Revisiting ClintonThis is part 2 of our series about the Leadership Mindset. In part 1, we described the four essential elements of leadership. We introduced the former US president Bill Clinton who gave a most concise and yet comprehensive description. “Leaders”, Clinton said, “need to … clearly articulate a vision of where they want to go”. 

The First Four ElementsTaking Clinton’s definition, we can distinguish four main elements in leadership:

1. VisionClearly articulating and uplifting view of the future.
2. PlanningDeveloping a realistic strategy.
3. EngagementAttracting talented and committed people.
4. ResilienceResponding effectively to unforeseen problems.

Passion, vision and missionSo let’s focus on the element of Vision first. It’s obvious to most of us, that to lead people anywhere, the minimum requirement is that you have to know where you want to go. But where does that vision of a better world come from? The concept of Vision is related to three other concepts: passion, mission and personal history. Someone’s passion is what they really enjoy doing. Their passion is what they love so much, they may forget to eat or even go to the bathroom when they are doing it. Their vision is an image of an ideal world in terms of what they are producing with their organisation. In the early 80’s, Microsoft’s Bill Gates’ vision was ‘A computer on every desk and in every home’. At the time this was an ideal that was considered impossible by many. Today we not only have a computer on our desk but in our pocket as well. Ideally the vision is connected to someone’s passion. Their passion energizes their vision.Someone’s mission is what they – themselves or their company or their group – want to contribute to bringing that vision, that ideal, closer to reality. Their mission is the role they want to play in making the vision come true. Here we can see that awareness of your vision is very helpful in understanding your mission. In a sense, your mission is your vision put into practise.And then there is your personal history. Experiences that have formed you. From your personal history you bring skills, attitudes and interests that are part of your leadership style. The director of our local soup factory, here in Nijmegen, once told me: “I was lucky in that I liked soccer. My predecessor liked golf, so he couldn’t talk about his hobby with the workers. But I could always connect with them talking about the latest soccer matches, especially the ones of the local club”.A great example of ‘envisioning’ is offered by the famous British entrepreneur Richard Branson. When thinking about a new company, Branson asks himself one simple question: “How will this product make people’s lives better?” Then, in his mind’s eye, he takes a blank canvas and he starts painting a picture of the new company and what it does. 

Envisioning in MindSonar termsMindSonar measure mindsets. Where do we see vision, or the lack of it, in a MindSonar profile? How does this leadership quality translate to meta programs (thinking style elements) and Graves drives (value types)? ‘Future’ and ‘Towards’ thinkingIn terms of meta programs (thinking styles) crucial elements in vision are future and towards thinking. To be able to communicate a vision, the leader needs to not only look to the future but also decide that they sincerely want to move towards that future, rather than what they want to move away from. They need to set a direction based on where they do want to go. The sincerity of their wanting to move towards a certain better world, depends on the connection with their passion and their personal history.

A good example of the leadership effects of towards versus away from thinking, is the Brexit drama in the UK. The ‘brexiteers’ were, broadly speaking, glorifying the – as i turns out pretty much impossible – restoration of the British Empire and all the great things that would that result from it: freedom, pride, prosperity and safety. Mostly a strong towards orientation. The ‘remainers’, those who wanted to stay in the European Union, were talking about problems that might arise from the Brexit, things that they wanted move to away from: losing European markets, being in violation of international law and being isolated. Part of the reason why the brexiteers won, is the fact that their towards arguments carried a more positive sentiment with them. There were plenty of exceptions on both sides. But the trend was clear, and the Brexiteers won. To the detriment of those who voted for them, but nevertheless, they won. This same effective towards orientation is recognisable in many populist movements. ‘Matching’ thinkingAnd of course a leader needs a positive, enthusiastic feeling that they can communicate when talking about the vision. That feeling can only come from a focus on what is good, safe and just (meta program matching), not from a focus what is bad, dangerous and unjust (meta program mismatching). Matching, therefore, is another important prerequisite for presenting a strong and resonating vision.‘Kinesthetic’ thinkingIn terms of sensory modalities (seeing, hearing and feeling) the uplifting vision is a mix of visual (image) but also kinesthetic (feeling) experiences. The visionary leader cannot communicate their vision purely rationally. They have to bring it to life with feeling.

‘Internal reference’ thinkingAn obvious aspect that we haven’t discussed yet, is believing in your vision. It almost goes without saying, that a leader needs to believe in the better world they want to create. So here they would need internal reference as a thinking style. Internal reference means: I believe in my own criteria; I believe I am right. The opposite is external reference: I believe in your criteria; you tell me what’s right. You will most probably agree with me, that ‘You tell me what is right’ does not support presenting a resonating vision…‘Internal locus of control’ thinkingAnother important aspect is internal locus of control, meaning: I believe that I can make things happen, I believe that I have a significant influence. I see myself more as a cause than an effect. The opposite, external locus of control, means: I don’t think I have much influence. I see myself more as an effect than a cause. Of course, a leader needs a strong internal locus of control. If they don’t believe their actions will make a difference, it’s not logical to lead anywhere. The most you can say about an ideal world from an external locus of control is: it would be great if it would happen, but it’s out of our hands, we’ll have to wait and hope for the best.Vision BenchmarkSo, in terms of what we can measure with MindSonar, we are looking for:

1. Future thinking
2. Towards thinking
3. Matching thinking
4. A lot of visual thinking
5. Some kinesthetic thinking
6. Internal reference thinking
7. Internal locus of control thinking

These seven thinking style elements are the first seven elements of a benchmark profile for the Leadership Mindset. We can compare any MindSonar profile with this benchmark and look at similarities and differences between an individual’s profile and this benchmark.

So far, we have taken only vision into account. In the next articles in this series, we will be adding the meta programs for the other three elements: strategy, engagement and resilience.

To add ranges to our vision benchmark, let’s say:

1. Future thinking > 6 – 9 points
2. Towards thinking > 6 – 9 points
3. Matching thinking > 6 -9 points
4. A lot of visual thinking > 6 – 8 points
5. Some kinesthetic thinking > At least 2 points
6. Internal reference thinking > 6 – 9 points
7. Internal locus of control thinking > 6 – 9 points

Leadership AuditWith this benchmark, focussing on vision only and disregarding the other three elements for now, we can do a first leadership audit. We can take any MindSonar profile for the context of ‘Leading X’ and then compare it with our vision benchmark. We can look at the similarities and differences to help us decide how strong the vision element in somebody’s leadership is, and even: how it might be improved..

The profile below describes Jonas’ thinking style for the context of ‘Being VeganMarket Director’. Jonas is founder and director of ‘VeganMarket’ (not the real name). They buy local produce and other vegan products and sell them through a website. Their claim to fame is a city wide fleet of cargo bikes with their logo on the carrier baskets. Jonas is wondering: ‘Am I cut out to be a leader?’ He started the company more or less as a hobby. Now they have 40 employees. Jonas sometimes feels out of his depth. He reports a whole series of obstacles he experiences leading VeganMarket.

When we check Jonas’ profile against our vision benchmark, we see the following matches and mismatches:

1. Future thinking > 6 – 9 points = a mismatch with Jonas’ profile, although it is failry close.
2. Towards thinking > 6 – 9 points = good
3. Matching thinking > 6 -9 points = good
4. A lot of visual thinking > 6 – 8 points = a mismatch with Jonas’ profile
5. Some kinesthetic thinking > At least 2 points = a mismatch with Jonas’ profile
6. Internal reference thinking > 6 – 9 points = a mismatch with Jonas’ profile
7. Internal locus of control thinking > 6 – 9 points = goodSo in order to be a more visionary leader, Jonas could
   • Develop a stronger focus on the future and what he wants the future of VeganMarket to be.
   • Create more internal images and movies about the ideal world he wants to bring closer through VeganMarket.
   • Develop a stronger feeling of enthusiasm about the vision.
   • Strengthen the idea that he is right about the future and the possibilities of VeganMarket.

How he could develop that is a matter of motivation and coaching. But with this benchmark at hand a MindSonar Professional will have a pretty good idea of where to focus.

This concludes our second article on the Leadership Mindset. Next stop: strategy.

On to the benchmark!This is part four of our series on the Leadership Mindset.

In the first article we discussed the four essential elements of leadership. We started from a compact, yet complete definition by Bill Clinton.

In the second article we constructed a vision benchmark defining the meta programs that make up the working parts of ‘envisioning’ so to speak.

In the third article, we were looking into the second element: strategy, with Toyota and Martin Luther King as great examples.

In this fourth article we will construct a benchmark for strategic thinking. What are the nuts and bolts? What are the thinking style elements that together make up strategic thinking? And where can we see those in a MindSonar profile?

Strategy in MindSonar terms In the last article we saw that a leader needs both vision and strategy. Vision without strategy is just a dream, a fantasy. You wake up and you think: ‘Too bad life isn’t like that’. Strategy without a dream is like running your motor at top speed, but not – really – knowing where you want to go.  

What is strategy, expressed in the meta programs that MindSonar measures? We said that a good, realistic strategy

1. Is a sequence of steps that brings the envisioned world 
2. Addresses practical limitations
3. Considers possible dangers
4. Specifies actions for each step

When we are talking about considering limitations, we are talking about the thinking style element of mismatching: thinking about what is wrong with an idea.

When it comes to considering dangers, we are talking about the meta program away from: focusing on what you don’t want to happen.Practical actions to execute steps are expressions of the meta programs specific. There is also a pitfall though: if the leader becomes involved in the specific details too much, they may get lost in micromanaging and lose sight of the bigger vision. Or even of the general sequence of the strategy. Here, the specific style of thinking needs to be balanced by enough general thinking. Martin Luther King, for instance, talks about “With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together”. These actions are a lot more specific than just ‘we will struggle together’. On the other hand, they aren’t micro specific like ‘We will pray together in the National Baptist Convention Church on St Marks Avenue in Brooklyn next Tuesday at 4 o’clock in the afternoon’.

In strategic planning the pathway towards the ‘common cause’ is laid out. Steps are distinguished. Alternative scenarios are defined. All this is more specific than the single direction that the vision describes. But from a leadership perspective, strategic planning is still fairly general, although not as general as a vision. Often three levels of specificity are distinguished in strategic planning:

ValuesValues describe how you do what you do. They are intimately linked to the vision. They define the organisation’s culture. The strategic aspect of values is that they define in broad terms how you want to go about realising the mission. Toyota’s official values for instance,  are: imagination, experimentation, humility, respect and innovation.

ObjectivesAn objective is a goal that will help actualise a value. Objectives are specific and preferably contain a deadline. Rule of thumb: for an objective the deadline is one year or more. An example of an objective is Toyota’s goal to establish factories in the USA.

ProjectsAn objective usually contains several projects. A project is a specific activity that will achieve the objective. Leaders tend to focus on objectives more than on projects. In the Toyota example this would be defining the right location for the factory, contacting a builder, setting up the production line, and so on.

Here too, there are balances. On the one hand the leader needs to be able to consider specifics when planning, in order to keep things realistic. On the other hand, they need to stay focused on the larger vision. A great example of a leader alternating between general and specific thinking is Barack Obama. In his famous speeches he will often talk about some very specific details, like mentioning a 104 year old black lady and all the specific black liberation events she has witnessed in her lifetime. Within minutes in the same speech, he will refer to a very general vision, like the US as a place for all citizens to realise their potential.

In MindSonar, a two-sided meta program is procedure versus options. On the one hand the leader needs to think in a procedural way when they are developing the strategy. on the other hand they want to keep perceiving new options. This is necessary to ‘respond to unforeseen opportunities when they arise’ (Clinton). Strategy Benchmark

So in terms of what we can measure with MindSonar, what are we looking for in strategic planning?

1. General thinking (Planning the pathway forwards in broad terms)
2. Some specific thinking (Keeping the strategy realistic)
3. A lot off towards thinking (Planning the pathway towards realising the mission)
4. Some mismatching thinking (To asses limitations)
5. Some away from thinking (To identify dangers)

So far, we had only taken the vision into account (in the first article) and now we are adding the strategy. In the next two articles we will refine our benchmark by adding the meta programs for the other two elements of the big four: engagement and resilience.

To add ranges to our strategy  benchmark, let’s say:

1. General thinking > 7 – 9 points
2. Some specific thinking > At least 2 points
3. A lot off towards thinking > 7 – 9 points
4. Some mismatching thinking > At least 2 points
5. Some away from thinking > At least 2 points

Leadership audit part 2: StrategyWith this benchmark, focussing on strategy only and disregarding the other three elements for now, we can do another leadership audit. We can take any MindSonar profile for the context of ‘Leading X’ and compare it with our strategy benchmark. We can look at the similarities and differences to help us decide to what extent someone shows the strategy aspect of the leadership mindset.

TheMindSonar profile below is the same as the one in article 1: Jonas’ thinking style for the context of ‘Being VeganMarket Director’. This time we will look at his profile through the strategy benchmark lense.

When we check Jonas’ profile against our strategy benchmark, we see the following matches and mismatches:

• General thinking > 7 – 10 points = Good (almost)
• Some specific thinking > At least 2 points = Good
• A lot off towards thinking > 7 – 10 points =Good
• Some mismatching thinking > At least 2 points = Good

From this audit we may conclude that Jonas has the right mindset for strategic thinking. As we can see from these two audits, Jonas’s challenges as a leader lie more in the area of vision than the area of strategy. So if we were coaching or mentoring Jonas, we would focus on vision and we would assume that he will do okay with strategy.

Combined Leadership Mindset BenchmarkWhen we combine the vision benchmark with the strategy benchmark, we arrive at this combination:

Vision

• Future thinking > 7 – 9 points
• Towards thinking > 7 – 9 points
• Matching thinking > 7 -9 points
• Visual thinking > 6 -9 points
• Some kinesthetic thinking > At least 2 points
• Internal reference thinking > 7 – 9 points
• Internal locus of control thinking > 7 – 9 points

Strategy

• General thinking > 7 – 9 points
• Some specific thinking > At least 2 points
• Towards thinking > 7 – 9 points
• Some mismatching thinking > At least 2 points

This concludes the fourth article on the Leadership Mindset. Next stop: engagement.