FAQs

Since The Leadership Challenge has been around since 1987, we've fielded many related questions. Here is a sampling of the ones that we've heard most often:

The Fourth Edition of The Leadership Challenge

What's New in the Fourth Edition of The Leadership Challenge?

First, let's start with what's not new. Those familiar with the previous three editions of The Leadership Challenge can rest assured that The Five Practices have remained intact, just as they have for more than a quarter century. In this new edition, you will not find a magical sixth practice that will revolutionize the conduct of leadership, and nothing in the authors' research suggests that any of The Five Practices are suddenly irrelevant.

As Leadership Challenge devotees have come to expect, this new edition finds its roots firmly planted in solid research. This evidence-based leadership foundation is surrounded by inspirational best practices stories from real leaders. And this is where "what's new" comes into play. Ninety percent of the case examples in this fourth edition are new, reflecting the current environment in which we live and lead. This edition is also focuses more intently on the leadership essentials, making it a simpler, crisper read. Another noticeable change from the previous edition is the inclusion of more cases from outside the United States. The Leadership Challenge has been translated into twelve other languages, and the authors wanted to more prominently feature leaders from around the globe in this new edition.

You may also notice some slight rephrasing of 5 of the 10 Commitments of Exemplary Leadership. As the years go by, the authors continue to learn from their own research. As a result, they felt that refining certain commitments would only serve to give readers a better understanding of the practice in which they belong. The new commitments are as follows:

1. Clarify values by finding your voice and affirming shared ideals.

5. Search for opportunities by seizing the initiative and by looking outward for innovative ways to improve.

6. Experiment and take risks by constantly generating small wins and learning from experience.

7. Foster collaboration by building trust and facilitating relationships.

8. Strengthen others by increasing self-determination and developing competence.

Over the next few months, these changes in the 10 Commitments will be implemented in most of The Leadership Challenge and LPI materials currently available.

In addition, Jim has started writing a periodic blog on Amazon.com and his first entry is about this new edition. You will find the blog whenever you visit a page for any Kouzes and Posner book. Future entries, appearing about once or twice a month, will discuss updates on recent work, notes from the road, and answers to customer's questions. Check it out!

To sum it all up, The Leadership Challenge, Fourth Edition features:

• 90% new case examples
• More cases from outside the United States
• Solid research and evidence-based principles
• Refinement of several Commitments
• A crisp read with a continued focus on the essentials of leadership

—Portions of this article are excerpted from the Introduction to The Leadership Challenge, Fourth Edition, pages xv and xvi.

The LPI and The Five Practices Model

Why is 360-Degree Feedback Important?

Just as the best companies are concerned about the quality of their relationships with their customers, the best leaders seek feedback—positive and negative—about how they're doing in their relationships with constituents. Leaders have multiple constituents, including internal and external customers, in addition to managers, co-workers, and direct reports. Only by getting all of these different perspectives can they learn to fully appreciate how they are seen from all angles and all points of view. As a 360-degree instrument, the LPI captures a complete portrait of leaders. With data from multiple perspectives, they can see where there's consistency and inconsistency, agreement and disagreement, about their strengths and weaknesses. Using this information, they can then determine what and how to improve.

What Do the Scores Mean?

Our research demonstrates that the more frequently you are perceived as doing the behaviors indicated in the Leadership Practices Inventory, the more likely you will be identified as an effective leader. Studies have shown that the higher your scores on the LPI-Observer, the more others perceive you as:

• Having a high degree of personal credibility
• Being effective in meeting job-related demands
• Being able to increase others' motivation levels
• Being successful in representing your group to upper management
• Having a high-performance team
• Fostering loyalty and commitment
• Reducing absenteeism, turnover, and dropout rates

In addition, those working with you feel significantly more satisfied with your practices and strategies, more committed and more powerful and influential.

How Will I Benefit from the LPI?

Anyone can learn new skills—and leadership is a set of skills. The LPI provides you with sound feedback on your present level of leadership skills. In this workshop you will have a chance to observe positive models of these skills, set some goals for yourself, practice the skills, ask for updated feedback, and then set new goals. While we can provide you with the tools to change, only you can provide the desire to improve.

How Reliable Is the LPI?

This question can be answered empirically in three ways:

• The LPI is internally reliable. That is, the items are highly correlated within each scale.
• Test-retest reliability is high.
• Results from the LPI have high face validity and predictive validity. The results make sense to people, and they predict high-performing leaders and moderate- and low-performing ones.

Where Can I Find More Information About the Development of the LPI, the Research Database That Supports It, and the Psychometric Properties?

See pages 14 to 16 of the Leadership Practices Inventory Facilitator's Guide (3rd ed.). In addition, we continuously update this website with the latest data that support the LPI—so check back often.

Should Self and Observer Scores Be the Same?

Research indicates that some people may see themselves more positively than others see them, whereas other people tend to see themselves less positively than others see them. It is unlikely that LPI-Self and LPI-Observer scores will be exactly alike.

Are any of these LPI items more important than others?

We have determined in our research that all of the items on the LPI make a positive difference in your effectiveness as a leader. If an item was not important, we would have left it off the LPI. Therefore, the best answer to this question is, "It depends." It depends on your feedback. It depends on what you need to do more frequently to improve your overall effectiveness. No two leaders are going to have exactly the same developmental need.

Why Do My Observer Ratings Vary?

You will not always be perceived in the same way by every person in every situation. Some people may not see you as often as others, and therefore they may rate you differently on the same behavior. Some people may not know you as well as others do. You may behave differently in different situations. Different people may have different expectations of you, and still others may understand the terms used in the LPI (for example, how often is "fairly often") differently.

Why Isn't There a "Not Applicable" Choice in the LPI Observer?

First, we assume that the leader gave the LPI to someone who has enough information about the person to offer observations. If that is not the case, then the LPI should be given to observers who do know the leader well enough to give a rating.

Second, keep in mind that the 1 to 10 scale is a frequency scale. The observer is being asked how frequently the leader does something. This is not a rating scale about how satisfied he or she is with the leader or how well the leader displays the behavior. It is about how frequently they see the behavior. We use the frequency scale because it permits a rating under most conditions.

Third, given these two factors, a "does not apply" response is not appropriate. Our data tell us that ALL the behaviors do in fact apply to any leader at any level in any organization. The psychometrics of the instrument are such that we know that each item accounts for a percentage of the variance and that, the more frequent a behavior, the more positive the outcomes. Therefore, all items have been pre-determined to be appropriate as a result of our research.

With these things in mind, if an observer says, "I just don't have enough information to respond," it has been our experience that the observer is really saying, "I don't see that behavior very often, so I can't rate that person on this item." In fact, the observer has already offered a rating by virtue of that observation. It means the rating of a "3-seldom" is most likely an appropriate response. It does NOT say the leader is a bad leader, or the leader never does this with anyone else. It simply says, "The leader does not exhibit that behavior around me."

Are some of the behaviors more important than others?

All the behaviors measured by the LPI have an impact on your leadership effectiveness. Doing more of each one correlates with better results. That said, leadership is more than one practice or behavior. To use an analogy, you might think of leadership as a pentathlon. There are five events in a pentathlon, and you can't compete in that event if you don't ultimately learn to perform the skills in each event. Similarly, there are Five Practices in the Leadership Challenge, and you'll need to master the skills in each practice in order to perform at your best.

Why did you change the LPI?

We didn't "change" the LPI; we simply updated it, as had been done already a number of times over the past 16 years. The most significant change was conceptual, as reflected in the 3rd Edition of The Leadership Challenge. We added a new chapter in Model the Way that focused on the importance of "Finding Your Voice" and moved the ideas about "small wins" from Model to Challenge the Process. These changes resulted in changing a few statements in the LPI. Also, in this new edition we shifted the presentation of the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership (beginning with Model, rather than Challenge), and the ordering of the statements in the LPI were all shifted to recognize this change. There were several very minor editorial changes in one or two statements. All told there are only four statements in the latest edition of the LPI that are "new." Finally, all of the LPI statements undergo continuous analysis in order to assure the psychometric properties of the instrument, that is, its reliability and validity.

Why did you change the order of the Five Practices?

The change in the order of the Five Practices in the LPI reflects the change in the order of how the Five Practices are now presented in the 3rd Edition of The Leadership Challenge. In this latest edition, we focus even more strongly on the importance of understanding leadership as a relationship, and the foundation of that relationship is personal credibility. When we asked people to tell us what credibility was behaviorally, they said "Do what you say you will do." It therefore seemed more appropriate to begin the discussion of the Five Practices with Model the Way since it deals most directly with doing what you say. Inspire a Shared Vision is also a critical part of what a leader "says," so we followed Model with the discussion of Inspire a Shared Vision. Challenge the Process follows Model and Inspire, but now the discussion is about Challenge in the context of a leader's vision and values. We have always maintained, however, that there is not a "right order" or "step-by-step" process when it comes to leadership, leading, or understanding and applying the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership.

Why the new theme "Leadership is a Relationship"?

We have always maintained that whatever the circumstances, leadership is a relationship. Whether it's one-to-one or one-to-many, business as usual or challenges in extraordinary times, leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow. North, south, east, or west, success in business, and success in life has been, is now, and will be a function of how well we work and play together. We are emphasizing "Leadership is a relationship" as the theme for the third edition of The Leadership Challenge because over the last few years new research in such areas as "emotional intelligence" has demonstrated that it's social skills and not technical or intellectual skills that account for the success of leaders. Also, since we began our research over 20 years ago, we have had reinforced over and over, time and again, that personal credibility — that is, the belief others have it us - is the foundation of leadership.

Which LPI questions are different?

In the 3rd edition there are two new Model the Way questions (#16 and #21), which address the issue of "finding your voice". They replace two questions (#24 and #29) in the 2nd edition which dealt with "small wins." Inspire a Shared Vision has one new question (#22) that replaces #22 in the 2nd edition, and was changed for both editorial and psychometric reasons (i.e., reliability). Challenge the Process has one new question (#23) which replaces #26 in the 2nd edition. This "new" Challenge question, dealing with "small wins" was formerly under Model the Way.

LPI 3	LPI 2
1 MTW 6 MTW 11 MTW 16 MTW (new) 21 MTW (new) 26 MTW	1 CTP 6 CTP 11 CTP 16 CTP 21 CTP 26 CTP (replaced)
2 ISV 7 ISV 12 ISV 17 ISV 22 ISV (new) 27 ISV	2 ISV 7 ISV 12 ISV 17 ISV 22 ISV (replaced) 27 ISV
3 CTP 8 CTP 13 CTP 18 CTP 23 CTP (new) 28 CTP	3 EOA 8 EOA 13 EOA 18 EOA 23 EOA 28 EOA
4 EOA 9 EOA 14 EOA 19 EOA 24 EOA 29 EOA	4 MTW 9 MTW 14 MTW 19 MTW 24 MTW (replaced) 29 MTW (replaced)
5 ETH 10 ETH 15 ETH 20 ETH 25 ETH 30 ETH	5 ETH 10 ETH 15 ETH 20 ETH 25 ETH 30 ETH

How can I determine if leaders have improved if we used the LPI2 to first assess their practices and now we're using the LPI3?

Due to some technical difficulties in this version of the scoring software, the only way to compare LPI3 to LPI2 scores is to do that manually. If you wish to do an item by item comparison, it will be necessary to take the LPI2 feedback report and then manually compare that report to the LPI3 feedback report. Please keep in mind that the item numbers for Model, Challenge, and Enable have changed on the LPI3 report compared to the LPI2 report. Also, please keep in mind that 4 items on the LPI3 report are new or revised. See question 5 above for a list of the new items.

Why did you add a Comparison Report to the 3rd edition?

While there is great benefit in a single administration of the Leadership Practices Inventory, many users have told us that it is even more beneficial the second and third time around. They use the first administration as a "benchmark," and then they take it again — often several times — to view their progress compared to their goals and to the benchmark. Because of their positive experience with multiple administrations, we have included an optional Comparison Report in the third edition of the LPI. Please consult Appendix E in the Facilitator's Guide for more information about multiple administrations of the LPI.

Why are you phasing out the LPI-IC?

Essentially feedback from the marketplace — our customers and other educators and trainers, told us that individual contributors (IC) did not really have any problems using the classic version of the LPI, nor did their constituents (coworkers and colleagues, even managers). Workshop facilitators who had both individual contributors and managers attending a seminar told us that having these two versions created confusion among participants. Similarly, confusion was also often experienced administratively. In the end, the potential benefits from having a separate IC-version of the LPI did not outweigh the costs and confusion.

If conducting a 360-degree assessment is problematic or impossible, do you ever recommend using the LPI-Self on its own?

With regard to the LPI-Self, we think there is value in using it without Observers in these instances:

• When you want to introduce The Five Practices to a group in order to help them ground the Practices in their own experiences. We think it can help people to relate The Five Practices to their own leadership when they can at least see how they see themselves. For instance, I (Jim Kouzes) recently addressed 800 people at a conference at North Carolina State University. Everyone in the audience completed the LPI-Self in the morning at registration. During my keynote that day I asked them take a look at their LPI-Self scores to get an orientation to what we mean behaviorally by each Practice and a sense of how they see themselves. It helped them to see The Five Practices as more than concepts. They began to see the LPI as something that they can use to develop themselves.

• When you want to motivate people to get additional feedback. We sometimes use the LPI-Self to get folks started on a 360-degree process. We tell them that they now have their own assessment, but that it's an incomplete picture. Since leaders by definition have constituents, a complete picture of leadership is only possible if the gather data from their constituents.

Model the Way

Are the top four characteristics of admired leaders consistent around the world, by age or time in the workplace, and so on?

We have done research in many different countries—in Africa, Asia, South America, Australia, Europe, and North America—and the top four characteristics of honest, forward-looking, competent, and inspiring are consistently found to be the same in almost all instances. There are exceptions, of course, but the probability is that these four will be in the top five or six, no matter where we conduct the survey.

There is one common variation that is easily explained. Those in lower-level positions in an organization often rate "forward-looking" as less essential than do more senior executives. Sometimes fewer than 50 percent of frontline employees select forward-looking as one of their seven characteristics of admired leaders, while nearly 90 percent of senior executives select it.

Why do organizations often spend more time working on or clarifying organizational values than helping people clarify their own personal values?

The most common reason is that organizational leaders are not aware of this research and the importance of clarity of personal values; in addition, some organizational leaders might believe that it is a person's individual responsibility to be clear on personal values and the organization should not be involved.

What if I share the organization's values, but I work for someone who either does not share or live by the organization's values?

If a participant asks this question, ask the group what it might feel like to work in an environment where the boss behaves inconsistently with the corporate values. (Example: Working for a boss at Nordstrom or L.L. Bean who tends to ignore or disrespect customers.) Likely responses will be "confusing, frustrating," and so on. Remind participants of how different those feelings are than the items listed in the research.

Say, "Now you see why shared values are so important to a leader and how much difference one person can make. In this case, you and your boss would not share common values—remember how you said that could make you feel (confused, frustrated, and so on—use participants' words). As a leader, you must confront this issue with your boss. When values are not aligned or shared, it makes it very difficult to perform at your best.

What happens if a person just doesn't feel moved by the organization's values?

Research is pretty clear that people feel more committed to and better about the organization when values are clear and shared. (See "Shared Values Make a Difference" on page 40 of the The Leadership Challenge Workshop, Third Edition Revised, Participant's Workbook.)

The key to your own satisfaction (and ultimate performance) is finding ways to fulfill your personal values within the organizational setting, whether the values are perfectly aligned or not. If there is too much conflict between your values and the organization's, however, you may need to find someplace else to work.

It's fine to live out our values in good times, when profits or business are up. But how do you maintain the focus on values in tough times, when financial results become the most important thing?

In a general sense it is always better to sacrifice profitability to retain credibility, as it takes a much longer time to regain credibility.

If you look at the business scandals that make the headlines, you'll find case after case of profits trumping ethical behavior. And what were the financial consequences of these actions? They were disastrous. They drained wealth from the pockets of the investors and employees.

A focus on profits at the expense of doing the right thing is a sure way to economic decline. Can you really imagine a business gaining in the long term by sacrificing employee and customer satisfaction for quarterly profits? Of course there are times when leaders have to make tough decisions about layoffs or cuts in the training budget. But remember that only the most credible leaders can make these kinds of tough decisions and sustain credibility.

You have to build your credibility over time so that when you make a tough decision, you can say, "You'll have to trust me on this one." You have to accumulate and invest capital before you can withdraw. That's what's called "having a good credit rating."

You say that "credibility is the foundation of leadership," but there seem to be a lot of people in very high level positions who aren't credible. How do you explain that?

People can continue to hold onto their titles for lots of reasons - power, money, and ownership, to name a few - but that doesn't make them credible. Authority and credible leadership aren't the same thing. Doing something willingly because you respect and trust someone is very different from doing something because they have authority to give you an order. Leadership isn't about position; it's about behavior. The most important behavior for leadership credibility is doing what you say you will do. In the end, that's what really makes the difference.

There are already so many demands on my time as a leader, how can I possibly be a role model for everything that we do?

The point is not about being a role model for everything that your organization does. We know that leaders can't be expected to have expertise in all areas or to have time to perform every task. If you did, you wouldn't need an organization. The point is that your organization should have a few values—five to seven at most—that should guide you and everyone else in their actions. Part of your job as a leader is to exemplify the behaviors that are consistent with these values and principles.

I don't understand how storytelling is a way to Model something. Can you explain?

Throughout human history, stories have been among the most powerful tools for passing on the ways and mores of a culture. Aesop's Fables, for example, all have a moral at the end. They're not just fun tales to read, they are really teaching lessons. The same with stories in your organization. When someone in your organization does something interesting or dramatic that truly exemplifies what you is expected of everyone, turn that incident into a story. Tell it as often as you can as a way of teaching others what to do. Research clearly shows that stories about real people doing real things are more believable than data or a company policy statement. Use this tried-and-true method to show how people in the organization can Model the Way.

You say that leaders must be clear about their personal values in order to earn and sustain credibility. I understand that leaders should be ethical people, but aren't they really judged by the results they get and the expertise they have?

Demonstrating your competence—and the ability to get things done as a result—is a key component, but expertise alone is not sufficient. Unless people trust you and believe that you have personal integrity, they won't follow you willingly over the long term. This is where values come into play. People want their leaders to stand for something. They want to know the few guiding principles that matter to you; the few things you care the most about. Anyone in a leadership position ultimately must hold themselves and others accountable to a set of standards. One of your tasks as a leader is to let others know what those values and standards are.

Aren't I imposing my values on others by saying, "This is what we stand for?" Doesn't that conflict from your contention that leaders must develop a set of shared values?

In a free society you really can't impose values top down. Even if you could you wouldn't want to, because the research clearly shows that when people freely choose to sign up they are much more committed. This is a both/and proposition. You can't be committed as a leader to something you don't believe in, and others can't be committed to something they don't believe in. The key is come to consensus as a team and organization about shared values, and the way we arrive at this is a free and open dialogue. But keep in mind, that the route to shared values is clarification of personal values—for you and others. You have to find a way to promote personal exploration at the same time as you are finding ways to come to agreement about the principles for which you collectively stand.

Aren't leaders born? Can you really develop the skills to lead?

There still persists, even in this new millennium, an insidious myth that leadership is reserved for only a very few of us. That myth is perpetuated daily every time someone asks, "Are leaders born or made?" Whenever we're asked this question—which is almost every time we give a speech or conduct a class or workshop—our answer is this: "Yes, of course, all leaders are born. We've never met a leader who wasn't. So are all accountants, poets, athletes, physicists, zoologists, you name it." We're all born. What we do with what we have before we die is up to us. Leadership is not a contained in a gene any more, or any less, than other pursuits. Leadership is not a place, it's not a position, and it's not a secret code that can't be deciphered by ordinary people. Leadership is an observable set of skills and abilities. So, how do you develop those skills? Like any other skill. Feedback on your current abilities, training to learn to improve, and practice, practice, practice.

Inspire a Shared Vision

What's the difference between a vision and a goal?

Vision is about the long term. Goals are short-term. Think of the vision as the ultimate destination and a goal as a milestone along the way. Vision is the picture on the box top of the jigsaw puzzle and a goal is like the cloud in the upper left corner of the puzzle. Think of visions as imaginative and goals as quantifiable. Think of visions as aspirations, and goals as targets.

What's the difference between a vision and a mission?

Visions and missions have similarities, but they are not the same thing. Vision comes from the word meaning "see" and mission comes from the word meaning "send." Vision is about your dreams, but mission is about the actions you take to carry out those dreams. We might go on a mission to help people with AIDS in Africa, but our vision might be of a world without AIDS. You might go on a mission to start up a plant in China, but your vision may be to virtually connect the people of the world.

What if my organization doesn't have a clear vision or one that meets the criteria of "an ideal and unique image of the future for the common good?"

It would be ideal if all organizations were crystal-clear about their visions, and if all executives excelled at Inspire a Shared Vision. But whether or not your organization has a clear vision, and whether or not your boss has a clear vision, your constituents expect you to know where you are going. A person's immediate manager has the most impact on performance. Leadership is personal. It's your job.

That said, if you aren't clear about your organization's vision, you need to have a courageous conversation about this issue with your manager. It is such a fundamental part of leadership that you have to take the initiative. Have a conversation about the vision for your part of the organization and how you see your part of the organization fitting into the whole. Appeal to your manager's aspirations. Your manager is as much a constituent of your vision as are your direct reports.

There isn't much vision in our organization, but we've managed to be successful. Please explain to me how we've been able to be successful without a clear vision.

We know that the clearer visions are, the more productive people are, and the more engaged they are in their jobs. But there are organizations that are "visionless" yet still manage to move forward, at least for a while. Whether or not this is a sustainable situation is questionable. In one study Jim and Barry conducted, they asked managers how well their leaders articulated a vision. Those managers who felt that their senior executives effectively communicated the vision reported significantly higher levels of:

• Job satisfaction
• Commitment and loyalty
• Esprit de corps
• Clarity about organizational values
• Pride in the organization
• Organizational productivity

You use the word "constituent" and not "follower." Why?

We think the word follower implies a more passive role. Constituents are active participants in a process, and that is the sense we want to convey. The important point is that you understand that the vision has to be a shared vision for people to want to enlist in it. That requires getting to know what others aspire to achieve and what their hopes and dreams are. You can't impose a vision on others. They have to feel engaged in it to invest their energy in moving toward it.

I'm not good at inspiring; I'm no Martin Luther King. What can I do to become more comfortable in presenting an inspirational message to my constituents?

The first thing you have to do to be inspirational is to believe in the message yourself. You can't fake it. So, you've got to do a gut check and ask yourself, "How much do I believe in what I am saying?" When we truly care about something we're naturally enthusiastic, and you'll also be more confident in it because you know you care. Also, keep in mind that public speaking is the number one fear among many people, so you're not alone. We recommend that every leader take a public speaking course to learn some methods and to learn to become more comfortable and confident in front of a group.

You say being forward-looking is the one quality that differentiates leaders from other credible people. Just how far into the future do I have to look?

Here's a way to determine how "forward-looking" you need to be. Think about the project that you are now working on that has the completion date that is the farthest out into the future. With that in mind, ask yourself this question: What will my team and I be doing when this project is over? You should have an answer to that question. If you don't, then you're not adding the "forward-looking" value of a leader. You should be looking out at least beyond the completion of your longest term project. For frontline leaders that date might be one year out, for middle level managers it might be three to five years out, and for some people who are leading large organizations or movements it might be fifteen years. As a rule of thumb, we recommend that you stretch yourself to look out five years into the future.

How can I possibly look out one year, let alone five years, when things are changing so rapidly and the environment is so uncertain and unpredictable?

You have no option. It's what people expect from their leaders. If you're going to be in a leadership role, then you have to assume responsibility for the future of those you lead. Period. We recognize that the farther out you look the fuzzier things are. The future is uncertain, and we're not suggesting that Inspiring a Shared Vision is about producing a perfectly predictable plan or a detailed map. A vision is about possibilities, not probabilities. It's about hopes, dreams, and aspirations. Surely you can talk about your hopes, dreams, and aspirations for those you lead. Your only limitation is your imagination. That's where all great adventures begin.

What can a leader do to inspire others during times of great uncertainty?

Leadership in uncertain times is really no different than leadership in certain times. The fundamentals are the same, and the best leaders pay attention to the fundamentals no matter the context. The difference is in intensity, frequency, and visibility. To cut through all the confusion and noise in the environment you have to turn up the volume. While engaging in each of the Five Practices is essential, you have to Inspire others through your words and actions. You've got to believe. People want to know why they should be getting up in the morning to sell insurance or write more software code. There's nothing more demoralizing than a leader who can't clearly articulate why we're doing what we're doing. You've also to act. People expect our leaders to do something during uncertain times. They won't tolerate endless debates and frustrating indecisiveness. Leaders have to make something happen. Action consistent with words is the indication that you're serious about what you believe. You also must unite your constituents around a common cause and connect with them as human beings. We need to feel that we're part of something, that we're in this together, and that we're not alone. Above all else, remember this: positive emotions are contagious. Leaders have to keep our hope alive.

Challenge the Process

Why is experimenting so essential to leadership?

Thomas Edison said, "I failed my way to success." It took over five thousand experiments to develop the filament for the electric bulb. "Every one of these experiments taught me something," explained Edison, and that's precisely the mantra of leaders. Leaders don't see failures and mistakes as the end of the world, but simply another opportunity to learn and know something that they didn't know before and, often, had no way of knowing in advance.

Doesn't this mean that all we ever do is sit around and learn rather than getting something done?

People really do want to be great (or at least greater than they are today), but we're intimidated, overwhelmed, and daunted by the size, scale, and scope of many of the challenges. So, as the Sierra Club advises: "Think Globally, Act Locally." Ask, "What's one thing you could do on this project or idea to get started?" One of the truisms in the behavioral sciences is that those who try are more successful than those that don't try. So the issue to consider is how to get people to take the first step and to "give it a go."

How can I create an atmosphere for experimenting and for learning?

The key idea here is somewhat paradoxical. We contend that risk taking is directly related to the extent to which people feel safe. If you want to help people extend themselves beyond their comfort zones and "the way we've always done it around here," you've got to do things that make them feel safe. For example, reducing the cost of failure, expanding the benefits of trying, taking one step at a time, going first yourself (so that if anyone is to look foolish, it will be you), providing practice opportunities, establishing pilot and demonstration projects, and so on.

Why does the process of "small wins" work?

It makes it easier for people to say "yes" in the first place, and then with each successive accomplishment, easier still to say "yes" and stay the course. A small win builds confidence. Small wins are easier to comprehend, and existing skills and resources seem sufficient to get started. A small win needs fewer resources, and hence both the stress and cost of doing something new is minimized. The result of a small win is to begin building some order out of what was previously chaos.

I don't consider myself a very imaginative person, so how can I be a better idea-generator?

Studies show that leaders are not necessarily any more or less creative, imaginative, or insightful (or intelligent for that matter) than any other people. What they do excel at is "outsight," the ability to look outside of themselves and their experiences. So try looking in what may seem like strange places. Listen to people who are not like you and who have experiences other than yours. Take advantage of all the ideas that already exist "out there" and see whether you can find one, or adapt one, to fit your challenges and opportunities.

We keep making the same mistakes again and again around here. Any advice?

If all you do is jump from one project to the next without taking time for reflection, you're likely to get into a habit of problem solving (or mistake producing) rather than learning. After completing a project, determine which actions and practices proved helpful and which did not. Consider how you can replicate the positives and minimize the negatives on the next project. Even better, before starting the next project, ask, "What problems, challenges, or opportunities are likely to emerge in the course of the project? What could we do to avoid them or at least handle them effectively if they do come up?"

Enable Others to Act

Is "Enable" in this process the same thing as "Enabling" in a 12-step program?

Some of you might know "enabling" as a negative (for example, from the 12-step process), but for us, it's about developing talent, skill, and confidence. If you look up "enable" in the dictionary, you'll find that it means "to make able." If you look up "empower" in the dictionary, you'll find it also means "to make able." Enable and empower mean the same thing. Therefore, despite some who see the term as a negative, "enable" has a very positive literal meaning. Enable is not about giving license or about facilitating someone's dependence. It's not about giving the keys to the car to a four-year-old. It's about trust and making someone feel strong and capable.

Isn't business about being competitive? You guys don't seem to get it. Capitalism is all about competition, and in a competition there are winners and losers.

Being or doing the best is not necessarily the same thing as winning. Someone can not do his best and still beat another person. Conceivably, if your "competition" is poor, all you have to be is mediocre to "win." That is not what Personal-Best Leadership is all about. It's about setting new standards. It's about exceeding what others have done before. It's about setting records. The point is to stay focused on being and doing your best—at excelling, not winning.

There are circumstances that require one party to win at another's expense (the classic win-lose scenario). But keep in mind that win-lose can result in everyone losing. You may feel like a winner, but you can make certain that someone else feels like a loser. And if you ever need that person's support in the future, you will have a tough time getting it. In that way, you may end up being a loser in the future.

I've seen some people become successful at the expense of others in the early stages of their career, but they don't seem to make it past a certain level. Why is that?

Research clearly indicates that those who get "derailed" or knocked off track in their quest for corporate advancement are those lacking "emotional intelligence." Their inability to manage their own emotions or their inability to support others eventually catches up with them. To put it another way, the most important quality required for the top three jobs in a company is "being able to get along with subordinates." Those who see subordinates as people to "boss around" get to a point where few people want to work with them. That's why the skills involved in Strengthening Others are so important.

Is enable others to act related at all to what the people at Gallup call "Engagement?"

Yes, there is some relationship between what we call Enable Others to Act and what Gallup refers to as "Engagement." For example, Gallup includes in their measures of what they call "engaged" employees this item: "This last year, I have had the opportunities at work to learn and grow." They also include an item on "I have a friend at work." There are relationships between these items and some of the behaviors that constitute EOA. However, there is no one-for-one correlation, because other items in Gallup's work are a part of other practices in our model. For up-to-date information on Gallup's research on engagement, visit their website, www.gallup.com.

Isn't business about being competitive? You guys don't seem to get it that there's a "war" out there in our business!

Being or doing the best is not necessarily the same thing as winning. Indeed when situations or circumstances require one party to win at another's expense (classic win-lose scenario) you can bet that a lot of energy, time and talent is being siphoned off to beating the other party and not to doing one's best. Win-lose too often results in everyone losing. If you ever feel too much like a winner, make certain that it's not because someone else feels like a loser. There will be a time you will need their support and it won't be forthcoming and/or you've just made an enemy who wants to beat you personally more than they may care about the organizational outcome (or even their personal outcome).

We're a very competitive company—but we focus this energy on the competition and not on ourselves. Does this make sense?

You've got to know where to draw the line. Sure your company wants to "win" the sale against another company, and we've established a number of fair and equitable practices for doing so. We might call this testing ourselves, and we can see how a capitalistic and free marketplace outperforms and out-produces the economic alternatives.

How about internal competition? Doesn't it foster this same sort of "testing"?

Everyone inside the company has to be working toward a common vision and within a shared set of values. These meta-matters can't vary between marketing, accounting, human resources, operations, or whichever department. Nor can they vary, for that matter, between how the company does business in one part of the world versus another part. You can't build trust between people (and departments) unless there is a common set of understandings about the rules of the game and the way that people play it.

I've seen some people be successful in the early stages of their career at the expense of other people, but they don't often make it past a certain organizational level. Why is that?

Research clearly indicates that those who get "de-railed" or knocked off the track in their quest for corporate advancement are those lacking in sensitivity to others. Put another way, the most important quality required for one of the top three jobs in companies is "being able to get along with subordinates." All along the way, there is no way that managers and would-be leaders can get extraordinary results by doing all the work themselves. Indeed, as people move up the corporate ladder they become increasingly dependent upon others to get the organization's actual work (processes, services, goods, etc.) completed.

How can I tell that my company, or for that matter, my manager trusts me?

In a leadership context, you've got to determine if your company (manager) seems interested, concerned, and actively involved in making you a better employee (person) than you would otherwise be on your own? How much are they investing in your development? What sort of job opportunities are there for you to learn, practice, and grow in skills and abilities? Is time being devoted to helping you learn from your experiences (regardless of the results)? Are you finding yourself listened to and consulted with? Are you and your actions visible to others and are you receiving credit for your accomplishments?

How is Enabling related to the process of empowerment?

It's our believe that people are already very powerful and that organizations need to spend less time "supposedly" filling people up (with power) and more time letting them use the power (energy) they already possess. Managers often used empowerment to hold people back as they define the terms and conditions for others. Leaders remove obstacles and barriers so that people can do what they are already capable of doing. Of course, these two concepts come together quite nicely around training and development opportunities but they begin philosophical at different starting points on the continuum of human potential.

How is Enabling related to building commitment?

There is a direct correlation between Enabling Others to Act and the psychological process of commitment. Commitment is built when a person experiences a choice about what he or she is asked to do. With choice, there really is no freedom to act. Commitment is also enhanced when peoples' choices are made public. Being visible to others reinforces both the act of choice and the intentionality of the choice maker. We put pressure on ourselves to meet a promise we've made in front of others. And commitment to a course of action is strengthened when the very first action itself makes it difficult to rescind. It's easier to keep going forward than to admit that we've changed our minds. This also explains why highly motivated folks often outproduce their less motivated (even if more qualified) peers.

Encourage the Heart

Don't some people perceive encourage the heart as soft, or warm and fuzzy?

Some people might view it this way, but leaders do not. More often, those who throw out labels like "warm and fuzzy" or "touchy-feely" are not very comfortable or experienced in relating with people's emotional well-being. They are likely to be more comfortable managing activities or getting people to comply, instead of getting them to commit to something. Jim and Barry's research is clear—those who practice Encourage the Heart are more likely to produce extraordinary results.

Does encourage the heart mean you are supposed to recognize people for just doing their jobs? Isn't that why we pay them?

People need to be recognized for their accomplishments and encouraged to reach for higher levels of performance. By the way, how valuable are people you know you can count on to do their jobs day in and day out? Aren't you grateful for them? Sometimes, it is the recognition that people receive for the small things that most inspires them to tackle the larger ones.

What do you do when the organization's recognition programs reward the accomplishments of only the most visible workers (like salespeople) and people in the background feel turned off by all kinds of recognition?

As a leader, you may not have much influence on the organizational programs that do not recognize the right things. But you can make sure that you recognize the right things in your own groups. Practice some of the behaviors listed in the LPI with your people. You have the ability to make your people feel very special.

If I do some of that Encouraging the Heart stuff you suggest, my people will think I'm phony. It's just not my style. How do I deal with this?

Sincerity is essential to Encouraging the Heart. It has to come from the heart, not the head, otherwise people will smell a phony. One way to make sure that you are sincere is to have clear standards that everyone should meet, ways to measure performance, and a reliable and timely means of getting information on how people are performing against clear standards. Also, don't make such a big deal out of it. You can encourage someone in hundreds of different ways as long as you're sincere.

Why should I have to praise people for doing a good job? That's what I pay them for.

Pay is not praise. Pay is part of the work contract that people make with you. It's what we all expect for doing our jobs. Praise goes beyond pay. When someone performs above the normal expectations, they should be recognized for it because they need to know that it matters. If you don't express your appreciation for their efforts, they'll think that you don't care whether they put forth more effort or not. You're highly unlikely to see that behavior repeated. In short, you should recognize and praise people because doing so is more likely to improve performance than ignoring the actions.

Even if Encouraging the Heart isn't about pay, I don't have any extra money to reward people with. How can I afford to recognize people?

Again, recognition and celebration are not about money. They're about showing your appreciation for contributions to your organization's vision, mission, values, and goals. You can do that with a thank you note, a conversation over a cup of coffee, an extra day off, a mention in a report, or an acknowledgment at a meeting. There are hundreds of ways. The only limits are your creativity and your sincerity.

How frequently should you recognize someone?

The research suggests that people need to be recognized for a job well done at least once a week for them to be motivated to go above and beyond. So, if you have ten direct reports, that's ten expressions of appreciation per week, about two per day. Make it a habit to show your appreciation twice a day to two different people, and you'll have no trouble at all. Of course, this means you have to be on the lookout for actions to recognize.

Can't you overdo recognition until it becomes trivial?

Sure, you can trivialize recognition, but it's usually not from doing too much of it. After all, just ask yourself, "Am I being thanked too much for contributing to the success of this project?" Chances are that you're not, and others aren't either. The sense that you are "overdoing" it comes when you aren't genuine, when the recognition is out of proportion to the contribution, or when you haven't made it personal.