Editor's Note: Excerpt reprinted with permission from "Inspiring Excellence," a new book on leadership from former Classmates and RealNetworks executive Michael Schutzler. The book is available on Barnes & Noble.

Since your primary purpose as a leader is to inspire and motivate a group into sustained action toward a common goal, how do you get people to agree on a common goal? You can certainly impose your will and authority and declare the goals for your organization.

Many leaders have done so, with some success. Are you sure you know the right goals?

You probably have some really good ideas, but leadership is not a solo performance. You are trying to inspire and motivate others to work hard. By creating an open forum for the exchange of ideas in your organization, you are able to forge agreements and build the relationships that make consistently successful leadership possible.
 
You need your team to function well and start achieving results now, not in the distant future. For that to happen you need a collaborative environment that leverages your team’s expertise, insights, and abilities.

To foster that environment you must listen more than you speak, and you must avoid making assertions until absolutely necessary. You need your team to think, to aspire, to create, and if you are deliberate about your approach, they will come up with goals and plans better than you could have conceived on your own.
 
Listening is paramount in unifying the team. Please do not underestimate its value. As a leader, the instant you speak, two-thirds of your team stops thinking.

This hefty first cohort will capitulate and begin to interpret or outright solicit your instructions. And of the remaining one-third still thinking, half of them will disagree with you just because you’re the boss.

Schutzler

They might not say so out loud, but you can count on them undermining your efforts when you aren’t present. Time and time again over more than two decades, I have seen leaders speak too soon and lose the creativity, enthusiasm, and passion inherent in their team.
 
In order to illustrate an effective method for reaching consensus, let’s consider three distinct approaches. Each of these appears frequently among leaders attempting to align a team around objectives.

To help you remember them, I’ve assigned each model a well-known character as a mnemonic device: Moses, Donald Trump, and Socrates.
 
The Moses Model

Our first archetype is Moses, also known as the Prince of Egypt, author of the Torah, and heroic figure revered throughout much of the world. He serves as a fine cautionary tale for leaders. Moses “went up into the mountain” and encountered God, who taught him The Law and asked him to present it to his followers.

If you are familiar with the story in Exodus, you may remember that things didn’t go so well for Moses when he came down from that mountain.

Despite having a genuinely divine inspiration, Moses had significant trouble convincing his followers that the commandments he had on stone tablets were in fact The Commandments dictated by God Himself. While he was up in the mountain speaking with God, his followers had developed some ideas of their own.

It took many arguments, some tragic deaths, a few miracles, and several decades of wandering in the wilderness before the people finally agreed to the goals and methods for life that Moses had presented on behalf of God.
 
Moses provides an example of a very common leadership approach—finding inspiration in a moment of solitude and then promoting that vision to a group of followers.

According to several studies, nearly half of chief executives are introverts. This doesn’t necessarily equate to shyness, which is the common assumption. Introverts develop their insights and gather strength in solitude. As a result, introverted executives tend to align closely with the Moses Model.
 
This model is not, however, restricted to introverts. I have seen many leaders—introverts and extroverts alike—employ the Moses Model in a similar pattern.

A leader goes on vacation, reads a book, or takes a particularly hot shower one morning and—Boom!—has an inspired moment. Excitedly, the leader returns to the team proclaiming a new vision.

Very rarely is this new vision received as a brilliant notion that rallies one and all. In the vast majority of cases, the new vision falls on deaf ears as team members exchange knowing glances since it isn’t the first time they’ve heard such proclamations.

The leader passionately attempts to convince the team of the merit of the idea, and since the boss is declaring his or her grand vision with personal force and conviction, constructive debate vanishes. To the leader, it seems as if agreement has been reached, but it’s merely quiet acquiescence on the part of the team.
 
The Moses Model is often effectively used by entrepreneurs forming a new venture while trying to marshal financial support or captivate talent. However, once a team is in place, this model often fails and fails badly.

Alleged support for the vision—imposed by our would-be Moses—only lasts until the first rough spot along the way to the goal. At the first substantive challenge, doubt overwhelms action. Debate about direction overwhelms collaboration.

Worse yet, arguments about direction rarely appear when the leader is present, which means the leader isn’t even aware that debate is underway and the plan is careening off track. Moses had help from God and still had trouble. If you follow this model, especially without divine intervention, you are likely to have trouble as well. Use it with caution!
 
The Trump Model

Donald Trump is feared, revered, and sometimes reviled but is always an exceptional and boisterous executive who likes to put on a good show.

He serves as a wonderful archetype for this next model. While introverts seek regenerative solitude, extroverts draw their energy from groups. It’s not that they don’t need to be alone now and then.

They just need the give and take of discussion to generate the synapses that help form their opinions and insights. They like to consider competing ideas in a public contest. This approach is not limited to extroverts, but they do tend to be the major users of it.

Leaders who employ this model operate from a sincere belief that competition in group interactions forms the best strategy, mission statement, project sequence, operating plan, annual objectives, or anything else an organization needs to choose from to be successful.

Leaders who prefer the Trump Model also relish the drama that ensues while their underlings vie for a blessing on a project or business plan. The group discussion process often begins well enough but fails in the end because the competition is stacked.
 
In the Trump Model, parties compete for the leader’s approval. But when Mr. Trump speaks, his lieutenants instantly adjust their world view—intentionally or subconsciously—to more closely align with his.

This is a reasonable and rational reaction to try to win approval, but it creates an inherent bias. Instead of having the best idea win based on its merits, the idea or project that wins merely fits the explicit or deduced views of the leader. In effect, the Trump Model is merely a high drama version of dictating the outcome.

The Trump Model isn’t always invoked intentionally, but I have seen more than one leader deliberately use it as a club for beating people into submission in a pitched, public battle that is as one-sided as a contest between a gladiator and his heavily armed and defended emperor.
 
The Socrates Model

How do you avoid the pitfalls in the Moses and Trump models? Getting people with diverse personal and professional needs and wants to agree on a mission is not easy.

For help, we turn to our next archetype, Socrates. He was a brilliant Greek philosopher immortalized by Plato’s dialogues, and his approach to learning and views on ethics has influenced generations of scholars and leaders for well over two thousand years.

Socrates pursued truth through debate, and his approach emphasized the use of challenging questions to pierce into topics to attain useful insights.
 
To lead using the Socrates Model, you must ask questions not only in group meetings, but also as a course of daily practice with the individuals in your organization.

You must spend far more time listening than speaking. In group settings, this means calling intentionally on those who are silent to encourage them to express their views.

When you do offer an opinion, you should play contrarian and offer opposing assertions deliberately to instigate debate and then harness the group’s discussion to foster a respectful and rational contest among competing assertions.

Michael Schutzler is a Seattle area angel investor who has held management and executive roles at Classmates.com, RealNetworks, Harris Corp. and RR Donnelly & Sons. A business coach, he's helped launch more than a dozen technology companies over the past 25 years. Opinions expressed in guest posts are those of their authors, and don't necessarily reflect the views of TechFlash or its staff.