The central, most telling question to ask a leader is, whom do you serve?
Some leaders will tell you, using a popular descriptor, that they aspire to be "servant leaders." The question still remains, however, a servant to whom: to yourself, to your group, or to society (to cite three of several options)?
“Opportunists are the people who always ask, 'What's in it for me?'”
Asking the question whom do you serve? is a powerful vector on which to build a useful typology of leadership. Based on this idea, I have constructed a six-level Purpose-Driven Model of Leadership informed by the work of Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, and his colleague, Robert Kegan (see table 1). The answer to the question whom do you serve often reveals more about leaders than knowing their personality traits, level of achievement, or whether they were "transformational" or "transactional" leaders.
Level One: Sociopath
At the base of the model is the person who literally serves no one: the Sociopath. The Sociopath, afflicted with what the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) describes as antisocial personality disorder, exhibits abnormally low empathy and destroys value, himself, and, ultimately, those who surround him as well. (I use the male pronoun because the vast majority of Sociopaths and psychopaths are male.) Fortunately, Sociopaths comprise less than 1 percent of the population. An excellent current example is Muammar Gaddafi, who is destroying his country, his tribe, his family, and, in time, himself. Indeed, he serves no one. The same was true of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
Level Two: Opportunist
The second level is the leader who serves only himself or herself, often at the expense of others: the Opportunist. These are the people who always ask, "What's in it for me?" Their moral compass is guided primarily by the accumulation of wealth and power, all else be damned. Bernie Madoff, now in prison, is a poster boy for the Opportunists. While Madoff enjoyed the luxuries of a life of wealth and power, hundreds if not thousands of retirees saw their nest eggs evaporate because of their unwitting participation in a deliberately contrived Ponzi scheme that, in time, became the largest ($50 billion) in Wall Street history. By this measure, or in terms of the families brought to financial ruin, Madoff remains one of the modern world's greatest Opportunists. Also of this genre, although somewhat lesser known, is Jeffrey Skilling, the Enron CEO who sold off tens of millions of dollars of stock just before Enron filed for bankruptcy, claiming he had no knowledge of the scandal that would engulf his company. He was sentenced to 24 years and four months in prison.
Level Three: Chameleon
At the next level sits Chameleons. These are the "leaders" who bend with the wind and strive to please as many people as possible at all times. In some cases this could be the group they work with; in other cases, the regional or national electorate. It is difficult to find renowned corporate leaders who fit this category because in business, typically, the Chameleons are weeded out before they reach the top. The world of politics is another matter. Many politicians fall into this category. Those who follow presidential politics will remember Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who was pilloried as a "flip-flopper" after explaining a vote regarding the Iraq war: "I actually did vote for the [authorization bill] before I voted against it." In Florida, former governor Charlie Crist changed colors so often that it was difficult to know with precision where he stood on any given issue, from climate change to which party, if any, he really belonged to.
There is a natural cleavage between the model's first three levels described above and the next three levels. There is not much to celebrate about the first three levels, although certainly levels two and three abound in organizations. There's much more to admire in levels four, five, and six.
Level Four: Achiever
"Achievers often substitute the needs of the whole with their personal striving to succeed.”
The level-four leader, the Achiever, fills the senior executive ranks. These leaders rarely fail to achieve their goals and often exceed sales quotas, create generous profits, and are frequent stars at merit-award dinners. The Achiever, to use Peter Drucker's felicitous phrase, is often a "monomaniac with a mission" and is focused, energetic, results-oriented, and highly prized by top management. Achievers pursue goals established by their bosses or by themselves, in a single-minded manner. Therein lies the Achilles' heel of Achievers: They drive toward a goal without giving much consideration to the broader mission. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd is an excellent example of a level-four leader. Under his watch HP's stock price more than doubled, but he decimated the infrastructure and intellectual seed corn (R&D) of the company to do so. By simply cutting R&D to a level of about 2.5 percent of revenue, down from 6 percent during the 1990s, the Carly Fiorina/Mark Hurd team "saved" HP about $4 billion—about the equivalent of half the profits earned during Hurd's last year. HP's once formidable technological and product strength was slowly sapped away. When I asked Dave Packard in the early 1980s what accounted for HP's extraordinary run he modestly replied, "I guess we found a way to make a better product." Where are those better products today? Referring to one of HP's most visible new product initiatives, the TouchPad, a late entry into the iPad dominated tablet space, a senior HP executive reportedly told the Wall Street Journal, "We know we're the fifth man in a four-man race." In their drive towards a goal, Achievers often substitute the needs of the whole with their personal striving to succeed.
Level Five: Builder
The level-five leader, the Builder, strives not to reach a goal but to build an institution. Builders are legendary leaders such as IBM's Tom Watson Jr., GM's Alfred P. Sloan, and Harpo's Oprah Winfrey. These people serve their institutions by managing for the long term and not allowing themselves to be seduced by the twin mirages of short-term profit or stock market valuations. They have a grand vision for the future of their organizations, and they infect others with their energy, enthusiasm, and integrity. These are the leaders we write books about, study, try to understand, and lionize.
Level Six: Transcendent
Builders are few and far between, but there is an even rarer type of leader who transcends the Builder: the Transcendent. Level-six leaders transcend their political party, their ethnic or racial group, and even their institutions. They focus on how to benefit all of society. These are "global citizens," in the words of Howard Gardner's recent book, Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Reframed, who watch out not only for numero uno but for the wider public as well. There is no better example of what it really takes to be a Transcendent than the first black president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela. He was able to soar above hatred for his white jailers, the political tug of the African National Congress, the pull of his racial and tribal group, and the rejection by the Afrikaners to build a South Africa for all South Africans. Now in his 90s, he is perhaps the world's greatest living leader.
“Nelson Mandela is perhaps the world's greatest living leader.”
Like Martin Luther King Jr., Mandela wanted people to be judged by the "content of their character rather than the color of their skin." The Dalai Lama, another Transcendent, told me that the first thing he does in the morning after he finishes his prayers is to ask himself, "How can I help to make the world better today?" Imagine if our senior political and business leaders started their day by asking that question and acting on the answer.
Portfolio Mix
No one is a pure Transcendent or a pure Opportunist. Rather, we are all a portfolio of the different types with one type being dominant. Even the Dalai Lama has to deal with the pull of his emotions when he makes decisions. And Madoff did his best to shield his wife and sons when he confessed his grand scheme to the FBI.
Figure 1 graphically illustrates what the portfolio of levels might look like for a 35-year-old executive. This picture, however, is not static. Man is capable, though not always assured, of continuing moral development. The sense or the meaning we give to our life at 60 may be considerably different than how we see life at 30.
The levels we propose, though not linear, are in a general way a path to what Erik Erickson calls generativity and integrity. Helping leaders to find their own path and follow it should be the ultimate goal of a leadership development program.
I particularly appreciate the distinctions between the Achievers, Builders and Transcendents - the categories represent ever increasing levels of challenge in achieving true servant leadership in the face of higher levels of external pressures that require great commitment and clarity of values about who you serve and why. I've certainly faced and continue to face those challenges .
I also appreciate the acknowledgement of the aggregious styles of leadership captured in the Sociopath, Opportunist and Chameleon categories - these are very real in my observations; more widely distributed across all sectors than many would care to acknowledge (though generally in the minority) and can cause very serious harm as you've noted.
That could just be the achiever in me speaking though...
Having recently been much persuaded by a similar but different model of levels of leadership - Leadership Agility (book by this title by Bill Joiner and Stephen Josephs) - I wonder how you see your model aligning with theirs. There seems to me to be a degree of overlap, so would love to see your rendition of the similarities and differences between the two.
Transforming, Transitional and Transactional.
current leadership style according to your model (1,2,3,
4,5,6.)? What would be your definition of leadership as it
would apply to business organizations, political positions,
organized religions, etc. How do you feel your model compares to the Jim Collins book "Good to Great" and his "Level 5" leadership model? Some researchers feel
leadership is not a position but a process involving the
leader, the followers and the situation. What kind of a
developmental intervention would you propose to bring
an individual from a 1 or 2 level to a 6? I feel in order
to make leadership research more revelevant for real-
word payoffs we still have a long ways to go before
it will live up to all the hype.
Dick Meza
Interaction & Associates
May I ask if the first five levels are equivalent to that in Jim Collin's book "Good to Great"?
Also, do you have evidence that level 6 leaders generate more sustainable value to a company (tangible + intangible) and its shareholders than level 5? (Intuitively I would expect level 6 leaders to generate more value to communities at large).
I had a question:
Do some businesses and organizations, by their very nature, require more of one leadership type than the other?
For example, if the business itself is self-serving, is hort-sighted, or is unethical is some way, will say Builder or Transcendent qualities support the business / organization to become better - or will the leader be a misfit and eventually drop off?
(I can recall a situation from my experience, where a builder leader was trying to operate in a chameleon organization. Needless to say, things weren't rocking)
(Editor's note: The commenter is referring to an episode of the NBC sit-com "Community." http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/community_recap_level_five_las.html )
Still the question remains:How to develop truly great leaders for a faster human progress and development?
In my experience i have come across the 1st three types very often.
I wonder where Mahatma Gandhi would fit in?
I place myself a bit at the lower position of level four. In my view reaching Level six is a rare situation.
These levels, you say, "are not linear". But do you consider them to represent some kind of spectrum or scale on which people move? Even if "we are a portfolio of the different types" how do you come to quantify them as pecentages and how do you account for people changing? Use of numbered levels seems to imply a heirarchy and possibly even a progression - do you suggest that leaders develop or move through levels? And how does this relate to what you describe as "a path...to integrity"? I can't see how any scale, continuum or trajectory can have Hitler-like behaviours at one end and Gandhi-like behaviours at the other.
And you say "Even the Dalai Lama has to deal with the pull of his emotions when he makes decisions" - yet neuroscience - especially the work of Antonio Damasio -shows us that ALL decision making involves emotions - and if there is anything that characterises psychopathic decision making it is that it is reason rather than emotion led.
Thanks.
Perhaps it begs the additional question...are the Corporate ranks a good recruiting ground for top Political Leaders?
Thought-provoking article - thank you.
My book, 'Serve to Lead,' builds on this insight, applying it to key leadership competencies, including casting a vision, management and communications.
I would commend 'Serve to Lead' to the attention of those who have interest in this analytic approach.
Meanwhile, transformational leaders within the business, NGO, and media technology worlds are beginning to shift the ground on which assumptions of shareholder value vs. stakeholder value (including communities) are based. Consider the emergence of the B-Corp as one small example and triple bottom line accounting another.
My book, VISION 3000, talks about the trends of where we are going as a global society and builds on many of the model sources you have mentioned and others, such as the Spiral Dynamics model based on the work Graves and extended by Wilbur.
Socially, this is a long-term evolution, but I see positive effects from understanding these complex, fractal movements in my day-to-day business dealings. VisionBuild Author Services helps transformational leaders get published. Thank you for helping to move the consciousness forward.
In my view, it is very rare for a business leader to become Transcedent leader unless they become philonthrophist or otherway to serve the society. Transcedent leadership needs devotion to his public welfare goals.
It is very impressive to read through the examples of level 4,5 & 6.
I would consider the business leader Mr. Bill Gates alone as a Trancedent leader. Any comments??.
I find that the majority 95+ % are level 2 & 3, I have never met a 5 or 6 occupying a +800m mkt. cap company (I have in smaller companies, but they never get off the ground). In my own search for directors I have had the opportunity to interview ceo's & directors from many public companies ranging from 20m-5.4B mkt caps.
The majority of these "leaders" are very self-serving, greedy, financially illiterate, and are like little babies. A segment of that category like to travel to exotic locations, stay at 5 star hotels act like they are master of the universe commanding pre revenue companies with very little or no equity in the business, on the shareholders dime.
Most have no idea what governance or true leadership is. It shocked me until I realized that the majority of these "leaders" are really just middle managers taking orders from shadowy chairmen that refrain from the spotlight and use the company to line their own pockets, or worse use the company as a scape goat for financing other businesses. Most of these leaders, be it CEO's or chairmen merely were the last person standing or had their PA's type up their resume and submit it to an executive recruiter. There is just no commitment to the company or the shareholders, and I am only speaking of public companies not private. But one has to look at the big picture, the statistics say a CEO's typical term is 24 months and 70% of them are fired. If you knew that you had a very high chance of getting ousted, be it performance or politics, wouldn't you take as much as fast as you can, push the company debt so your top line can grow (and your comp)? Stability, caution, total
disregard for others be damned. Carly Fiorina is a perfect example. It's like laying off 100% of your workforce just so you can have a killer Q.
I think that these top level archetypes are only produced when they start as a founder or came into the position as a turnaround guy. All of the level 6 leaders are political, and are not applicable to business, no shareholder would want 0 or negative ROI in smaller sub billion dollar revenue companies for substitution of green anything if it cuts into the bottom line and if they don't have to or it's goodwill will not return value. Martin Luther King Jr. & Mandela are basically speech writers and orators, look at South Africa pre and post apartheid using primarily stability and financials as metrics. Was it perfect? No. World's greatest leader? Dubious. But I am looking short term so...
I think that a lot of the "value" of these level four people is that they micromanage, more with less, and just out work by shear hours everyone else. Is that leadership? No. The real problem with L4 is that the boards of directors are filled with these types of people. I met ceo's who travel 11 months out of the year, get 400-600 emails a day and work till 11pm at night, who's shares never go anywhere, and if they are revenue based don't grow but simply stagnate, and they keep going back to market to get more equity.
In terms of level 5, most of these people started 20-30+ years ago, which to me is not applicable in this day and age. If I were to pitch an investor base in North America (public or private), and say we are building long term value over the 10-30 yr period, there would never be a realization of that idea into equity. Ever. In any scenario, in any industry. Everyone's time horizon is short term, and why would that be different on the leadership side?
Which begs the question of the relevence in typecasting people as being in one of more of these categories - our most extreme examples hardly make the case.
First, the Level 5 Leadership model by Collins is a sequential model. Individuals must proceed sequentially through each level of the leadership hierarchy to reach Level 5, and Level 5 leaders must have the characteristics of Levels 1-4 plus Level 5. The Level VI model appears not to be sequential. Individuals can lead from any of the various levels, though most individuals are theorized to have a predominant style.
Second, the Level 5 model was developed by first identifying 11 companies that had a unique pattern of suddenly escalating stock returns. Analyses of the CEOs at the helm when the returns transitioned from average to above average revealed that each had a distinct pattern of leadership, consisting of modesty and will (Collins, 2001).The Level VI model, unlike the Level 5 model, does not rely solely on company performance or traditional business leadership data, but instead aims to provide a theoretical framework for leadership in any arena based on whom the leader is serving.
In most of the examples that you have stated, it can be interpreted that leaders were always conscious of where they belong and what they did. With this kind of study we can be conscious of our portfolio mix that helps us become better leaders of tomorrow
I would imagine that ranking can best be done by others, so a self assessment would not be something I would ask for. Wouldn't the self-ranking be inverse to the ranking by others? Isn't that what Jim Collins tries to tell us in his book 'Good to Great'?
I have two additional thoughts.
Is it true that leadership is an attribute of managers (CxOs) only? I like to think leadership can also characterise non-managers, professionals, civilians and even kids. Like Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development.
The second thouht is that I assume that not everyone can be at level 6, 5 or even 4; even stronger, wouldn't it be enough to have only a small 'critical mass' in an organization / society / community to speak of 'civilization'? Just like only 30% of a population needs to be vaccinated to prevent an epidemic?
Combining both thoughts, I am interested if anything can be said about an ideal mix for a company to prosper...
Thanks again,
Ron van den Burg
Employee of Logica
If not, it is just socialism
Listening to the BBC Reith Lectures by Aung San Suu Kyi last week on "Securing Freedom" it underscores the personal sacrifice paid by all freedom fighters a fact that Mandela himself expounds in his "Conversations with Myself". Why is it that so many other freedom fighters have failed to attain a transcendental status by staying the course especially after they become "free" and taste the rewards of freedom?
The answer as provided by Mitch lies in the "portfolio mix over time". Yesterday's freedom fighter is sometimes today's looter ,plunderer of national resources, corrupt and perpetrator of human rights abuses.
In Indian context, the name of ex Infosys Chairman, NR Narayanan Murthy comes to mind as the closest who has probably reached level 6. If this is such a rarity, are there any ways that more such leaders can be spotted early and encouraged to grow instead of being left behind by level four leaders?
I tried assessing myself to see what level I was in. Interesting.
Besting to do know is to know how to get to level 6.
How can I be an achiever and transcendent at the same time?
The good thing is, none of them is a level-one leader.
The not-so-good thing is that they happen to lead the biggest company on earth: USA.
But it is important to avoid placing people into boxes (saying that "so and so" is a level x), because one's own knowledge and prejudice is at work in doing so.
As long as humans are doing the judging, the process will be flawed and the output suspect.
One could propose a grid of individual and collective axis that a leader crosses on the journey to transcendence.
As I prefer to say it is not who you may be but who you become in the journey of life that matters.Who are you becoming?
Not only will others see us differently than we see ourselves (since they can't see our motivations, and many of our actions will be invisible to most of them); but we ourselves will likely overlook some actions and think of extenuating circumstances for others, over- or under-stating our "level".
And given such a validated assessment, as a CEO I want to know: What do I DO with this self-knowledge? Run for office? Found a religion? Resign and retire before I do real harm to my company?
And, for that matter, what do I do with similar knowledge about other leaders?
First and foremost, thanks to all of you who took the time to digest and respond to my Level-Six leadership article and for your words of encouragement. I am impressed with the quality and quantity of responses that the article and its comments have generated. It seems that the article struck a chord! In this note, I will do my best to respond to the main themes and topics that I have extracted from the reader's comments.
Comparisons to other models
Several individuals have asked me to compare and contrast the Level-Six model with other models, including Joiner and Josephs' Leadership Agility and Collins' Level 5 Leadership. The Level-Six model is distinct from these other two and others in that it is a classification model whereas the others are developmental models. The Level-Six model classifies leaders based on their intent, allowing that individuals can simultaneously operate at various levels. The Level-Six model recognizes that while leaders have a predominant purpose they nonetheless vary (intentionally and unintentionally) as the focus of their service changes within and across situations. Moreover, the Level-Six model contends that individuals do not need to "master" lower levels of leadership in order to successfully execute higher levels (e.g. you don't master "sociopathy" to move on to "transcendence"). The levels in the other two models represent progressive developmental stage
s or stages of mastery individuals undergo in leadership development that operate like "climbing the rungs of a ladder" (Joiner and Josephs, 2007, p. 200).
Questions about the Level-Six model
A handful of readers have asked specific questions about the Level-Six model, such as "do some businesses and organizations, by their very nature, require more of one leadership type than the other?" "is this model applicable to young leaders and the change in styles throughout the working lifetime?" and "how do you account for people changing?" First, I do expect that different businesses and organizations, as well as different leadership positions within an organization, recognize and reward the six levels of leadership differently. It is possible, however, to lead from any level in any organization or position. Second, most individuals do, evolve in their leadership profiles over the course of their lifetimes, though the Level-Six model is certainly applicable to young leaders. For example, work by psychologists such as Erik Erickson, Dan McAdams, and Abigail Stewart has shown that, in the U.S., a typical adult's concern for and commitment to
the next generation increases as individual move into middle and middle-to-late adulthood. The focus of who one serves as a leader will also vary based on his or her personal values and attitudes, organizational and cultural norms, personality, context and the leadership task at hand (just to name a few).
Requests for Assessment
Several readers asked if I have a Level-Six assessment prepared. Good news. An assessment is in the works. In about six months I anticipate having an initial assessment. A fully-validated measure we expect to be ready in about a year. For additional information on the Center for Leadership and any current projects, visit lead.fiu.edu.
Again, thank you for your responses. They will inform and strengthen the full-length article that I am now working on.
thanks so much!
Please see comment number 57 which addresses your suggestion. An assessment to is on the way! Stay tuned!
A factor lightly referenced in the article is time. Our decision making process will likely change as we age and mature. However the true impact of our decisions, the following results, may not be witnessed for decades, generations or lifetimes. I believe that research will support that a leader's level closely corresponds to how far the look in making their decisions.
Play for Eternity.
By example, were Mark Hurd and Carly Fiorina really Achievers for Hewlett Packard [HP] or will hindsight really show their true colors? I suspect that the next ten years [as the once-great HP falls apart] will show that these two HP CEO's should be downgraded to Level Two: Opportunists.
I suspect also that the lens of time might also promote some leaders whose vision and actions during their term may have unfairly defined them at levels beneath their true greatness. Jimmy Carter comes to mind, here.
We need this next article using retrospect because Wall Street is causing too many of us to think that the banner of great leadership should be assigned to those who deliver quick profits. We need your prestige and this fine journal to show that this is not so.
Of course this begs the fact that it is critical that we have an election process which maximizes our ability to pick political leaders who operate at these higher levels, not only in word but deed. In this light it is clear why the Citizens United decision and our media conglomerates are corrupting in that they allow the level IV's to influence our choice of leaders.
As a long term consultant, but with 22 years in parish ministry and seminary teaching, I find the emphasis upon "servant leadership" to be profoundly faddish and ill-informed. Too often it results in smarmy, "religious" behaviors that disguise the real issues.
Not to be confused with psychopath most of whom are organisationally impotent and never discovered in their day job! In fact this is the only group who are truly the product of leadership which, in the real human world, is always genetically and uncontrollably self serving.
This article is somewhat a confirmation for some individual out there, striving harder and smarter to achieve these three levels going up to trancendence.
The current economic predicament(chaos) in the Eurozone has a lot to do with chameleon leaders who in my opinion do not lead but seek to remain in power at all costs following any populist ideology.
I find that Nelson Mandela is over used as an exemplar or Leadership. We need new and fresh examples.