OUR BELIEFS ABOUT OURSELVES AND THOSE WE LEAD
“Non sibi sed patriae.” Not self but country.1
—UNOFFICIAL MOTTO OF THE U.S. NAVY
Before I met Anne, she moved to Washington State from Wisconsin after a job transfer. Anne’s roommate, Donna, drove with her to help with the long trip, which was made a bit more difficult because they were towing a U-Haul trailer with all of Anne’s earthly possessions. When they reached the top of the Continental Divide, it was Anne’s turn to drive, so they stopped briefly to enjoy the sights. The beauty of the pristine snow against a piercing blue sky, the crisp air, and the dramatic vistas of the Rocky Mountains renewed their spirits after many hours on the road.
After traveling a few hundred yards down the steep grade of the western slope, the trailer began to rock violently, pushing the car from side to side. Other cars traveling in both directions tried to move out of the way of what appeared to be a catastrophic accident in the making. Anne fought unsuccessfully to control the car, the tires squealing as the trailer tossed the car in every direction. Just as Anne started to step on the brakes, Donna screamed, “Anne, don’t step on the brakes, step on the gas!” Anne later said that accelerating the car went against every instinct—she wanted the car to slow down before they experienced a catastrophic accident. She yielded to Donna’s plea, and within a few seconds of stepping on the gas, the trailer settled down and began to roll smoothly behind the car.
Anne explained that the steep downhill grade made her drive tentatively. Gravity took over and the heavy trailer began to move faster than the car. It quickly stepped out of its rightful position as a “follower” and began an attempt to pass the car with nearly disastrous results. Stepping on the gas caused the car to pull the trailer as intended, but Anne had to speed up to get the car to move ahead and reassert its position as the “leader.”
ENGAGING THE COMMITMENT OF FOLLOWERS
Without leadership most human endeavors would never get off the ground, much less prosper. Organizations today face some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. The turbulence index is off the charts, and news reports warn of a new impending disaster every day. Now is the time for leaders to lead. Leaders are understandably uncertain and tentative about the economy and market conditions, and they often must lead a workforce with its own unrest. In these circumstances, leaders must step on the gas. Perhaps as never before, they must get out in front to garner the hearts and minds of followers. Although accomplishing the task is imperative, leaders particularly need the commitment and resourcefulness that only engaged followers possess.
As we discussed in Chapter 1, Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain faced his own crisis on the outskirts of Gettysburg in 1863. Chamberlain instinctively knew that he could not command the men to follow and fight with courage and sacrifice. He believed the mutineers would join in only if they were reminded of the importance of their cause and shown the personal meaning of their military service. Chamberlain’s beliefs informed his words, and the soldiers willingly followed him into the battle that determined the course of the war.
What a leader believes about those he or she leads plays a dominant role in whether or not the heart and minds of followers are engaged. When we hear what Chamberlain said to the mutineers, it becomes apparent that he believed most of them desired to serve a higher end. Chamberlain believed that all men have value and that residing within each mutineer was a noble self who recognized that inherent value as well. He believed that reminding these men about the noble purpose of the war would engage their hearts and minds, so that they would unreservedly join in the effort. During his short speech to the mutineers that so dramatically changed their perspective, Chamberlain said:
This is a different kind of army. If you look at history you’ll see men fight for pay, or women, or some other kind of loot. They fight for land, or because a king makes them, or just because they like killing. But we’re here for something new. This has not happened much, in the history of the world: We are an army out to set other men free. America should be free ground, all of it, from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow, no man born to royalty. Here we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was. Here you can be something. Here is the place to build a home. But it’s not the land. There’s always more land. It’s the idea that we all have value, you and me. What we’re fighting for, in the end . . . we’re fighting for each other . . .2
At this moment, the mutineers’ hardened resistance softened, and all but four joined in the effort to defeat the Confederate Army in the pivotal battle. This was not a management technique but rather an authentic action that flowed out of Chamberlain’s core. He believed in the inherent noble motives of his followers, and that when presented with the opportunity, they would make the right decision. To use a modern term, he empowered them to determine their own destiny. He spoke from his core to their core, and they were transformed. They re-enlisted with personal commitment to a high calling.
Many leaders today take the path of pragmatism—they are impatient and bottom-line oriented. They approach the task with expediency only to discover, at the end, that no one is following them (like Doug Dennison in the Prologue). Some leaders complain that what I am suggesting is too time consuming. “We just need to get the job done.” They discover that the long way, counterintuitively, is the short way. When we lead effectively, we ensure that the work is completed well, but we also gain the commitment of followers to willingly exceed the basic requirements of their jobs. The ability to engage people in this deeper way flows from an intact core.
INTENTIONALLY DETERMINE OUR LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
Our leadership philosophy is a belief system, and therefore it guides how we act as leaders. Earlier in the book I stressed that beliefs govern our behavior. Nowhere is this more powerfully manifested than in what we believe about people, our role as a leader, and the work we do. As with others we must vet these beliefs and root out any that are fundamentally untrue.
How we act depends on what we believe about people and their trustworthiness to do their jobs. A somewhat extreme but entertaining example is Captain Bligh in the original screen version of Mutiny on the Bounty. In one memorable scene the captain tells his younger officers about how to motivate “half-witted seamen” on a ship. “Now don’t mistake me. I’m not advising cruelty or brutality with no purpose. My point is that cruelty with purpose is not cruelty—it’s efficiency . . .”3 As a consequence of his leadership philosophy, a number of Captain Bligh’s crew chose mutiny.
Our beliefs about people, about work, and about ourselves determine what kind of leader we become and the depth of commitment of our followers. We should be intentional and thoughtful about what we believe about human nature in general and about our followers in particular. Followers still commit mutiny today—it is called not following the leader’s vision. As mentioned earlier, Bob Nardelli, the failed CEO of Home Depot who liked his private elevator, so alienated the members of the organization that they refused to follow his vision. This became obvious to Home Depot’s board, and the board removed him from leadership.
WHAT DO WE BELIEVE ABOUT PEOPLE?
A much more contemporary maritime epic, Crimson Tide, reveals major differences in what two men believe about their crew. Gene Hackman’s character, Captain Ramsey, and Denzel Washington’s character, Commander Hunter, trade barbs over how to lead the crew of their submarine during a nuclear standoff with Russia.
HUNTER: Captain, here’s the results from the missile drill.
CAPT. RAMSEY: [looks at the missile drill results] Is this the best they can do?
HUNTER: No, sir, but that’s what they did.
CAPT. RAMSEY: I want this down to five minutes. Train on it.
HUNTER: Yes, sir.
CAPT. RAMSEY: Tell your buddy Weps to do it again, and keep on doing it until he gets it right.
HUNTER: Yes, sir.
CAPT. RAMSEY: It looks like the whole crew needs a kick in the ass.
HUNTER: Or a pat on the back, sir. I witnessed a fight down in crew’s mess—no big deal. It appears that the crew is a bit on edge about all we’re going through. Morale seems a bit low.
CAPT. RAMSEY: [picks up the intercom and speaks into it] May I have your attention please, crew of the Alabama. Mr. Hunter has brought it to my attention that morale maybe a bit low, and you might be a bit . . .
[looks to Hunter]
HUNTER: [whispers] On edge.
CAPT. RAMSEY: [over the intercom] On edge. So, I suggest this. Any crew member who thinks that they can’t handle the situation, can leave the ship right now. Gentlemen, we are at DEFCON 3, war is imminent. This is the captain. That is all.
[hangs up the intercom]
HUNTER: Very inspiring, sir.4
[Hunter’s statement drips with sarcasm]
Ramsey’s harshness makes it apparent that he believes he must diminish the crew to achieve the boat’s mission and to get the results he seeks. Hunter believes they will get more out of their crew through defusing the high tension levels and encouraging the crew. We can argue on either side of this divide, but it is essential that we wrestle with the question, “How do I move followers from a state of compliance to a state of commitment?” Whether in a war, business, or a nonprofit, we want to ensure the followers’ engagement in unrestrained pursuit of the mission.
WHAT DO WE BELIEVE ABOUT OUR ROLE AS LEADERS?
Effective leadership can be summarized by a simple, time-tested equation:
Q x A = E
The quality (Q) of an idea times the acceptance level of followers (A) equals the effectiveness (E) or actual results from the idea.
Many leaders focus on the task and build high levels of quality into their initiatives. No one could fault this emphasis. What they may neglect is how well their initiative will be accepted by those it impacts. Using a simple one-to-ten scale for Q and A: A ten idea times a zero-acceptance level equals zero effectiveness.5
This model should govern the role and priorities of a leader. If a leader believes his role is to design organizational systems to ensure the quality of the products, his focus will be on engineering the product or service and then designing metrics to monitor the product quality. The leadership equation above, however, suggests that the leader must place at least as much emphasis on engaging the hearts and minds of those who must own and implement the idea. No matter how profoundly good the idea, a follower’s willing endorsement of the idea and its means of implementation are also foundational to the leader’s role. We saw the lack of attention to employee acceptance illustrated in the fictional example in the Prologue of this book.
I consulted with a manufacturing plant that was part of a huge multinational corporation for several years. The company’s market share of the products produced in the plant was dropping like a rock due to cheaper foreign imports. The plant manager asked me to help redesign the work to meet the joint goals of higher quality and lower price. Though the plant manager initially resisted my idea, I strongly recommended she include several members of the local union on the design team. There were some brutal conflicts, but we persisted until we were convinced that we had the right answer for the redesign. In one of the first redesign sessions, the plant manager introduced the central concept for the redesign that was eventually adopted and implemented. Six months later during the all-employee presentation, one of the union representatives took credit for originating the plant manager’s idea. He actually presented the central tenet of the redesign as if he had come up with the thought himself. He told the members of the union why it was such a good idea and why he expected them to embrace it enthusiastically. His involvement in the process engaged him so fully and his acceptance level was so high that the idea became a part of his DNA. The plant manager and I had a good laugh privately. She shrugged and said, “Who cares who gets credit for the idea as long as this works.”
Many great initiatives go down in flames because the leader did not seek to involve the consumers of the idea or those who would be responsible for its implementation. Inherent in the model are several foundational beliefs. The model says that it is not enough to have a really well-engineered product or service. It suggests that followers will do a better job if they buy into an idea. It assumes that followers’ ownership of an initiative is important to the quality of outcome. Not every leader believes this, but the evidence about how followers excel in the twenty-first century argues strongly for the accuracy of the model. Any leader will want to examine and challenge his or her belief file on this point.
IT’S ALL ABOUT ME
I routinely hear leaders say, “He works for me.” This is a literally true statement if we look at the org chart; however, what do we really believe? Are my followers working to make me successful or am I seeking to ensure my followers’ success? Some leaders see their team as a resource to accomplish their job.
An alternative view is that our job as a leader is to set overall direction and then to make sure the team has the knowledge, skills, and resources necessary to make good decisions and to accomplish its goals. As leaders, our job is to secure what they need for success. Our job is also to work outside the team to build alignment with other leaders and to remove roadblocks to the team’s progress. We coach them through problems and monitor key metrics to make sure we keep our commitments to other parts of the organization and to our external customers.
Leaders believe something, and our behavior as leaders (how we see our own role and how we treat our followers) will manifest those beliefs. Introjection is “a mental mechanism in which the standards and values of other persons or groups are unconsciously and symbolically taken within oneself.”6 We sometimes learn how to lead by how we are led. If we unquestioningly introject our beliefs about people and our role as leaders, we risk the adoption of some views that are simply not true. Thoughtful examination and testing of what we believe remains critical to sustaining great leadership.
Introjection is “a mental mechanism in which the standards and values of other persons or groups are unconsciously and symbolically taken within oneself.”
LEADERS POINT TO MEANING
Great leaders engage the hearts and minds of followers and use the meaning of the work to achieve this. When people are paid fairly, they will work harder for meaning than they will for money. The catch is that if we do not see the work as noble, it will be hard to convince others that there is meaning to the job.
Someone might well say, “Look, we make cardboard boxes. We are not freeing people from slavery. I’m not sure I can appeal to my team members’ sense of nobility. How do I engage them over something so common as a box?”
The answer may lie in talking with the team about why what they are doing is important. Why is it important that the quality of those boxes be outstanding? What is shipped in those boxes that makes people healthier, safer, smarter, better looking, or happier? Maybe that box is holding someone’s dream. Most people are doing jobs that have meaning whether or not they have considered it. People want to feel they are doing something meaningful. Going to work is a lot more fulfilling when we make a connection between what we do all day and how we help others. A leader’s role is to help make that connection. Getting line of sight to the end user often helps create that meaning.
BRINGING OUT THE BEST
Leadership is a critical role in every dimension of life. Our beliefs have a huge bearing on whether we succeed in not only getting the task accomplished, but also in truly bringing out the best in the followers we serve. Most leaders tell me that they believe the members of their organizations are capable of performing at a higher level than they presently are. My response is, if they are capable, then why are they not performing at that level? Leading from an intact core is the foundation from which exceptional performance is possible. That intact core guides how we treat followers and how we invest time not only in the product quality but also in the quality of our team’s engagement.
Over the course of this book, I have talked about a wide range of disciplines tied to strong leaders who sustain that leadership over a long period of time. It is an intact core that ultimately makes this possible.
GO DEEPER
Situations and people vary, but what do you believe to be true about the people you lead? Here are some options. Please write down on a piece of paper the answers that reflects what you really believe about followers. They:
1. Do the minimum necessary to keep their jobs.
2. Need to be controlled and directed to accomplish the organization’s goals.
3. Need stern consequences if they fail to perform.
4. Need attractive incentives to perform well.
5. Want to excel and do quality work.
6. Are fundamentally lazy.
7. Are fundamentally hard working.
8. Are self-motivated.
9. Do mainly what they are told.
10. Work for money.
11. Work for meaning.
12. Care only for themselves.
13. Care about the customer.
14. Care about co-followers.
15. Are noble, well-intentioned, and want to do what is right.
16. Want to add value to their work.
Our fundamental beliefs determine how we lead. Our beliefs about people reside in our core and must be thoughtfully examined and challenged when necessary. Obviously people vary, and we can think of examples of people who fit each of the statements above. Look back over your list and ask yourself:
1. What are the likely consequences of the beliefs that I hold about followers?
2. Are these beliefs about followers going to make me a great leader?
3. What beliefs must I question and possibly change?