Hack:
Cracking The Leadership Code - Telescopic and Microscopic Perspectives of Leadership

I agree with you Bob!

In my research and experience of 35-plus years observing leaders in all forms (i.e. business, policitics,government, entrepreneurs, etc.), it will always be difficult to define "leadership."

I feel strongly that leadership is defined by the followers, and usually based on specific circumstances. That's why leaders' role of "leader" is actual fleeting. So, only followers can truly define the traits, characteristics, etc. of a leader based on the circumstances at hand. Even the "personal profiencies" described in the Leadership Code depend on what is needed by a leader at the time.

Ultimately, the closest definition of leadership is: "The ability to influence people to do something!"

-- Rob Dean

Hi Bob,

Chapeau for your detailed and informative Hack. I really enjoyed reading it. I just have one comment. I think used visuals need to be more clear and divided into more illustrations, especially for visual that related to "Phase three consists of eight leadership activity areas." I think it would be very nice if you have it as animated gif or flash.

Over all, I really found it very useful and I will keep your hack in my leadership resources favorites.

Wishing you all the best,
Khaled

Hi Bob,

My comments, as promised. You present a very complete picture, given that you include theory, metrics, process, and universal benchmarks.

I agree completely that we "are all endowed with the capacity to lead," and that an individual is both a leader and a follower.

However, I am puzzled by your subsequent emphasis on "supervising a team" as if the focus is still on top-down leadership rather than creating leaders everywhere. I thought the point was to help people who are not in any formal leadership position to develop and use skills normally expected from leaders.

It might be helpful in 1.f to consider individual differences across environments in terms of people fitting (or not fitting) into expected roles. The active "role" (with its associated expectations) in the individual's mind is a significant determiner of behavior by determining how the environment and the stimuli will be interpreted.

Have you considered there are positive outcomes of change other than "reform", and negative outcomes other than "corruption"? For example, positive change may be growth as improvement or transformation rather than reformation. What is your definition of "reform"?

I have a question about "For example, for someone to advocate reforming the supply-chain at their department, they must have built a reputation of a person who really knows the intricacies and the nuances of the operation, which means that they must have been around long enough to acquire this kind of knowledge; who has subject-matter expertise in the field; and most importantly, who has the personal traits to lead the change endeavor in a way that promotes the welfare of the group as well as the individuals." Doesn't that negate the idea of creating leaders everywhere--that anyone and everyone, novice or expert, can suggest ideas for initiating change? It often happens that novices or people relatively new to a field are those who make the breakthroughs because their mental models are not yet rigid.