As for this point no.4, i don’t think Ranjit meant it to be taken literally. his tip no.4 is just to make it clear that ultimately it is the leader who is responsible for the mistakes committed by the team members. Again, this should be done based on the type of mistake and who has made that mistake.

I completely agree with your thoughts when you say that a leader must prepare the ones under him to replace him some day.

However, when it comes to making way for a junior to replace you, I feel it should be done in very well thought-out manner. You talk about working under your team-member because you feel he is smarter than you but don’t you think with the kind of experience you would have already gained by then, you might well prove to be far more useful to the organization in a leadership role rather than working just as a team-member. In such a scenario, the best option would probably be to move on to tougher leadership roles (of course if approved by the ones senior in the hierarchy), roles where you would further be able to test your leadership mettle against the very best and roles where you would be facing far more challenging situation than in your previous stint. This approach should not be misunderstood as one of ego, prestige or selfishness rather all I want to convey is that moving up a notch could probably be the way to go. After all at the end of the day its all about the extent to which you are able to contribute to the organization.

Out of the four tips that you’ve mentioned, point 1 and 2 are simply superb and could do wonders if followed sincerely. However, I don’t quite agree with point no. 3 which says that the ‘why’ of the problem should be postponed for at least a week. If all the issues related to the problem are solved then and there, don’t you think it would help avoid further confusion? Moreover, not involving the person who committed the mistake might not go down well with someone who is seriously dedicated towards his work. This would make the person dwell on whether the leader has lost confidence in him and there couldn’t be anything worse for someone than the feeling that the leader doesn’t find him capable enough of rectifying his own mistakes. Even a hint of this would completely shatter the individual. Instead it would be better to tell him on the face “Hey, you could have done better.” The ones who think logically would take it in a very positive manner. In the end its all about how well you have been able to judge the one under you. If you are able to find out the pulse of the ones working under you and deal with them accordingly instead of dealing with one and all with the same approach, team management would be far more effective.

I also beg to differ on point no 4 which states that a leader should forget that he has a team when things go wrong. I guess this would be like being too good for no reason. Yes, a true leader should definitely take the entire responsibility when things go wrong but not in exchange of losing everything everything he has. Being too good might be an excuse for the ones under you who are not very sincere towards their work. There is a thin line between creating an open work environment and providing excess freedom.

Those are great points from the Hindu article. I agree with all of them.

As for the independence, i think leaders need to be empowered by their management. Without that it is hard to excel as a leader. But then you have to play with the hand you are dealt. Sometimes your management may not be supportive of what you are trying to do. It is still incumbent upon the leader to manage the management in such a way that it does not infringe on the team’s ability to get things done. I know this is easier said than done. Hope you agree?