In executive leadership and personal mastery coaching, we use the same expression of EBIT to represent elements of leadership that, as individuals, require constant attention. Whereas in accounting, EBIT is an acronym for Earnings Before Interest and Tax and is cast-in-stone, in leadership, EBIT is a short form for Environment, Business, I (me), and Team. It is pliant in application. For purposes of this posting, allow me to rehash or differentiate the financial accounting EBIT from the one used in leadership by identifying the latter as m-EBIT. The M stands for Management, which, although poles apart, is colloquial for leadership. For a start, you may read it as me-bit.
Me-bit demonstrates that leadership is about doing one’s part, no matter how small that ‘bit’ of contribution may be. Most of us reading this posting work in teams. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if one member of your team, on a particular day or period, decides to simultaneously work as a cleaner, driver, sales manager, plumber, teller, CEO, human resources officer, electrician, cafeteria chef, commissionaire, legal counsel, CFO, and receptionist. The team would not only garner poor results, but the team member would hasten their own demise. There is a reason why we work in teams. In his literary works on metaphysics, Aristotle explained this concept better and more wisely than I could when he said, “... the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” When we work as a team, as long as each member is acquainted with his or her role [me-bit], our collective contributions lead to stunning outcomes that no single member of the team could achieve working in a silo. What we produce together is more important than the sum of individual contributions. Teamwork and collaboration matter in leadership. When we combine individual strength and effort, we create something remarkable. It is a recipe for disaster and poor results for a team if one member tries to be ‘everything to everyone, every time, everywhere.’
Working in a team is like travelling in a bus or airplane. We do not change seats anyhow. Upon boarding the vessel, we choose or are allocated a particular seat. We enjoy the glorious vista of the journey from that particular position. Similarly, in a team, when you sign up, you are assigned a particular role within the team. Your role is to contribute, based on the job specification, to the goal of the team, which in turn contributes to the goal of the larger organization or nation. You don’t assume other members’ responsibilities. You work within the ambit of your area of influence. Do not worry about the margins of your contributions or what the other team members are doing. Just do your part. Me-bit. Do your bit. The output from the roles of the team and indeed the organization adds up and compounds into a stunning result. That is how great teams achieve extraordinary results. Everyone minds his or her own ‘me-bit.’
Recently, I facilitated a leadership mastermind at the Kivukoni business network in my local town, Lilongwe. Upon presenting the concept of ‘me-bit’ to the members, a question came up, “... is it always the case to place the metaphoric ‘I’ (me) or ‘my’ interest before ‘t’ (team’s interest)? What comes first - the interests of the member who is the doer or the interests of the team, which is a collection of doers?” Someone biased towards economics will remind you about the financial concept alluded to above – EBIT. Evidently, for the financial concept, as indicated, it is cast in stone that ‘I’ always comes before ‘T.’ Figuratively, activities of the business (doer) should be known, declared, and accounted for first before the taxman makes a claim of what belongs to Caesar. In leadership, it is a different story. The representational ‘t’ (we, our, us, ourselves) can be used interchangeably. It can come after ‘I’ (me, mine, myself) or it can be represented as ‘me-bti’ where the team’s interest, ‘t,’ comes before ‘I,’ the member’s interest. Of course, this varies from situation to situation and is the main source of misinterpretation for some team members.
Dear reader, team leadership is situational. Teams and organizations are expansive, with many facets, roles, and responsibilities. In leadership, no straight-jacket approach specifies that only a certain team member should lead in all activities or tasks in a group setup. Football teams have one member positioned between the sticks to catch the ball; the other ten members run up and down in different parts of the field to defend, attack, and score based on their roles. One leads based on his or her area of giftedness or expertise. In a cafeteria, the chef leads, and the diners and other kitchen members follow. In a strategy formulation meeting, the strategist leads, and the team members follow. In clean-up roles, the cleaner leads, and staff follow. In speaking roles, the public speaker leads, and the audience follows. Team leadership requires knowing when to step up using your strengths, skillset, talent, giftedness, and when to slow down in acknowledgement of your weaknesses. Team leadership is situational, meaning that sometimes you lead, and at other times you follow. That is what life is all about.
There was a certain man who went to the market square to buy a set of brains. This followed a routine medical checkup that he had with a neurosurgeon the previous day. The man complained to the doctor that he was getting old. He was halfway through his life and had not yet achieved the key milestones of his life. In his own analysis, he thought his brain was the culprit. It failed to help him think and appraise issues properly and soberly. He, thus, needed a brain surgery to replace his innate brain. He needed a different set of the grey stuff.
When he arrived at the brain shop, the sales manager greeted the man warmly and was eager to help him with his purchase enquiry. The customer explained his issue to the sales manager that he was tired of his innate brain and wanted something different. Something new and better. He said, “... I would like to buy the best brains that you have in stock.”
The sales manager mentioned that there were four different sets of brains on sale. He showed the customer the brains, “... these brains are from a nation that invented airplanes, spaceships, satellites, fighter jets, and drones.” He went to another shelf and pointed at the second set of brains, “... the next set of brains came from a nation that invented televisions, videos, smart phones, radios, x-rays, and robots.” He looked at the customer briefly and continued with the presentation, “... the third set of brains, sir, are from a nation that developed beautiful cities, street lights, built skyscrapers, twelve-lane highways, airports, underground tunnel trains, and public parks. He went to the next shelf, holding the fourth set of brains, saying, “... my dear customer, the last set of brains came from a nation which invented nothing, developed nothing, built nothing, and has nothing to show to the world as its national masterpiece. This nation, sir, has foreigners who come from faraway places, outside the country, to build roads, grow crops for its citizens, and manage even the pettiest of works, such as barbershops, laundry, and car spare parts hawkers.”
“I see,” the customer said, dipping his chin in the right palm resting on the shelf of the shop. “... how much are they, anyway?” The sales manager was energized; he was about to make a huge sale. He replied, “... the first three brains are affordable, but the fourth set of brains is very expensive.”
Surprised with the sales manager’s remarks, the customer asked, “... how? Why is it like that? Why should the fourth set of brains be expensive when they have not been used to accomplish anything? Shouldn’t they be the cheapest?” The sales manager replied, “... Oh, that is simple, sir. Those brains are fresh, unused, and full of potential. Since they have not been used for any piece of work, all the potential remains within. Its potential capacity is still intact.”
The two scenarios presented by the title and the story above characterize two different approaches to life. The title talks about folks who despise other people’s accomplishments but talk highly about their own feats. Inversely, the story above describes people who look down upon what they own but talk highly about what others possess. There is a big lesson to learn: whatever you plan to do or have in life, do or have it in moderation. Don’t take the extremity of things. Be balanced in your approach. Cynics despise and degrade other people’s accomplishments like the bird mentioned in the title of this article. Reductionists look down upon themselves like the man in the story above, who hopped from shop to shop to look for a boosted set of brains. Neither approach is commendable. Why? Please, read on.
Have you ever, in your life, admired someone’s position, appearance, affluence, agility, accomplishments, or thinking capacity to the extent that you stop paying attention to your own potential? Have you ever been in a situation where you want something of a higher class, yet you don’t have what it takes to claim the status? How many times have you looked at and approved others and thought: ‘... I wish I was like the economist Allan Greenspan; . . . how I wish I was as smart as Cara Fiorina; . . . only if I could make international news headlines like Jeff Bezoz, Rory McIlroy or Lady Gaga; . . . how I wish I had the business prowess of Carlos Gutierrez, political dexterity of the King of England, religious piety of the Pope, charismatic leadership of Ngoni Shaka Zulu.
Dear reader, I may not know you personally, but I am certain that you have said this to yourself before, so many times. It is normal to spot and admire good qualities in others and emulate them. That is what life is all about. Show me someone who does not venerate good qualities in others, and I will show you an egalitarian.
Perhaps you are a fisherman, very skilful at maritime phenomena, but you desire the dexterity of Trevor Noah’s stand-up comedy skills. Or you are a writer, yet you crave the skills of a sangoma. Or you are a CEO of a blue-chip company, but you yearn for the piety of the Pope. No alignment at all. Yes, it is fine to admire others, but don’t ignore your own abilities. If need be, polish up your skills. Go back to school, if you have to. Hire an executive leadership coach to assist you with leadership skills. Join Toastmasters to develop public speaking skills. Enroll in defensive driving if you are engaged in high-traffic hazard environments.
Views from the top are that we are all gifted. Why, then, do we habitually belittle what we possess, look down upon ourselves, and idolize other people’s abilities, yet we have equal or even better levels of competence? Why do we neglect and put to waste what has been assigned to us and crave other people’s affluence, agility, or thinking capability? The world is expansive. Each one of us has a role to play in this small but troubled world. Let us do our part to make this world a better place. Break off from the thinking of the man in the story above, who went around looking for further brains, despising his own. Never call other people’s accomplishments anomalous, taking after a bird born in a cage that always thinks that flying is an illness. Instead, seek and gravitate toward a stress-free life. Oh, lest I forget, . . . officium nobis minimum interesse - our smallest obligation is to play our part.
Lester Chinyang’anya ǀ General Manager - Operations ǀ Minet Malawi
Comments
Post a Comment