Joshua's lessons on leadership - Leaders Protect the Truth

In a series of posts, I want to discuss what we can learn about leadership from Joshua ben Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim, which would become known as the most militaristic of the tribes of Israel through Joshua's campaigns.  If this is the first post in the series you have read, please do a quick review of the March 30, 2009 blog titled  “Joshua's lessons on leadership - Intro”; that post highlights why I am looking into Joshua’s life.

In the last entry, I discussed the need to remember “Leaders Eat Last”.  In this post, Joshua reminds us “Leaders Protect the Truth”.

I want to use a mechanism created under Joshua’s rule as a proxy for the level to which we need to seek out and protect the truth in the organizations we lead.  The back-story for this analogy is the concept of the Cities of Refuge.

In the Israelite society Joshua led, there was no police force to investigate crimes. If someone was killed, it was the moral responsibility of the family member who was closest to the victim to investigate and avenge the murder.  This person became the avenger of blood – the kinsman redeemer.

However, a human redeemer’s subjectivity, passion, and anger at the loss of their family member just might cloud their judgment.  They might end up avenging the death by killing someone who wasn't guilty of a capital crime.

Joshua, as the leader of his people had to set up a system to protect the innocent and provide time to sort out the truth of a situation.  The system was ‘Cities of Refuge’.  What we know from tradition is that any of the Israelites or any alien living among them who killed someone accidentally could flee to these designated cities and not be killed by the avenger of blood prior to standing trial before the assembly.

Here are some interesting facts about these Cities of Refuge:

• They were strategically located so there would be easy access to them for anybody seeking refuge.
• Highways were built to increase the ability for someone to get to these cities of refuge.
• These highways were maintained so that nobody was ever hindered in getting to these cities.
• Bridges were built across every ravine, so that the person running for refuge wouldn't have to waste time climbing to the bottom of the ravine and then up the other side.
• The highways were rebuilt every spring after the heavy winter rains so that the road surface would be smooth and easy to run on.
• At every crossroads or intersection on these highways, there were big, bold signs pointing the way with the word ‘Refuge’ in large letters.
• The gates of the cities of refuge were never locked.
• The city was well stocked to provide for any fugitives who came to stay for however long they might need to be there.
• The cities were designated for all the people of Israel, including the stranger.
• The same justice, the same protection and provision, were free to all.

How effectively are you setting up ‘Cities of Refuge’ in the organization you lead or are a part of?  Are you building and maintaining roads for the truth to get to you?  Are you building bridges?  Are there signposts in your organization with ‘Truth’ in large letters?  Are all people able to bring the truth or just a selected few of your favorites? Do you do anything unconsciously that locks out the truth?

I know people are not getting physically killed on our teams.  Yet conflict occurs all the time.  An error happens.  A mistake is made.  A deal is lost.  A customer gets mad.  A decision costs the organization time and money.  Then people start defending and justifying.  This sets off acts of accusation and retribution that get increasingly personal.  These acts disintegrate into permanently scarred team members, colleagues who become incapable of trusting each other.  Nine times out of ten, the event was less egregious and purposeful than assumed.  There is an innocent person involved that needs refuge.  There is a truth that needs to be protected.  When your folks see you reliably seek out the truth of a situation by taking the time to discover and understand all perspectives they will stop making personal accusations and trust will reign.

Look back at the effort that was necessary to insure safe passage of a person to a City of Refuge.  You and I must take a page from Joshua’s book and go through the same level of effort as Joshua creating routes for the truth to get to us, protecting, defending and highlighting those routes. 

Winston Churchill said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”  We have to give the truth a chance to get its pants on and pass all the fiction that gets created.  Or as it is written on the main tower of my alma mater, The University of Texas “Ye Shall Know the Truth, And the Truth Shall Make You Free.”

You are the guardian of the truth.  Leaders Protect the Truth.

David's lessons on leadership - Reputation

In a series of posts I reflect upon what we can learn about leadership from David, King of Israel.  If this is the first post in the series you have read, please do a quick review of the January 2, 2009 blog titled  “David’s lessons on leadership – Intro”; that post outlines why I am looking into David’s life.

The previous blog dealt with Trust  - comprised of character and competence.  This post deals with “Reputation”

What is your dearest possession?  Maybe your reputation is not #1, but I bet it is near the top.  This lesson on reputation comes from the time that Hushai the spy leveraged David’s reputation into an advantage. 

The back-story to this intrigue is that Absalom, the third son of David leads a revolt against David.  As Absalom holds the city and David is in retreat, Absalom seeks out his chief advisor.  This advisor, Ahithophel tells Absalom, “I would choose twelve thousand men and set out tonight in pursuit of David. Attack him while he is weary and weak”.  

Absalom turns to another advisor, Hushai, who he does not know is in place to defend the king’s interest and spy for him.  Hushai’s response instills fear in Absalom by reminding him of David’s reputation as a warrior.  "The advice Ahithophel has given is not good this time. You know your father and his men; they are fighters, and as fierce as a wild bear robbed of her cubs. If he should attack your troops first, whoever hears about it will say, 'There has been a slaughter among the troops who follow Absalom.' Then even the bravest soldier, whose heart is like the heart of a lion, will melt with fear, for all Israel knows that your father is a fighter and that those with him are brave.”

David’s reputation alone caused his son to stop pressing forward when he had an advantage and changed the course of the war of rebellion with his own son.

We all have a reputation, the question is – how close is it to who we are?  You cannot create your reputation, since it is what people think of you. All you can do is concentrate on your character, maintain consistency and then be comfortable with what happens next.  Abe Lincoln said, “Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”

I was on a job interview recently in my hometown and sat down to breakfast with a CEO who is well connected in the local high tech community.  He said, “Alex, this is a pretty small place and I have been checking you out”.  Gulp – here it comes, my reputation.  “Alex, word is that even when faced with challenging situations you do the right thing”.

Wow.  Now, I want a job with this man and the company he leads, but whatever happens from here, I am OK.  That morning - that moment in the breakfast meeting, I received a great gift.  I was told that my reputation was someone who will do the right thing.  I learned that at least for one brief moment, my reputation and what I desire my character to be are sometimes in sync.  That is pure gold, and I will do all that is possible to defend and maintain that reputation.

In David’s life, his reputation was a weapon, it preceded him, and it got things done for him even when he was not present.  It is the same for us; we can get things done through just our reputation.  The question is, “what do you want to get done through my reputation?”  Once you know that answer, the best next action is to work on character.  And the best way to work on my character is to focus on who we are becoming, not just what we are doing.

Reputation - created with character, strengthened by consistency, tested by trials and reflected in how others treat us.  "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently." Warren Buffett

David's lessons on leadership - Trust

In a series of posts I reflect upon what we can learn about leadership from David, King of Israel.  If this is the first post in the series you have read, please do a quick review of the January 2, 2009 blog titled  “David’s lessons on leadership – Intro”; that post outlines why I am looking into David’s life.

The previous blog dealt with knowing that until people see us “Take a Stand” they will never know our values or be in a position to choose to accept our values or move on.  This post deals with “Trust”

The backdrop for a lesson on trust comes in an interaction between Jonathan, David’s best friend (see “Jonathan Moments” – February 9^th) and his soldiers.

Jonathan becomes disgusted with his dad, Saul the king.  He is disgusted because right after Jonathan led a great victory that Saul claimed was his own victory, Saul tries to lead 600 men into battle without weapons.  We read in the story that not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, so Israel had to pay their enemy to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened. As a result, on the day of the battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in his hand.

Jonathan takes matters into his own hands and tells one of his soldiers, “Let’s you and me go into the enemy camp and destroy it”.  His soldier tells him, “do all that you have in mind; I am with you, heart and soul."  Jonathan's soldier "Trusts"

Contrast the soldiers response, with Jonathan’s retort to one of his father’s commands.  Saul had told the army not to eat until they had their victory.  But Jonathan found some honey on the ground and ate it any way.  One of the soldiers told him, "Your father bound the army under a strict oath, saying, 'Cursed be any man who eats food today!' That is why the men are faint."  Jonathan’s response, "My father has made trouble for the country. See how my eyes brightened when I tasted a little of this honey.  How much better it would have been if the men had eaten today?”  Jonathan's words and actions show his men he has no "Trust" for his father.

What a difference in the way the soldier spoke of his leader and the son spoke of his father.  The soldier has trust and deference and the son only has condescension.  Why the difference?

The level of trust that we have in a leader dictates the speed and obedience of our following (the concepts are derived from a book by Stephen Covey Jr. called “The Speed of Trust”).  High trust, high speed and high obedience.  Low trust, questions, debates and delays.  Where does trust come from?  Character and competence.  Character is comprised of integrity and intent.  Competence is built on capability and results.   Let me break this down a bit further:

• Integrity – when there is no gap between intent and behavior.  You see this in people when they act in harmony with their deepest values and beliefs.
• Intent – based upon motive, agenda and related behavior.  It is the reason why you do something.
• Capability – the knowledge, skills, ability and attitude that a person brings to a situation.
• Results – getting stuff done matters. Or as Master Yoda says, “Do or do not, there is no try”

Each of us falls short on one of more of these four items at any point in time.  The more we demonstrate a complete picture to our team and improve each of these areas, the more they trust us, the faster we operate together and the more effective we become.

So what was the difference between Jonathan and Saul?  The soldier saw a few specific things in Jonathan.  First, he demonstrated capability and results in the first attack he led.  Second, his character was on display before heading into the raid on the Philistines when he told the soldier “Perhaps the Lord will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the Lord from saving, whether by many or by few”.  Jonathan was a capable man of action who walked the talk in terms of his belief system.  He showed integrity and intent.

Contrast the view of Jonathan with the view Jonathan might have of his father.  Saul could not put arms into the hands of his people and took credit for actions that were not his.  He could not get results and his intent was suspect.  Although Saul was strong and effective, his flaws caused him to do things that negatively influenced the way his people viewed his character and competence.

What is the lesson?  Objectively review our integrity, intent, capability and results.  Score ourselves, where do we fall short?  Be surrounded with a few trusted advisors.  Seek their input, ask them to articulate the areas where we are lacking and ask them to help us improve.  And then – trust your people.  Operate with an internal compass that says most people really want to do the right thing.  Henry Stimson, who was an American statesman, served as Secretary of War, Governor-General of the Philippines, and Secretary of State said, “The chief lesson I have learned in a long life is that the only way you can make a man trustworthy is to trust him; and the surest way to make him untrustworthy is to distrust him.”

Know you have to earn their trust, but trust them first.

David's lessons on leadership - Tragic Heroes

In a series of posts, I am going to reflect upon what we can learn about leadership from David, King of Israel.  If this is the first post in the series you have read, please do a quick review of the January 2, 2009 blog titled  “David’s lessons on leadership – Intro”; that post outlines why I am looking into David’s life.

The previous blog dealt with the impact of the support of one person, the change that occurs in our lives and leadership journey when we have a “Jonathan Moment”.  This post deals with the topic of “Tragic Heroes”

For this topic we go back to a time before Saul knew David, a time when Saul became king.  There came a point in Israel’s history when pressure emerged to centralize government into a kingship.  This pressure was largely from the threat of Israel's neighbors, especially the Philistines, whose victories had resulted in the destruction of the central sanctuary at Shiloh.  This reason for wanting a king is consistent with a well researched book called “Guns, Germs and Steel” in which author Jared Diamond points out that throughout history, amalgamation of smaller groups or tribes occurs for two reasons; merger by threat of external force or actual conquest.  Examples of merger by threat of external force include the Cherokee nation in the early 1700’s, the United States shifting from a loose set of states to a federal government in the late 1780’s and the central imperial German government of the 1870’s. 

So, the elders of Israel wanted and demanded a visible king be appointed over them.  They wanted to be like the well-organized nations surrounding them and have a leader who could take them to victory over their foes.  They petitioned Samuel and Samuel sat Saul down to tell him he would be king.

As Samuel is telling Saul he will be king, Saul, says to him, "But am I not a Benjamite, from the smallest tribe of Israel, and is not my clan the least of all the clans of the tribe of Benjamin? Why do you say such a thing to me?"

Saul starts off so well, asking a fair question, “Why me?”  He starts with the admirable trait of humility, which leaves him quickly as he becomes king.  We first see it leave him when his son Jonathan bursts on the scene and demonstrates the first of what will be a repeated ability to lead an attack.  “Saul had the trumpet blown throughout the land and said, "Let the Hebrews hear!" So all Israel heard the news: "Saul has attacked the Philistine outpost”.  Saul takes the credit for Jonathan’s attack on the garrison of the Philistines. We see the fatal flaw in Saul begin to take root.  We know it is pride.  We know it is vanity and the desire for glory.  Saul’s own sense of insecurity will not allow his own son to receive credit. Saul needs the praise.

Saul as king has all the traits that Israel wants in a king, he is taller than most, good looking, strong and comes from a prominent family.  But his pride is his flaw, Saul is like some of the men and women we see attain fame, fortune and glamour only to fall from grace with a character failing.  Saul is a Tragic Hero, the main character in a tragedy who makes an error in his actions that leads to his downfall.  The main characteristics of a Tragic Hero include:

• The hero is led to his downfall due to hubris, or excessive pride.
• The hero discovers his fate by his own actions, not by things happening to him.
• The hero sees and understands his doom, and that his fate was revealed by his own actions.
• The hero is physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences, often resulting in his death.
• The hero is often a king or leader of people, so that his people experience his fall with him. This could also include a leader of a family.
• The hero learns something from his mistake.
• The hero is faced with a serious decision.
• The suffering of the hero is meaningful.

We see it around us today, in the failed institutions, the corporate leaders who forgot about leading, the athletes who disappoint us, and the public servants that betray our trust.  All around us are Tragic Heroes; we watch them fall and we see them suffer.  Here is what we must understand; they are not different from us.  In each one of us is a character trait that keeps us going and gives us fuel, but has the potential to be our downfall.  In each one of us exists a Tragic Hero.  For all are human and all have a flaw; the more the spotlight of the world pierces us, the more our flaw becomes known. 

Recall Polonius' advice to his son Laertes in Shakespeare's Hamlet, “This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man”.

Know your flaw, be true to yourself and know what your flaw can do.  Know that without care we are each capable of joining the ranks of Tragic Heroes.

Passion Part IV - Principles

In this series of posts, I write about passion as a force multiplier in an organization and the creation of passion through individuals who know their role, are convinced their role matters and see the good of their work.  I argue that leaders must focus on five elements to create this level of passion; vision, culture, principles, style and sacrifice.  The previous posts discussed vision and culture, this post is about principles.

Principles or boundaries?  Words matter and boundaries just might be a better word for this topic.  Principles are accepted or professed rules of conduct or action; boundaries are something that indicates a border or limit.  Why would a border or limit increase passion?

How can controlling someone release them to pursue their role with passion?

Many years ago there was a study of child behavior.  Two identical school yards were designed. The yards were the exact same dimensions, terrain and elevation.  Both had a flagpole in the middle of the yard.  The only difference was that one yard had no fence and the other was fenced-in.  In the schoolyard with no fence, the children played in a tight circle around the flagpole.  In the yard with the fence, their play consumed the entire yard.  The control of the fence released their play.  

Another example of control and release is musical improvisation where creativity is based upon melody, harmony or rhythm.  Think about harmony; an instrument produces sound waves that cause air to vibrate at a specific frequency.  At any particular frequency, there will be an overtone at multiples of that frequency.  Our ears perceive the matching up of overtone waves as harmony.  If the improvisation does not occur at the exact multiples of the frequency, we will hear distortion rather than music.  The control of the math behind the overtones releases the creativity that allows improvisation to occur in harmony.

As leaders we must set up principles or boundaries within our organization.  The use of these boundaries will release people much like the school child in the study or the creative musician.  Boundaries that work are Getting it Done and Doing it Right.  The basic principle is both/and, not an either/or.  Our teams must know we expect them to Get it Done and Do it Right.  The both/and is the boundary, the control around which all creativity is encouraged. We are telling our teams we care about what they do and how they do it.

Imagine a 2x2 grid where the vertical axis is Getting it Done (low to high) and the horizontal axis is Doing it Right (low to high).  An assessment of each individual in the organization would create a grid populated with four potential outcomes:

1. Low GID, low DIR - Exit Door - unless something changes this person needs to leave
2. Low GID, high DIR - Coaching Time - all the right ingredients, this person needs to be taught how to do their job well
3. High GID, high DIR - Role Model - this person is studied and raised up to the organization
4. High GID, low DIR - Roadblock - the dangerous one, this person needs to leave quickly, keeping them in the organization will derail your plans.

Labels such as Getting it Done and Doing it Right are ambiguous and clarity must be brought into the boundaries. Getting it Done reflects the person's ability to do the job assigned and has three elements to it; a) does the person have the requisite knowledge and skills? b) do they perform the tasks or processes necessary in the job? c) what is their measurable performance against the key metrics for the job?  An example for a sales executive would be; a) do they know the product? b) do they use the sales process? c) do they maintain the right pipeline and do they make their quota?

Getting it Done elements likely change from job to job.  The Doing it Right elements should not.  Doing it Right reflects how the person does their job and has three elements to it;

1. Team Player - Do they place the team's needs above their own?  Do they willingly share expertise with others?  Do they respect, seek and embrace input from others?
2. Integrity and Accountability - Do they accept blame as well as glory? Are they ethical, trusted by customers, partners and their team? Do their actions match their words?  Do they demonstrate through action that self-improvement is a priority?
3. Optimism and Enthusiasm - Are they a source of energy vs. a use of energy within the team? Do they see the truth, but not for worse than it is? Can they argue their position, but support the organizational decision?

Once these are defined we begin measuring and plotting people on this 2x2 grid.  Imagine combining an objective assessment of an employee's position in the grid with the cultural attribute of straight-talk discussed in the last post.  Through this activity we give our people a great gift; they know their standing in the organization and they have a roadmap to be a star.  This should be done with transparency, as Stephen Covey says, "Light is the greatest disinfectant in nature and business".

One last comment on a certain group, the ones who are Getting it Done but not Doing it Right.  People ask me, "Do we really have to get rid of those people?"  Yes and publicly.  Most of my leadership mistakes have been people related and almost always a result of compromising this tenant.  When we have the courage to lay out the Doing it Right principles to our team, their hearts will be stirred.  The majority of humanity really wants to do the right thing. But one compromise and we become seen as a hypocrite.   Nothing punctures passion more quickly and wounds it more severely than hypocrisy in leadership.