Power Point Presentation of 12 Slides

Dedicated to

My wife Pascale and my two daughters, Hannah and Ella. They inspire me every day.

The participants of the Senior Executive Program 85 of the London Business School and the LBS Faculty.

All those who try to make the VUCA world better through their character and leadership.

David Ducheyne February 2017

Thanks to Ellen Rogers for her work on the manuscript.

“ Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Manifesto

The Leadership Challenge

What would you like to write down as your last words just before you die? You’d probably want to be able to say that you had a good life. We all want to look back and be able to say that we did well. But what’s that, a good life? And to whom was it good?

Every human being has to meander around the obstacles that life presents. Some of us are able to solve the problems that are thrown at us; others are not. Some of us take on more responsibility than is required; others do not. Some fully exploit their talents; others do not. There is no judgment whatsoever in that. We do what we do. We are who we are.

Some of us grow up to become leaders. Leaders face the same challenges as everybody else. They are leaders, not only at work but in any kind of situation. And like any other person they sometimes feel crushed by the life events that pass by.

A newly appointed CEO wrote that she wants to find a balance between her own values and what is expected from her. I hope for her that both are not too far apart. The board of the company chose her to do the job because of who she is, not because of who she is not.

And here is the main challenge for those who are in a leadership role. How can you be a leader and still remain yourself? Something in leadership or in its context seems to urge people to change and become someone else. But leaders are not actors. If I can give only one advice: do not change who you are. You can be (come more of) yourself and grow as a person. But the moment you try and change who you are, you lose the only thing that is sustainable and dear to you: your character.

This book is about sustainable leadership based on character. The idea is simple:

If you want (your) leadership to be sustainable, you need to base it on (your) character.

We urgently need to develop sustainable leadership. There are two main reasons for that:

1. Leadership is in a crisis, because the world has changed, and leadership seems to have fallen behind. Leadership has never been so difficult as now.

2. Leadership is crucial for the future of any organisation, nation, community, society and team.

This seems to be contradictory, but it isn’t. In the turmoil of the future, leadership becomes more important than ever. But given that turmoil, leadership becomes more difficult. I believe strongly that if and when leadership fails, the organisation and the community fails. And if we want to survive, we need to invest urgently in sustainable leadership.

Leadership Crisis

86 % of people surveyed by the World Economic Forum1 state there is a leadership crisis. The report states that it is increasingly difficult to emerge as a strong leader. Leaders have to follow the (existing) rules of the game. And these rules are there to perpetuate the system, rather than to promote the interests of the people who are part of the system. Leaders who want to change the rules of the game are sabotaged, boycotted and eventually removed.

And yet, leadership is seen as key to the solution of the multitude of challenges we face. It is therefore essential to solve the leadership crisis and to invest in our future.

Leadership Is Crucial

Two things shape the world: leadership and education. If either of them is absent there is human suffering, lack of progress, disaster. Education creates opportunities. It avoids ignorance and radicalization. Education emancipates and enables entrepreneurship. It reduces inequality. Because of education people are able to take their place in society. It creates inclusivity. And it drives the development of leadership. But education depends on leadership. It takes leadership to enable good education. Teachers have to act like leaders. And true leadership in itself is educational as it focuses on progress, movement and change.

We need to invest in both leadership and education to create sustainable systems that serve people and society. This is necessary on all levels: society, countries, cities, companies, families, and individual citizens. This necessity has been growing stronger over the years for several reasons:

There are more of us on the face of the earth. Our planet is overcrowded. Cities explode and become megacities2 with many consequences in terms of urban organisation, mobility, security, energy consumption and health. Societies have become more complex and more interdependent. Political instability in many regions is more than problematic and terrorism seems to be unstoppable3. What happens on the other side of the world has a direct impact on us. Globalisation4 and hyper competition5 change the way we do business. Changes come faster and are more disruptive than ever. Digitalization disrupts the traditional ways of doing things6. Global warming forces us to look for more sustainable ways of living such as renewable energy, sustainable food production, and clean technologies. Our planet is struck by disasters like heat waves, fires, hurricanes, disrupted ecosystems, and draughts. These climate changes are caused by global warming. Changing weather

conditions also cause migration, affect our health and lead to political instability. Many of the jobs we know today, will not exist in the future7. Finally, the increase of our life expectancy8 drives changes in employment, retirement9, and health care.

In this vortex of change we can be either pessimistic or optimistic. However, we should not be naïve. Everything we know today will have become obsolete in a few years’ time. There is one thing we know for sure: if we’d only do what we are good at (today), we will be irrelevant (tomorrow). So learning (creativity, innovation) is the single most important human talent for the future. Leadership comes second because it enables learning and development.

If we’d only do what we are good at (today), we would be dead (tomorrow).

Parenthood – Parents Are Like Leaders

If you’re a parent, you might worry about the future of your children. Go back to the list with global challenges and you have to be worried. I remember that my mother told me in 1976 that I would have a difficult future, as there was a lot of (youth) unemployment, a crisis in the Middle East, Jimmy Carter got elected and there was an energy crisis10. I was 7. So I still had some time ahead of me before leaping into the labour market. But that’s what parents do: they worry.

And they worry because they want the best for their children. In normal situations there should be no ounce of self-interest in parenting as parents do everything in the best interest of their children.

They want to give them the love they need to develop into independent and strong men and women. They want to make sure that all their material needs are fulfilled.

And they want to launch them into life by giving them as many learning opportunities as possible.

Figure 1. We Want to Provide Our Children with Love, Material Support and Learning Opportunities.

Parents are pretty much like leaders. They look at the future and act in the best interest of their children. And just like leaders, they are not perfect. Parents make the same mistakes as their parents have made. They want to do better than their parents, they usually don’t. They are confronted with the same problems and they react in the same way11.

The same is valid for leaders. They too want the best for their organisation and they look towards the future. (Emerging) leaders make the same mistakes as the leaders before them. There are very few people who are born as leaders12. Leaders use innate qualities but leadership develops over time. Leaders need to learn from the situations they are confronted with in order to develop their leadership skills step by step. And this takes time. And mistakes.

Leadership Development versus Repeating Mistakes

There are many leadership development programs around. These programs aim at improving leadership effectiveness through training. My take is that leadership does not get taught in a class or in programs. Leaders typically get a list of competencies which they need to acquire to become better. Most leaders follow a course at some point in their career.

Most parents don’t.

There are parental courses that help parents to conquer the diaper challenge, the tantrums, the puberty, the addictions and distractions, and the social pressures all children face. There are many books on how to become a good parent. Parents can seek advice or help from certified coaches. But most of them don’t. And all of those courses and books do not make people better parents. They may at best create awareness and give them some techniques they might use.

In my experience leaders are in search of such techniques to avoid the inevitable mistakes leaders must make on their path. But that’s the point. They need to make these mistakes to grow as leaders.

Why is it that leaders and parents repeat the mistakes their predecessors have made? Surely there must be enough information around to avoid both parenthood and leadership traps? There must be enough (scientific) evidence to be able to choose the best parental or leadership approach in any given situation? Why do we seem to repeat history? What causes this inability of generations to accumulate experience, transfer it and accelerate learning?

The answer is quite simple. We are human and we cannot program algorithms into our brains that change our human nature. We need to go through the same developmental phases as our ancestors and this leads to a lifetime of learning. These mistakes make us grow. Children have to fall in order to know how to walk. Students have to make mistakes in maths in order to understand fully. Parents need to conquer their clumsiness to handle a child. Leaders must go through difficult issues to grow. It’s by trying that we understand. It’s by persevering that we succeed.

We should forget the idea that we are rational beings. Scientific management did not solve the irrational behaviour of leaders and followers. Irrational means unpredictable. We are confronted with behaviours that are inappropriate, misplaced, irrelevant but so very human. Organisations and leaders often try and take distance from the essence of our being and replace it by a set of learned competencies and behaviours that are very often contradictory.

The list of desired parental competencies is long. So is the list of desired leadership competencies. Most parents do not know what parenthood is before their first child is born. They can read about it but it’s reality that educates more than training or literature. They just step into parenthood and in most cases they develop new skills very quickly. Most emerging leaders do not know what leadership is about before they set foot in the leadership arena.

And they do make mistakes. And that’s a good thing. Mistakes leave traces on the soul. People remember the emotions linked to those mistakes: the embarrassment, the shame, the guilt, and the stress. They remember less the glory and pride. Any career path is filled with painful and apparently avoidable mistakes.

Self-Confidence

What Does it Take to Be a Good Parent?

Here’s a list of parenting skills that aim at protecting the child13. True, this list is oriented towards the prevention or remediation of juvenile delinquency. Training of parents and families at risk might be indeed justified in light of the severe consequences of delinquency for society and the further development opportunities of the child. Imagine for a moment that all parents would enrol in that kind of course. It just does not make sense.

Table 1. List of Protective Parenting Skills

One of the oldest books on parenting is the best-selling book14 by Dr Spock. His main advice for happy parenthood is to trust oneself as basis for happy parenting.

Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do. Dr. SPOCK

You could expand this quote: “Trust yourself. You are able to do more than you think”. To trust oneself is probably the best advice there is. The rest follows. So the focus of a parenting course should not be so much on the development of competencies, but more on the self-confidence of parents. The same advice is valid for leaders. Trusting oneself means also that one can be oneself. And this is at the core of both leadership and parenthood.

Skills or Personality?

It’s difficult to trust oneself if you do not have the experience. Leaders that are overconfident will not be careful, will not listen, and will create problems. Experience boosts self-confidence. The contradiction is that you

need to have experience to get experience. You have to start somewhere. And to get experience, an emerging leader has to overcome many challenges like:

Leaving the expert role to become a leader; Focusing on collective performance (of others) rather than on the (own) individual performance; Being at the service of others rather than focusing on oneself; Expanding influence over others; Leading from a distance; Leading across generations; Taking responsibility for the actions of others; Thinking with and sometimes for others; Managing the context outside the team and Accepting not being able to know and control everything.

To tackle these challenges, many leaders abandon themselves to become someone they’re not. They develop a normative approach to good leadership and their behaviour is driven by external expectations. Very few emerging leaders start their reflection from their own personality and identity. They seek to acquire the necessary leadership competencies as fast as possible15. But learning cannot be compressed easily. Learning takes time.

This competency-based approach to leadership development has proven its value but its impact remains limited. Look at this list16 of competencies a leader should acquire.

Table 2. List of Leadership Competencies

The above list is certainly valuable. These are skills any leader could use. I just do not believe one person is capable of developing all of these skills. And I just do not believe that you can compress leadership development into a program. I have no doubt that these elements – and more - need to get done in any team or organisation, but not necessarily by one person. Leadership is a process that allows the required competencies and activities to be distributed within the team, according to the talent and personality of its members.

Leadership development is too much oriented to ticking off the boxes. Learning is reduced to transplanting competencies as fast as possible. It’s too much about becoming a superhero.

There are two fundamental problems with this approach: These programs do not take the qualities of the leader and his or her qualities as point of departure. This includes developmental skills (cf. footnote 15). The basis of those programs is a mould, a model, or an ideal. The only thing a leader needs to do, is to conform.

These programs usually do not take the work context of the leader into consideration. Every context requires a certain kind of leadership. The context makes the leader.

Strangely enough the further people go in their career, the more they need to make use of their personality, rather than of their competencies. But before they become an executive leader they have to go through a lot of moulding, and they run the risk of changing who they are. To climb the ladder they need to adapt to the system they are part of17. What they need later in their career to succeed has been put under a lot of pressure in the earlier stages of a career. Only the strongest can continue for years, climbing the ladder, wandering through corporate life whilst preserving their own sense of identity. Organisations had better watch out for people with leadership potential by creating space to resist assimilation.

Figure 2. Competencies Versus Personality18.

Finding the Right Context

If most people cannot acquire all the competencies a strong leader would need, does this mean there aren’t many strong leaders? Does this mean it’s impossible to be a good and effective leader? Not at all. In a way, leadership is more than a set of competencies. It’s a way of being.

Successful leaders base their leadership on their personal style and do not wish to become someone they’re not. So who you are has an enormous impact on how you lead. It also has a high impact on the culture in a team or – if you are the CEO – your organisation19.

Let me give you an example. In today’s world being an extrovert seems to be the best option for a leader. In fact, it seems to be the best option for any role in corporate life. Extroverted people have more confidence, dominance, are more enthusiastic. These are excellent characteristics for a leader. But there are also dark sides to being an extrovert20. Extroverted leaders have the tendency not to listen and take more risks.

Most (top) leaders however seem to be extroverted21. It seems to be a condition for success. But although many organisations still adhere to this belief, there is more and more appreciation for the contribution of people that are introverted. Intuitively you would say that it’s very difficult if not impossible for an introvert to become a good leader. But there are many examples of allegedly introverted leaders: Bill Gates (Microsoft), Richard Branson (Virgin), Tim Cook (Apple), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Marissa Mayer (Yahoo), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway) and even Barack Obama. The message is that both introverted and extroverted leaders may thrive, if the context lets them.

Let’s take the example of a (soccer) coach. Successful coaches are often seduced to leave their team after a successful season to join another, less successful team. They are transferred to another club that is willing to pay a large sum of money. Hopes are high. And what often happens? The coach fails at turning the new club around. And the reason for this is simple. It’s the context that defines the success of the leader. And an important aspect of that context is the players and the culture of the sports team. It is often strange to see how a club has several coaches in one season. This

approach does not improve results22. The main reason to fire the incumbent coach and get another one is to satisfy the fans and sponsors.

Organisations act in just the same way. CEOs get fired when the company underperforms according to the expectations of the investors and shareholders. It’s rare – but it happens – that a CEO gets ousted because employees demand it. To solve the problem a new CEO is appointed.

CEOs that come from the inside have higher chances to be successful than CEOs who come from the outside23. It’s not that easy to transfer leaders. Leaders who change organisations tend to copy what they’ve done in previous assignments. They come with a recipe, and forget that they need to cook with the available ingredients24. They repeat themselves. So their earlier successes become the basis for later failure because they fail to integrate.

And why is that? It’s because a leader can only be successful by interacting with a context. And that context is usually stronger than the leader. I always say to new leaders that they cannot change the organisation based on their personal energy alone. They don’t have to adapt, but they do need to integrate.

So the better deal is to remain who you are and find a context where your personality can be a part of the solution. Changing who you are is not sustainable. Being yourself is. But to be ourselves we need to remain agile and learn. This book hopes to contribute to that learning.

About This Book

There are so many books about leadership that if you applied all insights you would probably come to a standstill. Moreover, some of those insights are contradictory and very specific to the company (the context) of the writer.

This book is yet another attempt to help you accelerate your leadership development. It’s an attempt because it only triggers learning for leaders. The reader does the learning. And there is my limited responsibility. This book offers experiences and insights that I have gathered over the years. It’s based on various exchanges with leaders coming from various countries. It’s not a scientific book although I have backed my insights as much as possible with what science tells us25.

This book will not tell you what to do exactly. If you apply everything that is written in this book, you will surely fail as a leader. This is not a cook book full of recipes. This is a book full of ingredients. Take what you can use and integrate it in your own leadership style.

This book does not pretend to have all the answers. You can look at this book as a kind of compagnon de route, a travel mate, who asks you the questions that help you to think. You are invited to keep on making mistakes, as they will shape your leadership far better than any book on this subject, including this one.

Chapter 1 is about the leadership context. I present a model that I call the sustainable leadership value chain that can help you think about where leadership fits in. In the same chapter I provide a definition of leadership. In chapter 2 I talk about your personal experiences with leaders and I ask the question what makes someone a good leader. The theme of chapter 3 is character, the basis of leadership. The quality of leadership is indeed closely linked to the strength of character. As character is the only sustainable basis for leadership it’s important to discuss how character can erode. That’s the topic of chapter 4. Before I discuss the rules of sustainable leadership in chapter 6, I go through a list of misconceptions or myths about leadership in chapter 5. Chapter 7 is about the various themes of sustainable leadership. The 5 chapters after that elaborate on what a leader can do to maintain sustainability: building trust (chapter 8), making sense (chapter 9), helping others grow (chapter 10), boosting engagement (chapter 11) and taking care of oneself (chapter 12). As we live in digital times I take a sidestep to digital leadership in chapter 13. In Chapter 14 I put everything together into a model of sustainable

leadership.

Takeaways

The world is facing many challenges. Leadership and education are key to cope with them. But unfortunately we find ourselves in a leadership crisis. Leaders make mistakes. That is inevitable. Mistakes leave traces on the soul, given the emotions they create. But these mistakes are necessary to develop leadership. Leadership development programs focus too much on competencies. However, it’s impossible to acquire all of those and become a super(wo)man. Leadership is about who you are. Self-confidence is more important than competence. Character is the basis of sustainable leadership. Throughout the career there are many obstacles that may cause a leader to abandon his true self. Changing yourself – your character – is however not very sustainable. Leadership success largely depends on the context. Every leader needs to find a context where he can be successful.

Checks

Do you worry about your future? The future of your children? Which mistakes have you made as a leader? As a parent? What have you learned from these mistakes? What have you done to avoid these mistakes? What are the compromises you made to climb the career ladder? Looking at the list of leadership competencies, which of those would you like to acquire. Which of those have already been acquired? Which of those will never be acquired?

Story 01 Interview With an Old-School Manager

On a rainy Monday morning I met an Old-School Manager (OSM). There was a bit of sadness in the air. The windows were pearled with drops of rain and in the pub there was this cosy but nostalgic smell of damp clothing mingled with coffee. The Old-School Manager was sitting in a corner. His attire was impeccable: fashionable suit, strong coloured tie and a perfect haircut. I greeted him26 and sat down in the chair in front of him. He radiated success, self-confidence …

Me: What is to you the essence of leadership? OSM: The first rule of leadership is not to show that you are weak. Weakness undermines you as a leader and makes you unreliable.

Me : Why is that? OSM: If you show signs of weakness, you lose respect. People will stop following you. As a manager people need to respect you. And where there is weakness, there is no respect.

Me: But is that even possible? Every human being has moments of weakness, frailty. Everyone has a personal problem from time to time. Everyone faces situations that seem to be insurmountable. OSM: That may be so, but you cannot show that you are in doubt, or that you are stumbling. Hide it at all cost, because respect is the only capital a manager has.

Me: Do you think people cannot respect you if they see that you are like them. Facing the same issues, having areas of improvement …? Could that not be a sign that you are close to them, and as a person not that different? OSM: But that’s the point. You cannot be one of them. You need to keep distance. They cannot see that you are …

Me: Mortal? OSM: Well, if you put it like that, yes.

Me: But you get ill from time to time. And after all, you are mortal, aren’t you? OSM: Physical illness is OK. That can happen. But let’s make it a severe illness. One that overcomes you and is not related to your personal doing. And still, you will show up at work. Or you will be on the phone. It must be a very tough virus that puts you down. By resisting illness, you will be a hero. And you show the example. You’d better expect others to resist illness as much as you do. I like to compare myself with the robots in The Terminator. They got shot to pieces, but still they went on and pursued their target. Relentless, ruthless, remorseless.

Me: And what about mental illness? OSM: I do not understand that. A good manager does not have that. There’s a lot of talk about burnout these days. In the past, you could not talk about that. And I believe it did not exist. And that was a good thing. Today it seems to be fashionable that you have a burnout. Everyone talks about it. Been there, done that. But to me, burnout does not exist. And all those people testifying about it in the newspapers, it puzzles me, because they commit seppuku.

Me: Seppuku? OSM: Don’t you know about seppuku? It’s ritual suicide for the samurai in Japan. How can you expect to be employed again or be respected after you have revealed you are an utter failure in front of everyone? If someone googles you, they will know immediately that you’ve failed big time.

Me: You mentioned that burnout does not exist. What do you mean, it does not exist? OSM: Burnout is an escape route for managers who are in trouble. It’s capitulation. They run away. Instead they should stay on board, with their heads in the wind and lead the way in whatever storm. I’d rather say that I’ve failed than to run away in cowardice and say that I’m burning up. That would be more honourable. Face up the problems, but don’t look for excuses. Hey guys, it wasn’t me, it was my body or mind that collapsed. Poppycock.

Me: So burnout is a choice? OSM: Of course it is. It’s only between the ears. And it’s weak. Very weak.

Me: Have you had it? OSM: How dare you even ask that question. Of course not. That would be the day. I am too strong to have it. You see, when you are like me, you cannot have it. Maybe it’s a genetic or a moral thing. But weakness in general is not part of my code.

Me: Have you seen it in your team? OSM: Sure. I have had weak people in my team, yes. And they told me that they had problems. But if I look at it, these were not related to work. The thing is, people want to have everything. They do not make choices. And it’s unacceptable that their private problems have an impact on the job. Job first. The rest will follow.

Me: But what did you do? OSM: Nothing. It went away. They went away. And that was OK. Good riddance. Teams are like ecosystems. They get rid of their problems. Herds do that too. If a weak animal threatens the entire group, the weak animal gets expelled. It becomes a solitary animal. That animal is often very dangerous.

Me: But is that not a loss to the team? OSM: Everyone is replaceable, you know. The cemetery is full of people who thought they were not. Even I am replaceable. As unlikely as this may seem, one day I will no longer be there. And yes, you need to solve the problem. But a company is a like a machine. You need to have the right pieces and put them together in the right way. And then it functions. A leader is sometimes an engineer of his company. He assembles his company in a brilliant way.

Me: Assembly is one thing. But how do you get “the pieces” to work well together? OSM: It’s not rocket science. You only need two things: focus and motivation. You need to make people look at only one point. That’s

their focus. It’s like with horses in the street. You put these things, what are they called, blinkers or blinders on their heads so that they can only look ahead and not be startled by the traffic. That’s what you need to do with employees. Put blinders on them. Make sure they look at the focal point you want them to look at. And then you need to have some carrot that makes them want to move on. With a horse you can use the whip, with employees you need to be a little more subtle. Whipping is illegal (laughs). But once they are motivated they run.

Me: That sounds like Gallipoli27. OSM: I resent that comparison. Gallipoli was a slaughterhouse. I take care of my subordinates.

Me: How? OSM: By giving them a good job and a good salary. It’s still about the money. People work for money, you know. And so, they can earn really well if they get their targets. And that’s how I motivate them. They can buy a second car, by working well. If they work more, they earn more money. That’s our HR philosophy.

Me: As long as they do not get ill? OSM: Exactly. A healthy mind in a healthy body. That’s their responsibility. And like this they can have good careers in my company.

Me: Do you think you have a part of the responsibility in that healthy mind in a healthy body? OSM: There’s a fitness room. And the pizzas we order at night are of sublime quality.

Me: And what about the quality of work? OSM: I do not measure the quality of their work, I only measure results. I know that I ask people to run marathons for me. But they are really eager to do that.

Me: How do you know? OSM: I just know. Do I sense a certain criticism in your voice?

Me: It’s just … you talk about distance but also about motivation. And If I get it right, the motivation is based on financials? OSM: right.

Me: But aren’t you afraid that people will start to behave like mercenaries? And that they will not want to help you if you need them to? OSM: They will help me, because I pay them. If you want to call them mercenaries, that’s fine with me.

Me: But sometimes you do not know that you need help. OSM: If I don’t know it, I don’t need it.

Me: How will you have people do something extra, just because it’s right. Or because there is an opportunity? To go beyond their job descriptions? OSM: Maybe I forget a third thing. Next to focus and motivation you need to have order and discipline. Everyone has to know his place. Everyone must be focused on the part he is responsible for and must follow instructions. If they started doing other things, that would be chaos. Total chaos. I don’t want that. Focus, Motivations and Order?

Me: And what’s the fourth thing? OSM: There’s no fourth thing. Three things is enough. Focus, Motivation and Order. F-M-O. Besides, people cannot keep more than three things in their heads. Corporate Life is really simple: I tell them what to do and give them focus, I make sure they want to run towards the target and I keep order and discipline.

Me: How do you involve people? OSM: They are involved through the work.

Me: I mean how can they voice their thoughts, ideas, suggestions? OSM: There is actually no time for that. I am like the architect. I decide which building we are going to put down, I define the construction, I choose the contractors and I tell them how to work. If they don’t like it, they can leave. There will be other contractors. And

frankly speaking, there is no time for involvement. Do you know what that costs? We need to make the most of it in a short time. So there is no time for discussions. People love to work for me and my company, because it looks good on their CV.

Me: You’re a career maker. OSM: Exactly. So there’s a lot of benefit for them to work for me. Working for me is the best thing that will ever happen to them in their career. The hardship they have working in my company moulds them, gives them backbone. Just like the army does. They will be better persons once they leave. And they do leave, to take on important positions elsewhere. But you need to be tough and strong. No talk about weakness. Companies are built on strengths, not on weaknesses. We do not make money through weaknesses.

This interview is fictional and all resemblance to existing leaders is purely coincidental and not intended. The problem is that fiction is reality and in our lifetime we meet leaders who think like this OSM. This book is about not being like them.

“ Situational power triumphs over individual power in given contexts.

Philip Zimbardo

01 The Context

Context and Personal Choice

Throughout this book I will often talk about context. Context defines our behaviour. The context enables and/or changes behaviour. And context is also the product of behaviour. We often overestimate the power of individual qualities over contextual qualities. We are convinced that we are stronger than the context and that we can change it. This conviction probably comes from our upbringing. We are taught that being independent and self-reliant is important. But it’s an illusion. The power of the context is so big that it even determines our morality28.

Leadership is contextual. It is part of the context, it shapes the context and it is influenced by the context. The leadership crisis is pretty much about how the context leads to certain behaviour and how leadership tolerates or stimulates that contextual behaviour. Despite the strong contextual influence, there is always personal choice. Context is never an excuse to understand, accept or minimise deviating behaviour. Strong leaders will base their actions on personal choice. Weak leaders will hide behind the internal or external context, the circumstances, other people.

The Sustainable Leadership Value Chain

Where does leadership fit in the context? To understand that we need to look at the value chain of which leadership is the start. It’s not a classical value chain29. It’s more a psychological value chain, that I call the Sustainable Leadership Value Chain (SLVC)30. This value chain has the same purpose as the classical one: to create value. The SLVC provides a framework to ask 5 fundamental questions, that define leadership in your organisation.

1. What is the value your organisation wants to create for whom?

2. How can you deliver that value? In other words, which behaviour do you need within your organisation to create that value?

3. What is the context you need to create to foster that kind of behaviour?

4. How does the external world influence this value chain? 5. How can your leadership style create the internal context and

drive the SLVC?

These are simple questions but they are tough to answer. But if you do answer them you have a recipe that reinforces your leadership and that helps you to execute the strategy of your organisation. My philosophical point of departure is that it is people who create value and not organisations as such. People make the difference.

External Context (VUCA)

© David Ducheyne

Figure 3. The Sustainable Leadership Value Chain.

Which Value for Whom?

Any strategy starts with defining whom you want to serve and what it is you want to deliver31. Creating value for someone is the single most important source of purpose and meaningfulness. Every organisation or organisational unit needs to be clear on the value it wants to create and the target groups it wants to reach.

It’s better not to limit the definition of value to economic value alone. Economic value such as profit, future cash flow and shareholder return usually provoke a huge “so what?” feeling. People are not sustainably motivated by economic and financial targets32. These targets lack emotional value. Of course, the performance of the firm is what ultimately creates sustainability and all that is derived from it (like employment). But in my experience, most people are just not interested in that. So you can do all it takes to inform about financials and get them involved. It simply is not enough.

Value is about customer value. What do you offer to customers that they are willing to pay for? What makes a customer return to your organisation to purchase more of your products or services? Of course this is also valid for non-profit or public service organisations, and for any unit or function within an organisation.

Story 02 The Purpose of HR

I have been working for over two decades in the field of people management within organisations. The function I hold is often called HR33. What’s the purpose of HR in an organisation? Many people seem to doubt HR can contribute to the success of an organisation. But it can. Let’s take the case of a hospital. The purpose of HR could be to decrease patient mortality34. If reducing patient mortality is the value you want to deliver, you are lucky. It’s a target most people will buy in to. And as a leader – be it in HR or not – you can tap into that purpose to create your story.

HR needs to return to its essence: ensuring that people are willing and able to perform sustainably. HR has buried that essence under layers of procedures, systems and statistics. In its desire to be taken seriously and to conquer a seat at the executive table, HR has betrayed itself.

“Yes, but”, an HR professional told me, “If you do not have systems, you lack control and impact. You cannot show results if you do not fold everything into systems.”

HR needs to show leadership itself in the first place. And HR will never succeed if it continues to base its identity on systems that too often do not meet up to expectations. HR needs a compelling story.

Maybe it’s easier for a leader working in a field like health care to make the purpose of the organisation appealing. It might be easier to define this appealing value. But ask yourself how that same leader should explain budget cuts to the nurses that have chosen to serve patients as a profession, and not to increase the occupation rate of hospital beds or to increase productivity by reducing the service time per patient. They want to help people in the first place.

This is no easy game for anybody. So leaders should define or at least be very aware of the value their organisation wants to deliver35. And it’s very often not about the what, but more about the who and the how.

Story 03 It’s Not About Coffee

I was once in the Starbucks Coffee Shop in the railway station in Gent, Belgium. The place was very crowded. There was only one seat available at the table where the manager of the shop was talking to a group of new team members. I asked if I could join them. The manager said that it was OK. As long as I would not disclose any company secret I could overhear, she added with a big smile. What I heard was very interesting. She was not talking about coffee. She was talking about what each member of the staff should deliver every time a customer comes in. And that was not about serving coffee, it was about being there for the customer.

This is what you find about them on their corporate website

We’re not just passionate purveyors of coffee, but everything else that goes with a full and rewarding coffeehouse experience. We also offer a selection of premium teas, fine pastries and other delectable treats to please the taste buds. And the music you hear in store is chosen for its artistry and appeal.

It’s not unusual to see people coming to Starbucks to chat, meet up or even work. We’re a neighbourhood gathering place, a part of the daily routine – and we couldn’t be happier about it. Get to know us and you’ll see: we are so much more than what we brew.

We make sure everything we do is through the lens of humanity – from our commitment to the highest quality coffee in the world, to the way we engage with our customers and communities to do business responsibly.

The people behind the counter always ask your name when you order. That’s not only to get the right order to the right person. They ask your name so they can connect to the customer. It personalizes the way they talk to you. That sounds easy but it’s not if you want to create this approach consistently and sustainably throughout the organisation. Everyone has to do it, every time, for every customer in a way that is not artificial. How many people work for Starbucks?

Based on visits to Starbucks in Gent, London, Brugge, New York, and San Francisco

Shareholder Value

Creating value is not limited to shareholder value. An exclusive focus on shareholder value is very limiting. The argument in favour of this focus that it’s the shareholder who takes the risks and who should be compensated for that risk through dividends or an increase of the share price. So in the end it’s about the generation of future cash flow.

I understand this reasoning. But it is not satisfactory. And it is not sufficient.

The shareholder cannot achieve a return without the creation of value for a customer. The creation of shareholder value is derived from the creation of customer value.

The problem with shareholder value is that if we use this as the ultimate definition of value, the actual purpose is internal to the company. Shareholders tend to think of themselves as an external party, like customers, but they’re not. They are owners and therefore they are part of the internal organisational system. That’s the tragedy of investors and stock markets. Investors look at companies as a source of financial revenue. But in reality, companies are sources of customer value. It all starts with creating customer value and then the rest follows. And that’s why shareholders should not be put first. It’s the customer you serve, even when you’re a shareholder. And before that, it’s the people who generate the customer value.

It’s difficult to develop sustainable leadership within an organisation that puts shareholder value on top of the list, before customer value.

Story 04 Patient Value

The Belgian Pharma Company UCB has taken as motto “Inspired by Patients. Driven by Science”. Everything they do starts with the question “How can we create more value for people living with severe diseases?” For that it’s necessary to listen to patients and their families and to work closely with healthcare professionals. If you read the vision and strategy on their website, there is not much about shareholder value. It’s all about creating value for patients.

Story 05 A Company Without Shareholders

I started working for Securex in 2007. Securex is a company that delivers broad HR services. It has no shareholders. When I first started it was kind of difficult to understand how a company employing 1600 people could survive without a capital provider. The company has to build its own capital to be able to invest in the future. There are only two stakeholders: employees and customers. The problem is that it’s not possible to attract external capital in the market. Every investment has to be financed by the organisation itself. A company without shareholders has to define its own ambitions. There is no shareholder breathing down your neck. The ambition comes from within. And the inspiration comes from the customer.

Now let’s not be naïve. Companies that do not satisfy their shareholders will not survive. Investors will not put their money into a company that does not give a return on equity that is sufficiently high to cover the cost of capital, including the compensation for the risks. But shareholders increasingly understand that they depend on the people in the company generating results through customer value. People determine the sustainability of shareholder value. Financial analysts look more and more at intangibles like company culture, corporate social responsibility and other non-financial aspects of the organisation to assess its attractiveness as an investment. There’s enough research that proves that intangibles like culture and engagement yield economic results36.

Story 06 Working Capital

A machine manufacturing company had working capital as one of its lead Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Working capital is the amount of a company’s current assets minus the amount of its current liabilities. One of the ways to influence working capital is to manage inventories. For a capital-intensive activity, maintaining a low level of inventory is crucial. If you construct machines that take a long time to build the inventory consists of raw material as unfinished goods. These

have a direct impact on the balance sheet. As the company was listed on the stock exchange it was required to provide full information quarterly. So there were 4 dates that had a special meaning for working capital and inventory management. At the end of each quarter the picture was taken and the balance sheet was published. Inventory needed to be as low as possible. Logically, managers of the company had working capital as one of their main objectives.

One solution to achieve the target was to ship the machinery earlier to the dealers. The moment that the machines passed the gate they were booked out and they were no longer part of the inventory. The dealers had to stock them even without having sold the machinery. But they were compensated for that. So the cost of capital became an operating cost, transferred from the balance sheet into the P&L. As pressure on production managers rose, they became more creative. They shipped machines that were not finished on March 31, to tow them back in on April 1. As long as they were out of the books at midnight … Now this practice might be financially sound, it is a disaster in terms of meaningfulness and credibility. It’s very difficult to explain to unions and workers that this is reasonable. They see the amount of work that this costs and they fail to see the meaning of it. They felt like this was stealing from the company.

What Behaviour Do You Need to Create Value?

Once you have defined the kind of value you want to create for the customers, you need people to do what needs to be done to create it. You need people to serve your customer in a way that is consistent with the value you want to deliver to your customers.

Getting this right in the entire organisation is probably the hardest thing a CEO has to do. And to achieve this the CEO depends on many leaders across the organisation. This is valid for all leaders regardless of their position or level. So, leaders should make sure that people in their team are

able and willing to be a part of a culture that delivers the right kind of service or products in a certain, differentiating way. If leaders want a company signature, they need to look towards the people working in the company.

Story 07 Passion for Sports

If you ever go to a Decathlon store, you will soon find out why it’s a great place to buy sports gear. When you talk to the staff you will know that they know more about the product than just the technical or commercial details. They know the gear they are selling because they are into sports themselves and they actually use the gear. They are passionate about sports. So if you go to the track gear, you will find someone who does it or has done it. The advice you’re getting is hands-on.

It clearly starts with selecting the right people. There’s no point in putting people in jobs they are not made for. People talking about what they know and what they love seems to be a powerful recipe.

The translation towards value creation is very clear in this example. Based on visits to Decathlon in Brugge and Aix-en-Provence

Story 08 Selling without Selling

Every time I can I visit Apple stores. I was at the Apple flagship store in Regent Street, London. It was amazing: a lot of people, lots of staff, a great vibe. I wanted to buy headphones you could use with an iPhone to listen to classical music. The person I talked to advised me to buy headphones that were not on sale in the store. If I really wanted to have the earphones for classical music, I should not buy them at the Apple

Store. I was stunned. So I asked him if he could do that, send me away like this. It seemed to be against Apple’s interest to direct me to another store. His answer was very simple: “I can do that. The only thing I cannot do is talk negatively about other products. I’m not here to sell. I just have to talk to you. People come in here to buy anyway, so I don’t need to sell.”

This experience is consistent in each store I have visited.

Selling without selling. What a great concept. How easy it must be for people in the Apple store to just be themselves and talk about the things they are passionate about.

So anytime you go into a store, you can experience how the staff wants to deliver value to you. And this is not only valid for B2C-companies. This is valid for B2B, government, and educational institutions.

Based on visits to Apple Stores in London, Aix-en-Provence, Amsterdam, New York and San Francisco.

Story 09 Tradition and Future

My eldest daughter was in a Catholic High School. The school claims to combine tradition and future. One day she came home and she told my wife and me that a teacher had physically ranked the pupils in class according to their results on their tests. The ones with lower scores had to sit in front, the ones with the higher score could sit in the back. The children saw this as a ranking by intelligence: so called stupid kids sat close to the teacher, smart kids in the back. I was appalled by this stigmatizing approach that had no educational value whatsoever. This was not the first incident in that school as some teachers were thinking of absurd and very 19th century ways of disciplining their pupils with no consideration for educational outcomes. Another teacher had some children copying a page out of a phone book (I did not know this still existed). So I decided to ask the principal of the school for an

explanation and some insight on their vision on punishment. I did not get any answer, not even after a gentle reminder. Now as a parent you are on a slippery slope. Your daughter does not want you to insist as she fears there will be retaliations by the teacher(s) and so you stop your effort. You comply. But in terms of value creation and dealing with one of its main stakeholders, the school has failed.

Count the number of contact points there are with your customer. Multiply that number of contact points with the number of contacts there are per year. The numbers might be frightening. Organisations often underestimate the power of these numbers. If you have 1000 frontline people facing the customer who have 20 contacts a day. That is 20,000 contacts per day times 220 days, equalling 4.4 million contacts per year. That means 4.4 million opportunities to do well or to do wrong. If you add the internal contacts within the company you can easily double that number.

It’s all about behaviour. In times of increased competitiveness and digitalization the human factor becomes even more important. Human behaviour is a strategic leverage for any company. Relations, emotional experiences, cooperation … they are at the heart of any success of a company. And the companies that get it right will thrive37. And to do that organisations need leaders who influence behaviour by creating the right kind of internal context.

Which Internal Context Do You Need?

Behaviour is defined by its context. Leaders have little influence over the external context, but they have a big impact on the internal one. Leaders can create a context where people can be successful. Or even better, they should create a context through which people can be successful. And there are many elements of that context that help shape that success; culture, work organisation, procedures, leadership style, quality of work, relationships. That is not new. The psychological context shapes the behaviour and

performance of people. Even moral standards are influenced by the context in which someone is living and working38.

The Importance of Organisational Culture

Culture is one of the least tangible aspects of context, that is however easily felt by people. Although it’s not tangible, it has a vast effect on behaviour. Culture eats strategy for breakfast39. Whatever you decide to do, it’s the culture of the organisation that will determine how successful you will be. Maybe you should define your strategy based on your culture and not the other way around.

Culture is to an organisation what personality is to a human being. But where a healthy person has only one personality with many facets, an organisation usually has various subcultures. It’s an illusion to even think that the subcultures are homogeneous. They’re not. And the interactions between the various subcultures define what an organisation is able to achieve. Culture defines how people work together, along with norms, values, stories. Culture defines the kind of community your organisation is40.

There are many ways to describe your organisation’s culture. You could use an image to describe it. You could describe it the way you describe a person. But there’s one thing you should know: organisations do not behave41. It’s the people that belong to that organisation who do. So culture is the product of many interactions and interdependencies, which converge into similar behaviour, similar beliefs, similar assumptions and expectations. Cultures become normative when deviant behaviour is not tolerated or even punished.

It’s needless to say that the leader of an organisation or unit has a great impact on the culture within a company. I’ve been on boards for over a decade now and it’s amazing to see how people often conform to their leader, without knowing. Leadership is both a product and a determining factor of culture.

That’s why you will have a hard time as a leader to change the culture itself. The question is whether you even have to try. What is possible? As a leader you can have an impact on the behaviour of people. You do not have to tackle the entire culture. You can influence the behaviour and thus the culture within your team to start with. Your impact as a leader is bigger than you think. But to have an impact you really need to think about your leadership as a lever of behavioural and culture change. Start off by knowing the culture.

What are the main elements of the culture? What kind of behaviour is rewarded? What kind of behaviour is punished? What is the dominant way to stimulate behaviour: punishment or reward? What are the values within an organisation? How has the culture evolved over the years and what are the big symbolic moments? Which rituals are there? What makes the culture strong? Where are the weak spots? What is the role of the leaders? What is the vision on leadership?

You need to be prepared to go against the grain if you want to impact the culture. The pressure to conform is enormous. Breaking rules takes courage and endurance. If you do that, you have to be prepared to stand the heat.

How Does the External VUCA Context Influence the Leader?

The external context determines leadership behaviour. Leadership behaviour has to be appropriate for whatever happens outside. You might think that leadership is easier in growing markets than in declining markets. In a way that is true. However, the value of leadership is higher in difficult situations than in the easier ones. Difficult situations put leadership and

values to the test. In turbulent times it is very tempting to regress into behaviours that have nothing to do with leadership and destroy the organisational values.

The acronym VUCA provides a description of the external context.

VUCA

Most companies haven’t got the luxury to sail in quiet waters or under a blue sky. Markets are changing rapidly. There is disruption everywhere and this puts a lot of pressure on organisations and people. Business models change and what used to be clear is now confusing. Companies appear and disappear at a speed that is breath-taking. The pace of change is accelerating and many organisations have a difficult time keeping up, let alone taking the lead.

We live in VUCA-times. VUCA stands for volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous.

The word comes from the military world. Wars used to be predictable. One army fought the other army at a certain time and at a certain place. Tactics changed in the 20th century. The First World War introduced new technology. Armies that still used 19th century tactics were swept away. The second World War brought new changes. And armies that based their tactics on the experience of the Great War, were swept away again. Wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan were guerrilla wars in which a regular army is powerless. Today there is a war going on with an enemy that is invisible, constantly changing, multinational, irrational and extremely flexible. Today the regular army is confronted with an adversary that works like a network and that operates in a hit-and-run or hit-and-die mode.

The word VUCA found its way into the business world and is used to describe the turbulent world we live in.

Volatile means that the context is unstable. You do not know how long a situation is going to last, or how long your solutions to problems will survive. Volatility also means there are increased

risks that urge you to take often expensive actions to cope. The world of today is very different to the world of tomorrow. Uncertain means that you do not have all the information you would like to have to take a decision. You have to muddle through darkness. This is not new. But the volatility amplifies the uncertainty. New situations arise without precedent. They make current knowledge and previous experience obsolete. Complex means that everything is increasingly interconnected and multifaceted. Ambiguous basically means that you do not know why things are happening. There is no previous experience that can help you in moving forward. You don’t know anything. You have to formulate hypotheses, but there are always several possible explanations and actions.

To me the word VUCA is a euphemism. It’s an observation that tells us we don’t know any longer. Predicting the future is futile as it changes so fast there is no predictability. The world has become a world of speed, which does not always lead to progress.

It’s clear that leadership needs to adapt to this kind of world. It’s the VUCAnisation of the world that has made leadership more challenging than ever.

Leaders need a dynamic model of the world. If nothing is certain and everything changes you cannot have a rigid vision. That also means that leaders can only disappoint people that expect them to have a stable and eternal vision. A dynamic model enables leaders to talk about changes. People are sometimes ruthless when leaders change their mind, or when the line of action does not yield the expected results. The way leaders navigate, with an ever-changing map, is much more important than following the pre-defined route. That’s the reason why keeping a promise to the financial markets should not be a measure of success. That’s why a CEO should not be evaluated purely on results. CEOs should be also assessed on how they prepare their organisation for and guide it through the changes in the market.

The one thing leaders cannot promise is certainty. Leaders who promise today that everything is going to be all right, cannot keep these promises. It’s impossible to know what the result of the actions is going to be and how enduring these results will be. Instead of delivering promises leaders need to make sense of it all. And as time elapses the sense will change. A leader needs to become more educational. Explaining complex things in a complex way is never a good idea. Like a painter a leader will make an image of the world with a balance between detail and clarity. It’s important that people understand the framework, not that they have a deep knowledge. Leaders need to leave the idea that they need to know all the answers. That is simply impossible. The time where the leader was on top of everything has long gone. The leader is as lost and powerless as anybody else42. There is no point in hiding that. Vulnerability becomes a strength in VUCA-times. Leaders have become much more dependent on the creativity and insights of people both within and outside your team. So leaders need to engage people to go beyond the limits of traditional ways of thinking and organising. Leader need to take more risks than ever. Going for the status quo will not do. A leader cannot eradicate ambiguity. They need to deal with it. Leaders need to find sources of sustainability. These sources should be less volatile, less uncertain, less complex and less ambiguous than the chaos they find themselves in. Those sources of sustainability lie in their own behaviour and their humanity.

What Kind of Leadership Does an Organisation Need?

The Leadership Brand

So if a leader has a great impact on the context in which people work, we can ask ourselves what kind of leadership our company needs. Could we engineer our culture through an engineered leadership style?

It is essential to define the kind of leadership we need in our organisation or unit. That’s leadership branding. There are different definitions of a Leadership Brand. A Leadership Brand is a promise to deliver a predefined leadership experience to people in a consistent way. This is why it’s important to cultivate your leadership brand explicitly:

It clarifies human relations within a company. It is a way to implement values into one of the most crucial processes within a company: the leadership process. Further, it inspires leaders to behave in a certain way and to develop certain attitudes. It inspires people who have the potential and the motivation to become leaders within the company. It inspires employees to take on leadership at every level. In a way a leadership brand defines followership as well. It inspires candidates who are looking for the right fit between their values and those of the company. It engages people throughout the organisation. It stimulates and focuses the leadership development within the organisation.

Leadership as the Basis of the Value Chain

A Definition of Leadership

At the base of the value chain is sustainable leadership. To understand what it is, let’s have a look at what leadership is. Leadership is

the process of movement towards value creation through people who trust someone

to be their leader at this time because that person is at the service of them and a higher purpose.

Leadership is a process of movement. A process means that there is motion. It’s surely not about standing still or the status quo. Since it’s a process, it’s not necessary to link leadership to one person, although this is still the prevalent thinking about leadership. There is still a lot of discussion of the feasibility or desirability of shared leadership. Some say that leadership lies with one person, while others promote autonomous teams. The role of the leader in this process is limited, that means not complete, but still crucial. In every team, leaders will emerge.

It’s about creating value. Leadership focuses on progress and accomplishments that create value for someone else. The creation of value is the ultimate purpose of leadership. This means that the product of leadership is not only motion, but also direction. The created value has to be meaningful for all stakeholders. Chapter 9 deals with how to create meaningfulness.

Through people. There is no leadership of things. There’s only leadership in connection to other people. People can be a team, an organisation, but also a nation. The others – the followers – define leadership. Their engagement is crucial. Chapter 10 deals with engagement.

Who trust you to be their leader. Leadership is not an appointment, it’s an attribution based on trust. How to create trust, is discussed in chapter 8.

At that time. Leadership is by definition temporary. It’s not eternal. I believe it’s even healthy that leadership is limited in time as the organic evolution of organisations might require other people to lead in a different context.

By being at the service. A leader’s main leverage lies with others. It’s therefore essential to help others to grow and perform. How to help others is discussed in chapter 10. But there’s more. Being at the service also means that a leader strives towards a higher purpose.

Sustainability

When is leadership sustainable? The term sustainability has been used so often, that it is losing its meaning. It has become a catch-all word, to which everyone links a new concept. I admit, that’s also the case for this book.

There are three meanings for the word sustainable43: able to be used without being completely used up or destroyed involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy natural resources able to last or continue for a long time

Acting sustainably ensures that what we do today has no negative impact on the current and future stakeholders.

Leadership can be sustainable on three levels: Leadership is done in a way that the leadership itself can last. This is about sustainability for the leader. The leader is able to continue for a long time. Leadership creates sustainable effects for others, like sustainable employment or employability. This is sustainability for others. This level of sustainability has to do with the style and methods a leader uses. These are oriented towards sustainable development. Leadership creates sustainable financial, ecological and societal value. This sustainability is oriented towards the organisation and its context.

The first level of sustainability is in itself insufficient but necessary. Leadership should be sustainable in itself and not deplete personal resources. In chapter 12 you will read about how leaders can care for themselves. The same is valid for the level of sustainability for the others. These levels of sustainability do not create or support a sense of meaningfulness. The ultimate level of sustainability occurs when leadership creates a lasting value for people, the organisation and society44.

Takeaways

We live in a VUCA world. VUCA stands for volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguity. This VUCA world influences the way leadership is perceived. Leadership is in essence about creating value. Shareholder Value might not be sufficient as a basis for a sustainable leadership. Customer Value is much more meaningful. Leadership is a part of a value chain. This value chain links the value a company creates to leadership. This happens through the definition of the desired behaviour and the context that fosters that desired behaviour. Sustainability of Leadership can be directed towards the leader, team members or the organisation and its context.

Checks

What is the value your organisation wants to create? For whom? Can you describe the behaviour your team or organisation needs to create that value? How important is the customer in your leadership? Read the questions about culture and answer them for your organisation. How does VUCA impact your organisation? What is the impact of VUCA on your style of leadership? Has there been a change? How sustainable is your leadership? For yourself? For others? For society? Is sustainability an important topic in your organisation?

“ Whatever you are, be a good one.

Abraham Lincoln

02 The Leadership List

Make a List

Every one of us will encounter several leaders in their lifetime. It actually starts with our parents and the teachers you meet. They have similar qualities and targets as leaders. We also meet leaders in other organisations or networks we’re in: school, scouts, choir … Of course, we will encounter most leaders in our professional context. Most of the leaders we meet have some kind of hierarchical relationship to us. But not all of them do.

So think about all the leaders you have met, from the first to the current or the last. Do not limit this reflection to leaders in a professional context. Include all people who were a leader to you, or should have been. Take all people you’ve met into consideration, but only take people you have met yourself in person. There’s no point in taking historical figures however inspirational they may be for you.

Make a list of these leaders. Put all of them on the list, also those you’ve met as an intern or junior. Do it chronologically.

And now we need to rank them. Make a second list and put people that have meant the most to you at the top of this second list. Start from the best and go down. Put those who have meant the least to you at the bottom. Depending on how many leaders you’ve had so far you can distinguish three groups: (1) the top group, (2) the bottom group and (3) the middle group. Don’t bother with defining criteria to rank their performance as leaders. Just rank them.

Once you’ve done that you should look at the list and ask yourself some questions.

1. First you could draft the phases of your career on a time-line. Look for the chapters in your career (or life). That’s your narrative45.

2. Second you can plot all of the leaders you’ve had on that time-line. 3. Check how many you’ve had. How long is that list? How come the

list is that long or short? What’s the average time of cooperation

with leaders? Is there a link between the duration of that cooperation and the impact these leaders had on your career or even life? Some leaders cross your path very briefly but can have a life-long impact on you.

4. What is so special about the leaders you have put at the top of the list? Describe their qualities.

5. How did these people influence you in your own development and career? Go back to your time-line and see in what chapter they have played a role and how they have impacted you.

6. What is so special about the leaders you have at the bottom of the list? Describe their qualities.

7. How did both the ones at the top and the ones at the bottom make you feel?

8. Is there an influential person from outside the professional sphere you’d like to put on that list? Who is it and what’s the reason for putting that person on the list?

Figure 4. The List in a Narrative Perspective.

Most people are perfectly capable of making the chronological list relatively quickly. They have no problem to rank them either. If you ask them to think of the extremes – the best and the worst – someone comes to mind very fast. It’s more difficult to describe the reasons why someone is on the top or at the bottom of the list. That’s because we usually do not ask ourselves these questions and hence we do rarely appreciate the leaders that we meet.

I have been asking these questions to many people. Most people like the exercise. It makes them remember some of the good experiences, but also some of the worse experiences. I can tell you, I have heard stories about leaders I almost could not believe. You hear examples of the worst of human behaviour. You can find any deviant behaviour in people who claim to be leaders. Luckily I have heard also stories that are illustrations of the best of humanity46. Every organisation has excellent leaders, but there are also leaders who are not worthy of the word “leader”.

The Top of the List

Take the leaders who are on the top of the list. Chances are that you appreciate their skills, but that’s usually not the reason why they are on the top. You might feel blessed that you were able to work with that person. The question is why.

Do you remember when and how those top leaders have left your career? How did you feel when that happened? If you have left the organisation yourself, you might have regretted to have to leave that person behind. If they had left the organisation you might have dreaded to find out who would be able to take their place in the organisation.

But usually the leader does not leave you. They leave your career, not your life. In a career of 40 years you might have about 20 leaders in a professional context. How many of them deserve to be at the top of your list? There’s usually only a few, not many. Those leaders follow what you do and they remain available for guidance even long after you went separate ways.

It’s the same with teachers. In secondary school you meet many teachers (I estimate about 50). How many of them have really made a difference? Very few. I guess you can count them on one hand. But the ones who did, have an impact throughout your life.

The leaders at the top of your list have a similar impact. They positively influence your career and your life. You might catch yourself quoting those leaders. Or maybe you’ll ask yourself the question of how they would have dealt with that kind of situation. Some people try to apply the qualities of those leaders in their own leadership.

Good Leaders Are There for Life

The leaders at the top of the list are not perfect. They are no super humans and they all have shortcomings.

Here are some reasons why people put leaders at the top:

The best leader I have had so far, was a leader who gave me the space I needed. He let me do my thing, but he was always there when I needed him. He also knew when to leave me alone, and when I needed help. He’d never let me crash. But still, he set guidelines and expectations. It was like he was in control after all without controlling me. The best leader I can think of was one of my teachers. She was a source of inspiration and she made me believe I could do anything. She used the mistakes I made as opportunities to learn. This made me feel confident. Every leader I’ve had so far had strengths and weaknesses. But if the leader is great, the team will be willing to compensate the fallacies. The best leader I had could not take decisions. I was always mad at him when we lost a deal because of his indecisiveness. But we helped him overcome it by anticipating, by giving him all he needed to come to a decision. In a way we made him stronger. And we did that because he was great to work with. The way he included us and made us feel excited about the company and the work we were doing, compensated for his weaknesses.

The best leaders I’ve had so far, made me feel special. They took the time for me and it came natural. He believed in me and saw my talent before I even did. He gave me the space to develop and grow. One of the greatest leaders I had wasn’t my leader at all, in a hierarchical sense. He coached me nevertheless and helped me to see things in a different perspective. This person did not feel better than the rest. He was one of the team. And he could accept that he made mistakes. He did not take himself too seriously. It was fun to be with him. She was tremendous. She did not think about herself at all. She was always thinking about how she could help us. We always said that she should think about herself too. But that just was not in her. This person made clear what he expected, and then he left the room and let you do it. He admitted when he did not know. That was refreshing. He encouraged me to think, to have ideas, to express them and to implement them. But he also held me accountable. This leader trusted me. Some leaders just aren’t managers. But if they know this, they can still be great at being a leader. Nobody is right all the time. This leader acknowledged that. You can still trust a leader when he makes mistakes, but that’s because you trust his leadership. One of the best leaders had the confidence to say that he was wrong. This is kind of liberating because the fear to speak openly about your own mistakes vanished. She had values and she defended them. And that’s why I respect her. One of the best leaders knew exactly how to push me. At first I did not like it. But after a while I realised he did this to help me. Thanks to him I reached higher levels of performance. And he also listened to me and treated me with respect. The best leader I’ve worked for showed a high level of integrity. He was fair and led by giving the example.

The best leaders I had all had a presence, a gravitas. They related to me. They didn’t just call when they needed something. They were there for me. I felt valued. I was able to contribute to a project that meant a lot and I could make a difference. I knew my voice was heard. As a finance guy who loves control, I must admit that too much control limits the growth of a company. The best leaders I’ve worked for allowed people to take risks so that they could develop. He inspires others to be the best they can be. He assists others with their own development. This person allowed me the room and space to try out what I wanted to do and to experiment. He created a culture that encouraged me. And whatever the outcome, we shared it in the team. And he coached me so I could do better next time. He took a genuine interest in me as a person and he proactively supported my development. He gave me challenges and mentored me so I could succeed. She was genuinely interested in my development and gave me as much business information as possible to allow me to always do better. She was a person with a vision who could explain it to everyone. She was very inspiring. I think we would even have started a fight for her should she had run into problems. He was able to include people and integrated different perspectives into his vision. In this way everyone felt to have contributed to the overall vision. This leader did not lead. Anyway, he did not give instructions. He made us lead ourselves. He made me feel excited. I was part of a bigger team. Every now and then you meet someone who changes the way you see things. I remember I was really being frustrated about something and I was headed in the wrong direction. This person helped me to see things in a different way. As of that moment I was good to go. And he did this without having an interest in helping me. He did that out of kindness, I guess.

Table 3. Reasons Why Leaders Are at the Top of the List

When you go through this list, you notice it’s not so much about skills. Skills play a part, but do not make the difference. It’s about the leader’s character and its effect.

The Leaders at the Bottom of the List

Don’t look at the leaders in the middle of the list yet. Look immediately at the leaders at the bottom of your list. Why are these people at the bottom of your list? Were they leaders from hell? Could you really call them leaders47? What was the impact of those leaders on you and your development? If you’d say there was no impact, think again. Every leader has had an impact on your development, even the ones at the bottom of your list.

One impact could be that you know what you do not want to do, which leadership behaviour you want to avoid. That’s an impact. Bad leaders make you aware of the impact you can have on others. They set the bottom benchmark. It’s difficult to do worse. You want to be better than them. They teach you other things as well. They teach you how to survive and to develop strategies to work with people like them. They help to define what you want and don’t want. And maybe one of those people at the bottom of the list has made you leave a company. That’s a pity and maybe unfair.

People tend to leave a company because of its failing leadership. Vice versa, people also tend to join companies because of the people they have met. Attractive people do attract people. But if it’s an employer branding trick to only show the atypical attractive people, you might hire people who will leave you anyway. That’s why people always want to meet their leaders before they sign an employment contract. And rightly so.

You learn more from the leaders at the bottom of your list than from the top.

Here are some of the reasons why people put leaders at the bottom of the list:

He just made me feel terrible. He was so uncertain that he did not want to leave the meeting room out of fear that we would be badmouthing him. He said one thing then did the other. He was not able to role model the behaviours and leadership skills that everyone else is measured and held accountable by. She didn’t treat me as an equal. She looked down upon me. He over-controlled me and reduced my visibility in the organisation. She did not have the skills and the knowledge to develop me. Oh yes, she was very tactical, but not at all interested in a strategic approach. She changed opinion as she saw fit. My worst leader was a person who was only interested in himself. He just told me what to do, how I had to do it, with whom and when. He was an extremely mean person. She did not care about people. I hated my job because of him. People did not want to give the best of themselves. They slowed things down and even sabotaged him. He had to leave. This leader did not accept there were other ways of doing things then the way he wanted them to be done. My way or the high way, that must have been his motto. He just did not listen. He could not hear other views. He got nervous when people were smarter than him. He always felt threatened. He was so clumsy. He wanted to be seen as a strong leader, but he wasn’t. Everybody saw through him. And they did not respect

him. This leader had his own rules. He was above the law. He was talking about fairness, but he always went for his own advantage. He denied people variable payment, but took bonuses for himself. He wanted a bigger car. He wanted a better parking spot than our customers. At the end, we all knew he was there for his own benefit and not for us, in spite of the many talents he had. There was a big difference between what he said and what he did. You could not tell him anything confidentially. Everything you said could be used against you. He also talked about you to other people. You had to be on guard all the time. This guy had a bad reputation. And he did not care. The worst manager I have had so far was someone who took advantage of other people. It was all about him. And he wanted to be smarter and better than everybody. I got the feeling that whatever I did, I could not be successful. I did not feel good working for that leader. This leader never defended me. When she had the feeling you did not fit in or a senior executive did not like you, she abandoned you. There was no loyalty. None.

Table 4. Reasons why Leaders Are at the Bottom of the List.

Tactic 01 That Divine Leader: Appreciation or Worship?

Have you ever worked for leaders who almost seemed to be extra- terrestrial? They were so inspiring that you could hardly believe it. Conversations with these leaders are not just about content, it’s about challenge and development. You feel you’re growing. You can trust them blindly. If you have ever worked for such a leader, you are very fortunate. Most leaders are not like that. Most of them are struggling somewhere halfway up the mountain. But this one leader, this

exceptional person, was high on the summit. And they are on the very top of your list. Well let me give you some advice: Don’t glorify them. Here’s why.

Never forget they are human. Surely there is something they can improve? Nobody is perfect. Glorification is never good for anyone. It might get into their head. Help them to stay modest. Don’t forget that the air up there is thin. And that they probably are lonely. So help them by being a companion, not a fan. In some cases, a perfect leader has some psychopathic traits. They use their charm to mislead you. Take care. Maybe the good relationship is temporary. The leader is there at the right time. It’s a coincidence. Maybe you needed this person and you were blinded. Or maybe you were willing to accept the flaws. Glorification assumes that their leadership success is their merit. But the success of a good leader depends a great deal on the work context. And the people who work together with that leader also reinforce good leadership. Good leaders know it’s not about them. So you might be one of the reasons why that person is on the top of your list.

Of course you should always appreciate a good leader. They’re hard to find.

You and the List

Once you have created the list, you could ask yourself where you would position yourself on such a list. Maybe you could ask this question to the people you lead. It shouldn’t be your target to be at the top. The purpose of the question is to get as high as possible, without losing yourself in the process. The list is not a popularity contest or a competition. Even when you’re in the middle of the list, you could strive to do better tomorrow than you are doing today. And maybe you’re not in competition with those

divine once-in-a-lifetime-leaders. Don’t compete with them. Compete with yourself.

Becoming better at leadership does not mean that you ought to become someone else. Becoming better is probably more about becoming more of yourself. This requires you to acknowledge your own limitations and to use your strengths. Being yourself requires you to evolve, but not to change yourself. You only change to be yourself.

The list can help you. The leaders at the top of your list are like the beacon of a light tower. They show you the way. They lead you towards a higher level of being and leadership. Why is that? Because you remember how they made you feel. You remember the emotions, even long after you have forgotten what exactly they’ve done for you. As a leader you want to make sure your people experience the same kind of emotions. It’s not about imitating the best leaders you’ve had. You cannot really copy them. But you can always look for ways to have a similar impact on people.

The leaders who are at the bottom of the list are also sources of inspiration. You also remember how you felt working for or with them. Here you had emotions of disappointment, outrage, resentment. You link them to negative emotions. But if you would have given into those emotions, you would have become less of yourself. These emotions give you the desire to be different and to do better. Your character would erode otherwise. Probably you have resisted these emotions and hopefully you have not capitulated. If so, you would have become the prosthesis of someone else. The leaders at the bottom of the list are the absolute zero, the red line you definitely do not want to cross.

If you want to know where you are on the list of your team members, just ask them. That seems to be dangerous, but there must be someone that you can ask. There’s no harm if you can trust that person to tell you his or her truth. You can learn a lot from this kind of feedback.

Story 10 The Second Best Leader

When I was working in Germany, I had a leader whom I appreciated a lot. I once said he was the second best leader I had ever had. He asked me why he came only second. I answered him that I wanted him to be ambitious. This leader believed in me, he trusted me, he gave me a lot of space and helped me whenever I got into trouble.

If you have good leaders with a strong character at the start of your career, you’re lucky. A weak leader at the start of your career can torpedo your future chances. A person like that does not give you the space, when you need it the most. This leader limits someone’s growth, right at the time he is most ready for it.

The lessons we can draw from our encounters with leaders, are crucial. Like children learn from their parents, people learn from their leaders. And people decide what they take out of these encounters, both positively and negatively.

Takeaways

Review the leaders that you’ve encountered so far. Make a list and rank them. Link those leaders to the chapters of your life and career. Look for the qualities of the leaders at the top and the bottom of your list. Character is the basis for your sustainable leadership, because it’s the only thing that is stable and certain. While your position requires skills, they are not the essence of sustainable leadership. People forgive leaders for their flaws as long as they have leaders they can respect. Respect for people is not based on power, prestige, status but on character.

Checks

What do people think of you as a leader? Where are you on their list? Do you dare to ask that? What did you learn from the leaders who are at the top of your list? What did you learn from the leaders who are at the bottom of your list? How do you use those insights to become a better leader? How do you want to make people feel as a leader?

“ Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.

Abraham Lincoln

03 Character

Character

Review your list of leaders. The qualities you have mentioned have less to do with the specific skills, but more with the character of those leaders. If you want to make your leadership sustainable, you’d better start with yourself and build it on your character.

There’s no real consensus about what character is exactly. Sometimes we use some qualities to describe it. Or we use values or even virtues. It’s probably a blend of all of this. There is for sure a moral dimension to it. And we know that leadership based on morality has a clear impact on the results of the organisation48. Character makes us unique. And your character is rooted in that what makes us human.

There are 4 core human elements that do that: empathy, fairness, reciprocity and kindness49.

It’s these 4 elements that make sure that leadership is deeply anchored in our humanity. If we can integrate these elements into leadership, we can develop a sustainable way of leadership. Volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA) put a lot of pressure on our character and these 4 elements. Nevertheless, they provide a clear answer to the leadership crisis. The challenge is to maintain and develop these 4 elements.

For some these are abstract or soft concepts. But we should be aware that psychological (=individual) and social (=collective) capital are the main levers for organisational success and its sustainability. Not taking into consideration the human traits and psychological processes that determine engagement, innovation, adherence, risk taking… is a strategic weakness.

Empathy

Empathy has been described as the leadership trait of the century. Empathic leaders are more likely to be successful in the long run. Empathy is about giving attention to someone. Attention is the most generous gift you can give to someone50.

Empathy is about placing yourself in someone else’s shoes so that you can feel what they feel, think what they think and understand what drives them. It’s not only understanding it, but it’s also acting upon this understanding51.

Empathetic people have developed skills and habits to support this capacity. They are curious about other people. They look for commonality and do not take anything for granted. They challenge prejudice. They actually try out new things to understand how someone else lives. They listen. They inspire action and change. They have an ambitious imagination52.

Some leaders are what I call empathopaths. They lack empathy. They seem to be unable to think like other people. These leaders often have adopted a purely cognitive or rational approach to dealing with people. Some people would argue that having empathy is a handicap if you’re ambitious. That’s because empathic people are taking the needs of others too much into consideration.

I agree that people with less empathy can go to the top more easily because they seem to have fewer problems with making tough calls. In dire situations you cannot make everybody happy. But the question is whether people without empathy can stay at the top. Is a lack of empathy a basis for sustainable leadership? The answer is clearly no.

Listening to others and trying to understand how they feel and what they want is essential for a leader. I am convinced that a personalized approach to dealing with people is more sustainable than a standardized and more distant approach. Doing the same for everyone seems to be efficient, but is not sustainable. We have banned empathy from the workplace and have standardized the context too much. That’s indeed efficient and logical. And as a leader you can hide behind rules and regulations and thus you can avoid difficult conversations with people who need something else. People

do have different needs, strengths and ambitions. As a leader you need to take this into consideration.

If you can do this, people will be more willing to give their energy to the organisation. Empathy does not necessarily mean you have to agree to everything and accept anything. It means you build a relationship with people, even if you have to say no. It enables you to explain why something is not possible in a way that the other still feels understood.

The basic rule for empathy is that you do not give bread to someone who is thirsty.

Never give bread to someone who is thirsty.

Parents know this. They will differentiate how they deal with their children. Not every child has the same talents or motivation. So by listening to their children and by experimenting, parents help children to discover what they like to do and develop into who they are. But many parents make the mistake of pushing children into a direction which is not theirs and which is more related to the parents’ own desire.

Being empathic makes your leadership sustainable. It enables the development of people as you take into consideration their individual characteristics. People will feel your empathy. And they will respect you for it. Empathy builds character. So empathy is a basis for sustainable leadership. It inspires trust and respect and it helps leaders to develop people and inspire them to become more of themselves.

Or like one manager told me: You should take a third person perspective about how someone feels. If people are made an example in front of others, you can imagine how they feel. And if you see this happening, you can go to that person. And you can show you understand and feel what they’ve felt.

Empathy is under constant threat in a VUCA world53. We are confronted with rapid changes and vast amounts of information. This gives us the feeling that we do not have the time to give people the attention they need and deserve. Because of the shortened span of attention leaders do not listen

to understand, but listen to reply. If people stop hearing themselves, they can be truly empathic.

Fairness

Too much empathy for some might lead to a reduced sense of justice with others. Leaders need to balance their desire to help people and the need for fairness and equity. Their behaviour does not stand by itself. They act in a collective context. It’s not easy if their basic attitude is oriented towards helping others. But sometimes they must set that subservience aside and go back to collectiveness.

Parents know that they need to adapt to children’s needs but that they need to develop a sense of fairness at the same time. What do they do when one of their two children has a more expensive hobby than the other? Will they compensate financially?

Empathic differentiation can be fair. Education systems have altered their approach to children with learning differences. Not so long ago children with dyslexia were stupid and were condemned to special education systems. They were not integrated into the regular world. Mainstream education was not adapted and a dyslexic child could not pass the exams. Education was exclusive and children with a learning disorder were pushed into a corner. The learning disorder cast a shadow on the entire development of a child and other strengths were not recognised. Today it’s different. Thanks to differentiation and adapted guidance these children have the chance to follow regular education like anybody else and that is fair.

Fairness is about inclusion. You make sure that people are included in the system and that they are treated like anybody else, if necessary through a differentiated approach. Differentiation is fair because it leads to inclusion and a reduction of inequality. Demanding the same treatment for everybody (i.e. applying the same rules) leads to unfairness and exclusion.

But it’s one of the hardest things to do. Many leaders want to hide behind general procedures because it liberates them from the personal responsibility to take decisions that might deviate from a norm. They can tell their team member that it’s the system that has treated them unfairly, not the leader. And the system treats everybody the same.

Legislation is like that. You will not hear me say that legal systems are unfair. But legal systems incorporate what we know now – or probably have known – at a certain stage. Not every eventuality can be integrated into a legal framework. And that’s what judges are for. They interpret the law regarding a situation. And that’s why the same crime leads to different sanctions. Judges can ask the question what is fair and leaders can do the same.

People who feel they are treated fairly in an empathic way will feel recognised. People who feel that they are treated in a certain way because of a system, will feel dehumanised. They will not feel that they matter.

Fairness is about applying rules, values, principles empathetically. And if leaders make exceptions the ultimate decision factor is the impact of that exception on other people. Leaders will not make exceptions when they feel that these will cause a disadvantage to other people. This disadvantage might be real or might be a perception.

Let’s make a comparison. Someone who is in a hurry could believe that the haste justifies running a red light. The red light does not concern them, because they need to get somewhere fast. We will not allow that. The risk is too high. The reason for the speed might be justified, but the collective risk is too big compared to the individual benefit. And again, there’s an exception. We understand that an ambulance may run red lights, because the collective risk is less important than the individual advantage, the saving of a human life.

A second comparison can also be made. Imagine a group of people on a lifeboat. If everyone is thirsty and you have only one bottle of water, there are two choices. You can adopt a mathematical approach: everyone gets the same proportional rations. Or you can differentiate according to the needs. Giving more water to a baby is fair as it runs a higher risk of dehydration.

And that’s the trade-off that any leader will need to make. They need to ask the question if they can be empathic and fair at the same time? And the answer is yes. Is it easy? The answer is no. Is it always possible? The answer is also no.

The good thing about being fair is that you can explain your decisions. You can tell people what you are doing and why. Not telling will arouse suspicions of favouritism. Explaining why you make exceptions makes you vulnerable but in a forceful way. Not telling makes you fragile in a weak way.

Being a fair leader makes leadership sustainable. It inspires trust and respect. It builds character. In a VUCA world the uncertainty and ambiguity might lead to feelings of unfairness. Changes might make what used to be fair, unjust. So a leader must be very aware that changing contexts could lead to unfairness. They need to adapt their definition of fairness.

Reciprocity: No One-Way Street

Both empathy and fairness have to deal with tensions between collective and individual interests. There is no one-way street. That means that a leader can expect reciprocity. This is more than a tit-for-tat approach to leadership. The “I-scratch-your-back-you scratch-mine” might resemble reciprocity, but there’s more. Reciprocity transcends a purely transactional relationship between leaders and followers.

Of course there is instrumental value in reciprocity. Employment contracts are still based on pure exchange: you give me your time and skills and I will give you a salary and security. This kind of approach to employment has prevailed and to some it is still the essence of employment.

But now we know there is more to it than this. The psychological contract goes beyond the instrumental and legal side of employment. A psychological contract is a set of usually implicit expectations someone has about the cooperation between people and their organisations, between

leaders and followers. If the psychological contract is breached there is a fast erosion of trust.

Next to instrumental value there’s also symbolic value54. The symbolic value is not tangible in itself, as opposed to money. It leads to some surprising side effects. Companies with strong brands can have employees working at lower salary levels if they want to, just because of the association with the brand. People are willing to work for a lower wage for a brand to which they can relate or that gives them some sort of social recognition. People can derive psychological value from working for that kind of company. This is called employee-based brand equity55. Working for a company with a strong brand gives an intangible return that compensates for certain disadvantages.

Non-profits and public service organisations have conquered a higher place in rankings of employer attractiveness. Next to the relative job security, people find that working for this kind of organisation is meaningful. That’s also the reason why people are willing to accept lower-paying jobs in these organisations. It always puzzles me that a junior social media manager can earn more than a nurse or a teacher. Is this an expression of how society appreciates these jobs? You cannot underestimate the societal value of the latter professions. People work in these jobs because they get something back which is not instrumental or monetary, but symbolic. They are not driven by status, money or power.

And that’s what you need to do as a leader. Try to establish a connection that supersedes the instrumental value of work. Make sure people do not come to work for the convenience or the income. Give them a reason to come and work in your team that is so magnetic that they could not imagine leaving the job or the industry. Find something that is so important to them that they are willing to sacrifice something just to be in the job.

That’s of course easier said than done. But if you base reciprocity on meaningfulness, rather than on some exchange of benefits, you almost create a perpetual mobile of motivation. And you avoid creating a culture where nobody wants to do something for someone else without an instant return. A culture of reciprocity depends on voluntary action.

Should you, on the contrary, install a tit-for-tat approach, you create a very instrumental culture in which extrinsic motivation becomes more important than you might want. A culture of give-and-take starts from giving voluntarily. The taking might be postponed or indirect, or symbolic.

When hasty drivers don’t run a red-light despite of the rush, they give something to society: safety. Their return is not instant nor is it visible. They can even experience disadvantage as they might show up late for an appointment or miss out on a deal. But the return is much more important than that: general safety. And they and their children can also benefit from a safer environment.

Reciprocity is not easy, but it’s essential to any relationship, therefore for any organisation.

Strategy execution is about making promises and keeping them. But as reciprocity seems to be under pressure, whom you promise it to seems to have become more important than ever. Relationships at work have become increasingly instrumental. People seem to make their actions depending on two questions: (1) is the other person important enough? (2) Can I get something out of it? This is an instrumental and calculative approach to reciprocity56. In that respect organisations have become less morally grounded. So check in which kind of environment you are working. Are there more givers or takers?

Givers, Takers and Matchers

In any environment, there are people who tend to give first (the givers), people who tend to take first (the takers) and people who only do things as there’s a good chance of getting something back (the matchers)57.

Givers prefer to give more than they get. They act in the interest of other people and do not expect anything in return. These people do not calculate. They just give. Some people later in life become givers after having been takers or matchers. They then become business angels, coaches, philanthropists.

Takers put their own interest first and will help others only when their costs to do so are lower than the benefits. These people bluntly tell you that they won’t help you if there’s no gain for them58. Matchers strive for a balance between what they give and what they get. These are the accountants of reciprocity. You know, these people will make an inventory of friends and acquaintances and adapt their invitations to invitations from the past or expected invitations in the future. They think in checks-and-balances.

It’s not that givers do not have self-interest. They do. And if they don’t they get exhausted if they continue to give. Sometimes givers become matchers because they feel that the reciprocity is lacking. Having only takers around is difficult for a giver. If there are only takers, they will negotiate about everything.

Reciprocity is important for sustainable leadership as it is the basis for sound relationships. It inspires trust but also creates an environment of mutual responsibilities. If there are enough symbolic reasons to be in a job or organisation, leaders have created a gravity that is much more powerful than any instrumental benefit could create. Instrumental benefits are not only more expensive but also less sustainable.

Kindness

Is a balance between empathy, fairness and reciprocity enough? There’s a fourth essential element and that’s kindness59. Kindness or compassion makes us more human, and this also applies to organisations. You might ask yourself if we really need to talk about this. You might qualify the topic as being too soft, too sentimental and not appropriate in a business context.

You might think it’s a moralising or even pedantic topic.

The base line is that kindness is not sentimental at all. It functions as a corrective power. We live in times with a clear focus on growth, with a risk

that people who cannot keep up are abandoned. So kindness is appropriate. Organisations need to integrate it into organisational culture and leadership. A leader who is able to be kind, gets stronger.

We all know successful companies that have no tolerance for kindness and that are treating their people like cattle60. Those companies might even excel for some time thanks to a dehumanizing approach. The question is if this is sustainable. Maybe it is for the organisation, but it’s not for its employees or for society. We know from research that companies that do good, perform better in the long run. Even though this research is not all that conclusive, humanising corporate practices contributes to overall company performance.

It’s about staying human.

It’s not an easy thing for organisations. Kindness has been exiled from professional life. Kindness seems to be reserved for the caring behaviour of mothers61. But it seems to come back. There is a growing body of literature on the vital organisational capability of compassion62.

There is only one reason that I can see why kindness has been ousted from corporate life. Kind behaviour may stand in the way of swift economic progress and efficiency. Companies are often built on competitive behaviour and this is often contradictory to helping or compassionate behaviour.

Helping someone else might demonstrate a relative weakness. Not helping another might lead to a relative strength. Making someone weaker makes you in a sense stronger in the competitive arena. It’s like the two guys being hunted down by a puma. One of them is going to die and if you can make sure that the other one is falling behind, chances are that the puma is going for him. It’s not a pleasant thought but this is the survival of the fittest.

Another example is that of an athlete that helps a fallen runner get up and continue the race63. Kindness does not lead to victory in those cases. See the story about Jacqueline Kiplimo.

Story 11 Jacqueline Kiplimo

Kenyan athlete Jacqueline Kiplimo participated in the 2010 marathon of Zhengkai in China. She saw a disabled Chinese runner. Because of the fact that this runner had no hands, he could not drink. So he was dehydrating. Nobody helped. She did. She ran alongside him for 28 km to help him. Only when she saw he would make it, she accelerated again. She came in second, but did not get the victory. Putting kindness above winning is rare in a hard and competitive sport. Kiplimo has shown her character by helping someone else.

It’s difficult in sports, but also in business. Internal and external competition can kill kindness. Companies have introduced systems of performance management64 and variable pay that stimulate competitive behaviours. Those systems often discourage behaviours of kindness. So, we might need to look again at them65.

Every company needs to look at how it can integrate kindness into its own culture. By doing so, a great company context can be created. Kindness in itself is not contradictory to achievement. Both can go hand in hand. But if winning pushes kindness away, there’s a problem. Character will erode. The story of H. is an example of kindness in practice.

Story 12 H. – Kindness in Practice

H. was one of the first people I met when I joined the company. He was a sales manager with a very broad smile. He came up to me during a reception to introduce himself and to welcome me. We got along immediately. In that first talk he told me he had cancer. He said it very casually. Intestines. Twice. But he was confident he could beat the disease. Not long after we had met he was diagnosed for a third time. He went into chemo. Every other week he was in hospital. The

treatment made him sick. But he insisted to come to work the weeks he was not in chemo. In terms of organisation this was a challenge. He was not able to do his job like he wanted to and like he should. Maybe it was better to ask him to stay at home so that he could recover but also that he could be replaced. The company did not do it. We knew that feeling useful was one of the things he needed. He would have felt so bad if the company had decided to put him on sick leave or if they had taken him out of this job. So a structure was designed to give support. We appointed a deputy and he took on the role of a coach.

The man worked until he died. Colleagues who visited him were impressed by how concerned he was and how he kept on giving advice until the last day. Keeping the man in the job and redesigning the context was an act of kindness. There was not so much reciprocity in the equation. It was not efficient and the organisation had to find a way to give meaning to a man for whom work and family were the only things that mattered. His family was very grateful for the way he was supported by the colleagues and his manager. I would not have wanted to do this in any other way.

The case of H. might sound easy. It wasn’t. It was difficult for the organisation to adapt. It took some energy. This was someone who was willing to continue working also in difficult circumstances. The attitude was right; the connection was right. The question is if you would do that for someone who was a bad performer with a bad attitude? That’s a moral question. And the answer is probably negative. This does not mean you would not be kind. But you would take a different decision.

Kindness is not weak. Leaders come across the entire bandwidth of situations and human qualities and they need to deal with them. They cannot afford to become a haven for people who do not want to contribute. Sometimes they need to take a tough decision that is not kind at all.

People who take advantage of a leader’s kindness do not stay in a team. People who do not have the right attitude need to leave. And it’s not

difficult to be kind to people with the right attitude. Kindness is in balance with reciprocity or is maybe even proportional to it.

There is a saying that leaders need to hire slow and fire fast. Maybe this is a bit too simple as a principle. What it means is that leaders have to think through their hiring decisions, and once they’ve realised they have made a mistake they should not wait too long to dismiss. More and more leaders are aware of the fact that they have to hire for attitude and train for skills. But sometimes they inherit a team. And then they need to work with the talent available66.

To me kindness is the proof of the pudding of sustainable leadership. If leaders can do acts of kindness (small and big) they will be perceived as more humane. This will inspire trust. Showing kindness is a sign of character. The leader is willing to give up some efficiency, just to take personal adversary circumstances into consideration. This shows strength. This is a challenge in a VUCA world.

A Matter of Balance

Empathy, fairness, reciprocity and kindness are four characteristics that make us by definition human67. And if there’s something we want to preserve it is precisely that, our humanity. As always it’s a matter of finding balance. Kindness can get in the way of swift action. Kind leaders might be seen as hesitant, doubtful, weak. And they are if they have only this trait. Empathic leaders who are unable to make tough calls based on principles of fairness, will not survive. They have to able to say no if necessary. Managers who stress the reciprocity aspect might focus too much on results and exchange and will not be able to make compassionate exceptions.

These are the paradoxes any leader is confronted with. But these are also the paradoxes that any human being is confronted with. So leadership is nothing more than a version of being human. Leadership is rooted in that what makes us uniquely human. And if it is, leadership is sustainable.

© David Ducheyne

Figure 5. The 4 Elements of Character in Balance

The Character Test: 2 Guiding Questions

Every time I give an introduction to emerging leaders I talk about humanity and these 4 characteristics. It’s a very abstract topic to start with. I see some people being uneasy in their chairs with their eyes gazing into a void. But then I make it more tangible. I ask questions on how they feel when they are treated unfairly. Or how do they feel when their leader is absent and does not show any empathy. What happens when a leader becomes unresponsive to questions? They remember, they feel bad. And that’s where their interest kicks in.

They realise that leadership is not so much about what leaders are telling you, but it’s about how they make you feel. And that’s a big difference with most leadership development programs that still focus on certain competencies which have limited value to people if they are not backed by deep and genuine humanity. Skills that are not linked to character are not very powerful.

But can you as a leader be inhumane? Again, that’s a difficult question to answer. There are two sides to humanity: the social caring side and the more competitive side68. People can do the most horrendous things which shock and disgust us. People can do things that are in conflict with the

social side of humanity. But inhumane behaviour is also part of human behaviour. And also leaders can do things that are inhumane. Leaders are not perfect and their leadership evolves over the years, in either direction.

Most people start their career with the best of intentions, and want to protect their values and principles. If senior leaders looked back and heard themselves talk two decades ago, they would possibly be moved by so much naivety. During a career, people dilute some of the principles and accept that they have to work in situations that, or with people who do not match our values.

Leadership is moral because it affects other people. So values are your compass. But leaders have to deal with moral situations that test their character.

How do leaders solve this inherent conflict between personal values and difficult situations? As always, the answer is: “it depends”. But there are two simple guiding questions that help in building a humane and sustainable leadership and protect against erosion of character:

1. Is this the right thing to do? 2. Can I do it in the right way?

Leaders can apply these two questions on almost any leadership dilemma or difficult situation. These questions are especially useful in situations where they feel some kind of moral69 friction between what they are expected to do and what they think is the proper thing to do. Leaders are constantly confronted with these frictions and they need to resolve them. These are often situations in which their actions have a high impact on others, like in the case of an individual dismissal or a collective restructuring.

The Case of Dismissal

Let’s take the act of a dismissal. No leader likes to do this for the simple reason that the act of dismissing someone might jeopardize that person’s future. In some cases, they send this person into long term unemployment or they damage that person’s reputation. It’s more than an administrative act. It’s also a result of failure, of misfit, of broken dreams and promises.

But dismissal can be justified because of economic circumstances or just because there was no reciprocity.

The justification of an individual dismissal might be related to actions of characteristics of the person, and/or changes of that person’s context.

These are questions you could ask:

Is it the right thing to do? Is this person giving enough value to the organisation? (reciprocity) If this person stays, is it fair towards others? (fairness) Is there any reason that could explain why this person is not up to standards? (kindness)

Can I do it the right way? Have I as a leader done enough to listen to that person and find alternative ways in order to avoid dismissal (empathy) and to get the balance right (reciprocity)? Can I as a leader reduce the negative impact of the dismissal on that person (kindness again)?

The last question seems the hardest one. Dismissal is about (r)ejection. Is it then possible to fire someone nicely70? Some companies are looking for ways of doing that. The case of HopeLab shows it’s not that easy. HopeLab is a tech company that tries to do dismissals differently. They organise a goodbye, adapted to the dismissed person. They go far in reducing the negative impact on the persons they dismiss and by doing so they reduce the impact on the state of mind of the people that stay.

In some companies dismissal is not a responsibility of the leader but of the team. Morning Star has a system where peers can decide on the dismissal of people. This might seem far-fetched, but think about it. And even when dismissal is a leader’s job, in many cases co-workers will have given input about the behaviour and performance of that person prior to the decision. If peers say that the dismissal was the right thing to do, the dismissal was OK to do.

The Case of Restructuring

A similar case – but a collective case – is restructuring. This is a tough one. Many restructuring programs are driven by financials and have severe repercussions for large numbers of people, both for those who perform well and for those who don’t. Some restructurings might not be perceived as justifiable. Closing down an efficient factory in order to reduce a firm’s or industry’s capacity might seem economically justifiable on a global level but to those in the plant, it is not. And again the same questions apply.

Is this the right thing to do? Is this plant providing enough value to the organisation and would closing it down improve the company’s performance? Other question: would keeping the plant open jeopardize the company’s future? (Reciprocity) Is it fair to do in light of the collective responsibility? Can we avoid worse consequences by doing this? Are there alternatives? (Fairness)

Can I do it the right way? Can we do it, taking into consideration the needs of the people that are made redundant (empathy)? Are there people who need a specific deal so that they do not get in trouble (Kindness). Can we recognize what people have done? (Empathy)

It’s extremely difficult to act in an empathic way during a process of restructuring. Leaders are looking for a common denominator and because of that nobody feels appreciated. But they can choose how you deal with this situation as a leader.

I have never understood leaders who do not turn up themselves to break the bad news, and who leave it up to someone else. It’s in these difficult times that leaders have to be present and be able to look people in the eye. The answer to the two guiding questions can help them.

Negative Answers

The most difficult situation presents itself when one or both questions have to be answered negatively. This can happen when an HQ is unable to explain the restructuring to local management. Leaders need to ask all the questions they can. Some distant leaders might be uneasy because these questions can reveal the inconsistency of a decision in a painful way. So those leaders might experience critical questions as acts of resistance or defiance. It’s essential to take time to explain why these questions are important.

The ideal situation is when there is a good reason to do something and it can be done the right way. This might be difficult in cases like a restructuring, a divestment, a tactical move, a hostile take-over, a challenging merger with integration and downsizing afterwards, a disruptive innovation with high risk, or a necessary turnaround of a business. But if leaders understand that the rationale behind it is good and that they can proceed in a proper way, they can digest any difficult decision.

Sometimes the reason is good, but one cannot proceed in the right way; This might be due to lack of resources, lack of clarity of responsibilities, an ever-changing vision, time pressure. It’s not unlikely that VUCA situations exert so much pressure that leaders neglect the human side of the process. Sometimes they get in this situation because their leader has thought everything through and does not allow any space for discussion. If leaders are instructed to do something and the instructions are not up to their professional standards, they might feel uneasy. They need to use their influence to change and improve the situation. They have to do this as fast as possible and not when they’re halfway through. Here they need to remain professional and ask what they need. They can easily explain why they need it. They can play the sustainability card. Doing it a different way might enhance the quality of the decision and the sustainability of the execution.

When there is no good reason to do something, but it cannot be done in a correct way leaders are in a dilemma. The question is why they should bother? Here they need to remain communicative. It is important for them to understand why something has to be done. If they cannot understand the

reason, they cannot internalize it. If they cannot internalize it, they cannot sell it authentically. When they start to sell things they do not believe in themselves, they are on the slippery slope towards the erosion of character.

Finally when leaders have to reply negatively to both questions, they are in trouble. It’s difficult to proceed and they need to resist, as long as it is important to them to remain ethical. They could decide to only resist when it’s really important to them. But they need to resist especially when it’s really important to someone else: the customer, the stakeholder, the shareholder. Leaders do not have to resist because they will benefit. They need to resist because it’s going to be beneficial for everyone in the long term. If they do not resist, or they resist out of personal and instrumental reasons, they have lost the battle. Their character has eroded a little bit (further).

© David Ducheyne

Figure 6. The Two Questions

Being Decent

There’s a risk that you might find these questions naïve. Everyone will have to deal with situations that are awkward or uneasy. And we cannot always choose the cards we get. But we can decide how to play these cards. Asking these questions helps you to preserve your character and humanity. It’s generally easier to answer the question on the justification of the restructuring then to answer the question if it can be done in a decent way.

How do you break bad news in a decent way? The answer is with kindness and empathy. Both the dismissal and the restructuring can be done with decency. But it takes character to do so.

Every day leaders are confronted with situations that challenge the foundations of their humanity. They must balance paradoxes that seem to be irreconcilable. There are many temptations to take short cuts, to let go of fundamental values and principles, to go for fast progress and profit. They might find themselves in situations that ask them to put aside moral questions. This is dangerous. Every time a leader does that they risk character erosion. Moreover, it appears setting aside moral contemplation is beneficial to career progression. This does not mean that people higher up have no morals. It means that they have to cut through the moral dilemmas faster and move on without looking back71. It might be like this, but it’s dangerous. It damages their character. They become indifferent to the human side of business. That is a slow and hardly noticeable process. But one thing is sure: losing the integrity of your character is difficult to recover from.

Every leader risks failure and the loss of a part of their humanity. Derailment and character erosion, which I will discuss in the next chapter, is a great risk that needs to be taken care of. It’s up to leaders to decide if they want to make a career on principles and values and to what extent they are willing to give up certain principles for the sake of personal progress or in the interest of the organisation they work for. They have to decide what they are prepared to do, and what not. Be sure that giving up on all one’s

values and principles might get someone at the top in certain organisations, but it’s not very likely that one will be able to sustain that position. Leadership that is not linked to moral standards is not sustainable because character has eroded. And when character erodes, work places may become toxic.

Toxic Work Places

Toxic work places are work environments that have a destructive tendency. Toxic workplaces come in a lot of variations but let’s say they have one thing in common: they destroy the identity and dignity of people. There are subtle or less subtle ways a toxic work environment adopts to do that. As with many issues, people who find themselves in such a context can do three things:

1. they can accept it, 2. they can flee from it or 3. they can resist and try and change it.

But they have to monitor the effect the toxic workplace has on you. If their self-esteem is damaged it might be time to leave. The contradictory element is that a toxic workplace is a good place to learn. People learn about themselves, they learn how to preserve their values. A toxic workplace teaches them to cope with difficult or unreasonable behaviour.

Toxic workplaces are often linked to a toxic or derailed leader, with an eroded character. Toxic workplaces are not sustainable because they lack the basic, which is humanity.

Takeaways

Character is related to your humanity.

Character is based on four basic characteristics: empathy, fairness, reciprocity and kindness. Leaders need to keep these four elements in balance. There are two basic questions that help leaders survive difficult situations while keeping their humanity intact: “Is this the right thing to do” and “Can I do it the right way?” Erosion of character leads to toxic workplaces that are not very sustainable.

Checks

How could you develop empathy in your work? Start by listening to what people really need. How do you maintain fairness? Are you able to make empathic exceptions and explain them to people? How about reciprocity? Is your environment one of givers, takers or matchers? Are you able to show acts of kindness? Is this supported by the work context? When confronted with difficult moral situations, ask the two guiding questions. How often can you answer positively to them? How toxic is the workplace you are working in?

“ No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence72.

Barbara Tuchman

04 The Erosion of Character

Development and Failing Leadership

If leadership is based on character, does it mean that people with a weaker character cannot be leaders? I believe this is true. There are of course many nuances and the answer to the question is not black or white. Can someone with a weaker character evolve and grow? The answer is yes. Character still evolves at a later age. We do not have to be too deterministic about that. People grow. People learn. They develop into better versions of themselves. But they remain pretty much themselves. As people grow older, they become more comfortable with themselves. They are less inclined to moodiness and negative emotions. They are more responsible and caring. They are also more focused on long-term tasks and plans and less susceptible to extreme risk-taking. They control unbridled internal impulses better than younger people73. This is what you could call maturity.

So development is beneficial for leadership and its development. As people grow older they have more of the characteristics of a leader. However, there are also leaders who derail. Leadership derailment, linked to one person, already has severe consequences. Leadership derailment as part of an organisational and leadership culture is a disaster.

Leadership has a direct impact on the work and lives of people. And in some cases leadership impacts someone’s identity. Most managers will have only a moderate influence. But some pop out. And if they’re excellent, they will make you thrive and you can enjoy the fruits of their leadership. But if they’re bad, they can turn your life into hell74.

Erosion

Character can evolve and expand, but it can also erode. Erosion is the process by which the surface of the earth is worn away by the action of water, glaciers, winds, waves, etc. It’s a gradual process. For example, it has

taken thousands of years to form the Calanques in the South of France or Antelope Canyon. Erosion can create smooth but also rugged surfaces. The thing is, no one notices erosion, unless it’s caused by a flash flood or landslide. The water trickles down drop by drop to change the rock it falls upon.

Character erosion is exactly the same. Erosive forces eat at a person’s character. Character erosion is the process by which certain life events slowly change character. Character erosion is not always bad, because some of the sharp traits can be smoothed out by erosion as well. Erosion becomes harmful when it reaches the core of your humanity. Empathy fades. The sense of fairness gets contaminated. The capacity to be kind evaporates. And the sense of reciprocity crumbles. Character erosion is a slow process, but once it has started it seems to be difficult to stop. It’s like a dam breach. Once the water gets through, it’s impossible to reverse the process.

Look at yourself. Having advanced in your career, you might want to look back. And if you do, you’ll see that you are not the person that you used to be at the start of your professional career. How many principles did you have to sacrifice on the altar of progress? How many situations were uncomfortable? How often have you done something that was not totally in line with your own values? The answer is most probably often. And in itself that’s not bad. Such is life. We live and we make choices. And we make mistakes.

Leadership derailment is related to character erosion or to the lack of a stable foundation at the start. But erosion is not about the necessary mistakes leaders make at the beginning of their career. Derailment occurs during the further development of their leadership. Leaders become caricatures of themselves. They get poisoned by hubris, and seem to lose track of reality. It might also happen to you, without knowing.

Almost half of leaders derail75. That percentage is stunning. It seems like the higher you climb the career ladder, the less oxygen there is. If you are in a management meeting and you look around, half of the people in the room will derail at one point in their lifetime. Or half of them already has.

There are three reasons for this derailment:

Leaders are overusing a limited talent that has enabled them to become a leader. Do not forget that in becoming a leader, other people have accepted that leadership. Strengths may become weaknesses. The limitations of those talents become limitations to leadership and its sustainability. The context76 is such that derailment is the only normal way. Derailment is contagious and there is a lot of pressure to adapt values and norms and to weaken ethical standards. Finally, some myths about leadership force leaders to behave insustainably77.

Strengths Becoming Weaknesses

Core Qualities

Everyone has core qualities78. Core qualities are essential characteristics of someone. If you ask people to describe someone else, they will very fast come to the core qualities of that person. That’s because core qualities make someone special, unique and remarkable.

An example of a core quality is being imaginative. Persons with imagination come up with new ideas. They never follow the same path and everything they do is very original. That allows them to find new out-of-the- box solutions for old problems.

But every core quality has a pitfall, a dark side. When people use their core qualities too often or too intensely, they may find themselves in this pitfall. When they apply that core quality too much, it might get in the way.

© Ofman

Figure 7. The Core Qualities.

An example: Someone wants so much to be imaginative, it becomes a pose. This person can never do the normal thing. Even when the most tried, efficient and effective way of doing things is obvious, they will come up with an alternative solution, even when it’s clear it sometimes is just better to follow the proven route and not waste time.

So every core quality comes with a developmental challenge. This is the positive opposite of the pitfall. A challenge is a skill, attitude or trait people could acquire to make their own profile more complete.

An example: The challenge for imaginative thinkers is to control their imagination and apply it only when it has value and to accept that the trodden way might be the best option. Not every battle has to be won and if there are other, more predictable ways of doing things, that’s OK.

But if they overdo it and their challenge becomes dominant. They might develop a characteristic that lies right at the heart of their allergy, which is the negative opposite of their core quality.

An example: focusing on compliance and predictability might lead imaginative people to bury their unique ideas and become predictable and

in-line with general expectations. They have lost a core quality and have adapted themselves too much. This leads to a bad feeling, and mediocre performance.

This model is also applicable to leadership. And like with all people, leaders can get stuck in their pitfall without knowing it. Let’s look at this.

The Decisive Leader

Decision-making is an important task of a leader. Decisive people will often take on leadership roles. We think we need a decisive person. Very often that’s what is wanted in times of crisis. Think about what happened in Europe in the 30’s. There was a cry for decisive leaders in the period between the two World Wars. And those leaders do what they are good at: they take decisions. This might have been enough to be attributed the leadership role. But is it enough to keep it?

A perverse mechanism is activated. Decisive leaders decide and think they are the only one who can take those often difficult decisions. Maybe they even think that they have saved the organisation through their own decision-making. Predecessors might have messed up and now they can clean up. These leaders feel needed and are convinced it’s going to be difficult to be replaced. This thinking shapes the environment. People notice that these leaders like to decide on their own. They notice that they do not like to hear bad news that weakens their self-perception of a strong and decisive leader. So people around those leaders start to avoid breaking bad news. And so, the leader only gets good news. This reinforces their personal belief they are indeed good decision-makers. And so, they get right into their pitfall, reinforced by an adaptive context. These leaders start taking decisions on their own, without checking with others. They do not listen to dissenting voices. This can have severe consequences for both the quality and the acceptance of the decisions. So the challenge for these leaders is to involve other people more and earlier. The challenge is to listen more and appreciate other opinions and input. But when these leaders exaggerate, they might lose the capability of decision-making and they land in the zone of allergies: indecisiveness, paralysis by analysis, the anxiety to forget someone and getting stuck in endless discussions.

Figure 8. The Decisive Leader.

This mechanism undermines the sustainability of leadership. The fact that the once decisive leader loses decision power, has consequences for the team or organisation. They have to tolerate the indecisiveness or compensate for it.

The decisive leaders who get stuck in their pitfall will suffocate the team and will gather unopinionated people around them. Reciprocity and empathy get eroded, and most probably fairness as well.

These leaders have difficult times in a VUCA world. Making decisions in an ambiguous and changing context requires joint decisions and actions. There are just too many explanations, hypotheses and visions of the future that make it impossible to gather all the facts. A leader cannot decide alone. Cooperation and collaborative decision-making are key. The VUCA world pushes decisive leaders towards a more participative style, which in turn gives opportunities to other team members. The VUCA world requires decisive leaders to overcome their pitfall and tackle their challenge.

The Charismatic Leader

Many leaders are asked to lead because of their charisma. Charisma is a very useful and powerful trait for any leader. Charisma is what gets leaders noticed and what gets their message heard. When a charismatic leader

enters the room, heads turn, conversations change and people want to talk to them. When these leaders open their mouth, nobody will interrupt. But a leader, who only relies on charisma, will not last.

Charisma becomes a pitfall when leaders rely too much on it. They will be seen as shallow, always repeating the same rhetorical tricks. Their charisma might be so strong that people feel crushed by it. People no longer want to work with those leaders, because there simply is not enough room for them.

The worst thing for charismatic leaders is to accept that they too are vulnerable. They have fallen too much in love with themselves. Maybe they are narcissistic. The vanity of charismatic leaders is a creeping venom that harms their entire personality.

Charismatic leaders have a hard time with personal change and evolution. Being admired is so addictive. They get a lot of attention and they get used to that. They seem to be at the centre of everything and everything is going smoothly. Admitting that they are wrong is almost impossible. Narcissistic leaders have developed a personal logic that is consistent to them, but not to the rest of the world. At the height of their realm, these leaders feel entitled to a special, better treatment, like better remuneration79. They feel they are above the rules that are valid for the others. When leaders get imperial or divine caprices, something must be done.

The difference between God and Larry Ellison: God doesn’t think he’s Larry Ellison.

M. WILSON80

Figure 9. The Charismatic Leader.

Charismatic leaders run a great risk for character erosion. Both the organisation and the leader will suffer great difficulties once that happens. This mechanism leads in most cases to a clash at the highest levels of the organisation and results usually in the dismissal of the leader. Leaders who think they are more important than the organisation they lead, are systematically ousted. And the stakes are high for any organisation. Charismatic leaders take bad decisions, because they want to perpetuate their charisma and position, and no longer put the objectives of the organisation above their own. Of course this is also a matter of corporate governance. The supervision of the CEO and executive leaders of an organisation is of the highest importance. The non-executive board must remain vigilant and intervene from the moment there are signs of character erosion and derailment.

VUCA is not easy for charismatic leaders. Because of the volatility, decisions do not remain valid for a long time. Many decisions prove to be wrong. So leaders need to shift quickly. Charismatic leaders do not like to admit that they were wrong. This feature will eventually expose charismatic leaders who do not succeed in avoiding their pitfall. And sometimes they take a wrong tactic. They adopt the tactic of learned vulnerability81. They anticipate the need of people to work with a leader who is able to show

humanity and who can show vulnerability. This vulnerability is, alas, artificial.

The challenge for any charismatic leader is to accept criticism and to be critical about their own actions. It’s not easy for them because this requires them to deny, minimise or neutralize their charisma. Leaders who go too far in this journey, may weaken their very leadership. But most probably this is only a theoretical event because charismatic leaders who get stuck in their pitfall and derail, will in most cases be unable to overcome this. Only a very serious signal can get them back on track. And even then, it’s possible that the damaged charismatic leader withdraws without admitting any committed mistake82.

Story 13 The Flamboyant CEO

Matthew was the CEO of a cleaning company. The company was in a bad shape and that was his fault. The company failed to pick up signals in the market, just because he was too stubborn to acknowledge them. He could not accept that other people questioned his policy, especially when they compared the cleaning industry to other sectors. Some of his favourite quotes were “we have existed for 50 years, and we will exist for at least another 50 years” and “The world does not change, because people don’t”. All dissent was crushed in the bud. He could stare for minutes at people who dared to express some form of criticism. His flaming eyes intimidated people. He torpedoed ideas by asking questions for which nobody had an answer. He subsequently sent people home with new assignments they needed to do on top of the rest. This treatment caused people to bite their tongues and go along with his approach.

This behaviour was in contrast with how he was in public appearances. He was often flamboyant and could inspire people. He walked around in the company and talked to people in a very personable way. He knew many people by name. One day he gave out candy. People adored him.

Matthew started to behave like an enlightened despot. He demanded advantages nobody else had. He always made a distinction between himself and the others, but thought he should come in the first place. People who knew him well, saw the growing discrepancy between how he really was and the perception he created with the crowds.

The Ambitious Leader

Another example is that of ambitious leaders. Ambition combined with actually getting results can boost a career and gets people into the seat of the CEO. Being ambitious is a trait that definitely is desired within most organisations. However, being ambitious can become a pitfall when leaders lose their sense of reality and are willing to take unacceptable risks just to get done what they have promised to shareholders. This is what has happened in the financial sector in 2008. You might say that it’s because of the shareholders that corporate leaders accepted or created those unacceptably high risks. I don’t think any shareholder would have wanted the financial collapse in 2008. For an extremely ambitious leader it’s very difficult to accept that something does not work. And that’s understandable. Leaders do what leaders do: they want progress. And standing still or moving forward slowly is not in their vocabulary.

The challenge for ambitious leaders is to take risks into account and check the feasibility of a plan. Leaders who go too far in that direction might get into a situation in which they avoid all risks and develop a kind of cowardice.

Figure 10. The Ambitious Leader.

Character erosion through ambition is very risky for an organisation. It starts as a dream. The leader has big plans and promises high yields. Shareholders and upper management like this and go along. Ambitious leaders might get rid of all resistance they encounter, losing their sense of empathy, fairness and kindness.

The Meticulous Leader

Being meticulous is a fourth core quality that can turn into a weakness. Being meticulous is of value in many industries like energy, audit and chemistry. It becomes a pitfall the moment that leaders apply their own norms of meticulousness on their colleagues in all situations. They become micro-managers, checking up on every detail of every project or task someone else is handling. They might even be incapable of accepting that people have other norms. Some people perform well under time pressure so they postpone everything to the last minute. For a meticulous leader this is a nightmare. Working for a meticulous leader a nightmare for the just-in-time performer.

The challenge is to let go more and to accept that others can function differently. Letting go of certain less essential norms is hard. When

meticulous leaders let go of too much they get into their zone of allergy of laisser-faire. This is not what these leaders want, and would also be problematic for any organisation.

Figure 11. The Meticulous Leader.

Everyone Can Derail

The message is: what makes you strong can make you weak. The mechanism behind this paradoxical observation is the disproportionate reinforcement of the strength and the dependency of the person on that strength. Said in another way: a one-dimensional approach to leadership is never sustainable.

Story 14 Daedalus and Icarus

One of the earliest examples of derailment is Icarus. Icarus is a mythical character who escaped from the Labyrinth helped by his

father Daedalus. He did this by making wings of feathers and wax. And as he flew, he got courageous, too courageous. He wanted to fly to the sun. And as he approached the sun, his wings melted and he fell into his death. His derailment was a case of Hubris. The thing is that he was warned by his father not to do it, and yet he did not listen83.

Landscape with the Fall of Icarus84

Everyone can derail. Everyone will derail at some point or at least be in danger or derailing. And therefore it’s important to know how derailment works and what the risk factors are.

The Derailing Effect of Power and Money

Next to the fact that a strength becomes a weakness when used too much, the context provides erosive elements. There’s the pressure, the use of power and the temptation of money.

Power corrupts. It is one of the strongest elements linked to leadership that leads to derailment. Power is like a venom that slowly spreads through the veins and gradually takes over. Thinking fossilizes. Derailing leaders seem to develop a logic of their own, which is solid and robust, but after a while nobody follows.

One of the things that always astonishes me is the effect of power on people. When I became an executive I noticed that people adapted their behaviour to my function. Sometimes I wonder if people are talking to me or to my position.

Leaders that are aware of their power can use it to get things done. Some people use derived power. We all know people who ask things in the name of people higher up the power scale in order to get something faster. It works.

And even though using derived power seems quite innocent, there are other examples that are less innocent and more harmful. Power has the capacity to change relationships and erode character. Once you get used to it, you cannot let go of it. It’s addictive. And that’s why some organisations limit the mandate of a CEO, or why countries do not allow presidents to take more than two terms as head of state.

There are different sources of power85:

The power of position is the formal authority that derives from a person’s title or position in a group or an organisation. The power of charisma is the influence that is generated by a leader’s style or persona. The power of relationships is the influence that leaders gain through their formal and informal networks both inside and outside of their organisations. The power of information is the control that is generated through the use of evidence deployed to make an argument. The power of expertise is the influence that comes from developing and communicating specialized knowledge or the perception of knowledge.

The power of punishment is the ability to sanction individuals for failure to conform to standards or expectations. The power of reward is the ability to recognize or reward individuals for adhering to standards or expectations.

28 % of leaders report that the leaders at the top of their organisation abuse power (cf. footnote 85 above).

If there’s one thing that can lead to the erosion of the character of leaders, it’s power. Leaders might be reluctant to use power at the beginning of their career. They might remember how they wanted to be treated by their leaders. Then they realise that using power can get faster results, so they use it. This has a reinforcing effect on them: the more they use it, the more they become effective. People around the leader adapt to the power mode. They will become more careful and refrain from saying things that could weaken the leader. Or they adapt so they are in the good graces of the leader. Or they might want to get a piece of the action by using derived power. They do everything to confirm the power of the leader and to conform to that power. At a certain moment, leaders who base leadership on power get isolated. They do not receive bad news any longer as people polish what they say. The leader becomes alienated86. Truly powerful people, do not use their power to get things done.

Downward Mobbing

The sense of being in power or the need to use power can lead to downward mobbing87.

Downward mobbing is the worst behaviour a leader can display. Leaders can be sloppy, or untalented, boring, or lack inspiration. They can be anything but leaders. But if they engage in explicit or implicit bullying, they become a person’s worst nightmare.

Unfortunately, leadership appears to be one of the most decisive predictors of mobbing. Terms like “health endangering leadership”, “destructive leadership” and “abusive supervision” have been used to describe this kind

of behaviour. The impact of that kind of leadership is devastating: stress, post-traumatic stress, burnout, withdrawal, emotional exhaustion, depression, anger, and anxiety. Leaders like this destroy people’s dignity and identity and wreck people’s lives and perspectives.

Here’s a list of behaviour these managers adopt: scapegoating, name calling, abusing physically, imposing extreme work pressure, acting arbitrarily, self-exaggerating, systematically underestimating of team members, lacking in consideration, forcing a style of conflict resolution, discouraging initiatives, using discretionary punishment, insulting, humiliating in public.

You might argue that all of this is in the eye of the beholder. It’s all about perception. One might argue that no leader will intentionally want to destroy someone’s self-esteem or identity. That may be so, but maybe the only objective measure of mobbing lies in the subjective perception88. And a leader needs to take this into account.

Money

Ambition can turn into greed. Leaders might be rewarded by generous variable pay systems. But money is an important factor of character erosion. The mere mention of money has a great impact and can inspire unethical behaviour89. Greed diminishes reciprocity and freedom. People will only be free when they can get rid of dependence and greed90. But the problem is that many of the reward systems in organisations are based upon this. Exuberant rewards for leaders change behaviours. Leaders will take on bigger risks because they are tempted by the promise of wealth. Also the gap between the remuneration at the top of the organisation pyramid and that at the bottom is in some countries and companies so big that all sense of proportionality, reciprocity and fairness seems to have vanished.

Power and money make a deadly cocktail of derailment factors. All leaders should be aware of how these factors are present in their context.

Why Have You Become a Leader in the First Place?

If you see that a leader can display really bad behaviour, you need to ask why someone became a leader in the first place. There’s always a reason why someone becomes a leader. But most of them “stumble” into it. It’s like something that happens to them. Leaders really need to think about this. I’ve asked this question to many leaders and here are some of the answers.

There was nobody else to do it. This happens often. There’s a crisis and someone has to take the responsibility to tackle problems. Or someone leaves and there’s a hole that needs to be filled. Someone has to step in. Sometimes a crisis can lead to the discovery of new leadership talent. However, a leader in times of crisis is not necessarily the right leader in other circumstances, like Winston Churchill had to discover after the second World War91. I own the place (or my parents did). This is leadership by tradition or genetics. It’s not simple. There’s no reason to assume that leadership talent is hereditary. The challenge of many family- owned companies is succession. The next generations might have been spoiled and lack the entrepreneurial and leadership qualities of the founding generation. I was the best expert at the time. It happens often that the best experts get promoted into management positions, and are assumed to become leaders. The best accountant becomes the accounting manager. The best builder becomes the supervisor. This is usually dramatic for both the ones taking on the responsibility and for the ones that are being led. They are overwhelmed by the non-technical demands of leadership and go into “shock”. It was a promotion. Sometimes people aspire to leadership because there is a promotion involved, and a subsequent pay raise. This is an understandable reason, but it’s a lethal one as it makes leadership unsustainable on the spot. People without passion to lead, will never be passionate leaders. So how good can you

become as a leader? What if the people that lead, (just) do it for the money? Promotion-based leadership leads to the Peter principle92. I like power. People can start to lead because they are driven by power. They see leadership as an expression of superiority. They are not inspired by the idea that they are at the service of others.

If these are reasons to become leaders, leadership will not be sustainable. Maybe we should consider these reasons:

It came naturally to me. Some people end up in leadership roles wherever they are: at work, in the choir, in the community centre, … People ask them for leadership roles because they sense the leadership potential. Some people take on responsibility naturally because they cannot stand a lack of progress. People started to listen to me. Some leaders say that they suddenly noticed that people started to listen. Having an opinion helps. But there’s more to it than that. For people to start listening to you, you need a convincing story. I am good at story-telling so people believe me. Storytelling is something you can do to create a sense of purpose and direction. People like that. But again, it’s not enough. As I’ve discussed earlier, leadership is a matter of character. A good story does not make up for a weak character. People trusted me to be their leader. This is probably the best reason to be(come) a leader. It’s an essential aspect of sustainable leadership. I like to help people and achieve results. Leadership can be servant. It’s not a matter of ego. Leadership is always about someone else.

If people become leaders because of the above reasons, leadership will be more sustainable.

Ethics

There are many psychological processes leading to leadership derailment. But there is also an ethical side to it. Leaders who derail have often a lower sense of morality, and usually they are unaware of it.

Leadership is always about ethics. People with high morals will engage in helping, caring, compassionate and honest behaviour. Some people will say that these hinder a career. And in many contexts this is the case. However, ethical behaviour promotes sustainability in leadership. Honesty prevails. Ethical behaviour is beneficial to leaders, their team, their organisation and to society.

The ethical dimension of leadership has an impact on how a team behaves. When the leader sets high ethical standards, the team will be less likely to engage in unethical behaviour93.

To me sustainable leadership is inspired by ethics.

Story 15 The Derailed Professor

To talk about derailed leaders in person is tricky. Chances are that these leaders do not think they’re derailed. But there is one interesting account of derailment by Diederik Stapel, a former Dutch professor in social psychology. He is well known in the Netherlands. Before 2011 he was well-known for his catchy one-liners that were taken up by the media. After 2011 he was known as a fraud, as more than a quarter of his research was based on fake data.

He has written a book on his experience called “Derailment”. In this book he gave an account of the reasons why he committed fraud on this scale. Mr. Stapel wanted to become a great psychology scholar, but his research was mediocre. There were no great discoveries, nothing that drew attention. He was a grey mouse in academia. And then things changed. He manipulated or invented data to get much more interesting results. And he continued doing it. It became normal. The driver was probably vanity, or maybe status anxiety.

I met him once. He held a lecture for the Ghent Alumni Association of Psychologists (GAP) two years after the fraud. The debate between him and some members of the academic staff of the university was very lively.

But Mr. Stapel said – maybe as an excuse – that there is a lot of fraud in academia. Everybody does it. It’s everywhere. And indeed, under pressure to publish as much as possible (publish or perish) people in academics are tempted to research what will be published. There are a lot of subjective choices in research as it is much more interesting to publish statistically significant results. A lot of research does not get published at all. For the scientific profession this is a big problem. And not only the social sciences have issues, even medical science trembles regularly when medical research appears to be fraudulent.

The case of Mr. Stapel is interesting because this talented man – a good researcher and writer – has used his skills not to become wealthy but to become famous. The temptation of fame led him to derail. To me this is a classic example of erosion of character. It starts with some minor changes, alterations to adapt the data to the research hypothesis.

But the moment you start inventing data to change reality to your view of it, you might argue that the sense of judgment has been lost. By doing this, Mr. Stapel has damaged not only his own reputation, but also that of many people who have done their own research based on his fake data. Apart from the reputational damage, Mr. Stapel has lost the integrity of his character, which is much more serious. To quote the American coach John Wooden94.

Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful.

Since the discovery of this scientific fraud, Mr. Stapel has been treated like a pariah. His life was destroyed. Mr. Stapel has devastated the scientific community and that community has ousted him. What Mr. Stapel has done was fundamentally wrong. He was punished for it. Some say the punishment was too light and that his time in the desert was too short. But there must come a time that the scientific

community invites him back in, uses his experiences and competencies to improve its own processes. This happened in other industries as well, e.g. with Nick Leeson95.

Ethics is also about giving people second chances and treating them in a dignified way. It would be a human waste not to do so. For him it would be redemption and a way to rebuild a decent life, which he might have done by now. And the gain for society would be to have someone who would be better than anyone else at preventing fraud from happening.

Antidotes against Character Erosion

High expectations, money and power make character erode and ethics slide. When blinded by success, strengths become weaknesses and leaders risk becoming a caricature of themselves. Character erosion makes leaders fall down the list of leaders and it destroys their credibility. Leaders should never pretend they are not at risk.

The antidote against erosion is humility and related to that being servant96. So here are some activities you can do to protect your character against erosion.

Wake up every morning and ask yourself who you are going to give service to. Ask people what they expect from you and do it. List the opportunities of derailment you have around you. Don’t ask for status-related prerogatives like a bigger office. Give up your own office if possible and go and sit among your team members. Get rid of status-related benefits that can blur your vision. Be wary about productivity-enhancing benefits like a personal driver or an assistant. Don’t use your assistant(s) as a mere

extension of yourself. Never use your assistants to do private stuff for you. Be very rigid with your compensation package. Do not ask for exceptions for yourself while denying them to others. Check how your compensation package influences your behaviour. Are you doing things that make no sense, just to get your bonus? Check how people around you behave towards you. What part of their behaviour is related to you being in power? Do they adapt themselves just because you are in power? Do not accept that. Be clear on that. Remember you are at the service of your organisation and your team, not vice-versa. The test for this is if those being served, grow97. See the need of others as your most important priority.

Tactic 02 Find the Dissenting Voice

An important tactic that can help leaders to avoid derailment and erosion of character is to actively search for dissenting voices.

Involvement and Disagreement

Leaders create motion. They want people to move in a certain direction. People explicitly or implicitly decide to move or not. Some people agree immediately with the vision. Others don’t. There might be resistance. The way to overcome resistance is to involve people as early as possible. Without involvement there is no movement.

But people disagree. They disagree with established visions. They disagree with change. And they give voice to their disagreement. They are the dissidents. The word dissident comes from the Latin verb dissidere. It literally means to sit apart. Most leaders do not like dissidents. They oppose to a desired vision or ideological system. They are the pebble in the leader’s shoe. They can walk, but it hurts. And so

most leaders want to get rid of the dissidents, because their voice supposedly weakens their authority.

The Value of the Dissenting Voice

But think again. Dissenting voices are valuable. It’s worthwhile to listen. Why?

Dissenting voices make you think. They actually make you grow and become better. Leaders can use the opportunity of dissent to re- explain. Leaders can use the energy of the dissident to strengthen their arguments. Dissenters may be right in their criticism and ideas. If so, they should acknowledge that. They can blend their ideas in the own vision and decisions. In that way a dissident is an ally. Allowing for people to voice their thoughts and emotions creates an atmosphere of trust and security. A dissenting voice leads to change. A dissenting voice allows leaders to check. A dissenting voice keeps leaders humble. A dissenting voice can protect leaders against derailment.

How many dissenting voices can leaders tolerate? And for how long? Should leaders not just decide and get on with it? Is a dissenting voice not a nuisance that hinders efficiency? The trick is to look for the dissenting voice as early as possible and continuously. It is OK to voice concerns. Leaders had better take those concerns into consideration when possible. And when concerns are not taken into account, leaders can explain why it’s like that.

Managing the Dissenting Voice

There’s a thin line between speaking up and complaining all the time. It’s difficult for a leader to assess whether possible expressions of concern are genuine and honest. They can also be just expressions of a negative personality. Leaders should ask people to identify with the

purpose of the company. There is hardly any compromise possible about the values of a company. Leaders need to be clear about what the company expects and what it can offer. Leaders ought to be ready to explain the reasons behind decisions. And there are things leaders can do to manage the dissident voice.

1. Don’t look at dissent as a sort of conflict, but rather as a way of thinking98.

2. Check if people in your company dare to speak up to their leaders. 3. See that there is a culture that supports dialogue. 4. Make sure there are processes in place that encourage people to

voice their ideas. 5. Look actively for the dissenting voices, before you take a (final)

decision. Don’t assume people will understand or agree. 6. Question yourself when hearing a dissenting voice. Does it bother

you? How do you feel? Listening to your emotions gives a lot of information about the dissenting voice itself.

7. Show how you deal with the dissenting ideas. You can respond. You can adapt or enrich the vision. Reprisals are never a good idea. You have to give at least some genuine feedback.

8. When there is a decision, be clear about what you expect from anyone. Point out that the focus is on execution. The only reason to question the decision is when there is feedback that shows it does not work out as planned. But that’s not dissidence.

9. There are people who keep on voicing their dissenting ideas. You must make them aware of the consequences of their behaviour. Check their intentions.

The Dissenting Voice as an Ally

Leaders cannot ignore, censor or remove dissenting voices. That is generally not a good idea. Leaders do not need people around them who agree all the time. They need people who think, add value and improve decisions. Leaders that dismiss the dissenting voice miss out on valuable advice. Involving this voice adds value to your leadership. Even more, it can become a source of leadership. Do not forget. People

speaking up usually do it for a good purpose. It requires courage. Their intention is to make it better, not weaker. So see them as an ally and not as an adversary. And one more thing. Never call someone a dissident because of their opinion. That kind of spoils everything.

Takeaways

Every person runs the risk of character erosion. Every leader has a risk of derailment. Sometimes it’s the context that makes you derail, but often the causes of derailment lie within yourself. What has made you successful as a leader might cause you to derail. Your core qualities are your potential pitfalls. Money and power are main sources of character erosion. Downward mobbing is the worst kind of leadership behaviour. Humility and servility are important antidotes against character erosion.

Checks

Write down the reasons why you are a leader. If these reasons have nothing to do with the purpose of leadership, but rather with status, money or power, know that you run an increased risk that your character might erode. Describe your core qualities, pitfalls, challenges and allergies. Think about how your core quality could make you derail. Make a list of temptations that may erode your character. How do you deal with them? Check the antidotes and ask yourself what you can do to avoid erosion of character. Get rid of everything that blurs your vision.

Look for the dissident voice and ask feedback.

“ Mystification is simple; clarity is the hardest thing of all.

Julian Barnes, Flaubert’s Parrot

05 Leadership Myths

Being a leader is in itself not something special. Yet many myths blur our vision of what leadership entails. If you want your leadership to be sustainable, you will have to demystify it. Because mystification of leadership holds a risk of character erosion and of derailment. So here’s a list of 8 myths about how people erroneously think about leadership.

Myth 1: The Leader as a Hero

The story of Steve Jobs coming to the rescue of Apple after his predecessor John Sculley was not able to manage a turnaround is well known99. In this corporate legend Steve Jobs is the hero. There are many leader-heroes like that: Richard Branson (Virgin), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Elon Musk (Tesla), Lou Gerstner (IBM), Eric Schmidt (Google), Larry Page (Google), Marc Benioff (Salesforce.com), Larry Ellison (Oracle), John Chambers (Cisco), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Jack Welch (GE), Tim Cook (Apple), Lakshmi Mittal (Arcelor Mittal), Carlos Brito (AB Inbev), Michael Dell (Dell), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), Lee Iacocca (Chrysler), Sergio Marchionne (Fiat), and many more.

The illusion is that this one person has made the difference. Often but not always these leaders are very charismatic. Charisma is not related to company success. It’s positively related to outside image, to the stock price and to the compensation package100.

As I said before, strengths can become weaknesses. Strengths get people somewhere, but they are no guarantee that they help them stay there. Charisma101 is not very sustainable and is not a very versatile skill. Charisma is often based on rhetorical qualities and self-confidence. So a charismatic leader can convince anyone who is less convinced or has no own opinion and overshadow anyone who is less able to express his or her thoughts. In this way charisma works self-reinforcing. Charismatic leaders listen less to others, who are less inclined to speak up. This in itself strengthens the leader’s conviction they are right. So charisma becomes an

obstacle to sustainability in leadership, as explained in the previous chapter. Many charismatic leaders turn into a self-focused narcissistic leader102.

If the CEO is successful, shareholders will applaud. The employees applaud the preservation or creation of employment. The business community watches in agreement and hails you as a corporate example. Leaders have to be very strong to resist the temptation of self-adulation. They really need to keep in touch with who they really are.

The reason why charismatic leadership is not sustainable, is that it’s an impossible personal branding. Charismatic leaders are human and therefore by definition vulnerable. The narrative they have created about themselves is in contrast with their smaller sides103. Charisma often stands in the way of authenticity and personal development. You become your persona, and it is fiction.

Today it’s impossible that one, possibly charismatic leader can turn things around in a sustainable way. The arrival of a new CEO has boosted the stock price104 before. But this tells us more about how the stock market functions than about the qualities of that person. There are no one-person- shows. A leader is part of the leadership of a company and has a great influence on that leadership. But charismatic or heroic leadership is not very sustainable if elements of sustainable leadership do not supplement or correct it. Nor will it be sustainable when the followers do not confirm it. Whenever you feel that leadership in your organisation is lionized, you need to be cautious. In short, there are no heroes.

Myth 2: Leadership Is a Function

There’s a lot of confusion about this. You’re not appointed as a leader. Leadership is a process, not a function or role. A leader is at best part of that process, but it is not by definition the hierarchical manager who carries the leadership process alone. Leadership is shared throughout the team.

Sometimes the manager is really the leader. This is an ideal situation. And in that case the selection process was successful because it focused on the search for a manager with leadership qualities. And even then, this person will not carry the entire leadership process forward. He will share this with others. It’s also possible that after a certain time leadership will no longer be attributed to this manager.

The position in the organisation chart is not the best predictor of good leadership.

But there is a way to make sure that managers are leaders. The best way to do this is by allowing teams to decide among themselves who their leader is. This is a democratic process and it means that leadership is given for a limited period by the team. A leader is not appointed for life. There are not many organisations that do this, but there are a few105.

Myth 3: Leadership Is Top-Down

One of the main misconceptions of leadership is that it is top-down. If this is the prevailing conviction leaders are bound to fail. True and sustainable leadership is omnidirectional. Anyone can take part in it. Leaders must include bottom-up and lateral leadership processes.

An example is the execution of strategy. In the past, people thought that is was enough to align. This entailed some kind of top-down cascade of objectives. The top-down alignment guaranteed strategy execution. Today there is a much more nuanced view. Alignment is still necessary, but it is insufficient to execute a strategy in a VUCA world. The success of strategy execution depends on the quality of the distributed leadership, not on a single source leadership at the top of the organisation106.

Pure top-down leadership might suffocate people and limit their development, as I will explain later. It also hinders innovation and harms both the quality and acceptance of decisions. Any organisation will benefit from giving people the space to take responsibilities. This is beneficiary for

the strategy. That does not mean there is chaos. Spotify calls this aligned autonomy: people have autonomy, but the frame is clear. People work autonomously towards the same overall objective: giving people the best musical experience.

Myth 4: Leaders Create Followers – the Elephant and the Rider

It’s a simple idea that leaders create followers. And yes, sometimes that happens. But the Messiah-leaders are rare to find. You can find them in organisations founded by an entrepreneurial pioneer who inspires others to go along in some kind of start-up adventure. But as time passes, this leader will have many people around him and the need for professionalisation weakens the notion of the omnipresent leader who moulds people’s behaviour.

And very often it’s the other way around. Leadership is based on how a group gets in motion. And if you think about it, a leader does not have much real influence. This is the story of the elephant and the rider. Who has the power? It’s the elephant. The rider has not much influence on the elephant and only when the elephant wants to move in a certain direction, it will107.

So if the followers do not accept the leadership, they will do anything to get rid of it. This happens in a subtle but sometimes also very cruel way. This metaphor shows how hard it is for young emerging leaders to establish themselves, especially because most young leaders confuse leadership with their position as manager.

The elephant often knows better than the rider. It will not allow the rider to steer the elephant into its certain death. That’s not different from what happens in organisations. Many people in companies know better than their managers. And if they see that their manager leads them towards the wrong destination, they will react.

So it’s good to reverse the lens108. Followers define leaders as much as the other way around. The characteristics of a good follower are very similar to the ones of a good leader. The ideal follower will have political skills, can voice ideas, has goal orientation, is motivated to lead, is proactive, shows empathy, looks for fairness, can be kind and strives for reciprocity.

Myth 5: Leaders Are Born

Is one born as a leader or not? This is an eternal debate. When asked, only 19.1 % of CEOs say they are born as leaders, and 28.5 % say that there’s a combination between nature and nurture. That means that more than half of CEOs agree that leadership is exclusively acquired after birth109. These CEOs talk about themselves and this assumption fits their idea that there is no hereditary disposition at play but that their success stems only from personal merit. To these CEOs only 20 % of their success is related to personal traits they are born with.

But research is not so clear about this. So the only thing you can say it’s probably both. No leader will maintain leadership with any other means than their personal energy. And the single most important aspect of leadership is the desire of being a leader or contributing to progress110.

And in that respect we need to look at how a leader emerges and develops. I started this book with the errors leaders make. There are three elements that determine this: destiny, drama and deliberation. These elements define every person’s life111. Destiny is what forms us without us being able to change it: genetics, education, social context. Drama is that what happens to us unplanned during life. Deliberation is what we do by our own will, in the context of our destiny and drama. Deliberation is the only aspect that is under our full control. Steve Jobs talked about connecting the dots. Everybody does things in their life that do not seem to be very useful the moment itself, but which you can use later in life by connecting them to other experiences. Like anybody else, a leader today is the product of the

interactions between these three elements and of how experiences are combined into a higher state of being112.

Myth 6: Leadership Is about the Leader

Many leaders, and especially emerging leaders, think that leadership is about themselves. This is a misconception. Leadership is never about the leader. It’s about them, the others. The value of leadership is fully defined by the value leaders create for other people and therefore also by their appreciation. Leaders can have many stakeholders: the own hierarchy, the people in the team they lead, colleagues, the shareholders, the suppliers, partners. These are the ones that will define the leadership someone provides. A leader does not exist without them.

So leaders should not put themselves in the central spot. Not even when they are the CEO. This is a self-protective measure. The moment they start to think that leading is about themselves, they are lost. It means that they are on the road to narcissism113. It means at least they are convinced that they are important. They are, but no more important than anyone else in the system. You can keep out of that central spot by remembering that leadership is nothing more than a way of being at the service of others. One of the parties that should benefit from that service, is the team member. A leader’s objective should be to make sure team members can be successful, e.g. by allowing them to remain themselves114. This has to do with giving attention115.

Leadership is not about the leader. It’s about a little bit of you some of the time and a lot of them all of the time. If leaders started becoming the centre of their team (and of the universe of course), then they start on the slippery road of self-centred leadership. The leader as central point of business is an unsustainable position. Why?

They cannot be present all the time. They cannot oversee everything.

They cannot have everything under control. They cannot know everything there is to know. They are not perfect.

Myth 7: Leaders Have Only 100 Days to Prove They Are Worth It

There’s a myth that new leaders only have 100 days to make their mark116. Yes, when a leader starts, expectations are high and so is the pressure. But rushing in is a mistake. Here are some reasons why117:

You need time to acclimatise. This requires both an outward and inward perspective. Sometimes it’s better to keep the existing strategy intact and to improve it by implementing smaller changes. This takes longer but might be more sustainable. A leader who does not want to change gradually but who adopts a big bang approach might progress faster at first but will have a harder time to make that progress sustainable. A rushed approach might only be appropriate in difficult situations where the company is about to capsize. And even then, leaders should be careful not to proceed too fast and cause irreparable damage to the DNA of the organisation. By appreciating the good things, you can build further on them. Throwing away everything because it belongs to the past or because leaders feel it’s necessary to make a difference is a waste. They will not get you many cheers from the people who have survived the previous leader, unless the change is meaningful to them. Bold actions and quick wins may backfire. Bold actions come with sour wounds. Leaders and employees might resent this approach. So leaders need to take time to get the picture and take action in a more tentative and appreciating way. Building a team takes time. Leaders cannot replace individuals and build a new team in 100 days.

Setting tough standards will only be sustainable if leaders apply them to themselves. So, when the team does not meet those standards, the leader will be evaluated as well. So leaders had better be kind and give the organisation some time to reach higher levels of performance.

Myth 8: No Leadership Without Hierarchy

Hierarchy is Overrated

Every social system has a hierarchy. The herd of deer chooses an individual animal it wants to follow. A troop of lions accepts the leadership of one of them, until one of the animals will challenge it. In every group, among all people who work together, hierarchy persists.

In all organisations there is a form of hierarchy. As organisations grow, hierarchy grows. The span of control is an important measure. The word span of control is significant. Hierarchy is a means of control in the first place.

Bur formal hierarchy has been devised to cope with a world that no longer exists. When bureaucracies arose the world was stable, predictable and less diverse than it is today. Hierarchies are focused on control, mostly internal control. This uncovers the notion that internal variation is more important to control than external variation. They are focused on making people respect, order and obey instructions.

Hierarchies are easy as they are based on a simple input-output logic. Leadership in a hierarchy is controlmanship. Leaders control the status-quo or the measured progress. Strangely enough a hierarchy has as one of its goals to maintain itself. It becomes a purpose on its own instead of a means. Through subtle mechanisms the bureaucracy justifies its existence by stressing the contrast with the frightening alternative: less or no hierarchy, chaos.

The world has changed and formal hierarchy in its original form has become obsolete. The world is unpredictable and ever-changing, VUCA. It has become a boiling pot of increasingly rapid disruptions. Hierarchies cannot adapt themselves as fast as their environment changes. A hierarchy cannot easily deploy and utilise its potential fast enough. A hierarchy is hindered by its own inertia. And let’s not forget that many organisational bottlenecks are located in the hierarchy, at the top. Just like with a bottle.

But the single most important reason formal hierarchy has become obsolete is that it fails to add value. Next to operational difficulties, the biggest challenge of a hierarchy is that it is insufficiently focused on adding value. Hierarchy creates delays. It creates distances that require bridging. If the hierarchy is oriented towards control, it will not add much value in most organisations. If a customer has to wait for an answer from the hierarchy, this reduces the customer experience. Hierarchy will destroy value for the customer. If hierarchy is oriented on adding value to a process, it will be focused on strengthening the people in the process. Hierarchy has then a developmental role. But this also means that the importance of hierarchy decreases as people grow stronger.

It’s perfectly okay when a person goes to the hierarchy to get advice. But it’s not okay when someone has to go for a signature, without the creation of extra value.

But who decides where the value lies? That’s the co-worker. And in the end, it’s the customer. And so the steering no longer lies with the boss, but with the co-worker. So what should someone higher in the hierarchy do do?

Make sure that co-workers are empowered to decide exceptional cases on their own, of course with the interests of the organisation and the customer in mind. Push decisions back when there is no added value to be expected from a hierarchical intervention. Put the decisions where the competence is. As low as possible and as close as possible to the customer. Be available in case advice or help is needed.

Don’t fall in the trap of validation. Define the boundaries of empowerment.

This last line might sound contradictory. Empowerment has two sides: competency and energy (power). And competency has also two aspects: skill and authority. Many industries are regulated and a manager needs to enforce compliance. But in many industries, this is done by a process of validation. Junior auditors need a signature from senior auditors or even partners before a report can leave the office. In hazardous environments, this is done with check-lists or technological checks. But nothing is certain and every system is as strong as its weakest link. Validation fails when generally applied. It’s a weak component of a leadership culture. It weakens the decision-making capacity of people and organisations.

Imagine someone wants to make a decision. But this person is not allowed to make decisions. So a procedure is started to get an authorisation from the manager. Very often people know what to do, so they might propose the decision or they might not. When the co-worker proposes a decision, the manager might think that since the co-worker knows best it’s best to follow the proposed decision. So the decision gets validated. But who has decided? No-one. The co-worker thinks that the boss has, and vice versa. Situations like these become dangerous when co-workers become passive. They will not think the decisions through and a manager might not question the proposed decisions.

Sounds theoretical? Just look at how disasters come about. Cases of human error tell us how organisations work. Disasters like the Herald of Free Enterprise tell us about the frailty of systems in which people work. And as a ship is a hierarchical system, the control and validation failed.

And that’s the point. Our systems and organisations are as weak as the weakest link. And as organisations are based on human behaviour, we need to make sure that human behaviour is oriented towards the common purpose. And if this works, less hierarchy is needed. Hierarchy weakens the decision-making capacity of organisations both in terms of agility and speed and of quality. Moreover, hierarchy increases the pressure on people and

reduces the space people have to develop. So do we need to come up with something else?

Alternatives for Hierarchy

When leaders say that they want to create an organisation without hierarchy, eyebrows will rise. There are two reasons for that, a good one and a bad one.

The good reason is that any social system will have some kind of hierarchy118. So if it’s not installed by a governing body, it will form by itself. So fighting hierarchy as if it were a bad thing in itself is not the right line of pursuit.

The bad reason is that some people think that hierarchy is the (main) key to success and should be maintained for its own sake. We have adapted to formal hierarchies with ranks, status, and levels. This is what is called bureaucracy. Bureaucracy might be efficient in itself, but when it is too elaborate it crushes human dignity and it becomes a purpose in itself. The lower you go in a heavy hierarchy, the more difficult it becomes to find a dignified way of working with others. And this cannot be the purpose of a hierarchy.

So even when hierarchies will prevail or form themselves, there are always changes a leader can make to give more autonomy119. There’s a lot of space between despotic and democratic leadership.

So if we doubt the value of hierarchy it’s more because of the way we have installed it: - scientifically, methodically, meticulously, ruthlessly.

And there are alternatives.

Marketplaces – an organisation can be constructed like a market place, with a balance between supply and demand. A question comes in, comes on the market place and individual people can decide to respond. This is how companies like Apple organise their helpdesk. The first help is offered by the customers. The internet

provides an interesting metaphor of self-organised systems. The almost natural balance between supply and demand suggests no leadership is required and that there would be no steering in a market place. But even the internet is regulated, more than we think. Networks or Ecosystems are non-hierarchical cooperative systems. You can compare them to neural networks in which connections are formed and reinforced. Ecosystems stress that its members are mutually dependent and share a common purpose. Holacracy – holacracies want to introduce democracy by stripping hierarchy to its bare minimum and leaving a lot of decision power to the employees. Examples of organisations that strive to be a holacracy are Zappos, Morning Star120 and Semco121. Heterarchy – a combination of hierarchy and network. A heterarchy can be composed out of very hierarchical organisations that are interlinked in a network. Examples of heterarchies are conglomerates like GE or international institutions that have to work together. The organisation of health care is an example of a heterarchy, in a very regulated context122.

Takeaways

There are many myths about leadership. The problem of these misconceptions is that they influence the behaviour of leaders and our expectations of leaders. Leaders need to be aware of these myths and check how they influence their view on leadership. This is valid for both leaders and followers. There are usually alternatives to the myths, that are less extreme, less binary. It is trendy to fight hierarchy, but it will prevail in some form. However, there are ways of using the powerful side of hierarchy instead of focusing on it as if it were a given. One way to unleash

the power of hierarchy is to see as a lever for development rather than a means of control.

Checks

Go through the myths and see to what extent you believe and apply them. How does your environment see leadership? Are there any myths around? What role does hierarchy play in your organisation?

“ I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?

Benjamin Disraeli

06 The 5 Rules of Sustainability

Sustainable leadership is anchored in humanity and character. Our character is the only source of sustainability in a VUCA world. In this world there is pressure on character. To many leaders it’s a challenge to avoid character erosion. Every leader is surrounded by temptations and erosive factors. So the main question is how leadership can be and remain sustainable and how to avoid the erosion of character.

There are 5 rules for sustainable leadership: 1. Base your leadership on your character, anchored in humanity. 2. Integrate the various stakeholders. 3. Decide what you hold onto and what you let go of (balance). 4. Focus on values, progress and exceptions (the sustainable triangle). 5. Make yourself as scarce as possible (the otolith principle).

Rule 1: Based on Character, Anchored in Humanity

In previous chapters I have discussed why leadership should be based on character and how it is anchored in humanity. Empathy, fairness, reciprocity and kindness form the cornerstones of a person’s character and should be the basis of any form of sustainable leadership. In the early stages of leadership one might be tempted to base leadership on other aspects: competencies, status, power, experience, authority. None of these are sustainable sources for leadership. As discussed in the previous chapter there are many myths of leadership that are both attractive and misleading. Leaders are leaders because of who they are, and less because of what they are able to do or because of extrinsic factors. The moment these factors become the basis of leadership, its sustainability fades.

Rule 2: Integration of the Stakeholders

There are three ways of looking at sustainability: the “I”, the “for whom” of leadership and the “to whom” of leadership. The three stakeholders of sustainable leadership are (1) the leader – albeit not in the first place, (2) their team and (3) the context, like their organisation, the customer or even the society at large.

© David Ducheyne

Figure 12. The Three Stakeholders of Sustainable Leadership.

The “I”of Leadership: Oriented towards the Leader

Sustainable leadership can be the answer to the question how leaders can make sure their own leadership is sustainable. This is the self-centred question. And this question can be dissected into three questions:

How do I create motion? – The purpose of leadership. How do I keep balance? – Between all expectations that are set upon me. How do I keep up? – I am human and do not have unlimited resources.

The “For Whom” of Leadership: Oriented towards the Team

Leadership is not about the leader, it’s always about the others, the ones who are led, the followers. So how can leaders make their leadership sustainable for them? Again, there are three subquestions:

How do they get and stay in motion? – The purpose of leadership. How do they keep balance? – Between all expectations that are set upon them. How do they keep up? – They are human and do not have unlimited resources.

The “To Whom” of Leadership: Oriented towards the Context

Leadership is part of a value chain123 that generates value for a customer, an organisation, its stakeholders and for society. The questions are again similar:

How do we as an organisation sustain the motion we need to increase value? – the purpose of leadership. How do we keep balance? – There are many expectations set upon us. How does the organisation keep up? How does our society keep up? – We are all human and we do not have unlimited resources. The earth has limited resources.

It Starts with Corporate Social Responsibility

Of course, these three levels are all interdependent. There will be no sustainable leadership if there isn’t a satisfactory answer to the nine questions. I cannot tell what a satisfactory answer is. It depends. It may evolve. It may be relative to situations, people, priorities. But the most important level to answer these questions is the societal or contextual level.

We are confronted with limited human and ecological (re)sources, so we need to think about the way we live, work, compete, produce, consume … In an economic model that is based on growth it isn’t easy. It’s not easy to change ourselves and our habits. So maybe the biggest challenge for sustainable leadership is the fact that the business model, of which many of

us are part, is not sustainable at the moment. Leaders report an increasing disbelief in the growth paradigm124.

There are many great efforts and experiments to look for alternative ways of organising our economy. This is what corporate social responsibility (CSR) is about: creating sustainable value not only for ourselves, our team, our organisation but also for the broader context, or the greater good. It’s one of the most important but also toughest nuts to crack.

But I believe CSR should be the starting point of any leadership program. It’s not only the future cash flow that counts. It’s also about and most importantly about the ecological and societal impact an organisation or activity has. I am convinced that without a higher emphasis on the sustainability of our business models, our capacity to generate that future cash flow will be severely hindered.

The personal sustainability (the “I”) and the sustainability for others (the for whom) are further building blocks for a higher level of sustainability to which all of us could contribute. Leaders who focus on sustainability will avoid becoming a puppet on a string, at the exclusive service of one of the three kinds of stakeholders.

Story 16 My Volkswagen MPV

Not so long ago my fleet manager came up to me and asked me if we could not reform the fleet by lowering the limit on carbon dioxide emissions. We had already done this in the past and he thought that in light of the evolution of car technology we could do it again. The only consequence would be that some employees could no longer order the car they were used to driving. I was one of those drivers who would have to change a habit.

I felt some resistance. (“Yeah, but I like to drive that particular car, a Volkswagen MPV. Yeah, but I’ve been driving an MPV for so long. Yeah, but I like to go on a trip with my MPV because it’s convenient”).

Given this bias I did not want to decide myself so I checked in with my colleagues. I felt that my reaction was not OK because it was based on my comfort. And the tension also came from the fact that I had started a CSR strategy years before and here I was having difficulties with saying goodbye to a car.

So I started to ask around and I noticed others did not have an issue with it. There was much more interest for a change in policy than I thought. My leader asked me the question why I did not go further to stimulate cars on alternative energy.

And then, Dieselgate broke loose. Volkswagen was found to have intentionally programmed the emission of its cars so they could pass the emissions test. And then I thought: what are we doing? The planet and the climate are ruined because of people like me who want to drive big and polluting cars. And to make matters worse we are being fooled by car manufacturers who use software to improve emission ratings.

The fleet manager’s proposal meant there would be an annual reduction of 48 tons of carbon dioxide. And the only thing I needed to do was to choose a different car. And by doing so I could create a win- win-win situation: for myself, my organisation and the planet.

Rule 3: Balance - Letting Go and Holding On

When I first took on a “formal” position as a leader, I wasn’t really up to it. People looked at me with expectations that I felt I could not meet at that time. I made many beginner’s mistakes. I had too many assumptions and I focused too much on myself and not on the others. I assumed that my team members were as independent as I was. So I let go and I gave trust and I thought I did the right thing. But that was wrong. People had different expectations and some of them needed guidance. So I had to learn. That was 20 years ago.

Leadership Essence

What I have learned over the years is that leadership is in essence quite simple. Next to the motivation to lead there is basically only one thing you need to learn to do right: to decide when and how to let go of things and when and how to hold on to things.

To me leadership is about finding a balance between the two. And it’s an important decision that requires self-confidence and trust. So, leaders need to have the confidence to make that decision and to accept and manage any consequences that come from that decision. And they need to know and trust the people in their team and let go based on that trust.

You can decide to hold on to everything. Every detail passes through your hands. But this is not sustainable.

Story 17 The Senior VP

I met a senior VP once who wanted to see all the marketing materials prior to publication. His background was indeed in marketing and he was not able to let go of the content of his early professional experiences. So he insisted that no publication was made, no TV ad was run, no colour was changed, no model was chosen without his permission, even though he was leading a multibillion business.

Many people on various levels worked on the campaigns but there was always a chance that the senior VP wiped the fruits of their hard labour off the table because he didn’t like the eyes of the model, the colours, the font, the position of the logo, the copy … He wanted to decide (at the end) about every aspect and he even thought he was above the branding manual marketers had to follow.

He also assumed he was still in sync with what the market wanted. He could not trust his team to make the right decisions. And by doing this, he never invested in developing his team. It was like a vicious circle.

The consequences? Slow decisions, frustrated people, and high attrition rates.

Many people felt lost. They could not understand the purpose of all of this. They saw an organisational machine with many hierarchical layers that produced high quality work and yet there was this one guy who still thought he knew better and who dominated everything.

The intentions of the VP were good. He wanted the best quality. But he thought he was the only one who could make the final call and he was unable to appreciate ideas that deviated from his own vision and mental model.

The attrition rate was so high that the CEO of the company asked questions about it. The VP was very annoyed by this, as he did not want to lose points with the CEO. So he kind of ordered that the attrition should be lowered. He put pressure on the managers to make sure nobody left. This again caused frustration among the leadership team. They felt he put the pressure on them although they knew he was causing the problem.

So they came to HR (and put pressure on HR). An analysis was made. This revealed that the problem was the decision process and the extreme involvement of the VP but nobody had dared to tell him that. Once he got the feedback, the VP dismissed the analysis. He considered his interventions to be valuable and indispensable.

There was no hope that the VP would alter his conduct. Something else was needed to decrease attrition. The management team mapped and designed a new process, integrating the final approval by the VP in the formal process. The rules of the game were explained to the often young marketing professionals so that they could prepare for the entire process, and anticipate the remarks of the VP.

Attrition went down, but the problem itself was not solved. The context was adapted to the perks of a leader who could not let go.

Finding the right balance between letting go and holding on is a clear lever for sustainable leadership. It holds many advantages for leaders:

Leaders can find peace in what you do. There is no need to control everything. They choose what they want to decide upon, and what not. Processes are faster. Leaders are no longer the bottleneck125. People are clear about what they can decide and what not. This also creates balance within the team. Letting go as much as possible makes people grow. Sometimes they might stand on the tip of their toes but they grow. Controlling too much smothers development. By explicitly deciding what they want to hold on to, leaders make clear what is important to them. Not everything can be important. By being available when needed leaders reassure the team. They get respect as a leader because of their self-confidence, clarity, their availability and their trust in people.

Letting go of as much as possible and holding on to what they need to hold on to is the single most important skill leaders need to develop. Young leaders might not be able to do that as the skill develops over the years through experience, their success and their failure. But once leaders understand this, they are half way into developing true and sustainable leadership.

It’s not easy to decide on what to let go of and what to hold on to. It’s not easy to decide how to differentiate across people. Letting go is an act of trust towards the other and also an act of self-confidence.

Being Available

Letting go of things should not be a naïve act. It’s a decision. So, leaders need to think about it. They need to check a person’s maturity (loyalty, competence, integrity) which enables autonomy. The more people are able to work autonomously, the more leaders can let go. But leaders need to step out of the chicken and egg situation. In order to develop someone’s maturity, leaders need to let go of things progressively.

Story 18 The Three Phases of Education

When I was in Marrakesh our guide talked about how the Quran and the scriptures give guidance to people on every aspect of life. One story struck me. It was about parenthood. According to the scriptures there are 3 phases in parenthood. The first phase is the phase of protection. As a parent, you will walk in front of your child and protect it from the things it does not know and cannot manage. Compare this to the behaviour of parents walking on a street with their child. They will keep the child away from the traffic because they know the child does not anticipate danger and could do something drastic like running across the street to chase the feather that is blowing in the wind.

In a second phase the parent will walk next to the child. Protection is no longer needed, but the child cannot decide everything. The parent provides guidance, less control. Compare this to the study choice of an adolescent. The final decision is with the adolescent. However, the parent will discuss, give advice, council or even veto certain decisions in the best interest of the child.

In the third phase the child, being adult, will be given full freedom. Parents will keep a distance but continue to feel responsible. So they will follow their child and will watch to see if they can give advice. But basically, the child will not need you all the time. Parents will be asked to give advice or they can use certain encounters to ask questions and give hints about how to deal with situations, not expecting or insisting that the child will follow their parents’ guidance.

In all three phases the parent is available to the child. But it’s the intensity that varies. When a parent does not retreat, the child will not develop sufficiently and will remain dependent. Parents keep a sense of responsibility and will intervene as they think is necessary.

A leader will adapt the availability according to the developmental stage of the employee.

Being available is more than just giving a mobile phone number and say “call me if you need me”. A leader’s availability is also about making clear when they expect to be called. Leaders stay as close to their people as possible. Too much distance is fatal. Ivory towers arise when there are impenetrable boundaries that distort the exchange of information and create legends or myths about the leaders in the organisation.

Leaders are very often accused of being distant and estranged from reality. There are often symbolic acts that create or reinforce negative emotions. That can range from being paid unexplainable bonuses to eating in a separate mess. But the worst thing would be that leaders are unavailable as this damages the very sustainability of leadership.

In lean management going to the work place to see for yourself is called “go to gemba”. This is what leaders should do. Go and have a look. They should not allow others to determine what they see and know. Too many leaders spend too much time in their office or in meeting rooms. They should go out there, walk around and see for themselves, and be available.

Story 19 The CEO and WCM

The CEO of a large industrial organisation wanted to check the progress of lean management in the production sites. An intense preparation preceded each visit. One could compare it with the preparation for the visit by the Pope or the President of the USA. One of the production sites was a worn-down factory in which there had not been invested for a long time. When you entered the building, you could see it must have been an impressive temple of industrial progress. But time had turned it into a sad place. The site was almost an excavation opportunity for industrial archaeologists who’d love to research the majestic steps, the bourgeois wainscoting and the Art Deco styled messages. Local management and workers were used to this. But the advisors to the CEO were in shock when they saw it. They insisted that there should be a clean-up so that the CEO did not have to see it. So it was done. An itinerary through the plant’s

corridors and production halls was chosen and these areas were given a facelift. This caused an outrage and many questions by the unions and workers who had been asking in vain for investments for years.

Even when it probably was not the CEO who had ordered the refurbishment, the decision was attributed to him. This damaged the reputation of the CEO who only wanted to have a look and be close to what was happening. He wanted to underline how important he thought lean production was to the future success of the company. Finally, he wanted to motivate people to continue the good work.

Alas. Despite all good intentions, the CEO’s visit left a bitter taste.

Of course, you cannot control your reputation, but you can control your character.

Deciding what to hold on to

Holding on to things and letting go of others is a decision. Leaders need to think about that. Letting go should be done with care. It’s not about dropping things, walking away and only looking back at the moment of the due date. Leaders need to take into account the autonomy, trustworthiness and maturity of the team and its members. But sometimes giving autonomy is a nicer word for indifference, or abandonment.

Letting go means that leaders carefully assess what they let go of and with whom.

© David Ducheyne

Figure 13. Letting Go and Holding On.

Figure 13 illustrates the relationship between letting go and maturity. The line is an arrow. This means that leaders need to go for an evolution towards the right-hand side towards more maturity and towards a higher degree of letting go. Letting go of control is also a way of stimulating this evolution. Letting go means leaders need to take a risk. They need to trust others. Holding on means leaders invest time and energy in controlling people. This entails a cost. The main decision lever is the assessment of the trustworthiness of the people in the team.

Traditionally you could say that we hold on to the “what” and the “why”, and that we let go of the “how”. But I think this division is not sufficiently clear. For me you need to hold on to three aspects: the values, the progress and the exceptions. I call this the Sustainable Triangle of Leadership.

Rule 4: Focus on The Sustainable Triangle of Leadership

Sometimes leaders get the question: how do you hang on? The question is an important one because it’s about survival and personal health of leaders and their sustainability of their leadership. When leaders get this question, they should be grateful because it makes them think.

The answer to that question could be simple. It’s about focus. But when leaders have many things for which they are responsible, focus might be easier said than done. Leaders need to hold on to three things: values, progress and exceptions.

Values

At the end of the day, values are all leaders have got. Leaders want to inspire and lead their team the right way. Values provide stability in the process. Leaders cannot compromise on values, like they cannot compromise on character either. They can be clear about what values are and why they matter. One of the most important and universal values in organisations is trust126. Leaders need to be able to work based on trust. And trust is reciprocal. Leaders have to trust the people they work with, and vice versa. Imagine what it’s like to have to work with people that are not to be trusted. It’s a nightmare.

Leaders need to be clear on the values, use them as a compass and stick to them. Values are closely related to who they are as a person, to their character. If people see their leaders have values and are willing to defend them, they will be respected. Thinking and talking about values is important. Ask yourself these questions:

What are the values you want to defend? To what extent do your team members know what these values are? To what extent do your colleagues share your values? To what extent are your personal values coherent to those of the organisation?

These 4 questions are important ones. The answer to the last question indicates to what extent a leader can lead an organisation sustainably. Personal and organisational values should correlate. If organisational values

are in conflict with personal values, leaders find themselves in a dire situation. These leaders might work in a context that is not right for them.

Progress

Leaders who focus too much on the way how results are achieved, will drown in detail. By doing so, they also reduce the autonomy of people who should be competent enough to know how they want to achieve certain targets. It’s better to focus on progress. Leaders have to make clear what is expected and have to show and also ask allegiance to the cause. Leaders might consider to give big hairy audacious goals (BHAGs)127. But the most important thing about goals is that they must be meaningful. The reaction to a goal cannot be “so what?” Goals have to be meaningful and shared. And if that’s the case leaders can focus on progress. Ask yourself those questions:

What are the most important goals to pursue? What makes those goals relevant? How confident are you that people share those goals? How do you monitor the progress?

Focusing on progress and not on the way progress is made is beneficial to leaders, but also to their team members. When people see that what they do has meaning and leads to somewhere, they feel ignited128. The role of the leader is not to assess the progress, but to enable it. Helping people move forward is by definition leadership.

Exceptions

As progress is made, leaders need to be available to discuss exceptions if needed. Exceptions are incidents that surpass a person’s competencies in both meanings of the word or that cause friction between goals and values, plans and reality. Being available to discuss those exceptions is of great value to any team member, who would be otherwise unable to progress. The challenge to leaders is not to take over the responsibility, but to use those exceptions as opportunities to help people to grow and to enable the task or

project to progress. Each time there’s an exception leaders can ask themselves these questions:

What makes this into an exception? Is it the context? Is it a lack of competencies to deal with it? What makes the employee ask for assistance? How can I help this person? Is there an opportunity for development? Which decision do I need to take, if any.

Focus

This leadership triangle helps to focus. It’s a sustainable way of being a leader. The advantage of this triangle is that it both protects leaders from diving into details and that it creates enough space for team members to grow and have meaningful jobs. So even when the leadership triangle is about a leader’s own survival, it’s also about developing a sustainable way of leadership. And both leaders and their team will benefit from this leadership triangle.

But even when leaders try and focus on these three, they might still feel inundated and over-demanded. That’s why there’s a 5th rule: the otolith principle.

Rule 5: Making Yourself Scarce: The Otolith Principle

Fish float. They also have a sense of direction. They know what is up or down, back and forward. There is a very small organ that takes care of that balance. It’s called the otolith organ129. Humans have otolith organs as well, the utricle and the saccule.

Otoliths130 can vary in size and shape across species. But they all have one thing in common: they enable balance. And they remain very small. But the

limited size of the otolith is not so relevant. It’s their functionality. A fish without otoliths is lost.

The otolith organs sense gravity and linear acceleration. Persons or animals without otolith organs or defective otoliths have poorer abilities to sense motion as well as orientation to gravity.

For me a leader is like an otolith: essential but insignificant. Essential in its function, insignificant in its size. The principle of letting go and holding on leads to the right presence of any leader: as small as possible, as big as needed. Leaders should be aware that they are insignificant, powerless in their presence but powerful and important by their absence.

Story 20 The Conductor

A long time ago I got into a discussion with a conductor of a classical orchestra. He claimed that being a leader was the same as being a conductor. And he illustrated that. He demonstrated different types of conducting: sloppy, tight, emotionless, warm and pathetic conducting. The orchestra played Schuberts’ unfinished and there was only one kind of conducting that was successful: the one in which the leader gave enough attention to the various groups within the orchestra the moment they played an important part of the score.

Sometimes the audience looks bewildered at the conductor making gestures. The audience does not understand. Of course the members of the orchestra need to understand, not the audience. The gestures are sometimes so minimalistic that you could ask yourself how on earth the musicians can interpret these tremors of the hand and translate them to tempo and dynamics. I like conductors who are able to steer a full symphonic orchestra with these gestures. That’s quite impressive.

But it’s not true. It’s an illusion. Conductors are very present and dominant. Maybe not by their gestures, but they make clear what they want. They have expressed a strong vision on how the music should

sound like, what interpretation they want to put into the score. Many conductors are ruthless and intolerant and do not accept any dissent. That’s what I asked that conductor. Would he allow people to make suggestions about the music and its interpretation? The conductor did not want to answer at first, but I insisted. I think he suspected where I was going. Finally, he answered that there was no time for that. Rehearsing is expensive and so the musicians have to do as they are told. So much for leadership.

A jazz band would probably be a better comparison. Jazz band leaders play along and they do not intervene. They have a chord scheme and a general idea about sequences and improvisation, but there is a lot of room for free choice and interpretation.

Where the classical conductor wants to hold on to as much as possible, the jazz band leader lets go of as much as possible, but not all of it.

The Otolith Principle

It’s not easy to determine the right level of presence. But here’s the otolith principle:

Leadership will be sustainable if leaders let go of as much as possible and hold on to as much (as little) as needed. What leaders hold on to is determined by absolute necessity. Leaders should be humble and make themselves scarce. They need to make sure that people do whatever it takes themselves.

Figure 13 expresses this. The level of holding on is never zero. There will always be things leaders hold on to like values, progress and exceptions. Like the otolith, leaders must minimise their size or presence.

There are some spin-offs of this principle: 1. Leaders focus on their presence, and not on their function. 2. If the presence is hindering, the leader will reduce it to create more

space for the others.

3. Leaders will make the space they take as small and insignificant as possible.

4. When leaders have been able to make themselves scarce, leadership will be taken over by another person, by persons several, or by the group.

5. Making oneself scarce gives opportunities to others to develop into leaders. Leaders create leaders.

6. There will always be some kind of leadership. 7. Leaders who focus on sustainability will behave in an otolithical

way. This is a special kind of humility, one of the antidotes against character erosion.

8. Modesty, humility, moderation, simplicity, self-reflection, frugality … these are words leaders should hang above their bed. It’s a requirement for sustainable success as a leader.

© David Ducheyne

Figure 14. The Rules of Sustainability

Tactic 03 Small Things Matter

Leadership is not always about big things. Often it’s about very small things: small gestures of kindness, signs of empathy, the feeling of being treated fairly, the feeling of contributing to something that is bigger and more important than oneself, working for someone and

receiving something. It’s about listening and reacting. It’s about connecting with people. It’s not about taking someone’s place, having the same thoughts or by controlling everything.

Sometimes leaders need to come up with the big plan. The big plan seeks to get the result through a big bang. But it does not work like that. It’s about making progress, every day. It’s about holding on. It’s about giving the example. It’s about providing symbols. It’s about inches. It’s about crawling towards a target that matters to people. And to get there you do not need a big plan. Not always.

You are almost forced to make the difference during the first 100 days. But does your nomination precede leadership? The big plan is the work of managers. They make a project plan, with Gant charts, due dates, investment plans. As a leader you might do that too. But to make all of that work, leadership is needed.

Why does someone work for a leader? It’s the wrong question. The question is why someone works with you. The question is valid for both leaders and followers. And the answer lies in small things. Many small streams make a mighty river. Small things build strong leadership. The small things show who you are and what you mean to a team. Small things van make people feel important and recognised. Small things are about giving attention.

Especially when you don’t have much time, small things mean a lot for those who know you are busy. You took a moment to ask a question, give a compliment, deliver a message.

Tactic 04 Applaud When People Do Not Need You

A leader returns from a couple of weeks of holidays. She had not received any phone calls. Nobody has called her apart from that salesperson. She did not find an inundated mailbox. There were only a

few issues that required immediate action. Some leaders do not like this as it makes them feel obsolete. Being present or absent, there seems to be no difference.

This leader always applauds and congratulates her people when this happens. She could also applaud herself for building a team that does not rely on her. The team is independent, competent and responsible.

Of course they would have called her or a colleague if needed. And in times of crisis they would have called her. But it did not happen this year, like last year. She could enjoy her holidays, and she did not fumble her phone in the hope someone would finally call her.

If leaders are in this case, they should not doubt but enjoy. The added value of leaders is not derived from the fact that they are constantly present. They have to be there when they are needed. It’s in difficult times leaders show their value, not in easy ones. In VUCA times turbulence will be the new normal. And if this is the case; leaders need to prepare their team for that. And then they can handle crises and the leader can leave for holiday without worries.

So applaud the team if they can do without you and be available for those who need you.

Takeaways

To make leadership sustainable, leaders should apply the five rules of sustainable leadership. These rules help leaders to position themselves and to hang on in the long run. They help leaders to create value for other people. They help leaders to avoid the pitfalls of the myths of leadership. Leadership is not about the leader, is it?

Maybe these rules sound abstract, but they are so simple leaders cannot go wrong.

Checks

Check how you stand towards giving space to others. Is it easy for you to let go of things. How dependent are your team members on you being there.

“ So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for people to work.

Peter Drucker

07 The Themes of Sustainable

Leadership

What Can a Leader Do?

The 5 rules from the past chapter help leaders to hang on and avoid erosion of their character. Maybe these principles seem abstract. These rules are about the how of sustainable leadership. They are about persevering as a leader and about how leaders can have a sustainable and meaningful impact.

However, leadership is not without content. What should be a leader’s focus? What can a leader do today in order to provide sustainable leadership? In the spirit of sustainable leadership a leader cannot stretch and deal with too many aspects. So they have to make choices and decide which domains they want to have an impact on.

Sustainable leadership cannot be limited to the 5 rules. There must be a content, some themes. These themes are the performance areas of sustainable leadership.

If leaders focus on these themes, they make sure that all stakeholders experience a positive impact from their leadership. These themes make a bridge between context and value creation. As the Sustainable Leadership Value Cycle (SLVC) illustrates, leaders create a context that leads towards behaviour that in itself generates value for stakeholders. Leaders should focus on that kind of behaviour. This is done by focusing on these 5 themes.

It’s not about Competencies

At the beginning of this book, I have explained why I am sceptical about the various competency models of leadership which prescribe how the leader should behave. The reason to be sceptical is that these models neglect individual differences, personal styles, preferences, and even the context. If leaders had to acquire all of these competencies, there wouldn’t be many strong leaders around.

Character is the basis for sustainable leadership. Only character provides continuity in a VUCA world. By being empathic and fair, by showing kindness and demanding reciprocity, by looking for a balance between the individual and the collective, leaders can build a red thread in everything that happens around them.

The five rules of sustainable leadership help leaders to hang on. They are small programs leaders can install to get oxygen. They are character hygiene.

And the themes help leaders to make choices. Leaders focus on themes in order to provide sustainability. Making these choices is crucial if leaders want to keep their leadership sustainable.

5 Themes

I see 5 important themes. Everyone can work on these themes using their personal style, competencies, preferences and of course, their own character. I strongly believe that character enables leaders to focus on these themes. Without a stable and intact character, delivering on these 5 themes becomes difficult. But every leader will have a different approach, using their own character.

I have specifically used the word theme instead of other, more common words, like guidelines or levers. They are in a way all those. But the word theme suggests a demarcation with a lot of space between the boundaries. It’s clear what the theme is about. It’s less clear how to work on it. Whoever you are, whatever background, education, or story you have, you decide how to solidify each of these themes. The themes focus on output and behaviour. The themes are universal and applicable across all organisations and cultures.

I have defined leadership as the process of movement towards value creation

through people who trust someone to be their leader at this time because that person is at the service of them and a higher purpose.

These are the five themes: Build trust: trust is the basis output of sustainable leadership. Without trust there is no foundation for sustainable leadership. People have to trust you. Create meaningfulness by defining a meaningful cause and being at its service. Help others to grow by being at their service. Boost engagement to create motion. Take care of yourself in order to hold on, as personal energy is always limited.

Building trust is the first focus for any leader (chapter 8). Leaders create movement towards a higher purpose by creating meaningfulness. This is the third level of sustainability as you are at the service of a higher purpose, your customers, or society (chapter 9). Focusing on the second level of sustainability, the team, is about helping others to grow (chapter 10).

Leaders need to be able to boost engagement based on what they do so that the people on their teams are willing and able to give all what they can to achieve the meaningful targets (Chapter 11). Finally, leaders need to focus on themselves as well, even when leadership is not about themselves. But to achieve sustainability you need to take care of yourself (chapter 12). This is the first level of sustainable leadership.

“ None of us knows what might happen even the next minute, yet still we go forward. Because we trust. Because we have faith.”

Paulo Coelho, Brida

08 Build Trust

Trust

Story 21 Trust in the Austrian Alps

On one of our walks in the Stubai Valley in the Austrian Alps I arrived with my wife and daughters Hannah and Ella at the Sülzenau Hütte. We were sitting in the sun enjoying the local white beer and Kaiserschmarren, a local dish. When we wanted to continue the walk and head for the Blaue Lacke (the Blue Lake) we asked for the bill. There wasn’t any. Instead the girl who had been serving us asked what we had had to eat and drink. She added it all up and told us what we had to pay. I asked her how she trusted us to be honest about what we had. And her answer was quite direct: control is good, but trust is better. Besides, she said, my boss has to trust me as well as I could easily be cheating him.

This example shows how trust makes everything easy. Trust is a central value in that cabin in the mountains. The manager trusts the crew and the crew trusts the customer. Being trusted makes you feel comfortable. And yet, we seem to live in an era where trust is under pressure. It’s those who are not to be trusted who destroy a climate of trust.

The Demise of Trust in the VUCA World

Trust has become a scarce resource these days. People find it difficult to trust their leaders, their organisations and their institutions. People are disappointed or disgusted about how things are going.

Large companies have shifted away from employment guarantees and have failed to replace it by a culture of sustainable employability or flexicurity131. The current working generation has seen how shallow corporate values are in times of crisis. Too many organisations are dehumanised and fail to comply with basic values of respect. Trust erodes. Our institutions are unable to prevent conflicts or scandals. Trust erodes. When people we trust show weaknesses132 they commit fraud, trust erodes. Companies that focus on trust, are caught misleading people133. Trust erodes.

The demise of trust is paramount and even contagious.

Do We Trust Our Leaders?

When people are asked to rate the honesty and ethical norms of people in various areas of activity, Chief Executive Officers end up quite low in the ranking134. Only 17 % of people rate business executives high on the scale of ethics. It has never been high. In 1976 only 20 % of people rated business executives high. Nobody can be satisfied with that. Business leaders do have a problem. There is no proof that trustworthiness has an economic value, but the damage of being seen as untrustworthy is clear135.

People distrust others if they suspect the other does not act in the best interest of the ones they serve. Nurses (thank God) end first in terms of ethical standards. Politicians score also very low136. Indeed, if the main objective of a politician is to be re-elected, that objective comes before serving the citizens.

Please tell me how you would rate the honesty and ethical standards of people in these different fields – very high, high, average, low or very low?

© Gallup, 2016

Figure 15. How People Rate the Ethics of Others.

Numerous disappointments in recent history have caused this crisis of trust.

Corporate scandals like Enron, Worldcom, Parmalat, Lernout & Hauspie, Volkswagen, Madoff, the Panama Papers … 137 The 2008 financial crisis with all its underlying mechanics and failing behaviour has led to movements like Occupy Wall Street, the 99 %, the indignados … Governments fail to regulate markets and control budgets. Athletes boost their performance through illegal substances. Lance Armstrong fell deep when it was announced that he had used drugs to boost his impressive performance. He was a role model to many.

High youth unemployment in many parts of the world is detrimental for the self-esteem and trust of millions of young people138. If we fail to provide this generation with a meaningful and sustainable future, a huge societal problem arises. A nation goes to war based on false allegations of weapons of mass- destruction, leading to thousands of deaths, a civil war of unseen proportions and increased instability in the Middle East. Corporations do not always take the necessary measures to prevent system failure in hazardous environments. The Titanic disaster is one example (1912), but more recent examples are the disaster in the Fukushima nuclear plant (2011), the explosion of the oil platform of the Deepwater Horizon (2010) and the Tianjin disaster (2015). Politicians use alternative facts, a euphemism for lies, to justify their claims. Donald Trump has brought the post-truth society to an unseen level.

These events show how fragile human systems have become. All these events are more than ever amplified by the power of social media.

To Trust or not to Trust?

The context makes it hard for people to trust others. Are we able to trust others? Do we have to? Some argue we should not. Still we need it. Trust is what oils relationships. Trust makes relationships easy. Think about the importance of trust in a personal relationship. What is the alternative?

The alternative to trust is control. A partner needs to set up mechanisms of control just to be reassured the partner does not cheat. But what does that do to the relationship itself? It introduces in the first place a form of inequality in the relationship. One or both checks upon the other. Next, it also introduces a level of discomfort. The other might even feel guilty thinking about something that the spouse would not appreciate or tolerate. The spontaneity is gone. Third, this creates a form of dependency, as the partner

will try to check in advance if an action is tolerated or not. Finally, control will decrease trust, unless the control serves a higher purpose.

What is applicable to a private relationship is also applicable to a professional relationship. Some managers do not have the capacity to trust people and so they install often elaborate mechanisms of distrust and control.

Story 22 The Overcontrolling Manager

A manager wanted to know exactly what the team was doing. So he set up an elaborate reporting system. One of the performance indicators was focused on the email usage. Every time a team member sent out a mail, they had to tally that manually. Every week they had to send a report to the manager. Every month, the manager crafted a lengthy report that he sent to his manager. When this senior manager was asked if he ever used that indicator, the answer was negative. So a useless indicator was installed just to create a sense of control. Distrust was paramount.

The Cost of Control

Control comes at a cost. This cost is high. Control consumes time and energy. It creates frustration. It develops a culture of passiveness and cynicism. And what’s more, mechanisms of control stop personal development or slow it down.

People working in an industry where control is part of the business model are used to it. The banking industry needs to comply with procedures installed by local, national and international financial authorities. These controls did not prevent the financial crisis of 2008. After a series of corporate scandals, the US and other countries passed legislation to prevent

corporations from publishing misleading information. The Sarbanes-Oxley (SOx) legislation is an example of that. The cost of this regulation is tremendous and its benefits are not all too clear139. It has not prevented further scandals from happening.

The Satyam case is an example how a company can excel in corporate governance but still be fraudulent to the bone140.

Story 23 Fraudulent to the Bone

The Indian company Satyam was an example to many. This fast- growing company offered IT outsourcing and was a supplier for many big and renowned companies. It had been exemplary in terms of corporate governance and it had been awarded for it. But their financial reporting was manipulated. 94 % of cash was imaginary. It’s amazing how this fraud could be maintained for such a long time and on such a scale and not be discovered. It’s impossible to think that only the top managers were aware of the fraud. A culture of fraud had spread across the organisation, including the (overpaid) auditors who satisfied themselves with a clumsily falsified bank certification to accept the existence of the cash. Invoices were faked. There were even phantom employees on the payroll. Fake expenses and fake customers completed the picture.

In hazardous environments, procedural and technological ways of control are installed. Rightly so. However, these controls reduce the risk but there is never a guarantee that accidents will not happen. Many accidents are the result of human error and failure141. The crash of the German Wings airplane – an unstable pilot crashed his plane in the French Alps killing 159 people – in 2015 is an example of how human behaviour – or human error – can have severe consequences.

So you can argue that the cost of control is high as you need to invest time and money in it, but that the risk of not controlling is higher. Even in hazardous environments trust is necessary. The captain of a boat has to rely on others to execute all procedures as they were taught. That requires trust. But someone can be distracted, execute the procedures badly or commit acts of sabotage. Is there an alternative to trust? The alternative is that the captain leaves the bridge and checks everything himself. That’s maybe possible on a sailboat, but not on a cruise ship.

And even when the person acknowledges that everything has been done, it remains possible that it’s not true.

Of course, this is a nightmare. A captain of a ship is responsible for the safety of the passengers and the crew. Still they rely on the trustworthiness of all the members of the crew. They are not capable to check everything personally and technology cannot exclude the risk of error. Trust is the only alternative.

The Benefits of Trust

Trust Frees Up Time

If leaders can work in a climate of trust, they spend less time on control. The time they spend on control will never be 0 hours. There will always be some level of control. But as trust grows, control will decrease. Team members can also share the burden of control as they take over monitoring activities.

Trust Enables Fast Implementation

If people trust one another, everything goes faster. People can trust that other team members will do whatever is needed or agreed upon. In VUCA-times the notion of “swift trust” is essential for temporary teams that need to start and deliver fast. These teams are more and more common and if its leader can develop trust swiftly, the success of the team is more likely142.

Trust Guarantees Quality

When trust is high, quality will be high. People feel responsible for the results of joint efforts. They will do everything not to shame the trust or to damage their own trustworthiness. In a climate of trust people will have no problem to report problems or to warn about difficulties ahead. When there is no trust, people spend time to hide errors and problems and blame others.

Trust Can Enable Conflict Management

Conflicts are good for a team. But if there is no trust, conflict feels like a struggle or war. If there is trust, conflict is a normal aspect of business and even a condition for progress. The advantage of conflict is that ideas are put forward even if they divert. It enables team members to express their dissenting voice without fear. If teams can embrace trust, they will prosper143.

Trust Generates Ideas and Sparks Innovation

Trust allows people to take risks and to share ideas. There is no fear of idea- theft or of being ridiculed. People will express their opinion more easily and give feedback. That is necessary for innovation. In such a climate the exchange between people leads to more and better ideas and achievements144.

Trust Drives Engagement

Working in an atmosphere of trust is enjoyable. People feel included. This aspect is increasingly important as teams virtualise145. However, you need to be able to create trust at an early stage of the team formation. It’s easier to build trust than to repair it.

Trust as a Basis for Sustainable Leadership

Trust is also one of the bases for sustainable leadership. Here’s how it works.

If there is trust, the leader can spend less time on control and focus more on other, more essential elements of leadership. Trust reduces negative emotions and stress. So trust is a basis for personal sustainability. Endurance is easier. Without trust there is suspicion, uncertainty and worry. Less control enables people to take risks. Risk-taking is the basis of learning. Because of the presence of trust people are able to leave their comfort zone. So trust is the basis for learning. If there is trust, the leader can let go of more instead of holding on to details. Trust implies trustworthiness. If a leader is trustworthy – and therefore credible – their position will be more sustainable. Trust regulates behaviour within the team. A climate of trust will create a sense of meaning.

Trust is interconnected to the other areas of sustainable leadership. Moreover, it’s a condition. If leaders are not able to create a climate of trust, leadership within the team will not be sustainable as the other output domains will be out of reach. So a leader needs to make a trade-off between the risk of trust and the cost of control. On the basic condition that the leader has to be trustworthy.

3 Questions about the Climate of Trust

Trust is crucial. But it’s not automatic. There is no reason why people would automatically and unconditionally trust you. There are three questions to analyse the climate of trust within a team.

Question 1: How Easily Do you Trust Others?

Some people start with 100 % trust and see afterwards if someone is to be trusted. Others start with 0 % and team members have to earn their trust. This is called the propensity to trust someone. The ability to trust others is

important because if people feel that they are not trusted by peers or leaders, the reaction will not be one of trust but also of distrust.

Here are some questions to check how likely you are going to trust people146. If you answer the “+” questions positively and the “-” questions negatively, you have a higher propensity to trust.

1. Most people can be counted on to do what they say they will do (+). 2. I tend to trust people, even those who I have just met for the first

time (+). 3. I usually give acquaintances the benefit of the doubt if they do

something that seems selfish (+). 4. I believe that most people are generally trustworthy (+). 5. Unless you remain alert, someone will soon take advantage of you

(-). 6. Most people would tell a lie if they could gain by it (-). 7. My typical approach is to be cautious with people until they have

demonstrated their trustworthiness (-). 8. Most people pretend to be more honest than they really are (-).

It’s important for a leader to check if they are prone to trust others. Trust is reciprocal. Leaders who are unable to give trust, will not receive trust. And if leaders tend to distrust people, there will be a climate of distrust in the team or organisation. Leaders with a high propensity to trust should be aware of this, so that they can avoid trust blindness.

Question 2: How Trustworthy Are People?

Trustworthiness depends on 3 aspects: competence, loyalty and integrity147.

Competence and willingness to learn X is very capable of performing their job. They are known to be successful at the things they try to do. X has much knowledge about the work that needs to be done. I feel very confident about their skills. X has specialised capabilities that can increase our performance.

X is well qualified and knows what they can and cannot do148.

Loyalty149 X is very concerned with my welfare. My needs and desires are very important to X. They will go out of their way to help me. They have a strong sense of justice. I never have to wonder whether X will stick to the deal. X would not knowingly do anything to hurt me. X really looks out for what is important to me. X will go out of their way to help me.

Integrity X has a strong sense of justice150. I never have to wonder whether X will stick to the espoused principles and values. X tries hard to be fair in dealing with others. X actions and behaviours are not very consistent. I like X’s values. Sound principles seem to guide X’s behaviour.

The questions about the trustworthiness of team members are important. If people in the team are not to be trusted, a climate of distrust arises. When the lack of trustworthiness is more linked to competencies, there is perspective as long as people are willing to learn. So trust will be higher if someone is prepared to unlearn and learn, than if someone thinks they know everything. Self-doubt is not such a bad way to gain trust. People who never doubt themselves and who think to have the answer to everything in any situation, are distrusted.

If the lack of trustworthiness is linked to a lack of loyalty or of integrity, more pessimism is needed. The formula of trust is clear:

Figure 16. The Formula of Trust.

From the moment one of these elements is underdeveloped, someone’s trustworthiness is lower. The most essential element is the Integrity. Without integrity there is no trust and this will influence the climate of trust in the team or in the entire organisation.

Question 3: How Trustworthy Is The Leader?

It’s not enough to assess the trustworthiness of team members. Not only is it important to assess the trustworthiness of other people; leaders need to check their own trustworthiness as well. That’s not easy. Imagine what it would be like if leaders considered themselves to be un-trustworthy. Or that they would acknowledge to be consistently and deliberately lying. Leaders can apply the same questions about competence, loyalty and integrity to themselves. Or why should they not ask someone they can trust to answer these questions about them.

It’s OK to ask these questions. It’s possible that a leader’s trustworthiness has been undermined by events that are beyond a leader’s control. Leaders might not be aware of issues about their own trustworthiness. Maybe there have been misunderstandings. Maybe leaders get the blame for VUCA- related events. Or maybe the leadership style is not appreciated (any longer) by people higher in the hierarchy. Or maybe a leader just does not fit into the culture and is not trusted because of that.

Here are some questions people could ask about their leader:151

1. Does my leader keep my interests in mind when making decisions? 2. To what extent would I be willing to let my leader have complete

control over my future in this company? 3. If my leader asked why a problem occurred, to what extent would I

be willing to speak freely even if I were partly responsible for it? 4. To what extent do I feel comfortable being creative because my

supervisor understands that sometimes creative solutions do not work.

5. To what extent is it important for me to have a good way to keep an eye on my leader?

6. How big a mistake would it be to increase my vulnerability to criticism by my leader?

7. If I had my way, to what extent would I not want my leader to have any influence over decisions that are important to me?

Trust and Vulnerability

The paradox of trust is that it requires leaders to be vulnerable. This might seem contradictory to the need to be seen as being competent. But leaders need to anchor the trust they inspire in the reality of leadership. There is no such thing as perfection. Every leader makes mistakes, even those that are on the top of your list. And that makes them real.

Denying weaknesses and hiding mistakes undermines trustworthiness. If leaders do this, it fuels suspicions that they are not committed to the general cause and that they are not at the service of their team members and the organisation. The position and reputation of the leader seems to be more important to these leaders than the good of the organisation.

Leadership is not about the leader. It’s about the motion a leader can create through people. So it’s beneficial to think in relative terms. Losing face is in itself not such a bad thing. It shows that leaders are not perfect and are human. It’s more important to see how a leader deals with setbacks. If the purpose of a leader is to avoid losing face, strange things will happen.

Let’s not forget that any career is partially built on mistakes. There is no point in denying them. Denying mistakes is even missing opportunities. Mistakes are part of life and admitting them inspires people to trust you.

What You Have to Know about Trust

But even trustworthy people can do bad things152. You might have a trustworthy team and you might enjoy the trust from others. And yet things

can go wrong. That’s why it’s important to understand how trust works.

Trust Is a Connection, not a Decision

Based on the three questions about competence, loyalty and integrity one could argue that trusting someone is a decision. Leaders analyse their own propensity for trust, the trustworthiness of others and their own trustworthiness. By adding up all the scores they can make an assessment of the trust climate. But it’s not that simple. Leaders can trust people, but they need to trust you back. The reciprocity of trust determines a lot. So leaders can only trust people if people trust them back. Leaders need to check if this is the case.

But even that is still quite cerebral. Trust is also an emotional thing. This is especially the case when trust is damaged or when trust is betrayed. The shaming of trust is devastating for any relationship.

Trust Is not a Formal Thing

A signature does not equal trustworthiness. It implies accountability or obligation. After the crisis of 2008 the authorities reviewed or introduced a lot of formalisms. As a response the financial authorities have installed a “fit and proper test”. It’s supposed to be a test on trustworthiness. But the question is if someone has ever failed that test? Is the predictive validity of such a test sufficient? The problem with formal responses to trust issues is that they are built on good intentions but that they usually focus on past behaviour. When leaders derail they do so after having acquired a certain position, because of power, pressure, or money. But there are no re-tests on trustworthiness. No formal procedure can regulate trust.

Trust Is a Long-Term Commitment

As trust is based on values as expressed through behaviour, it requires a long-term view on things. Values do not change very fast. And if they do, there is a huge paradigm shift. One of the reasons why trust in business is so difficult is that businesses focus on the short-term. Decisions are not taken

for the long-run. CEOs don’t stay long enough in office to be confronted with the consequences of their decisions153. And as the business is evaluated against quarterly and annual targets, CEOs are not required to think much longer. This is more the case for companies listed on the stock exchange. We can only hope that this will change and that leaders can explicitly focus on long-term targets.

Trust Is Fragile

Once trust has been betrayed, it is not so easy to repair it. People seem to test the strength of trust all the time. Leaders can put pressure on trust in spite of their good intentions. Without realizing, a breach of trust can occur. People rarely approach their leaders to tell them there’s a problem. Most people will keep that for themselves. But trust erodes and as trust is mutual, this erosion is detrimental to the climate of trust and leader trustworthiness. Although the leader is not responsible for VUCA, VUCA itself makes trust more fragile than ever.

Trust Needs Confirmation

That’s why trust needs confirmation. Asking people if they trust you or if you can trust them is not a good idea. These questions are not easily answered negatively – apart from the fact that they are closed questions. And even if people are willing to answer the question, in the absence of trust the answer is not reliable. It’s only when people trust one another that the question will be answered truthfully and positively. But the question is obsolete when there’s a climate of trust. It’s a vicious circle.

Consistency of behaviour is the most important confirmation of trust. If people see their leaders behaving consistently (as they see you behaving consistently) they will assume trust is there. Moreover, they will experience trust. But it’s a “first give, then take” situation. Trust starts with the leader. So the leader needs to display consistent behaviour.

Trust Is as Strong as Its context

Trust is about context. If people are working in a highly political environment with people pursuing only personal interests and targets, they will find that trust is low. In such a context people might even think that giving trust is a dangerous thing. The reason for this is that being trustworthy is partly based on being vulnerable towards and dependent on other people. Being vulnerable means that leaders disclose imperfections, errors, projects that went wrong. Although this vulnerability makes leaders trustworthy, these disclosures can be used as weapons against them.

And that is why a culture of distrust is so hard to change, especially for those who have less responsibility, less power, less impact. Trust starts and ends at the top of a company. If the CEO can show vulnerability, it is likely that his team will follow. But this is only possible when those leaders enjoy the trust of their hierarchy and the board. Only then, trust will trickle down to the rest of the organisation.

The propensity to trust can become a cultural issue, but only when everyone in the team is able to trust. If people in a team differ on this, trust in the team will be lower154.

How to Build Trust?

Building trust is a prime directive for any leader. Without it, leadership is not sustainable. So leaders need to work on it, no matter how difficult it may be in their current situation. Here is how:

1. Remember leaders build trust on character. So make sure you are (seen as) trustworthy. It’s the beginning of all trusting relationships.

a. Show integrity. Do what you say and say what you do. No hidden agendas.

b. Be competent. Competence inspires trust. But for a leader it’s more about leadership behaviour and less about technical competencies. However, to be able to ask the right questions, any leader must acquire the latter to some degree.

c. Show your loyalty whenever appropriate. 2. Scan your environment on trust. 3. Put the interest of the organisation before all other interests,

including your own. Make sure that is clear and avoid ambiguous situations.

4. Don’t try to be in control of everything. Let go. 5. Do not try and please everyone. 6. Follow your own values and principles if you are in a context of

sliding values. 7. Show vulnerability.

a. Be open about what you want and what your personal interests are.

b. Admit that you do not know. c. Explain the reasons of a change in vision or decision-

making. d. Be accountable at all times. e. Apologize when needed155.

8. Never treat your colleagues as potential perpetrators. a. Don’t distrust by default. b. Do not forget your propensity to trust is contagious, as is

your propensity to distrust. 9. Apply the principles of positive politics156.

10. Be transparent in your decision-making. 11. Manage your dark side. If you know there is a risk of derailment,

manage it. 12. Give and ask feedback. Feedback is a way to change and bend

distrust into trust. 13. Be fair.

Trust and the Rules of Sustainability

The rules of sustainability can be applied to trust.

Table 5. Trust and the Rules of Sustainability.

Tactic 05 Positive Politics

Politics in companies have a bad name. Books are published on the matter with titles like The Way of the Rat157, or Thriving in a World of Lying, Backstabbing and Dirty Tricks in office politics158. Politics should not be negative. It’s about taking influence and as long as that influence is used to create the right motion, it’s not a negative thing. Politics can be positive. When I started my career, I dreaded politics like many people do. But it’s so innate to human nature that everybody will inevitably be involved in politics of some kind. So you’d better get the hang of it.

The question is how to participate in politics. Politics can be an erosive factor to character, especially where fairness is concerned. Needless to say that for any politician, trust is key. Would you ever vote for a candidate you do not trust? Maybe you could if you feel that this person has the power to solve a problem you are facing the way you want to see it solved. The same is true within organisations.

So although trust is important, we are willing to accept to work with people we trust less if that is convenient. This is a slippery slope and we need to define limits to what we are willing to do. If we don’t, we might lower our guard and lose some of our values. And if that happens, our trustworthiness gets damaged.

Peter Block has developed a framework to develop political skills. He calls it positive politics.

© Peter Block

Figure 17. Positive Politics.

He developed a way to look at the people around us who connect to us. He uses two criteria: the degree to which we can trust them and the degree to which we are in agreement with them.

People who you can trust and are in agreement with you are your allies. With these people you can cooperate freely and openly. The ones who do not agree with your vision, but who are trustworthy are your opponents. As you can trust them, you can be open with them. They will even challenge you and they make you better. The ones you don’t trust need a different approach. The ones who are in agreement are your bedfellows. They go along probably because they have an interest that is covered by your vision. Finally, the ones who do not agree with your vision and whom you cannot trust, are your enemies or adversaries.

And if you do not know if they agree with you or not, they are fence- sitters. They can turn either way.

You can analyse the power relations in your context. The problem is that we are afraid of power being used against us. And we adopt indirect and manipulative tactics to neutral-ise others. Block says that

we need to abandon manipulative behaviour and adopt open communication about what we need, feel, hope, like and dislike.

Positive Politics do not allow for hidden agendas. They require you to stand up for what you think and be open about it. It requires that you deal with all parties involved, including the ones you distrust. All of them are important to reach your targets.

This openness requires vulnerability. Positive politics will increase your trustworthiness. In some organisations this is suicide. But if you are working in a toxic workplace, and you are unable to change it, you might consider to leave or go undercover.

Takeaways

Trust is the basis for enduring relationships. The benefits of trust are many. Trust makes life easier. Consistency in behaviour is what inspires trust. A leader’s competence, loyalty and integrity determine their trustworthiness. There are many ways to build trust, but it takes time. Trust is not a decision but more a connection. Paradoxically, being vulnerable inspires trust.

Checks

Are you trustworthy? How do you know? Talk to others about it. To what extent are you capable of trusting people? To what extent are you able to show vulnerability and admit mistakes? To what extent are you able to apologise? Are you able to put mistakes into perspective? Are you able to put yourself into perspective?

“ Men in plural […] can experience meaningfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each other and themselves.

Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition

09 Creating Meaningfulness

A Lack of Meaningfulness in the VUCA World

I sometimes ask people if they have ever worked in a job that was meaningless, or if they had to do tasks that seemed to lead nowhere. Most people have and many are still in this situation159. How does that feel, is the next question? It feels bad. Whatever you do, it’s easier to do when there is meaning, a purpose.

We are all looking for purpose and some of us seem to have lost the ability to find it. There aren’t that many certainties anymore. People in the West have lost faith. There is an abundance of choice. We are used to instant pleasure. Only a few of us consciously chase after a higher meaning. Too many of us drown their uncertainty in being extremely busy, earning a lot of money to be able to buy stuff we do not need in order to impress people we do not really like160. Identities are based on the size of the car on the driveway and the number of times we go on a trip. In the meantime, we see psychological disorders soar and burnout seems to have become an epidemic.

We have lost our sense of meaningfulness and purpose.

One of the few places where it all still makes sense is work. Doing something I’m good at for a customer who really cares about it and is willing to pay for it, gives a sense of purpose, and a sense of belonging.

We should not find sense only in ourselves and in our personal objectives. We can only enjoy the feeling of purpose when someone else is involved. We find sense in what we can contribute to someone else’s life.

Here a leader can make a huge difference. Sense making is the core business of any leader in any organisation. If everything changes, you still need to make sense out of it161.

Sense or Nonsense

Sense-making is the process through which people work to understand issues or events that are novel, ambiguous, confusing or in some way violate expectations162. But sense-making is not always linked to disruptive events. Sense-making is what everyone does every day to cope with existence. It involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalise what people are doing163.

We create images about what we do, why we do it, and how it fits into a broader picture. We need this for our mental health164 and to keep our identity intact. When you meet people for the first time you might ask what they are doing for a living. People derive identity from what they do. Most of the times you will hear a job title. I’m a doctor. I’m a carpenter. I teach. Imagine you would ask the question with what purpose they do this. I’m sure people at a cocktail party would be surprised by the bluntness of the question. But you could hear things like “I want to cure people”, “It’s fun to improve people’s houses”, “I just live to see children develop into mature individuals”. This tells much more about who they are. The question ignites also emotion. Sometimes people forget why they are in this job in the first place. But if they talk about the reasons why they are doing what they do, they remember the purpose and the meaningfulness.

If there is a purpose, we are able to do the most tedious or dangerous work with passion. People sacrifice a lot for a purpose. They are even willing to die for a purpose.

Can you imagine an organisation that has no meaningful target? That is nonsense of course. Every organisation has sense, a purpose, a raison d’être. For some organisations, it’s easier to define than for others. For hospitals, homes for the elderly, schools, courts of justice, the police … it’s relatively easy to define meaningfulness. They are at the service of society, citizens, the ill, victims … Commercial organisations offer services and products customers want to buy because these products help them to achieve certain objectives. For some organisations it has become more

difficult to define a target that is meaningful to society. Polluting industries, weapons manufacturers, tobacco companies … have a difficult time defining meaningfulness beyond the own existence.

In all organisations, also the very inspiring ones, there are experiences that are meaningless. The success of the Dilbert cartoon illustrates in a painful and yet amusing way how companies sometimes work. The drama is that we can laugh with the cartoons because they are painfully recognisable.

Story 24 Cars by the Pound

A car manufacturing company had acquired a plant in Eastern Europe, right after the fall of the Iron Curtain. The company decided to produce older models at a lower cost in that subsidiary for the Eastern European markets. It was a perfect deal. The company could commercialise older models that had fallen out of grace in the West at a lower cost for an audience that was not able to buy the more expensive cars. There was only one problem. The cars that left the production chain were suffering from performance problems. That was strange because the models had been in production for years and their Western counterparts never experienced those problems.

So a team went to have a look to see what was going on. The problem did not lie in the production facilities, or the design of the car. There was a managerial issue. The plant had produced Eastern European cars before the fall of communism and had not changed some of its managerial practices. One of these practices was that workers were paid according to the achievement of objectives. The objectives had not changed. They were paid according to the weight of the cars they produced. The more pounds that left the factory, the more they got paid. So, what they did was weld lead plates to the chassis. The cars got heavier and less efficient by consequence.

The case of the car manufacturing plant is an illustration of how a system can influence behaviour. Every system has an educational impact on those who are part of it. And sometimes the educational impact is negative. Anyway, meaningless objectives do not create a positive value for any organisation. The “M” in the acronym SMART can be the “M” of meaningful instead of the “M” of measurable. Not everything that is measurable is important. And not everything that is important is measurable.

Every day we go through Kafkaesque165 experiences of bureaucracy; changing rules, complacent leaders and confusing messages. The need for sense-making is often related to events that are not easily understandable, like:

Your company decides to invest abroad, which confuses the workers in the domestic market. They are worried because they fear job losses. They do not understand that investing abroad could keep jobs in the home market. A merger or acquisition needs a lot of explanation. Most mergers lead to job losses. So you need to be able to explain the reasons for this evolution. Bad company results need more interpretation and sense-making than good results do. When everything goes right people usually have no questions. Good results lull people to sleep. An expensive rebranding effort requires sense-making. When well done, the rebranding is self-explanatory. A leader’s story should be aligned to the brand message. Any change of direction requires sense-making. In a VUCA world it is very likely that decisions change. Leaders need to be aware of the need people have to understand why their organisation changes its course. A crisis requires sense-making as well. The 2008 crisis was almost unexplainable. How can one explain that the quest for higher returns led people towards extreme risk-taking? This, in return, detonated a crisis of unseen dimensions. A change in the way we work requires sense-making. People often think that things should stay the same, because they were successful in the past.

Changes in the market like new players, changing legislation … lead to uncertainty. When the context changes there is a need for explanations that provide the meaningfulness people crave for.

Creating meaningfulness is not easy. People do not accept just anything. They have become much more informed. They can check whatever leaders are saying through the internet and social media. If leaders just tell them a story to get rid of them they are lost. Leaders have to tell it like it is, with facts and figures, but also with empathy and kindness.

When people need reassurance, leaders had better reassure them. Sometimes there is no reassurance. People are not infants that need to be protected from bad news. Leaders should not make promises they cannot keep. They also have to take the emotional component of the message into account. They should show that they are affected by the situation as well. And they cannot keep radio-silence for too long.

People don’t follow someone who cannot read the map. And if the map changes, leaders need to read it again and come up with a new vision, a new approach. The vision does not have to come from the leader alone, but the leader has to make sure there is vision, a sense of purpose, and meaningfulness.

People don’t follow someone who cannot read the map.

The Value of Meaningfulness

If well done, meaningfulness creates a direction which is not only understood but also appreciated. Having a sense of purpose instils trust. People are willing to accept a lot, if they see the meaning of it. Meaningfulness creates identity. Meaningfulness gets strategies executed.

Who Should Create Meaningfulness?

Vision and meaningfulness are not the monopoly of the leader. Other stakeholders can contribute to the creation of meaningfulness. People can search together for meaning. It’s unlikely that leaders can be the sole source of explanations, that they alone can put things into perspective and create meaningfulness. Creating meaningfulness becomes a participative process. But, unfortunately, many organisations still expect that the leader is the sole source of vision and meaningfulness166.

This is not sustainable. It is the responsibility of leaders that people experience meaningfulness, but they can share the process of creating it.

How to Create Meaningfulness?

Gather Data

Gather as much data as you can about the situation. Try and look further than the data that is easily available. You will find ambiguous and even contradictory data. In a constantly changing environment data will lose their value rapidly. Try not to work too long with data. Renew data regularly. Involve as many people as possible in the interpretation of the data.

Experiment

It’s not always easy to find data. Sometimes there isn’t any. Then you need to build and test hypotheses through small experiments. It’s the only way to reduce ambiguity.

It’s All about Story telling

Creating meaningfulness is comparable to drawing a map or drafting a story167. If a company has a compelling story that unites employees, suppliers and customers a leader can build on that.

The Reason Why

Central in any story is the reason why we do things168. Why do we change? What is the purpose? When will we be satisfied? You can build your entire story, and finally your entire organ-isation around this simple question: why do we do this?

Emotions – Metaphors

One image can tell more than a thousand words. Images can convey more emotions than a purely linear textual approach. That’s the mistake we often make. We think we have to convince someone. But people have to convince themselves that this or that approach is the right one. In order to make your story stick you need to add emotion to it. Otherwise people won’t believe it.

Meaningfulness and Sustainability

If sustainability is about the long term, meaningfulness generates perspective. Meaningfulness unites people around a purpose. If people embrace the purpose, chances are that a strategy will be executed and results will be delivered. When it is important to people, it will be done.

Meaningfulness makes it easier for people to accept change. If there is a good reason to do something, people will be inclined to participate.

Meaningfulness acts like an antidote against the VUCA feeling. A story and a map of the situation decrease anxiety. People understand the situation and ambiguity decreases. And when this happens people can build an image of the future. Plans are created on understanding and vision. And once this

exists there is less uncertainty. Even if the story is wrong, having a story in itself is enough.

Story 25 Putting a Man on the Moon

In 1961 president J.F. Kennedy announced he wanted that the United States would bring a man to the moon and return him safely back to earth before the end of the decade. To him this endeavour was a moral duty of a country that had as destiny to lead the free world. In his speech, he asked the country to free resources for the space program. We know the rest of the story; man set foot on the moon on July 21st 1969.

There’s a small legend. Kennedy allegedly visited Cape Canaveral, the place where the rockets are launched. He saw a man who was cleaning a hangar with a broom. He asked the man what he was doing. The man answered: “We are putting a man on the moon”.

When J.F. Kennedy gave the perspective of putting a man on the moon, this united a nation behind a project. It was a race against time. With the limited technology of the time, a man had to travel to the moon and back again. The odds were not high. And yet, the project was a success.

Meaningfulness is linked to the rules of sustainability. Each of the 5 rules can be linked to this leadership theme.

Table 6. Sustainability and Meaningfulness.

Takeaways

Meaningfulness creates perspective. In a changing world, story-telling is important. Leaders need to make an effort to explain the meaningfulness and impact of the changes. Changing a vision is OK, as long as leaders can explain it. Meaningfulness is focused on someone else but yourself. Leaders do not produce all the meaningfulness themselves. Others can contribute as well.

Checks

How meaningful is the project or process you and your team are working on? Do others experience this meaningfulness the same way? How exciting and connecting is the story you are telling as a leader? To what extent is your own leader able to tell a compelling story? To what extent does your leader succeed in presenting the objectives as meaningful? How did you feel when you had to do a meaningless task?

“ Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.

Simone Weil

10 Help Others Grow

Growing in the VUCA World

Due to the massive and accelerated changes people have to adapt fast to new realities. Many jobs are likely to disappear as a result of automation169. There will be new jobs, that do not exist today. Many of us have spent years to acquire mastery in a certain job or profession, only to find out that machines can do it better. But because of the many disruptions there are many people at risk of being unemployable, and therefore of being unemployed. More than ever, people need to invest in their own development to safeguard and maximise their chances of finding and keeping work, in whatever capacity (employee or entrepreneur).

This is very relevant for organisations that are depending on the employability of people. The development of people is a condition to tackle the challenges of the VUCA world. Thanks to personal development, organisations are able to predict disruptive market evolutions, to respond to them or to even organise them. Strategy execution depends on the behaviour of many people who innovate, work together, learn, unlearn, negotiate, take initiatives ...

Just like organisations, people need to develop. I call that growth. But in that growth it is important that they respect their character. It is not about staying yourself, but becoming more of yourself. That is growth too.

Most people that are born today will live longer lives. Half of the millennials will reach the age of 100170. People will have to work longer. Whereas traditional careers were predictable, with clear separate phases, the new career will be one of change. If we are to achieve 100 years it’s impossible to stop working at 65, or to power an entire longer career with only one education. It’s also impossible to work at the pace many of us are working at now. We will have to do things differently and the learning ability will be(come) crucial in all of this. Education, work and retirement or rest will no longer be sequential. We will alternate and intertwine learning, working and recovery in all phases of our life.

Making sure that people learn and stay employable is one of the most significant roles of a leader. And to take on that role, the two earlier principles of building trust and creating sense are crucial.

The Purpose of Helping Others

Why should a leader help others to become more of themselves? There’s this legendary discussion between a CFO and a CPO171 about development. The CFO asks the CPO why we train people and invest so much money in them? What if they get trained and leave the company? The CPO answers: what if we do not train them and they stay. This conversation expresses what it is all about.

We train people so that they can keep on contributing to the organisation. This means also that the market value of those people is maintained or increased.

In itself leaders help people to maintain their capacity to work now and in the future. This is a simple definition of sustainable employability. Leaders should have this in mind when they think about someone’s development. That thought requires a longer term perspective and nudges someone in a certain direction. And sometimes the interests of the organisation come second to the interests of the individual. Leaders should have peace when yet another person leaves the team to explore new horizons. They should be proud when someone of the team progresses and becomes stronger. Launching people to higher levels of mastery and autonomy is what sustainable leaders do.

Leaders help others to make choices. Some of these choices are existential. Most of the choices are not. But when it is about the future, make-or-break decisions, uncertainty, crisis … the leader had better be available. It’s at these crucial moments that a leader can make a difference. Their most important tool is the attention they can give to people.

The Power of Attention

Attention is the Fuel of Development

Helping people to grow is the essence of leadership. Leaders are not coaches or trainers, but they do what it takes to help people to grow. Basically, it’s about giving attention to someone. Everything that receives attention grows.

Leaders who are on the top of the leadership list do that. The attention they give to others, they cannot spend on themselves. And like that their attention becomes the fuel of development. It’s important for leaders they accept the fact that they are not at the centre of the leadership process.

People Do not Orbit around You

Imagine that there is a budget of 100 % of attention that can be distributed across a team. Let’s think about a team of 10 persons including the leader. On average, each one of the team members can get 10 %. But what if the leader would reduce the self-centred attention to 1 %? The others would get 11 %, a 10 % increase. What if the leader would take some of the attention back? That would drain the attention that team members get, making them less effective and leaving them with fewer opportunities to excel.

One of the myths about leadership is that leadership is about the leader172. The leader is at the centre of the process and becomes more important than others. This happens in meritocratic cultures that lionize leaders. But leaders are no heroes. Leaders are people who give attention to people so that they can progress. Nothing more and nothing less.

What happens when leaders put themselves at the centre? The consequence is that they make people dependent. They do not move until the leader moves. They imitate their leader because they think that’s the way forward and because they assume that is what the leader wants.

They will come up with the leaders’ ideas, not their own. They will not take any decision that their leader will not endorse. They adapt their behaviour. And so there is full symbiosis. Leaders in that situation have the feeling to have a perfectly integrated team that shares their values and pursues common goals. The truth is that they have lost their own personality and have been assimilated into a monoculture. They have become satellites in an orbit around the leader. But for them to remain in orbit, the leader needs to develop and maintain gravity. This exacerbates the situation because for them to develop and maintain that gravity, leaders will hire people that are willing to orbit around them. They will hire weaker people, who they can keep under control by orienting all attention to themselves and enforcing a paralyzing top-down approach.

What happens when such leaders hire someone that is not (yet) in orbit? They might hire this person because of their talents, stamina, or network. This person comes into the team with their own ideas and aspirations. Having someone like that disturbs the leader’s universe. Adding a satellite will in itself alter the course of the other satellites that rotate around the leader. Leaders might not like that. What if that new satellite proves to have a lot of mass and therefore a lot of gravity? And what happens when this person has more gravity than the leader has. Should they endorse that? Should they tolerate that? This person will bring new habits into the team. This person might contradict the leader. This person might voice opinions that are not in line with the leader’s. This person might even educate and inspire people to look for their own answers. This will reduce the leader’s own gravity.

If leaders resent that, there’s a problem. It means that they are not ready to take on full leadership as they think they are at the core of the system. Hiring someone who is stronger than the leader should be OK. Having people like that in your team only has value. It has value to the organisation because new ideas are injected into sometimes fossilised cultures. It is beneficial for the other team members because they get exposed to a new source of inspiration. And it’s beneficial to the leader, because people like that improve the leadership and the leader.

Keeping people in orbit is not a task of the leader. If it were, it’s not about keeping them in orbit around the leader. It’s making sure people orbit around

something greater. They need to orbit around the purpose of the organisation. The purpose should have all the gravity, not the leader. Leaders are in orbit around that purpose themselves, together with everybody else.

Sustainable Employability

Helping people to develop is not limited to developing competencies. Growing is more than just becoming better, faster, stronger173. It also means remaining oneself, true to your own character and in order to remain oneself, one will need to change174. The concept of sustainable employability175 is leading in that.

Ability and Agility

Sustainable employability is the capacity to work tomorrow. This means that working today does not undermine the capacity to work tomorrow176. It’s important that working not only has a conservatory nature, but also an activating one. Working is not a source of illness and decline, but of health and evolution.

There are two elements: ability and agility. Physical and mental health are the basis of sustainable employability. Health defines the degree in which you are able to work (ability). But also agility is crucial: resilience, talent and engagement.

Figure 18. Sustainable Employability177.

Developing sustainable employability is a shared responsibility. A leader has responsibilities in both the health area and in the development area. Usually leaders are reluctant to talk about health issues. They do not think it is their business. But it is. Health, talent development, engagement and resilience are interconnected. Whatever a leader does to enhance engagement, it has a positive impact on health as well. In view of the increasing prevalence of mental illness and burnout, leaders need to engage in health-enhancing interventions as well.

Psychosocial Risks

Take a look at the chart on the prevalence of psychosocial risks in Europe. The chart shows the risks that may cause negative consequences for workers. Apart from the angry clients, all psychosocial risks come from within the organisation. Even if leaders have the feeling they cannot change some of the risk factors, like the tight work schedule, they still can influence the way people cope with them.

Figure 19. Prevalence of Psychosocial Risks in Europe.

50 % of people in Europe state that there is (too much) stress and about 4 out of 10 say that the employer does not handle this well178. There’s an increase of long-term absenteeism. This is not only related to work. There is an abundance of choice and people do not only have to perform on the job, but have to cope with a full agenda in their private life. People have become the slave of their own agenda and have lost the ability to rest, to wander, to get lost and to be bored. Every moment we are awake, we are tempted to be busy and to be connected. There is overheating.

Whatever the reason for the increasing health problems, they do influence work and the execution of strategies significantly. But that’s not enough of a reason to address them. Imagine that a leader would say to a team member they look bad and that you’d urge them to get their act together as bad health influences work performance. That cannot be the full story. Addressing a health problem is an act of kindness in the first place. Addressing it without

offering to help (again, without trying to save the person) is not sufficient either.

Many leaders are reluctant to address health-related issues. But leaders can turn it around and start showing health-promoting behaviour. That means that they do not address the specific problem but that they address the future, the need to remain employable.

Health promotion is the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health. Health is created and lived by people within the settings of their everyday life; where they learn, work, play and love179. And leadership style is one of the keys for health promotion: creating a context of trust, meaningfulness, engagement and support enhances people’s health. It makes people more resistant against the consequences of the pressures in both work and private life.

So leaders can talk about health if they think it’s necessary. But they can avoid having to talk about health by employing a leadership style that promotes a healthy environment and adopting a leadership style that is in itself promoting health. And let’s not forget, people can work hard, as long as they see the sense of it, they feel the support and as long as their efforts are recognised.

Leaders can adopt two ways of stimulating sustainable employability – ability and agility: coaching and nudging.

Coaching and Nudging

The Kids on the Street

Imagine you are walking with young kids on a busy street. There is not much space and cars are rushing by dangerously close to the sidewalk. What will you do? You will protect the children. You will hold them by the hand and you will have them walk at the side of the houses, as far as possible from the traffic on the road. When the children get too close to the street,

you will nudge them gently towards the safer side of the pavement, closer to the houses. That’s what parents do because they want the best for the children. They feel responsible and they know that children cannot assess the dangers. The very moment of walking on the street parents will not coach the children. They would do that before and afterwards.

It’s something leaders can do as well. Sometimes they see people heading towards their own misery, or missing out on unique opportunities. Leaders can help them through nudging and coaching.

Coaching is about helping people to see things differently. In the process people become more aware of the situation and develop a willingness to take responsibility for the future. Coaching can occur when there is a clear question coming from the coachee: to become better at something, to solve a problem, to achieve a target. In all of this, coaches have limited responsibility: to steer the process of coaching. The rest lies with the coachee.

Nudging180 goes a step further. Nudging means leading someone in a certain direction that is beneficial to the person, both in terms of personal development as in terms of personal health. Leaders take more responsibility and do not wait until there’s an explicit question coming from the person.

The art of nudging and coaching requires subtlety. Leaders cannot force people to act differently. But they can confront people with situations, evolutions and consequences. Leaders should not judge people when they do something and whatever they do, they cannot push people in a certain direction by attacking their self-esteem or dignity (e.g. by saying their career has been a disaster so far).

Nudging and coaching is not about saving people against their will. If leaders want to save people, they take up too much space and they become the director of someone else’s life. People are not victims who are passively waiting to be saved. Nudging and coaching leave space, and create options to behave differently. Nudging and coaching do not mean that leaders command someone, but that they give a present. Should someone decide not to be helped, then that’s OK.

Table 7. Coaching versus Nudging.

I will not debate coaching further in this book. There are many books about how leaders can coach. However, when it comes to nudging there is a lot of uncertainty. Given the fact that nudging seems to be close to manipulation, there might be reluctance. The main difference with manipulation is that the intention of the leader is to help people for the benefit of the people and the organisation. It’s about creating a winning situation for all.

Contextual Versus Personal Nudging

There are two ways of nudging: personal and contextual.

Contextual nudging occurs when leaders design the context in such a way that it’s full of hints, nudges for people to become aware of opportunities and take them. Everyone can benefit from the nudging as there is usual by no differentiation. Nudging seems to work better than imposing rules and regulations upon people.

Personal nudging happens when leaders offer that often small push to someone in particular. They base the nudge on the knowledge they have about that person’s strengths, developmental areas, personal ambitions and preferences. But a vision about the future helps leaders to nudge people as well.

Here are some examples of contextual nudging: Install a rotation system of leading meetings. It’s not always the (formal) leader who has to lead meetings. The expectation is that people do this, take responsibility and learn how to lead a meeting. The leader may preside over the meeting, but has to do this in the background. A soccer team may have a captain who is not always the leader. By rotating the role of the captain, players get a taste for it and this allows both them and the team to detect leadership potential. By having a formal job mobility and career advancement approach, organisations shift responsibility towards the employees. It becomes normal to think about the own career and when employees see colleagues applying internally, they are triggered to do the same. The mobility approach has a nudging capacity. Organisations can offer health promoting measures in a standard way. Leaders can underline the importance of using the health services. But to promote it, they’d better use the evidence through statistics that include social comparison. An example is “did you know that already 67 % had their flu vaccination? People who took it became 20 % less often ill in 2016 than those who did not take it”. Nobody wants to get ill. Leaders can offer information that make people become aware and change their behaviour. Not because you tell them to, but because they want to. There is no pressure or obligation. To help to solve the increasing traffic problems on the road, organisations can make it more easy for people to use the bike or

public transportation systems rather than using the car. Of course they can do that by moving the office closer to the subway, something many companies do when moving office. But there are many ways of stimulating that kind of behaviour. I use the public transport system myself a lot and “my case” is used within my company as an example. I guess that it’s something like “if he can do it, anyone can”. Leading by example is a very important way of nudging.

Contextual nudging is indirect and relatively untargeted. Its advantage is that it creates an environment that stimulates behavioural change constantly. But leaders cannot help people to grow through contextual nudging alone. Leaders need to intervene actively by nudging people individually towards a certain direction. This is personal nudging.

Personal nudging is much more difficult and delicate. It has the risk that leaders interfere with someone’s life and that reeks of paternalism. That is correct. I argue that there is nothing wrong with this kind of paternalism. But it has to do with feeling responsible as a leader. Leaders cannot say they are only half responsible to justify their turning away when they see people taking actions that are harmful to themselves. Parents don’t do this, so leaders should not do this either.

It’s strange, but there is less reluctance to address someone when there’s bad performance and the results are not there. Maybe leaders will address someone when the behaviour or attitude is not suited. But it’s more difficult to talk to people when it’s about their health, their decisions, their career. Leaders have the feeling that they cross a line.

Talking about results is different, they say. Performance has to do with cost and revenue, and it’s the organisation that pays the person’s salary. This justifies intervention as leaders should make sure that the invested salary yields. This is the transactional view of work that is still very present. But this is too short term and in itself not sustainable. More, this way of thinking reduces leadership to a financial exercise. And that is not what leadership is about. It means that the leadership role is conditional and depending on the yields. And we all know how this can damage the credibility of a leader.

Nudging focuses explicitly on the long term. Leaders intervene because they see that people can do better. Leaders take the responsibility to at least talk to someone and to try and inspire people to change their behaviour. This is a very humanistic way of looking at leadership: leaders take responsibility for someone’s future whatever the short-term consequences for the organisation.

Possible questions to ask: What are you going to during the remainder of your career? You have been working for 10 years in the car wash. That’s not very healthy. To what extent would you consider taking on another job that is less risky in terms of health? You have been very successful to build your department the past five years. But now your work is done. I do not need someone to build. The work of the architect is over. Now I need a janitor. Will you be my janitor? You look tired. What is going on? You have been absent for a while. What can I do to help you get back to work?

Many leaders feel uncomfortable with these situations, especially when they are within the private sphere. They think it’s none of their business. Or they are convinced that people should take care of themselves, or that the HR department should address the issue. And still, the leader must feel responsible. There are 4 reasons for this:

1. First of all we need to accept that there is no Great wall of China between the private and professional life. There is cross-over and contagion. When someone has a problem at home, there is usually a problem at work and vice versa. People do not leave their troubles at the gate of the company.

2. Second, leaders are human beings in the first place. That means that they can allow for empathy, kindness, fairness and reciprocity. Why stop it? Or why limit empathy to a professional context?

3. Thirdly, if leaders want to make a connection with people, they need to be interested in all aspects of them, not only the “active parts” of them.

4. Fourth, to be sustainable in their leadership leaders need to look at the future. If the target is to keep people employable, both health and career are part of the discussion.

A Context of Growth?

In order to help people to develop sustainably, leaders need to create a context that enables personal growth and leverages personal success. People need to thrive in and also because of that context. Thriving means something else for every other person. From an organisational perspective thriving could mean to have the professional successes the organisation needs. Achieving company targets is indeed a way to thrive because many positive things come from it: employment, self-esteem, an income, and self- development.

Providing someone with that context is a main task of any leader. There are two levers for that: customisation and empowerment.

It’s about the Job: Customisation

We still see work too often as a given standard. Despite the knowledge that people need a rich job with enough variation that addresses the needs and strengths of people, we still do not customise jobs because it’s not efficient. We draft a job description, define the competencies and look for someone who fits the profile. We expect a person to adapt to the job. I am convinced we should do it the other way around. We need to adapt the job as much as possible to the person. That is customized work. And this concept can be expanded to the entire job context: job design, career, learning, contractual dimensions, health care, work-life balance181.

Customisation of work gives the best opportunities to motivate people and enable them to work much longer and in better health. When the job is not adapted to their talent it becomes a burden. And then work is not sustainable.

Good leaders do this without asking permission. The overlap between the official job description and the actual job content as someone executes it is often incredibly low. But in many organisations a leader needs to hide this from HR and from unions. Because customisation of work looks like making exceptions. And making exceptions sets precedents that open up a certain right for everyone. Making exceptions disrupts the existing and well- balanced systems.

Making exceptions sometimes is not compliant to internal rules and in some cases there is no legal basis for it. But if we continue to think like this, we will always be limited by the system, under-exploit human potential and have a constant friction between human nature and a dehumanising work environment.

Putting people first, gives energy to people. It’s a sign of empathy and appreciation. I plead for the application of I-Deals182. I-deals (idiosyncratic deals) are agreements between the employer and the employee that deviate from the regular employment agreements. The idea behind these I-deals is that they create value for both the organisation and the individual employee.

It’s about Giving Space: Empowerment

Giving space to people is an essential leadership lever. The principle of letting go and holding on is one of the foundations of sustainable leadership. So the best thing leaders can do is to take a step back. The distance leaders create might be uncomfortable to them and it is possible that leaders grow a little uncertain. They start asking questions about loyalty, quality, trust. It’s also uncomfortable for people who have been depending on decisions their leader take for them.

But at the end, to empower people by taking a step back and giving people more space is beneficial to both the person and the organisation. It creates also space for the leader and developmental opportunities for the team members. There is only value in the fact that people are autonomous in their thinking and acting. And this is a result of a consistent and careful application of the principles of empowerment.

Empowerment has two meanings: giving the authority and giving the energy. Leaders need to do both at the same time. Empowering people is not about dumping tasks and responsibilities on someone. Leaders will make sure that someone is capable. Letting go is not dropping. And leaders will do this with empathy and kindness.

Empowering people is also about allowing people to make mistakes. That is extremely important. If leaders empower people while at the same time making it clear that failure is not an option, they are paralyzing them instead of energizing them. You could say that making mistakes is also one of the objectives of empowerment. Mistakes are a source of learning and of growth. What does a leader do when someone in the team makes a mistake? Leaders take the responsibility for it. They do not blame. If not, there is no true leadership. Remember, leaders are at the service of their team. And if leaders are not loyal towards them, they destroy the trust people have.

How leaders can start to empower, depends on the people, their maturity and trustworthiness and the context. Here are some practical suggestions on how to achieve empowerment183:

1. Tell people what you expect from them. Be as clear as possible about that without being too specific on how they should move forward. Clarify responsibilities whenever needed. Setting standards is one of the most difficult things a leader needs to do. However, it is not necessary that the definition of those standards should be the monopoly of the leader. Team members can express their expectations and professional aspirations as well. The consensus about what to achieve becomes the new standard. Leaders make sure it happens.

2. Empower them both formally and informally. Formal empowerment is about attributing responsibilities, maybe a job title, a place in the organisation chart, a budget. Informal empowerment means that leaders build a psychological contract with the team members. This is a set of agreements the leader and that person make that regulate the collaboration: division of tasks, how to work together, mutual expectations, the follow-up … This psychological contract used to be implicit, but sometimes it’s better to make it explicit.

3. Provide the necessary resources. If leaders want to give people energy through empowerment, they need to make sure they have what it takes to do it. Giving someone an impossible mission might sound heroic, but it’s not. It’s definitely not a sign of strong and sustainable leadership. This is what King David did when he sent Sybilla’s husband to the front to make sure he would fall in combat. Resources are not limited to budget and material means. Empowerment requires that leaders match responsibilities to capabilities. There is little chance of success when the distance between what someone knows and is able to do and what the assignment requires them to do is too big. And if empowerment should have a developmental purpose, it’s good that the next assignment is situated in the zone of proximal development184. Leaders can guide people towards this next level of functioning, performing and being.

4. Be transparent. Empowerment requires leaders to inform as much as possible, by telling everything they know, feel, suspect. The moment leaders hide something that is important for success they are jeopardizing the very mission. Leaders need to lay all the cards on the table. Knowledge is power but when leaders empower people they need to give up or pass on the informational power they have. Empowering others, means de-powering the leader. Leaders gain trust by giving up power and by being open. This is also valid for feedback. Leaders have the moral duty to give feedback as soon as possible. Feedback is a gift and it helps people to feel empowered. The leader’s feedback makes the other person stronger.

5. Tell people they have permission to fail. There is a saying that “failing is not an option”. This is very often interpreted in a strict and erroneous way. Settling scores with people who make mistakes is the best way of stopping risk-taking, innovation, creativity. What is more important is that people need to learn from mistakes. In some jobs – like innovation – leaders need to wish someone to fail185. Leaders need to say explicitly that they accept mistakes and that they are available when that occurs.

6. Be fair. Leaders should never take credit for other people’s work. That kills

empowerment (and trust).

The Collective Mix

Helping others is not only about helping individuals. It’s also about building teams, and collaboration throughout an entire business ecosystem.

Patrick Lencioni186 has developed a model to explain how (dys)functional teams function. He sees 5 levels of team development, and five sources of dysfunctions.

Figure 20. The Lencioni Model of (Dys)functional Teams.

One of the basic understandings is that functional teams have a deep sense of trust, as described in chapter 8. If there is trust, it is possible to engage in constructive conflicts. Once a team has worked out the conflicts, there can be commitment about what has to be done. And if there is commitment, team members can address people who do not honour that commitment. That is accountability. Finally when there is accountability, teams can focus on the targets and results.

Trust is extremely difficult to develop in a team. Trust depends on the experiences all team members have with one another. Team members have

their own propensity to trust and have to be trustworthy themselves. Showing vulnerability is not always culturally accepted, so there are high chances there is some degree of distrust. Team members need to acknowledge the fact that admitting mistakes is OK. Team members should understand that asking for help is not a bad thing. It’s worse to hide stuff from team members (see for example, the story about the climbers). Leaders contribute a great deal to a climate of trust. And once there is this climate of trust, teams can engage conflicts and debates safely.

Conflicts are a part of life and of teamwork. But most people do not like conflicts and tend to go around them without addressing them. They prefer to live with frustrations rather than taking the heat of the confrontation. Conflicts are positive if they are dealt with constructively. Leaders can play an important role in helping the team to develop the art of conflict management. The team will benefit from it as team performance will increase. Every conflict is an opportunity for improvement and evolution. Once a team has resolved a conflict, a difference of opinion, there is a solid foundation for commitment.

Commitment requires clarity. This is strongly related to the second leadership principle on meaningfulness. If the team is clear on its purpose, there will be less or no ambiguity. Again, the role of the leader is crucial here. Leaders need to check the clarity and the common understanding of the purpose. Commitment seems to be rational. It has to do with agreement and understanding. But there is also an emotional dimension. Leaders need to ensure people can connect emotionally to the purpose. At that moment there is the willingness to go that extra mile. If people understand and agree to what needs to be done, leaders and team members can focus on progress.

Enforcing accountability means that people are able to address someone who does not do what has been agreed upon. People are able to appreciate the progress towards the targets the team has committed to. This sounds easy but it isn’t. People tend to have a high tolerance for deviations to a norm. This is partly related to the dislike of conflicts. Direct feedback is not a part of many national and corporate cultures. People weigh their words many times before they dare to address someone about the fact that the commitment is not honoured. If there is trust and the habit of constructive conflict this becomes easier. Feedback is the way to do it. Leaders need to

develop a climate that fosters feedback. And feedback is not limited to the annual feedback. It’s about continuous and results-oriented feedback, that enables teams to respond swiftly.

Finally, a leader has to help the team focus on results. This is only possible when team members put team targets above personal interests. Everyone has a personal benefit of working in a certain team. Minimally these personal targets strongly correlate with the team targets and ideally people are open about personal targets and possible conflicts of interest.

Story 26 The Climbers

Imagine you are a member of a team of alpine climbers. There are 5 of you and you want to conquer the summit of a high mountain. You do it together, attached to one another with a rope. It’s important that you can trust the other 4. Trust means you know they have the right preparation and experience. Trust also means you know their intentions are good and that they will do whatever it takes to get back safe and sound as a team. Trust also means that they will be open about what it takes to reach the summit and get back.

If one of the 4 feels unfit or tired, you’d prefer them to say that. Hiding this information could bring the entire team in a dangerous spot. Maybe this sounds like a paradox, but in a team that depends on the physical strengths and abilities, you want people to be vulnerable. There is no place for machismo. There is the need for trust.

Team members need to agree on many things: the route to take, the techniques and gear to use, the speed to adopt and the sequence of the climbing. This needs to be done up front as there will be less time and opportunity for debate afterwards. A dissenting voice might be beneficiary to the team as it might shed a different view on the climb ahead and on how to make it as safe as possible.

If everyone agrees there is commitment. The climbers adhere to the plan and the way to go.

At that moment, anyone can address anyone who does not act according to plan, especially when this person is not following safety procedures. Any team member – not only the team captain – can address the other.

Finally, the focus is on reaching the top together. There cannot be a race among team members. It’s about reaching the top together, in good health and enjoying the accomplishment together.

So, in the end leaders create a context of trust, that facilitates constructive handling of conflicts, where commitment is made very explicit and where people are accountable. It’s a context of feedback and of focus on achieving results together.

Helping others is also helping the team. Just like leaders are at the service of individuals, they are as much at the service of the collective, the team, the organisation. The creation of this context is a subtle game of letting go and holding on, of making choices. It’s often not about the big things. Adding or leaving out small things has often the greatest impact.

The Sustainability of Helping Others Grow

Helping others is one of the main output areas of sustainable leadership. Helping others to grow and to stay healthy has a long-term perspective. Giving people the right context to acquire experience and to develop a healthy work and life style is what a leader needs to do to help people to remain employable. It’s a process that never finds its equilibrium. Like an acrobat on a rope, every one of us needs to find balance and this cannot be done by standing still on the rope. It’s an eternal game of shifting the balance and making small corrections. But once out of balance, the acrobat will have a hard time restoring it and is likely to fall down. The same goes for people

in the team. Leaders can help people to be successful, both in professional and private life.

The rules of sustainable leadership are applicable.

Table 8. Helping Others and Sustainability.

And in the story of development and health leaders should not forget themselves. Sustainable leadership is only possible when leaders deal with themselves sustainably. And that’s what the last principle is about. But before I can debate the way how leaders look after themselves, I need to discuss how to make sure people are engaged.

Tactic 06 Forget about Happiness

Happy Cows

Leaders do not have to feel responsible for someone’s happiness. That does not mean they do not have to care about someone’s happiness. Happiness is important. Final. But it’s not a leader’s responsibility. And let’s be aware of leaders that put people’s happiness in their mission. Don’t believe them.

Happy cows give more milk. This is what an entrepreneur told me. In the same way you could say that happy employees are more productive. In the past 10 years there’s been an evolution in how we look at certain psychological constructs in the workplace.

We talked about employee satisfaction, commitment and organisational citizen behaviour (OCB). Then we started to talk about employee engagement. For a short while we thought we needed passionate employees. And since a couple of years we seem to think that people need to be happy, before they can be productive. What if we could make the people happy so that they can work harder and better.

Let‘s return to the cows. There’s a book about this and consultants use the comparison to convince employers to invest in happiness188.

Milk or Meat

Let me ask you this question: do happy cows also produce more and better meat? The legend about Kobe-steaks is that they come from cows that were massaged and extremely well cared for. Rumours go that they drink fine beer and even listen to classical music. If this were true, they lead a life that is envied by millions of human beings who are living in more dire circumstances. But these cows are well taken care of only so that thay can be slaughtered for their meat. The question and the comparison in itself is not nice. Maybe it’s not fair because you might think about how the comparison continues. But to compare a happy employee to a happy cow isn’t fair either. There are differences.

First of all, the cow is not happy. It is content. There’s a huge difference. Keeping employees contented would mean they are mentally sedated and kept in some sort of trance. It means leaders

influence their mental state either by manipulating their expectations or the perception of their experiences. The people in Plato’s cave were perfectly content with their lives, even when it meant they were in a mental dungeon.

Second, the cow has no choice. It receives the treatment that it receives and has hardly any influence on it. Even when it would want something else, it would have very limited possibilities to express its desires and act upon them. Moreover, the cow cannot decide to leave. It is condemned to stay in the stable, or the meadow. There is no freedom.

Third, the cow gets what it gets for a specific purpose: to produce milk or meat. If I can make the cow happier, it will produce more milk and that is good for me. Then I will gain more money. And if the milk production is disappointing I can still send the cow to the slaughter house. Imagine we would think like that about people in business. I want my employees to be happy because they will work better, harder, longer. And if they are not productive enough, I will fire them. That sounds logical. But if we dismiss people we send them away. Dismissal is a traumatic experience for many people which does not make happy. If I think a company has the right to dismiss its employees, I’d prefer not to pretend we want to make them happy. I know very well that a dismissal may have positive consequences for people, especially when they are mobile and have transferrable skills. People who are unschooled, or burdened by a mortgage, sometimes hang on to a job against better judgement.

I admit. I have a problem with the instrumental view on happiness.

Thinking About Happiness

Fourth, the cow does not think about it. Happiness requires a mental development that goes beyond the limited cerebral capacity of a cow. Can a cow be happy? I believe a cow can be happy the moment it experiences pleasure like standing in the sun, drinking water, being massaged. But the next moment it might have forgotten the experience. Cows can have a form of hedonistic happiness. And humans can be

caught in a kind of hedonistic tread-mill189. People seem to have a constant experience of happiness, regardless of their concrete experiences. People seem to return to a constant set point of happiness. And the question is how to raise that set point. But leaders have very limited impact on those set points.

But hedonic happiness is only one kind of happiness that we might share with other mammals. Humans (and maybe some primates) are capable of a different kind of happiness. There’s also something like eudaimonic happiness, that is derived from a sense of purpose. A cow does not wake up and say to itself that it will produce milk to quench the thirst of many school children. A cow has no conscious purpose. People do. And this purpose does not necessarily need to be found in the place of work. A person’s sense of purpose might be found in family or community life. What if work is only a means to enable someone to do other, more meaningful things like raising a family, or travelling, or … The thing is, that happiness is a very individual experience. It is almost a decision. People ask themselves – usually implicitly – what they find important in their life and what makes them happy. It’s an important question, with no bad answer. And no one can judge the other person’s answer. Happiness is personal. Cows do not ask this question.

Fifth, the cow cannot regret anything. I believe that being able to regret something is essential in the quest for happiness. In a blog, palliative counsellor Bronnie Ware has listed the 5 top regrets of the dying190. Here they are. - I wish I had had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me. - I wish I hadn’t worked so hard. - I wish I had had the courage to express my feelings. - I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends. - I wish that I had let myself be happier.

After reading that list, leaders should be modest about their impact as a leader on happiness. Work does not even feature in the list; on the contrary. At the end of our life, it’s about family, friends and pursuing

your true purpose. Indeed, it’s in the last item that leaders can contribute the most. If someone can find fulfilment in the job, then a leader can genuinely add value to someone’s life. And as to the second item on the list, it should not be about more milk, but about better milk.

Happiness cannot be instrumental. If I told my wife that I want her to be happy, she might ask me why. And if I were to answer that she cooks better when she’s happy, I’d get into trouble. I want her to be happy because I love her.

Sustainable leadership may contribute to the happiness of people, but happiness is not the purpose. The modest contribution leaders can make lies in the sustainability of their actions. This means that you can help people to become happy by focusing on their personal development and employability, but giving them attention. When someone can find fulfilment in their work, there is value. But what happens when you realise that someone had better worked less to become happy? What if someone comes up to you and asks to change jobs, to leave the organisation? As a leader, you need to respect the choices people make, even when you realise that you will lose people and productivity, even when you realise that someone’s decision is not wise.

Leaders can add quality to someone’s life by making sure the work someone does is sustainable, meaningful, decent and of high quality. Employers can create a context that contributes to employee happiness. But they should not touch happiness. Using it for productivity increases is dangerous. We know there are limits and that people just simply cannot be happy all of the time.

Tactic 07 Hire People Who Are Stronger than You and Make Them Leave You

When leaders hire someone, they can choose someone who can do the job or someone who has the potential to become stronger. What would

a leader do? Leader should choose the person with the highest potential, even when that person is stronger than them.

Often we are tempted to hire someone who fits to the job rather than hiring the one with the highest potential. The reasons for this are clear. By doing so, leaders hire people who are instant ready, are productive very fast, are reliable, and require little training. That is comfortable because there will be fast results. The benefits are clearly short term.

Hiring someone who can outgrow the leader, is not beneficial on the short term. Having potential means there is work to do. This person might need training and help and is less easily integrated in the organisation. Productivity is not that high at first and needs to be compensated. This person might not take the status quo for granted and will ask a lot of destabilising questions. Some of these questions might be as sharp as a scalpel and suggest criticism. Leaders need to see through this and accept the questions graciously instead of seeing them as a threat. But here’s the truth: these questions make leaders stronger as well because they force leaders to look for answers to questions they hadn’t considered before.

Someone with potential will eventually leave the team in search of greater challenges. Once everything there is to be learned has been learned, there is no point in staying. That could be a problem for the leader, the team and the clients. Once the person with potential has gone, the process starts all over again: finding and training new people.

A leader should take pride in bringing people to the next level of development. Being able to get people on board who are strong and bring them to a next level is beneficial to them, and to the entire organisation. Hiring strong people makes leaders stronger. And yes, it’s true that they ask critical cutting-edge questions. But that’s how they help leaders to grow.

Hiring weaker people weakens leaders. They have to compensate for their weaknesses and they force leaders to be a controlling manager. If leaders have weaker people in their team, they condemn themselves to mediocrity.

There’s one thing leaders should ask strong people: ask them to adapt and to stay. Helping others to grow also means helping them in finding the next challenge. Hopefully this next challenge is within the organisation. But if it isn’t, there’s no need to regret this. Leaders will end up with a network of people they have helped to launch. And this will make them in turn a stronger leader.

Takeaways

Helping others has two sides: an individual approach that focuses on sustainable employability and a collective approach that focuses on team building. Sustainable employability is the capacity for people to work tomorrow. Leaders should look for ways of maintaining and enhancing the ability (health) and the agility (talent, engagement, resilience) of people. Helping others means helping people to continue to contribute throughout their career and to make choices. Focusing on ability means that leaders should engage in health promotion. Leaders should talk about people’s health, even when this is not related to work. Coaching and nudging are two ways to help people to make choices. Feedback is essential to both. Leaders can focus on the individual person or on the context. There are basically two ways of creating a context that helps people to grow and stay healthy: customising work and empowerment. The collective side to helping others is about creating a team that is trusting, handles conflicts well, takes on commitments, holds people accountable and focuses on results. The leader’s role in all of this is limited but crucial. There is a subtle balance of letting go and holding on. This helps people to become better versions of themselves. There is a joint responsibility.

Checks

To what extent are you focusing on the development of others? How much time do you spend on that? To what extent are you giving enough space to people to do the things they do well? To what extent do you feel comfortable talking about health, even when there are private issues involved? What stops you from doing this? What do you need to make you feel more comfortable? To what extent are you systematically working on building a team? How do you help people to work together?

“ This is the real secret of life – to be completely engaged with what you are doing in the here and now. And instead of calling it work, realize it is play.

Alan W. Watts

11 Boost Engagement

Engagement in the VUCA World

Engaged people seem to be rare. According to Gallup Research191, worldwide only 13 % of people are actively engaged. Almost twice as many are disengaged. The rest, a staggering 62 %, is neither engaged nor disengaged. They will do the job, no more, no less.

As leaders are reading these numbers they might ask themselves if this can be true. Probably, and hopefully, they see themselves as engaged persons and they feel surrounded by people who are willing to go the extra mile, together with them.

But what if we go a little further away from the leader? How do people speak about their company, about their customers? Are they willing to do whatever it takes to help the customer? Leaders tend to overestimate engagement levels because they project their own personal engagement upon them. And they are usually disappointed once they find out that they are alone. Generally speaking, there is a crisis of engagement in the VUCA world.

Organisations find that due to the turbulence of the VUCA world, they have become more than ever dependent on the engagement and resilience of people. The lack of adaptability of ancient management systems and philosophies and the increased speed of the interactions combined with the volatile context requires people to be willing and able to take decisions fast without having to consult someone all the time. The leader has no other choice than to let go of firm controls.

A stable management system is unable to cope with the many ways VUCA manifests itself, let alone it would be able to make the VUCA world predictable and controllable. Leaders can only count on the attitude and engagement of the people working in the organisation. Management systems do not necessarily disappear, but they should run in the background as a kind of fallback system should engagement fail.

Indeed, it’s because of the low scores in engagement that leaders feel the need to maintain heavy management and control systems. This is the story of the chicken and the egg. Do we need these systems because there is low engagement or do we have these low engagement levels because of those heavy systems?

Leaders need to consider both the positive and the negative, often downgrading and dehumanising effects of management systems. These systems are too often bureaucratic expressions of the desire to control human processes. But in a VUCA world full control is an illusion.

Engagement

There are many definitions and measures of people engagement. I define it as the willingness to go the extra mile. Engaged people are more enthusiastic, have energy and are optimistic and excited. Engagement is key for business performance and progress. So organisations have an interest in working with engaged people. There are clear effects of engagement on customer satisfaction, profitability, productivity, attrition, safety, conduct, absenteeism and quality192.

Work units in the top quartile in employee engagement outperform bottom- quartile units by 10 % on customer ratings, 21 % in productivity, and 22 % in profitability. Work units in the top quartile also saw significantly lower absenteeism (37 %), turnover (25 % in high-turnover organizations, 62 % in low-turnover organizations), and shrinkage (28 %) and fewer safety incidents (48 %), patient safety incidents (41 %), and quality defects (41 %).

Figure 21. Impact of Employee Engagement on Business Outcomes (Source Gallup).

Leaders who have worked with truly engaged people know how comfortable that is. Engaged people do not wait for instructions. They do not approach leaders with problems, but with proposals. They see opportunities and develop them. They are eager to learn things as they go along. They have a clear view on what needs to be done. They are committed to achieve or even exceed targets. They are advocates of the organisation. They even take over the leadership process and will try and motivate others, explain the mission and underline the importance of projects. Leaders just need to watch it happen.

Engaged people require less leadership. The leader’s interventions might even be experienced as a nuisance from time to time. Leaders of engaged teams need to apply the otolith principle of making oneself scarce to the fullest. Absence combined with availability is often the best leadership action for these people.

Leading engaged people is also a challenge. They are demanding. They don’t react well to (too much) control. They get annoyed by people who are less engaged than they are. They have no tolerance for people who are lazy, helpless, washed-out or slow. Their peers might see them as norm breakers and their willingness to work hard might be a cause of conflict. These engaged people may have no limits, and increase the overall expectations.

This untameable personal energy could lead to health problems in some cases. These people are the first candidates to succumb to burnout.

Leaders Kill Engagement

Leaders kill the thing they covet. They want engaged people on their team, but they are not able to create a context that fosters engagement. Leadership is a key to engagement193. But only sustainable leadership enables that engagement. In many situations leaders have had a negative rather than a positive impact on it. The leaders at the bottom of the list are usually engagement killers.

Boosting engagement is not easy. And maybe it is unwise to focus directly on engagement. Engagement programs misfire very often because they are not related to the psychology of engagement. At the same time, leaders can make engagement evaporate on the spot. Here’s a list of things leaders do that kill engagement.

Do not communicate about the goals and vision – Never give feedback about what people are doing – Check every move people make – Put themselves first – Don’t apply the team/company rules on themselves – Are dishonest – Make people ask for permission before doing anything – Show no interest whatsoever in who people are – Talk negatively about the company – Do not care for wellbeing – Put people under pressure as a motivation technique – Leave the office before other people do (every day) – Think it’s normal that people put in extra hours – Allow incompetent and disengaged people to stay on board – Make arbitrary decisions, don’t bother to explain them – Do not allow people to benefit from the company’s flexible work arrangements – Tell people they’re useless – Don’t show vulnerability, don’t allow others to show vulnerability – Never make exceptions – Always make exceptions – Hire people who are weaker than them – Insist on people doing things their way – Never surprise people – Don’t show respect for the customer – Talk negatively about their boss – Never apologize for things they’ve done – Never say thank you – Are a micro-manager – Measure everything – Rank & yank people – Don’t have

team meetings. Do everything in one-to-one meetings – Don’t keep their promises – Forbid people to show emotions at work – Never talk informally – Manage people with to-do-lists – Don’t show courage in difficult times – Forget birthdays (of some) members of their team – Hide behind the mandate that they (do not) have – Hide things from people – Don’t look into their eyes – Never help them when they are in trouble – Say to people they’d like to fire them, but that HR won’t let them – Never defend people when they are under attack – Don’t make use of people’s talents and strengths – Write people emails at night, asking for answers by 8:00 am – Keep files on people, and make sure people know this. Keep track of everything people do – Blame them publicly – Think the H in HR stands for Humiliation – Think they’re irreplaceable – Never ask how people feel. If they do, they don’t do anything with the answer – Take the credit for what others have done right – Are indifferent to people’s proposals and ideas – Think they have (to have) all the answers, and if they don’t, make them up – Ask people to stay late (Hey, they’ve ordered the pizza) – Build a culture of internal competition (win-lose) – Don’t trust people.

I could go on for a couple of pages with examples of how a leader – if that’s the word we have to use – could destroy engagement and people’s dignity rather than to boost it. In one word: be a lousy leader.

Story 27 Mental Waterboardings

One day Walter felt the need to contact his HR manager. He had been working for 20 years in the same company and had always felt well. His new manager came from outside the company and brought strong ideas but also a different culture with him. He could not say that these ideas were bad. Change was needed and probably an external hire could bring about these changes better than an internal candidate. So in itself, this was not the problem. The problem was the way this new manager wanted to implement the changes. All ideas had to come from him. He never asked the opinion of others. Even worse, he treated everyone who did not agree with his view extremely badly.

He told the HR manager that the newly appointed manager had warned him that he could lose his job if he did not go along. Everything he had done so far had been useless, the manager had told him. But he promised to save him by giving new tasks and responsibilities.

The HR manager called this mental waterboarding. Practices like these are oriented towards first destroying someone’s self-esteem and then creating a dependency. It is like installing the Stockholm Syndrome into a hierarchical relationship.

Many managers confuse motivation with putting people under pressure. Downward mob-bing194 is a practice that occurs too often, unfortunately. Leaders who act like that have an erroneous and outdated view of leadership. They put themselves in the centre and treat the people like puppets on a string. Weak leaders consistently need power to get people moving. Weak leaders need to weaken others to appear stronger themselves.

Many leaders do not have a positive impact on engagement. We cannot only blame the leaders for that. Even when they do have a positive impact on others, it is in spite of the organisational context.

Organisations Kill Engagement

Not only bad leaders kill engagement. It’s amazing how many organisations have developed practices that seem to kill engagement195. I am talking about heavy bureaucracy, Kafkaesque procedures, untrained managers, insufficient work resources, a tolerance for randomness, a very weak social environment, lack of clarity about the future, mindless performance management procedures, braindead procedures, enormous wage gaps, tolerance for non-performance …

In many (large) corporations even high level leaders are weakened because they are required to ask permission about things they feel they should be

able to decide. Very often a distant headquarter has developed a set of policies that make sense to those who are in charge, but who are worthless to those who have to execute them. When compliance becomes more important than enablement, there is something wrong.

Story 28 Begging for Money

This is a story about a leader who was responsible for a high-tech company in three countries. The company employed 3000 people in these countries. One of the most important levers for quality, progress and success was training of people. However, due to budget cuts training funds were scarce. The leader found himself to have to ask for approval for every training decision, even those of 50 euros. Someone had to fill out the form, the form had to be signed and sent to the international training manager who needed another signature. In total 5 signatures were needed: the employee’s, the manager’s, HR’s, the international training manager’s and his manager’s. Three years in a row the budget was cut halfway through the year. The leader could not build any credible people development program with this approach. How do you think he felt? He felt that he had to beg for money and had no autonomy or credibility.

One example of a common practice that often kills engagement is the performance management cycle.

Performance Management Revisited

The Adverse Effect of Performance Management

A performance management system covers all practices a company develops to steer and stimulate the performance of its employees. Traditionally this covers the process of setting objectives, monitoring and correcting performance, evaluating achievement, appreciating and developing competences. HR departments typically design comprehensive processes, supported by IT tools, which support the execution and administration of all required conversations between the leaders and their people.

Engaged people do not need this system to be engaged. They see it as a hassle, a sorry waste of their precious time. They argue that they are perfectly capable of achieving results without being chased around by some process. They argue that should they focus on the annual objectives alone, they wouldn’t feel they were doing the right thing. Sometimes they are insulted by the inflexibility that this process is showing. Putting everyone through this process seems to have a negative impact on the very objective of such a system: enhancing engagement and performance through focus and motivation.

One might argue that even when the 20-30 % of employees that are engaged do not need it, it is valid for the rest of the employees who rely on the system. But people who have become detached will not be saved by a performance management system.

As always, we need to acknowledge the educational impact any system has. People adapt their behaviour to a system even when this means to perform sub-optimally.

The quest for measurable targets for hardly measurable activities leads to strange behaviour. Here’s an example. I have met a sales manager who was evaluated on sales targets but also targets related to leading the internal sales team. The latter was expressed in the number of days she was present on-site. Both targets were conflicting because the more she was on-site the less time she could spend with the customers. So they cut the cake in two: she was supposed to be 100 days with the internal sales team and 100 with the customers to achieve the sales targets. When the sales manager broke her leg that year, she overperformed on the internal target but got the sales targets as well, thanks to the team. The sales manager received extra

variable payment, although results were not linked to her effort. This is absurd.

Very often people have to force themselves to fit into the performance management system. People who have a more qualitative job with a less measurable output, look for meaningful elements that comply to the rules of performance management. Often they receive projects that nobody wants and that are looked down upon at the end of the year. November and December are very busy months in the land of performance management.

Performance management systems never provide any guarantee for good behaviour. Many organisations got into trouble because the system inspired risky or fraudulent behaviour. One of the causes of the banking crisis of 2008 was an exaggerated focus on performance. That led to unbridled risk- taking, fired up by often exuberant bonuses. Money is one of the factors that causes character to erode. But the conclusion is that you get what you measure and reward. And even though a performance management system never envisages bad behaviour, it often leads to it.

The question is how to avoid those adverse effects?

First, the most important part of performance is often neglected by the architects of the process: the context. Sometimes a performance management system is introduced to influence or change behaviour. There is always the hope that it will create a performance culture. But it takes years to change the company’s DNA. If the context is not inspiring enough, the system will not change that. As long as we keep building systems that focus on the management of performance instead of on the inspirational aspect of the context of work, we will always have this.

Second, we need to acknowledge that the driver of performance is not a system, but engagement. The purpose of the of the system should not be the increase in performance but in engagement. Performance follows engagement. This means that the focus of performance management should be motivation, appreciation and development, rather than on the performances and objectives. Leaders should take meaning as the starting point of their leadership instead of measurable objectives.

But meaningfulness can only occur when everyone agrees to the objectives a company or unit sets for itself. Most systems of performance management are radically top-down. Most strategies are formulated in a top-down manner and cascaded downwards. By introducing reciprocity into the system leaders can get much further. And in doing that, the approach should also encompass activities that are not measurable. Not everything that is measurable is important. Not everything that is important is measurable. The key question in performance management is if and how someone contributes to the long-term objectives of the organisation, in the broadest sense possible.

Performance Management is more than a process. It’s about creating a context in which people can perform, thrive, be successful and are able and willing to contribute. The more people experience this context of meaningfulness, the less leaders need to invest in imposing and monitoring the targets.

Do we need the traditional Performance Management System? There are many peripheral reasons to have one but these are too often accessory. As long as it helps to create a context of meaningfulness, it has its place in the context leaders need to create. But most systems fail because they are not focused on meaningfulness. Maybe we should start calling the PMS the purpose management system.

Story 29 The Best Performance Review Ever

I had my first performance appraisal in 1994. My first leader had invited me. We were still in a pre-digital era. The performance evaluation form was in threefold: a copy for the employee, one for the leader and one for HR. Carbon paper technology made it more convenient. I remember I was kind of nervous. But it turned out to be a great experience. We had a very long conversation about what I did right, what I could improve. At the end of the conversation the leader took out his fountain pen, drew a line across the entire form and wrote “See our conversation”. The leader did not follow the instructions by

ticking all the boxes. I left that conversation highly motivated. It’s not the system, it’s the recognition.

How to Boost Engagement?

Engagement is the holy grail for any leader. Engagement frees the organisation and the leader from control, disciplinary actions and the like. The secret of engagement is not in working on the psychological state of engagement, but rather on the context and process of engagement. Engagement is the result of the interaction between personal and contextual elements. But leaders have little impact on the psychological process of engagement. They do have a big impact on the contextual aspect of it. So leaders might consider to stop motivating people. Maybe they can start making sure the context is not demotivating. Engagement training programs do exist, but these focus on the person. And the results of these programs are not sustainable. Sustainable leadership and empowerment require more than an isolated program.

Start with developing trust. Give people sufficient autonomy to experiment and co-create. Make sure people have a voice and can express their ideas, as well as their concerns. Allow people to define the future, plan for action, take initiative. People will take responsibility for their own actions. The rules of sustainable leadership apply to stimulate these bottom- up processes.

Make sure people have a sense of purpose. If people feel that their work is valuable and meaningful they will be engaged and perform better.

Give immediate feedback. Don’t wait if you’re asked to do it during the annual appraisal season. Praise people for the good work they’ve done. A compliment is very powerful when delivered in an authentic way196. When the work is not done well, give feedback as well. Do not forget to give praise in public, but criticize in private. And when you need to give negative feedback, do it always with kindness and with the intention to help

someone grow and prepare for a better future. Not giving any feedback is a sign of indifference, which is emotionally very hard to digest. People want attention, so give them the attention and the appreciation they need to grow and perform.

Give sufficient support. Make sure that people have the necessary tools, equipment, data to do their job right. There is nothing more frustrating than wanting to do the job well, and not having the right means. Get rid of any obstacles and pave the way as much as possible.

Check the job design. People will be engaged to do something they like to do, that is closely linked to their talents and ambitions. Allow people to enrich or alter their job so that it fits more to their personal profile197.

Hire people who have the right attitude and fit to the context you can offer them. People who are easily engaged, move more easily. And when you hire them, make sure you can offer them the engaging context you have promised them.

Do not treat people as subordinates, but as partners, colleagues … Leadership is a kind of cooperation. Long gone are the times that leaders could keep a distance.

Don’t be led by any system. Be led by your character.

Story 30 The Entrepreneur

A friend of mine is an entrepreneur. He helps people and organisations to choose the right lighting. He sells lighting to both private and business customers. He is very passionate about his work and thanks to this passion his business grows. As his business grew, he needed to organise his business differently. So he hired someone to do the same job he was doing.

He chose not to position his new hire as an assistant, but as a colleague. Although he is the owner he gives the second man the autonomy to negotiate, place orders, make plans. There is no hierarchy. There is even a healthy competition between the two of them, getting the highest sales, having the best projects … The revenue of the company has more than doubled.

Engagement and Sustainability

Engagement gives competitive advantage to any organisation198. But it’s also a basis for personal well-being. Finally, if people are engaged, their engagement is also a source of the sustainability of your leadership.

Table 9. Engagement and Sustainability.

Takeaways

Engagement leads to behaviour that drives competitiveness. Working with engaged people is a pleasure for any leader. However, only 13 % of people are actively engaged. As a leader there is not much you can do about engagement, except making sure that the context is right. Leaders and organisations tend to kill engagement.

Checks

How high is the engagement level in your team or organisation? What in your context helps to boost engagement? What in your context is harmful to engagement? How do you influence engagement in your team?

“ There’s only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that’s your own self.

Aldous Huxley

12 Take Care of Yourself

The Importance of Self-Care

If you have read the previous chapters, you might wonder how you are going to accomplish all of that. Instead of answering the question how to hang on as leader, it seems to have become even harder to become a sustainable leader. The question may become: “If you don’t want to just follow the course, where can you learn leadership?” But you don’t need (only) a training to learn how to lead. Sustainably leaders do need to give more attention to themselves. Sustainable leadership must be sustainable for leaders too. So this is the 5th theme of sustainable leadership: take care of yourself199.

In the airplane people need to look after themselves before looking after others, including their children. The same is valid for leaders. And that’s normal because if they are not fit, then they become unable to help others, to boost engagement, to put energy in building trust and to relentlessly invest in meaningfulness.

Self-Care in the VUCA World

Leaders are under high pressure. There are no certainties. Yet, people look at leaders and demand that from them. Leaders face a never-ending stream of new challenges heading their way. Expectations from stakeholders are high. There is not one moment of stability, but a sequence of unstable changes. Technology makes it possible to be connected around the clock. In some organisations having a smartphone seems to imply the duty of permanent availability. This is the case for everyone, not only the leader.

It’s not a surprise to note that stress and burnout are on the rise. Long-term absenteeism is one symptom of this. It’s increasing200. The good news is that leaders seem to experience less stress201. This might sound counter- intuitive. But it’s not. Leaders benefit from the fact that they have more

autonomy. They have more freedom to organise their work. But the increasing VUCAnisation will decrease that sense of being in control. Every industry will be run over by disruptive forces in the VUCA context.

Story 31 Struck Down

That Friday morning was different. He did not know what was happening to him. He sat on the side of his bed and stared at the floor. He could not get up. Gravity seemed to be overwhelming. He tried, but something seemed to chain him to his bed. He had to get up to be able to leave on time. He had a day full of meetings ahead of him. People counted on him. It was important to get there. His wife wanted to call the doctor. But he did not want that. He did not want to see the doctor. The doctor would keep him at home. He wanted to go to work. He wanted to be there for the others. He dragged himself out of bed into the bathroom. What was going on? He did not understand. He had achieved so much. He had worked so hard. He was an important person in his company. He was successful, earned his living very well. It was out of the question to give up. He had to continue. But how?

It had been difficult at work. There were many problems, many projects, many conflicts. He always went for the best, but he hadn’t understood that he was giving more energy than he was receiving. The multitude of items that required his attention had gradually exhausted him. He experienced no fun at work anymore. And his own leader was not of much help. There were many black days, with some white moments. But there hadn’t been white days. This had been going on for months.

That day he made a decision. He would approach things differently. He would look for fun at work. If the context was not providing that, he would create it himself. His biggest challenge was to maintain his engagement and to have fun and at the same time being very professional.

Leaders are less frequently ill. Probably that is related to a higher sense of responsibility. They are less inclined to allow illness and workload to get them down. It’s a decision. They want to be there for their colleagues and customers. But who’s there for them?

Leaders run consecutive marathons. This is not very sustainable. From the many conversations that I had with leaders I have learned that many of them are constantly driving in the red zone. They flirt with a dangerous boundary. There are many erosive factors that influence character in all that pressure. The basis of sustainable leadership is under pressure. The marathon and the erosion demand a hygienic approach, other than many leaders are doing today.

“Zemblanity” and Self-defeating Behaviour

Sometimes, we make it hard for ourselves. Very often we engage in self- defeating behaviours. These are behaviours that we do even when we know they can be harmful. It’s like shooting in one’s own foot. This is our zemblanity202. We do things that harm us by design. We do not intend to harm ourselves, but we cannot withstand doing them. This is irrational behaviour and we all have it in us.

Relatively harmless examples are writing an angry email and sending it out. We know this will cause trouble and yet we keep on doing it. More harmful examples are bad eating habits or addictive behaviours.

These are some of the self-defeating behaviours leaders engage in203: Irrational persistence: you pursue something you cannot reach. You ignore the signs that tell you are not getting there, and yet you do not want to stop for whatever reason. Economics tell you that you should disregard the sunk costs when making a decision e.g. to stop a project. However, you just do not want to stop it even when you know this is turning out badly. Choking under pressure is choosing a coping strategy that is not sustainable. It’s like the deer that freezes in the lights of the

approaching car. Or the hedgehog that curls up to protect itself against the truck. It’s the right strategy in some circumstances, but not when being confronted with traffic. Counterproductive bargaining strategies that do not take into consideration e.g. the trustworthiness of people. Leaders who know they are gullible, should be careful in negotiations. Ineffective ingratiation strategies is about overestimating the impact of one’s influencing tactic. Some leaders resort to flattery or giving presents to try and win people over. This might backfire. Leaders might think that being nice to people will win them over and so they overestimate the power of your charm. Self-handicapping behaviour is almost literally shooting in your foot. Examples are going late to bed the night before an important presentation, drinking heavily during a residential seminar, late preparation …

We all have behaviours that do not help us at all. They undermine our capacity to be successful, so we need to master them. This is not easy. And to do this, leaders need to know what their self-defeating behaviours are.

How to Take Care of Yourself?

Apply the rules of sustainability. Here’s a start. By applying the rules of sustainability, leaders not onIy help others, they also help themselves. Deciding when to intervene and making oneself scarce, leaders create space form themselves. They make choices by applying the sustainable triangle. And by explicitly deciding on what to hold onto and what to let go of, they make it clear to others and to themselves how they really want to work. Leaders cannot hold on to everything and as their career advances they will have to let go more and more.

Make a choice: do I have to do this now?

This is a very simple question that helps leaders to find balance. Leaders can ask this question in different ways:

This question is an application of the rules of sustainability. The part on “letting go and holding on” is also about self-protection. If leaders want to hold on to everything, they will become overloaded. So they need to make a selection. Especially emerging leaders have difficulties letting go of things. That’s because they cannot make the judgment of what is important and what is not. They still need to form their leadership identity and calibrate the purpose of their role.

Know yourself and be kind. Applying the rules of sustainability depends on a leader’s own preferences and personality. For some leaders letting go of control is extremely difficult whereas others seem to have no problem whatsoever with it. One of the first rules for leaders is to know themselves and be kind to themselves. There is no point in being too strict when not everything is running as it should. Leaders could do with a healthy portion of self-reflection and an ability to laugh at themselves. You are who you are and that’s OK204.

Focus on character, less on competencies. The more responsibilities leaders have, the more important is their character. Leaders should not try to carry more responsibility by expanding their competencies. Leaders need to work with what they have and accept they are not perfect. Being vulnerable is also a source of leadership.

Be apprehensive of personal changes. Changes are signals. Often the changes are positive. Changes can be related to growth. However changes in how leaders function can be early indicators of character erosion. If leaders discover that they have changed the way

they see things, they should ask themselves explicitly why that is so. Have their values eroded and have they suddenly developed a tolerance for behaviour they deemed unacceptable before? They should just ask these kind of questions. If leaders feel they have become cynical or emotionally exhausted, leaders might be in trouble. Insomnia, mood changes, loss of sense of humour … these are all changes leaders could easily detect in others, faster than in themselves.

Find a coach and a third place. Leaders cannot do it alone. They have to look for people who can help them. This is not necessarily executive coaching. People who give feedback, challenge and look after you are of extremely high value for sustainable leadership. It can be very lonely at the top. Leaders need to organise their escape from that solitude. You can do this by finding a third place205. This place is a kind of shelter that serves as a source of energy. It’s not home or work. In this place leaders can be themselves, find input, energy and recovery. It’s not behind their laptop that leaders find a third place. The third place must be social.

Do personal health promotion. Just like how leaders help others by discussing health issues, leaders should apply this to themselves. They need to ask critical questions about their health and its impact on their life and leadership. What are their challenges? What about the quality of sleep? What about nutrition and physical exercise? A part of their attention should go there. In times of stress it is possible and even likely that leaders will pay less attention to themselves and their health. Self-control is complex and requires making choices and being vigilant206. Can people trust a leader who is tired and irritable? Are leaders who want to offer health promotion but neglect themselves credible? It is important for leaders to feel healthy.

Plan for recovery. Everyone needs to recover. Stress becomes a problem when there is no possibility to recover. Every day has a lunch break and an evening. Every week has a weekend. Every year has some days off. Some leaders boast that they do not need holidays and they look down on people that are taking all of their days off. But recovery is something you need to organise. And by

using the moments that are given to engage in energizing activities will definitively help to make leadership sustainable.

Create a personal employability plan. Leaders need to make a plan for themselves that focuses on what is important to them in life. This plan goes beyond a traditional development plan as it includes all their roles: parent, leader, volunteer, neighbour, citizen, professional … They can start from their personal narrative, write down their biography up to now and then imagine what will be important in the future.

Story 32 Do I have to do this now?

A newly appointed leader in a university had a problem. He had to lead a team that was not really a team. His predecessor had neglected the team for years. On top of this he had to continue some of the research, which was important to his career. He told me how difficult it was as he was doing a lot of admin stuff like assigning offices to newcomers, handling IT demands, being in budgetary meetings. I asked if he had to do all of that himself. Wasn’t there anything he could give to someone else? His answer illustrates the dilemma many leaders are facing. The new leader said that he could, but that he was reluctant to burden other people with the weight of those chores. He thought it would be bad leadership to give unpleasant tasks to other people. So he kept on doing them themselves.

Self-Care and Sustainable Leadership

Self-care is providing sustainability for oneself. The idea is that if leaders are not taking care of themselves, they will be unable to provide for the

other elements of leadership. And self-care should also prevent character from eroding.

Table 10. Care and Sustainability.

Tactic 08 Don’t try and be Authentic (too much)

Today authenticity seems to be the main leadership trait207. There is a lot of pressure to be or become authentic. Not only leaders are confronted with that demand. Marketers try to create authentic products and brands. And that’s ironic208. You lose a part of the authenticity, a part of the chances for personal growth and as a leader

you lose personal effectiveness. Authenticity or trying to be authentic might be limiting, not liberating.

Authenticity means to be original, to be yourself. But to be oneself people need to change. Leaders make mistakes, they have to make mistakes. People have to discover themselves to be able to develop. Once having reached the state of authenticity, should people stop to develop? And more, personality develops through many social interactions. How can one be authentic?

When I read the biography of Steve Jobs, I was astonished to read how much behaviour he had copied from people he admired. Is that authenticity? And don’t all of us do this? From the moment we are born we copy the behaviour of significant others. We integrate behaviour of successful others who have crossed our path. You could call that socialisation or identification. It’s a process that is most of the time unconscious and some of the time very deliberate.

When David Bowie died on January 11, 2016 people applauded his quest for authenticity. But the Bowie we perceived was not authentic. He was extremely creative and was constantly looking for ways to entertain people. David Jones – Bowie’s real name – was an entertainer, a business man, a sales man and an exceptionally talented artist. In that sense he was an original209. He was authentic in creating art. All of his personalities – Major Tom, Stardust, Aladdin Sane, the Thin White Duke – were fiction.

Authenticity is overrated. The moment people want to be authentic, they are not. Authenticity is not something that one constructs. It’s who you are. So in trying too hard to become more of yourself, you might lose that what you want to achieve.

This is the risk I see with “personal branding”. I realise that personal branding should be anchored in sound self-knowledge that any presentation of oneself should not differ from that self-knowledge. But we all know how difficult that is. You will only reveal the characteristics that are marketable. And you will add, amplify or embellish certain characteristics. Isn’t it about selling yourself?

Leaders have to adapt to situations. They might deploy behaviour in certain situations to get results. Influencing others might require them to alter their phrasing, postpone reactions, do something they do not like. They might resort to behaviours that are not their preferred actions. The rules of sustainable leadership suggest that leaders decide what to let go of and what you hold on to. Leaders have to do this to create a motion towards value creation. They do that in a given context and the context will determine much of their decisions. As it is the context that determines what leaders do and don’t do, the question can be raised once more if it is possible and even desirable to be authentic.

I think the question is irrelevant. Leaders look for the right way. They try, they learn, they make the necessary mistakes. As they grow older, they will use their experience and will be less likely to be impressed by whatever happens around them. Authenticity is not the target, but a consequence of a complex cocktail of personality and experience. Leaders find their authenticity in the choices they make. It’s however their character that ensures a degree of consistency across situations. Avoiding erosion of character does not equal authenticity. It equals that the core of your person remains the driver behind your decisions.

So do not look for authenticity. Don’t ask “Is this really me?”. You are deceiving yourself, and the others. And it won’t make you effective. And that is not very sustainable.

Tactic 09 Get lost!

We have lost the capacity to lose our way. I mean literally lost. Devices tell us where we are. There are GPS-modules in the car, on the bike, in the backpack. We follow their indications almost blindly, because we know they tell us exactly where we are. We get very nervous and confused when we lose connection. Reading a map has become difficult. We plan travel time to the minute and push the

accelerator in a race against the clock. Getting lost interferes and interrupts.

But have you ever gotten lost while on holiday? Getting lost in Venice and strolling away from the axis between the Rialto bridge and San Marco is amazingly interesting. It’s a relief. You discover places that are not in your travel guide. You see piazzas where the nonnas and the mammas chat, and where the bambini play. There’s an old man playing accordion and a group of men playing cards and drinking grappa. You can sit on the bench for a while and inhale this stereotypical romantic image. That’s during holidays, there it’s OK. But in business it’s not OK to get lost. It’s inefficient.

And that’s a pity. There is no time for serendipitous discoveries in business. Everything is planned to the quarter. There is the problem. Getting lost sparks discovery. Planned trajectories are based on what we know today.

Don’t follow someone who cannot read a map. What if there is no map? In a VUCA world the existing maps are useless. Who do you follow? You follow someone who is able to create a map on the spot. That map is surely not correct, but it’s a map. To create that map you need to get lost first, like the first explorers who did not know what to expect the first time they sailed west or south. They made clumsy maps. But if Columbus hadn’t sailed this world would still be flat210.

Getting lost has multiple benefits: - Serendipitous discoveries; - Out-of-the box solutions to old and new challenges; - A sense of relaxation and relief – if you are able to do let go.

But since you have no time, you’d better plan not to get lost? But why not? If you reserve some time in your agenda for strolling around, doing something you haven’t done before, browsing through the heaps of articles, papers, reports that you have put aside to read later. If you go on a blind date to a conference you do not know about, you might get back with fresh ideas.

Getting lost is a skill we have to regain211.

Takeaways

Caring for oneself is important. Without self-care leaders will not keep up. The other aspects of sustainable leadership are not feasible if leaders do not care for themselves. Neglecting their own wellbeing in favour of the others is not sustainable. Running consecutive marathons leads to erosion of character. A small question may help: Do I have to do this now? Applying what leaders do for others to themselves might be wise. We all have behaviour that does not help but that weakens us. That’s our zemblanity.

Checks

How do you feel? Analyse your zemblanity.

“ This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.

William Shakespeare, Hamlet

13 Leadership in a Digital Age

Social Presence

So far, I haven’t talked about technology. Everything before this chapter is independent of the use of any kind of technology. The principles of sustainable leadership are valid across situations, cultures and time. However, there’s an undeniable impact of digitalisation on the way we work, cooperate, live, lead and follow.

The question is to what extent this has an impact on what we know about sustainable leadership. Digitalisation is a part of the context of the VUCA world. Leaders have to deal with it, just like they have to deal with any other societal, technological and ecological trends. Digitalization creates opportunities for leaders who want to lead sustainably. But digitalisation does not change the deep nature of leadership. In this chapter I focus on social media and its use in the context of leadership.

Leaders lead a public life. People look at them and see what they do and do not do. People talk about their leaders and sometimes these conversations find their way to the social media. If leaders want to avoid being talked about they can choose not to be present on social media. They might not want to spend time conversing with people through one of the many channels that social media offer. But I believe this is a mistake.

Leaders need to interact with their social environment in ways that are meaningful. As leaders are increasingly dealing with people who are using social media as their prime means of communication and interaction, they’d better develop a social presence too. Do not forget that their customers and employees are there as well. Here’s why leaders need to develop a digital dimension.

Transparency, Amplification and Presence

First, social media creates transparency. Customers rate the service they get on TripAdvisor. Employees rate organisations on Glassdoor. People leave comments about their customer experience on Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram. Word-of-mouth increasingly determines reputations of organisations and people. If something is wrong, customers and employees will talk about it on Twitter, which makes every aspect of an organisation transparent. There is no way to hide. So leaders need to participate.

Second, this participation in social media amplifies the leader’s voice. It has become easier to reach many people through social media. Through the sharing of ideas, opinions and information leaders can build a cooperative network that transcends the traditional media and ways of relations. This amplification occurs both inside and outside the organisation.

Third, social media provide opportunities of presence. Leaders could decide to take on a different persona on social media, become someone else. But I do not recommend this. Leaders should be the same in the digital and the real world. They have to act in the same way. Broader digital audiences will trust leaders for the same reasons as they would trust them in analogue situations. This means that they need to be vulnerable as well. If leaders are wrong they should admit it, even when 10,000s of people could read it. If they’re not prepared to do that, they reduce social media presence to another way of marketing themselves. They should keep the selling of themselves to the minimum. If not, leaders might lose their online credibility and trustworthiness. Social media presence could theoretically even reinforce the erosion of character. But this is not a sufficient reason not to get involved.

Becoming a Digital Leader

Be Curious and Experiment

Leaders might use the obvious trio, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter, as social media presence. But they have to realise that people in their organisation and their customers are migrating towards other media like WhatsApp, Snapchat and Pinterest. So leaders should try to follow them and see what new media can do for them as leaders and for their organisations. Experimentation is key.

Encourage Others

Many organisations are still reluctant to embrace the potential of digitalisation and social media. Some companies forbid the use of social media during office hours out of fear of productivity losses or security breaches. I can understand the latter, but the first reason is problematic to uphold. With the ubiquitous presence of smartphones, it’s difficult to forbid anything, unless you forbid people to bring them to work.

There are many positive outcomes for a company when its employees are digitally savvy. So instead of restricting, leaders should encourage the use of digital connectivity to the benefit of their organisations.

Focus on Leadership

If digital leadership exists, the focus still needs to lie on the leadership and less on the digital. Digital activity should support and reinforce leadership by emphasizing the purpose and steering people into a direction. Presence on social media in itself has no value. It’s clearly what leaders achieve with it what counts. Let’s not forget that no technology can replace live interaction or emulate the richness of face-to-face interactions and encounters. We are increasingly willing to accept digital surrogates for interaction, mainly for efficiency reasons. Nevertheless, in this digital age a leader has to choose very consciously when they will be present. It’s not something that they should leave to coincidence.

I am convinced that in a digitalising world the human touch of leadership will be more important. This is also true for interactions with customers212.

It’s an illusion to assume that leadership can be automated. Just like in customer relations the human dimension will make a difference.

However, supervision can be automated. We will be surrounded by cameras that will register who we are, what we do, where we are, how we feel and who we meet. But, I’m not sure if we will have robo-bosses213. Machines cannot do what humans can. If leadership is based on character, it will be hard for machines to emulate human character in all its imperfection. But let’s not be naive. In the field of Artificial Intelligence and deep learning, researchers are looking to integrate empathy and emotions in algorithms.

Share and Produce Content

Social media are about giving and receiving, in that order. Leaders need to create content and share it with other people, without expecting something in return. People do not want to bombarded with commercial messages. Leaders should not give access to their personal account for marketing. Instead they can nurture their online presence themselves.

One of the most obvious powerful ways to show leadership is to blog. Leaders can blog both externally and internally through the intranet. A blog is like a window: if it’s open people can look in, but bloggers can look out as well. The reactions to their blog allow leaders to sense what is going on and to check their vision and leadership. Blogging gives people the right to respond, since the window is open. And if leaders do it right, people can have a view on what their leaders think. Then they can agree or disagree. They can like or dislike. It gives leaders more relief as a leader. It also solves a problem many leaders have: they cannot be everywhere all the time and they cannot continuously talk to everyone. Blogging is asynchronous, but it lowers barriers to interaction.

Blogging is not without any risk. Voicing their opinions makes them vulnerable. So if leaders cannot take the heat, they should stay away from the fire. They need to be prepared to receive both positive and negative reactions. Not everyone will appreciate sudden literary escapades.

If leaders do not like to write – the prime condition for a blogger – they shouldn’t. They can choose other kinds of blogs: microblogs, video-blogs or podcasts. The latter two require a bit more technological savvy, but they can create great stuff with it.

Be Responsive

Social media break down traditional barriers. Anyone can talk to anyone. Being on social media is not a passive state. Leaders need to be responsive and participate in the debates. If people talk to them, leaders need to talk back. Being present on social media, without any participation can do more damage than good.

Link the Digital to Real-Life Experiences

There is no purpose of being on social media if virtual interactions do not lead to real-life encounters. This means that leaders need to reach out to people both inside and outside of their organisation. Sometimes they will encounter a colleague on social media who they have never met before. So they can reach out and go to that person and have a chat. This creates stronger ties. The attention that leaders give to that person is valuable.

Be Consistent

Can an introvert become extraverted on social media? Indeed leaders could build an alter-ego on social media. But this is not advisable. Leaders have to use social media as an extension of themselves, not as a digital makeover. Being someone else on social media is perfectly possible, but it will demand a lot of energy and it will be risky when leaders come out and interact in real-life. People will be merciless if someone proves to be an imposter.

Leaders could ask a copywriter or a PR company to organise their presence on social media. But that’s generally not a good idea. Social media live from the spontaneity of the moment. So that nightly tweet in which leaders

give praise to someone on their team is a better idea than asking someone else to plan the social media interventions days in advance. Leaders have to live in the moment214.

Inspire Trust

Social media presence can inspire trust. Leaders can observe what is happening, participate to discussions and share content. But above all, leaders can show their character on social media as well.

Digital Leadership and Sustainability

Leaders can apply the rules of sustainability to their digital presence.

Table 11. Digital Leadership and Sustainability.

Takeaways

Social media can reinforce leadership through transparency, amplification and presence. Leaders should act in the same way on social media as they act in the analogue world. Embracing social media opens up opportunities.

Checks

How comfortable are you on social media? How often do you create content and share it? To what extent are you able to be yourself in the digital world?

“ The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.

Steve Jobs

14 Hack Your Leadership

Success as a Leader

Will leaders be successful if they apply all insights from the past 13 chapters? The answer is: it depends. It depends on how their context reacts. Applying these principles is difficult in toxic workplaces. It’s difficult when leaders are led by people who have different principles. It’s difficult when they have to lead a group of followers who have other expectations. There may be friction between leaders and their context. This friction leads to pressure on leaders to adapt to norms that conflict with the principles of sustainable leadership.

It’s not just about what leaders do. It’s what the people around them do as well. And the question leaders need to ask is if they can influence the culture of the organisation so that everyone moves towards sustainable leadership. The alternative is that leaders choose a context that already embraces these principles or that is at least open to them. The latter is more feasible provided that the leader finds such an organisation. They are rare.

Changing a culture is difficult. Leadership is both an input factor for and an output of culture. It’s unthinkable that leaders can change the culture only through their own energy. Leaders need a sponsor, cooperation. If the organisation wishes to change, leaders can build on that. If there is no such desire, leaders will be ejected when they try and change the culture abruptly.

That’s why the adage is: do not adapt, but try to integrate. By integrating leaders adopt a position that is acceptable to the organisation. They take on an attitude that is oriented towards helping others to evolve, an application of sustainable leadership. And that requires patience. Success is therefore rather relative.

Banality

Many of the principles and aspects of sustainable leadership might seem trivial. That’s because we all know what leaders should do. Sustainable leadership in itself is not that revolutionary. There are no miracle solutions. These are principles nobody will reject, even when the context is not very receptive.

The banality disappears the moment leaders try and consistently apply the principles of sustainable leadership, day after day. These principles are tested and challenged every day. There is an enormous temptation to do things differently and maybe faster. In a VUCA world, leaders might be inclined to take shortcuts, that erode character without taking into account the impact on their context, their team and themselves. By applying these principles, leaders not only protect their character from erosion, but they become the embodiment of a culture that is oriented towards the long-term. And they prevent the erosion of their company’s DNA from erosion as well.

That is not trivial. Leaders leave a rat race to anchor themselves in something that is very worthwhile.

A Comprehensive Model of Sustainable Leadership

Sustainable leadership is based on character. By applying their own humanity and character across all situations, leaders offer stability that would not exist if they succumb to the many temptations in their context. That is the basis of the model of sustainable leadership.

By applying the 5 principles of sustainable leadership, leaders avoid that character from being eroded. And that in itself enables leaders to focus on the output of leadership: trust, meaningfulness, helping others, engagement and also self-care.

Figure 22. Character, The 5 Rules of Sustainability and the 5 Themes of Leadership in One Model.

Threats to Sustainable Leadership

There are many threats to the sustainability of leadership. Many leaders face difficulty215. They feel that their mission has become impossible. That they are crushed by a multitude of often paradoxical expectations. The predictability and stability that made leadership an easy and covetable position are long gone and have been replaced by a boiling VUCA-nisation. Maybe you recognize some of the quotes below.

Building Trust

My organisation asks me to do things that undermine my trustworthiness. My organisation does not allow me to tell the truth. My organisation asks me to break a promise, without a real explanation. I do not see my own top leaders walk the talk. Being vulnerable gets punished on the spot in my organisation. It’s suicide.

Meaningfulness

I do not see the purpose myself any longer. I do not believe in the strategy of our organisation. I think we are heading in the wrong direction. How can I create a sense of purpose in the midst of this turmoil? I do not believe what top leaders are saying. There is no clear direction or strategy anymore.

Engagement

I cannot boost someone else’s engagement. Engaged people do not need me and the disengaged seem to be immune. The results aren’t there, so it’s not about engagement but about performance. How can I engage someone if I do not believe in the feasibility of our targets? How to engage others when I am tired?

Helping Others

I see people succumb to stress, and I cannot change the work pressure myself. Everything is just thrown towards us. I have to be overdemanding otherwise I will get in trouble myself. There is no way that I will allow others to decide. If they make a mistake, I get the blame. How can I help others if they are not even willing to take care of themselves? Helping others is a dead end for me. I have to help myself first. I am struggling like everybody else. How can I help people who are better than I am? How can I help people manage their health when my organisation expects us to be available all the time? I am not allowed to make any exceptions that would help people.

Self-Care

There is no time to take care of myself. I cannot follow any longer myself. My own development or health comes last. There is no energy left. Taking care of myself means that I have to let down others. If I’m there or not, it does not make too much difference.

Hack Your Leadership

If you read the above statements and you recognize them, you might need to do something about it. You could accept these situations and hope to survive. Or you can run and try to find something that is better suited. Or you could decide to stay and try to change things and create that motion. In that case you need to hack your own leadership and the leadership culture in your organisation.

Hacking sounds extreme. We might think of cybercriminals that enter computer systems to create havoc. Those criminals have negative intentions. But hacking has a positive meaning as well. It’s about improving systems by rethinking them radically and reinventing them. The purpose is to improve and reinvent leadership. And above all, make leadership a source of sustainability.

Protect Yourself and Be Radical

The starting point is yourself, your character. This is who you are and what you have. It’s a lead-er’s only capital, that provides stability and dignity in VUCA times. So leaders need to protect their character from erosion. They need to adopt a hygienic approach.

The moment you feel your character is eroding, you must do something about it. It means that something in your context is making you change the core of your being. Don’t let that happen. Yes, you must grow and evolve. But you evolve into another, hopefully stronger version of yourself.

If you are losing your kindness and empathy, your fairness and your sense of reciprocity you are in trouble as a person and also as a leader.

The 5 rules of sustainability and the 5 themes of sustainable leadership are levers that help you. But only if you implement them in a radical and yet careful way. So how can you combine being radical and being careful? It’s only possible when leaders apply these rules in a context of vulnerability. Leaders had better not adopt a dogmatic approach about leadership. Leaders should not be gurus. By doubting yourself you open yourself to learning and you are credible.

We need to get to the essence of leading. The rest is ballast. For that we need to be more radical than we are. Radical literally means going back to the roots216 of humanity. We’ve constructed so many ideas, concepts, expectations, stereotypes, ideals and visualisations about leadership that it feels like a “mission impossible” to apply all of them. In the turbulence of a VUCA world, complying with all those norms and beliefs about leadership is totally impossible. So the only choice leaders have is to dig for the roots of leadership that lie in their own humanity and character. Being yourself is feasible. Being someone else is not sustainable.

Leading people based on character and making sure people follow because of that character is sustainable. Trying to be a super(wo)man is the impossible mission and not sustainable. The risk of erosion of character and derailment is only due to the fact that leaders get distracted and stray away from that essence. The pitfalls prevail and leaders might become a caricature of themselves.

The way of being radical is to be humble and servant. Humility is the antidote against erosion. Power and money might lead you to derailment. It takes a strong man or woman to resist the temptations of applause, glamour, spotlights. These are addictive and slowly poison your character. They change who you are, at the core, irreparably. Temptation is so far away from leadership.

Doubt

One of your most important weapons is doubt. The leader who has no doubts about the course of action or about their leadership has lost the capacity to learn from mistakes. There is no problem in a healthy dose of self-doubt. In a VUCA world nothing is certain. If you pretend to know everything, you are bound to hit a wall.

Experiment

The way to handle the doubt is not by taking some class or some medication. It’s by experimentation. Try something to see how or if it works.

Learn

Leaders must be willing to learn. We learn a lot about ourselves as human beings through leadership. But leadership is not about you, it’s about them. So evolve together with the people you lead. Make that learning reciprocal.

Be Optimistic

If you do not believe there is a way forward, you will not stay a leader. If you’re not engaged yourself, how can you boost engagement with others. If you don’t believe there is a meaningful future, how could you expect other people to follow and move towards that value?

Take Distance from the Context

What happens, happens. There is little you can do to change it. Your impact on the VUCA world is very limited. Everything is interconnected. What happens on the other side of the planet, impacts us217. Every industry faces disruption. You can moan about it or be optimistic. But it’s the mental distance from your context, that will make you survive. The disruption is not about you or your organisation. It’s about the disruption itself. Keep your distance.

Back to the Essence

Leadership is about getting people to move towards a long term objective, by using your own character. And it’s a bit bizarre that leadership can only be improved by returning to its essence by applying simple rules in a radical way. You go back to your roots.

It’s not to be expected that suddenly a totally new leadership science will arise. We know what to do and we have known it all along. And like individual leaders make the same mistakes as their predecessors, our organisations, institutions and societies will also make the same mistake. To change that, you need to start with yourself and adopt a leadership style that will be sustainable and create sustainability for yourself, for the ones you work with and for the ones you work for.

Hacking leadership is about cutting away the crap, adopting simple principles, experimenting every day and by continuously learning how to do better. As a leader you will have moments of glory and you will have moments of pure shame. Embrace them both because they will help you to dig towards the essence of your leadership, which is nothing but your character and humanity.

If there is humanity in business, there is business in humanity.

Call to Action

So you have gone through the book. It’s time for action.

Another book on leadership? This book is not a book of recipes that guarantee your success as a leader. It’s a personal vision on what leadership could be in a VUCA context. You can take whatever ingredient and integrate it in your personal style.

Sustainable leadership will not be appealing to everyone. But if you are looking for ways to make sure your leadership creates value for the long term, you will find inspiration here.

The book is also a personal commitment to become a better leader myself.

And in the end, that’s the only thing we can do: grow and do better.

3 Things

Think of 3 actions you could do today that would make a change in your leadership and make it more sustainable. Write them down on a sheet of paper and apply them for a week. Don’t talk about it. After a week, you can go to your stakeholders and ask them one question: did you see anything different in my behaviour the past week? If they did, ask what it was. Ask what the effect was. Explain your intentions to that person. Do this again in the weeks that follow.

Together

You cannot build your sustainable leadership alone.

Look for some allies and discuss what you’ve read in the book. Ask for feedback about what you could do to evolve. Offer to give feedback in return. Ask for feedback as you go along and experiment.

Erosion

Analyse the factors that might erode your character. Assess how your character has changed over the last years. What have you lost? What have you gained? Look around you to see if you can talk to someone about this. Make sure you can trust that person.

Share Your Thoughts, Experiences and Successes.

You can reach out to me on:

@dducheyne

www.linkedin.com/in/davidducheyne

www.dducheyne.com

You can read my blogs on www.hrchitects.net

Your opinion matters. Please leave a comment on your online library or on social networks!

Endnotes

1 See Word Economic Forum (2014). 2 Megacities are thought to be more environment-friendly, more efficient. About 7 % of the world population lives in a city that houses 10 million people or more. This number is only going to rise as China is constructing new cities of this proportion.

3 I read this phrase again just after the terrorist attacks in Brussels on March 22, 2016.

4 If you want to know more about it, read the Reith Lecture on globalisation by Anthony Giddens (1999).

5 Hypercompetition is typical to new markets when new products or technologies create a temporary competitive advantage that cannot be sustainable as other players will move in to counter or copy the new offering.

6 We cannot imagine a world without digital technology anymore. According to Peter Hinssen (2011) digital has become the new normal, meaning that it’s a part of business and life and determines how we work and how we behave in general.

7 Frey and Osborne (2013) give an overview of jobs and the probability of them being replaced by computers and robots. There are high-touch jobs that are unlikely to disappear, but a lot of jobs are relatively easily automated.

8 People in developed countries who are born now have 50 % chance of becoming 100 years old. See Gratton and Scott (2016).

9 Maybe we should start to talk about unretirement. See Farrell (2014). 10 What has changed? When I wrote this book there was a serious crisis in

the Middle East, the climate change was recognised and Donald Trump got elected as president of the U.S.

11 Sometimes people feel obliged to apologise for the stress they have caused to their own parents as infants or during puberty.

12 This is one of the leadership myths that I’ll discuss later. 13 Based on Molgaard et al. (2000). 14 See Spock (2011).

15 Accelerating leadership development is a practice which is often employed in the context of succession challenges. But we forget that development cannot be accelerated without the right contextual conditions. Avolio & Hannah (2008) describe 5 conditions to accelerate leadership development: learning goal orientation, developmental efficacy, self-awareness, leader complexity and meta-cognitive ability.

People with a learning goal orientation see themselves as incremental learners and embrace feedback. People with a high developmental efficacy have a high confidence they can acquire a certain skill. People with high self-awareness are able to utilise developmental triggers more than those with a low self-awareness. Complexity of thinking helps leaders to process information more thoroughly and expertly. Metacognitive ability – thinking about thinking – helps people to reflect about how they learn.

16 This list comes from the Society of HR Management (SHRM) and can be found here www.shrm.org/research/articles/articles/pages/leadershipcompetencies.as px (last checked on December 28, 2016).

17 This is at the basis of the leadership crisis: compliance to the system. See also World Economic Forum (2014).

18 See Chapman (2010). 19 See O’Reilly et al. (2014). 20 See Bendersky & Shah (2013). 21 See Grant et al. (2010). 22 Adler et al. (2013) conducted research into the effects of the replacement

of coaches of college football teams. They found evidence that the entry conditions play an important role. For teams with the worst performance, the situation worsened after the new coach entered the team. For teams with mediocre performance, there was only a positive effect in the second or third year after the change.

23 See Favaro et al. (2014). 24 This is also the reason why interim management is such a fragile activity.

25 To me evidence-based leadership combines scientific literature, experimentation and sharing experiences. Finally there is also room for intuition. As far as this book is concerned, I have done my best to cite all sources appropriately.

26 It’s a coincidence that this manager is a man. 27 Gallipoli, Turkey. The place was the scene for one of the bloodiest battles

of the first world war. 250,000 men lost their life. 28 See The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo (2007). Zimbardo conducted

the Stanford prison Experiment to question what would happen when you put good people in an evil place. The Stanford Prison Experiment simulated a prison and showed how people started to misbehave just because the context was conducive.

29 As described by Michael Porter (1998). 30 The idea has been previously developed by Ducheyne & Vander Sijpe

(2014). 31 See e.g. Markides (2000). 32 This is also valid for managers. See Steinhanusch & Wrede (2014). 33 I really do not like the term HR because it diminishes people to

resources, to means. 34 See West et al. (2000) and West et al. (2006). 35 I elaborate this in chapter 9, on meaningfulness. 36 E.g. Edmans (2011). 37 See Van Belleghem (2014). 38 See Zimbardo (2007). 39 This quote is attributed to Peter Drucker. 40 See Goffee and Jones (1996). These authors use two dimensions to

describe culture: sociability defined as friendliness among members of a community and solidarity defined as a community’s capacity to pursue shared objectives quickly and effectively. The two measures combined this gives four types of culture.

41 I took this quote from Rob Goffee during a lecture at London Business School in March 2015.

42 Karl Van Hoey (2015) has described how leaders can cope with the feeling of powerlessness.

43 Definition in Merriam-Webster (www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/sustainable).

44 See the definition of sustainable leadership. 45 Thanks to Nigel Nicholson from LBS to have conducted a similar

exercise in March 2015. 46 I have decided not to publish the horror stories as I want to protect the

privacy of those who have experienced them. But I keep them with me, because it’s important to have an absolute point zero.

47 There is a debate about whether or not people like Hitler or Stalin are leaders. There is no consensus. If you look at the definition of sustainable leadership, not all criteria are fulfilled. It’s not only about getting people into motion. It’s also about the way a leader gets people into motion and about the moral value of the purpose.

48 Hendrix, Born & Hopkins (2015) did research on the impact of character on five aspects of organisation: engagement, job satisfaction, team performance, organisational citizen behaviour and the intention to leave the company.

49 I have developed this idea already in Ducheyne & Vander Sijpe (2014) where I have argued that humanity should be the base of any people strategy within an organisation.

50 Quote attributed to Simone Weil. 51 See also Krznaric (2014). 52 Krznaric wrote a blog about 6 habits of empathic people in 2012. It

differs a bit from his 2014 book. But I kind of like the original list. 53 Daniel Goleman (2013) refers to the focussed leader. That’s a leader who

has emotional intelligence. He indicates that attention is the most

important driver for emotional intelligence. But he regrets that attention is under pressure because of the constant flow of messages and stimuli. There’s not enough time to analyse all those messages and determine what they mean. This reduces our effectiveness as a leader.

54 See Molm et al. (2007) for a review on the value of reciprocity. 55 See Tavassoli et al. (2014). 56 See Belmi & Pfeffer (2015). 57 See Grant (2013). 58 If you read the research by Belmi & Pfeffer (2015) the takers and the

matchers or on the rise. 59 Kindness is related to compassion. You could use both in the same sense. 60 I prefer not to mention their names as I can only talk about the past and

the present. I cannot foresee what efforts these companies are willing to make to improve their humanity report.

61 See Phillips & Taylor (2010). 62 See Lillius et al. (2011). 63 This is what happened in the 2016 Olympic Games. Runners Abbey

D’Agostino (US) and Nikki Hamblin (NZ) fell during the 5000 m. They could not win, but D’Agostino helped Hamblin on her feet and encouraged her to continue.

64 I’ll talk about performance management later. 65 One of those systems is called “rank and yank”. This system requires

managers to rank their employees from top to bottom according to performance or contribution. In a second phase a certain percentage is then dismissed. This system became famous the moment Jack Welch implemented it in GE. This system is not sustainable on the long run because you cannot dismiss people year after year. The difference between the last one that is not yanked out and the first one that is, will become very small. The practice might also provoke undesired and uncooperative behaviours. The effect that this practice has on people is devastating. The approach does not allow for kindness. It’s not very empathic. You might also doubt its fairness and ethical dimension. Jack Welch said afterwards he was misunderstood.

66 Of course you can apply the philosophy of the first 90 days in a ruthless way and fire all those who do not fit your purpose. But in a lot of countries in Europe you cannot do this just like that. You need to have a strong case to make a dismissal stick.

67 But we are not unique in this. Research shows us that monkeys have developed the same characteristics. There’s a superb video on YouTube that show how capuchin monkeys reject “unequal pay”. www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKhAd0Tyny0 (last visited on December 28, 2016).

68 See De Waal (2010). 69 Morality comes from the Latin word moralitas, meaning character,

manner or proper behaviour. 70 That’s a question Saki Knafo (2015) asked in his blog on the Atlantic.

www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/is-it-possible-to-lay- people-off-nicely/393464/ . (Last visited on December 28, 2016).

71 Based on a lecture by Andrew Kakabadse in London Business School, March 2015.

72 Barbara Tuchman in “The March of Folly” talks about Philip II of Spain. 73 See McAdams & Olson (2010). 74 See the chapter about the leadership list. 75 See Hogan et al. (2011). 76 Padilla et al. (2007) talk about conducive environments, that lead towards

destructive leadership. Such environments are created by the interactions between leaders and followers.

77 I discuss the myths of leadership in chapter 5. 78 The model of the core qualities has been developed by D. Ofman in

1992. 79 See O’Reilly et al. (2014). 80 M. Wilson has described Larry Ellison as a narcissistic leader. 81 I have coined this term in analogy of the term “learned helplessness”. 82 The dismissal of Steve Jobs from Apple was a cathartic moment. Later he

said this was one of the best experiences in his life. But it must have been

extremely painful, the moment itself. See Jobs’ biography by Isaacsson (2011).

83 And that’s why you need the dissenting voices around you. Dissenting voices are only such when they tell things that you do not want to hear.

84 Painting in the Palace of Fine Arts in Brussels. It’s allegedly by Brueghel.

85 See Bal et al. (2008). 86 A brilliant account of this mechanism is the movie Der Untergang, about

the last days of Hitler, hidden in a bunker, leading phantom armies and hoping – against all odds – that he could turn the tide.

87 See Ertureten (2013). 88 European Law has focused on mobbing. The employment directive

2000/78/EC establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. This directive sees harassment as a form of discrimination, when unwanted conduct takes place with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. In this context, the concept of harassment may be defined in accordance with the national laws and practice of the Member States. E.g. Belgian Law does not focus on the intention to bully, but rather on the effect of the bullying behaviour. The same leader might be applauded by one follower, whilst the other feels harassed. It’s subjective and this requires leaders to be empathic and adapt their style to the people in their team. The definition in the French law is clear: mobbing is a process of destruction, that exists of hostile behaviour that could be insignificant when considered one by one, but that have a detrimental effect through the constant repetition.

89 See Kouchaki et al. (2013) who conducted some experiments to see if the mere mentioning of money could inspire unethical behaviour. This was confirmed.

90 See Whitmore (1997). 91 Winston Churchill did not get reelected after World War II. You could

say that was a sign of ingratitude. But voters did not see him fit to lead a country after a war, whereas he was the right leader during the war. See Addison (2005).

92 The Peter principle states that anyone keeps on getting promoted until the point of failure or incompetence. The principle was coined by Laurence J. Peter in 1969.

93 See Mayer et al. (2012). 94 John Wooden was an American basketball player and coach with a long

record. 95 Nick Leeson caused the collapse of the Barings Bank in 1995 through

fraudulent, unauthorised and speculative trading. 96 The notion of servant leadership has been developed in 1977 by Robert

K. Greenleaf. I always find it amazing that we act as if this would be of a more recent date.

97 See Greenleaf (2002). 98 Listen to Margaret Heffernan (2012) on TedTalk:

www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_dare_to_disagree? language=en - last visited on December 28, 2016.

99 Isaacson (2011) describes the relationship between Sculley and Jobs in a sobering and sometimes painful manner.

100 See Tosi, H. L. et al. (2004). 101 See also the chapter on erosion of character. 102 Adolf Hitler is often portrayed as a charismatic leader. According to

Eatwell (2007) the single most important part of Hitler’s charisma was that he had an opinion, which he could convey convincingly. At the same time, Hitler was very vain.

103 Many great leaders – this is how they are remembered – have been disclosed by biographers. Steve Jobs was not the nicest leader to work for. E.J. Hoover who led the FBI for decades seems to have been a hypocritical dictator. John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King have all stories they would not want to see revealed. Mother Teresa is known to have accepted money from people with low ethical standards.

104 Some interim CEOs have this effect, which is probably a combined effect of relief that there is someone to solve the problem and the information of previous missions. Albert “Chainsaw” Dunlap had a reputation of turning businesses around, so when he arrived in any given company, share prices went up. He wrote a book “mean business” (nomen est omen) in 1997.

Since then his glory waned as the improvements were not very sustainable and not always based on actions that are compliant to corporate governance standards.

105 Frederic Laloux (2014) describes how organisations can be reinvented and how practices can change. The same reasoning can be found in Gary Hamel’s book What matters now (2012).

106 See Sull et al. (2015). 107 Haidt (2006) uses this metaphor attributed to Buddha to discuss the

divided self. Like we cannot control everything within ourselves (thoughts pop up), we cannot control everything in a team or an organisation.

108 See Uhl-Bien et al. (2014). 109 See Gentry et al. (2012). 110 See Key-Roberts (2012). 111 See Nicholson (2013). 112 See Jobs (2005). 113 If you want to know more about it, read Craig Malkin’s recent book

(2015) on this topic. 114 Leroy et al. (2012) found that if team members can engage in authentic

followership, that this provides satisfaction of a basic need. This is induced by authentic leadership behaviour.

115 See Chapter 10. 116 See O’Keeffe (2011). It’s a book about how to maximize your first 100

days as a leader. The assumption is that you do not have the leverage anymore afterwards. Although I have enjoyed reading, or better, using the book it’s of course not true. Leaders that would apply this literally will be rejected by the organisation.

117 See Torres & Tollman (2013). 118 Jeffrey Pfeffer (2013) remarks that we stay the same. New theories on

how to discard hierarchy and replace it by more democratic and participative ways of working seem not to be working.

119 I command you to be autonomous. 120 Hamel describes Morning Star in his book What Matters Now (2011).

121 Ricardo Semler described his company Semco in Maverick (1995). 122 Stephenson (2009) gives an account of what a heterarchy is. 123 See chapter 1. 124 See Stein-Hanusch & Wrede (2014). These authors used qualitative

research that reveals how leaders in Germany perceive their own leadership.

125 If you look at a bottle, its neck is on the top of the bottle. Very often bottle necks are at the top of the organisation.

126 See chapter 8 on trust. 127 The term BHAG – Big, audacious, hairy goals – is one of the terms that

Jim Collins’ (2001) best-selling book “Good to Great” has introduced into business language.

128 This has been explained by Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer (2011). The book contains a checklist you can use to help you focus on progress.

129 If you want to know something about otoliths, which I cannot imagine, you can check Popper et al. (2005).

130 The first time I’ve heard of Otoliths was when I was in Barcelona in May 2011 when I visited the Museum of Modern Art, the MACBA. There was an exhibition by the otolith group, a collective art group that merges sound and image. I was quite impressed by them.

131 Flexicurity focuses on employability rather than on employment. The definition by the European Commission is an integrated strategy for enhancing, at the same time, flexibility and security in the labour market. It attempts to reconcile employers’ need for a flexible workforce with workers’ need for security – confidence that they will not face long periods of unemployment.

132 Weakness is not the same as vulnerability. 133 When I was writing the Dutch version of this book, the Dieselgate

scandal erupted. Volkswagen had installed software to change the results of emission tests.

134 Based on a Gallup Poll, you can find the latest version on www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx (last visited on December 28, 2016).

135 See World Economic Forum project on trust (2015).

136 See World Economic Forum (2014) and Global Report (2015). 137 For a list of corporate scandals since the 15th century check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_collapses_and_scandals# List_of_scandals_without_insolvency (last visited on December 28, 2016).

138 The scarring effects of the youth unemployment crisis will be visible for the decades to come.

139 See Coates and Srinivasan’s (2014) review the SOx-legislation and conclude that financial reporting has been improved after SOx was implemented. But as the number of total fraud cases is not known, there is no way to say how many fraud cases have been prevented or detected (as a %) thanks to SOx. But the fact that SOx remains unchanged after 10 years suggests that it has proven its value.

140 See Gaur & Kohli (2011). 141 One of the best books on this is Human error by James reason (1990).

This book describes the different levels of human error, ranging from lapses to system design failure.

142 See Wildman et al. (2012). 143 However, you need to be aware that it requires a certain degree of

maturity. Bradley et al. (2013) point out that people that are open to new experiences and are emotionally stable enable the conflict readiness in a team.

144 Cf. Shazi et al. (2015). 145 See Brahm & Kunze (2012). 146 See Levi & Stoker (2000). 147 See also Colquitt e.a. (2007). 148 Being aware of what one is unable to do, is the basis for learning. People

who do not question themselves and assume they have all it takes to do the job, risk to make more mistakes than people who are aware of their limits. For a leader it’s important to check what someone is capable of.

149 The original term is benevolence. I use loyalty because it indicates a choice. Loyalty has a link with kindness. By being loyal, people are able to surpass the weaknesses and mistakes of others. Their loyalty prevails in times of adversity.

150 There is a clear link between trust and character. And we ask of team members the same characteristics as of leaders. The trustworthiness of both leaders and followers is based on the same principles and the difference between them are subtle.

151 These questions are based on Schoorman & Ballinger (2006) as cited by Schoorman, Mayer & Davis (2007) and on Ovans (2014).

152 David De Cremer (2011) wrote a book after the financial crisis on good people doing bad things. But one of the best books on how people can do bad stuff is by Philip Zimbardo (2007): the Lucifer Effect.

153 There’s a lot of debate on how long a CEO should stay. CEOs stay less long in function whereas job tenure in general is on the rise according to The Conference Board.

154 See Ferguson & Peterson (2015). 155 Some people still think a leader should never apologise. It seems that a

sincere apology contributes to the credibility and trustworthiness of the leader. There are however many factors that influence this. See Basford (2013).

156 Peter Block (1992) wrote an interesting book about the empowered manager.

157 See Schrijvers (2004). 158 See James (2013). 159 A recent research project revealed that 1 out of 3 persons in Belgium

experienced their work as meaningless. See www.antwerpmanagementschool.be/nl/livestream/press/persberichten/20 16/persbericht-vlaming-ervaart-werk-als-niet-zinvol – last visited on October 30th, 2016.

160 Quote attributed to Dave Ramsey. 161 See Bürkner et al. (2014) 162 Definition by Maitlis & Christianson (2013). 163 Definition by Weick et al. (2005). 164 Our brain is wired in such a way that we want to be in balance. Every

time something happens that is unpleasant, we look for explanations to neutralize the unpleasant dimension. This is called cognitive dissonance.

165 Franz Kafka (1883-1924) was a master in describing absurd situations like in “Der Prozess”

166 See Maitlis & Christianson (2013). 167 See Ancona (2011). 168 See Sinek (2009). 169 See Frey & Osborne (2013). 170 In the developed world, see Gratton & Scott (2016). 171 Chief People Officer. 172 See the chapter on the Myths of Leadership. 173 The Olympic paradigm is “altius, citius, fortius”, higher, faster, stronger. 174 This is a paraphrasing of a quote from Il Gattopardo, a novel by Tomasso

di Lampedusa. 175 See Ducheyne & Vander Sijpe (2014). 176 See Van der Klink et al. (2010). 177 Based on the model that has been developed by Securex. 178 European Opinion Poll on occupational Safety and Health (2013). 179 See WHO (1986). 180 See Thaler & Sunstein (2008). 181 I have explained this in the book I wrote together with Frank Vander

Sijpe (2014) on how customised work contributes to sustainable employability.

182 See Rousseau (2005) and Ducheyne & Vander Sijpe (2014). 183 Based on Tracy (1991). 184 The zone of proximal development is a concept that was coined by

Vygotsky (1978). See McLeod (2012). 185 Ryan Babinaux en John Krumboltz (2013) even suggest that you –

especially in the beginning of your life and career – you need to fail fast and fail often.

186 See Lencioni (2002).This model is not scientific in its entirety, but links well into distinct pieces of evidence.

187 Murnighan (2012) wrote a book with the simple title “Do Nothing!”. 188 See Catlette (2012).

189 The term to express the relative importance of hedonic experiences. It states that humans are predisposed by genetics to plateau at a certain level of happiness, and that the occurrence of novel happy events merely elevates this level temporarily. However there are differences over time and across individuals that require a different approach to happiness. See Diener et al. (2006).

190 See http://bronnieware.com/regrets-of-the-dying/, last visited on December 28, 2016.

191 This is quite consistent over time, but is differentiated across countries. For more information check www.gallup.com.

192 See Reilly (2014). 193 Engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is

characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption (Albrecht et al., 2015).

194 Read the section on downward mobbing. 195 There is evidence that organisations might even literally kill people. See

Pfeffer (2015). 196 Gloria Beck (2009) wrote a manual of 288 pages about giving

compliments. Many people have difficulties to give compliments. Sometimes this is also cultural. But too often we take a good job for granted. When it’s well done, it’s normal. Only when it’s done sub- optimally we intervene.

197 See Ducheyne & Vander Sijpe (2014). 198 See Albrecht et al. (2015). 199 People who know me, will realise that this is the most difficult chapter

for me to write because it’s the tenet I personally struggle the most with. I have considered not writing it, but then I would be leaving out something that I feel is really important.

200 See Whitepaper Absenteeism 2014 by Securex www.securex.be/export/sites/default/.content/online- brochure/nl/absenteisme-in-2014/Securex.pdf

201 See Sherman et al. (2012). 202 See also Nicholson (2014). Zemblanity was coined by William Boyd in

his novel Armadillo.

203 See Kramer (2011). 204 I paraphrase “I’m OK, you’re OK” by Thomas Harris on transactional

analysis. 205 The notion of “A third Place” I got from Rob Goffee in March 2015. 206 See Inzlicht & Schmeichel (2012). 207 If you check the Google Analytics there are three visions on leadership

on the rise: servant leadership, authentic leadership and sustainable leadership. The first two definitions of leadership focus on the way, whilst sustainable leadership focuses on the why of leadership. Leadership is not there to be authentic or servant. Leadership is there to provide sustainability.

208 John Schulz (2015) has described this well in his article “The Irony of Authenticity”.

209 See Adam Grant’s Originals (2016). 210 Unashamed I quote the country singer Garth Brooks’ song “Going

against the Grain”. 211 Read the book by Rebecca Solnit (2005) if you want to know more on

getting lost. 212 See Van Belleghem (2014). 213 According to Gartner intelligent machine and human beings will compete

for control (www.gardner.com/doc/3142020?aeld, last checked December 2, 2016).

214 Donald Trump won the US Elections in 2016. His use of social media was questionable as his temper and intolerance became clear. His campaign manager had to keep him away from social media. He continued his erratic Twitter behaviour after his inaugurations.

215 See Stein-Hanusch & Wrede (2014). 216 Radical comes from the Latin radix, which means root. 217 This is called the butterfly effect.

Bibliography

Addison, P. (2005). Churchill, the unexpected Hero. Oxford, University Press.

Adler, E.S., Berry, M.J. & Doherty, D. (2013). Pushing “Reset”: The Conditional Effects of Coaching Replacements on College Football Performance. Social Science Quarterly, 94(1), 1–28.

Ahrendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago, The University Chicago Press.

Albrecht, S.L., Bakker, A.B., Gruman, J.A.G Macey, H., & Saks, A.M. (2015). Employee Engagement, Human Resource Management Practices and competitive Advantage. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 2(1), 7 – 35.

Amabile, T. & Kramer, S. (2011). The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement, and Creativity at Work. Boston, Harvard Business Review Press.

Avolio, B.J. & Hannah, S.T. (2008). Developmental Readiness: accelerating Leader Development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 331-347.

Babineau, R. & Krumboltz, J. (2013). Fail Fast, Fail Often: How Losing Can Help You Win. London, Tarcher Perigee.

Bal, V., Campbell, M., Steed, J. & Meddings, K. (2008). The Role of Power in effective Leadership. Centre for Creative Leadership, Research white Paper. Available on www.ccl.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/roleOfPower.pdf. Last checked February 11, 2017.

Basford, T.E. (2013). Leader Apologies: How Content and Delivery Influence Sincerity Appraisals. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(5), 9-26.

Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational Leadership: learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.M. (2005). Transformational Leadership. Oxford, Psychology Press.

Beck, G. (2009). Komplimente: eine Gebrauchsanleitung. Köln, Eichborn Verlag. (Compliments: a Manual)

Belmi, P. & Pfeffer, J. (2015). How “Organization” can weaken the Norm of Reciprocity: the Effects of Attributions for Favors and a calculative

Mindset. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1 (1), 35-55. Bendersky, C. & Shah, N.P. (2013). The Downfall of Extraverts and Ruse

of Neurotics: the dynamic Process of Status Allocation in Task Groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 387-406.

Block, Peter (1990). The empowered Manager. Positive Political Skills at Work. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A.C., Postlethwaite, B.E. & Brown, K.G. (2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 98(2), 385-392.

Brahm, T. & Kunze, F. (2012). The role of trust climate in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(6), 595-614.

Brooks, D. (2015). The Road to Character. London, Allen Lane. Bürkner, H.-P, Chin, V. & Dayal, R. (2014). There’s No Such Thing as

Corporate DNA. Why you have to be prepared to change everything to endure. Boston Consulting Group. Available on www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/leadership_talent_globalizatio n_theres_no_such_thing_corporate_dna/. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Catlette, B. (2012). Contented Cows Still Give Better Milk, Revised and Expanded: The Plain Truth about Employee Engagement and Your Bottom Line. London, Wiley.

Chapman, L. (2010). Integrated Experiential Coaching: Becoming an executive Coach. London, Karnac.

Coates, J.C. & Srinivasan, S (2014). Sox after 10 years: a Multidisciplinary Review. Accounting Horizons, 28(3), 627-671.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap. And Others Don’t. London, HarperBusiness.

Colquitt, J.A., Scot, B.A. & LePine, J. (2007). Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships With Risk Taking and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 4, 909-927.

De Cremer, D. (2011). When good People do bad Things. Leuven, Acco. De Waal, F. (2010). The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a kinder

Society. New York, Broadway Books.

Diener, E., Lucas, R.E., & Scolon, C.N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic Treadmill. Revising the Adaptation Theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305-314.

Downey, S.N., van der Werff, L., Thomas, K.M. & Plaut, V.V. (2015). The role of diversity practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(1), 35-44.

Ducheyne, D. & Vander Sijpe, F. (2014). Mon Emploi, un Travail sur Mesure. Leuven, Racine.

Dunlap, A. (1997). Mean Business. How I save bad Companies and make good companies great. Cambridge, Touchstone.

Eatwell, R. (2007). The Concept and Theory of charismatic Leadership. In Costa Pinto, Eatwell and Larsen (eds), Charisma and Fascism in inter- war Europe. London, Routledge.

Edmans, A. (2011). Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and equity prices. Journal of financial Economics, 101, 621-640.

Eriksson, A. (2011). Health Promoting Leadership: A study of the Concept and critical Conditions for Implementation and Evaluation. Gothenburg, Doctoral Thesis.

Ertureten, A., Semalcilar, Z. & Zeynep, A. (2013). The Relationship of downward Mobbing with Leadership Style and organizational Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 205-216.

Eurofound (2015). Eurofound yearbook 2014: Living and working in Europe. Luxemburg, Publications Office of the European Union.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2013). European Opinion Poll on occupational Safety and Health. Availaible on https://osha.europa.eu/en/surveys-and-statistics-osh/european-opinion- polls-safety-and-health-work/european-opinion-poll-occupational-safety- and-health-2013. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Farrell, C. (2014). Unretirement. How Baby Boomers are changing the Way we think about Work, Community and the good Life. London, Bloomsbury Press.

Favaro, K., Karlsson, P.-O. & Neilson, G.L. (2014). 2014 Study of CEOs, Governance and Success. The Value of getting CEO Succession right. Strategy and PWC. Available on

www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/2014-Study-of-CEOs-Governance- and-Success.pdf. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Feder, C., Mayol, F. & Srinivasan, R. (2015). Decoding Leadership: what really matters. McKinsey Quarterly, January Issue.

Ferguson, A.J. & Peterson, R.S. (2015). Sinking Slowly: Diversity in Propensity to Trust Predicts Downward Trust Spirals in Small Groups. Journal of applied Psychology, 100(4), 1012-1024.

Frankl, V.E. (2004). Man’s Search for Meaning. London, Rider. Frey, C.B. & Osborne, M.A. (2013). The Future of Employment: How

Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation. Available on www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Emplo yment.pdf. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Gallup (2014). Honesty/Ethics in Professions. Available on www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Gaur, A.S. & Kohli, N. (2011). Governance Failure at Satyam. London, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation.

Gentry, W., Deal, J.J., Stawiski, S. & Ruderman, M. (2012). Are Leaders born or made. Perspectives from the executive Suite. Center for Creative Leadership. Available on www.ccl.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/AreLeadersBornOrMade.pdf. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway World. London, BBC Reith Lecture. Goffee, R. & Jones, G. (1996). What holds the modern Company together?

Harvard Business Review, November-December, 133-148. Goffee, R. & Jones, G. (2006). Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?: What

It Takes To Be An Authentic Leader. Boston, Harvard Business Review Press.

Goleman, D. (2013). Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence. London, Harper.

Grant, A. (2016). Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World. London, Viking.

Grant, A. (2013). Give and Take. Why Helping Others Drives Our Success. Amsterdam, Balans.

Grant, A., Gino, F. & Hofmann, D.A. (2010). The hidden Advantages of quiet Leadership. Harvard Business review, December, 28.

Greenleaf, R.K. (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness 25th Anniversary Edition. Mahwah, Paulist.

Haidt, J. (2006). The Happiness Hypothesis. Putting ancient Wisdom and Philosophy to the Test of modern Science. London, Arrow Books.

Hamel, G. (2012). What matters now. How to win in a World of relentless Change, Ferocious Competition and Unstoppable Innovation. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Hendrix, W.H., Born, D.H. & Hopkins, S. (2015). Relationship of Transformational Leadership and Character with Five Organizational Outcomes. The Journal of Character and Leadership Integration, Spring, 54-71.

Hinssen, P. (2011). The new Normal. Explore the Limits of the digital World. Leuven, Lannoo.

Hinssen, P. (2015). The Network always wins: how to influence Customers, stay relevant, and transform your Organization to move faster than the Market. New York, McGraw-Hill Education.

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (2011). Management Derailment. In Zedeck, S. (ed). APA handbook of industrial and organizational Psychology. Vol. 3. Washington D.C., American Psychological Association, 555-575.

Inzlicht, M. & Schmeichel, B.J. (2012). What Is Ego Depletion? Toward a Mechanistic Revision of the Resource Model of Self-Control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 450-463.

Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York, Simon & Schuster. James, O. (2013). Office Politics: How to Thrive in a World of Lying,

Backstabbing and Dirty Tricks. London, Vermillion. Jobs, S. (2005). Commencement Address. Available on

http://news.stanford.edu/2005/06/14/jobs-061505/. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Key-Roberts, M., Halpin, S. & Brunner, J.M. (2012). Leader Identity, individual Differences and Leader Self-Development. Fort Belvoire, US Army Research Institute.

Knafi, S. (2015). Is it possible to lay off people nicely? One company’s Quest to blend rejection and kindness. The Atlantic, May 25. Available

on www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/is-it-possible-to-lay- people-off-nicely/393464/. Last accessed July 3, 2015.

Kouchaki, M. Smith-Crowe, K., Brief, A.P., & Sousa, C. (2013). Seeing green: Mere exposure to money triggers a business decision frame and unethical outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 53–61.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2011). Credibility. How leaders gain and lose it. Why People demand it. Hoboken, Wiley.

Kramer, R.M. (2011). Self-Defeating Leader Behavior. Why Leaders misuse their power and Influence. In Pratkanis, A.R. (ed.). The Science of social Influence: Advances and future Progress. Psychology Press, pp. 297-320. Available on http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/55943/CPL_WP_05_12_K ramer.pdf?sequ. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Krznaric, R. (2012). Six Habits of highly-empathic People. Blog published on greater good. Available on: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/six_habits_of_highly_empath ic_people1 Last accessed on January 24, 2016.

Krznaric, R. (2014). Empathy: a Handbook for Revolution. London, Rider Books.

Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing Organizations. A Guide to creating Organizations inspired by the next Stage of human Consciousness. Brussels, Nelson Parker.

Lencioni, P.M. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. New York, Jossey-Bass.

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W.L. & Sels, L. (2012). Authentic Leadership, Authentic Followership, Basic Need Satisfaction, and Work Role Performance: A Cross-Level Study. Journal of Management, 41(6) 1677-1697.

Levi, M. & Stoker, L. (2000). Political Trust and Trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475-507.

Lilius, J. M., Worline, M. C, Maitlis, S., Kanov, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Frost, P. (2008). The contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 193-218.

Maitlis, S. & Chrisianson, M. (2013). Sensemaking in Organizations: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. The Academy of Management

Annals, 8(1), 57-125. Malkin, C. (2015). The Narcissist Test. How to spot outsized Egos … and

the surprising Things we can learn from Them. New York, Harper Thorsons.

Markides, C.C. (2000). All the right Moves. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.

Mayer, D.M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R.L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who Displays Ethical Leadership, and Why Does It Matter? An Examination of Antecedents and Consequences of Ethical Leadership. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55(1), 151–171.

McAdams, D. P., & Olson, B. D. (2010). Personality development: Continuity and change over the life course. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 517-542.

McLeod, S. A. (2012). Zone of Proximal Development. Simply Psychology. Available on www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal- Development.html. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Molgaard, V. K., Spoth, R.L. & Redmond, C. (2000). Competency Training. The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, August.

Molm, L.D., Schaefer, D.R. & Collett, J.L. (2007). The Value of Reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(2), 199-207.

Morten T. Hansen, Herminia Ibarra, and Urs Peyer (2013). Can Companies Both Do Well and Do Good? Harvard Business review Blog Network. Available on http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/01/can_companies_both_do_well_and.html. Last accessed on January 24, 2016.

Murnighan, J.K. (2012). Do Nothing!: How to Stop Overmanaging and Become a Great Leader. London, Portfolio.

Nicholson, N. (2013). The “I” of Leadership. Strategies for Seeing, Being and Doing. London, Jossey-Bass.

Ofman, D. (2001). Core Qualities. A gateway to human resources. Schiedam, Scriptum.

O’Reilly, C., Caldwell, D.F., Chatman, J.A., & Doerr, B. (2014). The Promise and Problems of Organizational Culture: CEO Personality, Culture, and Firm Performance. Group & Organization Management 2014, Vol. 39(6), 595–625.

O’Reilly, C.A., Doerr, B., Caldwell, D.F. & Chatman, J.A. (2014). Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 218–231.

Ovans, A. (2014). Overcoming the Peter Principle. Harvard Business Review. Available on https://hbr.org/2014/12/overcoming-the-peter- principle. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176-194. Pfeffer, J. (2013). You’re still the same: why theories of Power hold over time and across Contexts. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 269-280.

Pfeffer, J. (2015). Is your Employer killing you? Fortune Blog. Available on http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/is-your-employer-killing-you/. Last accessed on August 10, 2015.

Phillips, A. & Taylor, B. (2009). On Kindness. London, Penguin Books. Popper, A.N., Ramcharitar, J., & Campana, S.E. (2005). Why Otoliths?

Insights from inner Ear Physiology and Fisheries Biology. Marine and Freshwater Research, 56, 497-504.

Porter, M.E. (1998). Competitive Strategy. Techniques From Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York, Free Press.

Rawls, J. (1991). A Theory of Justice. London, Harvard University Press. Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge University Press. Reilly, R. (2014). Five Ways to Improve Employee Engagement Now.

Available on www.gallup.com/businessjournal/166667/five-ways- improve-employee-engagement.aspx. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Rigotti, T., Holstad, T., Mohr, G., Stempel, C., Hansen, E., Loeb, C., Isaksson, K, Otto, K. Kinnunen, U. & Perko, K. (2014). Rewarding and sustainable health-promoting Leadership. Bundesantalt für Arbeitschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, Research project F 2199. Available on: www.baua.de/de/Publikationen/Fachbeitraege/F2199.pdf? __blob=publicationFile&v=4. Last Accessed on February 11, 2017.

Roghé, F., Toma, A., Kilmann, J., Dicke, R. & Strack, R. (2014). Organizational Capabilities Matter-Organization of the Future: Designed to Win. Boston Consulting Group. Available on: www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/leadership_engagement_cultu

re_organizational_capabilities_matter/. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Rousseau, D.M. (2005), I-deals: Idiosyncratic Deals Employees Bargain for Themselves. New York, M.E. Sharpe.

Ruti, M. (2014). The call of Character. Living a Life worth Living. New York, Columbia University Press.

Schoorman, F. D., & Ballinger, G. A. (2006). Leadership, trust and client service in veterinary hospitals. Working paper. West Lafayette, Purdue University.

Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. & Davis, J.H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344-354.

Schrijvers, J. (2004). The Way of the Rat. A survival Guide to Office Politics. London, Cyan Communications.

Schulz, J.R. (2015). The Irony of Authenticity. Performance Improvement, 54(7), 6-9.

Semler, R. (1995). Maverick. The Success Story Behind the Worlds Most Unusual Workplace. New York, Grand Central Publishing.

Sennett, R. (2003). Respect. The Formation of Character in an Age of Inequality. London, Penguin Books.

Shazi, R., Gillespie, N. & Steen, J. (2015). Trust as a predictor of innovation network ties in project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 33 (1), 81-91.

Sherman, G. D., Lee, J. J., Cuddy, A. J. C., Renshon, J., Oveis, C., Gross, J. J., & Lerner, J. S. (2012). Leadership is associated with lower levels of stress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 17903–17907.

Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: how great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York, Penguin Group.

Solnit, R. (2005). A Field Guide to Getting Lost. London, Penguin Books. Spock, B. & Needman, R. (2011). Dr. Spock’s Baby and Child Care. New

York. Pocket Books. Stein-Hanusch, A. & Wrede, B. (2014). Führung von Innen. Düsseldorf,

Leader in Mind. Stephenson, K. (2009). Neither Hierarchy not Network: an Argument for Heterarchy. People and Strategy, 32(1), 4-13.

Sprenger, R.K. (2012). Radikal Führen. Frankfurt, Campus.

Sull, D., Homkes, R. & Sull, C. (2015). Why Strategy Execution unravels, and what to do about it. Harvard Business review Blog. Available on https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-strategy-execution-unravelsand-what-to-do- about-it. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Tavassoli, N.T., Sorescu, 1. & Chandy, R. (2014) Employee-Based Brand Equity: Why Firms with Strong Brands Pay Their Executives Less. Journal of Marketing Research: December 2014, Vol. 51(6), 676-690.

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. & Xanthopoulo, D. (2011). Do transformational Leaders enhance their followers’ daily work Engagement? Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 121-131.

Torres, R. & Tollman, P. (2013). Debunking the Myths of the First 100 Days. The Right Way and the Wrong Way for New CEOs to Approach Their Role. BCG Perspectives. Available on www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/leadership_human_resources_ debunk-ing_the_myths_of_the_first_100_days/. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Tosi, H. L., Misangyi, V. F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). CEO charisma, compensation, and firm performance. Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 405-421.

Tost, L.P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R.P. (2013). When Power makes others speechless: the negative impact of leader Power on Team Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1465-1486.

Ulrich, D. & Smallwood, N. (2013). Leadership Sustainability: seven Disciplines to achieve the Changes great Leaders know they must make. Columbus, McGraw-Hill.

Van Belleghem, S. (2014). When digital becomes human. Tielt, Lannoo Campus.

Van Hoey, K. (2015). Leiding Geven: Kracht vanuit Onmacht. Brugge, die Keure.

Van der Klink, J.J.L., Burdorf, A., Schaufeli, W.B., van der Wilt, G.J., Zijlstra, F.R.H., Brouwer, S. & Bültmann, U. (2010). Duurzaam inzetbaar, Werk als Waarde. Rapport ten behoeve van het programma participatie en gezondheid. Available on www.voion.nl/downloads/d83f3d24-c126-4947-8cd1-6798565acbff. Last accessed on February 11, 2017.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Ware, B. (2009). Regrets of the Dying. Blog. Accessible on www.bronnieware.com/blog/regrets-of-the-dying. Last Accessed on February 11, 2017.

West, M.A., Borrill C., Dawson, J, Scully, J., Carter, M., Anelay, S., Patterson, M., Waring, J. (2002). The link between the management of employees and patient mortality in acute hospitals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(8), 1299-1310.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sense-making. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.

West, M.A., Guthrie, J.P., Dawson, J.F., Borril, C.S. & Carter, M. (2006). Journal of organizational Behavior, 27(7), 983-1002.

Whitmore, J. (1997). Need, Greed or Freedom: Business Changes and Personal Choice. London, Element Books.

WHO (1986). The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. WHO, Copenhagen.

Wilson, M. (2003). The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison: *God Doesn’t Think He’s Larry Ellison. London, HarperBusiness.

World Economic Forum (2014). Outlook on the global Agenda 2015. Geneva, World Economic Forum.

World Economic Forum (2015). Leadership, Trust and Performance Equation Project. The Evolution of Trust in Business. From Delivery to Values. Geneva, World Economic Forum.

Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect. How good People Turn Evil. London, Rider.

Endorsements

01 Golden Nuggets Ducheyne’s “Duurzaam Leiderschap” left me in a bit of a daze. This book provokes you to fundamentally rethink your views on life and work and how they are interconnected. This is more than ‘just another leadership book’ as it basically deals with the changing meaning of work and how to stay true to yourself in turbulent times. This probably isn’t a book you should read from cover-to-cover. Pick it up on a day that you feel a bit sad and discover what exactly happens to happy cows. Discover why you should get lost in Venice on a warm day. These golden nuggets will reshape how you think about leadership and work in general.

Prof. Dr. Frederik Anseel Work & Organisational Psychology and Personnel Management, Ghent University, Belgium

02 Humanity First As leaders we are first and foremost human beings. Whilst many leadership books seemingly start with the pretence that leaders should be high impact, infallible superheroes, this book provides a fresh approach in celebrating the human aspects of leadership, and highlights why our own humanity and character is critical for sustainable leadership.

It covers a comprehensive and broad range of material and is an accessible yet thought- provoking read. This book provides an inspirational call to humanity and humility for modern leaders, especially those who wish for their impact on others, as well as their own physical and mental health, to be sustained over time.

Nigel Baker General Manager at Pacific Hydro, Chili

03 Down to Earth Why write another book on Leadership?”, is the opening remark of the author in his acknowledgment. If you want to know the answer you have to

read David’s book, because it is indeed different. ‘Sustainable Leadership’ is not a cookbook with recipes you have to implement, but it is a managerial guide which will help you to reflect about your own leadership behaviour. In that respect the ‘takeaways’ and the ‘checks’ at the back of every chapter offer the opportunity to do some introspection. Unlike many other leadership books, the book is not about ‘Hero’s’ and ‘Ego’s’ but it emphasizes the importance of context when analysing and understanding leadership. Written in a very pragmatic way, very well documented, and above all insightful yet down to earth. In other words a must read for anyone who deals with people and wants to reflect on his/her own behaviour.

Great job, David!

Prof. Dr. Dirk Buyens Professor of Human Resources Management/Director Open Exec Education – Vlerick Business School, Belgium

04 A Personal Book This is a great book, something different. I like the stories that come directly from real life. They make this book very personal. This book will definitely help me to focus on sustainable leadership in this VUCA world” and help me to see things from a different perspective. Thanks!!”

Ralph Hollmig Director Audi e-Services, AUDI AG, Germany

05 A Universal and Eternal Truth As a clinical psychologist in sports and business, I welcome this book as a clear view on the challenges of leaders in this VUCA world. Ethics have to be brought back on the podium to restore trust in leaders, whether in society, business or sports. This book is an emphasis, a cry for clearly defined sustainable leadership, bringing back the disappeared trust in leaders. I go met the author on his journey to leadership based on character. Get the right people in the right place doing the right sustainable things to

improve life for the many. I join the author in his humanistic view on the future of leadership. I agree with his central guideline: be a genuine leader who creates value out of value for others and for yourself. It is a universal and eternal truth. Add your share.

Jef Brouwers Consultant - Psychologist at TICkA, Tick Your Talent, Belgium

06 The Dilemma Skills versus personality dilemma: Tell me who you are, I will tell you how you lead.

As David suggests, it’s not possible to acquire all competences a leader needs to be complete. Soft skills such as listening, empathy, creativity are more important. Your personality is key when you are facing unknown situations. As a senior manager you may face many of these situations where experience is not the answer to make the right decision. With the digital transformation, most industries are in continuous change. David’s framework for sustainable leadership is a perfect guide for managers who are asking themselves why certain leaders are successful and people like to follow them or not.

It’s not about politics, but more about finding the right balance between your values and what other stakeholders would like you to do. David is a great observer, his ability to extract important things from all leadership assets in a concise manner is fantastic. When you play a role in your day job, this book may change your mind !

Sophie Dominjon Chief Executive Officer, DEKRA Industrial France

07 Read This Book at Your Own Peril Pick this book up at your peril! Of all the books I have read on leadership, “Sustainable Leadership” by David Ducheyne has stood out for me as a book which offers quite a divergent perspective. Reading it has not been a

very easy-going experience for me, as it has made me question a few of my beliefs and convictions – but it has also reinforced quite a few of my beliefs. It has inspired me to introspect, and I am convinced that I will hold David Ducheyne accountable for some changes in my leadership style. Chapters which I found particularly interesting are the ones on leadership being anchored in humanity – a concept that is not adequately reflected in leadership styles today, on the erosion of character – which I feel is a serious threat in the new VUCA environment, and on building trust – which I believe to be a critical leadership attribute. As the author forewarns, this book is not a recipe for successful leadership, but rather a book which offers several very relevant concepts and explanations from which each reader can cherry-pick concepts to integrate into her/his own individualistic leadership style. However chapter 6 and 12 on rules of sustainability, and success as a leader, respectively, pretty much bring it all together in a comprehensive way. So, as I said, pick this book up at your peril. It will certainly challenge you. But it can also inspire you to become a more effective leader.

Zubin Karkaria Chief Executive Officer, VFS Global Group and Executive Vice President and Member of Group Executive Board, Kuoni Travel Holding Ltd.

08 A Practical Guide David Ducheyne’s book about sustainable leadership provides a practical guide for all leaders at every level of maturity. It combines practical experience with theoretical context, focuses very much on the leader her-/himself but does not forget the importance of the context. Is sustainable leadership really achievable or is it just a naïve dream that never comes true? I had the pleasure to get to know David and I know that he fully identifies with the content of his book and he stands for the key messages on sustainability in leadership authentically. I strongly believe that sustainable leadership is desirable and achievable and after digesting David’s book the reader will have a much better idea about the “how”.

Johannes Klumpp Marketing & Sales Director, Mondi Group, Austria

09 A Guide to a Successful Life If you’re looking for a rulebook for good leadership then this is probably not the book for you. If you understand that there is no rulebook I highly recommend David’s book.

This is not simply a book about business leadership but more a guide to living a successful and rewarding life. The importance of purpose, values, ethics, trust and respect is well articulated and explained through the use of personal reflections and anecdotes. It was my pleasure to share time with David at the London Business School Senior Executive Programme and he has packed this book full of highlights from those four weeks of study plus many more personal insights. A really valuable read”

Rob Lambe Owner of Melius Homes Ltd. and Former Managing Director of WD Energy Services Ltd., United Kingdom. Managing Director of WD Energy Services Ltd

10 A Lovely Book This is a lovely book – value-driven, clearly expressed and concise. Its great examples and observations brim with the commitment and wisdom leaders need in a VUCA world.

Nigel Nicholson Author of The ‘I’ of Leadership: Strategies for seeing, being and doing (Jossey-Bass, 2013 - Professor of Organisational Behaviour, London Business School

11 Don’t Become What Science shows Many years ago, I attended a popular monthly meeting between practitioners and academicians. At a given moment, one CEO asked a series of open questions to the academicians in the room: “How do you become a good leader?”, “Why do our leaders so frequently fail?”, and “Why is it so difficult for research to provide clear-cut answers to these perennial

leadership questions?”… The academicians were baffled. They could only acknowledge that science has yet to come up with conclusive answers to these pressing questions. In addition, the canned solutions offered to leaders by consultants still mainly comprise of expensive leadership development programs and cookbook approaches to becoming a good leader.

In this book, David Ducheyne, one of the leading HRM thinkers in Belgium, takes a different road in tackling these longstanding issues. Drawing on 25-years of business experience and personal stories, he compellingly argues that leaders can be sustainable by discovering who they are (“gnothi seauton”), staying true to themselves, and not eroding along the way. Hence, he refrains from providing leaders with a cookbook to leadership or from proposing best practices. Instead of such simple recipes, he delineates the ingredients that each leader should “mix and match” in his/her signature way to build trust, take care, make sense, engage, and help others grow.

So, I highly recommend reading David Ducheyne’s book. This will place you in pole position to defy the research evidence that bosses are typically the greatest sources of stress for their subordinates.

Prof. Dr. Filip Lievens Ghent University, Belgium

12 A Contemporary Leadership Style David’s book “Sustainable leadership” has clearly the potential to become a reference book for self-critical leaders who are willing to challenge themselves on their way to growth.

Both its contents and writing style are surprising and refreshing. He defines leadership in a new way, linked to creating value and being at people’s service. He portrays a contemporary leadership style based on character, not on skill. He describes leaders who dare to be human and touch people’s souls. Moreover, David offers a good mixture of deep thoughts, based on experience, study and witty observation, as well as the right amount of humour and provocation.

Keeping the reader in mind, the book’s structure supports learning, since each chapter ends with a checklist and a summary of takeaways for the eager-to-learn leader.

Alicia Marín Muniesa Coach and Facilitator, The Sky is the Limit, Barcelona, Spain

13 Being Oneself Sustainable Leadership provides a refreshing alternative to other leadership books. The author shares useful and practical guiding principles, real life experiences and insights which encourage you to reflect on your leadership style and values, it highlights the importance of being oneself and being authentic as a leader

Steve Wort MD Elekta Limited & Group VP - Supply Chain & Manufacturing, United Kingdom

14 The way to Success When David Ducheyne sent me his book I was really interested to know how he created it. I found the book to be a very useful, comprehensive, everyday guide to the new approach of leadership in the fast changing life environment.

I know David as a very professional Human Resources expert. He focuses on people’s expectations, needs, self-realisation and satisfaction. All of which he considers crucial for success in business. This range of skills was a surprise for me, when I met him for the first time.

While focusing on a wide range of real-life stories, Ducheyne brings together a clear vision of what it takes to wisely lead and inspire. This book is full of ideas and suggestions, ready to be implemented by the readers with their individual style and work methods. The author reflects on how to find the way to a successful sustainable leadership.

Ducheyne’s book can help direct people towards a sustainable future by introducing a whole new world of modern leadership. It is not forcing but guiding people on their journey to success as individuals and as a community in their company…

Slawek Nowak Acting head of Ukravtodor, Ukraine’s State Agency of Automobile Roads, former minister of transport, construction and maritime economy Poland

15 Adapt your organisation and processes David’s ideas about sustainable leadership are inspiring, challenging and refreshing. It’s nice literature because he weaves stories from outside the work context into the text to make his point. He builds a model that is easily understandable. He also provides practical advice on how to apply the principles into professional life. It’s about the essence of leadership and how to maintain our character and values. Be yourself and change to be yourself in a changing VUCA-environment. Sustainable Leadership is balanced and takes individuals and context into consideration. I recommend Sustainable Leadership to every new or experienced HR professional. And to apply the fundamental principles of sustainable leadership, we need to adapt the organisation and the processes of our companies.

Andrea Eichelberg CHRO, Thyssen Krupp Elevator, Germany

Leadership has never been as difficult as it is today. And it has never been as crucial. In this VUCA world people ask leaders to provide certainty. They cannot. In the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world certainty comes from character. Leaders can base their leadership on empathy, fairness, kindness and reciprocity. These basic human elements are under pressure. This book provides both emerging and established leaders with the ingredients they need to develop a sustainable leadership style.

David Ducheyne wrote this book as a source of inspiration for leaders who are looking for ways to maintain their leadership in VUCA times. It’s also a documented intention to try and do better. David has more than two decades of experience in leadership development in Alcatel, Ghent University, Henkel, Case New Holland and Securex. He is also a keynote speaker and an avid blogger, ready to share experience and ideas.

Original Title: Duurzaam leiderschap. Hoe leiden in een VUCA-wereld Translated by David Ducheyne, edited by Ellen Rogers

© 2017 die Keure Professional Publishing and David Ducheyne

Kleine Pathoekeweg 3 8000 Brugge

Belgium Tel.: (+32)050/47.12.72 Fax: (+32)050/33.51.54

[email protected] www.diekeure.be

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher and the author.

e-ISBN : 9782874034572 Order number: 208 171 200

© 2017, ebook version Primento and die Keure

Powered by Primento, the Digital Partner of Publishers