Who’s In Charge?

By Mike Myatt, Chief Strategy Officer, N2growth

Who's In Charge?“Who the **** is in charge around here?” This question left an absolutely indelible impression on my mind since I first heard it more than 30 years ago.  Our unit was experiencing its first inspection by a Sargeant Major whose reputation definitely preceded him…It took him all of about 3 seconds ask “who the **** is in charge around here?” He then proceeded to communicate in no uncertain terms that he wasn’t nearly as concerned about the faults he would find, as he was about how our leader (guess who?) could have allowed them to occur in the first place. It was at this precise moment that I came to understand that the most important factor in determining whether or not something will be successful is who is charged with the responsibility for making it happen.

I’m always amazed at the number of organizations that charge sub-par leaders with mission critical tasks and then wonder why they failed to meet their objectives. The most important decision a leader can make with regard to any implementation, initiative, project, objective, goal, task, etc. is who they are going to put in charge? As much as it may be politically incorrect to say so, it’s not nearly as much about the team, as it is the leader’s ability to assemble and lead the team. In all but the rarest of circumstances, teams simply don’t function well in the absence of sound leadership. In fact, in most cases I’d go so far as to say that in the absence of leadership you might be able to assemble a group of people, but said group will not function as an effective team on it’s own accord. 

The only exceptions I’ve witnessed that contradict my observations mentioned above are situations where a purpose-aligned execution based on the desire to give selflessly in service exists. This normally occurs in crisis/emergency/volunteer situations – for an example of this please read Wally Bock’s excellent post yesterday.  However, even in these circumstances personal leadership is still at the forefront of the success.

Whether you examine successful athletic teams, military teams, executive teams, management teams, technical teams, design teams, functional teams, or any other team, you’ll find that the best of the best have structure, a hierarchy of leadership, a clear understanding of roles, responsibilities & expectations, clear and open lines of communication, well established decisioning protocol, and many other key principals. Put simply; the most productive teams have the best leadership.   

To further my point, you can examine any organization and you’ll consistently find that the the best performing units have the best leadership, and the worst performing units have leadership challenges to overcome. Furthermore, in well run organizations you can determine which initiatives are most important to the enterprise by examining which leaders are tasked to what initiatives. Great organizations assign their best leaders to the most significant opportunities and/or to correct key shortcomings (see previous post: Resourcing 101 for CEOs).  

Bottom line…personal responsibility and accountability have always been the ultimate leadership “hot potato” in that everyone wants to be in charge, but few are willing to take ownership of the never-ending obligations that go along with the privilege of leadership. If the individuals placed in charge of executing key objectives, deliverables & results are not excellent leaders, you are simply setting yourself up for failure. The strongest argument for great leadership is what happens in its absence…very little.

What say you???

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay


 
  • Pingback: Most Tweeted Articles by Leadership Development Experts

  • http://asimpleguyblog.blogspot.com Dan Collins

    Myatt,

    All I can say to that is "Hooah". You echo the very essence of one of my favorite aphorisms with this post "The leader of any unit is only as good as the weakest member of his team". Great leadership entails personally assuming responsibility for every "hot potato", praising others for all accomplishments and inspiring others to think and act likewise.

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Thanks Dan…

      I agree that the essence of great leadership is found in the acceptance of personal responsibility. Thanks for the great observation Dan and have a great week Sir.

  • http://mikehenrysr.blogspot.com Mike Henry Sr.

    Great reminder Mike. No one remains a leader long without being competent. People will not long support someone who's going nowhere. And many young leaders lose focus on the team goal and focus on either being popular with their team or following the rules.

    Those that accept responsibility for the team's results and do what it takes to make the team successful eventually succeed.

  • http://www.jamesstrock.com James Strock

    Wonderful post! Without leadership, accountability, things simply don't happen! One question: in addition to the hierarchy (focused accountability) you identify so well, is it still possible that leadership can emerge at any level? In thinking of your example of sports teams, for example, is it possible that leaders can emerge at different times, for different purposes or tasks? And would the same be true, in a related situation, ad hoc networks or teams in business? I don't see this as contradictory your point–the accountability and ultimate leadership must be stable and defined. Perhaps the best leaders are creating leaders, and this may have more fluidity today, given the rapidly evolving, less fixed organizational arrangements…..What are your thoughts? Thanks!

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Hi Jim:

      I think you worked your way through answering your own question :) I agree that your point is not contradictory, in fact, I believe it is accretive in that a broader and deeper base of leadership only adds value to an organization. I think you summed it up well by stating that: "…the best leaders are creating leaders…" – Indeed. Thanks for adding the keen insights Jim.

  • pastortom2022

    Great post Mike. Ultimately I see struggles on both secular and spiritual fronts regarding managers and subordinate leaders executing the vision and plans set forth by upper level leaders. I totally understand the responsibility of CEO's and upper level leadership regarding completion and execution. I make sure that I am totally prepared to take responsibility for failures of those I manage and serve. Your point is valid and bears repeating…f the individuals placed in charge of executing key objectives, deliverables & results are not excellent leaders, you are simply setting yourself up for failure. The strongest argument for great leadership is what happens in its absence. I totally support the concept that leadership is 10% initiation and 90% follow-up.

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Hi Tom:

      Thanks for your comments Tom. I'm always appreciative of being able to glean insights from experienced leaders such as yourself. From my perspective the issue isn't that struggles exist regarding subordinate leaders executing the vision and plans set forth by upper level leadership, for this is certainly a struggle in many environments. Rather the real question should be why such struggles exist in some organizations and not in others. It all boils down to leadership ability. Why do some leaders make the right hires, deploy talent properly, get the right amount of buy-in, align expectations, understand the value of delegating authority , have value alignment, etc., while others fail to do so? I've been around long enough to see all types of leadership styles both succeed and fail. The issue isn't the type of leadership structure utilized, but whether the leadership structure meshes with the talent, culture, context, etc. In the end, it's important to note that your 10% initiation and 90% follow-up will work in any structure if done well. Thanks for sharing Tom…

  • http://www.randomactsofleadership.com Susan mazza

    I actually think the structure, including the culture and practices for maintaining that structure, is part of the problem. One of the reasons I think some organizations end up charging sub-par leaders with mission critical objectives is that leaders of projects are all too often chosen based on position in their hierarchy. If your practices for promotion and your ability to assess and develop leadership capability as people move through your structure (especially "up the ladder") you are likely to keep making the same mistake. I know a lot of very technically competent people who got to high levels in their organizations because of their knowledge, experience and technical capability but remain weak and even uninterested in developing their leadership capability.

    Regarding your bottom line that "everyone wants to be in charge, but few are willing to take ownership". I'd add that the best leaders are not only both personally responsible and accountable, but also are effective at eliciting that mindset and behavior in others. We do not give near enough attention to the latter as a critical skill in developing leaders and still end up with far to many people in high level positions who rely on authority rather than effective practices to deliver results.

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Well said – your comment offers both sound thinking and sage counsel Susan. Technical competency and leadership acumen while often confused, are not always one in the same. Thanks for sharing.

  • Pingback: Leadership and Success | Practical Managers