Only Secure Leaders Give Power to Others
Nearly everyone has heard of Henry Ford, the revolutionary automobile industry innovator and legend in American business history. In 1903, he cofounded the Ford Motor Company with the belief that the future of the automobile lay in putting it within the reach of the average American worker. Ford said,
I will build a motorcar for the multitude. It will be large enough for the family but small enough for the individual to run and care for. It will be constructed of the best materials, by the best men to be hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise. But it will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one—and enjoy with his family the blessings of hours of pleasure in God’s great open spaces.
Henry Ford carried out that vision with the Model T, and it changed the face of twentieth-century American life. By 1914, Ford was producing nearly 50 percent of all automobiles in the United States. The Ford Motor Company looked like an American success story.
A LESS-KNOWN CHAPTER OF THE STORY
However, all of Ford’s story is not about positive achievement, and one reason is that he didn’t embrace the Law of Empowerment. Henry Ford was so in love with his Model T that he never wanted to change or improve it—nor did he want anyone else to tinker with it. One day when a group of his designers surprised him by presenting him with the prototype of an improved model, Ford furiously ripped its doors off the hinges and proceeded to destroy the car with his bare hands.
For almost twenty years, the Ford Motor Company offered only one design, the Model T, which Henry Ford had personally developed. It wasn’t until 1927 that he finally—grudgingly—agreed to offer a new car to the public. The company produced the Model A, but it was incredibly far behind its competitors in technical innovations. Despite its early head start and the incredible lead over its competitors, the Ford Motor Company’s market share kept shrinking. By 1931, it was down to only 28 percent, a little more than half of what it produced seventeen years earlier.
Henry Ford was the antithesis of an empowering leader. He continually undermined his leaders and looked over the shoulders of his people. He even created a sociological department within Ford Motor Company to check up on his employees and direct their private lives. As time went by, he became more and more eccentric. He once went into his accounting office and tossed the company’s books into the street, saying, “Just put all the money we take in in [sic] a big barrel and when a shipment of material comes in reach into the barrel and take out enough money to pay for it.”
Perhaps Ford’s most peculiar dealings were with his executives, especially his son Edsel. The younger Ford had worked at the company since he was a boy. As Henry became more eccentric, Edsel worked harder to keep the company going. If it weren’t for Edsel, the Ford Motor Company probably would have gone out of business in the 1930s. Henry eventually gave Edsel the presidency of the company, but at the same time he undermined his son. Further, whenever a promising leader was rising up in the company, Henry tore him down. As a result, the company kept losing its best executives. The few who stayed did so because they figured that someday old Henry would die, and Edsel would finally take over and set things right. But that’s not what happened. In 1943, Edsel died at age forty-nine.
ANOTHER HENRY FORD
Edsel’s oldest son, the twenty-six-year-old Henry Ford II, quickly left the navy so that he could return to Dearborn, Michigan, and take over the company. At first, he faced opposition from his grandfather’s entrenched followers. But within two years, he gathered the support of several key people, received the backing of the board of directors (his mother controlled 41 percent of Ford Motor Company’s stock), and convinced his grandfather to step down so that he could become president in his place.
Young Henry was taking over a company that hadn’t made a profit in fifteen years. At that time, it was losing one million dollars a day ! The young president knew he was in over his head, so he set out to find leaders. Fortunately, the first group actually approached him. Colonel Charles “Tex” Thornton headed a team of ten men who had worked together at the War Department during World War II. Their contribution to Ford Motor Company was substantial. In the years to come, the group produced six company vice presidents and two presidents.
The second influx of leadership came with the entrance of Ernie Breech, an experienced General Motors executive and the former president of Bendix Aviation. Young Henry hired him to be Ford’s executive vice president, a position second to Henry’s, with the expectation that he would take command and turn the company around. He succeeded. Breech quickly brought in more than 150 outstanding executives from General Motors, and by 1949, Ford Motor Company was on a roll again. In that year, the company sold more than a million Fords, Mercurys, and Lincolns—the best sales since the Model A.
WHO’S THE BOSS?
If Henry Ford II had lived by the Law of Empowerment, the Ford Motor Company might have grown enough to eventually overtake General Motors and become the number one car company again. But only secure leaders are able to give power to others, and Henry felt threatened. The success of Tex Thornton, Ernie Breech, and Lewis Crusoe, a legendary GM executive whom Breech had brought into the company, made Henry worry about his own place at Ford. His position was based not on influence but on his name and his family’s control of company stock.
“The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
—THEODORE ROOSEVELT
What was Henry’s solution? He began pitting one top executive against another, first Thornton against Crusoe. Then after Thornton was fired, he turned Crusoe against Breech. Ford biographers Peter Collier and David Horowitz described the second Henry Ford’s method this way:
Henry’s instinct for survival manifested itself as craftiness combined with a kind of weakness. He had endowed Crusoe with the power to do virtually whatever he wished. By withdrawing his grace from Breech and bestowing it on his lieutenant, he had made antagonists of the two men most vital to Ford’s success. While Henry had lost confidence in Breech, however, he had left him officially in charge because this increased his own maneuverability. And, as Crusoe’s official superior, Breech could be useful if Henry wanted to keep Crusoe in check.1
This became a pattern in the leadership of Henry Ford II. Anytime an executive gained power and influence, Henry undercut the person’s authority by moving him to a position with less clout, supporting the executive’s subordinates, or publicly humiliating him. This maneuver continued all the days Henry II was at Ford. As one Ford president, Lee Iacocca, commented after leaving the company, “Henry Ford, as I would learn firsthand, had a nasty habit of getting rid of strong leaders.”
Iacocca says that Henry Ford II once described his leadership philosophy to him, years before Iacocca himself became its target. Ford said, “If a guy works for you, don’t let him get too comfortable. Don’t let him get cozy or set in his ways. Always do the opposite of what he expects. Keep your people anxious and off-balance.”2
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO LEAD WELL?
Both Henry Fords failed to abide by the Law of Empowerment. Rather than identifying leaders; building them up; giving them resources, authority, and responsibility; and then turning them loose to achieve, they alter-nately encouraged and undermined their best people. Their insecurity made it impossible for them to give power to others. Ultimately, it under-mined their personal leadership potential, created havoc in the lives of the people around them, and damaged their organization. If leaders want to be successful, they have to be willing to empower others. I like the way President Theodore Roosevelt stated it: “The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and the self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
To lead others well, we must help them to reach their potential. That means being on their side, encouraging them, giving them power, and helping them to succeed. That’s not traditionally what we’re taught about Leadership. What were the two leadership games we were taught as kids? King of the Hill and Follow the Leader. What was the object of King of the Hill? To knock other people down so that you can be the leader. And what’s the point in Follow the Leader? You do things you know followers can’t do to separate yourself from them and make yourself look more powerful. The problem with those games is that to win, you have to make all of the other people lose. The games are based on insecurity and are opposite of the way to raise up leaders.
When I travel to developing countries, I am made especially aware of how alien the idea of empowerment can be to emerging leaders. In cultures where you have to fight to make something of yourself, the assumption often is that you need to fight others to maintain your leadership. But that reflects a scarcity mind-set. The truth is that if you give some of your power away to others, there is still plenty to go around.
When I teach the Law of Empowerment in emerging countries, I usually ask a volunteer to come up so that I can show visually what happens when a leader tries to keep others down instead of raising them up. I ask the volunteer to stand in front of me, and I put my hands on his shoulders. Then I begin pushing him down. The lower I want to push him, the more I have to bend down to do it. As I push him lower, I go lower. That’s the same way it is in leadership: to keep others down, you have to go down with them. And when you do that, you lose any power to lift others up.
Leading well is not about enriching yourself—it’s about empowering others.
BARRIERS TO EMPOWERMENT
Leading well is not about enriching yourself—it’s about empowering others. Leadership analysts Lynne McFarland, Larry Senn, and John Childress say that the “empowerment leadership model shifts away from ‘position power’ to ‘people power,’ within which all people are given leadership roles so they can contribute to their fullest capacity.”3 Only empowered people can reach their potential. When a leader can’t or won’t empower others, he creates barriers within the organization that followers cannot overcome. If the barriers remain long enough, then the people give up and stop trying, or they go away to another organization where they can maximize their potential.
When leaders fail to empower others, it is usually due to three main reasons:
THE #1 BARRIER TO EMPOWERMENT: DESIRE FOR JOB SECURITY
The number one enemy of empowerment is the fear of losing what we have. Weak leaders worry that if they help subordinates, they themselves will become dispensable. But the truth is that the only way to make your-self indispensable is to make yourself dispensable. In other words, if you are able to continually empower others and help them develop so that they become capable of taking over your job, you will become so valuable to the organization that you become indispensable. That’s a paradox of the Law of Empowerment.
The number one enemy of empowerment is the fear of losing what we have.
What if I work myself out of a job by empowering others, you may ask, and my superiors don’t recognize my contribution? That can happen in the short term. But if you keep raising up leaders and empowering them, you will develop a pattern of achievement, excellence, and leadership that will be recognized and rewarded. If the teams you lead always seem to succeed, people will figure out that you are leading them well.
THE #2 BARRIER TO EMPOWERMENT: RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Nobel Prize–winning author John Steinbeck asserted, “It is the nature of man as he grows older to protest against change, particularly change for the better.” By its very nature, empowerment brings constant change because it encourages people to grow and innovate. Change is the price of progress. That’s not always easy to live with.
Most people don’t like change. That’s a fact. Yet one of the most important responsibilities of leaders is to continually improve their organizations. As a leader, you must train yourself to embrace change, to desire it, to make a way for it. Effective leaders are not only willing to change; they become change agents.
THE #3 BARRIER TO EMPOWERMENT: LACK OF SELF-WORTH
John Peers observed, “You can’t lead a cavalry charge if you think you look funny on a horse.” Self-conscious people are rarely good leaders. They focus on themselves, worrying how they look, what others think, whether they are liked. They can’t give power to others because they feel that they have no power themselves. And you can’t give what you don’t have.
The best leaders have a strong sense of self-worth. They believe in them-selves, their mission, and their people. As author Buck Rogers says, “To those who have confidence in themselves, change is a stimulus because they believe one person can make a difference and influence what goes on around them. These people are the doers and motivators.” They are also the empowerers.
Only secure leaders are able to give themselves away. Mark Twain once remarked that great things happen when you don’t care who gets the credit. But I believe you can take that a step further. I believe the greatest things happen only when you give others the credit. One-time vice presidential candidate Admiral James B. Stockdale declared, “Leadership must be based on goodwill . . . It means obvious and wholehearted commitment to helping followers . . . What we need for leaders are men of heart who are so helpful that they, in effect, do away with the need of their jobs. But leaders like that are never out of a job, never out of followers. Strange as it sounds, great leaders gain authority by giving it away.” If you aspire to be a great leader, you must live by the Law of Empowerment.
“Great leaders gain authority by giving it away.”
—JAMES B. STOCKDALE
THE PRESIDENT OF EMPOWERMENT
One of the greatest leaders of the United States was known for his humility and willingness to give his power and authority to others: Abraham Lincoln. The depth of his security as a leader can be seen in the selection of his cabinet. Most presidents pick like-minded allies. But not Lincoln. At a time of turmoil for the country when factions were strong, Lincoln brought together a group of leaders who would bring strength through diversity and mutual challenge. One Lincoln biographer said this of his method:
For a President to select a political rival for a cabinet post was not unprecedented; but deliberately to surround himself with all of his disappointed antagonists seemed to be courting disaster. It was a mark of his sincere intentions that Lincoln wanted the advice of men as strong as himself or stronger. That he entertained no fear of being crushed or overridden by such men revealed either surpassing naïveté or a tranquil confidence in his powers of leadership.4
Lincoln’s desire to unify the country was more important than his personal comfort. His strength and self-confidence allowed him to practice the Law of Empowerment and bring strong leaders into his circle.
FINDING STRONG LEADERS TO EMPOWER
Lincoln displayed the ability to empower others again and again. That played a major role in his relationships with his generals during the Civil War. In the beginning, he had trouble finding worthy recipients of his confidence. When the Southern states seceded, the finest generals in the land went south to serve the Confederacy. But Lincoln never lost hope, nor did he neglect to give his leaders power and freedom, even when that strategy had failed with previous generals.
For example, in June of 1863, Lincoln put the command of the Army of the Potomac into the hands of General George G. Meade. Lincoln hoped that he would do a better job than had preceding generals Ambrose E. Burnside and Joseph Hooker. Within hours of Meade’s appointment, Lincoln sent a courier to him. The president’s message, in part, said,
Considering the circumstances, no one ever received a more important command; and I cannot doubt that you will fully justify the confidence which the government has reposed in you. You will not be hampered by any minute instructions from these headquarters. Your army is free to act as you may deem proper under the circumstances as they arise . . . All forces within the sphere of your operations will be held subject to your orders.5
As it turned out, Meade’s first significant challenge came as he commanded the army at a small Pennsylvania town named Gettysburg. It was a test he passed with authority. In the end, though, Meade was not the general who would make full use of the power Lincoln offered. It took Ulysses S. Grant to turn the war around. But Meade stopped Lee’s army when it counted, and he prevented the Con-federate general from moving on Washington.
To push people down, you have to go down with them.
Lincoln’s use of the Law of Empowerment was as consistent as Henry Ford’s habit of breaking it. When his generals performed well, Lincoln gave them the credit; when they performed poorly, Lincoln took the blame. Lincoln expert Donald T. Phillips acknowledged, “Throughout the war Lincoln continued to accept public responsibility for battles lost or opportunities missed.”6 Lincoln was able to stand strongly during the war and continually give power to others because of his rock-solid security.
THE POWER OF EMPOWERMENT
You don’t have to be a leader of Lincoln’s caliber to empower others. The main ingredient for empowering others is a high belief in people. If you believe in others, they will believe in themselves.
When I receive an encouraging note from someone close to me, I tuck it away and save it. I cherish such things. Years ago, I received a note from Dan Reiland, the one person outside my family whom I have probably worked hardest to empower over the years. Dan was my executive pastor when I was at Skyline. Here is what Dan wrote:
John,
The ultimate in mentoring has come to pass. I am being asked to teach on the topic of empowerment! I can do this only because you first empowered me. The day is still crystal clear in my mind when you took a risk and chose me as your executive pastor. You trusted me with significant responsibility, the day to day leadership of the staff and ministries of your church. You released me with authority . . . You believed in me—perhaps more than I believed in myself. You demonstrated your faith and confidence in me in such a way that I could tap into your belief, and eventually it became my own . . .
I am so very grateful for your life-changing impact on my life. Saying thank you hardly touches it. “I love and appreciate you” is better. Perhaps the best way I can show my gratitude is to pass on the gift you have given me to other leaders in my life.
Dan
I am grateful to Dan for all he has done for me, and I believe he has returned to me much more than I have given to him. And I’ve genuinely enjoyed the time I’ve spent with Dan helping him grow.
The truth is that empowerment is powerful—not only for the person being developed but also for the mentor. Enlarging others makes you larger. Dan has made me better than I am, not just because he helped me achieve much more than I could have done on my own, but also because the whole process made me a better leader. That is the impact of the Law of Empowerment. It is an impact you can experience as a leader as long as you are willing to believe in people and give your power away.
Enlarging others makes you larger.
Applying
THE LAW OF EMPOWERMENT
To Your Life
1. How would you characterize yourself in the area of self-worth? Are you confident? Do you believe you have value? Do you operate from an assumption that you have positive things to offer other people and your organization? Are you willing to take risks?
If you rate yourself low in the area of security, you will have a hard time with the Law of Empowerment. You will need to take positive steps to add value to yourself or explore why your self-worth is so low.
2. Are you someone who believes in people? Make a list of the people who work for you. If there are too many to list, then write the names of those closest to you. Next rate each person’s potential—not current ability—on a scale of 1 to 10.
If the numbers are low, then your belief in people is probably not very high. Until you change that, you will have difficulty empowering others. Begin dwelling on people’s positive qualities and characteristics. Look for people’s greatest strengths and envision how they could leverage those strengths to achieve significant things. Imagine what individuals could become if they made the most of their gifts and opportunities. Then help them to do so.
3. If your natural inclination is to build and hold on to your power, then you must experience a paradigm shift to become an empowering leader. Start by selecting your best people and setting them up for success. Train them, give them resources, and then help them set accomplishable goals that will help you and the organization. Then give them the responsibility and authority to follow through. And if they at first fail, help them keep trying until they succeed. Once you experience the joy and organizational effectiveness of empowering others, you will have a hard time not giving your power away.