On October 16, Tsinghua-MIT Global MBA
Program welcomed Professor Swee-Huat Lee, a distinguished scholar who teaches
jointly at Tsinghua-INSEAD EMBA Program, Fudan University, and National
ChengChi University in Taiwan, to share his perspective on this question. In
addition to his own extensive teaching insight, Professor Lee also carries many
years’ corporate experience in top executive roles, from which he synthesizes
observations regarding effective learning and teaching as well as their
implications for leadership.
Professor Swee-Huat Lee in the master class
According to Professor Lee, one of the most
critical components of authentic leadership is being a great teacher. Professor
Lee challenged students to consider what he characterized as an inextricable
link between leading and teaching. He opened by asking the MBA audience to
reflect on the school’s mission: “Advancing Knowledge and Cultivating Leaders
for China and the World”; specifically, Professor Lee highlighted the mission’s
implied essential relationship between shared knowledge and leadership. If one is
to effectively lead, Professor Lee argued, one must be able to teach something
well, and to teach something well, an adeptness at learning is a key
prerequisite.
Eastern and Western perspectives alike echo
this precept. Professor Lee pointed out the parallels between noted Chinese
thinkers, who have posited that the path to greatness consists of manifesting
virtue, loving and educating one’s people, and striving towards constant
improvements, and modern Western business leaders such as Jack Welch, who has
famously suggested that, “Before you are a leader, success is all about growing
yourself. When you become a leader, success is all about growing others.”
Professor Swee-Huat Lee in the master class
Professor Lee delineated four different
domains in the process of attaining and effectively relaying knowledge, tied in
2 x 2 form to the variables of consciousness and competence. First, he
described a zone of “unconscious incompetence,” in which an individual may
exhibit a lack of competence but be entirely unaware. Perhaps intuitively,
unconscious incompetence is an undesirable arena in which to function for
leaders and followers alike. In contrast, conscious competence (being competent
and aware of it) and unconscious competence (reaching a point at which a
particular dimension of competence has become so thoroughly embedded in one’s
decisions and behavior that the knowledge itself may not always be
distinguishable to the individual) are both intuitively preferable to
unconscious incompetence.
Professor Lee spent much of the evening’s
dialogue, however, teasing out the value of a fourth domain – conscious
incompetence. He argued that movement from unconscious incompetence to
conscious incompetence – developing an awareness of one’s own deficiencies – is
also one of the most essential elements of successful leadership. For example,
he shared, leaders can’t know everything, but if a leader recognizes what he or
she doesn’t know and as a consequence hires the right people, that leader is
more likely to respect the subordinates, value their advice, and give them the
appropriate power. If, on the other hand, one is in a state of unconscious
incompetence, he or she may be unlikely to make the right hires, and even if
through some stroke of coincidence the right hire is made, the manager is unlikely to appropriately value or empower
talented subordinates.
An anecdote that Professor Lee shared
summarized well the thrust of the evening’s key takeaways. He relayed the
insight of one “manager” whose employees were observed to perform at
exceptionally high levels and in particularly impressive capacities. Upon being
credited as a wonderful manager, the leader shrugged off such applause: “I’m
not a good manager. I didn’t manage them; I only educated them. I’m only a good
educator.” In parallel, Professor Lee suggested, the student who aspires to
leadership, therefore, should not primarily aspire to be a good manager, but
instead, indeed, to become “only a good educator.”