LEADERSHIP: I-C.A.R.E. PART I. . .

One way of exploring the development of a leader is the ‘outside-in’ process. The leader is influenced (or coerced or manipulated or persuaded) by one or more external factors or forces. ‘Doing’ precedes ‘Being.’ Another way of exploring the development of a leader is the ‘inside-out’ process. Simply stated: ‘Who the person is and who the person is choosing to become directly and powerfully determines how the person will lead.’ ‘Being’ precedes ‘Doing’ and ‘Being’ informs and is informed by ‘Doing.’

Traditionally, ‘leadership’ and ‘leader’ have been interchangeable words. Yet, the person who has no followers cannot be a leader. Thus, ‘leadership’ is a by-product of the relationship between the leader and those who freely choose to follow. Both are response-able, responsible and accountable for this by-product. The leader and the led are truly ‘in it together’ – they are truly interdependent. Leadership also requires, over time, a balance between support and accountability. The leader and the led support one another and they also hold one another accountable (the nature of the support and the ‘accountable for what’ are to be determined and agreed upon by the leader and the led).

‘Leadership’ requires intentional preparation for the leader and the led so that all can respond and react appropriately. ‘Leadership’ requires a commitment to ‘Being Faithful’ and to ‘Being Effective.’ The leader and the led must decide what they each – and together – must be faithful to even though they might not be effective (‘acting with integrity at all times’ comes to mind). What might ‘leadership’ be faithful to, no matter what? Consider the following: Core Values, Core Guiding Principles, Mission, Vision, and Credo. Here is an example that has come to be ‘the example’ for many.

In the 1980s there was the ‘Tylenol Poisonings.’ Johnson & Johnson’s leadership decided to do a nationwide recall of all Tylenol. The leadership chose this path even though it seemed clear that the poisoning were limited to one geographic area in one large city. The leadership chose ‘being faithful’ to the ‘Credo’ and risked ‘being effective’ in the market place (another drug was just hitting the market and was seen as a challenge to Tylenol). By the by, the ‘gift’ to us was the development by Johnson & Johnson of the ‘safety cap.’

Of course, the ‘Credo’ alone did not make this happen; the choice was made because the ‘Credo’ had been integrated into the very life of the people who made up what was called ‘Johnson & Johnson’ (we often forget that organizations are simply individuals and relationships writ large). Without a shared set of values and guiding principles (think: ‘We will not put our end users in harm’s way!’), it is doubtful that the ‘leaderships’ response would have been as rapid, cohesive and morally-ethically sound.