May 2019


Question of the Month
Does Legitimate Leadership say we need to move from being a results-driven business to being a people-driven business?
Your Diary Never Lies
More than perhaps at any other time, a leader’s sincerity is put to the test …
The Hard Data On Being On Being A Nice Boss
A leading business expert is warning that male narcissists perform well in job interviews but make disastrous leaders …

E-mail for more information

Question of the Month 
By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Does Legitimate Leadership say we need to move from being a results-driven business to being a people-driven business?”
Answer:  Many people think that Legitimate Leadership says that in order to succeed a business needs to move from being results-driven to being people-driven.
But we do not say this. Sustained success isn’t about committing to results or to people; it’s about committing to excellence.
The standard defence of a single-minded focus on results is, “We aren’t here to make friends. This is business. We’re here to deliver. And delivering means getting results.”
All of this seems true, but it doesn’t work because it doesn’t deliver excellence and value-add to the customer, and therefore is not sustainable … Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail 

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Caring for and growing people does not cost money, but it does require time – in fact, a considerable amount of time. Further to this, caring and growing people cannot meaningfully be done by email because it is, by definition, a face to face activity.
More specifically care and growth gets done, as opposed to talked about, in three contexts: one-on-one discussions, team meetings, and out in the ‘field’ where direct reports are ‘playing the game’ or getting the work done.
The starting point for leaders to translate the Legitimate Leadership principles into practice, therefore, is for them to spend sufficient time with their people. Typically, this requires leaders to change, sometimes radically change, how they are spending their time and what they are giving their attention to.

By Emma Seppälä, author of The Happiness Track; also co-director of the Yale College Emotional Intelligence Project and Faculty Director of the Women’s Leadership Program at the Yale School of Management; and Science Director of Stanford University’s Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: We agree with Emma Seppälä that more than anything else, what determines employee engagement is the nature of the relationship between each employee and his/her immediate manager. However we do not agree that leaders should be “nice” or “tough”; we say they should be both. The universal answer to the question “who would you work for willingly/be your ideal boss?” is “a person who has a sincere and genuine interest in me as an individual and enables me to realise the best in myself”. A person, in other words who cares for AND grows me. Leaders need to evidence “tough love” for those in their charge. Of the two criteria, however, care is primary. This is because care is what gives leaders the licence to grow their people. Leaders can be anything other than “nice” just as long as they are acting with their people’s highest self interest in mind. The core criterion for success as a leader is not behaviour but intent.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW: An age-old question is: Is it better to be a “nice” leader to get your staff to like you, or to be tough as nails to inspire respect and hard work?
Most people still assume the latter is best. The traditional paradigm seems safer: be firm and a little distant from your employees. They should respect you, but not feel so familiar with you that they might forget who’s in charge. A little dog-eat-dog, tough-it-out, sink-or-swim culture seems to yield time-tested results… right?
New developments in organizational research are providing some surprising answers to these questions.
What putting pressure on employees to increase performance does is increase stress—and research has shown that high levels of stress carry a number of costs to employers and employees alike.