Beaky's Blather

During my career, I’ve served as facilitator or coach to many boards and teams. I have been asked, occasionally – ‘who were the better leaders that I had encountered and why? What in their demeanour or behaviour made them seem better than most?’

I risked seeming to pay a compliment to one client at the expense of another.  People who might meet each other. I tried therefore to use examples drawn from history; those I could safety compare and contrast in the certainty that they were now beyond this risk. 

One pairing I chose for comparison – because it provided a near like-with-like-comparison as they held the same job – Gladstone and Disraeli. They exchanged the role of prime minister with each other each General election for 27 years, leading Britain at the end of the 19^th century, when Britain was at the pinnacle of Empire greatness. They faced similar challenges in the role.

Senior leaders in most cases provide leadership to their senior individuals who in turn provide their leadership onwards to their senior people etc, each at their level charged with deploying limited resources, bringing creativity, intelligent focus and effort to deliver agreed achievements 

What I am about to explain is I admit freely apocryphal to a degree, it illustrates nonetheless, a thought that is valuable whatever the historical accuracy of the parable.

When evaluating even great leaders, whether Alexander the G, William the C, Richard Branson or Bill Gates et al, I contend that each must achieve what they seek through the endeavours and behaviour of their immediate subordinates; the people that they personally lead and who in turn must lead their senior team and so on. 

Seldom, I think should a senior person be required to lead many more than a dozen or so individuals who, in turn, must lead a dozen more of their own.  The personal example that each senior leader sets as they interact with their dozen direct reports may often be pivotal in securing a company’s culture and so how it delivers its ultimate success. 

Gladstone and Disraeli faced almost the same national challenges as each other over almost the same period in British history. Although as PMs, they delivered the role in quite differ ways. 

They both led from the pinnacle of many (perhaps 12 Ministers) who in turn led subordinate teams of 12 etc, each providing leadership to a dozen or so senior subordinates each providing a combination of the service, information or actual product for which they were responsible.  

Gladstone and Disraeli as prime ministers however, delivered their leadership duties in quite different ways.

 Gladstone, undoubtably had a towering intellect, was a wonderful orator, the envy of each of his ‘dozen most senior subordinates who each led their 12. subordinate leaders and so forth.  

Queen Victoria is said to have described him following an exchange of views, ‘He addresses one as if we were a public meeting.’

Gladstone’s dozen or so ministers and all others with whom he interacted directly would leave his company convinced that whilst with him, they had been in the presence of genius. 

Gladstone was a Titan whose senior reports would follow anywhere

Disraeli, beside Gladstone, was not a towering figure. He was a small swarthy man, and not a great orator. 

Disraeli however provided something that Gladstone and most other leaders simply didn’t try to achieve. Whereas Senior subordinates left Gladstone convinced that they had been in the presence of genius. 

Subordinates left Disraeli–convinced that – that it was Disraeli who had been in the presence of genius. 

Disraeli was a staggeringly effective motivator His senior people committed to and really owned delivery of their roles.

Question,

1. Who between these two, both prime ministers do you think, led the stronger team or Cabinet? 

     2.Which leader are you more like?’