Andy Rowell

Long thread here articulating some thoughts on leadership:
The definition of leadership is helping a group work toward a common goal. See Northouse image👇
So, leaders are the people who push a group to do what they themselves wanted done but the group hadn't done it yet.

Therefore, theoretically, the work of leadership need not be coercive or violent or manipulative. The group wants something done but has needed someone to coordinate and organize the action. The group should be grateful for and cooperative with someone taking the initiative.

Often, happily, leadership involves progress toward common goals without much downside. There are often "low hanging fruit" or "easy wins" or "win-wins." "We all agree this should be done so let's just do it!" Common sense solutions—that is the ideal.

But there are also many difficult challenges where there is not a consensus about how to proceed and there are various negative ramifications. This is where leaders often make mistakes by failing to listen.

Leaders have learned from previous leadership successes that as the person coordinating, encouraging, and organizing, they should expect to hear minor complaints from people who are generally on board with the common goal. "We're too tired." "Why now?"

So leaders listen for important objections but often ignore what seem to them to be minor objections. The leaders thinks the reason the problem remains unaddressed is because of inertia and excuses so they give little weight to these minor objections.

Then leaders push through an attempt at a solution. "Let's try this!" "Let's experiment with this!" Why not? What do we have to lose?" This approach has worked in the past for them. It has helped a group make progress toward a common goal which others had allowed to fester.

But what if disregarding those "minor complaints" ("We're tired. Why now?") and pushing ahead with a bold new initiative ends up breaking people (so that they leave the group entirely) and the initiative fails? The group ends up beaten down, flogged, exhausted, and resentful.

The leader had thought "What do we have to lose?" but they did not consider that in fact their initiative or reorganization may destroy morale. There was in fact an opportunity cost to the initiative. There were hidden costs that came back to bite them.

I see this in microcosm with regard to "action items" in meetings. People avert their eyes from the leader because they don't want to volunteer to do what the group agreed should be done. This is a sign that more discussion needs to take place.

It is possible that they just need to break up the task into smaller manageable pieces so that someone can accomplish it without undue burden. Or maybe there needs to be a reward attached to the task. But there may also be real doubt whether the task is really the right solution.

Some leaders in meetings sense intuitively and relationally and socially that if people don't volunteer to do a task, we should let sleeping dogs lie. Annoyingly, the same issues pop up meeting after meeting and no progress is made.

Other leaders in meetings are determined to see follow-through and efficiency. They cold-heartedly insist people volunteer to do the task and then they also follow up. But forcing people to work on tasks they don't believe in fosters resentment fast.

Meetings with angry outbursts, finger-pointing, and sharp criticism of others are the inevitable consequences of a leader ordering people to do things they doubt should be done by them or even done at all.

The only solution to inaction or internal rebellion is better dialogue and conversation and discussion and collaboration about what is to be done. To review, sometimes this is mercifully brief. There is low-hanging fruit, easy wins. But often the way forward is complicated.

The "Let's try this. It is worth a shot. Hail Mary pass. Why not?" seems to most leaders like the way forward with such challenges. They think that is "casting vision" or "leading." But it often has many "unanticipated costs" that others *can* predict if the leader would listen.

Along the same lines, leaders do not often question their own ideas even if they are failing in practice. They blame the problem on poor execution by their underlings. "People are just not following through with the action items they were assigned."

But the truth is the leader shoved the idea down their throat. The other group members knew there were potential problems with the leader's suggested solution but their questions were dismissed.

The better way is to facilitate a free exchange of ideas upfront rather than taking a stab in the dark or bullying people into executing a flawed idea.

A leader will need to figure out how to get that good honest, feedback and information. It may not come just by demanding it in a meeting. "HERE IS MY IDEA. GIVE ME YOUR HONEST FEEDBACK!" It may have to be in less stressful, more informal settings.

Originally tweeted by Andy Rowell (@AndyRowell) on December 22, 2021.