FOUR
LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES CAPTAINS CANNOT IGNORE
Dear
Captains of Industry and Public Institutions,
Across
industries and organisations, certain leadership concerns seem to repeat
themselves decade after decade. The circumstances change, but when CEOs,
Boards, and senior management discuss the challenges they face in developing
their leaders, the same familiar concerns continue to surface.
They
revolve around four primary issues: the inability to See the Big Picture; Move
the Task, Team, and Individuals towards corporate goals; Build Relationships;
and Practice Effective Followership.
We hear
about silo mentality - managers who are very good within their own functions
but struggle to see the organisation as a whole. We hear about managers who
deliver results but bruise people along the way. Others build strong teams but
inadvertently create turf and friction with other departments. Some are
excellent at taking care of their people but become reluctant to hold them
accountable. We hear about leaders who manage upwards but not downwards, or
downwards but not sideways. And increasingly, we hear about execution - where
clear corporate strategy becomes slowed, diluted, or resisted as it travels
through the organisation.
These
are not merely leadership-development issues; they directly affect
productivity, efficiency, execution, collaboration, and succession planning.
SEE
THE BIG PICTURE
The
first challenge is probably the most familiar: silo mentality. Most people
begin their careers by becoming good at something specific. An engineer becomes
a good engineer, a finance professional becomes good at finance, and a
salesperson develops expertise in markets. Organisations need specialists.
The
difficulty begins when a person’s responsibilities expand, but their
perspective does not expand with them. A department head continues to think
primarily about the department, and a functional leader continues to see
organizational issues mainly through the lens of their function. What was once
a strength slowly becomes a limitation.
As
responsibilities increase, the central question must change. It can no longer
simply be: “What is best for my department?” It must increasingly become: “What
is best for the organisation?”
Organisations
are interconnected systems. What appears efficient for one department may
create additional work or problems elsewhere. This is why senior leaders must
develop an enterprise-wide perspective to understand corporate priorities,
recognize interdependencies, and make decisions based on what moves the entire
organisation forward. Otherwise, highly competent managers may successfully
optimise individual parts while collectively sub-optimising the whole. The
fundamental transition is clear: From MY AREA to OUR ORGANISATION.
MOVE
THE TASK, TEAM AND INDIVIDUALS
The
second challenge concerns how managers actually lead. Over time, many managers
develop a preferred way of managing people. Broadly, we see three primary
orientations: those who focus heavily on the Task, those who focus on the Team,
and those who focus on the Individual. Each has considerable strengths, but
problems begin when one orientation becomes dominant at the expense of the
other two.
We all
need task-oriented managers. They focus on targets, deadlines, standards, and
results. They get things done. But when task orientation becomes excessive, the
manager achieves results while bruising people along the way. Everything
becomes about delivery, people are pushed rather than developed, and the
manager becomes a bottleneck through which everything must pass. The challenge
here is simple: Get the task done without unnecessarily bruising the people.
The
team-oriented manager is very good at building camaraderie and belonging.
However, there is a point where team building turns into turf building. The
manager becomes fiercely protective of their resources and people, information
is guarded, and other departments become competitors rather than collaborators.
Ironically, the manager builds a highly cohesive team while simultaneously
weakening the wider organisation. When loyalty to the team becomes stronger
than commitment to the organisation, team orientation has turned into silo
mentality. The challenge: Build a strong team without building turf.
The
individual-oriented manager places strong emphasis on being supportive, caring,
and approachable. The problem begins when the desire to care for people turns
into a need to be liked by people. In their eagerness to stay popular, these
managers avoid difficult conversations, tolerate underperformance, postpone
tough decisions, and repeatedly make exceptions. A manager’s responsibility is
not to win a popularity contest, but to help people succeed while achieving
organizational goals. The challenge: Care for the individual without needing to
be liked.
Effective
leader-managers cannot choose between Task, Team, and Individual. Their
responsibility is to balance and move all three towards corporate goals.
BUILD
RELATIONSHIPS
We
cannot effectively move the Task, Team, and Individuals if we cannot build
relationships. Yet organizational relationships do not move in only one
direction. Leaders need to manage in four distinct directions: upwards,
sideways, downwards, and self.
Some
managers are excellent at managing upwards, but their direct reports tell a
completely different story. Others are great downwards, but struggle to
collaborate across functions with peers because disagreements become personal
and territorial. And then there are those who struggle with perhaps the most
important direction of all: managing themselves. Ego, insecurity, and
uncontrolled emotions eventually compromise decisions and professional
conversations. A person who cannot manage themselves will eventually struggle
to manage others.
Technical
competence may get a manager promoted, but the further one moves upwards, the
more results depend on the ability to build trust, manage oneself, and work
effectively with people in every direction, especially those over whom one has
no formal authority.
PRACTICE
EFFECTIVE FOLLOWERSHIP
Standard
leadership programs focus heavily on teaching people how to lead, but far less
time teaching leaders how to follow. Yet no organisation can function
effectively if everybody wants to lead but nobody knows when and how to follow.
At the
senior level, a long-serving manager with deep credibility may quietly disagree
with a new corporate strategy. Without open resistance, they can simply slow
down execution, interpret instructions selectively, or delay implementation. A
senior leader with tremendous personal influence can paradoxically become the
biggest obstacle to organizational direction.
At the
middle-management level, strategy travels through managers before reaching the
workforce. Middle managers translate corporate intentions into daily priorities
and behaviours. Because change is uncomfortable, middle managers can easily
become bottlenecks where strategy is diluted, reinterpreted, or quietly allowed
to die.
Even at
the operational level, responsible followership is essential. Good followers
are not passive; they contribute ideas and challenge assumptions
constructively. But once a legitimate organizational decision has been made,
discussion must turn into alignment, and alignment into execution.
FOUR
CHALLENGES, ONE ORGANISATION
Dear
Captains, these four challenges are deeply connected. A leader who cannot See
the Big Picture protects the silo; one who cannot Move the Task, Team, and
Individuals remains trapped in a single management style; one who cannot Build
Relationships struggles beyond formal authority; and one who cannot Practice
Effective Followership becomes the obstacle standing between direction and
execution.
These
capabilities rarely develop naturally through seniority or titles alone. They
need to be deliberately developed through structured management development,
coaching, and mentoring.
Perhaps
we Captains should regularly ask four questions about our leaders: Can they
think for the whole organisation? Can they move the Task, Team, and Individuals
together? Can they build relationships in all four directions? And can they practice
followership and know when to align and execute?
If we are not happy with the answers, then perhaps these are areas that
deserve greater attention in how we prepare and develop our leaders for the
future. After all, we cannot prepare people for bigger responsibilities simply
by giving them bigger titles. We have to deliberately develop them for the
responsibilities ahead.


