Subscribe via RSS Feed

Archive for February, 2016

Hardcore Leaders Lead From the Front

One of the common themes occurring today is how many “leaders” lead from behind. Whether it be the chicken hawk politician grandstanding and eagerly offering to send young men and women to fight and die in some third world shit hole, or the CEO that promises the Board of Directors revenue goals that have no basis in reality and then expects everyone else in the organization to move heaven and earth to make it happen, one doesn’t need to look far to see that what passes off as leadership today is sadly lacking. In order to get the most out of your people, you’re going to have to lead from the front.

Over 2,300 years ago, a young Alexander the Great was preparing his men to go into what would be a very brutal battle. What he told his men is something that all leaders and aspiring leaders. At one point in his talk, he said this, “‘Perhaps you will say that, in my position as your commander, I had none of the labours and distress which you had to endure to win for me what I have won. But does any man among you honestly feel that he has suffered more for me than I have suffered for him? Come now, if you are wounded, strip and show your wounds, and I will show mine. There is no part of my body but my back which has not a scar; not a weapon a man may grasp or fling the mark of which I do not carry upon me. I have sword-cuts from close fight; arrows have pierced me, missiles from catapults bruised my flesh; again and again I have been struck by stones or clubs—and all for your sakes: for your glory and your gain. Over every land and sea, across river, mountain, and plain I led you to the world’s end, a victorious army. I married as you married, and many of you will have children related by blood to my own. Some of you have owed money—I have paid your debts, never troubling to inquire how they were incurred, and in spite of the fact that you earn good pay and grow rich from the sack of cities. To most of you I have given a circlet of gold as a memorial for ever and ever of your courage and of my regard. And what of those who have died in battle? Their death was noble, their burial illustrious; almost all are commemorated at home by statues of bronze; their parents are held in honour, with all dues of money or services remitted, for under my leadership not a man among you has ever fallen with his back to the enemy.”

Can you imagine a CEO today giving the modern version of this speech? Alexander made it clear to his men that he had always fought side by side with them.  He didn’t talk about it, he LIVED it!

Are you leading by example as Alexander did?  Would your team die for you?  No, okay, then what would be the modern day work related equivalent? Perhaps working on a weekend for no pay?  Perhaps missing a wedding anniversary in order to make a deadline. Would your people do any of these things for you?  No?  Then ask yourself this, what have you done for your team in order to engender the kind of ferocious loyalty that Alexander the Great did.

 

 

Hardcore Leadership and How to Manage Knowledge Workers

One of the biggest disconnects regarding leadership has been brought about by our rapidly evolving technology. When I say “leadership,” I define that as someone people follow. And when I say “Hardcore Leadership” I define that as a leader who knows what it takes to get his people to the highest levels of achievement and makes it happen. With the exception of aristocracy, during most of history, leaders were in place because (hopefully) they had many years of experience and could teach and guide their followers on the details of how to do the job right.   The top down model of management, often referred to as Theory X held that a hierarchical model where the guy on “top” made all the rules because he was the boss.  He said jump, and his people asked “how high?” The new model is referred to as  Y Theory, meaning that the organization was flat, more collaborative and less autocratic.

So what happens when the old  leadership model of master craftsman teaching the young apprentice his job no longer applies? The big shift in leadership is this: how do you lead and manage people who know more about their work then you do?  With the explosion of new networking technology (Software Defined Everything and the Internet of Everything for example)  how does a manager who came up learning antiquated programming languages or outdated networking technologies tell a millennial how to do his job? The smart answer is they don’t.  A leader’s new responsibilty is to eliminate any friction in the organization that prevents the knowledge worker from doing their job.  The second duty of a Hardcore Leader to to help his people collaborate effectively.  As technology becomes every more ingrained in our world, helping teams to work effectively together. Thankfully that’s a leadership skill that has always been important and will never become outdated.  Your job as a leader is to empower your knowledge workers.

A Hardcore Leader working with knowledge workers is going to have to create an environment that crackles with the energy of compelling sense of purpose. Say what you will about Steve Jobs, but you can’t deny that he brought out the very best in his people.  Was he hard on them? Hell yes he was, and look what he created.  Many years ago when I was in the Navy, I attempted to become a Navy SEAL, sadly I was injured and  didn’t finish the program (that’s a story best shared over a drink). One of the things that struck me about being at BUD/S (Basic Under Water Demolition/SEAL) was how one of the classes that had recently graduated had a saying, “A day without a hammer is like a day with out sunshine.”  That always stuck with me, because it was a clear acknowledgement that in order to become the best, you needed someone to push you harder than you thought you could go. And that is what a Hardcore Leader needs to understand; that part of your job is to clear the path for your team, and push them to achieve heights they didn’t think possible.

If technology has become so complex that a manager can’t offer any feedback or help to solve a complex problem, then his job becomes obsolete if he doesn’t bring anything else to the table.

Do Most Leaders Suck…and Where are the Great Leaders?

Declaration_independence

Chances are, if you’re over the age of eighteen and have worked a few jobs it probably occurred to you that most of the people you worked for were horrible leaders.  Did you ever stop to ask yourself why that was?

We have over 7 Billion people on the this planet, so why are aren’t we brimming full with amazing leaders?  Where are the Alexander the Great’s, the Winston Churchill’s, the Julius Caesars, the Asoka’s, the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s, the Thomas Jefferson’s and Napoleon Bonarparte’s, and the George Washington’s? Where are the Nelson Mandela’s,  the Mahatma Gandhi’s, and Joan of Arcs, the Ataturk’s, the Hamurabi’s and the Leonidas’? Where are the 21st Century’s versions of Marcus Aurelius, Catherine the Great, the Simon Bolivars?  Our world history is replete with tremendous leaders, who left their mark on the societies that they lived it.

Just here in the United States of America alone we had John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton just to name a few.  The original thirteen colonies had a population of approximately 3 million people.  Let that sink in for a moment. A fledgling country with a population of 3 million people had six brilliant leaders.  The US population is now well over 350 million people.  That means that we should have over seven hundred leaders at the caliber of the US founding fathers.  But we don’t, why? In three words we can sum up why, education and role models. You see, these men all were educated not what to think, but how to think. Equally importantly they had role models.  At a young age, Alexander  was exposed to Achilles from a poem called The Illiad. was a heroic Greek warrior from a famous ancient poem called the Iliad. Achilles became the model of the noble warrior for Alexander, and he modeled himself after this hero.

Alexander was first educated by  Leonidas, who was a relative of Alexander’s mother Olympia. Alexander’s father King Phillip asked Leonidas to teach Alexander math, horsemanship and archery. Alexander’s next tutor was Lysimachus, who used role playing as a way to engage and make the lessons stick. Alexander was enthralled by the warrior hero Achilles in the epic poem, the Illiad.  Alexander’s fascination with the Illiad lasted throughout his life and he was said to always have a copy with him on his military campaigns.   Eventually King Philip hired the philosopher Aristotle to teach  Alexander. For three years, Aristotle taught Alexander philosophy, poetry, drama, science and politics.

America’s Founding Fathers were immersed in what was called a “classic education.”  From the article The Classical Education of the Founding Fathers
“The typical education of the time began in what we would call the 3rd Grade—at about age eight. Students who actually went to school were required to learn Latin and Greek grammar and, later, to read the Latin historians Tacitus and Livy, the Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides, and to translate the Latin poetry of Virgil and Horace. They were expected to know the language well enough to translate from the original into English and back again to the original in another grammatical tense. Classical Education also stressed the seven liberal arts: Latin, logic, rhetoric (the “trivium”), as well as arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music (the “quadrivium”).”

By now you have probably already come to the same conclusion as I did, “Why weren’t we educated in this manner?”  Can you imagine what America would be like today if we had, as opposed to the intentional dumbing down of this country’s citizens?

And my dear reader is what Hardcore Leadership is all about, educating the next generation of leaders. And as Patrick Henry once said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”