For the most, people make decisions and choices based on securing themselves the most beneficial outcome. So, when it comes to choosing to follow a leader, people do so either because there is some reward for doing so (even if the reward is not desirable but offers a better outcome than any alternative options) or because the leader's values, opinions and beliefs echo their own.
If we think about some of the people often held up as having been 'great' leaders , people like Mandela, Martin Luther King, Churchill, what their followers all have in common is voluntary commitment. They followed because they wanted to, not because they had to. Not only that, but these followers followed even when the journey was incredibly difficult. They stuck with it because they were committed to the end goal, because they believed in and shared the vision. But passion and vision alone are not enough.
Much controversy surrounds whether Steve Jobs was in fact a great leader or not. He was truly brilliant at clearly articulating and communicating his own passion and vision. It was this ability that made people want to get on board, to be part of the realisation of that vision and that also affords him some reputation as a great leader. But Steve Jobs is not universally regarded as a great leader, for many, he was the opposite. But where did he go wrong if he was such an expert at communicating passion and exciting people with his vision? Well, he was famously a "difficult" man to work with, he had high standards, which he expected others to adhere to and critically, he demanded commitment from his people. Great leaders never, ever demand commitment, instead, they inspire action (and change) through consistently and passionately expressing their vision and commitment. They motivate people into action through empowerment, making them feel part of something incredible, part of a team that can win.
This demanding of commitment, we call compliance; where people follow either because they feel they have no choice (although some argue that there is always choice) or because it is a means to an end, like getting paid at the end of each month. In fact, a recent report by the CIPD (Real-life leaders: Closing the knowing-doing gap) found that
"the top reason for the non-motivated and/or dissatisfied employee to contribute discretionary effort is the expectation of a reward bonus, while motivated/satisfied employees cite the quality of relationship with their manager."
Whilst compliance may indeed bring results in the short-term, it can never drive commitment, passion or engagement. But is this commitment really necessary? Some teams, companies and indeed industries accept high staff turnover as a natural consequence of the nature of their business. These people rely on compliance, rather than commitment. Any attempt at commitment usually comes in the form of an incentive, which is, of course and rather ironically, merely another way of driving compliance. The problem is that when you take the incentive away, the individual has no desire, motivation or commitment to continue and so sales drop and (good) people leave. Replace incentive with voluntary commitment and you have a different outcome.
In my next blog post, I'll continue this theme with a look at what leaders can do to encourage commitment, rather than compliance in their own teams.
