John Maxwell has been quoted as saying that Attitude (the right ones) can give you Altitude. This parallels what we read in Philippians 4:8, "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." Now I've said that so I can say this:

Teamwork, real teamwork, the kind which not only accomplishes a goal but also is personally fulfilling at the same time, the kind which values people and still functions at high levels, this kind of teamwork is a matter of personal choice, daily choice, on-purpose choice, life-orienting choice. It's all in your mind!!

YOU choose your attitude and YOU choose to operate from a mind-set which sees the team instead of self, which operates from the perspective of we instead of me, which really lives out God's design found in Philippians 2:3: "Do nothing out of selfish ambition, or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves."

Ironically, this is the essence of a mature holiness lifestyle in everyday practice.

Try this sometime, ask someone if they have change for a $5 bill. If they reply they only have $3 or $4 dollars, say that’s OK you can keep the difference. You will be amazed at the response. Most people will either refuse your offer or go out of their way to figure out how to get the rest of the money back to you.

People as a general rule, have a keen sense of what is “fair.” While that definition can be bent in times of crisis, most people try to live by that standard, and expect to be treated the same way. To be fair is to be just and this is where our understanding of Justice comes from.

For a leader, justice has to be more than an automatic response to the day-to-day happenings of life. Real leadership demands a personal lifestyle of justice, and the practice of the principles of justice in every transaction. Any recent headline of a “fallen” leader can be traced back to a perversion of the standard of justice. When a leader bends that sense of “fair” to benefit themselves, scandal is sure to follow.

When I hear someone described as a devoted follower, because of publicized events, my mind immediately brings up pictures of some cult. When I hear someone described as a devoted spouse, I get a different picture, one of love and unity.

It is interesting how the same word brings up two entirely different emotional images, depending upon the context. The definition of devotion includes wording such as “profound dedication.” It is an important topic when discussing leadership because all true leaders are devoted, that is they all exhibit a “profound dedication,” from the very worst to the very best.

Leaders are passionate about their vision and translate that passion into action toward accomplishing that vision. But it begins with that sense of devotion. Two obvious lessons stand out here: Devotion is an important part of leadership, and where that devotion is focused will dictate a leader’s course of action.

An old saying goes like this, “earn as much as you can, so you can save as much as you can, so you can give as much as possible.” Probably an easier way for us to understand this is in the phrase “knowing the value of a dollar.” You might think the topic of money is unusual for a discussion on leadership until you consider that Jesus spent more time discussing financial issues than any other, that money problems are the source of most marital fights, and that the way money is handled by an individual can lead to success or poverty.

So . . . what is the value of a dollar? It’s value lies entirely in the understanding that everything costs something. Money is not the end, but the means to an end. It plays an important role in our lives because it is the measure of our priorities, and our discipline. Since most of us have a limited amount of money, what we purchase clearly identifies our priorities. What do you count as a necessity? What is a luxury that may have to wait? The answer will vary but two things should hold constant, first a responsible person will recognize the value of earning a stable income, and, second, evaluate your priorities so you can spend wisely.

Leaders know how to “count the cost.”

You might appreciate it when someone slows down and let’s you turn into traffic. You might appreciate it when the check-out clerk actually smiles and is pleasant when you go through the line. You might appreciate it when you get home and the chore you were dreading the most was done by another family member. In fact, if you think about it there are about a hundred things to appreciate in every single day. I think for most of us it is easier to see those things which frustrate us, and it seems as if that number could climb to a million in the course of a day. Cultivating a sense of appreciation has a remarkable effect upon our ability to successfully navigate the daily hurdles of life. Those who take the time to “smell the roses,” find their lives more enjoyable and their work more productive. Numerous studies have shown that those who focus on appreciation have better health and are more likely to live longer. One step at a time, turn your focus from the frustrations to the opportunities. Start out by taking a few minutes of your day to think about the many things you have to appreciate, before you know it the frustration count will drop and your quality of life will go up.

.

The quote below is from Launching a Leadership Revolution by Chris Brady and Orrin Woodward:

"A critical pre-supposition all leaders must realize is that followers buy into the leader before anything else. The vision may be compelling, but is the leader worth following? The rewards may be inspiring, but can the leader be trusted? The environment may be inviting but does the leader care about his or her people? The resources may be enormous, but does the leader know what he or she is doing? These are the qualifying questions followers ask subconsciously before giving permission to be led. Leadership is not a position or title; it is a condition of permission given by followers once they buy into the leader. (bold and italics are mine) Leadership influence, like trust, must be earned and earned continually." (p. 186,187)

WOW! Do you see the bones underneath this? Unless the follower is convinced that the leader can lead in a way which benefits HIM in some way, there will be problems. This issue is one of the most significant problems with leadership from my perspective. Leaders don't take the time to develop relationships, and, therefore, their credibility is suspect. CREDIBILITY!!! The last two words of that quote are the downfall of many who have talent, charisma, and knowledge; trust must be earned continually!!! It may not seem fair or necessary, but to disregard this is to set the stage for followers to become disenchanted and potentially disruptive.

"What is being done, is what is being rewarded." If this is true, then all of our behaviors have some kind of reward attached. In most cases that reward is the comfort of pattern, i.e. we've always done it that way and see no reason why we should change - it is comfortable - it is a rut. Now being in a rut is not always a bad thing. Have you ever tried to change how you brush your teeth? Try switching to the opposite hand to hold and brush your teeth and you will experience in a small way the challenge of change, and the comfort of a rut.

As a leader, identifying the ruts which are conducive to accomplishing the mission, and those which are not, is part of the job. Someone has said that efficiency is doing things right and effectiveness is doing the right things. In other words, you can be doing things right, but those things may not contribute toward the fulfillment of the mission. The old forest and trees syndrome. Too many times the leader becomes focused on the trees and forgets the bigger picture . . . and then wonders why the mission never seems to get accomplished, even though huge amounts of time and energy are being poured out.

The benefit of understanding the GMP at the level of leadership is to see which behaviors are effective, i.e. "right" in the sense of mission fulfillment. Once behaviors or ministries are identified as being "off-track," the leader can strategize what the correct behavior needs to be AND THEN HOW TO PUT REWARDS INTO PLACE TO MOVE TOWARD THAT NEW BEHAVIOR.

This can and should include the process described in earlier posts regarding change principles - yet those principles, when augmented with this understanding have an even greater chance of success. Leaders have to be big picture people.

Another way to understand the GMP is this: What gets rewarded is what gets done OR what is being done is what is being rewarded. When we think of rewards some will automatically think of monetary rewards. Of course, this is one of the most powerful kind of rewards, but it is often impractical to reward with money. Take for instance the behavior of individuals arriving late for church. You could pay them to arrive on time but there probably isn't enough money available for that to last long.

Rewards don't have to be money. Now that that is settled, begin to think creatively of different kinds of rewards. One of the most powerful in the non-money category is appreciation. Most people crave appreciation, genuine sincere appreciation, desperately. In fact if the appreciation is genuine it can be a powerful force for changing behavior. On the other hand if it is perceived to be insincere and manipulative behaviors will get even worse.

Remember when you identify behavior patterns to connect the dots to the reality that what is being done is what is being rewarded, whether you think so or not. To change the behavior, figure out what behavior you want, and then design a way to reward that behavior. . . and be patient, it will change.

The Greatest Management Principle is simply this - that behavior is directly connected to perceived benefit. How does that fit into the Christian worldview?

The Christian worldview says that we should love others before self and sacrifice so that others might be saved. The standard is Love, but not just Love. Rather a Love which is God designed and God empowered. With this love in our hearts, the reality of the Christian worldview is possible, without it, NOT. Jesus exemplified this Love completely. His entire life was motivated by a Love which sought the Father's will and our salvation. There are notable examples of others who have also met this standard, as well as examples not so notable in every local church in America.

Yet, one would have to admit that even though these examples exist, that there are genuinely holy people among us, most of us, even in the church, fall in the sphere where the GMP applies in our lives. Those who understand this are more likely to be albe to influence and lead than are those who do not. The Holy among us do right for right's sake. Most of us have to be persuaded that the right has a benefit for us or our families before we will expend the energy.

Therefore, we see two different approaches to leadership: One which understands the Christian worldview and those few who live in it (unfortunately mos of preaching assumes, incorrectly, that all Christians live in holiness, or are even seeking it. Again, NOT). Second is an approach which deals with the un-transformed nature. I really believe this may be what Jesus referred to when he talked about being as clever as serpents and as gentle as doves. If we are holy and live by the principles of Love it doesn't preclude us from understanding the world as it is for most - and using the GMP to influence people toward the path that leads to holiness - indeed to do otherwise is a practice in ignorance or pomposity. Understand the GMP. After all, most people live under its influence. Practice the use of the GMP for the end of God's Kingdom. But live in the midst of Love.

I have been thinking of staffing for the local church. I have observed the normal pattern in most churches which focuses upon age group ministries relevant to a church's perceived need. I have read books which suggest that staffing should be more functional focused, specifically related to alleviating the load carried by the senior pastor. In both cases, there is a formulaic method to determine how many people in a congregation it takes to support the addition of a staff member.

I want to suggest another model. In this model Ephesians 4:11,12 is recognized as a guiding principle, especially, "to prepare God's people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up."(v.12) The primary focus of this model is to hire a "Volunteer Coordinator" whose role is to facilitate the identification, training and insertion of volunteers into ministry positions within the local congregation. The Volunteer Coordinator seeks to purposefully affect the usually perceived ratio of those who are actively involved in ministry (20% do 80% of the work) by actively getting more people involved in ministry, preferably within their spiritual gifting.

What do you think?

I would define leadership as: " the expressed guidance, decision, or action which is compelled by nature in the face of need, to accomplish a desired end." I know there are those who say that leadership demands followers but I would disagree. I believe that we either choose to lead ourselves, or fail to do so, resulting in an unfulfilled potential. While leadership can be broadly understood to apply to groups of any size, it starts within the individual.

The old saying is that "nature abhors a vacuum," meaning that when there is the absence of air, nature itself will do everything in its power to fill that void. I truly see this in relationship to leadership. In every situation there is a need for leadership . . . and in every situation someone always chooses to express guidance, make a decision or take action, however badly they may do so. It is not always good leadership which steps to the front - but there will always be some kind of leadership. It is a part of how God has designed the world and us.

Further, although it is nature which compels the void to be filled, it is our education and experiences which equip us to effectively provide leadership. We can learn the principles of leading and become adept at exercising those skills for the effective leadership.

It may be that we choose to allow others to lead in group situations but we cannot ignore the need in our own life to take responsibility and initiative (the major components of leadership). Even when we allow others to lead, there comes a time and a place where we have to add our influence to the process and thereby express leadership.

How does one go about communicating leadership principles in practical ways with those who follow? Obviously the visible living out of those principles can be observed and perhaps emulated by followers. Over a long enough period of time such example could result in transformed behavior in the life of an observant follower. But observing can only teach so much, particularly if the observation is clouded by personality which is flawed by ego, as is so often the case.

Leadership is more than simply knowing principles, however, it is also about people and trust. It is about focus, but not JUST focus. Focus without trust and a concern for people (more than simply mouthed platitudes) comes out feeling and looking a lot like tyranny.

In addition to demonstrating leadership principles in real-time situations, allowing those who follow the opportunity to fail as they learn to lead, while expressing support and confidence, may be an example of true transformative leadership.

What is unfortunate is when a leader's perception is that he/she is a transformative leader when in actuality a tyrant is closer to the truth. In this situation those who follow must either endure, weighing their commitment to the organization and it's values against the climate produced by such leadership, or disengage at whatever level necessary to find balance.

On November 14, 2005 I wrote: "Let's think about leadership in terms of an accumulation of skill sets. The acquisition of those skill sets will enhance the ability of the leader to move the organization toward the goal. Instead, then, of concentrating on moving to a different level of leadership, a better path to effective leadership might be to identify the skill sets needed to be effective, and to acquire those skill sets (which might also include bringing individuals around you who can supplement your weaknesses if the skill set is beyond your ability or would require excessive time to acquire)."

Let's suppose this is true. Then one of the key characteristics of a leader would have to be the ability to be able to "see the big picture." To see situations and problems in a larger context AND to then to know which skill sets apply (intuitively), and either pull those out of their accumulated kit (acquired through knowledge and experience) or pull in those who have the necessary skill set. Leadership then would have less to do with influence and more to do with a kind of disassociation. By that I mean the ability to disassociate oneself from the immediate and step back to see the greater good, keeping in mind the mission and strategic planning. Now let's add another big word - integration. The best leaders are those who can disassociate WHILE remaining integrated with the human side of the context.

As we develop this thought it is interesting that we are actually constructing a new leadership model which truly allows the possibility of becoming a leader in actuality rather than just theory. Learning to see things globally, while difficult, can be learned. Acquiring the various leadership skill sets can be difficult, but can be accomplished by most. Like learning a new language, learning the pieces (nouns, verbs, conjugations, etc.) comes before fluency and fluency in enhanced by the ability to actually think in the new language. Leadership is like that, what seems mechanical and awkward at first with practice becomes intuitive and reflexive. Let me tell you a secret which is the starting point - stop talking and listen.

I want to return to the levels of leadership discussed earlier. John Maxwell's book on Developing the Leader Within You describes various levels of leadership and Collins talks about level 5 leaders. The categorization of leadership into levels seems to be, at least in part, an artificial structure which, while allowing comprehension of some aspects of leadership, may actually limit our understanding by limiting our concepts to the defined structures/levels and causing would be leaders to focus on climbing a stair case ???. What I'm saying is, maybe there aren't different levels of leadership, at least not as has been suggested.

Oh, sure using the level description it is much easier to describe someone by saying "She has only reached level 3 in Leadership." Or, "Now he is a level 5 leader." All of which ignores much of what is . . . and is not happening in the leadership process.

As I have suggested before, Leadership includes initiative and a willingness to take responsibility for decisions. An almost compelling need to exercise initiative. Think about that. It might be said that Leaders who do not exercise initiative are not at a sub-level of leadership but are not leaders at all.

Now obviously, there are individuals who are in positions which are recognized by the world as leadership positions, but that doesn't make the people in those positions leaders, at any level. And what kind of initiative does a leader exhibit? It is initiative toward a goal. The goal may be misguided or well counseled. The goal may be specific or nebulous. However, leaders always take initiative toward a goal. They may have a misunderstanding of the culture, or the factors which may help them achieve this goal, but this is not a matter of a "level" of leadership as much as as maturation and wisdom.

Let's think about leadership in terms of an accumulation of skill sets. The acquisition of those skill sets will enhance the ability of the leader to move the organization toward the goal. Instead, then, of concentrating on moving to a different level of leadership, a better path to effective leadership might be to identify the skill sets needed to be effective, and to acquire those skill sets (which might also include bringing individuals around you who can supplement your weaknesses if the skill set is beyond your ability or would require excessive time to acquire).

What are some of those skill sets? Some of them might be:

• Interpersonal Communications (i.e. people skills)
• Ability to communicate clearly
• Ability to think critically
• Willingness to take risks
• Willingness to make a decision
• Ability to stay focused

You add some more to this list, it's not complete.

In summary, Leadership might be diagrammed better as a center hub with spokes leading to skill sets, instead of a staircase.

Just a thought.

The last chapters of Good to Great focus on the importance of developing a culture of discipline wherein those who comprise the enterprise are disciplined enough to stay focused (i.e. hedgehog concept) and work within that focus for excellence. Couple this with an understanding of the "flywheel concept" indicating that change toward great occurs as momentum is achieved through perseverant effort. The principles from this book have important consequences for those who are wise enough to see their application.

Of course, as has been noted along the way, all of these principles correlate with other leadership principles drawn from other sources. Perhaps the most interesting thing about these principles is the data which supports them. The vast accumulation of this information and the analysis which produced these principles validate many of those principles taught by others.

An interesting deviation might be seen in the leadership principle which comes from those who teach "transformational" leadership. That is, leadership which focuses upon fulfilling the potential of those who are part of the institution, believing thereby that the goals of the organiation will be achieved as well. Although the principles of Good to Great encourage mutual respect and integrity, the emphasis is placed more squarely upon the "right people" who will focus with disciplined energy to achieve that for which they are passionate about.

Do you see the difference? It is in the goal. In transformational leadership, the development and fulfillent of the follower is the goal which ultimately affects the organization. In Good to Great, the focus is on being part of a great vision. For the church, particularly in America, we are easily convinced that the emphasis should be on the person. That the church's role is to fulfill the person, who will then participate in the mission. This practice has led the church into an increasingly self-focused spirial of stagnation. The goal of most churches is not the fulfillment of the Mission of Christ and the effort at Passionately becoming the best in ministry, but upon fulfilling individuals.

This seemingly circular arguent is, I think, at the root of a stagnant church. The focus is upon "me" and "my comfort," instead of Him and His mission. The New Testament church was one of great sacrifice and radical living. Ours is one of "comfortable" existence fiting into a culture which ignores Christian principles and even attacks Christian standards.

What do you think?

Chapter 5 from Good to Great by Jim Collins. In this chapter Collins talks about the "hedgehog concept." He states: "Hedgehogs, on the other hand simplify a complex world into a single organizing idea, a basic principle or concept that unifies and guides everything." (91) Although he avoids using the word Mission or Vision like the plague, the essential concept is the same. What is unique, however, is the three circles, "...a Hedgehog Concept is a simple, crystalline concept that flows from deep understanding about the intersection of the following three circles: 1. What you can be the best in the world at.... 2. What drives your economic engine.... 3. What are you deeply passionate about." (95,96)

According to Collins the overlap of these three circles is the "Hedgehog Concept." Whether these should be seen as circles that overlap or not, the important thing is that these three questions provide a sound starting point for discussion between those "on the bus."

Regarding "What can you be the best at in the world?" Collins writes, "Just because something is your core business--just because you've ebeen doing it for years or perhaps even decadees--does not necessarily mean that you can be the best in the world at it. And if you cannot be the best in the world at your core business, then your core busniess cannot form the basis of yourHedgehog Concept." (99) When applied to churches the guiding mission is often formed without regard to the make-up of the congregation or even the culture and demographics of the the community surrounding the church. Certainly the mission of the church has to be influenced by Matt. 28:19, but just as certainly the individuality of the church itself is important in how Matt. 28:19 is applied.

Regarding "What drives your economic engine?" "...every good-go-great company attained the notion of a single 'economic denominator.'" (104) This one is harder for the church world but boils down to this. What single thing within the organization determines success, and if improved, would show even more success. Of course in the business world, this is an economic factor, however, in the Church world, this question might be better understood as "What produces the greatest number of the deepest disciples?" Each church has to answer this question for itself.

Finally, regarding "What are you deeply passionate about?" "You can't manufacture passion or 'motivate' people to feel passionate. You can only discover what ignites your passion and the passion of those around you." (109) Obviously, for the Church this could be ministry to a specific age group, or other kid of group, or a focus on any aspect of ministry. Often churches are encouraged to look at all the things they do and find something they don't do well and work on bringing that area up to speed, however, Collins' opinion is that a better use of energy is to focus on what you are passionate about - because that is where you will generate the most energy and interest, and do the best job.

As I stated at the first, I think these three questions, if honestly discussed and the brutal facts of the current reality are kept in mind, should provide a solid foundation for a mission statement and focus, which if followed will produce significant results.

The third principle from the book Good to Great, by Jim Collins is that companies/organizations which move from good to great, and stay there, are willing to confront the brutal facts of their environment/cultural/abilities, yet not lose faith. "The good-to-great companies displayed two distinctive forms of disciplined thought. The first, ... is that they infused the entire process with the brutal facts of reality. The second, . . . is that they developed a simple, yet deeply insightful, fame of reference for all decisions. . . . You absolutely cannot make a series of good decisions without first confronting the brutal facts." (69,70) The focus of this principle is to not allow or accept a tepid evaluation which denies reality. By that I mean to continue to say how wonderful we are or how well things are going, when in reality there are indications that things are not going so well. Most would call this "rocking the boat." This type of willingness to confront the brutal truths of the organization and it's environment/culture/abilities and not loose faith is a rare commodity. The ability to stick one's head into the sand and ignore the obvious negatives has allowed many churches to quitely drift into a stagnant, placid pond. Collins writes: " In confronting the brutal facts, the good-to-great companies left themselves stronger and more resilient, not weaker and more dispirited. There is a sense of exhilaration that comes in facing head-on the hard truths and saying. 'We will never give up. We will never capitulate. It might take a long time, but we will find a way to prevail.'" (81) For the church some of those hard truths might include the realiation that their are no families with young children, that senior adults are leaving the church, that the facilities are in such disrepair that visitors won't stay, that the neighborhood has changed and no one from the neighborhood now attends the church, etc. The only way to begin to address the future is to confront the realities of the present.

The third principle from the book Good to Great, by Jim Collins is that companies/organizations which move from good to great, and stay there, are willing to confront the brutal facts of their environment/cultural/abilities, yet not lose faith. "The good-to-great companies displayed two distinctive forms of disciplined thought. The first, ... is that they infused the entire process with the brutal facts of reality. The second, . . . is that they developed a simple, yet deeply insightful, fame of reference for all decisions. . . . You absolutely cannot make a series of good decisions without first confronting the brutal facts." (69,70)

The focus of this principle is to not allow or accept a tepid evaluation which denies reality. By that I mean to continue to say how wonderful we are or how well things are going, when in reality there are indications that things are not going so well. Most would call this "rocking the boat." This type of willingness to confront the brutal truths of the organization and it's environment/culture/abilities and not loose faith is a rare commodity. The ability to stick one's head into the sand and ignore the obvious negatives has allowed many churches to quitely drift into a stagnant, placid pond.

Collins writes: " In confronting the brutal facts, the good-to-great companies left themselves stronger and more resilient, not weaker and more dispirited. There is a sense of exhilaration that comes in facing head-on the hard truths and saying. 'We will never give up. We will never capitulate. It might take a long time, but we will find a way to prevail.'" (81)

For the church some of those hard truths might include the realiation that their are no families with young children, that senior adults are leaving the church, that the facilities are in such disrepair that visitors won't stay, that the neighborhood has changed and no one from the neighborhood now attends the church, etc. The only way to begin to address the future is to confront the realities of the present.

The second principle from the book Good to Great by Jim Collins is: First Who . . . Then What. The premise of this chapter is that it is less important to set a direction than it is to get the right people "on the bus." The "on the bus" concept is used to denote those who are aligned with the nebulous thought of being involved in something great, and who have faith (although I'm not sure Collins would use that word) in the leader.

He states: "The good-to-great leaders understood three simple truths. First, if you begin, with 'who,' rather than 'what,' you can more easily adapt to a changing world. . . . Second, if you have the right people on the bus, the problem of how to motivate and manage people largely goes away. . . . Third, if you have the wrong people, it doesn't matter whether you discover the right direction; you still won't have a great company. Great vision without great people is irrelevant." (42)

Collins' emphasis upon the right people is accurate. It doesn't take much thought to come up with enterprises/ministries which we would consider effective, without also recognizing the importance of the individuals who are part of the team producing that effectiveness. Look at your own life. Consider how much personality plays into effectiveness. Collins states: "If you have the right executives on the bus, they will do everything within their power to build a great company, but not bacause of what they will 'get' for it, but because they simply cannot imagine settling for anything less." (50) Those who invest the most have the greatest likelihood of seeing the best effect, i.e. you get out of anything about the same as you put into it.

Collins' work when applied to the Christian is missing two crucial aspects. The first is calling. God calls into the church a unique blend of individuals which by the world's standards might never be called the "right" people. Herein is the great mystery of God at work in people - His strength is made perfect in weakness. The church has been compared by the Apostle Paul to a body, with the right parts ready to function in coordination and with purpose. That takes us to the second crucial point: spiritual gifts. The gifting of God of divine gifts for the edification of the body (church) is without comparison in the world. The model of these good to great companies who strive so hard to get the right people on the bus is NOT the model of the church. God places the ones HE wants on the bus. Now, as Collins points out sometimes the people on the bus are in the wrong seats and I think this is a definite match to what we see in most churches.

The focus on "who" then "what" is interesting in theory but in actuality, I think it ignores the reality that a certain amount of direction (mission, vision, etc.) has to be in place to attract the right people. Jesus approached some of his disciples and said follow me and I will make you fishers of men. Human nature is drawn to the desire to leave something behind that is greater than themselves. For the Christian and the church the focus of this chapter has to be a realization that God calls the right people - we may not like who he has called and wish for different people, and of course some staff will be hired, but the work of the church is not done by the staff but by the believers who combine their gifts to bring about the mission. The concern then should be focused on an understanding of spiritual gifts and getting the right people in the right seat on this bus going to Great.

Again from the book Good to Great by Jim Collins, one of the principles for those companies which went from Good to Great was the factor of leadership, Level 5 leadership to be exact. The question is, what is Level 5 leadership?

According to Collins one of the key traits of Level 5 leadership is: "ambition first and foremost for the company and concern for its success rather than for one's own riches and personal renown. Level 5 leaders want to see the company even more successful in the next generation, comfortable with the idea that most people won't even know that the roots of that success trace back to their efforts." (25, 26) This placing of the interests of the company above self evidently is an unusual trait. It seems that many of those who are willing to step into leadership do so because they are interested in leaving a legacy which can be directly traced back to their wise leadership. When discussing this with my daughter, she thought the Level 5 leader might be characterized by an individual whose concern for those who work for them, those they lead, is genuine and interested in their best as well as the company. She also postulated that the Level 5 leader might also be one who does not see themselves as the lynchpin of leadership, and often are unaware of their own ability. These facts about Level 5 leaders is born out in the book.

Collings also states that: "...Level 5 leadership is not just about humility and modesty. It is equally about ferocious resolve, an almost stoic determination to do whatever needs to be done to make the company great. ... Level 5 leaders are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce results."(30) The ability to make decisions, often hard and unopular decisions, is not as prevalent as one might assume. Even harder is to stay a course which for the short-run seems as if it will have a irrecoverable effect. Level 5 leaders are able to analyse the data and trends, face the hard truths of the reality and make decisions which keep the company focused and successful.

Finally, "Level 5 leaders look out the window to apportion credit to factors outside themselves when things go well (and if they cannot find a specific person or event to give credit to, they credit good luck.) At the same time, they look in the mirror to apportion responsibility, never blaming bad luck when things go poorly." (35) This is entirely opposite of most leaders who look to blame something or anything for their failure. Now we come full circle back to a concept which Collins refutes, but his research supports (in my opinion): i.e. everything rises and falls on leadership. You probably thought I would come back to this and you were right. The Level 5 leader is aware that what happens can be reacted to, either to blame (wallowing in a victim mentality) or to see the opportunities (moving forward).

See, my take on this Level 5 leaderhip thing can be summed up on these points:

1. Everything rises and falls on leadership - leaders take responsibility.
2. Leaders care about those they work with, wanting them to realize their potential
3. Leaders want results, NEED results, and don't care who gets the credit. (this last part is definitely descriptive of a different kind of leader)
4. Leaders want the best for the company and for things to be better AFTER they leave than even it was when they were there.

Let's think about this