Explorers are bad leaders

Both of them make their own kind of change-- explorers through acting generously to share what they found, and leaders by directly taking action to make change

Hey. Narrow can be dangerous? Broad might be safer?

This is painfully true

I guess there are some exceptions, explorers who became leaders. For example Richard Branson with his multitude of businesses and his adventurous lifestyle.
Though I suppose for most explorers putting on the leader's hat is extremely difficult, almost against their nature.

Is one necessarily better than the other? Do you believe folks can be both at the same time? Or morph from one to the other as they age?

An explorer can never truly let go of that adventurous spirit. They’ve accepted that it might be best if they do their own thing without having to follow anyone. Great post as always, Mr. Sivers!

"Leaders sell the dream."

No, Derek. Stop SELLING ideas. To lead, serve others...the rest will follow.

An interesting dichotomy. As some commenters have implied, the trick is to have an awareness so you can do both. (To morph)

A related dichotomy is product versus process. The former is our society's default, especially for leaders and administrators with any sense of self preservation: as in fixed deadlines, concrete stuff and more. And yet...

A chairman and a classroom teacher are product oriented, as they have stuff in their heads that they want to see happen, or get into other heads.

Some folks confuse "teacher" with "facilitator." Wrong. A facilitator does not have an agenda, she asks the group what is the agenda. If the president has just been shot that morning and the group, in shock, wants to discuss feelings, well, you better just go with it.

A good process, for groups and myself, can include working hard and taking optimal breaks, working slowly enough (versus rush to completion) to ensure that values are considered and slower thinkers are heard, and ensuring safety so that energy is released to spend on the task (not on self preservation)

I once knew I was facilitating well when someone said, "When you fall off a horse you have to get back on, so we should..." and an agreement to face up to a task was instantly crystallized in the group.

Again, the trick is to be aware of both, of both product and process. A good explorer is following a good process.

MLK Jr explored & led. John Lewis explored &led. RFK explored & led. Different world today.....Today, leading in most thongs is ONLY about power.

I think you make the case that:

- exploring isn't leading, and that
- it's hard to lead while exploring,

but I don't think a person has a static identity as either an explorer or a leader (and never both).

At times, any of us may be better served by either exploring or leading. We'd be well-advised to recognize which one our circumstances call for, and act accordingly.

Some Myers Briggs archetypes come to mind: INTJ v ENTJ. INTJs (the Masterminds) can be good leaders because they understand leadership so they can emulate. ENTJs (Field Marshal) are the natural born leaders that are infectious with their ability to motivate.

Is this the same thing as explorer v leader? The explorer is looking for solidity in truth (internal, ultimately independent and introverted). The leader is looking for solidity in relationship (external, interdependent and extroverted). Whatcha think Sivers?

I think I'm a little of both. I love to explore new and better ways of doing things. While I'm exploring, I don't dare try and lead, at least until I know it works out.

My experience - as per other comments here - is that you can be both (to a degree). I have often moved from exploring mode - more solitary, tbh - to leading. But I agree that we tend to be more one or the other by default.

great little text!! but this format sucks ....please start substack! be well!!

I love this! I work as a Location Scout AND a Location Manager for film and TV. It’s commonly a combined role that reflects both of these concepts. I definitely lean more into the scouting (explorer hat)! It’s hard to switch hats and some people I know definitely live on one side versus the other — pure scout v. Pure manager.

A point I’d add based on my experience is that explorers can lead a team of explorers very well (they can all keep up). Leaders can’t lead leaders as well. Too many cooks in the kitchen… you can explore in different directions with coordination but leading is leading and there is one leader.*

*maybe it’s a bit simplistic and to bring this around to another Sivers thought — the first follower is also a leader — but I think the basic point holds true. Subdomains and jurisdictions are just that. The leader steers the ship. One captains hand on the wheel. Where as explorers can explorer together and apart with more ease. End riff.

Hi Derek,
Have a wonderful trip to India.

The quote that immediately came to mind was "All who wonder are not lost".
I definitely see the point about the meandering explorer, some never reach their destination.
I think that a good leader, however needs to be able to adapt as the landscape changes. Have a plan, sure, but life is never a straight line and a good leader will turn around when the path leads to an unexpected turn or abrupt and unexpected end, and ask the team for their thoughts and ideas.

As far as dichotomies go. This one is easy to argue and difficult to accept, without really internalizing the context of the argument. I understand the simplicity of your statements. But by discounting nuance, altogether - Who are the people who follow explorers? Surely not leaders. And an explorer following a leader can exist. This one was provocative. Idealistic even.

Definately different roles to play. Leaders would not be able to lead without explorers.

Intriguing... the best line

Explorers occasionally find a great place that would make a better home for many people. So that makes a job for a leader.

however i didnt get it the first time and got it when i re read...may be just me but you may want to think about making it more obvious

Why you only associate leadership with clarity? A crucial leadership skill is to deal with the unknown, they step ahead and then make a trail for the rest. Give hope to the hopeless, the scared ones, the ones who hide against uncertainty. Good leaders tend to be good entrepreneurs, good followers tend to be good employees.

Explorers are often seen as risk-takers and innovators, driven by a thirst for adventure and a desire to push the boundaries of what is known and understood. They're the ones who venture into unknown territories, chart new courses, and seek out new discoveries. In many ways, they are the epitome of leadership and courage.

However, some argue that explorers aren't always the best leaders. They can be impulsive, selfish, and prone to making decisions based on their own desires rather than the well-being of their team. They may prioritize their own personal goals over the safety and success of the mission, putting their team members in harm's way or jeopardizing the success of the mission.

One of the key issues with explorer leaders is their lack of caution and foresight. They may charge ahead without fully considering the risks involved or the impact their actions will have on their team. This can lead to dangerous situations and potentially catastrophic outcomes. For example, many explorers have lost their lives in pursuit of their goals, leaving their team members and loved ones behind.

In addition, explorers can be poor communicators, making it difficult for them to effectively lead a team. They may not listen to the opinions and suggestions of their team members, disregarding their input and expertise. This can create a lack of trust and cooperation within the team, hindering their ability to work together effectively.

However, it's important to note that not all explorers are bad leaders. There are many examples of explorers who were effective leaders, inspiring their teams and making significant contributions to the fields of science, discovery, and exploration. They were able to balance their desire for adventure with their responsibility to their team and their mission.

While explorers can be seen as daring and innovative, their leadership qualities can also be a cause for concern. Their impulsive nature and tendency to prioritize their own goals over the well-being of their team can lead to dangerous situations and poor communication within the team. However, with the right balance of courage and caution, explorers can also be effective and inspiring leaders.

Shackleton is the only example I can think of that is both a leader and an explorer. Bottom line is vision setting and communication. Solo explorers don't really need the skills to either if they don't need a team.

This is very on-point with regards to my experience as an entrepreneur. Looking back, I am and have always been an explorer at heart. Not knowing that my curiosity and activation energy could actually hurt teams, I put myself and have been put in the position of leader many times over the past 10 years now and it has caused me and those on my teams quite a lot of stress.

I am very entrepreneurial, ambitious, and creative and I would like to harness my energy in a way that I can offer the most value to the people and initiatives I am focused on. It is a serious struggle for me, however, and I would sincerely appreciate hearing some more of your thoughts with regards to how explorers can best fit in!

This is real in my experience. Thanks for sharing, this helps me clarify something I’m working through real time.
I grew to executive director of an enterprise company, and there is no substitute I’ve found for a leader.
I’ve since exited and am now an Angel investor working with early stage startups.
There is endless opportunity to pivot and diversify product which is more like betting on an explorer. I’m finding my way to identify leaders, and then it’s making that mission translate for others to buy in easily, as some leaders are still raw talent that need guidance.
I’m also learning to be a leader in a fund with a clear mission and revenue targets, but it all translates. Solid post thanks man-

Interesting dichotomy. I think there is a Venn diagram to be had here. Not all explorers are leaders, and not all leaders are explorers, but I would argue some good explorers are good leaders.

Case in point: Roald Amundsen. The first person to traverse the South Pole and the leader of the pack.

My Opinion,Explorers are Bad Leaders.

You forgot to include dreamers.Your logic sounds good.

It sounds like you're doing the whole "there's two kinds of people" thing. Is the message really that explorer people are bad leaders? Or is the message more that exploring and leading are two different functions. Don't try to do them at the same time.

I'm intrigued by highly intelligent people who don't get things done. You would think smart equals getting things done, but that's obviously not always the case. Motivation is a big deal. Overcoming obstacles has an emotional or spiritual quality to the journey. I'm always intrigued when I discover a highly intelligent person who doesn't get something done. It always makes me think twice. Why?

Peter Roth once said followers and leaders are a pair and novices and masters are a pair. Followers need leaders to tell them what to do, and novices seek out masters to work towards mastery.

There's value in learning what kind of person someone is. I noticed this when I was a band leader. Some people kept asking very specific questions for how to interpret a lead sheet, like how many times are we going to repeat the introduction before we play the melody. I always thought that a lead sheet, if well written, is a well considered map, and it's exciting to travel a map because of the possibilities.

Interesting points you made Derek.
I do agree with your points I also thought about how people who disagree with it.

May also feel that perhaps explorers could make good leaders because
They may have experienced a whole lot of things through trial and error they may have also been to many places therefore they could be thought to be very open minded.

I thought it would be fun to explore both sides of reasons people could agree and disagree.

This is what I came up with.

Roald Amundsen was allowed to borrow the ship "Fram" from Fritjof Nansen to conduct research in the Arctic Ocean.
When Amundsen had come far out into the sea, beyond Nansen's reach, he ordered the crew to turn the boat to the south. In this way, and in complete secrecy, Roald Amundsen and his team became the first people to reach the South Pole on the fourteenth of December 1911.
Amundsen was an adventurer, who enthusiastically LEAD a very carefully selected crew with a passion for success.

Explorers are leaders. They are just a different kind of leader. Leaders can't lead without what they learn from explorers. It's too bad when leaders pretend they were the ones who made the discovery. Leaders follow explorers, but they take the shortcut. Leaders don't know where they are going until they see the explorer's next move.

Himm, I am an explorer and I always thought of myself as not so much of a bad leader:)

But I never thought of it this way before, thank you!

Now that I am thinking, maybe I am not that good of a leader :)

Explorers may be hard to follow because of their tendency to be insatiably attracted to the next shining object.

Goddamn it, Sivers. I want you to be WRONG.

(Then again, all the more reason to listen to the fact that you are RIGHT.)

Good reminder, thanks. :)

I agree. Each role requires its unique strength. Perhaps this is the reason many founders of startups are ineffective CEO's

I appreciate the sentiment you’ve presented here. Goodness knows a confident and competent leader is paramount. What’s the saying about needing a “one-handed economist”?

However, is the inverse also true?

Good leaders are indispensable, and, I would argue, so are explorers. I would love to hear your thoughts on the importance of teamwork between leaders and explorers because, well, where would we be without them and their tinkering and vulnerability? The courage to face uncertainty and (hopefully) try again? It’s not easy work, however fun and rewarding it might ultimately be.
Without them, we might be sitting in one spot for all eternity, spinning our collective wheels.

Perhaps this was a post meant to inspire this kind of response! I propose a reciprocal admiration and respect for these two very important types of people and their contributions to society.

Thanks, Derek! love your work.

I think the concept of a meandering explorer is quite different to a goal driven leader racing to place a flag on a spot or conquer a mountain, reinforcing Derek’s point. To explore this concept more may I suggest Ray Dalios principles you test. This divides personalities into a number of archetypes with one distinction being the separation of leaders from explorers. The ‘seeker’ archetype includes explorers, thinkers, and growth seekers. Derek I suspect you might fall into this group.

My 2 cents. Can't one embody both?

First explore. Meander not only to find a better way but to understand it. Then once the explorer understands this new meandering path they then can turn into a good leader.

Nay! An explorer (if self aware) can probably turn into one of the greatest leaders because they should know all the most confusing paths. The explorer would know how to simplify the path for others aka lead.

Maybe problems occur when a person or people expect leadership when they are exploring and vice versa.

The syncronicity is mind-boggling Derek. I've been on a 2 year explorer's journey through the minefield of an extremely rare form of cancer. Leadership is worthless in this scenario. It's all about exploration. Hence why I'm still around 12 months after I was supposed to die.

As always...you continue to rock Derek.

I suspect that the leader and explorer and not mutually exclusive. There may be a tendency to the artists meandering that can be hard to follow at times, but in truth a leader is one that inspires another to follow regardless of the meander or path taken.

Here are my 2p as someone who is both.
I think that Explorers are the perfect example of the type of leader we need today. I think this because of the way I see life and leadership as an explorer. The qualities make us ideal for leading through challenging and ever-changing times. (Willing risk-takers, resilient, not held back by outdated goals/maps, adept at forming strategies and inspiring others.) To be a leader, an Explorer needs to understand the importance of collaboration and communication, otherwise s/he would be better off living like Henry David Thoreau.

I was expecting more here but you just ended with the judgement. In the past I've related to your posts, maybe felt called out but in a good way. This is the first post of yours that felt like a punch in the gut. There's no lesson here, is there? Unless it's "don't collaborate with explorers but be sure to steal their ideas if you're a leader?"

Or is this just a projection about how you're truly an explorer and not suited to lead?

I'm at a loss here, Derek.

I feel like I'm an explorer who's been forcing myself to lead for so long, because creative projects need leadership and fundraising needs leadership and nothing will get done if I don't take the wheel. But I can tell I'd be much happier just exploring all the live long day.

This gave me a new perspective. I of course want to be a leader.

What if you switch back and forth between the two? Explore, lead, explore, lead. The leader’s ideas could be tested by exploration. The followers would benefit from being led by the passionate explorer themself.

Can you become an explorer or leader or develop aspects of this when you are an adult? How fixed do you think these are?
If you are an explorer how do you find a leader to help you and vice versa?

I’m pondering, would explorers and leaders make really good or really bad partners?

I thought to become a leader you have to become an explorer first.. My “Motto is The first part to achieving it, you have to believe it! This means exploring the possibilities in your mind of where we’re going and then lead the team to the destination! Just a thought from my 30 years of being a leader..

"So that makes a job for a leader" is a line that really popped to me, but it's a little buried. Is there a way to make that land more confidently?

Great insights Derek. Thanks for sharing. Hope NZ will be free soon and that you will be able to breathe a bit easier!

I'm just thinking about the kinds of exploration - shouldn't that be the determinant if one could lead effectively or not, instead of generally, any kinds of exploration?

Explorers are great leaders for fellow explorers.
Oooh! GREAT point Mildred! Thank you. — Derek

Explorers are lead to lead themselves.

Im an explorer but sometimes my enthusiasm for a place I've discovered attracts others. So I try to not to share my location finds, to keep them from being changed. To leave a place in peace. I think now more than ever our duty is to not tag places on instagram etc. You know what I mean? So ya - we don't need leaders in this scenario.

The world is rarely that black and white ... And leaders are not automatically good leaders. See Hitler, Mao, Putin ...

It sounds like you're talking at the level of personality types rather than occupations since those who explore as a profession or serious hobby are best off also having strong leadership qualities in order to motivate a crew under challenging conditions. Jean-Luc Picard was a top-notch explorer and an excellent leader (even if only a fictional character).

On the level of personality, an explorer, like a theoretician, is an outlier, which does make it more difficult for people to connect and follow them and for them to relate to others. That said, enough charisma and they become leaders (thought leaders, of nothing else). Foucault, Bucky Fuller, Ken Wilber, all major outliers with a following.

Similar to the Predators and the Creators in business...!

I think leaders are excellent explorers: they explore their thoughts

I read this and I felt a little sad. I'm an explorer who is drawn (driven?) to lead. Someone who tries to follow me says it's like I'm shuffling cards- deciding which way to go next.
I try to make it simple but by the time I've simplified it, it gets complicated again.
Maybe I'm an explorer and not a leader. Maybe the only kind of leader these days needs to be an explorer. Maybe leaders need to show people how to be explorers. Which are you, Derek? To me, you are an explorer-leader (no capital letters!)

and you may as well add the third category: managers.
managers are people in authority who command us (through incentives - sometimes the carrot, other times the stick) to act in a the way they outline.
managers take ideas from leaders then optimize them (shorten a supply chain, refine the modus operandi, cut costs, save time…) and often to maximize profit.
managers are too common - the debris of the industrial age … our society could do with a pivotal shift (quick, time is running out !) more leaders, more explorers, fewer managers …

IT's not trivial to separate the two stereotypes. A leader may be effective in rallying a team, but he's not going to be effective long term unless he is creative and can explore the landscape and forge a path into the unknown.

Leaders and explorers need each other. Without explorers, leaders would have no place in which to lead: without leaders, no one would be able to see what explorers have found.

This is the first time I have read a piece that so brilliantly explains the difference between ‘explorers’ and ‘leaders.’ People tend to think that ‘Explorers’ make great ‘Leaders’ but your astute definitions of both highlight, for me, the fact that the motivation behind their pursuits are completely different.

'Explorers’ could be seen as quite selfishly motivated; they’re keen to be the first to discover new places – whether that be for fame and glory, naming rights, or land claims. They’re not really required to spend any time ensuring that the land is actually habitable for the immigrants that follow.

Leaders, on the other hand, say, “Here’s where we’re going. Here’s why this will improve your life. Here’s how we’re going to get there. Let’s go.“ They are generally motivated by helping others and improving their lives so their motives are inherently unselfish.

Reading this thought-provoking post finally crystallised for me the qualities of a good leader…and made me appreciate how so very few of the so-called ‘leaders’ in large corporations and positions of power neither qualify nor deserve this title.

Thank you so much for this enlightening post, Derek.

I actually worked with a great explorer. He took a dying business and sold it with hundreds of millions after 4 years. He would come to work with a different idea to pursue on a weekly basis (most of them crazy ideas unrelated to the business field we were in). After we pushed back time and time again he realized he needs someone to get him to keep the eyes on the ball so he hired a second in command to complement him.

Maybe some truth but oversimplified.

Explorers have a sense of direction/purpose too. i think they are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

Business leaders need to be explorers too, to navigate and embrace changes.

Leaders who dont innovate wont last.

I know a real explorer who became leader and he's killing it. He's my boss :)

This feels like bait to me. You’re depicting a leader that lacks curiosity, lacks courage, and lacks creativity. You also depict a leader who is following an explorer. Therefore, it is the explorer who is the leader by influence, and by inspiration. So my guess is that this is the point that you are really making? A leader who cannot find for herself, based on her own, lived experiences in addition to the advice of others, can’t truly know where she is leading her followers.

Explorers want to be leaders for themselves, not for others. That's why they are a bad leader for others, but very good for themselves.

Reading this, I thought of explorers as our feminine essence and leaders as our masculine essence. I believe we all have both energies, meaning we all are explorers and leaders, and neither is good or bad. It is just an aspect of humanity. Whether we lead or explore depends on who is in the master control room (SELF or our egoic PARTS). Lee x

If leaders know the way, this suggests that all new knowledge and innovation comes only from explorer’s.

And here We are discussing only the nouns. Leader and Explorer. Is it not more useful to consider the verbs...leading and exploring?

Often someone in a leadership role will only know the general way. And a lone explorer is at best wandering with purpose and at worst lost, until they make it back and tell the way to go.

Thought provoking as always...

Thanks Derek

Leaders with an open mind of an explorer would be great:)

Tend to agree, with one caveat: for the reasons you stated, many people prefer to follow the Explorers, for their interestingness, compared to the boredom of the alternative.

Enjoyed this one, gets me thinking about other ‘traits’ that people assume makes good leaders but probably aren’t.

Agreed. However, one person can wear more than one hat. So long as you wear the right hat in the right circumstance, then the thinking of one can bleed into and inform the thinking of the other.

For example, a great leader who is also an explorer may obtain an instinct for how best to make the journey an adventure, and to best avoid the abyss that destroys you to get to the prize, the summit. And then build a nice cafe at the top for those that follow!

A great explorer may take aspects of leadership to help ensure those in their merry band focus on the goal, allowing for explorations of interesting diversions along the way that may come in handy later - after all, they came from the journey to the goal, so there's some relationship there.

All of the people I have admired the most and have been the most effective leaders do not stick to their lane. But they work out what's important when they are in that lane. And their ability to understand the detail comes from the curiosity to explore what's in all those adjacent lanes!

Interesting idea - I could associate this with the scout vs. soldier mindset!

Another option is to first explore and then lead:
When I encounter something valuable on my explorations, I can try to find a way to make it accessible to other people: first showing it to a few others and see whether they can follow. Once I have a system that reliably works for others, I am ready to say: "Hey, here is something cool. Please, follow."

Without Explorers there wouldn't be Leaders.I would classify them both being dependent on each other.

I think it depends on the followers, most people need direction and vision. I think future dynamic leaders follow explorers

An Explorer can actually make a great leader for another Explorer!!

A Leader needs to have some Explorer mindset too, to be willing to re-think and course correct in the face of new information.

Does leading equal power? Seems to be the case in this world, nowadays. Is rigidity better flexibility? Sailboats continually need to adjust the sails to harness the wind and ultimately get to their destination, meandering as necessary. They get there, eventually, but maybe not in a straight line.

Interesting proposition. I think I agree. Many explorers end up as leaders, but that doesn't make them ideal leaders. I think consistency is an important part of being a great leader.

When I was young I wanted to follow water ways of all kinds. I sailed all over
the great lakes and rivers, the Gulf Of Mexico. I sailed up to Alaska and down to the south Pole and visited the scientists working there in the only building at that time. To learn to sail I raced sailboats because if you don't you will have great problems regarding storms, tides, no winds, and things on the boat breaking.
I learned I sailed more but on bigger boats, mostly two and three hulled boats. After each trip I would write a story and send it to Sailing Magazines. As a result people in South America would ask me to race their sail boats. So exploring was great for me.

They once tried to teach honey bees simple math. No really. Rewarding them with sugar water, they could teach bees how to do basic addition and subtraction (but used colours instead of numbers. See blue means add. See yellow means subtract.)

They found that scout bees learnt faster. 5-15% of the hive are usually scout bees who explore and find new places of new food.

The difference between scout bees and worker bees? Scout bees' brains fire neurotransmitters faster. They need and crave more stimulation.

Two lessons I took from bees:

1. You need to spend 10-15% of your time exploring. If you don't find new food, you don't grow. The hive dies.

2. Anyone can become an explorer by increasing their stimulus (find interesting problems, increase rewards, etc). Anyone can become a worker / leader / manager by reducing their stimulus (meditation, find joy in process).

Both are essential skills to possess at different times.

So true. I have had to remind myself on a weekly (sometimes daily) basis to quit exploring and focus on staying in a straight line. I have finally come to the conclusion that I need to step aside and hire a leader, instead of frustrating my team!

So many examples of explorers who were great leaders jump to mind making this probably misguided.

Go read “The Endurance” about Ernest Shackleton. Fast, fun, inspiring.

The error is the statement assumes all explorers share the same qualities which make for bad leaders.

I went to ask ChatGPT but it was down so I actually had to think for a moment. That’s a different and interesting conversation.

Leaders are doing what they do for other people. Explorers do what they do for themselves. Intentions always matter. People forget that.

it really depends on what the crew is after.

if someone wants to live in the matrix, working mourningfully and tediously just for the sake of money, go after this ‘leader’ you describe here.

if you want to LIVE, a true life, go after the explorer.

James Cameron is one of the best examples of an explorer AND a leader. and boy, oh boy! did he manage to accomplish stuff, from Avatar, to exploring deeep sea.

try not to narrow down your focus too much, broaden it up a little bit =)

Beautifully articulated.

Great observation! There is a difference, especially in how we are viewed by followers. I'm often an explorer in discovering new things and can't articulate the "straight line" picture until I arrive at my destination and people find that difficult to follow. And to your point, once there, I or someone else can draw the line clearly for those to follow, but not until I get there. Thanks for your incite. I enjoy your perspectives. - Todd

I can only recommend on that subject the "Shackleton" 2002 TV-Mini Series.
Was Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton a good leader or a great explorer.
Maybe both, but probably not.
You judge...The story is absolutely unbelieveable...

Depends on who needs to be lead. Some people need an Explorer to lead them, so they then have "permission" to explore on their own. And some definitely need a Leader to help them learn some organizational skills.
Best option? Recognize what one lacks, find the teacher, and become adept at both...

I think this is an oversimplification. Explorers can most definitely be leaders, they just aren't the same kind of leader as we traditionally expect. I think the new leader will be an explorer, someone who sees things in a new light and shares their insights. I think the old leader will no longer be as useful in the new world.

No explorer no leader. "Leader describe the destination" because an explorer went there.

I am in a leadership position, but I really am more of an explorer. Which, in hindsight, probably drives my team crazy!

We would not be where we are if I were not willing to explore. I have to delegate other actions, tasks, and responsibilities so that I can be at my best.

How do you see yourself more..explorer or leader?
Your description explains in part why I struggle. I've been torn between leading people and leaving people to explore. Your book How to Live shows this conflict in different ways, too. Great read. Thank you for offering it to the world.

I kept thinking of the relationship between Explorers and Leaders and how much it resembles Visionaries and Integrators from the book, Rocket Fuel by Gino Wickman & Mark C. Winters. The Visionary is the idea generator, big picture, future-setting, hunting mentality while the Integrator is the steady force, running the day-to-day. They are the ones that take the ideas and vision and turn it into reality.

Always wondered why I was not a good leader early on. I can deal with uncertainty but am not great at explaining why we're staying at a specific place. Short on explanations but great at navigating. Thanks for sharing Derek!

Truth! Sometimes the solution is simplicity. Thank you for putting this into words that sum up a feeling as if you have known me forever.

"The first follower turns the lone nut into a leader."

I think you're right about explorers being bad leaders. Maybe leadership is often a kind of collaboration between the explorer, and the few early followers of those explorers who figure out how to package the explorer's discoveries and make them more accessible to the masses.

We don't like attributing leadership to groups, so whether the explorer or the first followers ultimately get the credit for being the leader is probably often just a matter of optics and cultural narrative.

To extract ourselves from our current societal malaise, we need many more explorers and a few good leaders to follow in the explorer's footsteps.

At their core, leaders are communication systems that clarify and simplify what explorers cannot. Good leaders provide value for society but are increasingly rare. What we, as a society, need to do is significantly increase the average performance of leaders. This is why I've begun to advocate transitioning the job of a leader from humans to Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Not a big fan of "either or"; ie Explorers can also be great Leaders and Leaders can also be excellent Explorers. There are always mixed abilities and proclivities as many commented. Understanding the differences, though, is important.

Hi Derek, totally.

Explorers are bad leaders, they dont have energy left for leading. They are having enoguj work in the exploratory journey.

But they must try to lead, at least in a minimum way.

Thanks!

Sounds like a plausible hypothesis. Though I can also imagine that there are exceptions. Do you have any scientific evidence to back up this hypothesis?

For similar reasons, I've wondered if entrepreneurs (explorers) make bad CEOs (leaders). Of course not as a rule, but a tendency. Seems very hard for some solo-preneurs to balance these two roles, as they're either so quickly and excitedly following new ideas that things never get implemented/delegated, or so bound up on documentation, organization, etc. that things get stale and lack imagination and new perspective.

Thanks as always for sharing thought-provoking posts!

Sounds like my boss is an explorer!
hahaha

Interesting this.

I have just completed an assessment tool at work (Harrison Assessment) and one of the "paradoxes" is about being both confident of your ideas and also open to new possibilities.

I think modern leaders need to be both "leaders" and "explorers". But the exploration is with a team, not on your own!

Nice description, but as a retired senior leader with 30 years experience I feel qualified to qualify.

Sometimes leaders need to go exploring. This can work as long as you are very careful to either do it surreptitiously, or else put out a very clear message of ‘this is a frolic, don’t follow’

The former works better because your people generally ignore the ‘don’t follow’ messages.

And then there are plenty of bad leaders out there who aren't explorers, so they have no excuse :-)

I like it. Well done.

I think leaders do need a smidge of an explorer in them so that they can continue pushing forward, continuing to learn, continuing looking around the corner, continue to challenge him/herself. But then again, maybe that is only done personally/privately so that can feel more confident in the chosen path.

Hi Derek!! Oh! Have fun in India!!❤🤗👏🙏
Speaking for myself, I am just trying to 'lean in' , listen, think, and when I feel direction, I focus my energies forward.
❤🤗🎼
Been writing new music and looking forward to recording!!
Thank you Derek!
Rachel 🤗❤🎼

Explorers and leaders are roles as much as archetypes, right? Agreed that they are two different roles, but just noting that one person can fulfill those two roles at two different times... exploring to find the place to go, and then switching from explorer to leader in order to bring people to it.

I really liked the explorers vs leaders article ...

Would be awesome to put in a couple of examples - like Christopher Columbus being a bad leader, but a great explorer - stuff like that :)

This is a great comment. It gets the conversation going.

Exploring and leading are two different skills.

Some leaders are quite bad at exploring. They know the path! They know where they’re going! They are so sure of themselves!

Is it any wonder that some people are led down the wrong path not by explorers, but leaders who say they know where they’re going and want people to follow.

Alternatively, the mode of exploring is about not just understanding the landscape, but understanding oneself. Isn’t it good to have a leader that understands the landscape and understands themselves?

Just think for a moment about Steve Jobs and how when he was young he went off to India. What was it? To learn calligraphy or something? He learned about himself there. He explored. And then, he led.

Derek,

My wife is exactly the leader you describe here. She has problems with a lot of people who are explorers but pretend to be leaders.

It would be worth making a difference. In my opinion there are two kinds of explorers: 1.- The explorers who pretend to be leaders and 2.- The explorers who are authentic explorers.

True explorers are creative people. Their inner world is almost scientific. They are introspective. They turn out to be very private. They do not want to follow anyone or be followed by anyone. I am one of those.

I immediately started looking at examples of explorers and leaders from history.

Columbus either had a sea crew but there were also many slaves who were maid to join the voyage. Edmund Hillary was an explorer, and is accompanied by porters and Sherpas (professional guides).
None of these can be called followers. Where are people like Gandhi had followers who willingly joined the satyagrah movements , same goes for a Martin Luther King.

So, its a powerful distinction a explorers and a leader. Normally an explorer is assumed to be a leader, this article brings out the subtleties.

**Short contribution:**

An Explorer walks into the unknown to check out the environment and any inhabitants. With no agenda other than to get the lay of the land, gather information and learn how to interpret, interact and communicate in that environment.

A Leader holds the heart of their people as their own heart. Takes all the explorer data into consideration and opens pathways for the people to traverse the environment - while at the same time - keeping an eye out for external and/or internal mamae (pain/heaviness) and having ways to a) tend to the mamae and b) convert that mamae into knowledge to be returned to the heart of the people.

As a human being - we are both. But the environment, the people and the purpose determines which ability is best suited for any given situation. And our knowledge, trust and confidence in self, determines whether we step into one of those roles or not.

---

**A novel long brain-stream that informs the short contribution lol:**

My bias says we come into this life exquisitely created to explore - we're literally beings who leave the world of the womb, to be pushed out into an alien (yet familiar) world: The environment we come into, the people we're surrounded by, the experiences our brain and hearts are exposed to - it all creates connections of meaning and understanding between every single new thing that comes into our awareness. Which begins the unconscious blueprint for later life.

But at the same time, we are born interpreters/followers too. Interpreters of the external environment and followers of people who are already part of this world - it's these people, who are our first exposure to 'leaders'.

So to oversimplify for this context: Babies/children = explorers, interpreters and followers. Babies follow to stay alive. Coz if they don't - they die.

I'm a Kui (grandmother) now. I get to watch my son be a 'leader' with his whānau (family). And every time I'm in the presence of my grandson, face to face, heart to heart, presence to presence (even the memory of this when I'm not with him) - my connection to him explodes ALL the love in my whole entire beingness.

I follow HIS lead ... he cries? I find soothing or feeding solutions. He's awake? We explore his world together. He cries for ages and I'm getting frustrated? I stop, remember I'm with a being whose brain is still forming, who hasn't learned how to operate his body yet, let alone convert his internal mental and emotional mechanics into a conveyance of understanding to communicate ... I take a deep breath (or laugh) before calming my undies, stop being an egg and reset my conscious focus to bring LIFE to the moment with him.

But these are things I didn't know how to do as a solo parent in a world of trauma chaos. It was new wave of impact moment after more waves of impact moments. That's how I 'led' my son at first. It took me decades to get to a point where I had space to learn from all of this. And as I grew - so did my ability to lead my son in our world ... but not without unintentional baggage.

But I digress slightly lol. To bring it back to topic:
As a human baby - we are explorers of the world and people we're born into. We learn about life by interpreting the environment and following the people. This programs our brains for future use.

Everything after being a baby - is evolving what we've been, what's been consumed and learning the broader "I, We, Us, All" concepts - alongside getting more and more conscious about the fact that we have the power to create our own, and other worlds in the present time. Those are the external (physical) world and internal (emotional/mental) world legacies we set up for our descendants, and we leave those behind when we die. Hopefully, we've also taught them how to work out ways to navigate these worlds too ... sometimes we forget that bit. I haven't even gone into 'spirituality' yet either.

So based on all that:

An Explorer walks into the unknown to check out the environment and any inhabitants. With no agenda other than to get the lay of the land, gather information and learn how to interpret, interact and communicate in that environment.

A Leader holds the heart of their people as their own heart. Takes all the explorer data into consideration and opens pathways for the people to traverse the environment - while at the same time - keeping an eye out for external or internal mamae (pain/heaviness) and having ways to a) tend to the mamae and b) convert that mamae into knowledge to be returned to the heart of the people.

As a human being - we are both. But the environment, the people and the purpose determines which ability is best suited for any given situation. And our knowledge, trust and confidence in self, determines whether we step into one of those roles or not.

Ooh thanks for this most excellent rabbit hole Derek - I needed to get clearer about this, it's been stuck in my brain for ages. Safe travels and hearty explorations while you're in India e hoa (my friend)!

Explorers are leading because the hyper independence of the younger group doesn't allow them to follow..... so they won't be led. This has pushed explorers into a leadership role that they are not accustomed to and really aren't interested in many times. The young are following the explorers though... so maybe we should combine the explore mentality and the leader mentality. Explorers are usually just too fast for a group, but they could learn to be more detailed which would allow others a chance to keep up 😀

Interesting and a deep thought provoking article...

Just one thing (smile). Sometimes a good leader does not go in a straight line.. A good leader will go around obstacles, avoid hurdles and climb sideways around a mountain in order to make sure those that they lead; who may be weaker than most, will have an equal chance to arrive.

Everyone's not on the same level or playing field in life. A leader leads all in an equal way. Sometimes the detour is better than the straight line...

Love your articles keep em coming

Pastor Rev Tina Redden

Ps: Safe travels

Explorer's can become leaders ..leaders do not become explorer's:). For companies to survive and thrive there must be space and resources for the explorer - while it seems to be losing its way 3m was a great example of a large company creating an environment where leaders and explorer's could thrive.

I felt explorer makes more output from the people as an leader.

Great insight. I my field of work the comparison is analogous to that between a scientist and engineer. We need both to succeed in our mission.

I get what you're saying but it might not be as black and white. Good leaders need to have clarity of vision...knowing the problem they are trying to solve and making sure the whole team share that vision. I also think they need to have explorer qualities which means being comfortable with venturing the unknown and pivoting when the desired result is not achieved. And so not all explorers are bad leaders...

Well, same person can become an explorer and a leader, not at the same time on same thing though. A leader could put an explorer hat and wander around the undiscovered path on a particular quest, and then once he/she/they have figured it out, it is the time to put the leader hat and lead others on the same.

Now, while the team follows the leader and continue the journey, the leader again puts on the explorer hat and explore something else this time.

In a way, this actually describes my job role as well... :D

So, leaders are consistent, predictable, robotic. Explorers are creative, passionate, crave variety. It's highly likely I'm projecting here, but leadership seems dead and exploring seems alive.

A lot rings true, but the conclusion is a bit like saying "people who are good at (or spend their lives doing) right-brain things are not good at left-brain things". While there are such examples of people, the two aspects of exploration (or right-brain) and leadership (or left-brain) are less like polar ends of the same axis and more like two separate axes, available within any one person. Seems to me, a person can develop their abilities in both, to be used depending on the situation, and he'll have far greater potential than if he develops only one, much like right and left. Or at least, he wouldn't be dependent on another to reach their potential, say, like a young Wozniak or Jobs.

While it may be revealing to consider our own abilities in these contexts, identifying ourselves strictly as explorers vs leaders seems unnecessary and limiting. Our identities/personalities may be useful for our activities in the world outside, but these are best kept at a distance, in our world within.

Thanks for the exploration Derek!

“Explorers are hard to follow, leaders go in a straight line” is my takeaway from this brief article. Beyond that I see no compelling point to reduce the matter to 0 vs 1 binary argument, analog is more lifelike.

Missing chapter of “…Ways to live your life”? 😁

A person can be both an explorer and a leader, but I have also observed people who are one but not the other. For example I once knew a medical doctor that was passionate about his work, making discovers in medicine trying to help patients that other doctors had given up on due to the risk - and often suceeding. But to call him a leader would be wrong, for he was a poor teacher and an even poorer leader of his assistance. He was definitely an explorer.

Hrmmm, maybe I'm actually an explorer with worthy places to travel and pass on to others. But maybe I don't have to be the leader. Maybe I can partner with someone that can see the straight line through my zigs and zags? Maybe I don't need to be everything to everyone? Perhaps there's value in just being aware of which archetype I am at the time. Where do I lead in straight lines and where do I go explore on my own? Thanks for the mind chew:)

That’s a narrow view of explorers, probably based on stereotypes. Most explorers are leaders. Others follow where they go. Then those ’others’ lead others and expand on the discoveries. Then other leaders emerge along that path until another explorer finds a new path. And so it continues. Explorers find, leaders follow.

Most leaders i know aren’t adventurous. They based their skills on books they’ve read not on the life experience. So prabably true….

while exploring learnt leaders do not like explorers.

Explorers lead successful expeditions all the time.

Aren’t leaders good explorers who eventually found the path forward? How does explorer become leader?

I am wondering whether it is time to re-imagine our understanding of Leadership...

What if leaders are those who ignite and inspire courageous contribution from others? Then their 'not knowing' is likely to be far more attractive and inspirational for many

I'm having a little trouble reconciling this observation while I'm reading "Undaunted Courage", the historical account of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
The expedition to explore the Louisiana Territory purchased from France required explorers with leadership skills, and both Lewis and Clark fit the bill. They led a group of 39 men some 8,000 miles without a casualty after losing one member of the party at the beginning due an illness that was unavoidable. And in 1914, Ernest Shackleton led 40 men on an expedition of Antarctica, which turned into a three-year rescue mission after their ship was crushed by oceanic ice. All 40 men led by Shackleton made it home 10,330 miles away.
I'm always tempted to generalize, but with a planet of people this diverse, it's safer to add qualifiers in order to make accurate statements.

At #29 Alex Conclaves points out the two functions and says "...don't try to do them at the same time."

Yes. When a group is on a task or project, the earlier stage of "exploring" through, say, brainstorming, or voicing creative ideas, is a good thing, but it is a Bad Thing, is disruptive, later on in the process. The leader must get the group to agree to stop exploring and just get on with things such as, say, managing logistics.

At the national level, I winced when our British cousins were still trying to explore creative options right up until the very deadline for leaving the European Union, instead of getting on with a plan.

Ideally, they would skipped having a firm date (not triggered the EU "leave clause") until they had gone through the process of thinking and feeling, even if it required years to do so. By rushing to have a vote-referendum (rush to completion) they took a snapshot of how folks felt at a moment in time, but that is not an ideal way to process a plan.

Another national level: The US could have had a good constitution in Iraq, without violent protests and armed struggle, had they been willing to let their gathering of Iraqis leaders keep talking for just another day, exploring, instead of the leaders being ordered to vote by the impatient American ambassador-leader of the occupation.
Would have saved a lot of violence, according to one of the leaders who was there. (see "emerald city" journalist, basis for the Green Line movie)

Hey Derek,

Thanks for voicing this out.

Sometimes people mistake for leadership my attitude and desire to explore.

I think both leaders and explorers can help people their own way.

Leaders by being there and supporting. Explorers by setting an example and inspiring.

(And, although this might be self-evident, I see you as an explorer.)

Unless of course, you’re leading an explorer. Explorers wanting to learn the art of exploring, about the dance within the unknown, find little use in a “leader” who claims to know. The destination is still well defined but you cannot occupy its space. Its a feeling and it occupies you. The why is inherent, for it is the reason we explore.

A leader on a straight line can only lead those who yearn to go straight. For those who desire a more dynamic, ineffable path, an explorer will serve best.

Love you and your thoughts!

I'm not an explorer or a leader, I'm a zombie, but I think we're all born explorers, some stay that way, some become leaders, and some become "comfortably numb"/zombies.

Explorers make excellent leaders.
Why?
Their explorations make them compassionate, instil survival instincts, highly developed intuition and a good judge of people and situations ( good bad and ugly)
So when the chips are down and the world needs a saviour turn to an explorer :-)

An explorer and a leader may be one of the same. Historically some of the world’s greatest explorers have also been great leaders. I believe you’ve definitely hit on something by pointing out that leaders simplify the destination and the path to get there for its following. But great leaders do so by inducing a loyal following through the leader’s bravery and through his/her ability to sell the dream of bettering themselves in some attractive or needful way. Short answer‼️

I have to agree with this post, Derek.
Because neuroscience backs this up.

Explorers are driven by dopamine. So they always want more.

Whereas, leaders are driven by H&N chemicals. So they tend to more fulfilled

While dopaminergic personalities can hardly be satisfied, H&N dominated people are more empathetic. So they make great leaders.

Explorers are creators. H&N people sustain and create balance in life.

Are you a leader or a follower?

Cool piece, it explained the different mindset I have when I am alone compared to when I am with other people. When I am alone, I use the explorer mindset and focused on satisfying my curiosity. Different than when I am with other people, I consciously have to think about what is the next step, where is the destination, etc.

Actually, The Explorer is one of the Eight Creative Talents to achieve Top Performance, here is a good summary:

www.getabstract.com/en/summary/breakthrough-creativity/4799

See also:

www.lynnelevesque.com/the-eight-creative-talents-and-carl-jung/

To sum up in few words:

a True Exporer is also a Leader but not vice versa, that's it!

All The Best!

Fabrice, greetings from Italy

I instantly agreed with your premise, but a little voice in my head said, "I am not sure if history agrees." For example, was Alexander the Great a great leader or explorer? Of course, I can argue both ways. But in many ways, his results suggest he was perhaps a fantastic leader and an inexhaustible explorer.

In software development, the Explorers are the people who bring something into existence. They don't get tired of their failed POC's and let their curiosity drive the direction.
Once they bring something to existence, they want to work on new things. They are not interested in iterating over the first version and doing continuous improvements.

A good leader takes an initial version and comes up with a project plan to iterate and improve. They put together a great team and transform that initial version into a great product.

Both these characters are needed and complement each other.

I love exploring and explorers. I love wandering and wanderers.
www.thewandersociety.com

I think it depends on your perspective - i.e., explorers are only bad leaders if you're not interested in participating in the real journey.

This validates who I am because I always tell people that I am no leader... BUT now I am going to start telling people that I am an explorer.

You are absolutely correct. Explorers are craving for knowledge of the unknown, that's what is not known. Leaders are craving for paths to guide, that path might have been made or they might have to make some of their own. Do you think that people are born with their quality meaning whether they have the innate quality of if they will be explorers or leaders in their life or is it something that one figures out through his life experiences and external teachings.

To some degree, leadership skills can be taught so long as the student has the requisite aptitudes. Explorers... not so much...

How leaders are made ? The baby step of leader begins with experimenting .Leaders are once explorers. No, explorers are not bad leaders. Experiments keep the life alive. Experimenting is best quality of a leader. Only the best results are presented to the followers while the rest are added to the life lessons.

To an extent, leaders who explore may meander meaninglessly through disheveled mazes of complexity, but leaders by definition are those who are followed by others and with the right expectations, can lead very well in exploration. Discovery, challenge, and innovation are all parts of human history and to ignore exploration or disregard it as something risky and unworthy of our attention eliminates the high risk and high award associated with scientific research (done best with empirical evidence). I think what you're trying to say is that setting good expectations and clarifying the risk associated with the journey (in business or otherwise) is paramount to group cohesion, communication, and intelligent behavior. Obviously a leader who runs off without telling anybody else where she is going, or worse, pushes the team into a dead end while promising stellar results (Theranos and Ms. Holmes, anyone?) might get into trouble. Explorers make incredible leaders. It's the ones who lack awareness, who do not identify risk, and who hoodwink their followers into an untimely demise that we despise and seek to eradicate. Communication is everything. Great leaders communicate the risk associated with exploration.

Andrzej in comment 4... Richard in making Virgin, with one act/musician - Mike Oldfield for Tubular Bells in 1973 - A totally unexplored type of 'pop' music at the point... Yet slowly entered the UK album charts, got to number 1 and stayed in the top 10 for a whole year.

Mike Oldfield was an unexplored musician at the age of 19 and Richard was not much older and had already been in court and fined for selling records without the due purchase tax... back then of course there were a good number of minimum retail pricing regulations. Their joint exploration as two 'non-standard' people with an eye for a journey is but a history case study.

I think both have the capacity to say to others - "Let us go there and see what is what", and many in Branson's case have followed, Oldfield's team is very much smaller, but has reached a large number of people. Both have looked over the hill to try new things in new ways, to explore their own frontiers - yet also to have some to join in that vision. Richard in that explorer has lead a great many people and created a cluster of unrelated businesses.

Great article. Thank you.

I've been wondering for a while why I have a hard time showing the way in my current field. It is, because naturally I seem to be an explorer.

I don't do the straight line, I sometimes run in circles, criss-cross, get lost in details, am higgledy-piggledy, try many different ways. I can't show the way but I know I will get somewhere.

What I'm doing is exploring, and I haven't arrived anywhere yet.

On the one hand, I'm enjoying it too much. But, it's painful at the same time.

So, I like the suggestions here to become aware of what I'm doing, and then morphing into becoming both. An explorer and a leader.

In previous roles I was able to swap roles from an explorer to a leader. I was able to turn the chaos of exploring into clarity and organisation - make me able to lead and give direction. I am longing to morph again so I should probably make an improved effort to arrive somewhere and to use that experience and knowledge to share it.

After reading the article and some of the comments and coming to the current conclusion trying to be both I have a picture in my head:
I imagine myself walking in the world of an imaginary map - with many hill tops and water holes, rivers and lakes, forests and meadows, exploring that new world (=topic/field). Which ever landmarks I arrive, they will have value to others that come after me. A waterhole gives water, a hilltop gives view, a river gives transport options. After arriving there, I can lead others there. But, after a while I can always move on from there to another "landmark", start exploring again, stopping somewhere, leading, then exploring again if I feel like.

I Absolutely love this definition of a Leader; I think I will use it in a presentation to a None Profit Board that need help in a few weeks I hope it is ok to share it?.

Well, what comes to mind is that although Jesus walked straight, his followers were true explorers still...

Following a straight liner may look like adventure when the direction isn't at ease with initial convictions.

Finally, an excuse to justify my poor leadership skills. I'm an explorer o_O
☺ Exactly! — Derek

commonality...but aren't they both VISIONAIRIES?

My first impression was that explorers operate in a vacuum and their work always precedes a leader's work. Upon reading a few more times it seems that may just be my own assumption.

I think there are interdependencies between explorers and leaders and one doesn't necessarily precede the other. Leaders rely on explorers to discover and break trail to previously unknown destinations. However, explorers can be reliant on leaders for guidance, support and organization which enables the freedom needed to wander and chase their curiosity.

What would happen to a leader who do not (want to) explore (often)? :)

Depends on how someone wants to be lead though right? If you were also of an explorer nature, and wanting to push the boundaries of (for example) science, it might pay to have a leader who is an explorer too, someone there to push you to your explorer limits, someone experienced in being an explorer who can show you how it's done. The whole process may lack structure and from the outside seem to be ineffective - but sometimes it's the only way to stumble through the unknown and come out with the answers.

An interesting point of view, it opens different discussion, but that's an interesting point .)

They are both important in the cycle of life , business or idea. There is a book written by Laurence Miller called Barbarian to Bureaucrats.

a leader explores the possibilities and their consequences. And then choses the best path for the rest

If you believe you can find a path to be a leader, you will.

Very true, great explorers of history were not great people. Doesn't mean they didn't have the ability to inspire which is different. Question though would you call major tech figures of the world (Musk, Job etc.) leader or explorers? Their is the case for both I feel.

It's funny because I've always been thinking that artists need to be leaders in order to be successful, now I'm wondering if a successful career is the best thing that can possibly happen to the creative persons, because it will end up limiting their choices. It's paradoxical

I see that to a point, but explorers have to be good leaders to get people to go with them to explore!

BFS and DFS

I have been looking for this writing all morning...
I was asked by a local school to come in and teach some Art.
I said, no, because I’m not a teacher.
They said, of course you can teach Art! You’re doing it!
No, I’m not a good teacher. I’d say, here! Have some stuff! Now, do stuff! Try turning it upside down! Now, turn yourself upside down! Sprinkle dirt on it!
Oh, that doesn’t look good, eh? Ok, well...
I think what they wanted was, this is how to draw a tree....