A colleague called me a “conceptual reductionist.”

“Huh?”

Truthfully, I was waiting for the punchline, the “zinger,” the good-natured insult, embedded in the “giving each other grief” interaction pattern I seem to have with many of my friends.

“No, really, it’s your way of being in the world. You take a complex concept and boil it down to very simple everyday terms.”

“Yeah. . . ? And?” Still waiting for the snark. 

“That’s it . . . just an observation.” (awkward pause) “How ‘bout them Astros?”

Now that was the zinger.  Anyone who knows me, knows that I do not follow sports of any kind.

It took me a while to realize that my colleague was being genuine and just sharing his observation of my natural tendency to simplify. It helps me understand things

For example, I don’t remember when it occurred to me, but it was certainly long after business school and post-grad organization development that I realized that management and leadership are different skillsets. The terms “manager” and “leader” are often used interchangeably and management skills and leadership skills might reside in one individual, but leading and managing are different.

As I thought about it I came to this view.

A manager’s job is to “get the work done.” Perhaps he or she gets the work done through other people, but the manager is accountable for work completion. The underlying assumption of management is a steady-state environment, predictability. A manager is also accountable for developing people to make sure that they have the knowledge and skill (competency) to get the work done.

The context for leadership is an abnormal environment and this is different. This is why the military talks so frequently about leadership; what could be a more abnormal environment than war? In a business an abnormal environment is change, change in customers or competitors, change in ownership (mergers and acquisitions), changes in technology, etc.

In the context of change (or war) you want the leader to say, “This way! Follow me!” Those are the two primary accountabilities of leadership: direction (we lead toward something or away from something, or both) and followership.

If you read the leadership literature, direction gets the majority of the ink. There are many articles on vision, mission, values, and purpose. The entrepreneurial literature uses such buzzwords as “pivot,” which means change direction when the first one isn’t working.

The important parts for leaders to communicate are:

• The why of the change – “We can’t go on this way and we can’t go back because. . . competitors have lower costs or different technology. . . the community will not put up with our pollution anymore. . . customers needs have changed. . .  or. . .” This is often talked about as the “burning platform;” “jump, we can’t stay here.”  (I learned to call this “change case” when working in oil production, a term with less painful  connotations.)
• The destination – one of my favorite vision statements comes from Exodus in the Bible  “the land of milk and honey.” Can you imagine anything more compelling for Moses and his desert nomads than green pastures for goats to graze, breed and give milk and an orchard for an apiary? Vision statements are often sensory rich and emotionally laden to engage people and have them follow. Vision-led leadership is always more engaging than threat-driven leadership because some people freeze when they are afraid.
• The what or how of the change, often leaders don’t communicate about what and how because this is the work of followers. As my stepson once said, “You can tell me what to do, or how to do it, but NOT both.”

Why do people follow a leader?

• The compelling case for change is convincing
• The vison is engaging and exciting
• They believe in the leader, often because of a track record.
  • He/she is competent and will get us there. This is usually dependent on a track record of success.
  • He/she understands my needs – demonstrated empathy and a track record of support goes a long way.
  • I trust him or her. Trust can be composed of many thing:
    • Affinity, “she is like me, ”
    • Reliability, “He is a straight shooter who does what he says he’s going to do”
    • Credibility  – The leader provides timely, accurate information, transparent decision-making, and a track record of kept promises.

    Clearly, some of these things are important for the manager as well, but a manager may have systems and processes to fall back on, whereas leaders are in a new environment and must improvise.

    Leaders must be prepared to change themselves

    Early in my career I conducted a series of leadership workshops for a company going through a large change. These were called training,  and there were some competency building exercises, but the purpose was really for participants to internalize the need for change and commit to it. We used the term “change leader” and I remember one of the participants saying “Change Leader? Who me?” He was a middle manager and while my co-facilitator and I pointed our how many people he influenced, he believed that change leadership was the job of “those guys up there,” which he said pointing at the ceiling.

     

    At the end of the week he said, “You know I finally get it. Change in this huge corporation does come down to guys like me doing something differently.” My co-facilitator and I congratulated ourselves,  a bit smugly, if I’m honest.

     

    A couple of weeks later at another session of the same workshop, I was quite critical of a team that I thought wasn’t taking the change seriously. I used the term change leader and one of the members said “You’re the change leader and not a very good one, either.”

     

    I heard myself-say “Change leader? Who me?” Even now I feel the cringe as it came out of my mouth. My co-facilitator just looked away from me, apparently finding something fascinating on the wall.

     

    On a break later in the week, after I had given my lecture about leaders being open to change, two members of the recalcitrant group pulled me aside.

     

    “Alan, you may not think you are a change leader, but you are leading us in leading change. It will require that you change along with us.”  Then they gave me some very pointed feedback on my lack of empathy and how my sarcasm made me seem less than authentic and sometimes a bit mean-spirited.

     

    To my credit I didn’t say, “Change leader? Who me?” and have worked on that feedback since.