Why Should Anyone Be Led by You

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Types, Creative Writing | Downloads: 113 | Comments: 0 | Views: 369
of 32
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Why Should Anyone Be Led by You

Comments

Content

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 Leadership
Context 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 Leadership
The 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 Success
Other 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. .4 2 = .
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
night through wintry weather to rescue a trapped army in the World War II Battle

13

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 Leader
This 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 Context
In 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.
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.
14

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, 2000
Made 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 issue
Why should anyone be led by you? - key leadership skills
Narrative - John Kotter talks to MCB's Sarah Powell
Quick 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.

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

15

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 selfknowledge 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
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

16

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?
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

17

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.
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

18

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 ChorHuat 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
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

19

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 Reaction
How 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 ([email protected]).

>> Pointers
Lots 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.

20

>> 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 LEADERS
Companies 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.16-29
Full 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 html
Emailed 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
people from job to job, and so on. This kind of authority can easily create an
atmosphere of fear and trembling.

21

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 reins
The 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.
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.

22

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 selfmanaged 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.
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

23

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
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.

24

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
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
25

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
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
26

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

27

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
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
28

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 selfrespect and personal;
The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but
also to seek responsibility;

29

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).
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
30

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

31

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

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close