Why should anyone be led by you?

What do effective leaders do?

They selectively show their weaknesses. By exposing some vulnerability,

they reveal their approachability and humanity.

They rely heavily on intuition to gauge the appropriate timing and course

of their actions. Their ability to collect and interpret soft data helps them

know just when and how to act.

They manage employees with something we call tough empathy.

Inspirational leaders empathize passionately—and realistically—with

people, and they care intensely about the work employees do.

They reveal their differences. They capitalize on what's unique about

themselves.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE LED BY YOU?

If you want to silence a room of executives, try this small trick. Ask them, “Why

would anyone want to be led by you?” we’ve asked just that question for the past

ten years while consulting for dozens of companies in Europe and the US.

Without fail the response a sudden, stunned hush. All you can hear are knees

knocking.

Executives have good reason to be scared. You can’t do anything in business

without followers, and followers in these ‘empowered’ times are hard to find. So

executives had better know what it takes to lead effectively- they must find ways

1

to engage people and browse their commitment to company goals. But most

don’t know how, and who can blame them? There’s simply too much advice out

there. Last year alone, more than 2000 books on leadership were published.

Some of them even repacking Moses and Shakespeare as leadership gurus.

We’ve yet to hear advice that tells the whole truth about leadership. Yes,

everyone agrees that leadership needs vision, energy, authority, and strategic

direction. That goes without saying. But we’ve discovered that inspirational

leaders also share four unexpected qualities:

They selectively show their weaknesses by exposing some vulnerability;

they reveal their approachability & humanity.

They rely heavily on intuition to gauge the appropriate timing and course

of their actions. Their ability to collect and interpret soft data helps them

know just when and how to act.

They manage employees with something we call tough empathy.

Inspirational leaders emphasize passionately and realistically with people

and they care intensely about the work employees do.

They reveal their differences. They capitalize about what’s unique about

them.

You may find yourself in a top position without these qualities, but few people will

want to be led by you. Our theory about the four essential qualities of leadership,

should be noted, is not about results per se. While many of the leaders we have

studied and used as examples do infact post superior financial return, the focus

of our research have been on leaders who excel at inspiring people in capturing

hearts, minds and souls. This ability is not everything in business, but any

experienced leader will tell you it is worth quite a lot. Indeed, great results may be

impossible without it.

Our research into leadership began some 25 years ago and has followed three

streams since then. First, as academics, we ransacked the prominent leadership

2

theories of the past century to develop our own working model of effective

leadership. (For more on the history of leadership thinking, see the side bar

“leadership; a small history of a big topic.”) Second, as consultants, we have

tested our theory with thousands of executives in workshops worldwide and

through observations with dozens of clients. And third, as executives ourselves,

we have vetted our theories in our own organizations.

Some surprising results have emerged from our research. We learned that

leaders need all four qualities to be truly inspirational; one or two qualities are

rarely sufficient. Leaders who shamelessly promote their differences but who

conceal their weaknesses, for instances, are hugely ineffective-nobody wants a

perfect leader. We also learned that the interplay between the four qualities is

crucial. Inspirational leaders tend to mix and match the qualities in order to find

the right style for the right moment. Consider humor, which can be very effective

as a difference. Used properly, humor can communicate a leader’s charisma. But

when a leader’s sensing skills are not working, timing can be off and

inappropriate humor can make someone seem like a joker or worse a fool.

Clearly in this case, being an effective leader means knowing what difference to

use and when. And that’s no mean feat, especially when the end results must be

authenticity.

 

When leaders reveal their weaknesses, they show us who they are-warts and all.

They may mean admitting that they are irritable on Monday mornings, that they

are somewhat disorganized, or even rather shy. Such admissions work because

people need to see leaders own up to some flaw before they participate willingly

in an endeavor. Exposing a weakness establishes trust and thus helps folks on

board. Indeed if executives try to communicate that they are perfect at everything

there will be no need for anyone to help them with anything. They wouldn’t need

followers. They’ll signal that they can do it all themselves.

3

Beyond creating trust and the collaborative atmosphere, communicating a

weakness also builds solidarity between followers and leaders. Consider a senior

executive we know at a Global Management Consultancy. He agrees to give a

major presentation despite being badly affiliated by physical shaking caused by

medical condition. The otherwise highly critical audience greeted this courageous

display of weakness with a standing ovation. By giving the talk, he had dared to

say, “I am just like you imperfect.” Sharing an imperfection is so effective

because it underscores a human beings authenticity. Richard Branson, the

founder of Virgin, is a brilliant businessman and a hero in the United Kingdom.

(Indeed, the virgin brand is so linked to him personally that succession is a

significant issue.) Branson is particularly effective at communicating his

vulnerability. He is ill at ease and fumbles incessantly when interviewed in public.

It’s a weakness, but it’s Richard Branson. That’s what revealing a weakness is all

about; showing your followers that you are genuine and approachable-human

and humane.

Another advantage to exposing a weakness is that it offers a leader valuable

protection. Human nature being what it is, if you don’t show some weakness then

observers invent one for you. Celebrities and politicians have always known this.

Often, they deliberately give the public something to talk about, knowing full well

that if they don’t, they newspapers will invent something even worse. Princess

Diana may have aired her eating disorder in public but she died with her

reputation intact. Indeed, even enhanced.

Sensing can create problems. In making fine judgments about how far they can go leaders risk losing their followers.

That said, the most effective leaders know that exposing a weakness must be

done carefully. They own up to selective weaknesses. Knowing which weakness

to disclose is a highly honed art. The golden rule is never to expose a weakness

that will be seen as a fatal flaw-and perhaps even several of them. Paradoxically,

4

this admission will help divert attention away from major weaknesses.

Another well-known strategy is to pick a weakness that can in some ways be

considered strength, such as being a workaholic. When leaders expose these

limited flaws, people won’t see much of anything and little harm will come to

them. There is an important caveat, however: if the leader’s vulnerability is not

perceived to be genuine, he won’t gain anyone’s support. Instead he will open

himself up to derision and scorn. One scenario we saw repeatedly in our

research was one in which a CEO feigns absentmindedness to conceal his

inconsistency or even dishonesty. This is a sure way to alienate followers who

will remember accurately what happened or what was said.

 

Become a Sensor

Inspirational leaders rely heavily on their instincts to know when to reveal a

weakness or a difference. We call them good situation sensors, and by that we

mean that they can collect and interpret soft data. They can sniff out the signals

in the environment and sense what’s going on without having anything spelled

out for them

Franz Humer, the CEO of Roche, is a classic sensor. He is highly accomplished

in detecting shifts in climate and ambience; he can read subtle cues and sense

underline currents of opinion that elude less perceptive people. Humer says he

developed this skill as a tour guide in his mid-twenties when he was responsible

for groups of 100 or more. “There was no salary, only tips,” he explains. “Pretty

soon, I knew how to hone in on particular groups. Eventually I could predict

within 10% how much I could earn from any particular group.” Indeed, great

sensors can easily gauge unexpressed feelings; they can very accurately judge

whether relationships are working or not. The process is complex, and as anyone

who has ever encountered it knows, the results are impressive.

5

Consider a human resources executive we worked with in a multinational

entertainment company. One day he got news of a distribution problem in Italy

that had the potential to affect the company’s worldwide operations. As he was

thinking about how to hide the information temporarily from thee Paris-CEO while

he worked on a solution, the phone rang. It was the CEO saying “Tell me,

Roberto, What the hell’s going on Milan? The CEO was already aware that

something was wrong. How? He had his networks, of Course. But in large part,

he was gifted at detecting information that wasn’t aimed at him. He could read

the silences and pick up on non verbal cues in the organization.

Not surprisingly, the most impressive business leaders we have worked with are

all very refined sensors,

Four Popular Myths of Leadership

EVERYONE CAN BE LEADER: Not true. Many executives don’t have the self

knowledge or the authenticity necessary for Leadership. And Self- Knowledge

and authenticity are only part of the equation. Individuals must also want to be

leaders, and many talented employees are not interested in shouldering that

responsibility. Others prefer to devote more time to their private lives than to their

work, after all, there is more to life than work, and work, after all, there is mote to

life than work, and more to work than being a boss.

PEOPLE WHO GET TO THE TOP ARE LEADERS: Not Necessarily. One of the

most persistent misperceptions is that people in leadership positions are leaders.

But people who make it to the top may have done so because political acumen,

not necessarily because of true leadership quality. What’s more, real leaders are

found all over the organization, from the executive suite to the shop floor. By

definition, leaders are simply people who have followers, and rank doesn’t have

much to do with that. Effective military organization like the U.S navy has long

6

realized the importance of developing leaders throughout the organization.

LEADERS DELIVER BUSINESS RESULTS: Not always. If results were always

a matter of good leadership, picking leaders would be easy. In every case, the

best strategy would be to go after people in companies with the best results. But

clearly, things are not that simple. Businesses in quasi-Monopolistic industries

can often do very well with competent management rather than great leadership.

Equally, some well-led businesses do not necessarily produce results,

particularly in the short term.

LEADERS ARE GREAT COACHES: Rarely. A whole cottage industry has

grown up around the teaching that good leaders ought to be good coaches. But

that thinking assumes that a single person can both inspire the troops and impart

technical skills. Of course, it’s possible that great leaders may also be great

coaches. But we see that only occasionally. More typical are leaders whose

distinctive strengths lie in their ability to excite others through their vision rather

than through their coaching talents.

TRUTH

PRACTICE TOUGH EMPATHY

Unfortunately there’s altogether too much hype nowadays about the idea that

leaders must show concern for their teams. There’s nothing worse than seeing a

manager return from the latest interpersonal-skills training program with

“Concern” for others. Real leaders don’t need a training program to convince

their employees that they care. Real leaders empathize fiercely with the people

they lead. They also care intensely about the work their employees do. We do

not believe that the empathy of inspirational leaders is the soft kind described in

so much of the management literature. On the contrary, we feel that real leaders

manage through a unique approach we call tough empathy. Tough empathy

7

means giving people what they need and not want they want. At its best, tough

empathy balances respect for the individual and for the task at hand. Attending to

both however isn’t easy, especially when the business is in survival mode. At

such times, caring leaders have to give selflessly to the people and know when

to pull back.

One final point about though empathy: those more apt to use it are people who

really care about something. And when people care deeply about something-any

thing-they’re more likely to show their true selves. They will not only

communicate authenticity, which is the pre-condition for leadership, but they will

show that they are doing more than just playing a role. People do not commit to

executives who merely live up to the obligation of their jobs. They want more.

They want someone who cares passionately about the people and the work-Just

as they do.

DARE TO BE DIFFERENT

Another quality of inspirational leaders is that they capitalize on what‘s unique

about themselves. In fact, using this difference to great advantage is the most

important quality of the four we have mentioned. The most effective leaders

deliberately used differences to keep a social distance. Even as they are drawing

their followers close to them, inspirational leaders signal their separateness.

Often, leader will show his difference by having a distinctly different dress style or

physical appearance but typical he will move on to distinguish himself through

qualities like imagination, loyalty, expertise, or even a handshake. Anything can

be a difference, but it is important to communicate it. Most people, however, are

hesitant to communicate what’s unique about them, and it can take years for

them to be fully aware of what sets them apart. This is a serious disadvantage in

a world where networking is so critical and teams need to be formed overnight.

8

Some leaders know exactly how to talk advantage of their differences. There are

other people who aren’t as aware of their difference but still use them to great

effect. It also emerge in an interview that most leaders start off not knowing what

their difference are but eventually come to know-and use – them more effectively

over time. Most of the differences we have described are those that tend to be

apparent, either to the leader himself or to the colleagues around him. But there

are differences that are more subtle but still have very powerful effects.

Inspirational leaders use separateness to motivate others to perform better. They

recognize the fact that followers will push themselves if their leader just a little

aloof. Leadership, afterall, is not a popularity contest. One danger, of course, is

that executives can over differentiate themselves in their determination to

express their separateness. Indeed some leaders loose contact with their

followers and doing so is fatal. Once they create too much distance, they stop

being good sensors and they loose they ability to identify and care.

LEADERSHIP AND ACTION

All four of the qualities described here are necessary for inspirational leadership,

but they cannot be used mechanically. They must become or must already be

part of an executive’s personality. That’s why they “receipe” business books often

fail. No one can imitate another leader. So the challenge facing prospective

leaders is for them to be themselves, but with more skills. That can be done by

making yourself increasingly aware of the four leadership qualities we described

and by manipulating these qualities to come up with a personal style that works

for you. Remember, there is no universal formula, and what’s needed will vary

from context to context.

But of all the facets of leadership that one might investigate there are few as

difficult as understanding what it takes to develop leaders. The four leadership

are necessary first step. Taken together, they tell executives to be authentic. As

9

we counsel the executives we coach “be yourselves-more – with skill”. There can

be no advice more difficult to follow than that.

NOTES

Take Action:

If you simply ask yourself (without any self-judgment), "Why should anyone be

led by me?", it's a powerful question that forces you to find some authentic

answers. And the answers you find must hold enough substance to command

the attention of a group of people in an organization or community group who are

placing their trust in you as the leader. What are your answers?

Character -

Who am I? If I were to look in the dictionary under my name, what would it

say?

What do I value? What do I believe in? Identify 3 -4 key values that

represent what is most important to you in life

Strengths / Areas of Competence-

What makes me an effective leader? What are my areas of strength?

How do I work best?

Weaknesses -

Where do I need to grow?

Differences -

10

What honestly sets me apart? What can I sincerely say I am uniquely

good at?

What can I contribute?

What results can I deliver?

Faced with an avalanche of books and articles on leadership, how should an R&D manager make sense of them? Are there any principles of effective leadership worth learning, or are there merely some good stories about leaders that you might adapt to your own situation? I believe the answer is that both principles and stories can be useful, provided you have a framework of interpretation. Without that, the leadership literature is confusing and even contradictory. The framework I use has two dimensions. They are the context and the logic of leadership.

The Context of LeadershipContext has to do with who is being led for what kind of work and in what kind of organization. Consider the difference between a foreman of craftsmen on a construction job and an R&D project manager. I once asked a group of bricklayers and masonry contractors to describe the ideal foreman. They all agreed that he demands high standards, and he can do the job himself. He knows what each craftsman does best and puts people where they will be most effective. He is clear about what he requires, and he listens and responds to workers’ ideas for improving productivity or making the workplace safer. If he has a problem with someone, he takes that person aside and the criticism remains private. He is trusted because he keeps his word and trusts people until proved wrong. Bricklayers follow this kind of foreman, he is therefore a leader. Craftsmen will come and work for him rather than someone who lacks these qualities. They will work harder and smarter, which explains why his jobs are completed at a lower cost and higher quality than the average.

This same kind of leadership also works for foremen in most manufacturing plants, provided that the workers’ jobs are clearly individualized. However, where the organization of work requires collaboration or teamwork, leaders need additional skills. This is where organizational context makes a difference. At Toyota, team leaders are chosen because they create harmony in the group. They resolve conflicts as well as teach.

These skills get closer to what is required from an R&D leader. But they are not enough. When I first studied technical companies in the 70s, R&D managers were judged mostly on their technical competence. In the 80s, they had to implement project management. In the 90s, teambuilding skills became essential. Now, R&D leaders at companies like Shell or AT&T must also demonstrate business competence. Projects have become business ventures. Furthermore, unlike the craft or manufacturing foreman, there is no way that a project leader

11

can do all the jobs as well as the teammembers who may come together from different disciplines. He or she has to be able to integrate knowledge as well as resolve conflict and facilitate dialogue.

However, even an ideal mix of skills does not guarantee effective leadership. The organizational context, its structure, reward systems and work processes can either support or undermine leadership. For example, if teammembers are rewarded for their individual productivity and not team contribution, it becomes much harder for even the most skilled project leader to create teamwork.

Furthermore, even within the right context, the leadership skills that produce results for product development may not be the ones needed at the strategic level of the company. As I have pointed out in other articles (“The New New Boss.” Research Technology Management, January February, 2001 and “Successful Leaders Employ Strategic Intelligence”, RTM, May-June, 2001)innovative technology leaders may be low in people skills but high in foresight, systems thinking, visioning, motivating and partnering. The most effective ones like Bill Gates of Microsoft and Andy Grove of Intel partner with operational leaders who have the skills they lack.

Logic of LeadershipThe second dimension I consider is the logic of leadership. By that I mean the reasons why certain leadership traits or qualities should be effective. For example, why should empathy on the part of a leader get people to follow him, particularly if he is demanding a high level of performance. Suppose, one of your direct reports says he hasn’t done his work and feels bad about it. If you empathize with his guilty conscience, will that make him perform better? Or will you just be legitimizing a corrosive self-pity which may be undermining his self confidence.

More than empathy, a leader needs to understand the people he leads in terms of what motivates peak performance. This will likely be a combination of intrinsic motives - challenge, learning, meaningful projects and extrinsic motives - money, recognition, opportunity to advance. It may also include coaching, encouragement and tough love.

An article by Robert Goffee and Gareth Jones in the Harvard Business Review, “Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?” (September-October, 2000) maintains that besides vision and energy, inspirational leaders share four other qualities.

They selectively show their weaknesses. By exposing some vulnerability, they reveal their approachability and humanity.

They rely heavily on intuition to gauge the appropriate timing and course of their actions. Their ability to collect and interpret soft data helps them know just when and how to act.

12

They manage employees with something we call tough empathy. Inspirational leaders empathize passionately - and realistically - with people, and they care intensely about the work employees do.

They reveal their differences. They capitalize on what’s unique about themselves.

But why should these qualities make a leader inspiring? Take showing a weakness. The authors hedge their recommendation by noting that the leader should reveal only a tangential weakness which might also divert attention from major weaknesses. However, I haven’t noticed inspirational business leaders like Jack Welch pointing up a personal vulnerability. George W. Bush, a graduate of the Harvard Business School must have read this article, since he has been poking fun at himself for mangling the English language. This has made him more likeable, but hardly inspirational.

The other qualities of using intuition, tough empathy and being oneself may or may not contribute to being inspirational. They seem like good qualities to have, but the authors give us anecdotes, not a compelling logic of why they would inspire followers.

A problem with principles based on anecdote is that you can usually find an anecdote with a counter example. In his commentaries on Livy’s history of Rome, Machiavelli writing in the 16th century asked whether it was better for a leader to be harsh or caring. He described two Roman generals, one a harsh type like George C. Patton, the other a more caring type like Dwight D. Eisenhower, both World War II American generals. Which Roman general was more successful? In fact, says Machiavelli, both were equally good at winning battles and gaining the loyalty of their troops. The key was their consistency. They walked the talk and people knew what to expect from them.

Traits and SuccessOther theories of leadership are based on correlations between traits and some measure of success. These correlations can be statistically “significant”, meaning that there is only one chance in 20 that the correlation is due to chance alone, and yet explain only ten to 20 percent of the variance. (To calculate the percent of the variance explained by a correlation, you square the correlation, e.g. .42 = .16 or 16%) In other words, the correlations may show there is some relationship between, say, emotional intelligence and a particular measure of success, but other factors such as context may provide much more of the explanation.

The correlation between certain traits and success may be strong in one organizational context but not in another. Someone who is empathic and caring may be effective managing a service organization like a hotel, restaurant, or supermarket but not an innovative development team with a tight schedule that may require someone more like General Patton who moved his troops day and

13

night through wintry weather to rescue a trapped army in the World War II Battle of the Bulge. Typically studies on leadership do not differentiate companies according to the type of leader needed and whether they are referring to strategic or operational leadership.

The Level 5 LeaderThis is the case with Jim Collins’ recent study called “Level 5 Leadership ” (Harvard Business Review, January 2001). Collins maintains that the Level 5 leader who blends “extreme personal humility with intense personal will ” is the type who best succeeds in leading a good company to greatness. These leaders put people before strategy. They create a culture of discipline, and Collins maintains that “when you have disciplined people, you don’t need hierarchy. ” But none of the examples Collins offers are highly innovative technology companies. They are companies that need discipline to cut costs, maintain efficiency, invest in profitable products, and get rid of the unprofitable ones. Typically, they produce consumer products like bathroom tissue and razor blades.

Collins’ Level 5 leaders seem to be admirable individuals but none of them has led companies like Microsoft, Oracle or AOL which have been inspired by brilliant productive narcissists. (see my article “Narcissistic Leaders: The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons, ” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2000.) Level 5 leaders are more like Warren Buffet who has brilliantly invested in and run companies that require a disciplined approach to value creation. Furthermore, Collins does not look for humble seeming CEOs who have failed to transform their companies. I have seen a few. I’ve also seen some egotistic leaders who are effective at presenting a humble face.

Person and ContextIn selecting leaders, companies should be advised to focus on the whole person within a particular context. They should ask: What kind of individual or team of leaders are needed to fill roles in different parts of the organization? Sometimes, you find a gifted leader who does not quite fit the role requirements as they have been designed. It may prove beneficial for everyone to build the role around the exceptional person. Personality qualities such as humility and will power should always be viewed not as isolated traits but as parts of a personality system that shapes behavior in relation to values, type of intelligence and energy level. But remember, the personality system is fully understood only within a larger context including company culture, type of product and market conditions.

With this in mind, ask yourself what leadership role you should be performing. What do you need to develop in yourself to better fit that role? And does the organizational system, including its structure, measurements and incentives support that role? And if not, initiate a dialogue about how to create greater support for your leadership effectiveness.

14

Can the leadership literature help? Yes, if you filter it through your organizational context and collect the nuggets. But beware of correlations that claim to be scientific. Psychology, unlike physics and chemistry, is based on experience as well as observation, and measurements can be elusive. You can learn best from descriptions and first person accounts if you understand their context and can trace a clear logic between principles and outcomes. Psychology can help to describe and understand leadership styles, but by itself, it does not explain leadership effectiveness, and if followed uncritically, it can be seriously misleading.

Issue 9 (emailed version), Weds 27 September, 2000Made in New Zealand - twice winners of the America's Cup

“I'm on the board of the New Zealand Rugby Football Union team, the All Blacks. I know for a fact that there is no opposition as intimidating as your opponent's legacy. When you play against the ABs, you're going up against a team that has a 74% win record over the past 104 years, the most sensational winning percentage in all of global sport. You're not just playing against the players on the current team – you're playing against all of the guys who ever put on that jersey.

“We've just done a $100 million deal with Adidas to sponsor the All Blacks. Adidas is doing the deal not because it wants to be associated with rugby but because using the All Blacks builds its brand value by being associated with the team's legacy, its tradition, and its history. Adidas wants to be about authentic, competitive warriors.

“These days, if you don't have a past, then you need to create your own legends and myths very fast. We live in Internet years, so your culture can become a legendary, mythical thing in six months.”

Kevin Roberts, Kiwi CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi From Trust in the Future by Alan M. Webber

in Fast Company no 38, September 2000

Welcome to issue nine of EDGE FIRST, an email magazine dedicated to making you a better leader, by providing: - provocative thinking about what it means to be a leader- the tools, techniques and best-practices that drive leadership improvement

In this issueWhy should anyone be led by you? - key leadership skills Narrative - John Kotter talks to MCB's Sarah PowellQuick case study - to grow your company, leverage your leaders Pointers - mapping strategy, from the people who brought you the balanced scorecard; disruptive innovation in health care. Resources - identifying and cultivating tomorrow's leaders, from APQC; four articles of the month, from MCB Press.

This and all future issues only available by paid subscription. Here are all the back issues on the subscribers only private page. Here are our web resources - one of the world's best completely free business excellence web sites. Click here to send us an email. To access Portable Document Format (.pdf) files you'll need Adobe's® free Acrobat® Reader.

15

Start In the Sep-Oct 2000 Harvard Business Review, authors Robert Goffee and Gareth Jones asked 'Why should anyone be led by you?' Great way to still a room full of executives, apparently. All you can hear are the knees knocking. Why? Nothing happens in business without followers, and followers in these empowered times are hard to find.

So if you're a leader, or aspire to be (or – hey, go easy on yourself – are failing to be) you'd better know what it takes to lead effectively. Most don't, Goffee and Jones say, and who can blame them. For one thing, they're drowning in good advice – last year, more than 2,000 books on leadership were published.

Sure, everyone knows leaders need vision, energy, authority and strategic direction, they say, but we've discovered that inspirational leaders also share four unexpected qualities:

They selectively show their weaknesses – by revealing their humanity leaders inspire trust and collaboration. Owning up to faults and failings means your enemies are less likely to invent worse ones. But beware – don't expose anything that will be seen as a fatal flaw. How about (these guys are cynics) exposing a weakness that may also be a strength – like, you're a workaholic? Be true tho – making things up will sink your credibility. Porkies always find you out.

They rely heavily on intuition for timing and the best course of action – collecting and interpreting soft data, inspirational leaders can sniff out the signals in the environment and sense what's going on without having anything spelled out for them. Franz Humer, Roche CEO and one-time tour guide who learned his skills while surviving solely on tips; Ray van Shaik, Heineken CEO in the early 90s who could read major shareholder Freddie Heineken like a book, are two examples. Just don't get carried away – always test your intuition with a trusted advisor or team member.

They manage with tough empathy – the soft stuff is hard, especially if it's not the real thing, Goffee and Jones say, and there's altogether too much hype about interpersonal-skills training and 'concern' for others. Inspirational leaders practice tough empathy – giving people what they need, not what they want. The Marine Corps, McKinsey – grow or go. But it's tough to be tough, and choosing between the best interests of the team and the corporation (or the team and the customer) is not always an easy call. But tough also means committed, and people respect commitment and authenticity.

They reveal their differences – and capitalise on what's unique about themselves. It may be as obvious as dress, style or an affectation, or a subtle as class, culture or nationality. In your face, or rarely seen. Difference sets leaders apart.

All four qualities are necessary for inspirational leadership, but must be a part of his or her personality. That's why the leadership cook books fail, Goffee and Jones say. Leadership can't be copied, it has to be learned, and it's situational. Be yourself, they say, but with great skill.

Sidebar 1 – four popular myths about leadership:(1) everyone can be a leader. Not true – many executives don't have the self-knowledge or authenticity. Many don't want to be. Many don't choose to be(2) people who get to the top are leaders. Not necessarily – not everyone in a

16

leadership position is a leader. They may be there for 'political' reasons. And not all leaders are at the top. If they're defined by followers, leaders can be anywhere(3) leaders deliver results. Not always – if results to leadership was a 1 to 1 relationship, picking leaders would be easy. Sometimes, results are down to luck or monopoly. Sometimes, organisations suffer for reasons that have nothing to do with leadership(4) leaders are great coaches. Rarely – even though there's a cottage industry based on this teaching. Can happen, but it's not common

Sidebar 2 – can female leaders be true to themselves?Gender can be a good or a bad, Goffee and Jones say. Women are prone to stereotyping – because they're a minority in most management suites. Many try to avoid labelling by disappearing – dressing and talking like men – but that's counterproductive because it also masks leadership characteristics. Organising is another tactic – campaigning for rights, opportunities, relativities. But most have to work too hard just to survive to have spare capacity – or the will – to fight other battles. A third response is to leverage the stereotypes – but with such wit and skill that they confer benefits.

Narrative - Harvard Business School's Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership, John P Kotter has carved out his own niche in the business and organisation literature as a change specialist. Seven of his books have received awards or honours and a number have been business best sellers, including Leading Change, Corporate Culture and Performance, and A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management.

John Kotter is this month's MCB Press star turn, subject of an interview by editor Sarah Powell on issues of organizational change, the speed of change, and resistance to it, leadership and management. Read the full interview here. Here's a severe summary:

Tell us about your new book The Leading Change Fieldbook Kotter – just about finished, to be published in summer 2001. It's organized just like Leading Change (1996) and looks at large-scale change in companies, ranging from creating or shifting strategy, to mergers and acquisitions, to incorporating big IT systems, to leaping into e-commerce.

As the name suggests, it's based on interviews with people in the field, for staff and managers at all levels – the people who introduce change. Mostly it's stories from people who are trying to make change happen; lessons they have learned, techniques that they have tried that have worked, or not worked.

All are short and to-the-point and concern the creation of a vision, or the building of a guiding coalition, or the injection of a sense of urgency into a company.

People often go about major change using the "decide and implement model", somebody studies something and then gets the go-ahead from somebody else – that's the decide. Implement involves assigning responsibility, coming up with timetables and resources, following up with paperwork and meetings. An approach that works “terribly poorly.” Doesn't set the stage well enough, doesn't follow through well enough. Designed for small changes in a steady state, yet used constantly to try to create major change.

In past books, you've drawn a line between leadership and management. Why the distinction?

17

Kotter – because it gives people useful insights about what they are or are not doing. Large-scale organizations – in a slower moving world, with strong market positions or the buffers of monopolies or national protectionism – are easy to manage … they got away without much leadership. As the world speeds up, more and more change is needed; you need more leadership from more people. Companies that are over-managed and under-led are going under.

Successful change is 70% leadership:30% management. But most organizations go about it the other way, trying to drive change 70% with a managerial process, and 30% leadership. Doesn't work.

Is there a feeling that employees in the middle or lower down the chain, who traditionally might have reacted against change, may be beginning to accept change, or at least greet it more positively?Kotter – possibly. Employees are certainly more receptive to change because they see the inevitability of it. But, when it comes to resistance, don't just assume that it's the troops. Everybody, at one time or another, resists. I have seen many company presidents resist. CEOs and executive vice-presidents were the biggest force in dragging their feet in some companies.

Sometimes it's middle management, not the bottom of the hierarchy; the bottom of the hierarchy has often understood the need for change – they are being pressured by customers or information technology; they are sinking into a black hole and they want change – the problem isn't them, it's this "lump" in the middle.

The reason we sometimes focus on the middle is because very often that is where you need many fewer people and of course people, quite legitimately, feel very threatened by that; they become anchors, rather than being in front, trying to lead the change.

In What Leaders Really Do, you have explored such situations and how to combat them. Is there a formula for this? Kotter – it helps enormously if you realize people don't resist for a single reason, but for many reasons. The better your understanding of why they are dragging their feet, the better the chances of success.

- some people resist because they think the world is just fine – so why do we need to change it?- some because they are scared to death; they are paralysed- some resist because they have no confidence in the people who are trying to drive the change- others because they look at the vision that is promoted to describe the change and it makes no sense to them- yet others resist because they never hear about the vision; it looks to those at the top as if they are resisting but, in fact, they just don't know what to do- then there are people who resist because they are so boxed-in by various things that they can't move; they don't have the information or the training that they need to be able to do something, or they have a boss who is pressuring them, or there is a performance appraisal system that will penalize them if they do what is needed- some people resist because they see this change effort going along and they don't see any real, concrete signs of success. Even if they were enthusiastic supporters at the beginning, they waver.

To combat such different areas of resistance, you need to adopt differing approaches.

18

What do you see as the major challenges for leaders in the future? Kotter: It is the same big trend. They are just going to play themselves out, forcing more and more companies that have had relatively safe harbours to leap further and faster to be able to compete, to win, to serve. That is the most fundamental trend. Companies have to leap further, faster, and in the right direction. If they can't, they're in trouble.

Quick Case Study - to grow your company, leverage your leaders Dupont's Leadership for Growth program leverages talent and ideas by taking the chemical company's top executives out of their element and teaming them up with colleagues from other divisions. From an article by Betsy Wiesendanger in Fast Company issue 39, page 68

Beer in a plastic bottle? Purists might choke on their Speights at the thought. But Craig Binetti, vice president and general manager of polyester resins and intermediates at DuPont, saw the promise of a brave new market [OK, we know this is a US story, and Speights is a South Island NZ beer, but we can't resist adding a local flavor]. Researchers, packaging experts, and McKinsey consultants had been dissecting the idea for a year. DuPont chemists had conquered plastic's porousness, which lets air in and makes beer go flat. Focus groups indicated that beer drinkers were willing to give plastic a try.

Binetti was ready to leap. But where -- and how, exactly? Should he approach brewers? Bottlers? Wholesalers? Retailers? And were die-hard beer lovers really ready to raise a plastic bottle to their lips?

Managers in Binetti's position -- he has the resources of a $26b, 94,000-person company behind him -- might be tempted to call in more consultants. Instead, he turned to DuPont's Leadership for Growth program, which culls the company's top 400 executives to form teams that can swoop into any of DuPont's 202 product groups.

For three weeks, each team focuses its collective brainpower on the question at hand -- anything from "What are new uses for Kevlar?" to "How can we sell polyester resins online?" The program is both a training tool -- participants are assigned a coach and get refresher courses on decision making and conflict resolution -- and an intelligence unit, a way of leveraging team members' expertise to flush out products and strategies that might be worth millions of dollars in new revenues.

The program is an answer to something that's often said about operations as big as DuPont: "If only they knew what they knew." The company is divided into 21 business units, some of which would qualify for Fortune 500 status on their own. Leadership for Growth is a way of tapping the enormous knowledge base that lurks within DuPont.

"The recommendations that come out of these groups are as good as, if not better than, anything we get from external consultants," says program manager Chor-Huat Lim.

The first rule of the program is this: Throw everybody into the deep end. No team member is assigned to a project within his or her division, and each person brings different skills and a different background to the effort.

"When I heard that I was going to be working on PET, I thought, What's that?" says

19

Tom Keen, who manages a nylon-yarn plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. PET, or polyethylene terephthalate, is the material that would be used to make plastic beer bottles. Not that PET's promise mattered much to Keen and his team -- at first. "We were a bunch of people who didn't know a plastic beer bottle from a Frisbee," he says. Still, DuPont gave them all of the tools that they needed: three-inch [75mm] binders crammed with product data and market research, and funding to jet off to anywhere in the world to dig up additional intelligence.

For Rajeev Vaidya, a business manager in DuPont's fluoropolymers division, Leadership for Growth was a chance to "step out of the swamp" for three weeks last May, he says. His mission: Explore e-business opportunities for a DuPont countertop material called Corian. He and his cohorts fanned out across the US and talked to fabricators, contractors, and retailers. One person spied on shoppers in a Home Depot.

"We were talking to people who'd worn out the soles of their shoes walking this path," says Vaidya. Among his team's recommendations: Create an Internet system to track orders online, and put kiosks in stores to help consumers design their kitchens.

The beer-bottle team, meanwhile, uncapped its own unorthodox ideas. Could DuPont make its own ale and call it "Du Brew"? (Not likely). How about a bottle shaped like a sports-team mascot? (Sorry, no).

Discussions with brewers, however, proved enlightening. With beer consumption flat in the United States, brewers want to set their brands apart. A plastic bottle would appeal to 21-to-29-year-old males, the demographic that drinks the most beer in the US, brewers said. And venues such as sports stadiums were a sure market. Team members concluded that the best next step was to partner with a brewer -- they even knew of one that was ready to sign on. "That was incredibly valuable information," says Binetti, who is now doing a test run with the brewer named by the team.

Sidebar: Chemical ReactionHow does an industry giant become more nimble? DuPont gets fast answers on new business opportunities by training its executives to think outside their divisions. Here's the program's MO. Call in the troops for three weeks at most - Leadership for Growth used to be an eight-week assignment, but "it wore people down," says Chor-Huat Lim, program manager of Leadership for Growth. Ensure that team members can fully commit themselves - "This isn't something that can be done part-time," says Rajeev Vaidya, a business manager in DuPont's fluoropolymers division, who participated in a team last year. "You'd dilute the power of the whole thing." Provide information on what's been done on the issue so far, so that team members don't tread old territory. Market research, competitive information, product literature, and a list of pertinent Web sites are good choices. Give teams latitude and a travel budget - While exploring e-commerce applications for Corian countertop material, one Delaware-based team sent a member to Dell Computer's Texas headquarters in order to bone up on e-business best practices. Assign a coach to each team - Coaches don't participate in field work, but they do act as facilitators who can help members work on their management skills, and who can intervene when meltdown seems imminent.

For more about Leadership for Growth, email Lee Hoffman (lee.c.hoffman@usa.dupont.com).

20

>> PointersLots of the material we know you'd find useful doesn't lend itself to eZine treatment, but we'd really like – at the very least – to point you towards it. Hence, pointers. Hundred-word signposts to stuff we think is worth your time.

>> Mapping strategy. Robert S Kaplan and David P Norton are the originators of the balanced scorecard, a strategic approach to organisational management that 'balances' all key performance indicators. Balanced scorecards tell you the knowledge, skills and systems that your employees will need to innovate and build the right strategic capabilities and efficiencies that deliver specific value to the market, eventually leading to higher shareholder value. There's a summary and some examples in the baldrigeplus.com exhibits collection. In the Sep-Oct 2000 HBR, Kaplan and Norton extend and develop the idea to 'mapping' strategy. If you've got any strategic responsibilities or interests, this article is required reading.

>> Curing health care. Clayton Christensen, Richard Bohmer and John Kenagy (HBR, Sep-Oct, 2000) argue that the (US) health care system is in crisis, and one essential prescription is disruptive innovation. The present system is directed too much at high cost, resource-intensive care, overshooting the everyday needs of most people. They've got a solution. If your interests include healthcare, managing scarcity (or any public resource), or innovation, this is an article you should try to read.

Resources>> IDENTIFYING AND CULTIVATING TOMORROW'S LEADERSCompanies face an impending crisis as they struggle to fill gaps appearing in their leadership ranks as baby boomers seek early retirement. Because of corporate restructuring, the roster of middle managers who could have risen to upper leadership positions has been depleted. Companies are redefining what constitutes optimal leadership by creating competencies for anticipated future needs and building them within their leadership pipeline. APQC is conducting a consortium learning forum to uncover best practices in succession management. This multiclient benchmarking project will explore how innovative organizations create succession management programs that identify and cultivate potential leaders for a sustainable business advantage. To find out more about this project, visit http://www.apqc.org/proposal/6546lead3.

>> Leadership in change and the wisdom of a gentleman John O. Burdett Participation & Empowerment: An International Journal; 07: 1 1999;pp.5-14>> Organizational politics: the missing discipline of management? David Butcher, Martin Clarke Industrial & Commercial Training; 31: 1 1999; pp.9-12 >> Employee involvement: opening the diversity Pandora's Box? Gillian Shapiro Personnel Review; 29: 3 2000; pp. 304-323 >> Cladistics: a taxonomy for manufacturing organizations Ian McCarthy, Keith Ridgway Integrated Manufacturing Systems; 11: 1 2000; pp.16-29Full text at http://www.mcb.co.uk/emrld/now/articles.htm

>> The Inc.com Newsletter - Executive Recruiting http://www.inc.com/guide/item/0,,GDE76,00.html

File size 25kb. Formatted in htmlEmailed version - published 1400hrs, 27 September

Management has always been thought of as a 'hard' discipline. The higher a manager rises, the greater his or her powers of command and the larger number of people who must obey the orders.

The hard managers have the mandate and the duty to discipline their subordinates, close redundant activities, dispose of whole businesses, move

21

people from job to job, and so on. This kind of authority can easily create an atmosphere of fear and trembling.

However, the true hardness began to soften some time ago and the change is accelerating.

It's speeded up to the point where the Harvard Business Review can declare 'It's Hard Being Soft', describing 'the hard work of being a soft manager' and asking 'why should anyone be led by you?'

Clearly a major shift in attitudes is taking place. How far have you succumbed to the soft trend? Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

1) Soft leadership is more effective than armour-plated command-and-controlling.

2) Uppermost among the qualities needed to be a strong leader are sensitivity, vulnerability and honesty about your weakness.

3) People start wanting to work with you when you quit pretending to be perfect.

4) Employees will eventually respect and support you when you let them know that you're flesh and blood.

5) When you've established empathy you can give people what they need in order to excel – which is perhaps what they want.

6) You encourage others to share responsibility by relinquishing the idea that the fate of the firm rests completely on you.

If you do agree with all or any of these, then you face a hard question: are you putting your soft principles into practice? If not, you are unlikely to work for an organisation that has time for such ideas.

The above Feelgood Formula enshrines the familiar philosophy that the better you treat people, the better they will work. The problem for most organisations is that the ends outrank the means.

Companies need their innovators more than ever. These brains need the greatest possible space to deploy and share their thoughts. This is where soft management holds the reinsThe soft ways of the Feelgood Formula are just good behaviour: you manage in human and humane ways because that's the correct way to treat your people. The fact that it's also more effective is a bonus, albeit possibly a highly valuable one.

22

But effectiveness depends, not on the degree of loving kindness brought to bear, but on the competitive quality of the decisions taken, the processes installed, the methods applied, the technologies developed – and so on.

These are the 'hardest' areas of management – in both senses of the term. Take a false step in any of these matters today, and it might take years rather than months to recover.

The pressures are so powerful that the experts polled in the latest survey undertaken by the Global Future Forum predict some radical changes in management – and these tend towards a 'soft-hard' future.

A lot of larger companies will become networks of outsourced resources, partnerships, alliances and contractors in order to become (soft) more responsive to market demands.

Understanding the customer (soft) and superior retailing skills will prevail over (hard) straight manufacturing capabilities as the primary drivers of success. Also, organisational adaptability and flexibility (soft) are becoming more important to success than operational performance and other traditional (hard) metrics.

Companies need their innovators more than ever. These brains need the greatest possible space to deploy and share their thoughts. This is where soft management holds the reins. Freedom of thought should flourish. You need self-managed bands of brothers and sisters who set their own goals.

Your model should be the university, not the military camp. However, in this soft habitat, paradoxically, you require a focus of the hardest military intensity.

Culture and Leadership in Residential Treatment

by Ernest Campagnone, Ed.D.

Many new mangers assume their positions in residential treatment and begin a journey into understanding, self-awareness and growth unprepared for the challenges of a new and diverse world. The challenge of “leadership” can create a crisis of identity and performance for these new managers; for the “the thoughts, beliefs and knowledge that had been acquired over those years enter a shambled construct of confusion and fear. At the same time, strong beliefs that had become characteristic of a leadership style had already become crystallized into a set of values and beliefs that have grown over the years for these individuals.

23

Today, numerous nation-wide programs are designed to teach managers how to manage, coach, direct, or otherwise interact with their staff in new and different ways. The older, top-down management style has given way to a new work environment where employees are required to perform higher-level tasks in an ever-changing environment. As the structure of organization changes, so do the roles and tasks of and within the organization. The importance of management and leadership become critical components of an organizations success.

As individuals, each member of the organization brings unique and diverse skills and limitations into the group. The interplay of individuals toward achievement of specific goals and objectives remain critical to the success of the organization. Staff members are required to work in challenging, emotionally painful situations with suicidal and abused children and adolescents daily. The skill and interpersonal relationships the staff must bring to these environments every day places tremendous pressure on the internal support systems of the program. Each member of the organization must have “task roles and personal roles” (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p.152-153) to ensure the successful functioning of the unit for the ultimate consumer, the client and their families. Managers in these organizations must master both the interpersonal skills and the group dynamic skills to be effective. Belman and Deal refer to this as “interpersonal competence… which is seen as a basic managerial skill requirement” (p.145).

The difference between leadership and management has been a most striking revelation. John Kotter provides the following definitions of management and Leadership in his book, Leading Change (1996): Management is a set of processes that can keep a complicated system of people and technology running smoothly. The most important aspects of management include planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem solving. Leadership is a set of processes that creates organizations in the first place or adapts them to significantly changing circumstances. Leadership defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite obstacles” (p.25). It is easy to confuse the two when you are blindly going about your work and duties and no training or leadership is provided in executing the necessary programmatic groundwork to create an environment where leadership skills can flourish. It is another issue when one stops and reflects on the events of the past and the realities of today. Several years ago, being a good

24

manager seemed to be critical in managing the residential programs. “Task orientation is so important to getting things done” (E. Campagnone, personal communications, September, 2000) seemed to make a great deal of sense. Today, in some ways it still does, but for different reasons and different situations. The difference between a leadership theory and a management approach is a bright notion that has changed the landscape of residential work throughout the United States.

In our current environment, values, motivation, focus, goals, culture and imagination have become critical factors in a management approach. Terms such as mission, vision, mental models, and leadership play an important role in the structure of a strong functional program. It is clear that not only is there a struggle for leadership at the unit level, but “the truest test of leadership is in the ability to incorporate the styles and beliefs of those around you into a system of growth and development, in spite of the forces working against this growth, both internally and externally” (E. Campagnone, personal communication, March, 2000).

Since leadership is more than just affecting the course of events, goals are critical to the functioning of an organization. These goals must be obtainable and correct. James MacGregor Burns has stated “ That socially useful goals not only have to meet the needs of followers, they also should elevate followers to a higher moral level. Calling this transformational leadership, he posits that people begin with the need for survival and security, and once those needs are meet, concern themselves with ‘higher needs like affection, belonging, the common good or serving others’. This approach has the benefit of provoking discussion about how to construct a hierarchy of orienting values”. Heifetz, 1999, p. 21.)

Three years ago, a friend stated “ It is hard to identify the goals of my profession in light of the things I am thinking about today. I know where I want to go, but do I do a good job at getting others there with me”. This salient point has been a focal point of understanding of highly successful programs and ones that fails to provide leadership under the guise of intended success. It requires a hard assessment of program goals and achievements at a foundational level to grasp the cultural implication of treatment over growth. as defined in program goals and objectives. As the goals of the program became clearer and more defined, the reality that the environment or milieu of the program can often be counter to

25

actualization. There often is no effort at understanding the culture of the program, the impact of the staff or the reality of the children and their families in the programs. The expectations of successful treatment were that upon completion of the program, you were better. However, the question now became “What the hell is better and how do we get them there” (E. Campagnone, personal communication, July, 2000).

This led to finding a definition of culture as: “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 1992, p.12).

Sounds intriguing and intellectual, but it presents an interesting complex problem. The culture of programs intreaditional development, was not ours, it was someone else’s idea that had to be translated at all levels by everyone into one culture or understanding. Often, the communication and interpersonal relationships of the management, leadership and milieu staff was too fragmented to be successful. Thus, what was on paper and what occurred in the units were strikingly different. It is not uncommon, upon close examination to find vastly different perception of treatment by management and milieu staff and clients in the same unit. The concepts of culture and leadership has not been addressed. In Organizational Culture and Leadership , Schein (1997) states that “the product of our human need for stability, consistency and meaning” (p.11) is manifested in our culture.

The process of learning must ultimately be made part of the culture, not any given solution to any given problem” (p. 366). Again, the concept is intriguing but here was the first great revelation of the translation of business concepts into residential treatment. The therapeutic milieu is often defined as a learning environment, based on values and standards and expectations. How close were the values and standards lived by the staff and the children; by the management or by the leadership in the professed values of the milieu? Who were the leaders that were establishing our milieu and maintaining it?

In the book The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Peter Senge, (1994) discusses the concept of learning. In the chapter on “Co-creating”(p. 323), the author presented

26

excellent examples in the development of a learning environment, team building and program development. The role of the leader in this environment, beginning with a “shared vision” (p.323-326) reinforced several essential ideas that should be pondered during the construction of a work environment based on the materials presented. Senge’s guidelines established in this chapter are excellent and certainly applicable across industry, human service, and educational settings.

A deeper understanding of cultural issues in groups and organizations is necessary to decipher what goes on in them but even more important, to identify what may be the priority issues for leaders and leadership. Organizational cultures are created by leaders, and “one of the most decisive functions of leadership is the creation, the management, and sometimes even the destruction of culture” (Schein, p. 5).

As the concept of culture grew, the issue became one of focus. “A major challenge of leadership therefore is to draw attention and then deflect it to the question and issues that need to be faced. “To do so, one has to provide a context for action…needs to readily comprehend the purpose of unusual behavior or deviant behavior so that it focuses less on the behavior itself, or the person, and more on its meaning” (Heifetz, p.225).

While management can give definition to a system and maintain it, leadership gives the milieu its life, its energy, its thirst to take risks, and challenges others to maintain a growth pattern over one of acceptance and compliance. This seemed to be as important for the staff as it is for the children and their families.

This leads to the more provocative issue of motivations. Surrounded by the pathologies of depressed adolescents and children, dealing with thoughts of them wanting to hurt or kill themselves made the issue of motivation difficult to grasp and understand in its complexities. Is the role of the leader to energize the system, the role of management to maintain a safe structure and how does one meld these two needs. In such an individualized work environment, each staff member has to be able to feel the freedom of autonomy in action and decision making with these clients. “I ask each staff every day to risk making decisions that can result in the injury of a child or themselves and what do I give back, a pat on the shoulder, or is that enough, them knowing that I see, understand, help

27

and do not criticize them” (Campagnone, personal communication, January 22, 2001).

At some point, the staff must understand that they are alone with these choices and in many ways, they are the leaders of the moment in that child’s life, this alone should provide a level of energy for staff members to be motivated on a personal level. “Motivation is a power that arises within an individual to satisfy a need” (Bittel and Newstrom, 1990, p. 269). The desire to complete and process is time consuming and arduous, it has to come from inside. It is fair to say that one can manage easier than lead and motivate because of this internal drive of the individual. “A person can have motivation without another person’s leadership. Leadership cannot succeed without the motivation on the follower’s part” (p. 269). In “Flight of the Buffalo” (1993), Belasco and Stayer identify four leadership principles in their leadership paradigm: Leaders transfer ownership for work to those who execute the work. Leaders create an environment for ownership where each person wants to be responsible. Leaders coach the development of personal capabilities. Leaders learn fast themselves and encourage others to learn quickly (p. 19).

The hardest challenge of new networks and systems in today’s corporate culture is that the upper level management and leadership reflect an authoritative leadership style (p.16). The problem is that the newness of the network has not allowed anyone to learn how to reach below themselves and trust. Mangers assume that if we follow their mandates, things will be fine; except that there are a multitude of sites and managers who must try to understand what is going on and it does not work.

Strong leadership is justifiably considered an essential ingredient of successful companies, but when leadership is invested in only one person or a select few it is only natural that the vast majority of employees feel less than personally responsible for producing high-quality products and services (Seifter and Economy, 2001, p.41).

This decision-making process and micro-management can have noticeable effect on the staff. Belman and Deal discuss Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y ideas of the manager’s assumptions of people. Theory X is a “set of beliefs advocating that subordinates are passive and lazy, have little ambition; prefer to

28

be led, and resist change (Bolman and Deal, p.105)”. Theory Y postulates, “the essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions so that people can achieve their own goals best by directing their efforts toward organizational rewards” (p. 106). As can be seen, the extremes of reality and theory exist at times together.

For residential treatment programs, the challenge is to understand the X’s and Y’s of their management beliefs and leadership styles.

Theory X, Theory Y

Theory X is a traditional model for management thinking based on the following assumptions:

Average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if possible; Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed or threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives; The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, and wants security above all achievement (Bittel and Newstrom, 1990, p. 270).

In his book, Leadership Ensemble, Harvey Seifter and Peter Economy (2001) comments “ Apparently, there are two principal downsides to the traditional model of fixed organizational leadership. Not only does the failure to take full advantage of the skills and talents of every worker represent a high opportunity cost borne by the entire company, but disenfranchised employees also tend to grow cynical about the elite few who comprise a leadership nucleus. As a result, organizations that restrict leadership to a small number of people, tend to suffer poor moral, high turnover and the loss of competitive advantage (p. 89).

Theory Y finds it roots in recently accumulated knowledge about human behavior:

The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest; External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organizational objectives; Individuals will exercise self-control in the service of objectives to which they are committed; Commitment to objectives depends on the rewards associated with their achievement. The most important rewards are those that satisfy needs for self-respect and personal;

29

The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but also to seek responsibility; The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population among both men and woman; Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human beings are only partially realized (Bittel and Newstrom, 1990, p. 271).

Fostering horizontal teamwork means encouraging employees to work together to solve problems and ensuring that teams have the authority to put their solutions into action (Seifter and Economy 2001, p. 109).

The question becomes how to choice and implement this theory. In residential treatment, task management is critical to a safe milieu. Here the concept of Situational leadership has great merit as well. As Hersey and Blanchard (1976) define Situational Leadership, it is “based on the amount of direction (task behavior) and the amount of socio-emotional support (relationship behavior) a leader must provide given the situation and the ‘the level of maturity of the follower or group”.

It is evident in this setting that due to the high level of personal involvement in the daily pathological issues of the client, direction and support are critical factors.

This has led to another important concept in the development of a leadership style where no one style/theory need apply. There are times for strong, authoritative leadership where the vision of the program represents the context of the work being accomplished. This is due to the conflicting pressures the clients and the administration present in caring for children. In Leadership That Gets Results, Daniel Goldman (2000) states “the authoritative leader is a visionary; he motivates people by making clear to them how their work fits into a larger vision of the organization”(p.83).

At the same time, the concept of democracy in our setting is important. The therapeutic community model involves the inclusion of all participants in the development of the program milieu (Maxwell Jones, Therapeutic Community, 1954, p 4). Goldman states, “By spending time getting people’s ideas and buy-in, a leader builds trust, respect, and commitment” (p.85).

30

In bring in these concepts, it is also important to create an atmosphere where leadership is open to positive challenges and review. In human service, this is the one clear obstacle to the creation of therapeutic milieus. In a profession that verbalizes the concepts of personal growth and development, client autonomy and problem solving, there is constant struggles with the inherit battle of egos and ideological superiority of one belief system over another. Often, our leaders exist on a different set of standards and norms than what is expected of others. It seems contradictory to encourage staff to participate and then stop the process by dictates. In “Why Should Anyone Be Led By You”, Goeffe and Jones (2000) make the point that self-disclosure is an important characteristic of leadership. “Such admissions work because people need to see leaders own up to some flaw before they participate willingly in an endeavor” (p. 65). For many, the issue of congruency in belief and reality is key to positive program development. A strong therapeutic community model encourages people to dare to be different. Goeffe and Jones (2000) comment that “ Often, a leader will show his differences by having a distinctly different dress style or physical appearance, but typically, he will move on to distinguish himself through qualities like imagination, loyalty, expertise, or even a handshake” (p. 69).

Bolman and Deal discuss Argysis’s work. They present Argysis six points of staff response to frustration “They withdraw or quit, they stay but psychologically withdraw, resist by restricting output, deception or sabotage, they try to climb the hierarchy to better jobs, they form groups to redress power, or they socialize their children to believe that work is unrewarding and hopes for advancement are slim” (p.109).

Clearly, most of these situations have become present over the past years in residential treatment work. Those that remain have low investment, not completing the little extra tasks necessary for a residential program to function properly. They have, to some degree, done only what is expected of them and then only under tight supervision and oversight. Many have opted out for other positions in the organization or outside of the organization or the profession itself.

In all, the most amazing factor of this journey of leadership discovery can be the eclectical dynamics of the work environment and the many ways individuals can affect upon it. In developing an understanding of the theory, methods, and roles

31

of a small system, the function of a sound mission and vision, role clarification, personal growth and development, inclusion, and partnership emerges.

Meg Greenfield, (as cited in Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M, and Beckard, R., 1996) stated, “We expect a human being who, to be successful, must combine in the right way many seemingly contradictory qualities: worldliness and idealism, toughness and charity, skepticism and belief, humility and self-confidence, enthusiasm and restraint” (p. 280). For some of us, the view that “True leadership must lead to changes that translate into social betterment” (p.75) is a benchmark concept that should be a basic component of all treatment environments.

32