From Lead Gunners to Gun Leaders

In Australia the slang term “Gunner” is a derogatory term for someone who is always shooting off ideas but rarely does anything about them. It comes from their constant verbal shots of “I am gunner do this and they are gunner do that…”. The lead gunner wants to look good by spruiking ideas, but knows that attempting delivery of their “great idea” is a risk. It requires action and capability they are not confident about, so they have handy a list of complex barriers they use as a excuses for their lack of delivery and commitment. I often wonder what they see when reflecting (assuming they engage in genuine self challenge). Are they aware of their limitations, or blissfully in their own little “reality”.

Typical of the dry and not so subtle Australian sense of humour is you can buy such people a circular wall decoration called a “tuit”. This removes their excuse of “I’m gunner do it when I get a round to it”. In contrast, the slang term “Gun” applies to someone at the peak of their performance. A gun athlete wins the gold medal, they are the best and everyone knows it. A gun leader is a highly respected individual who delivers on sustainable promises. People trust them and are inspired by them.

I have observed lead gunner behaviours in many of today’s so called “leaders”. Many are fantastic at describing their vision or mission (assuming they know the difference). However, they have very little idea (or intention perhaps) of acting to convert these into reality. This is often driven by fear of the unknown and the unpredictability of the longer term future. The fact that we live in a complex world should be seen as a great advantage and source of opportunities for innovation, not an issue. However, it has resulted in many at the top (I refrain from saying leaders) making decisions that are short term focused to reduce risks and “optimise” short term gain. A better leadership approach is foster “collaborative opportunity before issues” (see earlier post). Although risks are important to decision making, the risk analysis needs to come after the creative interactions to generate a wide diversity of opportunities. This mindset of focusing on short term “risk free” actions for immediate benefit to the few is the action of gunners not leaders. Now more than ever we need genuine authentic leaders who think, behave and act in a sustainable manner. It is far easier to describe what a house is, than to build it. It is even more difficult to convert the newly constructed building into a home, which a family of people “own”, identify with and feel a sense of belonging and safety. Organisations often lack this sense of belonging, causing stress, a lack of loyalty and high employee churn. So back to our Lead gunners…

How do we encourage the decision makers to shed the gunner mentality and remove the barriers to realisation, rather than constantly talk about what is stopping them. “I can’t deliver this until….” echoes along the corridors of the top floor, along with “I wasn’t my fault, we couldn’t have known and this has never happened before”. Get over it! The world is complex and unpredictable. If you want the privileges of being a leader in such a world, deal with this - or get out of the way for someone who can! In fact, if you are a capable leader you will revel in the uncertainty and leverage the diversity and emergence whilst acting in a responsible manner. Such an approach will drive a positive performance spiral in your organisation and contribute to the “greater good” not to mention your reputation.

So, where are we going to find people who get this? Leaders accept the challenges and the responsibility of creating a shared vision which all members of their “tribe” want to willingly follow. Because, if they don’t have willing followers, they can hardly be leaders can they! So are you gunner join the typical leaderless or be a gun leader?

Boundary riders for creative innovation

Boundary Spanning Leadership, a book by Chris Ernst and Donna Chrobot-Mason from the Center for Creative Leadership was released last week has been an immediate success. It is in fact, a good example of its own philosophies in that it draws on a wide range of ideas from many contexts to support the research on which it is based. It also leverages the impressive networks into which the CCL authors have within their circles of influence to promote the ideas it contains. They cleverly contrast the common perception of boundaries as barriers to progress with the less commonly applied definition as frontiers. This highlights an important aspect of our role as leaders is to challenge boundaries to forge new territories on the path a discovery pathway that drives innovation and performance. Although these principles may not seem new at first glance to some, what is unique about the book is the simple way in which these complex issues are simplified with a well structured pathway that clarifies how you can transform the concept of creative innovation into a reality. They provide interactive ways to engage people to participate, that is taking good theory and weaving a pragmatic process in place to deliver results.


I was attracted to this book because I often referred to myself as a “boundary rider”, explaining that my role has often been to solicit new options by drawing from a wide range of disciplines to stimulate conversations at the edge of people’s experiences and knowledge. I, as I am sure others like CCL and similar innovation consultants, have used such approaches for many years to make a difference for the people we interact with. The challenge we often have is when people ask what we do. It can be hard to define and mundane job titles do not do our work justice. This is what Chris and Donna have captured so well. They clarify some of the more creative elements and processes we deploy through a sharper focus and demonstrate why this creates value.


When being introduced to new people (even by some of my former bosses, clients and family members!), rather than tell them what I do my introducer often says, “He can explain what he does as I am not sure”. My replies vary depending on who it is and the context, but some of my favourites have been “I bend people’s minds” or “I am a boundary rider across multiple knowledge disciplines”. These statements are not meant to be arrogant or create a sense of superiority- they are meant to stimulate a creative conversation by offering something a little mysterious and intriguing. These responses invariably trigger another question and the exchange of good questions is always a more creative and fun two-way interaction to share knowledge than simply telling them answers (which like names are bit mundane and quickly forgotten).


Like my friend the Yak illustrated above, boundary riders are highly enthusiastic in what they do and if given a little freedom around emergent interactions and permission for the group to experience some small “mistakes” in a safe fail environment – the groups can create a lot of innovative outcomes whilst having a lot of fun along the way.

The Park Ranger and the Leading Lion

A scenario where leading from behind can be effective.

Collaborative employee A
We are between a rock and a hard place, they will not change their plans and we cannot force them to. I honestly believe this training proposal is necessary for the program be successful, but they simply won’t resource it.


Collaborative employee A’s manager

I'm almost to the point of saying "to hell with it - let them rot", but I know that isn't the answer. If they persist then we need to be prepared to assist when the project fails - which costs more money than if we did it correctly the first time.


Collaborative employee A
I had been in this battle for a long time before I realised they would not allow us to help. There are only so many times you can come back and fight the same battle. Then I challenged myself: "So this means that you can't manage what is needed?" I really dislike the sound and implications of that question.


Supporting aggressive leaders with knowledge-based proposals is like being a ranger in a wildlife reserve responsible for caring for the lions. The lions consider only the immediate benefit to themselves and have little interest in longer term strategies. They are not able to understand that the ranger is there to support and guide them and without whom, the lion would not survive in the wider changing world. The ranger ensures sustenance and protection for them and their part of the world for rest of their life. However, this requires a little cooperation from the Lions. Unfortunately the lions are disinterested or incapable of understanding the value of the ranger’s advice and support. Even once it is implemented (assuming the lion does not try to eat them whilst doing so), they may not appreciate what it has done for them.

I ask myself why are we rangers take the risk of working for lions on the open grassland with little protection and kudos? Unfortunately, as the Global Financial Crisis has shown much of the business world is ruled by prides of primeval carnivores living day to day for their own benefit. The rangers are those of us trying to convert this into something more sustainable for the benefit of all. Unfortunately, lions have not asked for this and don’t appreciate why we are doing what we do. They are blissfully unaware of the wider impacts on the world and how this ultimately affects others as well as themselves.

We are bound to lose a few battles and win some others. Not perfect, but progress. We are in this environment because it needs us. Going back to the management question.… So how do we MANAGE the primeval carnivores so that they make the most of the situation they don't understand (or don’t want to understand)? Sometimes it is better to allow some small mistakes to be made and prepare to be there to support them though and to minimise the consequences when they happen. It is quite conceivable that under such circumstances, you will be chastised for “allowing” the mistake to happen, despite your best efforts to prevent them (and probably being mauled a few times).

The fact those “accusing” you of not doing enough to prevent the issue are the very animals that flatly and robustly rejected your earlier suggestions should not surprise you. They will not thank you for cleaning up, will criticise you for poor management in allowing it to happen, but in your heart you know it was the best outcome overall as it prevented the major disaster. Rangers are Owls and ultimately Owls can only influence over time to optimise outcomes, not force actions.

People identify with Animal Metaphor

Animal metaphor is very common in most cultures. So much so, we hardly even notice they are there. Animals have been used as a source of inspiration and derision since early civilisation. We can be “busy as a bee”, “quiet as a mouse”, “cunning as a fox”, “stubborn as a mule”, “quick as a hare”, and “wise as an owl”. The list goes on and on and is accepted across cultures.

Most people will relate to the use of animals metaphors without question and readily identify themselves and others with animals. Both positive and negative metaphors are in common use, which are bestowed upon lovers, family, friends and enemies. There seems to be no boundaries to how they can be applied.

Commercial enterprises have long known of the power of using people’s identification with animals which explains why so many brands and logos feature animals.

Animal metaphors have been used to explore our psychology and reasoning, our ability to network with others and our relationships. They even infiltrate our language without us even realising we are using them. Our behaviours can be described as catty, bitchy, snaky, ratty, off with the birds or any number of endless possibilities borrowed from our animal cousins.

Perhaps we may be sheepish about ferreting out if our partner is engaged in some monkey business. If someone ratted on a friend their goose would be cooked.

Metaphors are not new. Aesop incorporated them into fables to provide education and reinforce cultural expectations. More modern versions such as George Orwell’s Animal Farm was written as a political assessment of our society.

“Google-ing” animal metaphor provides a very interesting response. Try it!
YOu can find out more at http://www.organizationalzoo.com/