The Truth About Leadership - Part 5

The Truth About Leadership - Part 5

Focusing on the Future sets Leaders apart

This chapter argues that leaders are set apart from ordinary average everyday people because they have a vision about the future and act on it.  This point is true; it does set different types of leaders apart.  There are those that dream about a better future, but don’t act on it. There are those that haven’t even thought about a better future, but are just responding to needs of others.  And then there are others that do what is suggested by the title of this chapter, “Leaders look long term”.

However, just because you’re not looking 500 years into the future doesn’t mean that you’re not a leader.  The definition of Leadership simply states, “Guiding Intent with Integrity”.  If there is a goal someone needs to achieve, and you have a way to achieve it, you are their leader.  It doesn’t matter if it’s about going out dancing Saturday night, teaching a class room full of students how to speak English, or leading a nation through an economic crisis manufactured by the banks.  As long as you are guiding your own intentions and those of our followers, and they feel you are in integrity, you are their leader.

Coincidentally, on page 47, it is stated, “we found not surprisingly, that the importance of being forward looking increased with age, work experience and level in organizational hierarchy”  Leadership is about guiding people to their goals, so as people gain more experience about understanding goals, obtaining goals, and helping people achieve them, as well as motivating people to achieve them, yes, it stands to reason, just like children learning to walk, we will strive to use techniques that make it easier to achieve our goals and rely less on others.

Have you ever wondered why children learn to walk?  Maybe it’s because they get tired of waiting on others to help them do things.  Have you ever wondered why seniors refuse to stop driving?  It’s reported that seniors don’t want to give up their independence.  Interesting correlation, wouldn’t you agree?  Therefore, if follows that if I can achieve a goal more easily by leading a group of people to help me achieve it, wouldn’t I prefer to do that, instead of doing it all on my own?  We as a general rule learn how to do things more easily, and will leave older habits behind that took more time, and energy.

How many people do you know that still use type writers?  Now, why have so many people switched from type writers to using word processors?

The problem isn’t that other leaders are not thinking about the future. It is that they are here in the present, dealing with present problems, and haven’t learned how to utilize the tools of leadership effectively to motivate others around them to help them solve a common problem around the human condition.  As was illustrated in the first chapter, “You Make a Difference”.

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?

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.

In the political arena, how does Obama show positive leadership in handling the fiscal cliff for the benefit of the greater good of all, when the Republican leadership (as well as the Democratic leadership with its principles) refuses to consider any plan that involves raising taxes, or essentially breaking the Norquist Mandate. Does good leadership in this case mean compromising to meet the mandated deadline? Or does it mean sticking to one's principle? Or a combination of both? 3rdmurnau

There are a couple of different things I could talk about concerning this question.  I could talk about the different types of leadership:

Great Leadership, 

Positive Leadership,

Good Leadership,

OK Leadership,

Bad Leadership,

Negative Leadership, and

Dark Leadership

But these styles of leadership are only a method to reaching the goal, they are not the goal in itself.  

The goal as many would have you believe is to fix the fiscal cliff.  But is that really the goal, or is someone just trying to control the conversation?  What is the real problem and is that the goal?

Could the real goal be to move social security and medicare insurance into the private sector?  And what would happen if these organizations were privatized? Why do Republicans want military spending to go up? Why do Republicans believe that too many people are abusing the system - choose your system, including voter fraud. Maybe the real goal is to develop a stable economy, where everyone can prosper? But this goal would require the government to return to it's former practices of redistributing wealth, in order to benefit all, not just a few.

Compromise will come once we understand what the goals are. This is the unfortunate part, since the intent of the Democratic party and the Republican party may not be the same.  And to-date, the Republican party has been unwilling to budge on even those points which they have in common with the Democratic party. It's become an all or nothing atmosphere.

So, how should President Obama lead in this instance. The President has the ability to influence not only the Republicans and the Democrats in the House and Senate, but also those at all levels of government. While the President is charged with upholding the laws passed by Congress, he usually isn't fully funded to administrate all of them.  We saw this when is informed his personnel and the public that certain individuals would no longer be sought after for deportation. 

Another way that the President could lead in this instance is to take his case to the general public.  While most people believe that the President only influences the House and Senate, he has clearly demonstrated that he can influence the general public to "Get Out To Vote!" Through an information campaign, or as  mentioned before, take control of the conversation and reshape how the public perceives the problem, the goal, and the steps towards achieving that goal.

Since, information is power, the President can do what he has been doing all long very well: outline the facts, provide the options, and discuss his plan on how we can pressure the House and the Senate to move.  Letter writing campaigns can be very effective when it comes to getting representatives to move at all levels of government, especially when their whole party is at stake of being overturned.

Now should President Obama allow Norquist Mandate to go into effect?  While at first this might seem like a bad thing, it could also be like a parent telling their children that if they don't straighten up, then the punishment will be a night in their room without dinner.  As harsh as it may seem, children usually get the message the first time around when you stick to your strategy. So, the worst that could happen is that the American public becomes upset with their representatives and decides to vote them out of office.  

And if these groups of people don't want to wait till the next election for that representative's due date, then they can gather the necessary signatures for a petition and vote them out early using a recall election.  I, though, doubt that President Obama would publicly call for this type of grass roots action be taken, but it may be necessary in the next year to adjust the House and Senate to remove the blocks, and get the Republicans to come to the table.

I think right now the Republicans have a very hard decision to make. Stick to their principles and wants, or watch their constituents turn on them and remove them one by one or on mass.  Personally, I'm for the on mass option, as they would get the message that much faster.

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.

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.