There is a quote from Field Marshall Sir William Slim that has followed me for over twenty years. He said that as a leader, you put the honour and interests of your country and your regiment first, the safety and comfort of your men second, and your own interests last — and last all the time.
I first encountered it during officer training at Sandhurst. I didn't fully understand it then. I understand it now.
Where it started
My leadership journey didn't begin in a boardroom or a business school. It began in environments where the consequences of poor leadership were immediate and physical — on a rugby pitch, in a military training ground, and eventually on operations.
Those environments teach you things that no MBA can replicate. They teach you that leadership is not a title. It is not a management process. It is, as FM Slim put it, a matter of spirit — compounded of personality and vision. Management, by contrast, is a matter of accurate calculation, methods and routine. The two are not the same, and confusing them is one of the most common mistakes I see in technology organisations today.
The philosophy I arrived at
After years of reading, leading, failing, and trying again, I arrived at a leadership philosophy built on six values: integrity, selfless commitment, loyalty, respect for others, courage — of your convictions and to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves — and taking responsibility.
These are not motivational poster words. They are a daily practice and a standard against which I hold myself accountable.
The philosophy itself is best summarised by the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst's motto, coined in 1947: Serve To Lead. It is a paradox that many people dismiss as a contradiction. It is not. It is the most precise description of effective leadership I have encountered in twenty years of searching.
Lao-Tzu understood it in 570 BC. Robert Greenleaf rediscovered it in 1977. Islamic civilisations had been practicing it for centuries before that. The idea that the leader of a group is their servant is not a modern management theory. It is a fundamental truth about what it means to lead people toward something they could not have achieved on their own.
What I learned about effective leadership
Effective leadership operates on two tracks simultaneously — achieving the goal and developing the people pursuing it. The moment you focus exclusively on one, you begin to fail at both.
Transformational leaders — those who stimulate and inspire followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes while developing their own leadership capacity — are characterised by something simple: they treat followers as individuals, not as employees. They engender trust. They communicate vision with enthusiasm. They show genuine sensitivity to the needs of the people around them.
The leaders I have most admired in my career, from the military to the technology sector, share these qualities. They were not the loudest voices in the room. They were the most consistent presences in it.
The honest middle
Here is something I rarely say publicly: building a performance-driven culture is often the wrong approach.
I have worked in and led performance cultures. They create up-or-out dynamics. They reward the appearance of success and punish the honesty required for genuine growth. As Kegan and Lahey wrote, employees in performance cultures must present their got-it-all-together selves at work — which is precisely the opposite of what growth requires.
What I have come to believe is that the most sustainable cultures are growth cultures. They require psychological safety, continuous learning, and leaders who are willing to model vulnerability before they expect it from anyone else.
This is harder than driving performance. It is also more durable.
Where I am now
My leadership style has evolved through followership, servant leadership, situational awareness, transformational approaches, and into territory I am still working to master — authentic leadership, coaching, and ultimately altruism.
Altruistic leadership is the concern for the growth and development of others without the agenda of self-interest. I am not there yet. I am working toward it.
What I know is this: if I focus only on my own success and ignore my responsibility to develop the next generation of leaders, I leave no legacy. Much has been given to me — opportunities, mentors, experiences that shaped my thinking. The obligation that comes with that is not optional.
I am not duplicating myself to lighten my load. I am doing it because it is the right thing to do. The financial return, the organisational benefit — these will come. They are byproducts, not the goal.
The conclusion I keep returning to
Correlli Barnett wrote in 1977 that leadership is a process by which a single aim and unified action are imparted to the group. It is most evident in times of danger or challenge. And crucially — it is not imposed like authority. It is welcomed and wanted by the led.
That last line is the test I apply to myself. Not whether I have the title. Not whether I have the authority. But whether the people around me are following because they want to — because they believe in where we are going and trust that I will get them there.
Some days I pass that test. Some days I don't. The journey continues.