Love makes a leader a Leader.

This is a copy of my reply to Edward Lawler’s post Performance Appraisals Are Dead, Long Live Performance Management on Forbes.com.

Nothing will change in our quest to “improve” human performance until we change our mindset – beliefs and assumptions – and stop using the term “management” with respect to people.  We lead people and manage things.

Management is about reliability, predictability and certainty – control – of objects and tasks and resources.  People are not objects, we are human beings.  As human beings we have innate needs for belonging and contribution, purpose and meaning, self-determination and choice, and growth and mastery.  These needs are met when we are cared about as human beings, understood without judgment, respected without control, and we respond without conditioned fear.  This means we drop all measures of “approval” and control of others’ choices.  We thrive, prosper and grow when we are accepted, dare I say, “loved” as human beings.  I call it Leading as Love.  Love leads us to our full potential.  It is the ultimate in performance enhancement.  It is love that makes a leader a leader.

In the interest of control, management labels:  Top talent, manager, supervisor, individual contributor, good, bad, 1, 2, 3, 4.  As soon as we label another we limit our relationship with them as humans and we limit the possibility and potential of creating something greater.  People become an object, fixed in the label, sub-human.

We can drop performance appraisals and the concept of performance management justified by the truth that we are human beings and not objects to be controlled by others.  As a viable and sustainable alternative for true growth, we can lead performance enhancement by practicing and responding with care, understanding and respect.  Isn’t that what we want, performance enhancement and business expansion.  All the data show that Leading as Love, being in open relationship human being to human being, is the essential catalyst for breakthrough and sustained performance and results in every form we seek and can imagine including financial; it generates the ultimate in ROI.

Lawler’s way of thinking is dying a slow and painful death because we continue to perpetuate these beliefs and the status quo.  This no longer serves the greater good.  We can’t manage our way through these times of uncertainty to a successful, fulfilling and prosperous future.  To borrow from Einstein, we can’t create a new reality with the same thinking that created the one we have.

In addition, anything that exploits – serves an agenda of self-interest – eventually destroys value and management/control of people is a form of exploitation.  It exploits our need for belonging and contribution and disregards our need for self-determination and choice.  Microsoft’s practice of “stack ranking” as described in a recent Vanity Fair article is a perfect example.  Reducing the value and contribution of people to a “rank” resulted in the loss of innovation and competitive advantage because it held an underlying “divide and conquer” or as VF called it, a “cannibalistic” mentality.  Creativity and innovation requires that we let go of certainty and control.  We can’t have it both ways.

The belief in the necessity for managing people and to serve an agenda of self-interest is an arrogance that no longer works in a global economy of mutual interdependence that requires strong and transparent relationships.  This is not just in business.  The need for transparent relationships encompasses the political, educational and religious arenas as well.

Our need for control comes from fear and acting from fear is not leading.  We fear that people will do something “wrong” or something that we don’t’ “want” based on our own self-interest.  When we live under the oppression of conditioned beliefs no one makes real choices.

We can step free from our fear that something “terrible” will happen if we let go of our attachment to the socially conditioned belief that we need to manage people. The point of resolution comes when see that our greatest potential and fulfillment results from the freedom of human self-expression.  This is not only for executives in leadership roles but also for each of us who allow ourselves to be managed and controlled.  To maximize one another’s contributions, let’s not create a better mouse trap, let’s get rid of the mouse trap altogether.

Profitability is a key and direct measure of the quality of relationships of an organization and its executives (also people) with employees, customer and vendors/suppliers.  Like is or not, profitability comes from human engagement.  Perhaps euthanasia is in order here:  Of the mindset of people management along with terms such as human resources or human capital or even stakeholder relationship management.  Again, the belief we can and should manage/control relationships is arrogant. We can agree that management of people had a place in the past and now move forward by honoring our humanity rather than imprisoning it.  All it takes to lead performance enhancement is care, understanding and respect.

I am not naive.  Executives need to make decisions for sustainable growth and profitability.  Let us make these decisions with conscious awareness of the impact on people, as human beings, the environment and society.

As long as we hold onto our intent and belief that human beings can and should be managed – controlled – our practices will never change and our businesses will never realize their full growth and potential.  The critical question now becomes, how can our organizational and business practices change to be fully aligned with our humanity?

Thank you for reading this post and considering what it says to you:  Whether and how you lead (not manage) your business and whether and how you lead (not manage) your life.

This morning (June 28, 2012), before the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Healthcare Act, I read a news blog that said whether or not the Court supported the Act, Romney had a response.  In the past few days, he had taken to label Obama a “moral failure”: “His policies were not focused on creating jobs. They were focused on implementing his liberal agenda.”  On the other side, Romney continues to be labeled “Outsourcer-in-Chief” based on his record at Bain Capital or “flip-flopper” by Obama supporters.  Well, you may say, it’s OK because they are trying to frame the candidates and the issues to their advantage.

What we fail to realize is that all the mudslinging, either personal attacks with labels such as “moral failure” or otherwise labeling the person’s viewpoints or actions, reveals nothing other than how the originator actually judges themselves.  I’m talking about the labels that we use in judgment not about describing actions as an impartial observer.

All judgment is self-judgment and when we judge another, all any of us do is point a finger back at ourselves… we are showing others who we are and what we stand for.  Romney and Obama are no different.  If Obama is a “moral failure” then Romney is showing us that he judges, believes this in some way about himself as well.

You may ask, “How can this be so?”  Like it or not, our perspectives on and experiences of life are driven by what is inside of us, our conscious and unconscious beliefs, values, assumptions, etc. This includes our beliefs about ourselves that are largely relegated to our unconscious.  And, unbeknownst to us, we project these beliefs, how we see ourselves, onto others.  This means what we say about another, we actually believe about ourselves and our underlying feelings are likely shame, anxiety and/or anger.  When I read personal attacks and other judgments in the comments made on news stories, I wonder if people realize that they are doing nothing more revealing their own self-judgments.

This perspective does make watching the political arena a bit more interesting:  We can learn much about what the candidates think of themselves by what they say about their opponent.  Perhaps this can become motivation enough to stick to the issues, describing prior records and proposed solutions and leave the labels out.

So what does all this have to do with Leading as Love?  Leaders establish common ground that serves the greater good.  I repeat, leaders establish common ground that serves the greater good.  This means creating unity in diversity based in the current context of issues that can be addressed by the collective without adherence to or imposing an ideology.  By definition, leaders enable us to collaborate and cooperate, unless we, ourselves are adhering to and imposing our own “idols.”  Then life becomes a competition with winners and losers which does nothing more than serve our own addictions for approval and control.

What I would like to hear is how all candidates plan to engage each of us and our viewpoints in finding solutions that serve the greater good.  I would like to hear how they:

• Care about everyone’s well-being.
• Understand all of our issues without judgment.
• Respect each and every one of us without control or imposing their agenda and way of thinking.
• Respond to all situations based on the current context and not some ideology or past solution.

Common ground that serves the greater good means everyone, not just some people.  Is it too much to ask those we elect to uphold true “freedom, a government of the people, by the people and for the people?”

When we look at life this way, we hold all the power when we actively choose to lead our own lives and to select true leaders as those who we follow.  Is this too much to ask of ourselves?

Leadership is about one life influencing another for the betterment of all.  We influence others when interpersonal engagement meets our shared human needs.  As each of us lead by focusing intention and action on significance, making a positive difference in everyone’s lives, “success” follows.

The facets of Leading as Love below are the footing and foundation that underlie the practices and tasks found in prevalent leadership models.  They give each of us our reason for being: our purpose and meaning, our place of belonging and contribution, our catalyst and guidance for choices, and our center for growth and mastery.  In taking action to meet our own human needs, we invite and enable others to meet theirs.

Through who we are, what we stand for, and the clarity of our intention through consistent actions, as leaders we:

•  Serve the greater good, everyone’s shared human needs, well-being and fulfillment.

• Establish common ground, the unity in diversity of co-creative collaboration and cooperation.

• Care about everyone equally and enhancing dignity and life for all.

• Understand all perspectives and motivations without judgment.

• Respect everyone has the freedom to choose without imposing conditions, conformity or control.

• Respond fully with presence, discipline, patience and humility with all people and in all situations.

Through care we acknowledge one another’s connection and interdependence and our need for belonging and contribution.  In doing so, we help eliminate feelings of anxiety from fear of lack of security and support and rejection.

Through understanding we acknowledge one another’s uniqueness and our need for purpose and meaning. In doing so, we help eliminate feelings of shame from fear of inadequacy, of not being good enough.

Through respect we acknowledge one another’s free-will and our need for self-determination and choice.  In doing so, we help eliminate feelings of anger from fear of not having control and not reaching our potential.

Through responsiveness we actively engage with one another as human beings with mutual understanding and shared respect.  In doing so, we consciously invite and enable what’s on the inside, our inspiration, intentions and talents, to be expressed fully and completely.  Responsiveness is acting in the present moment and the current context, empowering ourselves to be free from fear and the dictates of limiting beliefs of family, societal and cultural conditioning.

It is only when we fully accept ourselves and one another and our universal human needs can we free ourselves from fear.  We can then willingly take responsibility for what has gone before without blame and readily engage in collective actions with cooperation and collaboration to solve both societal and organizational issues.  Freedom from fear brings freedom to make all things possible.

Leading as Love both generates and focuses limitless possibilities and potential enabling us to create the future of our choosing.  Leading as Love is the essential catalyst for both breakthrough and sustained results in every form we seek and can imagine, including engagement, innovation and prosperity; it generates the ultimate ROI.

So, what does this mean for each of us?  How can each of us contribute?  We belong to the community of humanity.  Our purpose is to create and to grow and evolve life as we know it.  Each of us does this through conscious choice and action.  Leading is not just a role or position.  When we love, we lead:  We bring forth the greatness that is in all of us.

The first step is honest and truthful self-examination and awareness of our own intentions and actions.  What do we stand for?  What are we up to?  What are we contributing by our actions?  It’s a personal choice for how we lead and who we follow.

Leaders initiate action, set the example and show the way by being the “first ones in.”  How are we:

• Serving the greater good?  Who benefits?  How?

• Establishing common ground?  How can we work with one another?

• Caring about one another’s dignity and well-being?

• Understanding without judgment?

• Respecting without control?

• Responding fully to the current context as life unfolds?

By our actions we are known.  When all these facets are present and integrated, it is Leading as Love.   Love is acting with care, understanding, respect and responsiveness, the sensitivity to the experience of being human.  What this means is that where we work and how we contribute, where and what we buy, who we vote for or otherwise “follow”, what and how we teach our children, and where and how we worship all reflect care, understanding, respect and responsiveness.

So why is everything a “mess”?  Look in the mirror.  We’ve all contributed.

Leading as Love is about discernment and personal choice.  It means living free from blind personal, societal and cultural conditioning and conformity.  I means living without the prevailing divisive polarities.  It is a tolerant and open, non-partisan and non-denominational view that takes action to make the world a better place for everyone.  Love makes a leader a leader.

Leading as Love®  Lucira Jane Nebelung Copyright © 2012. All rights reserved.

Many admire Steve Jobs’ business achievements including orchestrating one of the most successful business turnarounds.  At the same time, we have come to know him as a “leader” who could be considered a “poster child” for egotistical, manipulative, abusive, self-serving behavior.  So why would I even suggest that part of his legacy might be Leading as Love?

After his death, I became fascinated by a man who apparently broke all the rules of what I believe characterize effective leaders.  Based on Walter Isaacson’s biography and HBR article and other articles published since Jobs’ death, I would like to look at Steve Jobs through the lens of Leading as Love, to offer a reframe for what we observed about his life.  In doing so, perhaps I am creating one of his “reality distortion fields.”  As a “disclaimer”:  I had no desire for and never owned an Apple product.

So, our starting point is my beliefs about leadership.  Leading as Love is about relationship, our connection and interdependence as human beings.  This is characterized by care, understanding and respect and being consciously responsive to ensure the well-being of oneself AND others.  It is living without expectations or judgment.  It is about tolerance and acceptance with focus on reaching our full potential.  It is an attitude and approach (philosophy) for how we live our lives.  This view of love can be considered a deep value, a virtue that permeates our entire life.

There is nothing “soft” about this love; it’s a steadfast commitment to honesty and truth with a willingness to be humble and vulnerable that requires great courage and strength.  It is human being-to-human being intimacy and authenticity that generates a power that comes forth when we drop all the masks, pretenses and conditioning and we are fully present.  This is the source of “influence”, not to have others subscribe to something outside of themselves, but to step into personal power and mastery to be oneself.  This is true leadership and is not limited to position or role.

From this, leaders can be described as those who influence, inspire and enable others to be fully who they are, to reach their full potential.  In this way, the organization reaches its potential, and achieves extraordinary results.  At its simplest, Leading as Love is holding people accountable, including ourselves, for acting for the common good of humanity, our growth and evolution, and the world we live in.  In short, true leaders serve humanity, show people their possibilities and potential and enable fulfillment.

There is much we can learn about leading from Steve Jobs.  Let’s not stay just at the surface and focus on his behaviors. To derive wisdom, as he would, we need to go deep, beyond the surface complexity, to understand more fully his simple intent.  Here is my perspective, an interpretation of his behavior based as much on an intuitive sense as logic.

I think we can all agree that Steve Jobs was the “first one in”, out in front and rebelled against the status quo. I will go further and say he was both a leader (people: possibility and potential) AND a manager (work:  reliability, predictability and certainty (control)).  I would like to suggest that Steve Jobs embodied the polar extremes: The emerging paradigm of Leading as Love, living from the heart rather than the logical mind, not tolerating others’ self-imposed limitations, serving humanity as well as the “old” paradigm of leader-as-manager of ego-driven, arrogant “command and control”, who profits at the expense of others.  As one person in his biography put it, “He was an enlightened being who was (also) cruel.”

His gift to us was that he epitomized both management and leadership at the extremes so that we could see them side-by-side.  He lived a paradox, an apparent caricature of both: command, control and fear versus love; an out-of-control ego versus the meditative focus of a Zen monk.  He did not attempt to resolve or soften these extremes rather he accepted them as a part of who he was, living free from the judgments and perceptions of “not good.”  One thing is certain: His behaviors clearly reflected his internal belief structures.  He wore no mask.  He revealed both the brilliance of leadership and the darkest side of management.

As a human being, we also contain these dual experiences and perspectives. Organizations require both the art of leadership (people, possibility) and the science of management (work, certainty).  It is personal and organizational mastery when these are in conscious balance and integration.  It is interesting to note that this is a hallmark of Apple’s products:  the intersection of art (humanities) and technology that broke the limits of what was believed possible.

In his eulogy, his sister said that love was his “highest virtue.”  I can see a man with a deep love for humanity’s ability to create; an unwavering focus on our primal need to create and to realize our potential.  He built Apple with an intuitive sense for our innate needs and drive for purpose and meaning, connection and contribution, and growth and mastery.  He believed in establishing common ground in the form of creating amazing products and from this, financial success would follow.  He loved people by wanting them to excel (both individually and collectively) and he loved the work of creation and innovation.  He saw profitability as an outcome and an enabler of innovation but not the reason for being, not the purpose of business.  For Steve Jobs, significance, making a positive difference was far more important than success, material accumulation.

I see a man who deeply cared about, understood human nature (the false limitations we put on ourselves, the “we can’t”), and respected the inherent potential and greatness that we all possess. In his perfectionism, he would settle for nothing less from himself and others.  In this way he brought forth “amazing” results.  He believed that others were capable of doing the “impossible” and so demanded it, a very “tough love.”  His motivation was to build an enduring company that makes great products.

He clearly acted in ways that our social conditioning would deem inappropriate or unacceptable in relationships.  It is interesting to note that when he berated people and engaged in screaming matches that were extremely personal at times, it was about the “what”, the ultimate vision they were working on, not about the “how”, the process they were using.  He respected people’s innate talents and wanted to maximize their strengths and left them to figure it out how it got done.  He did everything he could to foster collaboration and face-to-face engagement because he believed that personal interactions were the source of creativity and innovation.  Creation and innovation happen at the edges, from pushing the limits of what is believed possible; admittedly he did not always do this in a kind or respectful way.

I could see his anger arise when people did not break free of their self-imposed limitations or constraints imposed by what others believed possible.  He created the context for possibilities and potential for full expression and fulfillment and became angry when others resisted or rejected this invitation.  He knew their greatness.  He showed anger because he cared.  Think about it.  We get angry because we care deeply about someone or something and we are not in control of their choices and the outcome.  I venture to guess that people experienced both Jobs’ underlying intent for their greatness along with his overt behavior described as “brutal.”  He “read” people well and knew what each person needed to excel so perhaps the anger came from a deep place of love.  Feeling this from him beneath the behavior may be a contributing factor why people didn’t leave.  In other words, perhaps he “got away with” the apparent abusive behavior because it came from a place of love.

Finally, I can see that his “showmanship” and taking center-stage was perhaps not so much about him but rather a celebration of the collective achievement.

The clues for these interpretations are found in the essence of his Stanford University commencement address in 2005.  Both directly and indirectly he told the graduates to have courage: to live from the heart and intuition (not from the dictates or expectations of others); to be curious and allow life to unfold (you can only connect the dots later); and to not limit oneself or take things personally to protect the ego (fear of embarrassment or failure).  This advice can only come from a place of love and trust: of self, of others and of life.

It’s rather easy to judge others based on behavior (we don’t always know intent) and I am not in any way condoning or excusing his behavior.  I agree he deeply bruised many egos and there are far more respectful ways to relate to others.  As a leader and coach, while my style and approach is vastly different, I won’t pander to another’s ego so they can feel good, especially if I see they are holding back, diminishing who they truly are or otherwise blocking the realization of their potential.

We could legitimately say that he “failed” at Emotional Intelligence and at elements of every leadership competency model that I am familiar with.  I wonder if some of these models, in their complexity and by describing visible behavior, serve to hide what is going on at a deeper level (virtues, values, beliefs, etc.).  In other words, for Jobs, what was unacceptable to others around his behavior was entirely consistent with his belief structure to live outside the status quo, the dogmas imposed by others.  I would also argue that our competency models, which generally define “appropriate” behavior as “rules” for what makes an effective leader, are ironically attempts to manage our leaders.

He respected those who endeavored to master their potential and had no tolerance for those who did not.  Many people who worked directly with him and across Apple were/are intensely committed to him, the company and their products.  He wanted everyone and everything to be the “best” they could possibly be. Others trusted him as he trusted them (at least in the later years).  He held everyone, including himself, accountable for the common good.  He was about expanding the capacity of the human experience through connection and creation.

Admittedly, this view is not a mainstream perspective.  My belief is that we cannot build any kind of social structure that generates sustained effectiveness or success without Leading as Love.  Again, there is nothing soft about it.  It requires discipline, truth-telling and humility, the absence of ego.  At the same time, we judge and largely set standards for behavior based on what will preserve and protect our ego, our self-identity, our beliefs about ourselves.  He showed us the shadow of how we manage, what we generally deny that is in ourselves.  Meaning, how many times do we feel anger and want to yell and scream as he did?  Be honest.  In addition, we can’t have it both ways: truly lead and protect our belief that managing IS leading.  We can’t lead as love from a traditional management mindset.

Steve Jobs was far from perfect. He revealed two different ways of being in the world.  By showing us the extremes of our own choices and behaviors he gives us a starting point to integrate leading and managing.  Organizations and society need both and they are distinct.  When we start from Leading as Love, we can refine our management practices so they are no longer about fear-based control.  Managing then becomes a further expression of love, of care, understanding and respect.

He showed the power of living outside of the limitations of our logical, linear thinking and social conditioning.  So we can say he was unreasonable in his demands, they were not based in reason, logic.  They were based in what his heart and intuition knew were possible.  While I am not sure he demonstrated self-mastery, in some ways he mastered conscious intent.  As a leader, he worked to free our inherent creativity and left the world a better place, enabling us to create and innovate and connect with each other and our life experience in “amazing” ways.  Thank you Steve Jobs, while I don’t think you led with a conscious intention to love, I learned much from you.

Will we make more conscious choices for how we show up:  When are we leaders?  When are we managers?  How do we integrate the two to generate our social structures: business, government, education and religion so that all thrive?  What do you think?

Leading as Love®  Lucira Jane Nebelung Copyright © 2012. All rights reserved.