Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.  ~President Abraham Lincoln

Leadership, management, is there really a difference? There are some people out there who know, asking that question or making that statement is one way to really get me fired-up during a training. I say yes, there’s a HUGE difference. In honor of a number of our former U.S. Presidents, here’s what some of them had to say on the topic of leadership.

In periods where there is no leadership society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better. ~President Harry Truman

President Truman believed that leaders change things for the better. Changing things doesn’t mean increasing profits or employee retention or any other number from X to Y. Changing things means creating something new, a change is a revolution. Management increases numbers. Leadership ignites a transformation.

People ask the difference between a leader and a boss. The leader leads, and the boss drives. ~President Theodore Roosevelt

In this context, when I think of drive I don’t think of a car, I think of a herd of cattle (keep in mind, I grew up on a farm in Kansas). A cattle drive consists of cowboys on horses (or in my case, farmers in trucks and tractors) behind or alongside cattle herding them in a specific direction. Teddy Roosevelt understood that to lead you need to be in front, inspiring others to follow. Leaders lead. Managers drive; they dictate and control, they push people forward.

The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things.  He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things. ~President Ronald Reagan

Reagan knew that in order to achieve great things, it would happen because of the people. It was his job, as the leader, to get people to do great things. Leadership achieves extraordinary things through others. Management accomplishes the expected through processes and systems.

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader. ~President John Quincy Adams

President Adams clearly believed that leaders strive for more. If you are a leader, you aren’t content with the status quo. You are focused on something more, a vision of what could be. If you’re a manager you focus on the present situation and stabilize what is.

My attempt to use our past Presidents to draw out the difference between management and leadership is not to equate one as better than the other. We need both in organizations. Recognizing the difference and knowing when to manage and when to lead is a critical step toward creating a thriving organization.

Belonging is feeling safe in the workplace to show your differences without being marginalized for it. ~Glassdoor

There is more diversity in the workplace today than at any other time in history. However, most leaders have a long way to go in terms of building a sense of belonging to support their diversity efforts. As reported by Glassdoor, according to a recent survey from consultancy EY, only about one-third of U.S. workers today say they feel a sense of belonging at work.

In this same survey, more than 40 percent of employees reported that social exclusion in the workplace — the very phenomenon workplace belonging efforts aim to correct — makes them feel physically and emotionally stressed and unhappy.

How can leaders promote and encourage belonging?

First, we all need to understand a few key terms. Micro-messages: the signals we send to one another through our behavior. They are called “micro” because the behaviors are small, although their impact can be significant. Which then leads to micro-inequities: micro-messages we send other people that cause them to feel devalued, slighted, discouraged, or excluded (i.e., marginalized).

Heightened Awareness

Second, leaders need to become far more aware of their own behaviors, the subtle micro-messages they are sending without even realizing it. This is a very short list (the possibilities are endless) of subtle behaviors (micro-inequities), that when repeated can have enormous impact.

• Being left off a list
• Being left out of a discussion/project
• Not being introduced at a meeting, or receiving a perfunctory introduction in comparison to the introductions of others
• Cutting down ideas before they can be considered
• Giving greater weight to the same idea presented by another
• Repeatedly misspelling or mispronouncing a name
• Focusing attention elsewhere, such as a smart phone, when in conversation

Time to Reflect

Third, leaders need to take time to reflect in order to begin to uncover the micro-inequities they send throughout the day. For example, at the end of each day, consider the following:

• When am I listening (or not)?
• When am I shutting people out?
• Who am I including and excluding?
• Who am I encouraging and praising?
• When am I distracted when someone is else is talking?
• When am I disagreeing in a way that might be taken as belittling?
• Whose contributions am I taking for granted?
• Who do I consistently overlook?

It’s easy for leaders to say, and believe, that they aren’t guilty of sending micro-inequities. But that’s the point of MICRO. So subtle that we are unconscious of the messages we may be sending. Who are you marginalizing without even realizing it? If no one comes to mind, then I strongly suggest you ask several trusted colleagues to help you begin to identify your blind spots.

Take your diversity efforts to the next level and create an environment where people feel like they belong.

A culture of accountability makes a good organization great and a great organization unstoppable. ~Henry Evans (author of Winning with Accountability)

“If people would just do their jobs.” That’s a statement I hear frequently. Because managers and leaders are frustrated with things not getting done, lagging priorities, or work being completed “incorrectly” (which could have many different meanings). The statement that follows is typically, “There’s no accountability.” The speaker implies that there are no consequences so that same behavior continues.

Hold on to your hats managers and leaders, because I’d like to flip that perception of accountability on its head. The implication is that “employees aren’t accountable.” However, maybe the real issue or challenge is that managers and leaders aren’t providing what I call, The Rhythm of Accountability^TM .

I’ve spent a bit of time researching what’s been written about accountability. The vast majority of authors focus on “the conversation.” In other words, how to have the conversation once you believe someone needs to be held accountable. In contrast, there is much less written about how to create systems, structures, processes, communication, etc. that focus on building-in accountability to the DNA of the organization. Or, the way I like to say it, The Rhythm of Accountability^TM.

Edwards Deming, known as the father of the quality movement, taught that any time the majority of the people behave a particular way the majority of the time, the people are not the problem. The problem is inherent in the system. I’m suggesting, ironically, that leaders and managers should be held accountable for building an accountable system. And, not be so quick to point the finger at employees.

What does The Rhythm of Accountability^TM look like?

First and foremost, if an organization has a Rhythm of Accountability^TM expectations are both clear and shared. “Expectations” is not referring to the list of responsibilities included in job descriptions. This is referring to all of the expectations that are frequently unspoken but create the foundation for how work gets done. I’ll begin with just two examples (there are many more!).

Meetings. What is commonplace for meetings in your organization? Do you have shared expectations for meetings that support and encourage accountability? Is every meeting required to have an agenda? I know, that sounds like Meetings 101, but people get busy, in a hurry, etc. and many meetings are held without an agenda. Does every meeting have an objective? Is it clear how decisions will be made in that meeting? Is it clear what decisions you are making, what needs additional learning, what needs to be remembered, what action items are to follow, by whom, and by when? Etc.

Feedback. This is not referring to performance reviews. Instead, is asking for feedback practiced in your organization on a daily basis? Examples: What one thing could I do to improve this proposal? What external barrier have I forgotten to address in this marketing plan? Etc.

Recently, at the conclusion of a day-long planning session with a client I asked for feedback—first positive and then constructive. What I heard when I asked for constructive feedback was quite telling, and informative to me as a consultant. I heard literal gasps, and even one loud whisper, “She just asked for negative feedback!” If you’re wondering, yes, this organization struggles with accountability.

If people don’t feel safe asking for constructive feedback, it is much more difficult for them to be accountable. You haven’t given them a Rhythm of Accountability^TM when it comes to feedback.  

What’s your Rhythm of Accountability^TM?

If I visited your organization this week, would your Rhythm of Accountability^TM be obvious? Would I “feel the beat, the tempo, and the pace” when I interacted with employees or sat in on a meeting? Or, would I sense uncertainty, fear, and hesitancy resulting in chaos?

Leadership is enhanced when we are willing to live more in line with our created state of vulnerability by revealing the truth of who we are. ~Curt Thompson

We’re all human. I know, I’m stating the obvious. Even though it’s obvious, it’s also baffling that many leaders exert a great deal of effort trying to convince themselves and others that they are the exception.

I find Curt Thompson’s perspective especially intriguing because he’s a board certified psychiatrist with expertise in interpersonal neurobiology. His view on leadership is from the perspective of how human development and functioning is a product of the relationship between the body, mind, and relationships. What I would call the real science of leadership.

Enabling with Intention

Thompson defines leadership as “enabling, with intention, those who are relationally close, and for whom the leader has responsibility, to flourish.”

Let’s unpack that definition. Enabling—which could also mean facilitating, empowering, supporting—with intention. He’s chosen to emphasize with intention. I take that to mean it’s not something that magically happens simply because of the leader’s “position.” It happens because of focused effort.

The next phrase, “those who are relationally close.” I notice the suggestion of relationally close as opposed to close within a position of hierarchy. Consequently, I take that to mean that in order to lead someone you have to really know them.

The final phrase of his definition, “for whom the leader has responsibility, to flourish.” That doesn’t mean help them to just “get by,” or “check off the duties on their job description.” I think it means to help them do, or become, even more than they thought possible.

Reveal the Truth of Who We Are

With that definition of leadership in mind, Thompson goes on to tell us that “Leadership is enhanced when we are willing to live more in line with our created state of vulnerability by revealing the truth of who we are. And eventually that truth will include those areas in which we don’t have the answers or when we need help. This is especially true when we are in relatively higher positions.”

I realize that for many leaders reading this, that last paragraph may have stung just a little (or a lot). Reveal the areas in which we don’t have the answers or when we need help! Are you kidding me?! This gets back to my initial statement. We are all human. Even. Leaders.

Leadership really does get better when leaders are open about their “created state of vulnerability.”

Accountability Requires Vulnerability

Here’s another paradox. A few weeks ago I wrote about accountability, something that seems to be a challenge in nearly every organization I encounter. A very important part of accountable behavior is getting feedback, asking questions when you don’t have the answers and asking for help. Why should that be any different just because someone has moved into a higher position? Truly accountable behavior, in my opinion, requires vulnerability, regardless of position.

Leaders: Are you willing to live more in line with your created state of vulnerability by revealing the truth of who you are?

Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.  ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

I remember my first job out of college and how my boss pulled me aside one day and asked, “Are you comfortable with ambiguity?” Apparently not, given he was asking the question. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I typically only took action when I had certainty about something. It was so natural to me that I didn’t even notice I was doing it. I’m hopeful that decades later I’ve made some progress and am far more willing to take a step forward, with faith.

Synonyms of faith are confidence, trust, conviction, belief, devotion, loyalty, and assurance. Sounds like a list of character traits that describe Dr. King. As I paused this week to remember and recognize Dr. King, I was once again struck by his uncanny ability to articulate a vision—which we can still quote decades later—and his faith to take the first step when he wasn’t able to see the whole staircase.

I’ve facilitated strategic planning processes for many organizations; the process typically begins with developing a vision. Then what happens next fascinates me. We start to develop goals or initiatives or priorities or whatever term you want to use. These are five or so priorities that need to be accomplished over the coming three years to reach their vision. When we start to put a timeline to each of the various priorities and then objectives, a vast majority of the priorities/objectives end up with a timeline to be completed in the next three months and sometimes it stretches into the next year. It’s very rare that anything is identified as being accomplished in the next two or more years.

Why do I find this fascinating?

Well, if the vision can really be accomplished in the next few months then is it really all that visionary? Or, if our vision is really visionary, do we only have enough faith to take us up the first couple of stair steps? When we’ve reached those first few steps, will we keep going? In my experience, this is where I’ve seen many organizations simply stop. They accomplished what they could identify as the first few steps but there’s still a lot of staircase to go before they reach their vision. Do they have the faith to not only take the first few steps but to keep going beyond the steps they can see today?

Many of the individuals and organizations we’ve come to admire are those who didn’t stop working their way up the staircase; even when they had made their way up the steps they could see at the beginning, they didn’t stop there.

They kept going.

The Apple III was considered a complete failure. They went back one step to Apple II, reevaluated their plan to phase it out and continued on with its development. It’s been estimated that roughly half of the major ventures Steve Jobs engaged in simply didn’t pan out. The magnitude of his failures, and his ability to recover from them, demonstrates what can be realized if we keep making our way up the staircase. 

Nelson Mandela spent 18 years in prison, but that didn’t cause him to waiver in his vision. After his release, he plunged himself wholeheartedly into his life’s work, striving to attain the goals he and others had set out almost four decades earlier. He kept going.

We may never see the entire staircase, but if we allow faith to be part of the equation, we may make it farther up the staircase than we ever thought possible.