During my paramedic training some years back, I observed two very different leadership styles displayed by senior consultants in hospital. These two approaches represent for me the ‘how to’ and ‘how not to’ ends of the leadership scale.

One consultant was scowling as she walked on to the critical care ward. The massed nurses, trading information about patients at shift change, half of them on their own time I might add, jumped to attention as this person started barking orders and demanding action. There was no hurry. This was no emergency situation. This was just a senior clinician marking her territory, flexing her power. In fact, to the keen observer, she was demonstrating a complete lack of it. Later that day, I remember watching her perform a surgical procedure in which she barked orders at flustered and rushing theatre technicians, chastising them for being too slow, which was not at all true. The patient, who was awake, must have been unnerved by the lack of calm in the room, despite the operation going very well.

It seemed odd to me. This consultant had spent many years in training to reach their lofty clinical position yet had utterly failed to learn any people skills necessary to be a good team leader. She had clinical superiority (read more or less as managerial superiority) over dozens of staff but, upon further investigation, I was not surprised to discover she was universally disliked. So much so that when she deemed a person worthy of praise (this was never anyone unlikely to ever reach her rank), her words were met with defensive disbelief.

Compare this individual with one at the other end of the scale. It is interesting that this man held an almost identical position of authority with the same members of staff and yet quietly managed to do his job to a world class standard without having to snap at people. A cool-headed, quiet man, equally skilled as his stroppy counterpart yet universally liked. Fear of disappointing him, of being held in low regard by him, rather than fear of the authority of his position of power motivated the same group of staff to go the extra mile for him, but in a calm, methodical way (the best way to avoid mistakes in a high stakes game). What is more, praise from this man of few words and great skill was high praise indeed. In short, he was inspirational rather than tyrannical in style. This is the way to achieve great respect from your team and great things with them.

It boils down to a Machiavellian concept. In 'The Prince', Machiavelli points out that the best of all situations is to be both loved and feared in equal measure. To be loathed and feared is far from ideal. Adding this to the general rule that what goes up must come down, we can see that the quiet surgeon can expect a rosier present and future than his prickly counterpart.

Being in a position of power does not make a person a good leader. It requires both innate characteristics and the ability to reflect and learn from experience and the teachings of others. Kipling wrote that part of being a man (lets take this to mean ‘developed and successful adult’) is to ‘keep your head while all around are losing theirs’ and to ‘walk with kings nor lose the common touch.’ Great leaders do not forget what it is like to be a trooper. They treat their staff with genuine respect and have a care for their physical and emotional well being. Our first surgeon has failed in this respect. She either lacks the innate characteristics (of genuine empathy, friendliness, sensitivity and the confidence to realise she does not need to throw her weight around all the time) or the ability to reflect on her interpersonal skills and learn, or both!

Harbouring a not-so-secret desire to attain a position of leadership one day, I have always been fascinated with the qualities that make people great leaders. I have therefore been very aware of leadership styles and the characters of leaders. In this analysis I have come to two sad conclusions.

Firstly, although I have had both good female and male bosses, in my experience men have tended to be proportionally more often better at leadership than women because they more often manage to be inspirational and to have quiet effective authority. You can draw your own conclusions from this and I would welcome your own experiences. I’ll expect some backlash! Perhaps women have to be much harder characters to become leaders in a male dominated world, but when they get there they too often fail to become great by virtue of those very same characteristics.

Secondly, although there are really great women and men in leadership positions, there are too few really good, natural leaders out there, either male or female. And I think this is because people in leadership or managerial positions are mostly selected solely on their work experience in a role rather than having those characteristics that make them sensitive and inspirational leaders. It takes more than just knowing all about a subject to be a good leader! The ambulance service is mostly managed by people that lack those natural and learned characteristics. The result is a totally demoralised and defensive staff hindering the chances of the service reaching its full potential. Mismanagement isn’t just about squandering financial resources. It’s also about failing to value the human ones.

So next time you come across the words, “Lead, follow or get out of the way,” consider how you think it should be done.