Using Leadership Influence for Good, Not Evil
People often ask me, what does Leader-First mean?
Leader-First® Leadership builds from this very basic premise. Leaders look to themselves—first.
But let me clearly state this. Leader-First® Leadership is not about leadership in isolation—isolation in action or achievement. It is the exact opposite. If leadership feels lonely at the top, you’re doing it wrong.
At Crescent Leadership, we developed our leadership manifesto with the intent to guide our team's actions, behaviors, and decisions. But this manifesto also serves as the theoretical underpinning of the Leader-First® Leadership model. To dispel misguided interpretations of this model’s essence, I’ve included it here.
At Crescent, we believe the word “leader” is overused and misunderstood.
We believe "leader" is not an entitlement someone bestows you. It is an earned honor, and it must be earned again day after day.
At Crescent, we don't take leadership lightly.
We believe leaders are naturally curious and know that their leadership journey never ends.
We believe leaders know wellness matters and that their physiological health is inherently linked to how well they lead others.
At Crescent, we believe leaders do what is right, not what is expedient.
We believe leaders see difference as the essential thread that weaves together the fabric of their extraordinary teams.
We believe leaders are steady in the face of crisis and fearless in the face of stagnation.
We believe leaders embrace who they are and connect authentically.
At Crescent, we believe that the personal mission of leaders is to build more leaders.
The final line, more than any other line in the manifesto, embodies the materialization of leadership success. For their organizations to endure, leaders who embrace Leader-First® Leadership must perpetuate its ideology throughout their organizations. The personal mission of leaders is to build more leaders. To do this, we must first explore the influence, both the good and the bad, that leaders have on the behavior of those under their care. We’ve known its power for some time.
The Dark Side of Authority and Influence
Unfortunately, many executives use their influence as a control mechanism to achieve the result they need to achieve. Unfortunately, sometimes, they do this at the expense of the long term wellbeing of their organization and of their team members. In the 1960’s Stanley Milgram, Yale University Psychologist, conducted his controversial and well-known study, the Milgram Experiment. Milgram initiated his study to answer the question, how could the German people allow the Nazis to massacre the Jews? More broadly, he intended to understand the conditions that would influence people to obey authority when those in authority commanded actions that went against their conscience.
Milgram recruited 40 men between the ages of 20 and 50 through newspaper advertisements. Each recruit received $4.50 for their participation in the experiment. Participants would enter a room with other individuals who they also believed were participants. These individuals were actors with advanced knowledge of the experiment’s intent. Participants would be assigned the role of teacher, with the actors taking on the role of learner. Teachers were instructed by experimenters to deliver shocks to the learners in an adjacent room when they provide an incorrect answer. Before an experiment session, one actor went so far as to tell the experimenter and teacher that he had a heart condition. The teachers didn’t know that learners were actors in the experiment, only pretending to be shocked. They also didn’t know that they were actually the subjects of the experiment. The intent was to see how much influence the experimenter, positioned in the room as an authority figure, could have on the participant’s behavior and action.
Milgram’s daunting shock generator appeared to give shock levels from 15 volts to 450 volts, increasing in 15-volt increments. To increase the intimidating nature of the machine, experimenters labeled terms like slight shock, moderate shock, strong shock, very strong shock, extreme intensity shock, and finally, the ominous, XXX – danger: severe shock. In reality, the experiment was rigged. Teachers were not delivering shocks at all. Learners would provide primarily incorrect answers, with predetermined reactions to increasing shock levels. In the video of the experiment, you can hear the learners pleading with the teacher to be released. One learner becomes silent refusing to answer additional questions. The experimenter instructs the teacher to treat the silence as an incorrect response and continue to deliver the shock. As the experiment progresses, the experimenter prods teachers to continue through a series of commands:
“It’s absolutely essential that you continue.”
“Please continue.”
“You have no other choice.”
“Go on.”
“The experiment requires that you continue.”
I’ve personally watched the video several times. The teachers become noticeably stressed, conflicted, and uncomfortable, asking the experimenter if they should continue. Some react with resistance, some yell and refuse to continue, and some respond with nervous or inappropriate laughter. But 65%, or 26 of the 40 participants, delivered the highest level of shock. 14 participants stopped before reaching the heist levels of voltage.
Milgram’s study has been a repeated source of criticism. The controversy comes from the unethical damaging treatment of his participants due to the level of anxiety they experienced during and after the study. The study would not hold up to ethical standards of treatment for human subjects in today’s research landscape. However, more ethical replications of the study, even as recent as 2009, have yielded similar results.
Whether you agree with his methods or not, the chilling findings of Milgram’s experiment yield important insight into behavioral influence and authority. Milgram demonstrated the dark side of obedience. His study and subsequent research demonstrate how those in authority can have a damaging effect on the behavior of those under their care. When executives are self-focused or driven by results at any cost, they can directly and negatively influence the behaviors of their team members. Thankfully, obedience is not inevitable or absolute. The idiosyncrasies of the situation do have bearing on what makes people question authority and act against it.
Using Behavioral Influence for Good
Because of my early life experiences, I’m a behaviorist through and through. Early trait theory suggested that behaviors are innate or inherited. Trait theory gave rise to the Great Man Theory of Leadership—great leaders are born with traits that are unique to leaders, not found in all people. Thank goodness for the behaviorism movement of the 1950s! Behavioral leadership explains how behaviors are learned and reinforced through experiences in our environment.
Inside complex systems, leaders can’t control or plan for every contingency. Leader behavior has a significant influence over what happens inside the organization. And how leaders behave is within their span of control. Their behaviors, for better or worse, shape the behaviors of others.
Leader-first leaders approach behavioral influence differently than self-focused executives. Self-focused executives attempt to change the person. They reinforce toxic culture states—fear, fatigue, isolation, and apathy—through their decisions, actions, and behaviors. This produces convoluted, complex organizational problems immune to simple interventions. Ultimately, the organization declines or fails altogether. Leader-first leaders look first to change the system conditions in a way that positively impacts the behaviors of team members. They reinforce healthy culture dimensions—trust, purpose, belonging, and vitality—through their decisions, actions, and behaviors. This produces the right conditions for team members to perform at their highest level and build enduring organizations.
Because behavioral influence can go both ways, leaders can choose to learn and enhance favorable behaviors, this is the element of the Leader-First® Leadership model we exploit for good. Self-behavior is one element of a dynamic system where leaders can assert the most control in shaping desirable culture dimensions.
