The leadership training market has approached 400 billion dollars in the world. On the other hand, what is common all over the world is poor management and leadership. Those wondering why can continue reading.
In a global survey conducted by Gallup, 65 percent of employees say that their managers are the most stressful aspect of their jobs, 75 percent say their managers are the primary reason for alienation from their jobs, 20 percent seriously think about killing their managers once in their lives or pray for them to die. All of them revealed that they “worked with an intolerable manager” at least once in their lives. Let me also remind you of the well-known cliché of human resources: “People leave their managers as soon as they leave their jobs.” The most important reason behind the “great wave of resignations” seen in the West today is managers who alienate employees from their jobs. Because the vast majority of people move up the corporate ladder, they become more arrogant and less sensitive to the needs of those they manage.
I can list the following as examples of the external reflection of bad leadership: Not being aware of the impact on people and/or not caring about it, not knowing what to ask from people, managing with power, giving great importance to numbers and results and neglecting the relationship, failure to give feedback, difficulty in approaching people, impulsiveness, detachment from reality. … It is possible to extend this list. All readers can add their own observations to this.
Leadership and management undoubtedly refer to different functions. In the past, these two concepts were discussed for half a day. To put it briefly, leaders look out the window and determine the strategy that will carry the organization into the future, while managers look inside and manage the operation to ensure that things go well. However, both concepts have a very broad common denominator; Their success depends on the people they work with. No one said, “There is no job in the teacher’s good class; The commander does not say, “There is no work in a good unit.” In every sport, the coach stands on the shoulders of the team.
Leaders determine the fate of institutions
Countries governed by good leaders and managers develop, people live in prosperity; organizations make profits and are successful, employees are happy; Non-governmental organizations serve their purposes and their volunteers are proud. In short, everyone wins. On the other hand, countries governed by bad leaders and managers become poor and backward, and people suffer; organizations fail and make losses, employees become unhappy; Non-governmental organizations deal with gossip and problems they create, and their volunteers experience a feeling of meaninglessness. In short, leaders leave their mark on the system they govern.
In the education world, the largest turnover volume is devoted to leadership training. Institutions make great efforts and invest to select and develop the people to whom they will entrust their future. The vast majority of these programs contain canned information. For example “how to give negative feedback?”. “First say the good, then add your criticism, and then finish by saying the good…” Even a new intern can get enough of this.
According to information provided by Forbes based on TrainingIndustry.com, annual spending on leadership training in 2019 was 166 billion dollars in the USA and 366 billion dollars globally. Contrary to the claims of educational professional associations, these programs do not produce the expected results, McKinsey reports.
There are multiple reasons for this. Programs that do not take into account the personality characteristics and corporate culture of those promoted within the institution are the first ones that come to mind. What I want to talk about in this article is a different situation that is not discussed in foreign literature.
There are countless adjectives that describe leadership. In leadership programs, participants are tired of hearing the heroic stories of S.Jobs, E.Musk or, in years past, J.Welsh. My definition of leadership is very simple. Leadership is influencing. This happens by creating bonds and developing relationships. This is where the problem starts. Because some people are not prone to bonding. They neither want to be close to other people nor want others to get close to them. However, leadership requires the qualities of humility and authenticity, which are especially valid today. The way people bond depends crucially on the relationship they have with their family, especially their mother, in the first five years of life. As a result of this relationship, the person either trusts people or does not. The concept of “trust” forms the basis of all leadership programs. However, by saying “trust is important…”, trust is not reflected in the daily lives and leadership styles of the participants.
We become technicians of a job whose philosophy we do not know.
There is a principle that is also valid for disciplines such as medicine, engineering and law, which have a highly systematic structure and directly concern human life and require great effort. A person becomes a technician of a job whose philosophy he does not know. This principle, which is valid for the neighborhood plumber or keymaker, is also valid for doctors, engineers and lawyers. The “secret” of leadership programs not creating the expected change in participants and distinguishing between good managers and bad managers is hidden here.
If you think about the teachers who left a mark on your life, you will remember that these teachers were the ones who saw the unique difference in you, took the time for this, and recognized the essence of you. These teachers do not look at the classroom in front of them as a student group, they see individual students. Similarly, it makes a difference if the manager sees the people he works with as people, not employees. Because there is no being or creature called “working creature”, there is a human being.
I know that many managers think, “I’m dealing with concrete things, I don’t have time to spend on fantasy issues like trust.” Trust, which is an abstract concept, increases the transaction speed in an institution, and the increase in transaction speed affects efficiency, thus reducing costs and increasing profitability. Thus, trust, which is an abstract concept, produces concrete results. The opposite is also true for lack of trust.
In order for the manager to see the people he works with as human beings, he needs to know the life journey of 3-10 people directly reporting to him. Knowing the family conditions in which the other person grew up, the stages he went through until he got there, learning the methods of struggling and coping with life, knowing the event that makes him most proud in life, and establishing a bond in a way that reveals these, opens the door to getting to know that person as a human being. Undoubtedly, since this is not a hiring interview, the manager will also need to open up.
Conclusion
I know that many managers who have read this far will think, “I have too much work to do, I don’t have time to deal with these things.” What is expected from the leader to manage the process with what I have listed is called “emotional labor”. The basis of the leadership philosophy lies in being ready to give this emotional labor. The feeling of trust that will arise at the end of such a relationship makes it easier to receive and give feedback and improves performance. A leader who does not make this effort to those around him becomes disconnected from reality after a while and begins to think that his own dream world is real.
