“Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself. When you become a leader, success is all about growing others.”— Jack Welch

The term “organic” is thrown around quite regularly these days, mainly in regard to food, but driving to dinner last night my wife and I discussed the term in relation to leadership. While organizations spend billions of dollars each year trying to hire the best leaders, there will always be some that fail and other that succeed. What separates the two types of leaders is their ability to become organic to their employees or subordinates. But what does organic mean in terms of leadership?

Organic Leadership - natural, motivating, compelling, effortless, inspiring hard work, creativity and innovation, fun

Non-Organic Leadership - unnatural, forced, coercive, minimal effort from subordinates, conformity, mechanical

An organic leader is one who we naturally want to follow, not because we’ll get fired if we don’t (though we may), but because something inside of us believes that they are adding value to our lives, businesses, and organizations.

Yet, while it may “feel” effortless, organic leadership is quite intentional. Organic leaders completely blow their non-organic counterparts away when it comes to one area: their ability to motivate and inspire people by meeting their higher needs.

A quick history. In 1943, Abraham Maslow published a landmark study on human motivation in relation to a hierarchy of needs. His study was unique because his subjects were successful, creative people, not the usual sick and disturbed crowd. He found that humans have needs which can be placed in two groups, basic and meta(growth), the higher depending on the fulfillment of the lower.

photo credit: savethedave

Basic or Deficiency Needs -

Physiological - food, water, sleep, sex, breathing

Safety - free from danger, security both physically and financially, clothing and shelter

Love/Belonging - social relationships, friendships, family, intimacy, need to be accepted

Esteem - respect from others, self-esteem, recognition, feeling valued and adequate

Meta or Growth Needs -

Cognitive - learn, explore, make sense of the universe, discover new things

Aesthetic - beautiful imagery, order, perspective

Self-Actualization - understanding yourself, knowing who you are and where you are going, realizing your full potential

Non-organic leaders meet only the first four basic needs, sometimes even less. Organic leaders meet these lower needs, but also have the ability to meet people’s higher needs: cognitive, aesthetic and self-actualization.

Think of the leaders that have inspired you. Chances are they excited you on a cognitive level by helping increase your knowledge and understanding. On an aesthetic level they were able to inspire you through imagery and unique perspective. And in all of this they allowed you to reach your full potential.

“Most innovative,” “Inspiring,” “Purpose-driven,” these are the words reserved for organic leaders, not for leaders who simply provided a safe work environment and steady paycheck, but for those who make it all seem so natural, those who understand the hierarchy of needs.

What have leaders done to inspire you? Do you agree with Maslow’s hierarchy? Why or why not? Let the discussion begin!

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Everyone wants the ability to change the world around them, but some carry much more influence than others. These people possess authority. Authority is an interesting thing because unlike power, which can be gained independently, authority must be given by others. From Wikipedia, “…’power’ refers to the ability to achieve certain ends, ‘authority’ refers to the legitimacy, justification and right to exercise that power. For example, whilst a mob has the power to punish a criminal, such as through lynching, only the courts have the authority to order capital punishment.”

In academia, authority is often associated with someone or some work that is definitive, respected, and found to be the most knowledgeable or accurate in a certain field. Authority is often correlated to the number of times the person or work is cited in other academic publications. Technorati, a popular blog ranking site assigns each blog an “Authority” rank based on the number of other web sites linking to that specific blog. Again, authority is given by others.

Webster’s defines authority as, “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior,” and also as “convincing force.”

How, then, does one gain authority? The following are three paths to gaining authority that apply regardless of career, position or geography:

Service - People will rarely allow you to have access into their life if you have not served them in some capacity. The most trusted professions in America happen to be the professions most associated with service–doctors, police officers, teachers, and military officers are among the highest ranking. It should come as no surprise that the most trusted professions are also rewarded with the most authority. The act of putting other people before yourself is widely preached and rarely practice, but the individuals, businesses and organizations that do this best reap the benefits.

Just think of the last time a business went the extra mile in serving you, what was your reaction? The most common reaction to service is greater trust. Howard Schultz has built Starbucks around the concept of serving his employees using measures such as stock options and benefits for employees working as little as 20 hours a week. As a result, he and the rest of the management team has gained authority in the lives of each Starbucks partner resulting in higher quality people working at Starbucks, low turnover rates, and widespread adoption of the companies values and culture. Starbucks is an excellent example of how service is a direct path to authority. The question is how much do you really have to offer others? All of us have something to give, but the more we can offer others the more authority we create.

Excellence - “Do you see those who are skilled in their work? They will serve before kings; they will not serve before officials of low rank,” - Proverbs 22:9 TNIV. One of the truly universal currencies at work today is excellence. Someone who is excellent at his profession will always be in high demand. Excellence is proof that authority is due, the evidence that one has knowledge, has mastered his skill or craft and can be trusted to execute. Excellence shuts the mouth of critics and gives a platform for one to exercise her authority.

It is possible to gain authority without excellence, but it will be nearly impossible to keep it. Who you know may many times get you in the door, but what you know will keep you there. Incompetence leads to distrust and a shrinking of one’s circle of influence. Excellence opens doors that would otherwise be shut. What makes our new globalized, flat world interesting is that through the rise of the internet, global communications and the cheapening of travel, geography has become less of a factor in regards to success and influence, while excellence has quickly become THE factor. No longer can one rely on the protection of trade unions, favorable geography or birth right to secure authority, if someone in India can program better than the kid in San Francisco the Indian will most likely get the job and the authority with which it comes. Excellence is a sure path to gaining authority and a must-have in maintaining authority.

Integrity - Authority is directly related to trust. Due to this it is incredibly important for one to possess integrity if he or she wishes to have influence. People will not allow liars or cheats access to their lives. Without integrity the prior two authority builders, service and excellence, are irrelevant. The ripple effects of a break in integrity are tremendous harming everyone connected to the person or situation where the the failure occurred. Integrity means more than just honesty, it means doing the right thing when no one is looking, understanding there’s no such thing as a secret. Integrity is the ability to consistently make the right decisions when faced with life’s moral crossroads.

All of us have met people that are continually looking to cut corners. Most of the time it is not simply one large lie or breach or integrity that is the cause for a breakdown, but rather a series of small, seemingly inconsequential choices made poorly over a long period of time. One of my favorite definitions of integrity is “wholeness” or “completeness.” Even the smallest break in integrity can destroy a life. People of great integrity command respect and will always have authority because their standard of living raises the bar for everyone around them. Integrity must be the foundation of any person or organization endeavoring to build authority.

Last week my friend Justin discussed the differences between a leader and a manager on his blog. It is a debate that I had not heard much of since my time at the Academy where leadership was the subject of constant discussion. Just Google “leader vs. manager” and you will quickly see that the debate is not limited to military academies or corporate seminars, but is surprisingly widespread. Here’s a snippet from one of the thousands of sites discussing leadership vs. management that captures the common view of leaders as more noble and grand then squinty-eyed, cheap-suit-wearing managers.

To survive in the twenty-first century, we are going to need a new generation of leaders — leaders, not managers. The distinction is an important one. Leaders conquer the context — the turbulent, ambiguous surroundings that sometimes seem to conspire against us and will surely suffocate us if we let them — while managers surrender to it.

Leaders investigate reality, taking in the pertinent factors and analyzing them carefully. On this basis they produce visions, concepts, plans, and programs. Managers adopt the truth from others and implement it without probing for the facts that reveal reality. - www.futurevisions.org

Notice the utter disdain for a manager and the god-like characterizations of a leader. To the question of leader vs manager I respond, “MU.” I think the entire debate is mind-numbing and a huge waste of time, here’s why. The debate is founded on a false premise that one must be either a leader or a manager…one or the other. To all of this I respond, “MU.” Before I go on, let’s look at the very same site which gives characteristics of both leaders and managers. Keep in mind, these lists are supposed to be showing the difference between the two:

Management is: Coping with complexity, planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, controlling and problem solving, effective action.

Leadership is: Coping with and promoting change, setting a direction, aligning people, motivating and inspiring people, meaningful action

Are you kidding?! Is organizing and staffing any different than aligning? Does setting a direction not require careful planning and budgeting? The reality is leadership and management cannot be separated, there is so much overlap between the two that it is silly to say a person must be one or the other. The list in trying to show the uniqueness of each role seems to instead be providing a lesson in synonyms. How many great leaders do you know that don’t cope with complexity, control and problem solve or take “effective action.” By the way which is better, “effective action” or “meaningful action”? Try telling a board of directors that while your last decision was not very “effective” it was very “meaningful” and see what kind of reaction you get.

I have a one word response to this entire debate, “MU.” I reject the premise of the debate. Leaders must have management skills or no one would follow them. Managers have to be able to lead people in order to manage an organization. “What the heck is MU?” you are probably asking by now. I give you a segment from a book, Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter where the characters are discussing a similar debate on whether the world should be viewed through a holistic or reductionist lens:

You see, ‘MU’ is an ancient Zen answer answer, which, when given to a question, UNMASKS the question. Here the question seems to be, ‘Should the world be understood via holism, or via reductionism?’ And the answer, ‘MU’ here rejects the premises of the question, which are that one or the other must be chosen. By unmasking the question, it reveals a wider truth: that there is a larger context into which both holistic and reductionist explanations fit. -pg 312

There must also be a larger context into which both leadership and management explanations fit. Leaders cannot survive without managerial skills and managers will never reach their objectives without being able to lead people. When we ask the question of the difference between leadership and management we’re simply asking the wrong question. For those I have still not convinced I leave you with Joe Torre. Is he a manager or a leader? The great baseball manager’s Yankees won championships the first four of his five years at the helm. On the one hand he had to handle the personnel decisions, on the other he had to inspire his players. The fans loved him, the players respected him, but ask yourself, manager or leader? “MU” “MU” “MU”!!!

As Starbucks launches its first-ever tv ad campaign, same-store sales growth is slowing and so is the stock price (down over 32% this year), raising the question of whether the titan of coffee is reaching its saturation point. With a goal of launching over 40,000 stores worldwide, CEO Howard Schultz expressed concern in an internal memo last spring that the rapid growth of the company (currently over 13,000 stores worldwide) has led to “the watering down of the Starbucks experience” for customers.

Anyone that knows me, knows I have become an avid fan of Starbucks over the past few years. I used to mock Starbucks junkies, but after discovering the breve mocha my attitude changed as quick as Barry Bonds’ bench press. One thing I love about Starbucks is that it is not just about the coffee, its about a culture and consistent experience. I admire their business model and ability to create a brand that inspires incredible loyalty from both customers and employees. No matter where I am in the world when I step inside a Starbucks I feel at home, my wife and I call Starbucks a faithful friend.

Today’s turmoil within Starbucks highlights an issue that all successful businesses must face as they grow, over-saturation. How much is too much growth? At what point does a company lose its soul and how can a company balance consistency in customer experience with aggressive growth. Even though the critics are in full force right now in regards to the demise of Starbucks I am confident that they will adapt and continue their success for three reasons:

1) Details - “Retail is detail.” - Howard Schultz
Starbucks has taken Malcom Gladwell’s advice and embraced the idea that, “little things can make a big difference.” Walking into your local Starbucks is a lesson in product placement, design and attention to detail. Everything from the napkins to the furniture to the music selection and volume is intentional. Starbucks understands, better than almost anyone, that the smallest details matter in creating the right customer experience. This attitude is widespread throughout the company and is a pillar that Starbucks was built upon. As long as this doesn’t change there is no reason why their company cannot continue to expand successfully.

2) Relaxed Affluence
One of the best-worded phrases I have heard to describe the image of Starbucks actually came from a management textbook, Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization, I used in college which described the progress of Starbucks in China. “Although China is a nation of tea drinkers who generally don’t care for coffee, Starbucks is counting on its image of relaxed affluence to attract the Chinese. ” After returning from a trip to China, my wife’s best friend Sarabeth (worked at Starbucks as a barista) told us how powerful the Starbucks image had become in the land of tea drinkers. Chinese would keep their Starbucks cups, fill them with water and tote them around as a status symbol to let their peers see that they had reached the socioeconomic level required to purchase this luxury item. Starbucks is a symbol of the ever-growing Bobo (bourgeois bohemian) class, coined by David Brooks, found grazing for the past decade or so in America at places like Anthropologie, Restoration Hardware, etc. The booming Chinese middle-class is birthing its own Asian Bobos…Starbucks understands this and will, therefore, continue their success in Asia.

3) Baristas
“Sometimes you want to go, where everybody knows your name, and they’re always glad you came.” - Cheers Theme Song. Every company talks about customer service, very few really know how to put words into action. The front-line workers of the Starbucks corporation are their baristas, the people who actually make and serve the coffee. They make Starbucks what it is. They intentionally memorize the names and drinks of customers to create an inviting atmosphere. I have never met a disgruntled barista. This isn’t to say that they don’t exist, but I have talked with several people who have worked for Starbucks and never heard anything, but pride at how the company served them as employees. Treating your employees well is good business because happy employees are more willing to go the extra mile for the customer and company alike. Starbucks gets this and this is the third reason they will continue to prosper.