Leadership, particularly towards the top of an organization, is about walking the talk and practicing the precept. This holds at all levels but is critical at the top.

Two examples from an Indian perspective immediately come to mind. Infosys is a widely admired company as much for its values as for the wealth it has created over 25 years. A significant factor in the success is the leadership. The founder-chairman and CEO voluntarily stepped down at a relatively young age to pave the way for another founder-member. The latter, in turn, has, again voluntarily, stepped down at an even younger age to make way for the COO to become the CEO. Many who joined the company without a great deal of knowledge of technology have, through constant training and learning, risen to the top of the pyramid. The organization has demonstrated that merit in a holistic sense is all that matters and hence has earned the respect of every section of society. For many years, it was ranked No.1 in the list of "Most Admired Indian Companies."

In contrast, an organization that was the market leader in its category for many years quickly fell from grace and is not even talked about today, primarily because of the differences at the top and personal greed getting the better of everything else. It is hard to believe that such a precipitous fall is possible in the corporate world.

The lesson is simple for those who want to learn. Leadership can and does make a vital difference. The means are as important as the ends. Quick-fixes and short-cuts may be tempting in the immediate future but have little chance of success over the long-term. Unfortunately, business leaders do not seem to believe in history and therefore keep repeating the same mistakes again and again, to the detriment of other stakeholders.

It took two heart breaking years to heal the rift between mutually suspicious union and management sides in an environment similar to the one described by Michael Watkins. My former employers believed in divide and conquer and would employ any tactics to ensure that work get done under a pervasive cloud of fear. If an employee was not spying on colleagues, s/he was branded an enemy of the organisation and was denied the rewards that "naturally" come with hard work and team effort. All the work put into bringing a cordial relationship between union and management went to waste as senior management systematically relieved the main advocates of a positive work environment of their posts. The situation has so deteriorated that a considerable number of a 230 strong workforce were summarily dismissed for complicity or active participation in company property theft after it was televised on national television. Management policy of employing people with the same unprincipled mindset, people who were "easy" with unfair tactics and underhanded manipulation, led to the loss of millions which even the proposed jail time will not return to company coffers, where they belong. Management has proved in this case has proven to be infectious after the plague.

I could not stop smiling whilst reading Michael’s entry since the prologue of my book Viral Change starts with a true story of a new CEO who made a series of relatively informal comments on the organization, generating de facto cascade changes ultimately translated into true cultural change. When I interviewed him a few months later as an organizational consultant and congratulated him for what it seemed to me a good ‘change management programme’, he replied ‘what programme?’ - Thanks for the entry!

Dear Michael,

I can't imagine there is anybody who will disagree with you: Leadership does permeate the organization from the top down.

But when you ask: "What kind of infectious agent do you want to be? Infectious like humor or infectious like the plague?" I am having just as much trouble imagining certain leaders asking themselves this question? And if they do, isn't it a no-brainer?

No manager wants to be "the plague" or even conciously destroy a company or do the "wrong" thing. The ones who "spread the plague" most likely won't see it that way themselves, will do so in good faith, will think it's the right thing for the organization and their reports - most likely because it worked for them and got them to where they are now. Sometimes they simply might not be able to help it, despite their better judgement.

The more burning question for me is how to develop a level of introspection within such a leader that might catalyze change.

Kind regards
Rudi

Dear Michael,
I couldn't help but be moved by your commentary. There are so few effective leaders in this world today. To see your clear cut perspective between "the plague" and "humor", I can only surmise that humor would be the "constant" intent/choice for any ethical, and conscience leader.
I am of the opinion that a truly solid leader is created through the "trial by fire" methodology. Not the pyrotechnic means you expressed, but by the double-edged sword tactics of yesteryear: the steel of the blade is tempered by fire and honed to perfection by the mallet that strikes it. Meaning that life, the choices made and the true character of the leader is formed by temperance. Just my two cents. Thanks for listening.

Dear Michael,

A great article and insights in the comments made.

For me there is only one real dilema to solve and that is find leaders committed to activley encouraging self awareness in individuals and ultmately Authenticity at all levels within an organsisation.

One of the BIG discussions in my own company community is around the granting of permission. How do we remove the fear that stops people from being true to themselves - policy, procedure and measures certainly have a part to play - but by far the most potent impacts are environmental.

If people can feel "safe" to be who they are (Authentic) then they are more likley to become more effective role models and thereby perpetuate and spread the effect so eloquently described above.

Safety comes in many guises and is sometimes different for the needs of the individual. To help create the "neccessary" environment, we are starting to ask three questions - the ABC!

Authentic – are you able to be true to yourself and to be open and honest in your day to day activities, or does policy, procedure, or environment drive you in a different direction?

Blame – do you direct it towards processes or towards people? Depersonalise the problems and issues that arise and see how much easier it is to find joint resolution, and build teamwork, collaboration and cooperation.

Courage – are you courageous enough to say when you see processes or behaviours that are contrary to the good of our people or our organisations?

The answers to these go a long way to addressing the environmental aspects of safety - and towards "allowing" people to be who they are....

...and suprisingly the journey doesn't stop there!

Warmest regards
David
CSC Authentic Leadership Community

As an organizational consultant, one of the major overwhelming events regarding organizational culture, was that the replacement of a CEO often does not change anything. Two different CEOs with very different attitudes, and still, the culture remained for a long time influenced by the "phantom" of the former CEO. It means, that the entreprenuer (or a very infectious/significant CEO) establishes a culture at the beginning, a culture, that its change takes a lot of time and energy and sometimes needs an "intrusive intervention" in order to change the DNA of the company.

Ronit Amiaz

I do see the impact leaders can create on the organization culture. I also believe leaders do what works for them and don't know what they don't know. It takes time and effort to raise one's self-awareness. Leaders must feel the needs before they commit the time and effort. I wonder what would be effective ways to create the needs.

I completely agree with Michael's point-of-view. Its the start of effective leadership. In my opinion it is equally important that the leader be skilled in increasing people's competencies and motivation in key areas. Focusing on behaviours, with what i call "The Video Test" we can encourage engagement - humans love doing things we do well. People also need to understand how their actions contribute to the fulfillment of the strategy in order to create alignment.

So, to Michael's point, the measure of leader effectiveness is seen in the behaviors of their followers.

Jim Sellner, PhD., Dip.C., Dean of Delivery

There is no argument here! In my experience, it is also important for higher ups to acknowledge their shortcomings and take responsibility when things aren't working.

One organization I have worked with, continually passed the "puck"; Everyone in the organization had become accustom to not be accountable. The President of the Organization, although a really nice guy, continually passed on responsibility to his subordinates - mostly me - to "save face". Most of the time, I didn't even know this was incurring, until our line staff began to treat me poorly and mistrust my actions.

I believe strongly in the power of responsibility and accountablity. If the higher ups are honest, so will the chain of command.

Thank you for your eloquently written insight, I will be passing this message on.

I think the subject of leadership and viral effect on people is a delicate one. Particularly when one appreciates how important but sensitive people are.

The fear of leaders is to avoid being taken for granted. Afterall the purpose of managing a business is not just to make everyone feel good. Profitability must always be kept in view and this requires strict adhearance to standards, effective and efficient execution of planned objectives which employees are less concious and focused on, compared to senior management people. This "stick to it until its done philosophy" is often at variance with the natural tendencies of human nature.

On the other hand, I realy identify with "the suggested experiment" in Michael Watkins article were he proposed walking into the office area with a broad smile, connecting with the people and making them feel good about themselves, their jobs and their company.

My view is to get to a level of leadership skill development and expertise where you instinctively know when to commend or correct in each context. I believe that leadership is a learned pattern of behaviour, and after a long time, it becomes automated behaviour which bypasses the normal cognitive processes.

I hereby challenge learders in their organizations to push their leadership quality to this level, such that you know when to commend or correct. You know the "measure" of commendation or correction suited for each suitation. Your choice of words is very appropriate. The chairman of our company here in Nigeria for instance may tell you that you are stupid and yet you laugh about it!

I agree with Michael's point-of-view. There is no doubt that your employees, like any audience for that matter, can sniff out insincerity like bad cologne. A positive leader who is passionate about the work/product attracts the same type of people. When you have a small core of like-minded, sincere, fearless and passionate individuals, you can accomplish amazing things. Viral is a great description.

One small note from personal experience: A leader who is virtually unseen by the organziation, save for a few emails, hollow ghost-written newsletters or shareholder engagements, is just as bad as no leadership at all...and has the same, or possibly worse effect on the employees. Again, if the leader has shut down and doesn't interact, the viral outcome will be the same.

Thanks for the insight and reminder that we are all "carriers".

The truth of infectious leadership seems to be so obvious yet my experience like some of the previous comments is that the majority of our leaders in business and in politics are exactly the opposite. Meaness and win at all costs attitudes appear to be rampant. A recent NY Times article talked about a survey that said that over 50% of traders would committ a felony if they thought they would not get caught. I doubt that is confined to the financial industry. In my experience there are more of the leaders who are the plague type than the humour type. I believe that is in part at least because those seem to be the leaders that get rewarded best and are most admored at least in the press until they get caught. Remember Al Dunlop was a hero until things fell apart. Usually we get the leaders we deserve. Just look at the politicians on both sides of the US - Canada border.

Great article. I agreed leadership behaviors are infectious, but by varying degrees of virulence. When the plague comes from the very top of the organization, it is swift and lethal to experienced leaders who are immune by virtue of their positive leadership style; they will not conform, labeled and held up as weak, ineffectual leaders, discredited, attacked, they are quickly eliminated. Key to the successful spread of the infection, once the plague demonstrates its destructive power and in the absence of any other style to emulate, inexperienced leaders may indeed be infected, and in this way, the disease is perpetuated. Unfortunately, from the outside, this can look like good business, moving swiftly to turn things around, and the loss of good leaders, and the death of employee engagement, creativity and morale goes unnoticed. While the infection of positive leadership behavior is slower, as the behaviors are subtle and are more difficult to emulate. Being a tyrant or a bully is easy; a three year old can do it. Being a positive leader is challenging, messy and takes time to develop, like democracy. It requires an interest in and respect for others, tolerance of differing opinions, diversity, even dissension, and the ability to listen, empathize, collaboratively solve problems, and an interest in the long term success of the enterprise that comes from a desire (need?) to produce quality results. The positive leader must act too, to develop or remove leaders who are plague carriers, but tends to do so more slowly, giving the leader a chance to modify behaviors, which ironically, sometimes leads to their own downfall. Despite the fact that this positive approach has proved the more effective in building long term value, and in engendering employee engagement and creativity, as in the case you mentioned of Southwest Airlines, and Herb Kelleher; slow, in our culture, is frequently a death nail. This CEO is removed for acting too slowly, and again, the strong leaders they surround themselves with, the improved employee engagement, creativity, and morale goes unnoticed, or may even be perceived as proof that the leader is not “moving and shaking.”

Ones style as a senior leader is a choice, and changes are you have been exposed to both types of infections at one time or another, and have made your choice. CEOs and senior leaders who lead in a positive way know what they are doing, as do the Boards who employ them, and are largely motivated by a need to do the right things right, and if they have been around the block a few times, know that it may lead to their downfall, but don’t care. Likewise, CEOs and senior leaders who are plague carriers know what they are doing, as do the Boards who employ them, motivated only by immediate monetary rewards and what they perceive as power, enabled by an immediate term focus that demands immediate results, without regard to the quality of the result, and at any cost to the long term health, welfare and even to the long-term success of the enterprise—you have the ideal medium for the plague to spread. I agree we get what we deserve, or said another way, what we tolerate and reward.

Its really true in every sense.

If i just think about my own family where my behavior is being watched carefully by my family members and repeated on occasions as well as i am reminded of certain unacceptable or below the mark behaviors at a later date by anyone mostly the younger ones.

The same thing is seen in a large corporate (a big family)where heads or leaders are watched by heads multiplied by two eyes and critically analysed.
Leader as higher he goes need to be more sensitive to how his actions affect others down the line,because he is under scanner all the time.

You need to pay this price to be a priceless leader.

Lets be more proactive in our actions with regard to how it affects team members.

Thanks

Dear Michael,

An introspection needed from leaders perspective.

We have highest leadership training institutes in world today , we have best mgmt education ,best MGMT GURUS ,best facilities and best of everything in past 300 years but we have few New generation leaders as compared to charisma we saw in 1960-1995 .

We have maximum issues too?

You have really raised a point which is putting Leaders in centre of attraction too along with asking them to restrain and introspect before they act.

My thinking is also to put Leaders in an environment where its mandatory to learn from behaviors of his down the line team.

Is it possible?

Why cant leaders adopt/pick up one good behavior of his team mates and apply and recognise the inhouse behavioral talent.Why being shy in borrowing our youngsters behavior ,will that be a positive virus! Is it ok for a leader to be comprised of collective behavioral traits of his people in organization and this way every one identifies him or her in that leader and we see lots of happenings in an organization.

Why at the first place a manager in a leadership position(its expected that he has grown laterally well before growing vertically) behaves in a way that affects organization threads and bonds.I am talking about -ves of that viral affect of Leaders behavior.
Is it the lack of fundamental principles and choice of values and over that pressure of ethics fighting a onesided battle with BUSINESS SENSE (to make profits at any cost)which makes the sole objective of an organization as earning profits(as discussed in every AGM).
In aggreement to Mr.Watkins views (he is an expert)i want to convey that basic reason for any leadership behavior might be originating from Topline pressures which are hounding a TOP LEADER all the time and who is at the helm of affairs beyond a designated leader.

Lets look at the News Paper Industry and News channels ,do they pass ethical standards or they have redefined ethics itself,all employees behave in alignment with what Organizational objectives are and they seem to have completely forgotten their ethical ,personal value based LIfe Goals.

Infact all large organizations have topline pressures which in my 22years experience gives rise to these especially negative or perceived to be negative behaviors of Leaders.Many people did criticise Jack welch too initially.Are we passing through Leadership cycle bit faster today ? and maturity which could absorb few things at the top itself is freely seen flowing down without interruption slowly destroying positive culture of various organizations.
I have a Solution to propose and thats THE BITTER PILL ,will leaders take it?Will they comply with precautions?

The disease is diagnosed and prescription is ready in the hands of our Leaders today , the prescription recommends THE BITTER PILL,will our LEADERS consciously and sincerely take this bitter pill and allow this pill to work on their minds and generate a behavior through CONSCIOUS PRACTICE of recommended PILL till they become UNCONSCIOUSLY COMPETENT in their behaviors which will be a vaccine not virus,a new personality of a 21st century LEADER.

I wish in next 30 years we will be forced to develop a new Leadership Vaccine to be given to all Leaders right from day one they get into those positions.

Thanks Mr.Michael for your thought provoking article.

Yudh Vijay Nautiyal
GM Training
Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Dear Michael,

Great Article

But,

Anger is not a "bad" state of mind. It can be a very powerful weapon, when it is controlled, used at the right place, at the right degree and on right problems. Any of these being wrong, can be disastrous too.

Sant

Dear Michael,

Very meaningful article. The comments posted are also very relevant.

I would like to add something. In my opinion, every leader also needs a coach. He needs somebody who can:-
a.hold a mirror to him ;
b.give him unbiased & balanced feedback;
c.guide him;
d.give him a different perspective.

It goes without saying that the Coach need to be good leader himself; the one who has 'travelled the road'. Also, the leader should have the maturity to accept the role of a coach.

Best regards,
V.Balasubramanian
General Manager - HR
Load Controls India Private Limited

This sounds very much like Goleman's thinking on moods as a significant part of emotional intelligence --- the exercise stuck me as one that could be used with EQ and the power of mood.

As a military leader I experienced the infectous effect of leaders on the undercommands both in peace time and battle situation. Later on as a salesleader I had the same situation with my sales team.

In both the situation, the people down below the chain articulated the same language of the leaders through their thinkings as well as actions. There is no denying fact that at the end of the day it is the CEO who sets the pulse of the organization he/she leads.

I have personally used the above and created a positive environment in my team.It has reduced the attrition rate and increased productivity of the team.

Dear All,

People are complex beings. Judgement over people around us are based on feelings and first impression.

Determination and skills play a role of getting a desired job as well.

Offer package will draw different people. Screening is to be objective.

Best Regards,

Alan Goh ACMA(U.K)

The subject article is a thought provoking endeavor presented in a simple fashion making it easy for the reader to comprehend the subject. However, I would bring another perspective to the debate on the subject.
Decisions taken today are likely to be the judgmental mistakes in the future. Pursuit of these decisions (approaches or strategies) by coming generation would be remembered as a conventional pursuit. Decisions taken in any circumstances are followed by imitation of it as generally people pursue the status quo. Discontinuity or deviation from the status quo is unconventional. Times come when few people challenge the status quo and conventional wisdom applied for the management of affairs.Todays unconventional is conventional of tomorrow. What history tells us that humans have missed the attitude of Being Mutual in this sojourn from conventional to unconventional and back to conventional? A person engaged with the business or for that matter with any other profession directly and indirectly has to apply three faculties namely, being conscious, imaginative and meaning seeking, that makes him distinctive from animals. A person using these three faculties is bound to apply a principle of being mutual. The absence of it or partial application of any of these three faculties will result in what we see in the example of Carl in the above article, one way communication, suppression of creative thoughts/ideas etc.
Who and what will produce such a mind depicting a behavior of Being Mutual? It is expected that all systems be it education, political, judicial etc got to inculcate/cultivate this mind. Human is being in applying these three faculties. The application intensity of these three faculties determines the progress and growth of the person. All success starts from individual and failure if tracked back reaches to the individual failures. People get enriched in their roles as they move along.
The previous ten to fifteen decades commencing from the beginning of agricultural revolution followed by industrial revolution was based on one principal and this principal contrary to its complexity is known as simply and explicitly as possible is labeled as Self- Interest. This resort, to me has turned out be a catastrophe resulting in a widening gap between rich and the poor, inequality of wealth and resources, exploitation of the weak etc. The communication revolution did try to imitate this same principal but globalization turned out to be a blessing in disguise and the ever more probable inter personal engagements are now based on the mutual interest i.e. benefit for the concerned linked with the transactions. This compulsion is not by design by default. Simply not by choice but has come out as a residue because of increase in frequency in human engagements. The endeavor required is a conscious one so that it remains Being Mutual. Human sojourn commenced from localization and moved gradually to nationalization followed by regionalization and ending at globalization. Every stage in this sojourn had set in the ingredients for the next phase although abstract initially getting a concrete shape later. The next phase I envisage is “Universelizaton” .In today’s environment around us we can easily pick the ingredients for universalization, however abstract at the moment. There are minds that are already set for thinking in terms of universal engagements. What academia or influencers in any set up particularly the commercial wing has to ensure that such a mind remains mutual in its being to avoid situations like in case of Carl in the subject article.
There is a universal emerging code for the management related to almost all spheres of life including the business. In my opinion they can categorized as follows;
1. Its concerns with the humans
2. Requires thinking big rather universally
3. It’s multitasked
4. It is less formal.
5. It is trust based, more participative
6. It’s speedy
7. Change is constant
8. It’s expressive
9. More informative
10. It’s more enthusiastic
Human mind is made capable for actions and reactions that are possible till the end of the world. What gets in triggered in the mind depends on what five senses send to brain. So what we must look for is the humans applying the three faculties that will ensure a behavior of facilitation or construction. The internal mechanism emanating from individual forming a group or a business empire will suppress automatically from arising, the situation that we saw in case of Carl.
Actions and reactions emanating from different rolls are either constructive or destructive but for sure are contagious and infectious. Actions and reactions move from inward to outward and with targeted to humans applying the three faculties is bound to bring back from outward to inward the behavior of facilitation. I wish this approach had been there in a case of Carl.
Having narrated the above note, let’s come back to the subject. The phrase “infections leadership” should be infectious acts and reacts as it’s the actions and reactions that are contagious and infectious. Leadership is a role that should focus on that at all levels including his, brains are engaged in Being Mutual and applying the three faculties. Let the brains contribute mutually and human enter universlization accompanied with such a mind set.

Farooq Ahmed
Director Marketing

Hi Michael:

Infectuos leaders, in my opinion, are leaders without purpose.

I would like to become someday a leader who's a conqueror. Conquerors are leaders who teach others to grow helping them reach excellence in everything they do. Learn from the experts, but the experts need to model a good character, not carisma. Inspire people so they can follow you. A leader always has a good message that will always be remembered. That is the type of leader I would like to become someday.

Excellent topic.

Janet Santiago(Puerto Rico)
Student Kaplan University

Dear Michael Watkins,

The article makes one think. I thank all others who have contributed insightful comments on the topic.

The views in the article again accentuate the view that the impact leaders have in an orgnisation. Though we all agree that leaders exist at all levels, the leaders at the top matter most- because of the impact of the decisions they make - on the organisation, people and the culture of the organisation.

It makes one ponder how much conscious organisations are on the kind of leadership they promote. In the recent past, we have seen disastrous mistakes in their judgement on the kind of leaders they promote. And one can also see the difference when they make better judgements.

I feel a good majority of organisations ignore this vital aspect.

Dear Michael Watkins,

Thanks you. The article makes one think. I thank all others who have contributed insightful comments on the topic.

The views in the article again accentuate the view that the impact leaders have in an orgnisation. Though we all agree that leaders exist at all levels, the leaders at the top matter most- because of the impact of the decisions they make - on the organisation, people and the culture of the organisation.

It makes one ponder how much conscious organisations are on the kind of leadership they promote. In the recent past, we have seen disastrous mistakes in their judgement on the kind of leaders they promote. And one can also see the difference when they make better judgements.

We need to note that it is people who make these judgements. Are people promoting people who are like them? Then, it is all the more necessary to reflect the process of developing leaders and how one picks them up.

I feel a good majority of organisations ignore this vital aspect.

Dear Michael

Thank you for another interesting article.

I find the field of neuroscience and related neuroleadership provide an interesting scientific explanation for the infectious leadership.

Kindest Regards

Shaun Killian