My Vision of Leadership


Personally, in my opinion, one of the hardest things in life is to reflect of what I have done objectively. People tend to overestimate themselves and often too blind or scared to see the reality. Dunning in Deangelis (2003) did some research regarding this self-overestimation issues and his finding describes two major roots of it, ignorance and performance estimates. And he says the only antidote to this issue is high-quality feedback. It does happen to me in figuring out what kind of a leader I am and I gathered some feedback from my colleague to find as accurate answer as possible.

At first I thought that I am a good democratic leader because I tend to put others interest above mine and I always think that I am motivated to influence others. However, after digging deeper through people’s opinion and of course trying really hard to be as honest as possible to myself, I found out that I am actually incompetent and nothing compare to others. I started to realize that I am quite indecisive, impatience towards inspiring others and even sometimes my self-interest is still over others. Leading people is not as simple as I thought it was. It is way more than just managing people; it is about your personal characteristics, value, integrity and vision (CIPD, 2009).

Hence, I feel that solely being a democratic is not enough because again it depends on the situation. The psychologist Dunning and Kruger define, the more you know the less you know and the more you know, the less you like it. Fortunately, it does not happen to me and surprisingly those feedbacks inspire me to be more honest to myself.

Afterwards, I started to dig deeper about my leadership style and someday Nelson Mandela and Bill Gates came across my research and since that day I realized that I want to be like them. Though, there is no best answer to which leadership style is the most efficient one but I completely acknowledge that every good leader should possess a Transformational leadership style.

Nelson Mandela inspired me through his dispositional authenticity, rare visionary and humbleness. As Jenlink (2014) says, moral authenticity is a powerful characteristic that defines your value and they way you behaves. Mandela acknowledged his imperfections of his wicked youth life but in fact, by doing that he became even greater because his integrity turned out to be clearer (Williams, 2013). During adversity, he still could see way beyond the struggle and convinced people that one day the best is yet to come. No matter what happen, he sticks to his vision. And above all, he never eager to claim his achievements and that what genuine leadership is.

Similarly, in business environment Bill Gates as an autocratic and transformational leader has inspired me that there is nothing wrong in becoming very decisive at some point as long as at the same time you always push people to become better. Through him I realized that autocratic leader is not just simply about ignoring people’s input but it is about reducing negativity and make the best out of everything. He always encourages people to innovate by requesting a new idea on regular basis but he also controls all activities within the company (Gilliard, 2014).

Throughout my research regarding leadership style, I started to appreciate the importance of vision, value and consistency. Leading people is not just simply about putting others interest first like what I thought before. It is also about a true understanding of yourself in order to find out the underlying reason of your vision and be consistent.

According to Kirkpatrick (2011), the formulation of visionary leadership is somewhat an art form that based on leader’s guts and insight of follower’s values. So now I recognize the basic of my own vision, not the exact vision as it depends on the circumstances; and it is about influencing others to make a difference by always putting others first and recognizing the importance of having a lifelong learning mentality. The leadership style that I want to pursue is the mix of transformational, autocratic and democratic. As I discussed before in my previous blog that none of any leadership style known as the most effective one as it depends on the situation.

Ultimately, at least now I know that I do not want to simply leading for the sake of certain projects as I know that life is way more precious than that. I want to be consistent in my life in regards to my integrity and vision, which later on those characteristics are going to decide my behavior. However, I realize my weaknesses in honest-self evaluation and becoming more decisive. Therefore, I keen to gather as many high-quality feedback as possible and build up my experiences and not to be fear of failure as Murphy in Rezvani (2014) states, your gut comes from the experience that you have built.

“Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a living; the other helps you make a life” – Sandra Carey


  1. CIPD (2009), Leadership qualities/actions, [Online] available at < > [5 April 2015]
  2. Deangelis, T (2003), Why we overestimate our competence, [Online] available at < > [5 April 2015]
  3. Gilliard, M (2014), Bill Gates Leadership style, [Online] available at < > [5 April 2015]
  4. Jenlink, P (2014), Educational Leadership and Moral Literacy, [Online] available at < > [5 April 2015]
  5. Kirkpatrick, S, A (2011), Visionary Leadership Theory, [Online] available at < > [5 April 2015]
  6. Rezvani, S (2014), Six ways to stop overanalyzing and become more decisive, [Online] available at < > [5 April 2015]
  7. Williams, R (2013), Why Nelson Mandela Was A Great Leader, [Online] available at < > [5 April 2015]

The challenges of managing diverse teams


Tracing back to the preceding decade, leaders used to manage a homogenous team, which consist of people from one culture with similar point of view. Diversity was originally seen as something unique and uncommon. In contrast with the past, nowadays, diverse teams are ubiquitous in any organizational landscape, considering people are living in a more globalized world. According to BCG (2014), there is a significant increase in the willingness of people to work abroad, with the global average of 64% in 2014 compared to below 50% in 2006.

Traditionally, people believed in universalism, a uniformity based on rules, where individual characteristic being suppressed without any consideration. As time goes by, the advancement of technology led to the inception of multiculturalism, the acknowledgement of various cultures without demanding them to solely subordinate to one particular behavior. Subsequently, people are not only acknowledging culture differences, but also stimulate intercultural behavior between each other (Chibber, 2015).

As an International learner, I have been consistently experiencing such global environment, where there are many nationalities in one area. First, I thought, it is enough to deal with it only by compromising differences. However, at some point, compromising without understanding and adopting the variances background, would likely make me feel frustrated because there is some value that I cannot accept no matter how hard I try. Therefore, understanding and stimulating intercultural dimension is a very critical skill in this age and time.

Nonetheless, the implementation of it is not as simple as flipping your hand palm. Understanding diverse attitude, motivating a diverse team and achieving certain level of efficiency are the top challenges of managers in managing cultural diverse teams (Majlergaard, 2012). Since, unconsciously, as a human being, people tend to compare others’ behavior and values with their own standard.

Based on Hall’s cultural dimensions in Nijhuis (2012), there are two terms of characteristic, Monochronic time and Polychronic time, which also considered low-context and high-context people. Mono-time people measure their accomplishment in a specified period of time, thus they like to create daily schedule and “to-do” list. On the other hand, poly-time characteristic includes, flexibility and openness as they focus on several aspects of every circumstance. When some problems arise without any acceptance of differences, frustration and hostility will prone to occur.

For example, James (Monochronic), an operation manager from the U.K. in Hotel Z, has an appointment at 5:30 with Aisha (Polychronic), a marketing manager from Nigeria. But then, although their meeting has not finished yet, he rushes to his office at 6:00 to continue his research, which written in his daily schedule. Aisha thinks that, James is merely taking care of his own job and ignoring colleague relationships.

James might not have such thought because it is just the way he does things, but still in Aisha’s perspective, he is an individualistic person. The situation above also reflects the theory of Hofstede’s cultural dimension. United Kingdom scores, 89 in Individualism compared to Nigeria with 30 (The Hofstede Centre, 2015). Individualist people are used to be very independent and work for themselves, while Nigerian as a collectivist society; they foster great relationship in any circumstances.

Moreover, motivating diverse teams is also a big challenge as one rule can be seen through various ways depending on people’s perspective, which resulted to different interpretation. As an example, U.K. and China have a different education system that lead to different working behaviors. British people might find it very motivating, when they are being given a freedom on how to deliver the job. However, Chinese people will feel uncomfortable if they are not being given a job description on how to get the job done. As China has a lower power distance dimension (35) compared to the U.K. with 80 (The Hofstede Centre, 2015). Through this measurement, a society with high ranking of PD accepts inequalities amongst them, where the workers-leaders relationships tend to be polarized and vice versa for Britain. When this happen, declination of organization’s effectiveness might occur.

Consequently, achieving the desired level of efficacy is unquestionably a great deal because each person has different level of expectation, thus difficulties in setting collective goals rise up. For instance, Spanish society with a relatively low individualism amongst other European countries (51) tends to consult with their colleague before making a decision. On the other hand, British people (89), are taught from their childhood to think for themselves, hence they are pretty confidence in making decision without any discussion. Some people might think that making a quick decision means high efficiency and such people tend to see people that take time to analyze something comprehensively as inefficient. However, in reality balancing both types of decisions is the best way to reach maximum effectiveness.

Equally, research has always shown that heterogeneous team delivers higher performance, as long as they are well led (Hansen and Ibarra, 2011). American Sociological Association in Smedley (2014) finds, that there is a 3%-9% rise in revenue for every 1% rise in the proportion of ethnic diversity. It shows that companies can increase their bottom line by boosting their innovation, expanding their market share as well as having wider range of viewpoints.

However, when team members do not try to respect others cultures, diverse team that actually has a bigger prospect to increase the bottom line profit of an organization, might even be a threat to the company. Thus, one thing need to be noted, based on Tuckman and Jensen in Abudi (2010), at some point a team will go through several stages in different time, like forming, storming, norming and adjourning. So, conflicts are very common to happen. That time is actually where people will understand their members even better. Yet, it depends on how team members deal with it, whether they see it as an opportunity or threat.

Nevertheless, in my opinion people from the some country might even have different approach of their own culture, which is why generalizing people based on their nationalities are always been a wrong way in understanding nation’s culture. There will always be pros and cons in this evidential situation, however one thing for sure, organizations with proper cultural understanding of diversity can heighten performance and increase productivity. Therefore, being an open-minded person, having an open-door policy in the workplace combined with possessing a high level of understanding are the critical success factors in leading a diverse team.


Abudi, G (2010), The five stages of project team development, [Online] available at < > [5 March 2015]

BCG (2014), Workers’ Increasing mobility, [Online] available at <> [5 March 2015]

Chibber, K (2015), The key to success in the global workplace is being culturally fluent, [Online] available at <> [5 March 2015]

Ibarra and Hansen (2011), Are you a collaborative leader?, [Online], available at <> [ 5 March 2015]

Majlergaard, F (2012), The top 5 challenges managers of cultural diverse teams are facing, [Online] available at <> [6 March 2015]

Nijhuis, G (2012), Culturally sensitive curriculum development in international cooperation, [Online] available at <> [4 March 2015]

The Hofstede Centre (2015), Country comparison, [Online] available at < > [6 March 2015]

Leadership and ethics


“Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy” – Norman Schwarzkopf

Is there anyone doubting about the impact of ethical behavior? Is there anyone arguing about the influence of doing the right things? Whoever answers yes, should question their own integrity. And whoever they are, they are not deserved to be a leader, yet. Why did I say so? First, lets talk about the reality in today’s world.

Nowadays we often hear, “Business is Business”, “Everyone is doing it”. I guess everyone is blinded by success. Enron modified their balance sheet by hiding their debt and liabilities in order to indicate a favorable performance in public. It destroyed people’s life as well as the organization itself (Silverstein, 2013). Another case, Lehman Brothers’ accounting tricks also sent them to bankruptcy. Motorola stumbled because of their people not their technology (Ridiculous!). Witnessing that, sooner or later unethical companies will surely get exposed and the impact is not only for the company but also their people. No doubt that poor performance is a negative reflection on the leader.

Henry Adams states, “A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops”.

The influence that a leader can give is tremendously determining their people’s life. According to Hesselbein (2011), ethical theories which respect to leadership are related to two main categories, leaders’ behavior and leaders’ character. In addition to that, Kant in Encyclopaedia Britannica (2015) develops two theories of morality that often be used for understanding people’s behavior, Deontological ethics and TeIeological ethics. Deontological emphasizes the relationship between duty and human actions, where an action cannot simply be justified through the consequences; Virtue is the reward. Conversely, teleological refers to result-based ethics regardless the actions in the process. Personally, for the longer-term, I think deontological will be the best characteristic in sustaining people’s life as it is more about the characteristic whereas the worst scenario, teleological people could even kill others to get the desired outcome.

By now, we should have a better understanding about the underlying theories of people’s behaviors that could help us grasp the meaning of leadership easily. There are various definition of leadership, however, essentially leaders are people who lead their followers as well as inspiring them (Helmrich, 2015). Prior to that, before talking about inspiring others, leaders should have asked themselves am A being the same person in any circumstances and places? Do I want my people to behave unethically on and off the job?

“Leaders spend most of their time learning how to do their work and helping other people learn how to do theirs, yet in the end, it is the quality and character of the leader that determine the performance and results” – Frances Hesselbin –

 Leaders are trailblazers; they should inspire others through their words and actions. Simply stating values without doing it means nothing and will not change anything. The basic fundamental of it, is of course consistency that is related to the values that a leader holds, which later on turns into integrity. Times are less certain today and it often tempting a leader to behave unethically and that makes Leadership becomes the top current business challenges nowadays (CMI, 2014). The key to face that challenge is depending on leaders’ integrity. If they keep on holding onto their values, they tend to have the bravery to stand against peers and situations pressure, which likely to support the long-term success of an organization.

As an example, looking back to the Aetna’s case. Ron Williams reshaped the organization by looking through the root of everything. He said, “Lets go back to the basic”, which means of reviewing their core values as an organization and as an individual (MIT, 2008). He proved it by helping Aetna back to the leader position in 7 years time (2001-2008).

Furthermore, according to environmental leader (2013), 62% of the respondents answer that the most challenging problems for a leader is managing sustainability. Haughton (2015) also defines, within financial industry; one of the ways in reducing bad behavior is by keep on strengthening companies’ ethical code of conduct; by means of leaders lead by example or they should walk their talk. If we link all the dots, it is always come back to the actions of key management. When a leader holds a great value and doing it, the organization’s performance will tell the result.

By now you should know how dangerous unethical leadership is. What will happen to the world, environment, and generations after generations if all leaders just care about themselves, the results and behave unethically?

knifed256In this globalization era, having the smartest guy, the best strategy and the most rare resources without behaving ethically are the same with guaranteeing the short life of an organization. On the other hand, ethical leadership will create a meaningful culture inside the organization and unconsciously encourage workers to do the right thing on and off the job. So, for all the leaders out there, it is entirely up to you. You want to be a good leader with your integrity being asked or a great leader that no one knows when your influence is going to stop?

“You may not be able to make people change their values, however, you can help them see the wisdom of changing their behavior” –Scott Span


  1. CMI (2014), Management 2020, [Online] available from < > [5 February 2015]
  1. Encyclopaedia Britannica (2015), Teleological ethics, [Online] available at < > [6 April 2015]
  1. Environmental ladder (2013), Integrating Sustainability ‘Biggest Challenge for Business, [Online] available from < > [5 February 2015]
  1. Haughton, J (2015), US Report Lifts Lid On Ethics In Finance Firms, [Online] Available from < > [5 February 2015]
  1. Helmrich, B (2015), 30 Ways to Define Leadership, [Online] Available from < > [5 February 2015]
  1. Hesselbein, F (2011), Ethical Leadership, [Online] available from < > [5 February 2015]
  1. MIT (2008), Leading Change: A Conversation with Ron Williams, [Online] available from < > [5 February 2015]
  1. Silverstein, K (2013), Enron, Ethics And Today’s Corporate Values, [Online] available from < > [2 February 2015]
  1. Span, S (2012), Leadership and Unethical Behavior: How Does It Impact the Organization? , [Online] available from < > [4 February 2015]