Leadership. While everyone has a different definition of what leadership is, how one achieves it, and what it does, it might be much simpler than that. You know it when it is there, and when it is not there. From the perspective of the choices we have in the agreements we either unconsciously accept or consciously choose, what does leadership look like? Can this picture help us see how we ended up with the leadership examples we have today? Can it help us see where we could be? Let’s see.
To lead is to get someone to go with you. This is an agreement, an interaction between two or more people. In an interaction, there is a future possibility–a desired state–a pathway towards that desired state, and an outcome. Elsewhere I refer to these as the three levels of perceived reality. We can look at this interaction through four lenses, big questions that millions of people dedicate their whole careers to: how much resource is available in the interaction; who decides and who enforces; what values are used to decide; and what are the principles of the interaction, the rules of the road?
Where are we today with most leadership? We can take the three levels of perceived reality (possibility, pathway, outcome) and the four lenses (how much, who decides, what values, what rules) and see how simplifying assumptions give us much of what we experience in leadership today. Let’s start with what we can see from the three levels of perceived reality.
- Most leaders focus primarily on outcomes. What did you do today? Did you get the desired results? Leaders like this are typically given authority to represent the whole group, of whatever size, and they are held responsible for the outcomes. Get the results however you need to. Do what I say. No potentials or learning here.
- Many leaders have begun to focus on the outcomes and the pathway to them. How can we learn and adapt to get the best outcomes, given the changing landscape? These leaders try to bring out the best of the people and processes they have, learning over the time and space available and developing capacities with the whole and for the whole. They try to increase the efficiency with which the work is done. No potentials here.
- A few leaders focus on the outcomes, the pathways to them, and the potential. What can we see that is possible, what pathways can get us there, and what feedback do we get from the outcomes along the way? These leaders bring people together to see new possibilities, sets of relationships to achieve them, and then focus on what feedback they can get from intermediate outcomes, so that they can adjust the possibilities they see and the pathways they use along the way.
This simple formulation shows us that as we begin to subtract levels of perceived reality from our leadership model, we move from potential, pathways, and outcomes to pathways and outcomes, to outcomes, losing the capacity to choose how we adapt to what we have learned about ways to manifest, to make tangible the possibilities we saw. When we focus only on outcomes, we lose access to possibilities and to learning. While many say that they don’t have time for anything other than making sure they get the results–we don’t have time for seeing possibilities and learning–good engineering practice shows that these people spend most of their time correcting for easily avoidable mistakes, and they greatly increase the risk of becoming obsolete. Learning and adapting does not have to take much more time, and it helps avoid extraordinary wastes of time in correcting mistakes late in the game.
Now let’s see what happens when leadership uses only one of the four lenses.
- Some leaders focus primarily on the economics of how much resource is available. How much do we have, how much do we need, how much do we generate? What is the net result? How do I control more of the resources?
- Some leaders focus principally on the politics of who decides and who enforces. Who has the right to make what decisions in the hierarchy? Who enforces them? What power do the decision makers and enforcers have? How do I get more of that power?
- Some leaders focus on the cultural values used to decide. What do we most care about? How deeply do people live into these principles? Do the people clearly understand and live by these principles? What culture do I think we need?
- Some leaders focus on the social rules of the game. What are the rules? Does everyone know them and obey them? How can I work the rules of the game to my benefit?
This simple formulation shows us that we can easily focus our leadership on the economic, political, cultural, or social forms within our interactions. And that we do this at great risk, losing the value of the other perspectives. With any one lens, we easily go astray. We try to get power through resources. We try to get resources through values. We try to set the rules through power. We try to set the values through the resources we control.
Does this mean that we are doomed as society with leadership that tends to focus on the outcomes level of perceived reality and only through one of the four lenses? Maybe. And, we see that are many examples of leaders who are beginning to do something that is actually easier to do and gets much better results. They are starting with the assumption that they are leading with other people who actually care and have something to contribute. From this perspective, they co-host people coming together to look for the possibilities they can see from the richness of perspectives they each bring, finding pathways they can use together to manifest those shared possibilities, and then see what they learn from the feedback they receive in the outcomes they achieve. What happened? What did we learn? How can we adapt what we initially saw, given what we learned in the process? These leaders also use all four lenses, at the same time, to ask one question, using the four lenses to see the subtleties:
- how do we manifest the possibilities we see, with the resources we have and can develop in our potential and in our learning,
- each making decisions for ourselves, for each other, for the group, and for the process, as is appropriate along the way,
- with a deeper shared purpose and a set of values for those decisions that bring out the best we have to offer, in our potential, in our learning, and in our outcomes,
- collaborating towards this shared purpose, uniting our best contributions, potentials, and learning.
This is not more nuanced than any other form of leadership. All leadership forms take great energy and lots of resources. Some just achieve far less impact, far less engagement, and far less resilience than others. And it does not need to be that way, as leadership is more natural to human beings when it acknowledges possibilities, development, and outcomes, as seen in what resources are available, who decides and enforces, with what values and what principles of interaction, all at the same time. It is not harder, it is built into who we are as human beings, if we can only see it and choose it.