[webbruce]

Definitely agree with the article and thoughts. Little things also make the team feel valued and appreciated, quick thanks, short appreciation/feedback, etc. Feels good.

It's interesting having been on the side of being an employee with manager not acknowledging those things overtime it's wearing. But also tough for owner/manager to make sure to keep doing it too. Either way, a good reminder to keep the positivity flowing

Out of all these haterade comments, I don't see any having scaled a company or team. Don't read HBR if you don't want to improve as a leader, simple

[kradeelav]

Agreed. It feels like there's really a difference between leadership-as-a-buzzword or an self-bestowed empty title (in good faith, maybe what the comments are reacting to), versus true leadership that is so rare it can be experienced less than ten times in a person's career. Real leadership is something special, and feels like it's the kind of actions that were exemplified by the first story in the article.

[robbintt]

I'll subscribe to HBR with that endorsement.

[ano88888]

Yes, there is a disconnect with HBR articles and the real world. Just look at the leaders today. People like to attribute all the great qualities to leaders and call it leadership skills. But if you look at people at the top of the food chain, you will see a completely different picture. People can become top leaders while being selfish , brutal and emotionally unstable. Just look at people such as Donald Trump (was president, so definitely was a 'leader') , Xi Jin Ping, Putin etc. The list goes on and on. Ok, if you argue these people are not actually 'leading', they are not true 'leaders' , you're redefining words to make yourself feel good. These people are the actual leaders in the real world who have immerse influence in the world (positive or negative).

[toss1]

There are two types of "leaders". The ones you describe are authoritarians, who are basically self-centered psycopaths, using deception, power (unhesitatingly trashing or killing anyone who is inconvenient) and making everything transactional ("...but first I want a favor..."). Yes, this is "leadership" in the sense of seizing power and wielding it, but it is unsustainable and fundamentally uncivilized. Authoritarians are always present trying to steal power, but must also always watch their back, as everyone including their opportunistic co-conspirators will want to depose them. I do not call this real leadership.

Real leadership focuses around building on the intrinsic motivations of others, being more of an organizing force to help everyone achieve the goal. Maybe it is just wiser use of more the carrot than the stick, but a signal difference is how the real leader manages attention - does she or he guide all the attention to their teammates, or are they consistently taking credit for all accomplishments and focusing attention on themselves?

The focusing of attention of course creates a bias in that the authoritarians are self-centered and make themselves more visible, while real leaders turn the focus to teammates, so we are less aware of them, and of course the authoritarians exploit this bias. We all know of Jack Welsh who ruined GE and now even has a book about him pointing out how he ruined capitalism itself, but we know little of many unsung CEOs who quietly go about building great companies for their customers and employees.

A leader I worked with from the ranks of military leadership once pointed out to me that leadership, especially in the military is exactly the opposite of what we think. Yes, everyone can lead by giving out a lot of direct orders and punishment - and those 'leaders' fail inevitably and quickly, because they lose the trust and cooperation of everyone down their chain of command. So, when they give an order, the 1st officer just says "do what the chief says" instead of digging in and adding value (teaching, more detail on the commands, etc.), and generating that adding value all the way down the chain. The leader by edict & punishment gets mostly malicious compliance, and that unit degrades to failure. Real leaders, in contrast, lead by example and inspiration, with trust and getting everyone to add value down the chain. Another friend with mil experience similarly pointed out how good leaders almost never give direct orders, just suggestions. They do not want to give the direct order where if something goes unexpectedly then everyone is required to get into the mil justice system - it's better to leave leeway for improvements. I think it is also psychologically better to be implementing the chief's suggestion than following the orders.

Just a few bits of anecdata that I hope highlight the distinction...