It's amazing how timeless characteristics like leadership are.

One thing I like doing (geek alert) when I get a few minutes, is to look through the Google Book catalog. There are some amazing gems in there, and that's where I find little things like info on how to do onboarding from a company manual in the early 1900's and the book preface that inspired this post.

I took the short segment from the book and tweaked it to speak to leadership issues today. After you read it (remember that it was written before the 1920s and some of the language reflects that), I'll tell you what the original purpose was. 

Check it out

The necessity and vast importance of  study [in leadership] is made apparent in the light of the significance which Napoleon attached to the mental quality of leadership,--"The morale is to the physical as three to one.'' Mental and physical training and instruction in tactical leadership were present to an excellent degree. It seems to have been assumed, however, that giving a man an education in these and in the routine administration work of a business organization fitted him to be a leader. The result was that the young manager was obliged to learn many things by hard experience and through trial and error; there was not the desired uniformity in matters of personal leadership.

That is what I have endeavored to do in leadership, so that younger managers may be shown much in the matter of handling people that they would otherwise have to learn by trial and error. In any group of men there are always two classes, the leaders and the followers.

The idea of "get men into the company in any way—circumstances will keep a certain number of them there and self-preservation will make them work," has perhaps been entertained to a small degree in the past. Men can be depended upon to work for a paycheck, but such a spirit is not the spirit of a successful business.

It is the duty of every manager, not only to be a leader, but to develop leadership in others. The holding of a lofty title does not make a manager a leader. It assumes that he is a leader, but it is up to him to prove that he is. A manager cannot be a good manager if he is not a good leader; he may be able to fool himself and some other managers but he cannot fool his staff. In the same way, if you want to know how good a Vice President is, don't ask a CEO, ask one of his employees.

The responsibility of leadership includes not only the manager but extends through him and beyond him to his people. In the words of a prominent CEO:

Every manager, down to and including the least senior, will sooner or later become a leader in a smaller or greater sense. In business, as business is now necessarily conducted, direct responsibility very frequently goes out of the hands of the managers, and small groups of men and women must accomplish objectives themselves; hence leadership must be assumed by some or all of these managers. Any one of them may be placed in a position where he must act independently and make his own decision on his own responsibility, which requires thinking and acting on his own judgment. It requires leadership. 

What was the original purpose for this writing?

I'm not sure if it is a surprise to you or not, but it was a preparation manual for military officers to lead men in battle. Here's the link to the electronic version of the book (which is now in the public domain and completely free). Neat, huh? What do you think about this?

I love the idea of spinning an old book and giving it new applications.

This guest post is by Ben Eubanks. Ben is an ultramarathoner in his spare time (so he knows what that "endurance" stuff is all about). He lives and works in Huntsville, AL as an HR pro by day and an HR blogger by night. Want to connect? He's on Twitter, LinkedIn, and uses that email thing, too. 

Driving home the other day, the kid asked, "Were you bullied in high school Mom?"

"Nope," I said.

"Why not?" she countered.

"Well, kiddo," I confessed, "No one even knew I existed."

"That's pitiful Mom."  Yes, pitiful, but true.

What's also true is the way cattiness catches my leadership attention. Some of my greatest failures, or acts of learning, have been in providing leadership in these situations. Here are three tidbits of wisdom and one leadership mantra I've developed along the way:  

1. Don't react.
2. Expect spats. All of the people will not get along all of the time.
3. Question intent. Is it a matter of maturity or a matter of choice?

Now, repeat after me, "I am not responsible for psyche management, I expect staff to soar past annoying little coworker things and true leaders emerge when the squeeze is on."

Why should staff take the high road and pick their battles? Well, it's not good for their health to get stressed over the small stuff, leaders promote problem solvers - not problem makers, there is too much to accomplish to waste time on this, and yada, yada, yada. Pitiful reasons, huh?

Do you want to know the real reason? 

It's a secret and I am not sure I want to share it.

Ok, I will.

"It's POWERFUL."

Try it. Peace out.

One of the most important things a leader can do is staff their department to deliver. A leader's job is not to know it all. A leader without anyone on their staff who can design a recruitment strategy better than they can or who is better at [fill in the blank] than they are, is not doing their job.

More telling than seeing who a leader selects for a position is taking a look at who they did not.

It's comfortable, and easy, for leaders to select people like themselves or like others on their staff. It's not a stretch for a leader to evaluate a candidate's skills against need, traits against culture, and like-ability against team dynamics. Nor is it a stretch to consider experience and accomplishments to predict (re: crystal ball) contribution and initiative.

The interview, evidence of performance, references, and yes, even instinct, indicate to the leader that there is one person for the job. It all fits except for one thing and this is the one thing could make the difference between a solid selection and an exceptional one. For some leaders, herein lies the stretch.

Once the skills and culture fit boxes are checked and it's time for a leader to make a decision, the questions begin to flow (admit it, you've thought it too): can I manage this person who is older/younger than me, will they test or stretch my leadership skills, what if . . . he has ideas I hadn't thought of, she wants my job (and she'd be good at it too), he'll fill in a much needed gap and people will realize that I had not, she'll raise the bar and others will be threatened, or [fill in the blank].

These questions have absolutely nothing to do with the candidate and everything to do with the leader.

It's a fact. We are human, we get pushed out of our comfort zone and we feel threatened. Take it from someone who succumbed to the madness, let the good ones get away, and has lived to tell about it. Acknowledge the discomfort but don't let it drive your decision making process. Some of my best staffing decisions were made from outside my comfort zone.

How about you?

Photo credit iStock Photo

Leadership. Human Resources. Supervision. Process Improvement. Conflict. Resolution. Performance. Outcomes. Motivation. 

I've been doing this long enough to know that if something is not going the way that I want it to, the way that I expect it to, or just seems to be continually amiss, it is not long before it circles back to me.

You don't know how many times, or maybe you do, I've started to work through a workplace concern with my coach and ended up sitting back in my chair saying, "It's me. It's all me.  Again." 

It's at these time that I often wonder, "so, what's a nice girl from Long Island doing in a place like this?"

Seriously though, leadership is a series of course corrections and it always comes back to the leader. I shouldn't be surprised but it really is an eye opener for me - each and every time. Am I alone on this?

Photo Credit iStockphoto