Disturbance To The Status-quo
Leaders influence movement to advantage
A leader is a person who can influence people to do things that they would not have done otherwise. Put another way, but for the influence of the leader, the things done by his followers would not happen. The leader is the agent, the impetus and the proximate cause of his followers’ movement toward the doing of those specific things that he identifies as advantageous. Without him, they would remain static and focused on maintaining the status quo. In the heart of man inertia will reign—absent a Disruption .
The connection between movement and leadership is critical because it presupposes a need for action, a recognition by the leader himself that the status quo is something less advantageous than some other place, a location the leader visualizes and then articulates to his followers. Only then can the leader begin to persuade them to follow him to the new place. He must describe it to them first because people will only overcome their inertia and follow someone if they believe that he knows where he is going. They won’t leave the known for the unknown, no matter how charismatic the leader is.
Because it induces movement, leadership causes Disruption
1 John 2:15-17
The culture denatures words to uselessness
Take the word accountability as an example. If you look that word up in the dictionary you will find some form of the following definition: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions. That definition, while technically accurate, isn’t very useful in advantage-seeking because it doesn’t tell you how you do it.
Moreover, the culture has further maligned the word into full-blown uselessness. Very smart people routinely say things like “yup, this is the year I start holding myself accountable.” While that may sound good, it’s actually a useless statement because nobody can hold themselves accountable. If that were possible, the word accountability would not need to exist because the concept ofaccountability would be unnecessary—we would all just lead ourselves down the virtuous path through our own self-will. But we can’t, at least not enough of the time to render the world free of the problems that the concept of accountability arose to address in the first place.
As a result, for the purpose of the Language of effective leadership, the word accountability has been denatured by the culture and rendered useless. Which is not good, because the concept of accountability is inexpressibly important to the skill of leadership. Without accountability, leaders cannot influence movement to advantage.