The "I" of Leadership by Nigel Nicholson

I finished this book in June 2026. I recommend this book 4/10.

Why you should read this book:

This book tries to single out the leadership skills vs. the leadership impact. It uses an SQP model that is not really memorable. It is another leadership book, with good information, but also sections that you can skip if you so feel inclined.

Get your copy here.

🚀 The book in three sentences

1. Leadership can have many layers

2. A leader needs to be willing to shift and kill good ideas

3. Be observant of changes around you, and realize you are not entitled to leading all the time

✍️ My favorite quotes

• Leo Tolstoy said, "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself."

• Anon said, "Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words; they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch your habits; they become your character. Watch your character, for it will become your destiny."

📝 My notes and thoughts

• P39. Leadership is hard to put on and off like a suit of clothes, yet the point is valid. Leaders have to dress according to the weather, if they can!

• P39. Leaders are stewards. Leaders take on responsibility for the tribe. It is their job to serve the community and embody its values.

• P62. The Leadership Formula Diagram

  • To be the right person

  • At the right time and place

  • Doing the right things

    • S: What needs to be led?

    • Q: Who is leading?

    • P: How is leadership being exercised?

• P63. Are we going to adapt, like reasonable men and women, or are we going to be unreasonable and persist in trying to change the world? The Leadership Formula captures the challenge that faces any of us when we change jobs. What should we do: adapt or innovate? Should we become more versatile and allow ourselves to learn and be molded by this new reality, or should we seize the new worlds by the scruff of the neck and make them our own? The key to leadership effectiveness is getting this right—when to bend; when to stand firm; when to shape; when to be shaped; and, of course, when to do nothing and wait until the time is right for us.

• P64. The broader picture of the SPQ Model:

  • S: There are many types of situations. This is the "S" factor. Bush's and Blair's suddenly dawning consciousness of a changed state of the world is a vivid instance of situational challenges. When we change jobs, we face the challenges of comprehending a new "S."

  • P: Leadership processes are what you do as a leader: actions, tactics, and routines. Nothing may be the very thing to do. Inaction may be the smartest strategy. Less is more. So what is a leadership behavior? Answer: Anything is a leadership behavior. Lying on the floor fast asleep may be the most effective thing a stressed-out boss could do.

  • Q: Leadership qualities are those indelible traits that we call character, plus a lot of other defining characteristics, like gender, age, resources, and history, that make us who we are. There are many different ways to be a leader and many different types of leaders.

• P82. The Compass Question is: "What is my reference point for the more important choices I have to make?" Most of the time, you have to make choices. Leaders need to think of the Compass Question from time to time and how it is changing. This is important since it is the failure to adapt one's proposition to changing times that is a prime cause of leadership "derailment."

• P91. No manager should accept another manager's say-so about what he or she should be doing. Rather than relying on what anyone else may tell you about the reality surrounding you, you must go figure it out for yourself. But what you should pay attention to is a continuing challenge for managers at all levels. Where to start? Avoiding the impoverished models that the leadership focuses on, let us attempt to set out a more detailed and practical analysis for leaders. What should they look for in their leadership situation? Here's what we shall be looking at:

  • Position and powers—not always what they seem- can the leader define them?

  • Challenge—how are the leader's goals defined and by whom?

  • Organization—are there "best" ways to organize what a leader should do?

  • External environment—a changing world- where should leaders take the organization?

  • People—how should the leader deal with people at various levels and subcultures?

  • Constructed reality—what is the perceptual world of people around the leader, and what should she do to inform or frame it?

• P106. Implications and observations for leaders and organizations:

  • Leaders, whatever their level, need to see every job move, promotion and assignment as a world change—taking as little for granted as possible.

  • There is a tendency to worry about oneself and one's performance when what a leader should be doing is looking at people and relationships, which is where the real challenges lie.

  • Power is an abstract medium—it grows, wanes and transmutes. Leaders have to find it, work with it, and build it. If it is put in your hands, watch out—it may run through your fingers.

  • Whatever the leader is told by boards, bosses, and analysts about the nature of their challenge, they should listen, but then go figure it out for themselves.

  • Structure is a tool for strategy. Leaders need to remember this and use it, and not let it use them.

  • The external environment and its eruptions require creative and coherent responses with changes to strategy, structure, and culture.

• P109. Leo Tolstoy said, "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself."

• P120. The Effective leadership processes have three levels: acts, tactics, and strategies:

  • Acts: the leader is quick to recognize when some new response is required—this is improvisation. Duke Ellington, a professional improviser in music, was likewise in management; constantly inventive, finding new ways of dealing with the troublesome people that inhabit the world of Jazz production, distribution, and consumption. Ernest Shackleton, hero of the Antarctic, showed he was willing and able to do anything he required of his men, constantly inventing new diversions and actions to keep people motivated and happy under conditions of extraordinary privation and unpredictability.

  • Tactics: Tactics are to acts as phrases are to words—they bundle ideas and actions. Leaders are often at their most tactical in meetings—for example, they know when to interject for maximum effect. One of the most common and powerful tactical forms is what cognitive scientists call "heuristics"—commonly known as rules of thumb. These are operational principles to govern thought and actions. Leaders have libraries of heuristics, often in the form of "if—then" principles, such as "keep your friends close but your enemies closer." Machiavelli's treatise on leadership is a compendium of such heuristics. Of course, the trick is knowing when to apply them, but you can see how many a smooth operator can appear no more than a slick trickster if that's all they've got—a bunch of routines for dealing with a bunch of situations. Ellington and Shackleton were tactical masters. Everything they did was nuanced and sequenced to meet a specific goal.

  • Strategies: Forty years ago, management guru Henry Mintzberg published his groundbreaking analysis of managerial work—an intimate ethnographic observation of what executives actually do, rather than what the textbooks at the time depicted- in which he noted how their daily life was a blizzard of improvised action, dealing with unscheduled meetings and unexpected events. But Mintzberg shrewdly noted that some are able, by shot selection, to shape this blizzard into a coherent, purposeful shape. Others just churn—frustrated and frantic, driven by events. The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead!

• P135. Buffett seemed to discover quite early that he had no particular liking for leadership—making money was his game, based upon a deep conviction about his ability to apprehend true value in what businesses are and do. His difference about leadership was revealed when he found himself thrust into the role of white knight to rescue one of his ailing investments, the mighty Salomon Brothers, which had befallen a nearly fatally compromising scandal over the misuse of information by leading executives, and a subsequent cover-up. The Sage of Omaha, with typical clarity, quickly established a framework for exemplary action and then scuttled back to the Midwest, leaving the day-to-day business of leadership to those with an appetite for it. Plenty of people who crave status and recognition climb the ladder only to discover that their elevated roles include the uncongenial requirement of leadership: that they have to take responsibility for other people, some of them quite complex and difficult characters, when they would rather just carry on being technicians and specialists. Then they seek refuge in the task rather than the human aspects of their roles.

• P147. One company I worked with had its global operations Head Office in a Central European location. A new CEO was brought in by an acquiring company to oversee the relocation of the HQ to a Middle Eastern location. The CEO was a smoker, and, as was the European habit, smokers congregated around a side entrance to the building at various times of day, he among them. They never asked him, and he never told them who he was. He just hung out and gossiped with them—acquiring the kind og intelligence that is rarely accessible to leaders. Needless to say, when the penny dropped, and they figured out who the chatty stranger was, they were not too pleased. It is a sad commentary on the alienation between hierarchical levels in much of the business world that modern performance management systems and organizational design conspire to separate leaders from their people and the truths they have to tell.

• P148. Hard leadership questions:

  • What kind of world am I in?

  • What, in this world, should I be paying attention to?

  • What do I need to discover that might be important and lurking under the surface or around the corner?

  • Who are the people who are most critical to my fate as a leader? Are they the people I think they are, or who are closest and most familiar?

  • How do I know for sure what they are thinking and feeling? How much can I trust my instincts about them?

  • How is my world changing? What new sources of intelligence should I be paying attention to?

  • How much of my world is an extension of my will, persuasive powers, and taken-for-granted subculture?

  • What are the risks of what lies beyond in a reality that I, as the leader, cannot shape?

• P170. You need to find trusted advisors. They will help you:

  • Help: concrete assistance with the multiple tasks of leadership; an extra pair of hands. Gates and Ballmer at Microsoft were a winning team on the strength of their division of labor in running one of the most complex corporations ever to exist—Gates the thought leader, technical chief, boffin, and front man; Ballmer the cheerleader, boss, organizer, and point man for corporate strategy.

  • Insight: the gift of extra eyes and ears; seeing more of the leader's known world, yielding a different take on it or giving a view from a different angle. Warren Buffett used his partner Charlie Munger in this way; an extra brain to find new avenues for their innovative practice.

  • Challenge: the court jester function; the person who is bold enough to question the leader's taken-for-granted view of themselves, their goals, and their worldview. Michael Eisner's COO, Frank Wells, was the trusted ally who could stand up to Eisner's towering ego and pull it back to areas of greater realism and control.

  • Feedback: the person who can tell the leader the truth (another jester!); about their impact, intended and unintended, on the world and its people. Family partners are often quick—sometimes too quick—to do this.

  • Ideas: new perspectives and tools to help the leader think about the what, how, and why of actions, and extend them in new, productive directions. Steve Jobs, as we have observed, was a mercurial and inconstant partner, but he was always on the hunt for fresh ideas that he could reframe, reintegrate, and fly with. A major element in his success was his ability to attract and feed creative intellects.

  • Support: comfort during stress, buffering under pressure, reassurance in the face of difficulty, and belief in the face of challenge. This is what every human in a difficult place could ask of their most trusted ally. Margaret Thatcher freely admitted that the loyal, steadying, and tolerant presence of her husband Denis was a constant bulwark against an often very unfriendly and untrustworthy world.

• P199. Anon said, "Watch your thoughts; they become your words. Watch your words; they become your actions. Watch your actions; they become your habits. Watch. Your habits become your character. Watch your character, for it will become your destiny."

• P224. Implications and Observations for leaders and organizations.

  • Leaders need to revisit their goals continually and not take for granted the "why" of what they do.

  • It is easy to become over-reliant on a tried and tested set of routines, heuristics, and other action-belief systems. Keep the larder freshly stocked.

• P237. The leader's story has four elements, each of which may be stronger or weaker at any time or circumstance, for we are back to the "P" of the SPQ framework. The Leadership Formula and the Law of the Situation dictate that the leader's story will be the right one for the time. These are the four connected themes:

  • Who am I and why am I here?

  • Who are we and what do we stand for?

  • Where are we going and why?

  • Why must we change?

• P247. What's wrong with other people? Self-centered perspectives:

  • Boss?

    • Remote

    • Inconsistent

    • Interfering

    • Indecisive

    • Unfair

    • Bullying

    • Insensitive

  • Peers?

    • Competitive

    • Arrogant

    • Uncooperative

    • Unfriendly

    • Gossiping

    • Political

    • Moody

  • Subordinates?

    • Lazy

    • Incompetent

    • Slow

    • Deceitful

    • Disengaged

    • Over-emotional

    • No initiative

  • You?

  • This is the kind of language we regularly use to talk about other people. A couple of things are striking about these lists:

    • They are distinctive and different. Although these are words that could apply to people in any of the three roles, we tend to use different kinds of criticism according to their relationship to us—up, down, or peer. This is pure self-centeredness. We are critical of those aspects of others and their behavior that get in the way of our achieving our selfish goals. The boss's words indicate the way superiors interfere with or fail to help us. The subordinate words represent failing to cooperate and perform for us. The peer words are signs of people we don't trust and feel threatened by.

    • These are not words we ever use about ourselves, except perhaps in an ironic, self-mocking, light-hearted, and self-forgiving way. The people who do beat themselves up with this language are the clinically depressed, for whom it supplies a closed loop of negativity, the self-fulfilling prophecy of helplessness. This language is second- or third-party stuff—decidedly not first person. We use it as part of our narratives of explanation, within a moral universe where we want to be in the right, and we need ways of making others predictable through our characterizations of them. They represent shorthanded ways of blaming others, but doing so in ways that reflect the particular kinds of risks they pose to us—the person who has too much to do and will not deliver on time, the person who will act differently with someone else, or the person who has strong emotions that they struggle to control.

• P254. We are operating what I call "a false theory of meritocracy," pretending that superior people hold superior positions. This might not matter if everyone recognized it as a game—a game that boys are especially fond of playing. Except that people do believe it is true, or should be true—an idea that messes up their minds and leads to a lot of bad behavior, including gaming the system. Oh yes, and another not inconsiderable thing: it seriously disadvantages women. Here's how:

  • Leaders who believe they are superior will have an attitude of defense and feel threatened by up-and-coming leaders who might beat them down (like Henry Ford and Tom Watson).

  • Leaders who believe they should be better than they suspect they actually are, to merit their standing in the hierarchy (the "imposter syndrome"), will try to retain their positions by dysfunctional behaviors. Among these are dominance and fear; overwork and relentless "busy-ness" to prove their worth; and being hard to locate or pin down.

  • Subordinates who believe they are too good for their lowly standing in the hierarchy and, specifically, feel they are better than their undeserving boss, are motivated to be uncooperative, will sabotage her at every opportunity, and will be the first to spot and point out her weakness when she screw up.

• P255. Human resource management systems, with their KPIs and elaborate appraisal systems, often sadly do little more than dignify the false theory of meritocracy and the bad practices of spawns. Chief amongst these is the pretense of elaborate evaluation when the final call is the subjective judgment of some senior person or group. In too many organizations, there are managers spending 80% of their time "performing"—meeting the KPIs and targets set for them by other anxious bosses trying to prove their own worth—and spending the remaining 20% solving the problems of the people who report to them. But maybe it's only the very naive who believe the system works as it pretends to, and that everyone is really just going along with it and gaming the system.

• P257. Your job, as a leader, is to see what others can't see, do what others can't do, and to be yourself. That is the strategy for seeing, being, and doing. I regularly work with a former theater director on leadership programs. He points out that the theater director's job is not to be anything—certainly not to be a better actor than any of his cast—but rather to do two things:

  • To turn a bunch of disparate, emotional, and egotistical actors into an ensemble, where, regardless of their different reputations and roles, they regard and treat each other as equals in a team dedicated to a single cause—the performance.

  • To coax out of them a performance of quality by continually observing, giving positive feedback, and experimenting. Think of Duke Ellington.

• P258. Implications and observations for leaders and organizations:

  • Leaders can get very comfortable with the wonderful, reliable, and supportive people they have worked hard to keep close to them. But the real test of leadership is dealing with the assholes. Decentering is not an elaborate way of letting them off the hook. If you have to administer justice, go ahead, but decentering may open your eyes to what people are really doing, and what effects you are unintentionally imposing on them.

  • A lot of organizational misbehavior is context-driven—people's rational responses to the demands that are made of them, and the unwitting stupidity of the thoughts that hierarchy and false theories of meritocracy implant in their minds. You can take charge of organizational arrangements that will bring people into cooperative relationships.

  • The leader is a culture-carrier. That means working at three levels simultaneously: (i) at the level of you as a leader—what you say and do; (ii) at the level of systems and structures; and (iii) the implicit message you send to the people who drive the organization along. All three levels can be managed and directed.