Cruise Control Plus

Seven years ago I began a bicycling expedition with the goal of riding coast-to-coast and along the East Coast; this has become an annual ride ritual every June. I have been completing this ride in segments of about 400 to 500 miles each year. So far I have completed East-to-West segments extending from Bar Harbor, Maine, to Orchard Park, N.Y., and segments along the length of the East Coast from Bar Harbor to Statesboro, Ga. Next year I plan to finish the East Coast by riding from Statesboro to Key West, Fla. The yearly adventure has become a cathartic release from my daily academic work and consulting routines.

These are all self-supported tours (no one follows along with luggage or assists if there is a breakdown). About half of the time I have been with a friend and the rest of the time I have completed the segments alone.  I believe there are interesting features of the rides that tell a story about leadership. 

Most years, I ride about 1,500 miles, but even so I still consider myself an amateur cyclist. My travel friend, Ed (known him since the 4^th grade), on the other hand, is an avid biker who often exceeds 4,000 miles annually. His equipment is superior to mine in many ways, including his bike's weight. During this past June's trip, I also paid particular attention to his cycling style and formulated theories that are linked to the practice of leadership. One significant observation of his approach is the steadiness of his cadence that leads to an increase in his speed, reaching around 14-17 mph; I tend to crawl along comparatively at 10-12 mph. 

Cadence is defined as the pace by which one turns the bike pedals a single revolution and is usually calculated by revolutions or cranks per minute. Ed has the steadiest cadence one can imagine. If he is riding on flats or a hill, he works to keep his cadence the same. I asked him about this and he explained that he simply puts out more energy to keep the steady pace when going up a hill. This translates into a higher overall average speed and explains why he ends up with a good amount of time resting and waiting for me to catch up. 

In contrast to his steadiness, my cadence is choppy with periods of rapid movement accentuated by short periods of rest. One could say that I am the opposite of steady (interestingly enough, we both drive our cars this way as well – he has a steady foot on the gas while I move my foot up and down). While we both arrive at the destination, he is always there earlier; at the end of the day, I also suspect I am much more exhausted than he is. He is always trying to mentor me to speed up just a bit and to take spin classes to increase my endurance and ability. The message here is that pace (and leadership) can be learned. The parallels for organizational life are interesting. Frenetic movement with periods of rest may not work as well as a steady pace. 

These observations led me to think of his riding in terms of leadership and how his riding parallels that of cruise control on a car. A car's cruise control technology is an interesting metaphor for leadership. It is a mechanism that is designed to keep the car at a steady pace regardless of road conditions and, if desired, to accelerate to a new pace. Like in a leadership role, the driver must continue to monitor what is happening to prevent losing control. 

Cruise control could be considered a leadership style, which I will call Cruise Control Plus. A Cruise Control Plus leader (CCP) is characterized by the following:

• A CCP leader never lets up and always makes sure the movement of the organization remains at a steady and constant pace. He or she never allows the organization to slow down (unless it is necessary for its long-term survival and/or success) and works to keep it moving forward by appropriately motivating its workers; this is partly accomplished by establishing and communicating a clear direction.
  
•  If competition blocks or hinders the organization’s progress, the CCP leader determines a method to go around, block, tackle or shift to move forward. Like the cruise control on a car, CCP leaders keep the pace. If a "hill" is presented, the organization needs to accelerate to keep moving and from falling behind.

• CCP leaders use acceleration (Plus) based on what fits with the workers and organizational context. There is an equilibrium of sorts that applies to all organizations. It is based on capacity and capability of the organization requiring the CCP leader to adapt to what is optimal for his or her organization. This decision derives from internal and external factors. While the organization is restrained by its capacity and capability, the CCP leader must determine if it is sufficient for long-term success (or survival) and if not, make the required changes for acceleration to a new operating pace based on the markets it serves. This may mean the addition of new personnel with needed skills or the replacement of people; it can also mean new rules, procedures, technologies, etc., and doing what is necessary to maintain the pace for growth and survival.

• The CCP leader always figures out a way to keep the pace steady and accelerates as needed. This also means a strategy of retrenchment is rarely followed unless it is for the purpose of survival.

• CCP leaders are steady and consistent, and workers find this comforting. While many leaders focus on performance of the organization, some leaders also instill purpose and meaning. The Transformational leader works with followers to transcend personal interests for the betterment of the organization by providing a belief in something more important (e.g. purpose). A steady pace and adaptation to a different pace as needed is in the domain of a Transformational leader.¹

I have observed organizations that fail to recognize the need for movement forward. Some organizations establish a pace that is too fast (beyond the means of the people in the organization to support it) and as the change research suggests, these people will likely increase their resistance. Alternatively, I have witnessed organizations that have established a cadence that is too slow – this leads to apathy and often those with skills may find it boring; workers who prefer movement and have greater capacity may leave this organization if not presented with interesting and challenging goals.

This also highlights another issue. The fast-paced culture requires a cadre of workers in the mindset of speed; a slow pace has a similarly correlated requirement. Given that leadership is about change, leaders are best suited for the more rapid cadence environment whereas managers are better matched to the slower pace. 

So where does this leave my bike riding in comparison to my friend? If Ed and I were to be hired and we assumed our bike riding signals our leadership alignment, Ed would be hired in a fast-paced, steady-cadence environment; he would be considered a Cruise Control Plus leader. I, on the other hand, would seem to fit better where a manager is needed. 

How does this relate to leadership in general? Leaders need to consider the pace at which they will move the organization forward and compare that to the capacity and capability in the business to do so. If there is a gap, the gap must be closed by hiring new personnel or by other means. A leader should never allow the constraints of the present organization to dictate pace; only the markets it serves governs that. The organization should steady itself at a given pace and then accelerate to its capacity limits and never let up. 

Please feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (3rd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.