The Paths to Becoming a Leader

Leadership is a topic that concerns many. Can one become a Leader without innate qualities? Is it possible to develop strategic thinking in adulthood? And how does context influence our management style? These and many other questions were discussed in the first episode of the “Leadership Podcast” with Andrew Rozhdestvensky – a joint project of the Center for Leadership of UCU and “Radio SKOVORODA”.

Today, we revisit the premiere episode in an unusual – text-based – format. The goal is to analyze the key ideas presented and to shed new light on the issues raised by the author, referencing relevant research. Enjoy your reading!

In Search of “True” Leadership

Andrew Rozhdestvensky, Executive Director of the Center for Leadership of UCU, begins his discussion with the most fundamental question: “What should we actually consider Leadership?” He immediately disappoints those expecting a clear-cut answer: there is no single “correct” definition. In this sense, the idea of “true” Leadership, much like weaponry that has evolved from era to era, depends on the context in which it is viewed.

The oldest – and thus, most widespread – form of Leadership is the “pointing finger method”. In management theory, it is referred to differently: the directive style. It implies a “strong hand” Leader who makes the final decisions.

Naturally, due to its clarity and simplicity, this approach still has numerous supporters today. But is it sufficient for solving the complex problems characteristic of modern times?

Many theorists reached the same conclusion as early as the second half of the 20th century. Andrew directs his listeners to the work of one of them – John Kotter, Professor of Leadership at the Konosuke Matsushita Chair at Harvard Business School. In 1990, Kotter published his renowned work “A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management”, which offered a fresh perspective on the very concept of Leadership.

What Does the Renowned Researcher Say on This Matter?

1. Leadership and Management are distinct but complementary processes:

• Management ensures stability, order, and efficiency in complex systems through planning, organization, and control.
• Leadership, on the other hand, initiates change, creates a vision for the future, and inspires people to bring it to life.

2. Key Differences Between Management and Leadership:

Management:

• Plans and budgets (ensuring predictable results).
• Organizes and staffs (structuring work and processes).
• Controls and problem-solves (minimizing risks, maintaining order).

Leadership:

• Sets the direction (creating a vision and strategy for change).
• Motivates and inspires (energizing people to achieve goals).
• Builds a culture of adaptability (promoting flexibility and innovation).

3. Leadership is critical in times of change:

• Relying solely on Management results in bureaucracy with no forward movement, lacking the agility organizations need.
• Leaders are the architects of change.
• Key Leadership skills include strategic thinking, inspiration, risk-taking, implementing change, and – just as importantly – building alliances and coalitions.

It is in this final point that Andrew Rozhdestvensky sees the defining feature of Leadership. A typical Manager operates within the bounds of their competencies and influence. A Leader, however, is someone who consciously sets ambitious goals, continuously expands interactions with others, and forms alliances and coalitions.

“Managing people within your direct sphere of influence – at work or, say, in the military – is not the challenge. Try influencing those who are not your subordinates. That is the art of Leadership”,

the host concludes.

However, John Kotter’s definition does not claim to be universal. His view of Leadership as both a counterbalance and a complement to classical Management works well in stable conditions. But is it sufficient for the turbulent times we live in?

The host expresses deep skepticism. The rapid pace of technological advancement, the emergence of artificial intelligence, and, as a result, the complete rethinking of labor market trends and the global economy are just the first signs of the profound changes ahead. Decision-making based on past experience is no longer effective – because more and more challenges arise for the very first time.

And in this sense, another definition of Leadership, proposed by Dean Williams in his book “Real Leadership: Helping People and Organizations Face Their Toughest Challenges”, seems more relevant.

“Dean Williams argues that old, classical views on Leadership no longer work. [They claim that] a Leader is some sort of ‘Boy Scout’ – a person who knows everything, leads everyone, unites, and inspires… But [in today’s reality], the challenges are so complex that the risk of such a person making a mistake is catastrophic”,

explains Andrew Rozhdestvensky, elaborating on the scholar’s perspective.

So, what solution does the author propose? “Teamwork”, our colleague succinctly summarizes. In today’s environment, teamwork plays such a crucial role that the Leader’s function is gradually shifting from being the central, “all-knowing” figure of a company to becoming someone capable of building a fully autonomous and, more importantly, self-sustaining team – both in terms of operations and strategic direction.

And in this sense, according to the Executive Director of the Center for Leadership of UCU, it is essential to focus on one key trait that Dean Williams attributes to a true Leader: the ability to be candid. Essentially, to “have the audacity” to reveal reality to colleagues exactly as it is – shattering the comfort of “rose-colored glasses” or, conversely, breaking through a sense of total hopelessness. This approach is difficult, fraught with internal resistance from the audience and a decline in popularity. However, it does not lull people into complacency before a harsh confrontation with reality. Instead, it makes them aware of the scale of the challenges ahead and shields them from disillusionment at the first obstacle.

Andrew Rozhdestvensky emphasizes that this approach is most effective in times of crisis or in anticipation of one. Though it may seem “harsh”, it has the power to prevent failure or misguided investments. However, for the reasons outlined above, it remains deeply unpopular in politics – a field where approval ratings dictate the rules of the game. The consequences of this “immature” Leadership, or rather, its absence, are felt not only by Ukraine but by the entire world.

“Thus, a Leader is someone who reveals reality to their team in order to unite them around solving complex problems – using innovation and new approaches in the process”,

our colleague concludes.

Does this mean that other types of Leadership are “not real”?

“No!” the host clarifies. “But for such figures, Dean Williams suggests using different terms: ‘chieftain’ or ‘ruler’…”

In this context, figures like Vladimir Putin or Alexander Lukashenko are not Leaders. They are classic “chieftains”, for whom the development of their countries holds no significance. They do not present the truth to their people; instead, they distort reality, directing all efforts solely toward benefiting privileged groups within their societies.

“Is It Possible to Develop Leadership in Adulthood?”

This was one of the key questions addressed by the host in the premiere episode. In making his argument, Andrew Rozhdestvensky refers to Gerard Seijts, a researcher at the Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute for Leadership at Ivey Business School, and one of the co-creators of the Leadership Character framework used by the Center for Leadership of UCU.

In his book “Good Leaders Learn”, Seijts explores how Leaders – representatives of entirely different fields – have developed their skills throughout life. He concludes that Leadership is largely acquired rather than purely innate. These skills evolve through experience, learning, self-reflection, and personal growth, as individuals confront challenges and risks. In percentage terms, the balance between innate and acquired Leadership qualities is approximately 20-30% vs. 70-80%.

“There are things that we inherit from our parents. They help us, including in our realization as Leaders. For example, I have a rather loud and deep voice. […] And if I, say, had to be one of those classic ‘drill sergeants’ who yells at everyone, I’d probably be better at it than someone half my size…”,

illustrates Andrew Rozhdestvensky.

Another example is Michael Phelps, the American swimmer recognized as the most successful and decorated Olympian of all time. One of the key factors behind his success was his unique joint flexibility. But does this mean that we, “ordinary” people, should abandon our dreams of becoming Olympic champions? Or at the very least, learning to swim well enough to avoid drowning?

“Even if you weren’t born with a particular gift that allows you to perform an action at a perfect 100-point level, your dedication to self-learning will still enable you to perform at least 10 points better than others”,

the host encourages his audience.

“Does Gender Matter in Leadership?”

Undoubtedly, there are some minor differences between men’s and women’s Leadership styles. But are they truly significant in today’s world? Andrew Rozhdestvensky presents several thought-provoking arguments:

• The same brain regions are responsible for decision-making in both men and women. This eliminates any basis for stereotyping or speculation.
• If the traditional approach to Leadership, as described by John Kotter, literally demanded a certain level of masculinity from its practitioners, then the modern perspective, embodied in Dean Williams’ theory, rejects this necessity. Williams’ model is not about aggressive Leadership, but about wise process management.
• The only real distinction between male and female Leadership is the context of decision-making. An aggressive environment – such as a battlefield – is a space where masculine behavior is often expected. Are women capable of adopting such behavior? Many are! However, this role is not always comfortable for everyone.

Final Thoughts

So, what are the key takeaways from the premiere episode of “The Leadership Podcast?” First, there is no single, universal definition of Leadership. Context determines decision-making, shaping the most effective Leadership style in any given situation. So, a Leader’s success depends not on innate talent or gender, but on their ability to accurately assess their team’s context and act accordingly.

And if we’ve inspired you to watch the full episode – follow the link or listen on your favorite platforms! Because only by understanding these processes can we change the world!