By Dr. Joel Schlesinger

Countless behaviors, traits, and values inspire the exercise of leadership; and each leader brings their own special set. In the popular leadership book “Good to Great,” Stanford researcher Jim Collins lists seven. Or, in “Jack: Straight from the Gut,” former GE CEO Jack Welch notes 27 ideas that worked for him. Each emphasizes different qualities of what can succeed in the workplace, but their diversity highlights that there is no single best way to lead. We may perhaps never understand exactly why followers follow leaders but, in the end, we know that leaders resonate: they somehow, some way, connect, big time, with their colleagues, peers, or subordinates and motivate superior productivity, innovation, and commitment. Ironically, what thrives for one leader in one context — situation, circumstance — may not work for other leaders; and it may not even work for that same leader in a different context. So, context has become to leadership what location is to real estate: it is the indispensable factor.

The Context is Always Changing.

Societies mark their social evolution through zeitgeist — the mindset or intellectual fashion of the day; and this mindset defines what we will tolerate when we consider the emergence of fresh ideas. So, leaders are shaped by societal dynamics and cannot simply separate themselves from the beliefs or behaviors of their times. For example, society once frowned upon hiring or promoting women to key organizational positions and leaders acted in accordance with that value. But times change and this is far less the case today.

It Begins with the External Context.

Every organization has its own unique context as it interacts with an external environment of clients, competitors, suppliers, regulators, and communities. In doing so, they allocate their human and financial resources to cope with breaking opportunities, existing strengths and weaknesses, and potential threats — and this is the basis of strategies whose purpose is to successfully navigate their context. Shifts in that ever-changing external environment can lead to urgent changes in an organization’s internal structures, processes, relationships, and expertise — its core competence. And this urgency impels internal and external environments to re-align. For example, the Covid pandemic severely disrupted global supply chains forcing dramatic internal adjustments to accommodate external circumstances. Or a minor competitor may acquire your most feared rival. What then? Leaders, anticipating change, must always be focused on their next best move.

Internal Contexts Can Limit Options.

While we often believe our leaders can unconditionally do as they please, in fact, three key contextual factors temper their ability to act. Together, these factors represent an organization’s internal environment.

• Organizational objectives. Organizational objectives — for example, expanding operations abroad or going green — set by boards of directors, shareholders, or stakeholders bind organizations and restrict leaders. Financial considerations (market share vs share value vs profit) and values (fair trade) driven by internal and external environments significantly influence leaders’ choices.
• Organizational culture. Organizational cultures rest on the assumptions, values, and beliefs at the root of an organizational culture as it interacts with its internal and external context. Cultures can be goal-oriented or relationship-oriented, maintain a short or long-term perspective, promote open or closed communication, operate formally or informally and — most importantly — skillfully manage change. Organizational cultures, like those of society, can evolve over time but this is not easy.
• The nature of the workforce. The nature of people with whom leaders work directly affects their ability to motivate them. Do they prefer autocratic or democratic leadership styles? Are they more comfortable with goal-oriented or relationship-oriented leaders? Are they sufficiently confident and competent to accomplish what they are asked? Will they take risks? Effective leaders are aware of who their followers are and what those followers expect — on an individual basis — and they adapt and provide it. Successful leaders know it is not about them.

The workforce must see change driven by some dramatic sense of urgency — the share price falls, or the competition launches a killer new product — as necessary or the natural tendencies to resist change will frustrate it. For that reason, the deep and broad participation of followers in understanding the need for change and defining corresponding solutions is vital. Otherwise, they may not embrace the change process as their own.

It is the combination of organizational objectives, culture, workforce, and effective leadership that positions an organization for spirited performance and dynamic change when the inevitable sense of urgency — driven by context — occurs.

Shared Contexts.

There are some commonalities with respect to organizational context. First, leadership takes place within organizations all of which exist to achieve specific objectives. Secondly, organizations are groups composed of more than one person, which means that achieving organizational objectives involves the inextricably intertwined efforts of leaders and followers. Thirdly, to survive, organizations must satisfy the demands of relentlessly shifting circumstances which form their unique context. So, leadership requires constant monitoring and adapting to the needs and demands of the workforce and threats from competitors, customers, and suppliers. Resonation with the workforce depends on the leader’s capacity to deal with the many contextual variables. Leaders may be poor or wealthy, modest or smug, ordinary individuals or dazzling intellects; but what they have in common — if they successfully read and respond nimbly to their context — is the ability to connect and unleash enormous creativity and effort.

Leaders Handle Context Differently.

There is a holistic unity to leadership and four leadership qualities — status, esteem, technical competence, and organizational leadership skills such as vision, empathy, and effective communication — always present in some measure — help leaders connect with followers as they address their context. The proper mix of these qualities depends on the nature of the followers and the situations faced. For example, the newly elected Abraham Lincoln arrived in Washington with low status and esteem; but in confronting a somewhat hostile context comprised of a cabinet of rivals, a demanding Congress, and a skeptical military, he brought savvy political (technical) competence and strong organizational leadership skills. Confederate General Robert E. Lee possessed high esteem, status, and technical (military) competence; but at Gettysburg his inability to exercise sound organizational leadership skills contributed to his organization’s failure to agree upon and execute a common vision (internal context) and the external goals he shared with followers died on the Pennsylvania battlefield.

The annual harvest of popular leadership books focus on specific techniques — the “One Minute” this, or the “Eight Highly Effective” thats — or what leaders should do. But it is the larger task of leaders to define reality and give it meaning, to describe shifting organizational circumstances, and explain why and how the organization must change to meet the new needs. In tackling context, who leaders are is vital, particularly in the eyes of the workforce and organizational partners. That is, how others perceive a leader’s personal qualities and actions determine their willingness to trust and commit. Throughout our history character has emerged as the most consistently valued leadership trait: we want our leaders to be people of character, individuals with integrity, honesty, energy, positive attitude, and a sense of community and public spirit.

How leaders act is equally paramount to motivating followers. Within their specific organizational context, adroit leaders adapt to the competence and confidence of their followers, engage with strong interpersonal skills, facilitate a shared vision and back it up with a fear-free culture of continuous learning, introspection, and ethics. Empathetic, they listen. Once these skills were considered soft; they have now become the critical hard skills of leadership. In leadership, it is not always what one does, but how one does it, that counts.

Leadership Now More than Ever.

In the early days of the industrial revolution, economists concluded that land, labor, and capital constituted the three factors of production needed to master the context and produce valued assets. In the latter half of the 20th century many thinkers contended that entrepreneurship had become equally important and added that factor. Today, others suggest that technology deserves a place on the list. Since virtually all of the world’s work is done or significantly influenced by organizations now, more than ever, our future depends on their quality. Therefore, leadership arguably represents the most important asset to an organization’s sustainability and resiliency and a case can be made for adding effective leadership to the list of critical factors of production. For it is likely that different leaders might achieve very different — better or worse — outcomes than their colleagues based on who they are and how they choose to act — given the context.