Two Core Concepts
When we teach people to become better leaders, we need to help them to embrace two different concepts at the exact same time. We also need to help people understand the difference and importance of each concept. The first concept is actions speak louder than words. The second concept is words matter. Both concepts are true, and, when understood, both can make a huge difference. But in the beginning, each concept needs significant unpacking if they are going to help people become better leaders.
The first concept, actions speak louder than words, is a popular phrase, and is often referenced when teaching leadership. However, from my perspective, it lacks depth in its presentation. Instead, I prefer to reference the work of executive coach Kevin Cashman who wrote: “Leaders get what they exhibit and what they tolerate.” Within Cashman’s phrase, the definition of action is broken down into specific behaviors related to role modeling and specific behaviors related to tolerance, e.g. think about how this relates to coaching and accountability. Furthermore, we all know that role modeling is a very powerful form of building clarity and meaning within the work environment.
Nevertheless, the second concept, words matter, also can build clarity and meaning. What drives me crazy about these two concepts is that many people pit them against each other, assuming that one is more important than the other. The reality is that people, who are learning to become better leaders, need to step away from this dualistic level of thinking and embrace the Genius Of The And, referencing the early work Jim Collins and Jerry Porras in their book, Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies ( HarperBusiness, 1994).
The Genius Of The AND
Now, to go off on a tangent for a bit, the concept of embracing the “Genius Of The AND” has great depth. First, the opposite of the “Genius of the And” is the “Tyranny of the OR.” As Collins and Porras wrote,“.. a key aspect of highly visionary companies: They do not oppress themselves with what we call the “Tyranny of the OR” - the rationale view that cannot easily accept paradox, that cannot live with two seemingly contradictory forces or ideas at the same time. The “Tyranny of the OR” pushes people to believe that things must be either A OR B, but not both.” For example, a company could focus on change or stability, being bold or conservative, or offering high quality or low cost.
“Instead of being oppressed by the ‘Tyranny of the OR’,” they wrote, “highly visionary companies liberate themselves with the ‘Genius of the AND’ - the ability to embrace both extremes of a number of dimensions at the same time. Instead of choosing between A OR B, they figure out a way to have both A AND B.” For example, they focus on purpose and profit, a fixed core ideology and vigorous change, or a conservative core and opportunistic experimentation. As they continued, “We’re not talking about mere balance here. ‘Balance’ implies going to the midpoint, fifty-fifty, half and half. It seeks to do very well in the short-term and very well in the long-term. A visionary company doesn’t simply balance between idealism and profitability; it seeks to be highly idealistic and highly profitable.”
When it comes to actions speak louder than words and words matter, effective leaders embrace both concepts at the exact same time. They do not seek to balance the two concepts as much as they seek to be conscious about their actions and their words. Yet, to do this well, we need to further unpack each concepts.
Words Matter
First, when it comes to the concept of words matter, the difficulty for many leaders is for them to realize that speaking is a form of action. The words they choose to use reflect the commitments they have and will keep. In large companies, or ones spread out over a wide geography, actions may only be seen by a few people in a specific location. However, words are heard and shared by many people. They can, and will impact many people in a large company. Therefore, leaders need to choose their words as carefully as their choose their actions.
As Krista Tippett wrote in her book, Becoming Wise: An Inquiry into the Mystery and Art of Living (Penguin Press, 2016): “I take it as an elemental truth of life that words matter. This is so plain that we can ignore it a thousand times a day. The words we use shape how we understand ourselves, how we interpret the world, how we treat others. From Genesis to the aboriginal songlines of Australia, human beings have forever perceived that naming brings the essence of things into being. The ancient rabbis understood books, texts, the very letters of certain words as living, breathing entities. Words make worlds.” This is a profound truth. In the world of leadership, words make worlds. They shape understanding and create clarity on so many levels.
But, given current events, we must remember an important insight shared by the Irish poet David White: “Our language is not large enough for the territory in which we have entered.” Over the last six months, I have visited with many leaders who are struggling to find the right words to describe what is happening within and outside themselves, their organizations, and their teams. They are struggling in part, because the old words they used in the past don’t fully capture what is happening. Their old words don’t work unless they include significant “unpacking,” i.e. explaining the core definitions of the words themselves. As philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein noted, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” And right now a lot of leaders feel limited by what to say and how to say it.
For example, right now two words in particular are hard for leaders. The first word is change. In one context, the word change can mean doing something better. In another context, it can mean doing something different. The difficulty is that the leader understands the definition, but the listener may not understand which definition is being used. The same goes for the second word, namely system. The dictionary provides us with three different definitions: “a regular interaction or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole,” “an organized or establish procedure,” or a “harmonious arrangement or pattern.” Again, if the listener does not know which definition the leader is referencing, e.g. the focus on a unified whole or an established procedure, the potential for miscommunication could impact the capacity to plan or the capacity to execute a plan. Therefore, it is critical that we spend time defining the definition of the words we use as leaders rather than simply using them.
For as we all know, “Language is our portal to meaning-making, connection, healing, learning, and self-awareness,” writes Brene Brown in her book, Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience (Random House, 2021). “Having access to the right words can open up entire universes…. Language shows us that naming an experience doesn’t give the experience more power, it gives us the power of understanding and meaning.” Eduardo Bericat, a sociology professor at the University of Seville, says “As human beings we can only experience life emotionally.” And the challenge right now is that we are dealing with issues that are emotional and conceptual, especially as we struggle with the mix of technical problems and adaptive challenges. Given, we are struggling with the words and how to explain what is happening, I am reminded of something Barbara Brown Taylor wrote in her book, Holy Envy: Finding God in the Faith of Others (HarperCollins, 2019): “Eventually people began to understand that not everything could be said in words.”
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
And this leads me to the second concept, namely actions speak louder than words. When teaching people about how to become a better leader, we first need to help them learn that their presence makes a statement. Remembers words and speaking are a form of action. But your choice as a leader to where and when you show up is often more important than what you say when you are there. Being present, and a presence is a powerful combination.
Second, we need to help them build more trust within their relationships, teams, and their organizations as a whole. Now as we all know, followers place their trust in their leaders to make wise decisions and to manage people in a respectful manner. In the beginning of building more trust, we must recognize that the desire for trust, compassion, stability, and hope are all intertwined. Working on one of these four elements, i.e. trust, we need to be mindful of the other three, especially in the ways we role model and engage with others, plus how we hold other people accountable for their choices and behaviors.
Next, we must recognize that there are different levels of trust. One level is personal trust, where employees place their trust in their manager. Then, there is strategic trust, where employees place their trust in the team they are on, and, at the same time, in the senior team that is running the organization and making the right strategic decisions. Finally, there is organizational trust, which is based not in any one individual, but in the company itself. These different levels need to be discussed and unpacked with people learning to be better leaders. They need to grasp the implications when it comes to the way they speak and the way they role model these different levels of trust in the organization. For those who want to learn more about this subject, I encourage them to read the following article called "The Enemies of Trust" by Robert Galford and Anne Seibold Drapeau in the February 2003 issue of the Harvard Business Review.
Building Team-Based Trust
One particularly important level of trust is team-based trust. The best resource for people learning about this is to read the following book: Lencioni, Patrick. The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business (Jossey-Bass, 2012). As he writes, “If an organization is led by a team that is not behaviorally unified, there is no chance that it will become healthy….Becoming a real team requires an intentional decision on the part of its members…. teamwork is not a virtue. It is a choice - and a strategic one.” Then, he notes something important about leadership teams. As he explains, “A leadership team is a small group of people who are collectively responsible for achieving a common objective for their organization.” The key at this point is for the team to know two things. One, they need to know the team’s purpose, and two, they need to understand what is the common objective or goal that the team needs to accomplish. Often, when I was brought in as a consultant to figure out why a certain team was struggling, it came down to these two factors, namely a lack of understanding about purpose, and a lack of clarity about the objective or the goal that the team was trying to accomplish.
Now, when we dive into to the role modeling element of trust building at the team level, it becomes abundantly clear that the best team leaders are able to engage in vulnerability-based trust. This level of trust begins when leaders are willing to openly share about their challenges, blind spots, mistakes, and fear with others. When this happens in an authentic and safe manner, it indicates to the team that everyone on the team has areas of growth and must continue growing as people and as leaders. As this happens collectively, the team leader must hold all accountable for acting in a responsible and respectful manner. This too helps people continue to grow and get better in their jobs.
Along this line of thinking, Lencioni notes something important. “The reason that behavioral accountability is more important than the quantitative, results-related kind has nothing to do with the fact that it is harder, “ explains Lencioni. “It is due to the fact that behavioral problems almost always precede - and cause - a downturn in performance and results.” So by role modeling vulnerability-based trust and not tolerating destructive behaviors, team leaders understand this key point in Lencioni’s writing: “The ultimate point of building greater trust, conflict, commitment, and accountability is one thing: the achievement of [collective] results.” And that is why the building of trust on multiple levels is so important.
Creating Relational Spaces
Third, we need to create, maintain, and support more relational spaces. The idea about the importance of relational spaces comes from the book, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace ( Oxford University Press, 2005)by John Paul Lederach. When I reflect on all the work I have done in my career, it is the development of relational spaces that was the biggest catalyst for success. Now, some will point to the teaching of content during all the workshops, seminars, and keynotes that I did, but I believe it was the building and supporting of the relational spaces created during the learning journey that made the teaching and consulting transformational. By creating a safe and respectful space for learning and sharing, relationships could be built and expanded on over time.
However, upon much reflection, I believe there were two elements that made the difference. First, referencing a social worker’s perspective, we met people where they were, not where we hoped they’d be. This is a subtle, but profound distinction. Second, we often engaged in dialogue and sharing around the following three questions: Where are we?, How did we get here from there?, and How do we get there from here?. Again, this seems to be such a simple, if not subtle, distinction. But I am thoroughly convinced that these three questions opened doors to valuable discussions about meaning and purpose, not just work, goals and outcomes. While the later is important, it is the former that helps people move forward through the normal chaos and change that comes with executing a plan and delivering an outcome. As Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall in their book, Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World (Harvard Business Review Press, 2019), remind us: “Instead of cascading goals, instead of cascading instructions for actions, we should cascade meaning and purpose. It is shared meaning that creates alignment, and this alignment is emergent, not coerced. Whereas cascaded goals are a control mechanism, cascaded meaning is a release mechanism…. Our people don’t need to be told what to do; they want to be told why.” And it all begins with creating safe, and respectful relational spaces.
Shared Understanding
Over the years, I have listened to many leaders say that “awareness is not understanding.” And I have quoted this line multiple times myself. The assumption by many is that the goal of leadership is to create understanding, because it is the foundation of clarity.
While I recognize this perspective, I would propose that once people understand the aforementioned two core concepts, namely words matter and actions speak louder than words, and follow this by embracing the genius of the AND, then they will realize that the real goal is to create shared understanding. For when we have transcended the individual level of understanding to a collective level of understanding, then we are on the pathway to improved collaboration, commitment, and advocacy. We are moving in the collective direction to rise to the challenges before us and to meet them with thoughtful and creative solutions. Yet, in the beginning, we need to help people become betters leaders, and we need to role model the process as well. For in the end, we must be the change we wish to see in the world, not just talk about the need for change in the world.
© Geery Howe 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment