The Alignment Model of Leadership

What's leadership really all about?

Here's what I believe: Leadership is about inspiring people to align their self-interest with the shared purpose of the group.

I like this definition because it's both flexible and realistic. There's no moral dimension, so we can use it to describe the leadership capabilities of things and people we don't agree with: historical villains, competitors and enemies. It's also non-committal about the methods and materials, so it can be applied to Linus Torvalds just as easily as it can be Steve Jobs.

And it has a nice visual metaphor. Think of it is this way: Under this definition, a leader's influence on a group is a bit like a magnet over a piece of metal. Outside of the magnet's influence, the ions in the metal are unorganized.

But under the influence of the magnet, the ions are aligned. They all point the same way.

Just like with people, every individual has an "arrow" of self-interest that dictates their attitudes and actions. When these arrows aren't aligned, there may be superficial cooperation, but the "deep" goals of the individual will inevitably come into conflict with the group's efforts.

Think about it. You work hard for a bonus, because it's in your self-interest.

But then, you hear a rumor that bonuses are off the table and layoffs may be coming. So, now your priorities have shifted from furthering the interests of the group to survival. The ions are unaligned. The organization is weakened - now it doesn't stand a chance.

And that's only natural and right. After all, who really acts against their own self-interest? That's right: Nobody.

That is - until the leader steps in and reminds everyone that while bonuses may be off the table, there's a real chance we could pivot a weak year into a great next year (read: with bonuses!) as long as we direct our efforts appropriately.

See what the function of the leader is? Aligning the individual's self-interest with that of the group. Now, everyone is pointing in the same direction and the group is steadily marching forward, because the powerful force of everyone's collective self-interest is behind it.

But is this still a bit too abstract? How does a leader actually produce alignment?

Here are some common tactics:

1. Task Logic: An appeal to logic that a course of action is likely to result in success. In highly technical environments, this is perhaps the only appropriate approach, but it has some drawbacks. It generates alignment at the task level rather than at a deeper organizational level, and requires the leader to solution the problem. That makes it difficult to scale.
2. Threat: "It is in your best interest to align your efforts to the shared purpose, because I will punish you if you don't." This is very commonplace (and in truth undergirds most employment relationships), but the alignment is conditional on the perception of the leader's vigilance (when the cat's away...), and is ultimately superficial in nature. And - let's just be honest - it makes people feel bad and demonstrates a lack of finesse.
3. Reward: "It is in your best interest to align your efforts to the shared purpose, because I will reward you if we succeed." This method has more in common with threat method then you'd think - the alignment it produces is superficial in nature and is conditional on whether the individual believes and receives the reward.
4. Highlighting: This means reminding the individual that their interest is indeed aligned with the shared goal in some way. For example: "If we meet our revenue goals, we will have proven the value of your skills to the market". This method results in deeper alignment, because the individual feels that contributing to the shared purpose also genuinely furthers their own interests.
5. Inspiring: This aligns the individual with the shared purpose by appealing to higher principles and values. To the extent that the individual shares these values, and the extent that the share purpose align with them, this is a powerful and deep leadership method that produces an enduring attachment to the group's shared purpose. For example: "We're here to improve people's lives by offering X to Y".

Perversions of Leadership

While this definition of leadership doesn't have a moral dimension, it can certainly describe leadership tactics that are less than morally ideal.

1. Cultic Leadership: The leader sets themselves up as the shared purpose of the group. This is what you would call a cult - although interestingly we have positive examples of "cultic" leadership in historical settings - the devotion of a knight to a Lord or Lady, for example.
2. Purpose Misdirection: The leader advertises individual efforts as benefiting the purpose X, which in truth the real purpose is to benefit Y. This is what you would call "conman" leadership, but again we have a (debatably) positive example in shareholder capitalism - the very engine of economic growth, whose complete modus operandi is to advertise that the intended beneficiary is primarily the consumer rather than primarly the shareholder. And yet still, we all benefit.
3. Pollyanna Leadership: The leader falsely promises that everyone will be rewarded and that success is assured. The problem is that this is rarely true - and the more perceptive employees will see through it.

Summary

Leaders are part of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they can inspire others to align their self-interest with the group interest, then the group is more likely to succeed. When the group succeeds, everyone wins. And then the individual's self-interest was in fact aligned with the group! See how that works? It's the group version of "life's what you make it".

There are plenty of dark or gray patterns that may (if we're being honest) work for a while, but I believe that simply reminding people that it is in their best interest to work well and work together is a powerful way for everyone to win.