How do you rate yourself on the following five actions? Showing self-awareness?. Demonstrating authenticity, integrity and compassion? Understanding and engaging people as individuals? Showing self-leadership and adaptability? Communicating, particularly listening well - and widely? These are my phrases but, taken together, they encapsulate nearly 80% of the responses to a recent online survey that asked "if you could teach one thing to a young leader, what would it be?" From my decades of working with leaders (and being one), I can't fault any of these suggestions. Even though, at times and to my cost, I've ignored some! But, notwithstanding their importance, they're less than the full picture. Let me explain why - and suggest what else might be needed.

Let me start by clarifying two things. First, the question (posted a month ago by Tamika Drake on a LinkedIn discussion group ) is an excellent thought-starter - and has stimulated over 260 responses and still counting. It forces us to dig around for what makes the most difference to people's willingness (or unwillingness) to follow us. However, if we asked "what is the one thing a young doctor should learn" would a summary of the answers represent anything more than a high-level guide? Would you be happy to be treated by a doctor, who knew only that one thing? Probably not.

Second, about two weeks ago, Koen Marichal summarized the comments posted up to that stage. However, he focused on words people had used. Verbs such as learn, read and listen. Nouns such as humility, respect and patience. And, some injunctions such as know thyself. In contrast, I've tried to find the types of leadership actions people are suggesting, since my interest is in helping leaders plan what they need to do: the actions they'll take so people will want to follow them.

To achieve this, I believe that we, as leaders, need to identify:

The key questions or concerns holding our people back from full understanding and commitment. Is it ambiguity about the vision and goals? Or, if that's all clear, is it more about whether the goals are achievable? Or, how people will be expected to behave - the culture? Or, what technical or commercial outputs and performance are required? Or, where and how each person fits in - the organization and its teamwork?

Once we've identified our followers' priority concerns, we can then focus on potential actions to address them. Defining organization structure and roles should clarify where people fit in. Developing business plans will explain the journey and what success looks like. Providing training and allocating resources will empower people to feel they can deliver.

All of which leads to a Leadership Action Plan: what you, as the leader, are going to do so people will feel confident (both technically and emotionally) that they can trust and follow you.

In sum, if we want to be effective as leaders, we need a wider range of actions than those summarized at the start of this article. Some people did raise other issues - particularly people, who offered more than one suggestion. For example, the need for tough decisions, excelling as a technician and creating accountability.

There was little if any reference, however, to knowing the marketplace, identifying drivers of competitive advantage, fixing key commercial problems, embedding innovation or driving the bottom line. Nor, focusing on winning, being the best or lifting benchmarks.

And, perhaps surprisingly these days, scant mention was given to preparing for external shocks.

I fully understand that the foregoing are not the broad, top-of-mind answers sought by Tamika's question. However, leadership without them is a formula for failure. I have known leaders, who ticked the boxes on self-awareness, integrity, engaging people and other so-called "soft" leadership issues. But failed miserably on the technical, commercial and other "hard" ones. The result? Their followers' turned their backs on them, as not sufficiently value-adding or, worse, as unsafe to follow.

You may argue that some of these more operational aspects should be delegated to team members at a lower level - and that such delegation is empowering. I agree. But, my experience suggests that the "hard" capabilities remain key to leadership credibility, even at the very top - particularly in professional and technically-driven organizations.

For example, I would assume that as a Call Center Coordinator, Tamika knows and shares with her people a lot about operational, as well as people, aspects of how they should work. She doesn't need to know everything but needs to show the way in key areas - and, thereby, establish her credibility as a good person to turn to for advice. Which, I'm sure she is.

At the highest level, perhaps the single most important theme from people's comments was this: the pre-eminence of our followers. And, for some this means striving to operate as a servant-leader. But, however we frame it, we must address our followers' concerns around technical and commercial issues as well as the critically important ones of people and culture.