The following passage by Kapil Edke tells how to measure leader's success.
How do we determine whether a
particular leader was a successful leader or not? Does it depend on the number
of victories achieved by him? Or does it depend upon the percentage of wins? Or
does it depend upon the opinion of the teammates about him and his ability to
maintain harmony within the team? Or does it depend upon the number of years
for which the leader assumed the his post?
I think the leader’s success is
not measured based upon any of the above criteria. These parameters are at best
the objective parameters which throw some light on the leader’s capabilities
but should not be considered as the measurement criteria for the leader’s
success. For example, there were many kings who never lost a battle or many sports
captains who hardly lost a game, but may not be considered among the best of
the leaders. The harmonious relationship may exist among the team members even if
the leader is of goody-goody type, who does not want to pressurize his people
to get things done. That would result in inefficient working of the team and
the leader will certainly not be amongst the best.
For me, the successful leader is
the one who leaves a legacy behind him. He sets the vision and guides the
teammates towards reaching that vision. After he sets the tone, even if he
temporarily or permanently remains absent (say because of illness, death or any
other reason), the team continues to work in the directions set by him, without
getting confused or deviating from its path. The unsuccessful leaders on the
other hand are those, after whose tenure the successors and the followers don’t
know how to continue and either deviate from the path or start from scratch.
If you agree with me, then you
can do a simple task: Take any five leaders from any field from the past and
check by applying the above criteria how successful you think they were.
Thanks.
