Getting the most out of people is not a bad thing but in the extreme it translates into squeezing the life out of them.  As Deming exclaimed, “beat horses and they will run faster—for a while.” Doing more with less implies squeezing more and more out of people until they drop.

When is the extreme pursued?  When the goal is to maximize profit: when corporations squeeze whatever is left to get just that much more profit. From a previous post, according to Ethan Harris, chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, “companies are squeezing their labor costs to build profits.”  Moreover, as noted in an interview with the Huffington Post, Kathy Bostjancic, director for macroeconomic analysis at the Conference Board “most of the productivity gains have gone to corporate America and stock prices.”

Our economic system rests on the belief that it is just if those who don’t benefit sacrifice for those who do.  We don’t have to go to China to find evidence of workers sacrificing in service to corporate gain the history of work in U.S. industrial society shows both wages and working conditions were abysmal.  It is only through the efforts of an organized labor movement beginning in the late 1800’s (e.g. Haymarket Square) that humane treatment (e.g. living wages, 8-hour work day, safe working conditions etc) to those laboring to do the work has been realized.

Perhaps today’s corporate overlords are seeking to return to the good ole days for the sake of greater profits.  Consider the following from a previous post

The two-tier wage structure of the Chrysler Corporation (as well as in GM and Ford) wherein labor for their U. S. manufacturing is hired at the rate of $14/hour.  Some might say this creates more jobs, but if the jobs weren’t there already a low hourly rate wouldn’t create them.  That is to say, it doesn’t create jobs it just makes it far more profitable for corporations who have the work to hire people to perform that work.  It appears that it is an issue of where corporations make more with the cash they have on hand, in the financial markets or in the labor market. The guiding premise is if a corporation can get people to work for far less (or nothing) it could make a lot of money!

Gains for Me

The notion that productivity gains drives higher standards of living beneficial to society is only true to the extent that people in society—beyond the shareholders and executives—participate in the gains in productivity. According to an August 17^th 2011 article by Jim Zarroli (a business reporter for NPR), “the U.S. economy may be slowing to a crawl, but a lot of individual companies are richer than ever.” Moreover, a 2011 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that between 1979 and 2007 income grew by 275% for the top 1% of households, 65% for the next 19% and under 40% for the next 60%, with the bottom 20% of households only realizing an 18% growth.  Clearly the further away from the top the further away are the benefits.

In light of the current higher productivity levels and the greater number of people who are either unemployed or underemployed clearly more are benefiting less.  Why?  To a large extent the corporations are in business solely for their own self-serving purposes—the business of business is profit for top executives and major shareholders. It seems doing more with less translates into a select few realizing most of the benefit.

If, in general, fewer and fewer people directly participate in the benefits from productivity gains then the resultant higher standards of living become society’s burden.  With fewer and fewer sharing the benefits there are more and more moving closer to the edge of poverty.  Society as a whole suffers as the income inequality gap widens, as evidenced by the research of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett presented in their book, The Spirit Level.

Since many of society’s corporations receive support and advantage from society—extracting from society whatever they can for self-serving purposes—without providing commensurate return, they could be considered parasites rather than partners of society. Progress in society cannot possibly be realized under a system where everyone is in it for him or her self—such a system subverts progress.

Doing More For More (of us)

However if the intent of the business enterprise is improving quality, not maximizing profit, then as Deming’s chain reaction indicates productivity would not only improve, the company would capture the market with better quality and lower prices as well. This enhances its competitive advantage and increases the company’s viability—portending a favorable future—enabling it to provide more jobs.  In this view of business, more and more people win—customers, shareholders, executives, employees, suppliers and society!  Deming learned from his decades of helping companies improve quality, “improvement of quality begets naturally and inevitably improvement of productivity”.

So the fundamental question is whether this society is a society of ‘We’ or of ‘Me’.  That is, whether we are in this society with a commitment to the advancement of our collective wellbeing or with a commitment to advancing one’s self-interest.  If the former then we rise and fall together and if the latter we all fall (eventually) as we each struggle alone, except of course those at the top.  Every person for him or her self is not the way to a better society for all or a sustainable society.

For all of us to realize the benefits from increases in productivity we need to transcend self-interest.  The responsibility of business is not merely the simplistic notion of maximizing profit for the owners and executives. Decisions based solely on what’s in it for me brings disorder to and the dissolution of society—it is just plain suicidal.

Wanted: Leaders for Action

Bostjancic recognized the need for corporations to begin hiring in order for demand to increase leading to the need for the production of more products/services—a growing economy. Bostjancic also notes the difficult decision corporate executives have before them saying “it’s very difficult to stand out like that and to be bold because if no one else is doing it, and you’re proven wrong, you could be penalized.” And Bostjancic continues, “if the economy does turn down, then you’ve over-hired, you’ve over-invested.”  One is frozen against taking action if and only if: a) one fails to understand that having sufficient income enables consumer demand that causes the need for production; b) one doesn’t understand that money is the energy transferring substance in an economy and only if it flows can the economy remain vibrant; and c) one lacks the courage to lead.  Waiting for someone else to make the decision you are unwilling to make is not the way of leadership.

It is time for businesses to be led by those who manage business with a different mind—a caring mind.  Because organizations are reciprocally interdependent with society and the environment, viability any human activity system necessarily requires ethical, social and environmentally responsible action.  The leaders of business we need are not narrowly and superficially fixated on maximizing material self-interest—exploiting whatever they can. The leaders we need critically think about the underlying precepts of our current system and understand how detrimental it is to our collective wellbeing and the viability of a business enterprise to continue following the herd.

If they are in deed leaders then they will cease merely following and erroneously believing that what’s in it for me is all that matters.  They will cease being parasites and have the courage to act as partners to society.

Growing economies are growing not because business executives react to and feed off them, they are growing economies because true leaders proactively contribute to their (continued) viability.  They don’t just extract from others they invest in others.

Whether it is a team or an entire organization it would seem that trust, engagement and energized relationships are paramount to the success and sustainability of any endeavor requiring the collaborative effort of people.  After all for people to engage toward productively working together they would have to trust each other, and for them to persist in their efforts their interactions and relationships would have to be inherently motivating and enlivening.

To this point Richard also suggests that such leaders “provide the social glue” via a shared vision.  As many have asserted teams—a collective of individuals cooperating—need a shared vision.  As previously discussed, there is little doubt a vision can provide the glue and the context for meaning that is so necessary.  However these will be realized if and only if the vision is both unifying and vivifying—any vision won’t do, even if it is shared and/or bought into.

A unifying and vivifying vision is not a vision that people have to ‘buy into’!   Such a vision inherently resonates within people, thus it is not something that people have to be persuaded to support or be provided incentive to support in a quid pro quo arrangement.

So how would such a vision arise?  Its emergence begins with the inner knowledge that the value of people does not begin and end with the instrumental value they provide in support of some goal or mission.  Accordingly its emergence is likely only when those in authority—often called leaders—are themselves in touch with the unchanging aspect of their very being, with their humanness.  When this happens those in authority are able to exhibit the courage to relate to and connect with people core-to-core.

It is all about the energy field from which those in authority operate.  If the leader uses the triad of fear-desire-pride as the bases of his/her practice then all that will emerge will be rigidity of mind, divisiveness and competitiveness—in general whatever can be born of fear will spring forth.  However if courage-neutrality-willingness (a.k.a. self-initiation-non-attachment-engagement) is the energy field that forms basis of one’s management practice then trusting relationships will develop; and with trust comes wonderful and unique capabilities—the actualization of human potential.

When there is mutual trust, people acknowledge their interdependence and their interactions not only become helpful and collaborative they become synergistic. Moreover performance can be sustained because positive energy attractors make it possible for human energy to increase through synergetic (i.e. energy producing) relationships. That is to say our energy is increased not decreased when the nature of the relationships with work and each other resonates within our very being.

It should be no surprise that so many people have negative experiences with the practice; that people abhor the annual performance appraisal.

As discussed in a previous posting the annual performance appraisal is a pathway to mistrust and not to high performance.  It enacts fear as the means of getting people to do what management wants—it is the go-to-lever for inciting action.

What action does one get?  Self-serving action.  After all one’s continued employment depends on it. Individualism not interdependence is the rule of behavior. Since ‘my’ results matters what I do for ‘me’ to get those results is what counts—in the end it’s about ‘me’ winning! As the saying goes, I don’t have to out run the bear, I just have to out run you!

The annual performance appraisal fosters the reinforcing attitude that you are on your own, which is an easy attitude to embrace given the system of economics—the context within which we conduct business—advances a self-interest focus. While the ‘you’re on your own’ message is easy to accept, because it fits together, it undermines the quality of work and the overall performance of the organization. The effect is the relationships among people are anything but helping and productive—synergy, the means to creativity, cannot possibly emerge.

The annual performance appraisal doesn’t foster a sense of interdependence among the members of the organization.  So in the end, both individuals and the organization lose.

So what would be better?  If the intent is to improve performance, not merely appraise it then facilitate its improvement!  So how do you do that?  You need a system for learning and not a system of appraisal.  In short, facilitate don’t appraise! Wouldn’t facilitating—which means to aid, to further, to help—be far better?

Integrate the plan-do-study-act continuous learning and improvement cycle into every job, especially management’s. Make this cycle the essential part of everyone’s responsibility.  Provide just-in-time feedback with the intent of facilitating learning. When feedback is not used for ranking, categorizing, labeling and reward/punishment—when it is not a means for accountability—then it turns from being harmful to helpful. Be a coach and counsel not a judge.

As Warren Bennis asserted, managers do things right and leaders do the right thing.  So stop trying to do the annual performance appraisal right; don’t just try to get it right but rather step up—exhibit the courage to care—to do the right thing: put a stop to this foolish practice of appraisal! Stop appraising and start facilitating.

Overall what does the annual performance appraisal do? It certainly doesn’t create and build trust! What it does is enact fear and creates mistrust. How could trust possibly be created through a process wherein people are judged, let alone for outcomes over which they haven’t full control?  How could trust be created by a process where people are given credit or blame for effects over which they know (at some level) they have little influence?

Interactions Not Actions

Organizations are social systems, human activity systems that function through relationships—cooperative and collaborative relationships—among people. As explained in a previous post, performance is an emergent property of a system; it is a function of the interaction of the many constituent components of the system as well as the components themselves.  Thus in an interdependent world the interaction among members either increases or diminishes the performance.

Yet some might argue that if “is a team player” (or something similar) is among the criteria in the appraisal then this would promote cooperation and teamwork.  We mustn’t forget that an individual’s performance can’t be known because it is the result of the interaction of many factors—the system itself, the materials provided, the management provided, the equipment provided etc. Adding a measure such as ‘is a team player’ doesn’t make the unknowable known and it doesn’t enable control of what is desired.  A reasonable person would agree that because organizations are human activity systems that depend on cooperation and collaboration among its members, performance is neither summative nor reductive—it is emergent.  Thus it is not the criteria of appraisal that affords synergy it is the organization’s design and system of management.

An organization’s performance is not the linear sum of each person’s performance. That is to say, performance of the organization emerges from the interaction of many factors—ideally realizing a degree of synergy—among people.  Hence for an organization to function effectively and efficiently trust is essential. In light of this, to advocate for the annual review of employees’ performance that leverages fear and creates mistrust is simply wrongheaded, if not foolish. If organizational performance depends on interactions (i.e. relationships), why then do we put so much attention on measuring individual action?

In far too many organizations people are managed as if independent of each other and everything else.  In far too many organizations control of others is sought through metrics coupled to the assumption that each is seeking to gain as much as he/she can.  In far too many organizations fear is the go-to-lever for management.  Why else would carrot-and-stick methods be so popular?  When one’s ranking in the annual review depends on how one compares to others, then helping others is incompatible with one getting ahead and realizing a higher ranking.

Rather than learning and improvement, what the annual performance appraisal promotes are efforts to do whatever you can to look good. The impact of one’s actions on others is of little concern since ‘me’ looking good is ‘my’ primary concern—that’s what’s measured. Results matter and what I do for ‘me’ to get those results is what matters—in the end it’s about ‘me’ winning.  The effect is the relationships among people are anything but helping and productive. Further what’s beneficial to the wholesomeness of the system is secondary at best. While it may appear those in management are controlling things through metrics, what they are really getting is mistrust dressed up in compliance.  And compliance is not an antecedent of creativity, so why promote it!

Moreover the annual performance appraisal fosters the reinforcing attitude that you are on your own, which is an easy attitude to embrace since the system of economics—the economic context within which we conduct business—advances a self-interest focus as well.

Meaning Not Ends

Furthermore the relationship people have with their work is central to how they perform their work. If the work is seen merely as a means to money then the work one does has no meaning apart from what one materially gains from the activity. Therefore work is stripped of inherent meaning since it is just a means to material gain.  Also when the value of work equates to the amount of material gain it brings or to an abstract measure—when ends supplant means—the quality of people’s work, and that of the organization, diminishes.

To manage an organization as if everything is linear and summative is synonymous to managing to make the organization dysfunctional and its performance suboptimal.  Obviously creating an environment wherein self-interested behavior is encouraged—wherein either/or thinking reigns supreme and both reductionism and individualism are embraced—is antithetical to realizing a quality producing wholesome system.  Managing in a way that turns interaction into transaction reflects a superficial understanding of what it means to lead.

So why is it so widely practiced? Where is it proven that superficiality builds trust, the essential context for productive relationships?  Why does management continue with practices that diminish the likelihood of realizing meaningful work and synergy among people? Why does management continue with a practice that reduces risk taking, limits learning and sub-optimizes organizational performance? Is it possible that those in authority fear that without this force-based tool they would lose (perception of) control and not be able to get anyone to do as they wish?

We are left only to wonder, have those in management the courage for leadership?

1. Big company bureaucracy—no one likes rules that make no sense
2. Failing to find a project for the ‘talent’ that ignites their passion—top talent isn’t driven by money and power, but by the opportunity to be part of something huge, that will change the world, and for which they are really passionate
3. Poor annual performance reviews—annual performance reviews are not long term focused and thus are not performed effectively
4. No discussion around career development—most bosses never engage with their employees about where they want to go in their careers—even the top talent
5. Shifting whims/strategic priorities—top talent hates to be jerked around
6. Lack of accountability and/or telling them how to do their jobs—top talent demands accountability from others and doesn’t mind being held accountable for their projects
7. Top talent likes other top talent—if you want to keep your best people, make sure they’re surrounded by other great people
8. The missing vision thing—what is the vision you want this talented person to fulfill
9. Lack of open-mindedness—the best people want to share their ideas and have them listened to

10. Who’s the boss—if a few people have recently quit at your company who report to the same boss, it’s likely not a coincidence

Clearly the above are among the many things within organizations that are annoying, frustrating and counterproductive.  But why is it assumed only top talented employees would find these as such?  It is highly likely that these would be just as annoying, frustrating and counterproductive to others in the organization—diminishing the organization’s performance.

Doesn’t it make you wonder, why the concern is only for the best talent? Don’t all employees contribute to the organization’s products/services? Wouldn’t making anyone’s work difficult or senseless cause him/her to checkout—physically or psychologically from his/her work? After all, both Herzberg’s and Maslow’s theories of motivation apply to all people not just those who someone in authority labels as top talent.

I imagine some would counter saying, hey some people are more talented than others and management has to pay attention to the future stars, they are the future of the organization! Does not the performance of the organization emerge from the system!  What is the responsibility of management: to further the careers of those they believe most talented (and ignore that of the others) or to develop and enhance the capability of the organization (i.e. facilitating the retention and improvement of all employees)?  Wouldn’t doing the latter have a greater impact on the organization’s viability than the former? Why hire people who aren’t valuable to the organization? Wouldn’t an organization wherein all employees are supported in meeting their potential outperform another in which only a chosen few are doing so?  What better way to surround the best with the best than by helping everyone realize his/her potential!

Relating to some employees as valuable people and to all others as interchangeable, disposable and replaceable skill sets will not afford the synergy required for the emergence of everyone’s potential, and in turn the organization’s competitive advantage and viability. It is not the way to effectively leading the bottom from the top.  Why?  Because the organization is comprised of relationships and it is the productivity of these relationships that pre-figures the emergence of synergy, capability and thus performance of the organization.

Managers have to stop thinking about the members of the organization in a dualistic way and cease managing in a mechanistic and reductionist way.  If the organization is to maximally perform then those in authority must learn to understand and manage the organization as a living system. Doing otherwise, those in authority do a great disservice not only to the people but also to the viability of the organization. By minimizing synergy—essentially sucking life out of the organization—the potential that lies within will not actualize.

Canalize Don’t Control

The one thing that has the potential to meaningfully touch everyone and that provides guidance for all decisions and actions is vision.  Hence the gravity of vision can’t be overstated.

But contrary to what many believe, vision is not a futuristic statement nor is it an advertising slogan for display in the company’s lobby or the strategic mission of the enterprise.  Vision flows from the system of beliefs and values held in our (collective) mind. Being an attractor, it canalizes human energy in a way that either supports or opposes the emergence of creativity and organizational viability.

That is, vision pre-figures the experiences of those working in and served by the organization.  A vivifying vision can provide guidance for and completeness to the organizing structure, affording a sense of order and meaning to the work of the enterprise.

Why is meaning so critical?  Meaning is the basis of (intrinsic) motivation that in turn leads each employee to maintain commitment to the organization’s work.  Simply, if you want to retain people provide them something meaningful to do!

Thus a vivifying vision awakens and affords the flow of meaning throughout the organization and provides the context for the self-reinforcing interplay and exchanges among people affording joy in work. Most find it a pure joy to do meaningful things—don’t you?  If employees realized joy through the organization’s work, then few would abhor being at work!

Lead by Facilitating

To hire a person is a decision about the future not the past! Leaders don’t hire people for what they’ve done but for what they have the potential to do. Therefore, the way of organizing and managing must enable potential.  Unfortunately, many organizations are limiting and thus limited, not in people’s potential, but in what those in authority cause to be probable. Leading effectively enables, it doesn’t disable, potential. Accordingly, organizing and managing guided by a vivifying vision can provide employees the physical and psychological space to actualize their potential.

Leaders who make potential probable are those who lead from their personhood not their position.  Yet most talk of leadership in the context of position or possession, which is mere euphemism for the boss, the one-in-charge.  Who among us really likes to be bossed around!

As Eric Jackson noted, “people want to share their ideas and have them listened to.”  That is to say people need to be listened to because it communicates that they matter to the one who is listening.  In other words, listening communicates that you care; and caring is necessary for facilitating quality. Caring about (and for) the development of others is the way to sustaining organizational viability.

Commit to Quality

A large part of keeping talented people in the organization rests on keeping people in the organization talented.  You cannot have quality people without caring about the people you have.  Caring precedes quality!

Quality is the expression of the human spirit that lies within each of us; as such it is the manifestation of human potential. Why else is the allure of quality universal! Quality captures our attention because it resonates within everyone; it is the expression of our potential as human beings. Unfortunately, the common and widespread annual performance review is merely a means of exercising control over and objectifying others: It is the antithesis of a process for improvement of (and the experience of) quality.

However it need not be this way!  If the performance review process was at base a process for coaching and learning—and not a process for rating, ranking, exacting accountability and justifying reward/punishment—then it could be a means of guiding the development of people’s potential toward enhancing organizational capability.  So to have talented employees, replace the process of rating, ranking and accountability for results with leadership.

This requires managers who care about the development of those working in the organization. It requires those in authority to add value through their very being—not solely through their position—and who value the potential that lies within everyone. While any one can deliver results by any means, it is only the courageous that will do so with a focus on quality and the betterment of every employee.

In setting the overarching theme of his approach—and in effect his organization—Kenny said, “It’s important to me to be sure that everybody knows what every body else is doing. I want there to be a level of respect between everybody.” It is one thing to wish for this, it is quite another to enact it!  So how is this theme actualized?

Most will respond with, you get it through leadership!  Yes that concept, so universally misunderstood, is usually the answer to most of the challenging aspects of management.

Probably a far more helpful concept is partnership, which implies equal not subservient status.  This is reflected in Kenny’s assertion “there’s this idea that somebody’s job could be more important than somebody else’s, and to me, that’s not true.”  It appears Kenny does not want his employees to relate to each other as leader versus follower or boss versus subordinate or the essential versus the less essential.  As Kenny said, “I want all the people out there who work with me to feel as appreciated as possible….” The operative word in his statement is people who work with me, as opposed to working for me.  Because Kenny is ultimately responsible, and not that he is still the boss, he understands that it is his responsibility to embody (in words and actions) the respect for and value of people.  Every job, every task is essential and thus every person is essential and should be related to as such.

So what has Kenny created?  Apparently he has created an organization (and culture) wherein leadership is experienced through out.  However these experiences are not from Kenny interacting with each of the 150 employees—though this may occur—it is from 150 people respecting and relating to each other as partners.  As illustration Kenny relayed the practice of (what they refer to as) a “merch” lottery for the concert set-up and breakdown crew.  In this practice, Kenny places “everybody’s name in a huge sombrero and whoever’s name I pull out gets all of the money from merchandise sales for that night.”  This could amount to as much as $300,000.  The fact that it is a lottery (that everyone has an equal opportunity) and not given to the one person Kenny (or anyone else) deems most deserving—which would say to all others they are not—communicates to the crew that nobody’s job is more important than everyone else’s job.  Indicative of the partnership culture, what the crew did was wait until the end of the year and evenly divided up all lottery winnings.

Of course Kenny is very involved and does this because as he said, “my name is on everything.” Many might say, yeah and his is a small organization of just 150 people, you can’t run a large organization this way!

While everyone doesn’t have a bus and a bass drum with his/her name written clearly across them for all to see, everyone does have his/her name on the very relationships/experiences they develop and provide others.  If you care about your true self, then you will care enough to make sure that those relationships/experiences reflect the respect you have for people, yourself included.   After all, this is the essence of leadership.

The development of inquiring minds throughout the organization is central to this.  If everyone is thinking—really thinking and not merely rearranging their thoughts—the emergence of new ideas is quite probable.  Hence leaders must not communicate that they have the answers, but rather only that they have the questions.  Leading is not about knowing the answers it is about knowing the questions!  As Gregory noted about his former boss, Bill Gates, “he’s in many ways an egoless thinker. Bill never walked into a room saying, in effect: “I’ve got this idea and it’s got to be right…[he] was always great about saying: “What do you think? What do you think?”

Clearly to develop inquiring minds leaders must model the very behavior and attitude they wish to develop in others.  But to do this requires having the courage to publically hold up one’s ideas for examination and challenge.

Critically thinking about something doesn’t mean being a critic or criticizing others.  It means having the ability and willingness to think about what you are thinking. As Gregory Maffei explained the great leaders he knows are “always rethinking and rethinking”, what he called having a “frictionless mind.”   This level of thinking allows for different perspectives to shed light on an issue and with more illumination comes greater understanding.  It is only through understanding that we can improve: as Deming often noted, there is no substitute for knowledge!

To this end this kind of leader engages with others in productive dialogue.  They encourage others to share their thinking and also to explore each other’s perspective, always seeking to integrate and synthesize perspectives.  It is not about who has the winning idea; it is about how can we use everyone’s thinking to move beyond what we individually understand.

Effective leaders know the importance of developing productive relationships—partnerships—and since leadership is relationship dependent truthfulness is essential.

For something that is dead or dying, at least outside of Iron Mountain, it seems to show up quite often.  Even Bob admitted, “a lot of managers haven’t been told this…as they are very much in a command-and-control reflex.” It is unfortunate for the rest of us that Bob is among a very few who see the need for something else.  Bob Brennan is clearly one who sees that management in the future can’t be a replay of the past and he seemingly is doing something about it at Iron Mountain.

In place of command-and-control it seems Bob employs two-way constructive feedback between the manager and the managed. Quoting Bob “we want managers to display confidence and optimism, and to give constructive feedback, never destructive.  And managers need to seek constructive feedback themselves.”  The purpose of which is to improve what one does, manager and non-manager alike.  Because this happens through a constant one-on-one dialogue—happening almost daily—an environment is created wherein people feel that it is not only okay to share ideas for improvement it’s encouraged. As Bob noted “the best way to take care of people is to have a very open environment where they can collaborate.”

Creating an environment conducive to learning is tantamount to creating a culture of trust.  Such an environment can’t emerge if managers are not open to the influence of those they manage.  In short, managers must model what they expect in others—they can’t be defensive they can’t be a negative force.  Hence Bob strives to avoid hiring the kind of people that breed defensiveness and mistrust.  He avoids hiring people who are “most interested in being the boss”—climbers.  These type people—those who are self-centered and concerned about ‘me’—are not trustworthy or collaborative and manage using fear.  Such people tend to be toxic bosses.

What is really going on is the development of mutually helping relationships that serves both the individual and the organization.  Manager and the managed are in partnership.  This distinction is important since partnership implies equal status, not subservient status.  When equal status is felt then constructive feedback is far more likely. To paraphrase Riane Eisler, partnership recognizes the interdependence of all roles and seeks effective and respectful ways to support each other’s role—command-and-control can’t even come close to doing this.  When we approach leadership as a partnership then we approach each other as fellow human beings and increase the likelihood of actualizing potential.

Woven throughout the interview with Bob Brennan is the notion that to be a leader requires one to be a teacher.  A teacher is not one who imparts knowledge or controls information but one who is an unceasing learner and strives to facilitate learning in others.  It is only through learning that we can improve.

While Anne says listening to people helps her to “understand what motivates them” toward getting them “to push themselves beyond their comfort zones”, listening does much more than this.  Listening communicates.  It communicates to others that you actually care about them.  In so doing you also communicate that you have trust in them, which in turn contributes to the development of trust throughout the organization.  Building a culture of trust is not something that can be legislated, it must be demonstrated, and it begins with the trustworthiness of those in authority.

Why is trust so essential?  Because without out it you won’t have a workplace wherein people feel safe and secure enough to fully exercise their capabilities; to step out of their comfort zone in order to realize their potential.  If, as the leader, you want your organization to remain viable, then it has to be a place where people’s ideas continue to emerge.  People are less likely to engage in the work of the organization if you don’t engage with them.

Anne’s approach to her leader-follower relationships is one of partnership. When speaking of how she recruits and hires people Anne said “I need partners in this business.”  Listening to your partners, engaging with partners leads to a productive relationship.

Engaging with them doesn’t mean getting out in front of them—showing you are the one in-charge—but rather getting behind them. Anne explains, “if you think about how you steer a boat, it’s always from the back, and I’ve moved toward the back of the boat.”  While Anne remains the one in-charge, she uses her positional authority to support the efforts of those in the organization.  Anne enables people to paddle their own boat—providing them the opportunity to have a sense of ownership—explaining, “I wanted people to be mini-C.E.O.’s of their area.”  This sense of ownership is the engagement that we often call motivation.

Though Anne seeks people who are smart, honest with him/her self, curious, and who want to be a part of a group to build something.  What Anne does watch out for and avoids are people “looking for a title”, those who are climbers.

So many feel that they have to continue to establish their position as the one in-charge—leading by fear—and in so doing they actually lose their ability to be a positive and productive influence.  Anne tells of her experience of trying to lead by imposing herself on others, “it just took a lot of false starts to learn that being smart isn’t the same thing as being a leader. We were going down the runway but the plane wasn’t taking off.”  There is a huge difference between people being moved and people being motivated; fear moves people but it doesn’t motivate greatness, it actually inhibits it.

Anne’s approach to leadership reminds me of an orchestra conductor.  Enabling those with talent and potential to make music, the kind of music they could never make alone.

Being trustworthy implies others can (and will) trust you—you are person who can be trusted.  It means you have demonstrated that you are not duplicitous; that you are not a divided person, but one with integrity.  “People have to believe in you.  And when they stop believing in you, you can say all that things in the world but it’s very hard to mobilize an organization when they’ve lost that belief”, says George Barrett.

Though trust is most often developed through experience—what you’ve done and how you have related to and treated others—it speaks to the confidence others have in what you will do.  As George explained, people “ have to trust that you understand them…that you have their interests at heart.”  If people are confident that you will act competently with their best interest at heart then they will see you as trustworthy.

To do so means that you actually care, which takes courage: Courage to give of oneself to others—to be vulnerable to another.  It takes courage to acknowledge your limitations—being honest about your strengths and weaknesses—affording you the ability to act consistent with your capabilities—making promises you can fulfill.  As George noted, “people really have to believe that you know what you are doing.”

In the end leadership requires developing productive partnerships with those you lead.  As Barrett asserts, “leadership is a two way street.  I tell my team I expect to learn from you as well as you’ll learn from me.”  Leadership and followership are inseparable, not in the sense that it takes followers to be a leader but in the sense that to lead you must also be willing to follow—showing that you truly trust those you lead.  Foundationally there must be trust—an essential human need—for  leadership.