Soft Versus Hard In Leadership   I was invited to speak about Japan at an HR Forum in Taipei recently. The audience was made up of very senior executives from a wide range of industries. There was quite a lot of discussion about the challenges of leading firms today. The central debate which emerged though was about being hard on results and hard on the people to get those results or to be more people focused? What struck me was the central concerns raised were not culture related, nationality or geographically bound. This tells me these are central constructs which can apply anywhere.   Too tough an attitude toward our staff breeds sycophancy, “yes men”, timidity and stasis. When you combine this with a firm run as a family business, the problems just multiply. “Bakabon” is a nifty Japanese term to describe the idiot offspring of the company founder. They are talentless, but they have the right surname, gender and they will take over the business, when the founder dies. Talented people don’t want to work in these businesses because they can never get to the top, because they are not part of the family.   In listed companies, hard driving bosses create havoc. They see their career as a series of stepping stones up the path toward corporate success. The people working for them are the temporary input needed to derive the output desired – the results to show what a genius leader they are. They expect this success to be a springboard on to the next bigger post. It is then goodbye to everyone who made it possible – you won’t be remembered. You were just a means to an end, that being a brighter future, wealth and prestige for the golden one. The rest of you left behind, just keep slogging it out.   The point was made by one executive that at different times, there is a place for running the show like a brutal dictatorship. He gave the example of coming into a firm that was going down. His job was to save it and many a hard conversation was had with the team to that end. You can understand that in a life and death situation the niceties can be suspended in order to survive.   Is that the only way forward though in that situation. Could we get lift off from the team with a different approach? Part of the problem with the harsh interaction formula is that we are imposing our will, values, timetable and our priorities on others and forcing them to comply or else. What if we were able to align their desires with our desires? This requires a lot more effort than balling someone out and threatening them with obliteration if they don’t buck up.   To make that alignment of purpose and desire work, requires we know that person and what they want, which comes back to our communication and time management skills. Busy bosses have to abbreviate everything because they have no time due to poor time management. As the scale grows so does the pressure on how well we can manage our time.   They are also working on the basis that their job is to manage the firm’s processes to get results rather than to manage processes and build the people. This is what differentiates the leader from the manager and so we have a lot of managers masquerading as leaders.   We cannot delegate tasks to grow people because we don’t trust that the delegatee can do the job properly. Why would that be? Well, we have not factored in the possibility that we will have to mentor the staff member in this new role or that we will need to spend time helping them understand the WHY.   This is because we are so time poor and just simply can’t fit it in. It seems faster if we just do it ourselves. So we just stick with watching the processes and we forgo our role to build people. Don’t believe me? Get out your pen and write down how many hours a week you spend right now on building your people? Shouting out orders and issuing commands doesn’t count as building people by the way. If that number of hours calculated is perilously small, then you have not being doing your job as a leader