I Human

 boot-and-hearts-crop

Picture by David Howell

Many of you who know me, know my crazy sister. There are many reasons why I call her crazy, but  I’d like to share one in particular. A few weeks ago, she  called me, all nonchalantly. When I asked her what was up, she replied that she was lying on the ground, in a forest. This led me to asking why she was lying on the ground, in a forest, and she replied that she had been thrown from her motorcycle while riding a trail and it hurt too much to get up. After a deep breath on my part (because if she’d been in danger of dying there probably would have been more shrill crying or at the very least, sarcasm), I asked her if she needed me to call someone. She said no, her husband had driven to the entrance of the trails so he could direct the ambulance to her. She just  didn’t feel like lying there alone, so she called me.

You can watch the Youtube video here. The crash happens around 3:30. The person she’s talking on the phone at the 6 minute mark is me.

All this reminded  me of a story she told me while giving me a motorcycle tour of Vancouver. She said that there was a belief that the gear that some motorcyclist wore (dark visor, full helmet, dark body armour) might actually increase motorcycle accidents because the rider looked less human and more robotic while wearing all the gear. As a result, other drivers weren’t as careful around motorcyclists that didn’t look human.

There is some research to support this. Monsters in Metal Caccoons discusses that when we are in the interior of a car, we feel protected and isolated. We are also in control of the car and so we become “enhanced humans”. Cyborgs. In turn, drivers start to dehumanize other drivers, seeing them as just the car. This is why road rage becomes easier. We are more likely to swear at the car in front of us than if a fellow pedestrian cuts us off on the sidewalk.

What does this have to do with leadership? My sister’s story got me wondering, what are other ways that we disguise people’s humanness? We may not have the distance provided by a car or a motorcyclist’s body armor, but I think everyone can probably identify a time when we treated someone as a thing, instead of a person. When it was easier to dismiss someone’s concerns as trivial rather than trying to address the problem.

To borrow Jessica Hagy’s style of illustration:

empathy-distance

For example, a problem employee offered up an idea and my first instinct was to shoot it down because I didn’t see any value to it. This employee consistently had trouble implementing useful solutions. I only realized my mistake when I looked him in the eyes. Looking at him forced me out of my head, out of the category I had shoved him in and forced me to consider the situation from his point of view.

The problem employee had been labelled as difficult and not having a clear understanding of the company’s mission. But really listening to his idea, understanding how he came to it, showed that he did understand what we were trying to accomplish, he was just going about it a different way. He needed guidance on how to evaluate his ideas, not someone to do the evaluation for him.

Some people might argue that if you spend all your time empathizing with your team members, then it becomes impossible to offer guidance or corrections because now you are their friend. The problem is that they see empathy and assertiveness like this:

empathy-assertion1

when instead, they could be seen like this:

empathy-assertion graph

Empathy and assertiveness are not mutually exclusive. Empathy is about perspective-taking, and understanding the issues from someone else’s point of view. It shows that the other person’s point of view has value whether you agree with it or not. It’s about respect,  which is probably one of the most important things a leader can give to their followers.

So whether we are driving in a car, working the reception desk or leading a team through a project, it’s important to recognize everyone’s humanness, the things that make them worth more than a just a robot.

At the same time, it’s important to watch out for logs lying on the path.

The Problems (and Benefits) of Metaphors

cornertiles-crop

The world is a chaotic and messy place and it’s worthwhile giving yourself some credit for how you’ve managed to sort it out so far. We’ve all done a pretty good job since most of us manage to function in society at large. One of things we’ve used to help us classify and understand the world is metaphors. Metaphors helps us take things we may not fully understand, but by comparing them to things we do understand, we can sort the unknown into useful categories and get on with our lives.

So what’s the problem?

It’s no secret that how we think about things influences what we do . Tony Robbins examines the stories we tell ourselves and whether they empower or disempower us.  This TED blog talks about  five  examples of how language can affect the way we think and here’s a journal article that shows how theories can become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Bringing this back to leadership, I want to focus on the fact that many of us use the word “art” when describing leadership. I did in my first blog post because that’s how the Canadian Forces defined it back in the 90’s and that’s the way it has become ingrained in my head.

I want to look at this metaphor more closely and see if it’s really the metaphor I want to keep using.

Art is performed by artists–special people with skills most of us don’t have. Artists usually have to sacrifice everything and a fair number aren’t even recognized as great until they’re dead. That’s a rather depressing way to look at leadership. And to be realistic, we need leaders out there in the field and in industry doing things, not just looking pretty on a wall in some art gallery.

Also, an artist is selfish in the sense that they have a sentiment or feeling that they want to express and they want to express it a certain way. If people don’t understand the artist’s work, the artist usually doesn’t make any apologies and try to recreate the art a different way. The work of art is what it is.

Some leaders are like that. Steve Jobs made no apologies about what he envisioned and he drove Apple with his sheer force of will.  However, other leaders have tried the same strategy and failed miserably.

Like any skill, whether it’s painting, solving algebraic equations, or leadership, the more we practice, the better we get. If there’s one thing I like about the “art” metaphor is that art is about expressing or applying creative skill. There’s no doubt that creativity is useful, but I would like to argue that it’s a characteristic of creativity that’s actually one of the most valuable traits for a leader to have.

Flexibility. The ability to change in response to circumstances.

In this case, I think calling leadership an art is valuable. After all, science is not usually known for its flexible approaches to problem solving. Newton’s laws haven’t changed over time. But, not all science is linear. As my background is in science, the idea of looking at non-linear sciences as a metaphor for leadership intrigues me. But that’s a future post.

So what other metaphors can we use to describe leadership? Me and another instructor once asked a group of leaders this same question. We made them wander around the classroom and asked them to look at what leadership lessons they could learn. One group looked at the corner where four tiles met on the floor. They said that being a leader was like that corner, with all the lines going toward that point. Sometimes the edges between the tiles got dirty, but the corner still had a job to do.

Another metaphor I’ve used:

Leadership is like driving a car.

1. You need a destination (goal that you’re trying to accomplish) otherwise what’s the point?

2. You need to figure out the best route (technical problem solving).

3. You need to supply gas and steering to your car (team) in order to get to the destination.

Anyone who has ever been on a road trip knows that the travel is the toughest part. People suffer from travel fatigue (are we there yet?!). Cars break down. Maps aren’t always accurate.

In the end, some drivers will give up and go home. Some will ask for directions from the locals. Some will make necessary repairs en route while others push on with a rattling under the hood. I like to think most of us will get to our destination. The real question is whether or not we’re going to have a car left for the next trip when this one is over or whether we’ll have to thumb a ride home from the side of the road.

The great thing is we don’t always have to use the same metaphor. Sometimes we may want to be the artist, sometimes the driver, sometimes the chalk sitting on the edge of the chalkboard, waiting to be picked up. We can switch metaphors and the stories that define us, anytime we want, anytime we’re stuck, or anytime we just want to try something new.

So what’s your metaphor for leadership?

Authority comes from above–Leadership is granted from below

thomas

Seven-thirty every morning, I sit on the couch and watch Thomas the Tank Engine. I’m not a big fan, but as far as son #3 is concerned–well, TRAINS! The lesson a few mornings ago was that James didn’t like to be told what to do by a lowly freight car. James, after all, is an ENGINE. And, of course, James ended up in trouble because he didn’t listen. He then had to go back to the freight car for help in solving the problem.

As my mind wandered from the happy singing on TV, I got to thinking– that happens way too often. I’ve seen it countless times. A newly promoted manager with something to prove, that feels like they can’t afford to listen to their followers because that would threaten their authority. After all, why did they get promoted if they don’t have all the answers? Or, they feel the need to flex their authority-muscles to show everyone they’re in charge.

The problem is authority and leadership are two vastly different things.

An organization can give you authority to decide things. Followers have to give you permission to lead them. Sure, you can “force” people to do what you say. You can assign someone to sweep the floors or file the backlog of papers. But unless they buy in or have some other reason to try and please you, they will do the bare minimum necessary to keep their job. And if they’re only trying to please you to make a good impression? Eventually someone else will come along that they want to impress more. They will have no loyalty toward you or your team.

We usually gain authority in an organization for a variety of reasons: maybe we hold the right degree or accreditation, or maybe we were just really good at our previous job. Unfortunately, the traits that got us the promotion are rarely the traits that will make us great leaders. And while we can most certainly have leadership without authority, authority without leadership leads to very bad things.

Which brings me to my favorite quote on leadership from One Bullet Away, written by Nathaniel Fick:

” Strong combat leadership is never by committee. Platoon commanders must command, and command in battle isn’t based on consensus. It’s based on consent. Any leader wields only as much authority and influence as is conferred by the consent of those he leads. The Marines allowed me to be their commander, and they could revoke their permission at any time.”

The Marine Corps gave Lt Fick the authority to command. But, he realized that unless he earned the respect, trust and loyalty of the men in his platoon, he would never actually be leading. If anyone is interested in the story, I highly recommend watching Generation Kill.  You can read the article it was originally based on  archived here.

Of course, this doesn’t just apply to the military (it’s just harder to find news articles about good or bad middle managers).

So how do we develop the traits that make us successful leaders? I think we need to switch our focus. I don’t think it was a coincidence that James was the engine that had trouble listening to the freight car. After all, he’s the one “that’s vain, but lots of fun“.

Getting promoted likely involved honing our own skills. Now we need to switch our focus so that we’re not just concerned with how well we’re doing, but rather how well the people in our team are doing. We have to value them as people and employees. We have to listen to them.

If James had been a little less focused on himself and actually believed that the freight car had a valuable opinion, then the show would have been disappointingly short for my toddler, but maybe a little less mind numbing for me.

Then again, I guess it’s not just about me.

The Art of Leadership

Image

 

Between the ages of 12 and 18, much of my free time was spent participating in the Air Cadets program.  Some kids go to camp, some work part-time and I went to Cadets.  I met great friends, learned new skills, and received some solid leadership training.  I still recall the definition they taught us:

“Leadership is the art of influencing human behaviour in order to accomplish a mission in the manner desired by the leader.”

~Canadian Forces definition of leadership, circa 1990

While there was dubious value in memorizing this definition there are some parts of it that I like. I agree, leadership is very much an art. There is no formula for dealing with people, no recipe for getting them to do what you want.  And make no mistake,  the most important part of that definition is that leadership is all about influencing people’s behaviour.  But how do we do that? Well, that’s the million dollar question, and one I hope we’ll be exploring together here.

 I have one beef  with this definition: it seems to place more emphasis on the second half of the definition, accomplishing a mission in the manner desired by a leader than on the first part. Which makes sense, to a certain extent, if you remember that the definition came from the Canadian military. Mission, always the Mission, was a mantra that was repeated over and over again. But that’s a scary definition and implies that the ends justify the means. It also implies that the leader knows the manner in which they want the mission accomplished but that’s not always the case.  Even in the military. I would argue that part of being an effective leader is involving your team in the solution process. 

In 2005, the Canadian Forces published new leadership manuals, with the following change to the definition of leadership:

CF leadership may be formally defined as directing, motivating, and enabling others to accomplish the mission professionally and ethically, while developing or improving capabilities that contribute to mission success. Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Doctrine

 

Not as easy to memorize, but definitely puts the emphasis on the people side of things. Also, I love the subtle shift to enabling others to accomplish the mission.  The leader is now responsible for contributing to mission success, but doesn’t have to operate in a vacuum any more.

And to me, that’s what leadership is about. You can’t be a leader if you’re the only one involved. Leadership is about bringing people together for a purpose. Whether it’s to attack a trench, ship boxes, serve a client or change the world. But the challenge is not coming up with something to do, there are lots of great ideas out there. The hard part is getting the team to work together, past the individual issues, past the interpersonal issues, past the assumptions and the egos so that the team can do what individuals working by themselves can’t.

Which brings me to my definition of leadership:

Leadership is the courage to bring people together and the art of engaging them so that they can accomplish great things.

So why bother starting with a definition? Because I think it’s easy to get lost and wander around this rather fluffy subject and forget what we’re actually trying to do. In order to figure out how to be an effective leader, or better yet, a great leader, I think we need to be sure we’re talking about the same thing. My definition isn’t restricted to people in official, I’m-in-charge positions.  It can apply to a manager trying to get their team to ship a product on time or it can apply to parents trying to make their family unit a place where everyone can thrive. It can apply to teachers, engaging their students and it can apply to someone who wants to start fundraising for a cause that they’re passionate about.

It’s not about strategy. It’s not about winning.

For me, it’s about helping to bring the best out in people.

So what’s your definition of leadership?