Leadership is "Guiding Intent with Integrity". Knowing the equation is one thing. How do you use it?
163 posts
The Truth About Leadership - Part 4
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.
More Posts from Enetarch
The Truth About Leadership - Part 3
Credibility is the Foundation of Leadership
Credibility is NOT the foundation of Leadership, this is a lie. The lie is supported further by the supposition that “You have to believe in yourself” to be a leader. (page 15). In looking at the definition of leadership, “Guiding Intent with Integrity”, there is no need for belief. It is a scientific formula. As you learn to guide people, depending on your intent and integrity, they will either follow you or they won’t. And eventually you will understand when people will following you or won’t. Either you won’t have the right guidance, won’t have the right intent, or won’t have the right integrity based on what they are looking for.
No, credibility is not the foundation of leadership; it is a part of leadership, but not the foundation. Another name for credibility is integrity. And as the definition suggests, leadership cannot stand on integrity alone. It requires providing guidance towards a goal. And it requires a reason for providing that guidance - intent. Without these three points, leadership does not exist.
Mind you, you can misguide people on purpose for their own good. Or you can guide them toward decisions that they would otherwise not make and still thank you for your help. While your intentions mislead them, because you wanted someone to take their place, they may still feel you have integrity. Guiding, Intent and Integrity are both positive and negative terms. The skill of their use depends on how well they are mastered, as the historical French Courts attest to.
Page 16 supports this conclusion that credibility cannot be the foundation of leadership, as they point out, “It turns out that the believability of the leader determines whether people will give more other time, talent, energy, experience, intelligence, creativity, and support.” The observation from an outside observer’s perspective is that time and attention increase as follower’s belief in the leader increases. They have completely forgotten that the followers and the leaders have to have a common goal in mind. For example a foot ball coach cannot conduct an orchestra using football training programs. Nor can a conductor lead a football team. The guidance would be all wrong. The intent may be positive and the integrity may be positive, but nothing good will be achieved.
On Page 17, the book does a bate and switch from Integrity to Intentions to demonstrate how Credibility is important by listing characteristics of leaders people hold most dear: Honesty, forward thinking, inspiring, competent, intelligent, broad minded, dependable, supportive, fair minded, straight forward, determined, ambitious, courageous, caring, loyal, imaginative, mature, self controlled, and independent. The problem with this switch is that their understanding of Integrity and Intentions are completely wrong.
These characteristics are about intentions. And while most people will categorize intentions as an onion, that would be incorrect as well. Intentions are like strands of wave stretching, ballooning rising and falling in a lava lamp. No one intention is at the top or bottom, left or right. Some times they are layered and shift. They are forever mixing and matching as the moment requires.
On Page 19, the assumption is made, that “Before anyone is going to be willing to follow you, you have to be honest, forward thinking, inspiring and competent”. This seems simple enough, until you look at the couple who asked the waitress for her opinion about how to prepare a steak. What was their intention about asking that question? Do they really want to know? Or are they seeing how competent she is? Who is really leading who at that moment? The goal may be to get the best steak possible – forward thinking – but whose route will be there the fastest and produce the desired results. Does the garbage man have to be inspiring to give directions to the local CVS Pharmacy? And what about yourself, do you have to be competent to know that the method you’re using needs to change in order to achieve the results you want?
Page 22 identifies that this idea that credibility is the foundation of leadership comes from marketing and communication. In general people reviewing news determine its believability based on the source of the communication. So, referring back to the definition of leadership, we can ask: “Is the article believable because of the information (guidance) provided?”, “What is the intent of the author?”, and “What is the integrity of the author?”
Page 25 uses credibility incorrectly again to look at the question of referrals. “When people say their immediate manager exhibits credibility, they are significantly more likely to tell others they are part of the organization”. “Ultimate Question” (2011) by Fred Reichheld, ISBN 978-4-1-4221-7335-0, examines the question, “Would you refer this [Individual, Product, or Service] on a scale of 0 to 10? Why or Why Not?” Why do people become attached to a product or service? Is it because of Leadership? Or is it that the product or service is filling a need? Or in other words, the guidance provided, the intent it’s presented with, and the integrity it has fills the needs of the followers, so much so that they are willing to refer it to their friends who may benefit from this guidance as well.
On Page 26, an MBA student, James Stout, “realized that leadership was a reciprocal relationship”. When was providing guidance towards a goal not a reciprocal relationship? Those seeking guidance have to ask you. And those providing guidance have to give it. If those two groups of people don’t meet then leadership doesn’t exist. Nor is the relationship reciprocal.
Page 27 offers a major misunderstanding of leadership, “Leadership means being absolutely honest and helping others to do as I do, not simply to do what I say.” WRONG! Guiding, Intent with Integrity says nothing about that at all. At no time does anyone ever have to be honest about why they are seeking or providing guidance. In fact every single sale is based on the premise, “The Buyer Beware!” Don’t buy into this stupidity.
Strategic Thinking
Why would General Mills, originally a single cereal manufacture, decide instead of creating new cereals, it would purchase other companies that are making cereals? What was the strategic decision making process behind that decision?
What I have found in my years of examining companies is that many people misunderstand three (3) parts of a companies objectives. The first is the problem (business or personal) that the company is trying to solve for it's customers. The second is the vision statement which demonstrates what a world would look like if this problem were resolved. And the third is the mission statement, which describes how the company intends to achieve its objective.
It is the first part that most companies can't quite articulate, have missed articulating, or leave it assumed - we are in banking, what more do you need to know? This however, allows the company to veer way off course due to a lack of understanding of the reason why the company started initially. This like the United States Constitution provides a basis from which all decision are made. And, when this problem is solved, so then is the company.
A strategic decision then becomes a debate about, "What is in the client's best interest?" Employees are encouraged to examine the client's problem from all perspectives, and determine how best to solve the problem. All arguments require the client's business problem to be the central issues to be resolved, not an after thought.
If new products or services are added to the business, then they in some part are there specifically to address either the client's business problem, or the daily business activities needed to support the business processes involved in solving the client's business problem. This is what strategic thinking means to me. Looking at the ship either in total or in part and determining what is the best course of action to help everyone work towards solving the client's business problem.
The "Belief about how things should be" - How should Leaders address this?
I'd like to expound on another area of communication I thought about while at the gym today. It's with the "Belief about how things should be". Most project managers build project plans that account for tasks, risks, dependencies, issues, unknowns and assumptions. The plan builds mitigations for each of these that are identified. Basically, in short, the plan covers the best case through the worst case scenarios. When changes occur, members of each of the groups .. enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives and laggards have these same scenarios running in their Synthetic Experience Generator (aka head) (this term comes from a TedTalk). A good sales person will identify all these worst case scenarios and address them up front. As Scott pointed out, a Good Leader, will develop a communications plan tailored specifically to each group that addresses the scenarios. The idea is that a leader cannot run from controversy, he must face it head on. In change management, this is a given. Users are usually grouped into 4 categories: eager to adopt, willing to adopt, need assistance to adopt and those that refuse to adopt. As you can see, these categories are the same as "Crossing the Chasms" categories.
WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER WHEN YOU ARE IN A BAD MOOD?
When I'm in a bad mood, I take time to journal about what has upset me? I ask a series of questions ..
What is upsetting me?
What caused this upset to happen?
What should I do to resolve this upset?
How do I feel at the time of this writing?
Can I live with the upset and that which caused me to become upset?
What to do I gain by becoming upset?
What would I give up to stop feeling upset like this?
What would I gain if I stopped responding this way?
What do I want?
I then take a nap and fall asleep. The questions, solutions, wants are subconsciously processed . New possibilities surface, and that which caused me to become upset ceases to upset me any more.