So, in 1981, the great day for our meeting arrived. The national board and staff members were in the boardroom. I am sure they expected him to comment on the results of the past five years, for these remarkable people with their partners in local councils had transformed the organization using Drucker’s principles. He stood before us and thanked us for permitting him to join us, and then he completely surprised us. “You do not see yourselves life size,” he said. “You do not appreciate the significance of your work, for we live in a society that pretends to care about its children, and it does not.” I wanted to rise and refute this, but could think of nothing to say. He continued, “And for a little while, you give a girl a chance to be a girl in a society that forces her to grow up all too soon.”
After that first transformative day, he gave the Girls Scouts two or three days of his time each year. He studied us, talked with us, advised us, and wrote about us for the next eight years.
When I left the Girl Scouts of the USA in 1990, I bought a home in Easton, Pennsylvania, promised a publisher I would write a book on mission, and wasn’t going to travel so much.
Six weeks later, I flew to Claremont, California, to brainstorm a way to permeate the nonprofit, social sector with Peter’s works and philosophy. Long story short, six weeks after leaving one of the largest voluntary organizations in the world, I found myself the CEO of one of the smallest foundations in the world – the Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Leadership – with no staff and no money, just a powerful vision shared with cofounders about bringing Peter to the wider world and transforming the social sector. The rest is history. Our organization’s name has changed over the years, and our resources and publications are well documented on our website (www.Hesselbein Forum.org), in our 30 books in 30 languages traveling around the world, and in our quarterly Leader to Leader journal. We are in our 27th year fulfilling our mission of strengthening the leadership of the social sector and their partners in business and government.
Leadership Is a Matter of How to Be, not How to Do
When I was the CEO of the Girl Scouts of the USA, I knew I had to define leadership on my own terms and in my own language, in ways that would communicate and embody the heart and the spirit of the leadership we were called to provide. After a long, difficult introspection, I developed my definition of leadership: “Leadership is a matter of how to be, not how to do.”
All of the how to advice in the world won’t work until how to be is defined, embraced by leaders, and embodied and demonstrated in every action, every communication, and every leadership moment.
The leader of today, and in the future, must be focused on how to be – how to develop quality, character, mindset, values, principles, and courage. The how to be leader knows that people are an organization’s greatest asset and in word, behavior, and relationships, they demonstrate this powerful philosophy. In all interactions, from the smallest to the largest, the behavior of the how to be leader will demonstrate a belief in the worth and dignity of the men and women who make up the enterprise.
You and I spend most of our lives learning how to do and teaching others how to do, yet we know that, in the end, it is the quality and character of the leader that determines the performance – and the results.
How to be qualities are not baskets of skills; rather, they rise in miraculous ways to comfort, to sustain, to challenge, and to embrace. I believe passionately in the whys: the values, principles, and beliefs that define who we are, what we believe, what we do, and how we work with others, our fellow travelers on a shared journey to leadership in an uncertain world.
My definition of leadership defines who I am, why I do what I do, and what I believe. I test it over and over. Leadership is a matter of how to be, not how to do.
A Call for Leaders of the Future
Today, we need leaders who help distill Peter’s concept and language of mission: why the organization does what it does, its purpose, its reason for being. Leaders of the future must invest in building a mission-focused, values-based, and demographics-driven organization, reflecting the many faces and cultures of our country.
We need leaders who communicate with the people and the customers of the organization and the many audiences with whom we engage – always reflecting in our communications that, “Communication is not saying something; communication is being heard.”
Now, may I share a secret with you? I have two tattoos – invisible ink, of course – you can’t see them, but they are there. First, Peter Drucker’s admonition to Think first, speak last. My second tattoo is also Peter’s: Ask, don’t tell.
We need leaders who practice the art of listening. We need leaders who use listening to include, not exclude – to build consensus, appreciate differences, and find common concepts, common language, and common ground.
We need leaders who in their own lives try to find work–life balance and make that balance a reality in the lives of those with whom they work. If you think that this is a lovely ideal, but not a realistic one in today’s tough world, try comparing the productivity and morale of a workforce that is encouraged and supported in finding this rare work–life balance with those of a dispirited workforce where such balance is not a consideration, and take no prisoners is a valued management style.
Today, perhaps most of all, we need leaders who share successes widely while accepting responsibility for shortfalls and failures. These leaders take a tough measure of their own performance, aware that their language, behaviors, and actions are measured against their self-proclaimed values and principles.
Reflection Questions
Can you recall a defining moment or mentor who propelled you into your career in leadership?
How do you define leadership?
What is your mission?
2
The Evolution of Leadership – Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
Marshall Goldsmith
Dr. Marshall Goldsmith is the world authority in helping successful leaders achieve positive, lasting change in behavior: for themselves, their people, and their teams. He was recently chosen as the inaugural winner of the Lifetime Achievement Award for Leadership by the Harvard Institute of Coaching. Dr. Goldsmith is the only two-time Thinkers50 #1 Leadership Thinker in the World. He has been ranked as the World’s #1 Executive Coach and Top Ten Business Thinker the past eight years.
Dr. Goldsmith is the author or editor of 38 books, which have sold over 2.5 million copies, been translated into 32 languages, and become listed bestsellers in 12 countries. His three New York Times bestsellers are Triggers, MOJO, and What Got You Here Won’t Get You There.
Dr. Goldsmith is one of a select few executive advisors who have been asked to work with over 150 major CEOs and their management teams. He is a fellow in the National Academy of Human Resources and winner of the Lifetime Achievement in Teaching Award from the Institute for Management Studies. His work has been recognized by almost every professional organization in this field.
■ ■ ■
Think back on our history as human beings. Many of our stereotypes of leadership are from a past that no longer exists. They come from a yesterday that is very disconnected from today and miles from the world of tomorrow. These images from the past are reinforced in our literature, TV, movies, video games, and art, and they can prevent our understanding of what great leadership is today and what it will look like in the future.
For instance, here’s a brief walk through the evolution of leadership.
The Cave People – Leadership Through Physical Strength: Thousands of years ago, our ancestors lived in a brutal and harsh world. Small clans grouped together in caves to protect themselves from the elements. Leaders were usually strong, young men and ruled through physical strength.
The Land Owners – Leadership Through Control of the Land: As we evolved, humans began to gather and store crops. Ownership and control of the land became the key to power. Leaders were not necessarily the strongest physically; they were the people w
ho controlled the land. Control of resources became the key to power.
The Royalty – Leadership Through the Family: For the last few thousand years, the source of most leadership was often the family. Kings and queens ruled with no need to justify their power, since they were declared to have been descended from God. The simple solution for anyone who criticized or challenged royalty was to kill them.
The Church – Leadership Through the Religion: Historically, the church provided spiritual leadership for the people and supported the royal families. Often members of the royal family, the Church had the ability to determine what was right or wrong, and criticism of its doctrine was not tolerated. Critics were referred to as heretics and were susceptible to excommunication, torture, or even death.
The Military – Leadership Through Power: While the Church provided the moral case for royalty, the military provided the power needed to keep the members of the ruling class on their thrones. In the world of kings, the strongest army won. Military leaders were often related to the ruling families, but not always. Sometimes generals worked their way up the hierarchy and were rewarded for their loyalty, bravery, intelligence, and competence.
The Academy – Leadership Through Education: Until very recent times, the best formal education was largely reserved for the elite. Liberal education separated the elite from the masses and along with the Church and the military, reinforcing the status quo of the country.
The Master – Leadership Through Skill: As the merchant class began to rise, a new type of leader emerged, the master. The master was typically an expert in a certain trade who taught his skills to a younger apprentice. The apprentice practiced the craft, and eventually became the master to a new apprentice.
The Politician – Leadership Through Support: Eventually the subjects of royalty and the colonists of royalty rebelled. In the early democracies, the power and control was in the hands of an elite group. Only in recent years, and in some countries, has democracy evolved to a level of true representation of the people. Politicians, like kings and queens, have historically been more focused on maintaining power than on building collaborative relationships.
The Business Owner – Leadership Through Control of the Corporation: With the advent of capitalism came the rise in business. While these early entrepreneurs may not have been descended from royalty and wealth, they were able to acquire wealth and pass it on to their family members. Since they owned the controlling interest in the stock of the corporation, they maintained ultimate decision-making power.
The Manager – Leadership Through Promotion: As organizations grew and the families of founders became less focused on leading their companies, a new class of leaders emerged – professional managers. The key role of these managers was to protect and grow the assets of the owners. These managers typically worked their way up through the company and were rewarded by promotion for their effort, achievement, and loyalty.
Common Characteristics of Leadership in the Past
As we look at leadership in the past we can see that leaders historically had the following common characteristics:
Leadership was local. From the tiny world of the cave, to the village, to the city, to the country, the history of leadership has almost all been domestic.
Leaders managed uniformity. Throughout history almost all leaders have been men who represented the ruling class of their countries. Women were not even considered for most leadership roles, or even many occupational roles. Along with being the same sex, leaders were the same race and religion and were brought up in the same culture.
Leaders managed very slowly changing technology. Throughout most of history, leaders managed technology that did not change at all, or changed very slowly. Revolving masters could prosper for generations without being concerned about the impact of new technology.
Leaders knew the answers and did not encourage differing opinions. Religious leaders, masters, academics, and generals were assumed to have the right answer. Followers who disagreed with authority were often punished severely by being fired, excommunicated, ostracized, or even killed.
Leadership was top down. Most leadership involved immediate control over direct reports, as opposed to team building or building peer relationships. Being able to influence colleagues without direct-line authority was not a skill that was required for success.
Leaders were bosses. From kings to generals to managers, leaders had one important quality in common. They had clear power over the people whom they led. They could easily punish those who did not demonstrate loyalty. Once they acquired power, they usually did their best to keep it. One definition of boss, as a noun, is “a person who makes decisions, exercises authority, and dominates.” Another definition, as a verb, is “to order about” or “to be master over.” The leader of the past was clearly the boss!
These characteristics of leaders may (or may not) have been effective in the past. In practical terms, it doesn’t matter. These characteristics will not work for the most important leaders of the future.
The one over-arching theme from studying leaders of the past is that, in some very important way, leaders were supposed to be superior to the people they were leading. Kings were descended from God, clergy were closer to God, masters were more skilled, academics had more knowledge, generals had more experience, owners had more wealth, politicians had more support, and cave leaders had more strength.
Almost all movies, videos, TV shows, and games reinforce the concept that great leaders are, in some way, superior to the people that they lead. Looking at the history of leadership, it is very easy to understand why servant leadership is such a recent concept: managers were actually referred to as “superiors”!
As the world and its people are evolving, so is leadership. The leader of the future will have qualities that are clearly different from the leader of the past, and many of the characteristics of yesterday’s leader will not work for tomorrow’s leaders.
The Leader of the Future
Accenture invited me to partner with them in a two-year research project that compared the qualities of leaders of the past with those that would be required of leaders in the future.1 Instead of interviewing current CEOs and leaders, who would not be leading the organizations of the future, we interviewed 200 future CEOs from around the world. A few qualities were seen as clearly more important than the leader of the past. Looking back on this study years later, I find the direction of the predictions from these high potential leaders to have been proven to be amazingly accurate. If anything, the degree of change, or the speed of change in the importance of new leadership qualities may have been understated.
Combining this research with all that I’ve learned since the study’s completion, I can share seven key trends that have emerged and will dramatically impact the leader of the future, why the changing world calls for an end to old assumptions about leadership, and how a new model is emerging to fit today’s world.
From Thinking Locally to Thinking Globally Globalization is a trend that will continue to have a major impact on the leaders of the future. Even 20 years ago, leaders in some huge companies could focus on their own countries or, at most, their own regions. Those days are rapidly screeching to a halt! The trend toward globally connected markets and globally integrated organizations is going to become even stronger in the future.
From Requiring Uniformity to Seeking Diversity In the past, seeking diversity was not even ‘on the radar screen’ for most leaders. In fact, the leaders of the past usually required uniformity in the workforce – and eliminated the possibility of diversity. As the importance of globalization continues to increase, leaders will need to appreciate and strive for diversity in new and different ways. They will have to understand not only the economic and legal differences, but also the social and behavioral differences that are part of working around the world. The most effective leaders of the future will understand that developing an understanding of other people and other cultures is not just an obligation; it i
s a requirement. Even better, it is an opportunity!
From Understanding One Technology to Becoming Technologically Savvy In the past, the core technology of organizations changed very slowly or, in many cases, not at all. Leaders of the past could understand their company’s core technology, develop enough expertise in this technology to lead their people, and stay as current as they needed to without a huge effort. That is not the case with the rapid pace of technological change today. This does not mean that every future leader will be a gifted technician or a computer programmer. It does mean that leaders should understand how the intelligent use of new technology can help their organizations; recruit, develop, and maintain a network of technologically current people; know how to make and manage investments in new technology; and are positive role models in leading the use of new technology.
From Leader as Knower to Leader as Learner In the past, leaders generally knew more about what they were doing than the people they led. That is why masters were called masters and apprentices were called apprentices. In the future, the most important leaders will be managing people who know far more about what they are doing than the leaders do. In the new world with its global organizations, diverse stakeholders, and rapidly changing technology, the leader often knows less than the people he or she leads. The higher the leader moves up the organizational chain of command, the more this is true.
From Eliminating Challenge to Encouraging Constructive Dialogue Leaders of past went out of their way not only to discourage challenge, but also to eliminate challenge. For instance, providing negative feedback to landowners could lead to starvation and providing negative feedback to royalty could lead to execution. In a world where leaders knew more than their followers, the drawbacks of leading by intimidation were not nearly as great as they are today. Today, leaders who cut off the flow of constructive dialogue run the risk of becoming obsolete in a very short period of time.
Work is Love Made Visible Page 3
