Jacob Morgan

If you take an outside perspective, you quickly realize that leadership from ten years ago is not what it is today, and more importantly, leadership today will not be what it is ten years from now. But since we are so involved with the day-to-day aspects of our lives and careers, we rarely think about this change and what it might look like

Unfortunately, most of our leaders are, bluntly speaking, not good. If they were, then we would see that reflected in the data. It doesn't mean they are bad people, but the way that we teach and talk about leadership is extremely antiquated and that's largely what leaders today are familiar with and practice. It's a bit like trying to fly a modern jet when you were only trained on an original Wright Brothers plane. You might get it in the air, but you aren't going to go far.
According to a study conducted by Ultimate Software and the Center for Generational Kinetics, 80% of employees say they can do their jobs without their managers and actually think that their managers are not necessary (Ultimate Software, 2017). Another study by Randstad found that almost half of the 2,257 survey respondents said they could do a better job than their boss (RandstadUSA, n.d.). A second Randstad study conducted in 2018 found that 60% of employees have left jobs or are considering leaving because they don't like their direct supervisors (RandstadUSA, 2018). These numbers alone paint a picture of current leaders that makes them seem nonessential.

A Gallup study of over 7,000 Americans concluded that one in two people had actually left a job at some point during their career to get away from their managers in order to improve their overall quality of life (Harter, 2015). Let that sink in for a moment. It's a very somber statistic, yet one that we can all relate to. The same study shows that managers account for at least 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores. Even in the UK, research published by the Independent found that nearly half of British workers believe they could do a better job than their boss (Bailey, 2017). Perhaps the more alarming finding was that 13% said that their bosses are dangerously incompetent at their jobs.
Let's also not forget the seminal Gallup study on global engagement, which found that only 15% of employees around the world are engaged in their jobs. According to the study, “employees everywhere don't necessarily hate the company or organization they work for as much as they do their boss. Employees—especially the stars—join a company and then quit their manager” (Clifton, ).

In another DDI report exploring the “State of Leadership Development,” half of the organizations surveyed said their leaders are not skilled to lead their organizations effectively today (DDI, ), and 71% said their leaders are not ready to lead their organizations into the future. A study by the Center for Creative Leadership found similar results in their aptly titled study “The Leadership Gap,” where the authors state, “Leaders are not adequately prepared for the future. Today's leadership capacity is insufficient to meet future leadership requirements. This finding is consistent across countries, organizations, and levels in the organization” (Leslie, ). Finally, in its report “Ready-Now Leaders,” the Conference Board in partnership with DDI found that 85% of executives are not confident in their own leadership pipelines.

From all of the business leaders I interviewed, I didn't receive a single duplicate answer to my question of how to define leadership. Of course there were some common elements, which will be explored in this book, but the explanations and definitions as a whole were each unique. CEOs assigned different attributes or characteristics to leaders. Some focused on more human qualities like empathy, diversity, and humility, whereas others focused more on business acumen such as achieving goals, knowing how to prioritize, and setting a vision. Of course, other CEOs tried to find a nice blend and balance of both sides.
Here we have over 140 CEOs from the world's top organizations and they all define leadership differently. How can that be?
I learned two things from asking this question. The first surprising thing is that leaders around the world rarely ask themselves what leadership means. Not only that, but this isn't even explored at an organizational level. It's completely taken for granted, or perhaps it's just assumed that everyone knows a good leader when they see one. The second thing I learned is that leadership is defined differently, depending on the leader and the organization. There is no common or universal definition of leadership. This would be completely fine if we all operated purely as individuals, but we don't; we are all part of groups, teams, and/or organizations. This means that the first step to becoming or to creating a great leader is to define what leadership means and how it comes to life inside your organization (and/or your personal life).

We are indeed seeing more of a shift toward collaboration, teamwork, and co-creation. Erik Anderson is the CEO of Topgolf Entertainment Group, which employs almost 20,000 people. He is also the chairman of Singularity University. He told me, “If you want to thrive inside of your community and your company, then you need to learn how to collaborate instead of compete, and you will grow faster. Standing alone and competing all the time is a dangerous strategy, so moving from competition to collaboration and co-creation is crucial.”

If the filters are geared more toward the human side of business with an emphasis on coaching and mentoring others, then those are the types of people who will end up in leadership roles. What kinds of people do you want at the helm of your company and what filters do you have in place to make sure that those are the people who are actually getting there?

The definition of leadership can also change as the leaders who run these organization change. Perhaps the best example of this comes from Microsoft and how it has evolved under the leadership of former CEO Steve Ballmer to current CEO Satya Nadella. Both leaders are genuinely described as successful CEOs from a corporate performance perspective but their styles are radically different.
Ballmer was known for having a temper and while he was a passionate leader, he also had a reputation of being combative and enjoying the spotlight. He's the type many would consider to be a “celebrity CEO.” With his larger-than-life personality, he was extremely competitive and encouraged this competition among his employees. Ballmer also believed in stack ranking, which forces employees into a series of performance buckets. For example, 10% of employees would be considered high achievers, 10% underperformers, and 80% average but still valuable. Leaders were forced to have this kind of a team distribution even if they didn't feel any of their employees belonged in that bottom 10%. At one point, Steve Ballmer was the lowest-ranked CEO of any technology company on Glassdoor, with a 39% approval rating. Still, despite all of this, many believe that Satya would not be in a position to succeed as the new CEO of Microsoft had it not been for Ballmer.

When Satya Nadella joined the company, his first letter to employees highlighted the importance that his family plays in his life. Satya famously said he wants to move away from having a “know-it-all” culture to a “learn-it-all” culture. He's a big advocate of diversity and inclusion, collaboration instead of ruthless competition, being open minded, encouraging other perspectives and ideas, and of doing good. Instead of the constant infighting that Microsoft was known for, Satya wanted to create a culture based on empathy. One of his first acts as CEO was to ask his employees to read the book “Nonviolent Communication.” At the time of this writing, Satya has a 96% approval rating from employees and the stock price has more than tripled. During Ballmer's tenure Microsoft had a market cap of around $300 billion, and now it's hovering around $900 billion

This is why many organizations have leaders who are admired and loved and other leaders who are hated and avoided. It's because each of these leaders got to their position as a result of varying definitions and ideas of leadership from those who promoted them.
But if there was a shared vision of what leadership is and who a leader is, then the chances of this happening would dramatically decrease. Another crucial aspect here is making sure that your organization has filters in place so the right leaders end up in positions where they are responsible for other people. Filters will range quite a bit, depending on the organization. Here are just a few to consider:
Meeting business and/or financial goals
Positive reviews from peers and managers
Supporting and building up other team members
Collaborating across teams and geographies
A strong moral and ethical compass
Promoting and helping create a diverse and inclusive environment
Ability to engage, empower, and inspire others
Constantly delivering great quality work