What Do You See As The Difference Between Leading Leaders And Leading Followers?

What do you see as the difference between leading leaders and leading followers?

There are four (4) groups surrounding leaders: Followers, Non-Followers, Outsiders, and Observers. Your question focuses on breaking down followers into five (5) categories: enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives, and laggards. ("Crossing the Chasm", Geoffrey A. Moore) Based on the definition of leadership, "Guiding Intent with Integrity" there should be no difference in leading Leaders vs Followers. However, as described above, there are different types of followers, as well as three (3) additional groups, that require different types of handling.

The terms Scott mentioned: [accountability, empowerment, innovation, collaboration, trying and learning, straight communication, supporting intentions, [assessment], projection, and blame] concern integrity. And, he split them into two (2) groups based on proximity to the leader - closest and farthest.

Integrity's unwritten rule is called a, "Social Contract". The expectations that all parties have against each other. When unwritten it's "word of mouth" or an "Understanding". When written it's a contract.

Exceptions on outcomes, drives the group to accomplish something, or resolve a problem. The question now is, "How much have various individuals bought into this outcome?" The answer indicates their level of participation, motivation and excitement. Participation, motivation and excitement levels diminishes the farther from the leader.

In the five (5) groups of followers: enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives, and laggards a pattern emerges around expectations and willingness to change. Enthusiasts and Visionaries look for new innovative ways to merge ideas and craft unique solutions to the "Human Condition" or Business Problem. Pragmatists want something that will give them a leg up. Conservatives don't care where the solution comes from, it's foot cream, any will do as long as it does the job. And, laggards, refuse to use new tools until it's so entrenched into society that they have no other choice.

Now we can measure the level of effort needed to interact with each group. Enthusiasts and Visionaries talk in broad terms, are excited and motivated about you're work, and in return excite and motivate you to continue researching bigger, better solutions. Pragmatists only believe what other pragmatists say, thus your conversation dynamic has to change. The amount of energy to convince someone to "Try the New" increases. Conservatives require your product to be main stream, mature and in full competition before they will look at it. This requires a tremendous amount of energy, which few entrepreneurs are capable of providing. And, there is no amount of energy that will move a laggard.

Each group assess change differently as well. This is based on their judgments triggered by beliefs "On how things should be". "Shared Visions" play an important rule in motivating followers. This is where followers migrate to non-followers and outsiders depending on whether or not they share your vision. Thus when employees can't see the vision, or understand how they are part of a larger whole, and are treated as a commodity (foot cream), they loose motivation, excitement, creativity, enthusiasm, and so on.

As such, when searching for the right people for the right roles, leaders are looking for excited people who can motivate others through a shared vision of a better world. Thus the mission of the organization is to achieve this vision, and it has to flow out from the Board down to every member in the organization.

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.

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.

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 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 "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.