July 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
What determines the size of the anti-management population in any organization?
Legitimate Leadership And A Visually-Impaired Participant
In doing the seventh group of a Leadership Excellence Programme for a leading financial services company in South Africa, Legitimate Leadership consultant, Leonie van Tonder, faced a challenge when she was informed that there would be a visually-impaired person in the group.
Managers Aren’t Heroes But They Deserve More Understanding
Management is not a heroic calling. There is no Marvel character called “Captain Slide Deck”. Books and television shows set in offices are more likely to be comedic than admiring. When dramas depict the workplace, managers are almost always covering up some kind of chemical spill. Horrible bosses loom large in reality as well as in the popular imagination: if people leave their jobs, they often do so to escape bad managers. And any praise for decent bosses is tempered by the fact that they are usually paid more than the people they manage: they should be good.

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What determines the size of the anti-management population in any organisation?
Answer: In any community of employees there will always be two populations: one which is anti-management and another which is pro-management. The two populations will always exist but the size of the positive group, and hence the degree to which there is overall trust in management, will be directly determined by the perceived intent of the leader(s) of the community.
The consistent finding of Legitimate Leadership research is that trust varies. In a retail bank, for example, trust levels in one branch were found to be dramatically different from a branch around the corner. Similarly, in a hospital, trust was seen to differ from ward to ward purely as a function of the ward sister’s relationship with nursing staff.
Intent is about whose interests in the relationship are believed to be being served. When managers are perceived to be pursuing their own interests, to only be in the relationship to get something out of their people, trust in them will be low. Only when managers are there to give to or serve their people, will their staff be willing to give to them – because they trust that management has their best interests at heart.
What those in authority have to give to their people, what earns them trust, is not money. Across the world, from an illiterate miner shovelling rock several kilometres underground to the CEO of one of the biggest cell phone companies in Thailand, our experience shows that what management needs to give distils down to only two drops of essence.
Firstly, managers have to have a genuine concern for those in their charge. They have to care for their people as human beings – not as human resources which help their bottom line to grow. Secondly, they have to enable their people to realise the very best in themselves.
The price to be paid before employees will be truly willing to deliver on command is therefore not money; it is care and growth. This is what makes the power which is exercised by those in authority legitimate. When the price of power is not paid, people become resistant, no matter how much they are paid.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Vignette Case Study: Legitimate Leadership And A Visually-Impaired Participant
By Leonie van Tonder, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In doing the seventh group of a Leadership Excellence Programme for a leading financial services company in South Africa, Legitimate Leadership consultant, Leonie van Tonder, faced a challenge when she was informed that there would be a visually-impaired person in the group.
Leonie says that she had never handled this type of challenge before and “anxiety was abundant!”
It was planned that the initial two-day Introduction to Legitimate Leadership would be in person and the subsequent application modules and reviews would be online, because the participants were spread across the country.
The interaction during sessions both in person and online is typically very visual, with writing on whiteboards and slides. So, the first question for Leonie was how to get past this.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

Article: Managers Aren’t Heroes But They Deserve More Understanding
By Bartleby, The Economist magazine.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY STUART FOULDS, ASSOCIATE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: The Legitimate Leadership model originally came into existence, and has become ever more relevant over many decades, precisely because of the challenging, complex and vital nature of the leader’s role. This Economist article highlights several important issues:
  • The impact of good versus bad bosses on productivity is indeed striking. Legitimate Leadership maintains that the way leaders lead is the single most important determinant of whether employees grudgingly do the minimum they can get away with, or whether they show up enthusiastically and willing to make their best possible contribution towards achieving the organisation’s goals.
  • It is also true, though, that excellence in leadership is genuinely difficult to achieve and sustain. This ‘structurally difficult’ job requires a complex mix of building deeply trust-based relationships and truly enabling employees’ performances over time. Moreover, the conflicting demands and stresses leaders face are becoming increasingly challenging, in step with the growing pace and complexity of our workplaces – not to mention the drive for ‘agile’ ways of working.
Yet in many of the organisations Legitimate Leadership works with, leaders say they find few opportunities to acquire genuinely useful and practical concepts and tools to guide them in doing their people leadership work well. We at Legitimate Leadership believe passionately that equipping leaders at all levels in this way is the best investment any organisation can make in achieving a sustainable, trust-based culture of excellence.
THE ARTICLE: Management is not a heroic calling. There is no Marvel character called “Captain Slide Deck”. Books and television shows set in offices are more likely to be comedic than admiring. When dramas depict the workplace, managers are almost always covering up some kind of chemical spill. Horrible bosses loom large in reality as well as in the popular imagination: if people leave their jobs, they often do so to escape bad managers. And any praise for decent bosses is tempered by the fact that they are usually paid more than the people they manage: they should be good.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

June 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
How can leaders hold their people appropriately accountable without fear of being held up for bullying or harassment?
Being Methodical About Empowerment
Many organisations talk about the creation of an appropriate safety culture, but in practice, how is this addressed? Safety culture is fundamentally a subset of the organisational culture or ‘how we do things round here’. At Legitimate Leadership we believe that this is determined by how leaders within the organisation are motivated and behave.
Legitimate Leadership’s Roots In Workplace Safety
Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership, was recently interviewed by Christian Hunt for the HumanRisk podcast. Hunt founded UK-based HumanRisk (www.human-risk.com) to ‘bring behavioural science to ethics and compliance’ in helping organisations to understand and minimize human risk.
Trusting Team Members Results In Positive Asymmetry
Linear games are won by working harder than others. And the harder other people work, the higher the bar. You need to work harder and harder, just to stay in the same relative position.

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Joolz Lewis, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: How can leaders hold their people appropriately accountable without fear of being held up for bullying or harassment?
Answer: This question frequently crops up with Legitimate Leadership consultants. As organisations rightfully focus on how to create safe environments for their people to work without fear of discrimination, it is also important to ensure that leaders can censure and discipline their people when needed.
The issue at stake for individual leaders is courage.
Leaders are not leaders unless and until they have a relationship of trust with their people. That trust is built on a personal relationship which requires the leader to put the employees’ interests first, to care for them as human beings – not just as human resources – and to grow them not just to be better, but excellent. This cannot be done without setting standards – behavioural and performance.
When employees do a good job, it is good manners to say thank you and give praise. When employees go above and beyond to make an exceptional contribution it is only right that they should be rewarded for doing so.
So what happens when standards are not met? Ignoring this for fear of retribution is effectively saying ‘it doesn’t matter’, and over time the inevitable decline leads to mediocrity or worse. This is reason enough to censure or discipline when needed.
But it’s not the core reason.  Read the full answer by clicking here clicking here .
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Vignette Case Study: Being Methodical About Empowerment
By Rachael Cowin, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In the Legitimate Leadership Framework there are five steps to guide managers in effectively handing over control. In a recent discussion with managers, they pointed out two instances in which following the five steps methodically prevented them from rushing through and endangering the success of the process.
The five steps in the Legitimate Leadership Framework are: 1, decide on the next incremental handover; 2, teach people the why and how; 3, test for ability (know-how and know-why); 4, hand over the means, including decision-making authority; and 5, hold the person accountable.
In the discussion with managers about situations in which empowerment had failed, the conclusion was that this had commonly been because they had rushed through teaching people and testing for ability (steps 2 and 3 above). The conclusion was they had rushed because they had acted expediently and wanted to assume that they could move on in one step.
Two leaders in the group shared specific examples in which using the Legitimate Leadership five-step process made them more methodical and incremental.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

Podcast: Legitimate Leadership’s Roots In Workplace Safety
Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership, was recently interviewed by Christian Hunt for the HumanRisk podcast. Hunt founded UK-based HumanRisk (www.human-risk.com) to ‘bring behavioural science to ethics and compliance’ in helping organisations to understand and minimize human risk.
In the podcast Wendy set out the origins and basic tenets of Legitimate Leadership. Below is our summary of what she said.
Legitimate Leadership was virtually born in the world’s largest explosive factory, near Johannesburg, South Africa.
In the early 1990s, things were not going well in this factory. It had suffered two explosions, resulting in 14 fatalities. The explosives company had shortly before this been taken over by UK chemicals company ICI. ICI told the management of the explosives factory, ‘We don’t care that you have 87% of the explosives market in South Africa, we don’t kill people. So fix the problem or we will close you down.’
Management realised that if you have a safety problem, you have a people problem. If you have a people problem, you have a leadership problem. In other words, management itself was the problem.
So management looked for something that would be a golden thread to which they could revert for guidance on leadership. They found the framework upon which Legitimate Leadership is based.
Three years later the factory was acknowledged to be the safest explosives factory in the world.
It was, three years later, approximately the same factory as before (except that it had stopped using nitro-glycerine), and it was staffed by approximately the same people. The factor which had changed was the way leadership was done.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS PODCAST BY CLICKING HERE
TO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST CLICK HERE

Article: Trusting Team Members Results In Positive Asymmetry
From the Brain Food blog archive.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY ANGELA DONNELLY, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP CANADA: Fascination with game theory, specifically as it relates to co-operative versus self-interested behaviour and outcomes led me to this article. I enjoyed the parallels to the Legitimate Leadership Framework and specifically the important role trust plays when leaders empower their people. Legitimate Leadership argues that TRUST must precede TRUSTWORTHINESS. Leaders take risks when empowering their people because they are required to suspend their need to control the outcomes. The results are no longer predictable. Trusting team members however results in something called positive asymmetry – a lot of upside and little downside. A low-trust approach reduces positive asymmetry. In an effort to avoid being taken advantage of by the untrustworthy few, managers put unnecessary controls in place, and in doing so forgo the asymmetric upside. Low trust eliminates the upside and results in a mindset of distrust and worry. As the article says, a low trust approach might put a floor on how often you get taken advantage of, but it puts a ceiling on what’s possible!
THE ARTICLE: Linear games are won by working harder than others. And the harder other people work, the higher the bar. You need to work harder and harder, just to stay in the same relative position.
Asymmetry is different. Even people who understand asymmetry consistently underestimate its power.
Positive asymmetry happens when you have a lot of upside and little downside. Negative asymmetry is when you have little upside and high downside. Finding hidden or overlooked asymmetry is the key to an unstoppable advantage. And there is a lot of it hiding in plain sight.
Consider trust. A lot of people are slow to trust. Their default level of trust is about 40% and you earn more.
Very few people understand that a low trust approach reduces positive asymmetry.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

May 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
How can leaders hold their people appropriately accountable without fear of being held up for bullying or harassment?
Being Methodical About Empowerment
Many organisations talk about the creation of an appropriate safety culture, but in practice, how is this addressed? Safety culture is fundamentally a subset of the organisational culture or ‘how we do things round here’. At Legitimate Leadership we believe that this is determined by how leaders within the organisation are motivated and behave.
Legitimate Leadership’s Roots In Workplace Safety
Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership, was recently interviewed by Christian Hunt for the HumanRisk podcast. Hunt founded UK-based HumanRisk (www.human-risk.com) to ‘bring behavioural science to ethics and compliance’ in helping organisations to understand and minimize human risk.
Trusting Team Members Results In Positive Asymmetry
Linear games are won by working harder than others. And the harder other people work, the higher the bar. You need to work harder and harder, just to stay in the same relative position.

 


For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Joolz Lewis, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: How can leaders hold their people appropriately accountable without fear of being held up for bullying or harassment?
Answer: This question frequently crops up with Legitimate Leadership consultants. As organisations rightfully focus on how to create safe environments for their people to work without fear of discrimination, it is also important to ensure that leaders can censure and discipline their people when needed.
The issue at stake for individual leaders is courage.
Leaders are not leaders unless and until they have a relationship of trust with their people. That trust is built on a personal relationship which requires the leader to put the employees’ interests first, to care for them as human beings – not just as human resources – and to grow them not just to be better, but excellent. This cannot be done without setting standards – behavioural and performance.
When employees do a good job, it is good manners to say thank you and give praise. When employees go above and beyond to make an exceptional contribution it is only right that they should be rewarded for doing so.
So what happens when standards are not met? Ignoring this for fear of retribution is effectively saying ‘it doesn’t matter’, and over time the inevitable decline leads to mediocrity or worse. This is reason enough to censure or discipline when needed.
But it’s not the core reason.  Read the full answer by clicking here clicking here .
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Vignette Case Study: Being Methodical About Empowerment
By Rachael Cowin, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In the Legitimate Leadership Framework there are five steps to guide managers in effectively handing over control. In a recent discussion with managers, they pointed out two instances in which following the five steps methodically prevented them from rushing through and endangering the success of the process.
The five steps in the Legitimate Leadership Framework are: 1, decide on the next incremental handover; 2, teach people the why and how; 3, test for ability (know-how and know-why); 4, hand over the means, including decision-making authority; and 5, hold the person accountable.
In the discussion with managers about situations in which empowerment had failed, the conclusion was that this had commonly been because they had rushed through teaching people and testing for ability (steps 2 and 3 above). The conclusion was they had rushed because they had acted expediently and wanted to assume that they could move on in one step.
Two leaders in the group shared specific examples in which using the Legitimate Leadership five-step process made them more methodical and incremental.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

Podcast: Legitimate Leadership’s Roots In Workplace Safety
Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership, was recently interviewed by Christian Hunt for the HumanRisk podcast. Hunt founded UK-based HumanRisk (www.human-risk.com) to ‘bring behavioural science to ethics and compliance’ in helping organisations to understand and minimize human risk.
In the podcast Wendy set out the origins and basic tenets of Legitimate Leadership. Below is our summary of what she said.
Legitimate Leadership was virtually born in the world’s largest explosive factory, near Johannesburg, South Africa.
In the early 1990s, things were not going well in this factory. It had suffered two explosions, resulting in 14 fatalities. The explosives company had shortly before this been taken over by UK chemicals company ICI. ICI told the management of the explosives factory, ‘We don’t care that you have 87% of the explosives market in South Africa, we don’t kill people. So fix the problem or we will close you down.’
Management realised that if you have a safety problem, you have a people problem. If you have a people problem, you have a leadership problem. In other words, management itself was the problem.
So management looked for something that would be a golden thread to which they could revert for guidance on leadership. They found the framework upon which Legitimate Leadership is based.
Three years later the factory was acknowledged to be the safest explosives factory in the world.
It was, three years later, approximately the same factory as before (except that it had stopped using nitro-glycerine), and it was staffed by approximately the same people. The factor which had changed was the way leadership was done.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS PODCAST BY CLICKING HERE
TO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST CLICK HERE

Article: Trusting Team Members Results In Positive Asymmetry
From the Brain Food blog archive.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY ANGELA DONNELLY, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP CANADA: Fascination with game theory, specifically as it relates to co-operative versus self-interested behaviour and outcomes led me to this article. I enjoyed the parallels to the Legitimate Leadership Framework and specifically the important role trust plays when leaders empower their people. Legitimate Leadership argues that TRUST must precede TRUSTWORTHINESS. Leaders take risks when empowering their people because they are required to suspend their need to control the outcomes. The results are no longer predictable. Trusting team members however results in something called positive asymmetry – a lot of upside and little downside. A low-trust approach reduces positive asymmetry. In an effort to avoid being taken advantage of by the untrustworthy few, managers put unnecessary controls in place, and in doing so forgo the asymmetric upside. Low trust eliminates the upside and results in a mindset of distrust and worry. As the article says, a low trust approach might put a floor on how often you get taken advantage of, but it puts a ceiling on what’s possible!
THE ARTICLE: Linear games are won by working harder than others. And the harder other people work, the higher the bar. You need to work harder and harder, just to stay in the same relative position.
Asymmetry is different. Even people who understand asymmetry consistently underestimate its power.
Positive asymmetry happens when you have a lot of upside and little downside. Negative asymmetry is when you have little upside and high downside. Finding hidden or overlooked asymmetry is the key to an unstoppable advantage. And there is a lot of it hiding in plain sight.
Consider trust. A lot of people are slow to trust. Their default level of trust is about 40% and you earn more.
Very few people understand that a low trust approach reduces positive asymmetry.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

April 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
What should I as an employee do when my annual appraisal comes as a totally negative surprise?
If You Want Good Safety Culture, Focus On Your Leadership Practice
Many organisations talk about the creation of an appropriate safety culture, but in practice, how is this addressed? Safety culture is fundamentally a subset of the organisational culture or ‘how we do things round here’. At Legitimate Leadership we believe that this is determined by how leaders within the organisation are motivated and behave.
How To Get World-Dominating Performance From Insignificant Improvement
Legitimate Leadership says that results don’t come from looking at the scoreboard and shouting for more! Results come from setting standards of individual contribution, giving the person the means and ability to achieve that contribution, and then raising the bar (of that contribution).

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Sean Hagger, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What should I as an employee do when my annual appraisal comes as a totally negative surprise?
Answer: Never leave the room with any doubt as to the expectation required. In the short term this can feel rather over-the-top, but in my experience it is best to make sure you are working on the value-adding items that your line manager(s) have prioritised. Priorities change, people are not born good communicators, and the relationship with your line manager needs to be worked on like any relationship. If your line manager has not scheduled one-to-ones, then put them in yourself. Failing that, make sure you update him/her with your understanding of the expectations and priorities.
Use a 90-day cycle for writing your own value-adding deliverables and share them with your line manager. Ideally, this should be driven by the manager – but in the absence of that, it is up to you. Make sure you have at least three updates per year with your line manager on your performance – seek feedback and seek understanding.
Quite often, conscientious individuals will take on more and more work and they do this with entirely the right intent. They can often burn themselves out trying to please everyone. It is a very important skill to know where your limits are and provide that feedback up the chain.
It is perfectly okay to challenge with evidence if you feel the end-of-year appraisal hasn’t taken into consideration all your contributions from the year.
I stress Legitimate Leadership’s position is that the manager, not the employee, should be providing the clarity of expectation, and doing so regularly.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Article: If You Want Good Safety Culture, Focus On Your Leadership Practice
By Rachael Cowin, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Many organisations talk about the creation of an appropriate safety culture, but in practice, how is this addressed? Safety culture is fundamentally a subset of the organisational culture or ‘how we do things round here’. At Legitimate Leadership we believe that this is determined by how leaders within the organisation are motivated and behave. Indeed, it was the recognition that a safety problem was, in fact, a leadership problem that first brought the founder, Wendy Lambourne, to the model underpinning our work.
There are many connections between legitimate leaders and appropriate safety culture. Here are some of the key ones:
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

Video: How To Get World-Dominating Performance From Insignificant Improvements
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY TONY FLANNIGAN, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Legitimate Leadership says that results don’t come from looking at the scoreboard and shouting for more! Results come from setting standards of individual contribution, giving the person the means and ability to achieve that contribution, and then raising the bar (of that contribution). Too often we convince ourselves that massive success requires massive actions – whether it is losing weight, building a business, writing a book, winning a championship, or achieving any other goal. We put too much pressure on ourselves to make some earth-shattering improvement that everyone will talk about. While improving by just 1% isn’t particularly notable – and in many instances isn’t even noticeable – it will be far more meaningful in the long run. Most of the significant things in life are not stand-alone events, but rather the sum of all the moments when we choose to do things 1% better. Equally, this works in reverse: if you accept an imperceptibly small deterioration in standards day after day, you will wonder why you end up in a place you do not want to be and have a mountain to climb to get back to acceptable performance. How do you get world-dominating performance? Answer: by setting standards and constantly raising the bar by tiny increments, each of which are insignificant in themselves.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: The fate of British cycling changed in 2003. David Brailsford became the performance director. When he was hired, Britain had suffered nearly 100 years of mediocrity. Since 1908, British riders had won just a single gold medal at the Olympic Games. Also, in 110 years, no British rider had ever won the Tour de France.
Brailsford came in with a plan which he called the aggregation of marginal gains – a philosophy of searching for tiny margins of improvement in every single thing you do. He told his team that the idea was if you break down every single thing that goes into riding the bike, then improve it by 1%, you will get a significant improvement when you put all the improvements together.
Tiny improvements began. Bike seats were designed to be more comfortable. Riders wore electronically fitted shorts to maintain ideal muscle temperature when riding. New riding clothing was developed of lighter fabric.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE

March 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
What is the fundamental shift in focus required from management in order to achieve better results?
Are Your Employee Survey Results Plateauing Despite You Going Overboard On Engagement?
There is a difference between Engagement, Enablement and Empowerment!
A lot of employers are becoming increasingly frustrated that despite having comprehensive engagement plans, their employee survey results are firmly stuck in the mediocre position.
Five Lessons From Julia Galef’s Book, The Scout Mindset
Leaders are increasingly navigating complex social environments with individuals’ strongly-held beliefs getting in the way of meaningful debate and collaboration in the workplace.

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What is the fundamental shift in focus required from management in order to achieve better results?
Answer: That excellent results can only be produced by excellent people – be they mountaineers, athletes or employees – is common sense. So too is the notion that the best route to sustainable organisational excellence is the relentless pursuit of human excellence in all those in the organisation.
But following through on this understanding is not easy. This is because it requires people to do something which feels absolutely counter-intuitive. For those in the business’s front line it requires a shift in the focus of their attention from what they want to “get” (the desired result) to what they should “give” to effect excellence in the task in front of them.
It requires them to take yet a further step back from the results. That is, to take their eyes off the results and put their attention on their people. It requires them to focus on giving their people what they need (Means, Ability and Accountability) to excel at the task and ultimately to realise the very best in themselves.
Another young leader in India used the analogy of a guided missile: your people could be highly motivated, full of potential and eager to show what they can do – but if you point them at the wrong contribution, or worse still don’t point them at anything, then this could result in chaos and devastation.  Read full answer by clicking here.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Article: Are Your Employee Survey Results Plateauing Despite You Going Overboard On Engagement?
By Tony Flannigan, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
There is a difference between Engagement, Enablement and Empowerment!
A lot of employers are becoming increasingly frustrated that despite having comprehensive engagement plans, their employee survey results are firmly stuck in the mediocre position.
The three ‘E’ words are bandied about frequently in today’s business environment – but are we using them interchangeably and confusing the intent behind each one?
In the Legitimate Leadership Model each of these words has a specific meaning.
The first thing to recognise is that they are all good and are to be encouraged!
Arguably they form a hierarchy towards building very capable people who are willingly to go the extra mile and be held accountable for their contributions.
Engagement is the basis of good communication.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY  CLICKING HERE

Article: Five Lessons From Julia Galef’s Book, The Scout Mindset
By Jon Hersey, managing editor of The Objective Standard. Julia Galef is co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality, based in California. This article was published in Quillette.
COMMENT BY ANGELA DONNELLY, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP CANADA, ON THIS ARTICLE: Leaders are increasingly navigating complex social environments with individuals’ strongly-held beliefs getting in the way of meaningful debate and collaboration in the workplace. Galef’s book highlights our tendency to employ “motivated reasoning” to defend pre-existing beliefs and conclusions. She calls this a Soldier mindset – the tendency to defend one’s ideas at all costs, and thus limit receptiveness to receiving new information. Legitimate Leadership articulates Intent as our deeper motivation, the ‘why’ behind what we do. This Intent can either be to GET, or to GIVE. When we are there to GET, we are motivated by our needs and desire to control the outcome. We are thus constrained by presumption and act expediently. Galef’s Soldier mindset! However, when our intent is to GIVE, we rise above the constraints of internalised beliefs and conclusions – and become receptive to alternative perspectives. Galef refers to this as adopting a Scout mindset. I see motivated reasoning and conditional intent (giving to get something later or desiring a specific outcome) as two sides of the same coin.
THE ARTICLE: Respect for reason has waxed and waned throughout history. Today, its tide is receding. University professors resign in frustration from what were once our bastions of rationality. Increasingly, the barbarians are not merely at the gates, but running the show in a vast swathe of humanities departments. After decades of decay in our academic training grounds, radical identitarianism and other irrationalities are spreading with accelerating speed, and we are woefully short of thinkers capable of fighting them.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY  CLICKING HERE

February 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
Why, in the Legitimate Leadership Model, is clarification of expectations so important for enabling contribution?
The Legitimate Leadership Approach Replaces The Fist
In a gap in his career, a manager, Lee Thomas, who had gone through the full process of a Legitimate Leadership intervention at his former company years before, applied what he knew to turn around a business which was in a steep down-spiral.
Watching The Game With The Right Intent Makes The Most Impact
After close to a year as a Legitimate Leadership consultant I was recently asked which practice in the methodology and framework had made the biggest impact on my client groups. This is a tough question to answer since every aspect of the approach fundamentally shifts the way leaders see their role.
People Versus The Drive For Success … Which Wins?
A people transformation takes time. It starts with listening to and trusting people. It is enabled by valuing and demonstrating gratitude for people’s contributions. It is a journey of incremental steps forward. In any transformation there are defining moments.

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Tony Flannigan, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Why, in the Legitimate Leadership Model, is clarification of expectations so important for enabling contribution?
Answer: Legitimate Leadership says that people are far more likely to give when they have clarity regarding what they should be giving – as Marcus Buckingham said, “There is no such thing as a confused, productive employee.” Also, an employee cannot be held accountable if what s/he is accountable for has not been clarified and agreed in the first place.
More insight into this was recently offered by a young female manager participant in India. She said a two-way conversation allows people to talk about the Means and Ability they need for success – but also allows the leader to explain what growth s/he wants for the person by completing what may be a routine task.
This links into the fundamental Legitimate Leadership concept of using the job to grow the person. For instance, you are going to install a new kiln next month – but your growth would be to control your short temper with your colleagues (a behavioural improvement). Or, you are going to do a life cycle costing of the economics of operating that kiln over a five-year period – which would result in a performance/skill improvement.
Another young leader in India used the analogy of a guided missile: your people could be highly motivated, full of potential and eager to show what they can do – but if you point them at the wrong contribution, or worse still don’t point them at anything, then this could result in chaos and devastation.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Case Study: The Legitimate Leadership Approach Replaces The Fist
By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership.
In a gap in his career, a manager, Lee Thomas, who had gone through the full process of a Legitimate Leadership intervention at his former company years before, applied what he knew to turn around a business which was in a steep down-spiral. He did not remember all the Legitimate Leadership terminology, but the approach was “hard to forget” he says – and it had dramatic results for the business and its employees.
It was an owner-run engineering and manufacturing business. It had been going for 49 years when Lee became involved, and by then the owner was in his late 70s. The owner had a tough background and ran the business in a tough way. He and three men he had appointed to run it with him controlled it with tight fists – often actually. Most of the approximately 55 employees were minimum-wage and were working there because they could not find other jobs. Management’s approach was, “Use the stick, and if that doesn’t work use it harder.” The owner spoke of it as a family business, but it was anything other than that.
The results were not good – reflected in high staff turnover (about five people every month left and had to be replaced) as well as an extremely high 85% rate of returns of products sold due to quality problems.
High street banks had stopped lending to the business, and in order to keep it afloat, the owner had been forced to go to private banks which charged higher interest rates. But the banks had insisted that he restructure and revamp the business. Which was where Lee came in.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY  CLICKING HERE

Article: Watching The Game With The Right Intent Makes The Most Impact
By Joolz Lewis, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
After close to a year as a Legitimate Leadership consultant I was recently asked which practice in the methodology and framework had made the biggest impact on my client groups. This is a tough question to answer since every aspect of the approach fundamentally shifts the way leaders see their role.
But if I had to choose, it would be what we call ‘Watching the Game’. Here’s why.
Clearly, the scoreboard is important. You know what the business needs to achieve, how to measure it and what KPIs or lag/lead indicators you need to track.
It’s also true that your people need to know what goals and results they are working towards. How else do they know what difference their contribution is making, or how they can add value?
But once the results and targets have been clarified and communicated, you need to quickly shift your attention to what your people can individually contribute towards achieving those results. This is about actively growing them, ensuring they have everything they need to give of their best.
There’s only one true way you can determine whether your people have what they need to make real contributions – whether that’s the means (tools, time, authority etc.), the ability or the will. That’s by watching the game.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY  CLICKING HERE

Video: People Versus The Drive For Success … Which Wins?
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: It is care and growth, not care or growth. And of the two, care is primary. It is what gives leaders the license to grow. If leaders are setting the bar high and insisting on excellence, but with the intent to enable people to be the best that they can be, this is fundamentally different from driving people in the relentless pursuit of the results. The former brings out the best in people; the latter not only exhausts people but leads them to leave, either literally or through a withdrawal of their willingness.
OUR RENDITION OF THIS VIDEO: Sinek talks a lot about having empathy and that leaders should look at people as human beings. But surely there is a tension between that and the will to succeed? How is that best balanced? Surely you can have a wonderful organizational culture that isn’t actually advancing the ball?
Sinek’s reply is that the tension is healthy. “If all you have is empathy then you have a hippie commune and you’re not actually going to cure anything. But if all you’re doing is driving the numbers, you are going to have a short life span and break the machine. Also, you might have a spike and then you’ll disappear. All your best people will say, ‘I hate it here’ and go and work somewhere else and take all their brilliance somewhere else. So there is a balance.
READ THE FULL RENDITION OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE

January 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
What is the big deal about accountability – why would it improve the bottom line?
The Power Of Information Sharing
Who would have thought that you could unlock the willingness of your people to contribute to the goals and objectives of the organisation by simply giving them information on how the factory is doing on a monthly basis?
Everybody Matters – A Documentary On The Best-Selling Book
A people transformation takes time. It starts with listening to and trusting people. It is enabled by valuing and demonstrating gratitude for people’s contributions. It is a journey of incremental steps forward. In any transformation there are defining moments.


Legitimate Leadership Programme
February 2022  
Executive Overview Of The Legitimate Leadership Model
One Day Programme
22 February 2022
Houghton Golf Club, Johannesburg, South Africa
Introduction To The Legitimate Leadership Model
Two Day Programme
23 & 24 February 2022
Zoom
For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Ian Munro, Director, Legitimate Leadership 
Question: What is the big deal about accountability – why would it improve the bottom line?
Answer: Accountability is a huge opportunity which many businesses are missing. There is no business that we have consulted to that wouldn’t have experienced a significant improvement in performance if people just did what they said they would do. Conversely, everyone has had the privilege of working with people who are entirely dependable – they always deliver what they say they will. There are a few simple things you and your leadership team can do to get closer to this:
1. Start caring about the right things. Legitimate leaders care about two things: people and results. Not “people for the results they produce”, but “people and the results they produce”.  READ THE FULL ANSWER BY CLICKING HERE
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

ARTICLE: THE POWER OF INFORMATION SHARING
By Wendy Lambourne,  Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Who would have thought that you could unlock the willingness of your people to contribute to the goals and objectives of the organisation by simply giving them information on how the factory is doing on a monthly basis?
In December 2014 a senior manufacturing manager at a manufacturing plant in Garankuwa, North West Province, South Africa, attended a two day Legitimate Leadership workshop and decided to make some changes when he returned to the factory. One of these was that he would share information regularly on how the factory was doing and particularly how it was contributing to the overall goals and objectives of the business.
This manager decided that he would start the process by explaining how the monthly costs were made up; the difference between fixed and variable costs; and where his manufacturing team could make a difference.
He was really not sure how this would be received because historically his experience was that management only shared information on costs just prior to wage negotiations – and that was done with the express intent to make a case for not acceding to the “excessive” wage demands of the unions.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY  CLICKING HERE


VIDEO: EVERYBODY MATTERS – A DOCUMENTARY ON THE BEST-SELLING BOOK
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO: A people transformation takes time. It starts with listening to and trusting people. It is enabled by valuing and demonstrating gratitude for people’s contributions. It is a journey of incremental steps forward. In any transformation there are defining moments. The 2008 financial crash gave the leadership of Barry-Wehmiller an opportunity to demonstrate their intent. They passed the intent test and that is what “sealed the deal” and convinced people that the GPL (Guiding Principles of Leadership) “was real”. If they had failed the intent test they would have given people cause to believe the opposite. Whenever leaders pass the intent test (put their people’s interests first and do the right thing rather than the expedient thing) their people trust them more.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: When children say they want to be a doctor, a pilot or a fireman, they are envisaging occupations and jobs which will be fulfilling. It is not surprising that they have these positive hopes because each one is someone’s precious child. Someone cares for them, someone values them, someone wants them to be happy and find fulfilment in their life. To those children, work is going to be fun. They never dream that work might be a dismal existence in which they’re micromanaged into oblivion. So why is it, when we go to work, most employers don’t think of us as precious or valued? Instead, we are what we do. We are functions rather than people. We’re expendable, we don’t really matter.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE  BY  CLICKING HERE
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE  BY  CLICKING HERE

December 2021

Featured
Question of the Month
Does Legitimate Leadership say that the results are not important compared to the contribution of individuals?
What Happens When You Shift Focus From Results To Contribution
In 2017 Legitimate Leadership conducted a 15-month leadership transformation project in a major automotive company’s retail operation. Over 100 of the business’s leaders, from the CEO to frontline dealership managers, participated in the project designed to help them understand and apply the Legitimate Leadership principles.
How Humble Leadership Really Works
When you’re a leader — no matter how long you’ve been in your role or how hard the journey was to get there — you are merely an overhead unless you’re bringing out the best in your employees. Unfortunately, many leaders lose sight of this.

Legitimate Leadership Programme
February 2022  
In Conversation With – Webinar
10 February 2022
Zoom
Executive Overview Of The Legitimate Leadership Model
One Day Programme
22 February 2022
Houghton Golf Club, Johannesburg, South Africa
Introduction To The Legitimate Leadership Model
Two Day Programme
23 & 24 February 2022
Zoom
For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership 
Question: Does Legitimate Leadership say that the results are not important compared to the contribution of individuals?
Answer: : Obviously the results are very important! Anyone who does anything seriously has goals and a strong desire to achieve them. And in any competitive environment, one competes to win, not lose.
But the essential way to achieve the result is neither to focus on it nor to obsessively measure progress against it. A desire to stand on the top of the world and a determination of how far short of the top one is does not get the relatively few people who succeed in conquering Everest to do so. Similarly, a fixation on the score on the scoreboard, relative to other athletes’ scores, is not what gains a winning score for the athlete. Nor does an ambition to progress up the hierarchy assure promotion to the desired position.
What determines whether or not mountaineers reach the summit, other than luck (and luck plays a part in every result), is all that they do to get there – how well they prepare for the ascent, the choice of the right path to take, that they pace themselves correctly and then overcome the inevitable obstacles along the way.
All of these things are themselves a reflection on those leading the expedition – their ability to select high-calibre team members and then enable them both in preparation for and throughout the climb.
Similarly, “games are won by players who focus on the playing field, not by those whose eyes are glued to the scoreboard” (Warren Buffett). More accurately, games are won by talented players who have exceptional coaches.
Finally, what produces the desired organisational result is that people at every level in the organisation make the contribution required of them to produce the result. Enabling people to make the contribution required of them, to be the best that they can be, and to be prepared to go above and beyond in pursuit of the organisation’s objectives, is the job of those in leadership positions in the organisation.
In my experience of corporations, middle and senior managers spend well over 50% of their time in setting, measuring and mincing about whether they and their subordinates are achieving the targeted results. In contrast, they spend far less time ensuring that their subordinates have the means, ability and accountability to achieve those results. If the ratio was the other way round, better results would be achieved with much greater job satisfaction for all concerned.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SHIFT FOCUS FROM RESULTS TO CONTRIBUTION
By Josh Hayman, senior associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In 2017 Legitimate Leadership conducted a 15-month leadership transformation project in a major automotive company’s retail operation. Over 100 of the business’s leaders, from the CEO to frontline dealership managers, participated in the project designed to help them understand and apply the Legitimate Leadership principles.
The project gave us the opportunity to witness many successes in shifting leader’s intent from taking to giving, but one particular story has stood out for me. It is about a dealership sales manager in Pretoria, South Africa – Francois Fourie.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY  CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: HOW HUMBLE LEADERSHIP REALLY WORKS
By Dan Cable, writing in the Harvard Business Review. Cable is professor of organizational behaviour at London Business School. His book Exceptional helps people build a personal highlight reel to unlock potential; his book Alive at Work is about the neuroscience of why people love what they do.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP ON THIS VIDEO: : In both the food delivery service example as well as the banking example, what is depicted in simple and practical terms is a shift in a leader’s intent from using control (sticks and carrots) to ‘get’ results out over the unwilling, to being in the relationship to enable those in the frontline to make an above-and-beyond contribution. Being in the relationship to ‘give’ however requires leaders to go beyond asking their people how they can help them, listening to and responding to their ideas. It requires delivering in full on both criteria for legitimate power: care and growth.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE: When you’re a leader — no matter how long you’ve been in your role or how hard the journey was to get there — you are merely an overhead unless you’re bringing out the best in your employees. Unfortunately, many leaders lose sight of this.
Power can cause leaders to become overly obsessed with outcomes and control, and therefore treat their employees as means to an end. As I’ve discovered in my own research, this ramps up people’s fear — fear of not hitting targets, fear of losing bonuses, fear of failing — and as a consequence people stop feeling positive emotions and their drive to experiment and learn is stifled.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE  BY  CLICKING HERE

November 2021

Featured
Question of the Month
When recruiting staff, how do you select givers rather than takers?
Legitimate Leadership And Okrs Can Enhance And Cement Each Other
OKRs are about setting inspirational goals and pursuing them with discipline; Legitimate Leadership is about intent and culture. OKRs are a system for identifying and working towards desired outcomes. A company should first build a team and a culture, then elevate its performance through goals or OKRs.
What Is Needed For A High-Performing Team
“Service, giving to another, having their back, is what makes the highest-performing teams in the world – not their strength or their intelligence, but their willingness to be there for each other.”

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership 
Question: When recruiting staff, how do you select givers rather than takers?
Answer: Firstly, if you want an organisation where you have more givers than takers, you need to have givers in charge. This is simply because givers beget givers. Whenever you appoint someone to a leadership role, therefore, it makes simple good sense to appoint givers rather than takers.
Legitimate Leadership has developed a process to help client organisations select first line managers who are givers. It begins with giving the candidates a half-day of input on the basics of the Legitimate Leadership Model, then testing their comprehension via a multiple choice questionnaire. The next step in the selection process is to give candidates a series of accountability scenarios which test not whether they would do the right leadership thing in practice, but whether they at least know what the right leadership action is (right being ‘aligned to the Legitimate Leadership Model’). The final step in the process is structured interviews which probe for and determine the candidates’ willingness to embrace this kind of approach to leading others, and also their basic ability to lead in this way.
The Legitimate Leadership Model fundamentally changes the traditional view of what the real job of those in authority is – namely, to care for and cultivate exceptional people (which is a precondition for legitimate power). Succeeding as a leader requires holding people appropriately accountable. It is the hardest part of caring for and growing people. Legitimate Leadership’s accountability scenarios test the candidate’s understanding of what holding people fairly accountable really means. There are givers at work but the give they want to make is to the task, not other people. Not everyone either wants to be or can be a leader. So the last step in the selection process gauges the candidates’ desire and ability to lead.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

WEBINAR: LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP AND OKRS CAN ENHANCE AND CEMENT EACH OTHERV
The pursuit of objectives promoted by goal management systems such as OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) and the enablement promoted by Legitimate Leadership sometimes fit uncomfortably together. But with conscious design, they can be integrated to enhance and cement each other and become two sides of an equation.
OKRs are about setting inspirational goals and pursuing them with discipline; Legitimate Leadership is about intent and culture. OKRs are a system for identifying and working towards desired outcomes. A company should first build a team and a culture, then elevate its performance through goals or OKRs.
Both Legitimate Leadership and OKRs are journeys and neither is done in the short term.
These were among the insights shared in a Legitimate Leadership webinar entitled OKRs And Legitimate Leadership: Competing Or Complementary? held on 14 October 2021. The webinar was attended by about 70 people.
READ THE FULL REPORT ON THIS WEBINAR BY  CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: WHAT IS NEEDED FOR A HIGH-PERFORMING TEAM
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP ON THIS VIDEO: We totally agree with Simon Sinek here. The following is what Legitimate Leadership believes about teams. First, a team succeeds to the degree to which the individuals on the team are committed to the team’s objectives (all things being equal, a group of motivated and willing people outperforms a group of less motivated and willing people). Second, a team succeeds to the degree to which individuals in the team are prepared to suspend their own agendas for the bigger interests of the team. Further, a team succeeds when the average interaction between individuals in the team is collaborative rather than competitive. And where individuals in the team deliberately set up other members of the team to succeed.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: The Navy SEALs (the United States Navy Sea, Air, and Land Teams), are one of the highest-performing organizations on the planet. A former Navy SEAL was asked who makes it through the selection process to become a SEAL.
He said, “I can’t tell you who gets through, who makes it, but I can tell you the kind of people who don’t make it.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO  BY  CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO BY  CLICKING HERE

October 2021

Featured
Question of the Month
Should complacency be deemed as carelessness (the Means and Ability were in place)? Is this an accountability issue, and therefore should we censure for carelessness?
Evoking The Value-Add, Rather Than The Activity, In A Job
I have been working with leaders in a private healthcare organisation which has been successfully applying the Legitimate Leadership principles for the past four years. I recently had an opportunity to interact with a group of four of its employees during one of our online programmes, Giving And Taking At Work.
How Managers Increase Trust And Regain Power
People choose to grant or withhold trust in other people based on how they perceive their intent or motive. That is, whether they believe that those people are in the relationship to ‘give’ or to ‘get’ from them. Further to this, people trust those they believe care for them, who trust them and are fair in their dealings with them.
Cows Don’t Give Milk
A father used to say to his children when they were young, “When you all reach the age of 12, I will tell you the secret of life.”

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership 
Question:  Should complacency be deemed as carelessness (the Means and Ability were in place)? Is this an accountability issue, and therefore should we censure for carelessness?

Answer:  For people to make a contribution to standard or better requires three things: the need to have the Means to do so (allowed); the Ability to do so (can); and the Accountability (will) to do so.

If ‘complacency’ means the person couldn’t be bothered or couldn’t care less, then this is a lack of will to do what is required of him/her. As such the person should be censured or warned that this attitude to the job is not acceptable and needs to change. He/she needs to choose careful rather than careless next time.
But ‘complacency’ could also be about low standards or a tolerance of mediocrity. If so, this is a leadership issue. The problem here is that the leader is setting the bar too low.
The leader should raise the standard and insist that the more exacting standard is adhered to.
The only person who sets the standard is the leader. The standard that is expected, demonstrated and walked past is the standard the leader gets. If complacency has become the norm, blame the leaders, not the employees.
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: EVOKING THE VALUE-ADD, RATHER THAN THE ACTIVITY, IN A JOB
By Josh Hayman, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
I have been working with leaders in a private healthcare organisation which has been successfully applying the Legitimate Leadership principles for the past four years. I recently had an opportunity to interact with a group of four of its employees during one of our online programmes, Giving And Taking At Work. The group was made up of staff from the reception area, the debtor’s department, and clinical staff.
The topic of conversation was, ‘When you are giving in your job, what are you actually doing?’ Legitimate Leadership asks this question as part of an exercise to help employees engage with the value-add in their jobs, as opposed to the activity.
The four employees answered the question variously:
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE 

ARTICLE: HOW MANAGERS INCREASE TRUST AND REGAIN POWER
 By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
People choose to grant or withhold trust in other people based on how they perceive their intent or motive. That is, whether they believe that those people are in the relationship to ‘give’ or to ‘get’ from them. Further to this, people trust those they believe care for them, who trust them and are fair in their dealings with them.
What this means for those in managerial roles in organisations is five things:
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY  CLICKING HERE

STORY: COWS DON’T GIVE MILK
Author unknown.
COMMENT ON THIS STORY BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: There is nothing wrong with wanting a positive outcome. But the outcome is out of our hands because the result in any case is a function of extraneous factors outside of our control (luck always plays a part) – as well as what is done by those who contribute to the result. But contribution, unlike the result, is absolutely within our control. So focus on what you do and do the best you can. Dedicate yourself to something worthwhile and let the outcome take care of itself. Gary Player, a South African golfer, knew this when he responded to a comment that he was “so lucky”. “The harder I practice the luckier I get,” he said. I suspect Emma Raducanu (current US Open tennis champion) feels the same way – “I came to play tennis, I love to compete.” Perhaps her parents had a version of “Cows don’t give milk, you have to work for it”.
THE STORY: A father used to say to his children when they were young, “When you all reach the age of 12, I will tell you the secret of life.”
One day when the oldest turned 12, he anxiously asked his father what the secret of life was. The father replied that he was going to tell him, but that he should not reveal it to his brothers.
READ THE FULL STORY CLICKING HERE