact knowledge needed to navigate a difficult transition, but they are unlikely to share any of it when they don’t feel safe to speak. You cannot demand innovation from people while creating an environment where they are afraid to make a mistake, challenge an idea or simply speak their mind.
Sometimes what leaders call “resistance to change” is not resistance to change at all. It is resistance to the way the change is being led.
Let’s answer the question
This article poses a question for introspection. If you are in a traditional leadership role, do you consider yourself a leader or a boss?
To answer that question honestly, you need a high degree of self-awareness. You need to be willing to question yourself, reflect on your behaviour and judge your own actions fairly. And since you are already reading this, I think you are in a good position to decide who you want to be in the eyes of the people you lead.
I encourage you to explore empathy, develop your communication skills and learn how to lead effectively under pressure. Become the leader your people need, not simply the person who holds authority over them.
And if you do not know where to start, I would love to meet you and help you on that journey.