I attended a DEC meeting at Toastmasters recently. A friend of mine discussed this book during the meeting. I liked what she said. At this point all I can say is that I enjoyed how I felt about what she said as I do not recall exactly the point she made. That is a theory I have been testing lately; we rarely can describe the content of what was said but merely react to the how what was said made us feel. This is very much the case in this regard.
Anyhow, I checked this out of our public library. I am dubious of 21-point plans. Isn't that the hit Mitt Romney takes on his 59-point plan? It has too many facets. We like simple presentations: the six principles of . . . , 3 Ways of Improving Your Life, etc.
I just read the first irrefutable law: The Law of the Lid. It is argued that there is a capacity to our leadership and some people's lid is higher than others. The McDonald Brothers v. Ray Kroc was used. Good example. I take offense, however, with "I also believe that personal success without leadership ability brings only limited effectiveness." Limited effectiveness of what? I believe I have had success with little (organizational) leadership. What effectiveness am I limited in?
The second irrefutable law is the law of influence. Throughout the chapter I have been musing in my head that this is a tough law for people like me who have no juice because we lack position. Position provides influence. But Maxwell addresses this well in showing how influence comes without position (Mike Shanahan and Elway's relationship outside of Dan Reeves being head coach). Then he addresses it directly by highlighting that in volunteer organizations, leadership is all influence since position doesn't provide one the juice it does in the military or in business. He quotes Harry Overstreet, "The very essence of all power to influence lies in getting the other person to particiapte."
The third irrefutable law is that of process. This law states the obvious; one doesn't become a leader overnight. It takes preparation. Constantly learn so one is ready when his time arrives.
The Law of E.F. Hutton. Who listens? Maxwell explains that leaders are the ones listened to. Consider meetings you attend. Who is listened to? That is the leader, not necessarily the one in charge. I keep thinking of that ill-fated School Improvement Team meeting. It was very much like this until . . .
The law of solid ground is the sixth irrefutable law. More simply put, trust in leadership is a must. D'oh!
Another self-evident leadership exemplar is respect. The 21 laws are beginning to sound like common sense. I have read seven of them now. I would be hard-pressed to name those seven without referring to my notes. The list will be unwielding before it is finished.
Law 8 is the law of intuition. Leaders naturally see opportunity. Military leaders were examined. This book was written in 1998. Another issue was discussed; Steve Jobs returning to Apple. Maxwell tapped into something that wasn't known when published; namely, Jobs would turn around Apple. Jobs was a leader. It's funny because I recall the scourge Apple was in those years before Jobs returned.
This law is a bit iffy as it is difficult to describe/quantify intuitiveness, but it does appear to be a quality that leaders have.
The law of magnetism is another one of the "well d''oh" laws. A leader attracts those who are like homself. Hitler, a good leader, attracted like-minded (evil) folks. Tex Schram of the Dallas Cowboys did similarly. This chapter focused heavily on the business side of leadership. I approach things from the unconvential leader and/or volunteer organization. From my perspective, attraction is a little different in those situations as the field is set somewhat and the leader has to work within what's already there. Nevertheless, there's something to magnetism to consider.
The law of connection is one of my weaknesses but also one area I have been addressing of late. I mentioned it above. Often, it isn't what you say but how you make others feel that matters. I was reared to be serious. I excel at that. I am quite aware, however, that others perceive that seriousness at a distance. I've known for decades that I am standoffish. I recall that when I was a restaurant manager many commented how they perceived me differently before they got to "know" me. I relished that for a long time.
These days, however, I realize that is problematic for me. I don't make the connections I should. My lack of promotions are directly related to this as well. I am addressing it. Specifically when it comes to speaking, I am trying to incorporate how my approach makes my audience feel. I am going for my folksy/comfortable themes. I think that will help. Connecting with audiences is what it is all about; otherwise, why speak at all?
The Law of the Inner Circle is one that most, I think, would agree is important. Leaders have a small group close to them with whom they trust. That is important to success. Again, for those who are non-traditional leaders, that circle can be non-existent. Perhaps I am not a leader; I have no inner circle. I have no power, but we learned earlier, a leader doesn't need to. Does a leader have to have an inner-core group? Probably not given the non-traditional. This is definitely a law of organizational leadership.
The Law of Empowerment is a facet of leadership I am quite familiar with, albeit from the opposing side. I was part of a team once. We began to make strides forward. Morale was high for we truly believed in our work. I grew. I recall feeling proud as I accepted some things I had formerly been against because I saw how they would help the cause. All was right with the world . . . until I was disempowered. That is a heart-breaking thing. Maxwell nailed it that some leaders have a weak self-concept to empower those around her to lead. That is what happened with me. Cut off at the knees, I was stripped and humiliated to the point where I was battered into lemming mode. Here I sit today. It's akin to a love that has gone bad and now he refuses to love again. For me, my leadership is now directed elsewhere. Spiteful, perhaps. Conservative, indeed.
The lesson is that a leader needs to empower those around him. Do not take credit but look to provide credit to others. A leader survives through the accomplishments of others.
The latest chapter purports that leaders generally are bred by other leaders ("it takes one to know one" mentality). That is easy to accept generally, but what about someone like me? I am not on a corporate escalation program. I am not being bred for anything. In some ways, I am institutionally confined. Regardless, if one accepts that the law of reproduction is necessary, then folks like me can never be leaders as there are no coattails on which to swing.
GE may have generated plenty of leaders as have Bill Walsh and Tom Landry, but there has to be the ability of independently sowed leadership to emerge or the American Dream disappears. Paradigm shifts, it seems to me, are created out of leadership that emerges. Steve Jobs was not classicly groomed for the job, correct?
Leaders need to be followed or else there is no one to lead. That is where the Law of Buy-In comes in. Maxwell argues that the people first buy into the leader. Once done, then they buy into the leader's vision. He used Bill Clinton, Ghandi, and himself as examples. I could use a more thorough fleshing out of this topic to help me. This is a sticking point for me as it seems to put charisma above content. This is something I have always struggled with as I don't really care much for the Slick Willies of the world. I can excuse faux pas when the mission is correct.
But there is no denying that Clinton was an effective (and still is) leader. Addressing my failings and working to spruce up the package in which the leadership is presented is something I am trying to do presently. That would indicate there is something to the buy-in. It's distressing in one sense in that time and energy need to be spent in this, thus lessening the efficiency. Leadership capacity is increased in the long run so I gather the pay-off is worth it. Public speaking, reading a teleprompter, etc. are all things that help the leader appear to connect, thus helping the people buy into him. Then the vision is delivered. It seems to me this describes President Obma to a T.
Victory. We want to win. A leader ensures victory. This seems a basic tenet of leadership. Coaches strive to win. Generals focus on victory. There was a good description of Winston Churchill here. The important thing about victory, and we see this in the military sense these days too, is clearly define what victory is. A principal in a school strives for victory, but it will not be the same as the general on the battlefield. That was not discussed at all, surprising this reader.
The Law of Momentum is merely that it is easier to steer a moving ship than a lethargic one. Movement forward is important. Going from a resting state to a moving one is hard. Physics tells us that the greatest amount of energy is needed to get moving. Once moving, less energy is required to continue so. Again, did it take a book to point this out?
The Law of Priorities tells us that leaders focus their efforts on those things that will deliver the most bang for the buck. According to Maxwell, a leader should spend 80% of his time on the top 20% of his priorities. This all sounds reasonable to me.
I put this a slightly different way. Instead of trying to address everything, a leader must focus his attention on one or two areas. This theme is what he can then point everyone to. It is a focused approach. Using common language, after a while, everyone will be on the same page. Again, not earth-shattering news here.
The Law of Sacrifice seems to be the corollary of the Law of Victory. Leaders sacrifice in order to be successful (win). Iacocca was addressed. He sacrificed much to bring Chrysler back. Of course, Maxwell merely passed off the bailout as nothing. Maxwell argues the higher up you progress, the more you give up. Time and family are sacrificed by presidents, for instance. Sure, I accept this. I quibble, however, with his description of MLK. Not so much that MLK sacrificed. Oviously, he did. But being assassinated isn't sacrificing; it's being killed. It isn't exactly like a soldier who vounteers to go into battle. Battle MLK did, but there should not have been an expectation of death. To say so diminishes us, I think. It's a semantics thing, but really, it was a stretch to go there.
The Law of Timing is another leadership quality. It seems to employ much luck. Maxwell worked to dispel that notion. He discussed Carter's unsuccessful helicopter mission to free captives. It was known ahead of time to be a flawed plan. The problem with that is there is always a naysayer who will be critical of a plan. I am sure there were those who doubted the SEAL mission to get bin Laden, yet that was successful. Hindsight is always 20/20. Sometimes being a leader means taking a risk. Maxwell also discussed the Civil War and how Gettysburg was lost because of confederate missed timing and how the war progressed another two years because after Gettysburg Meade didn't follow the confederate troops to wipe them out.
Okay, so timing is important. A leader needs to know when it is time to execute. Isn't that an intangible, though?
The Law of Growth is problematic for me. The idea espoused here is that leaders who grow followers only add to their membership. Leaders who grow leaders multiply their growth. More impact, it is argued, arrives by growing leaders because the organization will grow exponentially.
Bah!
I've often wondered about the constant emphasis upon growth. Lack of growth is not an indication of stagnation or failure. We see it all the time. Papa John's was offered as a company that continues to grow and won't stop until it is the biggest pizza chain. Does that mean other chains are lesser? I worked for one that was fairly content to be the #1 chain in the market (northeast) without growing the market.
Wawa is huge here. I know they are testing Florida, but I doubt they'll go nationwide. Look at what happened to Circuit City when it did. Starbucks is retreating now from its massive growth. Organizations can be healthy without growing.
I think of my Toastmasters clubs. While a steady influx of new members are needed to maintain, once a club gows to a certain size, it is no longer viable and needs to split. While that may be healthy for TI, for the club itself, it may not be. I am in two clubs that push 50 members. In some respects, not everyone's educational needs are met. The counter is seen by a third club that is remarkably smaller. Educational goals are easily met, but filling out the agenda for each meeting is a stretch since there are so few members. This is a club that needs to grow members, which will in turn grow leaders since we are, "Where leaders are made."
I am also a bit put off that the bulk of the book is about growing members, serving members, etc. and now at the end of the book, that is somewhat frowned upon for the more lofty goal of growing leaders. I smell another book. ;)
The Law of Legacy is the last of the irrefutable laws. It's interesting, but Toastmasters stresses this point; leaders provide for their successors. That's the point. A leader leads for the long view, not for himself. We will all leave our leadership at some point (death, change of jobs, promotion, retirement, etc.). If you have led well, the organization will continue to strive. This is something I am coming around to seeing. My success isn't measured solely by today's bottom line but by whether or not my successor is able to hit the ground running. Prepare for your successor!
I enjoyed thinking about leadership while reading this book. I think there were some very good points made. I also think there is a lot of that "I'm Okay, You're Okay" self-help mentality preached here.
It's an easy read. I don't know if reading this book will make me a better leader, but it has provided me much to consider on the path to becoming a better leader. For that, it was a worthwhile read.