Posted by Anonymous on 06/25/2009 - 06:16
Last night I was reading an interview with Ken Kendrick, the owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks. He was asked "What is the hardest thing about being a leader?" His reply was, "Understanding when to follow and not lead." That is absolutely the best answer I have ever heard to that question, and is something that I suspect every manager (definitely including me) struggles with on an almost daily basis.
Managers who are reading this...what are your thoughts? What do you think about what Ken Kendrick said?
- 1236 reads
Tags
Accounting and Auditing
Administrative
AICPA
Auditing
Busy Season Daily Workplace Exercises
Careers
Celebrity news
CFO
Consulting
Conversations
Economy
Education
Education and careers
Excel
Excel tips
FASB
Financial Reporting
Firm news
Government
Guest articles
Health care
Human Resources
IFRS
Income tax
International
IRS
IT
Legal issues
Legislation
Marketing
Mergers
PCAOB
Personal Finance
Practice Development
Practice Management
QuickBooks
Retirement
Sarbanes-Oxley
SEC
Self-Improvement
State and Local
Students
Tax
Technology
Training
Trends
Watchdog
Workplace Fitness
Workshops
XBRL
Gail Perry, CPA
What is the hardest thing facing a leader.
I had been a managing partner of a top 100 CPA firm for 35 years. I learned that 95% of what the leader does is "water around" and communicate with the partners (followers) and see what they would like regarding issues within the firm. This is following the followers. Most decisions fall within this category.
The hardest part of leading is when you have to carry out what your instincts say is the direction or the appropriate decision and the followers don't want it.
Harvey Goldstein CPA, Los Angeles California.
Follow? Not by the hair of my....
I don't think a manager should ever "follow" a decision other than his own. However, a remarkable manager should be allowed to change his decision to fit the new direction he leads.David Burt, Yorba Linda, CA
Delegation of "Responsibility" without "Authority"
I agree with what Michelle and Kendrick said.
To explain it in a different way, I have experienced managers who liked to delegate "responsibility," but not "authority." Meaning, they want you to be responsibile for a task or certain objective, but they do not give you the freedom to make decisions on how you complete the task or reach the objective. They still want to make every decision, and make you second-guess each of yours.
Unfortunately, this type of management style does not allow others to fully develop their skills and abilities, and can demoralize a whole department, resulting in a culture of fingerpointing, and constant turnover.
Leaders Give Room For Others to Shine and Grow
The thing is, a leader isn't a leader unless people are willing followers. Leaders can truly be anyone in the organization. Sometimes the "top dog" isn't a leader at all, and a dynamic leader can be found at a much lower level.
It's also like being a parent. In the old days, a parent or elder commanded respect simply by being one. That isn't so anymore. The intimidation or hierarchically required respect or followership just ain't the same. Not sure when it changed but it did.
The hardest thing about being a leader is definitely checking the ego (& expectation of automatic followership) at the door. I think Kendrick is right on.
Steve Jobs (of Apple) in a Newsweek article said “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.”
The best leaders know how to empower others to create, and lead in their own ways. I see this all too rarely in firms, but when I do, it is a very beautiful thing.
Much like parenting, leadership is about creating a safe place for people to blossom, grow and contribute to betterment of the org as whole.
What Does a Baseball Team Owner Know about our Biz?
Mr. Kendrick's comment about leaders being followers is based on a real business, the sport of baseball where his team fights every day for a transactional customer against the same scarce dollars being spent on competitive entertainment domains. Our profession is the exact opposite. People are most often required in some way to do business with a CPA, not by choice. Relationships tend not to be transactional, but long-term.
The real difference is the almost complete lack of leadership at all at the typical CPA firm, as most firms are run "collegially" which means nobody is in charge. Multiple owners create too many chiefs and nobody literrally can lead unless they own the majority of shares.
We need more people to be leaders, to make decisions, to stand fast, to be willing to charge ahead in the face of change, to think strategically and to motivate and communicate with their own people. Not more followers.
Allan S. Boress, CPA, CVAEustis, Florida