331. Leading from the Center: Mastering the Five Stances of Leadership with Brad Semmens

The fastest way to derail a team is to lead on autopilot. Walk into a meeting, speak first, “set direction,” and watch everyone quietly align to your opinion, even when they see a better answer. Step back too far, though, and the same team can feel abandoned, unclear, or unsupported. That tension is exactly where Brad Semmens lives. Brad is the founder of Objective Consulting and Employee Yield, and he brings a rare mix of real-world leadership experience and organizational psychology to a framework he’s developed called the Five Stances of Leadership.

We dig into what it really means to step up, step down, step in, and step back and how those moves create an immediate power dynamic whether we intend it or not. Brad explains leadership through two practical lenses: authority (directive vs distributive) and influence (direct vs indirect). From there, we explore “leading from your center” as the skill that helps you shift from reactive protection to responsive presence, especially when pressure spikes and your default stance kicks in.

One of the biggest takeaways is the difference between filling the space and holding the space. We talk about why some leaders accidentally crowd out ownership by solving too quickly, and how a simple pause plus better questions can unlock psychological safety, clearer thinking, and real accountability. We also get into how strengths can become weaknesses when overused, why complementary styles can either create conflict or balance, and how the “Swiss army knife” leader becomes truly adaptive.

If you want a practical way to build self-awareness, take Brad’s leadership assessment and reflect on your primary and stress stances. Subscribe, share this with a leader who needs a reset, and leave a review so more people can find the conversation.

🌐 Connect with Brad:
• Website: https://objectiveconsulting.com.au/
• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brad-semmens-7068254a/
• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bradsemmens/

Transcript

Mick Spiers: 0:01

Have you ever stepped into a meeting and taken control before giving your team the chance to think? Have you ever stepped back when your people actually needed clarity, direction, or support? And have you ever wondered whether your leadership style is genuinely serving the moment, or whether it is simply your default reaction under pressure. Today, I'm joined by Brad Semmens. Brad is the founder of Objective Consulting and Employee Yield, and he brings a fascinating blend of real-world experience, organizational psychology, and leadership development to his work. We explore the difference between stepping up, stepping down, stepping in, stepping back, and leading from your center. Every leadership moment creates a question: How do I need to show up right now? Does my team need me to step in and take control? Do they need me to step back and create space? Brad helps us understand that leadership is not about having one style and applying it everywhere. So, as you listen today, I invite you to think about your own default stance. When pressure rises, do you step in or step back? And what would change if, instead of reacting from autopilot, you paused long enough to choose the stance that would best serve your team. Hey everyone, and welcome back to The Leadership Project. I've got a special treat for you today. I'd like to introduce you to a guy called Brad Semmens. Brad is the founder of Objective Consulting and a new startup called Employee Yield, which is developing HR software and software that you can use in your workplace. He's also a thought leader in advanced leadership development and developing high-performance teams with a master's in organizational psychology. He's also the developer of a framework and an assessment tool, which I've done earlier today, called the Five Stances of Leadership. So this is what we're going to be talking about today. What does that mean? What what are these five stances of leadership, and what can it mean in terms of the way that we show up as leaders every day? And we might touch on the future direction of leadership. That the world is changing greatly at this point, so we might even unravel a little bit as to what Brad sees around the future of what we need to do to evolve as leaders as the world continues to change. So, without any further ado, Brad, I'd love it if you would say hello to the audience, give a bit of a flavor of your background, and tell us what inspired this work that you do around the five stances of leadership.

Brad Semmens: 2:43

Thanks, Mick. Appreciate the introduction. Look, I think it's important to zoom right back to the chapter in the blue collar. So I have a background in construction in oil and gas. So I used to follow the work around Australia, working in construction, and what I noticed at that point, which was when I wasn't into psychology, into business, into people and dynamics, but in construction. I started to notice leaders, or in this case, supervisors and superintendents that were either quite effective in building rapport with teams out on the field, or not effective at all. And I would notice that because when you're moving from project to project, moving around the country, and I'm sure a lot of people can relate to you know flying fly out work and driving drive out work. What would determine whether the people were happy or miserable at work would be the relationship they had with their leading hand and their supervisor. And I observed this pattern of people being for the crew on the ground, or being what we would call "quote unquote" a company man, and very quickly, especially in construction, there is a strong us versus them mentality. You've got the blue collar guys out on the field, sweating, rolling up their sleeves amongst the trenches, and then you've got the white collar that are in the offices, and so there was very much this us versus them mentality, and with the supervisors leading hands, superintendents that would often mediate and move in between you know those in the office and those out on the field. I noticed that you would have them either more on the side of the people on the field, or more on the side of the people in the offices. And then some people, uniquely enough, that found a sweet spot. They had the respect of the people on the field, and they had that rapport. They felt like they were one of the boys, so to speak. And then they also had a firm hand in the office and the respective, and so I guess in that sense they straddled this middle ground quite well. So that's started to fascinate me and get me focused at that point. In and this was before I studied and went to uni and all the rest of it as well, and got into consulting. But that's when it really started for me getting more interested around the leadership dynamic and relationships with their teams.

Mick Spiers: 5:34

Yeah, really interesting, Brad. So that is an interesting dilemma, and I can certainly pitch that. I've seen in organizations I've worked in. You're either perceived from the ah you're from management, or you're one of us and you've got our back. Would be some of the words that that would be used. You've used this word sweet spot. What does that sweet spot look like?

Brad Semmens: 5:57

So I didn't know what the sweet spot looked like I couldn't articulate it. I couldn't put my finger on it during construction, but I knew there was something going on at least at that point. So a few years went by, and I realized that construction just wasn't for me. First of all, and I was my brain was thinking a lot more than the work that my hands were doing. So I realized that I needed to step out of construction and pursue what I was really passionate about and enjoyed, which was more deeply around people, psychology, and the impacts that that has on business. So, to answer your question, I didn't know back then what that sweet spot was. But as I went on my own journey of you know healing within within myself, and also from a place of curiosity and trying to figure things out, I came back into what I call the real world because construction is its own ecosystem, its own way of life. You know, you're earning great money, and for me, you're not using your mind. So, I took myself on much more of an academic, information-focused journey, and got into corporate, and in corporate, I started seeing the same patterns arise, and this is when I started to articulate language. What is this sweet spot? What does this sweet spot look like? And in order, I guess, to touch on that sweet spot would be to touch on, I guess, how that came about. So, the sweet spot. I'll start by sharing a bit about maybe the five stances of leadership. If you want to jump straight into it, or I can speak conceptually to what that sweet spot looks like. How do you want to play it?

Mick Spiers: 7:59

Yeah, let's go more conceptually first, Brad. So let's think about it more conceptually and what you saw in in real life, and then we can translate it to the model next.

Brad Semmens: 8:11

Yeah. So to put it simply, I noticed people in positions of power, management, leadership positions, that there was this sense that they were talking down to people, and it was just a felt sense and experience, feeling like you were kind of being talked down to. And then on the flip side, I've met people that would talk up to you; they'd kind of position themselves below you. So, and in the leadership space, you've got this position of ruling by title, so position-based leadership, and then you've got other people that talk about this concept of disposition. It's about dispositioning yourself, servant-based leadership. But I would find with those guys, or that archetype, or that approach, that there was this struggle between being friendly and also being the voice of reason, or being in a place of authority. So being too friendly instead of being the boss dilemma that I'm sure you've came across, and so it was this sweet spot in the middle. Let's not talk down to people, but let's not talk up to people because there are inherent downsides to both. Let's talk with people, and I'd say simply put, without going into the model and all the other aspects of it, it's how can we lead with people?

Mick Spiers: 9:41

Yeah. Okay. Really good. Okay. Well, I like it, Brad. Let me share some of my own observations on similar things, and and it doesn't have to be in construction. This power distance relationship. This this happens in all kinds of industries. Yes, I can see it heavily in construction, but it happens. In every type of company, and the interesting thing is, is when you dig into this, you'll find that both management and the shop floor-I'll just use that term for now-have more in common than they think, but they don't find those points of connection. And what ends up happening is they potentially all want the same thing. They want the company to be successful. They want to drive it forward, etc. But the perception on the shop floor is that management make decisions that, where they're three arms' length removed from the action, they've got no idea what's really happening on the shop floor. And then management getting frustrated, going, "Why are people just not understanding what we're saying, it's like so. There's this big disconnect, a communication disconnect, and I can see it showing up in the way that you're talking about. If people feel like they're being talked down to by someone who doesn't know what the heck they're talking about, or if the dynamic changes the moment the senior manager walks into the room, and everyone changes their behavior and feels like they're talking up to someone. Well, of course you're going to have communication breakdowns. You're not co-creating anymore. You or you're not co-creating at all. You're not talking with them. You're talking at them. And yeah, I can I can see how this shows up. Okay, all right. So now let's let's move to the. What does that look like in the framework then?

Brad Semmens: 11:25

Yeah. So to put a bit more meat on the bone, so to speak, the way that this concept can can come to life and become more practical and you know useful for for the listeners is so when I went from construction and then got into corporate, so that transition from blue collar into white collar, I started obviously studying and diving a lot deeper into this, and then taking my learnings and overlaying them in the workplace and seeing what would play out. And so to add another layer here, I noticed that there were those in positions of power, so managers, managers and leaders, that would there was this vertical movement, either upwards or downwards, or this vertical shift. So you'd either have, you know, the leadership moment would arise, and you would have the leader step up, which meant that you were obviously below them from a relationship dynamic perspective, and therefore they would talk down to you in some way, or they would interact in such a way that had you feel like you were below them on some level, or in the opposite direction vertically, they would position themselves below you, like I mentioned before. So that was along the vertical axes. So in terms of this model of this framework, so for those that are listening, imagine a quadrant, so a square with four quarters, so four other squares within the main square. So and you've got your y axes. You've got this vertical movement that we can do in any interaction or any moment. And then we have also what I notice this horizontal shift. So I'm either stepping into the moment and grabbing it hands on and more active, or I'm stepping back from the moment. I'm somewhat disengaging, like you mentioned before, kind of having things at arm's length, and sometimes this can show up in the form of the ivory tower syndrome. You know that that disconnect, like you were talking about before. So there's this vertical shift, and a horizontal shift, is a way that I can describe the foundation of it. So stepping in, or stepping back, stepping up, or stepping down, and then any combination of those two movements, I might step into the moment and grab the moment and try and control the moment by talking and influencing. And at the same time, I might step up. So I'm not stepping into the moment to necessarily serve and see how I can meet people's needs, but I'm just stepping up to perhaps dominate or take control or use a heavier hand in the moment, so there's this directional positioning that I started to notice at that point.

Mick Spiers: 14:35

Yeah, really interesting, Brad. I'm hearing a few things here. I'm hearing like a lead from above, lead from below, lead from the front, lead from behind, and then thinking about well, what does what do I need to do right now, and and is it something that I'm doing by accident? Is it something that I'm doing intentionally? And then when I'm doing it intentionally, am I doing it for the right? Reason, so I was picking up something there, Brad. That you know, if people are yielding power, I'm going to say, and it feels manipulative, then people notice that, and they're going to disengage from that leader if they think that the leader is yielding power and like lording over me or or doing it for some kind of non-altruistic reason, so so there's an element here about intention, but also second guessing someone's intention. And if you come across as doing this in a manipulative way, it's it's going to backfire on you. How does that sit with you?

Brad Semmens: 15:38

Totally. So really interesting point, and this very much an avid studyer of you know psychology in all its forms. So not just how to empower people, but how do people end up disempowering others and and inhibiting and disabling other people? And especially, it's a great question that you or point you bring up in leadership is the role not to empower and enable, right? And so I started to notice this the other layer that kind of revealed itself in this model. So mind you, this model took four, five years to develop, and it kept revealing itself. It started off in its infancy with you know not much meat on the bones, so to speak, and then as time went on, it started to emerge and reveal itself and solidify more and more. And through my observations, I would be constantly analyzing and back testing across different situations, past experiences, different people, to, I guess, self-validate and verify the model, or at least this observation that I noticed. So all of this is to say that when we are stepping up, stepping down, stepping up, stepping down, stepping forward, stepping back. You mentioned the terms before, rightly so. Okay, so this is what people might mean when they talk about leading from the front or leading from the back, leading from above or leading from below. The next dimension that I want to add here is, what about this concept of maybe leading from the center, or leading from your center, what does that look like? And that cascaded a whole download of of information or just revelations within myself and leadership. And I go, ah, that's interesting. You've got leaders that are quite reactive, and being reactive doesn't just look like stepping in and stepping up and throttling the person or throttling the moment with force or being heavy-handed. It can actually look like the opposite. It can look like fully letting go and disengaging and hitting the eject button because I'm overwhelmed and things are too hard. I'm frustrated and I can't control my people. I'm not getting the outcome I want. So there's this spectrum of reactivity or reactive versus responsive as well. And I think this kind of speaks to unconsciously or consciously, we can, I guess, the the different way of looking at it, or the contrast frame, is manipulation versus influence. For the sake of understanding, you know, manipulating for probably the wrong intentions and the wrong reasons, and influence in the name of empowering people. So, what would determine what I found? People would tend to manipulate others in terms of how they position themselves relative to others. So, you know, leading from the front, leading from the back, leading from above, leading from below, or leading from their center, was to do with how reactive versus responsive they were.

Mick Spiers: 19:05

Yeah, really good, Brad. So I'm picking up two things there that are interesting for me. The first thing is the way that you phrased it. You said leading from the center, and then you immediately corrected yourself and said leading from your center, and that that was interesting enough. Then I go into the second dimension of

what I heard, which is then: 19:23

Are you being reactive or are you being responsive? And I'm going to say that I'm going to put a position to you to test it. That if you're on autopilot and you're not really self-aware and paying attention to what's happening, I'm going to say that that reactionary inclination is that that instinctive reaction of, "Oh, this doesn't feel good, I'm out of here." For example, the the capitulation or even abdication at times. I'm going to say that maybe that instant reaction is probably going to come from a. A self-protection mechanism, and isn't necessarily going to be what is going to serve you and the team the best in that moment. So, I've had guests on the show talk before about having pattern interrupts, and one of the things that we spoke about, Brad, and this is part of the testing this with you, is if you if you get that feeling like you're going to lean back. That might be the moment that you need to lean in. And equally the opposite, if you're having an a instinctive reaction to lean in, maybe actually the best thing right now is to lean back a bit and and empower and trust the team, and maybe even let them scrape their knees and let them make a mistake, so they learn from that mistake. But, but if we're not paying attention, we're just going to be in that reactive mode, which is more self-protection. It's it's not thought. It's not a considered response. It's a instinctive reaction that is going to be probably more fueled by things like fight, flight, or freeze, not not through a conscious thought. How does that sit with you?

Brad Semmens: 21:06

Well said. That's great. So funny you mentioned the the different trauma responses. I have actually overlaid those with the model as well, which further validates this, I guess, positional power dynamic leadership lens that I'm speaking through. So, and really, what all of this is speaking to is when I'm presented with a leadership moment, regardless of what that might look like or what the problem at hand is. How am I positioning myself? Am I reverting or defaulting to a reactive? reactive stance or yeah stance as opposed to position. So based on the five stances of leadership, do I unknowingly have this knee jerk reaction in it so fast that it springs me forward, so I step in and step up, or perhaps the opposite. Just for illustrating this, do I step back and step down? Do I become what we call the observer, or from a dysfunctional point of view, the bystander archetype, or do I step back and step up and become the controller, but everything's still at arm's length. I'm in my ivory tower, and I'm pulling the strings. It's like the movie out of Wizard of Oz. Do I prefer to hide behind the curtain instead of connect? And so, this unconscious for a lot of people, a lot of leaders that I have already done this assessment with, and it can be very unconscious, and this, like you were getting to, this sets in these team dynamics that become solidified and stagnant, and can become quite stuck. So having the awareness, and so the five stances of leadership model, really, what it comes down to here is what is my relationship with power, and I think this is what I realized going all the way back to construction and coming into corporate. What would separate effective leaders from those that weren't so effective? You know, there's there's a garden variety of traits around, you know, be an empathetic leader, be a compassionate leader, be this type of leader. But I feel like at the core of it, it comes down to well, if you don't have a conscious relationship with power and your position, you're obviously in a position of authority and influence, which which makes up, from my point of view. There's power is a loaded word, right? There's lots of definitions for power. Some people that might be listening will say, "Well, what do you mean by power?" That's a very loaded word. So, in the context of leadership, power to me comprises of those two core qualities. On the vertical or the y-axis, we think about authority. So, authority is either directive, so I step up and lead from above, or it's distributive. I share the authority and the decision making with my team. I don't just make a decision behind a closed door, and then lump it on the team, and they have to deal with it. And then on the x-axis, influence. So I either step back and use indirect influence, or I step into the moment, and I have more of a direct influence approach. So these two qualities, when you dig into them, they reveal your relationship with power and thus your stance, your position relative to other people in the moment.

Mick Spiers: 24:53

Yeah, really good, Brad. So let let me play back what I'm what I'm hearing. Make sure I'm, I'm getting it right. So I think it. Is important for us to be aware of that power and that it exists, whether you think it or not. If you think you're, you know, you're the most approachable boss in the world, and all of this kind of stuff, there is a power dynamic, whether you know it or not. And I'm then playing out things in my head, like if you go into a meeting, if you're the first person to speak, and then you go, "Look, I've got these ideas, team. You know, idea one, two, and three, but I want to know what you think." It's actually already too late, because in that power dynamic, they're going to go, "Yeah, yeah, what you said." Whereas if I switch that around and go. We've got this problem team. I want to know what you think, and you you be the last one to speak. You're already changing that dynamic. I will go a step further. The very fact that you were in the room in the first place changes the dynamic. People start taking little sideways glances towards you, so you need to make a conscious decision. Where there's this important meeting where we want the team to brainstorm new ideas. Do I even go into the room or not go into the room? So I don't change that power dynamic. So I think the the awareness of the power dynamic is is one that we we often forget, and you you think that you're most approachable person in the world. There's always some level of power dynamic, and if you're not aware of it, it does exist. And then the second part then is we keep coming back to this reaction versus response. If you're just creating a little bit of space between your instant tendency, whatever that may be, whatever your default might be, to take six seconds to pause and go, what stance is going to serve the team best right now? Just by asking yourself that question for six seconds is going to improve your response instead of just going into autopilot and defaulting to the same thing every time. How does that sit with you?

Brad Semmens: 27:05

Yeah, so great points. There's probably about five talking points that could offshoot on what you've just said there. So I'll try and not just keep it concise. I think not reacting and defaulting to a stance, which mind you, if a yeah listener might be reflecting, going, oh, I step back and step down a lot, or I step forward and step up. It's about and so the idea of being the integrated leader, which is the archetype and what the model is also all based around is how can I become more integrated and leading from my center when we can start to observe or identify the stance that we find ourselves defaulting to. We can then start to bring in more presence and more self-reflection. And you mentioned the word protection before, so it's we have a choice, we respond or we react. We can be present with the moment instead of jumping straight into trying to protect ourselves within the moment. So there's this idea of presence versus protection, response respond versus react, and the more we can hold the line or pause for however many seconds, we won't just lapse into a particular stance, which will keep intact this stagnant, inefficient team or leadership dynamic that's going on. So the more we can stay in that in our center and become more self-reflective and observant of my stance and how I position myself and use my power, and then how that actually impacts other people. So you touched on, you know, you go into a meeting room. It's not only super important to be aware of, yeah, how well you stay in your center, but whether you, depending on whichever stance you might move into, the impact that that has on the people around you. So, if I am a leader who steps in and fills the space, another great metaphor here, or or a contrast frame to look through, is am I filling the space, or am I holding the space? So it's this idea that we have two ears and one mouth, right? Am I listening to respond, or am I just filling the space, talking to react? I'm sure you probably come across that that idea a lot, and the the knock on effect, that domino effect. If you want people to step up and have more autonomy, be more enabled and more empowered, and you want them to develop their voice and their ability to make decisions, if you want them to step up in this is in. And you want your team member to lead from above. Why don't you become a little more mindful and aware of if you're filling that space? It's like a vacuum. They've got no. How can they lead from above if you're stepping in and leading from above all the time? So it's being aware that there's got to be some trade-offs. There's got to be some balancing out. You create the space and encourage the person to step into and embody the stance. If you don't want to do that stance anymore, and I hear this a lot, I'm sick of stepping in, and you know, and grabbing control. The weight's always on my shoulders, and my my question always in the back of my mind is, did you give them that opportunity to step in, or were you quick to fill the space?

Mick Spiers: 30:47

Yeah, interesting. I I love it. So definitely the element of presence versus protection. That's really interesting, Brad. But you've you've given us a really good takeaway here. Is that am I filling the space or am I holding space? I absolutely love this, and if we're aware and present, we can tell the difference. And I'm going to put something to you here and say that this is something that we need to practice all the time, and and not just when the stakes are high, because when the stakes are high, you might have a tendency to step in and want to take control, etc. Because the stakes are high, you need to practice this in the moments where it might be a little bit easier. So hold space, because if you're filling the space the entire time, there's no way that anyone else can fill the space, and therefore they're not learning and growing. They're not learning and growing, so pick your moments as to when you can really just hold space and watch the team. And and I'm and I'm I'm thinking here about work from people like Liz Wiseman, Brad around multipliers, and she's got this thing called the Extreme Question Experiment, and where the experiment is the idea for a directive leader who would normally come in and go, right, team. Here, weekly meeting. Here, here's our priorities for the week. This week, we need to do this. We need to do this. We need to do this. And Brad, by 4 o'clock on Thursday, I need you to have finished this etc, etc. The whole concept of the extreme question experiment is to go in and go, hey team, what do you think our biggest priority is this week, and then say nothing, and then go. So what and what makes that important, and how do you think we might go about that, and what obstacles do you think we might encounter, and how do you think we might overcome those obstacles, and now you've already changed your stance. How does that sit with you?

Brad Semmens: 32:44

Oh, massively. Yeah. So, so two things here. So, just looking the example that you shared, looking through the lens of the five stances of leadership, we're asking that directive leader instead of being leading from above and just talking at people and setting the direction, they now have to shift from leading from below or leading with the team and asking. And this, I'm sure, for a lot of people, is very uncomfortable. And with many clients that I've worked with in the past, and funnily enough, just to share an insight, out of the many many assessments that leaders and managers have already completed, there is over 80% of the assessee's results in the secondary stance is that of the actioner, which means so for those that haven't done the assessment yet, and we'll talk more about that later in terms of how they can find it, but it's this movement when things are stressful and the stakes are high and there's challenge and pressure, the leader or manager can have a tendency to step forward and step up. In other words, lead from the front and lead from above. And so, in a situation where you're challenged, the biggest thing that you can do is so. And if you're up for the challenge, if you if leaders you know truly value that growth, that deep deep growth, it would be to head in the opposite direction, which is to go. Okay, I'm feeling stressed out right now. I'm feeling quite reactive. Regardless, I'm going to step back and step down. I'm going to tap into the observer archetype. I'm going to listen and ask for feedback, and ask questions instead of trying to jump in and throttle the moment, and that is very, very difficult for people to do.

Mick Spiers: 34:52

Yeah, really good. It's easier said than done, right? So, so how? So, if someone's listening to it, Brad, and going, "Yeah I'm, I default to the actioner. It's not just my secondary, it's my it's my primary. I I default to the actioner." How does someone pattern interrupt that?

Brad Semmens: 35:10

Great question. Well, before before I answer that, I want to touch on another quirky observation and a bit of a mind read that the audience can actually think about. So, let's just say if you're listening and and you relate to being the actioner, for instance, whether this is your primary stance. And so, what we mean by primary stance is your natural everyday stance when things are cruising along, you know, and the stakes aren't high. There's not you're not necessarily in the heat of the moment. So you've got your primary stance, and then you've got your secondary stance, which is when you're under stress and things shift. So there's obviously a lot of different profiling tools have this. You know, disc, for instance, you have this natural state, and then you have this adapted, adjusted state. So, whether you are the actioner in your primary stance or your secondary stance, if that happens to be the case, I want you to think about if there's someone in your organization or your immediate environment that rubs you up the wrong way, or for whatever reason you don't like, you get annoyed by. They give you, yeah. There's just something about them that you don't like, and you know some leaders and managers have that one person that comes to mind. So my question for you is: Is it because they are either competing for the same space, so you're knocking heads, like we said before. There's not enough room. Are they an actioner as well? Do they have a tendency to step up or step forward and step up? So you're kind of trying to occupy the same space. The voices are colliding. Your voice and their voices colliding, or on the flip side, here's where it gets more interesting, and we'll go into some deeper psychology stuff in a moment. But on the flip side, are they the opposite to you? So you might relate to being someone who's quite active and in control, and then you've got another team member or another manager, another colleague, and they tend to step back and lead from below. And maybe that makes you feel uncomfortable and unsettled because they kind of listen and observe you while you yap and talk and and squawk, and that makes you feel uncomfortable. So there's two things that really good to to reflect on here is, and I find these can often be our biggest teachers. So you've got we tend to like people that are just like us, or we either dislike them, or on the flip side, people that you know through my model, looking through the lens of my model, they are the opposite to us, or they are just like us. And this is a really, really interesting observation. So, if I can just maybe share an example here, this one organization I worked with was two directors. One of the directors was very leading from the front and leading from above. The other director was very much leading from the back and leading from below, and they worked really well because they would balance each other out. As time went on and their values shifted and things changed, they actually started to become in conflict with each other, and

it's because. So get this: 38:42

it's because what I what I observed, it's because the actioner's strengths are the weaknesses of the observer. So in the the stance in the opposite direction, and the observer's strengths were obviously the weaknesses of the actioner. So it's interesting. We can either create rapport or have absolutely no rapport with people if we aren't conscious that my strengths are your weaknesses, and therefore we can balance each other out and complement each other, or if I'm not interested in acknowledging that you know your strengths have a place, and it's just about my strengths, there can either yes, so there can either be this conflict, or there can be this complementary harmony, and so yeah, I wanted to share that just from a self-awareness and how you relate to other people, do you have rapport or don't have rapport with people? Because they're reflecting something very interesting back to you. Either you share the same strengths and that works, or you don't like it because they're occupying your. Or you don't like them and don't have rapport with them because their strengths are your weaknesses. It was a whole rabbit hole, but you know.

Mick Spiers: 40:11

All right. It was really good. I like it. So let, let me position something to you and see see how this works. So I'm picking up two two things there. One is conflict, and one is potential frustration. So the conflict, I think, would happen when you're both trying to fill the space. For example, if you're both the identical style, you and the adjacent leader, let's call it, or it might be your two IC on your team, for example, that's got a completely different style to you. Well, let's start with the. If you're both very similar, you might be trying to fill the same space, and that could lead to conflict. And the opposite might lead to frustration. I'm going to say, like, if you're more a bystander, but you're, but the person adjacent to you is an actioner, they might be sitting there going, "Why isn't Brad taking control here. Why isn't why isn't he stepping in? Is what's what's wrong with this guy, right? So I can lead that to frustration." I think the antidote is is a conversation. Have a conversation, and through that conversation, you can go"Hey, you know, the two of us were we're quite complimentary, and if we and if we play this the right way, we can we can cover each other's weaknesses and build on each other's strengths." But if you don't have that conversation, it might lead to those those frustrations and the conflict.

Brad Semmens: 41:33

Absolutely. And here's another interesting observation, Mick. Often, what you'll find is some people aren't interested in having someone balance them out. So, in other words, they're not interested in confronting their own weaknesses or shortcomings. So, for instance, the actioner is very strong at stepping in, but they're not strong at stepping back and observing and listening. So, you will have those actioners that very much see the importance of having someone to almost be the ballast of of the shit to balance them out, or they're not interested at all, and that's why maybe the actioner gets annoyed with the observer, whereas another type of actioner would actually be like would see the purpose and the place, and the inherent value that the observer brings because they balance them out. And then on the flip side, you could be in an organization where the room is just full of actioners, and the get this, the leader or the manager likes it because you know the the person that oh I just wish I could hire someone just like me and when I hear that what I'm hearing is someone who doesn't value growth as much as they think they've got it all figured out and it's my way or the highway and so it's interesting initially, and I have come across this this archetype where they're like,"Oh, they're just like me. They're a go getter. They take action. They take charge." They're decisive. And three months later, they're knocking heads, and and I'm sitting here having a little chuckle to myself and going, "Do you know why you're knocking heads?" It's because you don't need someone that's just like you, you need someone that you can learn from and be a mirror and balance you out. And there's a lot that you, as the actioner, you can learn from the observer only if you want to take a look at your weaknesses. And so, if you don't mind me adding in here, you asked before. Okay, so how does someone, you know, become more responsive? How does someone become more aware and and make these key changes? Do you mind if I just dive into that for a moment?

Mick Spiers: 43:51

Yeah please. Yeah, please, Brad.

Brad Semmens: 43:53

So where this all leads is in a in a metaphor here, and unfortunately, the leadership development industry, I feel like may in some respects has become a little bit complacent because the leadership development industry is for leaders, right? That's the target market. A lot of leaders, and based on my own research and my own assessment results, leaders can have big personalities, can be strong-headed, you know, and these are all amazing qualities, mind you. But it's about just being mindful of the inherent upsides and downsides to what my character traits and qualities are, and the leadership industry, or I feel, has created a bit of a bias with perpetuating our strengths, you know. We have tools like the Strengths Finder, Gallup's Strengths Finder, I believe, and and various other tools. And it's almost like some aspects of the industry leaders want to put tickets on themselves, and that tends to be encouraged. Well, I'm a visionary leader, you know, I. More about process. It's like all well and good, but if we're not willing to look at our areas of development, our dare I say areas of weakness, a lot of leaders and a lot of managers in high places don't want to hear about what they need to work on. They're what I've found in some respects, they're happy to remain the hammer that just wants to turn everything into a nail and hit a whole heap of nails. And then those leaders that I spoke about before that have found the sweet spot and they can adjust. They're more responsive. They're not self-protective. They tend to be what I call more of a Swiss Army Knife, which is more of the integrated leader when it comes to my model. It's I know in a leadership moment when to step back, when to step forward, when to step up, when to step down. And so, in order to move in this direction, in order to become more integrated, the perfect and most simple question a leader can ask themselves is okay. I've got a set of strengths. Great. Let's take a deeper look at my weaknesses, and from an integration point of view, how can I help? How can my strengths befriend my weaknesses? Because think about we go through our leadership and management career path, carrying our set of strengths, wearing them like a badge of honor. We hide our weaknesses. We don't want to touch them, because that reveals, you know, chinks in our armor. However, a strength overdone becomes that very weakness, which isn't acknowledged enough in leadership development. So, the way that we integrate, the way that we become more present instead of self-protective, and more responsive instead of reactive, the question we could begin to ask is, how can my strengths befriend my weaknesses, and how can my weaknesses befriend my strengths? Instead of thinking that we've got this enemy inside ourselves, how can we integrate? How can they build a bit of an build an alliance within oneself, and that is a way that we can begin. And I say begin intentionally begin that inner work and that shift.

Mick Spiers: 47:28

Yeah, really good, Brad. There's strong elements there of of self awareness, but self acceptance, and then working with it and going, yeah, that's who I am, but I know that, and now I'm going to take intentional reactions to make that work for me and and make that work for for my team. I'll share one observation before I summarize a key point here, Brad. When one of the frustrations I have, I see that often charisma and extroversion is misdiagnosed as leadership, and that's the two things are not the same. And some of the best leaders I've ever worked with were introverted and made very considered decisions, etc. etc. But the very, very, very best leaders are the ones that know it, have the self-awareness, and then take intentional actions, not reactions. Yeah, really good. Okay, so this is a good point to maybe summarize the key lessons for everyone listening to this. So, and I do encourage you. We'll talk about Brad's framework and his assessment tool in a moment. I do encourage you to look at this so you know what your default style is, what your primary style is, and and what you might default to in in those pressure moments that that Brad was talking about. Mine was the primary was the integrated leader, and the secondary was the actioner. So maybe a tendency under times of pressure to to step in, which it's good to know that, but also to make sure that I'm not just doing that as a reactionary mode. That I'm going to do it as a response. And the key lesson, the key lesson for all of this is to have that self awareness, to have the presence of knowing what is your primary stance, what is your secondary stance? But then to make conscious decisions and and intentional actions to think about what stance is going to serve me and the team well right now, and that's an intentional response. That's not a reaction where you leave your autopilot brain to kick into protection mode and just just do what comes naturally. It's a considered decision. Does my team need me right now to to step in and take control? Do they need me to step back and empower and trust? Do they need me to step up and take a. A much more 30,000 foot view of this, or do they need me to step down? All of these things are an intentional action. So I encourage you to look at whatever's happening in your team right now today, and I intend I encourage you to do these things. Look at your calendar of all of your meetings that you have today, and have a look at it and go. How do I need to show up for that meeting? What stance do I need to take? Is it going to serve the team to hold space or fill the space today? Am I going to step back and be the observer and hold space for everyone else, or is this a situation where they do need me to step in and take control, but make it an intentional decision, not an accidental decision. And then, in the moment, you need to be present and make sure it's working. And you might need to make a so you you're looking at your calendar in the morning, going, "Okay, for my 3o'clock meeting, I'm going to turn up as as the bystander." But then you still need to be present and making sure that you're making some dynamic decisions. Still, still responses, not reactions, but make some dynamic decisions in the moment to make sure that you're adjusting to what's unfolding in front of you. I then encourage you all to take Brad's assessment, so that you do know your styles, so that you know more, you have that more self-awareness to know, notice a name when you feel these tendencies take over without the intentional decision making, so that you're more aware of it. Any final reflections you want to make on that summary, Brad. Before we move to the final round.

Brad Semmens: 51:43

Great summary, Mick. I'd say one thing is when it a lot of the discussion we're having in this episode is conscious and responsive leadership, but even more so than that, it is adaptive leadership, and so in order to be more adaptive, we need to. So, if we want to become more adaptive in our outer world, we need to become more integrated in our inner world. And this is where we spoke about, you know, if we become more integrated, and say, for instance, we're not just trying to remain a hammer and hitting. Turning everything into a nail, and remaining only connected with our strengths, and just constantly relying and overusing our strengths, but getting curious and accepting towards using or developing our weaknesses. This is one of the key ways that we can become more integrated within, so behaviourally, and therefore becoming more adaptable in our outer world. Which means we can begin to shift and change stances at will, depending on what the moment requires, so all of this before we talk about empathy, you know, because there are a hand-picked, you know, there's a garden variety of leadership qualities that are touted a lot, and they all have their place. They're universal, but if I'm a leader who is often stepped down and stepped back. I'm probably not going to resonate with being an empathetic leader. Maybe I need something different at that point in time. Of course, empathy is important, but maybe we need to talk about decisiveness. Maybe we need to talk about stepping in and engaging more. So, but in order to connect with any of these universal leadership qualities, whether it be empathy, whether it be creating psychological safety, whether it being more of a transformational leader versus a transactional leader, we need to connect with this idea of how can I genuinely adapt, and the way that we can genuinely adapt and become more adaptable is to become more integrated, and that's what a lot of this work is really about. So I just wanted to add that in there that that adaptability is the overarching quality that gives us access in a genuine and sustainable way to all of these other qualities that people talk about, such as empathy and and compassion, etc.

Mick Spiers: 54:27

Yeah, really good. Can I add something there?

Brad Semmens: 54:30

Please, please.

Mick Spiers: 54:31

We're at the risk of another one hour of conversation here, but this is really good, Brad. I'm going to summarize in my own words what I'm hearing from you that these qualities and skills of a leader, these to me, they're all things that are in your tool bag, and a good leader needs a strong set of tools in their tool bag to know which tools are your strengths, which ones might be your weaknesses. But you've got that tool bag. But then a master is the person that knows. Which tool to use at what time, in what way, in for what reason? That's what a master leader looks like. Yeah, cool.

Brad Semmens: 55:11

Totally, become the Swiss Army Knife instead of remaining the hammer, and is is a simple way to put it.

Mick Spiers: 55:21

Yeah, really good. All right, Brad. No, I'm I'm going to take us to our rapid round now. So these are the same four questions that we ask all of our guests. What's the one thing that you know now, Brad Semmens, that you wish you knew when you were 20?

Brad Semmens: 55:34

That life is primarily an inside job. If you don't go within, you go without.

Mick Spiers: 55:44

Yeah, really good. That's so true. We've got to lead from the inside out. Every part of life has got to be like this. Start with self. Okay, very good. What's your favorite book?

Brad Semmens: 55:55

I'd say it's close, but "As a Man Thinketh" by James Allen.

Mick Spiers: 56:03

Okay, don't know this one. Good, I'll have to look into it.

Brad Semmens: 56:06

Great, great book.

Mick Spiers: 56:09

All right, bring it. What's your favorite quote?

Brad Semmens: 56:11

This is a bit of a mouthful, but please brace yourself because this touches on a lot of what this work involves. If I am I because you are you, and you are you because I am I, then I am not, and you are not. But if I am I because I am I, and you are you because you are you, then I am and you are. So that is to say that in the leadership context, if I behave a certain way because of my team, then I'm reactive, and I'm not my true self. I'm not in my authentic self, and if they are a particular way, because of how I show up as a leader, then they're not empowered, authentic, and they're reactive, and not fully enabled, and don't have full agency. But if I am I, because I'm going on my own sincere journey and I'm conscious of how I show up in any given leadership moment, and they are conscious as well, then we both can be the best that we can be in that moment. So it's a bit of a mouthful.

Mick Spiers: 57:31

Nice, Brad. Okay, I feel like we could have another one-hour conversation just on that quote, but and I don't think it's I don't think it's uniquely just on leadership the way that you described it between the dynamic between the leader and the team is great, but I was I was thinking also just societal expectations. Am I showing up the way I think other people want me to show up, or am I showing up as my true self? Yeah, it's that's really interesting. Could be your parent-child relationship, you know, all kinds of ones. Yeah, really really powerful. Okay, and finally, Brad, there's going to be people listening to this going, yeah, this this is me. I I do these things that Brad's talking about. I just default and I react and I don't take intentional actions. There's going to be people that want to do the assessment and learn more about your work. How do people find you?

Brad Semmens: 58:22

So easiest way to find me is through my website, which is www.objectiveconsulting.com.au, and in the menu at the top, there's a button called Leadership Assessment. Go to the page, watch the three-minute video, which gives a high-level overview. Take the assessment. It takes about five minutes. That'll send you a free report, fully downloadable report, sent to your email. So check your junk, or feel free to reach me on LinkedIn, or you know Instagram, Facebook, and also on YouTube as well. So yeah, easy to get in touch with.

Mick Spiers: 59:03

Yeah, very good. All right, well done, Brad. I've done the assessment myself, so I'll just say to the audience, you know, it's a really powerful tool. It doesn't just tell you what your your primary stance and your secondary stance is. It also tells you about what are the some of the strengths of that, but also what are some of the risks if you stay in that stance always, and and and you don't go out of that stance, and gives you some tips on what to do with that information. Not not just be more informed, but actually do something with it. So, well done, Brad. Thanks for your time today. Thank you for the give gift of your wisdom and your gift of your time today, and for giving us something very practical that we can all look at as leaders. Thank you so much.

Brad Semmens: 59:44

Thanks, Mick. It's a pleasure.

Mick Spiers: 59:47

That was a powerful and practical conversation with Brad Semmens. The thing that really stayed with me from this episode is that leadership is always relational. We're always positioning ourselves in relation to other. Whether we realize it or not, sometimes we step up, sometimes we step down, sometimes we step in, sometimes we step back, and sometimes, when we are at our best, we lead from our center. The problem is not that any one of those stances is right or wrong. The problem is when we default to one stance unconsciously, and use it in every situation. If we always step in, we may rob our people of the chance to think, contribute, and grow. If we always step back, we may leave people without the clarity or support they need. If we always step up, we may create distance and power dynamics that shut people down. If we always step down, we may avoid the authority and responsibility that leadership sometimes requires. That is why Brad's work is so useful. It gives us language for something that is happening in every meeting, every conversation, and every leadership moment. One of the strongest takeaways for me was the difference between filling the space and holding the space. Many leaders fill the space without even realizing it. They talk first, they decide first, they solve first, they answer the question before the team has had a chance to wrestle with it. But if we want people to grow, sometimes we need to hold the space instead. We need to ask the question and stay quiet. We need to let others step in. We need to resist the urge to rescue, control, or dominate the moment. That does not mean being passive, it means being intentional. The other important lesson was the difference between reaction and response. When pressure rises, many of us have a default stance. We may take control, we may withdraw, we may try to please, we may move into protection mode, but leadership asks us to create a pause between the trigger and the action. In that pause, we can ask, "What does this moment require from me? What stance will best serve the team? Am I trying to protect myself, or am I trying to serve the outcome? Do I need to fill the space or hold the space?" So here is my invitation to you. Before your next meeting, pause and look at your calendar. Ask yourself, how do I need to show up in this meeting? Does this moment need me to step in, step back, step up, step down, or lead from my center? And then, when the meeting begins, stay present enough to adjust, because leadership is not about choosing a stance once and locking it in, it is about staying awake to what is unfolding in front of you and responding with intention. Thank you for joining me for this episode of The Leadership Project. If this conversation resonated with you, please share it with someone who may need to pause, notice their default stance, and choose a more intentional response. And join us next week when I speak with Dre Baldwin, founder of Work on Your Game. We move from leadership stance to leadership standards, from how we show up in the room to how we keep showing up when motivation fades, pressure rises, and the work gets hard. It is a brilliant conversation about discipline, confidence, mental toughness, personal initiative, and the moment Dre calls the third day. You've been listening to The Leadership Project. If today sparked an insight, don't keep it to yourself. Share it with one other person who would benefit from listening to the show. A huge thank you to Gerald Calibo for his tireless work editing every episode, and to my amazing wife Sei, who does all the heavy lifting in the background to make this show possible. None of this happens without them. Around here, we believe leadership is a practice, not a position. That people should feel seen, heard, valued, and that they matter. That the best leaders trade ego for empathy, certainty for curiosity, and control for trust. If that resonates with you, please subscribe on YouTube and on your favorite podcast app. And if you want more, follow me on LinkedIn and explore our archives for conversations that move you from knowing to doing. Until next time, lead with curiosity, courage, and care.