Leaders: Born or Made?

image from http://gunningforthetruth.wordpress.com

Recently, founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, was asked by a group of Japanese officials and businessmen about his views on leadership. He relates his experience with sheepdogs in Australia and how they are chosen based on certain traits that they are born with. To get a good sheepdog, one needs to find the 'right dog'.

This view is not uncommon. In the 1940s to the 1950s, management gurus proposed the idea that leaders were born and not made. This view is known as the Trait Theory of Leadership. Most of us in this day and age have probably heard others mention that leaders can be 'made'. This might fall under the Behavioural Theory of Leadership. What this means is that researchers study the successful habits of leaders, past and present, compile them into bite sizes and then pass on the knowledge to those keen on being a good leader. This theory proposes that with observation and practice, anyone can become a good leader.

If one believes in Trait Theory, then there will be no need for trainers and academics helping people to be better leaders. Instead, psychologists and behavioural scientists would create a host of tests to help affirm that you have good leadership genes. This does not bode well for business schools and leadership consultants, does it?

If one believes in the Behavioural Theory, then the reverse is true. Business schools and leadership consultants will do very well, not psychologists and behavioural scientists.

I do believe that despite motivation and proper training, some catch on rather quickly, while others find it hard to put into practice. The question is this --- why then do some find it easier to learn while others struggle at the application stage? Why are some better leaders than others? Why are some better employees than others?

In the latest HRM magazine (Issue 116), page 10 attracted my attention. The title was 'Grooming average Joes'. The magazine interviewed 3 senior managers on how a leader should bring out the potential in an employee displaying average performance. 2 out of the 3 believed that 'no employee is average'.

Let me weigh in on this.

If 'no employee is average', then why do we have some staff who are more efficient and others who are 'simply useless'? The general argument is that the 'useless employees' are not fulfilling their potential, thus the dip in their performance. The solution? Leaders should, in the words of one of the senior managers, 'Marshall and Motivate'.

But my question is this --- assuming all things being equal, what if a person's maximum potential is a 5/10, and his colleague's is 8/10? I propose that this is not far fetched. Instead, unpopular as it may be, this is reality. Very simply, I believe that some people make better leaders and better employees than others. One might think that I am stating the obvious, but if you believe that there are 'no average employees', what you are saying is that with enough motivation, everyone has an equal chance of being promoted and becoming a good leader.

Believing that there are 'no employees are average' may also lead to unrealistic expectations. If you do not recognise that different employees have different levels of potential, you are likely to unfairly blame an employee should he or she not meet your expectations. On the flip side, the employee might unfairly blame the leader for not doing enough to unveil his or her potential.

When a colleague is observed to be consistently delivering sub-par work, one should ask whether the colleague has already achieved his or her potential in the presence of motivation and support. If the answer is a firm 'Yes', then you will have to decide whether your organization should continue keeping this person. However, if the colleague has shown sparks of good work and added value occasionally, but is inconsistent, then we can probably say that his or her potential has not been achieved.

We are all born different, talented in a variety of ways. Politically correct as it may be, it would be a terrible thing to assume that we are all mold-able to a desired end.

Paul Lim is an adjunct faculty member with the Organisational Behaviour & Human Resources (OBHR) discipline at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University; an Academic Associate and an Adjunct Associate with the Centre of Innovation & Enterprise, Republic Polytechnic, Singapore. He teaches courses in Leadership, Organisational Behaviour and Cross Generational Management. A doctoral student with French business school - Grenoble Ecole de Management, he is currently writing his dissertation on the impact of mentoring on employee retention in millennials (Generation Y).

Maid's body found in HDB water tank --- looking beyond the tragedy

SINGAPORE - Housing Board flat dwellers of Black 686B Woodlands Drive woke up to some rather unique water quality on the morning of 16 May 2011. Residents claimed that the water coming out of their taps looked 'slightly yellowish and appeared unnaturally foamy'. At least four complaints were made to the respective town council about the issue. Efficiently, the water supply was subsequently turned off at 11am and 'maintenance work' was done to rectify the problem.

However, for the residents of Block 686B, their day would soon turn their stomachs upside down.

Police received a call at about 10am from a maintenance crew, informing them about a dead body floating in the 2m deep water tank. The woman, identified as a domestic worker who worked for the family on the sixth floor of the same block, was clad in bermudas and a T-shirt. Some cuts were suggested to have been observed on her back.

A resident, when interviewed in the wake of the grisly discovery, commented this way,"This so disgusting. My whole family finished a big pot of green bean soup I cooked this morning."

This incident is certain to be the talk of the town in the coming days as more information about this case is revealed. However, two issues have to be addressed as a result of this tragic episode.


Terrorism: Poisoning the water supply
This incident certainly raises questions about the safety of water supply to the more than 85% of Singaporeans who live in HDB flats. Maintenance workers who maintain the cleanliness and serviceability of HDB facilities belong to private contractors hired by the respective town councils. A substantial number of these workers hail from South Asian countries and have been observed to be industrious in their work. However, geopolitical considerations need to be taken into account as South Asia is not unknown to be sympathetic to radical elements. A scenario whereby a maintenance crew member deliberately adds poison to the water tanks of a cluster of flats under his care is something not unimaginable. I am glad that certain security agencies in our country proactively embed individuals into certain sites to test the potential damage that could be carried out by radicals. It is in recent memory that Singaporeans recall the breach of a MRT train depot by a couple of graffiti artists. This breach raised pertinent questions about the security infrastructure and systems at MRT depots and improvements have been made since. In light of this recent abuse of a public facility, it is important for the HDB and the Ministry of Home Affairs to review current security clearance measures when hiring these workers.


Crisis Communication
At 12.30pm, residents received town council notices informing them about the 'maintenance works' that was in progress. Such notices are typically pasted at lift landings on the ground floor.

When interviewed by the local media about the lack of information and communication efforts made to affected residents, general manager of the affected town council, Mr Soon Min Sin, responded,"Our priority was to protect the residents and cut off the water supply for their safety...once the investigation is concluded, we will let the residents know."


Crisis communication is vital for many reasons:

1. To minimize the spread of inaccurate information and speculation

2. To avoid a situation of panic that may result in irrational decisions made by members of the public eg. When the Japanese radiation leak from Fukushima was said to be heading towards China, members of the public started hording salt in the hope of countering radiation sickness and to hedge against the rise of future salt prices.

3. To instil confidence in the public that the situation is under control


There are areas in Mr Soon's statement that could be further clarified.

1. If cutting off the water supply is for 'their (the residents') safety', are we to imply that residents whom might have earlier consumed the tainted water are in an 'unsafe' position? If so, what can be done to make your position 'safe'?

2. It is prudent to omit certain details (for the moment) that are deemed as 'too sensitive'. However, a dearth of information gives members of the public a perception that authorities in charge of the situation are hiding something, or worse, clueless as to how to approach the situation

3. Timeliness of releasing information is an important point to note. If residents are to only be given access to information 'once the investigation is concluded' --- which might mean a few months, it is not unexpected that uncertainty will sweep over residents. Affected residents might trawl the internet to fill the information void. This could lead to the spreading of misinformation about the case, the town council managers or in a worse case scenario --- the involved government agencies.

Yesterday's story was a tragic case of a person losing her life in a foreign country. From this tragedy, the various reactions of the affected residents are highly valid. At times though, it could be bizarrely seen as comical, especially in the absence of information communicated to them by the relevant authorities.

Of greater importance is the future safety of the water supply at HDB flats. The irony of this case might end up as such: the untimely death of a domestic helper will help rectify security lapses, resulting in the saving of more than 4 million Singapore residents' lives.

Sources: Straits Times, US State Department

Paul Lim is an adjunct faculty member with the Organisational Behaviour & Human Resources (OBHR) discipline at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University; an Academic Associate and an Adjunct Associate with the Centre of Innovation & Enterprise, Republic Polytechnic, Singapore. He teaches courses in Leadership, Organisational Behaviour and Cross Generational Management. A doctoral student with French business school - Grenoble Ecole de Management, he is currently writing his dissertation on the effects of peer mentoring on employee retention in the millennial generation (Gen Y). This article is based on the writer's personal opinion and is not representative of any organisation or persons he may be associated with.