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.