Back to the question with which I opened the first post: does the world need another evaluation blog? As one of my professors used to say when one of his assertions met an annoying challenge: “Well now, that is an empirical question.”

Well, as evaluators we are hardcore empiricists, so that works for us. We’re less interested in abstraction and idealism than in what works. Evaluators get to be up-close-and-personal witnesses to some of the best and worst practices in management. Too often, it is not a pretty picture. So, we see a need for a viewpoint that integrates evaluation with sound, realistic leadership principles.

You see, all those books and blogs on leadership abound with advice. Some of it is useful, and some of it is frankly appalling. But in nearly every case, contemporary approaches to leadership zero in on one—and only one– of three basic premises:

  • The personal characteristics of effective leaders:  In this view, effective leadership is all about the person or character of the leader. The true leader rises to the top in all circumstances,
  • The setting characteristics most conducive to positive change: It’s all about finding the right time and place in which to introduce change. If the tide is rising, it will float all boats.
  • The particular strategies they urge leaders to employ: If any leader simply uses the right tools or techniques for the job, success inevitably follows.

Doubt me? Go ahead, check out some of those millions of blogs (and if you’ve got the time, you can also look at the tens of thousands of books in print on leadership too), and see if they don’t pick one of these premises and ride it for all it’s worth. Take a look and see if it ain’t so. I’ll wait here until you get back. . . .

Back already?

See what I mean? That is the sort of reductionism we observe every day, not only in books and blogs but also in the office, the classroom, the clinic and the boardroom. If all you’ve got is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. Reductionism makes it simple in the short run, but painful, inefficient and maybe even damaging in the long run.

We think there’s a better way. After all, this is not an either-or, one-size-fits-all world, is it? In the real world, the effective leader is clear about who she is, but she also knows her organization inside and out and is prepared to use whatever strategy best suits the situation. In other words, she has to manage herself—her unique strengths and weaknesses, enthusiasms and anxieties—in a way that harmonizes with the particular setting in which she leads. Similarly the chisel, if you will, has to be suitable both to the sculptor and to the type of marble being sculpted.

Person, place and process all interact in a way that is irreducible. Great leaders understand this intuitively—and all leaders benefit from cultivating the habit of carefully studying and probing this interaction.

The interaction among person, place and process can be a subtle thing. But of all the hundreds of leaders we have observed, the ones who have mastered that interaction are genuinely effective and even transformative in the work they do. At TrueBearing we have concluded that it takes four things to achieve that mastery, and we have come to call them the four degrees of freedom. These Four Degrees are the focus of my next several posts.

One last thing for today. We view the TrueBearing blog as a conversation, not a monologue. So consider yourself invited to speak up in the comment section below.