Launching a Leadership Revolution: Mastering the Five Levels of Influence

Read an Excerpt

Sometimes if you want to see a change for the better, you have to take things into your own hands.

-CLINT EASTWOOD

A Question of Leadership

We find ourselves in a time when leadership is sorely needed. From the chaos, confusion, and rampant mediocrity that we find in our schools, churches, workplaces, families, personal lives, national politics, and international relations, the same questions seem to echo: "Will somebody please lead?" "Isn't there anybody who can fix this?" "Is there anyone who can make sense of all this?" "Is there anyone who cares enough to take responsibility for improvement here?" "Where are the leaders?" "Do heroes even exist anymore?"

These questions and more flow freely. Everybody seems to have an innate sense that something is needed. It is not hard to identify problems in a given situation. Ask someone to identify what's wrong with their church, employer, or neighbors and you'd better be prepared for a long explanation. Don't even get them started on the government! That could take days. Identifying negatives and areas for improvement is child's play. Making suggestions for changes and modifications is not difficult, either. Everyone has an opinion about how to make improvements. Coming up with good ideas is no big deal. The world is full of great ideas and deep thinkers of grand theories. Implementation and results make the difference. They separate the heroes from the rest. And implementation with results, in any field or endeavor, takes leadership.

and provides them the training, education, and support they need."

4. Andy Stanley: "Leaders provide a mental picture of a preferred future and then ask people to follow them there."

5. Vance Packard: "Leadership is getting others to want to do something that you are convinced should be done."

6. Garry Wills: "Leadership is mobilizing others toward a goal shared by the leader and followers."

7. Alan Keith: "Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen."

8. George Barna: "A leader is one who mobilizes; one whose focus is influencing people; a person who is goal driven; someone who has an orientation in common with those who rely upon him for leadership; and someone who has people willing to follow them," and "Leadership is the process of motivating, mobilizing, resourcing, and directing people to passionately and strategically pursue a vision from God that a group jointly embraces."

9. Kenneth O. Gangel: "I consider leadership to be the exercise of one's special gifts under the call of God to serve a certain group of people in achieving the goals God has given them toward the end of glorifying Christ."

10. Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it."

These insights and definitions are good and helpful, and some we like particularly, but John Maxwell gives an exemplary definition, quoted here at length from his book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership:

Leadership is influence-nothing more, nothing less. People have so many misconceptions about leadership. When they hear that someone has an impressive title or an assigned leadership position, they assume that he is a leader. Sometimes that's true. But titles don't have much value when it comes to leading. True leadership cannot be awarded, appointed, or assigned. It comes only from influence, and that can't be mandated. It must be earned.

What, then, is influence? Our favorite explanation of influence comes to us from nineteenth-century preacher and author Albert Barnes: "Influence is that in a man's known talents, learning, character, experience, and position, on which a presumption is based that what he holds is true; that what he proposes is wise."

George Barna tells us, "To be effective, a leader must have influence. But influence is a product of great leadership; it is not synonymous with it. You can have influence in a person's life without leading him anywhere."

Perhaps there will never be a short, cute definition for leadership. We are certain there will never be one upon which all "experts" agree. This very difficulty in arriving at a concise explanation for the concept illustrates the enormity of the subject at hand. But all of the above definitions hit near the same mark. Any attempts to be more concise or specific are like trying to grab smoke. For the purpose of this study, then, we will fuse the above commentary into the following:

Leadership is the influence of others in a productive, vision-driven direction and is done through the example, conviction, and character of the leader.

Why Leadership?

We have surveyed the thoughts of many great minds on the definition of leadership and, as with a complex painting, the image is getting clearer the more we work with it. To brush in more detail, we must discuss the purpose of leadership.

Many people are interested in leadership for what they imagine it can provide them, including:

1. Power

2. Control

3. Perks or Being Served.

But the life of a leader is quite different from such expectations. The life of a leader involves:

1. Giving power (empowering)

2. Helping others fix problems and move forward

3. Serving others.

Leaders lead for the joy of creating something bigger than themselves. Noted leadership consultant Warren Bennis says that he wants to publish books "that disturb the present in the service of a better future." That's good, and it's a sentiment shared by Hyrum Smith: "Leaders conduct planned conflict against the status quo."

To illustrate, consider the story of Ray Kroc and the making of the McDonald's fast-food empire. Kroc discovered the little McDonald's restaurant in Southern California in the 1950s and was amazed. The McDonald brothers had developed an efficient, unique, and highly profitable operation. They had fast-food production and delivery down to a science, and they were making what they considered a lot of money. But Kroc saw further. He realized that their little restaurant could be copied and duplicated and reproduced around the nation, and he set about trying to make that happen. Author Jim Collins, in Good to Great, explained that great leaders have ambition beyond their own personal self-interest. They are not satisfied with personal success only, but focus almost entirely upon furthering the vision of the enterprise.

Leaders can't stand to leave things the way they found them.

At first Kroc attempted partnering with the McDonald brothers, but he found this restrictive and an anchor on his progress. Then he tried buying rights to their system for a period of ten years, but again, his vision outran theirs and he found the provisions contained within the contract to be incompatible with his vision. Maury Klein explains what happened in The Change Makers: "As that vision expanded, [Kroc] found the brothers unwilling to deviate from the strict letter of the original terms." The best explanation, however, comes from Kroc himself: "The McDonald brothers were simply not on my wavelength at all. I was obsessed with the idea of making McDonald's the biggest and best. They were content with what they had." The McDonald brothers were content. Kroc was not.

So if leadership is influence applied toward an overarching vision (pun intended), it follows that this influence is motivated by discontent with the status quo and directed toward something better. We like to call this "making a difference." And leaders do that in the direction of their vision for the future, a vision that sees farther than others see. George Barna says, "[Leaders] have to own the vision completely. It must be a perception of a coming reality to which [they] are totally committed." Leaders can't stand to leave things the way they found them. They are driven to make them better. It is from this discontent, and toward their vision, with ownership and commitment, that they exercise influence. According to President Theodore Roosevelt, "We need leaders of inspired idealism, leaders to whom are granted great visions, who dream greatly and strive to make their dreams come true; who can kindle the people with the fire from their own burning souls." That is what it means to lead.

Results

The level of leadership determines the success of its results. Over time, where there are lackluster results, there is a leadership deficiency. Where there are stellar results, there is strong leadership. John Maxwell says that "everything rises and falls on leadership."

Let's first consider the results of poor leadership.

When leaders or those in a position to lead shirk their responsibilities, cut corners, or fail in their responsibilities, the results are far reaching. Says Bill George in Authentic Leadership, "A Time/CNN poll taken in the summer of 2002 reported that 71 percent of those polled feel that the 'typical CEO is less honest and ethical than the average person.' In rating the moral and ethical standards of CEOs of major corporations, 72 percent rated them 'fair' or 'poor.' A similar survey by the Wall Street Journal Europe reported that only 21 percent of European investors believe that corporate leaders are honest." So one of the first products of poor leadership is an erosion of the trust people have in those who should be leading. As author Les Csorba wrote in Trust, "Leadership is character in motion."

Next come pain and suffering, which can be on a corporate, financial, or emotional level, depending on the setting. Or they may have major geopolitical ramifications.

The War of 1812 was a perilous time for the brand-new United States. Only a few decades old, the young country found itself embroiled in yet another war with England. With the exception of a very impressive string of naval victories, the United States had been battered at the hands of the British. Washington, the national capital that was still under construction, had been not only successfully invaded but also humiliatingly burned. While a treaty of sorts had been signed between the two nations, the British knew that word of the peace would not travel fast enough to stop the invading force they'd sent to attack the city of New Orleans.

New Orleans was a strategically pivotal city. Most of the trade from the North American west flowed down the Mississippi and through New Orleans at the base of the river's delta. If New Orleans were lost, Britain believed it could split the United States in half and force a treaty more favorable to their side. With the positive conclusion of an invasion of New Orleans, there would be time for the British parliament to reject the current terms and negotiate a much stiffer peace.

The confidence of the New Orleans leadership to fend off an attack was receding like an ebb tide. The Committee for the Safety of New Orleans issued a report itemizing the poor morale and lack of preparations by the local militia in defense of the city. The city had transferred from the hands of the Spanish, then the French, and finally to the United States in less than a decade, and the loyalty of her defenders was a major concern. In fact, the speaker of the Louisiana senate considered surrendering the city to the British without a fight because most inhabitants were more loyal to the city than to the United States. Additionally, there was the very real fear of a slave rebellion in the area.

By contrast, the British were confident. Riding high on their victory in the Napoleonic Wars, they expected a decisive rout at New Orleans. Many veterans of Wellington's victorious army of Waterloo were in the invading army's ranks. They were battle tested and proven, and certainly no ragtag multicultural militia could match their might.

If the leadership of New Orleans' defenses had remained in this confused state, the British hopes would have been well founded. The tumult in New Orleans would have given way to the armies of the British just as it had in Washington. One can only guess what would have become of the infantile United States had it been split in half from its south.

In the case of the defense of New Orleans in the War of 1812, the tragedy of poor leadership is quite clear. The results are similar to the results of bad leadership elsewhere, though they may not be fatal, whether in industry, in politics, or in the home. Chaos, lack of progress, confusion, and frustration are sure to follow where leaders refuse or fail to lead.

Now let's observe real leadership in action by resuming our look at the Battle of New Orleans.

Into this storm marched Major General Andrew Jackson. Only Andrew Jackson's indomitable will and courageous leadership stood between an acceptable peace treaty and the potential destruction of the United States. With only his small Tennessee militia, Jackson arrived on the scene just in time to bring order out of chaos and resolve out of fear. Assuming leadership of a patchwork army made up of the Louisiana militia, a band of local pirates, and several hundred black volunteers from Haiti, Jackson's entire force amounted to just over half the total available to the British invaders.

General Jackson immediately took charge. He declared martial law in the city and imposed a strict curfew. When he was alerted to the British landing less than a day's march from New Orleans, he mobilized his forces into action. Instead of waiting for the British to march to the city, Jackson devised a surprise attack. Had Jackson waited and allowed the British soldiers to assault the city on their own terms, the fragile confidence the New Orleans populace had in Jackson's ability to stop the British would have been destroyed. Instead, the surprise attack from the Americans pinned down the British and stopped their advance in its tracks. The battle would take place right where Jackson decided it would.

Quick and creative defense works allowed Jackson's badly outnumbered and outclassed army to perform at a level way above its strength. The battle opened with an intense artillery barrage, but Jackson's personal courage steeled the resolve of his men to endure in the face of overwhelming odds. Intense combat followed as the heroes of Europe slammed their best troops against Jackson's forces. Jackson shrewdly deployed his troops to meet every British challenge, much of the early fighting turning into hand-to-hand slugfests. Unable to advance and suffering heavy losses, the British lines eventually gave way. The battle turned into a rout. Three top British generals were killed in what became the most lopsided battle of the war. Within a few hundred yards lay nearly one thousand dead and dying British. The American side suffered thirteen killed and wounded.

The Battle of New Orleans, as it came to be called, allowed the treaty ending the conflict to be ratified and the War of 1812 to end. The difference between the early pessimism of the New Orleans defenders and the final American result was due directly to the leadership and decision making of General Andrew Jackson.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from Launching a Leadership Revolution by Chris Brady Orrin Woodward Copyright © 2005 by Chris Brady and Orrin Woodward. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---