0:00:09.3 Junior: Tim, do you know who one of my favorite management minds is?

0:00:12.7 Tim: Who? [laughter]

0:00:14.6 Junior: You Know what I'm gonna say?

0:00:15.0 Tim: I do know who you're gonna say.

0:00:16.4 Junior: Peter Drucker.

0:00:17.9 Tim: Drucker.

0:00:20.1 Junior: Is perhaps the greatest management mind of all time, and one of his quotes is the topic of today's conversation. Management and leadership. He said that management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things. That's a quick sentence. Just a few words, but there's a lot in there.

0:00:38.0 Tim: Oh, There's a lot in there. So think about that. Management is doing things right. Well, who decides what the right things are that we need to do?

0:00:49.1 Junior: Somebody.

0:00:52.1 Tim: So that first part management assumes that we already know what the right things to do are, so then go do them right. Well, what precedes that? Figuring out what those right things are, which is the leadership part of the equation.

0:01:08.9 Junior: Yep. Which is perhaps the more important part of the equation. You would probably rather do the right things in a mediocre fashion, then execute perfectly on the wrong things.

0:01:20.1 Tim: Yeah, that's right.

0:01:20.2 Junior: We'll get there. But the difference between management and leadership is deeper than I think a lot of people realize. The traditional approach to management versus leadership is often, leaders are inspiring. Leaders are motivational, but we have a lot more in this episode.

0:01:34.9 Tim: We're Gonna go beyond cliches today.

0:01:36.6 Junior: And just that, hopefully.

0:01:39.0 Tim: That's right.

0:01:41.3 Junior: That's the goal. You can let us know if we did a good job by the end of the episode.

0:01:43.3 Tim: That's right.

0:01:44.0 Junior: The greatest obstacle to learning is not ignorance. It is the illusion of knowledge. That's Daniel Boorstin. The reason I share that quote is this may seem to be an elementary topic. It may seem superficial, as we said, it's often treated with cliche, but it is deep. And if you peel back a few layers as we get into the topic, I think that people will realize that there's a lot here. There's a lot behind that Drucker quote. And if you can understand some of the nuance and the intricacies that are lurking behind that superficial layer, you can unlock a whole lot of leadership that I think will be really useful for all of the listeners out there. And if you haven't read the Effective Executive, go do that too.

0:02:28.4 Tim: Oh, it's timeless.

0:02:29.5 Junior: It's timeless. It's probably better than the last 15 leadership books you read combined.

0:02:35.1 Tim: Junior. I have to.

0:02:35.2 Junior: Unless you read more Drucker.

0:02:38.4 Junior: I have to say that in just going through the outline for this episode, I felt that I was in a process of rediscovery, and I think I underappreciated the fundamental difference between leadership and management as applied disciplines. It's like an epiphany after all of these years, again, going deeper into that, now there are multiple dimensions which we're gonna talk about, but the fundamental thrust emphasis and orientation of leadership versus management. Not a small thing.

0:03:16.1 Junior: Oh, Not a small thing. And I hope everybody caught that because that's like a baker saying that he under-appreciate flour. Okay. So in this quote, management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right things. The production team told me that I've been annotating too much and that it's getting busy. So I'm gonna erase that, and we're just gonna look at it without my brackets. Okay. Let's go to the next one. This is the train of logic that I wanna spend just a little bit of time on, because I think it helps us set the stage. The first is that the world has big problems. Can we agree that the world has big Problems?

0:03:49.0 Tim: I think we can stipulate to that.

0:03:51.5 Junior: Not Arguable. Big problems require big solutions. I think that that standalone, not arguable.

0:03:58.8 Tim: So far, so good.

0:04:00.3 Junior: Big solutions mostly require big teams.

0:04:02.1 Tim: Because of the breadth, depth complexity of those problems.

0:04:07.0 Junior: The sheer size and scope of the things that we have to deal with today require more than one person per issue.

0:04:11.1 Tim: Yep.

0:04:13.5 Junior: Big teams can't be flat. Can we agree that that's true?

0:04:16.0 Tim: Why? Because the team gets big, and we need some, we need roles and responsibilities. We need division of labor. So we're gonna install a little bit hierarchy.

0:04:24.4 Junior: Yeah. Let's say you have a team of a thousand, you're not gonna have a flat team.

0:04:26.4 Tim: No.

0:04:29.7 Junior: If we're not flat, there's hierarchy also not arguable. And if there's hierarchy, there are leaders, and those leaders vary in quality. So if you take each of these steps independently, I don't think they're arguable, which means that as a whole, together, not arguable. So we end here, if there's hierarchy, there are leaders, and those leaders vary in quality. So as an organization, as a team, we're beholden to the quality of the leaders. We're not going to outperform our leaders, as you say, the organization reflects them, which is why we spend time on topics like these. And so as we become better managers, as we become better leaders, that rolls up through the organization. And if your role in your organization is to help make your people better, let's say you're in learning and development, then this is obviously relevant to you.

0:05:19.9 Tim: Very true.

0:05:21.8 Junior: Let's go through the three stages of leadership. Tim, can you walk us through these?

0:05:28.9 Tim: Yes. So this is the fundamental progression of leadership. Leadership is an inside out discipline. It begins in the inner world. So we lead ourself first domain, and we have to become competent. There's some threshold level of competency and being able to lead yourself. And then we go to the second domain, which is to lead a team. And when we say lead a team, we're really talking about what we call small unit leadership. What's the average size of a team, do you think these days?

0:06:00.8 Junior: Four or five.

0:06:00.9 Tim: Maybe. Yeah. Upper end, it could be, I don't know, maybe 10 or so. But that's a team. The team and in today's world, across organizations, the team is the fundamental unit of performance. We use teams more than anything else. So, that's the second domain. And as you move from leading self to leading a team, the nature of your contribution changes from direct, indirect. And there's a whole bunch of other implications, which we won't get into all of that. But domain one, lead self, domain two, lead the team, domain three, lead the organization. So when we get into leading the organization, now scope and scale increase complexity increases. So we have all kinds of new factors that are operating. So that's the progression. Lead self leads the team leads the organization.

0:07:04.3 Junior: I wanna call out that there are ceilings at these different levels. Depending on how skilled you've become as a manager, as a leader. Sometimes there's a ceiling above you in lead self, and you have a hard time cracking through, because the nature of your contribution changes fundamentally.

0:07:19.5 Tim: Good point.

0:07:19.9 Junior: As you Said. So in order to break through this, we need to learn some new skills. That takes us to lead the team. Lead the team requires a different set of skills. The ceiling could then be and lead the team. Eventually, we wanna get the ceiling as high up as possible, which means that our scale as a leader has increased. And we can move through the organization to greater levels of influence, greater spans of control, and be able to affect the outcomes at a huge level. And I think as a leader, that should be our aspiration. You wanna have positive influence, you wanna have healthy influence. And so you need to skill build in these areas in order to do that. It's not a natural outcome of time. It's something that requires deliberate effort and deliberate practice.

0:08:02.4 Tim: Very true.

0:08:05.0 Junior: So let's dig into the differences between management and leadership. I won't go through this entire list, but you can start to see some of the differences. In management, What are we doing? We're sustaining, it's about today, it's about preserving. It's about control, instruction, compliance. Overall, it's about execution. On the other side of leadership, we have vision. It's about tomorrow, it's about disturbing the status quo. People's hearts over their heads. It's about commitment over compliance. So tell me a little bit about the tension between these two.

0:08:47.1 Tim: Well, it's fascinating, Junior, because there is a natural tension between leadership and management. They compete, and yet they are complimentary disciplines. And, what we're saying is that you've got to combine these in you according to what is required, your position, your context, your priorities. You're gonna put those together. You can't be one or the other. Now, there may be a ratio that describes your current role in your current context. You could say, my role requires, for example, a certain percentage of management versus leadership, because we do combine them.

0:09:35.0 Tim: But what we're trying to point out here is that there are fundamental differences in the dimensions that make up these applied disciplines. Like, take the first one again, let's just go back to the first one. Leadership is about catalyzing, management is about sustaining. Leadership is burdened with the initial act of creation. We've gotta make something happen. We've gotta take the initiative. We're going to move from current state to future state. Who's gonna do that? That's an act of leadership. So there are these fundamental differences. They're not subtle, even though we use the terms synonymously often, management and leadership, manager leader. But the focus of the two disciplines is very different.

0:10:33.1 Junior: So as we talk about helping organizations move their managers to become leaders, if we're not using those terms synonymously, then maybe help frame the job of those people in organizations internal learning and development functions, outside consultants, whose jobs it is to create leadership out of managers.

0:10:55.6 Tim: If you're in learning and development, if you're in talent management, if you are in human resources, I think it's critical that you clarify the differences in that you're using those terms deliberately and clearly, and that you don't use them interchangeably. Let me give you an example. So let's, in fact, I'm gonna use a quote. So let's go to Warren Bennis. So Warren Bennis was, a great leadership scholar at USC. And, I was just going back through his writings. And I'm just gonna share a simple quote from on becoming a leader that really got my attention. And as it relates to this discussion that we're having today, this is what he says. He says, every great inventor or scientist has had to unlearn conventional wisdom in order to proceed with his work.

0:12:02.0 Tim: What does that have to do with leadership? Everything. Because leadership by definition means you're in uncharted territory. So to go forward, you have to overcome conventional wisdom and all of the assumptions, you've gotta unlearn to figure out where you're gonna go. So leadership really is very similar to being an inventor or a scientist. You're in uncharted waters and you're figuring out where to go. It goes back to what Drucker said. Leaders, they figure out what the right things to do are. They have to do that. So it's that initial work. So if you're in going back, if you're in learning and development, you need to be very clear about whether you are developing leadership skills or management skills. You cannot blur that distinction. I think that becomes critical.

0:13:00.7 Junior: Yeah. It makes me think, there's a quote I heard one time that smart is learning wise is unlearning. It's something like that. And there's a lot of that that has to happen in order to get to that next level. And when we talk about scalability as a leader, that might be one of the things you have to do to raise the ceiling on your scalability as a leader is think differently, is to adopt a new paradigm, to open your eyes, open the aperture and see if there's maybe some dissent that needs to happen somewhere. Maybe there's some unlearning that has to happen somewhere in order for you to go to the next level. And that's the point that I wanna call out in this piece of the conversation, which is that it takes deliberate effort to scale to the next level of leadership. It's not a natural consequence of time.

0:13:48.1 Tim: Oh no.

0:13:49.1 Junior: You can't just stick around in the organization and find one day that you're at the tippity top. You have a lot of influence and it's healthy.

0:13:57.6 Tim: Yeah. Another thought, Junior. I think about the executive teams we're working with right now, and they are looking out and they're doing their long-term planning. Now, long-term planning for some is 18 months. Especially the tech companies. But say it's three to five years, there is not a single executive across these organizations that is saying, no, we know what to do. We know exactly what to do. We can go back to our institutional memory and we can figure out what we're gonna do. No one can do that. They're looking out into the offing in a very turbulent, changing, hyper-competitive, unforgiving world, and they're trying to figure it out. That is a function of leadership, not management. They're gonna try to figure out what the right things to do are, and then we can get about doing that.

0:14:58.7 Junior: So how do we do that? How do we ensure that we're doing the right things? How do we ensure that we're doing the right things Well, that's what we're gonna get into for the remainder of the episode. We're gonna get down to brass tacks. We're gonna talk practically, give people some tools that you can go and use today and tomorrow to increase your scalability as a leader to help other managers become leaders. So let's dive in. Accountability and relationship. These are two definitions that we want to make sure are crystal clear. Accountability is how you hold others answerable for their responsibilities. That's part of the transition that happens when you move from lead self to lead the team. Now you're answerable not only for your work, but for the work of others as well. Relationship, your ability to cultivate and maintain strong relationships that may seem surface.

0:15:51.8 Junior: As we progress through the episode, you're gonna see that there's a lot in here. This is something that I'm taking away as light bulb, which I'll explain when we get there. But there were some things in here that were surprising to me, some things that I thought were previously lightweight that ended up not being so lightweight. So let's get into the model. Now that we understand those two definitions, we're going to throw them on a two by two as we like to do. You'll see relationship on the Y axis, and you'll see accountability on the X axis, low, high, low, high, pretty traditional. Help me understand this first box and how these two variables work in concert To plot someone on this chart.

0:16:37.7 Tim: Which box do you wanna start with, Junior?

0:16:41.7 Junior: Low, Low.

0:16:41.8 Tim: Low, low. Okay. So low, low. We're going to give it the label of the absentee landlord. Now think about this. Your relationship with one of your people, so you're leading a team. You have direct, direct reports. So you have an individual and you relationship is low. That means you haven't cultivated the relationship. You haven't invested in the relationship. The relationship is superficial. Okay. That's on one dimension. On the other dimension, your accountability is also low. So if you're low in relationship and you're low in accountability, what is the nature of your overall interaction and interface with this individual? You're an absentee landlord. You're really not there. The relationship's not there. You don't hold them accountable, so you give them a pass. I think that's an accurate description given low relationship, low accountability, not there. Don't care.

0:17:49.2 Junior: I love the imagery because if you think about an absentee landlord, in reality, what do they do? They're not there. They cross their fingers that rent comes through, they'll check in every six months. Make sure that the building's still there. And that's it.

0:18:05.0 Tim: And Most of all, there's a whole bunch of deferred maintenance.

0:18:07.1 Junior: Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

0:18:08.0 Tim: Right?

0:18:08.5 Junior: Yeah. Well, I mean, talk about deferred maintenance and leadership.

0:18:14.2 Tim: Exactly.

0:18:14.3 Junior: That's an actually, that's a really good concept.

0:18:15.6 Tim: This is The epitome of deferred maintenance in leadership.

0:18:20.7 Junior: Here's an HBR article lurking in there.

0:18:21.2 Tim: Oh, there we go.

0:18:22.8 Junior: There we go. So let's move to the next one. We've moved up relationship. But we're still low on accountability. Buddy box.

0:18:32.7 Tim: Buddy box. What is this, Junior?

0:18:36.3 Junior: The buddy box is what it sounds like. We're just buddies.

0:18:38.6 Tim: This is a pathology.

0:18:42.4 Junior: Yeah. And I like to use the word buddy. Not even friend. It's like, ah, we're kind of pals.

0:18:47.2 Tim: We could laugh about this one a lot if it weren't so common.

0:18:54.3 Junior: True.

0:18:54.4 Tim: Right?

0:18:54.5 Junior: Yeah. And if the consequences weren't so pernicious.

0:18:56.8 Tim: That's right.

0:18:56.9 Junior: So the buddy box is high relationship, low accountability. I take you out to lunch, but I have a really hard time holding you accountable. And so we can be friends, we can go out, we can laugh, we can golf, but at the end of the day, we're not doing things well because accountability is Low.

0:19:14.0 Tim: Yeah.

0:19:16.1 Junior: Let's go to the next one. Micromanager. Tell me about that one.

0:19:20.2 Tim: Micromanager. Relationship, Low. Accountability, high. That's so interesting. So I want to hold you accountable. I'm going to hold you accountable. Very consistently, very aggressively. But we don't have much of a relationship. So what are you gonna think about that? I'm putting you on a leash this long. We're gonna have fun together every day. You're a micromanager. So you, as the manager, you are getting in the way. You are the leader. You have not, you have neglected the relationship axis. And that's your choice. You either invest or you don't invest. And it's up to you. But you have neglected that. And so the neglect of the relationship axis and then aggressively holding someone accountable, results in you being a micromanager. That's not gonna go well over time.

0:20:23.1 Junior: No, it's not. I don't care about you, but I care about what you can do for me. And the pattern there ties into low social regard on the emotional intelligence front.

0:20:34.9 Tim: Sure does.

0:20:36.9 Junior: So if you've heard us talk about emotional intelligence and the regard competency, often you'll find that micromanagers are low in social regard, but they're very high in the management competencies because they want to get the things done. They will check in, they will hold you accountable, but only for the purpose of execution.

0:20:55.9 Tim: That's right.

0:20:56.4 Junior: Now the final box, which is where we want to end up, is the empowering leader. We've called it coach box. The leader box. We've called it a lot of things. Still don't know if this is the right thing, but we're gonna call it the empowering leader for today. Is where we want to get. It's the aspirational box.

0:21:11.9 Tim: It's where we want to go.

0:21:13.7 Junior: It's high relationship, high accountability. So Tim, it seems like sometimes these things are at odds, that you can't have the best relationship if you're constantly trying to hold accountable.

0:21:26.9 Tim: Right.

0:21:27.8 Junior: That's the immediate knee jerk reaction from people. Like, well, if we're friends I don't wanna sacrifice the relationship, but maybe you could tell us about what relationship really means and what a real relationship should be able to withstand.

0:21:39.9 Tim: Yeah. So I think if, for you viewers and listeners, you may be thinking that, oh, there's a negative correlation between the relationship I have with someone and my ability to hold them accountable. And I get that. If you think that, if you feel that. But on closer examination, and I want all of the viewers and listeners to think about this on closer examination, If your relationship with someone cannot withstand accountability, then I think we need to question the nature of the relationship. Wouldn't you say so Junior?

0:22:24.6 Junior: Absolutely.

0:22:29.0 Tim: Like what's going on here?

0:22:30.5 Junior: Absolutely.

0:22:32.7 Tim: Like if it can't bear the accountability, then that relationship, I would say is not strong and stable and enduring in nature.

0:22:42.3 Junior: Well, let's just ask the question to the listeners. Can you think of, well, think about maybe a top three, top five relationship that you've had with somebody.

0:22:53.8 Tim: In your life.

0:22:54.7 Junior: In your life, could be a significant other, a coach, a manager, just somebody. Was that relationship that you think was such high quality based exclusively on your ability to get along?

0:23:09.8 Tim: No.

0:23:10.3 Junior: Or did they hold you accountable? And did you appreciate the fact that they held you accountable? If you think about those, hopefully everybody has had a relationship like this where the person held you accountable, but that you also knew they cared tremendously about you as a person. And maybe that's why they held you accountable.

0:23:30.2 Tim: So here's the counterintuitive part of this, Junior, the relationship enables the accountability.

0:23:39.4 Junior: Love it.

0:23:41.7 Tim: They're not negatively correlated. We just haven't gone deep enough. If accountability sacrifices the relationship, we're not there. We haven't built a relationship that can enable the accountability. That's where we need to get to. That's what a leader's got to do.

0:23:57.0 Junior: Well, the way you've talked about it is fascinating because you're talking about them as though they're sequential, and it seems that they are.

0:24:05.7 Tim: I think that there are some sequence here.

0:24:07.3 Junior: So which ones first?

0:24:07.4 Tim: I think the relationship, you've got to establish a foundation there. Build the foundation of your relationship first So it can withstand the accountability And enable the accountability.

0:24:19.9 Junior: Well, there's an insight for you. So relationship first, accountability second, there has to be something there. Some threshold level of relationship to withstand the accountability.

0:24:30.3 Tim: And Junior, I'm gonna make one more point. I don't think that goes away. So as you continue to coach someone, I think you still have to invest in the relationship. So for example, often we say connect before you coach.

0:24:47.7 Junior: Same principle.

0:24:47.8 Tim: The person needs to be validated again and again and again that you value them first. And then we can talk about performance. So that doesn't go away. It's not one and done.

0:25:00.8 Junior: Yeah. I'm going to annotate a little bit more. Forgive me on this slide, because this is the unlock for the episode. For me, as I was going through this and prepping for the episode, I've seen this model a thousand times, probably a thousand.

0:25:17.4 Tim: Probably.

0:25:19.7 Junior: And to me, I don't wanna say that it seemed lightweight, but it didn't seem like a big hitter to me. I thought, okay, buddy box, absentee landlord, that's kind of cute. But here's what made more sense to me, is when I superimposed, see if I can do it management right here. And over here. Whoops. That's gonna follow me around. I'll just do this. Leadership.

0:26:00.3 Tim: Gotcha. So there's a.

0:26:04.4 Junior: Here's my hypothesis. As I was going through, I thought, well, maybe it'll work. Maybe I could put management on this axis, leadership on the other axis. And we're gonna be, maybe it, I can argue that it'll work, but the more I thought about it, the more I was convinced that it works really well. And we'll get into why. But management is much more about accountability because it's about execution.

0:26:28.2 Tim: Execution.

0:26:29.1 Junior: If we go back to the Drucker quote. There are a couple lines of logic here. So try to follow, if we go back to the Drucker quote, he said, doing things right is management. Doing the right things is leadership. Doing things right is about accountability, which means that it's in the management bucket. Doing the right things is about leadership, which means that it's about relationship. So then if you take it a step further and you talk about maintaining the status quo or disturbing the status quo, execution versus innovation, which one gets you execution and which one gets you innovation.

0:27:03.5 Tim: That's right.

0:27:04.1 Junior: The one that gets you execution is management execution. That's the outcome. If you do this well, you execute well. You do things well, you do things right. Doing the right things is about innovation, which is about leadership, which is about discretionary effort, which we'll get to. But that's the unlock for me, and I wanted to call that out to the audience, is that if you swap out accountability for management and relationship with leadership, then it makes it a little bit more interesting.

0:27:37.3 Tim: The insights go deeper. Well, Junior, and we will get to this, but that relationship between the connection between relationship and leadership and innovation, I can't wait to talk about.

0:27:55.2 Junior: Yeah, we're gonna get there.

0:27:55.5 Tim: Because it's not really intuitive at the beginning, maybe.

0:27:58.2 Junior: Yep. And once again, I've created a Pollock here. So there's my art. Execution processes and outcomes, innovation are by nature at odds with each other. What do you think about that?

0:28:12.2 Tim: I think it happens all the time. I think we get fixated on processes. We obsess on processes, and eventually the processes become the goal. The processes become proxy for the outcomes that we are seeking When that's just not the case. So they take over. They take over and they become the goal when they're not the goal.

0:28:39.7 Junior: Processes or execution or management, as we've said, these are all synonymous for the purpose of this conversation is about quality control. It's about risk management. And risk management is counter innovation in most cases because innovation is about fundamentally deviation from the status quo, risk taking and making a bet. So there's going to be natural tension. And that's where the tension comes out. Where the rubber meets the road is what are we gonna do with dissent that moves away from just executing the process. And that's where the innovation argument comes in.

0:29:15.2 Junior: So management, I'm accountable for keeping our processes moving. Leadership, I'm accountable for every outcome my team creates management, execution, leadership, innovation. So what does leadership have to do with innovation? This is a question I wanna spend a little bit of time on. The more I thought about innovation and deviation from the status quo and relationship and doing the right things. My mind was swirling with all of these different angles of leadership. And I thought, well, why does that result in innovation? What is it that gives the innovation result? And I started thinking about relationship specifically. What is it about relationship that unlocks innovation?

0:30:03.9 Tim: Exactly.

0:30:04.0 Junior: The more I thought about it, I kept coming back to discretionary effort. And I thought about where have I seen environments of low relationship and high innovation?

0:30:16.0 Tim: Nowhere.

0:30:19.5 Junior: No, I don't. I don't, there's certainly not a pattern.

0:30:24.2 Tim: No.

0:30:24.3 Junior: It exists, but it's not the pattern.

0:30:25.8 Tim: It's the absence.

0:30:28.4 Junior: Right. So you brought up an interesting point, which was how much innovation comes out of totalitarian regimes? Yeah. Why.

0:30:38.5 Tim: No kidding.

0:30:39.5 Junior: Why? Because how much discretionary effort is there in a totalitarian regime?

0:30:43.4 Tim: Exactly.

0:30:44.7 Junior: None. None, as close to none as you can probably get. And what is it about the regime that results in low discretionary effort? It's low relationship put nicely. That's what it is. So what do we move from? We move away from commitment and we move to compliance.

0:31:04.7 Tim: That's right.

0:31:05.0 Junior: The discretionary effort goes down. I act out of self preservation and we maintain the status quo until the ground shifts beneath our feet and we're no longer where we were. And now we can't compete.

0:31:20.4 Tim: Yeah.

0:31:21.2 Junior: So competitively, if you wanna make the competitive argument, if you wanna drive bottom line results for an organization, you need innovation. If you need innovation, you need discretionary effort. And if you need discretionary effort, you need relationship. So that's what was so fascinating to me about that why axis on the chart is it made me think, oh, okay, this is what we're talking about. The relationship has to be high so that we can get discretionary effort from our people. And conversely, when I have looked at environments of high innovation, there's often high relationship, almost always, because people might stick around for that next little bit of work. They might put that idea on the table, they might give a little extra.

0:32:04.7 Tim: They're motivated.

0:32:04.9 Junior: They're motivated.

0:32:07.5 Tim: They're motivated to release their discretionary effort to go the extra mile to really put it out there. Every team, I guess you could look at it, is on a spectrum from compliance to commitment, somewhere on that spectrum. And so if you're at the compliance end, chances are that's induced by fear. People shut down, they withdraw, they manage personal risk. What kind of innovation comes out of a team like that?

0:32:46.5 Junior: None.

0:32:46.8 Tim: Now, maybe for the short term, you can press people into service and you can get some great results in the short term. But are you able to build an incubator of innovation in that kind of an environment where you haven't invested in the relationships? I'm not seeing that.

0:33:11.1 Junior: Well, and that's the real question is if you said all else equal, let's say that that idea is arguable, maybe you can press innovation out of people all else equal, which team do you think would outperform the one that's innovating out of discretionary effort or the one that's innovating out of compliance? Discretionary effort's gonna win by a landslide. We would choose that every time.

0:33:32.5 Tim: And how about for the long term?

0:33:32.9 Junior: Oh yeah, certainly.

0:33:34.0 Tim: The capability to be able to do that.

0:33:36.6 Junior: Certainly. Yeah. That to me is a really interesting topic. Something that I'm gonna be thinking about a little bit more. So if you want to become better at doing things right institutionally, then you need to increase accountability. If you want to become better at doing the right things, you need to increase relationship. That's the practical outcome of this conversation for me. Is look at the organization, what does it need right now? Now you know which axis you need to work on. And we have plenty of content about doing those two things. How do you transfer accountability? The three levels, task, process, outcome. We talked a lot about relationship, psychological safety, emotional intelligence. There are tremendous resources for getting down to the brass tacks of how to do both of those things.

0:34:30.9 Junior: So here is the summary. Management is about increasing accountability. If we do that well, we will get predictable Execution. Leadership is about improving relationships. If we do that well, we will get consistent innovation. We want both of those. If you want to be an effective manager, you need to hold people accountable. If you want to be an effective leader, you need to have high relationship. If you wanna have the ultimate scalability as a leader in your organization, you need to do both of those things Well. And as one of my final thoughts for this episode would be that if, think about those around you, if you truly care about them and their development and their agency, you would hold them accountable. Not holding someone accountable is a tremendous, tremendous disservice.

0:35:21.1 Tim: It really is.

0:35:21.8 Junior: To that person.

0:35:22.9 Tim: It really is.

0:35:26.0 Junior: It's The easy way out, but it's not the right way.

0:35:26.2 Tim: Yeah, I agree.

0:35:27.3 Junior: What do you think, we've had this conversation today. We've covered some ground. What do you think about it?

0:35:32.7 Tim: It makes me, I think I have two thoughts, Junior. One is coming back to what is the job of a leader or a manager? This is where you can blur the distinction, distinctions, hit the numbers, develop the people. You have to do both. If you lose sight of developing the people and you obsess on hitting the numbers, then over time. You're not developing the people. Over time, you can't sustain that level of performance. So your job as a leader is to build both the motivation and the capability in your people so that they can hit the numbers. So those things are interdependent. Can't lose sight of developing the people, which sometimes I think we see that that happens.

0:36:24.7 Junior: Yeah. One of the things that we use at Leader Factor is this tool. So to go back to this two by two for a second, you have to think about where you're at. And that would be my invitation to all the listeners who've hung around through the whole episode. Which box are you in? In the buddy box, the absentee landlord, the micromanager, or the empowering leader. Depending on where you are, you know which axis you need to work on. Maybe it's both. To get into that upper right hand quadrant and in Leader Factor app, we literally plot people on here.

0:36:52.7 Tim: Yes, we do.

0:36:54.2 Junior: And show them exactly what they need to do.

0:36:55.0 Tim: Yes, we do.

0:36:57.1 Junior: Which is a pretty cool thing. So if you wanna learn a little bit more about that, reach out to our team. We can help you. So I've really enjoyed this conversation. I enjoyed preparing for this conversation. I had a couple light bulb moments. And, we'll be taking away a few things that I'm gonna be using. So for everyone who hung around, thank you so much for spending time with us today. We know that you could spend at other places, and so we're grateful that you have found this content valuable. If you have, share it with a friend, give us a like, give us a subscribe, and we will catch you in the next episode. Take care everybody. Bye-Bye.

[music]

0:37:36.8 Jillian: Hey, Leader Factor listeners, it's Jillian. If you liked the content in today's episode, we've compiled all of the concepts and slides into a downloadable resource for you. Click the link in the description or visit leaderfactor.com to explore our full content library. Don't forget to subscribe, and we'll catch you in the next episode.

‍