Leading from the Middle

When I visited a sheep farm near the University of Latvia’s conference center, Ratnieki, my eye was drawn to this sign up in the barn rafters. It asks, in Latvian, “Who here is not a sheep?”
No doubt, there’s some bucolic humor that eludes me, but the sign triggered my taking a picture or two of untypical sheep, in the background, not going along to get along.


Caption: Not us!
It’s one of the slides I used in last week’s webinar (recorded).
My purpose was to introduce a dose of skepticism to the many management theories and concepts that all too often are presented as gospel, even by agnostics like me.
Now, I am partial to Robert E. Kelley’s follower theories.
To me, Kelley’s followers taxonomy conforms to the at large demographic of the American workplaces. There are few if any not touched by his theory.
Kelley’s chart is bounded on the top by independent critical thinking and on the bottom by dependent uncritical thinking. On the sides, Kelley assigns a passive or active orientation toward taking steps, moving forward, or not. Very briefly, Kelley’s effective followers (aka “Stars” or “sparkplugs”) manage themselves well and they are leaders in their own right. They require little supervision. And, they are committed to the organization and to a purpose or person outside themselves.
Then there are the aforementioned Sheep – passive, dependent thinkers. But, as the above picture suggests, not all sheep are sheep-like followers. The two in the back have baleful disdain written all over their faces.
They are above this scrum behavior; they have some pride! These two may even be independent thinking and action-taking sheep! So, there’s hope that followers can shift from passive to active, from passively waiting to be told to taking action; that’s my point. Even “Yes people” - dependent thinkers - fearful of standing up to the boss can become like the young man in Wodehouse’s classic story, The Nodder. The young man - in love - is fired and then rehired for his independence and that he knows too much about corporate shenanigans. The worm turns!
The one group of followers with the greatest promise (given a quintessential supportive and encouraging organizational climate) is the one in the middle of Kelley’s chart: Survivors/Pragmatists – somewhat independent, somewhat active – but neither “deadwood” nor incompetent. They keep a low profile and do their job. In my experience, Survivors include some very good librarians, potentially effective followers and leaders. In any business you will need to win over the Survivors to counter the highly articulate alienated followers, opposed to the effective follower and inertia’s champion. Remember, the alienated are very good at stampeding Sheep.
I always conclude my talk about followers with a question, “Where are you on this chart?” I let this question hang for a few moments before plowing ahead.
Let me be so bold as to suggest something similar for your next staff meeting. Ask yourself, “Who is not a sheep here?”

Leading from the Middle Library of the week:
George Fox University, 
Murdock Learning Resource Center, Newberg, Oregon, USA

Real Deal: Order your library a copy of Leading from the Middle from the publisher, ABC-Clio, half off!

@Copyright John Lubans 2014

Caption: Fox, yessing Lion.
“THE LION, the Fox and the Ass entered into an agreement to assist each other in the chase. Having secured a large booty, the Lion on their return from the forest asked the Ass to allot his due portion to each of the three partners in the treaty. The Ass carefully divided the spoil into three equal shares and modestly requested the two others to make the first choice. The Lion, bursting out into a great rage, devoured the Ass. Then he requested the Fox to do him the favor to make a division. The Fox accumulated all that they had killed into one large heap and left to himself the smallest possible morsel. The Lion said, 'Who has taught you, my very excellent fellow, the art of division? You are perfect to a fraction.' He replied, 'I learned it from the Ass, by witnessing his fate.'”
“Happy is the man who learns from the misfortunes of others.”

The vegetarian ass is in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You may be wondering, what does this have to do with the work place? Like the fox, we observe what occurs to others. If someone speaks the truth to the boss, what happens? If the leader reacts harshly – like scapegoating the questioner – then those observing know they’re at risk, too. How many organizations lose healthy and constructive debate because of a fear among participants of negative reaction. How often does the seemingly unified view carry and result in poor decisions? There’s evidence that when like minded people agree to do something, they are likely to go with the extreme view, the worst possible decision; hence the need for a diverse perspectives. The only way to get that is through a clement organizational climate, one that encourages constructive dissent. That’s the only way, as honeybee researcher Tom Seeley puts it, to “aggregate the group’s knowledge through debate.” He’s been able to put his observations about bee behavior to good use as a department chair at Cornell.

*Source: AESOP'S FABLES By Aesop Translated by George Fyler Townsend (probably from this edition): “Three hundred and fifty Aesop's fables”. Chicago, Belford, Clarke & Co., 1886.
Available at Gutenberg.

@Copyright John Lubans 2014

Missing a bus took me back to a long-ago decision, one I’d think twice about making now.
I was hurrying to catch a bus in Riga so I could get to my class; the bus came to a stop, doors opened, but I was still 30 yards away. I waved my hand to signal the driver. Nope, the doors closed and it pulled away. Not a big deal since my route had busses every five minutes. But, what bothered me was that the driver’s ignoring me was hardly unique. I’d seen it happen multiple times – to the young or old, disabled or enabled, the bus swinging away from the curb with no looking back. Why?
In NYC, on my usual route on Broadway between 59th and 123rd St., I’ve seen bus drivers wait for regular riders. Drivers keep an eye out for regulars and others, including befuddled tourists like me. And, if they see someone mid-block, running to catch their bus, they’ll wait a half-minute. Also, as a tourist, I’ve had the bus driver tell me when my stop was coming up, even on busses bursting with people.
What’s the difference between NYC and Riga busses? In Riga, the drivers are encapsulated, isolated. You can see them through the translucent walls, but otherwise, contact, except to pay a cash fare, is non-existent. If you want to ask a question you need to bend down and talk through the money/ticket slot. In NYC, the driver is pretty much out in the open, only partially shielded from passengers. The drivers do not sell tickets or make change; you get on with exact change or with a ticket. If you do not have change or a ticket, and can’t get someone on the bus to help you out, you get off at the next stop. (That’s not always the case; I’ve witnessed a trio of homeless guys get on and then get off a mile down the road – an act of kindness by the driver is the way I saw it.) You can ask the driver questions. If you are polite with the driver, most of the time she or he will reciprocate with kindness. That was not always the case in NYC; decades ago I experienced some of the vilest customer service imaginable. The incivility stopped after a mandatory training initiative on the heels of the city’s near bankruptcy.
Driving a NYC bus is hard work. Drivers have to put up with some wacked-out – dangerous at times - behaving passengers along with the horn-honking and gesticulating drivers jockeying for scarce road space.
But, as you get on or off the bus, there is a human connection, however brief. It’s a visual and verbal connect between the driver and you – I always greet the driver getting on, and I say thank you when I get off. That human connection is why the NYC driver looks out for you. In Riga, the bus drives off even if you shout or wave within ten yards of the bus. I suspect the physical barrier to any communication between the driver and the passenger creates this rude oblivion, akin to the widespread isolation induced by social media.
OK, what does this have to do with my long ago decision?
Well, as I thought about the bus driver’s behavior, it brought to mind my decision to phase out a library guard position – the man who sat at the exit door and examined bags and satchels as people left the building. We’d gotten an electronic security system that scanned bags and so the guard now appeared, in my mind, redundant and superfluous. I concluded we no longer needed a person to look into bags; instead we’d use the money for another job.
What I’d failed to appreciate was the social function of the guard. When people opened their bags he’d always have a word or two to say to them. Often, there was regular conversation between the guard and library users. Also, the lobby was a pleasant space, well lit with clerestory windows and large glass doors along with a lounge like seating space – decorated with a plant or two. This was, at one time, a smoking space when smoking was socially acceptable, indeed encouraged. On the wall across from the guard, there was a portrait of some campus worthy and underneath the painting was the Suggestion/Answer book - on its own stand, a recycled dictionary table. The Suggestion/Answer book was for students and others to write – yes, write with a pen or pencil – their thoughts on library shortcomings and/or to compliment us about service. We read and answered each of the thousands of comments, even the ones of a college humor variety.
That lobby, as I think about it, was a “third place” - neither home nor work, somewhere in between – a gathering place for some of the library regulars – long before the now ubiquitous java shops. I suspect the guard brightened many students’ days, directed hundreds of lost campus visitors, and counseled dozens of doctoral candidates on their day-in and day-out slog. He was concierge and counselor, all in one. I saw some of this, but figured it was not enough of a benefit to counter creating a new position where the need appeared to be greater.
So, I phased out the position.
Looking back from that bus stop in Riga, I should have kept that guard. This one full time guard (the others were student employees) put a friendly and welcoming face on a vast anonymous research library.
Every now and then a comment would appear about him in the S/A book and how much he was missed. These were usually from alums returning to campus for a visit. There was no incrimination in the comment, more a simple understanding of how things change and how some of the good things get left behind. At least the S/A book remained in place for about a decade after I left. But, it is now no more. Someone decided that in this Twitter age pencil and paper were now déclassé.
Let’s never forget the human factor, lest we become like the Riga bus drivers who – no doubt, decent people, fully capable of courtesy and kindness - are denied human interaction through a misguided workspace design.

Note: Tomorrow, April 23, I lead a Special Libraries Association Webinar: “Freedom at Work”.

Get a copy of “Leading from the Middle” at Barnes & Noble.

@Copyright John Lubans 2014

Caption: Illustration (1869) by Joseph M. Kronheim, (1810-1896)
“AN OWL, accustomed to feed at night and to sleep during the day, was greatly disturbed by the noise of a Grasshopper and earnestly besought her to stop chirping. The Grasshopper refused to desist, and chirped louder and louder the more the Owl entreated. When she saw that she could get no redress and that her words were despised, the Owl attacked the chatterer by a stratagem. "Since I cannot sleep," she said, "on account of your song which, believe me, is sweet as the lyre of Apollo, I shall indulge myself in drinking some nectar which Pallas lately gave me. If you do not dislike it, come to me and we will drink it together." The Grasshopper, who was thirsty, and pleased with the praise of her voice, eagerly flew up. The Owl came forth from her hollow, seized her, and put her to death.”

This fable epitomizes how a leader’s patience may wear out and dire consequences result. At the same time, there’s a lesson about bewaring anyone who uses language like, “If you do not dislike”, a certain give-away of double-dealing. But, then the owl, a reasonable creature, gives ample warning.
The fable raises the question, “When does the manager, the parent, the teacher discipline the insubordinate, the fractious, the obstreperous?”
At some point confrontation is the only option and there are life’s lessons to be learned.
The grasshopper is a bit of sad sack in Aesop. First he freezes and starves to death after fiddling away his summer and now he gets gobbled up by an annoyed owl. "Such is life" - the words uttered by Australian bushranger Ned Kelly at his hanging - might apply as well to our dearly departed grasshopper.

*Source: AESOP'S FABLES By Aesop Translated by George Fyler Townsend (probably from this edition): “Three hundred and fifty Aesop's fables”. Chicago, Belford, Clarke & Co., 1886.
Available at Gutenberg:

NOTE: Professor Joseph Janes, chair of the Information School at the University of Washington, writes about “Leading from All Sides” – including leading from the middle – in the March/April 2014 issue of American Libraries magazine, page 18.

NOTE: If you are a member of SLA there’s still time to register for my webinar, “Freedom at Work” on April 23,

@Copyright John Lubans 2014

While preparing for the “Freedom at Work” Webinar on April 23, I’ve been seriously PowerPointing for the first time in my career. I am not a PP fan but that’s what the Webinar runs on, so I have had to crash-learn PP.
But, more importantly, I’ve had to create some new definitions. Teaching, as someone said, is the best way to learn.
One of the words I apply to the democratic Leader is “unboss”. Well, what do I mean by that? It’s a term I first used in my 2006 essay on the conductorless Orpheus Chamber Orchestra. In 2012, a Danish book, “Unboss” was published by two Danish authors with much social media fanfare.
I have yet to see a copy - so do not know if they got the term from me or it is just a matter of great minds thinking alike? Hah!
The chart (scroll down to the bottom of this post) comes from the chapter in Leading from the Middle about the insecure boss I’ve known. What I had to say then applies in many ways to the unboss.
The insecure boss is of course not the unboss. Just the opposite. Nor is the unboss a glass chewing, nail spitting, ass-kicker. That’s not to say the unboss is a milquetoast, afraid to discipline. No, it really is about confidence in one’s judgment and style and in understanding one’s role in developing people and systems.
I’ve developed this short unboss definition as a webinar slide.


Represents the organization
Collaborates in decisions and actions
Works alongside
Waits for others to initiate
Tolerates mistakes
Defends staff
Shares praise; accepts blame
Appreciates urgency and takes the long view
Listens and hears; questions and offers well-considered advice.
Takes the job seriously; self, less so.

And, most mysteriously and paradoxically, is someone, about whom the people exclaim, when the task is done, “We did it ourselves!”

Not too long, I think it captures how an unboss leads his or her organization, including the notion of staff managing self.
Now, can a dyed-in-the-wool Theory X type (“My way or else!”) be an unboss? Very unlikely, because some of our style is who we are; how far have we evolved – and, by that I do mean evolution. If we behave like life is a Darwinian pecking order, then the unboss position is untenable.
Someone with a Theory Y orientation (participatory) should have an easier time of it since many of the unboss “traits” come with the Theory Y personality. Her worldview includes sharing with, kindness toward and respect for others.


Order your library a copy of Leading from the Middle right here.

LfM is cited in the 2012 book, “LIS Career Sourcebook: Managing and Maximizing Every Step of Your Career” by G. Kim Dority:
“For a delightful and insightful book on (followership) see Leading from the Middle by John Lubans.” P. 166. Also, listed with annotation on p. 177.


Caption: Lubans's "toxic boss" benign bumbler etc., taxonomy.

@Copyright John Lubans 2014

Caption: Weighed down with recognition.

“THE WEASELS and the Mice waged a perpetual war with each other, in which much blood was shed. The Weasels were always the victors. The Mice thought that the cause of their frequent defeats was that they had no leaders set apart from the general army to command them, and that they were exposed to dangers from lack of discipline. They therefore chose as leaders Mice that were most renowned for their family descent, strength, and counsel, as well as those most noted for their courage in the fight, so that they might be better marshaled in battle array and formed into troops, regiments, and battalions. When all this was done, and the army disciplined, and the herald Mouse had duly proclaimed war by challenging the Weasels, the newly chosen generals bound their heads with straws, that they might be more conspicuous to all their troops. Scarcely had the battle begun, when a great rout overwhelmed the Mice, who scampered off as fast as they could to their holes. The generals, not being able to get in on account of the ornaments on their heads, were all captured and eaten by the Weasels.
The more honor the more danger.”

I belong to a professional association. Of late, I’ve noticed that the association (made up of numerous divisions and committees) gives out lots of awards. So many that its weekly e-letter includes a regular feature: Awards & Grants! The society itself meets twice a year. Jokingly, I’d say it meets once each year to decide who gets prizes and then it meets again that year to hand out the awards! I know, I know, awards are a form of recognition and that’s good for the ego; sincere recognition does motivate. But, there can be a de-motivating effect when awards become predictable and orchestrated. Fewer awards given over longer periods of time might recapture some of the genuine recognition that true achievement deserves.
Still, unlike the depicted generals, we do not (yet!) have to wear industrial grade suspenders to hold up our pants. Let’s keep it that way.

*Source: AESOP'S FABLES By Aesop Translated by George Fyler Townsend (probably from this edition): “Three hundred and fifty Aesop's fables”. Chicago, Belford, Clarke & Co., 1886.
Available at Gutenberg.

@Copyright John Lubans 2014

Caption: The perception; the reality is far less harrowing.

Not long ago I gave a talk to a large group of department heads about Leading from the Middle. It went fairly well, but one participant, seated as far from me as possible, never let up scowling. Was it me, something I said, or something she ate? I suspect it was my topic. Some managers are diametrically opposed to the notion of relinquishing any power – they skipped the sandbox lesson about sharing. They are convinced, genetically and viscerally, if not for him or her, the organization would fall apart. So, when someone like me prattles on, the dudgeon (and insecurity) gets high, they mutter, “Why am I here listening to this foolishness?”

I always do an end-of-semester assessment in my classes, the plus/delta. It seeks, anonymously, what went well and what did not. The results are consistently helpful – lots of positive feedback and some ideas for improvement.
Most students enjoy the 8-week Democratic Workplace class and learn a great deal – they like democracy, the concept of freedom at work for themselves. A few do wonder about the practical side of introducing democratic elements. “Is it not utopian, a fairy tale?” One student offered this delta: “Tell us more about the downside of the Democratic Workplace. We’ve heard (and liked) the benefits.”

That, along with preparing for teaching a webinar* on the topic, has triggered my thinking about a new class segment; one on the tradeoffs, the “costs” of democracy. What exactly do you give up when you – the leader – let go? What’s anxiety inducing about the idea?

Here’s my initial listing of what can be lost, reduced, made less of, along with a few (I can’t help it) offsetting counterpoints:

Loss of control (Anarchy!). Ricardo Semler – a renowned leader of a highly successful democratic company – who writes books for and talks regularly to other CEOs about trusting workers to run things, says 80% won’t ever give up control regardless of improving the bottom line and 20% simply do not trust anyone enough to turn over decision making. Yes, you do lose control, but is that necessarily a bad thing?
My peers, when I was an administrator in research libraries, had an over-riding ambition – to be in the executive suite, and most of all, they wanted to be “the boss”. Besides, the pay and view were better. I suspect even the suggestion of giving up “absolute” control over a decision, would be frightening for those peers. If you no longer have the final word, has your status declined? Or, are you a better leader (and decision maker) for sharing the tough decisions?

Loss of status/respect. External perceptions about who is in charge matter. Any suspicion the “inmates are running the asylum” gets a leader in hot water.
But, if you are sincere in your letting go – to improve the organization in real and quantitative ways – you should gain respect and not lose face (or your job!) It’s your courage, leadership and innovative spirit inspiring the organization forward. Now, if your organization is not supportive of what you are doing, consider yourself gone, regardless of results.
If you are a unit in a large organization – as most libraries are - then you may need to limit just how much democracy you can implement before someone external casts baleful looks your way and unsupportive staff, sensing the lack of support, may begin to undercut – with impunity - freedom initiatives.

Loss of management mystique. When you let staff see the books (the budgets) a lot of the mystery of managing an organization dissipates. Staff can run the numbers and check the monthly summaries. This transparency has always been a plus for me because everyone has access and sees how the organization is spending its money – no secret stashes. Everyone sees the finances and has a better understanding of what can and cannot be done. Open ledgers enable trust.
While I have not heard of drop-offs in executive salaries, the more open the books, the more decision-making shared, the less likely a boss can sustain a claim of being worth many multiples of the organization’s average salary.

Loss of power. Yes, the boss of a democratic organization will lose some of her “legitimate” power. Since leadership is shared, others now intrude on the power that comes with the title on the door and the rug on the floor. If your power is based exclusively on your job description, then yes, you may experience a drop off in your leverage as a boss. But, if your power is based on what you do and how you lead and how you accomplish things – such as sharing power – then you’ll have a more than offsetting increase in “referent” power.

Loss of staff support. True, some staff will resist the transition, even a small one, toward democratic practices for the same reasons the boss does. However, most will relish the increased opportunity and responsibility. No more, “Check your mind at the door, all ye who enter here.” If the research is to be believed about the quantifiable benefits of freeing up the workplace – staff motivation increases and improves. The power they gain is used to maximize resources and services. In my experience with self-managing teams and that of Ricardo Semler of SEMCO and Colleen Barrett of SWA, workers (and the business) thrive in democratic environments.

All you have to do is let go.

* Webinar: “Freedom at Work: New & Old Concepts”
Special Libraries Association
Leadership and Management Division
Webinar by John Lubans.
April 23, 2014 14.00 EST

The book, Leading from the Middle, is available at
BetterWorldBooks.


@Copyright John Lubans 2014

Caption: Heron looking downright Putin-esque!

“THE FROGS, grieved at having no established Ruler, sent ambassadors to Jupiter entreating for a King. Perceiving their simplicity, he cast down a huge log into the lake. The Frogs were terrified at the splash occasioned by its fall and hid themselves in the depths of the pool. But as soon as they realized that the huge log was motionless, they swam again to the top of the water, dismissed their fears, climbed up, and began squatting on it in contempt. After some time they began to think themselves ill-treated in the appointment of so inert a Ruler, and sent a second deputation to Jupiter to pray that he would set over them another sovereign. He then gave them an Eel to govern them. When the Frogs discovered his easy good nature, they sent yet a third time to Jupiter to beg him to choose for them still another King. Jupiter, displeased with all their complaints, sent a Heron, who preyed upon the Frogs day by day till there were none left to croak upon the lake.”

A good story for those who have no time for a Democratic Workplace, who love the hierarchy, the bureaucracy. Imagine the joys we experience in being ruled by a desk (bureau!).
Only a strong boss will do for some. Why? Why not self rule for the formerly free frogs? The leader that promises all manner of good things if elected, well, he or she could be a heron in disguise, or more Aesopically, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

*Source: AESOP'S FABLES By Aesop Translated by George Fyler Townsend (probably from this edition): “Three hundred and fifty Aesop's fables”. Chicago, Belford, Clarke & Co., 1886.
Available at Gutenberg.

@Copyright John Lubans 2014

Caption: A NixonMcInnes employee ‘fesses up.

I’ve been meaning to write about the “Church of Fail”, as described in a November 2013 article by Leigh Buchanan.
I’ve delayed because I’ve been uncomfortable with the Church of Fail as yet another hipster mockery of church traditions, something akin to stealing from the “poor box”. Well, I’ve come around to another view, primarily that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” and that even in the business world, “confession (of mistakes) is good for the (corporate) soul.” Consider, if you will, what open confession at places like the Madoff LLC or Enron might have prevented.
Of course, the “Church of Fail” at the NixonMcInnes company, is not a real church – the company avers there’s no insult intended; it’s no sendup.
OK, confession over; now, what does the Church of Fail do?
Simply enough, it offers a “a (monthly) comfort zone where people could confess their mistakes” in a public forum. One of the founder’s says: “the more we fail, the more we can innovate and succeed."
I am on board with that and believe that good things can come from open and accepting discussion of mistakes, large and small. Indeed, each Church of Fail “confession” is met with enthusiastic applause; a form of confirmation, of support. The key, of course, is high trust and respect. If the corporate values and behaviors are in accord with this type of candor, then I can see the organization learning from its mistakes, getting better. NixonMcInnes claims good results from discussing employee screw-ups because "making failure socially acceptable makes us more open and creative.”
(I do wonder if they pass the collection plate at the Church of Fail? Enough to pay for the coffee and donuts? It’d be one measure of the meeting’s effectiveness.)
I‘ve seen other “To-Err-Is-Human” traditions. There’s an annual event in small Guatemalan villages where the sins of the past year are confessed, individually and publicly, and buried. Everyone admits wrong-doing, however egregious, out in the open and often in a fiesta-like setting involving strong drink. It’s a mix of Catholic confession and forgiveness and Mayan let-it-be.
Also, I’ve both led and been part of an activity that charts an
organization’s “Prouds” - accomplishments and achievements - and corporate “Sorries” - mistakes and missed opportunities. Once listed out for public review, the “Sorries” are burned, metaphorically or literally. This process can get the “un-saids” , the “un-stateds”, the undercurrents out in the open for acknowledgement, acceptance and maybe forgiveness. From there, the organization may be able to move on – depending on the level of honesty and forgiveness - in a new direction.
And, at celebrations of the Winter solstice in northern Europe, villagers - often children - drag logs through the ice and snow. The logs are said to be magnets for the anonymous mistakes and transgressions of the past year. At the end, the logs go into a bonfire and there’s much music, dancing, and singing. And, in my native land, Latvia, there’s beer.

Leading from the Middle Library of the Week: University of Western Australia, Perth.
The book offers ideas for improving an organization’s productivity and resourcefulness. If your library does not have a copy, order it here.
The blog is a free bonus, updated twice a week.

@Copyright John Lubans 2014