1. Steve Jobs,
Fatal Flaws
& Lessons
Learnt
1 /
Terry Reynolds
Who’d be a leader? All that pressure,
all that scrutiny; everyone wanting you
to be special – the sort who stands up
and stands out - and at the same time,
expecting you to be approachable,
accessible, kind-of ordinary.
So who’d be a leader? You probably.
Of course there are lots of routes into leadership
and there’ll always be some aspect of ‘right place,
right time’, but one way or another you became a
leader because of your strengths – one or more
competency spikes that set you apart, and moved
you above.
Of course, humanity suggests that tucked
underneath your strengths, lies something darker
and more dangerous. Let’s not call them faults,
they’re just foibles. Okay, let’s settle on flaws. This
is something I discussed recently with Jack Zenger
and Joe Folkman, whose firm Zenger Folkman has
done some great research into the importance of
building leadership strengths and how strengths
can be neutralised or negated by a ‘fatal flaw’.
To focus our attention we concentrated on the
powerful and poignant example of Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs was remarkable. He built, left and later
rebuilt an extraordinary business and revolutionised
not just his own computing industry, but the music
business, the film industry and its said that in the
last few months of his life, Jobs worked tirelessly
to ‘crack the TV code’, as hedescribed it to his
biographer, which suggest there’s at least one more
Jobs revolution to come.
Powerful as he was, Jobs also seemed every bit
the ‘everyman’, ambling on stage in turtleneck,
jeansand sneakers, who could - by swapping water
bottle for slide clicker - transform himself into the
world’s most powerful presenter. That was open
and accessible Jobs.
The clues to Jobs’ complexity are everywhere, but
I think it’s possible that no one suffered the effects
of his flaws more than he did. After all, the stress of
being subject to Jobs’ impatience and intolerance,
for example, was probably nothing compared to the
stress felt by Jobs himself.
It’s reminiscent of the film ‘Broadcast News’, where
a network news producer is rebuked by her boss.
“It must be nice”, he said sarcastically, “to always
believe you know better; to think you’re always
the smartest person in the room”. “No”, replied the
Producer, “It’s awful” Maybe Jobs’ special genius
was so extraordinary we just can’t judge him the
way we would anyone else.
Okay, let’s pause the Apple promo. So far in this
note, I’ve adopted the popular mythology about
Jobs, presenting him as agonising genius, ‘more
sinned against than sinning’, but is that
actually true?
I recently watched a documentary from the
mideighties, which focused on Jobs’ launch
of NeXT computers after leaving Apple. He
was painted as intensely impatient and hugely
controlling someone who needed others around
him, but was reluctant to give any of them any
credit.
Jobs was also delusional – at least on the face of it.
Throughout the recent biography the author refers
to Jobs’ ‘Reality Distortion Field’, which is a term
coined in science fiction, but something that was
part of Jobs’ everyday reality. As a matter of routine,
he would take something that was, and represent it
as he wanted it to be. But not in a good way.
For example, having argued fiercely for ‘A’ rather
than ‘B’, he might return the following day having
swapped position, claiming ‘B’ as his own idea.
Colleagues would be incredulous the first few
times, but would one-by-one come to realise that
with Steve Jobs this was just the way his world
worked.
But having shifted him towards the quaintly
eccentric it’s also important to note that he
was also patronising and abrupt, impatient and
intolerant, obstinate and obsessive. Not, it seems,
a particularly charming man to know, at least not if
you were someone who’d lost favour.
Jobs is a fascinating case study, but my interest in
describing any of this is to see what lessons there
might be for the rest of us, particularly regarding the
interplay between leadership capabilities and flaws.
Could he have been even more successful had he
worked on his faults, or were they an inherent part
of his approach – a key to his success – and so, in
that sense, not a faults after all?
Let’s put Jobs aside for a moment to ask how this
discussion might play for the rest of us. I think it’s
very interesting to consider the best leaders we’ve
known, and particularly ones we’ve experienced
personally and consider this ‘interplay’ between
their strengths and weaknesses. And whilst I’d
rather not detail the leaders from my own career
history (to protect the ‘innocent’) I’d strongly urge
you to try the exercise yourself, asking: how did the
leaders worst flaw support or distort their
capabilities as a leader?
And then, when you’ve had your say about
everyone else, I’d urge you to turn the lens on
yourself.
And if you accept the challenge, let me ask you
this: What three characteristics would you define
as primary strengths? And don’t agonise too much
about this, but do edit your shortlist until you’re
comfortable with your choices. Then draw a line
underneath and, beneath, note your primary flaw.
And since this is a private exercise, rather than a
job interview, try to be as honest with yourself
as possible.
The line drawn between the strengths and
weakness is important because it represents
not just graphical separation, but also a sort-of
mathematical division. And the point of the exercise
is to consider how precisely the weakness acts on
the strengths and to see if that creates any new
understanding, and particularly any emotional
connection with the prospect of addressing the flaw,
or building the strengths to an extent where the flaw
is diminished.
The power in the simple exercise lies in being
totally specific – in analysing how this strength
holds up against that flaw.
In looking at these issues, Zenger Folkman have
also assembled sets of ‘companion’ characteristics
that can help leaders build capabilities, and this is
something we’ll return to in a future note.
But as a final point, let’s return to Steve Jobs.
Whilst it’s easy to imagine how Jobs’ strengths and
weaknesses interacted day-to-day, it’s much harder
is to deduce how different things could have been.
And I can’t help thinking there’s something a bit
mealy-mouthed about looking at someone who
achieved so much, and considering that they could
have done so much more. How exactly?
But there is one aspect that, to me, validates this
discussion and the value in our own self-analysis.
Steve Jobs had a lifetime spent trusting his
instincts. He also had a lot of evidence to suggest
his instincts were pretty good. He had a fondness
for his ideas, amplified to the extent he believed
that he knew best, and so when all medical
advice suggested hitting his illness chemically hard
and clinically fast, Jobs instead experimented with
dietary alternatives. His authorised biography
suggest very strongly that this was his choice
alone.
Jobs’ self-styles infallibility proved literally his ‘fatal
flaw’. His example – in this and so many other very
positive ways – is a valuable lesson to us all.

2. There are some leaders who seem a
little wary of inspiration.
And it’s not that they don’t believe in it, or value it,
but it seems to weigh heavily as a responsibility. It’s
almost as if they are put off by the significance of
it all. After all, inspire literally means to ‘aerate’ or
‘breathe life into’ something.
But what happens if a leader falls short, what then?
Asphyxiation? Suffocation? I think some people
hadn’t imagined leadership to be quite such a
matter of life and death.
Thankfully some help is at hand.
Zenger Folkman have published some interesting
research into just how leaders inspire. Having
analysed their database of more than ten thousand
leaders it extracted those who were in the top ten
per cent in their capacity to ‘inspire and motivate
others’. And then, focusing in on this group,
they reviewed the comments written about their
leadership.
In reading the research, published as a simple
25-point list, I’ve identified certain sub-sets of
behaviours, which might be useful anyone wanting
to audit their own capacity to inspire.
Firstly, in broad strokes, it’s clear that some aspects
are about the leaders inner-self – their clarity of
purpose, for example, and the strength of their
values. These components were probably in place
before there was anyone for them to lead. And
then there are the gestures and actions of
leadership that inspire – either by personal
experience or through observation. And finally
there’s the broad-stroke capacity to set direction
and then steer.
In looking at the list in more detail, there are quite a
number of comments relating to the inspirational
‘energy’ of a leader. There’s value placed on the
capacity to generate enthusiasm - even excitement
- about major initiatives and there’s great value in
celebrating success. Also, from a personal point of
view, having worked with leaders for so long, it’s
not that they move more powerfully or more
quickly that others, it just seems that way. One
way or another, the quality of energy is what gives
the team the sense their leader is willing and able
to set the pace.
Of course, great leaders don’t only show outward
strength, but also inspire through what others
perceive as strength at their core. This showed
up in the Zenger Folkman research as a leader
following through on their commitments - in being
their word. They also inspire through their sense
of fair play – they don’t treat everyone equally
necessarily, but only because nor does everyone
perform equally well. Overall, the inspiring leader
has high standards and lives to them.
All that said, energy and integrity are only useful
if applied, and another grouping of behaviours
concerns the facility to provide well-reasoned
direction. So, the inspiring leader provides not just
the ‘what’ and the ‘where-to’ but the why. Also,
an inspiring leader is not inclined to sugar-coat,
instead being clear and matter-of-fact in their
communication - speaking to be understood rather
than to be liked. This builds trust because the
audience hears what is, rather than what might
hopefully be.
The research also highlights the importance of
focus, and the willingness to stick to task, and avoid
distractions and the sense that they remain in
charge at all times.
But as we all know, inspiration often comes
from something rather special, where a leader
is somehow able to bring out the best in their
teams – both those that report directly and the
wider business. And they are often individuals
who promote creative thinking – and who have a
sensitive approach to critiquing - and a willingness
to let individuals spread their wings, probably
because someone at some stage encouraged them
to do the same.
In growing in these areas – in terms of the power
and positivity of their energy, their focus, the clarity
of their communication and direction, their grasp of
the big picture and of the importance of the whole
team - leaders inspire and their stakeholders love
them for it.
So, having stepped through the research, I’m going
to end with a bit of instinct. Everything I’ve learned
in two decades in leadership and leadership
development leads me to believe the following:
I think inspiration is in the heart of the beholder.
This means that individuals will find their inspiration
in very different ways. Some of these will stem from
their learning styles. Individuals will also have their
own inspiring artefacts – things that just ‘get them’
where it matters. Most of these are much more
powerful than anything that can be summoned by
a leader – even on stage. The best we can do is
mimic the effect of those special things.
Even putting aside the literal meaning, about
breathing life into something, inspiration is
about enabling someone to make an emotional
connection, because – as we all know – once that
emotional connection is made, the memory will last,
so if it is a leader leading that process then they will
stay in the minds and hearts of their team members
even when the leader is not around. And that’s not
the science of mindset change, it’s just
human nature.
Of course, some leaders reading this will have little
to learn about inspiration, but for almost anyone it’s
useful to have a refresher, because we know the
power of inspiration to move people into action, and
how a lack of inspiration moves people nowhere.
One way or another inspiration is about emoting –
meaning attaching emotional significance to
something – giving power to something that might
otherwise seem inert.
Also, one way or another, your capacity to inspire
exists in your communication – your actions,
interactions and transactions. So in considering
bringing others to life, first think how your ideas can
be brought to life – made to seem more vivid, seem
more vibrant, and seem somehow more vital.
To quote an old adage from the entertainment
business: ‘if the audience doesn’t laugh, the joke
isn’t funny’. If they don’t get it, it’s because you’ve
not given it. If they’re not inspired, it’s because
you’re not inspiring. Yet.
But the good news for us all, is that this process
can be modelled, replicated, and rehearsed, even
by those who might more naturally shy away from
the limelight that leadership brings. And without
giving away secrets there are many many senior
leaders among our client businesses who have
sought help to hone the inspiring qualities that their
businesses expect. And, in this way, this ‘freedom
to inspire’ becomes just another area that can be
analysed and developed.
I have seen technical experts, with no inclination to
take the stage, grow into highly accomplished
speakers and – through this and other platforms –
become extraordinarily inspiring from what they
would concede was a very low starting point.
And I don’t note this to suggest it’s easy, but it is
absolutely possible. Moreover it’s boarder-line
essential if an individual has aspirations for senior
leadership. To the few who have it naturally,
you might count your blessings, and to the rest,
you might want to take a deep breath, because
someone’s waiting to be inspired – probably today,
probably tomorrow, and probably every day for the
rest of your career.
If that prospect troubles you at all, there are people
you can talk to. Some, like the coaches at RogenSi,
will even listen. As they say on some public service
broadcasts, ‘if you’ve been affected by any of the
issues raised, there’s a number you can call’.
In this case, ours.
Areyou
inspirational?
2 /
Terry Reynolds

3. Some years ago an electrical retailer
offered a large reward to anyone who
could devise a way to make sure
that customers would read product
instructions.
And the logic was obvious: if the business could
eliminate all of the costs of providing call centre
resource to give the basic instruction – “okay, so at
the end of that cable you should find ‘the plug …” –
it could afford to make very rich whoever made the
problem go away.
To my knowledge, the reward remains unclaimed.
In our business, our holy grail is to ensure that
everything transferred from trainer to course
delegates makes it back to the office and is
implemented - immediately and undiluted - just as
nature intended. It’s what trainers talk about late
into the night. Or at least, it’s something this trainer
talked about late into one particular night with Joe
Folkman of Zenger Folkman.
The problem is simple really, because no matter
how brilliant the training firm involved – and
modesty prevents me from naming any in particular
– there are times at the end of programmes, when
the last delegate has left the room, when you say
a silent prayer that all the brave souls – brimming
with bright new ideas – make it back to their desks
with their morale intact.
The risk, of course, is that ‘events’ will overtake
them; that on turning their phones back on they will
be sideswiped by news that, for now, the brave new
world will have to wait until a few fires have been
put out. It’s rather like the John Lennon lyric about
life being ‘something that happens when you’re
making other plans’.
Zenger Folkman’s research suggests that
successful implementation relies on four elements:
I = M x A x V x F, where:
I: Implementation – where intentions are fulfilled
M: Self-motivation of the participant
A: Accountability – on the part of one or more
members of the business to ensure that new
behaviours are implemented
V: Visibility about what actually happens when
people return to their day job
F: Follow-up tools that require delegates to keep
report on their progress
And it’s important to note that the four elements
Motivation, Accountability, Visibility and Follow-up
are multipliers, which means that if any of them are
missing then the implementation will be nil. Now, to
my mind, this might be stretching things a little, but
it reinforces the point that all of the elements are
essential.
Zenger Folkman research reveals that half of
the gains occur in implementation. And it makes
sense, after all, whatever is learned on a course
or programme remains inert if it stays in the
participarnts head – as a theory, rather than as a
new part of their daily practice.
But how can we help client businesses help
themselves. They appoint us with the very best
intent, but we see it as shared responsibility to
make the learning sticky, and stick.
Motivation – this is sometimes put entirely at the
feet of the participant – they just weren’t motivated.
But it’s not as simple as that. After all, sometimes,
even in very large and sophisticated businesses
delegates discover they’re attending a programme
with very short notice. In a sense they scarcely
have time to prepare and so have to summon their
motivation from a standing start. I think that it’s vital
to give motivation – explaining the specific benefits
to each individual. This allows them to make an
emotional connection with the development process
– to associate palpable gain from their attendance,
and a near-certain loss of ground if they don’t. And
we know this can work, because we’ve seen how
some long-standing – yes, older – team members
sometimes arrive highly motivated because they
have created very strong urge to keep pace with
new developments.
It doesn’t always happen, but the reason to note
that example is because it is not possible to
generalise, only to accept that each individual has
to create – or have help in creating – relevance and
meaning to them.
I think the second and third elements –
accountability and visibility - are tightly linked.
And again, both seem obvious but are regularly
overlooked. In simplest terms this is about having
aclear accountability for and visibility of what is
happens to support the implementation of the new
ideas. But whose responsibility is it?
Providing they are well briefed the trainer can do
their job well, but unless it hands over correctly all
of the learning could stay in the training room. The
participant has some responsibility of course – after
all they have the new something and, in theory, the
pitch upon which they can test the ideas. What’s
missing often is a recipient from the business
– their manager for example, who can share
responsibility that the participant’s work and/or
behavioural patterns are given opportunity to adapt
in line with the recommendations of the course.
But this is easier said than done, because as I said,
what actually happens is that the individual shifts
immediately into business as usual (BAU) mode. In
fact, worse than that, they are in BAU plus catchup,
which is the last place you’d ever test new ideas.
The risk, of course, is that once the fires are out,
the bright new ideas may have slightly lost
their shine.
In my view this doesn’t need to disrupt or distract
but it absolutely has to be there – there needs to be
some way in which whatever was learned will ––
feature in – ideally - the first day and certainly the
first week back.
What links everything together is a set of follow-up
tools, scheduled to make sure that new ideas are
assimilated. In describing this aspect, Joe Folkman
referred to the adage about ‘the best fertilizer is the
gardener’s shadow’. Now, there are many people in
this industry who’d use fertiliser metaphors at their
peril, but Joe’s reputation is untouchable. The point
is, the best way to keep the new ideas alive is to
keep them on-site for as long as possible which is
why we build this into every course we run.
To conclude, let’s not underestimate the
importance of this issue. Research by Zenger
Folkman colleague Dr Brent Peterson, suggests
that half of the gains from investment in Learning
& Development activities, come from follow-up
activities. And this seems common sense. But since
research also reveals that often as little as 5% of
the time, effort and attention focused on followup, it
seems like common sense that doesn’t quite make
it into common practice.
We spend a great deal of time looking at how our
courses run and how they could run better; how
ideas can be brought alive and how our team
understands and applies the very best ideas in
accelerated, multi-sensory, whole-brain learning,
BUT whatever the power of the course itself, even
vivid memories fade and so success relies not
just on what happens on the course but how the
process is followed-up.
Success relies on tightening the links between the
interest parties – the trainers, the delegates, their
managers and the host business – and making
clearer declaration about planned outcomes and
the processes that will make sure they happen. All
this said, for any customers experiencing difficulties
with any of these issues, we’re here to assist and
our help lines almost never close.
Common
Sense vs
Common
Practice
3 /
Terry Reynolds

4. Whoever we are and whatever we’ve
achieved, there are times when it’s
vital to take a moment and consider
the fundamentals.
It’s rather like the professional musician who will
take some time – perhaps quite a bit of time – out
of every day to practice their rudiments.
For a leader, there are few things as rudimentary as
the capacity to harness the emotion of the team,
because yes, you might lead because you can see
more clearly than the rest, and yes, you might drive
the business as powerfully as anyone could, but
you also lead because those around you look to
you to lead. And that wish to be led by you relies on
your capacity to create and maintain an emotional
connection between you, your ideas, and your
team.
This came up in a recent conversation with our
Partners at Zenger Folkman. Some time ago, they
used a statistical technique called ‘discriminative
analysis’ to distinguish certain categories of
behaviour by which leaders make an emotional
impact on their colleagues. As I said, this is pretty
fundamental stuff, but its also way of hooking
yourself up to a bit of diagnostic equipment and
seeing how your engine is running.
As with all of my articles the intention is that you’ll
read it fast but that it will launch a lengthier
personal enquiry of your own, once the reading
is done. Lastly, before we move onto the list,
it’s important to note that none of the category
headings emerged as more important than the
others, and most highly effective – emotionally
intelligent and connected – leaders are likely to
have what the sports coaches refer to as ‘strength
in depth’, meaning aptitude across all of the
categories.
ENTHUSIAST / It’s interested that right from the
start my instinct is to ‘inoculate’ against the readers’
scepticism, because I know that to some senior
leaders, the idea of enthusiasm might seem a
luxury. Maybe things seem a bit too serious to be
enthusiastic, but to me the terms needn’t imply any
sense of wide-eyed optimism and certainly no hint
of naivety. The truth is, businesses look to their
leaders to encapsulate and communicate positivity
about a company purpose, its direction, its
products and its services. And as we see all the
time in well-led businesses it is entirely possible
to be completely sanguine about the weakness
of a market whilst at the same time being entirely
positive about the strategy the firm is taking.
Also, importantly, genuine enthusiasm is actually
difficult to fake. On the one had we’ve all seen
someone trying so hard to show enthusiasm that
they seem just too caffeinated for their own good.
But at the same time most of us will also have seen
someone announce how ‘excited’ they feel without
ever passing the message to their face.
VISIONARY / Being a visionary is one thing but the
greater power comes from leveraging this through
others. This relies on the capacity to bring the
vision alive – making it vivid and vibrant. One way
or another the audience needs to be able to
appreciate the idea as if it already exists, because
that way they can share a leader’s sense that the
development is inevitable. Visionary leaders also
knit their visions together, so to speak, rather like a
panoramic photo that spreads across the horizon
line and taking in several different landmarks. All
this vision contributes to the meaning the team
attributes to you and your ideas.
INVOLVER / Part of what has people join
businesses is their wish to belong and so it’s a
powerful part of a leader’s emotional armoury
to be able to draw everyone towards every new
initiative. And it’s not necessarily that everyone will
be directly involved, but it contributes to the sense
that ‘the whole business is behind us’, in everything
you do. This type of leadership also has individuals
keeping careful track of parochial issues – whatever
is going on for individuals in their ‘real lives’. And
whether or not the leader does this themselves,
or just makes sure it is done, it gives everyone a
sense that they are considered, connected and
involved.
EXPERT / Leaders’ unique expertise is an
interesting one, because those who are the very
best at this play a very skilful hand. The fact is,
the more senior a leader gets, and the larger their
portfolio, the less possible it becomes for them to
know everything. But what the very best do is to set
up a network of supporting experts that, together,
have everything covered. But what they also do
is look for opportunities to show their prowess in
some particular area. So, for example, a leader
who has
long-since moved from sales into management but
who is still able to close a sale like no one else, or
whose presence in any meeting always changes
everything.
PRINCIPLED / To me, the point about standing for
something is that you don’t really have to declare
what you stand for. Real values are self-evident,
because real values are what come through in
everything you do. You are, in effect, the quality of
your actions.
DRIVER / Lastly, this is the energy to move
everything further and faster than anyone else
could – holding everyone, themselves included,
absolutely to account. Never giving an inch, but
gratefully taking every yard.
So, to wrap this up: When Joe Zenger took me
through the model, what particularly struck me
was how utterly logical it is, and whilst there is no
hierarchy of importance exactly, there is a logical
chronology, which makes the model easier to recall,
and hopefully more easy for you to apply.
For me it works this way: And for the purposes of
this summary, imagine a leader walking out onto
stage, with just a few moments to engage and then
a relatively short time to inspire. As they come into
view we will immediately judge their energy, their
presence. And whether we judge it correctly or not
– meaning whether or not they feel exactly the way
they look – the leader is responsible for the
impression he/she creates and so needs to make
absolutely sure, prior to going on stage that their
energy and ENTHUSIASM is set at the right level.
So, the next point is VISION. Here again, imagine
the leader on stage. Whatever the purpose of the
conference or the title of the leader’s speech, the
subtitle of every leader’s speech is ‘Here’s how I
see it …”, because that’s always what the team
needs to know. They want to know the way you
see it, they also want to be sure that YOU know
clearly what you see.
And thirdly, having shared your vision, you need to
wrap your arms around the audience and let them
understand how you are the INVOLVER they will be
involved. And carry on explaining how they’ll be
involved right up to the point at which they will feel
involved.
So, as a quick recap, there’s your general
demeanour, then your vision, then your involvement
of the team. Then, in order to cement all of this,
you need to remind them of your credibility as an
EXPERT in all of this. Through some flourish of
expertise, they will be reminded of your strength
and expertise.
Coupled with this is the need to root the plans
in your PRINCIPLED leadership and the agreed
principles of the business, as if whatever is being
introduced is self-evidently part of the natural order.
And lastly of course, having created the connection
and given them the materials you need to give them
a none-too gentle DRIVE off back into the business,
with sense of purpose but also sense of energy and
urgency.
Whether or not the week ahead will see us (literally)
on stage, we’re nevertheless on show, so we
should do everything we can to make sure that –
emotionally – we’re on top form. So – question - are
you ready?
Leadership
Warrant
of Fitness
4 /
Terry Reynolds

5. Let me ask you a question:
How would you rate your business
confidence, right now?
Let’s say on a scale of one to ten, where ten
is ‘supremely confident’, and one is quite the
opposite?
And now let me hazard a guess.
The fact is, unless you’re in something counter
cyclical– like insolvency law – the chances are
you’re navigating this market with the same caution
we are. For most of us, everything has changed
and a lot about leadership has to change with it.
I heard this described recently by a banking COO in
a speech to conference. The point he made was
that it was in these testing times that great leaders
will emerge, because whilst it’s quite straightforward
to lead when times are good – when troops are
buoyed by flag waving by the flow of good news
and good bonuses – things are very different now.
And as this COO put it, ‘some of the flag wavers
are going to have to shape up or ship out’.
This is something I’ve also discussed recently with
Jack Zenger and Joe Folkman, our colleagues at
Zenger Folkman. Our shared interest is in
determining the best way for leaders to focus
their attention at the moment - to maintain the
confidence and commitment of their teams.
In researching this area, Zenger Folkman gathered
data from almost 100,000 direct reports, in
businesses spread across the economy, with
each respondent rating the effectiveness of their
immediate manager and the level of satisfaction
and commitment they felt towards their employer
business.
In broad strokes, the research confirmed a clear
correlation between the presence in an effective
leader and satisfaction and commitment felt
towards the business. But usefully, what the
research also revealed was that, whilst improving
any leadership behaviour will be of value, nine, in
particular, are more valuable that the others.
And whilst most are precisely what you’d expect, it
still represents a valuable checklist.
The first characteristic is the facility to INSPIRE
AND MOTIVATE. This gives direct reports their
working ‘reason to be’ – the regular reminder of
‘what all this is for’, when the daily battles can leave
people wondering. The research shows clearly that
when leaders give particular attention to how they
inspire and motivate and how often, this unlocks
new levels of effort and energy in colleagues. And
clearly, right now, extra effort and energy could
make the difference between failure and success.
The second characteristic - DRIVE FOR RESULTS
– is closely connected with the first, and it’s the
right balance of the two that creates the best result
of all, because whilst all push (drive) with no pull
(inspiration) works no better than all pull and no
push. Leaders able to drive hard and fast for
results shift focus from anxiety about the market, to
achievement of the target and the progress towards
it.
The third characteristic - STRATEGIC
PERSPECTIVE - gives further support to the sense
of these all being interlinked strengths, because
neither push nor pull has much value without
strategy. And something we’re seeing very clearly
in our client businesses is that when markets are
tough, businesses make gains at the margins, and
that relies on leaders having an acute sense of
where those margins are. Also, when a leader’s
‘strategic dexterity’ is strongly evident, it builds
credibility in the market, and confidence in the
business.
Fourth is COLLABORATION, which in this context
relates to individuals’ and teams’ willingness to join
forces with colleagues for the common good. Of
course, what often happens is that rather than
collaborate effectively groups isolate themselves
for fear of losing resources or recognition. Leaders
who promote cooperation and collaboration create
a positive and productive atmosphere and where
everyone achieves a whole lot more.
The fifth behavior is about having honesty and
integrity – what Zenger Folkman describe as
WALKING THE TALK. Leaders that do will become
role models and those that don’t will lose the
respect of those around them. Usefully, this is one
of the easiest characteristics to test, by asking
yourself, ‘do I expect them to do as I do, or only as
I say?’
You could argue that the sixth characteristic is one
of the payoffs of the fifth. Leaders with integrity -
who ‘walk their talk’ - build TRUST. But leaders also
build trust through their consistent competence in
particular areas – both what they say and what they
do. This absolute reliability from a leader creates
trust and loyalty from their team.
The seventh area covers how a leader DEVELOPS
AND SUPPORTS OTHERS. Clearly this gives the
sense of a leader’s interest in their colleagues’
futures as well as how they can contribute
productively in the present. And whilst there are
some leaders who are wary of the next generation
for fear that they will overtake them, powerful and
forward-thinking leaders acknowledge this as a
reality rather than as a threat, and recognize the
need to develop and deploy future leaders skillfully
to maintains its interest in the firm and its reputation
as somewhere that values talent.
Eighth is BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS, which
concerns the leader’s capacity to focus on
connectivity as well as productivity. This means that
whilst the leader is focused on achieving results,
these will not be to the cost of relationships – in
the business and among its trusted suppliers.
At best, leaders with this strength seem, rather
than ‘balancing’ the needs of individuals versus
the business, instead value them as similarly vital
components of the whole.
Lastly, and of particular relevance in the current
market, leaders with the highest levels of employee
satisfaction and commitment display COURAGE.
So, rather than trying to avoid conflicts, they face
issues directly and individuals candidly. Everyone
is held accountable – the leader, themselves,
particularly.
So, listing them once more, create a mental tick box
against each one:
Inspire and Motivate
Drive for Results
Strategic Perspective
Collaboration
Walking the talk
Trust
Develops and supports others
Building Relationships
Courage
As I said, these nine behaviors have a significant
impact on the commitment and satisfaction of
employees. On reading the list, you’ll probably have
identified with some aspects more than others. And
also perhaps one or two you might acknowledge,
privately, as an area for improvement. And as much
as my instincts tend to lead me to ‘accentuate the
positive’, in this case I’d suggest you focus first on
any weakness. The reason for this is that Zenger
Folkman research indicated that a weakness in any
of the areas described above would dramatically
reduce a leaders satisfaction / commitment scores
from their direct reports. So, this is the place to
start.
The research that indicated that the leaders that get
the very best scores for satisfaction / commitment
have strength across four or five or even more
of the areas. So, once you’ve considered any
weakness in the areas described, or are tacking
you can look at the characteristics and see how you
might develop strength across a number of them.
Lastly, on a brief personal note, I found this a really
valuable exercise and recommend it highly.
100,000
Opinions
of Your
Leadership
5 /
Terry Reynolds

6. I’ve been at rogenSi for more than a
decade now, but I can still recall my
first days in past roles in other
organisations.
Each would begin in a very similar way, with some
sort of induction – over a week or a day or a
brisk half-hour – accompanied by a large pack of
paperwork: the ‘who does what’ and the ‘where to
go in the event of a fire’. And somewhere, probably
right at the front, there would always be the ‘org
chart’ – a diagram of names and titles to see me
through until I’d bee there long enough to discover
for myself how it really worked and who was really
in charge.
And there’s the point: In many organisations I’ve
known there are individuals who lack titles but who
nevertheless weald enormous power and others
whose titles imply great things but whose day-today
activities produce somewhat less.
The fact is, in any mature business, formal
structures are just one way of plotting the
distribution of power. And this is something I
discussed recently with Joe Folkman of Zenger
Folkman, with reference to research by Dalton &
Thompson, whose work has sought to codify how
individuals sometimes grow in influence without
necessarily climbing the corporate ladder.
To begin this discussion, I’ll restate what Joe
Folkman has referred to as the ‘position and
contribution paradox’:
Organisations’ formal and informal structures are
rarely the same.
Organisations function best when the contribution
of each individual exceeds or is at least equivalent
to their formal position.
Organisations suffer when an individual’s
contribution falls short of what is expected for a
person in that position. This is especially harmful
when that person has a senior role.
An individual’s contribution to the organizationis not
limited by the position they hold in the hierarchy.
These factors impact both at an organisational and
at a personal level, because an organisation sets
both internal and external expectations based on
the function that individuals perform and the titles
that they hold. For example, in a public context,
you might gain a strong impression – positive or
negative – on meeting a highly capable junior
leader or someone very senior who seemed
lacklustre.
Research by Dalton & Thompson sheds some light
on this issue and has analysed the fact that along
with the corporate ladder – based on formal
hierarchy - there is another progression taking
place. This informal ‘subtextual’ structure describes
the advancement through four phases:
Apprentice / the young or recent hire
Professional / the ‘journey-man/woman’
Mentor / coach, idea generator
Visionary / pathfinder, sponsor, strategist
Clearly as an APPRENTICE, the individuals
responsibility is to watch, learn, and contribute on
mostly routine, often detailed work under careful
supervision. They’ll be on a steep learning curve
and will have one or more senior colleagues
monitoring their climb and ready to catch them if
they fall.
The PROFESSIONAL is sufficiently experienced
and confident to be able to take responsibility
and contribute consistently good quality, often
collaborative work, with only minimal direction. On
the downside, or at least at the risk of diminishing
contribution, it’s possible for this level 2 performer
to settle into the functional aspects of the role and
scarcely look beyond the edge of their desk.
The MENTOR is someone who contributes beyond
themselves and their direct responsibilities. They
often volunteer support to others in their
development. This can extend to include individuals
at a more senior level. These individuals are
sometimes invited to join think tanks or planning
initiatives because of their understanding of the
business and their connectivity beyond their
immediate team.
And finally, a small percentage of individuals will
contribute at the level of VISIONARY, who will not
only identify and help define strategy but will bring
it alive for colleagues. And, again, while they’re not
necessarily the most senior, they somehow stand
tall in the organisation and represent the values of
the business.
This 4-phase model helps to explain how certain
individuals can have personal rather than positional
power. And I think its value lies in the way it could
particularly help less experienced colleagues to
understand the ‘truth’ about how the business
really works and how career enhancement actually
happens. It will allow them to lose the sense that
career development is just about linear progression
through a series of titles.
And personally, I’ve found it a very fast way to
consider the power at play within a team or a
business. For example, I noticed that those who
have risen quickly in organisations and have
established strong, long lasting positions of
authority have often exhibited stage 3 – mentoring
– skills even during their time as an Apprentice.
Another way of viewing this is to consider that if you
wish to create more powerful - Phase 3-4 - leaders
for the future, then it is worth considering how to
build-in coaching skills early on, whether or not
they can apply them widely with their own team of
reports.
On reading the research, it occurred to me that in
becoming aware of this four-phase model, and by
considering how it plays out in a particular
business, you could also apply it to succession
plans. And whilst movement from Apprentice
to Professional is often just a matter of building
experience, the movement into phases 3 and 4 are
more about broadening understanding and honing
instincts.
Stage 3 Mentors often can’t resist the urge to
support others and so are likely to self-select, to
some extent, but their power is such that every
business would benefit from having more.
To give just one example, a mid- to senior-level
Banker I’ve worked with, has a huge network of
individuals whose careers he’s helped to shape.
But far from taking him away from his day-job he
just built the informal support of these individuals
into his routine and found that the odd word, the
occasional email check-in was enough to keep his
mentoring influence alive for his colleagues. And
this is the key point here: the mentor’s actions have
a multiplying effect, because their mentees work in
influenced by the Mentor’s experience and so,
together they create a larger amount of higher
quality work.
It’s simple but it’s very powerful.
The emergence of Visionaries works in a slightly
different way. The term Visionary is just a metaphor.
Phase 4 professional don’t actually see more
clearly, their skill is to predict more accurately. And
mostly that facility comes from gaining a broader
and deeper understanding of issues and the skill in
communicating clearly.
To bring this to a close, I think the research and
analysis by Dalton & Thompson provides an
interesting way to take a fresh look at a business
and it’s centre(s) of gravity, and I’d urge you to take
a few minutes sometime, to give your org chart a
reality check, noting where individuals contribute
ABOVE/AT/BELOW the promise of their title.
But one last thing: this might be a fascinating
discussion to have with colleagues, but timing is
everything, and until you’re ready to explain exactly
what it all means, it might be best to keep this
annotated org chart for your eyes only.
Apprentice,
Professional,
Mentor,
Visionary.
6 /
Terry Reynolds