Hack:
Are you Benevolent Dictator or Brainpowered Facilitator?

Thanks Ellen for this side-by-side perspective. I'd like to share two things that came up for me:

1. Celebrating the individual: I am all for team work and I believe when done lineary as another "project" it is not authentic and sustainable. More and more I speak about and teach that our starting point in the US is that we reward the individual and focus on a "hero" mentality.

Note--I'm not judging this as right/wrong, I'm stating a fact. Having worked at Fortune 50 companies I find ignoring this reality doesn't get me closer to living my mission "I empower a world of compassion, courage and prosperity by inspiring people to be their best."

To me this recognition also has to do with Daniel Pink's summary of 30 years of research on intrinsic motivation that concludes all people seek: autonomy, mastery and purpose. I believe it all begins with clarity of purpose and then autonomy and then mastery. And autonomy as in I arrive at something being "eureka" or awesome from my perspective--my choice, not manipulated into it as the B.leader would attempt to orchestrate.

2. Words describing the Brainpowered facilitator: I love these words when they are ingrained/lived as others have said as DNA and not buzz words: engage; integrate; invite; model; welcome; shared wisdom; frees people; risks mistakes; humor & humility; openess to learn... I summarize these as love and respect--at least that makes it easy for me to remember where I am operating from. To me there are only two emotions love and fear. The more I can dance with both and recognize where my head is (that leads to my actions/lack of action) the better I learn and grow.

Just my 2 cents. I will keep reading this discussion. Thanks.

Dear Ellen, I have gone through your suggestion and looked at the continuum of benevolent dictator to brainpower facilitator. However, i have been practicing the brain power facilitator and to my surprise i am finding myself in greatest disadvantage. I found organizational politics, incompetence is brought to the fore front rather than performance. My question is it possible to practice to be brain powered leader without making organization ready? or start practicing brain powered leadership then think that organization follow? Do you have neurological basis for your recommendations?

For me, the most important facilitator characteristic is asking: "What do you think?" Variations on this question are endless: "What do you see as the issue here?" "What solutions do you see?" "What are the pros and cons of your preferred solution?" Thinking is what is facilitated by the use of such questions, critical in a knowledge driven era when employees want to contribute their brain power and feel engaged in an organization's strategic agenda. This is actually what Level 5 leaders do: "first who, then what" means getting "who" together first and drawing solutions "what" out of them with such questions. But this is not an easy style to adopt because those in charge like to do their own thinking, to be solution generators and goal scorers. See my article, "Creating an Engaging Cuture" http://bit.ly/f09qsc

Where were you when I was managing tons of people years ago???? definitely will be sharing this!

Hi Ellen

To me, your last line is key: "The problem is solved when communication opens and people can discuss the kind of leadership that will expand innovation from all participants." Without this discussion, this is where the "what" can easily become disconnected from the "how." We say we want innovation, but then may not create the culture that genuinely supports innovation based on that "meta-conversation" about what leadership means.

As we open such a dialogue up, divergent views and voices may well come forward and traditionally that's the point when fear begins to rise that the process will no longer be efficient, consensus cannot be achieved, and (hence) leadership is not doing its job. I have certainly seen situations in which conflicts, mistrust and indecision are rampant while the leader(s) abdicate any role, including smart facilitation. I have also personally been in the position of attempting to facilitate online conversations (Linkedin: Think Tank Group) where someone wanted to use any tactics available, including patronizing criticism and personal attacks to bully other members and the facilitator(!) so that the whole discussion had to be shut down. We have probably all experienced group situations like these, and we want to avoid them, so we may well be conditioned to ask for and accept benevolent dictatorships -- because ultimately they help us avoid the risks of playing a real leadership role ourselves. I believe it is vital to meet and talk about those experiences and then also to lift ourselves toward a vision of possibilities by building bridges where there have been none, creating perhaps a new desired culture that breaks the chains of that conditioning. Without that, the same old default culture can prevail, maybe benevolent, and maybe also elitist. People sense what the rules are.

At the MIX we are all about the exploration of radical ideas of what constitutes effective management and leadership. So it makes sense here, maybe more than anywhere else, to have the conversation and not get lost in trying to achieve some other end. That conversation is right at the core of the most amazing and brilliant innovation of all -- which has to do with finding a way to honor and include all voices, and share in the responsibility for building trust and respect as norms: in essence, deciding for ourselves -- and leading ourselves -- toward the kind of community we really want to have.

I think leadership has to be seen increasingly as a way to be adaptive and therefore malleable, that is, it is increasingly difficult to find a model to analyze and develop as best performance in driving groups of people for a common purpose.

I appreciate the comparative table presented here as an excellent instrument for reflection because it opens the possibility for a leader to seek to know himself. The self-knowledge is the first step to being able to share his skills and create openness to accepting the other.

I think it is in the recognition and in the combination of all these capabilities that emerges a leadership capable of promoting a culture of innovation and environment for their development.

Facilitate means make grow, fail, create opportunities and opening, be patient and responsible not only to the other, but above all to himself. Be able to recognize their fears and celebrate their achievements, be able to look inside himself and reflect on his qualities and limitations is the great challenge of a leader.
I think a facilitator leader not only liberates the potential of each collaborator as he does it with respect for individual identity and the values of each one, but also being able to transform these differences in culture and desired.

Perhaps a friendly image can occur here! A leading facilitator may be one that is able to identify each time its role as a Parent, adult and child (Eric Berne) and act according to circumstances, protecting the growth of collaborators, assigning them responsibility for their actions and being curious and fun along with them.

I think almost all of us are able to imagine those roles.

Really fascinating discussion guys - Ellen these examples have really helped bring your points to life for me.

In situations where innovation is the goal I agree the leader as facilitator model is the most valuable. I especially like the examples from the Linux and Fedora and communities.

An additional role a leader sometimes needs to play is that of critic/editor - in an artistic sense. Within most creative endeavours - performing arts or liberal arts - this role is considered a key part of the process. A great example of this is Steve Jobs at Apple. In a market where products are differentiated by stats he has helped Apple succeed by offering a more emotionally charged product. John Syracusa of Ars Technica writes very persuasively on this in his essay Hypercritical. For me as a consultant (Which boils down to facilitating and influencing without executive authority - often by reducing the perceived cost of failure) I find it very important to switch between the encourager and critic roles (And sometimes to be the Judge when we hit an impasse). It's a fine line to walk.

As well as illustrating the features of this leadership approach (Which is very valuable!) I'd really value the groups thinking on when it is most appropriate. When do you see this approach as being the highest percentage option?

Well,the process( group thinking) I always dream of looks like two strings interwoven to each other ( pretty much like DNA strings which are heading upward like a spiral.)
It means that the stream of "thoughts and ideas" are interwoven to the streams of "feelings and emotions".At one extreme are the feelings of clarity,lightness,openeness which produce aha moments and in the other extreme is the power struggle with feelings of frustration, boredom ,inabilities ,ignorance which produce inefficient unclear thoughts.
and the key is that the facilitator undrestands the streams of emotions and energy in the air while observing the thoughts coming out. and his job more than anything else is to guide the emotional stream to go upward the spiral.the advantages of this methods are:

1)we have to admit that every one sees the world differently and reaching to the consensus in "thoughts" is no-end goal. however we can reach to "emotional consensus".this is how most sport leaders drive their team.
2)as idea evaluation is a delicate process in which it can evoke unwanted emotions leading to downward spiral , it is important that the facilitator tries not to go to this trap. this is in contrary to ur idea about joint solution. many says we have to evaluate things by expressing + , - .but this is very dangerous. we are not neutral regarding thoughts.especially when we have attachment to our ideas . when we focus on advantages we are directed to more advantages and wwhen we focus on disadvantages we will reach to more disadvantages .and the emotions evoked by that inhibit journey to upward spiral .so instead of +,- , the fascilitator can guide the ideas come out , and as the ideas come , and energy increase better ideas come.until we see excitement in the air, eagerness to jump to action .
I have some ideas about this guidance method and I am eager to implement this.

Ellen, I have to admit that I love this discussion. There are some issues I would like to add to be clear:

1) In that DNA shaped model, the assumption is that the facilitator is aware of the two strings of thoughts and emotions in the air and others can be unconscious about how they think, how they feel , how they are communicating, and how they are internally interpreting others’ "response “and "suggestions" to their ideas.

2) We need to use our left-side mind, the logical side which wants to scale , to weight ,to score,to analyse. It is natural .but the timing is important. It is important than before this judgmental system become dominant in the group, the collective energy is shifted upward. And by upward I mean feelings of playfulness, easiness, and perhaps fun. There is nothing general about how to achieve this "group mood”. A mediocre facilitator can reach the mood of a group of architects who are attending a brainstroming session faster than a group of financial advisors. Almost all the B.dictators in your map neglect the importance of the “group mood”. Once a better mood is achieved , people respond to the judgments with a higher attitude.However group mood is not stable and it should be tracked and guided upward continuously.

3) We have a great rule in marketing which simply says when you are authentic ( an authentic Brand) , you don’t need to say , and communicate that you are authentic .But when you are fake, you need to try hard. An authentic facilitator doesn’t need to ensure the group that they are counted, or listened or treated kindly or even rewarded. People FEEL that. An authentic facilitator doesn’t need to engage opposing views in order to shows that “hey guys, this is democracy, this is fair”. we have to really understand what is the intention of engaging “opposing view” ,is it for reaching to better ideas by filling the incompleteness of the current idea or it is only to show the objectivity of the process ,to show that this is our standard, to show that we are fair?If this is the case,we miss our original target which was reaching to the Solution.