Recently Dean Hanniball posted a comment asking, “Since so much of any Quest is about getting started I’d be curious about your thoughts on bold leadership.” 

In my experience, bold leadership and the quest are inextricably intertwined.  Bold leaders are much more likely to pursue the quest and, conversely, the quest asks much of leaders, particularly boldness. Bold leaders possess three key qualities:

1. They are attracted to adventure, not to relentlessly seek safety
2. They are not restricted by convention
3. They seek out the new and daring; they take risks

Only bold leaders initiate quests.  The initiatory action is sounding the Call to Adventure.  That Call to Adventure interrupts that status quo and asks the organization to head into unexplored territory.  The explorer, Ernest Shackleton’s, famous classified ad in the London Times comes to mind:

Wanted: People to undertake hazardous journey — small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful; honor and recognition in case of success.

An estimated 5,000 people showed up on a London dock to sign up for his adventure.

Or, think of JFK’s famous address:

I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.

JFK’s call changed the course of a nation.  That is what bold leaders do.

(more…)

Peter Block once said that the fundamental choice faced by an organization is between safety and adventure. Safety is about the risk-avoiding, stability-seeking, business-as-usual drives of the typical mature enterprise. Adventure, in contrast, is about the Quest the journey of exploration, discovery, innovation and breakthrough.

Alex Taylor’s brilliant article in December’s Fortune Magazine about the demise of General Motors appears to be a case in point. Taylor provides a haunting description of the cost of seeking safety in times of adversity.

Referring to GM CEO, Rick Wagner, and his associates, Taylor writes:

“But in working for the largest company in the industry for so long, they became comfortable, insular, self-referential and too wedded to the status quo traits that persist even now, when GM is on the precipice. They prefer stability over conflict, continuity over disorder, and GM’s way over anybody else’s. They believe that … tomorrow will be a better day despite four decades of evidence to the contrary.”

Taylor is describing leadership that has clearly chosen safety over adventure. Unwilling or unable to explore uncharted territory, stagnation and decline are the inevitable outcome. The fact that GM leaders are “smart, sincere, diligent,” as characterized by Taylor, is not enough. They needed to leave the comfort of home base and choose the path of adventure decades ago.

The path of adventure is the Quest; could it provide the means to game-changing discoveries and renewed vitality for a restructured GM? While the Quest may appear risky to GM, it seems that its leaders made the truly lethal move by assiduously avoiding it. I suspect that members of Congress, in calling for new leadership at GM, hope to avoid this peril in the future