Like everything else in life, the Position level of leadership has negatives as well as positives. Each of the levels of leadership possesses downsides as well as upsides. You will find as you move up the levels that the upsides increase and the downsides decrease. Since Position is the lowest level of leadership, it has a great number of negatives. On Level 1, I see eight major downsides:
The easiest way to define leadership is by position. Once you have a position or title, people will identify you with it. However, positions and titles are very misleading. A position always promises more than it can deliver.
I learned this lesson about Level 1 when I received my first leadership position in my first church. I mistakenly thought that being named the pastor meant that I was the leader. I couldn’t have been more mistaken, as I found out in my first board meeting. Soon after I officially started the meeting as the designated leader, the real leader took over. His name was Claude. He had lived in the rural valley where the church was located all his life, and everybody loved him. His influence was obvious as the other members of the board looked to him for direction and asked him questions regarding every issue. I could have left the meeting and no one would have cared. In fact, I could have left the meeting and no one would have noticed!
I was shocked. In that first meeting and all the subsequent ones, all eyes and attention were focused on Claude, the real leader. The board members were not following me, even though I had the job title, the calling, the appropriate college degree, the office, the salary—all of the positional “stuff.” Claude had none of those things and yet they listened to everything he said.
My mistake was thinking that I had become a leader because of my position, instead of recognizing it as an opportunity to become a leader. I didn’t understand that leadership was given to me but not yet earned by me. I was a little too much like the driver in this comic4:
Back then I defined leading as a noun—as who I was—not a verb—as what I was doing. Leadership is action, not position. When I arrived at that first church, Claude had been earning his leadership influence through many positive actions over many years. And people followed him as a result. Claude, who was a down-to-earth farmer, explained it to me later, saying, “John, all the letters before or after a name are like the tail on a pig. It has nothing to do with the quality of the bacon.”
Leadership is action, not position.
I have come to embrace leadership as action, and I endeavor to teach that concept to leaders in conferences and seminars at home and abroad. One of the ways I do that is through my international nonprofit leadership organization, EQUIP, which has trained more than 5 million leaders in 160 countries. The organization’s trainers and I have found the number one challenge in developing countries is introducing the idea of leadership as action instead of position. Leaders in these countries often possess an “I’ve arrived” mindset. We want them to understand one of the most important characteristics of leadership: leaders are always taking people somewhere. They aren’t static. If there is no journey, there is no leadership.
Leaders are always taking people somewhere. They aren’t static. If there is no journey, there is no leadership.
People who rely on position for their leadership almost always place a very high value on holding on to their position—often above everything else they do. Their position is more important to them than the work they do, the value they add to their subordinates, or their contribution to the organization. This kind of attitude does nothing to promote good relationships with people. In fact, positional leaders often see subordinates as an annoyance, as interchangeable cogs in the organizational machine, or even as troublesome obstacles to their goal of getting a promotion to their next position. As a result, departments, teams, or organizations that have positional leaders suffer terrible morale.
Often to make themselves look better or to keep people from rising up and threatening them, positional leaders make other people feel small. How?
By not having a genuine belief in them.
By assuming people can’t instead of assuming they can.
By assuming people won’t rather than believing they will.
By seeing their problems more readily than their potential.
By viewing them as liabilities instead of assets.
Leaders who rely on their title or position to influence others just do not seem to work well with people. Some don’t even like people! Why? It’s a chicken-or-egg question, really. Do they not work well with people and as a result they rely on position? Or is it that because they rely on their position, they never take the time and effort to work well with people? I don’t know. Maybe both kinds of positional leaders exist. But here’s what I do know: They neglect many of the human aspects of leading others. They ignore the fact that all people have hopes, dreams, desires, and goals of their own. They don’t recognize that as leaders they must bring together their vision and the aspirations of their people in a way that benefits everyone. In short, they do not lead well because they fail to acknowledge and take into account that leadership—of any kind, in any location, for any purpose—is about working with people.
When leaders value position over the ability to influence others, the environment of the organization usually becomes very political. There is a lot of maneuvering. Positional leaders focus on control instead of contribution. They work to gain titles. They do what they can to get the largest staff and the biggest budget they can—not for the sake of the organization’s mission, but for the sake of expanding and defending their turf. And when a positional leader is able to do this, it often incites others to do the same because they worry that others’ gains will be their loss. Not only does it create a vicious cycle of gamesmanship, posturing, and maneuvering, but it also creates departmental rivalries and silos.
Positional leaders focus on control instead of contribution.
For a very short time as a young leader I worked in a highly political environment like the one I described. It was like working in a minefield. There were many unwritten rules and hidden protocols for setting up appointments with superiors or selecting who you ate with at lunch. There was great emphasis placed on using proper titles to address people. And much of how you were treated depended on your background. Needless to say, I did not do well in that environment. I immediately looked for a better place to develop my leadership skills. When I found it and left, I was so happy. And so were they!
I have yet to find a highly political organization that runs at top efficiency and possesses high morale. Just look at most of our government institutions and think about the leaders and workers in them. Most people could certainly use improvement, and moving away from positional leadership would do a lot to help them.
One of my all-time favorite TV characters is Barney Fife, the deputy in the little town of Mayberry on The Andy Griffith Show. Don Knotts played Barney, and along with Andy Griffith, who played Sheriff Andy Taylor, he gave America one of its most successful TV series. I have watched every episode, some many times.
Barney Fife was your typical positional leader. His desire to feel important and have authority created many humorous story lines. Armed with one bullet and a badge, he took every opportunity to let people know he was in charge. He had rights as a lawman, and he wanted people to acknowledge them. Unfortunately for him (but fortunately for us in the audience), no one else took him seriously. The result was comic chaos, which seemed to follow him everywhere he went.
In contrast, Sheriff Andy, who seemed to spend all of his time being a calming influence on his misguided deputy, had the real authority and power. But he rarely used his position to get things done. He didn’t carry a gun, either. Everyone knew he was the real leader and could handle any situation. Andy’s focus was on his responsibility to the people he served, not on demanding respect or receiving the rights due to him because of his position. The Andy Griffith Show was lighthearted fun, but it was also a study in leadership.
Poet T. S. Eliot asserted, “Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important…. They don’t mean to do harm…. They are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” That’s what positional leaders do: they do things to make themselves look and feel important.
“Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important…. They do not mean to do harm…. They are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”
—T. S. Eliot
Inevitably, positional leaders who rely on their rights develop a sense of entitlement. They expect their people to serve them, rather than looking for ways to serve their people. Their job description is more important to them than job development. They value territory over teamwork. As a result, they usually emphasize rules and regulations that are to their advantage, and they ignore relationships. This does nothing to promote teamwork and create a positive working environment.
Just because you have the right to do something as a leader doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do. Changing your focus from rights to responsibilities is often a sign of maturity in a leader. Many of us were excited in early leadership years by the authority we had and what we could do with it. That power can be exhilarating, if not downright intoxicating. It’s the reason President Abraham Lincoln said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Each of us as leaders must strive to grow up and grow into a leadership role without relying on our rights. If we can mature in that way, we will start to change our focus from enjoying authority for its own sake to using authority to serve others.
Just because you have the right to do something as a leader doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do.
The phrase “it’s lonely at the top” must have been uttered by a positional leader—either that or by someone with a personality disorder! Leadership doesn’t have to be lonely. People make it that way.
Positional leaders can become lonely if they misunderstand the functions and purpose of leadership. Being a good leader doesn’t mean trying to be king of the hill and standing above (and set apart from) others. Good leadership is about walking beside people and helping them to climb up the hill with you. If you’re atop the hill alone, you may get lonely. If you have others alongside you, it’s hard to be that way.
If you have others alongside you, it’s hard to be lonely.
King-of-the-hill leaders create a negative work environment because they are insecure and easily threatened. Whenever they see people with potential starting to climb, it worries them. They fear that their place on top is being threatened. As a result, they undermine the people who show talent, trying to guard their position and keep themselves clearly above and ahead of anyone else. What is the usual result? The best people, feeling undermined and put down, leave the department or organization and look for another hill to climb. Only average or unmotivated people stay. And they know their place is at the bottom. That develops an us-versus-them culture, with the positional leader standing alone on top. Leadership doesn’t have to be lonely. People who feel lonely have created a situation that makes them feel that way.
As I began to lead people early in my career, I learned a valuable lesson. I always tried to set up new leaders for success, and I often gave them everything I could to help them become established leaders. A leadership position. My time. My influence. Modeling. Resources. Leadership opportunities. And here’s what I found: if I gave the good potential leaders little or nothing, they still succeeded and became good leaders. In contrast, when I gave mediocre leaders everything I had, they still didn’t succeed and couldn’t establish themselves as good leaders. The position does not make the leader—the leader makes the position.
Whenever people use their position to lead others for a long time and fail to develop genuine influence, they become branded as positional leaders, and they rarely get further opportunities for advancement in that organization. They may move laterally, but they rarely move up.
If you have been a positional leader, you can change, and this book will help you. However, you need to recognize that the longer you have relied on your position, the more difficult it will be for you to change others’ perception about your leadership style. You may even need to change positions in order to restart the process of developing influence with others.
When people rely on their positions for leadership, the result is almost always high turnover. One of the chapters in my book Leadership Gold is titled, “People Quit People, Not Companies.” In it I explain how people often take a job because they want to be part of a particular company, but when they quit it’s almost always because they want to get away from particular people. Good leaders leave an organization when they have to follow bad leaders. Good workers leave an organization when the work environment is poor. Interview a person who has left and the odds are high that they did not leave their job. They left the people they had to work with.5
People quit people, not companies.
Every company has turnover. It is inevitable. The question every leader must ask is, “Who is leaving?” Are the 8s, 9s, and 10s leaving? Or the 1s, 2s, and 3s? If 8s are leaving and 3s are coming in, there’s trouble ahead. Organizations with Level 1 leadership tend to lose their best people and attract average or below-average people. The more Level 1 leaders an organization has, the more the door swings out with high-level people and in with low-level ones.
About a year ago, my friend Linda Sasser wrote me a note in which she talked about the dynamics that occur when higher-level employees find themselves working for a positional leader. She says that these people often become Lost Leaders. Here’s what Linda wrote:
It seems that a Level l leader also finds it difficult to have Level 3 employees. Good mid-level leaders make incompetent leaders uncomfortable! So while it is true that employees will leave a weak Level 1 leader, it is also true that Level 1 leaders will remove Level 3 followers. Seeing this happen before my eyes has fascinated me and of course saddened me.
So why do I call them lost leaders? They are great up-and-comers who have been called to lead because of talent yet are suppressed or driven away by Level 1 bosses, therefore leaving them unemployed and lost amongst all the displaced workers.
What a waste of time and talent. Every time a productive worker or potential leader is driven away by a positional leader, the organization suffers. It’s a fact that an organization will not function on a level higher than its leader. It just doesn’t happen. If a Level 1 leader is in charge, the organization will eventually be a Level 1 organization. If the leader is on Level 4, then the organization will never get to Level 5—unless the leader grows to that level.
Can you name one organization that gets the least from its people and is the best at what it does? Can you name one coach who gets the least from team members and has won a championship? Can you name one teacher who gets the least from students yet ranks highest among peers? Can you name one country that gets the least from its citizens and is respected by the world? Can you name one marriage that gets the least from each spouse that yields a great long-term relationship? No, I bet you can’t. Why? Because it is impossible to be successful with people who give the least.
People who rely on their positions and titles are the weakest of all leaders. They give their least. They expect their position to do the hard work for them in leadership. As a result, their people also give their least. Some people who work for a positional leader may start out strong, ambitious, innovative, and motivated, but they rarely stay that way. Typically they become one of three types of people:
Followers who thrive in Level 1 leadership environments love clocks and they want them visible at all times throughout the building. Why? Because every moment at work is evaluated according to the clock. Before noon, whenever they look at the time, they think in terms of how long they’ve been there. “I’ve been here two hours.” After lunch, it’s how much time they have left. “Only two more hours until I go home.” The clock also makes them aware of the more important times of the day: break time and lunchtime.
In Level 1 leadership environments, the morale of the employees begins to pick up after the afternoon break because it begins the countdown to the highlight of their day: quitting time. Around 4:30, the energy in the place really begins to increase. People are moving about the office putting things away. They clear their desks so that nothing can hinder them from leaving work at exactly 5:00 p.m.
At 4:45 they are walking around visiting and saying their good-byes to fellow employees. After all, they wouldn’t want to seem rude by not saying good-bye when they go flying out of the door.
At 4:50 they go to the restroom one last time, no matter how much of their day they may have spent there. They wouldn’t want to waste valuable personal time in the bathroom when they can do it on company time.
At 4:55 they replace their work shoes for track shoes. This ensures a quick getaway.
At 4:58 they get into starting position and wait for the clock to sound.
At 5:00 p.m. everyone is gone. Their exits have been coordinated, practiced, and timed to perfection.
At 5:02, not a single car is left in the parking lot, each one having been carefully backed into place that morning, ready for a quick escape.
Okay, so maybe I’m exaggerating just a bit. But that description is not that far from the truth. Clock watchers always know how much time is left before they get to go home, and they never want to work a moment beyond quitting time. But think about it: when the people who work with you can hardly wait to quit working with you, something is not working!
When the people who work with you can hardly wait to quit working with you, something is not working.
Because positional leaders at Level 1 rely on their rights to lead and use their leadership position as leverage, the people who work for them often rely on their rights as employees and use the limits of their job descriptions as leverage to do only what’s required of them. If they do that often and long enough, they can become just-enough people. They do just enough—to get by, to get paid, and to keep their job. For them, the big question is not, “What can I do to be a valuable employee?” Instead they ask, “How much must I do to be an employee?” They don’t ask, “How can I advance and get promoted?” They only ask, “How can I keep from getting fired?”
When people follow a leader because they have to, they will do only what they have to. People don’t give their best to leaders they like least. They give reluctant compliance, not commitment. They may give their hands but certainly not their heads or hearts. They are like the character in the cartoon here by Randy Glasbergen.6
People don’t give their best to leaders they like least.
Just-enough people have a hard time showing up. The only commitment they show is to taking off the maximum days allowed for any reason. Some spend a lot of mental energy finding creative ways of eliminating work. If only they used that commitment in positive ways!
In a Level 1 environment, there are always individuals who may be physically present but mentally absent. They do not engage mentally and show up merely to collect a paycheck. This attitude is highly damaging to an organization because it seems to spread. When one person checks out mentally and doesn’t receive any consequences for it, others often follow them. Mental turnover and sloppiness are contagious.
Evidently being mentally disengaged is also pretty common. The Gallup organization has tracked it for years and seen it bounce between 15 and 20 percent in the United States in recent years. In 2006, Gallup published a survey in the Gallup Management Journal showing stats through the second quarter of 2006. At that time they found that among workers eighteen or older in the United States, 15 percent (about 20.6 million people) were actively disengaged. Gallup estimated that it cost employers $328 billion.7 And in a more recent survey, Gallup found that more than half of all German employees were disengaged from their work.8
Clarence Francis, former chairman of General Foods, said, “You can buy a man’s time; you can buy his physical presence at a given place; you can even buy a measured number of his skilled muscular motions per hour. But you cannot buy enthusiasm… you cannot buy loyalty… you cannot buy the devotion of hearts, minds, or souls. You must earn these.” People who rely on their position at Level 1 rarely earn more than “just enough” from their people. And that means they cannot achieve any great level of success, because accomplishment requires more than that. Success demands more than most people are willing to offer, but not more than they are capable of giving. The thing that often makes the difference is good leadership. That is not found on Level 1.
Success demands more than most people are willing to offer, but not more than they are capable of giving. The thing that often makes the difference is good leadership.
When the people who work for a team, a department, or an organization give little of themselves, the results are mediocre at best. And morale is abysmal. Dick Vermeil, former Super Bowl–winning coach, remarked, “If you don’t invest very much, then defeat doesn’t hurt very much and winning is not very exciting.” That is a pretty good description of a Level 1 leadership environment.
The greatest downside about Level 1 leadership is that it is neither creative nor innovative. It’s leadership that just gets by. And if a leader stays on the downside of Level 1 long enough, he may find himself on the outside. If a leader fails on Level 1, there’s nowhere to go but U-Haul territory. He’ll be moving out and looking for another job.