Guest post by Maggie Lee, a broadcaster, writer and executive mentor
Lee: There comes a point in many careers when expertise alone is no longer enough
“He can’t communicate.” “He doesn’t inspire.” “He’s forensic and cold.” “He flip-flops.” “He’s not good at picking and motivating a team.”
And so the charge sheet against the prime minister grew. For Sir Keir Starmer, the last days of June were like riding a roller-coaster, culminating in his resignation as leader. But then politics has always been a brutal sport.
However looking beyond the daily and relentless drama of politics, the criticisms of Sir Keir Starmer reveal something interesting about how we assess leaders, leading to a question that quite often strikes a chord with partners in law firms the world over: why is it that individuals who excel in one role sometimes struggle when promoted into another?
What makes Sir Keir such an interesting case study is that many of the comments levelled against him are not criticisms of competence. In fact, few dispute his intelligence, diligence or professional accomplishments.
The very qualities that Sir Keir clearly has in abundance – technical excellence, intellectual rigour, attention to detail and forensic analysis – are highly prized in law. He is a KC, after all.
Frequently they are the qualities that enable lawyers to rise swiftly through the ranks. When though it comes to leadership, however, whether that be in a client-facing role or leading teams, that demands something more.
History, experience and psychological research all point in the same direction. They demonstrate that whilst competence is essential, it is rarely sufficient on its own.
Human beings are emotional creatures. We would seem to be biologically programmed to feel first and think second. Even passionate rationalists concur. We want, and like to follow, individuals who display conviction and clarity; people who exercise judgement and skilful communication and who create confidence in uncertain circumstances.
Easy words to list. More challenging to put into action and remember, especially when chairing a tricky meeting that requires diplomatic consensus-building or managing a multi-disciplinary team or a highly-emotionally charged client crisis.
Astute partners recognise that ‘stepping up’ in busy legal practices is demanding but also lonely. All too often those thrust into new roles can find themselves in an isolated position, carrying considerable responsibility with limited opportunities for independent reflection.
This can be particularly challenging for technocrats. However brilliant they may be in understanding the intricacies of the law, they can mistakenly assume that the facts will always speak for themselves.
Very often they underestimate that hearts matter just as much as minds when it comes to getting people on side. Paradoxically for anyone on the leadership ladder, it is when they are at their most uncertain, that they are expected to instil confidence. In these circumstances, objective and non-judgemental feedback can be difficult to obtain.
For many lawyers developing leadership capabilities is not a matter of attending a training course or acquiring another qualification. It requires reflection, honest feedback and opportunities to test assumptions away from the pressures of day-to-day practice.
Perhaps that is the real lesson from politics, and indeed from leadership itself. There comes a point in many careers when expertise alone is no longer enough. The challenge is not simply acquiring new knowledge. More often it is recognising and developing capabilities that may already be present but have not previously been called upon.
Ultimately whether one is seeking to lead a nation, a law firm, a client relationship or a practice group, perhaps the key cross-examining question is this: Why should anyone be led by you?
Leave a Comment