organisations know that engagement matters. To take one example, the Gallup
organisation has measured engagement for decades with their framework (Gallup
q12) and tracked the impact of engagement on business performance. Their 2016
analysis included data on 1.8 million employees across 82,000 business units
and showed that top-quartile business units outperform bottom-quartile units by
10% in customer engagement, 21% in profitability and 20% in productivity.
are only a small number of factors that drive engagement, such as working for
an organisation that has a deep sense of purpose. And key amongst these factors
is the quality of the relationship an employee has with their immediate
So, this leads to the question: what is it about some managers that means they get higher engagement scores? What is the distinctive pattern of their strengths?
Engaging or charming?
comes to mind when you think of a charismatic leader? Maybe the great orators? But
also, maybe those who charm their way out of tough situations, who seem able to
get people to like them even against their better intentions. We talk about a
magnetism in their character, an ability to pull people towards themselves and
their ideas. Engaging? Definitely, but in a particular way.
we work for a charismatic person, we find their charm can soon cloud if they
have a need to stand in the sun all the time, to be the centre of attention,
for everything to be a reflection of themselves.
In our CharacterScope data set we see a quieter, less egoistic and more deeply engaging version of the charismatic character: that of the Charismatic-Servant leader.
Their spirit is nicely captured in this quote attributed to Queen Victoria, contrasting her experience of working with two of Britain’s key political figures of the 19th Century:
When I left the dining room
after sitting next to Mr Gladstone, I thought he was the cleverest man in
England. But after sitting next to Mr Disraeli, I thought I was the cleverest
woman in England.
The charisma of Disraeli is turned back from himself into the other person. Rather than a need for his audience to find him interesting, he invests in finding what is interesting in the other person and thereby helps them believe the best of themselves. It’s an experience we can’t help but find engaging at a level that goes far beyond immediate charm.
Where are your Charismatic-Servant leaders?
The Charismatic-Servant profile is a combination reasonably frequently seen in our data-set, but do you know where they are in your organisation? The chances are you won’t, because they are not likely to post their achievements in neon lights on the wall behind their desk.
The Charismatic part of their profile means that they enjoy pulling people towards them, that they enjoy engaging and even charming people. The Servant part of their profile brings a really interesting balance: they get their own ego out of the way and focus instead on the team and people around them. So yes, they engage people, but engage people around shared goals and people’s strengths, rather than around their own ego or personal needs.
we work with someone with this combination, it’s hard not to be engaged! But
there is a quietness to the profile that means they will often be off the radar
of senior leaders looking for indicators of future talent, which often bias
towards more obvious indicators such as having a quick mind, self-belief, and a
Instead, if you really want to find where they are in your organisation, just take a look at your engagement scores. Of all the Leader types, the Charismatic-Servant leader has the strongest correlation with high feedback scores on ‘Engages people’ and ‘Creates trust’.
Not only is the psychological make-up of the Charismatic-Servant leader one which means that they tend not to promote themselves, our data-set shows that they are significantly more likely to be female than male, by a ratio of 2 to 1. Gladstone, in his compulsion to demonstrate his intellect, is probably more typical of male leaders, and Disraeli the outlier. Yet if engagement drives business performance, and the particular pattern of strengths of the Charismatic-Servant leader drives engagement, it’s worth wondering why more models of high potential aren’t explicitly built around their distinctive strengths.
For now we’ll pick out two signature strengths of Charismatic-Servant leaders: their Zest and Other awareness.
Perhaps men feel less comfortable with the outward display of enthusiasm and positivity that is the hallmark of zestful people, but we’ll save that for a further article on the gender differences in our data. What is clear is that all leaders can improve their ability to be an engaging leader by building these key strengths.
So if you have a CharacterScope
account, dig out your Solo and Viewpoints reports and take a look at where
these strengths lie, and think seriously about signing yourself up to the Zest
If you’re not yet a CharacterScope account holder, just ask yourself this single question: being outwardly enthusiastic about life is as natural to a seven-year old as liking ice-cream; where did your zest go?
Let’s do a quick recap from the earlier blogposts. We’ve seen that there is no definitive list of ‘leader traits’: leaders are as diverse as humanity. We’ve also seen that there is no neat list of leader behaviours or skills. Instead, we’ve seen that a focus on why we have leaders gets us real traction:
In this blogpost, we’re going to focus on leadership and make it personal: to pick up the ‘how’ questions. How do leaders lead? How do people showing leadership do it?
As we have seen, the list of qualities leaders apparently need to show quickly becomes overwhelming and self-contradictory. Depending on who you read, leaders are visionary, entrepreneurial, practical, have integrity, make people feel special, and so on into a long list. But we can simplify all of this with the observation that people follow people. That leadership is at its root about one person choosing to follow another person.
Leadership is personal: people follow people.
Which leads immediately to the question ‘why would someone choose to follow you?’
Leaders inspire leadership from others. This means inspiring people to be prepared to put their heads above the parapet, to take a stand, to call out what isn’t working and what can be improved. Leadership is not the same as the exercise of power. For sure, when someone has power it can make it easier for people to follow if that person’s role gives them the authority to direct. But if we think it through, what is being followed is the authority invested in the role rather than the person.
When a police officer directs us to do something, we are following the authority we as a society have invested in the police as an institution, enacted in the role of the police officer. We are interested in something different here. It is when people feel they have the option not to follow that leadership becomes particularly interesting, because people are choosing to follow. Leadership and followership are two sides of the same coin.
At the heart, leadership involves you and your colleagues actively shaping the environment within which you are working and living – the network of relationships, the physical environment, the psychological environment, the culture of the team – taking active personal ownership, rather than seeing it as someone else’s responsibility.
Yet as we explored in the last blogpost, doing this isn’t without risks: what if others don’t follow your lead?
If leadership is a personal act – people follow people – it is helpful if we can give other people good reason to want to follow, and this takes us into an exploration of why it is that one human being might choose to follow another. What are the qualities that make it more likely for followership to happen and which qualities are less relevant?
There are indeed many ways of leading, but that there are certain qualities of a person that make it easier for one person to follow another. These are your distinctive, personal pattern of strengths of character and intelligence. People will follow your lead because of your own, authentic, distinctive character.
For some, this will be their charismatic ability to energise people and give them a sense of optimism. For others, it will be because of their seriousness, responsibility and determination to deliver on their commitments. For other again, it will be because of their ability to find fresh angles, see into the future and their willingness to try, to experiment.
We see our role at CharacterScope as helping you understand and build confidence in your leadership contribution, and then to develop it. We help you to recognise, value and play to the strengths that make it easy for others to follow your lead.
We provide the tools and insight to help you understand why people will be prepared to follow your lead, and to have an idea what your ‘natural’ leadership contribution is – the one you will feel most comfortable and confident making. Yet we go beyond self-awareness and provide the content and tools to help you actively develop your character strengths, whether it’s your self-belief, resilience, optimism, your ability to think ahead, to build perspective, to develop your spark of originality.
For all of the 34 strengths in our CharacterScope framework, there’s a 25-day development plan. We don’t pretend it’s easy developing character, but we do know it’s a prize worth working for.
Rather than start this, the third blogpost in our series of articles doing a deep-dive into leaders and leadership, with an exploration of what leaders do, we’re going to start with an even more basic question: what are leaders for?
saw in the last blogpost that trying to pursue a definitive list of
leadership attributes (‘what are leaders like?’) seems inevitably
set for failure. As an alternative route, many have argued that
focusing on what leaders do will bring us the insight we need. Yet at
CharacterScope we think that going this route quickly leads to a
glance at the leadership section of an airport bookshop shows us a
few textbooks on leadership next to multiple biographies and leaders
describing ‘what they did’ and why you should copy them. If you
read these, you’ll find that the list of what to do becomes
exhausting, long and contradictory. Leaders need to show charisma, to
pull people towards themselves; they need to show great self-belief
and yet have humility at the same time; they need to be dispassionate
yet emotionally intelligent; they need to sustain the strategic
overview yet be close to the executional detail, and so on. There are
loud, impassioned leaders and quiet, reflective leaders. Bold ones
and cautious ones. Leaders with extraordinarily attuned emotional
sensitivity, who ring with others’ emotions like a glass, and
leaders who are no more able to resonate with another person’s
emotions than is a lump of wet clay.
Stepping back, we can see that the leadership literature has been focused for decades on just a few questions: ‘what are leaders like?’ and ‘what do leaders do?’ These are important questions but only become worth answering after we have asked the ‘why’ questions: ‘why do we have leaders? what are leaders for? what happens when there is no leadership? why is leadership a universal of human experience?’ To answer these questions we need to look in a different direction, into ourselves and our psychology rather than into a book.
psychology of leaderless groups
simplest way to answer this is to reflect on your own personal
experiences of being in a group that lacks a leader or where the
person appointed as leader seems unable to lead.
experience is deeply disorienting, like we are waiting for something,
are being busy, trying to be productive, but with an underlying
unease that what we are doing is meaningless. We know that somebody
needs to take the lead and we know we need to find a shared purpose
that the group can form around.
Yet the act of taking the lead on behalf of a group, particularly a
group of strangers is stressful. Not least because it immediately
raises the question of whether anyone will follow our lead. And what
are the consequences if people do not follow? Does it mean that my
membership of the group is compromised, that I have lost my voice, my
influence? What will people think of me?
somebody else takes a lead, what do I feel? Do I feel relief that I
don’t have to take the lead? Relief mixed with resentment about
somebody else putting themselves above me? Do I have an inner
certainty that I could do better, combined with frustration with
myself that I didn’t take the lead? And when in turn someone who
has resisted my lead makes their bid for leadership, will I follow,
or will I resist? And what if no-one is allowed by the group to lead?
intimate connection between leadership and followers, and the
emotional undercurrents that swirl around leadership and followership
provide important psychological insights. We can use these insights
to get to the following key ideas.
create meaning and purpose and help people connect to it.
involves creating, or discovering, meaning and purpose and then
helping people connect productively to this purpose. Being a part of
a group without a purpose is a sure-fire way to feel frustrated and
leaders create the conditions for others to show leadership. Or more
inspire leadership from others
second theme gives us the key insight that whilst not everyone will
become a leader, leadership is for everyone, not just those who have
‘leader’ as their role. This idea, that everyone has a leadership
contribution to make, goes right to the heart of the CharacterScope
endeavour. We exist to help people and their organisations be more
characterful, places where people work productively and flourish
explore this idea further in later blogposts.
For now, take a moment to reflect on your own world. How clear are you about the purpose of the teams and groups you are a part of or lead? If everyone in the team wrote down their understanding of the team’s purpose would they write the same thing? And would it be equally meaningful and motivational for all? And how good are you and the leaders around you at inspiring leadership from your colleagues.
In this second blog post exploring leadership and the role of character development in good leadership, we take a look at what leaders are like. Or rather, we explore why asking this question is not a very good idea and whether there are better questions to give us insights into leaders and leadership.(Leadership development plan)
Leadership for many is something remote. Something other people do, and often don’t do well. It is something for older, more experienced people. Some may aspire one day to be a leader, others could imagine nothing worse. Leadership development is something that happens after management development. It is something we are invited by others to do, not something we take on to ourselves.
watch the news and rarely can see ourselves doing what we see leaders
doing: standing on stage, delivering speeches, confronting, arguing,
playing the political game. It seems not to relate to our journey to
work by tube, standing elbow to ribs. Leadership ends up seeming
remote from our daily lives and this remoteness disables.
have a powerful pull to see leaders as someone or something special.
Yet the evidence suggests that this is not the case. There has never
been a satisfactory answer to the question of what makes a leader.
Read the political and historical biographies, watch the TED videos
and tv programmes and try to summarise what leaders are like. Are
there particular personality factors? A particular pattern of
intelligence? A distinctive make up to their character?
is easy to misstep in thinking about leadership. If we do not
separate out the person and the role of ‘the leader’ we are
destined to confusion. You might hope that somebody in a leader role
would show leadership, but a moments reflection suggests that
sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. Taking or showing
leadership is not the same as having the role title ‘leader’.
is a simple enough idea but one that has far-reaching implications.
For example, if we study people who have the role title of leader we
will end up listing out some behaviours and attributes that
undoubtedly are related to leadership but we will also list out
factors that do not relate. This then faces us with making the
judgement about which of these attributes actually do relate to
leadership, and how we are to make that judgement is not at all
For example, in the UK at present business leaders are far more likely to be men. They are also more likely to be taller than average, to have more prominent jaw-lines, to have come from a particular educational background. They are also more likely to be extrovert, have lower trait anxiety and be more open to experience; they are wealthier and have more affairs. Our instincts are that some of these attributes legitimately relate to leadership and some are a reflection of current biases in who gets into privileged positions. But how are we making this judgement? In a very real way, we already need to have an understanding of what leadership really is before we can start to pick out the traits that distinguish and create a leadership development plan.
have invested heavily over many years in trying to identify the
particular characteristics that pick someone out as having leadership
potential. Each large corporate will have their own formula and our
experience from consulting to hundreds of these corporates over more
than two decades is that there will be some overlap (common traits),
but each will have some distinctive parts. Many will emphasise the
need for their senior leaders to have a quick mind, or to be
extrovert, a good communicator. Some will emphasise curiosity, others
emphasise people awareness; some self-belief, others humility, and so
the picture is looked at in totality, it is hard to resist the
conclusion that all that ends up being compiled is a list of the
traits of humanity. There certainly seems to be no single thread from
which the fabric is woven. Nor even a repeated motif in the pattern
of the cloth.
insight can be an uncomfortable one: there is no definitive list of
characteristics that sets one person apart as being a leader or
having leadership potential. The definitive and distinctive list of
leadership qualities remains elusive because there isn’t one. And
if there is no definitive list, then perhaps we are all more or less
equally capable of leadership.
conclusion feels at odds with our inner certainty that there simply
must be something that sets leaders apart. To understand this, we
need to go a little deeper again and in the next blog post we will
shift from the question ‘what are leaders like?’ to some more
fruitful ones: ‘what are leaders for?’ and ‘what do leaders
And again, let’s close with some quick personal reflections: are you able to pick out the behaviours and skills you have that others will experience as leadership? Are they the same as those shown by your colleagues around you? Have you ever been in a situation where there was no leadership and leadership was needed? If so, what stopped you from taking the lead? (Leadership development plan)
It is time to think again about leadership. In this series of blog posts, we’re going to dig a little deeper into what leadership really is, whether it matters, what leaders are like and how to develop leadership.
all of our fascination with leadership, the TED talks, the
conferences, the money spent on leadership development, there has
been little gained. There are hundreds of books and tens of thousands
of papers describing what leaders are like, what they do, how to
assess their potential, how to develop them. Pay rates for senior
leaders over recent years have shifted from a multiple of 30 times
that of the lowest paid worker to 300 times: the market thinks that
leaders are either far more valuable than they used to be or are a
far scarcer resource. Yet in a recent definitive guide to academic
research and writing about leadership, Richard Nohria and his
colleague at Harvard concluded that there was little serious research
and scholarship into leadership.
businesses spend significantly on developing leaders, often choosing
to send them to the same business schools that Nohria has pointed out
don’t really believe in leadership as a proper field of study. It
is hard to avoid the conclusion that leadership is seen as a money
spinner rather than a serious subject. But given the expense,
businesses increasingly treat leadership development as the province
of the elite, an exclusive grouping, the high-potentials, those with
impact is profound. We live in a time when many institutions, from
political parties to governments to banks and corporates, believe
that a there is a deficit in leadership. We live in a society where
many people feel let-down by their leaders, doubting whether they
care about the society they are creating, a scepticism souring to
cynicism. Too many senior leaders seem primarily concerned with
themselves or their immediate circle rather than shaping a society
and wider world of equity and meaning.
starkly: there are too few good leaders.
the established leadership industry carries on with practices that
evidently are not producing positive outcomes. How can it be that
graduates from the prestigious business schools know so much about
financial structuring yet remain clueless as to why someone might be
prepared to follow them. How can it be that our prevailing way of
talking about people, society and organisations continues to rest on
market-place assumptions rather than an understanding of how people
make meaning, lead fulfilling lives, create happiness? Why is it that
for most people leadership development is reserved until they are at
a stage in their lives when they feel fully formed and their hunger
for learning is dimmed? How is it that leadership is often one of the
last things that people learn in the world of work?
It does not have to be this way. Our aim at CharacterScope is to encourage everyone to think about themselves as a leader, to find and value that part of their identity that does leadership. For some this may feel an alien notion, for others a familiar one. But we believe the world will be a better place if everyone takes the time to understand and develop their leadership.
In the next blog post we’ll go a little deeper into what leadership is really about, and how established ways of approaching this important topic all too often fail, leaving people thinking that leadership is something for other people, not for them.
let us leave you with some things to think about between now and the
next post: why would someone be prepared to follow you? And why are
you prepared to follow others? And finally: what would happen if we
didn’t have leadership?