Speaking of Leadership . . .

Forget Passion and Focus on Purpose

by Robert B. Denhardt

Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Just as the vision thing has come to dominate discussions of organizational leadership, the passion thing has come to dominate discussions of personal leadership.  As one writer puts it, “Your journey to leadership success starts with figuring out what matters most to you and then doing something to advance that goal every day.” Most say, find your passion and don’t let anything else get in the way.

But identifying your passion is neither easy nor wise, especially early on. Why should we expect someone with little experience to know what he or she wants to pursue the rest of his or her life?  Some do, most don't.  That's a decision that requires maturity and wisdom, possibly even the wisdom of decades.

What's more, many people don't recognize their passion until they have achieved it.  They go through life following many interests and opportunities, only later recognizing the central thread that holds it all together.  In his well-known Stanford commencement address in 2005, Steve Jobs put it this way: “you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future.” The Nashville Bluegrass Band is even more to the point: "When I get where I'm goin', that's when I'll know where I'm bound."

In addition, the find-your-passion advice can morph into an extremely rationalized process of personal goal setting, especially as passions are translated into specific goals and objectives. Where do I want to be in ten years? What are the steps that will get me there? What are the metrics that I can use to measure my progress? Just as you can over-rationalize the process of organizational planning and implementation, you can over-rationalize the process called "life" - which is sterile indeed without emotion, intuition, and beauty.

Finally, the word "passion" carries a somewhat whimsical, fleeting character. It’s here today, gone tomorrow, and often formed without any basis in ethics or values. It’s built around an individual’s own personal (self) interest and may or may not build or contribute to the larger community. It’s just not as powerful or enduring as direction or commitment or purpose.

For this reason, I would suggest that, instead of passion, you focus on a personal sense of purpose" By that I mean: a direction based in your values, one to which you commit yourself fully and show the patience, persistence, drive, and determination to stay with – until a better path comes along.  Fill in the blank: “I exist to . . . .”

As a leader, you will also be called upon to articulate an organizational sense of purpose, which, in my mind, should be defined in the same way as above: a direction based in your values, one to which you commit yourself fully . . . until a better path comes along.  Fill in the blank: “Our organization exists to: . . . .”

Should your personal sense of purpose be the same as your organizational direction – and vice versa?  Some say yes, because both require a value choice and your values should be consistent. Some say no, because you need a life outside work. I would merely say that the two must not be incompatible. And if they are I’d say it’s time to find a different line of work. Personal purpose and values take precedence over organizational purpose.

Similarly, purpose takes precedence over passion.  That’s not to say that leaders should not be passionate.  Indeed, passion in pursuit of one's purpose is a virtue (as long as that passion is not blinded by ego).  For the leader, perhaps the most fitting purpose is to lead, to integrate, to focus, and to give life to the many separate and often conflicting purposes and passions that dwell in any organization or group. And that is something a good leader can and will be both purposeful and passionate about.

Robert Denhardt is the Director of Leadership Programs in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC) and Director of the Executive Master of Leadership program at USC. He is the author of a dozen books on leadership and management, including, The Dance ofLeadership (with Janet Denhardt), Book: Just Plain Good Management, and Book: The Pursuit of Significance.

Speaking of Leadership . . .

Leadership by Slogans is Neither Right or Effective

by Robert B. Denhardt

Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

The literature on leadership is replete with quotations from highly-regarded politicians (are there any left?), corporate executives, and professional “personalities.” For example, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.’ Or, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

Similarly, management consultants, university-based commentators, and self-proclaimed self-help gurus have provided oceans of leadership slogans, pithy but memorable guidelines to the best leadership qualities and behaviors.  Among these, “Managers do things right, leaders do the right things.”  “You have to learn to be comfortable with the uncomfortable.”  And, “Would you rather be right or effective?” 

Now, as you would expect, some of these are helpful, even inspiring.  But many are simply taking up extra space in our already cluttered minds. Even worse, some are actually misleading.

These slogans share several characteristics.  First, they have become so much a part of the folklore of leadership that no one is really sure where they came from.  (All of those just mentioned are from time to time attributed to Peter Drucker, Warren Bennis, Marshall Goldsmith, or Peter McWlliams.)

Second, and more important, they assert a half-truth as if it were a whole truth.  They simplify to the point of misdirection. This difficulty is, of course, the problem faced by anyone taking a complex subject and trying to distill its essence.  Doing so is important, especially for leaders, who need to state things in the clearest and most meaningful way. But at some point the drive for simplicity prevents our conveying the full meaning of the issue at hand.

Unfortunately, many leadership slogans fall into this trap.  In an effort to simplify, they forego the subtlety and complexity of the human experience.  And, as they become guides for the values, the ideas, and the actions of leaders they may actually constrain the possibilities of what Ghandi (and more recently Franz Ferdinand) called “right thoughts, right words, right actions.”

Let’s take one of these slogans as a case in point - “Would you rather be right or effective?”  The logic here is that some people are more concerned about their being right than getting the job done.  (That’s probably why we call these folks “righteous.”) If you are stopped at a four-way stop and it is your turn to go – but you see a car coming full speed from you left with no intention of stopping – sticking to your “rights” and moving into the intersection is probably not a good thing to do. Similarly, marriage counselors associate being right (and placing blame) with most marriage problems.  And there are plenty of other examples.

But, though often helpful, the advice contained in this slogan doesn’t always work.  For one thing, this slogan conflicts with other slogans.  In this case, the implied call to be effective rather than right contradicts the other slogan above: “Leaders do the right things.”  So which slogan do you follow?

Moreover, the slogan implies that it is important in all cases to be effective, but in truth there are plenty of times when it is important to be right.  If my plane is falling from the sky, I want a pilot who knows the right thing to do to bring it down safely. And if the pilot does so, I’d then say that’s a pretty effective bit of flying.  But I certainly don’t want to opposite.  I don’t want someone to whom I have trusted my life to be effective at doing the wrong thing – effectively flying the plane into a mountain.

Things become more difficult when you realize that there are two senses of the word “right” – one is that right means “correct” – and that’s the way we’ve been using the term to this point.  But right also means “ethical.”

Obviously, in the contest between being ethical and effective, being ethical always comes first – or at least it should.  This is the sense underlying the other slogan – “Leaders do the right thing.” We certainly wouldn’t want leaders to effectively do something unethical, though they often do. The extreme case of the Nazi death camps comes to mind, but there are certainly les dramatic examples as well.  Mark Twain advised, "Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest."

In any case, while the simplicity of leadership slogans makes them tempting, leading by slogans is neither right nor effective.

Robert Denhardt is the Director of Leadership Programs in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC) and Director of the Executive Master of Leadership program at USC. He is the author of a dozen books on leadership and management, including, The Dance ofLeadership (with Janet Denhardt), Book: Just Plain Good Management, and Book: The Pursuit of Significance.

Speaking of Leadership . . .

Collaborating On Your Own

by Robert B. Denhardt

Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Collaboration and its many benefits are often described at a macro level – that is, what can working effectively together across functional boundaries do for the organization?  But it’s important also to think of collaboration at the micro level – what can you, as an individual, do to bring people together to reap the benefits of effective collaboration?

The overall problem is a familiar one and well-understood in the abstract. Organizations develop functional groupings that bring together people with similar interests and work skills.  It’s that old “division of labor” thing.  But over time these groups tend to develop a more inward focus and build walls around themselves that are hard for others to penetrate. 

For example, a high tech start-up begins with a small group where everyone does everything.  But then, with skill, ambition, and often more than a little luck, the company grows rapidly to the point where the functions of business development/sales, marketing, customer support, technology, and product development become increasingly separate and distinct. 

Often then the interests of each group become more important to its members than the interests of the larger organization.  Those in the group even speak of the importance of their managers “defending” the group from others and “crusading” to increase the power and resources of the group.

But we know that this situation is at odds with the overall interests of the larger organization.  No one person, no one group has all the answers. Indeed, for an increasing number of organizations, it is the technology/product that everything else is dependent on, so there must be a common understanding across the organization around this key element.  

For this reason, much of the work, especially when it comes to developing and implementing a new product or underlying technology, requires bringing people together from different functional groups to leverage the knowledge and expertise of each.  Such collaboration, incidentally, not only builds more effective solution to problems, but also increases the “buy-in” from all parties.

There are some things the CEO or COO can do to build collaboration.  These range from “enforcing” collaboration to building a culture of collaboration.  But where the “big boss” is involved there are tendencies for the effort to dissolve into posturing, self-promotion, and “turf battles.”  But what if someone lower in the organization acted to bring about collaboration?  How might that look?  (Indeed, the most effective strategy for the top leader is to encourage and reward collaborative efforts throughout the organization.

Based on my years of teaching and consulting, I would suggest four things individuals can do to promote collaboration across functional boundaries.

1) Be there and be present. Woody Allen said that 80% of success is showing up, a theme that was explored in the classic comedy “Being There” (starring Peter Sellers and Shirley MacLaine). For the individual manager, that means spending time visiting with others across the organization (and beyond) on a regular basis – not necessarily with an agenda in mind, but just to see what common interests and ideas emerge. In this effort, you are simply developing relationships, not necessarily trying to achieve a specific project goal.  You are building up “relationship capital” that will come in handy as things move along.

2) Define a part of your job as “building bridges.” You have to take care of your own group, but you can allocate a considerable percentage of your time to working across boundaries, both internal and external.  I would say that an absolute minimum for most managerial positions is twenty-five percent, an allocation that should grow to the extent i) your own group is operating smoothly “on its own,” and ii) to the extent you can enlist help in internal management, positioning you are the “external” face of the group. You’ll be surprised at how often working across boundaries produces results – how good and collaborative ideas emerge from casual conversations.  And remember, the default answer to any request is “Yes.” Each “yes” you can deliver on builds the relationship and strengthens a line of collaboration.

3) Don’t track changes. When Janet and I work on articles or books together, we don't use “track changes.”  We just trade the article or a chapter back and forth, with the rule that you can make any changes you want – but you can’t use track changes. Then it goes to the other co-author with the same instruction. After going back and forth a while, you forget which changes are yours and which are someone else's.  That takes the ego out of the process - and ego is one of the most damaging roadblocks to collaboration.  I’m not necessarily suggesting that you not track changes in documents (but that might help), but anything you can do to eliminate the influence of ego will be helpful in your collaborations.

4) Bring people together. You should also not hesitate to convene meetings of those at your level and below – though sometimes even inviting those above – to work on a specific issue.  You may wonder whether you have the “authority” to do so, but authority is actually what caused the problem in the first place, so don’t worry about that. People will likely accept your invitation.  But the difficult part is how to facilitate the meeting.  (Meaning don’t try to run the meeting.)  Recognize that people in the meeting are essentially equals representing different skills sets and different interests.  Make sure all are heard and recognized for their contributions.  It’s hard to lead when no one is in charge, but that’s increasingly what the world of leadership is about.

These are just four of the many ways an individual can bring people together to build bridges and to encourage a more collaborative way of working. And we already know the benefits that can bring! And, guess what, even if you approach all of these actions in a humble, low-key fashion, seeking no personal credit (which is how you should go  about this), in the end, you will be the one who gets the credit and some great stories for when you interview for the next position!

Robert Denhardt is the Director of Leadership Programs in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC) and Director of the Executive Master of Leadership program at USC. He is the author of a dozen books on leadership and management, including, The Dance ofLeadership (with Janet Denhardt), Book: Just Plain Good Management, and Book: The Pursuit of Significance.