Sue, I think one of the strongest points in your article is that leadership should be viewed as a capability that evolves, not a fixed set of personal characteristics. Too often we evaluate leaders based on personality or past performance while overlooking their capacity to learn, adapt, and grow as circumstances change. Self-awareness, reflection, and the willingness to challenge our own assumptions aren't soft skills, they're essential disciplines for effective leadership. Leaders who continuously examine whether their behaviors still serve the mission are far more likely to build resilient organizations and navigate change successfully.
Thanks and yes, I agree. leadership programmes that teach new skills have their place but this is less about ‘what to do’ and more about ‘how to be’ as a leader. It’s the necessary foundational work of a whole leadership career
Great piece Sue. I particularly liked this sentence:
"In the face of incipient failure, it really matters that leaders explore the question ‘How do I feel?’ because bringing feelings into awareness allows leaders to respond rather than react."
I've been thinking a lot about the foundational importance of self-awareness and self-mastery in leadership. Why isn't this core to leadership development training?
But Britain does seem to have a penchant of distinguishing leadership from management (except occasionally in football). Britain - the home of capitalism - has always looked down on, or even despised, management: it’s neither cloth-capped nor owner-waistcoated. So it’s nothing of worth in the grand UK economic scheme of things (except for the late great John Harvey-Jones and then, probably in his case, only because of his TV show!).
This distinction - which interestingly is less pronounced in the US - leaves managers and management capabilities seeming irretrievable in a world of wicked problems. In that context, “Anyway can be a leader”, which can be true, could also be an abrogation of (and a convenient excuse for) management responsibility.
How can you be an effective manager without being a leader? To fail at one is to fail at both.
Sue, I think one of the strongest points in your article is that leadership should be viewed as a capability that evolves, not a fixed set of personal characteristics. Too often we evaluate leaders based on personality or past performance while overlooking their capacity to learn, adapt, and grow as circumstances change. Self-awareness, reflection, and the willingness to challenge our own assumptions aren't soft skills, they're essential disciplines for effective leadership. Leaders who continuously examine whether their behaviors still serve the mission are far more likely to build resilient organizations and navigate change successfully.
Thanks and yes, I agree. leadership programmes that teach new skills have their place but this is less about ‘what to do’ and more about ‘how to be’ as a leader. It’s the necessary foundational work of a whole leadership career
Thanks, Kate. Absolutely that it should be.
Great piece Sue. I particularly liked this sentence:
"In the face of incipient failure, it really matters that leaders explore the question ‘How do I feel?’ because bringing feelings into awareness allows leaders to respond rather than react."
I've been thinking a lot about the foundational importance of self-awareness and self-mastery in leadership. Why isn't this core to leadership development training?
Sue write a find piece.
But Britain does seem to have a penchant of distinguishing leadership from management (except occasionally in football). Britain - the home of capitalism - has always looked down on, or even despised, management: it’s neither cloth-capped nor owner-waistcoated. So it’s nothing of worth in the grand UK economic scheme of things (except for the late great John Harvey-Jones and then, probably in his case, only because of his TV show!).
This distinction - which interestingly is less pronounced in the US - leaves managers and management capabilities seeming irretrievable in a world of wicked problems. In that context, “Anyway can be a leader”, which can be true, could also be an abrogation of (and a convenient excuse for) management responsibility.
How can you be an effective manager without being a leader? To fail at one is to fail at both.