Leadership Lessons from "Gladiator"

"My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next."

What a great line!

That one, and "At my signal, unleash hell" – both from Gladiator – are two of my favorite movie lines ever (of course I probably have in excess of 100 "favorites").

I think it must be a guy thing this watching movies over and over, but I watch Gladiator every time it comes on – and I own it on DVD! I do that with a lot of movies, many of which I also own. I know a lot of guys who do that. A friend of mine watches Roadhouse every time it’s on. Not sure what to make of that.

Anyway, Gladiator was on the other night and I stumbled across it while channel surfing. While I was watching it this time I was struck by the leadership lessons taught from the very beginning of the movie all the way to the end.

Maximus, Russell Crowe’s character, is “Rome’s greatest general” and it’s apparent from the outset that he has the love and respect of his men. They identify with him, and appreciate his camaraderie while still understanding that he’s the boss.

On the flip side is Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix, who murdered his father and assumed the title of Caesar which was strictly against his father’s wishes. Commodus also clearly conveys that he’s the boss, but through a brutal and ruthless display. Needless to say, Commodus engenders none of the respect and admiration that Maximus has.

Many leaders in business today are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of employee involvement, but effective leaders that engender the loyalty of their workers is not a new concept. Neither is the Commodus-style of leadership.

The difference between the two is what their followers are willing to give. Or not give.

The Maximus-style leader gets not only the respect and admiration of his workers, he also gets their discretionary effort – they go the extra mile to ensure that this leader is successful. They are willing to “go to battle” with him.

The followers of the Maximus leader know what’s expected of them and they are willing to do what it takes to give even more. They know that when this leader is successful, they will all share in the spoils – they derive satisfaction in seeing this leader succeed and they know that they too will succeed.

The Commodus-style leader can get results too. But unlike the Maximus leader, this leader does not get any extra/discretionary effort from his people. They give to the level of expectation and nothing more. They oftentimes will withhold that “little bit extra” even when it would cause them no hardship to move the effort from good to great.

The Commodus leader isn’t interested in getting buy-in or feedback. Like a parent disciplining a child, this leader expects things to get done “because I said so.” And workers who report to this leader often respond like children – they give the bare minimum in return.

Organizations today need everything they can get from their workforce to compete.

Today’s business climate is increasingly challenging and in order to ensure long-term, sustainable success for their organizations good leaders must have the commitment of their people – their minds and their hearts.

If organizations are going to win, they need their “troops” aligned with their strategy, willing to give whatever it takes to be successful, and ready to “unleash hell” on their competition.

Give and Take, Quid Pro Quo - Do Your Part

Google employee engagement and you get millions of results – I got about 6.5 million initially. Employee Engagement isn’t a new concept, but it’s a topic that’s been leading the business news cycle for an unbelievably long time given the speed with which stuff moves in and out of the short-attention-span psyche these days.

According to Aon Hewitt, high (employee) engagement firms had total shareholder value that was 19% higher than average in 2009. In low-engagement organizations, total shareholder value was actually 44% below average. For those data geeks, it’s not just these guys; there is a ton of research out there to back this up.

I think a big reason for that is that companies are looking to gain an edge in an improving economic marketplace, and all the research – and there are mountains of it – point to increased profitability with increased engagement. You can attribute some that profitability to reduced turnover, sick time and training, but the real payback for organizations is in increased innovation, customer satisfaction and productivity. The payback for workers? They get to love what they do AND who they do it for.

According to ModernSurvey’s 2012 Spring National Norms Survey conducted last month (March 2012), the two things employees want most are senior leadership’s clear vision of where their organization is going, and the opportunity to personally learn and grow. Remember Maslow’s  Hierarchy of Needs? Take care of the basic needs and then let me grow personally.

The really cool part? The company gets what they want – shareholder return. And the employee gets what they want – self actualization.

O.K., so engagement is great for everyone. What is it?

Within those millions of Google search results, you’ll find many definitions too. In its simplest terms (which is best for me), engagement is employees giving extra effort with the company’s best interest in mind. They work for and think about what’s best for the organization. You know why? Because the organization has demonstrated that they work for and think about what’s best for the employee. Quid pro quo.

Here’s another interesting little tidbit: According to BlessingWhite’s 2011 Employee Engagement Report, executives have a greater potential impact on engagement than manager actions. I touched on that in my last post when Greg Smith torched Goldman on his way out and blamed it on the CEO and the President. But it makes sense, doesn’t it? The tone is set by the big guys, and hopefully their people will follow their example.

A manager can make a tough situation tolerable, or a great situation horrible. But if the executives are promoting a high-engagement organizational culture managers typically follow. Not all the time, but usually.

Here’s another cool by-product of employee engagement emphasis: It IS your culture. So you’re knocking out two birds with one stone. And you know what that stone is, right? Effective communication. Employee engagement and corporate culture are inextricably tied to effective communication because in order to engage and develop that type of organization, you must have transparency – open communication.

I’ve said it before (I’ll probably say it again): Effective, transparent communication is a conversation. That means it flows back and forth, up and down, side to side. If you want the type of organization I’m describing here, do your part and join the conversation.