Recall the Scenario

In my last article I introduced you to a scenario where two people, Ben and Chris, are very different types of leaders. At the end of the article I asked for feedback about some leadership elements at play. Thank you for all who responded. Much of the feedback was empathetic (“Are you writing about [fill in the name]? Because ‘Ben’ sounds exactly like them?”)

Other feedback was critical (“I would say that neither of them are leaders, they are just control freaks.”) It’s not easy when you are forced to choose between two imperfect options. But, that often is reality, isn’t it? What you can do to keep your sanity and make the best of things is to understand the natural laws of leadership that are at play in the situation that you are facing and adjust accordingly.

As a leader, you will likely find yourself in a situation where you are in charge of someone who is challenging or difficult to lead, as was Chris in the outlined scenario. You will also likely find yourself working for someone who isn’t the strongest leader, as is Ben. In either situation, the question to you as a leader is this: Are you going to allow the inadequacies of another to determine your own success as a leader?

As a leader, you have the responsibility to demonstrate your versatility and adjust to the situation, both up and down the organization, to ensure you are as effective as possible.

This is why it is helpful to understand what I call the Natural Laws of Leadership.

Natural Laws of Leadership: Empowerment Though Inaction

Just as there are laws of nature (objects will fill fall to earth at the same speed, water will follow the path of least resistance to the sea, smoke rises, etc.), there are also natural laws of leadership. Despite our best intentions and desires, we can’t change these laws. They simply exist.

Leadership is an inherently interpersonal endeavor. Because of this, the natural laws of leadership intrinsically deal with people’s behavior. One of the key natural laws of leadership at work in the scenario described above is the Law of Empowerment Through Inaction.

Let me describe it this way. A person looking to get something will find the easiest way possible to get it. They will follow the path of least resistance to reach their goal. It’s human nature. Ask any parent of a child who wants some candy how it works. The child will go to the parent who they feel is most likely to agree to the request. They will even work one against the other to get the answer they want. The same thing is true of people in a professional setting. Look at the way the staff has learned to adjust to Ben’s micro-meddling in the previously described scenario.

The converse of this behavior is also true.

Any behavior, however inappropriate or unacceptable, will be continued until enough pressure is applied to force the behavior to change.

Therefore, as a leader, one of your jobs is to recognize and respond to behavior that shouldn’t be continued. Part of a leader’s job is to put up the appropriate level of resistance (organizationally, interpersonally, within a team, etc.) at the right place to drive the right behavior and outcomes. If a leader fails to do this, the net effect is no different than if they were to officially endorse the undesired behavior.

What is tolerated and accepted is perpetuated and becomes the norm.

This likely explains why Chris, in this scenario, continues to demonstrate unprofessional and dysfunctional behaviors. This also clearly illustrates, in very real terms, the Law of Empowerment Through Inaction.

Stay Tuned for More

I’ll introduce more of the Natural Laws of Leadership in the coming weeks.

—————————————————
This post, as well as others from Dave, can also be found at http://linked2leadership.com/author/dhasenbalg/

Dave Hasenbalg is Chief Operating Officer of Customized Solutions, LLC and does coaching and public speaking on Leadership and Operational Excellence.
He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

A Challenging Leadership Scenario

Below is a profile on leadership that tells of two different types of leaders. Both leaders have definite flaws in their leadership profiles, but I think that one of them can been seen as a more effective leader.

Can you relate to this scenario? Have you experienced something like this before in your organization?

(This situation is real but the names have been changed.)

The Micro-Meddler

Ben is the most senior ranking official at an organization of over 200 people. His preferred method of operating is to keep a fairly non-formal approach with all of the staff. He doesn’t like it when too many rules and procedures are implemented because it gets too “corporate.” When people bring something to his attention, he jumps into the details and quickly works with people until he feels that a resolution has been found. He isn’t a micro-manager, per se. After seeing him in action, I’ve actually coined the term “micro-meddler” to describe him more accurately.

You see, Ben seems to always get in the middle of things in an attempt to help, but he ends up messing things up. And as one might imagine, he then expects others to clean-up the mess that he creates.

The staff has all learned how to take advantage of this approach.

When they want something, they simply become the proverbial “squeaky wheel” until he takes action to come save the day. Although he thinks that he is helping, he is actually undermining a functional system with his various approaches to leadership. To make things worse, Ben tends to avoid confrontation, preferring instead to reward those whom he likes with surprise bonuses and giving little or no feedback to others. The lack of structure in his personal preferences seems to foster a hapless approach to his rigor-less leadership.

The Egregious Ego

Ben has more troubles. One of them is his direct reports, Chris. Chris has been in position for many years in a role that coordinates many of the projects and work efforts across the organization. Because Chris has been around a long time, he has become the subject-matter-expert in many areas. For many things, it seems that if you want something done you’re going to have to talk to Chris. Chris knows it and apparently he likes the power.

I’ve dubbed him the “egregious ego.”

Chris is not easy to work with. Different people throughout the organization have complained that Chris is rude, abrasive, argumentative, and quick to spread rumors. Over the years, the situation seems to have become more pronounced. But people have learned that when they want something from Chris they need to adjust their approach, just catch him on a “good day”, or find others in the organization with whom to collaborate so they can attain the same results without having to work with Chris.

So who is the most effective leader of the two?

Can you relate to either of the people identified in this scenario? Have you worked with anyone who behaved like either of them? It is clear that both people have some challenges as leaders. So, here is the question for you: Who is the more effective leader for this organization?

According to John C. Maxwell, the true measure of leadership is influence: the ability to influence the behavior of others. With that in mind, I would submit that Chris, the “egregious ego” is the more effective leader. While Chris’ behavior is arguably more dysfunctional to the organization, the end result is still greater influence on others.

There are many factors at play in any leadership situation and each factor impacts another. These are some key leadership elements at play here:

• Positional power vs. Task Power (Ken Blanchard)
• Abdicating authority
• Effective leaders vs. “good” leaders
• Obtaining results vs. “just doing things”
• Violating the natural laws of leadership

Stay Tuned

Please let me know your thoughts on this situation, particularly as it relates to the elements listed above. What similar experiences have you had and how did you deal with them? In a future post, I’ll highlight the input received.

In addition, I’ll introduce what I call the “Natural Laws of Leadership.” Specifically as it relates to this scenario, I’ll introduce the first Natural Law of Leadership: Empowerment Through Inaction.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

—————————————————
This post, as well as others from Dave, can also be found at http://linked2leadership.com/author/dhasenbalg/

Dave Hasenbalg is Chief Operating Officer of Customized Solutions, LLC and does coaching and public speaking on Leadership and Operational Excellence.
He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Have you ever had front row seat to watch a good initiative fail? It can be breathtaking. Literally.

Several years ago I was given the challenge of driving a major initiative in a Fortune 500 company. Our goal: find ways to significantly increase revenue and to reduce expenses in one of the company’s business units.

Several of subject matter experts were taken out of their “day jobs” and gathered to form a team. We took the charge and ran with it. After about 4 months of intense research, analysis, and voice of the customer assessment the team had identified half a dozen opportunities that had the potential to generate tens of millions of dollars of either savings or additional revenue.

About that time there was a change in leadership in the sponsoring organization. Uh oh…

The new leader wasn’t convinced that new initiatives stemming from detailed customer research was the right direction, and preferred to make smaller, more incremental changes in another part of the business unit. Of course, the decision wasn’t made as clearly as that. It really occurred slowly over the next two months and came in the form of multiple, smaller course adjustments, like redeploying key team members and delaying important go/no-go decisions.

It essentially died a slow, painful, and dreadful death. It took our breath away.

Eventually a skeleton crew was all that was left of the once proud team and the only remnants of the savings were the two simplest initiatives that were the easiest to execute and least politically risky. The team was sent back to their “day jobs” exhausted, disillusioned, and cynical. Leadership lesson here: Don’t do this. It’s really short-sighted and the “soft costs” cost way more than you can ever know.

Stick and the Streamer

Does this sound like an initiative you have experienced? What happened? Among other things, this illustrates the fact that many leaders fail to acknowledge the reality that any decision they make takes time to execute. In fact, it takes an exponentially larger amount of time and effort to execute than it took to come up with the plan in the first place. And the larger the scale of the initiative, the longer it may take to execute. I call this the “stick and streamer” effect.

Picture if you will a stick and to the end of that stick is fastened a streamer. If it helps, imagine the ribbon that is used in rhythmic gymnastics. Use this tool to represent the stick and streamer model for leadership.

The stick represents the leader. The streamer represents those being led.

Notice how the smallest flick of the wrist (a leader’s decision) has a much larger proportional impact on the streamer (the led). The same thing happens in every organization. It takes time for each action to make it to the end of the streamer. The more severe the shift in direction, the longer it takes to ripple to the end and get the rest of the team in line with the new direction. The impact to those at the end of the streamer is also more significant. Paradoxically, the smoother and more subtle the action, the more alignment there is between the stick (the leader) and the streamer (the led).

As a former U.S. Army Officer, there is a helpful rule of thumb that each new lieutenant learns that might also help in using this model. It’s the one-third/two-thirds rule. In short the rule says that the leader should take 1/3 of the available time to plan for a mission and then allow his unit 2/3 of the time to prepare and execute the mission. Stated another way, it is going to take your team at least twice as long to execute your initiative as it took you to plan it.

So, when it comes to making your own leadership decisions, remember the lesson from stick and the streamer. You can make decisions, but allow your team the time to execute and make that decision successful.

In your leadership role, do you really give enough time and patience in allowing ideas to blossom and grow to their desired potential? Do you build correct expectations into your plans so that that you are communicating realistic time lines to your superiors? Do they gives ideas enough time to grow and mature? Or are you or your leaders cutting  ideas time lines down and not providing that needed time frame to engage and fulfill the dream? I would love to hear your thoughts and experiences. Please share!

—————————————————
This post, as well as others from Dave, can also be found at http://linked2leadership.com/author/dhasenbalg/

He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it