The news Bloomberg-style articles about "Leadership lessons from the pandemic" are almost as annoying to me as the phrase "It's coming home" (nonetheless I still supported England on Sunday and repped my Three Lions t-shirt with pride).
So, I don't expect anyone to read this - and nor do I care. It's a useful exercise for me to write down lessons learned and interesting historical documentation for later in life.
---
After my stint as leader of the UCL Investment Society came to an end in April, I quickly realised that being successful in the role of president of a student society was not a matter of life and death - and yet it surely felt like that it times. It's a feeling echoed by a couple of my other (rock-star) friends who went though the same experience at UCL.
Yet, that intensity created an environment incredibly prone for developing a wide range of skills, ranging from working under (external, but mostly internal) pressure, dealing with my emotions, managing time properly, etc. Acknowledging this fact was one of the main reasons why I accepted the job in the first place.
Apart from a playground for developing these outcome-oriented skills, my stint as president was also an exercise of building and leading a (virtual) team for 12 months. While Paul, the previous president, spoke to me at length about his time in charge, along with lessons and advice, nothing could really serve as preparation for a year so dramatically changed by COVID-19.
Some months passed and I can now compile some of my main lessons, some more predictable than others:
1. Adaptability is key
Every member of a group has a unique personality. While diversity of thought and working style (probably) enhances the team's output, it makes the job of leader difficult. Hence, I've seen it as a choice between two different solutions.
A) Build the team with people who share my working style. Clearly not viable here for obvious reasons, however interesting to reflect upon under certain circumstances. I think leading a team of people in whom you "see yourself" is an attractive idea for most of us (although some may be reluctant to admit it). The downside is clearly losing the advantages of having multitude of perspectives around the table. I've led small teams constructed this way: sometimes it worked perfectly, sometimes it was a disaster. It's hard for me to see an obvious middle-ground for such a structure. Maybe I will develop on this later on.
B) Adapt my working style to form a middle-ground with the people I work with. Sounds obvious, but I found it challenging to implement. Doing it for a short period of time (say a weekend long project or a uni assignment) was always doable without much struggle. Doing it for a year.. not so much. An honest self-assessment would say I only partially succeeded. Naturally, over time it becomes easier to communicate, share ideas and assign responsibilities with the people who share your "working vibe" (as well as personal vibe). Simultaneously, it becomes hard/impossible to assess if the team would perform better otherwise: does the team perform at its maximum when synergies between the leader and some key team members are exploited? Or would it be optimal to see beyond this and share responsibilities equally, albeit at a perceived loss of efficiency in the short-term?
2. Leadership capital
This is one of the concepts I've heard from Jocko Willink which immediately ringed a bell and made it easier for me to translate my thoughts into coherent writing. The idea is simple: over time one can build "leadership capital" by providing the team members with responsibility, recognition, autonomy, etc. Then, in a situation of crisis, this capital is "deployed": the team members are more willing to accept a decision coming straight from the leader. Therefore, efficiency and team performance under stress is improved.
I have lived this exact scenario and at least a couple of times throughout the year, most notably in the week leading to our flagship event, the UCL Finance Conference, which was our equivalent for a "crisis situation". During some intense days and nights, I was able to impose some of my solutions and decide on key aspects quite quickly without alienating my team, which I attribute to offering them a relatively large degree of autonomy over the preceding months. In an ideal world, we would not have had to get there in the first place, but in the world we live in this approach turned out to work pretty well.
Moreover, I was not afraid to openly admit/explain the reasoning behind this strategy to the VPs in my team. Looking back, I believe this openness solidified some of the working relationships I shared with my team.
3. It's a lonely job
Seeing entrepreneurs on Twitter and on podcasts is cool and looks glamorous, but (smart) people understand the reality: entrepreneurship is pretty miserable and lonely, especially at the start. My job was similar to that of a start-up boss, hence it felt pretty solitary most of the time.
Having Maria by my side as my right hand was amazing and I am eternally grateful for being able for her help with pretty much everything we did. Still, some decisions remained individual and it was at those times that I felt the reality pretty strongly: you are alone and, post-factum, nobody really thinks about how hard it was to arrive at a particular decision. All that matters is the outcome.
This might be classified as soft, but I think many managers, coaches, etc. would prefer to be praised for the tough decision-making process which takes place before an important event, rather than the outcome. Nonetheless, this never happens which makes the whole journey both more exciting and more grinding.
4. The "sexy" part of the job is largely missing
I recognise that this is far from a general principle, but in my experience a lot of the "glamorous" features of the job are constructs which only exist when we see others being in a position to which we aspire.
For example, being on stage during an important event required preparation and concentration, but brought me little sense of accomplishment, although it looked somewhat cool when I was among the students in the room in previous years. Same goes to leading a meeting with a team of 25 people and similar kinds of moments.
For me, all the joy and sense of achievement came from building beautiful connections with people and the positive output of our work. All else was insignificant. And it was totally worth it, just in different ways than some people (myself included) might imagine.
---
Thanks Lex for being the catalyst for this post and making me rewind to some of the most rewarding moments of my life so far.
M
So, I don't expect anyone to read this - and nor do I care. It's a useful exercise for me to write down lessons learned and interesting historical documentation for later in life.
---
After my stint as leader of the UCL Investment Society came to an end in April, I quickly realised that being successful in the role of president of a student society was not a matter of life and death - and yet it surely felt like that it times. It's a feeling echoed by a couple of my other (rock-star) friends who went though the same experience at UCL.
Yet, that intensity created an environment incredibly prone for developing a wide range of skills, ranging from working under (external, but mostly internal) pressure, dealing with my emotions, managing time properly, etc. Acknowledging this fact was one of the main reasons why I accepted the job in the first place.
Apart from a playground for developing these outcome-oriented skills, my stint as president was also an exercise of building and leading a (virtual) team for 12 months. While Paul, the previous president, spoke to me at length about his time in charge, along with lessons and advice, nothing could really serve as preparation for a year so dramatically changed by COVID-19.
Some months passed and I can now compile some of my main lessons, some more predictable than others:
1. Adaptability is key
Every member of a group has a unique personality. While diversity of thought and working style (probably) enhances the team's output, it makes the job of leader difficult. Hence, I've seen it as a choice between two different solutions.
A) Build the team with people who share my working style. Clearly not viable here for obvious reasons, however interesting to reflect upon under certain circumstances. I think leading a team of people in whom you "see yourself" is an attractive idea for most of us (although some may be reluctant to admit it). The downside is clearly losing the advantages of having multitude of perspectives around the table. I've led small teams constructed this way: sometimes it worked perfectly, sometimes it was a disaster. It's hard for me to see an obvious middle-ground for such a structure. Maybe I will develop on this later on.
B) Adapt my working style to form a middle-ground with the people I work with. Sounds obvious, but I found it challenging to implement. Doing it for a short period of time (say a weekend long project or a uni assignment) was always doable without much struggle. Doing it for a year.. not so much. An honest self-assessment would say I only partially succeeded. Naturally, over time it becomes easier to communicate, share ideas and assign responsibilities with the people who share your "working vibe" (as well as personal vibe). Simultaneously, it becomes hard/impossible to assess if the team would perform better otherwise: does the team perform at its maximum when synergies between the leader and some key team members are exploited? Or would it be optimal to see beyond this and share responsibilities equally, albeit at a perceived loss of efficiency in the short-term?
2. Leadership capital
This is one of the concepts I've heard from Jocko Willink which immediately ringed a bell and made it easier for me to translate my thoughts into coherent writing. The idea is simple: over time one can build "leadership capital" by providing the team members with responsibility, recognition, autonomy, etc. Then, in a situation of crisis, this capital is "deployed": the team members are more willing to accept a decision coming straight from the leader. Therefore, efficiency and team performance under stress is improved.
I have lived this exact scenario and at least a couple of times throughout the year, most notably in the week leading to our flagship event, the UCL Finance Conference, which was our equivalent for a "crisis situation". During some intense days and nights, I was able to impose some of my solutions and decide on key aspects quite quickly without alienating my team, which I attribute to offering them a relatively large degree of autonomy over the preceding months. In an ideal world, we would not have had to get there in the first place, but in the world we live in this approach turned out to work pretty well.
Moreover, I was not afraid to openly admit/explain the reasoning behind this strategy to the VPs in my team. Looking back, I believe this openness solidified some of the working relationships I shared with my team.
3. It's a lonely job
Seeing entrepreneurs on Twitter and on podcasts is cool and looks glamorous, but (smart) people understand the reality: entrepreneurship is pretty miserable and lonely, especially at the start. My job was similar to that of a start-up boss, hence it felt pretty solitary most of the time.
Having Maria by my side as my right hand was amazing and I am eternally grateful for being able for her help with pretty much everything we did. Still, some decisions remained individual and it was at those times that I felt the reality pretty strongly: you are alone and, post-factum, nobody really thinks about how hard it was to arrive at a particular decision. All that matters is the outcome.
This might be classified as soft, but I think many managers, coaches, etc. would prefer to be praised for the tough decision-making process which takes place before an important event, rather than the outcome. Nonetheless, this never happens which makes the whole journey both more exciting and more grinding.
4. The "sexy" part of the job is largely missing
I recognise that this is far from a general principle, but in my experience a lot of the "glamorous" features of the job are constructs which only exist when we see others being in a position to which we aspire.
For example, being on stage during an important event required preparation and concentration, but brought me little sense of accomplishment, although it looked somewhat cool when I was among the students in the room in previous years. Same goes to leading a meeting with a team of 25 people and similar kinds of moments.
For me, all the joy and sense of achievement came from building beautiful connections with people and the positive output of our work. All else was insignificant. And it was totally worth it, just in different ways than some people (myself included) might imagine.
---
Thanks Lex for being the catalyst for this post and making me rewind to some of the most rewarding moments of my life so far.
M