The Intersection of Leadership and The Leadership Culture Part 2

We are picking up today where we left off yesterday, with the idea of a general shift in thinking about leadership development. I draw from several resources. The following excerpt from Scientific American, July 31, 2007, adequately describes The New Psychology of Leadership.

“In the past, leadership scholars considered charisma, intelligence and other personality traits to be the key to effective leadership. Accordingly, these academics thought that good leaders use their inborn talents to dominate followers and tell them what to do, with the goal either of injecting them with enthusiasm and willpower that they would otherwise lack or of enforcing compliance. Such theories suggest that leaders with sufficient character and will can triumph over whatever reality they confront.

“In recent years, however, a new picture of leadership has emerged, one that better accounts for leadership performance. In this alternative view, effective leaders must work to understand the values and opinions of their followers—rather than assuming absolute authority—to enable a productive dialogue with followers about what the group embodies and stands for and thus how it should act. By leadership, we mean the ability to shape what followers actually want to do, not the act of enforcing compliance using rewards and punishments.

“Given that good leadership depends on constituent cooperation and support, this new psychology of leadership negates the notion that leadership is exclusively a top-down process. In fact, it suggests that to gain credibility among followers, leaders must try to position themselves among the group rather than above it.”

Of course, how one goes about “positioning oneself among the group” is a huge variable to good leadership, as are the values and opinions of followers. These, too, can be developed.


Leadership effectiveness is the product of individual ability to be the architect of culture, to understand the values and attitudes of followers (who may be colleagues as well as direct reports), and to inspire the contributions, cooperation and mutual support of the people around the would-be leader.


Taken further, the measure of a leader is how well he or she develops a culture of leadership, where all constituents are ready to lead when the context needs their unique contribution.

According to this new approach, no fixed set of personality traits can assure good leadership because the most desirable traits depend on the nature of the group being led and the context at hand. Author
Mark DeVries has discovered five decisions that we believe profoundly reflect the ability to develop a healthy leadership culture:

  1. Deliver Results – The most dramatic way to change any culture is to provide evidence that good things are happening. Success breeds success. Leaders must deliver results. Identify a single visible result and go after it to produce a small victory. Speed up the production of good results and you accelerate climate change.
  2. Trust the Process – Change takes time and is far more often the product of incremental small wins than monumental victories. A series of small wins creates the potential for incremental revolution. We may explore this element further in a future blog.
  3. Import Joy into the Chaos – Interesting, but I have found that even high-performing teams will crash and burn sooner or later if they do not learn to celebrate well together. Research has shown that groups that laugh together are consistently better at solving problems together than the folks who strictly “stick to business”. The most effective leaders maintain a “playful detachment”, as DeVries describes it, “from those triggers that cause people to spiral into negativity and reactive blaming.”
  4. Instill Stories and Metaphors – Every group develops cultural norms or what we sometimes call “rules of fair play”; these at once reflect the culture and define it. As DeVries writes, groups “tend to live into the words that are spoken about them.” Leaders must recognize the impact of language, encourage and offer stories and metaphors that promote a positive leadership culture.
  5. Embrace Rituals and Traditions, Signs and Symbols – These confirm cultural identity. Ever worked with a group that has office potlucks from time to time – what I call “grazing tables”? The culture-building power of breaking bread together is historic. Do you allow people to decorate their work space? When we work with groups on “team building”, we often challenge them to come up with a team name and a team cheer that reflects the team they aspire to be. Sometimes that cheer becomes part of a team vernacular that far outlives the team building event. We recently did some culture and process work with a university at which the president simply turned over leadership of his monthly all-campus staff meetings to a team, which seemed to pull back the curtains exposing once-hidden sunshine and a positive new climate. Even standard operating procedures can contribute to your team’s cultural identity.

We all have the potential for leadership and, therefore, need leadership development. It is our responsibility as leaders to cultivate a climate for leadership, where everyone has a role and the ongoing opportunity to develop and practice as a leader.
If your organization or team needs assistance in developing leadership or a more powerful leadership culture, call Mark Sturgell at 217-362-0500 or email askthecoach@pdncoach.com.

Posted in culture, development, leadership, psychology, Scientific American | Leave a comment

The Intersection of Leadership and The Leadership Culture Part 1

I worked with a group of bright, young leaders representing high schools from three different communities this morning and was shocked at their perceptions of leadership. Most see leadership as something involving the need to tell people what they need to do and how to do it, and leaders as the people who are equipped to “get things done”.

As we stood in a circle I asked, based on their experience, what happens first when a group first recognizes the task at hand. The first response was, “Someone speaks up with an idea.” The group also conceded to my suggestion that often that same person makes an aggressive move to the middle, collapsing the circle while making a “power move” toward half the group and turning his or her back to the rest. Thus, those with the natural tendency to be loud, agressively take charge, act impulsively and isolate team members tend to be seen as leaders.

I am not sure where young people are learning such things. Good leadership is generally becoming understood to be less about “command-and-control” and “natural-born ability”, which once dominated the organizational landscape, and more about something else. That “something else” can be a moving target at times since there are those who still harbor the ideal of the Born Leader as opposed to the potential for the Developed Leader that exists in everyone.

Many people in modern society, but not everyone, believe in the need for leadership development (at least for others if not for themselves!). In other words, people from both schools of thought recognize the need for leadership ability. The differences between the Born Leader and Developed Leader camps are rooted in the beliefs about who is most capable of benefiting from leadership development and what development should entail.
The Born Leader folks tend to believe that some people have the precious few inherent traits that make leadership a destiny and that some new skills will enhance the impact of those traits. The Developed Leader folks tend to believe all people have inherent strengths AND the potential for leadership, therefore, anyone can reach the heights of leadership.


At Performance Development Network we operate on the premise that each of us has potential for leadership that can best be leveraged by developing our existing strengths, recognizing that many of those existing traits are also the product of both “nurture and nature”. Therefore, neither celebrating or mourning natural traits is worthy of much attention as is the need to nurture one’s attitudes, abilities and interests.


We also acknowledge that effective leadership has much to do with individual potential for “rising” to opportunity, context or circumstance. The most effective leaders do not just react to circumstance or wait for opportunity to define them as leaders. Instead, good leaders define themselves in a way that prepares them to respond accordingly to most any circumstance or opportunity as they appear.


We all have the potential for leadership and, therefore, need leadership development. It is our responsibility as leaders to cultivate a climate for leadership, where everyone has a role and the ongoing opportunity to develop and practice as a leader.

More tomorrow… If your organization or team needs assistance in developing leadership or a more powerful leadership culture, call Mark Sturgell at 217-362-0500 or email askthecoach@pdncoach.com.

Posted in development, DeVries, leadership, psychology, Scientific American | Leave a comment

Leadership and the Myth of Balance

It is pretty hard to be a leader and live at The Intersection of Purpose and Now when you are constantly pressed for time. This nearly 7-minute Harvard Business School interview with Stewart Friedman, Professor, University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School titled “Be a Better Leader, Live a Richer Life” is worth watching. His message (and ours):

Traditional thinking pits work and the rest of our lives against each other. But taking smart steps to integrate work, home, community, and self will make you a more productive leader and a more fulfilled person.

People wonder about the “leadership coaching” that is at the heart of much of our work with individuals as well as teams and organizations. They sometimes either don’t connect the struggles they face as leaders at work with the struggles they face at home, don’t accept the difficulty of self-correcting the challenges and blind spots they face, or they fail to recognize the power and efficiency of seeking outside help.

Most people want to be more effective leaders; they want more effective leadership. The best leaders recognize two things that they must do in order to be effective:

  1. tap into the leadership that exists throughout their organizations;
  2. and live a fulfilling life of their own to remain vital to their organizations.

Friedman sometimes uses a different language than I prefer, but in a significant way is saying the same thing as we do. “Balance”, though a popular term, is not necessarily what we need or even really want. Traditionally, “balance” has meant a person is making sacrifices while attempting to schedule her priorities and stick with them.

Typically, the “balanced” life is an over-saturated one pitting professional commitments against personal priorities and “playing for a tie game”, so to speak.

Life is not simply about trade-offs. Leaders must learn to seek an integrated life with focused priorities that determine how they use their time (wherever they are at the time), as opposed to a balanced life (splitting their time). Leadership growth is accentuated when the leader recognizes the pitfalls of trying to fit all of his priorities into his schedule, and begins to schedule his priorities instead.

  • Are you struggling with keeping your commitments to your work, your home, your community and your self?
  • What are your real priorities? To find out, record exactly how you use your time, in 15-minute increments, for 5 consecutive days. Don’t cheat or guess or make up how you used a block of time; if you forget to keep track just start over. Once you complete this activity, look at the percentages and you will have a rough idea of your current real priorities.
  • If you don’t like the results (those things to which you are devoting higher percentages of time are not what you want them to be), you have some work to do.
  • How might this be affecting your leadership? How do you know? (consider asking those around you: your subordinates, peers, customers, your boss or other stakeholders)

If you ever feel like you are “over-committed”, in reality you are probably under-committed to your true priorities that provide a center to your fulfillment, happiness, personal well-being, decision-making, time management and leaders.

You may need help identifying and clarifying your true priorities, as well as how you might integrate them – rather than always choosing between them. Busy, highly responsible leaders who are stretching themselves to pursue a vision may find it difficult to integrate work, home, community and self and stay healthy. If this is you, consider hiring a coach.

Posted in balance, harvard business school, leadership, managing yourself, priorities, time management | 1 Comment