Compassion Without Compromise

One of the more obvious paradoxes that you'll see, but that is what we should be doing.

A lot of man-managers outside have very strong character and rightly so, they think that they are where they are because of that. Well, yes, an uncompromising character does get you places. Afterall, what is a leader who doesn't have his/her own stand? A leader who does not have a clear direction in his/her leadership is one of the worst kind.

But strong character normally means no compromise. There are a lot of things happening in the business world that you and I will face. Some things can be compromised, some things, when compromised, can bring disaster. But most man-managers, out of the instinct to save their own asses, have come to a stage whereby they protect themselves so much with policies and practises that leave very little space for compassion.

Most of the time, such managers do not realise that not all their employees/subordinates are simply not 'them' and thus are unable to perform as they can. Afterall, if they can perform on the same plane as you, then why would they still be your subordinates?

But then, there are also leaders who set targets based on who their subordinates are. They move the goal posts closer to the ball so that it's easier to score. That is a lot of compassion, but it is compromised leadership.

So, I urge all those who are in position of leadership today, to learn "Compassion without Compromise".

I was chatting with a friend and out of the entire chat session, I seemingly came up with this.

We were chatting about things like how to lead people, how to handle difficult cases, and how to be an effective leader.

Well, to me, a leader should be a compassionate person; knowing what their subordinates need, what are their situations. But yet, by doing so, their leadership should not be compromised as well. My friend was telling me that we cannot find capable subordinates because they have a lot of personal issues that needs to be dealt with. Things like dedication and commitment to the organisation versus dedication to personal gains.

As a leader, we should try to understand them, walk in their shoes for a bit, and try to know what they are facing and going through. But that doesn't mean we need to stand down on our leadership direction. It's all about changing our approach without changing our direction. What can we do to get this person to perform the task that's set by the leadership without changing the expected result?

Well, if you're able to do that, then you've successfully mastered the trick of Compassion without Compromise.

Football has taught me a lot of things. And from watching the worldcup, I see that leadership is vital. And which country will go on to win the worldcup will be the team who uses their best people in their best positions. Being a leader, you also need to have an eye in spotting out who goes where, putting the best man in his best position.

That is why, England will not go far. England is a team filled with stars and personalities, but the problem with the manager is that he does not use the talents that he has available to him fully. He plays people out of their favourite (most effective) positions and thus, everyone achieves/uses about 70% - 80% of their full potential.

As a leader, you shuold be able to know that this player passes the ball well, and thus, you give him the job of passing the ball around. You know that this guy does good runs, then you let him run, you know that the other guy reads the game very well, then you let him dictate the and control the team.

When you play everyone in their best position, everyone performs at 100% and when everyone beside you performs 100%, you will be able to achieve more than 100% because a cord of three strands is not easily broken. A team of 11 people playing at their 100%, you will go places. But if your team keeps on playing at 80% of their full potential, then that's all you get: 80% effectiveness.