LEADERSHIP = (TEAM X QUALITY)2

By Ryan Kerseboom (MPICTMIntSecSt B.A.SecCTT) Security Operations Manager, SKG Services

would do, what most of us would do with a kingdom and virtually unlimited wealth and power and then consider why Alexander did anything at all!

We tend to associate great leadership with the military, politics and/or business (in terms of money earned) however, it has become increasingly apparent to me that great leaders are often among us persuasively influencing the professional and person we intend to become.

From the top of my head, I can affirm the influential character-building qualities that I have strived to incorporate into my own character and while it is easy to personalise the traits that we each determine to be essential for leadership, there is no doubt there is a common thread amongst all the leaders of the past and present. Accordingly, it is incontrovertible that an ability to influence others remains a critical and distinguishing element amongst all leaders irrespective of the period, and in amalgamation with further attributes such as moral fortitude, intelligence, communication skills and a plethora of supplementary personal qualities, great leaders are “cut from the same cloth”.

Genuine leadership is something that I believe is forged through experience, circumstance, desire and necessity. I have often said, while his father was a king (Philip II of Macedon) with significant title to bequeath, Alexander was not born Alexander the Great, he became this in only 32 short years of life, albeit rather privileged life. While circumstance may have been a disproportionate influence towards greatness in this case, it is clear that there was something more, much more in fact. Ask yourself what you

I could never hope to mention all the great leaders that have contributed in some way (and some more directly than others) to my own development as both a professional and citizen. However, whether we are talking about the well-known names of the past: George Washington, Julius Caesar, General/President Dwight Eisenhower, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Boadicea, FDR, Samuel Colt, Abraham Lincoln, Henry Ford, Winston Churchill, Saladin, Elizabeth I, Atatürk, Bill Gates, Napoléon, Cyrus II, King Edward I and on and on. Or, whether considering some of the people (who will remain nameless but know who they are) directly influencing me today including my father, three managers/directors and friends I have had and continue to have the good fortune to interact with frequently, the traits are universal.

So, what does this all have to do with the security industry and an article published in the “Security Insider” magazine you may be asking. To provide clarity, I sought the publication of this article due to a profound realisation that strong leadership is a force multiplier in all professional ventures but with specific and palpable dividends within the provision of security services. We are in a unique industry where we are often expected to put ourselves between the interests/personnel of our client and imminent harm for relatively little remuneration and/or career motivation. Something beyond this must drive the will to perform, the will to improve and the personal commitment to do the best job possible, day in, day out.

Naturally, even the most cursory investigation into what makes a strong leader suggests that there is no one set of disciplines or characteristics that meets everyone’s definition of somebody justified to follow. Accordingly, I would not dream to offer any form of definitive list within. Alternatively, I offer my reflections in relation to my own career to date whereupon I have contrasted the great and acknowledged leaders partially mentioned above, to the leaders I have worked closely with as my career has progressed. In no way, do I consider the following reflections to be exhaustive but rather, the truly dominant qualities that are foremost in my mind in relation to the way leadership should be.

Of critical importance, truth is towards the top, if not at the top of any list that defines personal qualities to lead. Leaders must appreciate that manipulation of the truth, if discovered, can dissolve relationships, motivation, vision and commitment likely forged over years, in only seconds! While I have grown or perhaps “matured” enough to acknowledge the naïve approach that truth, or rather facts, can be universally distributed, to me, good leadership relates to whom these truths are told, not whether the truth itself is told. A natural corollary stemming from truth is trust, this defines the “whom” referred to above. To my mind, these qualities are requisite of robust leadership.

Beyond a corollary facet of truth, trust is needless to say, a giant in the assortment of key leadership qualities required to steer any team. Trust, like many of the qualities observed operates in a bilateral manner between teams and their constituents and I would argue, is essential, in various degrees to get the best from a team who genuinely believes their leader to be part. While it may seem that this trait is a fundamental element of leadership qualities, I am constantly perplexed by “leaders” who disregard this trait with comments as ironic as “I knew they could not be trusted” upon an upset or performance issue that results!

While the order of these characteristics within this article is random, no one trait is any less important than another and I maintain that while varied situations may call for varying proportions of each trait denoted, they really are a package deal that modulate between each other to affect the overall conduct of leadership. I remain convinced that applying some of these qualities in isolation to the others will allow the omitted element of leadership to be the weakest point that will at some point cause failure and a disillusion of team camaraderie.

Similar in nature to the almost symbiotic relationship shared between truth and trust, are another set of characteristics that share an equally inexorable bond in association with leadership. The expression – “to lead from the front”, conjures mostly military analogies for me with a vivid imagined scene of one of the aforementioned greats fighting alongside his/her comrades on the front line, inspiring through seemingly superhuman feats of bravery and unadulterated valour to compel victory. Such expressions exist as a result of great leaders repeatedly witnessed doing what the others will not. The power of an already acknowledged leader joining you in battle or “in the trenches” or “on the front line” or within any of the cliched but clearly poignant situations that such leaders should be above, can inspire even the most cynical and jaded team members to action! A genuine leader places their own welfare after that of their team and will do what the others will not to get their team to victory or indeed, just get the job done how it should be done.

While there is a prospect of contradiction between the confidence a leader must have and the self-awareness essential to avoid overconfidence, the balance between these apparently opposing influences can be decisive towards any leader’s success or indeed, catastrophic failure! It is my very firm contention that any leader who believes they have it all or that they cannot possibly learn anything new/more about leadership is manifestly unsuitable to lead. There is an equally prolific catalogue of “leaders” from history that fit well into this category of noteworthy exceptions that arguably allowed all manner of influences like divine right, racial/ethnic superiority, financial or industrial power and so forth to elevate their confidence to definitive detrimental levels.

With the above said however, it must be acknowledged that the right amount of confidence based on measured strategic understanding and the context of situations that are to be managed, is vital to the outcomes sought via the application of leadership. Confidence within a leader is one of the fundamental origins of authority, assertion, fortitude, ingenuity, foresight and likely a few other nominal characteristics that allow a person to function ahead of the pack. However, as already alluded to, there really is a delicate balance that must be struck to ensure that overconfidence does not create a monster that “leads” through fear, retribution, dictatorship and the like. This is not leadership, this is coercion and while it may work to achieve some outcomes in the shortterm, I am adamant this is no way to win “hearts and minds” required for broader and/or long-term strategic objectives.

If there is one natural attribute that indisputably aids in an ability to lead, it must be intellect. I personally cannot think of any other quality that we are predominantly given at birth that has as much influence over our individual capacity to lead. I think it is also fair to say that the examples of history have indicated that the intellectually gifted amongst us tend to rise to the top in all endeavours, nowhere more so than at the head of corporations, organisations, governments and similar bodies of united peoples that seek and need guidance. Of course, this intellect itself needs to be channelled towards a desire to lead, perhaps another innate quality present at birth but I am more inclined to believe that where motivations are concerned, it is the day-to-day motivations required to lead (preparation, research, administration, training, discussion, planning etc.) that have by far the greatest impact towards the capabilities of any leader.

If you know anything about battlefield strategy you will be aware that once a rout commences, it is extremely difficult to rally with a disproportionate impact upon your army’s casualties, morale and ability to salvage any encouraging facet resulting from the engagement. It is my perception that this analogy can be applied in relation to respect given and received as the leader of any team. Such situations can and do impact upon team members and hence teams in emphatically contradictory ways to robust leadership, this can easily undermine respect forged over significant timeframes at great cost to any team endeavour. All team members, particularly leaders must give and receive respect, it is a mission critical component of team unity that is consistently required.

The final aspect of leadership attributes I have the allowed wordcount to discuss is courage. Still very much towards the top of any legitimate character compilation, courage must be considered an intrinsic element associated with prosperous leadership. Courage, whilst not effective in isolation, is a primary driver towards “trail blazing” and demarcating the safe course for your team to follow. Perhaps yet another trait that we may be born, or at least well-endowed with but again, I tend to believe that a kind of refined courage results through exposure to situations we become better at resolving or managing as our experience grows.

While this article may have been surveyed with some ambiguity regarding its relationship to security and security services, I can vehemently proclaim that the discussion items within are universal considerations for all teams, none more so than those within the security sector. To date, a few sort of “cover all” quotes/phrases have guided me in my pursuit to become a better leader and person, wherever possible I try to “lead by example” with indefatigable guiding quotes of: ”don’t tell me, show me” and/ or “right is right and wrong is wrong”, amongst other guiding principled phrases that aid in this pursuit. Far from suggesting that the content above incorporates the only defining features that must exist within a leader, it would be more accurate to assert that such qualities are just the beginning. Closer to the mark, this article clarifies my most genuine contention that the character traits within are traits that will be found within any leader that demands and compels our respect, takes individuals of a team to new heights that can only be achieved within the team and, through explicit example of selfsacrifice, induces their team to do the same for the collective good.