<< Back

The Entrusted Leader: In Whom do we Trust? (1 November 2001)

In our Leaders we place our trust, sometimes deservedly and sometimes not so deservedly. Knowledge of the familiar is becoming not as relevant as the ability to lead into the unknown. But what is it that permits some to lead and others to instead assume the role of followership?

Leadership is a complex concept containing many differing and sometimes competing dynamics. The theorists and observers continuously expand and re-define the essential leadership traits. We want our leaders to be strong, but also flexible. We want them to be charismatic, confident, competitive, challenging and commanding, but also consultative, convivial, composed, considerate and caring. They must have character, candour, commitment and a sense of camaraderie. But they also need to be capable, competent, correct, courageous, credible and clever. This is just the 'C's'. But if there were to be one trait above all that we insist upon from our leaders it is consistency. But why is it that consistency in their behaviour is so important to us?

The reason is that a leader's consistency allows us to trust them and it is 'trust' which is the essence of leadership. Trust creates loyalty, respect and most importantly followership. Leadership is created where we say 'We put our trust in you to lead us', often into or through uncertain futures. It is the trust we place in our leaders that appoints them to that position. Where we know how they have acted in the past, we seek to rely on this for the future. All else in leadership extends from this position of historical trust.

For example we place our trust in our leaders based on their knowledge, experience and actions in the past. When recruiting a CEO, their track record is by far the most important criteria. We seek consistency. We want to know that they have already done, at some time in the past, the job that needs doing now. Our assumption is that circumstances in the past are what best qualifies a leader to know what to do in any future situation.

However, there is recurring flaw in our unconscious logic. The real leadership challenges in most organisations at present, are not in ensuring the replication of past successes, but instead leading into the unknown. For organisations that seek to stand out, to go where there is no road map for success may be the main requirement for their leadership. As Christopher Columbus well knew, if you are to travel into the unknown, you must at some stage lose sight of the shore. A new leadership 'trait' is required to select leaders that have the ability to lead into uncertainty. The problem is that we seem unable to determine what this new leadership 'trait' is, because it apparently has no name.

A reader of biographies knows that the history of any leadership personality reveals many insights into the reasons for their leadership success. These accounts are often of struggles over adversity in times of great uncertainty, where the leader seemed to be comfortable going where no one else was willing to go. There is within each story a hint at a common quality, an essential attribute, that is often overlooked. That trait has a name and it is known as 'tolerance for ambiguity'. This is the ability to face the new and uncertain without fear and to operate effectively in emerging and changing situations. This is one of the most important leadership attributes. This skill allows one person to occupy a leadership role where others may fear to tread.

So how does the capacity to tolerate ambiguity affect the development of leadership in organisations? For most of us, when we are in a situation we know, we feel comfortable. But when we are in an unfamiliar and ambiguous situation, we are all at sea and we are uncertain what is the right thing to do.

When an uncertain future presents itself, a complex phenomenon often occurs that leads to one of two scenarios. Our experience of the known past shapes our perception of the unknown future. If we have low tolerance for ambiguity the first scenario is that we will try to rationalize our experience of the 'now' so that it aligns with our experiences of the past. We resolve the ambiguity by pretending that it does not exist. For example, say a particular sales trend occurs that has not been experienced before in the company's history of growth. We explain this as a temporary seasonal fluctuation. Our intolerance for ambiguity means we do not explore what is really going on. The resulting effect on innovation, learning and growth of this response eventually becomes apparent (with a corresponding effect on performance).

If we cannot reconcile the future with the past, the second scenario occurs. When we suffer from acute uncertainty we are in a position of psychological insecurity. This is an uncomfortable position to which we have no immediate solution. We wish to resolve this feeling of insecurity by seeking security. It is at this moment that assumption of leadership occurs - or to be more accurate - the assumption of followership.

While we cannot know and trust people to lead into the uncertain future, we can however entrust them with the leadership that we are unwilling to assume. Our own 'intolerance' for ambiguity creates the expedient leader. Like a line of army volunteers all taking a step back, those remaining assume command.

Selection of a leader by the assumption of followership, provides the security we seek and resolves the ambiguity. A decision is made and the future entrusted to another. The answer to the question 'Why do we place trust in the people that become our leaders?' is that we do so to find safety. Organisations allow leadership to be assumed in this way all too often. We may not know if the expediently appointed leader is qualified to lead, but we do know that we are qualified to follow.

So what the alternative to these often repeated scenarios? Organisations that promote leadership excellence encourage the development of three capabilities. The first is tolerance for ambiguity. With this capability the assumption of leadership can occur without fear. We recognise the unfamiliar situation and do not feel threatened by it while we work to find a strategic solution.

The second capability is the ability to determine whether in times of uncertainty we can trust ourselves. The suggestion is that the person who knows their own limitations is profoundly wise, whereas the person who trusts in the unknown capabilities of another, is a fool. Having the clarity of self-knowledge to recognise our own limitations of leadership skills is indeed a rare insight, but one that is necessary to lead and easily discovered.

This links with the third capability, that of collaborative leadership, which solves the leadership dilemma of being all things to all people. Often a single leader's perspective is not sufficiently omnipotent to foresee all eventualities. In reality we are all limited by our worldview. How we see the world is how we respond to it. A confident leader may portray a particular sense of what they see as reality and we agree with that leadership vision, sometimes without questioning. Their confidence is appealing, but it may not represent their competence. With the third capability of collaborative leadership, multiple perspectives combine to create the ability to respond effectively in uncertain terrain.

So how do we apply this to developing leadership in an organisation? We find that leadership is more often about disposition than position - with those willing to assume responsibility first, later being entrusted with formal positional authority. Excellent leaders with the necessary disposition to lead into unknown futures can be developed. They require only tolerance for ambiguity, self-awareness and the ability to build collaborative perspectives of what is really going on. This is the essence of trusted, (rather than entrusted) leadership. Once acquired, it allows some organisations to lead successfully in the future, while others to merely follow?

by William Varey,

Executive Director, Forsyth Consulting Group
www.fcg.com.au