Chapter Excerpt

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

—CLINT EASTWOOD

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

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

The concept of “leadership” is a complex one. Most everybody has a feel for what the term means, at least in a general sense, but generalizations about leadership don’t help us very much. In order to understand how to lead and why to lead and what it even means to lead, we’d better get clear on what comprises this complex idea embodied in this simple little English word.

We’ve tried this exercise of defining leadership with audiences large and small, and invariably the same thing happens. We begin getting word phrases that all sound pretty good, phrases like “taking responsibility” and “getting results,” or one-word descriptors such as “commitment,” “perseverance,” “charisma,” and “integrity.” These are all true in a sense, but somehow they don’t go far enough. So then we switch to attempting definitions by combining all these phrases, but it creates so much mumbo jumbo, like one big buzzword soup from a corporate boardroom. Somehow the words meant something to us individually when thinking about leadership, but when fused together the life went right out of them.

At this point it may be helpful to turn to some experts on the subject. Surely they can bring some congruity. The list that follows is just a short offering:

1. James C. Hunter: “We define leadership . . . as a skill of influencing people to work enthusiastically toward goals identified as being for the common good.”

2. Al Kaltman: “The successful leader gets superior performance from ordinary people.”

3. Bill George: “The leader’s job is to provide an empowering environment that enables employees to serve their customers and provides them the training, education, and support they need.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Power

2. Control

3. Perks or Being Served.

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

1. Giving power (empowering)

2. Helping others fix problems and move forward

3. Serving others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s first consider the results of poor leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was the same company, the same men, the same battle, the same enemy, but a different leader that dramatically turned the tide. The strength of the leadership makes all the difference.

So how does one acquire leadership? The very asking of that question presupposes a very important first point: Leadership ability can be acquired. Some say leaders are born, that they come into the world with natural abilities. This is certainly true to some degree. Others say leadership can be learned.

The truth is that anybody can develop his leadership ability beyond his current level. A good analogy for this is muscular strength and development. Certainly some people are born with more robust physiques than others, but every person has the potential and ability to work on that God-given physique to strengthen and tone the muscles. No matter how big or small, how strong or weak, every individual can work to improve his or her condition.

Anybody can grow in leadership ability.

Leadership can be considered in the same way. While people may exhibit differing natural levels of leadership, everybody can cultivate and grow his or her leadership ability. Besides, ability differs from one endeavor to the next, so that a person may have weak influence in one area but be strong in another. Everybody can be a leader at something, and usually people’s strengths lie in areas that interest them greatly. So the very fact that you are interested in developing stronger leadership abilities in a particular area probably means you have some degree of natural ability there already. This may not always be the case, but we observe it to be true quite often. In The Leadership Challenge, authors Kouzes and Posner wrote, “What we have discovered, and rediscovered, is that leadership is not the private reserve of a few charismatic men and women. It is a process ordinary people use when they are bringing forth the best from themselves and others. What we’ve discovered is that people make extraordinary things happen by liberating the leader within everyone.”

So the strategy is to cultivate and develop leadership ability within ourselves. We need to understand that leadership can and must be developed, even for the most “gifted.” This is done on purpose. Change is always present, but growth and improvement are optional. Leadership development is a deliberate process.

The leadership-development process begins by finding a source of leadership and wisdom in a particular area of interest. Training and growth begin by associating with those who have reached the “fruit on the tree.” Would-be leaders should look to where the fruit hangs on the tree and then learn from those who have obtained results. Author Stevenson Willis wrote, “Seek . . . the counsel of those who have achieved the goal for which you strive; for in all matters, the words of one who has prospered are far weightier than the words of one who has not.”

We will discuss this in more detail later in the book. At this point suffice it to say that leadership can and must be developed, and it occurs deliberately at the direction of someone who is already accomplished in that area. That is both the right way and the shortest way to develop leadership ability.

The essence of leadership cannot easily be classified or codified or served up in some ready-to-order fashion. We believe the reason for this difficulty lies in the very makeup of leadership itself. You see, there are those who claim that leadership is an “art.” In Leaders on Leadership Doug Murren says, “A leader is more of an artist than a scientist or a politician; leadership itself is an art form.” Being an art, it would come easily to people with the right “talent.” Others claim that there is no art to being a great leader and that it is entirely learnable. Still others split these claims down the middle, observing that good leadership is part art and part science. We agree with this middle road. It is difficult to define exactly what a leader is, but we recognize a good one when he or she shows up!

So leadership is part art and part science. This means that leadership involves “presuppositions,” which are the thought processes, mind-sets, or mentalities upon which a leader operates. This is the “art” side of leadership. Resting atop those mentalities is the “science” side, or what leaders actually “do.” These are the actions and strategies of leadership. Together, blending art and science, we begin to get a picture of what leadership really is. According to author James Strock, “Leadership, built on the hard ground of truth, also requires artistry to reach the summit.”

Just as both artists and scientists can develop their abilities, so too can leaders develop theirs: hence the purpose of this book. The following chapters seek to aid the reader in developing as a leader. We will begin with some prerequisites that all leaders must have before advancing, then discuss the overall Cycle of Achievement that serves as a feedback loop the leader will experience while in pursuit of growth. The book will crescendo to a finale with the Five Levels of Leadership.

It began with what were called the “bloodless” conquests: the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and then Memel in Lithuania. These countries and territories fell to Nazi Germany without so much as a whimper. The British prime minister and the French premier, at a meeting with Adolf Hitler in Munich in September of 1938, were said to “fairly fall over themselves to agree with Hitler” to carve up the former Czechoslovakian Republic. As a result of this shameless pacification, “a prosperous industrial nation was split up and bankrupted overnight,” in the words of William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and Czechoslovakia’s free people were placed under the dominion of one of history’s most ruthless megalomaniacs. As Hitler himself commented, “Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist.” Returning home to England from Munich, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain bragged erroneously that “it is peace in our time.”

For nearly six years there had been one voice in the darkness crying out against this blind appeasement. The voice spoke out vehemently and often. The voice spoke loudly. The voice warned continually of the threat of the growing Nazi power and predicted the shrewd moves of Hitler’s conquests again and again. The man behind the voice: Winston Churchill.

A former member of Parliament, a former first lord of the Admiralty, and an extremely active member of British government during World War I, Churchill had been out of the government since 1929. In terms of position or authority, he was powerless. He had none of the influence of public office. He had no official leverage upon the policies of his government. Nevertheless, as Martin Gilbert made clear in Churchill: A Life, he did everything he could to inform, persuade, and convince his countrymen of the dangers facing not only England, but all of Europe. “Asking me not to make a speech [about the dangers in Europe],” Churchill said, “is like asking a centipede to get along and not put a foot on the ground.” Of the cowardly actions of the neutral states in the face of Nazi aggression Churchill said, “Each one hopes that if it feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last.”

According to William Shirer, “Winston Churchill, in England, alone seemed to understand. No one stated the consequences of Munich more succinctly than he in his speech to the Commons of October 5: ‘We have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat . . . And do not suppose that this is the end. It is only the beginning.’”

Hitler’s next step was to form an alliance with Mussolini, the bloodthirsty dictator of Italy, in what would be called the Pact of Steel. Following that, he signed an agreement of mutual nonaggression with Russia. Adolf Hitler had systematically built up his strength and eliminated the threats of those strong enough to stop him. As a result, his language grew bolder. In a talk to his military chiefs, Hitler said:

I shall give a propagandist reason for starting the war—never mind whether it is plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory. Close your hearts to pity! Act brutally! The stronger man is right. . . . Be harsh and remorseless! Be steeled against all signs of compassion! . . . Whoever has pondered over this world order knows that its meaning lies in the success of the best by means of force.

The individual countries of Europe were at the disposal of a deranged man who would utter such words as these, and only slowly was the world waking up to the danger.

Then on September 1, 1939, over a million and a half German troops crossed the border into peaceful Poland and invaded. The world was now awake. Within days, England and France finally declared war on Germany. Almost immediately, Winston Churchill was called back into government service as the first lord of the Admiralty.

Eight short months later, on the morning of May 10, 1940, Germany simultaneously invaded Holland, Belgium, and France. Churchill was named prime minister by nightfall that same day. He later would write how when he went to bed that night he was conscious “of a profound sense of relief. At last I had authority to give directions over the whole scene. I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.”

The man Europe had ignored had been put in the driver’s seat at the last desperate minute. Western civilization had been crumbling under a severe lack of leadership. Now that lack of leadership was ending.

Winston Churchill took the reins of authority with vigor. On the afternoon of May 13, just three days after becoming prime minister, Churchill summoned his ministers and told them, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” Then in front of the entire Commons he said:

You ask what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival. Let that be realized; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goals.

But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, “Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.”

Then France, Belgium, and Holland all fell to Nazi forces. At the shores of Dunkirk in early June, nearly 350,000 British and French soldiers had to be rescued by a daring and heroic sea evacuation moments before they would have been crushed by the advancing German army. In a speech addressed primarily to Germany and Italy (confided Churchill to U.S. president Roosevelt), Churchill was at his inspirational best:

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

According to Martin Gilbert, “Churchill paid no attention to . . . doom. His mind was made up; the defeatism of others could not change his intention.” As it was obvious that France had been totally defeated, Churchill said:

I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free, and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands; but if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, and all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of a perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, “This was their finest hour.”

The Battle of Britain had indeed begun. German planes began bombing eastern England, targeting highly populated civilian areas to strike fear and terror into the masses. Innocent people died by the tens of thousands. The United States would not enter the war for almost another year and a half. Britain was alone.

Winston Churchill, however, was a real leader. He had an all-consuming cause that guided his steps, and the confidence of a man who knows he was destined for that moment in time. His fortitude, his confidence, his determination, his constant ebullient communications to his countrymen somehow held things together. The tiny little island fought like a caged lion and somehow hung on. Eventually the United States was drawn into the war by Japan, and the fascist countries one by one were defeated by the allies.

As Martin Gilbert wrote, “[Churchill’s] personal inspiration was itself an element in Britain’s war-making powers.” That’s leadership.

Leadership can also be recognized by the results it generates. Churchill assembled a very effective War Cabinet and efficiently increased the ability of his nation to produce war munitions and equipment. He forged secret supply agreements with the United States. Gilbert wrote, “A remarkable war-making instrument was in place; Churchill, with his forceful energy, his long experience and his unswerving faith in a victorious outcome, provided it with the impetus and the fire.” The result was that Churchill’s England held tough against a massive and unrelenting German onslaught. That’s leadership.

An enduring legacy is also pure evidence of leadership. Most historians agree: The years of World War II, and especially the early ones including the Battle of Britain, are indeed “Britain’s finest hour.” For a country with such a rich and long history, that is really saying something. Again, that’s leadership.

Leadership is a deep and fascinating subject. Leaders come in all shapes and sizes and from all walks of life. Throughout this book we will explain it and teach it, but if ever anyone desired a simple portrait of leadership instead of all the words, one should simply picture portly, sixty-something Winston Churchill standing defiantly amidst the rubble of a bombed-out and nearly ruined London, cigar clenched firmly between his teeth and stubby fingers thrust confidently in the air signifying “victory.” Providing a mental picture of a preferred future, mobilizing others toward a common goal, influencing them in a productive, vision-driven direction, Churchill was the perfect example of the conviction and character of a leader.

Copyright © 2005 by Chris Brady and Orrin Woodward