Neurobiology gover ns be hav i our .

Decisions impact neurobiology.

Who will make the key decisions?  
Responsible Leadership
in the 21st Century 
 
Derived from a global survey of business leaders, the
data reveals their perceived and predicted behavioural
patterns and provides multi-level information in 3
perspectives that correlate with the components of the
brain: Mindset, Attitude and Personality. The report
confirms that Leaders and Leadership Styles have
progressively and significantly changed since 1970. To
achieve sustainable business growth in a global
economy, business leaders will have to adopt a
“Values Governed” (VG) style to replace the now
discredited “Beliefs Directed” styles (BD) that caused
the global financial meltdown. The VG style generates
a framework for sustainable business growth. The BD
style enticed both investment bankers and politicians to
gamble with prosperity and they lost. The VG style
provides a platform on which business leaders can and
will develop a set of 6 cohesive and concurrent
strategies to deliver sustainable prosperity, freedom
and social justice expected in the 21st century.

Authors: Ram Raghvan & John Battye

 
 

Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK)Ltd 2009 (All rights reserved including translation)
 Table of contents

RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP ........................................................................................ 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 3
BACKGROUND................................................................................................................ 4
FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................. 5
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 6
FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 6
FINDINGS – CONTINUED: .............................................................................................. 7
FINDINGS - CONTINUED ................................................................................................ 8
ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 9
ANALYSIS - CONTINUED ............................................................................................. 10
OUT OF THE ASHES – PHOENIX OR PARAGON OR PARADIGM? .......................... 11
OUT OF THE ASHES? – CONTINUED ......................................................................... 12
PHOENIX OR PARAGON OR PARADIGM? ................................................................. 13
STRUCTURE OR STRATEGY OR SYNERGY? ............................................................ 13
CHARACTERISTICS OF VALUES GOVERNED (VG) LEADERS ................................ 14
CHARACTERISTICS OF VALUES GOVERNED (VG) LEADERS - CONTINUED ........ 15
KEY POINTS THAT UNDERPIN OUR CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 16
WHAT DO “VALUES GOVERNED” (VG) LEADERS DO DIFFERENTLY?.................. 17
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 18

2
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
Executive summary
Research and commentators identified IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP as the root cause of the global
financial meltdown. To most commentators, greed and a lack of understanding triggered the collapse.
We asked a different question. We wanted to find out why so many intelligent people followed the herd
instinct. Our previous research had identified different manifestations of TOXIC LEADERSHIP defined as
“any form of bullying or manipulation that causes stress in a subordinate or colleague”. We noted that the
press labelled bad debts and worthless securities as “toxic debts” or “toxic assets”. How could anyone
link the word toxic (i.e. poisonous) with asset (i.e. advantage)? Our research suggests that many
intelligent people don’t think straight or logically anymore. We have created a new label for straight
thinking that leads to RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP. We call it “Values Governed” (VG) leadership. We
use the term to differentiate it from 2 prevalent styles of leadership in our societies namely “beliefs
directed” (BD) leadership and “feelings driven” (FD) leadership.

Beliefs directed leadership is rationality gone awry. It works on a self-regulating premise: “unless there is
tangible evidence that disproves something, I can accept it as true”. On first hearing, the premise sounds
reasonable, but “look beneath the surface” at the consequences and you will probably recoil in horror.
One example: the 2 guys deemed to have “dreamed up” the idea of sub-prime believed that what they
had “figured out” (their term) was the perfect security. Their “approach” transformed “lead into gold” –
sub-prime into triple AAA debt. When we read it, in these terms, we are aghast that highly intelligent
“bankers” missed it. The truth is different. Many (back office) banking professionals did NOT miss the
significance. They reported it to their superiors and they were told very firmly to shut up, resign or take
early retirement. Notice the emergence of Toxic Leadership.

Our study set out to identify and understand which combinations (or cluster) of behaviours manifested
which leadership styles. We used a model based on the neurological basis of behaviour to collect and
analyse data. The framework of the model enables profilers and profilees to understand behaviour from
both a perceived (self perception) and a predicted (what others think) perspective.

The study revealed that 85% of leaders believe they have a different leadership to the style revealed in
the study. Most of the 85% believed that they were either pacesetters or achievement-oriented. Few
would have believed that the majority of their subordinates would perceive then as “autocratic” leaders –
bullying their staff to produce the required results. In neurological terms, most of the 85% would be
categorised as front-brainers (pacesetters) or left-brainers (achievers). Put the 2 styles together – front
left brainers – and, bingo, they become autocratic. The key point to note is that no individual can actually
“look beneath the surface” at their own behaviour patterns. Thus, the leaders perceived themselves as
“pacesetters” or “achievers”. Nearly all of them had behaviour patterns where these 2 styles were
significant (i.e. they appeared in the top 3 out of 9 styles). The consequence is that most of them remain
unaware that their style has a toxic effect on other people and on their performance.

The results suggest that, on the surface, genetics have less influence on the leadership style and that
circumstances and events have more influence when the “beliefs directed” thinking style prevails. Less
than 15% of the leaders were, in practice, “values governed”. The consistency between self-perception
and predicted was significantly higher for the 15%. The report also presents facts on why models using a
brain-based epistemology and a quasi-neurological framework provide significantly more insightful
behavioural profiles. In short, what can look “great” on the outside has serious flaws on the inside.

The characteristics of 4 toxic leadership styles and 5 non-toxic leadership styles are stated to enable the
readers to understand the behavioural configuration of “Value Governed” leaders. Perhaps more than
anything else, in light of the global financial meltdown, the data indicates the need to get “congruent
values” back in the boardrooms. We noted that, on the surface, a majority of leaders rated themselves
high in terms of strategic thinking. The results suggest that most of them manifest a dynamic, proactive
and assertive style that prompts them to make expedient decisions rather than strategic decisions. We
suspect that many modern leaders have non-consciously succumbed to a “quasi-beliefs directed”
mindset, believing it to be values based and strategic. In support of our claim, we have noted that, since
1970, a massive majority of the influential Business Gurus have emphasised the notion of leadership and
downgraded the benefits of management, in particular execution capability and accountability.

3
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Background
Any analysis of the causes of the economic debacle that resulted in the global financial crisis identifies
ONE clear and supreme cause namely: IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP. Numerous leaders in different
financial institutions became beguiled and enthralled by blinkered opportunism that relegated prudent risk
management. In “market terms” they chased after short-term gains and received long-term pain. In
“behavioural terms” they allowed their emotional “desires” (e.g. avarice and ego) to over-rule their rational
“values”. Even now, many remain “in denial” saying that it was “unavoidable” since “everybody was
doing it”. Such remarks reinforce the real cause: IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP.

The problems faced by financial giants such as Lloyds or AIG have, in the main, been the result of a
concatenation of irresponsible decisions driven by a combination of short-term gain or incorrect or false
beliefs about the viability of a product or a process. The key word in the previous sentence is “beliefs”. In
this paper, we shall endeavour to show that a “beliefs-directed” mindset or a “feelings-driven” mindset
inevitably and ineluctably results in problems.

As Santayana said, “History teaches only ONE fundamental truth: those who CANNOT remember the
past - or those who WILL NOT learn from the past - are condemned to repeat the errors of the past.”

More colloquially: “If you do what you’ve always done, you’re sure to get what you got in the past.”

The “collapse” prompts the need to ask 3 penetrating and embarrassing questions:
• Can the root causes be identified?
V A L U E S • Could it have been avoided?
GOVERNED • Who should be held accountable?
LEADERSHIP

A SYNERGIC
There are 3 even more important questions:
ROUTE TO • WHAT steps can be taken to ensure that a similar situation will not happen again?
PROSPERITY • HOW can we ensure that we don’t get caught up in or caught out by any frenzied “gold-rush”?
• WHEN will we demand that individuals who aspire for the rewards of leadership in government
and / or global financial institutions are held accountable for any and all irresponsible decisions?

How do we discriminate between “responsible decision making” & “irresponsible decision making”?
Step no. 01: Any “Values governed” behaviour is deemed “responsible behaviour”.
Step no. 02: Any “Beliefs directed” behaviour and / or “feelings driven” behaviour (that materially affects
the welfare of any other people) is deemed “irresponsible behaviour”
Step no. 03: All public institutions MUST formally state and publish their Table of Values.
Step no. 04: Responsible leadership operates in accord with the prescribed Values & Strategies.
Step no. 05: Irresponsible leaders to be held accountable and proscribed as appropriate.

With regard to the questions we pose, we offer very brief answers.

Can the root causes be identified? YES

• Irresponsible Leadership allowed GREED to GOVERN and AVARICE to ACTIVATE.
• When selfishness enters through the back door, selflessness leaves through the front door.
• The leaders did NOT act as “faithful stewards” - they acted with unbridled “self-interest”.
• The old adage still applies: The LOVE of (i.e. desire for) money is the root of all evil.

Could it have been avoided? YES

• RESPONSIBLE and WISE Leadership would have vetoed “greedy expediency” at the outset.
• When accountability enters through the front door, irresponsibility leaves through the back door.
• Reward leaders who act as “faithful stewards” - broadcast and reprove unbridled “self-interest”.
• Another adage still applies: Do unto OTHERS what you would desire they do unto YOU.

Who should be held accountable? Government Ministers & Boards of Directors of Public Companies.

Please note that we are NOT advocating religion, we are advocating truth and practical common sense. If
we allow people in high office to behave irresponsibly and selfishly, we shall suffer the consequences.
We have a choice. Either we demand that leadership entails justice, truth and compassion or we don’t.
Decisions have consequences. Decisions affecting the welfare of others demand proper accountability.
Compromise is NOT an option. We are dealing with a deadly toxic virus. We have a choice to make.
Either we take steps (individually and collectively) to kill the toxic virus or we sanction it to kill all of us.

Proposition: Values Governed Leadership – the synergic route to sustainable business growth.

We shall use the data collected to reveal the limited use and application of Values based Leadership.

4
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Framework
The study looks at behaviour from a neurological perspective, mapping individual
behaviour from 3 views that correspond to 3 domains namely: Mindset, Attitude and
Personality. (Figure 1)

The 3 different views or dimensions provide a “viewer” with both a clearer and more
complete representation than a single personality perspective.

A Behavioural CUBE Model provides the 3 interacting domains (as shown).

The CUBE framework enables:

Figure 1
• each participant’s responses to be mapped and understood
• each participant’s leadership styles can be identified.
What is the The 3 dimensional CUBE structure facilitates both “perceived” and “predicted” responses.
INSPIRATION • Perceived = How participants see themselves based on their surface level perceptions.
f o r t h e
• Predicted = How others are likely to perceive them based on the deep level correlations.
Behavioural
CUBE Model
a n d t h e
TERNARY The MINDSET (M) domain indicates:
(3 x 3 x 3) • The way a human BRAIN categorises data.
framework? • How individuals perceive the external environment.
The BRAIN The CUBE framework (Figure 2) “frames” this domain into 3 categories (or slices) labelled:
Success, Growth & Happiness.
Based on the structure of the brain, the 3 categorisations correlate with the LEFT
hemisphere, the Corpus Callosum and the RIGHT hemisphere. Figure 2

• LEFT brain: functional & operational faculties necessary for application & success
• BRIDGE (CC): inter-hemispheric connections necessary for understanding & growth
• RIGHT brain: relational & ideational faculties necessary for engagement & happiness

The ATTITUDE (A) domain indicates:

• how a human BRAIN differentiates the 3 motivational attitudes:
• “in pursuit of pleasure” or “aimed at a purpose” or “avoiding pain”.

The CUBE framework (Figure 2) “frames” this domain into 3 attitudes (or panels) labelled:
Pursuance, Fruitfulness & Avoidance.
Based on the structure of the brain, the 3 attitudes correlate with the FOREBRAIN (frontal lobes), the
MIDDLE panel (parietal lobes) & the HINDBRAIN (occipital lobes).

• FRONT brain: exciter & stimulation functions trigger pleasure seeking & risk PURSUANCE
• MID brain: aspiration & purpose functions trigger goal setting responses & FRUITFULNESS
• BACK brain: inhibiter & restraint functions trigger pain avoidance & risk AVOIDANCE

The PERSONALITY (P) domain indicates:

• the way a human BRAIN processes data and information internally
• how individuals think, feel and evaluate 'events' and 'things'.

The CUBE framework (Figure 2) “frames” this domain into 3 processing regions (or layers) labelled:
Reason, Volition & Emotion.
Based on the structure of the brain, the 3 regions correlate with the UPPER (rational) cortical region, the
CORE (volitional) thalamus region and the LOWER (emotional) limbic region and (instinctive) brain stem:

• UPPER brain: cerebral and cortical functions that manifest as RATIONAL BELIEFS
• NEXUS (core): VOLITIONAL functions that transform VALUES into discriminations & decisions
• LOWER brain: visceral and limbic functions that manifest as EMOTION feelings & gut instincts

5
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Methodology
Leaders at Chairman, CEO and Board level were identified as the target population. In addition, leaders
who had exposure to corporate governance practices were also included. To obtain an unbiased picture
the sample had to include senior personnel operating in different industries / sectors. For this phase of
the research sample identification was restricted solely to “Linked in”.

Sample profiles were identified from a search of key words such as CEO, Chairman, Director, President
and similar titles. This process generated close to 1200 samples. They were then set in groups,
according to industries and sectors in which they operate. Further regroupings refined the sample
populations geographically (specifically US, UK and India).

At the end of this process 300 samples were identified and the invitations sent to complete the exercise.
116 responses were received. Out of these 116 responses, 8 were discarded for reasons of internal
inconsistency. Rigorous statistical analysis of the remaining 108 valid samples provided the data for the
conclusions of the study. The summary of the analysis is given below.

Findings
• Most common predicted behaviour indicates proactive, success oriented thinking (front left)
• Most noticeable attributes: dominant & driven (front left)
• Most common behavioural patterns: achievement, rank, status, winning & profits (front left)
(BD) Leaders
• Least common behavioural patterns: relationships, innovation, idealism & status quo (back right)
believe in a • Most reinforced mindset: task focused (success orientation / left brain)
V I S I O N • Least reinforced mindset; people focused (happiness orientation / right brain)
• Primary Leadership styles: Autocratic & / or Authoritarian (i.e. the boss / manager) (left brain)
(VG) Leaders • Secondary Leadership styles: Pacesetting & / or Pioneering (i.e. the hare / risk taker) (front brain)
develop &
implement
• Most of the leaders believe that they manifest many of the following behaviours most of the time:
STRATEGY ƒ Accommodating
ƒ Appeasing
ƒ Compassionate
ƒ Control their time
ƒ Creative
ƒ Diligent
ƒ Empathic
ƒ Encouraging
ƒ Holistic
ƒ Hopeful
ƒ Imaginative
ƒ Innovative
ƒ Pluralistic
ƒ Purposeful
ƒ Spontaneous
ƒ Strategic
ƒ Theoretical
ƒ Investing enough time to learn
ƒ Less conventional than average
ƒ Less theoretical than average
ƒ Less wary of risk situations
ƒ Disinclined to seek fame overtly (i.e. not ego driven)
ƒ Disinclined to seek power overtly (i.e. not a bully)
ƒ Disinclined to seek authority overtly (i.e. not a control freak)
Note: attributes on the list shown deliberately in alphabetical order; other items as category sets
• When they were presented with ‘bipolars’ (i.e. 2 opposing attributes say formal and casual) most
revised their original scores by 30% or less – some exceptions by 50% - 60%. Most behaviours - as
seen by others – strongly indicates that many behave differently from their, to their perceptions.

Common behaviours from BOTH perceived and predicted perspectives indicate that the leaders profiled
are dynamic risk takers who pursue goals relentlessly. The most appropriate descriptors for this style of
leadership: pioneering, pacesetting and benign autocratic style. A majority of the leaders believe that their
style is influenced or directed by a sense of purpose coupled with either visionary thinking (i.e. innovation)
or strategic thinking (i.e. aims).

6
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Findings – continued:
Figure 3 is a 3 x 3 matrix that shows the 9 leadership styles correlated by neuroscientific brain scans:

• the 4 TOXIC leadership / management styles are shaded

• the 5 NON - TOXIC leadership / management styles are unshaded.

Figure 3

(BD) Leaders
use a toxic
s t y l e b y
d e f a u l t

(VG) Leaders
choose the
hub / spoke
by design

From the self-perception viewpoint -

most leaders believe that they adopt and manifest one of 2 styles of leadership namely:
(1) pacesetting or springboard leadership (focus on change and progress) and
(2) coordinating or hub and spoke leadership (focus on clarity of purpose, goals & cohesion).

The predicted behaviour clearly indicates:

Many do adopt a pacesetting style a.k.a. springboard leadership or “proto-cratic” style (i.e. ‘proto’ as in
prototype, therefore progressive & leading from the front).

However, the (perceived & often intended) coordinating / hub & spoke
style is relegated (or abandoned) and replaced by 2 other styles.

It is necessary to emphasise the implications of the shift:

• contrast the nature of the hub and spoke leadership style a.k.a. an “ortho-cratic” style (i.e. ‘ortho’ as
in orthogonal, at right angles, values based and transformational)
o with 2 replacement (more managerial) styles
o both of which are functional and task oriented rather than relational and people oriented.

The 2 replacement styles reveal a desire to win or a need to succeed.

Additionally, they usually reflect either
(1) a need to dominate and be profitable
a.k.a. an “autocratic” or “plutocratic” style or
(2) a project management style
a.k.a. “ergo-cratic” (task oriented) or “techno-cratic” (skill / expertise oriented).

A majority of leaders behave in a style that communicates to others that

they are “winners” or that they are working to achieve specific goals.

7
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Findings - continued
In practice, leaders who adopt the “autocratic” style are driven or directed by:
Unrealistic
Perceptions (1) a desire or need to deliver profits for the organisation and / or accumulate personal wealth or
originate non - (2) an innate drive to become the “top dog” in the organisation or
consciousl y. (3) a competitive single-mindedness to win maximum market share.
Conscious
concentration In addition to the surface / conscious level factors, most “autocratic” leaders
generates also have a compulsive need to succeed (and win) operating non-consciously.
Realistic
Strategies
In a less pressurised environment,
• they adopt a more cohesive / less autocratic style
• but, as soon as the pressure starts to increase,
• the cohesive style is overwhelmed by
o the need to deliver (rational, belief directed mindset)
o a compulsion to win (emotional, feelings driven mindset)
• either of which manifests itself as an autocratic style.

Evidence indicates that some leaders recognise “inner tensions” and their corresponding shifts in style.
For example: When a compelling opportunity triggers their own emotional, motivational drivers to a level
that exceeds the required level of deliverables, some leaders take unwarranted risks generated by an
impulsive “freedom from constraint” by a supervising authority or by the sheer excitement, thrill or
gratification experienced as a consequence of taking the risk (i.e. the daredevil spirit of a “winner”).

Conversely, some leaders who are risk averse and / or they have to comply with regulations, can and do
become anxious when they encounter situations that might result in “failure” in their own minds, either
because they have a latent fear of failure or a “nitpicking” culture exists in their organisation. The
avoidance of failure (perhaps born of a dislike of criticism) prompts some leaders to set unrealistic quality
or efficiency targets. Such leaders can adopt a reactive, “failure avoidant” compliant (back left) mindset
that compels them to adopt a safety first or checklist managerial style (of leadership). This style of
leadership (management) tends to occur in institutions that place emphasis on hierarchical structure.

The data clearly indicates that leaders who fit these criteria become increasingly process-oriented:
• a.k.a. bureaucratic
• in extreme cases “nomo-cratic” (law enforcing or pedantic regarding regulations)
Consequently, they become increasingly less flexible and less relationship oriented.

Many leaders are unaware that their leadership style has a TOXIC effect.
Any desire to
win or to gain A common 2 x 2 matrix (figure 4) shows the 4 most common TOXIC behaviours namely
by exploiting • 2 bullying styles (intimidation & control freakery)
other people • 2 manipulating styles (duplicity & dissimulation).
generates
T O X I C
behaviours. All 4 toxic variations have been shaded.

NB: Research by Hare, Stout, Field, Kalman et al suggests that there 8 toxic variations.
For more information on this subject and its implications email the authors of the report.

Figure 4

8
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Analysis
The 2 most frequently self - perceived leadership styles have some noticeable behaviours and qualities:

• Pacesetting (and proto-cratic) a.k.a. Pioneering

• Transactional (and techno-cratic) a.k.a. Task oriented

Behaviourally, both score significantly higher in the following attributes: ambitious, accountable, curious,
deliberate, dispassionate, dynamic, expedient, insightful, persuasive, proactive, progressive and realistic.
All but one of the attributes in this paragraph reinforce a proactive (front brain) behaviour pattern and, in
combination they reinforce or a functional, task oriented (left brain) behaviour.

Perhaps, more important in terms of leadership considerations than management, the combination of
these high scoring attributes listed above means that significantly less attention is given to relational and
people oriented behaviours.

Certain non-conscious attributes impact the 2 most common behavioural styles of leadership namely:
assertive, authoritative, broad-brush, daring, discriminating, methodical, outgoing, single minded and slick.
All but one of the attributes in this paragraph reinforce a proactive (front brain) behaviour pattern and a
functional, task oriented (left brain) behaviour.

Again, in the same vein as stated in a previous paragraph, “clusters” of these high scoring
Our research attributes (triggered and operating at a non-conscious level in the brain) reinforces an ego-centric
indicates that approach to leadership that, in turn, is often perceived and interpreted by subordinates as bullying or a
unforeseen TOXIC leadership style over the longer term.
circumstances
cause leaders
to adopt an
AUTOCRATI In effect, leaders who, on the surface, perceive themselves as:
C leadership • honourable
style often • positive
perceived as
• strategic
BULLYING
• purpose oriented
• cohesive

… are frequently perceived and, therefore, labelled by others as:

• autocratic
• someone lacking empathy and sensitivity,
• results oriented
• unconcerned about maintaining “prior” commitments to synergy
• unconcerned about people development
• unconcerned about interpersonal relationships.

The various combinations indicate that 3 out of 9 identifiable styles (figure 3) repeatedly occur:
Each of us can
choose our • Results oriented culture (autocratic)
own behaviour - entrepreneurial and competitive
s t y l e . - in which profitability and winning are lauded and rewarded

Which style • Functionally oriented (ergocratic & / or technocratic)

WILL YOU
- having a clear focus on productivity and achievement (ergocratic)
c h o o s e ?
- task oriented or skill oriented (technocratic)
F e e l i n g s
d r i v e n • Pacesetting and pioneering culture (protocratic)
behaviour - having a clear focus on progress and change
B e l i e f s - so that risk taking and opportunism are encouraged, lauded and rewarded
d i r e c t e d - and as a consequence, an impersonal “commodification” ensues and grows
behaviour - that, eventually, drains the enthusiasm of those who are not directly involved
V a l u e s
Governed
behaviour Commodification as used is defined as: to turn something into a commodity (e.g. financial services) or to
treat a person as he / she were a commodity (e.g. human resources rather than personnel or staff).

9
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Analysis - continued
Whenever and wherever there is a need or drive for short term, expedient decision-making to achieve
results or to meet profit targets, 2 toxic behaviours frequently manifest themselves in leaders namely:

• Supremacy seeking (a.k.a. Intimidation)

• Prescriptive control (a.k.a. Control Freakery)

When directed at the rational level both behaviours are perceived as follows:

• a need to seek power and control of resources and staff (autocratic authoritarianism)
• a need to seek and maintain control of the procedures (nomocratic authoritarianism)

When governed by wealth maximisation, the behaviours reflect the values namely:

• profitability before people (autocratic)

• wealth accumulation to the detriment of long-term staff welfare (plutocratic).

When they operate at the emotional level the behaviours reflect

• not only a compulsion to win (supremacism)

• but a need to beat the competition (adversarialism)
• in a way that non-consciously encourages ruthlessness (antagonism)
• and lauds expediency and opportunism (opportunism)

Their primary processing & learning styles:

• Analytical & mathematical – the inherent desire to analyse it to prove it

• Verbal & linguistic – they learn when a specific explanation is provided
• Practical & naturalistic - learning by doing
• Teleological & intrapersonal – dispassionate focus on the aims and end purposes

Their attitude is unquestionably (front brain) pursuance operating at the

• Rational level:
V a l u e s o strives to influence people to control situations – status / power seeker
Governed o establishes a clear purpose with aims ,time and end objective - intention generator
Leadership • Volitional: pioneers new ideas & risks to initiate change & progress - opportunity seeker
r e d u c e s • Emotional level: driven by a need for simulation & adventure – gratification / thrill seeker
S T R E S S
i n t h e
workplace
Stress & toxic behaviours:
There are 3 major factors that can induce stress in this style of leadership:

• Constant need to prove a point

• Treating people as a commodity
• Constant pursuit for self indulgent pleasures

Establishing a values-based, clarity of purpose and working cohesively are the 2 principal factors that can
reduce stress amongst these leaders (ortho-cratic style).

It seems that the fulfilment / application of a moral / ethical compass has the effect of:

• reducing stress
• triggering the conviction that “I am doing the RIGHT thing”

rather than the beliefs-directed mindset that says:

• “I believe that what I do is appropriate based on my knowledge.

It is worth noting that beliefs-directed leaders do not readily differentiate between:

• “beliefs” and “convictions”,

• ”knowledge” and “understanding”.

10
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Out of the ashes – Phoenix or Paragon or Paradigm?
Components of The data clearly shows that 85% of business leaders employ a “combination” of 3 leadership styles.
a Leadership
style. As the sample is multi-cultural, multi-national and multi-sector, it is rather surprising to note that a majority
of leaders “across the board” manifest very similar sets of behaviours, almost identical patterns in some
Nature: yes cases. This could be considered remarkable given the fact that the leaders were brought up in different
Nurture: yes cultures, attended different schools; received different levels of education; belong to different gene pools;
Neuroplasticity: have different levels of experience and belong to different age groups.
MOST of ALL

TRAIN your Despite all the many differences, their behaviours manifest and indicate:
BRAIN and see • a prominent style of leadership namely autocratic (front left)
what you GAIN. • 2 complementary styles of leadership namely protocratic (front) and technocratic (left)
Treating this data as indicative prompts the conclusion that leadership style is less influenced by
any genetic trait and much more the result of environmental or social conditioning, but is it?

Simplifying the “trigger” to the current financial crisis, it is not unreasonable to say that the herd followed
the decision of a couple of very bright “inventive” bankers to package sub-prime debt in a way that was
acceptable to borrowers. From an expedient opportunistic mindset, the desired output of the 2 bankers
and the herd was profit and the “required” input was the decision to market (i.e. represent) sub-prime
debt as “valuable”. The sub-prime debt had a market value (i.e. it could bought and sold for a price). The
error was the belief that the “market value” of the underlying security could not fall dramatically and,
conversely, that it was likely to rise in “value” and, therefore, sub-prime debt was “valuable”. The mindset
seems to have been based on an epistemological rationalisation that beliefs can determine truth and,
therefore, people can accept anything as true unless and / or until it is disproved.

Until people realise that the biological engineering that underpins the right hemisphere (the location of all
right brain thinking) is speed before accuracy, they will not accept that, at best, all perceptions and
expectations originating in the right hemisphere are only 80% accurate. The same people need to learn
that the biological engineering that underpins the left hemisphere (the location of all left brain thinking) is
accuracy over speed. Expressed more elegantly: on which do you prefer to rely: subjective feelings or
objective facts? Buyer’s remorse occurs because subjective feelings prompted the decision to buy and
24 hours later the internal voice of objective reality asked the question, what possessed you to buy that?
Analysis &
Objectivity. Beliefs directed mindsets (i.e. a vision of the outcome) and feelings driven mindsets (i.e. a desire for an
outcome) are neither responsible, nor proper yardsticks to use for making decisions. Values Governed
Synergy & mindsets (i.e. wise and congruent principles) do provide responsible platforms for decisions.
Strategies.
To achieve sustainable business growth in a global economy, business leaders will have to
Apply them and cultivate a synergic “Values Governed” (VG) approach to replace the now discredited “Beliefs
d e l i v e r
sustainable Directed” styles (BD) that caused the global financial meltdown.
prosperity in
the future The point we seek to emphasise is that perceived knowledge is NOT the same as understanding.
Beliefs and feelings are NOT a justification for action that impacts “society”. Decisions that
impact society should be based on objective fact and analysis and, therefore, “values governed”.

As a starting point, we recommend the practical benefits of a biology-based epistemology plus a brain-
based ontology (with a definitive set of values) rather than a mind-based psychology (with a variable set
of beliefs). A brain-based epistemology advocates that no one can have a mind without a brain and a
brain cannot function without a body.

Human beings have brains “embodied” physically in a frame (a physical body) that is itself embedded in
an environment that provides a location for a society. We believe in an objective reality. We hold (as a
given fact or truth) that we exist ontologically as individuals and simultaneously as members of a society.
Therefore, although we have rights as individuals, we have responsibilities as members of any society in
which we seek to participate and belong. And therein lies the fundamental lynchpin of the brain-based
epistemology.

Which part of an individual has priority? Is it the individual “directed by beliefs” and “driven by feelings” or
the member of a society that expects (or requires) all of its members to behave in a responsible way
when making and implementing decisions that affect other members of the society? No society can
impose sanctions unless all the members undertake to be “governed by its values” Suppose the 2
bankers had known for certain that they, as individuals, would be held FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for
damages if their proposals re sub-prime debt were subsequently proved to be IRRESPONSIBLE, do you
believe that they would have still gone ahead with their proposals? We don’t.

11
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
Out of the ashes? – continued
The human brain has an ability to learn and patternate (i.e. assemble random bits of data into patterns
and transform them into perceptions and information in less than 7 nanoseconds). Neuroscience can
prove to you that your brain has patternated a perception BEFORE you are consciously aware that it has
done so. Once you accept and assimilate that neuroscientific fact, it follows, ineluctably, that if you
discover and learn how the patternation process operates, and then you can discover and learn how to
change your behaviour. If you are a leader, you can decide whether or not to ensure that your team
members also discover and learn how to control their patternation process and change their behaviour.

Your brain talks to itself recursively all day long; comparing new patterns with old patterns; enhancing its
own non-conscious understanding; then “informing” the conscious mind so that you (as a biological being)
can gain ever-increasing insights about your environment; and gain an ever-increasing empathic
awareness about other people, provided that you have decided to be governed by a congruent set of
values. If you elect NOT to be governed by a set of values, then you have elected to live your life under
the thrall of your emotions or your beliefs. Without values, your metaphorical “keep in your castle” has no
sentinels and no guards to protect you from irresponsible and / or malevolent individuals. Either way, you
might believe that you are (ontologically) free to choose when, where and how to do what you “want” to
do, but you are, actually, at the mercy of any intelligent “fools” who happen to believe that they can “take
advantage of you” and that they won’t have to “pay the price” for doing so.

Dissimulation is a bulls-eye term that describes a specific behaviour pattern “perfectly” for 2 reasons.
First, it embraces a number of characteristics. Second, it conveys precisely the inevitable destructive
effect of combining seemingly innocuous behaviours together. Sadly, the “commentators” will hijack it.
Academic psychologists & sociologists use it to describe the behaviour of manipulative individuals who:
• use the ideals of human rights and personal freedom as the pole star for all their decisions
• advocate utopian idealism
• challenge the validity of objective evidence that disproves their idealistic beliefs
• avoid dealing with facts or with the present reality;
• deny the very facts that would liberate them from their self-imposed mental straitjackets.
• are right brainers who want power or influence or status or fame or notoriety
• advocate tolerance, but will not tolerate any opposition to their entrenched positions.
• advocate free speech, but use political correctness to stifle their opponents
• seek to eliminate “competition” from the class room
• claim to know how to run businesses, but have never had the responsibility of running one

Some (left brain) psychologists would argue that most dissimulators lack commonsense. They cite as
examples the people who advocate that the best way to cure drug addicts is to provide them with an
ever-increasing supply until they (the drug addicts) come to realise that drug taking has consequences,
most of them harmful and stop because it is the “RIGHT” thing to do. Consider this scenario; you notice
that a neighbour’s house in on fire. You call the fire service. They arrive in a petrol tanker. You ask the
fire chief what he intends to do. He tells you that he has instructed his fire officers to spray petrol on the
house to burn it down quicker because it is the “RIGHT” thing to do. The same principle applies to
politicians who seek to convince the electorate that the best way to deal with insolvent banks is give them
more and more money and let the directors pay themselves massive bonuses and negotiate massive
payoffs and pension plans because it is the “RIGHT” thing to do.

We argue that dissimulators confuse beliefs with values. Recall the 2 bankers who marketed sub-prime
debt as a “valuable” security. For them and the bankers who bought it, it was the “RIGHT” thing to do.
Whenever you hear that phrase, replace “RIGHT” with “RESPONSIBLE” and ask if it still makes sense.
Our mantra: Calamity entails whenever “RIGHTS” take lasting precedence over “RESPONSIBILITIES”.

Your brain has a dynamic core that has an amazing ability to discriminate between right and wrong and,
therefore, to prompt and enable you to act with responsibility. On the other hand the dynamic core
operates under the sanctions endowed by and constraints imposed by your own installed set of value
systems. You and, YOU ALONE, have the responsibility to decide whether or not you will live your life
governed, protected and prompted by a congruent set of values or driven by your own emotions or
directed by your beliefs.

If you are a leader you have an additional responsibility. You can decide to educate, liberate and enable
your staff and teams to discover, learn and apply what you have possibly discovered, learned and applied.
Alternatively, you can adopt any one of a number of humorous leadership or management styles such as
eagle leadership and seagull management, mushroom management and marshmallow management – all
of which are labels that describe unwholesome leadership and management styles.

12
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
Phoenix or Paragon or Paradigm?
Structure or Strategy or Synergy?
Many believe that the saying: “May you live in interesting times” is a curse that originated in China. They
quote a statement made by Hugh Knatchbull-Hugessen (in his book, “Diplomat in Peace & War 1949).
“Before I left England for China in 1936, a friend told me that there exists a Chinese curse: “May you live
in interesting times”. If so, then our generation has most certainly witnessed the fulfilment of that curse.
The same conclusion applies to our generation. Do we believe that our financial system is / was cursed?
No – we don’t. We reiterate what we state at the beginning of this report:

The financial collapse is the result of ONE supreme cause namely: IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP. In
“market terms” they chased after short-term gains and we have all received long-term pain. The problems,
in the main, are the result of a concatenation of irresponsible decisions driven by a combination of short-
term gain or incorrect or false beliefs about the viability of a product or a process. The key word in the
previous sentence is “beliefs”.

For us, there are 3 considerations:

• Will the Phoenix bird of “beliefs-directed” leadership rise from the ashes and prevail yet again?
• Will a new style of Paragon or Exemplary leadership manifest and lead us to a Promised Land?
• Will society demand new Paradigms of Values Governed synergic leadership as poverty bites?

We believe that we do live in interesting times. We do not believe that the above statement is a curse.
We do believe that some leaders of our generation have succumbed to the pitfalls of “beliefs directed”
thinking. We believe that dissimulation is an apt descriptor for those who peddle the notion that “rights”
always rank ahead of “responsibilities”. Such individuals, however well meaning their aims belong to an
old F.O.G.I. society styled “Full of Good Intentions” although they would argue for “RIGHT” intentions.

We need RESPONSIBLE leaders. We need SYNERGIC leaders. We need to rekindle an old forgotten
style of leadership namely “VALUES GOVERNED” leadership. We need to squeeze out of the system
those Machiavellian manipulators – those dissimulators who, not only purloin our goodwill, but seek to
replace many of our “traditional values” with claptrap ideas that have ONE underlying aim – to reward the
perpetrators of such lies and ideas with power and money because “it is the RIGHT thing to do”.

We pose a question to leaders. On the surface the question seems uncomplicated. Yet, on examination,
it has far reaching implications that require proper care and attention. Our question is as follows:

Should structure determine strategy or should strategy determine structure?

• If we put structure as the primary value, then we reinforce back brain behaviour patterns.
• If we put strategy as the primary value, then we reinforce front brain behaviour patterns.

Do we advocate and recommend strategic thinking? We answer with an unequivocal “YES, but…”

We end this section with an apt fairy story: Once upon a time, there was an emperor of a prosperous
land. He cared more about clothes than anything else. One day, he met 2 swindlers who promised him
that they would make for him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. They meet with him
for a fitting. They inform him that the cloth is invisible to all stupid people and anyone who lacks finesse
or refinement. Although the Emperor cannot see the (non-existent) cloth, he pretends that he can for fear
of appearing stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they
dress him in mime. The Emperor decides to hold a procession through the capital to show off his new
"clothes". During the course of the procession, a child cries out, "He’s starkers, he has got nothing on!"
The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth. The Emperor ignores the remarks and continues with the
procession. Could the Emperor be a Politician? Could the swindlers be 2 guys who packaged sub-
prime debt as “valuable”? Could the ministers be bankers? Could our readers be the crowd.

Identify synergic, values governed leaders who will implement responsible strategies.

13
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Characteristics of Values Governed (VG) Leaders
Leadership styles evolved as behaviours styles evolved from 2 styles to 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 styles (1982). We
refer to figures 3 (2009) & 4 (1960) to contrast the characteristics of the 9 styles we shall discuss. We
advocate that it is wiser to think of each identified leadership styles as part of a pattern of behaviour.

Different styles of leadership work in different situations. Research shows that as leadership styles
become more individualistic they become more toxic. The shaded areas in figures 3 and 4 indicate which
behaviours have a toxic effect eventually.

In order to simplify the comparison we have treated behavioural strengths as “values” in the list below.
We have assumed that each style is (at heart) honest, has a sense of integrity and consistent.

All 4 styles listed below pass a tipping point and manifest toxic leadership styles.
More often than not, it is their limitations that prompt others to consider them “toxic”

The values governed AUTOCRATIC leader (seeks RESULTS, SUCCESS & SUPREMACY)

• Strengths: assertive, dispassionate, objective, decisive, authoritarian, competitive

• Limitations: (lacks the strengths of a democratic leader – see below) lacks empathy
• Consequential mindsets: confrontational, power oriented, wealth oriented, victory oriented

The values governed DEMOCRATIC leader (seeks ENGAGEMENT with others & HAPPINESS)

Our beliefs tell • Strengths: considerate, compassionate, subjective, idealistic, egalitarian, consensual
us to make
• Limitations: (lacks the strengths of an autocratic leader – see above) lacks insight
the RIGHT
decisions. • Consequential mindsets: participative, inclusive, strife avoider, welfare patron, reality avoider

Values guide
us to make The VG BUREAUCRATIC – NOMOCRATIC leader (applies the RULES / needs PERFECTION)
Res ponsi bl e
decisions.
• Strengths: predictable, systematic, methodical, precise, conscientious, prescriptive, formal
• Limitations: (lacks the strengths of a charismatic leader – see below) no sense of humour
• Consequential mindsets: detail oriented, process oriented, diversity avoidant, change avoidant

The VG CHARISMATIC – IDIOSYNCRATIC leader (seeks INDEPENDENCE, FUN & FAME)

• Strengths: unorthodox, capricious, cavalier, slick, broad-brush, laid-back, considerate, casual

• Limitations: (lacks the strengths of a bureaucratic leader – see above) lacks attention to detail
• Consequential mindsets: non-conforming, maverick, popularity seeking, fun oriented, flippant

Alternative labels:
AUTOCRATIC leaders: boss, authoritarian, chauvinist, bully, intimidator
DEMOCRATIC leaders: idealist, egalitarian, pluralist, sycophant, toady,

BUREAUCRATIC leaders: detailer, regulator, quibbler, nitpicker, perfectionist, boffin,

NOMOCRATIC leaders: conformist, stickler, martinet, fault-finder, control freak

CHARISMATIC leaders: dazzler, charmer, extrovert, enchanter, narcissist, beguiler,

IDIOSYNCRATIC leaders: non-conformist, improviser, free wheeler, harlequin, hedonist

14
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Characteristics of Values Governed (VG) Leaders - continued
Leadership styles evolved as behaviours styles evolved from 2 styles to 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 styles (1982). We
refer to figures 3 (2009) & 4 (1960) to contrast the characteristics of the 9 styles we shall discuss. We
advocate that it is wiser to think of each identified leadership styles as part of a pattern of behaviour.

Different styles of leadership work in different situations. Research shows that as leadership styles
become more individualistic they become more toxic. The shaded areas in figures 3 and 4 indicate which
behaviours have a toxic effect eventually.

In order to simplify the comparison we have treated behavioural strengths as “values” in the list below.
We have assumed that each style is (at heart) honest, has a sense of integrity and consistent.

None of the 5 styles listed below are likely to manifest toxic leadership styles.

The values governed PROTOCRATIC leader (seeks CHANGE leading FROM THE FRONT)

• Strengths: progressive, dynamic, pioneering, curious, proactive, persuasive, initiating, daring

Our beliefs tell • Limitations: (lacks the strengths of a kritocratic leader – see below) lacks restraint
us to make • Consequential mindsets; change initiator / promoter, reward seeking, risk taking, daredevil
the RIGHT
decisions.
The values governed KRITOCRATIC leader (resists CHANGE manages FROM THE REAR)
Values guide
us to make • Strengths: conventional, stable, preserving, sceptical, reactive, evaluative, wary, cautious
Res ponsi bl e • Limitations: (lacks the strengths of an protocratic leader – see above) lacks dynamism
decisions. • Consequential mindsets: watchdog, change resistor, risk avoidant, seeks stability & security

The VG TECHNOCRATIC – ERGOCRATIC leader (seeks ACHIEVEMENT & PRODUCTIVITY)

• Strengths: practical, hardworking, punctual, disciplined, prepared, clever, analytical, skilful

• Limitations: (lacks the strengths of an ideocratic / teleocratic leader – see below) lacks vision
• Consequential mindsets: plan & project oriented, work & task oriented, objectivity

The VG IDEOCRATIC - TELEOCRATIC leader (seeks INDEPENDENCE, FUN and FAME)

• Strengths: theoretical, imaginative, dilatory, creative, effusive, bright, innovative, talented

• Limitations: (lacks the strengths of a bureaucratic leader – see above) lacks practicality
• Consequential mindsets: vision & idea generation, possibility oriented, subjectivity

The values governed ORTHOCRATIC leader (seeks SYNERGY, COHESION, FRUITFULNESS)

• Primary Strengths: accountable, wise, discriminating, insightful, empathic, strategic, attentive

• Complementary strengths: logical, eloquent, articulate, calm, cohesive, virtuous, sincere
• Qualities that threaten others: truthfulness, principle, resolve, steadfastness, self discipline
• Consequential mindsets; wisdom, clarity of purpose, refinement, discrimination, erudition,

Alternative labels:
PROTOCRATIC leaders: pioneer, initiator, persuader, impacter, optimist, daredevil
KRITOCRATIC leaders: guardian, preserver, administrator, pessimist, misoneist

TECHNOCRATIC leaders: planner, tactician, analyst, organiser, coach

TELEOCRATIC leaders; visualiser, conceptualiser, theorist, innovator, mentor

ERGORATIC leaders: achiever, implementer, realist, effectuator, trainer

IDEOCRATIC leaders: daydreamer, stargazer, fantasist, ideator, elucidator

ORTHOCRATIC leaders: sage, strategist, clarifier, enabler, liberator, paragon, exemplar

15
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 Key points that underpin our conclusions
Organisations exist for one of 2 reasons:
• to serve the public (service organisations such as: Rescue, Police, Health, Education)
• to meet the desires, wants or needs of paying customers (Commercial Businesses).
Either way, organisations have to be lead (and managed). In this section, we speak to business leaders
to remind them that it is their ongoing and never ending responsibility to remind all their “executives”
about 3 fundamental facts.

No.1: The aim of every business: sustainable profitability.

Year on year profitability reveals only ONE key performance indicator in terms of business success.

No. 2: The 3 keys to sustainable profitability?

• A cohesive set of 6 (values governed) strategies that shape and direct the business.
• All employees understand the need for sustainable performance improvement (S.P.I.)
• Each business leader consistently explains and reinforces the 6 key strategies.

Strategy focused CEOs know that S.P.I. inevitably manifests as “growth”. Furthermore, such CEOs also
know that S.P.I. produces sustainable productivity and sustainable organic growth (i.e. the business has
the capacity to generate surpluses needed to ensure that the business will prosper in the future).
Surplus profitability provides the financial resources to invest in research, new plant and machinery and
in the ongoing training and development of all staff throughout the business. CEOs must coordinate the
ongoing development of different sets of contingent strategies to safeguard the business from risks.

No. 3: Structure is indispensable - Strategy is paramount.

Whilst we accept that structure is indispensable, we advocate that strategy is paramount. We live in an
ever-changing market place where the consumer is king. Consequently, businesses need to have
flexible strategies in place in order to respond to change. Some “managers” do not accept the principle
that strategy must shape structure to ensure business growth. Our research indicates that, in
businesses where managers prefer structure to strategy, the “management” incrementally imposes
structural limitations on the business. In practice, management demands increased profits rather than
gradual and sustainable performance improvements. The result: an ever-increasing demand for more
efficiency and standardisation. Contemporaneous with the imposition of this increased structure, the
talented individuals (who thrive in strategy led businesses) seek alternative employment. Eventually
(perhaps a decade or more) the businesses shaped by structure begin to decline as they lose market
share. Almost inevitably a competitor makes a bid to buy the business and the management accept the
offer. More often than not, in this scenario, the new owners will introduce a redundancy programme.

We repeat. If you always do what you always done, you’ll continue to get what you’ve got in the past.
H.E.L.P. There is another maxim that applies: Management relies on structure. Leadership offer new strategies.
Space prevents us from explaining all the subtle differences between leadership and management.
Managers However, to highlight the key differences, we offer the following mnemonic: H.E.L.P.
H a n d l e
Management is about CONTROL and Leadership is about DIRECTION;
E v e n t s
Managers control (handle) events(H.E) and Leaders direct (lead) people (L.P.).
L e a d e r s Management is indispensable: Leadership is paramount.
Lead People

The banking crash revealed another consequence of “Beliefs Directed” mindsets: Toxic leadership.
Arrogant and toxic leaders browbeat ethical risk managers into submission or early retirement. Toxic
behaviour occurs whenever an incumbent in a role does not have the necessary capabilities:
• When managers seek to CONTROL people, BULLYING increases.
• When managers seek to DIRECT people, MANIPULATION increases.
• When leaders seek to CONTROL events, MANIPULATION increases.
• When leaders seek to DIRECT events, BULLYING increases.
• Effective leaders delegate AUTHORITY and ACCOUNTABILITY to managers.
• Effective managers agree and then assign PROJECTS and TASKS to staff.
• Individuals accept the responsibility for the efficient execution of an assignment or task.
• Support units have the responsibility for quality control and administration of standards.

16
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
What do “Values Governed” (VG) leaders do differently?
First, VG leaders develop sets of cohesive and concurrent strategies to deliver sustainable prosperity.
Second, they understand the benefits of reducing expectations, then aiming to raise the deliverables.

Before we list what else VG leaders can do, we want to recapitulate and stress a few key points.
Behaviourally, managers should focus on LEFT-BRAIN functions: implementation, tasks & RESULTS.
Similarly, leaders should focus on RIGHT-BRAIN functions: motivation, synergy & RELATIONSHIPS.

Many leaders perceive themselves as effective leaders, but perform as autocratic managers. We have
already shown that the autocratic leadership / management style tends to become toxic. We quote from
Professor Meredith Belbin’s book, Management Team: The Apollo Chairman is less of a searcher for
talent: rather he is a tough discriminating individual who can hold his ground in any company (in terms of
critical thinking ability); yet he NEVER dominates. NB: the orthocrat correlates with the Apollo
Chairman. We make this point to reinforce our own findings that we have stated about autocratic
leadership. Orthocratic leaders (see below) are exceptional individuals less than 1: 100,000 senior
executives. Belbin again: One individual alone cannot possess ALL the necessary qualities for success
but a Team can.

We also want to emphasise this point. Orthocratic Leadership requires at least 2 probably 3 people.
Orthocratic Leadership combines ALL the qualities of VG leaders & managers (see figure 3 on page 6).
• VG leaders are “right-brainers” - adept at innovation & vision, motivation & team building
• VG managers are “left-brainers” - adept at operations & execution, practicalities & control
• Empathetic VG leaders find it easy to engage and interact with all kinds of people.
• Logical VG managers prefer to focus on planning and producing results.
Key point to note: to achieve sustainable business growth both sets of behaviours are necessary.

For that reason, we apply the labels “orthocratic coordination” and “hub & spoke leadership”. Quantum
physicists tell us that light can be perceived either as a wave or as a series of particles. There is a
CROSSOVER point sometimes called the point of complementarity – an apt term! One set of behaviours
(VG leaders) complements the other set of behaviours (VG managers). Key point to note: both sets of
behaviours are “Values Governed” - not “Beliefs Directed”. It is because they are Values Governed and
not domineering that synergy manifests itself.

We shall address the CROSSOVER functions after we make 2 key points.

• The first key point concerns nomenclature.
• In our experience, fewer and fewer businesses maintain, issue and use a Glossary of Terms.
• Imprecise and / or sloppy communications cause more problems that any other discipline.
• Too many “executives” are simply “Long on Generalities & Short on Specifics” (LOG / SOS).
• The second key point concerns execution capability.
• Over the last 30 years, emphasis has switched from management to leadership.
• Sadly, the critical importance of many key managerial skills has been relegated.

Examples of the (VG) ORTHOCRATIC behaviour style:

• Synergic (orthocratic) leaders operate as: sages, coordinators, clarifiers and communicators.
• Transformational (orthocratic) leaders establish the values, aims & purposes of the business.
• Resonant (orthocratic) leaders communicate the values, aims & purposes of the business.
• Strategic (orthocratic) leaders coordinate strategy development and implementation priorities.

Examples of the other (VG) behaviour styles (see figure 3 on page 6).
• Visionary (Teleocratic) leaders research the environment and generate new ideas & concepts.
• Operational (Technocratic) managers transform strategies into series of implementation plans
• Project (Technocratic) managers transform implementation plans into series of action steps.
• Functional (Technocratic) managers train and develop their staff to undertake assignments.

17
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
General conclusions
We have:
• argued the case for “values governed” leadership and RESPONSIBLE leadership
• emphasised the need for leaders to
o focus on STRATEGY development & coordination.
o promote “sustainable performance improvement”
• drawn attention to the possibility / likelihood that TOXIC Leadership occurs in business.
• reported that
o a majority of leaders DO NOT PERCEIVE themselves as autocratic.
o a majority of leaders WILL BE PERCEIVED as autocratic by their staff
• revealed that circumstances prompt / cause leaders to adopt AUTOCRATIC styles.
• shown the links between
o the autocratic style (et al) with Toxic Behaviour Patterns.
o Toxic Leadership and the loss of talent.
o SPI and “sustainable business growth”
o “beliefs directed” leadership and TOXIC Leadership
o “beliefs directed” leadership and IRRESPONSIBLE leadership.
• stated
o the key differences between Leadership & Management functions.
o that, in practice, a majority of leaders actually operate like managers.
• used 9 academic labels to identify and differentiate the 9 leadership / management styles.

SPECIFIC conclusions
We have:
• proposed that leaders adopt a “Values Governed” (VG) style to replace the BD style
• Shown that
o Leadership Styles have progressively and significantly changed since 1970.
o “Beliefs Directed” leadership styles (BD) caused the global financial meltdown.
o the BD style enticed bankers and politicians to gamble with prosperity.
o the BD style will have to be replaced in order to rebuild the global economy.
o Business leaders will have to adopt a (VG) style to achieve SPI
o SPI is the generator of sustainable business growth in a global economy
o VG style generates a framework for sustainable business growth.

We reiterate our convictions that:

1. Values Governed (VG) leadership is essential to sustainable business growth.

2. VG leadership (a.k.a. Orthocratic / Transformational Leadership) provides a platform on which

business leaders can and will develop a set of cohesive and concurrent strategies to deliver
sustainable prosperity, freedom and social justice expected in the 21st century.

3. One individual alone cannot possess ALL the necessary qualities for success but a Team can.

4. VG leadership entails a team of individuals with complementary behaviours and skills.

5. More than ever before, strategy development is the key to business growth.

6. There are 6 identifiable strategies that must be coordinated concurrently.

7. Failure to identify and implement the 6 strategies and the appropriate leadership styles will leave
businesses and business leaders at risk to unforeseen risks in an unforgiving market.

18
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)
 For more information,
visit our websites:

www.talengene.com
www.stratega.co.uk

or email us:

RamRaghvan@talengene.com
John.Battye@stratega.co.uk

Do you want to understand your leadership style?

Get in touch with us to get a “FREE” report.

email us:
John.Battye@stratega.co.uk
RamRaghvan@talengene.com

19
Copyright © StrategA (UK) Ltd & Talengene(UK) Ltd 2009(All rights reserved including translation)