The Truth About Leadership - Part 6

The Truth About Leadership - Part 6

You Can’t Do it Alone

This statement is half true. First there is an understanding that leadership requires others to be lead. The definition of leadership says nothing about this. While it may be implied, who leads you when you choose to push harder or not push harder to achieve certain goals? It’s you. You are your own leader. Therefore, no one else is required to lead you. However, when we look at goals beyond the personal goals, then this statement is true. Without the 100’s of 1000’s of dedicated men and women who worked on the Lunar Moon Project with NASA, we would not have achieved that goal.

On page 62, the claim is made about leadership, “How do you know someone is a leader? […] The simplest way to know is just to look to see whether that person has followers. If you think you’re a leader and you turn around and no one is following you, then you’re simply out for a walk”. This is very disparaging for personal leaders to read; since it discounts the personal growth work they are doing to improve not only themselves but also the life of others around them, who may not even be aware of it.

There are silent leaders: people who work tirelessly behind the scenes without any thanks or congratulations or even knowing how their actions will affect other people, but hope that it will have a positive effect. These leaders are just as important and powerful as the visible leaders. Buddhist monks discovered this type of leadership 1000’s of years ago and call it, “Taking action without action!” Simply by virtue of being who they are, and doing what they do, regardless of whether or not others follow them, they demonstrate how a better future could look. If someone happens to notice, they may become curious and ask how they do it, and study under them. But at no time does the Buddhist Monk become attached to their presence, how good or bad they are at mirroring their behavior, or whether or not they have achieved the goal of “Taking action without action!” They are content in knowing that the human condition for another small part of the world has been improved every so slightly.

So much of this chapter is about the human condition:

Making a human connection

Hearing what people are saying

Uniting people to solve a shared problem

Making others feel strong, capable, and empowered

Bringing it out of others

On this last point, please refer to “Total Quality or Else” (1991) by Lloyd Dobyns and Clare Crawford-Mason, ISBN 0-395-57439-0, who discuss the history and lessons learned when Dr. Demming, the creator of Total Quality Management worked with the Japanese to improve their systems. Dr. Demming realized that every worker was seeing a part of the process and knew ways that their process could be improved. He utilized this information by aggregating it into larger Quality Initiatives to build better products, stronger companies, and product improvements.

So, what “Bringing it out of others” is referring to, is that you have to listen to the men and women on the front line who are making the parts, assembling the parts, polishing the parts, and using the parts for their ideas on how their part of the process could be improved. If you ignore this information, no one will care about your product or service. And, I do mean, “NO ONE!” How many people still use a typewriter today vs a word processor, today?

The Truth About Leadership - Part 4

Values Drive Commitment

“Energy is neither good nor evil, it is the intent by which it is used that determines it’s helpful or destructive force”, Dungeon Master, Dungeons and Dragons Cartoon Series. I think Albert Einstein was also quoted saying something similar to this, after his discovery that Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, they just change forms.

Page 39 lists a series of values: success, wealth, family, freedom, growth, love, power, spirituality, trust, wisdom, health, honesty, and integrity. It also asks, “What do you really care about?” This question and these categories are about where you’re willing to place your energy into. Since thought is energy, in the human context, then intentions is the proper word for our actions, which are the physical manifestations of our thoughts.

This chapter argues the case that expressed values drive commitment. This argument is false since unexpressed values can just as easily drive a person’s commitment, just as easily as can expressed values.

In addition, this argument mixes intent and integrity. Intent as I described above is the energy or thoughts we have about different aspects of the human condition. Integrity is whether or not we maintain the social contract with ourselves and others. Or to put it in a context that is closer to what this chapter is discussing, what if everyone had an unwritten, mainly spoken, contract with each other. What would that contract be about? And why would you choose to honor that contract? Now, what if the spoken contract were not the contract you are choosing to follow, but instead have a hidden agenda. Now the difference between intent and integrity becomes clear.

Commitment occurs when two or more parties agree on a verbal social contract. I will commit to working, playing, spending time, and/or being with you, if your intentions at the time are the same as mine. For example, let’s go biking. This is simple enough, until the leader finds that after 6 degrees of separation, their ex-love happens to be a member of the biking group consisting of 200 people. And for the next 5 hours they are going to be touring through some very lovely terrain. Now this is a quandary for the leader of the biking group. Should he lead the group, or leave because someone’s values he can no longer agree with is a member of the group? (Grist for the Mill, or Sauce for the Goose?)

The social contract that the bike leader agreed to was, “To lead the biking group on a tour.” However, if his intentions or positions on his judgments towards his ex-love are made known this may end the biking tour for that day. However, if he withholds these judgments, the biking tour may go forward, everyone may have a great time, and as long as there is physical distance between the two, they may both separately enjoy the tour.

In this case, it is not expressed value that is driving the decision, but unexpressed values, which allows the bike tour guide to remain in integrity to his contractual obligations. Others may be aware of his dis-ease, and feel that he is upholding a great sense of integrity as he leads the tour, all the while knowing the personal emotional strain he is under.

The case that is used here is around an employment opportunity. As “The New Leader’s 100 Day Action Plan” (2009) by George B. Bradt, et. al., ISBN 978-0-470-43984-5, location 533 states, “There are only 3 fundamental questions asked during an interview: 1) Can you do the job? 2) Will you love the job? 3) Can I tolerate working with you?” Or put in other words: Skills, Enthusiasm, and Culture, or Strengths, Motivations, and Fit. Enthusiasm and motivations are forms of intent. Why do you want to be a leader? What motivated you to become a leader? Why did this particular issue cause you to become more engaged and enthusiastic than other people?

If I were to answer my own question, “Why is it important for me to write book reviews on leadership?” I think the answer would be, “Because I found the definition of leadership. I want to share it with people. I want to help foster others who are using the correct techniques to grow and empower positive leaders. I want to help the general public recognize people who are bad, negative, and dark leaders.” This answer demonstrates the three key points George made earlier: skill, motivation and culture.

Can Leadership be Taught?

Leadership is not an innate trait built into genetic code, nor is leadership provided through the "Divine Right of Gaud".  No instead it is a natural phenomena that can be nurtured and taught.  There are many reasons why some people seem to become great leaders and others don't become leaders at all.  But that is for another article, in this article I'd like to discuss the topic of teaching individuals how to become leaders.

Leadership is guiding intent with integrity. These three qualitative values "Guiding", "Intent", and "Integrity" work together to help people choose a style of leadership that works for them personally as well as works for the group they are guiding.  The first step in teaching someone to be a leader is to help them see the vast range of methods used to guide.

Guiding someone is not an art.  Someone asks a question, you give an answer.  You point them in a direction.  You provide them with feedback on what has happened.  You console them.  The guidance provided though is based on your intent.

Your partner asks you if this looks good, how do you respond and why do you respond in that manner?  Do you tell them that they look good even when they don't?  Do you tell them that they don't look good in that outfit?  Is the outfit appropriate for the environment you are going to attend?  Or do you find another way to help them towards their goal?

Intent isn't just about your intent, it's also about their intent.  What is it that they intended for themselves.  If your partner wants to look good, then the language you use will help guide them to a better choice.  Or the language you use will trigger an emotional episode.  Is your intent to make them emotionally dependent on you, or emotionally dependent?

Finally there is integrity.  Integrity has many different synonyms that mean roughly the same thing:  accountability, ethics, morality, virtue, sound, honest, chaste, and so on.  In the sense that we will use integrity here, it is in relation to the social contract.

The social contract is the written or verbal agreement made between the leader and the follower.  The accountability determines whether or not the leader and the follower are following this social contract, and if not how are they correcting each others deviation from the contract?  Are they demanding that the contract be adhered to, are they  penalizing each other for not holding to the contract, are they talking about the contract as malleable  or are they looking at the social contract as the target they want to reach?

There are many different things that the social contract can become.  It can become a beacon of hope, or a weapon to beat each other up with.  It depends on how the contract is designed and what it is designed to do.  As this is an agreement between two people, the contract can always be re-evaluated and adjusted as needed.  But, in order for that to occur, both parties need to be willing to examine how the contract is affecting themselves and see how the contract is affecting others.

A good question to determine if the social contract or integrity of the people involved is in line, is to ask, "What is the goal?"  Many people use rules that determine a persons integrity.  Above 50% and you're good, below 50% and you're bad.  However, in many games there is the goal at end of the field.  In order to reach that goal all parties have to work together to reach it. So, if the social contract is written at the 50 yard line, then the parties involved are constantly battling over who is in integrity.  But if the social contract is written with a focus on the goal, then every play that helps everyone move towards the 100 yard becomes a positive reinforcing step in the right direction.

While the short answer is that leadership can be taught, there is a lot to learn about what affects leadership.  While looking at Guiding, Intent, Integrity, and the Goal we also learned that language and the social contract play an important role in the guidance given. We can make people dependent on us or independent on us. We can celebrate the small victories or fight over the small upsets, the question is what is used to measure progress, and where is the goal marker?

The Truth About Leadership - part 1

“The Truth About Leadership”, (2010) by James M Kouzes and Barry Z Posner, ISBN 978-0-470-63354-0.

“The Truth About Leadership” talks about 10 truths.  They are:

You Make a Difference

Credibility is the Foundation of Leadership

Values Drive Commitment

Focusing on the Future sets Leaders apart

You Can’t Do it Alone

Trust Rules

Challenge is the Crucible of Greatness

You Either Lad by Example or you Don’t Lead at All

The best Leaders are the Best Learners

Leadership is an Affair of the Heart

The book claims to be about “Fundamentals” and how they are the “building blocks to greatness”.

So let’s put these truths to the test against the definition of Leadership, which is, “Guiding Intent with Integrity”.

The book starts by making a fundamental mistake.  It does not define a definition of leadership from which these truths are based in.  This mistake allows for many other misunderstandings to follow. An explanation follows as each truth is examined.

Law of the Lid

John Maxwell, in "Leadership 101", ISBN 0-7852-6419-1, describes a principle called "The Law of the Lid".  This principle describes how effective people can be in organizing others to build something bigger.  For example taking a small business, duplicating it, and franchising it. John's equation is simple, the stronger the leader and the more successful they are, the higher their lid will be.

I have a few problems with is principle.  First of all, John's definition of leadership doesn't exist. 2nd, this principle doesn't take into account the connections that successful people and leaders have made over time.  Nor does it take into account their financial resources to make things happen.  The other thing that it doesn't account for is why does something become successful?  

So before I get to far off track, let's take a look at some of these factors.

While John's definition of leadership doesn't exist, he does describe how one can improve their leadership skills.  The first step is to recognize that they don't know what they don't know and to search every corner nook and cranny for anything on leadership. The second point is learn from mistakes.  Every leader makes them, record them and use the lessons they have to further your growth.  3rd, practice brings experience, experience brings wisdom.  4th, leadership becomes an innate behavior.

John continues in further chapters to describe the traits of a leader:

Discliplined, 

Challenges excuses, 

Establishes rewards for finished jobs, 

Prioritizes life activities,

Chooses the people to connect with,

Prioritize assignments,

Initiate activities,

Connect with people,

Take time to plan actions,

Invest time with people,

Develop trust*,

Demonstrate their capabilities and confidence,

Consistent,

Respectful,

Cast Visions,

Listen,

Influence

* Trust for me is a FOUR LETTER WORD.  It should never be used, because if you have to ask someone to TRUST you, then you're begging someone to set aside their fears and doubts that you are incapable of doing the job.  Instead of asking someone to TRUST, demonstrate that they can TRUST you, then you'll never have to ask them.  They will already know they can.

While the traits describe a leader, they are not a definition of leadership, which is, "To guide intent with integrity".  John touches on this point in Chapter 7, "Influence", when he describes his first assignment as a pastor.  Here he learns how to build and lead a group of followers who have no financial vest interest seeing the church succeed.  It was just a desire.  Or as the Man Kind Project calls it, "He was learning to herd cats."

John discusses another principle about leadership. It is the ability to get people to participate without leverage, power, position or threats.  However, in looking at the definition of leadership, "Guiding Intent with Integrity", these behaviors fit very well into the definition.  What these behaviors do describe is one style of leadership.  While pastors should not use these traits, they may be necessary under the right circumstances, such as disciplining a disobedient nation.

Moving on to my second point, John doesn't take into account the connections that successful people have built.  This suggests that people who are building a successful business and wish to grow that business have not established a report with their banker and investors to demonstrate that they can successful manage from 1 copy of their business to 20 copies of their business.

If I'm going to loan you some money, and I'm using my money as a way to grow my financial nest egg, then I have to know that I'm going to get my money back with 5 to 10% interest.  This is the way simple investing works.  So, now the question is, how do I invest to insure that say 80% of all my investments return 10 to 15% interest, so that overall I have accrued 5 to 10% interest?  By using factors that allow me to look at your business model, determine it's success ratio and find a number between 0 and 100% that says, "Yes, your bet is x% safe here."  And if X is greater than say 80%, I should probably feel confident that it's safe to invest in you.

In another book review, forth coming, on "The Ultimate Question", I'll discuss a few factors that can help investors determine safe bets.

Now back to my point. Successful people know how to determine safe bets.  These bets in turn are executed by individuals who they "TRUST" or have demonstrated that they are capable of taking the investment and returning a profit for the investor.  If you haven't established that type of reputation, then I suggest you get a credit card and start taking out small loans and paying them back over time and building this trust.  Very slowly, very small and very safe.

The third point that I brought up was that John didn't take into account the financial resources that successful people have to make things happen.  So let's go take a look at our investor.  He wants to build out a new chain of restaurants. However, to insure that these restaurants are successful, he may also need to build a series of shopping malls to attract people, and in building such malls, may also need to build house around them.  Population density insures that stores are frequented regularly, goods are bought locally, and that his investment has a great chance of return.

To be able to do this, an investor might need to pool his money with many other investors.  So, while one has the idea for a food chain, another has ideas for a clothier, and others for small and medium size businesses, and the last could have the idea for the housing projects.  All these people need to come together through an investment firm to build out the final project.  Unless you're a billionaire, and then you can do it all on your own, by using the people who work for you.

But mind you, building things, throwing money at something, doesn't mean it's a safe bet.  "Build it and they will come" some times doesn't work. Ask the Chinese who've build huge empty cities. No one lives in them. And they have 4 billion people living in their country alone.

Which brings me to my last point concerning the "Law of the Lid", why is something successful.  It's not because someone threw their money at it.  It's because a group of people like the idea or product.  John might have learned this while in his first pastoralship (sp).  When John came into the church to guide them, all his patrons had a series of common desires that brought them to this church: Friendship, worship, devotion to the grounds, ... so on.  (My point is that there may not have been 1 thing that united all of them together.)  But, the church for what ever reason provided something that these people needed, and they in turn gave back.  

They believed in the idea and the product that the church provided.  They wanted others to share in that idea and product. They promoted the church.  And when things needed to get done, they gave as much of themselves as they could to help get it done.  I'm sure that there were things like missionary causes, sports leagues, after school programs, and such.

The Law of the Lid doesn't discuss these issues in relationship to leadership.  Since leadership is about guiding intent with integrity, guiding peoples beliefs about the idea or product that they are receiving from a church is very important.  It helps them formulate intentions that will want them to invest their time and hard earned money into the church.  To make it better. To help it sustain itself over time. So that it will be there for others to enjoy.  But to do this, there has to be an accountability, integrity, an understood agreement with the congregation that the people representing them at the church board are doing what is right for the whole.  If that TRUST is broken. If it is demonstrated that the board doesn't have the congregations interest at heart, then those who see this will leave the church.  It will be seen as the intent of the church board and the intent of the church congregation are not in alignment, and the groups will fracture.

So is there a true Law of the Lid on leadership?  The answer is no. Everyone has the ability to be a leader.  There are a lot of facets to leadership and studying them will help you understand how to better guide people's intentions and stay in integrity with yourself and your followers, and the observers. This fictitious lid doesn't exist because anyone at any time can demonstrate to others that they have a successful idea, product, and are capable of achieving the results that will attract people to their cause, idea, service and/or product.

Who's Involved in Leadership?

The obvious answer to this question is, "The Leader".  But, Leadership, doesn't happen in a vacuum  So, what may not be obvious is the other people that are involved in leadership.

The next obvious person or group that is involved in leadership is those being lead.  Those individuals that want to be guided to the goal.  This group is called the followers.  And those that don't follow are called non-followers.

Now there are levels of followers, from the fanatical to those who could care less.  If the leader said, "Jump off the cliff", there would be some who would jump and some who'd jump with a parachute, and other's who ask, "Why?"

Now if we look at the press around all the national elections that recently occurred  we can see that there are groups of people both inside and outside those that want to be guided.  This group is called the observers.

The last group are people who don't wish to be part of the group, and don't care about the goal or the leadership towards the goal.  They are outsiders.  

It may be hard to differentiate outsiders from non-followers. The key is whether or not the outsider is championing causes that are against the leader's efforts. This then would make the outsider a non-follower.

To summarize, the individuals involved in leadership are:

The Leader

The Followers

The Non-Followers

The Observers

The Outsiders