Along with a large group of others, I was helping my neighbors, Mike and Maralee, move recently.  In the midst of all the of loading and unloading, Maralee caught me in a nearly empty room and made a special request related to a prized possession of her 2-year old daughter.

Maralee said, “I trust you to move the dollhouse.  I don’t trust those other guys.  But you, I trust.”

I’ve never moved a piece of furniture so carefully in my life.

I had been uniquely chosen and trusted.  And it played on something deep in within me.  Maralee didn’t hover or control.  She simple chose me, trusted me, and told me she was doing so.  Dan Pink calls it “autonomy.”  In his classic work on ‘motivational factors,’ Fredrick Herzberg talked about it as knowing our decisions make a difference.  Regardless of how it is articulated, having responsibility for something meaningful and the authority to make it happen is deeply motivating (and satisfying!) for followers.  It creates ownership that fuels a sense of purpose, follow through, care, and commitment.  To genuinely leverage ownership is to motivate and inspire those whom you lead.

With all my in leadership, I was personally moved simply by being chosen and trusted.  And now that dollhouse sits in a little girl’s new bedroom as pristine as it was in her old bedroom.  I did that.  And I am proud not only of having done it, but of having been chosen and trusted to do it.

The next time you’re trying to manage the detailed actions of someone you are leading to get a particular end result, pause.  Consider if Maralee’s example might produce a better result for both you and your follower.

Saying “I’m sorry” might not seem like a grand leadership exercise, but when you consider what it indicates when sincerely spoken, it is.

To say you are sorry is to say you are flawed.  It is to say that you are human.  Though we don’t necessarily love their mistakes, we like following actual humans.  We like following them because we can relate to them since most of us are well aware that we too are flawed.

I once had an encouraging conversation with a young, emerging leader named Nathan.  Nathan had earned a small reputation for not managing his emotions and reactions well but had been making some excellent strides in his ability to self-observe.  He shared with me that just hours before our meeting, he had far too quickly cut off a subordinate.  To make matters worse, it had been in front of a number of other people in a rather large meeting.  To take it even a step further, Nathan confessed that hadn’t listened very closely to what the subordinate had said before cutting him off.  And then, with a smirk of self-loathing that gave away his embarrassment, Nathan confessed that he didn’t even know the name of the young man he had ignored and dismissed so quickly.

As we discussed the next steps an exceptional leader might take, an idea emerged.  I said to him, “Let’s suppose you worked for me.  And let’s say that I did to you what you did to your subordinate earlier today.  How would you feel if I came to you afterwards and said, ‘I just wanted to stop by to apologize.  I cut you off in that meeting this morning and that wasn’t appropriate.  I’m embarrassed to admit that even when you were sharing, I wasn’t listening close enough.  If you’d be up for it, I’d like to hear your idea again.  I’m not saying I will agree with it, but not listening well and cutting you off is not good for our organization and not good leadership from me.  You are more valuable than my actions displayed.’  How would you feel if I said that?”  Nathan’s eyes perked up a bit.  ”I’d feel encouraged,” he said quickly with a bit of excitement.

We as leaders are often far too slow to say we are sorry.  Admitting fault will not, as some suppose, reduce the confidence others have in us.  In fact, as they feel more connected to us, it might actually increase their engagement with us as leaders. Saying “I’m sorry,” is outstanding for connecting leaders to their followers and followers to their leaders.  But saying “I’m sorry” is not first and foremost about what we as leaders gain from it.  First and foremost, it is about being humble.  And humility is a leadership quality worth following.

So, really, really…how long has it been since you’ve said, “I’m sorry”?

What are you more interested in becoming—-a great ‘success’ or a great ‘leader’?

Most of you probably answer ‘both.’  Generally that’s fine because 95%-98% of the time (I just made an educated guess at those numbers) being a great success and being a great leader are bosom buddies.

But what about when they aren’t?  What happens when being the best leader you can be butts up against how you’ve defined success?

What will you do when…
…you have the opportunity to encourage your best employee to apply for a promotion outside your division of the company?
…you have the opportunity to take on an exciting but demanding project at work during a particularly challenging time in your family?
…following through on a ill-conceived bonus commitment — when you could get out it through a technicality — to an employee will require hours of follow up meetings with other employees and possibly even an an embarrassing conversation with your superior?

Deciding what you’re most dedicated to before situations arise is key.  Few of us are able to objectively analyze our choices in the emotion and stress of the moment.  We’ll never become the best leaders we can be without first acknowledging what we will do when being an effective leader conflicts with being successful.

Though being all things to all people may be a good marketing ploy or sales tactic, it is not the path to becoming a great leader.  Please allow me to explain.

Some time ago in the Pittsburgh Airport I saw a full-fledged Rite-Aid.  (Maybe I’ve been sleep walking through airports but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a full-blown pharmacy in an airport before.)  As I walked by — I surprisingly had no pharmacy purchase needs on this particular day — I noticed two very large signs behind the check out counter.  The one on the left read “STOP SMOKING CENTER” while the one on the right read “TOBACCO.”  Oh the irony.  Oh the advertising.  I could just imagine some poor soul standing there debating whether to ask from something from the left side or the right.

Can you really fault Rite Aid?  I doubt the company is vicious in its desire to sell both products in ironic proximity to each other.  I think all they are really saying is “Whatever you want, we’ve got it.  Buy it  – whatever ‘it’ is — from us.” We have no idea what the Rite Aid marketing executives really think about smoking, but we know they are willing to help us out no matter which way we want to go.  We want what we want when we want it, and Rite Aid is willing to give it to us.  This is a best case scenario for us as consumers, right?

Such is not necessarily true in leadership.  What is convenient and desirous for us as followers — our leaders swinging about in the wind with no real point of view except to agree with us or make us feel better or connect with us, regardless of what direction that takes us — isn’t what we really want and need in the long run.  Over the long haul, what we want, what we need, are leaders of substance.  We want to follow people we can trust and we never have we been able to really trust people who are chameleons, changing their opinions and points of view to please all whom they bump into, even their followers.  We call such people “spineless” or “suck ups” or worse.

While all that may seem rather obvious, I wonder how many of us think about this in relationship to our own development as leaders?  How many of us are systematically and intentionally growing the spines that we need to apply in all of our leadership conundrums?  How many of us are strategically developing ourselves into leaders with substance of mind, heart, and spirit? How many of us are doing to hard internal work that make us into the very of well-developed people whom we ourselves would want to follow?

If our leadership becomes like advertising — which produces different messages to appease and win over every group or person that is encountered — we should probably pause.  If we find ourselves regularly shifting our positions in order to connect with those around us — our subordinates, our peers, and our superiors — we might just be playing the role of the chameleon.  In doing so, we might make the temporary ‘sale’ by connecting with someone, but the long-term trust we have with others will gradually erode, and so with it, our leadership effectiveness will be reduced as well.

One of the most important questions I’ve ever been asked came when someone was challenging my lack of empathy toward my boss.  I was frustrated, even disgusted by my boss’s behavior.  I was suffering because of his selfishness, lack of willingness to take responsibility for his promises, and deceit.  I felt more than justified in my perspective.  I was hurt and the problems were clear and undeniable.

Then a friend who was providing some much needed perspective asked me this question about my boss:

“If you had his education, upbringing, family relationships, and life experiences, what makes you think you would operate any differently than he does?”

It was a brilliant question.  It didn’t fight with me over the facts of the situation.  It didn’t attempt to justify the deception and betrayal I had experienced.  It didn’t try to logically talk me out of feeling that I’d been wronged.  It simply exposed my judgment toward my boss.  I don’t think I’ve ever been so stopped in my tracks before or since.  I was quiet.  I simply had no good response to that question…except, perhaps, some silent shame.  In the midst of my convictions about my boss’s behavior, I had failed to see how his overall background had shaped him and how I was just as susceptible as he was to being shaped by my own background, a background which my friend pointed out had been very blessed.

Before that question, I was blind to my judgment, arrogance, and lack of empathy.  ”I would never do what he’s doing,” was never actually uttered but my astute friend could smell it all over me.  I have never forgotten the moment I was asked that important question.  In my better moments today, when I feel similar indignation — even justified indignation — start to rise up within me, I ask myself that question.  Unfortunately, my better moments are less frequent than I desire.  Nonetheless, the lesson I learned that day is critical to me today as I seek become a person worth following.

Judgment,
arrogance,
a lack of empathy…
these qualities have never been the what brings the best out in followers while fostering a deep seeded commitment to a vision or goal.  Stated more simply, these qualities have never been who people want to follow.

They shared in detail a pivotal event that happened in late January.  Michigan was reeling.  They had just lost their sixth straight game, were tied for last in the Big Ten Conference, and seemed headed downhill fast without a way to stop the bleeding.  Darius Morris, a sophomore guard on the team from Los Angeles, California, asked his head coach, John Beilein, if he could privately address the team.  As Nantz and Kellogg told the story, Morris began his closed-door address by saying,

“I have to play better.
I have to play harder.”

The fact that Michigan is playing today speaks to the turn around their season had.  They won 9 of their next 13 games unexpectedly playing their way into the NCAA tournament.  They then won their first round tournament game by 30 points and are battling Duke today for a spot in the Sweet 16.  Clark Kellogg finished the story by sharing how badly Michigan needed Morris’s “leadership” on the floor today as Morris had just gone to the bench with an injury.

I have often criticized sports commentators who make no distinction between leadership and skill or performance.  So when I hear commentators get it right, it’s only fair for me to point it out.  And this is one of those times.  The story that the CBS commentators shared today was, in fact, a story of leadership.  They shared how a leader had the courage to speak up and, most impressively, started by noting his own contribution to the problems.  (And let’s pause to recognize just how hard it would be for most athletes to confess to teammates that he/she needed to play harder.)  This story describes a clear moment of humility, influence, and leadership for Darius Morris.  It is hard to imagine that Morris’s teammates would not be willing to look within themselves to see their own contributions to Michigan’s losing streak after seeing the leader of the conversation first look at himself.  And it would seem, with their late season success, that they must have.

As leaders, our ability to explore our contributions to the problems our organizations and teams are experiencing is not a sign of weakness.  It is just the opposite — an indication of strength.   Such behavior endears followers to their leaders.  It says, “I’m in this with you.”  As team members are inspired to look at their own contributions to the problems at hand, ownership is fostered in the the needed solutions.  In the end, real change and results are achieved as the everyone moves toward improvement with personal commitment. Though the team’s or organization’s end results are ultimately visible, make no mistake from where such improvements are sourced.  They are funded from an invisible space deep within the leader.  They are the product of personal humility, honesty, and security that live in the inner foundation of who the leader is as a person.  These qualities are the sign of an inwardly sound human being, a person worth following.  And that’s why they produce results.

____________________

Epilogue: After falling behind 58-43, Michigan battled back only to miss a shot at the buzzer to tie the game, losing to Duke 73-71.  Darius Morris, who took that final shot, had 16 points on 50% shooting with 6 assists and just 1 turnover.  It seems Darius may just be both an excellent basketball player and an emerging young leader.

“The next time you’re puzzled by the behavior of a colleague or prospect, consider the reason might have nothing to do with the situation and everything to do with who is making the decision and what they bring to it.”

There are specific leadership implications from Godin’s quote.  He speaks to the fact that we all have histories, educations (whether formal or informal), families of origin, and experiences that have marked us in big and small ways alike.  This collection of influences, called a “worldview,” most definitely detemines how we respond to what life throws at us.  Worldviews to humans are like water to a fish.  Each of us has a worldview that surrounds us at all times and we don’t really notice it until someone pulls us out of it…and sometimes not even then.  We seem to accept our worldview as ‘normal’ or ‘sane’ while people all around us baffle us with their choices and perspectives.  But the truth is they are just operating out of their own worldviews, swimming in their own water the same as we are in ours.  No matter how crazy they may seem, what they are thinking and doing is as natural to them as our thoughts and actions are to us.

So what?  Why note this?  First, Seth suggests that keeping this idea in mind is valuable in helping us have empathy toward others.  I agree wholeheartedly.  Secondly (and here is where I actually get to add something to what Seth wrote), empathy is an essential quality of exceptional leaders.  Being able to empathize with someone whom we are leading, even those whose decisions and thoughts we find difficult to understand, is both connective and motivational when it is done genuinely without judgment.  To those whom leadership is an aspiration, Seth has suggested a great practice for developing this valuable leadership quality.

I stared at the whiteboard as if I expected it to move.  My Atlanta office was nondescript, but the contents of my whiteboard were anything but that to me.  I sat there pondering the leadership model on wall.  There was more to it than the colorful markings, but what was it?  What was the truth beneath the surface of this picture?  And then, it struck me.  It felt as if a Divine calling had simultaneously struck in my head, my gut, my soul, and my heart.  It was so simple.  It was so clear.  How had I not seen it before?

I rushed down the hall to my mentor’s office.  Luckily, he was available.  Fitting that I would be in his presence at this moment as he, more than anyone else I had ever worked for, encouraged me to press forward in this work even when my efforts were clumsy and complicated.  I scribbled on his whiteboard as quickly as I could, writing illegible words that he knew only because of our countless, previous conversations.  With arrows and lines drawn so sloppily they could nearly be marketed as modern art, I shared the revelation.  It was just three words: who not what.

The Hidden Truth About Leadership

If you read nothing else, please read the next sentence.  3/4 of leadership effectiveness is about who the leader is as a person rather than what the leader does. That’s it.  That is the truth.  But, we’re blind to it much of the time. Whether we’re watching the news or sports, reading blogs or the latest airport business books, listening to talk radio or podcasts, the issue remains the same: When it comes to leadership, we’re almost always missing the real issues.  We see ineffective leadership and attempt to address it far away from the source of its problems.  We focus on new strategies, better execution, and the need to become more motivational without looking at whether or not the people behind those strategies, execution plans, and motivational messages are worth following.  We’re so focused on what we think leaders should be doing, that we don’t get around to addressing what makes up the vast majority of exceptional leadership: who the leader is as a person.

In its July 2008 publication, The FMI Quarterly, consulting firm FMI (www.fminet.com) revealed the results of research it conducted using more than 20,000 leadership assessments.  In search of a correlation between personality type, natural abilities, and leadership performance, FMI stumbled upon data that suggested that more than ¾ of a leader’s effectiveness is attributable to his/her performance in just two of eight leadership categories.  Within these two categories are ideals such as personal disciplines, integrity, authenticity, health and balance in all areas of life, self-awareness, a clearly understood sense of purpose, humility, emotional intelligence, and unconditional love (yes, “love”).  Such ideals are, at their core, the essence of who a person is.  They are the very foundation of what makes an exceptional human being.  And yet, despite the significance of its discovery, FMI only describes these as the ‘behaviors and skills’ of leaders, mere actions to be taken, and nothing deeper.

Sometimes the truth is right in front of us and somehow, we miss it.  That had been true of me for a long time.  I had known about FMI’s research long before they published it.  I had been a consultant there for a number of years, and was involved in the original research that served as the precursor to the data published in July 2008.  But, it wasn’t until long after I had departed FMI that the hidden truth beneath its research results revealed itself to me.

When the idea of Who* Not What first overcame me, I began testing it against what I had seen in all the leaders I had previously interviewed, coached, and observed.  The idea held in every instance.  Discussions with friends revealed the same, as did interactions with leader development colleagues.  I finally turned toward my own experiences of being led.  Low and behold, the examples supporting Who* Not What were clear and vibrant there as well.  I simply couldn’t find a spot where it did not hold true, at least not over the long haul of sustainable leadership.

Me as a Follower: My Who* Not What Story

Have you ever known about something long before you viscerally experienced it?  You read books about the Grand Canyon before you go, but no book can prepare you for what you see when you get there.  You watch college basketball on TV, but it’s no comparison to being present for the rivalry game of your alma mater.  You hear a friend’s story about the poverty in India, but it can’t prepare you for what you see when you are there.  So it was with me and Who* Not What.

I had just landed what I considered to be my dream job 10 to 15 years earlier in life than I ever thought possible.  I was full of excitement as I packed up my car to move to Seattle, Washington to work for a consulting firm base there.  Within six months of the move, however, my excitement had worn off.  Though I loved the content of my work, I found life at the firm very difficult.  I felt unsupported.  Numerous talented colleagues had left or were planning to leave.  The culture within the company felt toxic, and our practice group within the firm experienced more of that toxicity than any of the other practices.  In three short (or perhaps ‘long’ would be a better descriptor here) years, we’d had no less than five different people lead our practice group.

Two of those five leaders transported me from head knowledge about Who* Not What to a visceral heart experience I will never forget.  They led me in virtually identical circumstances — same clients, same work, same deliver mechanisms, same corporate cultures.  The only thing truly different between my two experiences with them was which one of them was leading me.  They provided me, with two crystal clear examples, the truth of Who* Not What, both good and bad.  Their names were Roger Lathrop and Matt Sanders.

One of these men turned out to be the best leader I have ever worked for, and the other, one of the most challenging.  Was it Roger or Matt who lost numerous subordinates while allowing an atmosphere of unrest to reign?  Was it Roger of Matt for whom I would have done nearly anything to be under his leadership?  Can you tell which is which from information listed above?  If you’re like most people I’ve shared this story with, you’re on fence.  Reading samplings of their accomplishments, positions, and skills provides little clarity as to which was the exceptional leader and which was the ineffective leader.  But information of a different sort brings significantly greater clarity.

Now, guess who the exceptional and not-so-exceptional leader was.  Pretty easy using this second table, isn’t it?  That is Who* Not What in action.  And at a gut level, we all get it.  After reading the second table, we intuitively understand WHO we’d run through the proverbial wall for and WHO we wouldn’t.  We don’t have to explore the nuances of leadership to see who the better leader was.  It is, in a word, obvious.  The first table lists what these leaders did while the second reveals who they were as people.  Who, not what, determined how effective each leader was.

I still remember the first one-on-one conversation I ever had with Matt.  We’d just completed a practice group meeting where he was introduced as our new leader.  We had the usual client review conversations and afterwards, he asked to meet with me about a key client.  About 37 seconds into the conversation, he said: “We can talk about the client stuff later.  Tell me, how frustrated are you?”  By the end of that conversation, I had discovered that Matt was a man worthy of trust.  I decided to share with him something I hadn’t shared openly with others: I was in the process of updating my resumé, and planned to be actively searching for a job within a couple of weeks.  He then asked me to hold off for a couple of months to give him a chance to make some changes.  I agreed.

A year later, enjoying my work work far more than I had for the first year, I got a call one night from Matt.  He had a job offer that he was seriously considering and he was calling me to talk about it.  His description of the opportunity sounded like it was tailor made for him.  A familiar industry, a major leadership role, and significantly improved compensation.  It was obvious he should take it.  So why was he calling me?  He wanted to make sure I’d be OK if he took the job.  That’s right.  Knowing how much support he was giving me and others behind the scenes, he wanted to make sure we would be OK if he left.  That’s the kind of person Matt was…and is.

The Core of Who* Not What: Inwardly Sound and Others-Focused

So what makes up the ‘Who’ in Who* Not What?  Two key concepts: Inwardly Sound and Others-Focused.

Inwardly Sound

What do you think of when think of a ‘sound’ human being?  If you’re like me, you think of  a person who is comfortable in his/her own skin, able to take criticism well, and grounded.  Additionally, this is person of high moral character and a clear personal mission.  This person is not easily rattled because the inner work of understanding and accepting one’s self, faults and all, has been done.  For the inwardly sound person, life is not a series of tests by which one must prove himself/herself worthy of breath.  That question has already been answered in the affirmative.  The inwardly sound person is secure, trustworthy, focused, disciplined, and self-aware.

Others-Focused

Who is on the mind of leader each day?  Is it success of self or the success of others?  Is it the wants of self or the needs of others?  The leader who is truly others-focused is so as a way of life.  He/she wakes up in the morning considering others.  The fuel for being others-focused is humility and love for others.  Self is a secondary thought as much as possible.  And when combined with being inwardly sound, being others-focused creates an abiding connection between leaders and followers.

Take great care to remember that Who* Not What is steeped in being.  While actions are the natural results of who a person is, focusing solely on actions as we evaluate ourselves and others as leaders does not tell the whole story.  It would be a mistake to conclude that exceptional leadership is about acting as if one was inwardly sound and other-focused.  That type of effort has a short shelf life.  Eventually, all of our ‘acts’ are found out.  And just like your gut told you exactly who the more effective leader was between Roger and Matt after reading about who they were, so too will you be able to spot a leader’s efforts to act a certain way rather simplybe the person he/she is.  To be an exceptional leader over the long haul, one must address thoughts and beliefs to become inwardly sound and others-focused.

Misconceptions About Who* Not What

It is possible to hear the Who* Not What message, see the ideals contained within, and still come to some very erroneous conclusions.  Let’s take a look at two typical misconceptions about Who* Now What.

Misconception #1

“Who* Not What is simply about being a nice person.  Be a nice a person and you’ll be a exceptional leader.” FALSE.

Having high moral character is a key component of being inwardly sound and, thereby, an exceptional leader.  But having high moral character is far more complex and developed than merely being ‘nice.’  For example, being transparent and courageous are critical to high moral character.  Transparency and courage are about being real, even when it isn’t convenient to do so.  Often times, such realness requires leaders to ‘stir the pot’ engaging and even instigating difficult conversations and encounters.  People who do such things aren’t usually referred to as ‘nice.’  They might be referred to as ‘annoying’ or ‘upsetting’, but ‘nice’ would not usually be a word used to describe that person.  Courage and transparency are hallmarks of an inwardly sound leader.

For a second example of how ‘nice’ is grossly insufficient for describing the Who* Not What concept, consider this: Being a secure human being is far more about understanding who you are, why you’re here, what your gifts and limitations are, and why you matter, than it is about being ‘nice.’  Because inwardly sound leaders understand the answers to some of life’s big questions about self-worth and purpose, their leadership is not an activity aimed at consciously or unconsciously satisfying their insecurities.  It is entirely possible to be ‘nice’ and insecure simultaneously.  Perhaps you’ve met such people.  In search of security and acceptance, they are ‘nice’ to everyone.  But their leadership lacks the steadiness and confidence of a truly sound human being.  There are plenty of ‘nice’ leaders whose personal insecurities derail their leadership effectiveness on a regular basis.

Misconception #2

“So what you’re saying is, all I have to do is be inwardly sound and others-focused and I will be an exceptional leader.  Nothing else matters.” FALSE.

Who* Not What speaks to the core of exceptional leadership.  Who a person is as a human being is the foundation of all other leadership activities such as execution, strategy creation, motivation, talent development, and vision.  Who the leader is as a person determines if the lion’s share of the leader’s efforts — the ‘What’ in Who* Not What — will be as success as possible.  Whether or not a leader is inwardly sound or others-focused will have an enormous impact on the leader’s long term success, but those two characteristics do not comprise 100% of what makes up a truly exceptional leader.

Case Study: Justin, Allen, and Nate

One Monday a few years ago, a close friend of mine named Justin texted me the following note:

“I am done with this. I just had our VP come in and ask me how my weekend was. I said “my 8 hours of cost accounting on Saturday was surprisingly painless”, to which he responded “I need you doing [expletive] sales not [expletive] cost accounting”. What is sad is that in the office/business I am known for having the best relationship with him. I am the ombudsman for anything that needs to be transmitted to or from our VP.”

To understand Justin’s situation, let me share a little bit about him.  He is incredibly book smart, but also retains a common sense that is so solid that it is often annoying.  He has risen in the ranks of his organization to be not only the sales leader on multiple continents, but also one who is pursued regularly by those in the manufacturing and accounting areas of his company.  This is, in large part, due to his uncanny ability to connect with people beyond most anyone I have ever encountered.  Some time ago, I was in Central America with Justin.  We were part of a small group of people visiting a rural community for a week interacting, with the children there through skits and sports.  At one point, our entire group realized the Justin was no where to be found.  No one panicked, but there was at least a bit of concern.  After a few minutes, I saw out of the corner of my eye what looked like a small horse galloping by amongst the rays of sunlight and shadows of the forest.  On that horse sat Justin.  A few minutes later, he came walking back to our group.  We inquired what had happened and Justin explained, far too matter of factly for the situation, that a local farmer had lost his horse and he [Justin] was simply helping him find it  (thus, the galloping animal we had observed moments ago).  And to punctuate the point of this story — Justin’s ability to connect with people — Justin had little to no formal training in the native language of the local farmer.  Justin’s combination of strategic and relational gifts are rare, and most business people who meet him quickly find themselves thinking about how Justin might somehow be a part of their team.

Now, recall the first sentence of Justin’s text: “I am done with this.” How does someone with such talent end up so frustrated?  Wouldn’t those around him ensure that he had all the space and support he needed to flourish?  Wouldn’t they remember what they saw when they hired him and what they had experienced since his arrival?  Apparently the answer is no.  And to understand that answer, let’s travel back in time a couple of weeks prior to Justin’s text to me.

About two weeks previous to his text, Justin found himself, as he regularly was, invited to a meeting above his pay grade and formal title.  He sat with the President, Allen, and Vice Presidents of his company discussing the organization’s lack of ability to keep its manufacturing equipment running reliably.  Sales and clients were being lost.  In the midst of the discussion, Justin confronted Allen, who had promised months previously to free up some much needed physical space in the manufacturing area.  It was a simple commitment that required nothing more than a request to the maintenance department. Allen attempted to presidentially side step Justin’s questioning, but Justin would not be denied.  He continued to press Allen for renewed dates and commitments to free up the needed space.  Allen finally (but, ever so briefly) confessed that he was the bottleneck and summarily ended the meeting without any resolution.  Allen was simply unable to be held accountable and deal with the most basic of confrontations.  Despite his title of President, Allen was underdeveloped as a human being.

Now, back to Justin’s boss, Nate, the Vice President mentioned in Justin’s frustrated text message.  For Justin’s entire existence, Nate has been less than impressive.  Nate’s business trips around the globe were a major part of Nate’s personal sense of self-worth.  He plays the sad role of an aged man attempting to be an international playboy.  He is careless with company funds used for personal expenses.  Nate wouldn’t exactly qualify as a strategic business mind or intellectual giant.  His vice-presidential perspective on the business is no more complex than “sell, sell, sell.”  Beyond introductions to clients and instructing Justin on how to cheat on his expense report, Nate has nothing to offer Justin in terms of coaching, growth, and development.

It would be easy to point the finger at Nate in this story as the major problem, the reason for Justin’s dissatisfaction.  But, he isn’t first in line, Allen is.  Allen’s inability to handle confrontation is, first and foremost, the issue.  This flaw, not in business strategy but in human development, is a major impediment to keeping talented individuals such as Justin in the organization.  This under-developed aspect of Allen has existed for years.  It is what has allowed Nate to operate as he has, out of control and unchecked.  Justin’s text, the true beginning of the end for him in this company, is fueled primarily by a lack of personal development by Allen.  This is a perfect example of how who we are as people is responsible for 3/4 of our success and failure as leaders.  Who we are really, really matters when it comes to leadership.  The impacts are not relegated to theory or philosophy.  They are real.  Just re-read the first line of Justin’s text to see it in action.

Still Not Convinced? Let’s Look at Your Story

Let’s do a survey with a sample size of one…that one would be you.  Take two minutes to make a list (no more than 5) of the most positively influential leaders in your life.  Ready….go.

If you’re like most people, you didn’t actually make the list.  But if you had (and there’s still time do it before you read on…), you would mostly likely be resemble many others who have done this exercise.  You would have listed the names of parents, step-parents, high school teachers, Jr. high sports coaches, aunts, uncles, clergy, older siblings, college advisors, and bosses encountered early in your career.  And why did you write those names down?  Did you write those names down because of their stalwart strategic capabilities?  Or their excellence in producing quarterly profits?  Or their skill in scheduling and project planning?  Or their eloquence at a podium in front of hundreds of people?  Highly unlikely.  You wrote down most of the names you did because the leaders who made it onto your list took the time to care about you, your life, and where you were headed. You wrote their names down because they selflessly invested in you.  They were authentic and honest with you.  They cared more about what they were giving to the relationship than what they could extract from it.  In short, you wrote down these names because of who these people were as human beings to you.  This is the truth of Who* Not What in action in your life.

Being All That You Can Be

If we are to become the best leaders we can be, we must turn our attention away from mere strategy, execution, and, worse yet, the professional management of our images as leaders.  Rather, we must turn toward the deep issues of who we are, first addressing if we are inwardly sound, then addressing if we are truly others-focused.  If we become inwardly sound and others-focused, we will have mastered the foundations of great leadership.  We will be trusted by followers and, most importantly, we will be worthy of that trust.  It is through trust and committed followers that leaders accomplish great results, sometimes doing so with strategies and plans that are less than perfect.

It is a bit alarming to consider that we so easily allow others and popular media tell us that exceptional leadership is defined as strategy, execution, and image management.  We allow ourselves to be influenced into believing that the essence of leadership, the core of what creates deep and abiding followers that accomplish great things, is coming up with a great idea, pulling it off, and having people think well of the leader as it all happens.  The data doesn’t support that definition of exceptional leadership.  My experience with Roger and Matt doesn’t either.  Neither does your personal list of positive leaders.  Over the long haul, we don’t give everything we have as followers to support selfish egotists who are strategically brilliant. (Maybe, just maybe, we’d do that for a season, but not for a lifetime.).  We give everything we have as followers to leaders who are inwardly sound and others-focused.  Those are the leaders who get the very best from us.  Those are the leaders truly worth following, not because I said so, but because everything about us says so when we experience it.  If we want to be the best leaders we can be, we’d all do well to focus our leader development efforts on what drives leadership effectiveness more than anything else– becoming the most inwardly sound, others-focused leaders we can be…the best WHO we can be.  Exceptional leadership comes from who we are, not what we do.  Who* Not What.