There is a popular belief that mislead most of wannabe leaders: “the top dog is exempt from the details of actually running things”
From this belief, “Many leaders place too much emphasis on intellectualizing and philosophizing about high-level strategy, and not enough on implementation. When companies fail to deliver on their promises, the most frequent explanation is that the strategy was wrong. But the strategy by itself is not often the cause. Strategies most often fail because they aren’t executed well — things that are supposed to happen don’t happen.
The real problem is that execution just doesn’t sound very sexy. People think of execution as the tactical side of business, something leaders delegate while they focus on the perceived “bigger” issue.” –The Discipline of Getting Things Done, by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan
Don’t follow the crowd. Manifest Your Leadership with your ability for detail work
Every leader has to master and demonstrate his ability for detail work in order to manifest fully his leadership. You impress people with detailed work, and built credibility by mastering the art of filtering vast amount of information, organizing it in a comprehensive framework, and presenting it in way that show the master of the details and your ability to synthesize.
Alan Ehrenhalt, the executive editor of Governing magazine, in a noteworthy article in Newsweek, described how the 8 years Barrack Obama spent as state legislators prepared him for detail work and made him the best candidate to win US presidential Election in 2008:
“During the years that Obama served in Springfield, 1997-2005, he was forced to wrestle with the minutiae of health-care policy, utility deregulation, transportation funding, school aid, and a host of other issues that are vitally important to America’s coming years, but that U.S. senators are usually able to dispose of with a quick once-over. State legislators have to do this largely on their own, without ubiquitous staff guidance, because staffing is not lavish even in the more professional state capitols. They enter into day-to-day bargaining relationships over the details of legislation with colleagues of both parties; there is no one else to do it for them. At the end of the session, they are likely to know the strengths and quirks of nearly everyone who serves in their chamber.
When Obama was in the Illinois Senate, he was obligated to sit down in a small room day after day with his Republican counterparts and work out the details of legislation expanding health-care coverage and revising campaign-finance law. He played in a regular poker game in which party and ideology were utterly irrelevant. Maybe there are still poker games in the U.S. Senate. I haven’theard of one lately”