Chapter 10. Leadership: Reflections and Learnings
Robert Terry
For over 35 years, I have been a leadership educator and trainer. As I look back, I realize that I have concentrated more on in-depth inquiry, insight, and understanding than on skill building. In the last few years, a new commitment has emerged; I have become a leadership architect as well as educator. My latest book, Seven Zones for Leadership: Acting Authentically in Stability and Chaos, reflects my new identity. I have finally linked personal, professional, and organizational authenticity, setting the context for leadership inquiry, action, and development.
Once I had the breakthrough of the three dimensions and their intimate linkage, I realized how seldom they are connected. Most leadership books and programs concentrate on one or two. Few leadership programs ask, What does it take to build a robust, enduring organization for the long term? Most focus on who you are—leading from within—and what your role and function require—leading from positional responsibility and accountability.
A popular phrase in leadership studies is "walk the talk." Of course this is important. In order to lead effectively, you must know yourself and live your values. What do you think of this reflection? I know many people who walk the talk every day—off a cliff! They may embody integrity, yet they have little or no worldly savvy.
As I ponder my past, it has become clear that two things, a question and a concept, have driven my life: The question is, what is really going on? The concept is authenticity. I differ from most advocates of authenticity. While increasingly popular in leadership studies, it is often couched in such words as genuine, honest, transparent, real, true, and so on, which focus on the individual and/or role. This brings us to my cliff image. It is not enough to be true to yourself if you are naïve or if you lie about the world.
At leadership seminars, I am often asked the "Hitler" questions: Was Hitler a leader? Did Hitler exhibit leadership? And, I frequently hear the conclusion: Hitler was authentic; he lived his beliefs. My view is contrary. Yes, Hitler was a "leader" in that he was elected and supported by followers. However, he rarely exhibited leadership: He was a tyrant, oppressor, exploiter, and despot.
This conclusion brings us to the role of ethics in leadership. Is leadership intrinsically ethical, or can it be both ethical and unethical? Regarding authenticity, Hitler did live his beliefs, but he lied about the world. He claimed Jews and others were inferior. To declare anyone else inferior, he had to claim to be superior. Thus, as he lied about the world, he lied about himself and destroyed both.
The other aspect of the authenticity quest that rarely gets surfaced is the responsibility of the followers. Was Hitler the real problem, or was it the willing followers who supported and killed for him? Leadership is not reducible to one person. It is a set of relationships that unfold over time. It is one thing to attend to the character of the leader; it is quite another to attend to the character of the relationships. Bosses hire employees; bosses fire employees. Followers pick their leaders; it is hard, if not impossible, to fire a follower. Work in a volunteer organization and this reality at times is overwhelming.
Authenticity is not reducible to an inside focus. The quest for truth takes one inside and outside. In fact, there is no inside or outside. They are linked as in the Mobius Loop, always connected and impacting each other, hence the linkage of personal, professional, and organizational. To be true and real, inside and outside, is a life long process.
What follows from this insight is that leadership development is a life-long process. The learning never ends. Sadly, I have seen too many executives who cease to learn. They become fixers and problem-solvers, surrounding themselves with valued clones. To cease learning avoids authenticity and thereby engages in denial, escape, derailment, and, at the deepest level, frustration and fear. The quest for deeper truth leaves the table and reality is temporally sidestepped. However, I have learned over the years that reality—that abiding sense of what is true and real inside and outside—never goes away.
For years, I was an existentialist. I thought human beings shaped reality, created meaning, and were in charge of their existence. I have now come to embrace the paradox: We both shape and are shaped by life. Do not just tell life what is real and what to do. Listen, discern, and attend to the stirrings in yourself, your role, and your organization. We are not just definers of truth; truth defines us as well. Attend to the voices within and without. Assess them and act thoughtfully. Without this commitment to listen as well as direct, leaders fail to exhibit leadership and trap themselves in their own ego and position.
Given this context, I will now share a series of reflections and learnings that have challenged my own understanding and practice of leadership as an educator and architect. I hope these insights will stimulate your inquiry and deepen your wisdom so that you make thoughtful, adept choices. These reflections are not just for executives. I am a great believer that leadership, while often linked to positions, is not reducible to position. Leadership is possible for all of us. The question is, Are we prepared for it and courageous enough to make it happen?
A Consciousness-Competence Frame
A colleague, Warren Hoffman, shared the following framework (Figure 10.1) with me. I found it intriguing and engaging, because it challenged me to look inside and outside myself in worldly contexts. In some ways, it parallels the Johari Window from the 1960s.
Figure 10.1. Conscious-competence frame.
Of course, the goal is to become conscious and competent. None of us are conscious and competent in everything. Many leaders live in the upper right box: "I do what I do and do not know why. I'm good at some things, yet I'm stunned when asked how I learned to do it." Some people call this humility and want to take no credit for their actions. In this model, that is action grounded in competent unconsciousness.
Many people live in the lower left box: "I am not good at a lot of things and I know it. I hate details, follow-through, and deadlines. I hate concepts, creativity, and uncertainty."
Much awareness of the two boxes—upper right and lower left—comes from Myers-Briggs and feedback instruments like the Kilman Conflict Inventory. It also comes from friends, colleagues, peers, even opponents and enemies. When I ask people from whom they learned a lot about life and leadership, guess who often is identified? Terrible bosses, bad parents, crummy employees, and dreadful peers. Positive role models are not the only effective teachers.
The lower right box requires interpersonal feedback. Even the advice to take an instrument must come from a friend or colleague. The person does not know what he or she does not know and thus will not inquire. Think about a time when you received that you did not expect. It made no sense initially; yet eventually you embraced it as profound insight. Leadership is not learned solo. Wisdom about our roles, our organizations, and ourselves is often the gift of others and is often not invited. The challenge is to listen and weigh the feedback, without avoidance, and learn. Say "thank you" to yourself: Receive the gift, even though it may be unwanted.
Core Versus Shared Values
Values are hot today in organizational life. The lists are on the wall, in performance reviews, and on a card in your wallet or purse. Back in the 1960s, I worked for Detroit Industrial Mission, an ecumenical organization that connected faith-based values to business realities. No one was doing that very much. As a matter of fact, values were not on the radar screen of many corporations or unions at the time. Today, they are everywhere. I have helped many organizations through the value maze, and I have learned a distinction that I find very helpful: the difference between core and shared values.
Core values tie to the business you are in; shared values are values we have in common that are not directly tied to the business. I learned the core value concept from Collins and Porras's book Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies.[1] For example, if you work for a tobacco company, freedom of choice constitutes a core value. If a bank employs you, you will hear the values of honesty and integrity if the core values are specified.
Most organizations with which I work do not make the distinction. A fire chief held up a list of 25 values. They were labeled core; yet they were shared. Here's a clue: If there are more than five or six values, they are shared. There are usually just two or three core values, and they are easily remembered. The clearest way I know to illustrate the difference is with Clinton's near-impeachment. The Republicans argued that the scandal was not about sex; it was about lying in court. That violated a core value and significantly damaged the government. The Democrats argued that it was about sex, and that Clinton had violated a shared value of family trust and fidelity. That violation is not impeachable. Of course, I am not dealing with the politics of the debate, just with the substance of the arguments.
If you want to build a great organization for the long term, ground it in core values, not shared values. As Collins and Porras argue persuasively, the more securely the foundation is grounded in core values, the more wild the BHAG—Big Hairy Audacious Goals. However, the values must be lived every day by everyone, especially by those at the top. They are watched by the middle and the bottom for authenticity, and not just personally and professionally, but also organizationally, as the values are built into the everyday life at work for everyone.
Change
It is not location, location, location; it is change, change, change. The popularity of the book Who Moved My Cheese?[2] and the preoccupation with people who resist change dominates the workplace. Joseph Rost defines leadership as follows: "Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real change that reflect their mutual purposes."[3] He reflects the popular view that leadership is about change.
What about stability? Are some things worth preserving? Does leadership ever involve resisting change? What about this for the opening speech of a new CEO? "Ladies and gentlemen, I am excited about my new role, and I want you to know I am absolutely committed to no change." I suggest that is half the speech. Preserve the core values and also advocate BHAGs.
Stability and change are a polarity. One defines the other, as both exist at the same time. Both require attention and cannot be avoided without danger. One cannot even identify a change without contrasting it with something that is not changing.
I was sitting in a restaurant recently, and a friend, who is a judge, introduced me to a state Supreme Court Justice. He asked me a leadership question: "Is leadership from the top down or the bottom up?" I said, "Yes." He thanked me and sat down. I decided it was my turn, so I asked him, "Is leadership ever committed to absolutely no change?" He looked surprised. "Leadership is all about change. That is why we are here as leaders." I replied, "So, it's okay to lie in court now?" He got the point. Part of his leadership responsibility is to preserve the best of the court and constitutional system.
Mission Statements
I have helped more than 100 companies figure out their mission and, at times, advised reducing it to a seven-word statement. No longer. I do not believe in mission statements anymore. I believe in identity clarity. All mission statements have a word in them that reduces impact. That word is "to." We are here "to...." What about replacing the word "to" with "we are..."? Mission is future-oriented; identity is present-oriented. Because the future is unknown, it is not the way to define the essence of an organization. To avoid accomplishing the mission is not the end of the world; to violate the identity of the organization is betrayal and worthy of serious reflection, review, and action.
Consider this map image. I love moose, so I want to go to Maine to see some. Which direction should I travel? In Minnesota, everyone says northeast. Then I say, "I will be in London, England, when I leave for Maine." You can't know which way to go unless you know where you are. Likewise, we cannot know where we are going unless we know who we are.
What goes into identity? Based on what I learned from another colleague, Bruce Gibb, a renowned consultant in Ann Arbor, Michigan, identity consists of three aspects: what business you are in, who you serve, and your level of service. Our leadership firm is a guild of seasoned leadership architects and educators. Partners with for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, we co-create and deliver a full array of leadership programs. These comprise mostly long-term programs inside organizations and include coaching and mentoring, organizational assessment, and follow-through that link personal, professional, and organizational realities that are grounded in research, professional experience, tested success, and authentic significance. This is who we are, and when we do not practice this every day, we are inauthentic and we betray the creditability and trust that is the basis of our long-term customer commitment and depth.
Core Competencies
Have you seen the list of core competencies of your organization? I no longer believe in them. Many of the organizations with which I work have them and do not use them. If they do, a standard of perfection is implied and imposed. I have learned that leadership is not reducible to an ideal type. It is contextual, requires different skills by level and function, is grounded in personal gifts and talents, and involves long-term learning and development. Jay Conger and Beth Benjamin question core competencies in their provocative 1999 book—Building Leaders: How Successful Companies Develop the Next Generation.[4] Other colleagues are moving in the same direction. It is better to teach actual and potential leaders to assess themselves, their roles, and their organizations, and then figure out their readiness to lead appropriately. Core competencies, once defined, become constants. They are not core values, and they require continuous updating, which is rarely done. Another mistake.
Best Practices
I worry too about the popularity of best practice. It is too easily a code for "fad-of-the-month." Six Sigma, a very good practice in some contexts, is not so great in others. Rarely does the context enter the discussion. Practices embody values and frameworks that are implicit and not addressed. Consultants often advocate best practices that are good at delivering: open-space technology, large-scale interventions, humor seminars, and so on. The list is endless. Part of the wisdom of leadership is to know what to do and when it is appropriate. That requires organizational savvy to determine fit. Always ask the upsides and downsides of the practice and how it matches what is needed for long-term organizational vibrancy. The creative challenge of best practices is good. They push boundaries. Go beyond the boundaries and ask the tough questions. Learn from the inquiry and your leadership will be enhanced.
Vision Statements
If you want to kill a vision, reduce it to a sentence. Instead, build a vision picture that captures the imagination and inspires action. How about this for a vision statement? Be the Best. In my view, it is a throwaway. The firm that proposes it is in the midst of a technological upheaval, the character of the work is up for grabs, and the competition is just as confused. Be the Best does not offer a picture of the future that can guide decisions and engage organizational energy.
I took an eating disorder organization through a futuring process in which it created its imaginary future. The organization was stunned. It saw a new building, shaped with new technology, sustainable systems, and new forms of communication. As people create the picture of their future, the picture is also a very good diagnosis of the current organization. What is built into the picture is not in the present or is dysfunctional as it currently operates.
Language
The language that people use frequently opens the door of insight into reality. For example,
- Don't have enough time. We all have the same amount. This is a clue about priorities, not time. Listen for what is important to the speaker and this window will reveal a lot.
- Try. "I try very hard; I try to work with my peers; I try to get things done on time; I try to listen." The word try, when used often, is a code word for "no commitment." It is a popular cover to avoid responsibility. "Don't try; just do it," is an alternative.
- Should. Too often we get "should" on. It is a word of judgment, often judgmental. Replace should with could. It opens up options and choices.
- But. "I love you, but your habit of being late drives me crazy. You do a great job of getting people motivated, but you do not always follow through." But disconnects. It is so built into our language that we hardly hear it. Instead of affirming two truths, it negates one for another. Replace "but" with "and," or start the next sentence.
- Why? "Why are you late? Why did you forget to give me the outline of the plan?" Why is best used by scientists seeking objective truth. When used with humans, it closes down truth seeking, replacing it with defensiveness. Instead, ask, "What is going on?"
Language reveals a lot about us. It is not just a window into others; it is one into ourselves as well.
Coaching and Mentoring
I have the privilege of mentoring over a dozen senior executives. On the surface, they are successful. The longer we talk, however, the more apparent the stirrings. "What is worth doing for the rest of my life? What is my function? What is going on in this organization?" The more I mentor, the clearer the distinction between coaching and mentoring becomes. One coaches for success; one mentors for significance. As a hairdresser, if I want to improve my hair-dyeing skills, I hire a coach. If I am contemplating my fit in the business, I hire a mentor. Many executives get it wrong. They want a mentor and hire a coach, or the reverse. Authenticity invites the right match.
Team and Group Building
Teambuilding and the use of the term team invade the workplace. I have had a breakthrough. Teams differ from groups, and both need to be built.
A team: Clear goals; have to work together to accomplish goals in a specified timeframe.
A group: Vague goals; do not work together on a regular basis; loose timeframe.
The latter, we call "executives." Executives are often sent off for teambuilding, yet bring nothing back. The trip was inauthentic. They are a group. Group building involves members helping each other be better in their own areas. Groups often sponsor teams without being one. We need both; each is crucial in building a vibrant organization long term.
Beyond Spirituality in the Workplace
In Minnesota, is spirituality a code word for Lutheranism? Books and seminars abound on the subject. What I find fascinating is the diversity of meanings for spirituality, especially in the leadership literature. It varies from belonging to the universe, to shared values, to creation of meaning. For all, there seems to be a push for inclusion in contrast to religion, which is often portrayed as an exclusive, separating set of behaviors and beliefs.
What is behind the quest for spirituality? What is really worthy of our trust? What is the basis of our hope? Spending most of my adult life as a secular humanist, I am skeptical of religion and wonder whether the spiritual search is deep enough. Since 1993, I have been a secular theologian, asking the hardest questions I know of about life, death, good, and evil, what is real, and what is disguise. In 2001, a group of colleagues connected to Luther Seminary, St. Thomas University, and by friendship, convened and invited a set of CEOs in the profit, not-for-profit, and governmental worlds to meet regularly to discuss theology and the workplace. I have long believed that some of the best theologians are atheists. They ask the hardest questions, particularly in a society that is intolerant of such inquiry. The goal is not to bring religion to the workplace. It is to explore the deepest questions of fear, hope, courage, and faith every day, personally, professionally, and in the organization. It is to go beyond, under, or around spirituality. Twenty CEOs are involved. I am profoundly excited.
Leadership Education
As a leadership educator, I am deeply committed to leader preparation. For years, I have done leadership seminars. The seminars have personal, sometimes professional impact. What I have learned, however, is that they have little organizational impact. If you want to build leadership into the organization, a different strategy works.
Here is what does not work organizationally: Bring strangers together for short periods of time, with no shared leadership framework, no 360° feedback, no live cases, and no support back at work. There is usually a 90 percent drop-off of what was learned in the seminar. (Conger and Benjamin, mentioned earlier, pioneered in this research.)
What does work? Work inside organizations, long term (a year or two) with peers who know each other. Use real cases; have mentoring and coaching support; engage in personal, professional, and organizational 360° feedback; and use a comprehensive frame for linking the three dimensions (personal, professional, and organizational). This is the fundamental reason I have added leadership architect to my identity and the identity of my leadership firm.
Leadership education is a life-long process. Regardless of the born versus made debate, leadership education is no quick fix. I am often asked how long it takes to become a leader and exhibit leadership. I am now guessing anywhere from 5 to 10 years sets the base. However, as the world gets more complex and chaotic, the old leadership styles and approaches no longer fit. New learning and experimentation are required.
Leadership is contextual. Just think how different it is when the world is orderly, fixable, and predictable in contrast to it being complex, emerging, and self-organizing, and in further contrast, filled with surprises and chaotic. What does leadership look like when life makes no sense, when evil takes over, and devastation surrounds us?
Authenticity is the only aspect of life that profoundly keeps me centered. Be shaped and shape, listen and discern, let go and take hold, and admit our inauthenticity as we embrace our authenticity. Authenticity does not require perfection. It is not a core competency. It invites us to own who and what we are, what we do, and what we understand about life. Welcome to leadership: Serving the promise and reality of authenticity.
Follow-up
If this material intrigues you and you want to connect directly, contact us at our Web site, www.Zobius.net, or email us at [email protected]. Share what you have learned over the years and our guild will continue to share our new learnings. Wisdom is never finished. Join us for the authenticity quest and discovery.