EVERYONE A LEADER

A Guide to Leading High-Performance Organizations

for Engineers and Scientists

EVERYONE A LEADER
A Guide to Leading High-Performance
Organizations for Engineers and Scientists

David Colcleugh

 University of Toronto Press 2013

Rotman-UTP Publishing
University of Toronto Press
Toronto Buffalo London
www.utppublishing.com
Printed in Canada
ISBN 978-1-4426-4564-6

Printed on acid-free, 100% post-consumer recycled paper with vegetablebased inks

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Colcleugh, David, 1937, author
Everyone a leader: a guide to leading high-performance organizations for
engineers and scientists / David Colcleugh.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4426-4564-6 (bound)
1. Leadership. 2. Engineering Management. 3. Science Management.
4. Organizational effectiveness. I. Title.
HD57.7.C59 2013

658.4'092

C2013-905004-3

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its

publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts
Council.

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support of the

Government of Canada through the Canada Book Fund for its publishing
activities.

Contents

List of Figures
Preface
Acknowledgments
PART ONE: The Meaning of Leading and Leadership
1. Leading: The Catalyst for Change
Influencing People: The Process
Change: The Work of Leaders
Making Change: Getting Results
Values: The Foundation for Positive Change
2. Developmental Leadership
Learning Frameworks
The Nature of Leadership Activity
Developmental Leadership Activity
The Best Leaders Are Competent Leaders
PART TWO: Preparing Yourself to Lead
3. Role Model Leading and Leadership
The Developmental Learning Process
Role Model Leader Designation
Leadership Competency Model
4. Thinking Effectively
Thinking Effectively Model
5. Skills Capability
Functional Expertise

Developing a Personal Mission

Knowing Yourself
Knowing Others
The Power of Interdependency
Teaching Others
Diversity of Thought
Focusing on What Is Most Important
Learning from Experience
6. Character Attributes
Future Looking
Inspiring Others
Honesty
Respect for People
Tenacity
Trustworthiness
Effective Communication
Social Well-Being
Energy
7. Purposeful Behaviour
Motivation
Leadership Styles
PART THREE: Leading the Organization
8. The High-Performance Business Organization
9. Sustainable Growth
10. The High-Performance Work System and Serving Stakeholders
Internal Stakeholders Needs Satisfaction
External Stakeholders Needs Satisfaction
Stakeholders Loyalty

Harmonious Relationships
11. Viability
Creating a Harmonious Relationship with Customers
Organizing Around Value-Add Processes
Developing an Effective Change Process
12. Vitality
Creating Harmony among Employees
Working Effectively in Teams
Developing a High-Performance Culture
13. Virtue
Creating a Harmonious Relationship with Society
Treating People Fairly
Making Decisions to Do the Right Thing
Epilogue
Index

Figures

1.1 People and Change

2.1 The Tetrad
2.2 The Nature of Leadership Activity
2.3 Developmental Leadership Model
2.4 Leadership Competency Model
4.1 Thinking Effectively Model
5.1 Reconcile Model
5.2 Levels of Accomplishment
7.1 Leadership Styles Model
11.1 Value-Add Element
11.2 Value-Add Process and Value-Add System
11.3 Value-Add Structuring
11.4 The Change Process Model

Preface

What will employers expect of me? Most young people ask themselves that
question as they contemplate a career in engineering or the sciences. It makes
little difference whether they are considering a career in for-profit business or
not-for-profit. I know that many years ago, when I was starting out as an
engineer, this question was on my mind.
Early in my career, I was certain that my employer expected me to contribute
on the basis of my technical capabilities. I was a research engineer completely
dedicated to improving manufacturing processes. I suppose I was like many
other engineers who want order and structure and logic in their lives and who
dedicate themselves to the practical sciences. I had little interest in
collaboration in those early days. Of course, I knew that working together was
important, but I was sure that success was largely going to be a function of my
engineering and technical skills.
My journey from engineer to leader-engineer began about five years into my
career when a certain supervising senior engineer influenced me to understand
that the business side of engineering was important and that I needed to become
an integral part of that business. He also helped me realize that I could leverage
my contributions and skills by working with and influencing others. Several
years after that, as a reasonably successful technical manager, I experienced
another moment of understanding. A group of us concluded and eventually
proved to ourselves and others that leadership was the key to a successful
company. This long journey from engineer to engineer-leader to leader-engineer
has convinced me that I can add to the understanding of what employers truly
expect of us as engineers and scientists.
It is an important question because graduating engineers or scientists are
confident that their education will open up a lifetime of challenging and
rewarding work. They also know that how well they succeed will depend
greatly on how well they, as practising engineers, meet the needs of their
employers. And to a large extent, it will also depend on their ability to satisfy
societys needs more generally.
Many graduating engineers believe that they will satisfy their employers
needs, and societys, by applying the skills they learned in college or university.
They believe that their engineering training is what the employer wants. When
these people ask me to verify as much, I reply in a way they do not expect.
What I tell them is that the vast majority of employers expect the technology
graduate to have four distinct traits (see below) in addition to engineering skills.

Indeed, society as a whole expects them to have and use those traits. I urge them
to consider all four very carefully as they enter the workplace, for I believe this
will help them set and achieve their career goals. I also believe that they will
benefit from learning at an early career stage what they will need to offer in
order to meet the needs of employers, business organizations, and society as a
whole. Our technologically rich world is the ultimate beneficiary of engineering
and scientific competence.
Those four traits are as follows: It will help you succeed if, first, you bring
to your career a determination to continuously expand and upgrade your
engineering / science skills. Most people would agree with that, but,
unfortunately, some people stop there. The most successful engineers have
recognized that there are other requirements they must satisfy. So the second
trait leading to a successful engineering career is a willingness to develop
yourself emotionally, socially, and physically. Competence in what are often
referred to as the soft skills is extremely important to employers, for it is
those skills that enable all of the organizations people to work together
effectively and with high levels of energy, which points to the third trait selfmotivation, or will. That is, you need to be strongly motivated to contribute well
beyond your job description and to seek ways to contribute beyond the current
or daily problems presented to you for solutions.
In this book I will be discussing those three traits in terms of the preparation
required to lead. As I will show, strong leaders display a competence that
extends beyond engineering skills. They are self-starters who seek challenges
beyond the current ones. They look for ways to benefit the employer into the
future. They are the ones who raise their hand at meetings and ask the best
questions, such as Have we thought about trying this? Would doing it this way
make our company stronger? When you are a strong leader, others notice it.
All of this leads me to the fourth trait of successful engineers, which is the
ability to build on the first three so as to develop competence in leading others
that is, in influencing people, teams, groups, and the entire organization to make
changes that will generate higher performance. Employers may not articulate
their needs in terms of leadership, be it of self or others indeed, most do not
but all of them notice potential leaders when they encounter them, including
among recent engineering graduates. Deliberately or not, employers look for
highly trained people who are willing to grow their capabilities, both as
engineers and as leaders.
This book presents a pathway for developing the ability to lead oneself and
others. The aspiration presented here is simply this: Everyone a Leader. This
book will help prepare you to create and lead a high-performance organization,
which is defined here as one in which all the people are motivated to achieve
ongoing positive change and to get results that satisfy the needs of all
stakeholders owners, employees, customers, and society.

The key to achieving that goal efficiently and effectively is for everyone in
the organization from the executive suite to the sales office to the plant floor
to actively learn to become a role model leader: that is, for everyone in the
organization to be constantly engaged in learning to achieve higher levels of
leadership competence, and, importantly, for them to learn to think completely
and in an orderly way about all things that are important to achieving goals and
getting high-performance results.
And at the same time that the organizations people are developing
themselves individually as exemplary leaders, all of them are working together
to develop a high-performance business organization. The route to achieving
that future state entails establishing high-performance work systems dedicated to
sustaining, growing, and serving all stakeholders.
The developmental leadership framework for an organization is best
understood by comparing it with the conventional leadership framework. The
leaders in a conventional organization are at the top of a positional hierarchy;
from there, they direct the work of the managers, who in turn direct those whom
they are managing, and so on. In the developmental leadership model, by
contrast, everyone is learning to be a competent agent of change. Leading in a
developmental organization is not a position it is a process followed by all the
people in the organization.
The work done in a conventional organization is most often carried out in a
tightly controlled manner. In this sort of organization, change is incremental and
transactional and is planned based on past experience. In contrast, a
developmental organization emphasizes ongoing positive, transformational
change dedicated to achieving aspirational goals and results. To accomplish
this, the organization emphasizes that everyone is learning to be a leader; it also
establishes flexible and robust processes for everyone to continuously improve.
Working developmentally that is, by process is in contrast to working by
structure, which is the approach taken by conventional organizations.
Every individual in a developmental organization will be leading in some
particular circumstances and following in others, depending on the work at
hand. But even when an individual is in follower mode, the individuals
competence as a leader will continue to enhance the organizations
effectiveness. Transformational change can result from this.
The Design of the Book
Part One: The Meaning of Leading and Leadership
This section defines leading and leadership in terms of influence, positive
change, and values. This is followed by an introduction and discussion of the
developmental leadership model and its defining elements.

Part Two: Preparing Yourself to Lead

This part of the book describes how everyone can increase their leadership
competence by learning certain skills, character attributes, and purposeful
behaviours and by learning to think effectively and completely about change and
other important ideas. The goal for the organization is role model leading
competence for all. This means recognizing that every individual can
continuously develop higher and higher levels of leadership competence.
Furthermore, they can be motivated to do that, and they can learn how to do that.
Part Three: Leading the Organization
This part of the book discusses how the high-performance organization, be it
for-profit or not-for-profit, achieves sustainable growth. It does so by learning
how to create high-performance work systems. Such systems in an organization
are interdependent and are dedicated to three things: first, to increasing the
value-add of the organizations work (its viability); second, to developing the
spirit and ability of the organizations people (its vitality); and third, to doing
the right things (its virtue). In this way, the organization can achieve a high level
(a harmony) of service to all stakeholders.
The Target Audience
This book is intended mainly for engineers, scientists, and technologists who are
early in their careers and professional lives. Specifically, undergraduate
students and people who have started their careers in engineering and other
technology-intensive organizations will benefit from this book.
Engineering and science-intensive business organizations will be at the
forefront of the advances the world makes to improve the lives of people. The
changes that need to be made in the mindset of organizational leaders are best
directed at those who are early in their careers. Yet engineering and science
students in colleges and universities who are interested in learning more about
business leadership have long been underserved by books and other
publications.
Technologically competent people are found in every industry and in almost
every organization. Engineers and scientists tend to think and act in systematic,
process-oriented ways. It is their nature, be it innate or instilled, to go about
their work in a thoughtful and orderly manner. For them, that is the best way to
solve problems and make things better. The leadership frameworks described in
this book are designed to meet their needs.
The Background to This Book

The model presented in this book was developed and implemented in a science
company by engineers, scientists, and other practitioners of technology. It was
developed for the purpose of creating a more effective and growthful
organization. It was not developed by academics, consultants, psychologists, or
others for the purpose of better understanding the behaviour or characteristics of
leaders. Instead, it was developed by people doing work in a real organization
for the purpose of improving the performance of their organization as measured
by the most demanding of audiences: customers, owners, other employees, and
society at large.
Many of the examples and stories in this book relate to DuPont Canada1
because that is where I worked for decades, starting as a research engineer and
eventually becoming CEO. At DuPont Canada we set out deliberately to
improve our organizations performance. We were already well aware of and
practising the principles of democratic leadership. But we needed more: we
needed something that would truly transform our company. So we began to
develop a new model of leadership one that, while rooted in previous
leadership approaches, would enhance them significantly.
Very early in our development of this model, we achieved results that
convinced us we were taking the best possible approach. On the way to turning
ourselves into a learning organization, we improved productivity, achieved
better quality, and strengthened our relationships with customers, employees,
and society. We became a high-performance organization as measured in terms
of service to stakeholders.
A second test of this books developmental leadership framework happened
in classrooms at the University of Toronto, in the Faculty of Applied Science
and Engineering, where for six years the leadership model presented here has
been taught to undergraduate and graduate students through a course titled
Leading and Leadership in Groups and Organizations. That experiment has
succeeded: these aspiring leaders have embraced what that course has taught
them and have benefited from it in their own measured opinion.
This is noteworthy for a number of reasons. First, it signifies that material
developed in an industrial environment has transposed well into an academic
one. This is the reverse of what typically happens when intellectual material is
presented. Second, if this books premise is correct that is, if all engineers,
scientists, and technologists working in organizations around the world would
benefit from acquiring leadership competence then surely they should start
doing so while they are still in school.

Acknowledgments

I humbly acknowledge the following people who are the reason this book could
be written:
First and foremost, I thank the people at DuPont Canada, whom it was my
privilege to work beside for many decades. In the mid-1980s, we began
working to transform the company. During those years, many people too many
to mention dedicated themselves to creating a new way to operate a complex
business organization. All of those people were driven to become better, more
competent individual leaders and organizational leaders as the means to grow
the enterprise. The direct result of their commitment to excellence has been a
strong and loyal and vital culture.
Next, I thank Charles Krone, who worked with many of us from the beginning
of our leadership project and who became a friend of the company, not just a
consultant. Charles developed with us many critical thinking concepts, including
Levels of Thought and Function / Being / Will ( Charles Krone Associates,
with permission), and worked alongside us providing inspiration as well as
opportunities for us to develop our learning capacity. His influence is evident
throughout the book in the various frameworks and models I will be presenting.
Without his influence we would not have been as successful as we were.
Third, I must point out that this book has grown out of, and supports the
program of, the Institute for Leadership Education in Engineering (ILead) at the
University of Toronto. Professor Doug Reeve is the Director of the Institute,
which evolved from the Leaders of Tomorrow (LOT) initiative in the
Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry at the University of
Toronto. I am proud to say that I am an alumnus of the university. The visionary
leader, Professor Reeve, and his essential partner in the work, Professor Greg
Evans, asked me to prepare a course based on my DuPont experience, to deliver
it to their students, and finally to write the book.

EVERYONE A LEADER
A Guide to Leading High-Performance Organizations
for Engineers and Scientists

PART ONE

The Meaning of Leading and Leadership

1. Leading: The Catalyst for Change

2. Developmental Leadership

1 Leading: The Catalyst for Change

Let me start by asking you to think about a significant event in your life that
inspired you so that you said to yourself or to others, That changes everything!
Why hadnt I thought about that?
All of us have experienced important changes in our worlds. You have
almost certainly linked each of those changes to particular individuals. We seem
to find it natural to identify important changes, positive or negative, with agents
of those changes. Even when many people contributed, we seem to want to link
those changes to individuals.
Often in our memories, the change agents who have inspired us are great men
and women, many of them engineers or scientists, such as Henry Ford, who
revolutionized mass production, and Albert Einstein, who reinvented Newtonian
physics. Then, at the personal level, there are people that we actually know who
inspired us to change our lives. Perhaps it was a mechanical engineer on your
project team who pointed you towards a design change that eliminated a major
bottleneck; perhaps it was a civil engineer you know who started a small but
thriving construction company; perhaps it was a high school physics teacher
who inspired you to pursue a career in engineering.
Let me tell you a story about continuous, difficult, inspiring change that has
had an impact on me. The story, which is ongoing, summarizes a long and
complicated series of events, all of them related to extraordinary engineering
creativity and difficult decision making over a long period of continuous
change.1
The story revolves around a discrete business unit (Package BU) in the
polymer materials marketplace. It was one of a number of discrete business
units within a large, consolidated technology company (Materials Co.), whose
purpose was to create solutions for customers.
Carol had been a research engineer in Materials Co. for many years. She
worked largely on other peoples ideas, moving those ideas forward by making
small but important changes that generated successes. But that would change as
she developed from a technical person with a great deal of drive into a person
determined to be an agent or catalyst for change.
Carol had an idea that became a passion that she believed could have a
strong, positive impact on Materials Co. The concept involved a radically
different packaging system for foods one that would have little environmental
impact and low cost. She recruited others in the company to the idea and started
a project, and after a long and sometimes frustrating period of experimentation
involving many people, she was able to start Package BU. My experience has

been that most successful business developments require enormous time, effort,
and energy, and that was definitely the case here.
Even after the business was launched, there were a series of major issues to
be addressed relating to less than robust technology and to a marketplace that
had become disenchanted with the product. All of these seemingly
insurmountable issues were dealt with by Carol and a host of others associated
with Package BU. By then, the team she had formed was legendary within the
company. They were always setting goals and achieving them. They had
embraced a mantra that worked: listen to the customer, reduce costs, boost
productivity, and take responsibility for making things better.
Each challenge the Package BU team faced led to innovations, and each
innovation allowed the small unit to grow. That growth was slow at first, but
within a few years the unit was of considerable size, though still relatively
small within its parent company. All the while, however, Carol and her team
had to contend with a series of senior managers at Materials Co. who kept
pointedly asking her and her team, Why should we continue to support Package
BU when it is so small and so different from the rest of our business?
These strategic concerns within the company were a distraction, but Carol
often reminded her team, We need to listen and find answers to their questions
and persuade them to understand us these executives are our customers, too.
And they did find those answers, and they continued to get the support of these
senior managers, albeit reluctant support.
This challenge became almost a daily one, or so it seemed for Carol and her
team and their supporters within the company. Throughout this phase of the
story, Carol served as an inspirational role model: she urged her team to move
forward and meet their goals, while at the same time communicating and
interpreting their work to the company strategists who were constantly asking
probing questions about how her Package BU fit into Materials Co.
Eventually, the conflict reached a turning point, with Carol on one side and
the companys senior managers on the other, both equally determined. Materials
Co.s senior managers decided that their strategists were correct, that Package
BU was not a good fit, and that Carol should stop spending time and resources
on growing the business. Carol and her team went to work, delivering the same
message again and again: unless it kept growing, Package BU would die. But
they could not change the minds of the senior executives this time, and the cash
outputs of Package BU were soon being diverted to support the companys core
businesses.
Finally, the decision was made to shut down or sell Package BU. It was too
small and too different, and it was generating too little profit to survive within
Materials Co. Carol and her team were depressed. I remember discussing this
turn of events with her. Though deeply disappointed, she was adamant that her
team would persist and change the minds of the companys senior managers.

I remember asking her whether this might not be the time to give in, to
disband the team and go back to solving other peoples problems and
developing solutions that, so it seemed, mattered more to the company. I
remember her saying that her role was to see the strength in both perspectives
and to use that to find even better reasons to grow Package BU as a unit of
Materials Co.
Very soon after this, one of her team members had an idea and convinced
Carol and the team members of its validity. As a group, they asked for a meeting
with the companys senior leaders. The idea they had was simple: if Package
BU was too small to fit comfortably in the larger company, then transform it into
a much larger BU, and do it rapidly by acquiring a company in a related
technology and marketplace. As a result of this reconcile, Package BU would
become a better fit within Materials Co. in terms of size and market, and, in fact,
transform Materials Co.2
After much discussion, the senior leaders told Carols team, Prove your
concept to us and we will consider. So Carol and her team, after engaging in
more discussion, experimentation, and persuasion, set out to find candidates for
acquisition.
This is an ongoing story, and it isnt clear yet whether the story will be one
of success. The outcome of all the work, all the discussion, all the engineering
and scientific advances, and all the emotional ups and downs is not the actual
point here. Rather, the message is that the events described here were all
catalysed by a person who demonstrated leadership capability. Carol influenced
many people throughout the company to move beyond the status quo. She
inspired her team to reach for a better future; she was tenacious in her pursuit of
that future; and she incorporated the best ideas of others while moving her unit
towards the future she wanted it to achieve. Finally, Carols work improved the
lives of many people: the employees of Package BU, whom she motivated so
well; the environment, which benefited from the products her unit produced; and
the customers, who benefited from the innovative products the unit produced. As
an aside, an acquisition was made and the story of this business unit moved to a
different phase of continuous change.
I believe we were put on this earth to improve the lives of others. Few people
would dispute that; most would agree. Most of us focus our actions to
accomplish that goal on those who are closest to us: family, friends, our
community, people who share our values, and so on.
How are we doing?
Many people have succeeded at improving the lives of others there are too
many to ever list, and all of us have our lists. But if we step back and add it all
up, we cannot be satisfied with the results. I am certain that it is possible for all
of us to do more than we have done. There is too much suffering, too much
conflict, and too much waste of potential around the world for us to be satisfied.

Most people would agree that at the forefront of the work to improve the
lives of others, and to improve the world for the better, are those who are
functionally competent in science, technology, and engineering. Rapid advances
in the various sciences and technologies and in their implementation (by
engineers) are many and well known. To fill this books pages with examples
would be superfluous.
There have been many advances, many disappointments, and many mistakes
in the development of science and various technologies as well as in their
implementation. But most of us would agree that overall, science and its
outgrowths have made our lives better.
How are we to strengthen this progress fuelled by science, technology, and
engineering? How are we as engineers to make our work even more productive,
even higher in quality, and even more attuned to peoples needs? What actions
can we take to improve peoples lives even more than we already have?
I suggest that we require a catalyst to answer these questions and to achieve
the goals that are inherent in them. A catalyst like Carol.
Speaking as a chemical engineer, I can assure you that catalysts are
wonderful things. A catalyst is a material that has a strong, positive effect on the
rate of a chemical reaction and on the amount of energy required to complete
that reaction. Yet it is not consumed or destroyed by the chemical reaction it is
supporting it remains to do it all again. In my mind, the leader of an
organization is a sort of catalyst a person who guides the organization
passionately towards positive change, doing it effectively, learning from that
experience, and doing it again and again better each time. This is what Carol
and her organization did.
Although a catalyst is not consumed in a reaction, it may be poisoned or
deactivated in some way, or perhaps coated in waste products. Unfortunately,
the same can happen to aspiring leaders who have not prepared themselves:
who either have not learned to be leaders or believe they were born leaders. I
contend in this book that only those who learn to be leaders will succeed in
changing things for the better by influencing the people who follow them.
Leadership competence is not born in any of us; we all need to develop it.
To extend the analogy, a catalyst must be designed carefully for the task it is
meant to accomplish. This cannot be done casually. A catalyst, if designed
carelessly, can just as easily take the chemical reaction in a bad direction so that
the desired outcome isnt achieved. So a catalyst that is, a leader must learn
to become competent in the leadership tasks at hand in order to succeed in the
incredibly difficult work of changing the world for the better.
More questions flow rapidly from all this: What is leadership? How do we
define it? Why is it important? The academic and practitioner communities have
been debating those questions for many years. Everyone is convinced we need

more of it, but no one is able to define it to the satisfaction of all.

Many books and articles have been written about leadership. Joseph D. Rost
in his compelling book Leadership for the Twenty-First Century3 spends much
of his time reviewing the literature and concludes that there is no consensus on
what leadership is. He is right about that. The torrent of writing about
leadership flowing through our world today amounts to various attempts to
define leadership. The resulting definitions hinge on activities and their
outcomes. For example, a magazine article will declare that a certain company
(or activity in that company) has succeeded because of a certain leader, or it
will describe for readers a specific leadership activity.
One main reason why there is so little agreement on what leadership is
relates to the fact that people are proposing their ideas about it from different
levels of thought. Some propose a conceptual definition, as in leadership is
visioning. Others propose an action-based definition, as in leaders make the
right decisions and get results. In other words, many definitions focus on why
leaders do what they do, or on how leaders prepare themselves to do what they
do. Definitions of leadership are disputed because those who offer them do not
reveal and perhaps do not even recognize which level of thought they have
prioritized: Why? How? What?
In his book, Rost discussed at great length the myriad definitions that have
been proposed for leader as well as for leadership, which he quite rightly
views as a separate concept. The word leader was already in common use by
the seventeenth century. At the time, it meant someone who guides, conducts,
directs, or controls, which is very much what a modern-day leader does.
Leadership began appearing in dictionaries in the 1920s, by which time it
meant, variously, the office or position of a leader or the ability of a leader.
Rost tells us that leadership is a twentieth-century concept, and he is right.
The definition of leadership evolved from the positional definitions of the
early twentieth century, which described what leaders do, to those of the mid to
latter part of the century, which focused on why leaders exist. R.C. Davis
defined leadership as the principal dynamic force that stimulates, motivates,
and coordinates the organization in the accomplishment of its objectives.4 J.K.
Hemphill wrote that leadership may be said to be the behavior of an individual
while he is involved in directing group activities.5
By the mid-twentieth century, definitions like these had become widely
accepted, largely in the context of the development of large corporations and the
science of organization management. The head of a large organization or one of
its largest parts was called the leader. This individual was at the top of the
hierarchy. One result has been persistent confusion when we try to grasp what
leading really means and who leaders actually are.
Leadership is a functional activity. It is the work a leader does, in the same

way that engineering, accounting, and selling are the activities engaged in by
engineers, accountants, and salespeople, respectively. All of these people are
functionally competent to do specific work.
A functionally competent engineer can learn to be a leader. That does not
mean this person stops being a value-add engineer. Depending on that persons
role in the organization, the leader-engineer will spend more or less time as an
engineer, or alternatively, more or less time as a leader. An engineering
department head in a large, multifunctional company will by the nature of the
activity be spending almost all his time in leadership activities. But he will do
that job better if he is and remains a competent engineer. It is my philosophy,
described in this book, that all people can learn to lead and that all who do so
will benefit both themselves and everyone else in the organization and in
society. It is not a premise of this book that those who learn to lead lose their
other functional competencies or that those competencies should be allowed to
deteriorate. The premise is quite the contrary the competent leader-engineer
will add value to the company and to society by growing all the functional
capabilities in his or her possession.
Competent leader-engineers, whether their role is largely leadership
activities or largely functional engineering activities, are engaged in problem
solving and changing things for the better. Having both functional capabilities is
advantageous for all concerned.
As I noted earlier, a catalyst is a material that can increase the rate at which
a chemical reaction occurs. In terms of leading and leadership, this chemical
reaction is, quite simply, change. In the world of science, technology, and
engineering, advances are made by solving problems and making things and
situations better.
The work of leading is making positive change, and the primary process
for accomplishing that is influencing people. In this book I will be using the
following two definitions:
Leading is influencing people to make positive change.
Leaders are people who influence others to make positive change.

Influencing People: The Process

A process is a chain of steps or actions, all connected, with each step adding
value. For example, building a house is a process: first you gather all the
materials, then you build a foundation, then you build a floor, then you build the
walls, then you build the ceiling, and so on. Each of these steps adds value to
the house you are building. Each is part of logical chain of activities. And each
step in the process of building a house has its own steps: hammering nails,
carrying materials, painting the walls, and so on. The process of leading that

is, influencing others has many value-add steps, as well as systems and
subsystems. In this book you will encounter extensive discussions about this.
Leading by process is very different from leading from a position in a
hierarchy. At DuPont Canada and at many other companies in the 1980s, the
focus was on hierarchical leadership. As part of the evolution towards
Everyone a Leader, we shifted our focus from positional leadership to a more
developmental, process-oriented form. This process-oriented way of leading is
the essence of the message you will read about in this book. Carol, in our
opening story, was a catalytic, process-oriented leader in a company that up to
that point had emphasized positional, hierarchical leadership.
Many, many people are tied to the notion that a leader is, quite simply, a
position in a hierarchy. In many, perhaps in most groups and organizations, be
they profit-oriented or not-for-profit, people progress up a variety of
hierarchical ladders. Consider the progression from junior engineer, to senior
engineer, to supervisor of a small group of engineers, to manager of a larger
group, and then to the much-desired leader designation. This progress, which
is measured in terms of pay and relative authority, reflects the positional
definition of leadership.
By contrast, the premise of this book is that, in fact, a leader is someone who
engages in leading who does leading by engaging in leadership activities in
a disciplined and systematic manner. Furthermore, those leadership activities
can take place anywhere in an organization, at any level of its hierarchy.
Leading is as likely to occur, and leadership is as likely to be encountered on a
shop floor as in the executive suite. This process definition of leading and
leadership will be thoroughly investigated and advocated in this book.
What, then, is successful influencing? What causes people to agree to make
positive change in their organization and, by inference, in themselves?
There are three main points to bear in mind regarding how leaders can
influence or catalyse people to accept a new direction.
Admired Leaders
The link between admiration and influence can be strong. People admire others
for many reasons physical, social, emotional, and mental intelligences are
involved in varying degrees. People are more easily influenced by those they
admire.
Much depends, quite simply, on the leaders competence. This verges on a
tautology: if you as a potential follower recognize a person as a leader that is,
if you admire that persons leadership competence you will allow yourself to
be led by that person.
I learned about this very early in my career. After a few years in DuPont
Canada, I was given a first-level managerial role. That was an exciting time for

me. I had been assigned a group of people as well as specific objectives, and
now I had to achieve results through the efforts of these people whom I barely
knew. So to start with, using my authority as a manager as an aspiring leader
I ordered them to do certain things. Most of the people said Yes! Some said
nothing. The work was completed over a few months, but the project was a
failure.
I had just learned a valuable lesson about leadership: If you want people to
accomplish extraordinary things, you have to earn admiration for your
leadership.
Ordering people to do things is easy; influencing them is hard. But
influencing them always generates more successful outcomes. Often, when
people are ordered to do things, they say yes but then go into a mode of
behaviour that is really no sir or on my terms, sir. This is closet
rejection. When a less competent leader discovers less than satisfactory
results, only then does he reap the consequences of poor leading. And often the
less competent leader will blame his own failure on the incompetence of his
followers. If only the people were better, he tells himself, then the results
would have been better. And he responds by ordering them to do it again, and
the project fails again, and so on.
All of which generates this question: Can a person learn to be an admired
leader, a competent leader, a role model leader? The answer is yes, and part
two of this book will describe in detail how role model leadership can be
learned.
Reciprocal Maintenance
We next consider the phenomenon of reciprocal maintenance. What this
means, quite simply, is that people feel obligated to do things for those who
have done things for them. You are influenced to give something to someone
who shows a willingness to give something first to you. The very best technical
salespeople know this. I know agricultural chemicals technical salespeople who
have made it their practice to send detailed weather forecasts to farmers on a
regular basis, along with all kinds of similar useful items that reflect the values
and needs of their customers. These are often small, proactive service gifts that
help farmers do their work. This effort bears fruit many times over in the form
of increased sales. It is the same for aspiring leaders if you want to influence
people, start by giving them something they value highly.
The first thing that may come to mind when I say give something to
someone is a tangible material reward, such as bonus pay or some other
monetary reward. Those sorts of things can be well intended indeed, they can
be valuable but they are unlikely to have a lasting impact. So offer those things
for the right reasons, while also recognizing their downsides: they have at best a

short-term impact and can result in awkward expectations. Strangely enough,

reciprocal maintenance works best when the exchange is long on work value
and short on dollar value.
High-performing leaders know that the best possible strategic gift they can
make to their followers is simply this: an appealing future state. Instead of
material goods, these leaders offer a future state that their followers will want.
This is far more powerful than monetary gifts or other instant gratifications.
These followers are being offered a more appealing future than they could have
imagined on their own, along with direction on how to achieve that state.
And that is a gift of enormous consequences. It is also a lasting gift. In return
and this is where reciprocal maintenance comes into play the leaders asks
their followers to work with them to implement that future state so that everyone
will benefit. In this way, a contract has been made between the leaders and the
followers: those who are willing to follow their leaders direction will receive
in return a better life as well as the opportunity to work with others who are
similarly prepared to follow.
Thinking Leaders
People tend to be conformists that is, to do whatever they see other people
doing. Examples of this are legion, in fashion, in music, and in politics. Stand on
a busy street corner sometime in a conspicuous spot and look up. Soon enough,
other people will start to gather around you and, yes, look up with you.
That experiment illustrates a superficial outcome practised by those who are
looking for quick, short-term influence. A less competent leader may rely solely
on charisma to get people to follow. But after people have looked up and seen
nothing of substance after they have seen nothing that will meet their personal
needs that sort of leaders influence over them soon vanishes.
The very best leaders are competent, thoughtful, and systematic, much like
the best engineers and scientists. They have ideas that other people find
appealing enough to accept. Most people want to think they want their minds
to be challenged and to offer and receive big ideas. The most influential leaders
are the ones who are willing to engage others in seeking forward-looking ideas
for positive change. People know when their capacity to think creatively is
being respected and when their leader is open to their ideas. They find it
gratifying when they encounter a leader like this and will in turn be more open
to accept their leaders thinking.
Change: The Work of Leaders
The only constant is change, continuing change, inevitable change.
Isaac Asimov

It is easy to embrace Asimovs sentiment as we look around at the worlds of

politics, business, technology, and even sports. It is reasonable, indeed
fashionable, to say that things are changing. Everyone seems to acknowledge
that change is inevitable. After some thought, almost all of us would agree that
change is everywhere; that it is continuous; that it can be either slow or rapid;
and that it is sometimes random and other times purposeful. Great people and
influential observers are always reminding us that times are changing,
especially when times are tough and we need to be reminded to do something
about it:
The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate for the stormy present. The
occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion,
and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our
country.
Abraham Lincoln, Message to Congress, 1 December 1862

That is an extraordinary excerpt from a speech by a great leader. Lincoln was

influencing his fellow citizens to take action, to do something different, to
change things for the better. And in doing so, he touched on all of the key
questions that a leader must consider: Why? How? What?
The readers of this book, engineers and scientists, are in the cauldron of
change. Ray Kurzweil, director of engineering at Google, entrepreneur,
inventor, and futurist, has said: An analysis of the history of technology shows
that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense intuitive
linear view. So we wont experience 100 years of progress in the twenty-first
century it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at todays rate).6 This
comment about the current rate of technological change underscores the need of
engineers and scientists to engage in leading change it offers both an
opportunity and responsibility.
Hierarchy of Change
A useful approach to understanding change is in terms of its sweep and
complexity. Granted, change is important whatever its magnitude. The point here
is that a leaders role will adjust according to the magnitude of the change. The
best way to think about this is in terms of three levels of change: incremental,
continuous, and transformational.
Incremental change is small but measurable. It is change in some variable
that is relatively easy to accomplish. If we are producing widgets in our factory
and we have been making yellow, red, and blue widgets and we decide to make
a few green widgets, that is an incremental change. It is incremental because the
green widgets are a small fraction of the total; thus, little has changed in the
mandate of the manufacturing manager and the organization. Little has changed

for the factorys future or its role, mandate, or profitability. We can measure the
changes in the widget business, but this will have little impact on the businesss
long-term future. We have made an incremental change one that is significant
enough to be measured, but incremental nonetheless. The distinction here is
between transactional and transformational change. Transactional here refers
to asking others to take small, easily understood actions. Transformational
refers to asking others to see the benefit of major, not so easily understood
directions.
Many profit-oriented organizations are content to make incremental changes
because their culture sets a high value on stability, control, and regulation. This
is often a characteristic of governments as well, and of other organizations that
favour transactional over transformational change. It is also common among
organizations run by people who are more comfortable managing than leading.
Managing is more about controlling present boundaries than seeking new ones.
Managers are more likely to launch incremental changes in their role of
controlling and improving a current state.
This is not to suggest that incremental change doesnt involve leadership.
Indeed, incremental change may require leadership when the task at hand is the
first step towards more aggressive, future-oriented change. That is, leaders may
experiment with incremental changes as a way to prepare the ground for more
dramatic changes. This can help minimize risk when failure in the early changes
could have disastrous effects on the organization and its people and other
stakeholders. For example, when considering changes in a bridge design, if
dangerous stresses cannot be completely ruled out, it may be prudent to focus on
incremental change. It may even be prudent to bring about more dramatic change
through a series of incremental steps, measuring and evaluating changes in the
design in an orderly manner along the way to an improved future state.
All incremental changes of this type involve leadership, for they entail
managing transactionally with the long-term goal of leading
transformationally. Perhaps this is a play on words, but it helps us understand
that incremental change can be useful as an interdependent idea when combined
with continuous improvement change or transformational change. It also
illustrates that organizing effectively requires leading and managing processes,
often by the same person.
Continuous improvement goes beyond incremental change. It is change that
leads towards a new direction for the organization. It is a systematic and
disciplined approach, and it reflects a commitment by leaders and the
organization to make things better.
As noted, incremental change entails small but measurable steps that may
have little impact on the organizations future performance or aspirations.
Continuous improvement, by contrast, is large, measurable, and planned. It also
has ongoing effects on the organizations future performance as measured by a

large number of productivity, quality, and service indicators.

When we talk about productivity, we are referring here to productivity in the
generic sense, as input that generates output. Examples include financial
productivity, measured perhaps by sales revenue per employee; social
productivity, measured as the percentage of a countrys people living above the
poverty line; and innovation productivity, measured as the number of new
products the company has launched in the marketplace each year or the number
of recent hires for its engineering department as a percentage of total hires. In
other words, productivity includes many important measures relating to the
organization, the industry, and the country. Lets consider our widget factory
again.
Lets say that the leader sets a direction that commits the organization to
becoming the most productive widget manufacturer in North America.
Furthermore, she defines productivity in terms of revenue over cost that is, as
sales revenue from widgets sold over the cost of buying the raw materials,
making the widgets, marketing them, and so on. By this definition of
productivity, the direction she has set amounts to a commitment to ongoing
change for the factory business a direction that she, as a leader, has set.
Many, many businesses engage in continuous improvement. The idea grew
out of the Total Quality Management movement of the 1970s and 1980s, though
its roots go back even earlier to the Deming-inspired quality revolution in
Japans auto industry.
A company, especially a large and complex one, requires strong leadership
in order to generate continuous improvement to set a direction and guide the
actions of all those involved in carrying out that direction, whether as
individuals or as team members. And after that direction has been set, strong
management is required in order to foster the environment that must exist to get
all projects started, to keep the company on track once change begins to occur
within it, and to prepare the companys people for further change.
In an environment of developmental continuous improvement, success can be
measured in a number of ways. In fact, measures are visible almost everywhere
that enable all members of the organization to see and understand their
contributions to the change effort as they go about their daily tasks. During major
continuous improvement efforts, there will be many distinct and important
projects throughout the organization. Each project will be distinguishable from
the others in terms of who is leading it, which people are assigned to it, how its
success is measured, and what it is contributing to the companys overall
targets.
Transformational change goes well beyond incremental change in terms of
the size of the change and its impact on the organizations future.
Transformational change is major, innovative, disruptive, and difficult; it also
takes a long time and results in an entirely new future for the organization. In

many ways, transformational change is less measurable than incremental change

or continuous improvement. It is visionary, conceptual, and vague but also
clearly directed. An example is the transformational change that is under way
around the world in the energy sector: vast and multiplying innovations, new
companies, and new government programs. These changes are dedicated to the
same vision the replacement of fossil fuels. This is global transformational
change.
But transformational change can also be discussed at the level of the
individual firm or organization. Under our definition of transformational change,
I would offer as an example an acquisition by our widget company that doubled
the size of the company and that changed its technology base. That acquisition
would be a transformational event for the company, especially if it moved the
company into a different product line or a different industry sector. Recall from
our earlier example that this was quite similar to Carols solution to the threat
facing her Package BU.
It is the leaders role to initiate transformational change. The great leaders
throughout history and into the present day have based their reputations on the
transformational change they have imagined and carried out. History is full of
transformations in companies, governments, and institutions of all kinds, many
of them positive, some negative. There is no end of transformational leaders
who could be called on as examples: in politics, Mohandas Gandhi and
Margaret Thatcher; in technology, Edwin Land of Polaroid and Steven Jobs of
Apple; in health, Francis Crick and Margaret Sanger; in the arts, Charlie
Chaplin and Ansel Adams. These people changed the world and inspired and
influenced countless others.
Still other business leaders were innovators of processes. Two of the most
prominent among these were engineers associated with the American auto
industry of the early twentieth century: Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan. Henry
Ford revolutionized manufacturing by developing the automated, conveyor
assembly line, which reduced by 90 per cent the time it took to manufacture a
car an enormous transformational change that allowed most people to buy
their first car. This in turn drove a whole series of transformations of the U.S.
economy.
Around the same time, Alfred Sloan built General Motors into the worlds
largest automaker by changing how cars were marketed. It was Sloan who
persuaded car buyers to pay more for luxury and prestige instead of opting for
the simple car for the masses that Ford was producing. Sloan and his
organization changed forever the industry indeed, the whole world by
influencing people to pay more for a luxurious Cadillac and to pay more for the
colour they wanted when buying a less expensive Chevrolet. This new
marketing approach, known as product differentiation, generated enormous
profits for GM and was rapidly taken up by other companies and industries.

One final point: The strongest leaders are highly motivated to make major
transformational changes. But they achieve those changes through a series of
continuous improvement projects, which in turn are composed of many and
varied incremental change steps. All of these efforts are focused on the
transformational goal and implemented through a disciplined, systematic, and
highly integrated set of work processes.
Making Change: Getting Results
Leaders are accountable for the direction of the company, business unit, or
project, and they must be committed to implementing that direction. A leader
will do a great deal of thinking, researching, consulting, collaborating, and
seeking of shared purpose in many different ways before crafting that direction.
But after all that after that direction has been crafted and then presented to the
organizations followers and stakeholders the direction amounts to a decision
to go forward, and the leader is dedicated to making the change and getting
results.
The very best leaders are passionate about making meaningful change and
getting measurable results. Getting those results is not the last thing the very best
leaders think about and do. The best leaders think about getting positive results
all the time.
There is a fallacy in the minds of some tragically so in the minds of some
aspiring leaders that role model leaders sit in a corner office thinking about
visions of a future, take those visions to the organizations people, say go do
it, and then walk away. The false idea here is that leaders set the direction for
others to then implement. In other words, leaders only watch change happen.
That is at best an exaggeration, and most people know it. The reality is that the
very best leaders are engaged in the entire process of change. They are driven
by the value they place on meaningful change and by their overwhelming desire
to get results. But they also hold it to be true that the very best way to change
things for the better is to influence people to follow their direction in the most
effective manner possible.
The very best leaders believe indeed, they know they must work in
unique and different ways than those whose primary roles are managing and
following. Furthermore, they must do so at the action and results stages of the
change process. Leaders often participate in projects by adding their functional
skills to those of the team. Even so, their most important task getting results
is accomplished not by contributing to the functional work but by leading.
The organization needs to sense the leaders role in taking action and getting
results. That leader needs to be seen, heard, and felt when change is being
implemented. Sometimes this means that the architect of the change effort must
be seen as working with the team hands on. Sometimes the leaders, having

designed and set the direction, can make their ongoing impact felt by asking
appropriate questions and by personally coaching the people on the
implementation team. There are many ways that leaders can make their impact
felt, depending on their unique capabilities. What is most important is that they
be passionate about the action and results stages of the change process, not
merely interested. This point is discussed at more length later in the book.
The very best leaders know and are motivated or driven by the complete
process of leading: by thinking, directing, influencing, doing, and getting results.
None of these elements of the leading process is more important than the other.
All of these elements are about changing things about getting results that
improve peoples lives.
I have said that leaders are passionate about meaningful change and getting
results. An equally good word for that is ambition: role model leaders and
aspiring leaders are extremely ambitious.
In most of the lecture series that I give students on leading and leadership, I
ask them, All those who want to change the world for the better, raise your
hand. Of course, they all do. They are all aspiring leaders. But they do not yet
know how to lead or what to do. They may not understand what Im really
asking, but they place great value on the idea of service to people. They are
ambitious! And that is what young aspiring leaders need to be, but that is just the
start.
Big results require big ambitions.
Michael Hammer and James Champy7

As aspiring leaders, these students are motivated and ambitious but not yet fully
competent. They cannot yet answer the how and what questions of leadership.
The aspiring leaders ambition and competence are important interdependent
concepts when a company is seeking to get great results from leadership
activities. One learning framework that can help with that understanding is a
simple 2x2 matrix, reflecting the high and low scales of competence and
ambition.
When I first became a supervisor in a technical organization many years ago,
I had a conversation with a capable engineering technician one of the people
in the group I was managing. We were talking about career aspirations. He told
me that his ambition was to be the technical manager of the R&D organization.
This surprised me this man was good but not excellent at his job. He was
certainly experienced, but he was aspiring to a role that was many, many
competency levels above his current level. We explored together the questions
Why? How? and What? relative to this idea, this ambition he had to get the
result he wanted, which was to get a promotion to this distant hierarchical level.
We agreed it was a superordinate target, but he insisted it was doable. He was

unable or unwilling to engage in a realistic discussion centring on How? or

What? especially on the notions of hard, demanding, results-oriented work.
Especially instructive to me was our discussion of Why? Why, I asked him, do
you want to become the technical manager? The answers he gave centred not on
service to others or on improving the lives of others or on meeting the needs of
the organization. All of his motivation centred on personal ambition. This is
when the words blind ambition first occurred to me.
Blind ambition is ambition without competence; it is based on ego rather than
a purpose and service beyond self.
At the other extreme in the 2x2 matrix is a competent role model leader
without ambition: a bird without wings. At the same time, an incompetent
aspiring leader with ego-driven ambition is destined to be disappointed and
may well damage the other people in the organization. Neither one of these
examples is headed for role model leading and leadership.
Noble ambition is, I believe, an appropriate term for competent, highperformance role model leaders who are passionate about meaningful change
and positive results that serve the needs of others.
Without ambition one starts nothing. Without work one finishes nothing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Emerson elegantly makes another point: the very best role model leaders have
noble ambition and work very hard to get the best possible results from the
direction they have given others. While implementing the direction, they do
different work than those managing and those following; but they work as hard
and in some cases harder than others.
A certain manufacturing manager, a good engineer and my colleague for many
years, is the best example of noble ambition in my experience. He was
determined to serve others and teach them the developmental way to create
sustainable, positive results. He made himself available to share his competence
as a leader and an engineer. He designed learning frameworks as his instrument
of choice when working with people who, like him, were ambitious to get
superior results. He was an authentic person whose quiet confidence,
competence, and ambition inspired people to do more.
Noble ambition is a determination to learn to be a high-performance leader
or to go beyond and to have a work ethic that says to those following, I want
you to follow my direction and I will work hard to influence you to follow, and
I believe so strongly in you and in the direction that I will work very hard with
you to accomplish it.
There is an important reality about the interaction of leaders and followers
when change is being implemented: it is never a linear process. It is not step by
step, as in, The leader has an idea The leader influences people to accept

the idea The leader and followers do the hard work The change happens

The interactions of people making change constitute a non-linear process that

requires constant reinforcement. The level of leading and leadership
competence must be very high to withstand the various countervailing energies
at play in a change process.
In all organizations, when engineers or leaders set out to change things, the
morale of those following shows a consistent pattern, as illustrated in Figure
1.1. Morale is a measure of the logical and / or emotional acceptance of the
direction the leader is giving his or her followers. When acceptance is high, so
is morale; when acceptance is low, morale sinks. Morale is a measure of buyin or willingness to change. To grasp the meaning of leading and leadership, it
is important to understand this pattern.
People often start out wanting to accept the leaders view that change is good
for us. In these early stages of the influencing process, morale often rises.
People are enthusiastic; they accept the leaders positive message. This is very
similar to what happens when army recruiters ask young adults to sign up for
military service during wartime. The message is accepted because the leader
and the message are trusted and because people have no experience to draw on.
The recruiter is signalling change, but the people he is recruiting are unable to
take the long view that is, to see what the change will actually mean to them.
Obviously, the leader accentuates the mystery at these early stages by expressing
a personal commitment to the change.
This early enthusiasm typically does not last. Reality sets in people begin
to see, listen, and feel as the leaders describe honestly the path forward and the
work to be done. This requires followers to move from the comfort of the
current state towards an uncertain future state. And this is where the questions
usually start, beginning with Whats in it for me? Why is the current state so
bad? How can he do that? How do we acquire the skills to do this? The
leader will have to answer a host of questions of this sort.
The initial burst of enthusiasm at the early stages is the result of the leaders
competence. But even the best leaders skills begin to lose their impact as the
organization reflects on the Why? What? and How? questions. Less capable
leaders, after they have told the organization that change is coming, quickly
begin to lose their followers morale. The followers initial euphoria can have a
very short half-life.
Unfortunately, acceptance of change often turns quickly into resistance. Most
people do not accept change easily. The notion of tuning out comes into play
here that is, people may say they understand and support the new direction in
order to avoid controversy, when in fact they are closet resistors. This is the
worst possible state. It is much better to have people engaged with the leader to
answer the Why? What? and How? questions. Even the best leaders

capabilities are tested in these situations.

Figure 1.1 People and Change

Gradually, however, the leader begins to gain the trust and credibility
required to persuade people that the transformation is necessary and that it will
make for a better future. The resistance yields to getting it to understanding
why that transformation is important for the organization and its people, who
begin to better and truly understand the benefits that change will bring as a result
of their participation.
The length of time it takes to move from resistance to getting it is a direct
function of the leaders skills, character attributes, and behaviours, which
together define the competence of a leader.
Simple logic and experience has revealed to me the catalytic effect of
Everyone a Leader. In a given group, if there are many among the followers
who have developed their own competence as leaders, the time and energy
required to move from point 4 to point 5 in the figure will be markedly less.
Values: The Foundation for Positive Change
If we are to understand the word positive as a descriptor for the change that
leaders work to achieve, then we need to understand values. Here, values
refer to those things that are valuable or positive for people. A new car is
valuable because it is worth something in terms of cash, but it is also valuable
in terms of personal beliefs that is why so many people nowadays are opting
for an electric car or a hybrid, or why they are moving into an inner city where
they can travel by public transit.
Leaders are dedicated to creating positive change indeed, they are defined
by that effort and the outcome of their efforts is improvement in the lives of
people. People is arguably the most important word in the definition of
leadership that I am using. By that word, I am referring mainly to those within

the organization who are following at any point in time; but here are other
important stakeholders in the leadership equation. For example, individual
customers often participate in the creation of positive change, typically by
encouraging companies to change their product specifications. These customers
then evaluate whether the changes meet their specific needs for value-add. What
Ive just noted about customers can also be said of society as a whole.
So, leadership has an impact on people within the organization, on
customers, and on society as a whole, and each of these in a given situation will
have different needs and priorities. Generally speaking, customers need their
business to be strengthened by the changes the supplier organizations leader is
making; society needs the well-being of its various communities to be enhanced
by the change. At the same time, those in the organization who are following
need to be inspired, or at a minimum see benefit for themselves in the change.
When poor leaders do harm, it is usually because they are focused on serving
themselves or a handful of stakeholders. Examples are legion. This is not the
definition of positive change, nor does it reflect developmental leadership.
A leaders values are, at root, personal ones. That is, the changes a leader
works towards making are motivated by personal values. To be effective,
leaders must be guided not by egocentric or reactive personal needs but by
needs that are purposeful that is, by needs that have a purpose beyond selfservice and that involve service to others.
In the case of the leader-engineer, or leader-scientist, this is especially
important. It is equally important for leader-artists, leader-teachers, leaderpoliticians, and so on; but engineers and scientists, being the stewards of the
worlds engineering and scientific technologies, need to be especially conscious
of their power to do the right things. And doing the right things means serving
peoples needs and improving their lives.

2 Developmental Leadership

Developmental leadership is the integrated, systematic approach to leading

business organizations. Developmental here refers to an ongoing learning
process engaged in by everyone in the organization; it is a process that is
dedicated to growth, change, and doing things better all the time. At DuPont
Canada, the leadership model I describe here guided the company as it
transformed itself into one that experienced high(er), continuously improving
performance.
In chapter 1, I defined leadership and discussed values as the foundation for
positive change. Specifically, I wrote:
To be effective, leaders must be guided not by egocentric or reactive personal needs
but by needs that are purposeful needs that have a purpose beyond self-service and
that involve service to others.

Reflecting this, DuPont Canadas core organizational values are focused on

service to people. In the culture of that company, the value underpinning all
others was workplace safety. As shown in the following example of
developmental leadership, this meant leading people to learn to eliminate
workplace injuries; but, true to the developmental credo, it was a model for
other value-based leadership processes. My hope is that this example will
introduce readers to the concepts and learning model presented in the pages that
follow.
From the day I joined DuPont Canada as a newly minted engineering graduate, I
knew that those who had just hired me were serious about me not experiencing
any workplace injuries. They set me a target of zero injuries of any kind not
even a paper cut.
I started out in a pilot plant in the R&D department, where my work involved
developing and commercializing a new polyethylene polymer. On that very first
day I was given an overview of why, how, and what: why it was important to
me as an individual, and to the company as a whole, that we had zero injuries;
how I and others around me were expected to work together to continuously
approach a zero-injury workplace; and what we were to do every day to move
towards a zero-injury state which involved a very clear strategy.
Achieving zero injuries was not something we did on the side when we were
finished for the day with developing and commercializing a new polyethylene
polymer (my first career task), nor was attaining that goal a coffee break task or
some sort of add-on. It was something we did every day a goal that added

value to the business even while we were reaching for it. It was something we
worked on in groups and that the CEO, the plant manager, and the research
director all worked on with us. The zero injuries mandate was viewed as an
actualization of the companys core value: Do no harm to oneself or others.
Everyone I spoke to on those first few days was very clear: we would work
as individuals to achieve the target of zero injuries. Doing so would be part of
our functional work (in my case, engineering research), and part of our business
work (in my case, creating a new class of polyethylene products that would add
value in the company). In this way, the goal of zero injuries was bound together
with the engineering work and the business work I was engaged in with others.
It had been drilled into us that our work would be less than acceptable if any of
us were injured while we accomplished it. In the simplest of terms, if I was
injured, the work would suffer. This was not a threat, not an order. It made
sense even in these early days.
Throughout my thirty-nine-year career, the intensity of the learning work, of
continuous improvement, did not lessen. Did we achieve zero injuries? Yes, we
did, in some places, for long periods of time, and many people went many years,
some their entire career, without an injury. Did we achieve zero-injury
performance everywhere, all the time? No, we did not, but we learned from
those experiences, just as we gained a great deal from the effort to achieve zero
injuries. A minor recordable injury could occur among a large group of people,
entire manufacturing plants, marketing divisions, and senior executive teams,
after years of zero injury. They would immediately undertake a systematic
analysis to learn what needed to be changed to prevent another incident.
Everyone believed it was possible to achieve zero injuries. We had learned
early to see it as a realistic goal, a future state, and a focused aspiration. And
the results we achieved from trying for embracing zero injuries as a corporate
aspiration were world class. At whatever level plant, country, division a
DuPont plant was the safest place that anyone in the community could be:
sometimes ten or even 100 times safer. DuPonts safety record has often been
recognized as a model for others.
But setting an aspirational future state is the easy part. Many people stop
there, as if they expect that state to simply come about, wished into being. A
target cannot be achieved that way. That target must represent a future state that
everyone in the company desires, and it must generate passion among the people
whom the target will affect enough passion that they will work hard and long
and intelligently to achieve it, however difficult it is. At DuPont, zero
workplace injuries was viewed as that kind of target. Everyone, at any
company, wants to go to work and return to their family at night without injury.
They will be willing to work hard as individuals and with others in the
workplace towards that particular target. DuPont employees know that with
hard, intelligent work they will make progress towards their goals, and they will

be confident that they will make things even better for the next person as they
move closer to the theoretical zero.
But there was another benefit to setting zero workplace injuries as an
aspiration. Doing so, and setting out to achieve it, taught all of us as individuals,
and the organization as a whole, to develop processes and systems capable of
achieving other high-performance goals; we learned to think effectively and in
an orderly way about a host of systematic ways of operating. All of this resulted
in people who performed at a higher level. The safety process as described
allowed us to aspire to zero negative change targets related to ethical
incidents, product quality incidents, environmental releases from our
manufacturing sites, and so on.
Here is another example of an aspirational target: everyone, especially the
engineer and the scientist, understands the aspiration of the perpetual motion
machine. And everyone understands that this aspirational target is impossible
in our world. But this has not stopped machine design engineers from trying to
achieve the target of a 100 per cent efficient machine. Engineers who accept that
aspirational challenge the perfect machine create better designs than those
who do not.
All of these aspirational targets entailed the development of leadership
processes and systems that led to improved results for the business and its
stakeholders. This chapter will offer insight and guidance for understanding a
developmental leading and leadership learning framework.
Learning Frameworks
Learning frameworks, as I use them in this book, will help you understand the
way things are or could be. They can be used in just the same way an engineer
uses a physical framework when building an automobile. The physical shape of
a car is fixed, and a variety of elements or things or systems are then hung on
that framework to create or describe the car. In the same way, I will be
describing leading and leadership concepts or ideas or systems by presenting
learning frameworks that describe certain features and relationships. These are
often visual, geometric representations of realities, which are useful when
explaining the complexities of leading and leadership.
Engineers and scientists use learning frameworks all the time. Many
scientific theories and empirical relationships are described with graphs, or as
functions, or in other visual ways in the same way, for example, that a civil
engineer uses stress / strain curves to explain the behaviour of concrete.
Three-Term Framework
The triad is a powerful and flexible learning framework that can represent any

number of things and that lends itself easily to the questions that are used
frequently throughout this book; indeed, this books structure reflects the Why?
How? What? rubric:
Part One: Why are we motivated to learn and prepare ourselves to lead?
Part Two: How do we prepare ourselves to lead?
Part Three: What is the work of leading and leadership of the business organization?

Four-Term Framework
The four-term framework is perhaps the most used and most useful of the
learning frameworks. Its generic form, referred to as a tetrad, is illustrated in
Figure 2.1. In this book you will be encountering this framework repeatedly.
What this tool helps us learn is that any leadership activity any activity at all
can be understood as an interaction of four elements of mental activity or
thought. For this reason, the tetrad is sometimes referred to as the doing or
understanding learning framework.
In the following sections of this chapter and the rest of this book, the triad
and tetrad learning framework tools will be used to help you grasp the
complexities of leading and leadership. These more simple learning frameworks
are used as important components to construct more complex mental models.
The developmental leadership model and the derived leadership competency
model are examples. These mental models help the reader understand the
complex nature of the meaning of leading and leadership.
Figure 2.1 The Tetrad

And, further, the important thinking effectively model to be introduced in part

two and extended to the change process model in part three is another example
of simple learning frameworks utility. The developmental leadership model

and the derived leadership competency model are valuable and represent (a) the
elements, concepts, and systems you need to learn in order to prepare yourself
to lead, and (b) subsequently, the work that competent leaders must do to
develop high-performance business organizations.
The Nature of Leadership Activity
A number of years ago, a member of DuPont Canadas board of directors
introduced me and others to an extraordinary person named Bonnie Schmidt.
Bonnie had recently graduated with a PhD in physiology and had just started a
business organization called Lets Talk Science. She had recognized after
graduating that she wanted to change the world. Her idea, her passion, was to
increase awareness of science and engineering in the minds of all people. She,
like us, believed that the world would benefit from this; she believed that the
best way to accomplish this would be to engage young people in learning the
power and benefits of science and engineering.
DuPont Canada became a founding sponsor for Bonnies Lets Talk Science
business organization. The company believed that her vision, her commitment,
and her talent could be a powerful force in society.
Bonnie and her extremely talented associates have developed innovative
course materials for young people from preschool to high school age and
convinced teachers to use these materials. She has also assembled a large group
of volunteers, most of whom are science and engineering graduate students.
These volunteers take their highly developed skills into schools, where they
deliver classes under the guidance of the regular teachers.
It is a wonderful thing to watch PhD students in nuclear physics or
mechanical engineering describe to public school students what they are
learning about science. Most regular teachers do not have that kind of highly
specialized knowledge, so they value the materials these volunteers provide and
work to integrate them into their classes. The students in these classrooms relate
easily to messages delivered by twenty-year-old scientists. What we have here
is a confluence of talents directed at young minds that are open to influence.
Bonnies organization has become very successful. Its developmental
learning work is based on and driven by a desire to change the world by
enhancing young peoples awareness of science and engineering. Bonnie is
changing their perceptions and creating more scientists and engineers, which
demonstrates the nature of leadership. She is an active catalyst for changing the
perceptions and actions of young people relative to science and engineering.
She influences them to believe that their future will be more interesting, indeed,
more fun, if they embrace science. She leverages outcomes by influencing
teachers to understand as well. She and her organization teach the teachers and
the young people why science is important in improving our world; how science

can be a positive force in their lives; and what to do to learn more about science
and engineering. Her future state vision of a better world is one in which all
people have an awareness and appreciation of how science, engineering, and
technology improve their lives.
A Generic Framework
In chapter 1, I proposed a working definition of leading and leadership:
Leaders are people who influence others to make positive change.
And, furthermore,
Leaders are those who are engaged in the processes of leading and the
activities of leadership. A leader is not a person occupying a position in a
hierarchy.

The generic framework for all leadership activity captures those definitions
in a tetrad (see Figure 2.2). That tetrad serves as a learning framework for any
change or leading process. It also represents a simple but powerful descriptor
of leadership activity. The terms it contains serve as the first-level elements of
leadership activity. In the sections below, The Developmental Leadership
Model and The Leadership Competency Model, I will be building on this
first, generic level of thought to complete the road map for the rest of the book.
This first-level framework provides a means for thinking strategically about
activities during which change is occurring and thinking carefully is important.
My colleagues and I have used this generic framework to think strategically
about product and process improvements, organizational change, mergers and
acquisitions, and a host of other important tasks where objectivity is important.
The same framework can be used in other environments for example, to
understand governmental or political change, social change, or academic
pursuits. In short, it is suitable for thinking about any leading process.
This generic framework considers three specific interdependent processes:
changing things for the better, taking action, and thinking about future states.
Changing Things for the Better
Changing things for the better is a primary activity of leadership. In chapter 1, I
offered a working definition of leading and leadership: influencing people to
make positive change. The generic framework I propose to represent the
process of changing things for the better is this dyad:
Ground state Ideal goal

In as much detail as is useful, the ground state is meant to represent those

things that are meant to be changed. An example follows:

Even in the simplest form we can conceive that manufacturing an automobile
involves designing and building many distinct and complicated systems and then
connecting all those systems to form a finished automobile. Those systems
include the ignition system, the paint system, the engine system, the
suspension system, and so on.
Figure 2.2 The Nature of Leadership Activity

When the leader-engineer decides to change things for the better in a given
model year, decisions must be made regarding which systems need or do not
need to be changed to make the new model better. In the terms we are using in
the generic framework, the systems to be changed comprise the ground state.
The leadership activity described as changing things for the better is
represented in the generic framework as the sum of many leading and leadership
activities related to moving from a ground state to a set of ideal goals for each
of these activities.
I was the general manager of the paint business for DuPont Canada for a
number of years. The leader-engineers of the automobile manufacturers would
contact and consult the leader-engineers in the paint business at DuPont Canada
to discuss changes in the painting systems for their new automobile models.
Teams would be assigned and goals established to meet the needs of the
painting systems for the new models.
Collectively, as a business unit, all the people in DuPont Canadas various
project teams the chemistry team, the logistics team, and the customer service
team would spend many hours working on the ground state. Then, once we
understood what needed to be changed to meet the needs of all stakeholders
especially the customer we would shift to defining and then working on goals.

Taking Action
The change from ground state to the goals described in the previous section is
the sum of many discrete actions taken after change has been thought about and
decisions about what to do have been made.
The very best leaders are people of action and are passionate about getting
results. This was discussed in chapter 1. The very best leaders are energetic,
hard-working, and believe strongly in continuous learning. When the word
action is used to describe the nature of leadership, many think of a
charismatic, hard-driving, extroverted workaholic. Actually, there are many
personality descriptors of leaders. The one just mentioned is outdated; indeed, it
has been found that leaders who can be described that way are less successful in
the long term than the Level 5 leader personality described by Jim Collins in
Good to Great.1 For Collins, a Level 5 leader is someone who builds enduring
greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional
will. My interpretation of Collins and my own experience in observing
leaders at every level is that character is more important than personality.
Behaviour must be purposeful, not ego driven. The best leaders have learned the
skills, character attributes, and purposeful behaviours that they require to
influence other people to act.
Thinking about Future States
I have asked many people to define leadership. I have done so in classrooms
and at conferences attended by CEOs. In the right place, at the right time, it is a
good conversation starter because everyone has an opinion and the answers
vary widely enough to stimulate debate.
I have never said no to any answer I hear, or at least I havent yet in all my
question-and-answer sessions. And those answers have ranged from telling
people what to do through operating the business to describing a vision, to
changing things. After a long discussion, most people are comfortable with the
working definition I offer in this book: leadership is influencing people to make
positive change. But that comfort is short lived because many people next want
to understand precisely what those words mean. They especially want to know
what the nature of the work is: what leaders think about and do.
The discussion of making positive change is an opportunity to introduce
direction and future state as important leadership topics. I tell the group that
the most unique aspect of leadership as an activity is that it looks towards the
future and takes a future-oriented perspective to influence people to carry out
changes.
The best leaders are able to create inspiring targets for the work of others. A
leader who is an engineer knows that the purpose of building a bridge across a

river may be to build the best bridge in the world or to build a better bridge than
the last. But a more inspiring purpose is to build that bridge so that people can
enjoy the other side of the river and thereby improve their lives.
The best leaders set targets for their change work. Those targets provide a
direction for the work that others and the leader do. They provide direction for
everyone on the team and for their goals as individuals. The alternative is a
large number of projects that have little direction, which leads to inefficiency
and ineffectiveness.
Focusing entirely on building bridges to cross rivers will lead to efficient
results to low-cost, high-quality, rapid construction of bridges that cross
rivers. Effectiveness is different; it means working on bridges that are designed
to do many different things, such as cross rivers or cross rough terrain or cross
deep canyons. Or it could mean building all-stone bridges, for example, or
suspension bridges that use and require a variety of technologies.
Leaders are more focused on effectiveness. That is because when we aim for
effectiveness, we find ways to develop bridge-building technology and we
thereby become capable of extraordinary things, such as building bridges over
ever-wider rivers. When we choose our targets intelligently, our business can
focus on growing through innovation. Focusing on effectiveness will always
lead to efficient results: it is a two-for-one proposition.
The very best leaders are future looking in that way. They are motivated to
succeed, and they are capable of setting extraordinary targets for their
followers. And when they can do that, they earn the admiration of others.
Surveys have shown that this is one of the most admired attributes of leaders.
A target can be more specific or less so: which one depends on the level of
positive change whether it is incremental, continuous, or transformational (see
chapter 1).
A company of leader-engineers who do transactional work (i.e., incremental
or continuous improvement work) associated with building bridges over rivers
will require a more specific target, such as Become the lowest-cost builder in
North America.
A company of leader-engineers working on getting people across wide
spaces will benefit from transformational change targets that are much less
specific, such as Become the mover of people over wide expanses. A target
like that allows the freedom to innovate, to be creative, and to grow in an
orderly way. It inspires people to build on each success and on each goal that is
successfully achieved.
When the target for a future state offers more freedom, people can move in a
direction that is somewhat less clear. This in turn allows a variety of less
specific actions to be taken, though the steps can still reflect order. The
keywords here are order and freedom:

 Order involves a high degree of organization and precision in making things

function effectively. It is achieved by limiting choices.
Freedom is about choice. It includes allowing choices in learning, thinking,
and functioning and making these choices when doing work.
A number of future state targets can be discussed along the order-to-freedom
continuum. The two poles of the future state continuum are planning and
aspiring. Somewhere between these two extremes is visioning, which will be
discussed at length in the third part of this book.
Future State Targets: Plans
Future state targets, often referred to as objectives or plans, provide orderly
direction for the various actions taken by individuals or organizations. They are
most useful for providing direction for transactional change. Plans for future
states are most useful to companies in which transactional or managing
processes predominate rather than transformational processes. The planning
perspective tends to deal with answers to the What? question that is, with the
actions required to achieve future, usually short-term, goals and objectives.
An engineering contractor working on a project to build a bridge is focused
on doing the job for the city very efficiently. That means building the bridge on
schedule, at cost, and safely, without injuring any of the firms people or the
citys workers. These are the planning goals and objectives the future state
plan. The future state plan will be provided to the company as well as to the
citys managers so that everyone involved will be able to plan and execute to
achieve the future state goals.
Future State Targets: Aspirational
Aspirational targets are very different from planning targets. They are relatively
vague, and thus they provide considerable freedom of action for those being
guided. They are also much more challenging, for they often require work of a
superordinate nature in order to move in the direction of the aspiration.
Superordinate targets are challenging, beyond-the-ordinary targets. They
involve work that requires large amounts of mental, emotional, and physical
energy. Aspirational future states are defined by the beliefs and philosophy the
leader holds. The answer to the question of why a cause is important is
embedded in the aspirational future state.
Future states are planned largely through the management of processes,
which in turn involve setting objectives and developing ways to achieve them.
By contrast, aspirational future states can be implemented successfully only
when those leading and those following share a common understanding of and
belief in the cause. This often makes things difficult for the leader who must

inspire the followers to dedicate themselves to that cause.

But once this has been achieved, the aspiration, or, the cause, becomes a
force that commits the followers and that will continue to inspire them.
Committed followers with shared values become almost fanatical in service of
the cause. In this way, a developmental culture evolves.
An earlier example used a proposed aspirational future state that we at
DuPont referred to as Our Goal Is Zero Injuries. Obviously, this described a
theoretical state of perfection one, however, that we all believed in and were
inspired to bring about and experience.
Another example of an aspirational target relates to the work of a former
microbiologist at DuPont named Norman Borlang. He left the company,
developed an aspirational future state target, did many wonderful things, and
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 as a result of his groundbreaking
work. Borlang was a plant scientist who did more than anyone else in the
twentieth century to help the world feed itself. In doing so, he saved millions of
people from famine. In his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech, he described
his aspirational future state:
Almost certainly, the essential component of social justice is adequate food for all
mankind. Food is the moral right of all who are born into this world. Yet today fifty
percent of the worlds population goes hungry. Without food, man can live at most a
few weeks; without it, all other components of social justice are meaningless.
Therefore I feel that the aforementioned guiding principle must be modified to read:
If you desire peace, cultivate justice, but at the same time cultivate the fields to
produce more bread; otherwise there will be no peace.2

Borlang inspired his followers to implement many projects that gave life to
this cause. The instruments that he and his followers used were science,
engineering, and various technologies. He and his followers developed diseaseresistant varieties of wheat that enabled food production to be made enormously
effective. Ultimately, his work saved millions of people from starvation.
Borlangs work was driven by science, by his leadership competence, and by
his dedication to an aspirational future state.
Another example: If you were to list the most amazing engineering feats in
history, what would they be? I suggest that one on a very short list would be
landing a man on the moon.
That engineering project involved new science, a multitude of complicated
inventions, and multiple sets of problems solved. It required many dedicated
engineers, scientists, and technologists, all of them working energetically
together and all of them motivating themselves, leading, and inspiring others to
accomplish the impossible.
And this work began in 1961 with a speech by an amazing leader who
understood that this engineering miracle would influence the worlds people to

see the United States as an admirable nation and one worth emulating. In that
speech, President John F. Kennedy defined the aspirational future state:
Time for a great new American enterprise time for this nation to take a clearly
leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future
on earth I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before
this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.3

Those words captured the hearts and minds of a nation and its scientific and
engineering community. The aspiration provided the inspiration that fuelled the
accomplishment an extraordinary future state.
Developmental Leadership Activity
Developmental leadership refers to specific activities that are necessary to
develop high-performance work systems in an organization. A high-performance
work system is one that, by definition, is constantly doing things better.
Developmental leadership, to me, is best understood in terms of two sets of
tasks. The first set has to do with individuals developing their leading ability as
individuals learning how to lead themselves. This entails learning and the
continuous development of individual competence. The goal here is to achieve
an ideal state of competence called role model leadership.
The second set of tasks, which depend on understanding and acting on the
first, involves leading an organization towards its ideal state. The goal here is to
achieve a high-performance work system, and it is achieved through collective
and collaborative work of the organizations members. The role model leader
makes this possible.
The purpose of developmental leadership activity is to achieve ongoing
growth in the organization, and that happens when everyone devotes themselves
to learning to do things better all the time.
Consider the role of a mechanical design engineer who is responsible for
designing a new reactor to make chemical X within a large, multi-product
manufacturing operation. There are two ways for him to execute this role. The
first is the conventional way: project management. Then there is the
developmental way: the engineer knows that his role is to improve the way
things are done, not simply to do things the same way forever or to make
incremental changes in procedure. So he sets out to learn what the function of
the reactor is from a variety of perspectives, such as the chemistry of the
reaction and the business objective in building a reactor. Put another way, he
sets out to understand the requirements of the reactor from the perspective of
those who will be using it: the chemical engineers and technicians, the
maintenance people who will be maintaining it, and the customers who will be
using the reactors products. Through developmental leadership, the mechanical

design engineer is trying to understand something about the needs of those who
will be using his design. The conventional approach to designing a reactor
mainly involves managing and controlling procedures and standards. All of this
managing and controlling is part of the developmental approach as well. What
distinguishes developmental leader-engineers in this example is that with each
project, they are always seeking better reactor designs as well as better ways to
be more productive and to produce higher-quality decisions, with the goal of
better satisfying the users needs. They are carrying out the project not only
efficiently but also more effectively, by finding ways to enhance their
contribution to all stakeholders.
Figure 2.3 Developmental Leadership Model

Developmental Leadership Model

The mental model I will be using to discuss developmental leadership (see
Figure 2.3) comprises three interdependent frameworks.
This developmental model goes a step beyond the generic framework
described earlier. That earlier one referred to the three fundamental leadership
activities: changing things to make them better and improving other peoples

lives; thinking about future states; and taking action. This developmental
leadership model is derived from those three activities. What unites the two
component frameworks, as you will see, is the action of continuous learning.
Self-leading and organizational leading are developmental processes. Both
are continuous and are dedicated to learning to be better individual leaders and
better organizations.
Taking Action
Developmental learning is the action an individual must take; developmental
work is what the people of the organization do to achieve positive results from
learning. In the previous example, one aspect of learning to be a safe person
was developmental learning as an individual that is, learning how to work
without injuring yourself or contributing to an injury to others. Leadership work,
by contrast, is done by all the people in the organization to change things so that
fewer injuries occur.
Developmental Learning
Developmental learning starts with an individual aspiring leader that is, with
someone who is highly motivated to improve her individual capabilities as a
person and as a leader. The motivation to learn to develop oneself is
arguably the single most important attribute for an aspiring leader and is
something that all successful leaders possess.
Some people contend that leaders are born that at least some leadership
qualities are an accident of birth. Undoubtedly, some people are born with some
traits that help make them leaders more and more observers believe that such
traits can be innate. But even those who are so fortunate still have to develop
those innate qualities by committing themselves to learning.
Charisma will sometimes get you in the door, but even then, it is the
leadership competencies you learn that will keep you inside, where the real
work of leading is done. It has often been contended that a leader must be an
extrovert. That view is less widely held than it used to be there are plenty of
introverts these days in the executive suites of successful firms.
So the answer to the question Are there born leaders? is Yes, but
And the answer to the question Can leadership be learned? is Yes,
absolutely And more relevant than either of these answers is this point: the
very best leaders develop themselves through continuous learning. Indeed,
people who are not innately capable of positively influencing people can learn
the skills and character attributes that can provide them with that capability.
Similarly, naturally charismatic people who can easily influence the actions of
others do not become exceptional leaders unless they are willing to lead with

less reliance on personality, and that takes learning.

Learning to lead is a developmental process. It is not about taking a course,
reading a book, or subscribing to various business journals. All of those can
help, but they must be combined with thinking, experiencing, practising,
behaving in certain ways, and any number of processes that reinforce
leadership.
So, learning to be a better leader principally involves combining selflearning with a disciplined approach to gaining experience. That discipline
requires you to approach your task of learning to lead by asking the three basic
questions this book has put forward: Why do you want to be a better leader?
How are you to go about becoming one? And what do you need to do to become
one?
Developmental learning is not the same as training. It is not learning by
recipes or rules or procedures. Developing competence requires active learning
so that you become capable of improving the ways you accomplish tasks.
Developmental learning is also continuous: you set goals, work to achieve them,
and then having done so you set new goals, always reaching for new challenges,
new ideas, and superordinate targets.
Part two of this book will describe in detail the specific actions you need to
take to become a developmental role model leader of self.
Developmental Work
Learning to be a developmental, competent leader of self takes work. It is a
personal challenge. And it requires the individual to decide which value-add
efforts need to be taken on. Much the same can be said of an organization or
team: it needs to be motivated to do developmental work, and it is leaders who
generate that motivation, having first learned how to motivate themselves.
During a visit to a DuPont Canada manufacturing plant, I participated in a
discussion of the success that this very good manufacturing facility had
achieved. In the course of the presentations, a young and inexperienced
employee told the room, If it isnt broken, dont fix it. He was expecting all of
us to laugh and express their agreement. But others at the meeting who knew me
well (he did not, yet), looked at me and waited. They did not have to wait long.
I said to him, If it isnt broken, fix it anyway. We went on to have a
productive discussion on how to improve an already solid manufacturing
process. The meeting concluded with several ideas from him and others that
everyone agreed we could test during the next maintenance shutdown. Those
were implemented and ultimately increased our production.
Anything can be improved, and anything can be changed for the better. Strong
leaders inspire others to act on those two simple concepts: always seek
improvement, carry it out, and seek more.

When you develop yourself into a competent leader of self, leading others
flows naturally from that. All the work you have had to do to develop your selfleadership skills will find its way naturally into the organization you lead,
which is another way of saying that self-leading is a necessary precursor to
leading a business organization. You are leading an organization well when you
inspire the other people in your organization to become leaders of self. Indeed,
high performance depends on it.
Competent leadership of self can be an end in itself: quite simply, it makes
you a better person, a better citizen, and a more competent human being. Plenty
of people have little interest in leading others in organizations. There is no
reason why they should have to want this perhaps they only want to be better
engineers, better doctors, or better researchers. Certainly, there are many
valuable roles that do not focus on leading people in complex organizations. All
of us would benefit from learning self-leadership whether or not we extend that
new competence beyond ourselves to leading teams or organizations. Learning
that competence is justified on the basis of service, to ourselves and to others.
Changing Things for the Better
An aspiring leader engages in a continuous process of becoming a better leader.
A leader who succeeds at this becomes recognized as a role model leader. It is
important to remember that leadership is a process and is something one never
stops learning. There is no award for becoming a leader; there is no certificate
that says you have become one; there is no end point. A role model leader is
someone who is still learning and still motivated to become one. The specific
skills, character attributes, and behaviours required for role model leading
competency will be discussed in part two.
A word about the ground state for role model leaders: they have answered
the question of why they want to become one. Having done so, they have
positioned themselves to ask how and what: how they are to prepare themselves
and what they will have to learn.
And a word about the ground state for high-performance work systems: they
begin as conventional organizations. There are a variety of designs for these
work systems, but usually they have been designed around hierarchies, whether
they are referred to as functional departments or business units or something
else. For example, a company might have a CEO at the top, and down from that
person cascades any number of functional departments: manufacturing,
engineering, marketing, R&D, operations, and so on. And each of those
departments will likely have its own subdepartments. And this hierarchy will be
further complicated by the variety of markets and regions that the organization
serves. That sort of hierarchy is typical of what I will be calling a conventional
organization.

The kind of conventional organization I will be describing here is well

managed, capable, and efficient, but it lacks leadership specifically, it lacks
role model leadership. For that reason, the business will not grow to its
potential and all of its various stakeholders will benefit less than they could.
Conventional organizations that are managed well are sometimes dedicated
to continuous improvement. The goal of conventional continuous improvement is
to improve the efficiency of the internal functional departments. Each
departmental manager looks for ways to improve the functional competence in
his department, increase the pace of work, and hire more competent managers,
accountants, and other experts. In terms of personnel, improvements are often
achieved by a cycle of terminating the least competent employees, hiring better
ones, and renewing the organization with training programs.
The functional departments in a conventional organization may improve their
efficiency in this way, but they run the risk of isolating themselves from other
departments the so-called silo effect. The responsibility for integrating these
departments is too often left to the supermanagers at the top of the positional
hierarchy, who control the work of the departments to ensure enterprise
efficiency.
In its ideal state, a developmental, process-oriented organization will be full
of people who are constantly developing themselves as individuals and, in that
way, constantly moving their organization towards the achievement of a highperformance work system. In an ideal organization, everyone is constantly
developing leadership competence, and they are doing so together so that
performance levels rise. Teams, groups, and networks are everywhere; they
form and then they disband when the work is done.
Too many organizations suffer from a shortage of real leaders and an
abundance of positional leaders, and the outcomes for stakeholders suffer as a
result. But these organizations can change if they set out to develop leadership
capabilities in their members, for those members will then apply their new
competencies to improving the organization. It doesnt matter whether the
organization is profit-oriented or not-for-profit every organization would
benefit from a culture where high value, perhaps even the highest value, is
placed on leadership.
The ground state that is necessary to making these changes includes, first,
aspiring leaders, and second, conventional organizations whose members are
motivated to change themselves with the goal of improving the lives of people
by learning leadership capabilities.
Thinking about Future States
Aspiring role model leaders need to think first, and think hard, about
appropriate targets for their efforts; indeed, so does everyone in the

organization.
People who have committed themselves to a future state will use that as
guidance when setting goals for their ongoing change efforts. At any given point
in time, a developing organization will have a number of individuals who have
developed into strong role model leaders, many others who have just begun
developing their leadership competence, and some who are not yet motivated to
learn to be leaders. An organization needs to have a clear purpose it must
have as part of its vision a future state that all can embrace, for then all its
people will have the same target as they develop competence. Connected to this
purpose, the organization will benefit from looking collectively into the future
towards the target they share as a group.
Earlier in the chapter, it was shown that the framework for thinking about
future states varies with the kind of change being considered. When thinking
about small, well-defined incremental changes, the future state is best described
as a plan; when thinking about extensive continuous improvements, the future
state is best described as a vision; and when thinking about transformational,
extensive, ongoing, difficult change, the future state is best described as an
aspiration. This hierarchy for thinking about future states is useful when
appropriate targets are being considered for the leadership development
activities described in this chapter.
Developmental leadership activities are ongoing, evolutionary, difficult, and
transformational. Leaders need to direct their efforts at superordinate
aspirational targets. Those who are still learning to become role model leaders
those who havent yet learned to want to be leaders need to be shown that
the organization has a worthwhile aspirational target and have to see this target
if they are to develop themselves. And, in the same way, those people need to
have and see a worthwhile aspirational target for the tough work of
development of their organization as a natural outcome of the individual
aspiration.
An Aspiration: Everyone a Leader
The aspiration the future state for the activity of developing into a competent
leader of self is Everyone a Leader.
Setting aspirational targets such as zero workplace injuries and Everyone
a Leader has spillover effects for the people who embrace those targets and for
the organization as a whole, in all dimensions of productivity, quality, and
service to stakeholders. So if individuals can motivate themselves to accept an
aspiration as a valid, pragmatic target, this will clear the way for all of them to
develop themselves into successful leaders and for the organization to become a
high-performance one.
Scientists and engineers deal pragmatically with perfection every day.

When engineers build better bridges and factories, or develop better chemical
processes, they have been inspired by scientific theories about perfect states.
They work developmentally, always improving existing processes and always
seeking innovative solutions that approach the same perfection as the scientific
theories they have learned.
Engineers produce a vast array of materials, often by following complex
manufacturing processes that involve potentially hazardous raw materials.
While doing this work, the engineers at DuPont believe that zero injuries is a
realizable target; by inference, they do not believe that some injuries are
acceptable. They are convinced that perfection is a practical target and all their
work is better because of that conviction and because the efforts they have made
to achieve it are delivering measurable results. Put simply, there is nothing more
practical than a theory accepted. Believing that everyone can learn to be a
leader has the same sort of impact accepting it provides the motivation
required to become one. In turn, if everyone accepted the idea that zero injuries
was not possible, then there certainly would be injuries; an undesirable
outcome.
An Aspiration: The High-Performance Business Organization
The aspiration of a high-performance business organization relates mainly to
moving beyond the constraints of conventional business organizations. In a highperformance business organization, all the employees are individually
motivated to achieve the target of Everyone a Leader and they work together to
achieve that goal for the company as a whole. Such an organization focuses on
these aspirational outcomes:
The organization has created an admirable set of core values and lives those
values.
All individuals have learned to be role model leaders and are continually
developing their leadership competence.
The organization has created and sustained a harmonious level of service for
all stakeholders.
Productivity and quality measures are all higher than in other business
organizations and are growing sustainably, with no wasteful processes or
outcomes.
Again, lets use safety as an analogy. If everyone in an organization is
committed to zero injuries, then they will be highly motivated and inspired by
others working beside them to work on leading the organization to a state of high
performance in safety and in all other activities.
The Best Leaders Are Competent Leaders

In the section A Generic Framework, I provided an elementary mental

model of leadership. I pushed this to a second and more detailed level of
understanding in the section Developmental Leadership Model, which
involved two complementary developmental systems: leading organizations and
its precursor, leading self. In the following section, I introduce a third level of
understanding of leadership. This one extends the model towards describing
what an aspiring leader must do and learn in order to become a role model
leader, as well as what these leaders must do to create high-performance work
systems.
This third level of understanding of leadership, then, focuses on developing
competence as an individual leader and as an organization of leaders.
Competence is the ability to accomplish things efficiently and effectively.

We all want our leaders to be competent if we are going to accept their

influence and direction, because if they arent, we wont be able to learn from
them. Think of a leader you have known. In your view, was this person
competent? Now ask yourself how willing you were to follow the direction that
person set not whether you actually did, but whether you were motivated to do
so. I am certain you will find a positive correlation between your willingness to
follow him and your opinion of his leadership competence. Unless we are
certain that our leaders are competent, it doesnt really matter what other
attributes they might have we wont be motivated to follow them.
When I have asked others to define the word competence for me, almost all
of them have struggled. We all seem to understand what it means, but everyone
seems to have a different way of describing it: Knows things. Can do
things. Smart, not just intelligent. Capable. Gets results.
I can agree with those words, but still they leave unanswered some of this
books core questions: What must an individual do to reach a level of
competence that will cause others to follow? How can a person prepare to
achieve that level of competence? And why do people actually aspire to be
strong leaders in the first place?
The more I think about the word competent, the more certain I am that this is
the most important descriptor that a leader can aspire to, for it suggests so many
things.
Charles Krone, who often helped us think about things at DuPont Canada,
often applied a mental model that bears directly on what Im discussing here. He
told us that we need to consider every persons will, being, and function. His
model described a persons entire potential to think about doing things and
becoming someone different in the future. Charles was always challenging us
with thoughts, words, and ideas that made us stop and think about things

differently, and as a result we learned to formulate fresh ideas about the real and
pressing issues we were dealing with in the company.
Krones three words and the earlier ideas of G.I. Gurdieff (see the various
writings of P.D. Ouspensky), who described ways and means for human beings
to develop themselves, have helped me to clarify the word competence:
Will: Why I am motivated to prepare to do things and then to do them.
Being: How I prepare myself as a human being to do things.
Function: What I do.

Competence is an integrated set of capabilities. It cascades from will (the

motivation we must have to exert our mental, emotional, social, and physical
energy to carry out work), to being (the qualities that distinguish human beings
from machines, which include spirit, character, and the capacity for personal
growth), and finally to function (the actions we take to create value-add
outputs).
So, we can say that a person who has achieved the necessary levels of will,
being, and function has become competent to perform at a high level. This is a
simple, elegant, three-term framework that helps us understand the elements of
all human performance. It has any number of uses, but for our purposes, it serves
best as a framework for thinking about an individuals or organizations
capacity to perform tasks. Some would differ, saying that we need only enhance
our functional skills to become competent and proficient at high-performance
tasks. It isnt so.
Lets consider an example: Currently you are a junior engineer in your
department. You have been offered the position of Senior Design Engineer, and
you are thinking of accepting it. You apply the willbeingfunction framework
to help you decide. The following is one possible sampling from your analysis:
Will: Why would this new role be motivating for me? That is, which of my personal values
would it satisfy? Reward? Recognition? The opportunity to learn and develop?
Being: How would I be able to carry out this role? That is, what new capabilities would I be
required to learn? I would need to improve my communication skills. I would also need
to gain a better understanding of the departments internal and external customers.
Function: What is the value-add of the new job? That is, what would the importance of my
new role be to the company? To customers? To others?

Once you answer all the questions guided by the willbeingfunction model
and analyse the results, you will be better positioned to decide whether you
have the motivation to take the job that is, to prepare for the role and execute
it.
Sports analogies are overdone, but the will to win in organizations as
diverse as hockey teams, football teams, and curling squads is well documented.

Unless there is a will to win, even the most talented team can lose. Think about
the Canadian mens hockey team at the 2006 Olympics, or the U.S. mens
basketball team at the 1972 Olympics. There was much controversy around both
losses, but even if the U.S. basketball team had won the game by a point instead
of losing by a point, it would still be an example of how low levels of will and
being can cause even a much superior team in terms of function to lose.
Business leaders like to say We have the best engineers We have the
best scientists and so on. In practice, though, organizations tend not to differ
much in the functional capabilities of their people. Where they do vary is with
regard to the sum of the function, being, and will of those they employ. There are
many examples in the business world of how will, being, and function are all
necessary to achieve extraordinary performance. The very best leaders and
managers in business organizations know that it is virtually impossible to
achieve high levels of performance solely through the functional capabilities of
their people.
What is not so easy is raising the level of the organizations being, which can
only be done by developing the character of its people and their collective
vitality. This in turn depends on the will of those people to share personal and
organizational values and to be inspired by those values by the virtuous goals
of the organization.
For many years, I have used the following framework whenever I have
needed to think about my own leadership capabilities or those of others. It is
how I have learned to help me decide whether people are performing up to their
potential, whatever their role.
Leadership Competency Model: An Introduction
The approach I take extends the Krone model to a second level of complexity,
so that it serves as a learning framework for leading and leadership competency
of self and organization.
Will: Why are individual and collective leaders motivated to take action to do the work
that is necessary to grow themselves and the business organization?
Being: How are aspiring leaders to prepare themselves? And how are they to work
together in an organization to influence positive change?
Function: What actions by individual aspiring leaders or collective activities by the
organization need to be taken to bring about positive change?

Let me illustrate this idea of holistic leadership competence. In the engineering

department of our company everyone was striving to develop their competence
both as leaders and as engineers Everyone a Leader. That meant developing
their competence as leaders of self as engineers as well as leaders within their
business unit organizations.

The value-add work of the engineering department involved many things, but
a large part of it was directed at capital project execution. Our company
spend here was many tens of millions of dollars per year, comprising a
multitude of small / medium and occasionally very large capital projects. It was
essential that the departments engineers be competent.
One of those major projects was the design and construction of a large
expansion to one of our major polymer manufacturing operations. The
complexity of this project related to its size in financial terms (it would cost
many millions of dollars), its technology (it involved launching a new,
innovative process from our R&D organization), and its timeline, which for
business reasons was much shorter than was normal for our company. It was
essential that this project be done well.
Terry (I will call him that) had come to our company around the same time I
did after graduating from a very good engineering school. He wanted to
contribute to the organization as an engineer and was not interested in being a
manager or salesperson he wanted to be a high-performance engineer who
worked on delivering projects. Over the years, he and I saw a lot of each other
in the beginning, we worked together, and now I was a business unit leader
and a customer of his.
Terry had developed into an excellent project engineer. He was sought after
by all those who had a capital project to be executed because all his projects
were completed safely, on time or faster than scheduled, and at or below
planned cost. No one was ever injured during the design or construction of any
project he led, that I can recall.
Terry was always straightforward, confident, tenacious, and hard-working.
He also communicated well, not only to business managers but to all the people
on his project teams. When I first discussed the project with him, he was
immediately excited and began to quiz me about the business goals, asking a lot
of questions that started with why. He said he needed to understand the business
goals so that he and his project team could add value, and that could only
happen if he knew the business strategy and objectives.
So we assigned the project to Terry, and he put together the project team.
Many of the department engineers wanted to work with him. They admired him
because they knew he was a good leader whose skills as an engineer and coach
were well known. But mostly they wanted to work on his project because of his
character and his ability to develop the people on his team. Terry would always
take time with his team to teach. The team he put together included me, as the
business leader, and a number of the R&D people who had developed the new
technology. He persuaded all of us to be active members. Communicating with a
diverse team is always a challenge, but he had a track record for succeeding at
it. The teams engineers gained much from his ability to understand and
communicate the needs of the projects customers.

As the project progressed, it became clear to me that his team members were
delivering the project in terms of safety, schedule, cost, and quality. Also, the
team members were learning from Terry and from one another. The engineers
were becoming more skilled as engineers, but also more skilled as team players
that is, they were learning to work with others more effectively. By the
projects end, because of Terrys success in leading them, all of them would be
more valued as engineers on future projects. This only strengthened his
reputation as a role model.
All of Terrys engineering talent and all the concern he expressed for people
reflected his motivation to do the right things for the business organization. You
knew from his behaviour that he would do everything possible to deliver. Terry
was a role model leader-engineer who knew how to contribute at a highperformance level to the leadership of the business organization. And yes, the
project was completed well all objectives were met or exceeded.
I end this part of the book by describing a leadership competency model
(Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4 Leadership Competency Model

Again, as with the model for developmental leadership, this figure shows
three aligned interdependent frameworks. Each has three specific actionable

elements relating to the generic terms function, being, and will. In addition,
each leg of the model has a fourth action element that is unique. The element
thinking effectively is important for determining the competency of leading self;
serving stakeholders is a critical set of processes and activities to be learned
by those who aspire to lead organizations.
Each of these two processes to be learned thinking effectively and serving
stakeholders has elements of function, being, and will. For example, thinking
effectively requires us to think about why a person is motivated to think, how the
individual prepares to think about things, and what the individual is thinking
about doing. Similarly, serving stakeholders of the business organization guides
us to consider and learn to understand why serving society is so important to the
success of the enterprise, how the business can advance by achieving shared
purpose with employees, and what needs to be done to continuously add value
by serving customers effectively.
The Self-Leading Competency mental model will be detailed more fully in
part two of this book. The Organizational Competency mental model will be
described in part three.

PART TWO

Preparing Yourself to Lead

3. Role Model Leading and Leadership

4. Thinking Effectively
5. Skills Capability
6. Character Attributes
7. Purposeful Behaviour

3 Role Model Leading and Leadership

When I am asked about role model leadership in some of the companies I am

involved with now and by students at the university where I teach, my mind fills
with faces and experiences, not concepts.
Especially, I remember the people at the beginning, the early adopters of the
developmental leadership model at DuPont Canada. For example, I remember
the manufacturing operators who readily accepted the idea of Everyone a
Leader and who were inspired by the idea that they could learn to become
change agents and who were encouraged to do so: my twenty-year-old
administrative assistant, who developed enthusiastically over the years to
become one of the companys best sales managers; and especially our engineers
and scientists, in the engineering department and the R&D laboratories and other
places, who developed themselves into leader-engineers and leader-scientists.
These engineers and scientists demonstrated their role model leadership in
many ways. They approached their problem-solving assignments in different
ways according to the task at hand by defining their objectives in terms of
customer needs and the challenges the problem gave them.
For example, if the engineering problem they faced was to improve the
efficiency of a steam-producing boiler, they always made sure that they
understood the broad range of success criteria as defined by both the internal
customers and the external ones. It was not enough for them simply to increase
thermal energy from the boiler. They also wanted to know how solving the
problem would strengthen the viability of the plant and the plant manager (for
whom the boiler was being improved), the business unit, and the company as a
whole. As they developed their leadership capabilities, their interests and
competencies changed and expanded: they were no longer merely engineers
who solved technical challenges; they had come to view their technical
expertise and the demands of the business as part of one package.
Decades ago, just as DuPont Canada was beginning to transform itself, I
hired an engineer who accepted the idea that she could learn the processes and
competencies of leading and who was encouraged by our emphasis on
changing things to make us a better company. She developed into a role model
leader and contributed greatly to our work of sustainable growth in a number of
business units. Her willingness to master individual leadership skills was
instrumental to her success. She became widely admired for influencing a
number of people to learn process-mapping techniques that reduced wasteful
costs everywhere and that improved the quality of our products. She was
constantly coaching others and inspiring them to learn and perform to develop

and grow. She had a passion for all of that.

My own understanding of the power of Everyone a Leader came before the
concept existed in my mind or in our company. Early in my career at DuPont
Canada, I was transferred from the research division to the nylon manufacturing
technical department and given the job of polymer technology supervisor that
involved heading a group of about fifteen people, all of them engineers and
scientists with a considerable amount of experience. The groups mandate was
to develop a mathematical model of the nylon polymerization process. This
would allow more effective process improvement work and process innovation.
It was a challenging assignment.
The technical department was an important part of the Kingston
Manufacturing Plant, which manufactured nylon polymer and, from that,
varieties of nylon fibre. The nylon fibre had a variety of end uses, such as in
textiles and carpets. The nylon polymer was also sold for automotive and other
industrial uses. The Kingston nylon plant was one of a number of nylon
manufacturing sites that DuPont had around the world and arguably one of the
very best.
My manager in the technical department there was Kalev Pugi. Kalev is the
central figure in this story. He was about forty-five years old, a graduate
chemical engineer, and he had a reputation as an ideas person who also got
things done. He had emigrated from Estonia and worked in northern Ontario as a
lumberjack before he went to university. He often told us he could cut more
trees than anyone else in the bush. Once you knew Kalev, you knew this was
true. He was an extremely driven worker who had more energy than three
people and who was both humble and extremely assertive. He was humble
socially but very assertive when it came to achieving his goals at work.
Kalev had a vision, and he told us about it in a meeting about two months
after I arrived in the department. I had been told that Kalev often had visions
about how to make things better some of them more visionary than others. His
idea this time the substance of this story was to create a continuous
polymerization reactor for nylon that would result in the lowest (in the world)
capital cost to build and the lowest cost to operate and that would produce the
highest-quality polymer for producing carpet fibre. This quality goal was
important because carpet fibre has to be dyed and you need very high-quality
polymer so that the fibre will dye uniformly. The higher the quality, the more
profit to the polymer manufacturer because the customers need this quality in
order to participate at the high end of the market. Thats the other thing Kalev
often talked about customers. He was very customer oriented.
Kalev envisioned a form of wiped-film, high-pressure reactor. The idea had
merit in terms of theoretical heat and mass transfer, but from a wide range of
perspectives mechanical, physical, and chemical it was difficult to see how
we could make one work. Put simply, it was a long shot for all of us highly

trained engineers. Kalev said, OK, lets get to work lets form a team lets
accomplish the impossible.
There was a group at DuPonts international headquarters in Delaware the
New Venture Group and Kalev told us he had already scheduled a meeting
with them to tell them what we were planning and to ask for their financial
backing. All of this was quite exciting, but it was also worrisome because I did
not know much about the technology. I had been involved in polymerization, but
in polyethylene not nylon technology, which involved chemistry that was quite
different. Kalev reassured me when I told him of my concern. His answer was
typical: You can do it just get to work and learn. Another concern was my
lack of experience as a supervisor, given that my Polymer Technology Group
was large and experienced. Again, Kalev was supportive: You can do it we
can get together and discuss what leaders need to know. We can do that on
weekends.
Kalev formed his team. Then he went to the meeting in Delaware. He told
them his team had the capability to develop this new reactor technology in two
years: We will deliver the report before Christmas day two years from now.
The New Venture Group was persuaded and gave us the funding to do six
months of preliminary work; they told us they would provide more support if the
data justified it. This outcome surprised all of us on the team: Kalev had
actually convinced DuPont world headquarters to fund us not fully, but enough
for us to start. The surprising aspect of this was that the idea was no more than a
concept and had no supporting data. Even more surprising, the New Venture
Group received many requests for funds. There was not enough money for all of
them, but somehow it was there for us.
Our team consisted of a small group of technology-competent people, a
marketing person to ensure that we stayed focused on customer-oriented
solutions, and, of course, Kalev, the leader. He called our team CR-8 (Canadian
Research, eight-blade reactor). It had a nice ring to it. We had T-shirts made.
This was the core team, and Kalev made it clear that we would be free to
decide how we would organize our human resources to support the development
work, but that everyone would be involved in the highest-priority endeavour
the CR-8.
This was Kalevs way of telling us we would be accountable for our work
on the CR-8. All of us would need to give our real jobs a lower priority,
though those secondary assignments would still have to be carried out on time
and on budget. My real job involved mathematical modelling. As an aside, all
of us on the CR-8 team were able to accomplish our original goals including
my groups work on the mathematical model. We accomplished this while
dedicating considerable effort to the project that Kalev had launched.
At the outset, Kalev participated on the CR-8 team as an engineer, but very
soon after, he shifted his focus to the following:

 Driving us with encouragement. He reminded us repeatedly that we were

great technical people and leaders and that we could accomplish anything we
truly wanted to do.
Inspiring us with his vision of the future. He assured us that we would
personally be recognized in the company and ultimately beyond as having
created a great breakthrough; also, he assured us that our customers would
prosper and become loyal to the company because of the higher-quality nylon
fibre.
Securing ongoing management support. He described our progress to
management and returned with more support, more money, and more time.
Eventually he secured the two years we said we needed.
The result of all the work on the CR-8:
We had many small victories as well as many setbacks technically and
emotionally. Overall we progressed steadily, inventing and implementing.
At the very end of the two years, Kalev took our final report from the research
and pilot plant work to the New Venture Group in Delaware and declared
victory. They agreed that we had succeeded.
The CR-8 came to be seen as a revolutionary means of producing high-quality
nylon polymer.
Kalev Pugi was an extraordinarily capable leader-engineer. First and
foremost he believed at his very core in making all things better, all the time,
and that the best way to accomplish this was by influencing others to utilize
technology to change things. And he believed that all of us could and should
learn to become competent agents of change, which for him meant developing
ourselves into better engineers and preparing ourselves to lead others.
All of us associated with this effort remember it many years later as one of
the best experiences of our careers, if not the best. His example taught me a lot
about competent leaders. It also convinced me that people who are sufficiently
inspired and competent can accomplish anything they choose... I sound like
Kalev.
This experience opened my mind to the potential of role model leadership. It
also launched me on what would be a long career of thinking and doing and of
learning to be a better leader of myself and ultimately of organizations.
The Developmental Learning Process
In our developmental leadership model, individuals set out to become
competent to lead groups, teams, and entire organizations. It is a given that
becoming a role model leader requires strong motivation. How does a

motivated individual progress from aspiring to achieving the competencies of a

role model leader? What change process is at work here? What must the
aspiring leader do?
The developmental learning process has many facets: discipline; on- and offthe-job learning; mentoring; and drive, which is a reflection of the individuals
own character. Each of these facets can be illustrated. In a disciplined learning
process, there are teachers and teaching aids. The teachers here are often other
leaders those who have progressed (and are continuing to do so), those who
have reached a level of recognized competence, and those who have
demonstrated their value-add in the organization.
In a conventional organization, the senior managers assign objectives to
others. Most of them do not teach. Instead, they leave it to the human resources
department or to training programs or they expect employees to teach
themselves or, in many cases, they expect employees to know enough and not
need to learn more. In the developmental organization, by contrast, all people
are teachers. I will be describing this high-performance teaming process in part
three; in high-performance organizations, the method of teach, learn, teach is a
key component of teams. All meetings indeed, almost all encounters have
teaching moments designed into them.
DuPont Canada maintained a rotating group of five to nine people (we can
call them facilitators) who were expert at and focused on developmental
learning on coaching people in how to learn. They were recruited from all of
the companys various functional areas engineering, R&D, manufacturing, and
so on. All of the developmental teachers were highly motivated role model
leaders who were expert in the concepts of Everyone a Leader as described in
this book. They were available to facilitate learning within teams and working
groups across the company. After a time in the rotating group, they returned to
their usual tasks in the departments from which they had been recruited. The
time they spent teaching leadership to others was a learning experience for them
as well as for others.
Role Model Leader Designation
Role model leader is not a diploma, an exam passed, an award, or a
qualitative measure; rather, it is a label assigned, sometimes unconsciously, to
leaders by those who see them as role models. When your team is working with
a role model leader, you will notice it soon enough. You will admire the person,
trust her, be open to her influence, and so on. And you will recognize her as a
role model leader largely because you are taking steps to become one yourself.
Role model leadership, then, is a reflection of an individuals high level of
learned competence; it is not a position. To extend this, the presence of a role
model leader is a reflection of the progress of the organization as a whole.

Everyone working with Kalev Pugi knew he was a role model leader. We
did not use that term it simply wasnt in our minds but we still knew he was
one. Kalev did not know he was a role model leader, but he knew he was
motivated to be a better leader every day.
To enlist in a common cause, people must believe that the leader is competent to
guide them where theyre headed If they doubt the persons abilities, theyre
unlikely to join the crusade.
Kouzes and Posner, The Leadership Challenge1

The rest of part two discusses the learning required to progress towards the
state of role model leading and leadership. A final note before we start: the
developmental leadership model teaches us that the development of individual
leading and leadership competence is the precursor for successful
organizational development. The organizations people will be developing
themselves and their organization at the same time. Developmental learning
within the organization as a whole is enhanced by the rapid development of the
individuals who comprise it.
Leadership Competency Model
The leadership competency model describes the capabilities that an aspiring
leader requires in order to become a role model leader (see Figure 2.4). The
focus will be on three terms: skills, character, and behaviour. A persons
competence as a leader is a reflection of the cascading sum of these and how
well they are integrated to create the competence required of the individual role
model leader.
Skills: The capabilities that allow the leader to function effectively that is, to do things.
Character: The inner human attributes that prepare the leader to function effectively.
Behaviour: Expressions of the persons motivation to prepare him / herself to function as
a leader.
Individual leading competency: The total, integrated expression of skills, character, and
behaviour.

These elements, once learned and learned well define the role model
leader. In this part of the book I will be discussing them as qualities that
aspiring leaders can learn. That is, they are what leaders learn to do and be;
they reflect how leaders prepare themselves to become exceptional; they suggest
why such people are willing to dedicate themselves to learning to become role
models for others.
The above elements, all together, are what define role model leaders. The
important point here is that they are linked a change in one results in some
degree of change in the others. That is a good thing, because a positive change in

any one of these will measurably improve the others and, it follows, the
individuals overall competence as a leader.
Interestingly, an individual who is following might sense a high level of
leadership skill called honesty; another might sense, in the same leader, a high
level of behaviour called honesty; still another, a high level of character
called honesty. They are all sensing the same positive attribute, yet they
experience and reflect on it in different ways.
As we all must have experienced when following a leader, we can always
tell when a positive attribute is not present. There are too many so-called
leaders who do not have the competence of role model leadership, and these
people cannot hide. And their followers have no difficulty articulating which
specific skills, character attributes, and behaviours that these leaders are
lacking. In so doing, the followers reinforce the need to further develop these
characteristics in themselves.
The developmental leadership philosophy is defined by Everyone a Leader.
In other words, everyone, whatever they are doing at any point, whether it is
leading, managing, or following, is learning to become more competent in the
skills, character attributes, behaviours, and thinking capabilities defined and
discussed here.
In practical terms, in any group, team, or organization, some will be more
motivated to learn than others, and some will learn more rapidly than others.
Some will be able to dedicate more mental, emotional, social, and physical
energy than others to the task. An organization that is dedicated to
developmental learning will, at any given time, have people with growing
leading and leadership competence, but they will be progressing at their own
pace. There will be people at different levels of competence.
The ideal state, in our model of role model leading competence, is a moving
target.

4 Thinking Effectively

The 11th of September 2001: an infamous day in recent world history. An

airliner hijacked by people with a frightening vision of the future slams into a
skyscraper in New York City on a beautiful autumn day, and the world changes.
We will never really know how almost three thousand people in that building
behaved, thought, or acted in those minutes after the crashes. We can only
imagine.
Some would have panicked and run; others would have frozen in fear. Many
would have demonstrated anger; others would have reached out calmly to the
icons and beliefs of their faith and to their values of family and human
relationships. Many electronic messages were sent out in those minutes, many of
them to family and loved ones. Many prayers would have been said. One can
only imagine how many of their messages were never heard. And then there
were those who intuitively or by training reached out to others to help, to
provide guidance. Many would have sought or even demanded help; but others
would have sought to provide it generously with no other motive than that it
needed to be done.
In a crisis, our complex and various inner worlds are on view for others to
sense as at no other time. In a crisis, some people demonstrate their great
leadership skills and others show how much they need leaders. There were
people in those buildings on that day who made the decision to lead. Some made
the wrong decisions; others made decisions that saved lives.
Those who chose to lead in those moments in that place had decided to make
change happen and to influence other people to follow them. But why were
those people motivated to lead at that moment? Why did they feel compelled to
say follow me? How did those leaders decide to exert their concept of safe
passage on others? Did they formulate a strategy? Also, did people in the World
Trade Center intuitively follow certain people and or were they influenced to go
in different directions than they originally planned?
And finally, what did the leaders in the World Trade Center that day actually
do? Did they decide on a course of action and then demand action from others?
Did they intuitively and rapidly develop a strategy, evaluate it, and convince
others of its rightness? If we could determine the answers to Why? How? and
What? in that situation, we would have a clear understanding of those leaders
and how they led.
So in what follows you will be confronting those three questions in almost
every discussion of a newly introduced idea. The answers will help explain the
concepts and provide you with essential insights into leadership and how it can

be learned. Those three simple questions and their answers will offer a
disciplined, systematic approach to thinking effectively and thoroughly about
complex ideas related to the role and practice of leadership.
As I noted earlier, skills, character, and behaviour are linked together.
Change one, and you change the other two in some way. For example, if you
strengthen your character attribute of trustworthiness by learning from other
admired leaders, this will improve your skills your behaviour as well perhaps
as it relates to your capacity to inspire others.
There is, though, one desirable capability that relates to all three that is a
skill, a character attribute, and a behaviour: the ability to think effectively. To
become a transformational leader who changes the world, you must somehow
learn to think broadly, critically, and thoroughly about things. You must be able
to explore ideas holistically not just in terms of actions, and not just in terms
of your own beliefs. And, importantly, you need to learn to think systematically.
The term conventional wisdom has been used by people over decades to
reference limited thinking when considering new ideas. J.K. Galbraith
referenced the term in his famous 1958 book The Affluent Society. If we are
satisfied with thinking about things in conventional, well-understood ways and
using old concepts, progress and change will be resisted. Aspiring role model
leaders who are engaged in changing things and influencing others direction
need to go beyond conventional wisdom. This takes both will and mental
energy; it requires mental tools as well as practice at using them skilfully.
Henry Ford, obviously a very accomplished engineer, was a great proponent
of thinking deeply about things. He explained that others were reluctant to think
because it is hard work. He, of course, was right.
David Garvin and his co-author of Rethinking the MBA have written that
business leaders are asking for MBA schools to incorporate thinking skills and
more leadership development into their curricula.1 His is another way of saying
that to become a role model leader, you must learn to think effectively and
completely, and that takes skill, character, and purposeful behaviour.
Essentially, the framework for thinking effectively has three steps. Those
steps move us from sensing that something must be done, through thinking about
what we must do, to taking positive action. In effect, thinking requires us to
answer these three questions: Why? How? and What? Below, I expand on this.
This learning framework, presented in Figure 4.1, is used extensively in this
book. It was Charles Krone, in the early 1980s, who introduced his nine levels
of thought model to us at DuPont Canada. These nine levels of thought have ever
since been an important tool for my thinking about leading and leadership. With
Krones permission I will be using the nine levels of thought in various places
throughout the book (my version, though, is somewhat different from his) as the
basis for the learning framework for thinking effectively and completely about

leading and leadership.

Thinking Effectively Model
The thinking effectively model is proposed to assist the leader-engineer or
leader-scientist in thinking in an orderly, effective, and complete manner.
All of us respond to the world around us in complex cognitive ways. A
detailed description of the minds inner workings is well outside the scope of
this book and certainly well beyond my capability. But it will be useful here to
take a deep breath and consider a simple model of the minds inner workings.
Most people and this is certainly true of leaders, who by definition
influence people to make positive change are interested in moving from
sensing something to getting results. It is the nature of leaders to measure their
own success in terms of actions taken and positive results achieved. Leaders,
like engineers and scientists, exist in order to make things better.
Many of us believe that the best leaders are action oriented, and we tend to
admire those leaders who are able to move quickly from sensing something to
doing something.
Sensing Doing

The common view is that leaders see or hear something they sense it and
then they are able to successfully execute an idea from that limited input. This,
however, often has less than optimal results. The admonition just do it rarely
if ever works. It works well enough when we sense we are out of shape and
start to run and lift weights. But even in cases like that, it would be better to
think about how far we should be running and how much weight we should be
lifting. The argument most often advanced for going from sensing straight to
doing is that it saves time. Thinking takes too much time, people suggest. Yet
it has been shown again and again by engineers engaged in the planning and
execution of capital projects that when enough time is given to doing effective,
up-front design work, costly mistakes of omission and commission are
minimized and the length of time from start to finish is often quicker than the
just do it approach.
The admonition think before doing is a practical approach that minimizes
both errors and time. So, the process to be recommended is
Sensing Thinking Getting Results

The next section will address the following question: How complete should
the thinking process be? (See Figure 4.1.)
Figure 4.1 Thinking Effectively Model

Developing Meaning
This step requires us to take our sensations as inputs and construct ideas. To
develop meaning, ideas of all kinds confusing ones, insightful ones, ideas that
come long after the sensations have gone need to be constructed. Ideas will
come if aspiring leaders are open to them if they have prepared themselves by
developing goals, ambitions, high levels of mental energy, and high levels of
motivation, and if they have the will to receive ideas. When our thoughts have
value to us, we hold on to them; when they dont, we let them go. Whether they
have value will depend on how well they align with our beliefs, philosophy,
and principles.
Beliefs: Those ideas we hold to be true.
Philosophy: A composite of those beliefs we are willing to live by.
Principles: Guidelines to help us turn our philosophy into action.

By this approach, leaders develop ideas that align with their personal values.
For role model leaders, that alignment is utterly necessary. Without it, our ideas
will be empty of meaning for others, for they will mean nothing to you, and your
followers will realize this intuitively. You have to be genuinely committed to
your ideas or your followers will know instinctively that you are not.
Conversely, if they know your commitment is genuine, the way is open for you
to influence them to work relentlessly to put your ideas into practice. We always
knew that Kalev was deeply committed to his causes. He was very clear about
his values for the work we were doing.
That tells you why beliefs, philosophy, and principles are important: they are
the values that other people see in you. From this process of aligning values
with ideas, the following answers emerge:

 An answer to why we think the way we do about ideas.

An answer to why we value one idea over similar other ideas. Quite simply,
we value those ideas that reflect our beliefs, philosophy, and principles.
All of which takes us naturally to the next step in the process.
Formulating Direction
In this step, we begin turning ideas into directions. Too many people, once they
have developed guidelines for action or high-level principles, leap straight to
doing. That is not the best way, and it is not what a role model leader does. It is
far better to develop a variety of options and then consider them all their
short- and long-term implications. Only after doing that thoroughly and
effectively is it time to develop a set of actions that we may take.
This stage, then, might be called the mid-level or strategic step in the thinking
process. To be more specific, formulating direction involves taking your ideas,
cascading them down the levels of thought through concepts, strategies, and
designs, and then writing them down:
Concept: A few short sentences that describe the idea from the perspective of an
idealized or future state.
Strategy: How the concept is to be accomplished. Three to five statements of
purposeful action should be enough. They should include a range of acceptable
alternatives.
Design: The development of a detailed set of strategic projects.

This triad of concept, strategy, and design should serve as a stand-alone

statement of the idea you originally sensed. If you have little doubt about your
ideas value, there is no harm starting with the strategic part of this triad.
A final point: you might revisit the concept, strategy, design triad on an
annual basis if your organization is embarking on major or transformational
change.
Having formulated a direction, proceed naturally to the next step, which is to
implement it.
Implementing Action
This is the final step in the leadership thinking process. Here, your competence
as a role model leader your skills, character, and behaviour will be
essential to the organizations success. This is the step that generates results. It
is where thinking processes evolve into doing processes, where plans are
converted into actions. It is where strategic thinking turns into tactical thinking
and then into results.

This process of achieving results can also be viewed in terms of three

cascading levels:
Action: Another word for this is tactics. Action is what we actually do to carry out
the design. Put less simply, actions are what we must do to carry out the detailed
strategic projects developed during the design step. Usually there will be a number of
distinct steps for each aspect of the project.
Audit: This involves checking what is actually happening against what is supposed to
be happening. Are the results what you expected? Will you have to change your
actions on the basis of the results you are getting?
Evaluate: At this final level of thought, you compare your specific objectives to your
measured results. Did you achieve what you expected? Is it necessary to go back and
take different actions or not?

The evaluation stage is, in fact, ongoing. With every evaluation you make,
you adjust the actions you have implemented based on the results your actions
are generating.
At this stage, your thinking will be highly tactical: you monitor the project,
evaluate whether you are achieving the results you want, and you make
thoughtful decisions to change what needs to be changed. At this critical stage,
role model leaders engage with managers and with other followers to ensure
that everyone understands the purpose of the work and that everyone is focused
on achieving the results expected. The goal here is to influence people to take
actions that will result in the desired outcomes.
In summary, the premise in this section is that thinking an idea through in an
orderly and disciplined manner before taking action will yield better results:
Sensing an idea about something important

Thinking about the idea in terms of its value to us

Thinking about how to do something to realize benefit from the idea

Thinking about what specific actions should be taken to get results from
implementing those actions

Taking action, measuring outcomes, and getting results

As I said in earlier sections, the goal of all leadership is to influence people

to make positive changes to the ways things are done. And an important tool for
successful leaders is a disciplined, systematic thinking process that enables
them to explore the benefits of ideas before launching them at the organization.
The distinctions in meaning among the nine levels of thought are subtle. Even

so, in some instances, there will be great benefit in taking the time to parse the
thinking process of a group or an individual into all nine levels of thought.
Doing so can be very helpful when the thinking is directed at a complicated and
important change or transformation where the aim is common purpose and
understanding. In other instances, however, it can be enough to integrate the
levels into the three triads of thought (see Figure 4.1) Why? How? and What?
An Example of Thinking Effectively
THE SCENARIO

A group of engineering students discuss the idea that both they and society in
general would benefit if leadership development were made part of the
curriculum. These students conclude that a leadership course could strengthen
the engineering curriculum. They decide to do some disciplined thinking about
this idea, using the thinking model they have learned.
A summary of the nine-level thinking process is provided below. Note that it
gives only one statement for each of the levels of thought. In the real world,
before a result was obtained, there would need to be many statements and
choices at each level.
THINKING ABOUT AN IDEA

Belief: Engineers in the workforce today are not helping improve the world as
much as they could and should.
Philosophy: If engineers learned leadership skills, character attributes, and
purposeful behaviours early in their university years, they would become
better engineers and better citizens as well as agents of positive social
change.
Principles: The Faculty of Engineering will strongly encourage its
undergraduates to learn about and apply leadership skills, character
attributes, and purposeful behaviours.
Concept: Engineers with leadership capability are the ones best equipped to
lead transformational change across a broad spectrum of society.
Strategy: Leadership learning opportunities are to be provided throughout the
undergraduate curriculum and experience.
Design: A series of academic courses and leadership experiences are to be
provided in each undergraduate year and in graduate programs.
Action: One important action step: experienced leaders will be asked to teach
leadership courses to those students who wish to learn something about the
craft.
Audit: The Engineering Faculty will conduct a disciplined, credible self-audit

of engineering graduates five years beyond their graduation to ascertain the

benefits of leadership training for undergraduates. The action steps will then
be revised to reflect the audits findings.
Evaluate: A disciplined, credible set of metrics to measure the benefit to
society of a leadership program will be used to test and ultimately justify a
sustainable effort in the faculty. Also, the action steps will be revised to
reflect the measurement so that improved results are obtained.

5 Skills Capability

The specific work of leaders is to make changes that improve their own
capabilities as well as those of other individuals and entire organizations. Our
leadership framework goes beyond the development of skills; skills, though, are
the starting point.
As I noted in the preface, at a point in time, DuPont Canadas senior leaders
decided to markedly improve their companys performance by embarking on a
strategy: that everyone would learn to become a competent leader. Over the
years, to accomplish this goal, they made many changes to processes and
systems.
One of these initiatives involved management by objectives (MBO). Many
conventional organizations use this well-known tool: managers set objectives in
co-operation with the individuals in their organizations. They then measure the
performance of those individuals to establish their pay. DuPont Canada had
been using this tool for many years; now, though, it was decided as part of the
evolving design of the developmental leadership organization to redesign it in
ways that would allow everyone to self-manage. This new SMBO approach
shifted accountability for setting short-term work objectives onto each
individual and joint responsibility for review of outcomes onto that individual
as well as the persons manager. More will be said about self-management in
part three of this book.
Around the time the SMBO system was introduced, I was leading and
managing a small group of engineers that was dedicated to the design and
construction of capital projects. We switched, like everyone else, to the SMBO
approach. Early on in this transformation, I observed behaviour that encouraged
me to believe that our strategy of Everyone a Leader was making DuPont
Canada a better company.
A number of people in my group set SMBOs that were not much different
than those that had been set for them under manager-directed MBOs. But over
the years following the change, more and more of them became motivated to
improve their functioning capability by setting personal objectives that were
more challenging and more developmental.
The less motivated, at least at the beginning, set more traditional engineering
functional objectives: performing specific design tasks more efficiently,
communicating well with the business sponsor to keep them informed, and so
on. But the more motivated engineers set personal objectives not just to
communicate well with the business leaders they would seek out those leaders
to learn from them; they would determine any unrecognized business needs that

would make their projects more successful; and they would help them extend the
potential of their projects. Instead of taking conventional approaches, they set
out to explore the potential for innovation.
In one case, an enterprising leader-engineer wanted to explore ways to
shorten construction times in the Far North during the winter. His unit took the
time to experiment with ideas and materials that would shorten concrete cure
times at ambient temperatures far below freezing. Their experiments succeeded.
Also, many of these aspiring leader-engineers set the objective of learning
more about their engineering specialties. To that end, they took outside graduate
courses at night, or they participated in a variety of self-learning initiatives. The
message for me was that when people are encouraged to take accountability for
leading themselves, they often develop their functional expertise and become
more skilled at their work.
Functional Expertise
Expertise, here, refers to the skills people have that are the focus of their
professional contribution to society. These might be engineering skills, science
skills, machine maintenance skills, or sales skills. They are the functioning
capabilities in which the individual is capable of becoming an expert.
Engineers, scientists, or technologists, to become effective leaders, must
continuously develop their capability as a functional expert in their chosen
field. They must be prepared to maintain and indeed expand their knowledge
and understanding of their field.
The philosophy of Everyone a Leader is what motivates the individual to
develop as a role model leader. A closely related idea here is Everyone a
Functional Expert. There is enormous power in a team of people with diverse
and highly developed functional skills in financing, marketing, engineering,
manufacturing, and so on. Even more powerful, then, if in addition, each of these
talented people is developing leadership competence. Such a team is equipped
to meet the most challenging transformational goals.
I did some consulting work with a company that invented and manufactured
medical devices. I had the opportunity to meet with other consultants who were
medical doctors. One doctor was especially interested in leading and he was a
senior manager in a large medical device sales and distribution company. He
told me that he was a more effective leader because he was still a good doctor
and was continually renewing his skills by taking shifts in a local hospital
emergency ward.
Even the most senior leaders the ones at the very top of the organizational
hierarchy need to maintain and grow their functional expertise. Leading my
company was a welcome challenge for me in terms of my leadership skills. It
would have been much more challenging had I not been convinced of the need to

maintain and grow my expertise as an engineer. This technical savvy allowed

me to communicate effectively, to engage in problem solving with some project
teams, and to engage with thought leaders each with their own expertise. This
was essential when it came to determining future directions for innovation. I
was not alone in this determination. The role model leaders whom I knew and
respected in the company and in other organizations were all determined to
maintain and grow their functional expertise throughout their careers.
Of course, personal choices need to be made in terms of which functional
expertise to maintain and grow and to what extent. It is normal for individuals to
develop their functional capabilities in many different ways and directions
during their lifetime. A graduate engineer may focus on a specific set of
engineering skills or evolve into a generalist. Another graduate may decide to
develop as, say, a technical sales representative or a financial manager. All of
these people, though, will benefit from developing their leading and leadership
capabilities.
Again, personal choices will need to be made in terms of the time and energy
devoted to either functional expertise or leadership competence. The key point
here is that every individual needs to develop both.
In too many organizations there are too many leaders who believe that they
can allow their functional expertise to slide as they learn and become better at
leading, managing, or supervising others. This is a mentality of scarcity. The
belief that a person can learn and practice only so much functioning capability is
false. Rather, I believe in a mentality of abundance that learning is both a
continuous process and a cumulative one. Newly graduated engineers can, if
self-motivated, maintain their engineering skills and indeed broaden and deepen
them. I have seen many graduate engineers serve their organization, themselves,
and society with their learned engineering skills and then move into other areas
of expertise sales, accounting, personnel, and so on. But the very best of these
people do not abandon their previous functional capabilities. Instead, they carry
them forward and use them in a cascading development of capabilities and
learned skills. They work at maintaining and growing their skills throughout
their careers.
Developing a Personal Mission
A personal mission is a powerful tool, and developing one is an extremely
important skill for aspiring role model leaders to learn. Thinking about and
developing a personal mission statement and, most important, following
through on that statement is a key capability for anyone who hopes to influence
others. You cannot lead unless you are skilled at leading yourself.
Thinking deeply about and writing down and constantly revisiting a personal
mission statement allows you to gain knowledge about what you need and want

to change. It provides a roadmap of what to do to achieve the future you desire

for yourself. Stephen Covey has written extensively about personal mission
statements. It would serve you well to explore his thoughts.1
A specific framework for a personal mission statement is given below. This
one has served my personal needs very well over the years. It is a classic fourterm learning framework; it has two dyads. The first relates to the personal
motivation to move from a current state towards a more satisfying future state
(i.e., ones life goals):
Personal Current State Priority Life Goals

As you go about constructing your personal mission statement, you will have
a picture or a sense of what you want to accomplish in your life at a personal
level. These goals can be and should be practical, indeed visceral things like
I want to be seen by others as successful, I want to dedicate my life to
serving others, I want to be seen by others as important, and so on. It is
important, though, that you be honest with yourself. Many people spend so much
time trying to do the right thing as perceived by others that they find it difficult to
separate that from their real, personal life goals.
The second dyad focuses on the thinking and doing on the operational
work you will have to do to reach your goals:
Personal Values and Direction

Priority Work Activity

Here you need to think about, define, and reaffirm to yourself your personal
values those beliefs you hold strongly about yourself, your work, and your
life. Also, you must develop a direction to bring about that future. For example,
if you envision yourself as a senior leader in your company, or to go in
another direction as an accomplished senior engineer at your company, you
need to develop a strategy for achieving that future. Will you need to change
jobs to gain more experience at leading different kinds of organizations? Will
you need to do things differently to gain other experiences? Will you need to
take time off from your company and go back to school to acquire a new set of
skills? Deciding which actions to take may well require that you take time to do
research, and to consult with others to get it right in your mind.
The second part of this second dyad is priority work activity. Here you
need to further define the work you should be doing to realize the vision and
strategy you have described for yourself. For example, if your direction is to
become a senior engineer, you will want to seek out work that will improve
your leadership skills; and you will seek opportunities to network with senior
managers, to learn more about the companys technologies, and so on.

Knowing Yourself
This skill is based on learning who you are, not who others consider you to be.
It is important to do this in an ongoing manner to constantly be learning more
about who you are as you seek to improve yourself. Maxwell Maltz developed a
thesis about this in his well-known book Psycho Cybernetics.2 In that work, he
maintained that individuals must have a measure of self-awareness an accurate
and positive view of themselves before setting any life goals; otherwise, they
will never achieve those goals in their entirety.
Knowing oneself is a benefit to individuals and to others: a clear example
was demonstrated to me when a talented research scientist working in a biotechnology company decided that he was not meant to be a manager giving
orders to others. He decided he could learn to be a leader and influence others
and the company to dedicate resources to moving in a different direction. He
saw the benefit to the company and to himself in engaging in medical end-use
research and development, which was his personal competency and passion.
I noted earlier that it is important to learn the character attributes of role
model leaders. I will introduce these later on, but I will mention here that you
cannot hope to strengthen your character unless you begin with a solid
understanding of yourself. Perhaps the best tool for achieving understanding of
yourself is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).3 Everyone, I believe,
should take the test and have it evaluated by an expert. Doing so will give you
tremendous insights; indeed, some people will tell you that the assessment
cannot help but change those who take it. Perhaps that is going too far, but I
believe that within certain boundaries, it is possible to change ones
personality. For example, you can learn to become more extroverted or more
introverted if you have the will to do so and the skills to learn how, and the
MBTI can help with that.
As an example, it is valuable information to know how much of an introvert
you are. Having learned about introversion and extraversion, you can choose
whether to act on that knowledge as part of an effort to change. You will, along
the way, realize that role model leaders can be introverts or extroverts. What
matters more is how you manage your personal energy. Introverts need to
manage their personal energy in different ways than extroverts.
Leaders who have come to know themselves will have developed insight
into how they react to various emotional stimuli. Every role model leader has a
preferred and well-communicated leadership style. It is also true that role
model leaders, to be maximally effective, need to be able to change their
dominant style when facing a crisis. How well you know yourself and how well
you are able to adapt to situations will determine how able you are to change
your dominant style at critical moments. Various leadership styles will be
discussed in the following pages.

To have a strong degree of self-awareness is the first step in understanding

how others see you. Indeed, one could argue that self-awareness is important
largely because it enables you to know how others see you. Unless you can
influence people to make positive change, you are not a leader. Until you
become aware of how others perceive you, you will find it very difficult to
influence others. So you must learn how to sense how others perceive you.
Knowing Others
Role model leaders need to be able to read the people around them if they hope
to change their environment in positive ways. This skill, too, can be learned.
That much should already be clear, but perhaps this next point is not: a role
model leader seeks reasons to make changes. Unless you learn to test the current
state of your environment against alternatives, you will not develop a change
mentality. Role model leaders are always looking for better ways to do things
and for better models for future states. They embrace a healthy discomfort with
the status quo. Again, they seek positive changes to make. Positive change is not
an absolute whether a change is positive or not depends a great deal on
others perceptions of it. So a leader who would make positive change must
learn how to understand the needs, wants, and values of others.
Learning to know others is not entirely a matter of experience. It also
requires a systematic approach to learn about the other people in your world.
And it requires you to watch for transformational changes to make. In finding
them, you will also find ways to influence others to make change.
You cannot know everything about everyone. History is full of people who
became role model leaders by aspiring to a better future. Think about the great
researchers in engineering, chemistry, medicine, and the social sciences: Linus
Pauling and his revolutionary findings in molecular biology; Jonas Salk and his
successful development of a polio vaccine; and Peter Senge and his passion for
systematic thinking. Each of these role model leaders changed the world in part
by intensely seeking to know others and their environment.
So, how do we learn to know others? Mainly, you learn this skill by training
yourself to pay attention to people and things, be they natural or manmade. There
is much to be learned by observing and thinking about continuous change in the
natural world. Why do plants and animals do things in certain ways? How do
they affect their worlds? What can we learn from evolution? Mostly, though, we
can learn from other people. Seek out those who are expert in areas in which
you wish to learn more.
If you want to become a better tennis player, dont play with those you can
beat easily. In the same way, if you want to lead people, get to know a great
leader and learn from that person. Much has been written about mentorship.
Without question, it works, but it is also difficult to sustain unless you have a

willing and active mentor and you share that persons energy.
The skill of learning how to know others, and the capacity to benefit from
that, is largely a matter of active sensing, active listening, and active
observing. The best advice in terms of active listening and active observing is
simply this: Stop talking! The very best leaders the ones who understand the
benefits to be gained from knowing others are often the ones sitting quietly in
the room and listening and observing. Less skilled leaders sometimes
misinterpret this active listening and observing as a sign of weakness, laziness,
or disinterest.
Active thinking is another beneficial skill one that when coupled with
active sensing can be very powerful. Listening to and observing others and
measuring their ideas, actively comparing them with your own, often leads to
even better ideas.
But be careful whom you decide to learn from. Many aspiring leaders
indeed, most people generally gravitate towards charismatic personalities.
Through the centuries, role model leaders have often been understood as
charismatic leaders as the archetypical great men or great women. There
is nothing wrong per se with charismatic leadership; charisma, when coupled
with thoughtful competence, is better than the magnetic attraction of a powerful
personality who says follow me and then takes you nowhere or, worse, to a
place that you (or the entire world) never wanted or needed to see. Furthermore,
charismatic leaders often get caught up in their own personalities and become
enthralled with themselves. For such people, ego satisfaction becomes a more
powerful driver than any vision of a better future.
The Power of Interdependency
The very best leaders know how to deal with ambiguity; they know how to see
both sides of the situation at hand. That is how they can develop good relations
with diverse groups and individuals. Poor leaders and others who are less
competent than role model leaders do not deal as effectively with ambiguity.
As a result, they come across as indecisive, which in turn confuses the people in
their organization. These followers simply cant tell what their leaders really
want. In real-world organizations, this sort of interpersonal confusion tends
towards the following results:
Discussions end with agreeing to disagree, which is never the right result.
Discussions end with meeting halfway, which is never the optimal result
either. For example, price negotiations almost always end up halfway
between the original price positions. Such compromises are overrated: both
sides lose something, and time has been wasted in the negotiations.

There is a better way, and it is called a reconcile. A reconcile is not a

compromise, and it results in each side knowing it has won. The powerful
learning framework (see Figure 5.1) is an interdependent triad called the
reconcile model.
This model was used in our company in any number of ambiguous situations
as a learning tool and as an approach to solving problems and making decisions.
Ambiguity, here, refers to a situation where there are two opposing views. It is
the constant companion of leaders; it is certainly mine.
In chapter 1, I described a story about persistence and leadership that I
experienced firsthand. Carol came to know her senior managers in many ways.
In her determination to change things in the direction of her aspiration, she was
constantly crafting reconciles that met their needs as well as her teams and her
own. In the process, she found better ways to do things. The main reconcile
described in the example was the action that responded to the decision to shut
down her business because of lack of strategic fit. She found a better way to
sustain her business and meet their needs. She acquired a business a reconcile,
a change that was innovative and that satisfied both sides.
Another example might be two engineers on a project team that has been
assigned the task of improving the profitability of a milling machine that
produces steel channels for construction end uses. One engineer believes that
the approach should focus on reducing the machines operating costs; the other
believes that the company should buy a new machine with the most advanced
technology. The latter approach would focus on generating more revenue from
the new machines higher productivity. Those higher revenues would result in
higher profit, even after the machines cost was factored in.
Figure 5.1 Reconcile Model

These two engineers decide to apply the reconcile model to seek a better
solution one that has elements of both ideas. They agree that cost reduction
must be an element of the solution, and they also agree that more advanced
technology ought to be an important element. They decide to purchase the most

advanced computer software and hardware as well as an improved cutter to

give even higher productivity at slightly higher cost. Together, these decisions
will allow the machine to be run at higher productivity, thereby generating more
revenue for the business. They also decide to make a proposal to their suppliers
of steel: they will offer one of their suppliers a very high share of their business
in return for a significant reduction in the cost of steel.
Intelligent application of the learning model by these aspiring leaders has
allowed them to achieve a win-win reconcile, one that respects the ideas of
both.
And how is a reconcile achieved? To start with, the two sides must agree to
reconcile. That is, they must agree to find a new idea that is better than either of
their original ideas. And what is the better idea going to be? It will be a fresh
idea that has been developed through cooperation, trust, innovation, and hard,
thoughtful work.
It is a leaders task to develop environments where trust and cooperation can
blossom. Trust and cooperation provide the framework within which the hard
work of reconciling can be done. But in itself, hard work is not enough the two
sides must agree to engage in it together. This means that the leaders engage in
moving their people down the following trajectory:
Argument Empathy Action Win-Win

A Win-Win Process
First

The proponents of two strongly opposed ideas come to the table.

They open their minds to see the problem from the others point of
Second view; they seek to understand by comparing the others beliefs and
principles to their own.
Third

They each take the others side, seeking ways to give expression to
the needs and concerns of the other instead of simply stating and
restating their own positions.

They determine what results would constitute a fully acceptable

Fourth solution for both sides. Again, openness and honesty are important
here.
They identify several new options for achieving the results. They
innovate themselves away from their original positions.

Fifth

Sixth

Together, they select one idea that is different from the original two.
They test this new idea as to whether it is a reconcile that is
acceptable to both.

Seventh They continue until they have arrived at a fully satisfactory

reconcile.
Developing interdependent reconciles is an important leadership activity as
well as a skill that leaders need to develop. Reconciles allow people to
participate openly and creatively in the continuous improvement process in
fact, it inspires them to do so, for it frees them from the demotivating threat of
losing (i.e., having their idea denied). Recently, the idea of integrative thinking
proposed by Roger Martin and the idea of a Third Alternative by Stephen
Covey have emerged.4 Both these eminent teachers and authors are very much
aligned with the notion of the reconcile model used in DuPont Canada for many
years.
Teaching Others
Leadership can be learned and learning to be a role model leader is a challenge
well worth taking up. Learning is a skill in itself. And what is the best way to
develop that skill? I maintain that you learn best by teaching others: by teaching
leadership, role model leaders hone their own leadership skills.
The teaching process is best implemented in two stages: influencing the
student to accept and participate in the learning process and engaging in the
teach-learn-teach process itself. The first involves convincing the student that
there is value in learning to be a leader; more specifically, learning starts with
the student realizing that I dont know what I dont know and then accepting
that he or she should move towards learning about leading and leadership. This
is the influence required to move people from a state of unconscious to
conscious incompetence. The second part of the teach-learn-teach process is the
teaching itself and moving from conscious incompetence to conscious
competence.
If the organizations values include the philosophy of Everyone a Leader,
then the learning process will be natural and effective part of a leadership
learning culture. Without this cultural backdrop, the teaching will entail
isolated and individually motivated events and will be much less efficient and
effective.
Diversity of Thought
Advocating and practising diversity of thought is an important skill for role
model leaders to learn. This is the idea that one should seek other points of
view, be patient when making decisions, and accept that there will be no single
right answer.
Leaders are always dealing with ambiguity. If our organization needs to
increase its profit, do we focus on cutting costs or increasing revenues? Which

leadership style will get the best results in a given situation? Which of our best
engineers will we place in charge of a given project? Role model leaders soon
learn that for most important questions, there are no single correct answers. So
instead, they establish the options for accomplishing the tasks at hand; then they
make their choices unencumbered by the need to always choose a single right
answer. They learn to spend their time and effort on a measured, limited number
of possible answers usually three. It is always easier to decide among three
options.
It is also easier to make decisions when three people work together. Two
people can discuss, argue different logics, and have great difficulty deciding
between two right answers to an issue or decision. When a third person is in the
room, that person often listens and hears the two arguments and sees and feels
the argument both logically and emotionally. This third person can then
intervene and raise the level of understanding and decision making to the point
where conclusions can be drawn and decisions can be made from all the
possible answers. This is another useful way of using the reconcile model.
There is another useful skill a tool that is a well-known outcome of the
concept of diversity of thought. That tool is often referred to as diverge /
converge. It is a simple but effective tool for reaching a decision where a
number of alternatives are possible. To illustrate, say that you are seeking an
answer to an important strategic or tactical issue. A good approach is this:
List all possible answers. Take lots of time, for the tendency is to select the
right answers too quickly.
Expand on your or the groups understanding of the rightness of each
answer. Again, take your time to list the pros and cons for each.
After this thorough and disciplined divergence of thinking, start to work on
convergence:
Read and discuss all the divergent information.
Rate each item on the list youve developed on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is
a high degree of rightness and 5 is a low degree. It is often wise to have
each participant do this in a quiet spot where each can study all the pros
and cons.
Collect all the information, measures, and opinions, then converge on the
most right answer together sometimes it will be the one with the highest
score, sometimes not.
This is a simple approach, but it is based on some important principles:
Role model leaders respect the opinions of others and diversity of thought.
Role model leaders are comfortable with ambiguity but also have a passion
for action preceded by systematic thinking.

 Role model leaders influence others to make positive change.

And, finally, a most important idea that evolves from this skill: diversity of
thought. All leaders benefit from a diverse set of career experiences. The very
best leaders will take advantage of and create opportunities to make career
changes to broaden and enrich their learning. An example would be the learning
when a leader-engineer moves into a sales and marketing team or transfers to a
different country or organization.
Focusing on What Is Most Important
Role model leaders focus on the few important matters that they are best able to
influence. This is because, quite simply, there are always more issues worth
addressing than there is time to address them all. Unless you prioritize, you
wont accomplish as much as you could; you may accomplish nothing at all, and
what you do accomplish will take more time than it would have otherwise. This
may sound obvious, but ambitious people tend to forget it.
The important issues will always be large in number. It is tempting to launch
strategies or actions to deal with all of them, especially when we see
opportunities to change situations for the better and when it is clear to us what
can be done about them. But when we take on too much, we are only leading
ourselves astray. Stephen Covey refers to this as the circle of concern.5 The
basic problem here is our very human tendency to overestimate our abilities and
underestimate opposition to change. Indeed, we like our role model leaders to
be strong willed, to be passionate about overcoming barriers human, natural,
economic and getting results. But that passion is precisely what can lead to
overreaching oneself.
So how are we to learn to be confident in a realistic way? Basically, we do
it by learning to prioritize. By learning if the issue is environmental pollution
that it is better not to tackle a long menu of problems, for doing so is likely to
lead to a series of suboptimal solutions. It is better, instead, to focus on making
rapid and sustainable changes that address (for example) the most serious
pollution problems at hand. One might, in this case, first target chemicals that
are known carcinogens. Having eliminated these, and having dealt with the
inevitable technical and human objections to any change process, you can then
move on to the next set of pollution challenges perhaps to water pollution in
the vicinity of the companys operations. When this approach is taken, success
builds on past success; indeed, progress can accelerate. And these successes
can be banked, in the sense that past successes make future challenges easier
to overcome. This is largely because success builds your credibility and fosters
trust.
Another point can be made: role model leaders seek to expand their circle of

influence. That is, they strive to increase the number and importance of issues
they can influence successfully. If their influence stops growing, it will
inevitably deteriorate. This may seem odd, but remember that there are many
oppositional forces to change and that those forces are constantly growing. So a
role model leader must expand his influence simply to stay ahead of those
forces.
The final point to be made about prioritizing relates to urgency. Time is
managed best when the manager / leader minimizes less important activities and
focuses mainly on those that are most important and most urgent. However,
many people make the mistake of neglecting the most important, less urgent
things, which often include activities relating to the role model leaders
personal development. The best examples involve learning activities such as
keeping up to date on the latest advances in our own technical specialty and,
importantly, developing ourselves as leaders. These learning activities need to
be a priority.
Another aspect of time management is speed. Todays world is moving more
and more quickly, to the point that speed has actually become a commodity that
the market will pay for. People are not willing to wait for things to just happen.
Those who understand the quickening pace of todays world will have an
advantage in the marketplace.
Many aspiring leaders would agree that speed is important and that so is its
primary measure, which is productivity. But many also confuse saving time with
acting impulsively. That is a mistake: higher productivity is more likely to be
achieved by thinking and by taking the time to consider the best ways to move
forward. Thinking before acting is the best approach to accomplishing the right
things in the shortest time. Such is the magic of front end loading. The very
best project engineers know how important it is to spend considerable time
thinking completely and effectively in the early stages. In this way, wasteful
steps can be eliminated and innovations can be developed. Only then, after they
have committed to a well-considered project design, do they start to spend
money on the work itself. And the work will be completed more quickly the first
time with no need to correct mistakes and repeat the work.
So, you often maximize speed and productivity by going slow until you are
certain it is time to go fast.
Learning from Experience
Everyone knows that experience is a great teacher. Experiences of all kinds
offer us opportunities for learning to become better leaders. There are two
extremes. There are those who spend a career, indeed a lifetime, learning the
same thing over and over again from their experiences. Then there are others, at
the opposite end of the spectrum, who learn more efficiently by developing their

capacity to get the most out of every learning experience they encounter. The
latter people learn more from opportunistic experiences they sometimes
deliberately design such experiences. That is the height of learning effectively,
and it is what role model leaders do.
Those of us who play golf watch professional golfers swing a club and are
inspired to work harder at the game. It is unlikely that watching Rory McIlroy or
even a journeyman pro will raise our functioning capability to professional
levels, but almost certainly we can learn something from the experience of
watching those magnificent swing mechanics. And even when we do not learn to
function on the course as well as we might hope, the experience of watching
will enhance our preparedness, our spirit, our being, and our character and
cause us to be more motivated to improve our functional skill to swing a club
better than before.
Learning from observing can achieve a positive outcome. But learning from
experience is meant to stimulate action. This can be doing something and making
a mistake or doing something right the first time. Many will tell you making
mistakes and learning from those mistakes is the preferred route. This has
always caused me some concern. Of course, making mistakes is a natural
occurrence when taking action in the engineering, scientific, and business
worlds, and coupled with a root cause, analysis and corrective action is a route
to positive learning. But, the preferred route is disciplined, orderly thinking
before taking action and learning from the experience of successful outcomes.
The point here is that learning from experience is itself a leadership skill.
Role model leaders need to demonstrate a passion for doing so. This is the
height of practicing reciprocal maintenance. On a team, if team leaders seek out
learning experiences by observing, listening, interacting, and sensing the
contributions of others who are following in the team process, those followers
will give back to the leaders and see a common purpose in assisting the leaders
in their role.
Learning experiences can and should be designed by both individuals and the
organization. All individuals at all times learn from what they see and do, but
this is an unorganized, ad hoc approach to learning from experience. A better
alternative is to use tools such as the levels of thought to systematically design
learning experiences.
The organization that is encouraging an Everyone a Leader strategy will
design a system that encourages progress in leadership skills and reward
individuals on the basis of their progress. In the high-performance organization,
such systems are very similar to those used in all organizations for encouraging
and measuring the growth of other functional skills (e.g., engineering, marketing,
and so on).
Figure 5.2 Levels of Accomplishment

A learning framework to illustrate this organizational development dynamic

is given above, along with two hypothetical examples of people developing in
different ways although they are both motivated by the promise and reward of
Everyone a Leader.
It is worth mentioning that this framework and example are not differentiating
accomplishment by title or hierarchical level but by identifying a cascading
scale of developed capability. A CEO of a company could, depending on
competence at any point in time, be a level 3, 4, or 5, in my experience.
The Development of Ashley, the Aspiring Organizational Leader
ASPIRING LEADER

A recent engineering graduate has just joined a firm. Both the entry-level
engineer and the company expect her to develop as an engineer and as a leader.
We will call the engineer Ashley.
The company assigns Ashley to a project group that is one of a number of
important teams dedicated to building a new plant to produce a new product that
is expected to have a strong impact on the companys fortunes. This is an
important and early opportunity for Ashley, and she knows it.
On that team, Ashley has many opportunities to work one-on-one with the
team leader, Ken. Ken is a role model leader dedicated to ensuring that the team
achieves its goals and to developing the leadership capabilities of his team
members. After some considerable opportunity and time, Ken judges Ashley to

be a competent aspiring leader.

What did Ken sense and experience in his observations of Ashley? Ken saw
a competent engineer who was meeting her goals while contributing to those of
the team. He saw Ashley demonstrating not only her engineering skills but also
her considerable interpersonal skills. Everyone on the team finds Ashley
credible; they trust her as a contributor and like her as a person. She is doing
productive work and demonstrating her competence, which is contributing to the
teams overall goals. Ashley is a self-starter who needs little help from the
leader or others in doing her work; and she is beginning, quite deliberately, to
read about and learn the skills, character attributes, and purposeful behaviours
required to lead effectively.
DEVELOPING LEADER

After about a year, the project team meets its goals and is disbanded. Ken, the
project team leader, is asked by the senior project leader to evaluate the
performance of his team members both their functional competence and their
leadership capabilities.
In his evaluations, Ken is critical of two of his team members: they have not
met all their personal objectives and have needed considerable help from
Ashley and Ken in order for the team to stay on track. Also, they have not shown
strong leadership capabilities, especially in terms of self-motivation and work
habits. However, Ken is very pleased with how Ashley has developed. She is
judged to be a highly competent engineer and has demonstrated considerable
potential as a leader. She has taken the time to get to know the people on the
team; she has shown very positive energy and has a tenacious often aggressive
approach to finding ways to get things done. She has often looked for better
ways to do things.
In short, Ken believes that Ashley has demonstrated leadership capability.
She works effectively with others in a change environment; she is doing some
public service work outside the firm; and she is learning about the stakeholders
in the communities near the plant. And, importantly, she is increasingly admired
as a role model leader by a growing number of her peers.
ROLE MODEL LEADER

A few years have passed, and Ashley has continued to perform well as an
engineer and as a member of a number of successful teams. She has been
recognized as a go to person. When a team leader needs to get something done
and done well, they go to Ashley. As a result of her exemplary performance as
an engineer and a developing leader, she is given the opportunity to lead a team
that has just been formed in another department of the company. That department
is developing a new process in a field outside Ashleys functional competence,

so this will be a challenge for her. If she hopes to excel, she will not be able to
rely on her capabilities as an electrical engineer. In this new environment, she
will need to focus on her leadership capabilities. As part of her new
responsibilities, she will need to work with the department head to pick some of
his team members and to develop a set of team objectives.
Ashley consults with other leaders in the company and is able to convince
them to transfer some key people from their departments to her team. She is able
to do this because these leaders recognize that their own people will benefit
from the experience of working with Ashley, who many now recognize as a
strong developmental leader as well as a good coach and role model.
Ashley assembles her team and works with them in a two-day meeting to
craft a set of team and individual objectives. Included in the objectives are
metrics for measuring performance as well as an aggressive schedule for
carrying out the work. When crafting the team objectives, Ashley commits a
significant amount of resources to leadership development. She researches the
subject and consults with others she respects. With the team, Ashley develops a
team mission statement that links its work to the companys vision. This
exercise is much appreciated by the team, for the resulting statement links its
objectives to the needs of the various stakeholders.
Moving forward in time, the team has met all its objectives another success
for Ashley, who is now recognized within the company as a role model leader.
She is now being given more and more leadership responsibilities on larger and
more important teams. She continues to work deliberately on her leadership
skills, character attributes, and purposeful behaviours and as a result she is able
to learn more with each new responsibility. She is respected and admired as a
competent role model leader in the company.
ORGANIZATIONAL LEADER

Ashley grows through individual development, through experience, and through

thinking about communities beyond the company. She is recognized as a great
leader who has exceptional values and who tries to change things to make the
world better. She is given a significant promotion within the company and is
recognized as an organizational leader. She is given the opportunity to assume
full accountability for a new division that will be based on the acquisition of
new technology by her company. Ashley recognizes the importance of this
opportunity and is confident she will demonstrate her capability as an
organizational leader.
The difference between the demonstrated capability of a role model leader
and that of an organizational leader is large. Put simply, organizational leaders
set the direction for a complex organization; formulate an innovative vision,
mission, and strategy; and engage people successfully in that shared purpose.

Organizational leaders continue to learn new leadership skills, character

attributes, and purposeful behaviours and to refine the ones they already have.
They spend time in the world outside the company, seeking positive
opportunities to serve and learn from new and existing stakeholders.
Ashley is justifiably proud of her growth and demonstrated capability as an
organizational leader. In the entire firm, there are only five leaders at this level,
but she is motivated to continue developing her competence to serve others as a
leader. By now she is also being recognized by outside organizations as an
outstanding leader.
HIGH-PERFORMANCE ORGANIZATIONAL LEADER

Ashley has demonstrated great competence as the companys senior leader. She
is greatly admired by the entire company. She has become a legend in her own
time a superordinate leader. She has created a great deal of change most
would say transformational change in many of the companys systems, as seen
by customers, employees, and shareholders. Those changes have grown the
company markedly and in many dimensions.
Ashley has been recognized outside the company as a visionary as a highperformance leader who also serves society in many ways. At the same time,
her character and behaviour are admired as value based and performance based,
not personality based. In fact, many perceive this accomplished leader as
humble and as more interested in service than in herself.
Many inside and outside the company would agree Ashley is a highperformance organizational leader. But Ashley knows that the goal is to achieve
more to reach for higher-performance leadership. Leadership is a
developmental journey during which there is always more to be learned and
more to achieve.
The Development of Tarah, the Aspiring Leader-Engineer
Tarah, a talented engineering graduate, has the ambition to become the
companys chief engineer. This is a highly functional role, one that involves
acting as an internal consultant to all of the companys business leaders. It is an
extremely important role and is rewarded well, financially and emotionally.
Tarah decides to focus on ascending the engineering functional ladder. This
ladder describes the levels she will need to rise through and the competencies
she will have to demonstrate at each rung. But she also buys into the idea that
she will be a better engineer and a better person if she achieves some identity as
a leader that is, if she learns and gains and practises some leadership
capabilities. So she consults the leadership progression hierarchy and
determines to set herself the goal of achieving the competency expressed by the
identity called Developing Leader. She makes this decision based on her

belief that a chief engineer will be of more benefit to the company and to herself
if she shows leadership in a team environment. The alternative to participate
on teams only as required, without a focus on team objectives and on the needs
of others would benefit no one.
So Tarah dedicates time to learning leadership capabilities and demonstrates
them at every opportunity. The CEO often asks her to consider moving up the
leading and leadership ladder. Tarah resolutely declines to do so, pointing out
that her career goal is to be chief engineer. She achieves her goal, and everyone
tells her that she is the best chief engineer the company has ever had. A large
part of her achievement is her always evident and growing leadership
competence.
Tarah and Ashley developed differently: one as a competent leader-engineer,
the other an equally competent engineer-leader. And, each recognized the
importance of becoming more valuable to themselves and their organization
through learning to be more functionally competent in leading and leadership
and their field of expertise.

6 Character Attributes

Skills describe how role model leaders function; character attributes describe
their humanity. Character attributes are the foundation of the role model
leaders social and emotional level of performance. To illustrate this point,
when you first meet someone, you perceive that person as intelligent and
likeable. The first attribute, intelligence, relates to function; the second
attribute, likeability, relates to character. It is largely on the latter trait that you
will base a relationship. Character, then, relates mainly to social and emotional
intelligence and less so to mental intelligence. The latter is what delineates a
leaders functional skills.
In a conventional organization, the engineer doing process work in a
manufacturing plant or design work in an engineering department is dedicated to
achieving objectives. This entails carrying out tasks that will have clear outputs.
Designing a distillation column for a new manufacturing area in a
pharmaceutical company is challenging work, and the engineer and his
supervisor or manager will agree on the expected result within a given time
frame. It is different in the developmental organization, where everyone is
developing leadership competency. The engineer who is designing a distillation
column will be expected to achieve the same results as those in a conventional
managing process, but he will be encouraged to look for ways to carry out the
task in innovative ways by changing things and making them better than the last
time. And in seeking better ways to carry out the functional work, he will also
be seeking better ways to interact with others, including with the supervising
leader. Clearly, then, the leader-engineer will be expected to exhibit strong
interpersonal capabilities along with functional skills. For example, he will be
expected to exhibit the character attribute of tenacity in pursuing a design that is
more efficient and effective than previous ones. The leader-engineer will seek
input from others, and not necessarily in his immediate area perhaps he will
approach the companys marketing people to determine the customers quality
needs. In this way he will be demonstrating respect for the opinions of others.
Also, the leader-engineer will communicate clearly and often with all those
directly engaged in the work and with those who are less engaged but who are
still affected by the work. In short, the leader-engineer in the developmental
organization will demonstrate strong character and humanity as an essential part
of the work.
When I think about people of great character in a work environment, I think
about an engineer I know well, who rose above others equally talented in terms
of skill and functioning ability. Bryan (not his real name) was the research
engineer on a business team I knew well at DuPont Canada. The team was

interfunctional and was comprised of seven highly skilled people. Five were
engineers or scientists; the other two held degrees in English literature and
sociology, respectively. Each member made a diverse but valuable contribution
to the teams work. But that is not the story I want to tell here.
That team had a challenging goal, which was to develop a new (at the time)
specialty fibre for automotive air bags. Our Kingston nylon operation produced
a variety of products, but this one would be unique because often it would make
the difference between life and death in a car crash. And we would be
developing it here in Canada, at DuPont Canadas own research facilities.
The challenges during the early stages were often technical ones, and Bryan
took the lead in meeting them. It was he who provided the team with the muchneeded technology input. The teams marketing person was a talented engineer
as well, as was the finance person, who had come out of the R&D department
many years earlier to become a talented financial analyst. These two team
members were both a challenge and a help to Bryan, because they sometimes
reverted to their engineering expertise and gave advice to him advice that was
sometimes useful, sometimes not. Bryan would listen intently and either accept
the advice or reject it. But he always gave good reasons for rejecting it; he had
great respect for his team members. They sometimes didnt like his answers, but
they were pleased with his attitude.
From the time the team was formed, the other members admired Bryans high
technological competence. They saw him as a humble, quiet, introverted person
with a good sense of humour that only sometimes came out and that was much
appreciated when it did. Like any good comic, he picked times when the team
needed to have its spirits raised.
The teams designated organizational leader encouraged the members to give
Bryan time to speak and participate. A number of the team members were
inclined to talk rather than listen; Bryan was the opposite. But when he did
speak, everyone listened because his contributions were vital to the teams
success. At this point in the products life cycle, there were a multitude of
product and process issues, and he expressed his ideas about them in a way that
benefited the whole team.
Bryan was passionate about his personal goals as part of the team. He knew
that meeting those goals would be important to the teams success, yet he always
communicated to the others that their goals were equally important. At almost
every team meeting, he would connect his personal work to the teams goals.
Everyone felt good after Bryan made a presentation.
Bryan was a master of communication not in quantity, but in quality. His
points were always valid and he knew how to make them clearly. Also, he was
truthful at all times about the technology issues he was dealing with he did not
brag about his successes, nor did he sugarcoat his failures. As a consequence,
the team trusted and respected him for telling it like it is. He had a compelling

way of weaving the personal values that he held for the business into our project
discussions. For example, he once explained to the team that his goal was to
increase the strength of the air bag fibre while reducing the size of the filaments,
while at the same time reminding us that what was important was not the
ultimate lower cost of the stronger fibre but the safety of the people in the
vehicles that used it.
Bryan had great respect for us, our customers, and society, and the team
respected him, trusted him, and learned from him. And probably because of that,
they liked him a great deal. This role model leader of great character inspired
the team with his technology contributions, his actions, and his character. He
contributed greatly to the goals they achieved. Ultimately, his team met all of its
challenges and DuPont Canada became the supplier of a large share of the
worlds airbag nylon.
An aspiring role model leader must develop character attributes if he hopes
to lead himself and thereby learn to lead others. I distinguish between
personality and character. Personality is your visible persona. Shyness,
extroversion, cheerfulness, and charm are all personality traits. Character has
to do with whether you are reputable, admirable, honourable or not.
Character attributes can be learned. For example, you can learn that it is
important for leaders to be able to inspire others. You can then dedicate your
intelligence mental, emotional, social, physical to developing that character
attribute. Having done so, you can apply that attribute to influence others. In the
following pages I discuss those learnable character attributes that best prepare
people to become role model leaders.
Future Looking
A role model leader is an optimist, always looking forward, always seeking a
better future state. The current state is important, but as the ground for
formulating and launching new directions.
Future looking includes the natural or learned capacity to think in the long
term from five to as many as twenty years forward. That is so far into the
future that it is a difficult to be specific, so the role model leader will often
describe a concept to his followers but not its details. His vision or aspiration
is clear enough to provide direction but not specific enough to allow instruction.
So he describes the future in terms that, while deliberately vague, are clear
enough to be perceived as possible. Too many details would be
counterproductive, for the followers would tend to respond by focusing on the
pros and cons of implementation rather than on the potential, future holds. The
role model leader wants to express to his followers that their world can be
better, not to describe what to do to get there. He wants to make it clear to them
how much promise the future holds, not what the future will be in detail.

Some people use the past to extrapolate the future. If as an engineer you have
had five years of relative calm in manufacturing process variables, then the
planner in you will often predict the same for the next one to three years, with
minor variations. The reason for this conservative approach to planning is to
avoid failure. Managers are often risk averse because their job is to control
situations. When managers think ahead, it is in terms of recent past experience.
The role model leader, by contrast, focuses on the better future, not on the
ongoing current state, which is where managers live. In part one, I
distinguished between aspirational and visionary and planning future state
thinking. Each type of thinking is important and needs to be learned by the
aspiring role model leader. In terms of levels of thought, the first is more of a
belief; the second, a concept; the third, much less future oriented and more a
managing action. The benefit of focusing on the future state is that it enables
followers to see a better future. The leader can then influence people to develop
paths to achieve that future state.
Inspiring Others
The ability to inspire others is arguably the most important character attribute of
role model leaders. Inspiring is an action word perhaps the most positive of
all action words.
Inspiring others is a positive, energy-building action. In some ways, it is like
teaching people to breathe. The only difference is that breathing is a natural
action, whereas inspiring others is a deliberate one. When we are inspired by
others, we are moved to believe in those individuals, their messages, their
beliefs. That is inspirations power. The leadership attributes that are capable
of inspiring others include the following:
Willingness to work for a cause.
Positive emotion, passion for something.
Energizing others to work for a cause.
In difficult times, working to create a more positive future while
communicating a message of we will succeed.
A history of success at leading positive change, especially during difficult
times.
It is important to recognize the difference between motivation and
inspiration. Motivation is something we all have; it is what pushes us to do
things. Inspiration is the ability to dramatically influence others, to convince
people to be passionate about positive change. How do we learn the character
attribute of inspiring others? The above list suggests where we can start, for all
of its items can be learned and practised.

The capacity to inspire others is best developed by experiencing and

observing a model. Make a list of exemplary leaders or persons who have
inspired you and who have influenced others to make significant change in their
world. I have already spoken about Kalev Pugi, who was the most inspirational
person I have ever worked with. In the field of engineering, the project of
landing a man on the moon was, I would argue, the most inspirational project in
modern history. It inspired countless people around the world to engage in
careers in science and engineering. Neil Armstrong, an aerospace engineer, and
Buzz Aldren, a mechanical engineer, became heroes. These two men were
engineer-astronauts, not test pilot-astronauts. Flying spacecraft had become a
technology assignment.
There will be inspirational leaders and teams in your own environment who
can serve as models for you people you can observe and study directly. Seek
them out in order to learn from them. How do they approach people? How do
they talk to individuals? When do they gather people together for
communication? How do they decide when to act? There is plenty that can be
learned from inspirational leaders whom you actually know.
Honesty
Honesty is a vital character attribute of role model leaders. That word is used
so often to describe admirable people that it has lost some of its meaning. I
define honesty as a triad: truthfulness, integrity, and ethical behaviour.
The easiest to understand and most important attribute of the triad is
truthfulness. It is impossible for a leader to influence people to make positive
change without telling them the truth. Some people resort to lies to influence
people. Lies and deceptions in the leader / follower relationship can never go
undetected in the long term and are often revealed in the short term. Lies, when
discovered, have a devastating effect on the leader / follower relationship.
Followers have enormous power: they can say no easily and in many ways to
the leader who is attempting to influence them. A single lie when a follower
detects it and the leaders credibility is lost for a very long time and perhaps
forever.
From truthfulness we move to integrity. Integrity can be learned and can best
be understood in terms of our personal fundamental values. It encompasses
those values that each of us holds close and that form and maintain our personal
identity. Integrity is often and correctly assigned as the sum of the honesty of all
the people in an organization
Let us test our understanding of honesty. We will do so in the context of an
organizations leaders. We know that role model leaders are admired for their
honesty. We also know that it is preferable for our organizations leaders to
hold beliefs that coincide with our own as followers. Some examples of beliefs:

 Stealing from customers is bad.

Providing products to customers that are safe to use is good.
People are vital to our success.
I can call these truths because all of us hold them to be true and because they
have been tested by experience and example. Now, a leader of the organization
may hold the following additional beliefs:
Stealing from customers is bad but once is okay.
Providing safe products to customers is good if we can raise the prices to
cover costs.
People are our greatest asset except in a poor economy, when we have to
reduce costs and can therefore justify terminating 20 per cent of the workers.
Any or all of these may constitute a set of beliefs or a philosophy of leading
an organization held by a given leader a leader who, I would say, is a bad
one. Here we are entering the world of personal choice a world guided by an
individual leaders choices, which are expressions of that persons integrity.
Integrity in this sense is the sum of those beliefs that describe a philosophy of
leading for an individual or as already mentioned, for an organization.
To complete the picture, let me recast the above ideas as a statement of
philosophy that reflects a role model leaders integrity:
Stealing from customers is bad; even once is not acceptable.
We will only manufacture safe products; we will never sell unsafe ones.
People are our greatest asset; even in tough economic times we will have
concern for the well-being of our people.
These examples are all reflections of the admired character attribute called
honesty. They also help us understand why role model leaders must learn what
truthfulness and integrity signify both for themselves and for the organizations
they aspire to lead. As has been said, The devil is in the details. If the leader
and the organization are comfortable with defining honesty as
we will not steal from customers

and then one day the organization finds out its leader really means
we will steal from this customer, once

then the leader will be viewed as dishonest as not credible and may well
lose the ability to influence and lead. This points to why role model leaders
interact regularly with the people in their organization: to truly understand them,

and they him, so that the values of leader and followers are aligned.
Returning to the honesty triad, we can expand this logical discussion of the
character attribute we call honesty. As noted earlier, the three related ideas that
together define honesty in the role model leader are truth, integrity, and ethical
behaviour. The first two are related to the levels of thought we have referred to
as beliefs and philosophy. The third is related to the third level of thought
principles.
Truth: A belief I and most others hold.
Integrity: A philosophy or set of beliefs we hold to be true.
Ethics: Principles, or guides to action, that I am willing to use as my definition of ethical
behaviour.

Each of these levels of thought in turn moves us closer to action to doing

something, to getting results. Principles are guides to action. They are our
thoughts taken to a high level to describe why we do things and in what
circumstances we will take action.
Say that a principle relative to safety and security in Organization A is: We
will ensure the safety and security of all people in our organization and set our
goal as zero injuries in the workplace. That is a powerful statement. It is also
an honest statement of Organization As care and concern for the safety of the
people in the organization. At Organization B, by contrast, regarding ethical
behaviour, a principle might be: We will ensure the safety and security of all
people in our organization and obey all existing laws and regulations relative to
safety and security of people.
These two principles are quite different. Each is an honest and ethical
statement and a guide to future action. But each will result in a very different set
of actions. In Organization A, the leaders will expend all effort, all cost, all
their energies to establish policies and procedures to prevent even the most
minor of injuries to people in the workplace. Whereas in Organization B, those
same leaders will establish policies, procedures, and actions after determining
what the laws are in their community. The actions of this organization will be
directed by the laws, which most often will be much less stringent in terms of
cost and effort. In many instances, this approach will build in a certain
number of accidents. Thus, we have two very different outcomes from two
different statements of organizational principles or ethics.
The leader-engineer must deal with ethical ambiguities and dilemmas on a
continuous basis in areas such as the following:
Public safety and design
Conflict of interest with customers arising from technology utilization
Trade secrets and industrial espionage

Engineering professional organizations provide some, but unfortunately

limited assistance in dealing with the ongoing specific ethical questions
surrounding things like genetically modified foods, global warming, and
political freedoms around the world. The leader-engineer is expected by her
business organization to solve technological problems in circumstances where
ethical questions are important yet supremely difficult to answer. Questions
regarding organizational and leadership ethics are especially important. The
good news is that the engineering design process is closely related to some
accepted frameworks for making ethical business decisions.1 The important
point here is, again, that ethics are rooted in principles, and everyone needs to
be clear to themselves so that they can be clear to others what their own
principles are.
A final word: developing common understanding among all people in an
organization on something as important as honesty is hard work. And that hard
work starts with the role model leader, who must learn to understand his own
beliefs, philosophy, and principles as they relate to honesty, and to all other
character attributes as well. Once the organizations leaders understand their
own individual beliefs, philosophy, and principles as these relate to honesty,
they must influence the rest of the organization to do the same. In this way, the
organization as a whole will learn to inhabit the trait of honesty as the leaders
have determined it.
Respect for People
The most successful leaders offer people respect. Rodney Dangerfield, a
comedian in the 1970s and 1980s, was famous for a routine he developed that
focused on the phrase got no respect. We all laughed, for many reasons, but
perhaps most often because at some point in our lives we have all suffered from
a lack of respect. We all want respect from others. When certain individuals do
not respect us, we will not respond well to the requirement to follow their
direction.
Leaders get respect, not by asking for it, but by earning it. Respect is what
role model leaders give to others, and they expect others to reciprocate by
respecting them. There is a familiar adage: The best way to get power is to
give it to others. This is as true for respect as it is for power. Leaders show
respect for people in their organization by trusting them to work diligently
towards the goals, objectives, and vision of the future state as it has been
described to them. Once goals have been well articulated and communicated
and accepted, leaders trust people to do the good and right things to achieve
them.
Kalev Pugi called me into his office one day and told me that we needed to
create a new pump design to make a step change in an important polymer-

handling process. I told him that it would require a significant, perhaps major
innovation. He replied, Let me know what resources you need, and you will get
them, except for more time. Then let me know when you get the job done. The
result was achieved in a different way than Kalev expected, but we let him
know when the problem was solved. He was pleased he was purposeful, he
had no problem with different methods, and he had great respect for people.
Leaders understand that people want indeed, need to be trusted to do the
good and right things. They also know that people want to be held accountable
for the results of their work. Holding people to account for results is a mark of
respect for their capacity to do the good and right things. For role model
leaders, the ideal situation is one in which there is mutual respect for and from
people who are working collectively to achieve a better situation for all. This
mutual respect is achieved when everyone in the organization is engaged in
high-performance work within a high-performance work system.
High-performance work is realized when people work together to solve
problems, respecting one anothers abilities, motives, and spirit. Highperformance workers expect their leaders and managers to trust them to do the
work; to present them with goals, strategies, and a vision; and to provide them
with opportunities to learn the necessary capabilities to do the work effectively.
High-performance workers then expect to be held accountable for their highperformance results. They expect their role model leaders to do different work
than they do, but also expect them to work to the same standards of excellence,
to learn continuously, and to get outstanding results as they influence and inspire
others.
There are people who have squandered the opportunity to earn others
respect. These people have done things to others or to themselves that cause
enough harm that showing respect towards them afterwards is difficult if not
impossible. Many of us, unfortunately, have had the experience of losing respect
for someone.
Unfortunately, I have experienced a few instances when talented engineers
lost the respect of others in the organization. Those situations almost always
involved people taking credit for technical advances that they had not earned.
Often, the cause was emotional or mental pressure on the individual. A scientist
I knew for many years was under personally imposed pressure to succeed after
a series of failures in his research. He took a great idea for the design of an
experiment from a technologist on his team. The experiment was completed and
opened the door for a successful project and a patentable process, and he was
highly praised within the organization. Only later did I discover where the idea
had actually come from and that this scientist had not given that source the credit
for it. This caused me and many others to lose respect for that individual. When
I discussed it with the scientist, he admitted to the failing and corrected the
perception in the organization. He had shown respect for others, albeit later than

would have been ideal.

Tenacity
The aspiring leader needs to learn to persevere in influencing others to share his
or her new direction. In the field of engineering, and in that part of the business
world that depends heavily on scientists and engineers, moving in a new
direction has a higher probability of failure than is found in many other fields.
People in those environments who are being asked to change direction and to
develop new products or new technologies are being asked not only to make
change but also to accept a higher level of risk should the new direction not
yield the results envisioned by the leader. As a consequence, the leader must be
tenacious when confronted with objections and disappointments.
The example of a scientific leader, an agent of change, a tenacious role
model leader that is personally meaningful to me is Francis Crick. He and his
associate James Watson were awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering the
structure of DNA:
The major credit Jim and I deserve is is for selecting the right problem and
sticking to it. Its true that by blundering about we stumbled on gold We could not
see what the answer was, but we considered it important that we were determined to
think about it long and hard, from any relevant point of view.

I recollect him saying the words above in a room at Cambridge University in

1962, on the day he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine or shortly
thereafter, I cannot remember. I was a postdoctoral student, and he was already
a famous scientist, and he had agreed to speak informally to a group of us about
scientific research. I was prepared for philosophy that evening, but what we got
was an exuberant Francis Crick, full of himself, humorous, and telling his story
of perseverance and extraordinary success.
Reading my notes from that evening again and from the perspective of a
leader, I see the vision of the scientist, the shared purpose of collaborators, the
results achieved from a long and tenacious journey that changed the world
forever.
There is a difference between tenacity and stubbornness, just as there is
between courage and recklessness. A role model leader fully understands all
aspects of both the current state and the future state he or she is proposing. A
detailed understanding, fully researched, with all options examined, will
minimize the potential for missteps when the future is being envisioned. In this
sense, tenacity be it rooted in logic or emotion is a positive attribute for a
role model leader, provided that the target of that tenacity has been justified
through preparation. Conversely, a leader who has not prepared well, or who
does not understand the situation well, is merely stubborn or reckless and is not

a role model leader.

Ask an entrepreneur whether she is a risk taker. She will probably smile and
say she has taken the risk out of entrepreneurship and replaced it with
knowledge. Only fools take unnecessary risks; entrepreneurs and role model
leaders focus on solid preparation and thorough knowledge. Only then do they
tenaciously urge others to follow their direction.
Even the best-prepared role model leader needs courage. Change, especially
transformational change, requires it. The future can never be predicted with
perfect accuracy, so the role model leader must be willing to accept some
prudent risks. As well, once a risky decision has been made, that leader needs
to demonstrate to her followers that she is working hard to learn as much as
possible in order to minimize risk and maximize reward and that she is prepared
to implement aggressively and with confidence. Even after a plan has been
prepared well and the situation is thoroughly understood, there will be risk. To
summarize, role model leaders prepare well and then have the courage to carry
out their plans.
Tenacity, to me, means strength of purpose. Leaders behave in purposeful
ways. Their role is to determine future state direction, and that direction often
asks others to change how they do things. Leaders must have a strong will as
well as steadfastness when faced with objections and opposition.
Role model leaders do not second-guess themselves. They are decisive.
They take action, learn from their successes, and especially learn from mistakes
when they happen. Role model leaders treat mistakes as means to improve
quickly, not as excuses for indecision. For them, lessons taken from mistakes are
gifts, not wounds. Mistakes are never welcome, but you should not fear them as
long as you know how to learn from them.
Trustworthiness
Successful role model leaders are trusted by their followers. A large part of the
leaders role is to decide on new directions, to make change, to move the
organization towards a new state. Imagine that you were blindfolded and told to
walk along a narrow wooden plank over a deep gorge. Even if there was a pot
of gold as a reward, you would not try this unless you could take the hand of
someone you trusted.
Many people say trust me in communications with others and in cynical
jokes. When you ask someone to trust you, in effect you are asking them to make
a withdrawal from the emotional bank account that has been filled over time
between you and the individual or organization. Leaders, by contrast, do not ask
for trust; rather, they earn that trust from a large emotional bank account that is
owned by the followers and that has been built by deposits from the leader.
Another reality is that unless and until a person (or organization) trusts you,

that person (or organization) will answer No! to your requests for substantive
change. You cannot be a leader unless you and your followers trust one another.
A leaders role is to provide direction to others and to influence them to make
change sometimes major change. Until you have the trust of those you are
trying to influence, the change you want to make cannot happen. That is because
followers decide to follow or not based on whether they trust you.
Having said all that, a person can learn to be trustworthy. The following list
might provide guidance on how an aspiring leader can develop trustworthiness.
A role model leader who is trusted will be guided by these principles:
Do what you say you will do.
Be reliable over a long period.
Be recognized as someone who shares successes, not just failures.
Get trust by giving trust.
Develop a history of correct decisions and of getting results from them.
A CEO-engineer of an electronics company I know was judged by senior
managers in his company to be untrustworthy. The company results were poor
and deteriorating rapidly. This continued until the CEO recognized the
prevailing opinion of the managers. He took action, by structuring a mentorship
process with a retired CEO he knew and respected. Together they reinforced the
importance of learning skills and character attributes for leading others,
including trustworthiness. The companys results began to improve as the trust
between the CEO and others improved.
It is important, but also difficult, to always do what you say you will. The
importance is obvious, but the difficulty is equally necessary to understand.
Leaders are engaged in changing things, not in doing the same things over and
over again. Their task is not to control or stabilize things but to change them. So
the possibility always exists that leaders will influence people to make changes
that have unforeseen negative consequences. When that happens, the people
involved and observers on the sidelines may interpret this as the leader not
doing what he said he would do. This in turn may cause a withdrawal from the
emotional bank account of trust between leaders and followers. Is this
possibility a good reason not to strive for change? No! The role model leaders
will have prepared themselves they will have developed an inventory of skills
and various character attributes that will enable them to recover from the
setback and regain the balance in the emotional bank account.
The aspiring leaders will have reached the goal of role model leadership
when they have a history of correct decisions, positive changes, and
achievement of results. Recovery is always possible from bad decisions and
poor results, but not from a long and consistent history of negative results. That
is the reality. The way to ensure a history of right decisions, right results, and

positive change is to never stop learning the skills and character attributes
required by role model leaders, along with the behaviours we will be
discussing later on.
Effective Communication
All role model leaders have learned to communicate efficiently and effectively.
You will markedly improve your chances of influencing people in an
organization if you are recognized within it as an excellent communicator. When
a leader communicates well with all employees, misinformation and rumours
are much reduced. Either of these cause low productivity as well as less
focused, less purposeful behaviour among the organizations people.
Role model leaders understand why it is important to be an excellent
communicator, and how best to communicate what is important to communicate.
The audience for the role model leaders communications includes those people
they have determined they want to influence as well as any other stakeholders
they need to influence as part of the change process. There is a large body of
literature on how to communicate efficiently and effectively. I would only add
here a few practices that have helped me to be a better communicator:
Communicate the important message often, looking for ways to vary the
delivery to keep it fresh.
Be authentic, match your actions to the message.
Look for opportunities to deliver the message face-to-face rather than not.
It is vital that the role model leaders be recognized as great communicators.
That leaders credibility will be much stronger if they can describe clearly the
future state being advocated; deliver the message with clarity and passion; and
answer questions about the direction with equal clarity and passion. If the
message is inconsistent, if the leaders cannot deal with questions and
controversy, if they are unable or unwilling to deliver the change message
clearly and often, shared purpose will be elusive.
But there is another dimension to role model leaders communications: the
message must be more than functional that is, clear and purposeful; it must
also resonate at the emotional level, for it is this second level that inspires
followers to do extraordinary things that they perhaps would not have done if
they had made their choice to follow based solely on logical arguments.
Is this a form of selling? Is it charisma? A gift for speaking well is a valuable
asset, but that gift is not the subject of this book. Certainly, being able to
perform like Sir Laurence Olivier at the speakers podium would be strongly
desirable and it is perhaps even learnable. But gifts like those do not in
themselves make a role model leader, however helpful they might be. More

important is for role model leaders to be aware of their listeners needs in terms
of how the message is delivered and to tune their communication style to
maximize their receptiveness. No opportunity can be missed to convey a
message in a style that matches the audiences needs. The recipients of the
message may be influenced by a quiet style delivered to small groups, or by the
opposite a stage show where the message is delivered as theatre. (Steve Jobs
product roll-outs were a superb example of the latter.)
Role model leaders need to be capable of delivering messages that meet the
needs of their followers. While words are obviously important, other things,
such as body language, can be very powerful. The great actors know this
Robert De Niro and his peers can move us with a shrug or a wry smile.
Social Well-Being
Role model leaders characters are directed at seeking whole-self benefits.
By this I mean that leaders prepare themselves to interact constantly with all
elements of society, inside and outside work, including family. Much has been
made by many about life balance that is, about balancing work, family, and
recreation. No one can say precisely what balance is best for someone else;
only individual leaders can decide for themselves.
A role model leader puts effort into enhancing family harmony. This relates
to both the amount of time and the quality of that time. Growth in personal and
family harmony contributes greatly to a role model leaders capacity to serve
others effectively.
Networking with other leaders and capable people is a means for role model
leaders to learn from and to teach others. Professional associations, think tanks,
and self-initiated forums all provide opportunities for networking of this kind. I
think of my own experience as a member of the Canadian Chemical Producers
Association. This was a group of leaders of small, medium, and large Canadian
chemical companies. The associations work was rewarding and fun. I had the
opportunity to learn from a diverse group of thinkers and to offer my companys
functional services to much smaller, embryonic companies that served the
industry and the country. The most rewarding of these experiences were the ones
where these embryonic companies had great technologies and a great value
proposition to offer society and thereby improve the lives of others. But the
embryonic company was lacking some technical expertise or other resource, and
we could provide it and improve the industry in so doing.
All role model leaders are driven to serve society. There are many ways and
many opportunities to give life to that character attribute, which is learnable.
The customer and the shareholder / owner are important albeit unique elements
of society, and providing service to those is understood even in conventional
organizations. The aspiring developmental organization sees great mutual

benefit in serving society as a whole.

Energy
Leaders work hard, mentally and physically. This is a fact, in my experience,
and it is especially true of role model leaders. Most people, unless they do hard,
physically and mentally demanding work, cannot learn to become highperformance leaders.
Few people think of physical fitness as a prerequisite for learning to become
a leader. Because leading others is so demanding, the healthier you are, the
easier will be the tasks you face and the more energy you will have throughout
the days and nights your work demands of you. Followers and other observers
find it hard to differentiate mental from physical energy. A goal of the role
model leader is to learn to stay extremely fit. Another is to demonstrate high
levels of mental energy.
Stephen Hawking is a world-renowned theoretical physicist. Even though his
body long ago failed him, he works long hours at an energetic pace. We all
know people who have accomplished much because of their extraordinary
mental energy. These people decided long ago to become more mentally fit
and to move beyond an automatic level of mental energy, which is where most
people exist most people are not prepared to do extraordinary things and
prefer to do their work as they have done it before.
Role model leaders raise their level of mental energy to a conscious level
and beyond. By conscious I mean that their thinking, learning, and doing are all
characterized by striving to do more and accomplish more all the time. And they
do this on behalf of others, with improving the lives of others as their goal. This
is reaching for the state of developmental leadership.
It is hard work to achieve and maintain conscious levels of mental energy. To
succeed, we must be motivated to learn more about our work and our work
goals. We must be both knowledgeable about our work and aware of why we
are doing it; in other words, we must be aware of what we are aspiring to
achieve. That is what provides meaning and strategic substance for the work of
role model leaders.
Followers admire leaders who demonstrate high levels of physical and
mental energy. They are seen as passionate, energetic, and committed to
changing things for the better.

7 Purposeful Behaviour

In classrooms and in various work environments, I have observed that when I

discuss the learning required to develop oneself as a leader, most people gauge
their development by comparing themselves to others, including inspirational
people they know, their role models (i.e., heroes), and their peers. And that
comparison is most often made in terms of others behaviour. Here, we can
define behaviour as the instrument that delivers an individuals skills and
character attributes. Behaviour is the outward manifestation of a persons
interpersonal skills and character attributes (discussed previously) as
experienced by the observer. Behaviour is typically summarized with simple,
clear statements like these:
Hes very skilled and smart, but he treats people badly.
We arent friends, but I respect his ability.
Hes a phony who will do anything to impress his boss.
Ive learned a lot from him hes a great coach.
I wish I could lead others like him hes a role model.

Behaviour is the final element in the triad of capabilities that aspiring leaders
must learn in order to prepare themselves for role model leadership. A leaders
behaviour is a function of motivation and style.
Motivation
To learn the required skills and character attributes described in earlier sections
of this book requires considerable self-motivation and will. This wilfulness to
behave as a role model leader expresses itself as what I call purposeful
behaviour. Behaving in a reactive or ego-driven way is not purposeful.
People can be inspired and influenced by others to do things and to do them
in certain ways, but they must motivate themselves to behave in certain ways.
For example, parents and perhaps other role models can influence or inspire a
young person to go to university and study engineering, but that young person
must motivate herself to study hard and become a graduate engineer. In the same
way, people must motivate themselves to exert the mental energy to learn the
skills and character attributes required to become competent leaders capable of
influencing others.
Reactive behaviour occurs when aspiring leaders respond to external stimuli
that are not totally aligned with their own values. Some examples: special
interest groups or particular individuals may demand that you as a leader-

engineer or your organization act in a certain manner; you may be tempted by the
allure of an easier but unethical means for achieving your organizations
environmental remediation goals. Leaders who take the reactive route even if
it is just sometimes are demonstrating to their followers that they are not
developing themselves as role models. And importantly, those followers will
often be confused about their leaders intentions because they will have learned
to expect that external stimuli will come along and change their leaders
expressed intentions again and again.
Ego-driven behaviour occurs when aspiring leaders focus on selfsatisfaction. These leaders do things that meet their own needs rather than the
needs of others. An example of this is a leader-engineer who takes credit for the
ideas and work of others and uses his success to enhance his own reputation.
Another example would be an aspiring leader who takes the organization in a
direction that does not reach for transformational goals and who is satisfied
with easier, safer change even while others in the organization are developing
themselves and their teams by reaching for goals that will grow the organization
and benefit others, even though risking failure. Yet another example is a project
leader who pushes for her own approach to solve a problem and rejects others
approaches without discussion or investigation. These are examples of poor
leaders. Unfortunately, all of us have observed talented and skilful people who
have chosen to benefit themselves by behaving in ego-satisfying ways. People
who demonstrate this behaviour can severely damage the careers and even the
lives of others. The worldwide mortgage meltdown of 2008 is an outstanding
example of this the worlds economy is still recovering, and only slowly, from
the ego-driven greed of others.
The best-known proponent of the philosophy of service is Robert Greenleaf,
author of the 1970 essay The Servant as Leader.1 This essay is often quoted,
although his ideas were not new even in 1970. Indeed, the philosophy of service
by leaders goes back to very ancient civilizations and religions. Even so,
Greenleaf provided a very valuable teaching just prior to the 1980s and the rise
of democratic models of leadership. I do not fully accept all aspects of
Greenleafs model of service, largely because of my perception that it distances
the leader from being in the work of the organization, but that is not so
important in the context of this discussion.
The developmental leadership model presented in this book calls for us to
take action to do work to improve other peoples lives by working to make
things better. It calls for individuals to exert mental energy to develop
themselves throughout their lives. Developmental role model leaders strive to
nourish their enterprises; they purposefully wilfully do the right things for
themselves and for their stakeholders.
Leadership Styles

In 1939, Kurt Lewin, along with a number of researchers, introduced a valuable

and now famous approach to describing the various styles of leadership.2 There
have been many, many studies and suggestions since that time about leadership
styles. Dupre writes that style is the relatively consistent pattern of behaviour
that characterizes a leader.3 Here I offer my understanding of style and present
a model to help clarify the issue. This model compares purposeful workdirected leadership styles to help us better define leadership and understand
role model leadership. The uniqueness of this model is emphasized by
comparison with other models referencing various social behaviours4 and
personality behaviours.5 In this book, the focus is on the work of leaders who
are changing things in value-add enterprises. The framework here describes the
various ways that competent, purposeful role model leaders lead activities in
their groups, teams, and organizations the way these people do the work of
leading others.
I believe that leadership style is a reflection of the beliefs, values, and goals
a person has developed as a consequence of his personal history and personal
experiences and whatever wisdom he has gleaned from those. A leaders style,
then, is inevitably personal. It is a way of behaving that has evolved partly by
design but also by experience both at work and outside of work.
There are many, many different styles. Each of us has our own style of
behaving as people and as leaders, and our followers sense that style, often
better than we do. Often we, as leaders, have an idealized notion of our
leadership style. We become in our minds who we think we should be rather
than who we actually are. All aspiring leaders are predisposed to behave in
certain ways as they seek to influence people, and seldom does an aspiring
leader move away from his dominant style.
Even so, an aspiring role model leader should learn a variety of ways of
behaving purposefully. That is, she should understand the various possible
purposeful behaviours or various styles and how they influence people to do
work in different ways. She should then examine what those different leadership
styles have to offer. Finally, she should be open to refining her dominant style
by learning and using different styles. The goal in this is to act purposefully in
ways that make it possible for her followers to accept and work towards
positive change. This is an important identifier of the role model leader.
It is important that followers indeed, all the people in the organization
understand the leaders dominant style. They need to realize that in certain
situations the leadership style may change, but they also need to be confident
that their leaders dominant style will eventually return. Followers want
consistent and purposeful behaviour from those whom they follow; but they also
understand and sometimes welcome change if it is for a good reason.
All of this is to say that a high-performance role model leader should learn

about and be able to adopt as necessary a wide range of purposeful leadership

behaviours. In the literature, this idea that there is no single best style of
leadership is called the situational leadership model, attributed to Hersey and
Blanchard.6
The Leadership Styles Model
The literature on leadership has been growing for almost a century. Many
theories and recommendations have been developed for the purpose of guiding
aspiring leaders, and there have been many discussions of appropriate and
inappropriate leadership styles. Without too much effort, any reader of the
literature can find dozens of definitions of different styles.
Some authors have tried to summarize and select and offer unifying
approaches and suggestions: the four leadership styles or the three
leadership styles or even the ten leadership styles. What we present in this
book is a different and more flexible approach, one that helps us learn about
purposeful leader behaviours, one that offers four unifying concepts (see Figure
7.1). Think of these as archetypes in the Jungian sense. Others such as Hopcke,
Bostock, and Hitt have taken a similar approach.7
The purposeful behaviour archetypes offered here are flexible and are based
on two concepts: high to low collaborative behaviour, and high efficiency to
high effectiveness. These terms will be defined in the following pages. The
learning framework presented here is unifying in the sense that the four
archetypes form a whole that encompasses a range theoretically, an infinite
range of useful hybrids that can serve almost all situations. Here, then, are the
four archetypical styles of purposeful behaviours in this learning framework:
The authoritarian
The administrator
The organizer
The coach
Each style is described below in terms of certain skills and character attributes
and defining behaviour.
The leader should choose and utilize a leadership style that best fits the
existing situation as well as the culture of the organization. The most important
factor, though, is the situation. For example, if the leadership challenge involves
a difficult change in the organizations direction, this begins to define the
situation. Additional information will include the history of other change
processes, the character and behaviour of the organizations other leaders, and
the amount of time available for the change. This information guides the leader
in how to assess the situation.

Figure 7.1 Leadership Styles Model

When a business enterprise awakens to a competitor that has introduced a

game-changing product, that situation often demands a change in leadership
style. The advent of many viable global competitors in the North American car
industry caused leaders to move, albeit slowly, from an ego-satisfying style to a
more purposeful continuous improvement leadership style and the leaders also
developed better products. Similarly, changes in environmental laws or
practices can cause an existing firm to move towards a more rules-oriented
leadership style to ensure adherence to a new external regime.
In addition, the culture of the organization must be assessed. The culture can
be defined in terms of the organizations values, the rituals and taboos that exist
within it, and any number of things that brand the organization.
When the founder of a company leaves, the culture almost always changes.
The leadership style of the founder is often replaced by one that is more
operational and more team based than before. Many predict this will happen at
Apple in the postSteve Jobs era.
A leader who is studying the situation and culture must decide which
leadership style will best influence the organization to make the envisioned
changes. Obviously, the leader will have a preferred or dominant style. But the
leader as a student of the leadership style model will be able to learn and select
the right style. Perhaps, for the sake of comfort, he will choose a style that is
close to his dominant style. But this will take place after carefully examining the
culture and the situation.

Before I describe the leadership style model in more detail, lets summarize
the key points that define the challenge for the aspiring role model leader:
Leadership style is extremely important and it helps define the leadership
identity of the individual.
Leadership styles can be learned and practised. How well they are learned
and practised depends on how well the aspirant is learning and growing his
or her competence as a role model leader.
Role model leaders do not deny their natural dominant identity, but they learn
alternative styles in order to enhance their ability to do the work to achieve
positive change.
When taking the expected thoughtful, purposeful approach to a given situation
and / or cultural challenge, the role model leader must make a choice: utilize
his or her dominant style, or adopt a different leadership style temporarily.
As noted earlier, the components of the leadership style model reflect four
archetypal behaviours. Each of these behaviours is discussed below.
THE AUTHORITARIAN

This archetypal leader influences people by applying power and authority. This
authority may be rooted in the leaders position in a hierarchy, or it may be
vested in that person by the other people in the organization. In other words, it
can result from action by the leader or from action by the people in the
organization.
The authoritarian leader in our model is not a dictator. Dictators use force,
often violent force, to accomplish their objectives. Authoritarian leaders, by
contrast, influence others through the power of persuasion. The purposeful
behaviour of the authoritarian leader is coupled with a powerful confidence that
he is the most competent person to make the important decisions relative to
organizational values, strategy, and action. Less commonly, the people in the
organization decide to give significant authority to a leader because the situation
requires rapid decision making. An example of this would be a crisis in a
company that can best be addressed by a particular competent leader with the
capability to make all the decisions. Most people would associate this style
with ego-driven motivation. But this style can also be motivated by service, that
is, by a purpose beyond self.
For example, an army general who needs to rapidly capture ground from the
enemy will not necessarily be concerned about the immediate wants and needs
of others. Instead, he will act purposefully on the premise that the action will
serve society and create positive change. He will be concerned about the state
of readiness of his assets and people, and he will have prepared them for an
attack. He will not accept anything other than full acceptance of his orders. This

is a pure form of authoritarian leadership.

This leadership style is highly efficient. Decisions and conclusions are
reached quickly. There is little discussion and very few experiments are done to
find alternative approaches. So this is a low-cost, rapid, and efficient way to
achieve results. By contrast, the coaching style and the organizer style (see
below) seek the best results for all stakeholders. (Note that seeking does not
always lead to finding.)
The leaderfollower dynamic is extremely important in order to understand
the value of the authoritarian style. The similarities and differences in character,
personality, and values between the leader and followers always have a strong
impact on relationships within the group or organization. But in an organization
or group led by an authoritarian leader, these similarities and differences are
critical.
The followers in an organization led by an authoritarian leader are primarily
concerned about whether that leader will deliver success or failure, turmoil or
harmony. Also, those who follow an authoritarian leader need to be the right
people at the right time and place if the organization is to succeed. And these
people need to have a very high amount of trust in their leader: they need to
believe that their leader is the right person to lead them and that the goal the
leader has defined is the right one one that transcends any input they might
have. There are always good people who are willing and able to work for an
authoritarian, but there are also many good people who are not willing to do so
and who will never be able to subjugate themselves to an authoritarians ends.
I have known at least two authoritarian leaders well; they were both
engineers who founded their own companies. One was a former engineering
professor who founded a company in an important arena of environmentalism;
the other founded a specialty machine manufacturing firm. Both leaders were
successful, and their companies prospered under their purposeful leadership.
Each of the engineers was the most competent business person in the company
as well as the most competent technology person. Each had a mission that
produced results that improved the lives of people certainly of their
stakeholders.
To illustrate a temporary shift to an authoritarian style, I was in a leadership
role at one of our companys manufacturing units when we experienced a large
increase in workplace injuries. Up to that point, the leadership style in that unit
had been highly democratic: focused on coaching and continuous improvement. I
communicated to the organization that because of the spike in injuries, I would
become much more operational and authoritarian. The organization responded
well as a more controlled environment was introduced. Changes were made
unilaterally, and when improvements began, I moved back to a more
developmental style. The organization welcomed that return, but it also
understood why an authoritarian approach had been necessary for a time.

Organizations in extreme crisis, or those that have had extreme change thrust
upon them, often benefit from a strong-willed and competent authority figure.
Such an organization can benefit from a leader whose strength of character and
undeniable skills are attuned to the reality of the crisis and who steps forward to
take charge. Similarly, there will be followers who recognize that the situation
demands that they step forward and place their trust in this leader. So there are
situations where an organization and its stakeholders can benefit from
authoritarian leadership.
The term power based is often used to describe this style of leadership in
the sense that all power in the organization is in the hands of the leader.
Unfortunately, the word power has become demonized in todays leadership
practice that places a high value on collaboration. The reality is that all leaders
seek the power to influence others to change and that there are many examples of
positive results being generated from the use of power. Power, then, can be a
positive thing. Yet the fact remains that authoritarian leaders give orders without
attempting to inspire others or influence them with logical argument.
The behaviours of an authoritarian leader include the following traits. First
and foremost, she does it all by declaring what, when, where, why, and how
things will be done, with little input from the group. She is the singular force in
the group. Her every action is designed to maximize her authority and personal
influence within the group. That groups goals and objectives are based on the
leaders defined needs in the given situation.
A unique trait of authoritarian leaders is that they tend to look outside the
group or organization for alliances and partnerships. There are several reasons
why. First, this sort of leader does not want to share influence or decisionmaking authority with those in the group, within which he has based his
leadership on the authority of one. Also, he will use outside experts as an
opportunity to gain capability or to share any failure. Authoritarian leaders are
not stupid: they want to make good, purposeful decisions, so they often seek
outside counsel who, not coincidentally, can also serve as scapegoats as
necessary. An authoritarian leaders worst fear is of being solely blameworthy
for failure, for this would destroy his reputation as well as his ego. So he takes
steps to ensure that there will be others to share responsibility or blame for any
failure.
So authoritarian leaders behave in certain ways, and some get positive
results while others do not. As with all leadership styles, the results depend on
the situation and on the culture of the organization.
Many people considered Steve Jobs of Apple to be an authoritarian. Many
successful founder-led organizations in the IT field are authoritarian in nature.
Dick Cheney in the George W. Bush White House was an authoritarian leader.
You will be able to think of many others.
A final important point: each of the leadership styles discussed in this book

can be used by leaders motivated by ego, by leaders reacting to outside

influences, or by leaders who behave purposefully. Authoritarian leaders are
often motivated by ego. But authoritarian leaders can also be motivated by a
purpose beyond themselves. Such leaders are competent to take action and
define direction without reference to others to do it themselves, and to do it
purposefully, motivated by values beyond their own and they are recognized
as such.
THE ADMINISTRATOR

The administrative leadership style is based on the power vested in rules and
policies. It is based on efficiency on rapid, low-cost decision making. Under
the authoritarian style, the individual leader is the instrument that exercises
power; in the administrative style, the instruments are organizations rules,
policies, and norms, which are in the hands of the administrator leader.
During our discussion of the authoritarian style, I commented on the common
bias against the word power. Here, in talking about the administrative style,
the common bias today is often against rules. Many people reject a leader
who believes that rules are a legitimate basis for leading. Yet we see rules
being applied everywhere, and legitimately so.
Man is born free, yet is everywhere in chains.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Our lives are often regulated by rules by speed limits, tax rates, office
hours, and so on. All of these rules have been established by leaders and
accepted by society. Indeed, rules can bring out the best in people. Tight budgets
often make people more creative when it comes to changing things, cutting costs,
and getting positive results.
Another characteristic of the administrative style is that it tends to subject
people to strict controls. The administrator-type leader believes in carefully
thought out rules and policies and is inclined to set rigid standards and measures
to control her followers actions. Such a leader influences people to carry out
their work in precise, specific ways, believing that this will ensure reliable and
precise results.
A good example of a situation where a pure administrative style would be
appropriate is when hazardous chemicals are being handled. Clearly, the leader
will want to influence people to accept carefully crafted rules and procedures
and to implement them to the letter. Generally, safety policies require strong
rules and procedures.
The archetypical administrator leader will have people and followers in the
organization who are highly competent functionally. This is necessary because
the instruments this leader applies rules and policies are bureaucratic by

definition. The implementation of strategic direction is driven by the need for

precision at all times. A controlled environment is expected to result in
controlled success. It follows that an administrator leader has little tolerance for
followers who do not meet their goals and objectives. There is little room in
such a regime for learning from mistakes for developing a learning culture
based on experience. This is very similar to the authoritarian culture, though it
results from a very different leadership style. In one case, the leader is always
correct because of his competence; in the other, the leader is always correct
because his behaviour reflects an unbreakable rule or policy.
Whenever possible, an administrator leader makes decisions based on
history or precedent. Again, this is very different from the authoritarian
approach, where the leader makes decisions based solely on his individual
assessment at that moment.
In an administrator leaders organization, the change process is highly
efficient from organizational values to strategic direction to the setting of
goals and objectives to implementation. Efficient in this case means rapid,
precise, and low-cost. All of this efficiency is possible because of rules and
policies that ensure there is little or no discussion or teamwork. It is possible
also because the people in the organization are highly competent functionally.
Such organizations have little need for the sort of people who thrive on
interfunctional discussions about a better way forward. An administrative
leader expects the organization to execute strategy and get results through handoffs from one competent functional group to the next.
In an organization headed by an administrator leader, the change process is
not highly innovative: there is little emphasis on seeking new ways to do things,
and there isnt much consideration of paths forward. Instead, direction is
sourced from well-travelled historical paths from precedents or policies. If a
precedent is found to be flawed during implementation, a new direction will be
sought. But once that new and better direction has been found, the organizations
highly competent people will make a strong effort to determine why the new
direction is better and devise new rules and policies to reflect the reasons they
found. Innovation is given little credit for success; instead, that success is
ascribed to improvements in a policy that was originally flawed.
The administrator leader teaches and communicates knowledge sometimes
called rules and principles and asks people to follow those rules and
principles to achieve change. An example of an administrator leader would be a
leader-engineer of a large team of highly trained technicians manufacturing
hazardous materials, such as explosives or toxic chemicals.
THE ORGANIZER

The organizer-leader gets results through the actions of inspired people. The

authoritarian leader does not need inspired people, only followers who will do
what is asked. The administrator leader does not need inspired people, only
functionally capable people who follow rules and policies. You will learn next
that the coach leader finds ways to inspire people to find their better selves in
order to get results. Each of these leadership styles influences people to get
results, but they do so in very different ways.
The organizer is dedicated mainly to influencing people to work in groups in
a disciplined and systematic way. A business organization led by such a person
has groups and teams everywhere both expert functional teams and
interfunctional business teams. These groups and teams do both strategic and
tactical work. They participate fully in the organization through leading,
managing, and planning. The organizer is a leader of leaders and is willing to let
others lead. This leader of leaders is analogous to an orchestra conductor.
Everyone in the orchestra is a competent functional person and leader of self but
is inspired and led by the organizer-leader.
The emphasis on working in groups gives many people the opportunity to
learn more about both leadership and followership. The organizer leader
teaches the people in her organization, providing them with the opportunity and
responsibility to understand why it is important to develop leadership skills as
well as how they can do so. The organizer influences people to do their work
both strategic and tactical by structuring the work into coherent processes as
well as into sets of processes called systems. The result is a disciplined,
systematic approach to doing work and achieving success.
I came to know a large manufacturing company in the automotive parts
industry; at one point the prevailing market conditions required them to find
ways to reduce internal costs. Instead of adopting an authoritarian leadership
style and arbitrarily reducing costs, they opted for a strong emphasis on the
organizer style. This resulted in a company-wide initiative to redesign key
operating processes and thereby reduce their infrastructure costs.
This is an example of an organizer-leader who decided to change the
companys cost structure at a time of crisis by mobilizing the people into teams
that were accountable for all cost elements. These teams were directed by the
overall purpose as described clearly by the organizer. Each team was inspired
by that person to share in the overall objective. And the organizer was involved
in the work by playing a functional role as well as a business and a leadership
role.
The organizer style of leadership is highly democratic. The organizer
establishes the companys direction as well as the purpose for the work of the
various teams. She then ensures that the whole organization is operating
harmoniously. At the same time, all the people in the organization will be
consulted in all aspects of the work and at all stages. The organizer is looking
for the most effective means to achieve her vision of the future. She knows that

there are many ways to achieve success; she also knows whether the people in
the company are capable functionally and whether they have the necessary
leadership skills to achieve the goals that have been outlined for them.
This style of leadership does not absolve the leader from accountability for
the decisions made. The organizer consults, and she allows teams both to follow
direction and to help craft it, but she reserves important decisions for herself
and will certainly have 51 per cent of the vote in key decisions. So this is
democracy, yes, but the future state is still directed by this leader of leaders.
Organizers are sometimes referred to as process leaders. However, that
term is often used to suggest that such leaders are more interested in processes
than in results. That is far from true. The organizer believes strongly in
following a disciplined approach that involves accumulating detailed
knowledge before any action is taken. The result is very likely to be that
decisions are implemented better and more quickly than otherwise. This
process-oriented, front-end-weighted approach results in high-quality decisions
in the run-up stages before the project is actually implemented. It also means
that fewer mistakes reveal themselves once implementation starts. The optimum
approaches have all been developed before any expensive implementation steps
are taken.
A good example of an organizer-leader is Jack Welch, former CEO of
General Electric (GE), especially in the later stages of his career. He engaged
people in learning to be leaders, and he did so in very disciplined and
systematic ways that enabled people to develop themselves through experience.
In addition, there was no question in anyones mind at GE that Jack Welch was
the chief architect of the future state for the company. He was an inspiring,
visionary, process-oriented leader who got results.
In summary, the organizer creates an effective set of processes, systems, and
structures. She ensures that the people in the organization are competent; that
they have considerable self-leading capability; and, importantly, that they are
inspired to play active roles in leading the work to achieve the future state that
their leader has crafted for them.
THE COACH

So far, we have discussed three very different behavioural styles: authoritarian,

administrator, and organizer. The authoritarian provides direction by telling
followers what to do; the administrator gives direction through rules, policies,
and principles by referencing history and precedent; the organizer provides
direction in a democratic manner through consulting and teaching others and
helping them to understand what needs to be done.
Next, we consider a fourth important leadership style for aspiring role model
leaders to consider: the coach. Coaches mentors are just as familiar a term

provide direction by teaching. They establish supportive partnerships with their

followers, through which they share their knowledge and capabilities in order to
encourage personal and organizational growth. They do not tell their followers
to do things, nor do they advocate rules. They teach others the possibilities that
exist to change things for the better by encouraging them and by setting an
example.
The coach does not aggressively involve followers. He needs to be certain
the follower wants and needs coaching. He wants a partnership to be possible;
he believes that the followers can do their work, but he also makes himself
available to assist when they express a need. The coach, once engaged,
encourages and supports and inspires his followers to make positive change. He
teaches new skills and capabilities as required.
Coach-style leaders lead their people from a set of personal values, which
followers come to understand. Those values include the central premise of the
book which is, that people can be taught certain skills, character attributes,
and values-based behaviours that will allow them to lead themselves to achieve
positive change.
The best example I can remember encountering of the coach style was in
China, when I was working in Asia and engaged in influencing Asian companies
to partner with our company on various joint ventures. A company leader, whom
I got to know very well, was a coach-leader. His company had attracted our
interest because of our complementary technologies in plant science. He had
hired the best scientists and engineers he could find and organized them into
project teams I would have called them natural work teams. He defined the
projects his teams would undertake at a high level of purpose and then allowed
them complete authority and freedom of action. His role after that was entirely
to encourage them, and in that regard, he spoke to them in almost mystical terms
about the endless opportunities that they had to accomplish their goals and what
those goals could mean. Some of his teams failed, but many did not, and together
they built a highly successful enterprise, seemingly without his functional help
but with much of his being and will.
If one of the most important company goals is a major improvement in
workplace safety, the goals of an organizer-leader might include continuously
improving the injury rate year over year. The goals of the administrator-leader
would include setting more and better safety rules for people to follow. The
goals of the authoritarian would include ordering the supervisors and managers
to in turn order their subgroups to improve their safety performance, and to do it
quickly. A coach-leader, by contrast, would consult with as many people as
possible in the organization by encouraging and influencing them based on his
personal values and teaching them where necessary to set aspirational goals that
are far higher than the current ones. The coach-leader would remind the
companys people that they could do far better that they were too talented to

be having injuries and that they could and needed to improve.

Beyond the Archetypes
The preceding discussion of the four archetypes intends to accomplish two
things. First, the discussion sets useful boundary conditions for a multitude of
situational leadership styles that have varying proportions of each archetype.
The boundaries were defined (see Figure 7.1) in terms of two dyads: the one
from the more efficient but less effective authoritarian style to the less efficient
but more effective coach style, and the other from the much more collaborative
organizer style to the much less collaborative administrator style. Second, the
discussion provides understanding for the aspiring role model leader regarding
the choices available for dealing with various situations and cultures.
Up to this point, the dialogue with you, the reader, has been objective and
nonjudgmental. That is about to change. This book is dedicated to describing
and advocating a unique model for leading organizations. I call it developmental
leadership. The goal is to develop role model leaders based on the aspirational
target of Everyone a Leader.
The leadership style for fulfilling the conditions necessary to become a
developmental role model leader is found in the top right quadrant of the fourterm leadership style framework (see Figure 7.1), which is in close proximity to
the archetypes organizer and coach. That, I would point out, is directly
opposite the lower left quadrant: authoritarian and administrator.
Several characteristics of the coach style differentiate it from the organizer
style. The coach is a mentor who provides followers with ideas and examples
of behaviours that have merit. The organizer is more of a teacher who engages
with the team of followers and other leaders to provide direction.
The developmental leader is a competent teacher who provides direction but
who also provides space and opportunity and encouragement to the followers so
that they can develop themselves to make positive changes in the organization.
In this process the developmental leader both learns and teaches. In that way, he
develops himself while developing others.
The developmental leader always sets goals for the team that encourage them
to improve situations through innovation. Also, this leader influences followers
to seek positive reconciles wherever strongly held views exist. The coach style
is more likely to encourage change than to influence it. The organizer style is
more likely to persuade change than to influence it.
The developmental leader will seek transformational change as a means of
sustaining growthfulness in persons and organizations. She will promote
aspirational future states that inspire followers to see meaning in their work to
change things and to improve the lives of others.
The developmental leader is a reconcile, an idea more innovative, more

influential than the organizer-leader or coach-leader archetypes, with elements

of each leadership style.

PART THREE

Leading the Organization

8. The High-Performance Business Organization

9. Sustainable Growth
10. The High-Performance Work System and Serving Stakeholders
11. Viability
12. Vitality
13. Virtue

8 The High-Performance Business Organization

Even Hollywood could not have embellished the story of Eleuthre Irne du
Pont. He was a French immigrant to the United States at the height of the French
Revolution; he was a refugee from oppression who had a passion to start a new
life and a successful company. His story is unique in many ways, in part because
of his entrepreneurship and that of the company that still bears his name. His is a
story of role model leadership and the founding of a high-performance business
organization.
In Delaware in the early nineteenth century, while E.I. du Pont was
establishing his business, he began to develop a values-based organizational
culture. His early leadership in that regard has inspired generations of DuPont
employees to this day.
The company that E.I. du Pont founded grew rapidly and succeeded quickly
indeed, it became one of the most successful enterprises in North American
history. The company has survived and prospered for more than 200 years,
which makes it one of the oldest in the world. Of course, as with all enterprises,
it has encountered disappointments and failures. But its successes have been
legendary.
It was Pierre S. du Pont, a descendant of the founder, along with Alfred
Sloan of General Motors, who largely invented professional managership and
strategic business centres. That model has been the standard design for
businesses ever since. And both of these business leaders were engineers.
But there are other aspects to this story. Before fleeing France, E.I. du Pont
had been the assistant to Antoine Lavoisier, long regarded as the founder of
modern chemistry. In North America, du Pont would base his business on his
practical knowledge of that science. He started by producing and selling
gunpowder obviously, an extremely hazardous material requiring deep
technical knowledge. His technical skills and the values on which he built them
would spawn a culture of invention and innovation. Between 1950 and 1970, its
scientists and technologists would develop an unprecedented number of classes
of materials essentially, the DuPont Company invented the polymer industry.
And it continues to invent new products. To this day, DuPont refers to itself as a
Science Company.
The DuPont Company can be commended for many things: for helping to
invent the modern corporation; for developing high-performance systems for
materials innovation; and for showing others how to develop ideas into
inventions and then into products that satisfy customers. But perhaps its most
important contribution to corporate history was that it was among the first

companies to recognize that people are its most important resource.

E.I. du Ponts gunpowder business was potentially hazardous, and the early
experiments producing that material sometimes resulted in explosions that
injured or killed his workers. He decided early on that these injuries and deaths
were unacceptable this, in an era when fatal industrial accidents were
commonplace and given scant attention. Many people at the time believed that
workplace injuries were a cost of doing business in hazardous processes and
products. E.I. du Pont, though, believed deeply that eliminating such accidents
was the right thing for his company to do. In our terms, he embraced the core
value that his company must show concern for its workers. He then expressed
that value by developing a safety and security culture, one that he himself lived
by working in his factory alongside his production workers.
E.I. du Pont was a scientist, a businessman, and a role model leader. He
based his leadership on his values, which included concern for the well-being
of others. He was also determined to create a strong and sustainable business
model. By any measure, he succeeded.
I worked for the DuPont Company, so its story is well known to me. I know
of many other admirable companies, such as Walmart (for its high-performance
distribution system), General Electric (for its high-performance human resource
system), and Toyota (for its high-performance manufacturing processes), and
there will be others that I have never heard of that you yourself could name.
In chapter 2 of part one, I introduced the developmental leadership model.
That model has two parts: individual leadership and organizational leadership.
Part three of this book discusses at length how role model leaders make positive
change in organizations. That positive change, as you will be reminded, is
directed by the aspiration to develop a high-performance business organization.
The developmental leadership model this book presents is an evolution from
the authoritarian models of the past, where the leader / boss prevailed, as well
as from the more recent democratic approaches, such as participative teamwork.
In developmental leadership, everyone is developing leading and leadership
competence and everyone works together to build high-performance work
processes and systems that will benefit the organizations stakeholders.
All of this developmental learning and work moves the business organization
towards higher and higher levels of performance and the moving target that I
call the high-performance business organization (see chapter 2). To review,
such an organization has these traits:
The organization has created an admirable set of core values and lives those
values.
All individuals have learned to be role model leaders and are continually
developing their leadership competence.

 The organization has created and sustained a harmonious level of service for
all stakeholders.
Productivity and quality measures are all higher than in other business
organizations and are growing sustainably with no wasteful processes or
outcomes.
Earlier, I described the company founded by E.I. du Pont as a highperformance business organization. Does this mean the company meets all the
criteria described above and that it meets its targets all the time? The simple
and obvious answer is no. The metrics listed above are aspirational. They are
meant to clarify the meaning of a high-performance business organization and
what it hopes to achieve and to suggest how it can set out to become one.
I know the DuPont Company very well; I know that its people strive to
improve all the time. And I know that there are times when its people, including
me when I worked there, make mistakes that result in setbacks in productivity,
quality, and other measures. But when mistakes are made, DuPonts people
recognize them and take disciplined, systematic actions to rectify them and
continue moving forward. That, quite simply, is what developmental
organizations do and what separates them from others. And in doing so in
continuously striving for perfection as the target they rapidly improve the lives
of others and themselves.
All engineers and scientists know that there is nothing more practical than a
theory believed.

9 Sustainable Growth

Sustainable growth is the expected outcome of leadership activities in the

pursuit of the high-performance business organization. I return to the story of the
DuPont Company, which was founded in 1802 to manufacture gunpowder and
has been growing for more than 200 years. I do this in order to illustrate the
concept of setting an aspirational future state, working diligently to approach
that target, and achieving sustainable growth as an outcome.
For its first decades, the company focused on its black powder business.
Then in the early 1900s, the company entered an era of rapid growth and wideranging innovation. Soon, though, one of its senior executives decided that still
more change was needed specifically, the company would from now on
engage in fundamental research in the pure sciences as an approach to
developing new and transformational products. This was risky, but it succeeded,
in part, because of the hiring of very talented engineers and scientists, including
Wallace Carothers, who in 1928 was named head of the organic chemistry
section at the companys Experimental Station.
Carothers, a talented scientist with an academic background, worked with
other scientists and engineers, including Julian Hill, a gifted chemical engineer,
to develop a miracle material called nylon. A few short years after they created
this new polymer, DuPont built a full-scale nylon manufacturing facility and
began marketing this new product with huge success.
During this same period, the companys leaders developed and acquired
many products serving diverse markets and technology niches. Those products
included sodium cyanide for electroplating, hydrogen peroxide for bleaching,
titanium dioxide for paints, and a variety of other industrial chemicals.
Nylon was DuPonts most famous invention because it led directly to the
development of a number of other polymers, such as neoprene (a synthetic
rubber) and the first polyester superpolymer. Carothers filed fifty patents in the
nine short years that he worked for DuPont before his death. All of this supports
the claim that DuPont invented the polymer industry.
DuPonts tagline A Science Company speaks to its interest in and
mastery of the innovation process. DuPonts success over more than two
centuries has been based on its ability to generate a continuous stream of new
ideas in science, technology, and engineering; it then implements those ideas in
ways that serve its customers as well as society at large. Many of the products it
produced in the past, such as nylon, replaced natural materials. Today DuPont
has turned its attention to green products that align with nature. It is seeking to
replace some of its synthetic, polymeric products with organic ones. DuPont

Sorona, a renewably sourced fibre and biopolymer, contains a high percentage

of renewable plant-based ingredients. Sonora has a number of uses, such as in
clothing and carpeting.1
All of this demonstrates the commitment of DuPonts leaders to continuous
change and development, which has led to more than 200 years of ongoing
sustainable growth.
Clearly I am biased, but I greatly admire the company. I am also sure there
are other companies that are embracing sustainable growth and innovative high
performance. I just do not know them as well. Like DuPont, these companies are
aiming for the targets of the high-performance business organization to facilitate
and inspire their work. In this regard, I would like to introduce three important
words that you will encounter in the rest of this book. The first word is
development. This is a book about developmental leadership. In the literature,
much has been written about sustainable development. In this book, however,
we reserve development for another purpose: the growth of peoples
capabilities and competence. This is the sort of growth that is required for
achieving the goals and promise of Everyone a Leader, as well as for the
collective development of people in organizations as they work together to
develop higher-performance work processes and systems.
The second word is business. In my classroom, when I ask students to define
business, they more often than not associate the term with making money. That
definition is too limiting, however. Leaders are important for the success of
profit-oriented organizations, but they are equally important for not-for-profit
and service-oriented organizations. I define a business organization as one
whose purpose is to add value for the benefit of its stakeholders. Governments,
academic institutions, and service organizations such as the Red Cross,
Greenpeace, and a small-town Lions Club are also businesses, when we think
in terms of value created for stakeholders.
The third word is growth. In their book Every Business Is a Growth
Business, Ram Charan and Noel M. Tichy begin by stating some principles that
they maintain are held consistently by the worlds best business leaders. Let me
reproduce three of them here.
There is no such thing as a mature business.2

What this means is that all successful business enterprises need to find ways
to grow, or they will die. Maturity cannot be sustained, and neither can zerogrowth operations. This is largely because world-class competitors will grow
and take customers away from the business.
Growth is a mentality created by the companys leaders.3

That is, the successful leaders of these world-class business enterprises are
the intuitive starting points for a growth strategy. It is their expectation their
truth if you will that growth will happen in their business enterprises.
Define a growth trajectory so that everyone in the company can understand it.4

That is, these world-class leaders all believe that growth is a responsibility
shared by everyone. As we say here in this book over and over again
Everyone a Leader, for superordinate success. Charan and Tichy and many
others who write about successful business enterprises know that the goal is
growth grow or die and they also know that the role of business leaders is
to grow their enterprises.
In my world, the target concept for all people is Everyone a Leader, and the
defining characteristic of leading is influencing others to make positive
change. The irreducible outcome of these future states is rapid, sustainable
growth, and the expected additive outcome is the satisfaction of all
stakeholders, that is, sustainable development. And all of this results in a
sustainable and responsible business enterprise one that, as it grows,
improves the lives of all people.
True leadership is about creating domains in which we continually learn and
become more capable of participating in our own unfolding future.
Joseph Jaworski5

It does not matter whether we refer to this as growth or as positive change:

role model leaders are driven to ensure that their organization is sustainable and
continuously improving. Sustainable in reference to growth is a very
important qualifier when we consider the work of the role model leader.
I attended an important meeting several years ago. Its purpose was to find
ways to grow a particular business unit, and it was attended by mid-level and
senior managers from that unit and beyond. I was struck by the number of
suggestions that focused on short-term gains, most of them cost related.
Somewhat facetiously, to compel people to start thinking in the longer term, I
suggested that I could do better than any of the short-term solutions being offered
if I simply terminated half our employees and threatened to dismiss the ones
who were left. That would dramatically increase our profitability.
Some laughed, and some got angry, but I believe that all of them got the
message: we needed to think about sustainable ways to grow the business
instead of short-term, one-time answers.
When leaders think about growth and do something about growth, a number
of questions arise. Mostly, those questions are variations of the following: How
will the business organization be grown more rapidly? How will it be grown in
different directions? How will both of these be accomplished? That is, what

needs to be done to grow the business and improve it continuously in terms of

development and innovation?
Put another way, leaders are challenged to think about growing sustainably in
terms of speed, size, and competence the three dimensions of growth. Those
three dimensions in turn serve as a very useful model for thinking in terms of
expanding, extending, and evolving the three Es of growth.
Expanding refers to doing more of the same things and doing them at lower
cost proportionately. In DuPont Canadas paint business, the manufacture of
coatings for new automobiles was an important business unit. Growth occurred
by expansion that is, new and more productive facilities were built similar to
those already in place. More paint was produced and the business grew. At the
same time, the unit expanded by gaining new customers for essentially the same
lines of paint.
Growth by expansion is not as dramatic or innovative as growth by extension
or evolution. Even so, leaders play an important role in it. Role model leaders
influence people to expand the company and to meet the challenges of growth in
effective ways. Of course, expanding a company requires a great deal of
managing in addition to leading. The DuPont Company, since its founding, has
been expanding; indeed, many companies do expand successfully, but
unfortunately, many stop there.
Extending growth is not the same thing as expanding it. Extending it means
moving into new arenas of competence, which are often related to the old ones.
Frequently, companies extend themselves by carefully examining their
competencies in the two distinct dimensions of marketing and technology.
Without entering into too much detail, marketing competencies encompass
matters such as geography, customer profiles, products, services,
merchandising, and the competition. Regarding technology, the factors to be
considered include materials technology, information technology, and
financing technology. Again using DuPont Canadas paint business as an
example, we extended our business by building a new operational segment that
targeted the auto collision repair market an extension beyond the new car
market and painting technology. Extension involves increasing the
organizations capabilities those of its people, its technologies, and its
processes and systems. Thus growth by extension involves significant change,
which requires role model leadership. And, of course, it involves managing and
planning competencies as well. With regard to our opening example in this
chapter, DuPonts leaders early in the last century grew the company by
extending it from the original gunpowder business into the developing market
for the new explosive technology called dynamite.
Evolutionary growth is considerably different from growth by expansion or
extension. Growth by evolution is meant to generate transformational change. It
requires leaders to sense and think about change opportunities and the

accompanying challenges. It entails considering change in all dimensions of

size, speed, and competence. Again I refer here to DuPont Canadas paint
business. Leaders may decide to change the business in an evolutionary manner
by developing innovative ways to produce paint that significantly improve
productivity, quality, and the capacity to serve customers. An example would be
replacing organic solvents with water-based ones to reduce the risk of damaging
the environment. Another example would be changing how paint is marketed by
selling the idea of painted cars as the unit of sale rather than gallons of
paint. The business would take ownership of the task of painting the cars on
the production line, replacing the automobile producer. This could move the
company into a new business, partnering with the car company to produce and
sell painted cars, rather than simply being a supplier of paint to the car
company. For that matter, the company might develop unique chemistries for
coating a variety of things besides cars items like plastics, pharmaceuticals,
and food products. The technologies for these things would have to be radically
different from the ones for painting cars. Nevertheless, the company would still
be in the coating business.
Perhaps the best example of sustainable evolutionary growth in the DuPont
Company up to this time has been nylon, which was a planned evolutionary step
in the companys growth. That product was developed by setting a
superordinate expectation that a commercial business in the very new science of
macromolecules was possible. The how and what were related to creating a
disciplined, systematic process of invention that meant founding an
Experimental Station and hiring a gifted but little-known researcher who was at
the forefront of the academic research and who was prepared to be guided by
the companys aspiration.
So there are various dimensions of rapid and sustainable growth. Expanding,
extending, and evolving each require competent role model leadership. And,
importantly, the role model leader must help the organizations people develop
their competence in ways that further the organizations aim, which is to grow
sustainably and rapidly in all three dimensions.
Growth is a process. Rapid growth needs to be viewed as essential to all
people and all stakeholders in the business organization. To achieve that
rapidity, leaders influence people to work on growth every day, every week,
every month. I believe that speed is a clear mark of success in our rapidly
changing business environment. Indeed, the ability to get things done quickly is a
precondition for success.
Leaders who are committed to achieving rapid growth must make abundantly
clear to their people what outcomes they expect. That in turn requires a
ceaseless effort to minimize organizational distractions that cause people to lose
focus on growth activities. Common purpose is difficult for groups, teams, and
organizations to achieve at the best of times, and this difficulty only multiplies

when the outcomes expected are not well understood by the people who have
been tasked with achieving them.
The measures of success for a mission of rapid, sustainable growth are best
described in terms of productivity, quality, and service.
Productivity is a generic measure of output / input. Inputs are, basically, the
actual things and processes that people work on, along with the energy they
exert on these. Outputs are the results of the work they do. Quality is the generic
measure of perfection. Specific measures of quality most often involve
calculating the reduction of waste from value creation and value realization
processes in other words, less waste means higher quality. For example, in a
manufacturing process, a common measure of quality is first pass yield,
defined as the amount of 100 per cent acceptable product produced in a
manufacturing process the first time through, with no need for recycling or
rework. Service measures refer to key performance indicators of stakeholder
needs satisfaction. For example, in a commercial business, a common customer
service measure is repeat sales to a given customer. A satisfied customer will
buy again and again.
An important point: role model leaders act rapidly and competently when
growing their people, just as they do when growing goods and services. It is
people who do the work of growing things; but people also need to do the work
of growing themselves. Here we are referring to the growth of leadership skills,
character attributes, and purposeful behaviours, in addition to the growth of
functional expertise in engineering, marketing, manufacturing, accounting, and so
on. For an organization to grow, its people need to develop and grow their
organizational capabilities. I discuss these in the following pages.

10 The High-Performance Work System and Serving

Stakeholders

Leading an organization entails influencing groups of people to make positive

changes that meet stakeholders needs. This can involve changing the ways
people approach their work or changing the work itself.
The work of role model leaders is to move the organization towards the
future-state aspiration referred to in this book as the high-performance business
organization. At any point in this developmental leadership work, the ideal goal
is referred to as the high-performance work system.
The high-performance work system is a collection of work processes and
systems and structures that are continuously improving and that have been
thought about, designed, and implemented by role model leaders and the
organization. Such a system raises the organizations level of performance from
that of a conventional, competent, but lower-performing entity to one of
increasingly higher levels of performance that is, higher levels of productivity,
quality, and service.
In part one, I introduced a two-part learning framework called the
developmental leadership model (Figure 2.3); I then extended the specific
nature of leadership activity and referred to this more refined model as the
leadership competency model (see Figure 2.4), which also had two parts:
individual leading competency and organizational leading competency. The
individual leading competency part of this framework was extended in part two
so as to detail the important elements and capabilities required if one is to learn
to be a role model leader. These were the skills, character attributes, and
purposeful behaviours that the aspiring role model leader must learn.
In part three, I propose a similar approach to understanding the highperformance work system. Here, the learning framework (see Figure 2.4)
describes four key sets of work processes that define the work activities of
leadership required to develop a high-performance work system. Such a system
is designed to do the following:
Serve effectively the needs of all stakeholders in the business organization.
Improve the viability, vitality, and virtue of the business organization.
The best business organizations direct their efforts towards meeting the needs
of people: those who dedicate their time and energy, called employees; those
who invest their financial resources, called owners (and, often, employees); and
those who have expectations for the outputs of the business, who are called

customers and owners and other elements of society. Customers, owners,

employees, and society are the usual stakeholder designations for a profitoriented business. In a not-for-profit business, we talk instead about
beneficiaries, benefactors, and employees. In organizations with little
leadership, there is often more emphasis on meeting customers needs and less
emphasis on employees and society.
The defining characteristic of high-performance business organizations
more specifically, of high-performance work processes and systems is that
they strongly emphasize service to all stakeholders. This service to all
stakeholders has three principal defining elements: viability, vitality, and virtue;
and all three are encountered in abundance in the high-performance work system
(and the following chapters will discuss these individually). When all
stakeholders are served effectively, the value-add of the organizations
processes improves, and so does the spirit and energy of employees. Everyone,
inside and outside the organization, sees that it is doing the right things for its
stakeholders.
My view is that the purpose of leading business organizations is to improve
the lives of people. Also, the main focus when going about this is on improving
the functional and material lives of people by providing those within the
business with value-add work and those outside it with the beneficial outputs of
that work. But this is fully realized only when the people doing the work find the
work experience meaningful and satisfying and when the results of that work are
uplifting and motivating for the people in the business.
The work of leaders is vital to the successful business organization. Role
model leaders understand the following:
That it is very difficult to influence the people in an organization to accept
change and follow their leaders direction unless those peoples needs are
met along with the businesss needs.
That it is even more difficult to influence people outside the organization to
accept change in that organization and to continue to support the business and
its leadership unless valuable services are being provided and are seen as
being provided.
The relationship between the business organization and its stakeholders
encompasses three cascading factors of service: satisfaction, loyalty, and
harmony. Each of these requires an increasing level of role model leadership to
be exerted within the organization. Each represents a compounding state of
common purpose between the stakeholders and the organization, a purpose that
moves from satisfaction to loyalty to the most ideal state: harmony.
Below I discuss each of these compounding levels of stakeholder service,
recognizing that they are successively more difficult to attain and that each is

more beneficial than its predecessor to the organization and its highperformance work system. Furthermore, each requires an increasing level of
leadership competence and mental energy.
This first level of shared purpose is best discussed in terms of the following:
internal stakeholder satisfaction (i.e., that of employees) and external
stakeholder satisfaction (i.e., that of customers and society).
Internal Stakeholders Needs Satisfaction
The internal stakeholders are the people of the organization and that means all
the people, whether they are at the top of any hierarchy or at the bottom, and
whether they are engaged in leadership, manufacturing, marketing, research, or
any other function.
The most important need for the organizations people is meaningful work.
This is followed by reward and recognition for the work they do.
The reward (or pay) for the work is satisfying to employees when they judge
it to be fair compensation for the work done. In this regard, fairness is a function
of the personal values the beliefs, philosophy, and principles of the
individual employee. Most employees, however, make this judgment based on
comparisons with other people both inside and outside their organization. It is
common practice for business organizations to measure the pay rates of other
organizations, and leaders do this with great transparency so that their
employees will perceive their compensation as fair.
Many employees consider recognition for work done to be as important as
pay that is, as long as their pay meets their needs. When pay is inadequate as
perceived by the employee, recognition may become of secondary importance,
though it will still be very important. There is nothing more satisfying to an
individual or a team than for an admired leader to say thank you, good
work, we appreciate your effort. This is a synergistic event: the employee is
being satisfied, and the leader is growing as a role model in the eyes of the
employee.
Reward and recognition satisfy important needs for employees. But even
more important to them is meaningful, challenging work. In conventional
organizations, a common fallacy among managers, leaders, and followers is that
some people just want to do the work, get paid, and go home. In my experience,
this is not true. These people are not being given the right work, in the right
way, in the right place. An important challenge for leaders is to satisfy the
unrealized needs of individual employees.
Meaningful work, whether recognized or not, is work that challenges
employees mental, emotional, and social intelligences. People want to engage
in work that requires them to expend energy. There is nothing more damaging to
the human condition than boring, monotonous work.

People want to better themselves and serve others. The best highperformance work systems recognize this and challenge their employees to
develop new capabilities. They also set goals for employees that can be and are
measured in value-add terms that is, value-add for customers and for society.
This includes productivity measures such as delivery-time improvement for
customers; quality measures such as the amount of material manufactured within
customers specifications; and service measures such as reductions in emissions
and waste materials released into the environment.
External Stakeholders Needs Satisfaction
Many organizations, regrettably, make little effort to seek out the needs and
opinions of external stakeholders beyond the minimum that is, beyond
communicating with customers as necessary. Many organizations routinely
ignore societal stakeholders, such as the communities around their facilities,
plants, and offices.
These comments may sound extreme, but they reflect my experience, which is
that some companies are oblivious to the needs of their external stakeholders
beyond the requirements of satisfying either customers or the ego needs of the
organization. So, I next illustrate what I mean by satisfying the needs of all
external stakeholders.
Soft drink manufacturers are in business to improve the lives of people. So
are the operators of medical clinics. That is the purpose of all businesses. Their
products and services and all other outputs are directed mainly at satisfying
customers wants and needs. Those who buy a soft drink are seeking a taste
experience that will improve their lives at least at that moment. The medical
clinic is improving perhaps even saving the lives of its customers. Each in
its own way is improving its customers lives.
The workers in the bottling plant that makes the soft drinks receive pay for
their services. Clearly, this improves their lives and the lives of their
dependents. The same applies for the employees of the medical clinic and for
every other business.
Then there are the people beyond the customers and employees that is, the
communities affected by these businesses. It must be the purpose and intent of
the business organization to improve society. For a business not to have that
goal would be sheer folly a business, after all, can continue to exist only with
societys permission. Even the most backward society has the power to destroy
a business by resorting to punitive laws or by giving way to its citizens
activism.
And the final stakeholders to be considered are, of course, the owners that
is, those customers of the business or highly motivated members of society or
sometimes employees who have provided the means (typically money) to start

and sustain the business. Clearly, the owners will expect their lives to be
improved by the organizations actions as well as by the results it obtains. For
profit-seeking enterprises, this, of course, is measured by financial returns. But
the concept of return on investment (ROI) also applies to not-for-profit
organizations, which look for their investment to cause certain effects a
principal one being the happiness of the donors, who are special stakeholders at
not-for-profit organizations. A related ROI for not-for-profit donors is the
emotional satisfaction of doing the right thing.
Stakeholders Loyalty
As I have said repeatedly, every business exists in order to serve people,
specifically its stakeholders. A competent business organization succeeds at this
and strives constantly to succeed even better to delight its stakeholders, if I
may put it that way. When stakeholders are delighted with the performance of a
business, they become loyal to it not just satisfied, but deeply loyal.
Loyalty is a powerful word, and a business that has been able to inspire it is
in an enviable position. When a businesss stakeholders are satisfied enough
that they are loyal, the competition becomes less relevant. As an example,
consider the customer stakeholder. In a normal business relationship, customers
compare the products and services they receive from Company A with those
being offered by Companies B, C, D, and so on. A customer who is delighted
with the products and services of Company A will feel less need to investigate
those of competitors. Instead, that customer will vest any need for change in
Company A, fully expecting it to continue to outdistance the competition. That
is, this customer fully expects Company A to demonstrate not only that it is able
to provide the best, most satisfying products and services but also that it is a
high(er)-performance company. This reflects the customers belief that
Company A has leaders who will change its outputs in ways that will justify
continued loyalty.
As an organization seeks loyalty from customers, its high-performance
leaders influence it to proactively develop new and improved products and
services for the customer, without that customer having to ask. They also
provide customers with the very best information about their own customers. In
other words, they partner with their customers, helping them find new business
opportunities.
Loyalty between customers and the business organization is possible only
when role model leaders exist in great numbers within the latter. Role model
leaders are continuously improving their company, regenerating it when
necessary in order to sustain the loyalty of the customer base. The leaders of a
high-performance organization, as they seek loyalty from customers, influence
their organization to innovate continuously, to factor their customers into all

decisions, and so on. All actions focus on exceeding customers expectations

with regard to cost, quality, and service.
The concept of loyalty as a goal of role model leadership is applicable to the
other stakeholders employees, society, and owners. All of these stakeholders
have their needs, and all role model leaders have as their objective a highperformance business organization that is able to inspire loyalty.
Harmonious Relationships
The role model leaders in a high-performance work system make strong efforts
to raise their organizations level of performance, from satisfying needs to
inspiring loyalty to the ultimate goal, which is developing harmony.
A harmonious relationship exists when the stakeholders have achieved
complete agreement on the purpose of the business organization on its goals,
its values, its benefits to society, and indeed its reason to exist. This harmony as
just described among the stakeholders in the business is a complete alignment of
function, being, and will. Furthermore, a high-performance alignment of shared
values exists when full understanding at the level of knowledge (function),
consciousness (being), and understanding (will) exists.
Or, in other terms
A true harmonious relationship exists when knowledge is shared among all
stakeholders; when we appreciate one anothers spirit and character and culture
as human beings; and, finally, when we are motivated to understand one another
fully and to work together with the shared purpose of achieving rapid and
sustainable growth within the organization.
When the state of harmony exists between stakeholders and the business, the
lives of people involved will be improved. When the alignment of the function,
being, and will of the business organization is fully aligned with the function,
being, and will of the stakeholder person(s), there will be a state of shared
purpose in terms of values and actions.
More will be said about the importance of harmony in creating effective and
high-performance work systems. The harmonious relationship between the
shareholders and the business is best understood by segmenting that relationship
into its component parts viability (customers), vitality (employees), and virtue
(society).

11 Viability

A business organization will be judged to be moving towards high and then

higher performance when the work done and the results obtained reflect
increasing value of products and services offered. That is what we mean by a
viable business organization.
A high-performance work system contains a number of processes that support
the achievement of a more viable organization whose products and services
become more valuable, especially to customers but also to other stakeholders. A
business organization is becoming more viable when the value of its outputs
increases relative to the value of its inputs as a result of working on the inputs.
Viability is a measure of the functioning effectiveness of the processes and
systems of the high-performance work system. Viability measures what leaders
have been doing to improve the businesss value-add.
These are the three key leadership work processes that contribute to
improved viability in a high-performance work system:
Creating a harmonious relationship with customers
Organizing around value-add processes
Developing an effective change process
Creating a Harmonious Relationship with Customers
The importance of serving the needs of all stakeholders has been discussed. The
role model leader seeks to go beyond satisfaction and loyalty to develop
harmonious relations with all stakeholders. A harmonious relationship between
customers and the role model leaders business will improve the measurable
value of the organization. There are those who believe the customer is the most
important stakeholder; words like the customer is king and others are
common. This may be a valuable approach for some businesses, but I believe
the same passionate approach to serving all stakeholders is best.
In a harmonious relationship with the customer, the business organization
benefits from increased revenues, longevity of the revenue stream, and often
reduced costs. There are reduced costs because the business will not have to
spend as much money finding and maintaining a roster of new customers. A
harmonious relationship with a customer ensures a long relationship.
The benefits to the customer are also many. The customer knows he or she
will receive the organizations highest quality in terms of products, technology
and marketing at the level that most businesses extend to their long-standing A-

list customers. And the organization will also often offer preferred pricing.
A values-based partnership creates innovative opportunities that add value
for both partners. A harmonious, trusting relationship establishes, in effect, a
new enterprise that works on and exploits entrepreneurial opportunities in the
collective value chain of activities. Leaders in the two partnering businesses
work together on those opportunities. In this values-based partnership, each
partner has confidence in the role model leadership of the other.
When the business organization has a harmonious relationship with its
owners, those owners get a rapid, high return on their invested money and the
business acquires an ongoing resource that is essential for success. Owners are
a unique customer of the business organization. Most investors recognize that the
best action a business can take is to develop competent, future-looking leaders
that is, role model leaders who aspire to and are capable of developing an
innovative high-performance business organization.
Organizing Around Value-Add Processes
Stephen (not his real name) was a very good engineer. He had been an excellent
student during his university days and after graduation he joined a small machine
manufacturing company, SmallCo, where his talents were highly valued. He
contributed much to the company, and he, in turn, always said that he learned
how to be a better engineer at SmallCo. Unfortunately, family issues required
that he move to a different city, and he left that company.
He was recruited to head the engineering division of LargeCo, a much bigger
company that manufactured heavy machinery. He always said he was lucky to
have been offered that position, but the industry by then knew he was a talented
engineer and leader.
Stephen soon noticed that LargeCo was not nearly as successful as SmallCo:
by almost all productivity and quality measures it was a weaker company.
LargeCo had two distinct parts: about half its people and other resources were
directed at a single large-volume product (product A); the other half were
directed at seven much smaller-volume products (products B to H).
Stephen also learned quickly that LargeCos engineers worked in a very
different way than SmallCos. At SmallCo, the work was organized by a valueadd process and it had been organized that way for years. Each job was broken
down into specific steps, and then competent people were assigned to those
steps. That system worked well.
By contrast, work was carried out at LargeCo according to a structure. The
much larger engineering division he had joined was a freestanding unit that was
similar to other functional units such as human resources, R&D, finance, and
accounting. Also, LargeCo was broken down into strategic business units
(SBUs), and each SBU contained various marketing and manufacturing people

and assigned representatives from the various functional units. The heads of the
functional units managed administration, pay, and benefits of the functional
people in the SBU, but the SBU heads managed the work of the functional
people in the SBU.
This was a conventional structure: the SBU as an interfunctional business
team. The leaders of the SBUs told Stephen that the role of companys functional
organizations was to provide competent expertise to the SBUs and to serve the
needs of customers as defined by the SBUs leaders.
This was quite different from his experience at SmallCo, but he understood
that LargeCos intention was to stock each SBU with the required skills.
When he discussed this with his new co-workers in the engineering division,
they seemed quite content, and they understood that their job was to satisfy the
needs of the SBU manager. Stephen was impressed with their work they were
highly skilled engineers. However, many pointed out that the rigid structure
often made collaboration more difficult and actions more time consuming.
Stephen was troubled the differences between LargeCo and SmallCo went
beyond those you might expect to result from company of that size. At SmallCo,
the manager had always been reminding him that his role was to serve
customers, not the manager or the SBU. At SmallCo, needs had been determined
by talking to the sales representatives and sometimes to the external customers
directly. Once the engineering work required to satisfy the customers had been
determined, that work was mapped out step by step in way that would maximize
the value-add. These steps were then assembled into logical value-add chains
(VACs). Finally, engineering people were assigned to do the work as outlined
by the VACs. In this way, the work needed to satisfy the companys customers
was matched to people who were competent to do the work.
During Stephens early days with LargeCo, he talked many times with the
president who had hired him. At one point, he discussed an idea he had for
improving the effectiveness of his engineering division. Intrigued, the president
asked Stephen to expand his idea and make specific recommendations before he
got caught up in the present system.
Stephen asked two other experienced engineers to help, and they got to work.
They met with the SBU managers and determined the specific expectations of
these important people. He learned that the expectations placed on the assigned
engineering division people varied widely from one business to another.
Product As SBU leader required his assigned engineer to be primarily an
expert in machine maintenance technology and practice. The seven smaller
SBUs needed a wide variety of capabilities: one SBU needed the assigned
engineer to be a capital project manager, another needed the assigned engineer
to do considerable engineering design work, and others placed different
emphasis on various engineering skills. But what really surprised Stephen was
that a number of SBUs were asking their assigned engineers to carry out a

variety of non-engineering tasks customer technical service, cost analysis,

and, in one case, market analysis for which these engineers had little
capability. It seemed the SBU managers were asking for and being given
engineering people and then they would find ways to use those resources even
when the people assigned to them werent fully competent to carry out those
assignments.
Stephen and his team finished their work and made the following
recommendations to the president: that the engineering division be held
accountable as a value-add business organization, that the mission of the
engineering division be to serve the needs of the customers who required actual
engineers, and that the engineering division be a source of value-add
engineering competence for the company. This meant that each SBU would
contract for engineering expertise as needed. The work would be defined jointly
by the specific SBU and the engineering division, and then competent
engineering talent would be assigned to the work. Sometimes this would require
full-time assignments, and sometimes only part-time engineers from the
engineering division were required. On occasion the engineering division
would even subcontract from outside firms to satisfy the needs of the SBUs and
their customers.
The president of LargeCo accepted these recommendations on an
experimental basis he would try to turn the engineering division from a
functional component division into a value-add one.
The result was that the right people were in in the right place at the right
time. Productivity and quality improved significantly. Also, the people in the
engineering division became much more motivated. They were closer to the
customers, and they felt that they had a leadership role in the company and that
they could change and improve things more effectively.
After a trial period, the president and the SBU leaders decided to expand this
change by including all the other functional units. The change was, in effect,
from a structure based on internal controls to one based on internal and external
customer needs satisfaction. The leadership effort initiated by Stephen (they
called him a role model leader when he received the companys highest award)
had accomplished an important result for the company.
Conventional organizations place an overriding emphasis on structure. An
example beyond Stephens story relates to the design of a typical manufacturing
plant. A conventional organization will think mainly in terms of controlling
people and assets. Each layer of management will be given a clear message of
accountability in terms of the layers above and below it. Job descriptions will
describe what this means in terms of the roles of managers and other employees.
The organization will be described in terms of boxes, with peoples names and
roles and with lines of control from box to box. This is how such organizations
seek efficiency.

The organizational design of a high-performance work system is different.

The role model leaders in this system are biased towards influencing people to
make positive change in order to grow the business rapidly and sustainably. To
accomplish that, they must design the organization as a system that is effective,
robust, and above all flexible. All three attributes are necessary in order to
accommodate continuous improvement and change, which is the goal of the
high-performance work system.
The Concept of Value-Add
Value-add is about positive change about change that happens when inputs or
raw materials are processed so that the result is outputs (i.e., finished products)
that have more value than the original inputs.
Figure 11.1 Value-Add Element

Inputs are the people, the raw materials, and the hard and soft assets
associated with the business organization. Outputs are the products of the work
done on those inputs. Later I will discuss this in more detail. For now, lets
simply refer to this concept as The Guppy, because the diagram for it looks
something like a fish.
The fish is a very old creature in evolutionary terms. So is the idea, in
business terms, of value-add. Whenever someone launched a discussion of The
Guppy at DuPont Canada, we knew we were about to engage in a discourse on
functional effectiveness and value-add and that the issues on the table would
also include substantive discussion of organizational effectiveness and
leadership.
The concept of value-add has a strong impact on our understanding of
business leadership. All businesses, profit or not-for-profit, are built around the
idea of adding value.
For example, a mining company starts with a stretch of bush or mountainside,
mines it, and transforms it into raw ore chunks of rock and dirt that sometimes
contain only a few percent of metal. A milling company then takes this raw ore,
processes it, and transforms it into a high-grade concentrate that contains a much
higher percentage of metal. A steel company then takes this high-grade
concentrate, processes it, and transforms it into steel. A manufacturer takes that
steel, processes it, and transforms it into rods, beams, plates, and fasteners. A
construction company then takes those rods, beams, plates, and fasteners,
assembles them, and transforms them into an office tower.

We can see from the above example that adding value is rarely a single-step
process. It almost always entails multiple steps that are linked together to form a
value-add process or chain. The output of a given step is the input for the next,
and so on.
Lets further our understanding of value-add and its importance to
organizations by considering the task of producing an automobile. It takes
countless inputs to produce an automobile on an assembly line. A very
incomplete list includes the auto parts themselves, the fasteners, the various
pieces of equipment, and even robots. And those are just the physical assets
the things that are required before any work can be done. The outputs are the
assembled automobiles. The work includes all the actions that people take to
manipulate those inputs until the result is the finished product, the automobile.
Every step in any functional process manufacturing, marketing, R&D, and
so on relies on a multitude of value-add steps. To thoroughly understand any
one of these functional processes, we have to break down the process into its
value-add steps, whether that process involves manufacturing a given product,
marketing it, or developing it. Breaking down or mapping, as it is
sometimes called is an important skill for engineers to acquire to improve a
given process.
Competent engineers can break down a process into its value-add elements
almost as second nature. Doing so working with processes is part of their
basic education. When solving problems, they think almost automatically about
material flows. In our example of producing an automobile, there are a multitude
of functional steps: manufacturing parts and the whole automobile; researching
and developing components; accounting for the costs of producing an
automobile; and so on. And each of these steps can be further broken down into
even fundamental value-add steps. For example, in the overall process of
manufacturing an automobile, painting the side door on a Taurus can be viewed
as a specific value-add step in a chain of steps. The inputs for that particular
step would be materials such as the side door, the paint shop, and the correct
colour of paint. The output would be the painted side door of a Taurus. The
work would include such things as the physical and mental actions of the trained
painters who manipulate the paint, the side door, the paint robots, and the
machinery in the paint shop.
Many, many such value-add steps go into manufacturing an automobile. I
have barely scratched the surface, if you allow a bad pun. For example, there is
the action of delivering the correct colour of paint to the paint shop, which in
turn can be further disintegrated into the action of ordering the correct colour of
paint from the paint supplier. Each input to a value-add step can be subdivided
by the manufacturer into component value-add steps so that a value-add chain is
described where one value-add output becomes the input of a subsequent valueadd output. That chain becomes what we call a value-add process (or simply a

process).
Figure 11.2 Value-Add Process and Value-Add System

Value-Add Processes and Systems

As noted above, the entire business organization can be described and defined
in terms of value-add processes (see Figure 11.2). This is a logical and
disciplined way to describe an organization of people who are committed to a
common productive purpose. It is how work gets done, and it is also how the
design of an organization should be perceived by the people who work there. So
it makes sense to design an organization in terms of discrete sets of value-add
processes.
Yet in many business organizations, people doing work are grouped
according to the kind of work, the level of work, or the location of the work.
The kind of work might be manufacturing, marketing, or research. The work
might be the work of a paint business, an automobile business, or a
packaging business. These kind of work arrangements usually distinguish
between functions or customers. The level of work approach might group people
in terms of their competence so that there are senior engineers, junior engineers,
engineers-in-training, and so on. The location of work might refer to similar
business groupings in each country, region, or city.
The conventional ways of describing work sound logical and are easy to
understand, but they do not lend themselves to understanding an organization, to
improving it, or to changing the actions taken by the people who are grouped in
these ways. Doing engineering work sounds like a clear concept, but it does
little to help us understand the actual work being done, such as designing,
constructing, and all the other things engineers do.
Role model leaders have a bias towards changing things towards making
them better and thereby generating positive results. Furthermore, in business
organizations, all changes relate to productivity, quality, and stakeholder
service. For example, when an organizations leaders are considering changes
to the businesss overall costs, it will be highly useful for them to develop an
understanding of how those costs are presently being generated. What are the
value-add steps in any given process? And what are the costs incurred by each
of those steps? Having answered these questions, they can more efficiently and

effectively consider the work of reducing costs.

When the leadership of a particular value-add process is assigned to a single
individual in each process group, that person can be held accountable for the
ongoing continuous improvement that has been assigned to that group.
How this complex array of processes is then put into manageable form has
primarily to do with the organizations design. For an organization to be
designed effectively, two further elements must be factored in: systems and
structure. Basically, a well-designed organization will be built around certain
processes that can be described as core and that are supported by various
other processes (see Figure 11.2). For example, the core process of painting the
side door of a Taurus would be supported by additional processes such as
these:
Delivering the paint to the paint shop
Buying the paint for the paint shop
Hiring painters for the paint shop
The sum of the core processes and all the various supportive processes can be
called a system. In this example, we might call this integrated collection of
processes the system of painting things, which is part of the overall task of
manufacturing an automobile. And the system of painting things will be only
one of many systems that are necessary to describe the task of producing an
automobile.
The arrangement of the various systems into an organizational structure is the
final step in our systematic organization of people and assets. There are, of
course, many different ways to structure a business organization. The discipline
of doing so is often referred to as organizational design and is a key function and
role of leadership.
Value-Add Structuring of the Business Organization
In a conventional organization there is a rigid, often pyramidal structure of
managers reporting to more senior managers who report to more senior
managers. Any change in structure will be difficult and will cause a cascade of
change to accommodate the original one:
Reorganization to me is shuffling boxes, moving boxes around. Transformation means
changing the way the organization thinks, the way it responds, the way it leads. It is a
lot more than just playing with boxes.1

In a conventional organization, change calls for reorganization, shuffling

boxes around. Change is sometimes avoided because of the onerous nature of
reorganization. In a developmental business organization, change is the route to

achieving high performance. In a developmental organization, structuring is an

extension of the process and systems design. Change is more easily
accommodated by targeting value-added steps: adding, subtracting, and
redesigning individual processes or systems.
When organization design is carried out from the perspective of processes
and systems, rapid changes and improvements are possible. Sets of systems can
be arranged and rearranged; different sets can be created to accommodate
change. There is no rigid hierarchy. Leaders provide direction as the work
dictates.
Figure 11.3 describes a hypothetical organizational structure or design using
the principles described in this section that is, thinking about organizational
structuring in terms of processes and systems. Let me be specific in explaining
Figure 11.3.
An engineer was given the task of designing a human resourcing organization
in a small company. This engineer developed five important systems:
A: The integrated human resourcing core leading, managing system
B: The subsystem for evaluating peoples work performance
C: The subsystem for identifying new hires
Figure 11.3 Value-Add Structuring

D: The subsystem for identifying outside consultants

E: The subsystem for paying people

Another point is that B and E are obviously related systems and the framework
(Figure 11.3) recognizes that point.
All of the subsystems are important but the design encourages change
because there are no rigid dependencies. Each system can be considered a
standalone set of processes to be changed as necessary.
The reversing connections between the systems are meant to refer to all the
important developmental actions, such as communication, defining strategic
issues, and solving problems between work systems.
In summary, the most significant difference between a high-performance
work system and a conventional organization is that the former focuses on

value-add chains or processes, whereas the latter focuses on functions and

structures. The former is effective, flexible, and easy to change; the latter is
efficient, inflexible, and difficult to change. One is designed around natural
work processes; the other is designed around job descriptions. One facilitates a
leading approach; the other facilitates a managing approach.
Developing an Effective Change Process
Approaching the design of work in terms of value-add work processes and
systems allows those engaged in the processes of leading, managing, and
following to change the business organization more easily and in so doing
eliminate waste. In this way, value-add can be improved and the business can
grow more rapidly.
In this section, I continue to emphasize leading by means of value-add
processes. Specifically, I discuss what role model leaders must do in order to
bring about positive change in high-performance work systems.
Bringing about positive change is the work of role model leaders. Clearly,
then, they need to understand the most effective ways to bring that change about.
My premise is that the most effective way for them to approach this work is by
grasping the value-add steps of any task by thinking thoroughly about the change
they want to bring about and then acting in a disciplined and orderly manner,
one value-add step at a time. In an organization designed around value-add
processes, everyone becomes a leader. Everyone in the process can be engaged
in changing in improving things.
The Change Process Model
In part two I described the skills, character attributes, and purposeful
behaviours required to qualify as a role model leader. Those who hope to lead
complex organizations must develop all of these. My conviction has long been
that leadership is, at its root, about the capacity to think effectively and
completely from values to results. Part two also described the unique capability
of thinking effectively and completely in detail. This is what role model
leaders must be able to do above anything else. The tool presented in part two
for the aspiring role model leader to learn, practise, and utilize this capability
was levels of thought.
I will return to that model in this section when discussing the components of
the change process. As you will see, levels of thought will be the basis for the
thinking framework in Figure 11.4 that I propose as the change process model.
By answering the three questions Why? How? What? we can come to
understand the work of leading an organization through significant change. We
can learn all the steps required of role model leadership for change. We can

learn what it is that role model leaders must do in order to inspire their people
to make changes collectively or individually. This will involve a series of steps
that have the potential to teach the organizations people how to make change
steps that have the potential to call people to action to implement change and get
results.
All of this competence will in turn help create a high-performance work
system one in which positive change is the goal for a better future for
everyone involved: Everyone a Leader, everyone engaged in the process of
change.
Figure 11.4 The Change Process Model

Developing Meaning for Change

There are three sequential components in the change process: developing
meaning, formulating direction, and implementing that direction. The first aspect
of the change process developing meaning is arguably the most important,
for any change proposed and acted on by the role model leader must have a
clear and valuable meaning for everyone in the organization.
The word valuable has arisen a number of times in this book. To review,
values are beliefs that determine our behaviour they are things that we as
individuals or as organizations hold to be true and enduring and that motivate us
to think and act in certain ways. Values guide our lives and our actions. They
are extremely important and can best be understood as encompassing three
levels of thought: beliefs, philosophy, and principles.
Values were discussed at length in part one and again in part two, where the
levels of thought tool was introduced and where beliefs, philosophy, and
principles were discussed at length. Earlier in this book, the relationship
between personal values and organizational values was described. As noted at

the time, each set of values reflected a somewhat different, albeit specific, set of
beliefs, philosophy, and principles.
Here I introduce the idea of change values as a way to describe the beliefs,
philosophy, and principles of people in a high-performance work system. Why
are role model leaders motivated to change things? We can answer that question
by asking questions such as these:
What are the individual role model leaders beliefs about change in relation to
the collective beliefs of the group, team, or organization?
What principles, guides to action, or behaviours exist in the minds of the
organizations leaders in relation to changing the work their organization is
doing?
The answers to questions like those draw out the beliefs, philosophy, and
principles about change and the meaning of change for the people in the highperformance work system.
Here I need to reintroduce the idea of the catalyst. This refers to a leader
who has an idea for changing things to improve some aspect of the organization.
Say, for example, that Linda, a research engineer in the R&D organization, has
an idea that she has fully explored and thought about. She decides that this idea,
which would result in significant change to the companys major product line,
must be a priority for the company. Linda, here, is a change initiator or catalyst.
She must find a way to influence the companys other leaders to join in a
common purpose that relates to her idea for change. This will be easier for her
than it would be in most companies because her organization has embraced the
concept of Everyone a Leader and its people are learning to be leaders; all are
therefore open and motivated to make continuous change and seek to improve
the organization. The other people in her organization already have the
individual leading skills, character attributes, and purposeful behaviours of
leaders. Linda realizes that other, more conventional organizations have not
embraced that mantra and thus individuals in those organizations would be
harder for her to influence than those in her company.
Linda also realizes that she must first develop meaning for the change she has
in mind. To that end, she must establish her own set of change values and then
influence others to align with those values. Ideally, the others in her company
will achieve a state of shared, harmonious values that align with her idea. She
recognizes that even though her organization has accepted the philosophy of
Everyone a Leader, this will require considerable work on her part. What does
Linda do? Her approach is as follows:
She clarifies in her own mind her beliefs about the change. For example, I
believe that the product modification is important for the company. I also

believe that the product modification can be scaled to commercial uses.

She invites the others in her company to a session where they can hear her
beliefs about the change. This is also an opportunity for her to hear what their
beliefs are regarding change.
She collects their shared beliefs, and she summarizes the key unifying beliefs
as a statement of philosophy. That statement will be the precursor for a set of
principles for guiding future action. For example, The R&D organization as
a whole and selected marketing people strongly support definitive laboratory
and pilot plant and market testing of new product X in our markets Y. We
believe this product has the potential to grow our revenues by a significant
level a level that needs, however, to be estimated through additional
explorative work.
The group, having become inspired, develops further meaning for the change
by developing a set of principles that guide future action. For example, We
will proceed with defining how to develop and influence people in the
marketing organization. We will establish the benefits to customers and other
stakeholders that will be affected by this change.
These three steps fully develop the meaning for the organizational change that
Linda is attempting to initiate. This meaning is probably not the exact same one
that Linda would have expressed as the change initiator. But by collaborating
with others, she has learned from them, and in turn those others have sensed her
strong motivation to make the change. The others have strengthened their
admiration for her as a role model leader. The idea has moved from specific
change agency in the mind of a single person to the notion of enduring
organizational value for change.
Going beyond the idea of change agency in a specific part of the organization
is the notion of enduring organizational change values. Change values are not
completely different from personal and organizational values; indeed, in the
very best organizations they are part of organizational values. In organizations
where ongoing change is an overriding priority, stated values for change are
woven into the fabric of organizational values.
A large and complex technology company and service provider to
government, military, and commercial enterprises in the aerospace business
states the following as its premier values:
Passion: To be passionate about winning and about our brands, products and people,
thereby delivering superior value to our shareholders.
Risk Tolerance: To create a culture where entrepreneurship and prudent risk taking are
encouraged and rewarded.
Excellence: To be the best in quality and in everything we do.
Motivation: To celebrate success, recognizing and rewarding the achievements of
individuals and teams.

Innovation: To innovate in everything, from products to processes.

Empowerment: To empower our talented people to take the initiative and to do whats
right.

Here we have a statement of values that begins by defining the business and
then states and defines the beliefs of that business. Clearly, this company aspires
to be an innovative organization that takes prudent risks. In its statement one can
feel the organizations energy and the priority it places on change.
Another example is from a large and diversified energy company. Its stated
values are as follows:
Profitable Growth: Seeking sustainable, profitable growth by encouraging relentless
pursuit of our vision, simplicity of style, speed of action, innovation and leadership in
all of our chosen business activities.
Positive Change: Embracing and capitalizing on change, recognizing that every employee
must be empowered to stimulate continuous improvement in all aspects of our
business.
Enthusiastic Customers: Enhancing our reputation as a company that customers can rely
on to deliver products so excellent in their quality, and service so outstanding in its
responsiveness, that it will always be recognized for leadership in the marketplace.
Involved Employees: Striving for a workplace where opportunity, openness, enthusiasm,
diversity, teamwork, accountability and a sense of purpose combine to provide a
rewarding professional experience that promotes fairness, dignity and respect for all
employees.
Confident Shareholders: Managing all parts of our business in a manner that builds value
into the investment of all shareholders, confirming their confidence in participating in
the ownership of this company.
Responsible Citizenship: Conducting our business with the highest standards of ethics,
adherence to the law, and doing whats right thereby continuing the legacy of
encouraging a healthy and safe workplace, responsible government, a highly
competitive free enterprise system, environmental responsibility.

In these statements, this company cross-references a commitment to its

vision. Interestingly, it references its dedication to positive change,
continuous improvement, and doing what is right.
The above two statements are excellent examples of specific approaches to
developing meaning for change for the people both inside the organization and
outside it. Both groups are important: a companys values must be clear to the
stakeholders inside the company if they are to be motivated to carry out the
direction as it relates to change. And that same change direction must be clear to
the stakeholders outside the company customers, communities, society at large
so that they understand the boundaries within which the company works when
achieving its goals. Only then will society be able to support the company as a
member of its community.
Both the thinking effectively model (see Figure 4.1) and the change process

model (see Figure 11.4) answer the questions Why? How? and What? These are
the three essential questions for the leader-engineer when thinking about things
to change and when changing things to create high-performance work systems
and improve the lives of people.
Formulating Direction for Change
In the previous section we considered this question: Why are we motivated to
change something? The determination, dissemination, and acceptance of change
values (i.e., beliefs, philosophies, and principles) are the first steps in any
orderly change process. The goal of those steps is to develop a shared purpose
in the organization that includes the leaders who are the originators of the
change. Once the shared purpose is achieved, the change process can move to
the next step: formulating direction. The formulating or setting of direction for
change answers this question: How do we plan to make the change that the
organizations leaders have proposed? At this stage, the elements or levels of
thought are concept, strategy, and design.
Also, as noted in the previous section, developing meaning for change entails
fostering the required will among the people in the organization by motivating
them to accomplish the change being proposed. This section deals with our
necessary preparedness as human beings to make the changes the being state
that people must reach so that they can envision and plan the changes.
At this stage, the organization and its leaders are energized they are willing
to change in order to satisfy the organizations fundamental beliefs, philosophy,
and principles. Put another way, their values are aligned with those of the
organization so that they are ready to be influenced to move to the next level of
change. How, though, are they to envision that change?
In part one, I introduced the important aspect of leadership that I referred to
as future state targets. I also introduced three hierarchical levels that ranged
from planning targets to aspirational targets. Planning targets provide a precise
future state relating to shorter-term transactional change; and at the other end of
the scale, aspirational targets describe a future state where both leaders and
followers enjoy considerable freedom of interpretation. An aspiration is a
superordinate target, a statement of theoretical perfection; though necessarily
vague, it also offers a great deal of choice when it comes to achieving broader
and longer-term change. A vision is somewhere in the middle of this spectrum:
it is suitable for processes of ongoing, important, continuous improvement of a
transformational nature. This kind of change is more often the norm in
organizational change. I will use this measure of a future state target in the
following description of the change process.
DEVELOPING A FUTURE STATE VISION AND MISSION

This is arguably the most important step in the change process. In terms of levels
of thought, it is at the concept level. At this step, the leaders are proposing a
new future state: they are opening the door to a better future and asking their
followers to understand what that future will be to accept it as their own and
to do the rigorous work required to implement it successfully. In the simplest of
terms, the leaders are saying, This is the concept for the future, now lets do the
thinking and work to get there.
In the previous section, we focused on shared organizational values; here, the
focus has shifted towards shared beingness (i.e., togetherness, spirit) among
the leaders and followers. Leaders influence their followers to move towards a
better future state by appealing to their shared values and character attributes.
Role model leaders are able to engineer and give substance to the future state
for which they are calling. The two most common means to this end are vision
and mission. Each serves a purpose, and each provides a conceptual view of
change more concretely, a picture of a better place than the current state as
seen by the role model leader.
VISION

Vision has been written about and talked about extensively. By now, it is either
revered as the most important attribute of a leader, or it has become an object of
cynicism as a result of overuse.
What is vision? Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, great teacher-leaders,
defined it this way:
A vision articulates a view of a realistic, credible, attractive future for the
organization; a condition that is better in some important ways than what now
exists.2

Of course, a vision is better in some important ways than what now exists
only if the leaders are able to influence their followers to accept their view of
the future. A leaders view or perception needs to become a reality for her
followers.
Vision is what differentiates leaders from everyone else. It is a description
of something different from what is current something no one else has
achieved. It is an understanding shared by all who are part of the organization. It
answers this question: What will the organization become? Vision is a picture
of the organizations future that serves the interests of all important
stakeholders: customers, employees, and society.
Let us consider some examples of visions written for organizations that are
quite different from each other. The first is from a company called EcoSynthetix.
To be one of the worlds leading technology and market developers of bio-based

materials through value-added substitution of fossil-based products. Our enterprise

will benefit society as a result of our products being sustainable based on green
chemistry and a reduced carbon footprint.

Broadly speaking, vision statements come in two generic forms. One form
speaks to an ideal world and indicates what a perfect world would look like,
and this companys vision statement is clearly one of these. In this vision
statement EcoSynthetix perceives its ideal future state.
The second broad type of vision describes not an ideal world, but an ideal
organization. There are many such statements. I provide an example to illustrate
this approach. This one is from a biofuels company called Biox.
Our company will build, acquire, own and operate a network of biodiesel production
facilities, utilizing our proprietary process technologies capable of producing the
highest quality biodiesel fuel in jurisdictions where clearly defined renewable fuel
standards policies exist. Our goal is to be the leading value-added integrated supplier
to the existing fuel distribution network.

Each of these companies is looking into their future in different ways. Both
are young, innovative engineering and science intensive organizations. In
chapter 2, in the section Thinking about Future States, I made a distinction
between two boundary conditions. First, a plan is a future state that is very
actionable and second, an aspiration is a statement of a future state that is more
philosophical. And vision is somewhere between these two boundaries. The
Biox vision is clearly leaning towards the plan boundary, but it is not
specifically a plan, but it is a conceptual vision of their future. EcoSynthetix
chose a statement, a vision that is close to an aspiration.
The importance of vision cannot be overemphasized. A clear vision allows
everyone to rally around a common direction, even in crises. It serves as an
anchor in turbulent times. It helps the organization to see what could be and
should be, and it provides guidance and inspiration for the difficult work that is
necessary to achieve a better future.
A vision must strike a balance between vagueness and specifics. It needs to
be specific enough to provide clear guidance to the organization and relevant
enough to be achievable. Perhaps most important, it must also inspire. At the
same time, though, it must be vague enough to allow people to turn their
imaginations towards an improved future state. It also needs to be vague enough
to appeal to all kinds of people, to different functional categories of people, and
to people with different levels of will and openness to change.
And finally, a vision needs to be relevant under a variety of future
conditions. This is an important point. Visions or future states cannot and should
not be rewritten every few months. If they are not fairly permanent, they will
lose their impact as thoughtful descriptors of a future target. It is appropriate to

rewrite a vision statement when a much more inspirational direction is called

for. But rewriting according to a whim would cause the resulting words to lose
their potency as a teaching and learning tool.
I know all of this to be true for the two companies I have used to illustrate
this section. I am the chairman of the board for each company and see the
leaders of these young evolving companies, one an engineer the other a scientist,
and how they use these statements to guide their actions as they seek to succeed.
How to Develop Vision for the Organization

This section describes an approach to thinking about and writing a vision.

Developing a viable vision of an organizations future is hard work. It is also
both creative and labour intensive. And it is important work.
The approach outlined below has four steps. I do not mean these steps to be
prescriptive there is no single correct way. This section will be useful if it
serves as a starting point for the ultimate goal; it will be useful if the steps
encourage you to think about, collaborate on, document, and communicate a
vision that is appropriate to your organization. The goal is all-important; the
means are open-ended. With that caveat, there are four steps for you to consider.
1. The Organizational Leader Assumes Accountability
The leader envisions a future state. This is a personal creative process. The
leader assumes accountability for the idea and then assumes accountability for
the process that will move that idea towards a viable vision for the
organization.
It is vital that the organizations leader formulate a personal view of the
future based on his own beliefs and on his own insights into the organization and
himself. It is the organizational leader who senses the need for change and who
initiates it, so he needs to own the visioning process.
In each of the previous examples of visions for these young companies, I can
say with assurance that the words represent the will, being, and function of the
leader-founder.
2. The Organizational Leader Gathers Information and Wisdom
Key to the organizational leaders role as the owner or initiator of the vision
is selecting a group of thought leaders to help him move the process along. A
thought leader by definition is someone in the organization who
knows a great deal about the organization and its history and culture,
is highly respected by certain segments of the organization,
has significant skills and character attributes of a role model leader, and

 is respected by and respects the capabilities of the organizational leader.

These thought leaders are formed into a working group whose purpose is to
assist the organizational leader. They do so by offering opinions on all aspects
of the future state idea and researching backgrounds that are pertinent to the
idea, and by engaging under the leaders direction in a systematic approach
to developing the idea towards a credible future state direction for the
organization. It is important to understand at this stage that plans are not being
made rather, ideas are being clarified. This is strategic thinking, not strategic
planning.
3. The Words Are Generated
This is an important step in the visioning process. It is best to make it fun. The
thought leaders will all have their own ideas. This is where the visionary leader
will need to listen, feel, and sense when the words are good and right. Good
here means that they reflect the future as seen by the leader; right means that
the words all have meaning and call for action. The words are also right
because they are easily understood and meaningful rather than empty.
As part of this process of generating words, it is often useful to write a
thorough description of the organizations current state. This will allow
everyone to see the clear gap between the current state and the future one (i.e.,
the vision). Everyone will believe they know the current state well and will be
surprised at how useful it was to write it down. Also, a clear description of the
current state will make it easier to develop a gap analysis that is, an analysis
of the work that will need to be done by the people in the enterprise to move
from the current to the future state.
Also important to this generate the words part of the process is deciding on
and implementing a format for the vision as well for its supporting
documentation. A strong vision statement is short, clear, and succinct and
appeals to all stakeholders.
The vision statement must be appealing, and it must be marketable. It must be
able to inspire and influence many people from a variety of places. Words,
clearly, are important.
4. The Vision Is Made to Work
Once steps 1, 2, and 3 are complete, the really hard work begins the work of
communicating the vision to the stakeholders and influencing all of them to move
in a new direction. This is where the character attributes and learned skills of
leaders become critically important.
The need is to align people to a common purpose and to ensure that the
relevant people share a common understanding of the new direction. The word

relevant is important. Especially in a complex organization, it is unrealistic to

expect that everyone will be able to align their interests with a transformational
change. That should still be the goal all people aligned but realistically, it
often isnt possible, at least immediately. So the role model leader of
transformational change must expect to engage in ongoing teaching and learning.
In DuPont Canada, our future state target was aspirational: Everyone a
Leader. This was a vague and difficult message for everyone to understand at
the beginning of the transformation. To facilitate the communication, we created
a small group of highly competent, highly motivated experts and communicators
in the technology of the developmental leadership philosophy. Those people,
most of them engineers, had regular jobs. They were process engineers, plant
operators, maintenance experts, and so on. There were perhaps a dozen of them.
I referred to them as teachers, and their task was to learn at a deep level and
then to communicate, inspire, and teach when the opportunity presented itself.
They were often asked by teams and groups to engage in facilitating learning
where it was appropriate. These people were highly instrumental in making it
implementable for Everyone (to be) a Leader of future state direction.
MISSION

Mission and vision are often used interchangeably in the literature on

leadership. My experience has been that much can be gained from clearly
distinguishing the two concepts. Both terms refer to a future state achieved as a
result of significant change. A vision, however, is a vague (though actionable)
picture of the initiating leaders future state. It is something both different and
desirable, something that can be achieved only through considerable effort,
perhaps decades of it. It is a target that provides direction for the activities of an
organization that is committed to positive change.
A mission, by contrast, though it does all of that, does so within a time frame
of perhaps three to five years. Thus, it needs to be more specific so as to
provide direction to the organization within that time frame. The mission
statement for EcoSynthetix is provided to illustrate the differences between its
vision and its mission. The actual values for the measures of success and the
actual year when the milestones would be expected to be achieved (three years
from the date the mission was designed) are not given here.
We drive stakeholder value through rapid innovation and sustainable growth by
leveraging our enterprise to deliver bio-based materials worldwide.

Milestones:
Revenue generation: $X per year
Value realization: Y new customers
Strategic relationships established: Companies A and B

 Value creation: Z new products developed

The vision is the architect of change; the mission is the builder of change. A
mission defines the organizations purpose clearly and in a way that reflects its
vision, which by definition is longer-term and less specific. A mission focuses
on the organizations expected specific outputs over three to five years. Below I
summarize the differences and similarities between a vision and a mission.
Similarities

Both are owned by the organizations leader as well as by others who have
been fully engaged in formulating them.
Both are meant to influence, inspire, and energize the people in the
organization so that they will understand and act on the leaders new
direction.
Both describe what is possible. Mission statements, it must be pointed out, are
sometimes too focused on what is, or they too closely reflect the current state.
This is not useful.
Differences

A mission statement should describe some important stakeholder-specific

goals or targets that are measurable and that will move the organization
towards the future state described by the vision, which is inevitably vaguer.
While a mission and a vision are both future looking, the vision is what
leadership wants the future to look like, whereas the mission is more of a link
to strategic intent, one that describes in broad terms what the business is and
what its direction needs to be towards that future.
To illustrate some of these points, the global mission statement for
Greenpeace is reproduced here:
Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change
attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote
peace by:

Catalyzing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our
planet: climate change.
Defending our oceans by challenging wasteful and destructive fishing, and
creating a global network of marine reserves.
Protecting the worlds remaining ancient forests which are depended on by
many animals, plants and people.
Working for disarmament and peace by reducing dependence on finite
resources and calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Creating a toxic free future with safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals in

todays products and manufacturing.

Campaigning for sustainable agriculture by encouraging socially and
ecologically responsible farming practices.3
Greenpeaces mission statement can serve as a model for others. As with
other mission statements we have seen, there is an introductory paragraph
followed by detailed goals and objectives. The former is brief; each word,
though, is important and speaks to a specific behaviour or strategy. This is a
very strong role model mission statement from which much can be learned about
structure and form.
STRATEGY

There are many definitions of strategic intent, but the one this book will use is as
follows: strategic intent relates to the things we put in place to accomplish the
future state change.
This book also distinguishes between strategic thinking and strategic
planning. The difference is a large one. Planning is something that managers do
and often entails extrapolating from the past in order to predict the near future. It
is an extension of an annual budget, something that is calculated. Strategic
thinking, by contrast, is something that leaders do. Strategic intents describe
steps towards the future state; they are more visionary than calculated; they are
more about potential than action plans.
An example of strategic planning: For the next three years we will grow
the business at a rate of 1 per cent per year beyond the experience of the past
three years, primarily by introducing our new product X broadly to our
customers in North America.
An example of strategic thinking: We will continue to grow our business
by introducing a broad range of new products designed to reach our goal of
being the largest company in our market.
This example of strategic thinking provides the basis for further utilization of
the level of thought tool. The next step is to take this to the design (see part two,
chapter 4) level of thought. I see this as the opportunity to develop potential
scenarios or strategic projects.
For example, if it is our strategic intent to introduce a broad range of
products to accomplish a vision of the future, then there needs to be further
strategic thinking to develop strategic projects that are the best routes to the
future we desire. We might think about three to five different products that are
feasible offerings for the market. These are real, not concepts. They are real
because we will test them with engineering, R&D, marketing, and manufacturing
competencies to ensure they are real. But at this point, we are not taking action
or making choices. Rather, we are thinking about the possibilities and becoming

comfortable with the range of potential directions.

To summarize, then, formulating direction for change can be viewed in this
way:
Vision Mission Strategy

The vision is the anchor. It describes what the organization will achieve in
the distant future. It is vague in its wording but clear in its aims, and it is
achievable. The mission creates unity and develops a commitment to achieving
measurable results. It is focused on a shorter term three to five years, but
sometimes shorter than that. The strategy is a set of statements that are more
specific. They are guides to measurable actions.
Of these three, the strategy is the most flexible. It is a refinement of the
organizations vision and mission, and it focuses on actionable projects. It is a
tool that leaders can use when selecting the means and ways to create the
changes encompassed by the vision and the mission. The leader has both the
opportunity and the flexibility perhaps even the responsibility to consider
changes in strategy. Indeed, a role model leader should consider changes in
strategic intent at least every year or two or even more often. When doing so,
she should ask these questions: How have things changed in the past few months
in our environment? What have we learned that might suggest a new strategy?
How have our competitors changed, and does this force us to change our
strategy? What changes does our organization need to make to meet the new
challenges of a changing environment and challenging competitors?
In many ways, the skills, character attributes, and purposeful behaviours of
the role model leader are tested more when strategy is being defined than at any
other time. There is a calmness, a thoughtfulness to developing a vision and a
mission; strategy, by contrast, is usually formulated when times are more urgent.
Strategizing is a high-energy process. Leaders who succeed at defining the right
strategies truly are admirable role model leaders.
Strategy encompasses all the thinking that is required in order to utilize
human, physical, financial, and technological resources with the intent of
achieving the organizations vision. It can also be thought of as a means to seek
a competitive advantage. The advantage has been realized when the organization
has placed itself in a better position than its rivals to meet the needs of
stakeholders.
Competitive advantage is important to both profit-oriented organizations and
not-for-profit ones. In a profit-oriented business, competitive advantage flows
from a strategy that has placed the organization in a better position than its rivals
to create economic value for customers. Those customers then reward the
organizations efforts with sales revenues that can translate into sustainable
growth. In a not-for-profit organization, competitive advantage flows out of a

strategy that places it in a better position than other service providers to create
real and perceived value for society. Society then rewards these efforts with
donations of money, time, and energy, which in turn can translate into
sustainable growth for the organization.
Implementing Change
The levels of thought that define the stage we call implementing change and
achieving positive results are as follows:
Action: Examine what needs to be done to accomplish change and get results.
Audit: Examine what the organization is doing, then identify what, if any, variation exists
between the target and the strategy for achieving it.
Evaluate: Examine performance relative to expectations.

This step of implementing change deals with the functioning capability that
the organization and its leaders need to apply in order to make the required
change happen. A multitude of studies have found that many businesses fail
because of poor execution. It doesnt matter how good the strategy is; excellent
execution is always more important if you hope to get the results that you and the
other stakeholders expect.
Lets be clear about what we mean by getting positive results. Those results
are, in effect, the measures of the transformational change promised by the future
state direction. They are signifiers of progress from a similarly measured
current state. For example, if our goal is a workplace safety frequency of 2.0
injuries for every 200,000 hours worked by all the people in the organization,
and if we experience an organizational injury frequency of 1.0 injury per
200,000 hours worked last year, then we have succeeded at making positive
change. We havent yet achieved our aspiration, which is zero injuries, but this
is a positive result nevertheless.
An action is a clearly defined and planned event that requires an output of
energy by the elements and resources that the organization has dedicated to it. At
this stage in the change process, the leaders role is to influence the people in
the organization to think about, plan, manage, and lead the work. Role model
leaders contribute to this by leading the design of the work processes, by
ensuring that their people understand the importance and urgency of the work, by
ensuring that the people thus engaged are dedicated and (one hopes) inspired to
do the work, and by ensuring that the people doing the work are functionally
skilled and have the right mix of character attributes and purposeful behaviours
to be effective.
All of this requires the leaders ongoing involvement. This is not leading by
mandate.
The very best role model leaders are not doing the work; rather, they are
being seen, heard, and felt by their people as being in the work. At the getting-

results stage of the change process, the very best role model leaders have a
visible and well-understood approach to leading.
People think of execution as something leaders delegate while they focus on the
bigger issues. Their idea is completely wrong. Execution is a discipline and a
system.
Larry Bossidy4

Bossidy is saying that implementation is a leaders most important job. If the

leaders role is to influence people to make positive change, he is definitely
right. Many leaders interpret their role as asking, persuading, or
demanding that followers take action based on the direction communicated to
them. But it would be an error to think that a leader simply directs her followers
to take action and get results while she merely watches.
I agree with Bossidy, an engineer and business person, and with many others:
a leader must be passionately involved in taking action to get results. My
experience has been that when a leader is actively and appropriately involved
with the people who are implementing the direction, stronger and more effective
results are achieved. People want their leaders to be involved; they are inspired
by their leaders participation. A leaders credibility is enhanced when she
involves herself in implementation. To be clear, the leaders involvement
entails active mental, emotional, spiritual, and yes physical work.
Implementation is the role and shared responsibility of all the people involved
in a project followers, managers, and leaders.
If you are not consumed with the need to participate in and complete the
change process by implementing direction, you are not a role model leader. If
you inspire people with a vision of the future and set a direction for important
change and then walk away from implementation, telling yourself its someone
elses job, you are not a role model leader. Indeed, you are being foolishly
counterproductive and almost guaranteeing markedly suboptimal outcomes.
Think about all the activists who yell and scream about their cause in many
forums, even those who speak knowledgeably those so-called activists who
criticize and ask for change and then do nothing. Are role model leaders those
people? Or are they the ones who seek to work with others on actionable
projects in the private and public sectors? One could argue that the latter are
doing more to contribute to a better world.
Even visionary leaders lose credibility if they step aside when it is time to
take action, leaving implementation to others. Role model leaders stay the
course from idea to results. They are willing and able to participate in the entire
change process.
The word action, to me, means productive work that leads to positive change
to the adding of value as judged by the stakeholders. Whether work has been

productive is determined by audit and evaluation steps; action includes a

process of auditing and evaluating actions that have been taken. To state this
more fully, an action, such as selling more widgets, is subjected to an audit,
such as how many and what size. The results are then subjected to an
evaluation: Did these outcomes of the action benefit the stakeholders of the
enterprise? What level of productivity, quality, or service was reached?
Managing is largely about controlling the work, stabilizing it, if you will.
In this vein, managing during times of change involves looking out for whether
the change is working and whether the change could be carried out more
efficiently. If additional change is needed, or if the change is proceeding
according to plan but those following have the capacity to accomplish even
more positive change, leading addresses that circumstance.
Leadership is extremely important in the overall iterative processes of
action, audit, and evaluation. Each of these requires decisions to be made:
decisions relating specifically to the need for further changes, as well as
decisions regarding followers potential to do more. The very best role model
leaders participate and collaborate with others both those managing and those
following during implementation. They are also flexible, and they have the
skill and judgment required to decide on the best ways to maximize long-term
results.
In the simplest of terms, leaders, managers, and followers work closely
together from strategy through action to auditing and evaluation.
The principal leadership roles are as follows: making strategic decisions
relative to selecting, retaining, and developing people; making decisions about
changes in strategy; helping managers assess results; and engaging with
followers to understand their needs so that positive results are obtained.
The principal management roles are as follows: establishing efficient
control; planning action steps; getting results through people; controlling inputs
and outputs to projects; and auditing and evaluating results.
The Interface between Strategy and Implementation
The interface between formulating direction and implementing action is
encountered at the moment when strategic thinking shifts towards tactical
thinking. This is a key point in the change process, because it is where strategy
faces its first real test. Crossing the boundary from strategy to tactics does not,
however, mean that strategizing is finished and that tactics are all that are left.
Strategy formulation can be deliberate or emergent.5 Deliberate strategy
flows from analytical thinking; it entails assessing the market, competitors
strengths and weaknesses, market growth, and customer needs. Once this
assessment is completed, decisions about implementation are made. This,
briefly, is deliberate strategy making, which is the traditional approach to

strategic planning.
Emergent strategy is very different. It flows from day-to-day priorities
established by leaders, managers, and followers, all of whom will have a hand
in implementation. People who develop strategies in emotional or intuitive
ways do not recognize the consequences as strategic decisions or as different
from tactical ones. Role model leaders will recognize when a strategy needs to
be changed because they have positioned themselves to take part in the
implementation, which is when that need makes itself visible.
Role model leaders encourage both these approaches and have the
competence to influence people to engage in both to accomplish the necessary
results. They also understand when to stabilize a strategy and when to change it.
How to Use the Change Process Model
To illustrate the utility and flexibility of the change process model, I offer the
following examples. The principal characteristic of the model demonstrated
here is its flexibility. It is designed to meet the users needs and can be applied
in its entirety or in part. It allows for complete strategic thinking from belief to
action or, alternatively, for targeted strategic thinking whatever is required of
those who are leading the change. The examples offered are all hypothetical.
PARTIAL UTILIZATION OF THE CHANGE PROCESS MODEL

Partial utilization is only possible when practitioners fully understand the

change process model and are competent and have used it to its fullness. Then
they have the capability to test its flexibility as well as the openness to benefit
from its parts. The parts I am referencing are the three triads that form the whole
(see Figure 11.4). The three triads of the change process model are developing
meaning for change, formulating direction for change, and implementing the
change. Each of these consists of three component levels of thought, as
described in the thinking effectively model in chapter 4.
Say, for example, that a companys leaders are fully satisfied and confident
that their beliefs, philosophy, and principles represent the values of the
company. But these senior leaders recognize that there is a need to set a new
direction. The company is no longer able to achieve a competitive advantage
and grow by making automobile engines for car companies. These leaders must
now apply their competencies to shift the business to making smaller engines for
boats new market, new customers.
The senior leaders and the various thought leaders sit together in a room and
put the company values on the wall and begin to discuss and rework the
second triad in the change process model vision, mission, strategy. Once this
is done and there is understanding among all in the company, they begin to
consider the third triad the implementation step in the model and work that

triad in the same manner.

Another example of the models flexibility and usefulness relates to the
power of using the first triad unilaterally. The beliefs, philosophy, and
principles of the company as a whole its values may be valid, but the first
triad can be used in various ways within different parts of the company to
create common purpose. Say, for example, that a new team has been formed to
make incremental changes in a chemical process. These engineers and
technicians understand the companys direction and the part their team will play
in the whole. But they want to create a strong common purpose among
themselves in this new team. So they utilize the first triad of the change process
model in order to determine and shape a common purpose through a discussion
of beliefs, philosophy, and principles for the team and the part it will play in the
company as a whole.
AN EXAMPLE OF FULL UTILIZATION OF THE CHANGE PROCESS MODEL

The companys most senior leader receives a message from the people in his
organization: they have noticed an increase in the number of injuries in the
companys manufacturing plants. This leader tells himself that the organization
both its leaders and its followers must somehow dramatically reduce these
injuries if not eliminate them entirely. This will require transformational change,
not just an incremental reduction in injuries.
The leader decides to utilize the change process model as a means of
collaborating effectively with his leadership team and a group of other thought
leaders. Together they will think about the Why? What? and How? of the
change.
His senior people and thought leaders are all experienced practitioners of the
change process model, so they recognize its flexibility and power to guide the
thinking of change agents. They also recognize that it can be used for situations
that border on crisis as well as for situations where more time to think is
available. Clearly the present situation, where people are being injured, is a
crisis that demands change. They agree that the change process model must be
used in its entirety and that this can be done efficiently and will benefit the
organization. Spending the time upfront will benefit the organization in the long
run. That time might be well used as follows.
DEVELOPING MEANING FOR CHANGE

1. The change agent and the thought leaders meet and decide to list all their
beliefs surrounding the facts of a large increase in injuries in the organization.
2. The group spends many hours collecting a wide variety of beliefs. These
beliefs both confirm previous beliefs and reinforce the bedrock idea of seeking
to do no harm to other people.

3. Many of the groups beliefs underscore the need for an honest discussion
of individual and organizational competence relative to the issue. It is vital that
this group not argue, but instead display tolerance for one another as they seek
the right answers. At this stage, it is not the goal to reconcile differences of
opinion.
4. The group of leaders then take all the beliefs they have gathered and
construct a statement of philosophy. Here the idea is to look for agreements so
that a broad but powerful statement of the organizations thinking can be
developed. An example might be, All injuries in the workplace are preventable
and we are committed to move towards a future state of zero injuries. This
statement, remember, has flowed from a long and thoughtful discussion whose
goal has been to develop a coherent statement of values. Statements like this
answer these questions: What do we stand for? Why do we need to change?
What will we need to change?
5. Next, the group considers the statement of philosophy it has established
and, from it, develops five to ten statements that will serve as guides to action.
These statements may well include the following:
We will ask our people to seek ways to prevent injuries to themselves and
others in the organization as a condition of their employment.
We will continuously inform all our stakeholders, inside and outside the
company, about our company value of doing no harm to people.
We will reinforce with our employee stakeholders our resolve as senior
leaders to not tolerate any injuries at any time.
We will reinforce with our employees that they are individually accountable
for their personal safety and the safety of others within the work system.
The transformational change contemplated focused on reinforcing with
employees the importance of sustaining organizational values. An examination
of the companys past collective actions revealed that they had not reflected
those values, and now the senior leaders are determined to do what is necessary
to get on track again. This in turn may mean taking unusual actions
countercultural actions or developing a new strategic direction.
The leaders decide they have done a thorough job of creating the atmosphere
of collective thought at a level of guides to action. The meaning of the
required change, but not the strategy or actions, has been determined.
A shared purpose is possible. Now it is necessary to somehow determine
how to act on the principles and formulate a direction for change.
FORMULATING DIRECTION FOR CHANGE

1. The group now moves to the next element of the change process. Here they

consider these questions: How do we plan to change the level of injuries in the
organization? What must we think about and do to support our beliefs,
philosophy, and principles our values as they relate to the increase in injuries?
2. They begin to think about concepts. Concept here can be defined as an
idea we pursue and how we would like things to be. It is a stated vision of the
future that will inspire people in the company and all other stakeholders.
3. The concept is developed, along with the concepts meaning for
stakeholders a necessary element if shared purpose is to be achieved.
Everyone, after all, must be able to see a benefit to themselves when their
company changes direction. The concept in the example at hand is stated as
follows: Zero injuries is the goal for the company. This is a powerful
(because it is clear) view of a future one in which all stakeholders can see
something for themselves.
4. The leaders are satisfied that their work so far has resulted in a concept
that will move the company towards a more forceful statement of intent on the
subject of safety. The leaders, quite simply, are demanding action. This
direction will be somewhat less democratic than before, but it will not entail a
change in culture or leadership style.
5. The next step is to develop some strategic intents with the goal of
providing more actionable steps for the companys employees. This means
developing a few additional strategic intents and not throwing out the present
strategy, which has long been, All people will work diligently to continuously
improve safety performance. The strategic intents developed from this process
are as follows:
The company will consider the safety implications for our people in all forms
of work. If the work cannot be done safely, it will stop until it can be made
safe.
The development of our organizational functional competence on behalf of all
stakeholders, especially employees, will take into account the implications of
doing no harm to people.
IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE

The final step in the change process model takes a very long time for the group.
They recognize the importance of it. They also recognize that they have done
good work in terms of crafting a reinforced set of safety values along with a
more specific (but additive) descriptor of a future state related to safety in the
workplace. They have decided that the implementation actions they are about to
develop next will have to be prescriptive, but in a way that will not damage the
organizations culture, which is developmental, aimed at continuous
improvement, and develops leaders.

In the end, they establish the following three action steps. These will be
communicated to the stakeholders specifically, the employee stakeholders
for immediate implementation.
1. The company expects that all work will be done safely. If this is not
possible, every employee has the obligation to stop the work and participate
in making it safe.
2. All employees will act as their work partners protector or brothers
keeper by ensuring that work is carried out in a safe manner.
3. Safe conduct and working safely will be conditions of employment in the
company.
There will be other specific detailed actions that flow from these high-level
actions. Each department or function will have specifications that flow from
these.
The senior leaders feel they have benefited from applying the change process
model thoroughly and effectively. It has allowed them to formulate a set of
actions that have the potential to transform the existing unacceptable situation in
a way that will not damage the companys culture.
In summary, the change process model can be used in its entirety, or selected
parts of it can be used in specific situations. It can be used by large
organizations that are contemplating large or transformational changes or by
small organizations contemplating small, incremental changes. Finally, it can be
applied to processes of incremental, continuous, or transformational change.
Change requires thinking and doing. Role model leaders need to be
disciplined and systematic as they seek to improve the lives of others. Again, I
remind the reader that thoughtful, complete thinking about all things, when done
effectively and up front, will create better results and the results will happen
more quickly because there will be no wasted actions or restarts.

12 Vitality

The previous chapter described the leadership role that Stephen played at
LargeCo. He changed the company in positive ways by improving the
organizational design of the engineering division and the entire company through
a focus on value-add work in support of both internal and external customers.
This led the company to develop a systemic change process beyond the
engineering division one that further enhanced the organizations functioning
competence. As a result, the SBU and company measures of financial success
improved over an extended period.
In the engineering division leadership team meetings, Stephen and his people
were excited about the results they were getting. But there was always an
underlying theme at these meetings: We can do even better. Some people
shared ideas they had gleaned from their family life; others talked about the
positive energy they generated doing work for a Rotary Club or a youth sports
team. Everyone realized that this sort of energy did not exist in LargeCo that
there was a lack of spirit within the company. Each engineer talked about the
level of spirit in each of their SBUs. Many sensed a lack of spirit and positive
energy but some disagreed and saw the opposite, a great work environment. A
common theme emerged: in the SBUs where the leader created an environment
where all people were treated as real human beings rather than tools for
getting work done, there was positive energy and a positive working-together
environment. One of these engineers was Ed, who had been at LargeCo for many
years. In his attempt to explain the energy in his SBU, he quoted Henry Ford,
one of his engineering idols: Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together
is progress. Working together is success.
Ed said that the people in the company needed to work together to serve one
another as well as they had learned to serve customers. He pointed out that the
SBUs were functioning as separate islands and that while each was getting good
results, the company as a whole had no identity. Everyone identified with an
SBU or a function; no one identified with the company.
The engineering divisions leaders came to believe that their division, the
SBUs, and the other functional units needed to come together if they were to
work effectively, and that this would entail yet another organizational change.
In effect, Stephen and his engineering division had concluded that an
important element when discussing high-performance work systems is vitality.
The word as used here refers to life that is, the life of the organization. In a
business organization that enjoys an abundance of vitality, the people are
competent, confident, energetic, and spirited. They work together to move the

company towards its targeted future state and goals.

Positive change is enormously enhanced when all people work effectively
together, having committed themselves to positive change.
People want to work; they want to do useful work; they want to see and sense
that their personal influence and efforts are having positive effects and
outcomes. People, in sum, yearn to create high-performance work systems for
themselves and others. But for them to do that, their leaders need to encourage
and support their efforts. Role model leaders can make the difference between a
spirited organization and one that is not.
This chapter discusses a variety of work processes as well as the leadership
capabilities that are important when developing high levels of vitality in an
organization:
Creating harmony among the employees
Working effectively in teams
Developing a high-performance culture
Creating Harmony among Employees
A harmonious relationship among employees benefits the business in too many
ways to list. Perhaps they can be summarized in this way: there can be no highperformance, high-vitality work system without harmonious relationships among
people.
Most people will dedicate sufficient energy to do what they must to earn their
pay and benefits, and they will be loyal towards their organization if the work
they are given is enjoyable and challenging and if they are rewarded well. But
to go beyond this to reach a state of harmony where the organizations vitality
is at a high-performance level the business organization and its leaders must
take a different approach where employers and employees are partners, not
combatants. There are many ways to do this, some more strategic, some very
tactical. One tactical way our company approached this was by expanding our
thinking, which led us to design a system of incentive pay. This was not unusual:
in almost every company senior executives are provided a portion of pay at
risk. In other words, a portion of pay is variable based on meeting certain
company directives. Meet those, and you earn the pay; exceed them, and you get
more; do not meet them, and you get less. However, we extended this system to
everyone in the organization. The percentage of pay at risk for lower ranks
was less than it was for the executives, based on role accountability, but the
potential was the same: more pay for better-than-expected results, less pay for
less-than-expected results. This approach was highly successful and created
greater harmony between the organization and its people. Even in difficult times,
when some segments of the company did not perform, there was a sense of we

are partners, we are all in this together. This vitality was, of course, stronger
when people were achieving their targets, which often happened. Employees at
all pay levels made the connection between themselves and the organizations
purpose.
An even more powerful strategic way we found to create a harmonious
partnership between the organizations goals and those of its people entailed a
universal approach to learning and developing leadership capabilities. It
involved a cross-organizational strategy of leadership development: Everyone a
Leader. Everyone wants to learn, and people will become a leader with an
organization that gives them the opportunity to learn while they are working.
That is because they sense that the company is interested in them as human
beings and that it is encouraging them and investing in their personal
development.
The Everyone a Leader approach to leadership underscores that encouraging
personal development fosters harmony between the business and its employees
and that the organization will be transformed as a result. Everyone wants to feel
satisfied with their work and to feel proud when they tell people where they
work. In the simplest of terms, people want to feel a sense of common purpose
with their employer. They do not want to go to work feeling bad or alienated
from their employer. Unfortunately, too many of them do. People want to be part
of a high-performance work system where the benefits of work are shared and
so are their personal values, and where their purposes are common.
Working Effectively in Teams
The vitality, spirit, and energy of people are all greatly enhanced by
collaborative work. Almost everyone agrees that teams are the best venue for
accomplishing work. Yet if you ask a group of people in a business
organization, a social action group, or any other experienced group, Are the
teams you have participated in as a member or a leader effective? Do they get
the desired results? the answer is likely to be surprisingly negative.
The task, then, is to establish teams that work as intended teams that
increase the vitality of the people working on them and teams that thereby
maximize the results of the work they do. And in a high-performance work
system, that task belongs to leaders.
Hierarchy of Teaming
In this section, I classify teams as high-performance or underperforming. There
are, of course, many shades of grey. But this simple distinction will allow us to
learn more about the characteristics of successful teaming.
Besides the dichotomy just mentioned high-performance and

underperforming there are other useful approaches to understanding highperformance teams. Other collective processes worth exploring in this regard
are core teams, competency networks, working groups, and virtual companies. I
will be discussing each of these for understanding the purpose, utility, and the
characteristics of these various collaborative approaches to doing work,
especially those where I have experience, and to highlight the ones that are most
likely to be useful in given situations.
First, though, readers may be wondering whether it is possible, in a highperformance work system, for a person to contribute as an individual to an
organizations success. The answer to that question is a resounding yes. It is
possible, indeed often desirable, for an individual to do work that is purposeful
and directed at increasing the success of the entire organization. I can think of a
number of examples of positive individual effort:
Thinking about ideas at different levels and developing ideas before
presenting them to others or influencing others to work together on the idea.
Working on improving certain skills and character attributes to reach higher
levels of leading and functioning capability.
Carrying out limited, specific tasks that support a teams objective, but doing
so from outside the team.
So, yes, individual work within a high-performance work system can be of
very high value. Most often, though, it is valuable because it is contributing
necessary inputs to a broader project or because it is a necessary precursor to a
group or team effort.
High-Performance Teaming
I begin this section by summarizing the six characteristics of high-performance
teams that have stood out in my experience. In so doing, I hope to make it clear
how role model leaders in high-performance work systems can lead an
organization most effectively.
1. SMALLER IS OFTEN BETTER

Many who have studied the characteristics of successful teams have concluded
that small teams work best. That is also a personal observation. If there are
fewer than five members there will not be enough functional capability to satisfy
the teams goals. If there are more than nine or ten members, conflict is likely to
develop in a way that limits the focus on the team. There will be too much
energy in a group that large and too little focus on the task.
Many years ago, one of the teams on which I participated had a member who
researched this phenomenon. He found that in prehistoric times, a hunting party

was about nine people, each of whom had different skills. For example, there
would be people skilled in tracking (i.e., sensing, smelling, seeing, hearing),
there would be the killers, there would be the haulers, and there would be those
with skinning and dressing skills. There were around nine people in hunting
groups in most cases. So perhaps even in prehistoric times, teams that had a
specific goal required an optimum number of people for success. At the very
least, this is worth remembering.
The empirical evidence I have gathered over the years has convinced me that
each team will find its optimal vitality in part from an optimum size. Too few
people, and the team will suffer from a shortage of capability; too many people,
and the teams energy will dissipate. The role model leader will often
experiment with the team size for a given task and have the competence and
courage to make changes early in the process.
2. HIGH-PERFORMANCE TEAMING REQUIRES HIGH-PERFORMANCE MEMBERS

The members of a team must have the capabilities the project requires. So a role
model leader must evaluate people carefully before assigning them to the team
to ensure that the group will have the capabilities that the project requires. But
at the same time, the team must not be overloaded with more people than the
project requires. It is better to select a handful of highly capable people than a
larger number of people with fewer capabilities.
It may be important to select members with the required skills, character
attributes, and behaviours, but it is essential to select members who can work
collaboratively. The best role model leaders of high-performance teams will
take the time and exert the energy to seek out those members who are most likely
to deliver the best results. The best people will be motivated to do the work
contemplated, will be the most competent people to carry it out, and will have
had importantly relevant experience at the work.
In part two of this book, I described a number of capabilities required for
role model leadership. The characteristics I listed there are also required for all
members of a team. Indeed, it is in the cauldron of the high-performance team
that the competency of role model leading, the idea of Everyone a Leader, is
evident. The more role model leadership the team has, the higher its
performance will be. And the higher the functional capabilities of these role
model leaders, the more likely it is that the team will succeed.
Imagine a team on which everyone has the character attributes of
trustworthiness, respect for people, tenacity for getting work done, and honesty
in dealing with tasks and other team members. This is a high-performance
teaming environment. Then add to that team the functional capabilities of role
model leading first and foremost, the ability to think effectively and to
communicate with others at all levels of thought. Then add to that the ability to

reconcile different points of view and to create innovative solutions, and the
ability to prioritize work and bring extensive experience to the team.
And then imagine recruiting people with role model leading behaviour:
members who are not ego driven, who will not disrupt the teams work with a
personal agenda, and who will not seek ways to gain the upper hand over others
or to leverage the teams performance for their personal benefit. Highperformance teaming is highly dependent on purposeful behaviour ideally, it is
dependent on values-driven behaviour.
And finally, there are few high-performance teams that would not benefit
from engineering and scientific functional capability. This is true even of those
teams formed to deal with organizational issues that would be considered nontechnical. The problem-solving capabilities of a competent engineer or scientist
can add considerable value.
3. DISCIPLINED, SYSTEMATIC PROCESSES ARE REQUIRED

The work of a team must be sharply defined and fully thought out. A useful tool
for this essential component of high-performance teaming is what I call the task
cycle. Each high-performance team needs to collectively develop each
component of this framework, which will then guide the teams actions. This
cycle should be conducted more than once as the team carries out its work.
Also, the task cycle must be conducted jointly, with all members heard, so that
they can determine the need for any revisions to the task. In a newly formed
team, conducting a task cycle should be the first step.
The Task Cycle Model

The task:
Express the teams work in a few words to see if all understand the task in the
same way.
The purpose:
Expressing the teams purpose begins by answering the Why? question. The
answer will serve as the reason the work is being done as it relates to a future
state. The What? question is then asked, and the answer which usually starts
with To do... will be a broad statement that summarizes the actions the team
is to take that will result in the goal being achieved. Lastly, the How? question
generates a series of steps that the team will take to meet the goal. The
documentation of this is often in the What? How? Why? order.
The expected result:
This part of the task cycle requires the team members to clearly and fully

express the outcomes they consider their goal. It also includes specific
quantitative performance metrics that reflect the goal. At this point, it should be
clear to the team how achieving the outcome will bring positive change to the
organization and how the teams success will meet the needs of each
stakeholder on the team and those of the business organization as a whole.
The team process:
There needs to be a discussion and an early decision on the value-add process
the team will apply to determine the steps required to do the work. Will there be
discussion, presentation, subteam work? Will there be regular meetings? The
process to be used needs to be disciplined, orderly, and systematic. It can
evolve once the project has begun.
The functioning capability:

This refers to the skills, character attributes, and unique behaviours required to
achieve the outcomes expected of this specific team. It includes a commitment
by the team leader to help her team members develop leadership competence. In
fact, the selection of team members should be based on whether the people
being chosen are motivated to learn leadership capabilities while serving on the
team. Those who will are the ones who should be chosen. Here is where the
identity of the people on the team is described and where the questions are
answered regarding who will be executing what, where, and when.
An Example

The task:
The manufacturing plant managers will be working together to improve safety
in their plants.
The purpose:
(What) To rapidly reduce the level of measurable injuries across the
companys manufacturing plants.
(How) The senior leaders of all the manufacturing plants will work together
and learn together for the purpose of finding ways to change things in a
positive manner to improve safety in the workplace.
(Why) In order to achieve the future state goal of zero injuries in the
workplace.
The expected result:
A path towards a 10 per cent year-over-year improvement in recordable

injury frequency from the current state.

Growth in the manufacturing plants leadership capabilities required to
achieve the goals described. (This is a developmental learning outcome
every high-performance team has one.)
The team process:
A series of meetings, estimated to span one year at least once per month of
all plant leaders. The team is to include a highly experienced and competent
expert in workplace safety from a role model plant as well as front-line
operators from the poorest-performing plant.
Subteams on leading and leadership capabilities will be required, as well as
a subteam on information gathering and utilization.
The functioning capability:
Specifically the most senior leadership from each manufacturing plant.
Specific expertise in workplace safety technologies and manufacturing
practices.
Specific expertise in the behaviour and capabilities of the front-line workers
(e.g., relating to practices and procedures).
Expertise in leading and leadership competence to fulfil the need for all on the
team to develop their capability as part of the work an individual who will
be the leader of the team for this task.
4. EVERYONE MUST ACCEPT ACCOUNTABILITY

The role model leader will emphasize the need for all members of the team to
accept accountability for the teams success.
Specifically, the role model leader of the high-performance team will accept
personal accountability for achieving the teams goal. Also, that person will
influence others on the team to hold one another accountable for the results. All
members will have personal objectives related to meeting the teams goal, and
they will influence, encourage, and assist the other members to assume their
personal responsibilities for achieving that goal as necessary.
Integral to this collective acceptance of individual and team accountability is
honest collective feedback. Each person on the high-performance team needs to
feel responsible for providing feedback to the team on its performance and also
to feel responsible for providing feedback to other individuals on the team with
regard to their performance relative to the goal. All of this will require the
teams role model leader to teach the skills, character attributes, and purposeful
behaviour required teaching and developing the requisite leadership
competency in each member.

And finally, there must be accountability in the team to achieve the teams
goals do the work, meet the goals, end the work, move on to other tasks.
5. EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE ENGAGED IN LEARNING

The previous discussion on accountability described the need for role model
teaching and performance.
First, the leader of the high-performance team needs to exhibit exceptional
leadership competence. That person must also be prepared to engage the entire
team in the ongoing development of leadership competence. The most effective
way to do this is by integrating the work directed at achieving the goal with
developmental teaching. For example, if the teams goal is to improve some
aspect of workplace safety, then the development of leadership capability might
focus on behaving ethically, achieving reconciles, respecting other people, and
so on.
The difference between a high-performance team and a team that is merely
effective has mainly to do with the leadership development that is part of the
high-performance teams agenda. The leader of a high-performance team
understands that the competence concentrated in that team provides a great
opportunity to develop future role model leaders for the organization as a
whole. Extra time will be required to inject the work of leadership development
into the project the team has been assigned, but that extra effort will pay off in
the future for the organization. There is no better environment for developing
leadership than in the cauldron of a high-performance team doing work of great
importance and urgency.
A leader who is skilled at teamwork will state at the outset that one objective
is to maximize team performance. He will realize that teamwork is an
opportunity for developing the self and for learning to be a better person and
leader.
This leader will also be aware that another key aspect of his role on the team
is to protect its members from outside influences that might distract them from
their goal. In other words, this leader will influence those outside the team to
support his team members and their goals. Moreover, if some people in the
organization threaten to interfere with the team, the role model leader will need
to protect his team from them. Recall from part two that Kalev Pugi was superb
at this aspect of leadership: he won support for his project at headquarters and
made sure that his team had the funding, resources, and time to develop an
important new manufacturing process.
This is not to say that all outside influences are negative. The role model
leader also needs to be open to positive outside influences and provide a
conduit for them. For example, the role model leader can locate the necessary
technology and other potential value-adds as the team requires them.

6. UNDERPERFORMING TEAMS MUST BE IDENTIFIED

The role model leader of a high-performance team needs to realize that unless
the team has a continuous improvement mentality a developmental mentality
it may not perform to its potential. Generally, an underperforming team has one
or more of the following characteristics:
The team members do not collaborate. This fault is then magnified because
those individuals who are experiencing difficulties are not being supported
by others.
The leader and the members have not created a disciplined process for the
work, which leads to wasteful actions.
Overall, the team leader has not established a team commitment to a clear
goal. As a consequence, the members are focusing on themselves rather than
the goals.
Other Organizing Entities
As I noted earlier, there are other approaches to collaboration that role model
leaders can find very useful. These should be absorbed as integral parts of a
high-performance work system. If used effectively, each has the potential to
improve the vitality of the organizations people.
CORE TEAM

A core team is a coordinating team for a related group of other teams with all
the attributes of a high-performance team. Each member of the core team is a
leader often a role model leader and each is the accountable leader for the
related teams. A core team is important for large strategic projects in which a
number of teams must all be coordinated to achieve an overall goal. The core
teams purpose is to ensure the effectiveness of each of the related teams so that
the overall goal of the strategic project is achieved.
An example is the core team at the very top of a company: the CEO, CFO,
CTO, and so on. It includes all of the people who are accountable for
developing their own leadership competence and leadership competence of the
enterprise and those who are accountable for setting the companys overall
direction to achieve the companys aspiration. There can be core teams at all
levels of the organization: large engineering projects may benefit from the
direction of a core team; dealing with strategic customers may require the
attention of a core team; and so on.
WORKING GROUP

A group is not the same thing as a team. A working group comprises a number of

individual contributors headed by a leader-manager who has a specific goal and

who has formed the group to work on meeting that goal. The leader-manager is
focused on the goal; the members of the group are focused on their individual
contributions, which are coordinated by the leader, often in an authoritative,
albeit purposeful manner.
As we learned in part twos discussion of leadership styles, the authoritative
style can be useful when a crisis develops or a special situation demands it. The
role model leader may sometimes revert to this style from a more collaborative
style for a specific purpose. A crisis often demands that the role model leader
get specific work done, and that leader may need to recruit people with specific
competencies in order to achieve his goals. So he will form a working group,
explain the crisis or special situation, and clearly explain his goals as well as
his need for help in reaching them. The role model leader should, of course,
explain that his newly adopted authoritative style is specific to the crisis at hand
and that it does not mark a change in his dominant style.
A working group often develops into a team later on when the moment is
right.
COMPETENCY NETWORK

This is an organizational network dedicated to improving the capabilities of

others. Such networks are important components of a high-performance work
system. They are designed to improve functional skills across the organization.
Role model leaders from all functional areas of the organization form these
networks to improve the competencies on which sustainable growth relies.
These leaders understand that improvements in value-add demand functional
competence. They also understand that high functional competence enhances the
organizations vitality.
So within the company, as part of the high-performance work system,
finance, marketing, manufacturing, and research indeed, all the major
functional people and leaders will form and participate in functional-specific
competency networks. This concept will extend to the highly specialized
functional areas within each of the larger networks. For example, the
manufacturing competency network will act as a core team for a maintenance
network, a technology network, a safety expertise network, and so on.
VIRTUAL COMPANY

This organizational entity was developed in DuPont Canada as an important part

of our developmental learning approach and culture. It is an interdependent
structuring that complements the competency networking and the highperformance business teaming. It is, in fact, the natural interdependent reconcile
of the two. The Virtual Company idea is a further means to generate more

business productivity, improve the quality of the companys offerings to

stakeholders, and enhance the service to those stakeholders. For example, in
DuPont Canada we had a number of these organizational processes; one was the
Sales and Marketing Virtual Company. It was composed of sales and marketing
functional representatives from all the various high-performance business teams.
The goal of the Virtual Company was to work across the high-performance
business teams in a way that utilized and sought synergies and novel customer
solutions. For example, paint technology and products were coupled with
packaging films technology and products to envisage a unique offering to
colour metal parts and to increase the value-add for the whole company.
Developing a High-Performance Culture
Culture can be defined as the identity of any organization. It is who the people
are and how they work together.
The idea of organizational culture as an important aspect of the study of
organizations arose in the early 1980s and 1990s. The first time I heard the
word related specifically to business organizations was in the early 1990s,
when Louis Gerstner, in his book Who Says Elephants Cant Dance? talked at
length about the overriding importance of developing a strong culture.1 Gerstner,
an engineer, was already a highly successful and experienced leader of
organizations by the time he came to IBM to fix a failing company. He is widely
credited with saving IBM from collapse. He did so by refocusing the company
so that it emphasized IT services rather than the production of mainframes; he
also moved the company to embrace the Internet as an innovative business
opportunity. But equally important, he launched a successful, broad-based effort
to revitalize the companys culture. In essence, he changed it from a set of
disjointed groups and business units into an integrated whole of value-add
processes dedicated to a unifying direction. The people at IBM responded to
this new direction and learned how to work together.
Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines culture as follows: The
integrated pattern of human behavior that includes thought, speech, action,
artifacts and depends on ones capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge
to succeeding generations. Culture can also be viewed as an organizations
brand or its character. A brand is difficult to define, but when you experience it
you know it is special. Coca-Cola is a brand; Disney is a brand; Levi Strauss is
a brand. A brand is an identity the identity of a product, a service, a business.
Fundamentally, it is the characteristic that makes something special and
memorable.
In the past, I have worked with consultants from McKinsey & Company and
they would often tell me their definition of culture in their company is the way
we do things around here. That is a favourite of mine.

To flesh this out, a culture is the attitudes, skills, and behaviours that
characterize an organization. It is the set of characteristics that everyone in the
organization knows and that outside observers notice most clearly, though
perhaps not as clearly as insiders.
Every organization of any kind has a distinct culture. Almost everyone would
agree that an organizations culture affects how it does things and how its
people behave. Much research has shown that high-performance companies are
more likely to have a well-defined, well-understood, and sustainable culture.
Organizations like these are stronger because they are able to generate more
unity of purpose and behaviour. A strong culture has developed a system of
informal behaviours and attitudes, which its people then internalize, adapting
them as necessary. This internalized system of attitudes and behaviours tends to
align people in their work. The stronger the culture, the more collective action
and loyalty exist among its people.
Over many, many years, DuPont Canada developed a strong and welldefined culture. In simple terms, the company existed because it expected its
people to be innovative and developmental; it also expected them to look out for
one another and to show care and concern for all stakeholders. We felt a
collective loyalty to the organization; we were DuPont Canada people, not
engineers, accountants, or some other function.
Role model leaders know that a strong organizational culture is important to
their work of influencing people to make positive change. They also know they
must take into account the organizations culture when exerting that influence. It
can be difficult to change things in a culture that strongly resists change. At the
same time, if the culture is strong, the positive impact of change can be greater
than if the culture is weak because the people who have been influenced to
accept the change are more practised at working together. These people, after
all, recognize that their culture is strong, and they value that strength. So once
they have been influenced to change, that change is likely to be more
sustainable.
The leader must understand her organizations culture and apply that
understanding when influencing people to make positive change. Only in this
way can she hope to be effective as a change agent. Having grasped the culture,
she can work within it, sometimes changing certain aspects of it in order to
create a new future state.
When engaging an organization in a change process, the role model leader
has choices to make:
Introduce change in a direction that does not affect the organizations culture.
Introduce transformational change that will require major changes in the
culture where the change in culture will be integral to the change in direction.
Some hybrid of these two.

Whichever option is chosen, the role model leader must take into account the
existing culture when setting the direction for change.
Any significant change in culture needs to be for the purpose of achieving a
better state that is, a high(er)-performance work system. That is a core
premise of this section.
Before discussing the elements of a high-performance culture, the reasons for
developing one, and the challenges of doing so, it would be useful to understand
the key elements of what I will refer to as the conventional organizing
approach culture. I say here and will repeat later: the elements of the
conventional organizing approach are the base and other elements are added to
achieve the culture of the high-performance work system. (These are discussed
in subsequent pages of this chapter.)
Proximate Environment
Under the conventional organizing approach and beyond, a culture develops
over time at least partly as a direct result of the outside worlds influence. By
outside world I mean the proximate environment in which the organization
operates. Key elements of this proximate environment are the realities of the
market and the industry and (often) the geography in which the organization finds
itself.
An activist, not-for-profit, service-oriented organization may operate in an
inner city, in public schools, or in any number of other well-defined sectors of
society. The space in which a Rotary Club operates will be quite different from
the one in which the Salvation Army operates, but each organization will be
well aware of its proximate environment and how it affects its members
character and behaviour.
Similarly, the people at Google can easily define their culture, and so can the
people who work for the Canadian National Railway (CNR). They operate in
very different market spaces and have quite different aims Google might say it
is moving knowledge; the CNR might say it is moving materials and people.
So the reality of your marketplace, and of the environment in which your
business operates, will do much to define the character and behaviour of the
people in your organization and often the skills they must have. Each
organization, given its proximate environment, must do certain things very well.
For any organization, it is the customers or service receivers who define the
marketing, selling, inventory, manufacturing, and other functional processes and
skills.
Customer needs and the character attributes of the customer base are
reflected in the organizations culture. This is easy to understand in reference to
a business organization that is a single-product, single-service provider. But
what about large, complex organizations that serve the needs of multiple sets of

customers? DuPont Canada was a large company with many diverse business
units when I was there. The customer base for the paint business was quite
different from the customer base for the synthetic fibres business. How could
people working in each of these business units be culturally defined as DuPont
Canada people?
In strong but complex organizations, the culture can be defined in terms of
character and skills. For example, DuPont Canada can be described culturally
as a marketing technology and manufacturing in potentially hazardous
environments company. The multitude of products and services offered by
DuPont Canada shared these cultural descriptors. Thus, people in DuPont
Canada and in similar business organizations with diverse business units
can recognize common behaviours and character attributes. Each business unit at
DuPont Canada was marketing functionally complex products; some of these
products were sourced from potentially hazardous manufacturing processes.
This created cultural bonds that in turn affected the behaviour and skill sets of
the people.
This point, about a coming together of skills and character attributes even in
complex organizations, is reflected in DuPonts tag lines as they have changed
over the years:
Better Things for Better Living through Chemistry

Better Things for Better Living

A Science Company

The global DuPont Company is about 200 years old. The phrases that its
marketing people have developed to describe the company have changed over
that time, but DuPont has always been and is to this day described by its
character attributes, behaviours, and skills. It is often described by the new
products it engineers and by its ability to regularly reinvent itself, its
technologies, and its products. This is one statement of culture as seen by the
proximate environment.
Traditions, Totems, and Taboos
In the earliest civilizations there were groups and organizations and leaders.
The leaders were often religious ones who developed rituals or traditions,
often to appease or interpret their gods. And there were always totems or
instruments that exemplified the myriad events and happenings that could not be
understood except as reflections of the behaviour of things they could
understand. For example, the indigenous people of North Americas West Coast
created and carved hierarchies of understanding and erected them for all to see

and thereby understand.

In the earliest civilizations there were also taboos, which were defined as
forbidden actions. People could protect themselves by not performing those
acts. Taboos included things that should not be eaten or touched or practised
because of the harm, often mortal harm, that would result.
So it was in the past, and so it is today.
Traditions are actions that help bind people together. Totems are symbols,
real and perceived, that represent common understanding among people in an
organization. Taboos are behaviours and actions that are discouraged and often
denied to the people in an organization.
Some of the strongest cultures have been defined by their religion. In
religious organizations, traditions, totems, and taboos are clearly defined and
understood. They often take the form of rules, procedures, dogma, and sanctions.
But those same mores also exist in more secular organizations where they help
define and strengthen the culture.
There are many specific examples of traditions, totems, and taboos that
characterize a given organization. Many are the same, but many others are
unique to a single organization. Some organizational traditions, totems, and
taboos are so strong that they are adopted by employees even when they leave
their workplace and go home.
It was always well known that you could identify a DuPont employee in the
neighbourhood on a Saturday morning in the summer. They were the ones
wearing steel-capped boots to cut the lawn. Our safety culture did not stop at the
gate of the office or at the manufacturing plant.
Traditions, totems, and taboos are visible everywhere in organizations. They
include ritual celebrations of team achievements; the elevation of superior role
model leaders to hero status in company historical records; and, at the opposite
end of the spectrum, the prosecution of leaders who have demonstrated breaches
of truth, integrity, ethics a societal taboo for all to witness (think Enron and
WorldCom). In many business organizations there are less visible but still
important rituals, totems, and taboos, such as a Friday night beer with your team,
employee of the month awards, and annual strategic planning retreats.
All of these elements of an organization, though common and often somewhat
trivial, when taken as a whole and repeated over months and years, begin to
define a culture.
Some rituals are much more prominent than others. An example is
Greenpeaces ritual of sending out representatives in conspicuous ways to their
perceived adversaries to generate audiences for their point of view. Greenpeace
will send small boats to circle whaling vessels and oil tankers, and to send out
activists to climb water towers to raise Greenpeace flags and signs. Tactics like
these define a culture.

Core Values
I have discussed the importance of values when defining both individuals and
organizations. I have defined values as the sum of beliefs, philosophy, and
principles those things that are important both to us as individuals and to the
organizations to which we belong. They are the things we hold to be true and
that do much to guide our actions. The importance, to aspiring leaders, of welldefined values cannot be underestimated.
Core values help define the organizations culture. An organization with a
strong culture will have a clear and concise set of core values that everyone in
the organization aligns with. I said before when defining values that it is
possible for a role model leader to have certain values that are not fully aligned
with those established by the organization. But that leaders core values must
not differ. It is inconceivable that a role model leader could have core values
that differ from those of the other people in the organization.
Core values are those beliefs and principles that rise above other beliefs and
principles that might be held; they are values that verge on the mystical, the cultlike.
Examples are everywhere. McDonalds does not just believe in high quality;
they insist on it, and they have designed elaborate systems and processes based
on that core value. Just ask any employee. It is perhaps simplistic to say that
Japan has built its culture around reproducing quality everywhere in its products
and in its peoples actions; perhaps this is going too far, but it is the behaviour
and attribute that most would recognize as Japanese.
The DuPont Company has a set of core values. The best illustration of a
DuPont core value raised to the highest level where it defines the
organizational culture relates to safety. Adherence to the culture of safety and
to safe behaviour has defined the DuPont Company since its founder decided to
work alongside the people in his original explosives factory. As the senior role
model leader, he had decided to eliminate deaths from the unplanned detonation
of black powder in his factory. He designed systems and procedures to achieve
that end; then he decided that the best way to influence people to change their
way of doing things in the factory was to stand beside them and work with them.
This transformed the process for manufacturing explosives. The culture of safety
continued as the DuPont Company moved from a single hazardous product line
to others. The defining of the companys safety culture went hand in hand with
the development of the business. Employees are encouraged to live this safety
culture off the job as well.
The commitment to safety is also reflected in the products developed in the
DuPont laboratories, such as Kevlar aramid fibre. Kevlar is woven into fabric
used to make protective apparel that has saved the lives of thousands of people
around the world.2

I was associated with DuPont by observing and living its culture for more
than thirty years. From that experience I learned that a strong set of core values
helps develop a strong culture and a high-performance company.
Over time, strong values grow into core values. Essential to that process is
the reinforcement and support provided by a succession of strong leaders. There
are symbiotic relations among strong leadership, a strong culture, core values,
and high performance.
High-Performance Work System versus Conventional Organizing
Approach
Role model leaders in a business organization strive to move away from a
conventional organizing approach towards a more ideal state that I have been
referring to as the high-performance work system. All role model leaders pick
up that challenge.
I have discussed the elements that are important for developing a culture
under the conventional organizing approach. Those elements are the proximate
environment; the traditions, totems, and taboos; and the core organizational
values.
The difference between the culture of a high-performance work system and
that of a conventional organization is an important additive element: Everyone a
Leader.
The premise of this book is that everyone can benefit from learning and
practising the skills, character attributes, and purposeful behaviours of
individual leading. Extending that idea to the environment and design of the
business organization will have a powerful influence on its performance: people
will understand others better, they will be ready and willing to make change a
priority, and they will take every opportunity to change any and all aspects of
operations. Whether this involves incremental change or transformational
change, they will engage in change processes at each and every level of thought.
This does not mean change for the sake of change; it does, however, mean that
when opportunities present themselves, people in a high-performance
organization will not pass them up. They will influence the people around them
to reach for the opportunity to improve the organization.
The superordinate target, the aspiration of Everyone a Leader, can serve as
the definition of a high-performance culture, for it fosters ongoing positive
change.
So the difference between the culture of a high-performance work system and
that of a conventional organization lies in the additive element, the
developmental processes associated with role model leadership. Specifically, it
lies in influencing the organizations people to accept the concept of Everyone a
Leader and to accept the strategic priority of everyone developing leadership

competence. Contrast this with the more passive stance of accepting that
leadership is important but without doing everything possible to learn it and
develop it across the entire organization.
The difference between the high-performance organization and a
conventional organization is a cultural one that can best be understood by
segmenting the description into three parts:
The integrated person
The developmental mindset
The self-managing person
THE INTEGRATED PERSON

A culture of high performance encourages people working together to

understand one another at all levels of thought. When people know one another
and have a full understanding of one anothers capabilities, the organizations
vitality is strengthened.
In some business organizations, people are placed in work silos. They are
functional people or business people; they are leaders or managers or planners;
they are experts in selling or advertising or communications. In such an
environment, people tend to be good sometimes very good in specific areas.
The drawback to this model is that these expert people often do not know much
about other things going on around them. And often these experts are not in a
position, nor are they encouraged, to develop synergy with other experts to
create more value across the business organization. The expert engineer is often
consumed by the challenge of problem solving and is focused on this and not
much interested in other organizational issues.
And in these organizations, leadership is all too often in the hands of very
few. The notion of change is in the hands of experts, whom we will refer to as
positional heads or leaders. This sort of business organization is not as
productive as it could be. More output for a given input of talent is possible
when there is cross-functional activity, when all people are involved in leading,
and when all people better understand the business and contribute to creating
value not simply knowledge for others to use.
In a high-performance work system, by contrast, all individuals whether
they are business people or functional experts are thinking about leadership
and doing work as leaders. This challenges them, makes them more productive,
and improves the quality of their individual outputs. More important still, the
quality of output is improved when a business organization is fully integrated
and develops an entire company of leaders.
This principle of Everyone a Leader and everyone a business person and
everyone a functional expert was important to the approach taken by DuPont

Canada. This was most evident when observing the work of functional experts
who emphasized that aspect of their triad of learned competency. For example, a
tax expert at DuPont was well known within and outside the company as a
member of various associations and government forums a true expert. When he
realized that he was not only a functional expert but also a business person and a
leader who had the opportunity to change things for the better, his contribution to
the company rose dramatically. His efforts to minimize tax paid changed to a
focus on optimizing the business process. He began to participate with others in
redesigning various business processes in the manufacturing plant so that they
would be more tax effective. That is, he looked for ways to minimize tax at the
start of the business process rather than after the money had been spent in the
early stages of making products. He also initiated an interfunctional network to
educate manufacturing people in the intricacies of the tax rules and procedures
so that they could find ways to optimize the tax regime an act of role model
leading.
Let me describe two other examples more generalized ones to further
illustrate the principle of everyone learning and practising the triad of
competencies.
An exceptional role model leader near the top of the company hierarchy was
engaged in leadership as his primary competency. But he was also an expert in
the functional role of purchasing he was an engineer and the companys
primary buyer for energy as well as the leader of the companys purchasing
function. In addition, he was challenged to transform the infrastructure the
back room of the company through a systematic review and redesign of its
component business processes and systems. In all of this work, he engaged many
other leaders, functional experts, and business people all of them integrated
thinkers. He enjoyed great success as measured by the waste reduction that
occurred. He demonstrated a disciplined, systematic approach to doing work the
right way.
One more example: One of our talented people was primarily a business
leader of one of our business units. He understood how to create value from his
manufacturing plants, but he also knew how to realize value through
extraordinary customer service and marketing functional work. He had
decided to lead but also to do business. He was the resident sales manager for
one of his businesss product lines. In addition, he organized a network of other
sales managers from other business units to seek other sales opportunities by
finding new customers who valued a basket of company products.
Again, this person was a leader: a business person and a functional expert
working to improve the quantity and quality of his contribution.
When all people functional experts and business people recognize that
they are leaders, and when the organizations culture encourages this integrated
approach, they will in a very natural way work together more effectively.

What this means in practice is that every person will dedicate considerable
effort to learning the capabilities, skills, character attributes, and purposeful
behaviours of individual leading. It also means that the functional capabilities
they brought to the organization as engineers, accountants, technicians will
need to be maintained and improved in the context of their work in the
organization. And these same people will need to become knowledgeable about
the companys business. That is, they will need to learn and think about its
value-add direction; about the needs of the stakeholders; about the key measures
of performance and success; and most important, about Why? How? and What?
their work will contribute to the success of the business. All employees will
continually learn more and understand their contribution to the leading,
functioning, and value-add of the business organization.
This effort and philosophy will apply across the high-performance work
system, thus increasing the vitality of the whole. Let there be no mistake as a
cultural ideal, this effort applies everywhere in the company, from the offices of
the senior executives to the workplaces of the front-line manufacturing workers.
The person who maintains the boiler in the factory is a leader: both a functional
person and a business person. He is charged with learning the capabilities of
leading and thinking about and making positive changes in his area in concert
with others; he is expected to be expert in maintaining boilers; he is expected to
understand at a certain level of knowledge, and hopefully at a conscious level,
the companys business. Understanding the overall business of the company will
allow this expert in boiler maintenance to understand at a functional and
emotional level his contribution to the business. This conscious understanding
will improve his vitality and the vitality of those around him. He will
understand, not just know, the value-add of his work and the work of others in
his area.
THE DEVELOPMENTAL MINDSET

What do we mean by a developmental mindset? It means that everyone in an

organization accepts that ongoing learning is required to become a
developmental one.
In accepting the goal of becoming a developmental organization, employees
are accepting an individual responsibility as well as an organizational one. The
individual responsibility is each person engaged in developing him / herself
with the goal of becoming a role model leader. The cultures identity, as seen
by others, will reflect its employees deliberate efforts to develop leadership
skills, character attributes, and behaviours. The organizational strategic
responsibility is to change, to improve, and to renew all operations within the
high-performance work system. A simple example is provided below.
Sandra, a mechanical engineer in the manufacturing plant, is responsible for
the process of repairing pumps.

Method A: Respond to the need to repair the pump when it fails. Repair the pump and
return it to its original pumping specifications and performance.
Method B: Develop a preventative maintenance system and seek to minimize the number
of pump failures. When a pump fails for whatever reason, return it to its original
pumping specifications and performance.
Method C: Working alongside other mechanics and engineers at the company, develop
new, improved designs for the pumping required in the plant. Continue to work on the
design and continue to improve the pumping function with zero failures as the goal.
Method D: Engage in a team with other functional people in the plant who are associated
with the manufacturing stream that requires pumping. These people could be engineers
who understand the places where the pumps are used, or accountants who understand
the various cost elements of the pumping process. The objective here is to modify and
thereby improve the manufacturing process so as to minimize the energy required to
pump and at the same time, to improve other aspects of the manufacturing process.
Method E: Make positive change in the manufacturing process that eliminates the need to
pump.

The stages of this example move from the conventional approach through
more and more developmental approaches to, finally, a superordinate or
aspirational or transformational approach.
When I was contemplating writing this book, I wanted to describe what I
experienced while working with the people of DuPont Canada. I discussed it
with some of my colleagues. One of them was an extraordinary role model
leader named Art Heeney. Art is an engineer and he moved through the
organization and served in many ways. A number of his roles were in
manufacturing. So I asked him to write a story that could help others
specifically, engineers developing themselves as leaders to better understand
the idea of the developmental culture and organization from the perspective of
those interested in operations and making things. This is what he wrote:
One of the earliest revelations in my manufacturing career was that the way we did the
work in our operations actually served to limit the contributions that individuals could
make to the business. This sounds rather ludicrous and, at that time, I couldnt have
articulated this thought, but there is ample evidence to support it.
I began my career in the role of a maintenance engineer at DuPont Canadas largest
plant in Kingston, Ontario, where close to a thousand employees worked in a complex
and demanding environment. The structuring of the work was equally complex, with
many specialized skills enshrined in a collective agreement. As an example, the
relatively simple task of changing a thermocouple in a hot polymer system required
the involvement of four people. A production operator had accountability for
managing the process and releasing the equipment to the maintenance organization in
a safe state. It was then the work of an insulator, a pipefitter, and an instrument
mechanic to complete the assignment. The principle underlying this approach was
based on a view that individuals capabilities were limited and that success lay in roles
and relationships that were rigidly defined and closely managed. This was a very topdown, efficiency-driven approach to work.

I should point out that DuPont Canada was, at that time, a highly successful
manufacturing company and that its approach to work systems was hardly unique. It was the
way work was organized, and the effectiveness of the approach was seldom questioned.
I recall a shop floor conversation I had with a maintenance mechanic regarding the work
he was engaged in. He told me, I check my brain at the gatehouse when I arrive at the plant
site. His role was defined for him, and creative excursions outside these boundaries were
forbidden. It was at this point that I began to sense the inherent weakness in this approach
to work. We hired talented people, possessing enormous potential, and then imposed work
systems that limited not just their contributions but their personal development as well.
Our managing processes focused on efficiency and gave little thought to the overall
effectiveness of the organization. It fascinated me that these same people could leave the
plant at the end of their shift and be transformed into township reeves, fire chiefs, lay
preachers, or small businessmen. The human potential to serve our businesses was being
squandered.
Fortunately, I wasnt the only one questioning the status quo. DuPont Canada was
blessed with enlightened and courageous leaders who saw these flaws and who initiated a
search for innovative approaches to work. Throughout my 36-year career with DuPont
Canada I was witness to a remarkable transformation. The essence of this transformation
was a fervent belief that individuals possess unlimited potential. The recipe for success is
in finding the means to develop this potential through the work in which people are
engaged.
Over the years, as we evolved our work systems to unleash the potential in our
organizations, it became apparent that there were a number of underlying attributes of this
more developmental organization.
The first and perhaps most powerful attribute was an unrelenting focus on customers.
And by customers I mean those delightful folks who actually pay for our products and
services. In manufacturing we sometimes convince ourselves that our customer is the
organization at the next step in our value-add chain. This is a mistake. Wherever possible,
personal contact with customers should be designed into the work. An organization that
understands the needs of customers will realize the consequences of process variances and
take corrective actions far more quickly than a conventional organization. When the
customer is truly felt in the organization, all of the manufacturing key performance
indicators will improve. There is no more potent source of energy for people than a
meaningful relationship with the paying customer. Weve always known this to be true for
marketing and sales people. Why should it be any different for the people who actually
have their hands on the product as it is being created?
Another over-arching attribute was the need for everyone to be involved in the work and
for all to work together in serving our customers. Being involved is far more than just
getting the job done. It requires each individual to see the larger picture and to appreciate
how their work contributes to the overall goal. Of necessity, these are team environments,
and the ability to work seamlessly with others is essential.
It is also essential for all to possess a willingness to take charge and to act with urgency.
The individuals who are closest to the value-add process are in the best position to
recognize variances and take the necessary corrective action. Too often we have relied on
the hierarchical leader to make the critical decisions. This leads to delays and needless
waste. Instead, provide people with the information they need so that they can make the
right decisions sooner. Information sharing needs to be a natural part of the work. The old
adage that information is power is still true, but leadership must have the courage to yield

this instrument to the team.

The pursuit of continuous improvement must be evident in all that we do. These
organizations must seek to learn through every experience and strive to get better through
each work cycle. Maintaining the status quo is merely a guarantee that you are losing
ground as the world around you evolves and your competition gains ground.
Its obvious that the leaders role must shift dramatically in a developmental
organization. This can be unsettling for those who have developed their approaches in a
more traditional organization. However, once the transformation has been made, the
personal satisfaction gained is enormous. Leaders in these growthful organizations must
have the capacity to visualize possibilities in any situation; they must have a passion for the
value-add process; and they must possess the capacity to command appropriate behaviour
both in themselves and in others.
In my mind, an organization that demonstrates these attributes is one within which all
individuals see themselves as business people, functional people, and leaders. Their
work and their role may shift with the demands placed on them, but in a very real way, they
are all leading.
THE SELF-MANAGING PERSON

The conventional organization usually has individuals referred to as leaders,

managers, and followers. Often, a leader gives instruction to various managers,
who give instructions to the followers, who do the work. This is a rigid,
hierarchical system. It is not my intent here to discuss at length the differences
between leaders and managers in a conventional hierarchical organization
plenty has already been written on that subject.3 I will, though, mention that there
have recently been suggestions that managers must change that they must be
recast as social system architects who enable innovation and collaboration.
That entails a shift towards developmental leadership.4
The vitality of the people in the developmental organization is positively
affected by the principle that everyone can learn to be a leader and that
everyone can lead or follow in a harmonious manner, seeking to improve the
lives of others.
In a high-performance work system that is dedicated to the concept of
Everyone a Leader, it is possible to change the culture in ways that heighten the
organizations vitality and thereby generate positive change. This is an extension
of the individual leading aspect of the developmental leadership model
described in part two. Managing oneself, or self-managing or individual
managing, is really an aspect of the idea of Everyone a Leader. In a highperformance business organization, titles and positions count for less
everyone takes turns managing, leading, and following, depending on the
process at hand. The same person will at one time be leading and at another be
following or managing.
Natural Work Teams

Individual managing can be accomplished through natural work teams. These

are high-performance teams that people form in the area of the organization
where they work. Two examples: in the regional sales office of a strategic
business unit, the people are naturally working together; in a manufacturing
plant, the people are producing a given product. Such work teams are the most
natural way to accomplish work effectively. They are elemental to a business
organization its building blocks, as it were and you see them everywhere.
Natural work teams are usually found in areas where the people are performing
specific tasks, such as in the spinning area for synthetic fibre products.
If the people on these teams are learning leadership skills and have
functional competency (e.g., at selling things, or manufacturing them), and if they
also understand the value-add they are providing to the business organization
overall, they are developmental and in a position to self-manage. So there will
be no need for a sales manager, no need for an area manufacturing supervisor or
foreman. In the above examples, these high-performance teams these natural
work teams can allocate specific managing tasks to the individuals doing the
functional work of selling or manufacturing.
The concept of natural work teams can be extended to multifunction
situations. Consider a natural work team that has been challenged to manage a
strategic business unit. Here in this natural work team we might have a finance
person, a manufacturing representative, a marketing representative, a planner,
and a human resource expert. Again, it is possible for each of these people to
shoulder accountability for an aspect of a business unit managers role so that
there is no role for a manager per se.
On such teams, the individuals are managing themselves, and in turn, this
team of individual managers is managing itself. The managing process has been
distributed among the people who are doing the functional work.
What are these managing tasks?
The manager in a conventional organization uses his authority to control
people and things and focuses on objectives that reflect his specific managerial
role. This dedicated, positional manager engages in various managing
processes such as planning the teams activities, providing the team with human
and material resources, organizing resources for specific team activities, and
exercising control to maintain a steady state in the teams activities so that
certain objectives are met.
It is easy to see that in theory, the tasks of managing can be allocated. But for
this to work, specific competence must exist in the people and the organization.
This competence is the competency of role model leading: Everyone a Leader,
everyone a functional expert, everyone a strong-willed and competent business
person with a developmental outlook.
My experience has been that a natural work team usually does not need a

positional manager provided that it is staffed by people who have strong

functional competence, who are dedicated to learning and who understand their
purpose as well as how that purpose aligns with the aspirations of the
organization as a whole. In fact, a natural work team that is populated with
people like these will be disadvantaged by a positional manager whose job is to
control their activities.
The members of a natural work team which is both a microcosm and a
building block of the high-performance work system can manage themselves.
And when all of an organizations teams operating in this manner are networked
effectively which they are, in a high-performance work system there is no
need for positional managers. But I would add to that: a system also needs to be
disciplined and orderly if it is to succeed in managing itself. And there are many
possible approaches to ensuring that it is.
Over the years, DuPont Canada developed the STAR model (Strategy,
Teaming, Actions, and Responsibilities) as part of cultural changes it made over
many years. That model describes how to develop teams that will manage
themselves effectively in a high-performance organization. In other words, it
describes both a process and a system for nurturing natural work teams. It
outlines managing processes and responsibilities such as planning, providing
human and material resources, and organizing those resources for specific team
activities. As positional managers are eliminated from the structure, their tasks
are assumed by the members of the natural high-performance team. To carry out
those tasks effectively, all the team members need to be competent and they will
have to learn the tasks as part of their overall functional role.
My experience at practising this concept has been that on many teams, the
various individuals migrate towards one managerial task or another. Each
person will have a natural interest and capability to plan, to be the logistics
person, to be interested in people, to be interested in things, and so on. It
is often surprisingly easy to divide managerial tasks into functional elements that
the various individuals on the team are most interested in doing. Obviously, in
some cases, the ones who are naturally interested in planning, say, will need
to learn that skill offline on their own or do that planning in concert with other
planners in the larger organization.
Example:
This example applies the STAR model to a manufacturing environment. The
work of managing will be allocated to the various team members who will also
have specific functional roles such as operating a machine, maintaining a
machine, or improving the machine. These same people will extend their work
to include one of the following managing tasks:
Directing: The person accountable for the collective process who decides the direction

and the goals of the team, group, or organization and its relationship to the overall
mission of the larger organization.
Personnel: The person who addresses the teams human resource capability for
example, this person sources people for the team and matches them to specific tasks.
Materials: The person who acquires and handles the materials and information the team
requires for example, raw materials, disposition of outputs, and shipping.
Planning: The person who forecasts the teams actions and outputs and who evaluates its
progress towards goals for example, by aligning monthly customer sales to output.
Operations: The person who maintains and renews the various processes, systems, and
structures within the teams purview for example, by continuously upgrading the
teams activities in order to eliminate waste.

All the members of the natural work team will be allocated to the various
points on the STAR model. There will be one or more people at each point
depending on the complexity of the team and the organization. They will be
allocated based on their interests and capabilities and expected to continuously
improve their capabilities at those tasks.
A final important feature of the system is networking. Competency in each of
the managing processes on the STAR model is enhanced when all the people in
the larger organization learn together in a competency networking process on a
regular basis that is, when all the people engaged in human resourcing in each
natural work team come together to learn to be better human resource people, to
learn the skills, techniques, and procedures to become expert in that role.
The great benefit of this individual managing model is that it challenges
people to learn more to learn to be competent in the organizations various
tasks. They will become more experienced, more integrated, more
developmental, and more competent.
At DuPont Canada, this mode of operation Everyone a Leader, everyone an
individual manager, the use of natural high-performance work teams was
practised in marketing and sales groups, in manufacturing plants, and in various
functional units such as accounting and engineering. Always, successes (or
failures) could be linked to the presence (or absence) of sufficient leadership
competence on the natural work teams.
Even when an experiment in individual managing was not entirely successful,
the vitality of the organization increased. People were energized by the concept
of self-management. Even when it was necessary to take a backward step by
introducing a conventional manager to the team, that team did not slide back all
the way. Instead, the replanted manager became a resource, not the boss. In
effect, the manager role in these circumstances became that of teaching
individual managing and leadership.
When the experiment succeeded, the vitality of the people on the team was at
a very high level and their performance as a unit was extremely high.
Then there is the question of whether individual managing can fail as a result

of overwork. How can a person performing a challenging functional role such

as engineering or accounting on a natural work team take on additional work
such as directing or planning? Having observed these teams, the answer is clear
to me: people are energized by the concept of individual managing. I am
convinced that people who are vitalized in their work have almost limitless
potential to achieve.
I have observed firsthand the integrated nature of viability (function), vitality
(being), and virtue (will). Leaders who increase their followers vitality by
extending them opportunities to manage themselves are reinforcing the inherent
motivation of employees across the company to do the right things and thereby
the virtue of the organization. And, based on my experience, there is a strong
correlation of self-managing and the functional (viability) results such as
increased revenue and other growth performance measures across the
organization.

13 Virtue

Let me continue the story of Stephen and the engineering division. Some time
has passed and LargeCo has benefited greatly by transforming itself from a
conventional organization into a more developmental, process-oriented,
learning one. The companys other division leaders now recognize Stephen and
his engineering division as an organizational development laboratory.
One day, Stephen asks the president of LargeCo for time on the agenda of his
core team. The core team is the organizational entity that the president consults
with when developing the companys various functional and business leaders.
As the head of the engineering division, Stephen is a member of that team.
It is the third anniversary of the day Stephen joined the company. The week
before, he had decided that it was time to introduce a new idea to ensure that
LargeCos growth momentum will be sustainable.
In his presentation to the Business Council (which is what the president calls
his core team), Stephen compliments the team on the success they and their
people are having at growing peoples competence and organizational
effectiveness. LargeCos productivity, quality, and customer service measures
are all at historic highs, and so is morale within the company. But then he adds:
Growth can only be maintained if the company is sitting on a three-legged
stool. This gets their attention.
He continues: Were adding tremendous value through our work at meeting
the companys goals and objectives, and were working together across the
company in innovative, developmental ways. And, importantly, were
developing a strong developmental culture. He observes that LargeCo is
intensely focused on serving customers and developing people as leaders of
positive change. They all should be proud of this, he tells them, but they should
be taking action to always do the right things as perceived both by the
companys own people and by society at large that is, by all stakeholders,
broadly defined.
This sets the stage for a very rich conversation among the senior leaders of
LargeCo. As the meeting wraps up, Stephen, the president, and the other senior
leaders agree to create high-performance systems in the company that will be
dedicated not only to adding value and working together effectively but also to
doing the right things for society and for the companys other stakeholders. They
agree to work together to design some of these systems and to do so quickly.
Stephen is leading the company to concentrate on serving all stakeholders,
including society at large. This is something that many conventional
organizations neglect to do.

If a high-performance work system is to generate sustainable growth, the

people in that system must be highly motivated. The drive to increase value-add
can only be sustained if the people believe the work being done is the right
work that is, if it is virtuous work. Virtue in this sense can be defined as the
willingness of people to strive for superordinate performance. So in this section
I describe a number of leadership processes that can help foster a more virtuous
organization under these three key headings:
Creating a harmonious relationship with society
Treating people fairly
Making decisions to do the right things
Creating a Harmonious Relationship with Society
Much has been written about business organizations serving societys needs in
addition to those of customers, employers, and shareholders. Over the years,
this idea has been gaining acceptance as a legitimate and important criterion for
the very best ethical business organizations. The reason to serve and support
neighbouring communities is to avoid controversy and unrest. This is often
called public relations, but just as often, it reflects genuine concern for ones
neighbours.
Of course, service organizations such as the Red Cross, the United Way,
national engineering societies, and so on are business organizations in their own
right and have specific value-add mandates to serve society. By definition, these
kinds of organizations are dedicated to serving their society at a harmonious
level of shared values. Their visions, strategies, missions, and actions are
aligned to achieve shared purpose with specific stakeholders.
Service organizations are more similar to profit-oriented businesses than
many of them want to admit. After all, they meet the needs of their communities
and seek support from donors, who are really customers. They gather revenue
by making value propositions to potential donors. They invest a great deal of
effort in advertising and marketing in order to secure their donors loyalty to
their cause. So we can say that all business organizations, be they profitoriented or not-for-profit, should be motivated (and some naturally are) to
develop harmonious relations with society.
Most profit-oriented organizations demonstrate their commitment to serving
society by dedicating money and human resources to that end. That is, they
donate to communities and causes where social needs have been identified.
Sometimes these actions are of sufficient magnitude that real emotional
attachments develop between certain causes and the business organization.
That is most often a direct result of individual leaders in the organization who
are building support for specific stakeholder communities within their

organizations. For example, a senior leader in engineering may place a high

value on giving to a specific cause such as Habitat for Humanity. That leader
will dedicate personal energy to developing support within the various
organizations in his firm for that cause. In this way loyalty can develop between
the business and the target community. In the high-performance work system of
the developmental organization, creating harmony with society is deeper than
individual leaders and their societal cause.
Creating harmony between the business and society strengthens the virtue of a
high-performance work system. Creating harmony, in other words, is another
way of doing the right thing in this case, the right thing as seen by societal
stakeholders as well as by specific society members, employees, owners, and
customers.
When employees recognize that their organization is dedicated to improving
the lives of people everywhere, they will be influenced to help improve their
organization. They will be motivated to work diligently towards serving its
needs as defined by their leaders. In the same way, customers will want to be
associated with the business, which they perceive as working to improve the
lives of people everywhere.
There is a systematic way of thinking about harmonious relationships
between business organizations and society. In part one, a framework fully
describing the capability of a person was proposed: function (what we do),
being (how we do things), and will (why we are motivated to do things). This
same framework designed for individuals can be extended to help us understand
the capabilities of organizations as they do work. A business organization and
society and the activities of each will be judged to be in harmony when their
function, being, and will are aligned.
At a functional level, society must perceive and understand that the products
and services provided by a business are dedicated to improving the lives of
people everywhere. For example, an automobile manufacturer will move
towards this virtuous objective by improving the safety of its products without
governments and public opinion forcing it to do so. Here, the key to aligning
business with society is for the company to be perceived as doing the right
things for the right reasons.
The alignment of being is a task of aligning emotions and spirit. This, at a
societal level, amounts to a recognition that the businesss actions are energizing
to all people. The alignment of being is the alignment of the collective character
of society with the character attributes of the business organization. If a business
shows respect, honesty, cooperation, and genuine care and concern for its
community, that community will accord that business the same.
To achieve harmonious relations, a high-performance business organization
needs to develop consistent communications with society. This means telling
society the truth about its actions inside and outside its own boundaries. When a

company makes mistakes, it must admit them publicly, tell the community how it
will repair them, and then repair them in a way that indicates the mistake will
not be repeated.
The alignment of will between the high-performance work system and
society at large is a result of the expenditure of large amounts of energy to create
this broad base of understanding. It is the development of aligned operational
philosophies. The philosophy that all societies everywhere in the world hold to
be true transcends culture, religion, economics, and just about everything else. It
is simply this: Improve the lives of people. All developmental organizations
must adopt this operating philosophy. They must then develop processes to
actualize that philosophy. For example, engineers and scientists from a local
business organization may take time to engage with students to help them
develop understanding and appreciation for engineering and science.
Treating People Fairly
An organization that recognizes the need to do the right thing as it conducts its
business will be perceived by its people as treating them fairly. Fairness is a
sweeping sort of word. People will say I very much enjoy my work it is
tough and challenging, but they treat me fairly. People often say that fairness
is the reason why they exert enormous effort to serve the goals of the
organization.
Leading a high-performance work system is largely about influencing people
to do extraordinary things, to change things for the better. Individuals will
engage with high energy in a high-performance work system when they perceive
they are being treated fairly.
Fairness is a broad term that encompasses the extrinsic and the intrinsic, that
has both material components and social and emotional ones. Fairness, like
leadership, cannot be defined precisely, but it doesnt really have to be all of
us recognize when we are being treated fairly. Below I describe some important
processes based on beliefs and principles that are part of my vision of a highperformance work systems ethic. They all relate to this principle:
The high-performance developmental organization treats its people fairly.

In an article in the June 2010 issue of the Harvard Business Review, author
Tony Schwartz cites a 2007 TowersPerrin study.1 That study, which was based
on a survey of 90,000 employees of organizations worldwide, found that only
21 per cent felt fully engaged at work and that nearly 40 per cent were
disenchanted or disengaged. Furthermore, those companies that had high levels
of engagement reported a 19 per cent increase in operating income; those with
low levels of engagement reported a 33 per cent decrease in operating income.
There are many causes of disengagement, so perhaps that study can only help

convince us of the importance of treating employees in a manner they perceive

as fair.
In the following pages I describe a number of critically important factors
related to treating an organizations people fairly. It is vital to a highperformance work system that all of these be addressed. There are others, but
the five factors below reflect the essence of my beliefs and experience.
1. Fair Compensation
Treating people fairly is often viewed merely in terms of providing them with
competitive remuneration the industry, the region where they live, the going
market rate for their skills, and so on. Pay is much like price. It is a given that
the price of the product you are marketing must be perceived by customers as
fair. When a customer complains about price, the role model leader in the
selling organization almost always finds that the real complaint (albeit unstated)
is poor quality or poor customer service in other words, a lack of something
else, not always an unfair price. It is easy to price fairly; it is harder to
determine and address those other unstated issues. That is the challenge that
must be addressed by the role model leaders of a virtuous, vital, and viable
high-performance work system.
The same logic can be extended to paying people fairly. Paying fairly is not
something to be debated it is obviously an important component of the highperformance work system. So it will be taken as a given in this book.
2. The Right Organizational Values
An organizations values are those things it holds to be true. They are the
beliefs, philosophy, and principles that guide its actions. They are determined in
a variety of ways for the purpose of serving the organizations needs.
There are huge differences in the values that different business organizations
hold as their guides to setting goals. Most companies, though, have statements
that in some way reference the value they place on people: Care and concern
for people, Treat people fairly, Pay people well, and so on. And most
companies in their statements also refer to serving society: Do no harm to the
environment, Serve societal needs, Donate X percent of revenue to local
communities, Support local charity Y, and so on. And, of course, these
statements often refer to financial beliefs and principles: Excellence,
Innovation, Grow the business at rates greater than GDP, and so on.
We as individuals and as employees will have our own sets of beliefs and
principles that determine our goals. These will tend to be very specific to who
we are, to how we think about things, and to our history, among other factors.
Goals such as I want to retire at fifty-five, I want to be perceived as socially

responsible, I want to be happy, and My family is most important. So

regrettably, there are often I should say, there are almost always differences
in goals between the employee and the business organization, as well as among
employees. The organizations people can choose to ignore those differences, or
they can live with them, or they can question the enterprises values and goals.
Reconciling differences in values in positive ways by engaging employees in
thoughtful conversation and discussion to reach agreement on a set of core
values is one way to strengthen the virtue of the business organization. Showing
respect for employees values can be another powerful way of highlighting that
the organizations beliefs are important to it and that its people should try to find
common ground between their beliefs and those of the organization.
It would be even more powerful to say that the business is open to changing
what it stands for based on its employees beliefs. The nature of values is such
that there is no better way than that to align the behaviour of the entire business
organization with that of its individual employees. This approach holds the
potential for a business to relate to its employees at an ethical level. When that
potential is there, the human beingness of the organization is converging with
that of the individual employees and the business organization is becoming more
virtuous and it follows more of a high-performance work system.
3. Asking Individuals to Grow beyond Their Expectations
In a high-performance work system, respect for individuals is an important
aspect of treating them fairly. One way of expressing this respect is by expecting
them to exceed expectations; to grow and perform beyond the boundaries of
their individual work objectives; to exceed the boundaries established for them
by the organization; and to do all of those things often.
In the same way, the individual in a developmental high-performance work
system should perceive the enterprise as often going beyond the expected
service to its employees; as doing more than is necessary to inspire employees
loyalty; and as making every possible effort to achieve a harmonious
relationship.
To expect people to exceed their normal performance and achieve
extraordinary things is to respect and admire them as leaders. And a highperformance work system will find ways to celebrate extraordinary individual
performance that exceeds expectations.
The high-performance work systems I have known first-hand embrace the
concept of personal developmental objectives. Grow yourself as you grow the
business. This process involves asking individuals to think about and do work
that challenges them in order to exceed expectations in an arena where they have
capabilities that have not been fully developed. They then perform work that
benefits the organization greatly and at the same time grows their capabilities.

These objectives, having been met, exceed the expectations that the each of
these individuals originally held.
Say, for example, that a research engineer working on a new product for a
new market has challenging objectives. But this person also has a personal
development objective, which is, that she will do this work within a much
shorter time frame by influencing others, inside and outside the company, to
participate on a special team of experts; and she has another personal
development objective, which is to reach an understanding with a valued
customer that will allow her to use its facilities to test various products before
commercialization (the point being to allow faster and more cost-effective,
internal development of candidate products, albeit with some risk and cost to
the customer).
There is no greater inspiration for an employee than the achievement of
individual-directed high-performance goals. Role model leaders need to
challenge people to develop their capabilities by setting and meeting highperformance work objectives.
4. Asking People to Be Accountable
A virtuous business organization will have well-defined and developed
accountability processes for individuals, groups and teams, and the organization
as a whole.
At each of the stages of any change process designed to improve the
organizations viability, clear accountability must be established. This is the
right thing to do; it is also the fair thing to do. People cannot do their best when
they are uncertain of their accountability and that of their fellow employees.
Furthermore, when everyone understands their accountability and understands
that the company has strong procedures for ensuring it, this can significantly
improve the results of a change process.
Accountability brings structure, focus, and clarity to individuals actions.
Providing all three is necessary to role model leadership. Role model leaders
understand the critical balance between freedom and order when leading people
in a change process. They understand that without an emphasis on
accountability, and without mechanisms to ensure it, there can be no freedom.
Orderly processes that lead to predictable results provide space and time for
thinking and innovation.
Without order, there can be no freedom. If a business had to invent a process
for implementing a project each time it launched one, that business would be
consumed by those processes and its people would have neither the freedom nor
the time to engage in creative thinking to achieve extraordinary innovation.
There is a simple framework that leaders can use to organize people in a
work process with defined accountabilities so that there is no confusion about

their roles. It is called the RACI framework (or ARCI, as I will call it
here):
Accountability. Which specific individual in the organization and work
A
process will be held to account for the outcome of a given action or

objective?
R
Responsibility. Which of the individuals will collaborate on given action(s)?

Consult. Which select individuals should be consulted about the action(s) or

C
objective(s) so that the people in the work project will benefit from that

consultation?
Inform. Which select individuals need to be informed about actions and / or
I
the outcomes of actions so that the accountable and responsible people will

benefit from that information transfer?

The people in the work project, having been influenced and / or directed to
assume one of the above ARCI roles, are better able to understand their place
in an accountability matrix. Using this framework, the project work team can
create an orderly approach to communicating among themselves and with others.
This will in turn create for them the opportunity to develop the required
innovative approaches to their action plans without fear of misunderstandings
and confusion. It will also be viewed as fair by all.
Lets expand on this idea of accountability with regard to taking action. Two
topics in particular will underscore the importance of accountability:
Goals and objectives
Measurement of actions and results
First, every strategic work or project group (or subgroup) needs a set of
agreed goals, as well as objectives for each individual and for the whole group.
The distinction between a goal and an objective can sometimes be ignored, but
in the spirit of being disciplined and systematic, lets make that distinction. A
goal is a more idealized measure of a projected accomplishment, the measure of
perfection achievable in a given time frame. An objective is specific and is the
expected measurable accomplishment of a value-add step. So if the strategic
project is designed to reduce the number of injuries in a manufacturing
operation, then a goal might be to reduce the injury frequency this year to the
lowest in the past decade, whereas the objective might be to reduce injury
frequency this year by 20 per cent over last year.
For the sake of accountability, it is extremely important for role model

leaders to measure outcomes. That is, the goals and objectives that define the
work to be done must be accompanied by specific promises to deliver specific
results. Every member of the strategic project team will have his or her
performance measured relative to the goals and objectives. These measurements
can be absolutes, ranges, financial ratios, or something else, as long as they are
specific. They need to be numeric whenever possible so that success can be
quantified.
Earlier in this book, I urged aspiring leaders to focus on productivity,
quality, and stakeholder service measures of performance.
Measurement is a precursor to inspiration and credibility. Role model
leaders seek to inspire those who would be led. They help followers set
aggressive but doable goals. They then work with their people to help them
accomplish those goals. Role model leaders in so doing will have inspired their
people to believe they can accomplish much; moreover, those people will
perceive as fair the demands being placed on them. When the measurable goals
have been achieved, the role model leaders credibility and trustworthiness will
have been enhanced. Role model leaders who set the direction for change,
challenge their people to be accountable, help them set aggressive
implementation plans and goals, and help them achieve measurable goals, will
have grown their emotional bank account with their followers and will be
perceived as influential and inspirational leaders.
Finally, it is important that leaders regularly review the actions and results of
the various groups, teams, and individuals working on strategic projects and
subprojects. These operational reviews are opportunities for the leaders and
the people in the work unit or project to communicate, to learn, and to receive
feedback on their actions and results. Each operational review has an expected
result, one that is often a new direction. And importantly, each one meets the
needs of the individuals who are seeking feedback on the importance of their
contributions.
5. Linking Peoples Work with Their Lives
The target here is to have individuals working with high energy and spirit to add
value to a high-performance work system. Role model leaders influence their
employees to dedicate that mental and emotional energy to their work. The
employees will perceive this as fair when they sense that the organization
understands that they have a life outside the organization a life, moreover,
with its own values. So a high-performance work system will develop ways to
honour that reality. This is yet another virtue that the organization needs to
develop.
A conventional organization acknowledges its employees lives outside the
organization by providing benefits. It makes these contributions in the form of

health and insurance plans, vacation time, memberships in recreational clubs,

and so on. High-performance work systems fully acknowledge that people need
time and energy for personal needs. They provide benefits that add value for the
business and for the employee. These benefits establish a more seamless
boundary between work and life, and they often allow individuals to develop
capability and competence. Some examples:
Providing new technology updating home personal computers, PDAs, and so
on.
Providing opportunities, funding, and time for employees to attend university,
college, and various courses where new capabilities can be learned. These
need not be related to roles within the company.
Making a commitment to promote from within the organization rather than
from outside the organization.
The role model leader will seek many different approaches to providing
opportunities for reciprocal maintenance between the employee and the business
organization. Innovative ways to do the right thing as perceived by
individuals often link personal values with organizational ones. Put another
way, a high-performance work system links employees goals to the
organizations future-state goals. By contrast, a conventional organization offers
benefits that are linked to short-term, controlling goals.
Making Decisions to Do the Right Thing
It is not always easy to influence a business organization to make the right
decisions. Courageous decision making is required in order to generate
successful business outcomes.
Sean is an engineer who founded a company that makes dyes for the textile
industry. This is a tough business because most textiles in Seans market are
imported from developing countries. The companys R&D people have
developed a much less costly product called Product X that has the potential to
make the company more competitive and, more importantly, that will allow it to
sell this dye to its textile customers at a much lower price which will improve
the customers competitive situation as it relates to offshore suppliers.
There is one major problem: the new dye is hazardous to manufacture and
produces a by-product that could damage the environment if it got into the air or
water outside the plant. The plant manager and R&D chemists call a meeting
with the companys senior leaders, including Sean. What will the company do?
Will it produce the new product after finishing the last amount of R&D,
potentially saving its customers from closure because of relentless offshore
competition? Or will it stop the R&D on this new product, for it has no more

money in the budget for the additional work required to learn how to make it
safe? Other projects are progressing and are using the available funding.
At the meeting, the R&D and manufacturing people insist that this new
product would generate more profits and that the shareholders would be very
pleased. The customers would be pleased as well, in that the company would be
materially improving its business by offering them lower prices. The company
in turn would generate more volume from these customers, which in terms of
profits would more than compensate for the lower prices.
The companys employees would be pleased because their jobs would be
protected. There would, after all, be more volume and more work, and no threat
of lost jobs (which will occur if their customers lose the battle against offshore
competition). Also, the employees are willing to accept and believe they are
able to safely reduce the potential added risk of producing this new product. It
is time for Sean, the CEO, to speak. He is an admired role model leader who
has provided the company with inspirational leadership for many years. He asks
the group to assess the impact on the communities around the plant and beyond.
He also asks them to understand the need for the company to make right
decisions for all stakeholders as well as continue to create a virtuous highperformance work system, not just one that is viable and vital. They all
recognize the potential for harm to society at large.
He asks the group to find cost savings in the R&D budget by postponing other
promising R&D projects, and to reallocate costs to further R&D on product X.
And when the revitalized R&D work yields an equally good product, but one
with no negative impact on the environment or on employee safety, then it will
be possible to price this product somewhat higher than first planned and direct
the additional profits towards the R&D projects that have been postponed.
The customer will be pleased, even with the somewhat higher price, which is
still lower than that of the legacy product. The shareholders will be satisfied
because of the higher profits even if they are not as high as those of the
potentially polluting product. The employees will be pleased that the company
has demonstrated that it values their safety. And, finally, society will be pleased
because of the potential growth of the company and also because the company
will be telling the communities their products are safe and non-polluting.
Sean made a courageous decision. That is what role model leaders do in
organizations that strive to develop high-performance work processes and
systems. It was an innovative reconcile of opposing views (chapter 5) as well
as a courageous statement that all stakeholders need to be satisfied as part of the
design and philosophy of the high-performance work system.
The generic measures of performance for leading a high-performance
business organization to achieve sustainable growth were introduced in chapter
9. These were high productivity. high quality, and exceptional service to
stakeholders. The outputs of decisions can be thought about in terms of these

defining process measures.

In our example, Sean was very conscious of the need to serve all
stakeholders. This formed the basis of his strategy for dealing with the issue
facing the organization. He and his organization deliberately chose to protect the
value-add by redirecting expensive R&D resources to preserve the profitability
of the customer organizations as well as those of his company. And the quality
of the decisions made was measured in terms of adherence to his organizational
values as a role model leader for protecting the environment, safety, and health
of the people both within and outside the organization.
Productivity of the Decision-Making Process
The decision-making processes of individuals and organizations are of
considerable interest. We all want to make decisions as quickly as possible, and
many people think that great leaders just do it that is, they make decisions
almost instantly when faced with issues, crises, and opportunities. Then others
believe that decisions are best made through broad and deep consultation and
discussion, argument, and confirming measures. These two views represent the
extreme poles of how leaders make decisions to do the right things for the
business organization and themselves.
Leadership decisions, like all decisions, are made in different ways. For
many years people have categorized decisions with reference to the thinking
they entail, broadly speaking, as right-brain or left-brain thinking. Modern
neuroscience has developed quite a different picture anatomically, but in
practice, the essential model still holds: people make decisions in two distinct
ways, better described as logical and intuitive. Logical ways utilize an
analytical thinking process based on reason- or fact-based analysis; intuitive
ways utilize learnings from actions and experience that are stored in emotional
centres in the brain. This is an enormously simplified description of the
differences but will be useful for this discussion.
MAKING DECISIONS IN A LOGICAL MANNER

A wide body of thought suggests that the key to good and right decision making
is exceptional planning. In other words, we can logically analyse a situation and
then take all that information almost always heavily weighted to past events
and determine the best decisions. And since those decisions have been
systematically planned, the implementation will be efficient and effective.
Herbert Simon devoted a lifetime to the study of rational decision making.
He also pioneered concepts of computer-aided artificial intelligence. In his
book Administrative Behavior,2 he describes his belief that as individuals or
organizations acquire more information and knowledge, it is possible for them
to make better decisions. This is the essence of rational or analytical decision

making.
Decision tree models which are still popular are all about comparing and
organizing options and the outcomes of various decisions. They allow us to
decide among several plans. They generate a visual representation of the
various probabilities as well as the risk / reward outcomes of each option. The
decision tree method leads systematically to a preferred plan of action as well
as to a decision to move in that direction.
There are many other such models. All of them use a variety of premises to
sort and sift options and reach conclusions that lead to preferred action plans.
Some of these alternative models are easily found in the literature. These
methods entail logical processes and apply analysis as the overriding feature
when considering what the right decision is at a given point in time. The idea
here is that the best route to a decision is through facts and analysis; the best
results will then be reached.
In their book, The New Rational Manager, Kepner and Tregoe3 propose
logical methods to deal with problem solving and decision analysis based on
logic, procedure and disciplined methods. This book is a valuable summary of
the rational approach to deciding how and what to do when confronted with
difficult decisions and problems.
The appeal of the logical approach to decision making is that it is inherently
thoughtful, orderly, and complete. Most people would characterize scientists
and engineers as logical decision makers. The scientific method involves
making a hypothesis, then conducting experiments to test that hypothesis, then
adjusting it based on the experiments results, and so on until a satisfactory
conclusion is reached. All of this requires a series of logical, analytical steps.
An engineer is also thought of as primarily a logical decision maker, but the
engineering process allows for more intuition, and engineering design can
indeed have emotional elements. The best role model leaders in many of the
best institutions and organizations around the world influence people to utilize
and refine their tools for logical decision making, and thereby achieve excellent
results that is, right and virtuous decisions.
Yet logical approaches to decision making take quite a bit of time and
require additional resources. Diligent leaders and managers will often do too
much analysis. And, even after significant effort, it is sometimes found later that
the decisions were not particularly good ones. That is because when changes
are being made, there are always unanswered questions and murky variables.
The potential consequences cannot be sufficiently clear. Do we know enough
about the impact of the change on customers or on the environment? Many
ambiguities arise when an organization is setting a new direction, and even
more of them arise when that direction is being implemented.
This is where highly skilled role model leadership is a necessity. Role

model leaders who are experienced, courageous, and trustworthy will say: We
have all the analysis we need. Now is the time to stop the analysis and make our
decision.
MAKING DECISIONS IN AN INTUITIVE MANNER

Intuition relies on the mind of each individual. By mind, I mean the repository
of learning, experience, and past analysis that is available to the one who is
making the decision.
The smallest child makes decisions intuitively. Often those decisions are bad
ones, and parents are there to prevent the consequences: they prevent falls; they
remove foreign objects from the mouth; they help the child learn from
experience before any harm befalls him or her. World-class athletes, too, rely
on intuition and muscle memory to throw a strike, sink a long putt, or sidestep
a row of 300-pound defenders. These athletes make their decisions intuitively
from a large inventory of experience they have gained during practice.
In the airline industry from the 1940s to the late 1980s, there was
considerable evidence that pilot error was contributing to many crashes. Since
the 1990s, though, pilot error has contributed very little to disastrous failures in
commercial flying. In fact, the airline industry today is judged to be the poster
child for those who practise six sigma technology. We are much safer in an
airplane than we are driving to the airport.
What caused this seemingly miraculous change? It was accomplished by a
change in culture and leadership style. The leader or pilot in a commercial
aircraft in the 1950s was an authoritarian the absolute ruler in the cockpit. The
pilot made all decisions unilaterally, even in an emergency.
Then role model leaders decided that changes had to be made. Flight
simulators were developed, and pilots were required to take training in decision
making. They were subjected to situations that tested their abilities in many
different dangerous situations, and they were held accountable for learning to
resolve those situations safely. They were scored on tests, and they were
offered incentives to get better in the simulator. In addition, the culture in the
cockpit was changed so that pilots were strongly encouraged to work together
with the rest of the airliner crew to ask for advice in an emergency, to
communicate constantly with them even during routine take-offs and landings.
The same systems and measurements previously only available to the pilot were
now independently available to the rest of the cockpit crew. All of this working
together increased the vitality of the cockpit organization, which contributed to a
safer trip for everyone this was a more virtuous outcome. These changes,
directed and implemented by role model leaders, have resulted in an amazing
improvement in the lives of all the stakeholders in the airline industry.
Intuitive decisions are sourced in different ways and perhaps in different

parts of the brain than logical ones. Modern neuroscience has made huge
advances in understanding how the brain works. These new understandings tell
us that, anatomically, the right / left differences are actually more front / back.
However, brain anatomy and functioning is not the subject of this book. Suffice
to say that our brains make intuitive decisions in emotion centres in the brain
and logical decisions in separate reason centres, with quite different results.
Emotional or intuitive decisions are made on the basis of a brain
experience: the brain learns from failures that have been corrected or
successes that have been achieved. This is how children learn from their parents
to make rapid decisions in everyday life, such as whether to run or walk and
how to pronounce words. It is also how a pilot in an airliner today can quickly
correct a routine landing that has gone wrong because of landing-gear failure.
That pilot has practised this situation again and again in a simulator. The brain,
when asked, makes a quick emotional or feeling decision based on what it has
learned. It also has an enormous capacity to store and manage information and
experience to process it so that it can be used for intuitive decision making.
This is important: the brain has a huge capacity to store and manage experience
and learning, which in turn can be used to make productive decisions.
Patterns of productive thought and behaviour are important to recognize when
decisions are being contemplated. Both intuition and logic are linked to all
decisions, albeit in different proportions. The findings of modern neuroscience,
when applied to leaders decision making, can be extremely helpful in the
development of a high-performance work system.4
The following are guidelines, patterns, and rules of thumb that role model
leaders need to consider when making right decisions:
Difficult decisions, when there are a limited number of variables (say around
five), yield to a logical approach that is, analysis and planning. Example: A
decision about an important raw material for any company when the three
variables are cost, quality, and customer service and when there are a large
number of potential suppliers. This decision calls for a matrix of the three
variables for each of the suppliers, as well as a relative rating system of
some kind to measure the performance of each supplier versus the three
elements.
Decisions involving complex situations with many variables that could
significantly affect the potential outcome, with enormous repercussions for
the business, call for intuitive decision making. Example: A long-standing
research project that could materially change the direction of the company has
many different paths at this point. Each is very different; each has its
proponents in the organization; each will cost a lot of money to continue; and
once a decision is reached, it cannot be reversed. In this situation, logical
analysis of the many variables will very often result in more questions than

answers. Some analysis that fills the gaps in the experience of competent role
model leaders is often useful, but it is best that this decision be made
intuitively perhaps by a small panel of experienced and highly competent
role model leaders with pertinent experience who can share their conclusions
as they relate to the decision being contemplated. They will have formed their
own conclusions based on their store of similar experiences, past decisions
made, and results obtained. In other words, here it is best to call on the
learned capabilities of these leaders.
Complex situations like the one described above, where it is possible to break
down the decision making into segments, call for some degree of intuition.
Example: A proposed merger and acquisition is contemplated, and a large
number of potential partners are available. The first decision might involve a
logical decision-making process to reduce the number of partners to a
handful. At that point, it would likely be advisable to summon some
experienced role model leaders to make decisions intuitively, because of the
large number of variables involved in the final choice. In a situation as
complex as this, decision gates can be used. At the first gate, a few selected
variables are analysed; after that, a more emotional final decision is made
by a select group of role model leaders, reflecting the fact that too many
variables cannot be quantified. This approach often benefits from teams, with
each team dedicated to a specific element of the decision that is being made.
Quality of the Decision-Making Process
Decision making in a high-performance work system goes beyond making good
decisions in a productive manner. In the high-performance work system, the
decisions need to be right, not just good, and not just quick. In the previous
section I described how decisions can be made productively. Both rational,
logical ways and emotional, intuitive ways are appropriate in different
situations. But decisions also need to be of high quality and effective. The
impact of a high-quality right and good decision is most important for
customers and employees.
Mark is a production engineer in the manufacturing operation of an auto parts
company. He is the leader of a team of engineers that has been assigned the task
of redesigning the air conditioning system for a major model of a customers
line of trucks. He is scheduled to make a presentation to other team leaders
working on other aspects of the transformational work (e.g., drive system,
ignition system, entertainment systems) that the company is doing on this truck
model.
During the presentation, Mark describes a series of decisions he and his team
made to advance their work, such as hiring (a year ago) several engineers who
are experts in automotive air conditioning technology and systems. Also during

the presentation, Mark is surprised by a barrage of complaints from the other

systems engineers that the people he has hired are not communicating with the
engineers in their groups; they sometimes stretch the truth in technical sessions
to inflate their own egos, and they do not collaborate in priority-setting sessions
when it is being decided how to share necessary resources from the marketing
and purchasing groups. As a result of all this, the overall project is falling
behind in cost and schedule and many engineers are refusing to work with
Marks new people. They go on to say that they are making decisions in their
project teams without clearly understanding what is happening on the air
conditioning team. As a consequence, the overall project is suffering from a lack
of productive and high-quality decisions, and customers are going to suffer
indeed, are already suffering.
What is happening to Mark is the same as what happens in many places in
many organizations: capable, well-meaning people are reaching decisions that
result in wasteful outcomes or in outcomes that are not totally right,
positive, and high quality. When this happens, organizations need to go
back and rework their decisions for their own benefit and the benefit of
customers.
The first step in developing high-performance work systems that result in a
preponderance of right, positive, and high-quality decisions is to ensure that all
people in the organization are developing themselves (see part two) as role
model leaders. This will go a long way to ensuring that the skills, character
attributes, and behaviours of all people are aligned and that everyone is
prepared to effectively participate in reaching right decisions. Mark saw that
there was not enough effective communication or respect for others, nor did the
new people place enough value in purposeful behaviour and cross-project
collaboration, compared to the more experienced engineers. He surmised that he
needed to engage the new employees in the development of their leadership
capabilities so that they had the same competency as the rest of the engineers in
the organization.
All skills, character attributes, and behaviours (see part two) are important,
but Mark saw that the overriding priority in the situation he faced, if he was to
improve the ability of his new engineers and turn them into high-quality decision
makers, was to instil in them the character attribute of honesty.
In an organization determined to make right and virtuous decisions, all
people must be truthful with one another. This is fundamental. Decisions can be
made logically or intuitively, but all the people involved in them must be truthful
with one another so that those decisions are made in an honest manner.
Then there is the customer, who expects the decisions reached within
supplier organizations to be made honestly. Customers must be able to rely on
their suppliers to make high-quality decisions on their behalf. Honesty in this
case is the collective truths of all the people in the organization, truths that can

be referred to collectively as integrity.

Ethical Decision Making
I have noted that honesty is the key determinant in quality decision making. In
terms of relations between the organization and the customer, the measure of
honesty is integrity. The customer expects the business organization to be honest
in all it says and does; when that is the case, the latters decisions will be of
high quality.
The relationship between the organizations high-performance work systems
and society is also based on honesty. Here the decisions are expected to be
ethical. That is honesty at the level of principle (see chapter 6). Society at large
expects and in fact demands that high-performance business organizations
perform and make decisions ethically, and it will punish and even terminate the
existence of those organizations that do not do so.
Leader-engineers and leader-scientists have a special responsibility to
society to provide direction, to act, and to get results in an ethical manner in
other words, to make decisions to do the right things.
In todays world of rapid technological advances a world relying more and
more on technology leaders-engineers have a vital decision-making role to
play. Leader-engineers influence people to make positive change to make
things better. The developmental leadership model described in this book
encourages everyone to learn and develop the capability to lead organizations to
achieve continuous improvement and change in harmony with all stakeholders,
including society.
Every leader should be prepared to influence organizational strategies and
actions to give life to the following general principles. Role model leaderengineers should be prepared to make decisions and influence the decisions
made by others in the organization who are guided by these ethical standards.
1. In all project objectives in the organization, give priority to ensuring public
safety.
2. Engage in work in the organization that does no harm to individuals or the
environment.
3. Influence business organizations strategies to create sustainable growth that
improves the lives of people.
The national and regional engineering societies and groups that license
engineers and so on, cover the same ground as described here, often going
beyond, in delineating principles for engineering and scientific professionals to
follow. All of these principles are clear and can provide guidance to the actions
of leader-engineers and leader-scientists as they develop and learn to improve

the lives of people through ethical decision making.

Epilogue

This book has described a unique model for learning about the processes for
leading an organization. It is based on the premise that it is essential for an
individual to develop certain skills, character attributes, and purposeful
behaviours as a precursor to becoming competent in the work of leading an
organization. It takes competent role model leaders to create admirable highperformance work systems.
Perhaps the most important feature of the learning framework that dominates
this book is the aspiration for the individual and organizational work required.
That aspiration is provided by the challenge of accepting and seeking two
theoretical states of perfection called Everyone a Leader and the highperformance business organization. Again, the first is the precursor of the
second.
The acceptance of scientific theory and then doing work to prove and live
out that theory is a common activity in the world of science and engineering.
These theoretical states of perfection provide the target for much innovation and
scientific positive change. It is no different in our leading and leadership model.
The superordinate potential as described by the high-performance business
organization will be evidenced by perfect harmony with stakeholders; by no
waste in work processes; and by all people continuously developing as
competent role model leaders and beyond.
This creative tension between the belief in the superordinate target of the
high-performance business organization and work dedicated to the development
of practical outcomes called high-performance work systems is the domain of
the role model leaders everywhere in the organization. This is a developmental
concept the target or theory that provides the aspiration for ongoing
development of high(er)-performance work systems.
The other creative tension is the one between the superordinate target of
Everyone a Leader providing aspiration for the active, energetic development of
practical outcomes and the creation of large numbers of role model leaders
continuously improving their leadership competence.
The culture created as a result of these positive tensions will be
characterized by high levels of thinking, learning, changing things for the better.
Again, there is a close analogy here with the functional work of inspired
engineers and scientists.
A practical key to successful outcomes from these creative tensions is the
rapid ongoing development of a body of role model leaders. That is, having

developmental work processes across the business organization dedicated to

learning and producing competent leaders. Some people will be motivated to
dedicate themselves to rapidly become the very best leaders; others will
develop more slowly according to their own needs and wants; others will want
to dedicate more of their time and capacity to learning how to be more
competent in their other functional roles (i.e., engineering, marketing,
accounting, and so on) and will only dedicate some of their effort towards
learning how to be competent as a leader. The important point is that the
organization of people will evolve their capabilities in different ways,
according to different timetables, and at different speeds. But all need to
dedicate time and effort to learning how to be competent in leading and
leadership to achieve the promise of the high-performance business
organization.
A final comment: There is an overriding need in the world to create peoplecentric organizations of all kinds especially in engineering and science that
are functionally competent, have a great and admirable character, and are
motivated to continually improving the lives of people. In short, building highperformance work systems where leading and leadership is a priority for all.

Index

ARCI framework, 2212

abundance, 76
acceptance, 234
accountability: and ARCI framework, 2212
and compensation, 185
and conventional organizations, 152
and fairness, 2213
and high-performance teams, 191
and measuring success, 2223
and organizational leaders, 93, 168
and organizer leaders, 124
and respect, 104
and role model leaders, 221
and self-management by objectives (SMBO), 74
and the task cycle model, 191
and values, 163
and vision statements, 168
and vitality, 191
action. See taking action
Adams, Ansel, 19
Administrative Behavior (Simon), 227
admired leaders, 1213, 111, 162
Affluent Society, The (Galbraith), 66
airline industry, 22930
Aldren, Buzz, 99
ambiguity, 812, 85
ambition, 212
anticipation, 234
Apple, 19, 118, 121
Armstrong, Neil, 99
Asimov, Isaac, 15
aspirational targets: aspiration defined, 167

and Borlang, 378

and change, xiiixiv
connecting personal and team goals, 97
and CR-8 team, 5961
and customer loyalty, 146
defined, 165
and developing a personal mission, 778
and developmental leadership model, 40
and DuPont Canada, 170
and effective communication, 109
and Everyone a Leader, 46, 127, 170
and food production, 378
and future state thinking, 36, 378
goals defined, 222
and high-performance business organizations, 467, 133
and individual leading competency, 46
and leadership activity, 33
and mission statements, 165, 1704
and moon landing, 38, 99
objectives defined, 222
and organizer leaders, 124
and rapid growth, 13940
and reciprocal maintenance, 14
and role model leaders, 60, 127
and setting targets, 28
and spillover effects, 46
and superordinate targets, 37
and sustainable growth, 137
and the tetrad, 30
and zero workplace injuries, 28, 37. See also future state thinking; influencing
others
aspiring leaders: and ambition, 21
aspiring leader-engineers, 94
and character attributes, 978
defined, 90
and developmental leadership model, 40
and developmental learning, 41

development of, 904

and future state thinking, 45
and leadership competency model, 50, 634
and leadership styles, 115. See also leadership styles; role model leaders
audits, 71, 73, 174
authoritarian leaders, 116, 117, 11821, 126, 133, 1934
behaviour: of authoritarian leaders, 1201
and change values, 1603
defined, 112
and ego-driven behaviour, 113
and ethical behaviour, 100, 1023
and individual leading competency, 634, 66
and leadership competency framework, 634
and leadership styles, 11415
and motivation, 11214
and philosophy of service, 110, 114
and purposeful behaviour, 34, 113
and reactive behaviour, 113
and style, 112
and taboos, 199. See also leadership styles
being, 4850, 217
beliefs: and behaviour, 1603
and the change process model, 178, 17980
and organizations, 1002
and thinking effectively, 69, 72. See also values
Bennis, Warren, 166
biases, 120, 1212, 156
Biox, 1667
Blanchard, K.H., 115
blind ambition, 22
Borlang, Norman, 378
Bossidy, Larry, 175
Bostock, J., 116
brain function, 22930
brand, 1956

business (defined), 136

Canadian Chemical Producers Association, 110
Canadian National Railway (CNR), 198
career development, 904
Carothers, Wallace, 1345
catalysts, 89, 161
Champy, James, 21
change: and action, 20
and administrator leaders, 1223
and aspirational goals, xiiixiv
and change agents, 5, 8
and changing things for the better, 334, 435
and continuous improvement, 1718, 27
and developmental leaders, 127
and developmental organizations, xiiixiv, 157
and DuPont Canada, 33, 2034
and Everyone a Leader, 161
and getting results, 1924
the hierarchy of change, 1619
and high-performance business organizations, 202
and incremental change, xiii, 1617
and innovation, 19, 129, 163
and leadership, 11, 1617, 223, 334, 11617, 177
and morale, 234
and organizational culture, 195, 1967, 1989
and positive change, 245
and role model leaders, 156
and technological change, 15
and transactional change, xiii, 16, 165
and transformational change, xiiixiv, 16, 1819, 127, 139, 157, 197
and the value-add concept, 1524
and value-add processes, 156, 15864
and values, 26, 1603. See also sustainable growth
change process model: and catalysts, 89, 161
and deliberate strategy, 177

and developing a future state vision, 16573, 17880

and developing effective change processes, 15882
developing meaning for, 69, 15964, 17980
and emergent strategy, 1778
and formulating direction for change, 68, 6970, 1647, 181
full utilization of, 17982
and implementing change, 1747, 182
and the interface between strategy and implementation, 1778
and mission statements, 165, 1704, 17880
and partial utilization of, 1789
strategy and implementation, 1778
and using the change process model, 17882. See also learning frameworks;
viability
Chaplin, Charlie, 19
character attributes: about, 63, 958
character defined, 95
and conscious mental energy, 111
defined, 95
and effective communication skills, 10810
and energy, 111
and ethical behaviour, 100, 1023
and future looking, 98
and high-performance teams, 1878
and honesty, 1003, 233
importance of, 34
and inspiring others, 99100
and integrity, 1002, 233
and interpersonal capabilities, 957
and leadership competency framework, 634
and learning, 978
and personality, 97
and physical fitness, 111
and respect, 1035, 2201
and self-awareness, 79
and social and emotional intelligences, 95
and social well-being, 110
and tenacity, 1057

and thinking effectively, 66

and trustworthiness, 1078
and truthfulness, 100, 102
Charan, Ram, 136
charisma, 41, 81
Cheney, Dick, 121
circle of concern, 87
coach-leaders, 116, 117, 1256, 127
collaborative behaviour: and ARCI framework, 222
and the change process model, 17982
and change values, 1612
and conventional organizations, 150
and cooperation, 83
and decision-making, 229, 231, 232
and harmonious relationships between employees, 1845
and implementing change, 176
and leadership styles, 11617, 127
and organizational culture, 196
and power, 120
and the reconcile model, 824
and teams, 1923
and vision statements, 169. See also teams
Collins, Jim, 34
communication skills, 10810
compensation, 143, 185, 21819, 224
competence: and admired leaders, 1213
and ambition, 212
and being, 48
and blind ambition, 22
and competency networks, 194, 212
defined, 479
and development, 135
and developmental leadership, 39
and developmental learning, 42
and extending growth, 138
and function, 48

and functional expertise, 757

and high-performance teams, 187
and leadership competency model, 634
and marketing competencies, 138
and motivation, 63
and role model leadership, 62
and self-management by objectives (SMBO), 745
and thinking leaders, 1415
and willbeingfunction framework, 4850. See also individual leading
competency; leadership; organizational leading competency
competitive advantage, 174
concepts, 70, 72, 181
conscious mental energy, 111
continuous improvement: and change, 1718
and conventional organizations, 44
and developmental work, 423
and DuPont Canada, 208
example of, 27
and future state thinking, 45, 1645
and global competition, 117
and organizational values, 164
conventional organizations: and change, xiii
and collaboration, 150
and continuous improvement, 44
conventional leadership frameworks, xiii
and developmental leadership model, 40
and hierarchies, 434, 14950, 152, 1567
and high-performance work systems, 434, 2019
and learning, 62
and process-oriented objectives, 95
and structure, xiv, 158
conventional wisdom, 66
core teams, 193, 21415
Covey, Stephen, 77, 84, 87
CR-8 team, 5961
credibility, 176
credit, 105, 113

Crick, Francis, 19, 1056

crisis: and authoritarian leaders, 119, 120, 1934
and leadership, 656
and organizational culture, 195
and organizer leaders, 124
and vision statements, 167
and working groups, 1934
culture. See organizational culture
customers. See stakeholders
Dangerfield, Rodney, 103
Davis, R.C., 10
decision-making: and administrator leaders, 1213
and ambiguity, 812, 85
and authoritarian leaders, 119
and collaborative behaviour, 229, 231, 232
and decision tree models, 227
and diverge/converge tool, 86
and diversity of thought, 856
and ethics, 2246, 2334
and honesty, 233
and intuition, 22831
and logical reasoning, 2278, 2301
and organizer-leaders, 1245
and productivity, 22631
and quality, 2313
and role model leaders, 107
and stakeholders, 2334
and willbeingfunction framework, 49. See also thinking effectively
deliberate strategy, 177
design, 70, 73
development: defined, 135
developing leaders, 902, 94
developing meaning, 689
and the developmental mindset, 2059
developmental work, 40, 41, 423

developmental leadership model: and authoritarian leadership, 133

and changing things for the better, 40, 435
and competence, 39
defined, 26, 39
and developmental leadership, xiiixiv, 401
and developmental work, 41, 423
and DuPont Canada, 26
and Everyone a Leader, 40, 64
example of, 278
and future state thinking, 40, 45, 127
and leadership styles model, 30, 1278
and leading organizations, 3940
and learning, 402
and role model leaders, 39, 43
and taking action, 40, 412. See also individual leading competency;
organizational leading competency
developmental learning. See learning
developmental organizations: and change, xiiixiv, 157
and developmental leadership, 44
and DuPont Canada, 2079
and future state thinking, 45
and interpersonal capabilities, 957
and serving society, 110. See also high-performance business organizations;
organizational structure
direction and directing: and formulating direction for change, 68, 6970, 1647,
180
and future state thinking, 212
and management, 176, 212
and the tetrad, 30
diverge/converge tool, 86
diversity of thought, 856
DNA structure, 1056
DuPont Canada: and aspirational targets, 170
and author, xv
and change, 2034
and changing things for the better, 33
and CR-8 team, 5961

and customers, 208

and developmental leadership, 26
and developmental learning process, 62
and the developmental mindset, 2069
as developmental organization, 2079
and developmental work, 423
and Everyone a Leader, 12, 5761, 170, 2034, 213
and functional expertise, 2034
and growth, 1389
and The Guppy, 153
and hierarchical leadership, 12
and leadership frameworks, xvi
and learning, 612
and learning organizations, xvi
and Lets Talk Science, 301
and management by objectives (MBO), 74
and organizational culture, 196, 1989, 21112
and organizational values, 267
and paint business, 33, 138, 139
references to Canadian organization, xvn1
and role model leadership, 5761
and self-management by objectives (SMBO), 745
and STAR model, 21113
and value-add processes, 153
and virtual companies, 1945
and zero injuries, 46
DuPont Company: and core values, 201
and Eleuthre Irne du Pont, 1312
founding of, 1312, 134
and high-performance business organizations, 133
and organizational culture, 201
and organizational values, 199, 201
references to global organization, xvn1
and sustainable growth, 1345, 1389
and workplace safety, 132
du Pont, Eleuthre Irne, 1312

du Pont, Pierre S., 131

Dupre, M., 114
EcoSynthetix, 1667, 170
effectiveness: about, 35
and effective communication, 10810
and leadership styles, 11617, 127
and natural work teams, 21013
and thinking effectively, 53
and value-add processes, 153
and viability, 148
efficiency: about, 35
and administrator leaders, 1213
and authoritarian leaders, 119
and hierarchies, 152
and leadership styles, 11617, 127
ego-driven behaviour, 113, 121
Einstein, Albert, 5
emergent strategy, 1778
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 22
emotions. See character attributes
employer expectations, xixiii
empowerment, 163
energy, 111, 2234
engineers: and engineer-leaders, 904
and leader-engineers, 11, 94
and life improvement, 25
and professional organizations, 103
and value-add engineers, 11
environment, 1979
ethical behaviour: about, 100, 1023
and decision-making, 2334
ethics defined, 102
and fairness, 143, 21724
and organizational values, 1634
and taboos, 200 and virtuous organizations, 2246

evaluation. See measuring success

Every Business Is a Growth Business (Charan and Tichy), 136
Everyone a Leader: and aspirational targets, 46, 127, 170
and change, 1612
and developmental leadership, 40, 64
and developmental leadership model, 40
and developmental learning, 62
and DuPont Canada, 12, 5761, 170, 2034, 213
and functional expertise, 757
as goal, xiii
and harmonious relationships between employees, 185
and high-performance business organizations, 202
and high-performance work systems, 209
and individual leading competency, 46, 202
and the integrated person, 2035
and leadership competency model, 503
and learning from experience, 8990
and natural work teams, 211
and organizational culture, 202
and role model leaders, 202
and the self-managed person, 20912
and self-managing, 209
and teaching others, 85
and vitality, 185, 209. See also leadership
evolutionary growth, 138, 139
excellence, 163
expanding growth, 138
experience, 8890, 122
extending growth, 138
extroverts, 41, 79
fairness, 143, 21724
family harmony, 110
focus, 878
food packaging, 68
food security, 378

Ford, Henry, 5, 19, 66

four-term framework, 2930
freedom, 36
function: defined, 48
functional departments and the silo effect, 44
and functional processes, 1534
and harmonious relationships with society, 217
and leadership competency model, 50
and natural work teams, 21013
and skills, 95
and value-add processes, 153
and willbeingfunction framework, 4850
functional expertise: about, 757
and administrator leaders, 122
and character attributes, 967
and DuPont Canada, 2034
and high-performance teams, 187
and leadership, 11
and processes, 154
and professional development, xii. See also skills capacity
future state thinking: and aspirational targets, 36, 378, 45
and character, 98
and developmental leadership, 40, 45, 127
and developmental organizations, 45
and fairness, 21920
and formulating direction, 1647, 181, 212
and future learning, 98
and goals, 14, 45, 2223
and implementing change, 1747, 182
and the interface between strategy and implementation, 1778
and leadership activity, 33, 346
and mission statements, 165, 1704, 17880
and planning, 36, 45, 1645, 21112
and strategy, 1724, 1778
and vision statements, 45, 16472, 173, 178. See also aspirational targets

Galbraith, J.K., 66
Gandhi, Mohandas, 19
Garvin, David, 66
General Electric (GE), 125, 132
General Motors, 19, 131
Gerstneer, Lou, 195
goals. See aspirational targets
Good to Great (Collins), 34
Google, 198
Greenleaf, Robert, 114
Greenpeace, 1712, 200
ground state, the: defined, 323
and developing a personal mission, 778
and developmental leadership model, 40, 45
and high-performance work systems, 434
and the nature of leadership activity, 334
and taking action, 34
and the tetrad, 30
growth. See sustainable growth
gunpowder business, 1312, 134
Guppy, The, 153
Gurdieff, G.I., 48
Hammer, Michael, 21
Hawking, Stephen, 111
Hemphill, J.K., 10
Hersey, P., 115
hierarchies: and authoritarian leaders, 118
and conventional organizations, 434, 14950, 152, 157
and hierarchical leadership, 12
the hierarchy of change, 1619
and natural work teams, 21011
and process-oriented change, 157
and teams, 1867
and totems, 199200
high-performance business organizations: and aspirational targets, 467, 133

business (defined), 136

and change, 202
and developmental leadership model, 40
and Everyone a Leader, 202
and fairness, 218
and high-performance organizational leaders, 90, 934
and the integrated person, 2035
and learning from experience, 8990
and motivation, 4950
and organizational culture, 1967, 20213
and organizational values, 46, 133
potential of, 235
and productivity, 47, 133
and quality measures, 133
and role model leaders, 47, 133
and stakeholders, 47, 133
and sustainable growth, 133
traits of, 133
and value-added processes, 158
and viability, 1489
and vitality, 1834
and willbeingfunction framework, 4950
and work-life balance, 224. See also developmental organizations;
organizational structure
high-performance work systems: about, 104
and competency networks, 194
and conventional organizations, 434, 2019
and developmental leadership model, 40
and the developmental mindset, 2059
and Everyone a Leader, 209
and individual effort, 1867
and organizational culture, 197
and role model leaders, 2012
and the self-managing person, 20912
and stakeholders, 142
and vitality, 185, 209
work processes of, 1412. See also learning frameworks; processes;

stakeholders; work
Hill, Julian, 134
Hitt, William D., 116
honesty, 64, 1003, 233
Hopcke, R.R., 116
IBM, 195
implementing action, 68, 701
importance (focus on), 878
incremental change, xiii, 1617
individual leading competency: and ambition, 21
and charisma, 81
and developmental leadership model, 3940, 423
and Everyone a Leader, 46, 202
and fairness, 2201
and high-performance work systems, 1867
and honesty, 1002
and individual effort, 1867
and the integrated person, 2035
and knowing yourself, 7880, 103
and leadership competency model, 634
and motivation, 60
and personal mission statements, 778
and respect, 104
and self-awareness, 7880, 103
and self-management by objectives (SMBO), 745
and the self-managing person, 20912
and skills, 634, 66
and stakeholder service, 53
and thinking effectively, 52, 53
and vitality, 185. See also competence; developmental leadership model
influencing others: and administrator leaders, 1223
and admired leaders, 1213
and authoritarian leaders, 11819, 123
and change values, 1612
and competence, 63

and effective communication, 10810

and expanding influence, 878
and future looking, 98
and implementing change, 1745
and inspiring others, 99100
and learning, 98
and Lincoln, 15
and mission statements, 165, 1704, 17880
and morale, 234
and needs, 142
and organizational culture, 1967
and organizer leaders, 1235
the process of, 1112
and professional development, xiii
and reciprocal maintenance, 1314, 14, 89
and role model leadership, 60, 878
and self-awareness, 80
and service, 143
and successful outcomes, 13
and the task cycle model, 192
and thinking leaders, 1415
and trustworthiness, 1078
and visions, 166, 16971. See also aspirational targets; inspiration;
leadership
innovation, 19, 139, 162
inputs, 140, 1524
inspiration: defined, 99
and harmonious relationships between employees, 1845
and inspirational role models, 68
and inspiring others, 99100
and organizer leaders, 1235
and vision statements, 167. See also influencing others
integrated person, the, 2035
integrity, 1002
interdependency, 814
introverts, 41, 79
intuition, 22831

Japan, 2001
Jaworski, Joseph, 137
Jobs, Steve, 19, 109, 118, 121
Kennedy, John F., 38
Kepner, Charles, 228
Kingston Manufacturing Plant, 5861
Kouzes, James M., 63
Krone, Charles, 48, 67
Krone model, the, 4850
Kurzweil, Ray, 15
Land, Edwin, 19
Lavoisier, Antoine, 131
leaders: defined, 1011
and hierarchies, 12
and motivation, 201, 11214
and personality types, 34, 41
values of, 25
leadership: and catalysts, 9
and change, 11, 1617, 223
and crisis, 656
and developmental leadership, xiiixiv, 26
and effectiveness, 35
goals of, 71
leadership competency model, 523
leadership defined, 912, 26, 312, 345
leading defined, 11, 312
and managing, 16
and professional development, xiii, 9, 11, 412
and thinking effectively, 159
and transformational change, 1819. See also competence; Everyone a Leader;
influencing others
leadership activity: and the change process, 1767
and changing things for the better, 334
and developmental leadership activity, 3940

and future state thinking, 33, 346

and the ground state, 33
and implementing change, 1767
the nature of, 301, 33
and project management, 39
and taking action, 33, 34
Leadership Challenge, The (Kouzes and Posner), 63
Leadership for the Twenty-First Century (Rost), 910
leadership styles: about, 11417, 1278
and administrator leaders, 116, 117, 1213, 126
and admired leaders, 1213, 111, 162
and aspirational leaders, 99100
and authoritarian leaders, 116, 117, 11821, 126, 133, 1934
and coach-leaders, 116, 117, 1256, 127
and developing leaders, 912, 94
and developmental leaders, 90, 1278
and hierarchical leadership, 12
and high-performance organizational leaders, 90, 934
and leader-engineers, 11, 503, 5861, 947
and leading by process, 12
and levels of accomplishment, 90
and organizational leaders, 90, 93
and organizational situations, 11618
and the organizer-leader, 116, 117, 1235, 126, 127
and process leaders, 125
and thinking leaders, 1415. See also aspiring leaders; behaviour; role model
leaders
leading self. See individual leading competency
learning: and active listening, 81
and character attributes, 978
and development, 135
and developmental leadership model, 40, 412, 127
and developmental learning, 40, 412, 612, 1945
and the developmental mindset, 2059
and DuPont Canada, 612
from experience, 8890, 122
and fairness, 2201, 224

and functional expertise, 757

and harmonious relationships between employees, 185
and high-performance teams, 1912
and influencing others, 98
and knowing others, 801
and knowing yourself, 7880
and leadership styles, 118
and learning frameworks, 2930
and learning organizations, xvi
and levels of leader accomplishment, 90
and meaningful work, 144
and mentorship, 81, 108
and observation, 81, 89
and personal mission statements, 778
and self-managing, 21213
and sustainable growth, 140
and the task cycle model, 1901
and teaching others, 845
and trustworthiness, 1078. See also teaching
learning frameworks: about, 141
and change process model, 15882
and conventional leadership frameworks, xiii
and derived leadership competency model, 30
and developmental leadership model, xiiixiv, 26, 30, 39, 407
and DuPont Canada, xvi
and elementary leadership model, 318
and four-term framework, 2930
and the Krone model, 4850
and leadership competency model, 4753, 634, 66
and leadership styles model, 11628
and the reconcile model, 824
and the task cycle model, 18991
and tetrad framework, 2930, 32
and three-term framework, 29
and triad framework, 29
and willbeingfunction framework, 4850. See also change process model;
high-performance work systems; thinking effectively

Lets Talk Science, 301

levels of thought: and active thinking, 81
and the change process model, 15982
and diversity of thought, 856
thinking leaders, 1415
and time management, 88. See also thinking effectively
Lewin, Kurt, 114
life balance, 110
life goals, 7880
life improvements: and business goals, 142
and harmonious relationships with society, 21517
importance of, 89
and needs, 1445
and philosophy of service, 110, 114
and sustainable growth, 137
Lincoln, Abraham, 15
listening, 81
logical reasoning, 2278, 2301
loyalty, 1456, 196, 21517
lying, 100
Maltz, Maxwell, 789
management: components of, 212
and directing, 176, 212
and high-performance teams, 192
and management by objectives (MBO), 74
and management support, 60
and managers, 16, 98
and materials, 212
and natural work teams, 21011
and the self-managed person, 20912
marketing competencies, 138
Martin, Roger, 84
maturity, 136
McDonalds, 200
McKinsey & Company, 196

meaning, 69, 15964

measuring success: about, 678, 174
and accountability, 2223
and continuous improvement, 18
and DuPont Canada, 204
and evaluation, 71, 73, 174, 176, 191, 204
and operational reviews, 223
and quality, 140
and sustainable growth, 140
mental states, 76, 136
mentorship, 81, 108, 1256, 127
mission statements, 165, 1704, 17880
moon landing, 38, 99
morale, 234
motivation: and authoritarian leaders, 121
and change values, 1603
and competence, 63
defined, 99
and developmental work, 423
and fairness, 21718
and leaders, 201
and leadership competency model, 50
and organizational values, 163
and role model leaders, 60
and sports, 49
and virtuous work, 215, 216. See also behaviour; will
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), 79
Nanus, Burt, 165
natural work teams, 21013
needs, 109, 1425
negotiation, 824
networking, 110
New Rational Manager, The (Kepner and Tregoe), 228
noble ambition, 22
nylon manufacturing, 5861

objectives (defined), 222

observation, 81, 89
operational reviews, 223
operations, 212
order, 36
order-to-freedom continuum, 36
organizational culture: and change, 1967
and core values, 2001
and the customer base, 198
defined, 1956
and the developmental mindset, 2059
and DuPont Canada, 196, 1989, 21112
and DuPont Company, 201
and Everyone a Leader, 202
and high-performance business organizations, 1967, 20213
and influencing others, 1967
and the integrated person, 2035
and leadership style model, 117
and proximate environment, 1979
and the self-managing person, 20912
and stakeholders, 198
and STAR model, 21112
and sustainable growth, 21415
and traditions, totems, and taboos, 199200. See also organizational values;
vitality
organizational leading competency: and developmental leadership, 26, 3940
and Dupont Canada, 268
and knowing others, 801
and leadership competency, 4753, 634, 66
and leading organizations, 3940
and organizational leaders, 90, 93, 168
and viability, 53, 14852
and virtue, 53
and vitality, 53. See also competence; developmental leadership model;
leadership
organizational structure: and conventional organizations, xiv
and core teams, 193, 21415

and natural work teams, 21013

and organizational design, 1578
and processes, 1568
and systems, 1568
and transformational change, 157
and value-add processes, 1502, 1578
and vision statements, 16670
and work types, 155. See also developmental organizations; high-performance
business organizations
organizational values: and the change process model, 178
and change values, 1623
and core values, 2001
and DuPont Canada, 267
and DuPont Company, 199, 201
and fairness, 21920
and high-performance business organizations, 46, 133
and organizational culture, 11718. See also organizational culture; values
organizer-leaders, 116, 117, 1235, 126, 127
Ouspensky, P.D., 48
outputs, 140, 1524
paint business, 33, 138, 139
passion, 162
Pauling, Linus, 80
people (defined), 24
perfection, 46, 140, 165
perpetual motion machines, 28
personality types, 34, 41, 79, 97
personal mission statements, 778
personnel, 211, 212
philosophy: and the change process model, 1603, 17980
and the philosophy of service, 110, 114
and thinking effectively, 69, 72
physical fitness, 111
planning: and change, 164
and future state thinking, 36, 45

and management, 21112

Polaroid, 19
polymer materials marketplace, 68
positive results, 1924, 139
Posner, Barry Z., 63
power-based leadership, 120
presentations, 97
pricing, 149
principles, 69, 72, 102, 1604
prioritization, 78, 878
processes: defined, 1112
and functional processes, 1534
and growth process, 139
and high-performance teams, 187
and innovation, 19
and operations, 212
and organizational structure, 1568
and organizer leaders, 1245
and planning, 37
process (defined), 11
and process leaders, 125
and systems, 124
and the task cycle model, 18991
and teams, 18993. See also high-performance work systems; value-add
processes
product differentiation, 19
productivity: and change, 17
and decision-making, 22631
and high-performance business organizations, 47, 133
and sustainable growth, 140
and time management, 88
and value-add processes, 150, 152
and virtual companies, 194
professional associations, 110
profitable growth, 163
project management, 39
proximate environment, 1979

Psycho Cybernetics (Maltz), 789

Pugi, Kalev, 5861, 69, 104, 192
quality: and core values, 2001
and decision-making, 2313
defined, 140
and harmonious customer relationships, 149
and high-performance business organizations, 133
and organizational values, 162
and price, 21819
and quality measures, 47
and sustainable growth, 140
and value-add processes, 150, 1523
and virtual companies, 194. See also stakeholder service
RACI framework, 2212
reciprocal maintenance, 1314, 89
recognition, 105, 113, 1434
reconciles: and ethical behaviour, 226
reconcile model, 824
use of, 7, 127
resistance, 234
respect, 1035, 2201
responsibility. See accountability
Rethinking the MBA (Garvin and Cullen), 66
revenue, 149
risks, 106, 162
rituals, 199200
role model leaders: and accountability, 221
and admired leaders, 13
and aspirational targets, 60, 127
and change, 156, 1745
and competence, 62
and core values, 2001
and customer loyalty, 146
and decision-making, 107

defined, 43, 90
and developmental leadership model, 39, 40, 43
and diversity of thought, 856
and DuPont Canada, 5761
and Eleuthre Irne du Pont, 1312
and Everyone a Leader, 202
and functional expertise, 757
and future looking, 98
and growth, 138
and high-performance business organizations, 47, 133
and high-performance teams, 1878
and high-performance work systems, 2012
and influencing others, 60, 878
and leadership competency model, 503, 634
and leadership styles, 79, 118
as leader type, 43, 90, 92
and learning from experience, 8890
and organizational culture, 196
and role model leader designation, 623
and self-awareness, 79
and teaching others, 845
and tenacity, 106
and thinking effectively model, 69
and time management, 878. See also aspiring leaders; individual leading
competency; leadership styles
Rost, Joseph D., 910
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 122
rules, 1213
Salk, Jonas, 80
Sanger, Margaret, 19
scarcity, 76
Schmidt, Bonnie, 301
Schwartz, Tony, 218
scientific method, 228
self-leading competency model. See individual leading competency
self-motivation. See will
Senge, Peter, 80

sensing, 68
September 11, 2001, 656
Servant as Leader, The (Greenleaf), 114
service. See stakeholder service
short-term thinking, 137
silo effect, 44, 203
Simon, Herbert, 227
skills capacity: and developing a personal mission, 778
and diversity of thought, 856
and focus, 878
and interdependency, 814
and knowing others, 7881
and knowing yourself, 7880
and learning from experience, 8890
and self-management by objectives (SMBO), 745
skills defined, 634, 95
and soft skills, xii, 634
and teaching others, 845
and thinking effectively, 66. See also functional expertise
Sloan, Alfred, 19, 131
Small, D., 116
social well-being, 110
societal relationship, 21517
speed, 88, 139
sports, 49
stakeholders: and change, 25, 33
and decision-making, 2334
and ethical behaviour, 2246
and harmonious relationships, 1467, 1489, 163, 21517
and high-performance business organizations, 47, 133
and loyalty, 1456
and organizational culture, 198
and organizational purpose, 136
and organizational values, 163
and value-add processes, 151
and viability, 1489

and vision statements, 169. See also high-performance work systems

stakeholder service: and DuPont Canada, 208
and environment, 198
and external stakeholders needs satisfaction, 1445
and high-performance work systems, 1423
importance of, 53
and individual leading competency, 53
and influencing others, 143
and internal stakeholders' needs satisfaction, 1434
and leadership competency model, 523
and organizational culture, 198
and sustainable growth, 140
and virtual companies, 194
and virtuous work, 215. See also quality
STAR model, 21113
strategy, 70, 72, 1724, 1778
success. See measuring success
superordinate targets, 37
sustainable growth: about, 13640
business defined, 136
development defined, 135
and DuPont Company, 1345, 1389
and evolutionary growth, 138, 139
and expanding growth, 138
and extending growth, 138
growth defined, 136
and high-performance business organizations, 133
and inputs, 140
and maturity, 136
and organizational culture, 21415
and organizational values, 163
and processes, 139
and productivity, 140
and quality, 140
and service, 140
and virtue, 21415. See also change

systems. See processes

taboos, 199
tactics, 701, 177
taking action: action defined, 701, 174, 176
and change, 20, 1746
and culture, 196
and developmental leadership model, 414
and function, 48
and ground states, 34
and implementing change, 1747
and the nature of leadership activity, 33, 34
and strategy, 1724
and taboos, 199
and tactics, 701, 177
and the tetrad, 30
and thinking effectively, 68, 701, 73
and traditions, 199
target audience, xv
targets. See aspirational targets
teaching: and coach-leaders, 1256
and developmental leaders, 127
and organizer-leaders, 1245, 127
and role model leadership, 845. See also learning
teams: and character attributes, 1878
and collaborative behaviour, 1923
and competency networks, 194, 212
and core teams, 193, 21415
and hierarchy of teaming, 1867
and high-performance teaming, 18793
and learning, 1901
and natural work teams, 21013
and organizer leaders, 1235
and processes, 18993
and size of teams, 187
and the task cycle model, 18991

and virtual companies, 1945

and vitality, 185
and working groups, 1934. See also collaborative behaviour; vitality
technological change, 15
tenacity, 1057
tetrad frameworks, 2930, 32
Thatcher, Margaret, 19
thinking effectively: about, 6772
and audits, 71, 73, 174
and concept, 70
and design, 70
and developing meaning, 689
and evaluation, 71, 73, 174, 176, 191
example scenario of, 723
and formulating direction, 68, 6970
and implementing action, 68, 701, 73
importance of, 53, 667
and individual-leading competency, 523
and leadership, 159
and leadership competency model, 523
and strategy, 70, 72
and tactics, 701. See also decision-making; learning frameworks; levels of
thought
Third Alternative, 84
thought levels. See levels of thought
three-term framework, 29
Tichy, Noel M., 136
time management, 878
Total Quality Management movement, 1718
Toyota, 132
traditions, 199
transactional change, xiii, 16, 165
transformational change, xiiixiv, 16, 1819, 127, 139, 157, 197
Tregoe, Benjamin, 228
triad frameworks, 29
trust: and authoritarian leaders, 119
and the reconcile model, 83

and trustworthiness, 66, 83, 1078

truth, 100, 102, 217
tuned-out states, 234
University of Toronto, xvi
urgency, 878, 173
value-add processes: about, 14958
and change, 156, 15864
and DuPont Canada, 153
and high-performance business organizations, 158
and organizational structure, 1558
and systems, 1557
and The Guppy, 153
the value-add concept, 1524
value-add engineers, 11. See also processes
values: and change, 26
and change values, 1603
and coach-leaders, 126
and customer relationships, 149
defined, 24, 160, 200
and fairness, 143, 21920, 2234
and harmonious relationships with society, 21517
and leaders, 25
and personal mission statements, 778
and project teams, 97
and thinking effectively model, 69
valuable (defined), 160
and values-based partnerships, 149. See also beliefs; organizational values
viability: about, 148
and the change process model, 160
and creating harmony with customers, 1489
and organizational leading competency, 53
and organizing around value-add processes, 14952
and the value-add concept, 1524
and value-add processes and systems, 1557

and value-add structuring of business organizations, 1578. See also change

process model
virtual companies, 1945
virtue: about, 21415
and ethical behaviour, 2246
and harmonious relationships with society, 21517
and organizational leading competency, 53
and treating people fairly, 21724
and virtuous work, 215, 216
vision statements, 45, 16471, 173, 17880
vitality: about, 1834, 213
defined, 184
and harmonious relationships between employees, 1845
and high-performance business organizations, 1834
and organizational-leading competency, 53. See also organizational culture;
teams
Walmart, 132
Watson, James, 105
Welch, Jack, 125
Who Says Elephants Cant Dance? (Gerstner), 195
will: and character attributes, 95
defined, 48
and leadership competency model, 50
and professional development, xii
and purposeful behaviour, 113
and self-management by objectives (SMBO), 745
and tenacity, 1057
and willbeingfunction framework, 4850. See also motivation
word generation, 1689
work: and developmental work, 41, 423
and implementing change, 1746
and individual effort, 1867
and meaningful work, 144
and natural work teams, 21013
and organizational structure, 155

and organizational values, 163

and productivity, 140
and the silo effect, 44, 203
and virtuous work, 215, 216
and working groups, 1934
and work-life balance, 224. See also high-performance work systems
workplace safety: and administrator leaders, 122, 126
and aspirational targets, 268
and authoritarian leaders, 120, 126
and coach leaders, 126
and DuPont Company, 132, 201
and organizer-leaders, 126

1 For simplicity I will use DuPont Canada when referring to the Canadian organization and
DuPont when referring to the global company, which includes the Canadian organization,
rather than the legal entity names, unless there are places in the book where it is necessary
to be specific.

1 The names in this example are fictitious, but the events are real, as are most others in the
examples in this book.
2 In a reconcile, negotiations do not result in losers both sides benefit. This concept will
be discussed at length later in the book.
3 Joseph D. Rost, Leadership for the Twenty-First Century (New York: Praeger, 1993).
4 R.C. Davis, The Fundamentals of Top Management (New York: Harper and Row, 1942),
27.
5 J.K. Hemphill, The Leader and the Group, Journal of Education Research 28 (1949): 4.
6 Ray Kurzweil, The Law of Accelerating Returns, 2001, retrieved 22 January 2004 from
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134-html?printable=1
7 Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for
Business Revolution (New York: HarperBusiness, 1993), 226.

1 Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap And Others Dont
(New York: Harper Business, 2001).
2 Norman Borlang, The Green Revolution, Peace, and Humanity (Noble Peace Prize
lecture, Oslo, Norway, 11 December 1970).
3 John F. Kennedy, Landing a Man on the Moon (Address to a Joint Session at the
Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, 25 May 1961).

1 James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge, 3rd ed. (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 29.

1 David Garvin and Patrick G. Cullen, Rethinking the MBA: Business Education at a
Crossroads (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2010).

1 Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, rev. ed. (New York: Free
Press, 2004).
2 Maxwell Maltz, Psycho Cybernetics (New York: Pocket Books, 1973).
3 Visit the Myers & Briggs Foundation, http://www.myersbriggs.org
4 Stephen Covey, The Third Alternative (New York: Free Press, 2011); Roger Martin, The
Opposable Mind (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009).
5 Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, rev. ed. (New York: Free
Press, 2004), 81.

1 Bridget Bero and Alana Kuhlman, Teaching Ethics to Engineers: Ethical Decision Making
Parallels the Engineering Design Process, Science and Engineering Ethics Journal 1,
no. 3 (2011): 597605.

1 Robert Greenleaf, The Servant as Leader (Westfield, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center,
1982).
2 K. Lewin, R. Lippitt, and R.K. White, Patterns of Aggressive Behaviour in Experimentally
Created Social Climates, Journal of Social Psychology 10 (1939): 271301.
3 M. Dupre, Leadership Is an Art (New York: Doubleday, 2004).
4 Robert Bolton and Dorothy Bolton, Social Style/Management Style (New York: American
Management Association, 1984).
5 A Guide to the Isabel Briggs Myers Papers, 18851992, George A. Smathers Library,
Department of Special and Area Studies Collections, University of Florida, Gainsville,
2003.
6 P. Hersey and K.H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behaviour Utilizing
Human Resources, 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977).
7 R.R. Hopcke, A Guided Tour of the Collected Works of C.G. Jung (Boston: Shambala,
1999); J. Bostock and D. Small, The Influence of Power on Psychological Functioning:
Community Psychology Perspectives, Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology 9 (1999): 758; William D. Hitt, Ethics and Leadership: Putting Theory
into Practice (Columbus: Battelle Press, 1990).

1 The DuPont Oval logo, DuPontTM , Kevlar, and Sorona are trademarks or registered
trademarks of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company or its affiliates. DuPont Canada is a
licensee.
2 Ram Charan and Noel M. Tichy, Every Business Is a Growth Business (New York: Three
Rivers Press, 1998), 241.
3 Ibid., 242.
4 Ibid., 88.
5 Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, 1996), 182.

1 Louis V. Gerstner Jr., Who Says Elephants Cant Dance? Inside IBMs Historic
Turnaround (New York: HarperCollins, 2002).
2 Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge (New York:
HarperCollins, 1985), 82.
3 Greenpeace, Who We Are, retrieved 21 February 2011 from
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/our-mission
4 Larry Bossidy, Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done (New York: Crown
Business, 2002), 6.
5 See Henry Mintzberg and James Waters, Of Strategies: Deliberate and Emergent,
Strategic Management Journal 6, no. 3 (1985): 25772.

1 Louis V. Gerstner Jr., Who Says Elephants Cant Dance? Leading a Great Enterprise
through Dramatic Change (New York: HarperBusiness, 2003).
2 The DuPont Oval logo, DuPontTM , Kevlar, and Sorona are trademarks or registered
trademarks of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company or its affiliates. DuPont Canada is a
licensee.
3 John P. Kotter, Leading Change (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press, 1996); Peter
Drucker, On the Profession of Management (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press,
2003).
4 Gary Hamel, Moon Shots for Management, Harvard Business Review 87, no. 2
(February 2009): 91.

1 Tony Schwartz, The Productivity Paradox: How Sony Pictures Gets More Out of People
by Demanding Less, Harvard Business Review 88, no. 6 (June 2010): 64.
2 Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: Free Press, 1976).
3 Charles Kepner and Benjamin B. Tregoe, The New Rational Manager (Princeton:
Princeton Research Press, 1997).
4 David Kahneman, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).