18-Aug-10 8:00 AM CST

Foundational Commitments - the Leader's Source

BY BOB CHAPMAN, PH.D.

A leader is someone who makes things happen that were otherwise not going to happen. That is, the extraordinary occurs because of the impact this person has on others. To be a leader is to create what is needed to challenge, empower, guide and inspire others to accomplish the extraordinary. While it may not appear that the leader is especially gifted or charismatic, an impact is made on others. That impact leads to significant accomplishments. There are then the questions: Where does the leader get this “intangible” quality? How is it that the leader has this intangible quality and others do not? Said another way, “What is the source for a leader?”

Asking the question “What is the source for a leader?” is a bit like asking, “What is the source for Superman?” That is, what gives Superman his powers? While you and I may have different memories of the explanation of Superman’s powers based on which comic books we read and which cartoons and movies we saw, we are fortunate that today we can look on the Internet and get very detailed explanations. For example, “Since Superman is a native of Krypton, a planet that had a red sun, under a yellow sun (like that of Earth's), his Kryptonian cells act as living solar batteries, absorbing solar energy and giving him superhuman powers.” The various web sites devoted to Superman note that over time, in the various installments of Superman, the explanation of the source of his power changed slightly. This is ironic, since our understanding of what makes a leader has also changed over time with changes in the nature of the challenges facing businesses in an increasingly competitive global business environment.

Identifying what gives source to leaders is not so easily researched on the web. What we find on the Internet are many explanations and theories. These are what Gregory Batson referred to as “Explanatory Principles.” An explanatory principle gives an explanation of something that we can use as a placeholder, but an explanatory principle actually gives little access to the phenomena. For example, if you hold your house keys out in front of you and then release them, the keys will fall to the floor. If I asked you why the keys fell to the floor rather than floating up in the air like a balloon, you would say, “Gravity” (and probably wonder what is wrong with me). Yet what does the explanation, “Gravity”, actually tell us? Do we actually understand what the phenomenon is?

If we pushed this conversation further, you might say that what made the keys fall was the gravitational pull of the earth. This is a more advanced explanation (explanatory principle version 2), yet even this explanation does not give us any real understanding of the phenomena. Explanatory principles are useful as “placeholders.” An explanatory principle makes something clearer by describing it, and yet the description does not provide access to knowledge. The good news is that we have a social convention to accept an explanation for those things that would otherwise get so complex that it would make us uncomfortable. Do most of us actually want to study physics in order to be able to genuinely understand why things fall to the earth? For most of us the answer is, “No thanks, I’m happy to leave that to the physicist. I’ll stick with the explanation of gravity, rather than attempt to gain access to knowledge of the true complexity of gravity.”

The same explanatory principles hold for leadership. We use the term very frequently, and the term does not actually lead us to learn or distinguish what is actually occurring when leadership occurs. As an example, if someone observed a work team that was performing markedly better than another and asked, “How come”, we might answer, “The reason this team is so successful is because of the leader.” If that person then asked, “What does that statement mean?”, we would say, “That person provided ‘real leadership’.” If pushed further, we might add, “This person has leader attributes,” “This person acts like a leader,” or “This person has leadership skills.” If pushed further to explain where leaders get their power and strength we might say, “A leader is self-motivated” or “A leader gets strength from experience.” I hope that you can see that all of those statements are an example of an explanatory principle. The statements give a description or explanation of something without actually providing access to what would allow one to produce similar extraordinary results from a group of people.

Given that you are reading this, I assume that you are interested in getting beyond the explanatory principle of leadership. To use the earlier discussion on why keys fall to the floor as an analogy, we will move beyond the explanation of gravity (explanations of leadership) to understanding the physics (access to the source of leadership) involved.

I assert that Foundational Commitments are the source for leaders. Foundational Commitments are the cornerstones for leaders who want what is best for the business. This may include effective performance in a steady state, a bold change to achieve breakthroughs in performance or sustainable transformation. Foundational Commitments are the first step and the critical support on which everything else is built.

At this point you could be thinking. “OK, but what are Foundational Commitments and, oh, by the way, is this just another explanatory principle?” Those are great questions. First let’s discuss the term “Foundational Commitments.” I made up the term. There is no such thing as Foundational Commitments. If you conduct a CAT scan on a person who is widely acknowledged as a great leader, you will not see Foundational Commitments. You will not find any evidence of Foundational Commitments on the scan.

I invented the term to try to distinguish, or at least point toward, the phenomena that I have seen occurring with individuals who impact groups of people to produce the extraordinary. I am using this invented term to force us to think differently than we have before about what happens when an individual interacts with a group of people so that extraordinary things occur. Later, I will describe what appears to be going on with an individual who is later called a leader. We will discuss how the leader appears to be “being”, and how that way of “being” has such powerful impact on other people.

I have been privileged to consult with a large number of successful team leaders, managers and executives. I have noticed that those who achieve outstanding results have a common understanding that getting excellent results comes from unleashing the creativity, energy and tenacity of others. Further, they tend to have certain aspirations, beliefs, and tenets which impact how they look at situations, what they consider to be possible, which alternatives they choose, and how they communicate to others. It could be said that leaders have common commitments that are put into action. I am calling those commitments Foundational Commitments since they appear to be at the heart of who these leaders are being when they are performing their role and interacting with others.

In this following section, let’s discuss in more detail the phenomena that is visible when we watch individuals whose behavior is later explained as “leadership.” We will be looking at how these leaders’ Foundational Commitments can be seen.

Being a Leader

The word “being” means “the nature or essence of a person”. Foundational Commitments are the essence of a person whose being impacts others to accomplish the extraordinary. We use the word “being” to refer to the nature or essence of a person and the word “leader” to refer to a person who accomplishes the extraordinary through others.

The being of leaders orients who they are as persons in the face of the challenge facing the business. The first thing that I have noticed about successful leaders is that they are committed to being and doing whatever is required for the team and business to be successful. There is a burning passion for seeing that those around them are successful. In order to achieve this success, the leader is at-will to challenge, call out if need be, cajole, develop, encourage, remove blockages, provide resources, threaten, and train to see that the people are supported and succeed. Leaders take setbacks and losses personally, as if somehow they did not provide the direction, guidance, and support to have the team and business succeed. These commitments give rise to the being of the leader, which, in turn, impacts the actions and speaking of the leader. Foundational Commitments are the wellspring from which leaders draw their direction, energy, grounding and power to be effective leaders. Foundational Commitments are the source for being a leader. This is important because the being of a leader is the precursor to success as a leader. That is, a person is being a leader before any employees are impacted or results are achieved.

The being of a leader is what people ultimately come to trust or not. The trust of the employees is essential in that leaders make mistakes in what they say and do. Employees can overlook these mistakes and continue to trust the leader if they are confident in what the leader stands for and who the leader is being.

Being is where leadership begins. A person is being a leader before they ever do or say anything. A person’s Foundational Commitments give rise to his or her being, which translates into acuity, clarity, direction, energy, passion and tenacity. These being-based attributes are perceived by their employees. The employees interpret this as evidence of a person who is authentic, competent and credible as a leader. In contrast, Situational Commitments give rise to a being of pseudo-leadership marked by personal aggrandizement, self-protection and self-centeredness. The employees clearly experience this as pseudo-leadership, and the employees behave accordingly. The consequences for the business are predictable and unfortunate.

Being One’s Word

Leaders view their personal integrity as their most precious possession. The definition of integrity is “the quality of having strong moral principles and the state of being whole.” Leaders are exceedingly careful to act consistent with their moral principles, to behave consistent with their speaking, and to not mislead people through their actions and speaking. Rather, they challenge themselves to “walk the talk” in every thing they do. They take being one’s word very seriously.

Integrity is one of those words that people are reluctant to use in business, yet it is at the heart of leadership. Leaders “be” that their word is their bond. Leaders “be” that “You can take my word to the bank and my handshake is my contract.” This commitment to being integrity is at the heart of the Foundational Commitments and a key to what makes these leaders able to accomplish the extraordinary through their colleagues and employees.

Foundational Commitment leaders do not differentiate their behavior in their office with their behavior in front of the employees. They appreciate that others are watching every thing that they do, and they want to demonstrate their commitment in their actions as well as their words.

Another demonstration of being one’s word is that people want to work around such a leader. There is a confidence and sense of trust that is very appealing. As demonstration of this, in my many years of consulting, I have never had the slightest “commercial problem” with a Foundational Commitment leader. I have never felt as if I was taken advantage of or had difficulty in collecting fees or had to deal with getting “beaten up on fees.” That is not to say, these Foundational Commitment leaders do not complain about how high my fees are. They and I understand that I am committed to their being wildly successful and to my adding clear value to their work.

In contrast, I have also worked for a number of Situational Commitment pseudo-leaders. It is a striking contrast for me. In general, the pseudo-leaders listen for what they want to hear and are looking for ways to make themselves look good. Given that they have often “missed the plot” of what is going on in the business and organization, it is hard to support them in getting what they want, i.e., to look good without having to take risks and upset any of their “loyalists.” In addition to being hard to work with, these pseudo-leaders are also notorious for commercial problems, i.e., challenging invoices to delay payments, being late in payments, etc. One of the first signs to me that I am dealing with a pseudo-leader comes from my accounting group who is having problems with collections for a contracted service for no apparent reason.

Being Context

Leaders appreciate that the context for the business and team must change if significant accomplishment is to occur. Leaders’ Foundational Commitments will not let them continue to operate in a context that is not working. The context is decisive in determining if the team will succeed, and so the leader continues to talk with others to find a way to articulate and invent the context that is needed for success. This context is essential to team performance since it determines how the employees see the circumstances and the opportunities that are presented to the team.

In contrast, the pseudo-leaders have been successful because of current or past context. Their interest is “getting back to the good old days.” They often say, “We have done this before, and we know how to do this.” They say this even when the performance is unacceptable. The pseudo-leader does not see the importance of context and would be unsuccessful even if they tried to create a new context.

Being Unreasonable

A Foundational Commitment of leaders is to be unreasonable with themselves and others. This means these Foundational Commitment leaders do not accept excuses, explanation, and stories for why performance did not occur. They are unwilling to settle for all the good reasons why something cannot happen or be achieved. Leaders have learned to break up the stories and to keep pushing for a way to achieve the result. There is a tenacity to continue to challenge, based on a commitment to achieve results even when it is not yet clear how this achievement can be accomplished.

By contrast, pseudo-leaders who operate from Situational Commitments usually excel in explanations, excuses and stories. They can effectively describe why they think something happened. What they cannot effectively do is speak in such a way as to interrupt the excuses and stories. In addition, pseudo-leaders often get quite defensive, if not nasty, when their excuses and stories are challenged. This challenge is perceived as an affront and a treat to their intense desire to look good at all costs.

Energy

The Foundational Commitments of the leader are like Superman’s Kryptonian cells. If you remember at the beginning of this chapter, we talked about Superman’s Kryptonian cells acting as living solar batteries, absorbing solar energy and giving Superman superhuman powers. While the Foundational Commitments do not give superhuman powers, they do give the energy for accomplishing the extraordinary.

The leader’s impact includes creating energy for those on the team and in the business. At the beginning, the leader will need to create or generate the clarity, direction, excitement and intensity that leads to others’ creating their own energy. What allows the leader to create the initial burst of energy is the commitment and passion for the team’s excelling, and for developing people. The key is to get the others on the team and in the business to be generate energy for themselves and others. It is the generation of energy by others that ultimately recharges the leader, as the earth’s sun did for Superman’s Kryptonian cells.

While the leader is generating energy to get the team moving, it is also a matter of concern that should be watched closely. Energy for the leader is often a most critical ingredient. Providing or generating the leadership to turn an organization, whether it is around or in a decidedly different direction, is a very challenging and demanding task. The leader experiences this challenge as very draining. Often a Foundational Commitment leader’s main question is: “Do I have enough energy to get this done?”

In the early stages of a change, there is a particular demand or drain on energy. There are long hours, intense conversations and many meetings. In the early stages, the leader often has to generate the energy for the entire team, as well as for her or him. There is a demand for concentrated action and focus. The leader must be relentless in challenging, encouraging, confronting, demanding, and engaging. The challenge for the leaders is where does the energy come from? Of course, in part, it is from physical stamina, but the emotional and intellectual energy is actually sourced or charged/recharged from the leader’s Foundational Commitments. This act of generation from Foundational Commitments is what sets the leader apart.

By contrast, pseudo-leaders often get their energy from fear, focus on survival and self-interest. While fear and survival will provide temporary bursts of energy, they are usually not sustainable. Attempts to lead teams to serve the self-interests of the leader usually are not successful, and the leader then resorts to demands for compliance and conformity. This, of course, will not move an organization to achieve successful change and sustainable results.

Creating a Stand

The leader’s stand is the enactment or embodiment of Foundational Commitments. It is the articulation of “whatI stand for,” which is then translated into “what we as a team or business stand for.” Part of the energizing of the others is their taking on the leader’s stand as their own. They may choose different words, yet the essence of the stand is the same. As an example, when Tom Stephens took over as CEO of Canada’s largest forest products company, McMillan Bloedel, he told the employees that he was committed to three things:

1. Safety – safest forest products company

2. Earning respect

3. Being outrageously successful

Those three items were Mr. Stephens’ stand. They also were a bold statement of being a leader, as McMillan Bloedel was none of these at the time, and, in fact, was performing poorly in all three areas. However, within a short time, most employees could state the three parts of Mr. Stephens’ stand as what the company was committed to. The stand shifted from the stand of the new CEO to the stand of the rank and file employees, which started the company on the road to becoming successful in all three areas.

I have noticed that leaders are able to take a stand in part out of their own personal desire to be committed to something and to working with people who come to share that commitment. In fact, leaders often gain great pleasure in watching others discover their own commitment to the team and business and then generate actions and accomplishments consistent with those commitments. There is great satisfaction in giving people something to believe in and then watching them perform in extraordinary ways. This is one area in which the leader’s Foundational Commitments appear to be most reinforcing and rewarding.

The stand is the grounding from which the leader works. It gives a place of stability from which to develop a good perspective and contributes to developing the right perspective that will ultimately engage the employees. This engagement, in turn, will lead employees to take the actions needed to get the results for the business. The leader’s stand is a deep commitment that shows through as the leader deals with the day-to-day business, as well as engages in conversations with employees.

This stand supports the leader in demonstrating commitment. The stand provides valuable content as the leader demonstrates and discusses commitment. Valuable content is like the quality programming that is used on an entertainment channel. It is the rich, attracting content that will make employees pay attention and to connect to the commitment of the leader. It is demonstrable and can be seen by employees. In a conversation with an employee about how he knew that the plant manager was committed to certain outcomes, his reply would be, “I can see it. It is obvious.” This obviousness in what engages employees and makes them want to follow and work with the leader.

Authentic Communication

One of the bedrock Foundational Commitments of a leader is to be in communication. This is not to say that leaders are always good at staying in communication; in fact, they struggle with it just as everyone else does. The difference is that they are committed to doing it even when they are not necessarily good at it. They find ways to support themselves in being in communication with others on the team and in the business.

This communication is consistent through everything the leader thinks, says, writes and does. Correspondingly, it is the key to the leader developing credibility with the employees based on how they listen to the leader. The Foundational Commitments are communicated and experienced by groups of employees. In change efforts a key conversation that occurs early is the discussion among the employees as to what the leader is up to. Invariably, there are questions: Can we trust this person? What is this person about? Ultimately am I interested in what this person is committed to? (One way I talk about this with my clients is to phrase this employee question as: Can I be enrolled in the future this person is committed to creating?) If the experience is that this person is committed to doing what is best for the business, even if it requires tough actions, employees will experience this and start to engage. If the commitment is personally to looking good, then the employees sense there is going to be just more of the same and ask themselves why they should be involved or contribute to any change the leader suggests. In fact, they often say to themselves, “I’ll hunker down and protect what I’ve got. This new effort will pass, as new efforts have in the past.”

The leader’s Foundational Commitment to be in communication is also reflected in an intense desire to be a better listener. Often leaders are aware that listening is critical for success; yet often listening is not one of their strongest skills. The Foundational Commitment to being a good listener causes the leader to persist in developing advanced listening skills, which many business people today do not have. The ability to listen well is a critical skill for leaders. Most business people are much more comfortable talking than listening. There is an illusion of power when one is talking articulately and forcefully.

Too often, young leaders focus on saying the right thing and pay little attention to developing the skills to listen with great acuity. Employees will be engaged much more quickly when they know that their concerns and points of view are heard and appreciated by the leader, than they would be engaged by a slick slide show or speech. Leaders often report that learning to listen well is among their highest challenges, and so having their Foundational Commitments energize the continued development of listening skills is essential. The leaders come to appreciate that their power actually comes from their ability to listen and learn. Listening allows access to the wants and needs of customers, employees, investors, suppliers, and other stakeholders.

The leader’s Foundational Commitments also include providing a mechanism or structure with which to listen. The Foundational Commitment to listen results in some kind of clear structure for meeting with people in order to listen, for recording that listening, for repeating that listening back to the employee, etc. This structure works as a “listening device” for the comments and concerns of people on the team and in the organization. A central part of the increased skill in listening is the establishing of a commitment-based structure with which to listen: time, place, method, response, etc. This allows for heightened listening and for translating others’ comments into expressions of the commitments of both the leader and the employees.

By listening intently to customers and employees, the leader is able to determine their commitment and concerns. This gives access to the areas in which they can be engaged and enrolled. Listening is a key to effective enrollment. Highly effective leaders come to attend to the commitment that is being spoken as much as the particular words that are being used.

Critical Thinking

The Foundational Commitment leader appreciates that critical thinking is a key enabler of success. Often the leader has to teach others to think, so that they can think critically.

Critical thinking begins with a sense of inquiry and questioning. There is a continual quest to better understand what is going on in the business and what the drivers are to improve performance. There is an unwillingness to settle for pat answers, stories, and excuses. A statement such as, “Well, everybody knows,” provokes a leader with Foundational Commitments to question the thinking that is behind that statement. It is a bit like waving a red cape in front of an angry bull. Predictable responses will occur.

Critical thinking involves continuously challenging one’s own thinking and the thinking of others. A leader appreciates that what has stopped a business from being successful is the myths and stories that the managers tell themselves. Getting the managers to challenge their own thinking to identify the myths is a key step in moving toward breakthroughs.

Thinking critically is not simply a matter of intelligence. Many very bright people with extensive education and experience are not effective in thinking critically. The consequence of not thinking critically is often noted by the expression: “What were they thinking?” After all the excuses and stories are told, the sad realization is that people simply were not thinking critically.

Thinking critically is not as common in businesses as one might think and certainly not as common as one would desire. There seem to be different reasons for this. First, in many companies a myth has developed that only managers, especially senior managers, are the people in the company who are supposed to think. It is common to have very experienced front-line workers tell graphic stories in which their attempts to add thinking to a discussion in their worksite was met with an instruction to “Shut up and do what you are told.” The tragedy of telling those closest to the work that they cannot add to the quality of thinking in their workplace has deprived shareholders of unthinkable amounts of value as well as taken the satisfaction of work away from many employees.

A second factor in the limited level of critical thinking has been the heavy focus on getting tight processes. The myth is that the process is fine, if we can just get the employees to execute it flawlessly. Rather than challenging the process, there is extreme attention to getting compliance. In compliance-oriented cultures, critical thinking is not appreciated. That is why employees are so eager to get with and support a leader who enables and encourages them to think critically about the business.

By contract, pseudo-leaders with situational commitments spend enormous energy defending their history, the correctness of their answers, and complaining that their superiors would not be asking the questions they are asking if they understood the business. Situational commitment pseudo-leaders shut down critical thinking. They focus, instead, on avoiding any challenges to thinking that would make anyone uncomfortable or look bad.

If a person has Foundational Commitments, these result in big commitments for the organization. The critical thinking process, then, will need to expand to get to the level and expanse required to develop a comprehensive understanding of the situation as well as courses or pathways of action.

Leaders with Foundational Commitments are also more open to critical thinking that includes differences in points of view or different perspectives. They are more open to conversations and thinking different from their own. There is a tolerance and appreciation of diversity and the power that different points of view can bring. Foundational Commitment leaders usually surround themselves with people who are different in their thinking to assure that the proper challenges to the leader’s thinking are made. These people who think a bit differently are often the ones who come up with the data and ideas that turn into breakthroughs. In contrast, people with situational commitments tend to surround themselves with loyalists who are agreeable, who usually have similar perspectives, and who will not challenge their thinking. At times it looks like a scene from an opera with the loyalists “singing choruses of praise” for the pseudo-leader.

Access to Possibility

Possibility is the leader’s secret weapon. Possibility is a way of getting people to open up and consider the alternatives. It is a key to unlocking the power in teams and organizations, and getting people engaged in improving the performance. It is the kind of conversation and questioning that so many employees want to have, and so many managers are afraid to have.

Possibility invites a conversation of what could be. Possibility is a conversation about what could be accomplished, delivered or produced. In this kind of possibility conversation there are no immediate constraints, restrictions, or critiques. There, of course, is a role for critique at some later time, but not in the early stages of possibility conversations of creation and invention in thinking. Foundational Commitments enable the leader to have confidence to think beyond the borders or boundaries of what is currently thought to be achievable.

In business lingo there is an expression, “thinking outside the box.” This expression comes from a graphic where nine dots are drawn on a piece of paper or whiteboard. The person is then instructed to connect all nine of the dots by drawing four straight lines without lifting the pencil or pen. If you have not seen this demonstration, try it:

(The solution to this puzzle appears at the end of this article.)

The point of this demonstration is that the mind sees an imaginary “box” when it sees the nine dots. Is there a box there? No, but the mind acts as if there is and set boundaries and parameters on what is possible. The mind shapes what we see as possible when we look at the nine dots, and, in turn, shapes what is seen as possible actions and solutions. In similar ways business people may be limited in their view of the circumstances, customer behavior, competitive forces, market conditions, etc. There are “nine dots” and imaginary boxes around their part of the business. If these imaginary boxes are not interrupted, the boxes will dramatically reduce what people can see as possible. A leader with Foundational Commitments, however, continues to seek out the possibility that exists and can be explored and does not allow conversations to be limited by “nine dot imaginary boxes.” The leader, then, provides the energy and intensity to continuously challenge “the box,” whether it is the perceived limits of performance, approaches, or the contribution that employees can make to the business.

Increased level of critical thinking comes from the leader being able to see a full range of possibilities. The leader’s personal commitments and stand give access to a whole range of possible options. “We can’t” is not a familiar expression of a leader. Rather it is “We will” or “We will keep looking until we find a way.” The critical thinking of the Foundational Commitment leader will continue to focus on exploring for further possibilities.

Possibility conversations provide the Foundational Commitment leader to gain life or expression in the work. The commitments are experienced most powerfully as possibility. Possibility is also expansive, as it leads to the question of “What would fulfilling these possibilities that we have seen from critical thinking allow us to do that we don’t see as possible today?”

While ultimately there are boundaries on what is acceptable to consider, the act of critical thinking, nonetheless, becomes an enabler. As an example, if a leader has a Foundational Commitment of respect for employees and safety, those possibilities that would put employees at great harm will not be acted upon. However, since the leader has clarity or sharpness in perspective, there will be more resourcefulness available.

I have noticed that as leaders grow and mature, their relationship to possibility expands. It becomes not only something that is useful and expresses their commitment, but actually becomes a commitment in and of itself. There is a joy that the leader sees in what people do when they discover their own possibilities, and this is rewarding in and of itself. It is the possibility of what can be contributed to others. The satisfaction of this contribution and gift is very rewarding to the leader.

A person with situational commitments has little facility with possibility, since their field of view of what is possible is restricted to that which will assure that they look good. If the only things that a leader can consider are those which will make her/him look good or at least avoid looking bad, the conversation of what is possible is dramatically reduced.

Focus on Excellence in Implementation

A Foundational Commitment for leaders is excellence in implementation. This translates to wanting to do what is right and an intense focus on doing what is necessary for success. The leader is focused on implementation because that is the key to success. The “game” is won or lost in implementation, and the deep commitment to the success of the business and the people drives the leader to keep a keen eye on the key drivers of success in implementation.

In contrast, pseudo-leaders with situational commitments do not excel at implementation, especially strategic implementation. By that I mean implementation of something that involves risk or is in someway not completely predictable. Pseudo-leaders do not show a commitment to excellence in implementation if that implementation requires real leadership rather than merely managing and overseeing the unfolding of what predictably will happen. Leadership is making something happen that was not going to happen, and this is scary ground for a pseudo-leader. In fact, as I have thought about it, I think pseudo-leaders are unable to see the possibility or opportunity for such a bold move and therefore, cannot think their way through strategic implementation. The field of view what is possible is restricted to options that are designed to make the pseudo-leader look good. The cost of looking good is a narrowed range of view, with no access to the very paths that would create success. The commitment to looking good is greater that the commitment to getting the result.

For pseudo-leaders the commitment to looking good and having an organization full of loyalists who surround the pseudo-leader results is so strong that attempts to point toward it and/or break it up are almost always resisted. It appears that the only thing that will bring this commitment to looking good is the lack of business results. The lack of business results appears to be the only force strong enough to disrupt it.

A consequence of having a pseudo-leader is that implementation will always be limited to that which is predictable. Given that simply doing what is predictable or safe is not appropriate for many businesses today, having a pseudo-leader in a key position is an extreme limitation. Perhaps governmental agencies and the post office tolerate this. But when we think about the poor performance in the post office and the debacle with FEMA in Katrina, perhaps we would decide that such limitations are not acceptable even in organizations like the post office and agencies of our government. Perhaps as I think about it, this may explain some of what drives the creation of bureaucracy in companies and government. Perhaps these organizations are led by pseudo-leaders whose commitment is to protect themselves, to look good and not be shown up to look bad.

Courage

Foundational Commitments will not allow the leader to hide out, be politically correct, or put personal career safety ahead of what is best. Rather, the leader will have the courage to take risks and to encourage the team to take the risks necessary to be successful. The leader also has the courage to declare and confront breakdowns. “When the going gets tough the tough go shopping” is not a description of a Foundational Commitment leader. Rather, when the going gets tough, true leaders go back to their Foundational Commitments.

By contrast the situational commitment pseudo-leader focuses on what is politically correct and does everything possible not to take personal risks. This pseudo-leader will let others get out on the limb and will sacrifice as many employees as necessary to continue to look good.

In Conclusion

Foundational Commitments are the source for leaders. Like the Krypton cells that were the strength for Superman, these Foundational Commitments provide the energy and power for the leader. These commitments shape the being of the leader. This is important because being a leader is the precursor to having an impact on others and to achieving success. These being-based attributes are watched carefully by employees and are at the heart of the credibility and rapport that leaders develop with others. This credibility and rapport open the door for leaders to interact in unique ways, and it is through these interactions with Foundational Commitment leaders that teams and businesses accomplish the extraordinary. They make something happen that was otherwise not going to happen. This leadership will in turn assure the continued achievement of excellent results.

Foundational Commitment leaders are tenacious in protecting their integrity and being that their word is their bond. They create a new context for the team, one that gives the team access to actions that they otherwise would not have. The leader communicates a personal stand for success, which, over time, is adopted by the team. The leader learns to listen and provides a definitive structure for listening to employees. The leader asks for critical thinking from all employees. The Foundational Commitment leader is unreasonable about the team finding a way to be successful and will not accept excuses and stories.

Key to the Dot puzzle:

Click a star to rate!

Rating: 0.00 / 5.00 - Not yet rated.
0 ratings

•

del.icio.us • add to digg

digg •

facebook

Source: Bob Chapman, Ph. D.