• When I am asking for feedback with the LPI, how do I know which observers to choose?
  
• Why isn't there a "Not Applicable" choice in the LPI Observer?
  
• Are any of these LPI items more important than others?
  
• Why do organizations often spend more time working on or clarifying organizational values than helping people clarify their own personal values?
  
• What's the difference between a vision and a goal?
  
• What's the difference between a vision and a mission?
  
• Why is experimenting so essential to leadership?
  
• How can I create an atmosphere for experimenting and for learning?
  
• I've seen some people become successful at the expense of others in the early stages of their career, but they don't seem to make it past a certain level. Why is that?
  
• Don't some people perceive encourage the heart as soft, or warm and fuzzy?
  
• Does encourage the heart mean you are supposed to recognize people for just doing their jobs? Isn't that why we pay them?

When I am asking for feedback with the LPI, how do I know which observers to choose?

The LPI breaks the observers into the following categories: Manager, Direct Report, Co-Worker, and Other. Our first recommendation is that you choose your manager(s) and all of your direct reports if possible. They will be the ones who probably observe your leadership behaviors most frequently. Then choose at least three co-workers and/or three Others. Anyone who you feel has observed your leadership behavior but doesn't fit into the previous categories can be placed in the “Other” category. This may include observers from another area of your life; e.g., volunteer work, former work associates, etc. However, we recommend that you choose observers from your current work environment whenever possible.

Why isn't there a "Not Applicable" choice in the LPI Observer?

First, we assume that the leader gave the LPI to someone who has enough information about the person to offer observations. If that is not the case, then the LPI should be given to observers who do know the leader well enough to rate him/her.

Also, keep in mind that the 1 to 10 scale is a frequency scale. The observer is being asked how frequently the leader does something. This is not a rating scale about how satisfied they are with the leader or how well the leader displays the behavior. It is about how frequently they see it. The frequency scale is used because it permits a rating under most conditions.

With these things in mind, if an observer says, "I just don't have enough information to respond," it has been our experience that the observer is really saying, "I don't see that behavior very often, so I can't rate that person on this item." In fact, the observer has already offered a rating by virtue of that observation. It means the rating of a "3-seldom" is most likely an appropriate response. It does NOT say the leader is a bad leader, or the leader never does this with anyone else. It simply says the leader does not exhibit that behavior around me.

Are any of these LPI items more important than others?

We have determined in our research that all of the items on the LPI make a positive difference in your effectiveness as a leader. If an item was not important, we would have left it off the LPI. Therefore, the best answer to this question is, "It depends." It depends on your feedback. It depends on what you need to do more frequently to improve your overall effectiveness. No two leaders are going to have exactly the same developmental need.

Why do organizations often spend more time working on or clarifying organizational values than helping people clarify their own personal values?

The most common reason is that organizational leaders are not aware of this research and the importance of clarity of personal values; in addition, some organizational leaders might believe that it is a person's individual responsibility to be clear on personal values and the organization should not be involved.

What's the difference between a vision and a goal?

Vision is about the long term. Goals are short-term. Think of the vision as the ultimate destination and a goal as a milestone along the way. Vision is the picture on the box top of the jigsaw puzzle and a goal is like the cloud in the upper left corner of the puzzle. Think of visions as imaginative and goals as quantifiable. Think of visions as aspirations, and goals as targets.

What's the difference between a vision and a mission?

Visions and missions have similarities, but they are not the same thing. Vision comes from the word meaning "see" and mission comes from the word meaning "send." Vision is about your dreams, but mission is about the actions you take to carry out those dreams. We might go on a mission to help people with AIDS in Africa, but our vision might be of a world without AIDS. You might go on a mission to start up a plant in China, but your vision may be to virtually connect the people of the world.

Why is experimenting so essential to leadership?

Thomas Edison said, "I failed my way to success." It took over five thousand experiments to develop the filament for the electric bulb. "Every one of these experiments taught me something," explained Edison, and that's precisely the mantra of leaders. Leaders don't see failures and mistakes as the end of the world, but simply another opportunity to learn and know something that they didn't know before and, often, had no way of knowing in advance.

How can I create an atmosphere for experimenting and for learning?

The key idea here is somewhat paradoxical. We contend that risk taking is directly related to the extent to which people feel safe. If you want to help people extend themselves beyond their comfort zones and "the way we've always done it around here," you've got to do things that make them feel safe. For example, reducing the cost of failure, expanding the benefits of trying, taking one step at a time, going first yourself (so that if anyone is to look foolish, it will be you), providing practice opportunities, establishing pilot and demonstration projects, and so on.

I've seen some people become successful at the expense of others in the early stages of their career, but they don't seem to make it past a certain level. Why is that?

Research clearly indicates that those who get "derailed" or knocked off track in their quest for corporate advancement are those lacking "emotional intelligence." Their inability to manage their own emotions or their inability to support others eventually catches up with them. To put it another way, the most important quality required for the top three jobs in a company is "being able to get along with subordinates." Those who see subordinates as people to "boss around" get to a point where few people want to work with them. That's why the skills involved in Strengthening Others are so important.

Don't some people perceive encourage the heart as soft, or warm and fuzzy?

Some people might view it this way, but leaders do not. More often, those who throw out labels like "warm and fuzzy" or "touchy-feely" are not very comfortable or experienced in relating with people's emotional well-being. They are likely to be more comfortable managing activities or getting people to comply, instead of getting them to commit to something. Jim and Barry's research is clear—those who practice Encourage the Heart are more likely to produce extraordinary results.

Does encourage the heart mean you are supposed to recognize people for just doing their jobs? Isn't that why we pay them?

People need to be recognized for their accomplishments and encouraged to reach for higher levels of performance. By the way, how valuable are people you know you can count on to do their jobs day in and day out? Aren't you grateful for them? Sometimes, it is the recognition that people receive for the small things that most inspires them to tackle the larger ones.