Author: rwheeler

Posted on

Shaping Employee Engagement and Emotional Intelligence Part 2

In part 1 “Shaping Employee Engagement and Emotional Intelligence” I outlined a situation in which one of my direct reports (Sally) launched an email broadside aimed at my boss and included my entire team and copied the executive team.  She disagreed with a decision.  She had a significant insight that if delivered with some finesse would have improved the project.  Her edgy emotionally charged tone buried her insights and resulted in a sharp rebuke from my boss.  I returned from a business trip to manage multiple layers of disillusionment and anger.
I urge open communication among my team.  This fact is known in the company and upon my return I was instructed to pull my team in line.  Managing up meant that I affirm the inappropriateness of the email and outline the limits I insist on when encouraging open communication (i.e., respect, a clear business case, passion – emotion does not bother me).  The email failed to communicate respect, it communicated impertinence.  It failed to make a business case – it jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions on the motives of the executive team. It had plenty of passion.  Two things were at stake in my upward management: (1) whether I was leading the team or was being overrun by the team and (2) whether the disruption caused by the employee offset the value they brought to the company. How would you manage the upward challenge?

When I walked back into the office I asked Sally to meet with me.  She entered my office and declared, “Tom already talked to me about the email.”

“Ok, then tell me why it was inappropriate.”  I asked.

She answered, “I was mad and should have just kept this to myself.  I will never talk again every time I do I just get shot down.”

What do you see in her response?  How would you have responded to her statement? What result might I face if I let her statement stand?

The rest of my team was hiding in their offices.  I made the rounds and checked in with each of them.  They felt the tension in the office and universally felt that they had lost something in the public exchange that occurred between Sally and Tom.  They knew I was under pressure to bring things back into control.  They did not want to lose the ability to talk openly with me about their concerns and ideas. On the other hand they did not want to go through another round of acidic public exchanges.  They felt my boss could be punitive even over reactive.

Was my boss over reactive?  What did I need to pay attention to as I responded to the team?

In Part 3, I will tell the rest of the story and how things worked out.

Posted on

Resilience – A Lesson on Leadership from Manufacturing

Resilience is a process of adapting in the face of difficulty, hardships, trauma, tragedy, or set backs.  Since I work in a manufacturing environment I often think about resilience.  For example the resilience of our foam or proprietary blow molded seat foundation. We design and test seating products to endure the stresses of routine use and support the comfort and durability that is the company quality brand. We go to great lengths to engineer our product to serve the unique demands of our market.
Product design and testing made me think about resilience as an adaptive response needed by leaders who face the stressors of routine activity. No one thinks about a chair failing.  A chair used week in and week out does not suddenly change in how it feels, how it performs and how it looks. Similarly no one thinks about a leader failing.  People expect leaders to be consistent week in and week out (i.e., compassionate, authoritative, certain, open, knowledgeable, inquisitive, courageous etc.).

Leaders unlike chairs actually experience stress inducing events and circumstances. Unlike chairs one cannot engineer leaders to be resilient and durable. The act of leading is more complex.  So, how are leaders tested and proven so that they grow in resilience?  Allow me to stretch my manufacturing analogy to illustrate my observations on leadership resilience.

Start with Purpose

When we think about new products the first question we ask is always how will a chair be used e.g., for a “3rd place”, a training room, a sanctuary – each application places different demands on a chair.  We look at design trends in facilities.  We look at aesthetic trends.  Why?  Manufacturing a top selling church or hospitality/banquet chair means it has to serve the customer’s purpose with distinction.

Developing resilience in leaders requires a similar intentionality.  Leaders who have a sense of purpose define the present based on where they are going in the future. Think about what you want your leadership life to look like in the future.  Imaging for a moment what it would feel like to experience that future – to be there and enjoying the outcomes. How do you feel – empowered, encouraged, confident, energized? Leaders always start at the future and work backwards.  This propensity to live “future forward” creates hope and a sense of purpose and lays a foundation for resilience.

Resilience doesn’t mean an absence of difficulty or emotional pain. Resilience develops in leaders who practice “future forward” thinking in the midst of difficulty and emotional pain and show a specific set of characteristics:

  • The capacity to make realistic plans and take steps to carry them out
  • A positive view of oneself and confidence in one’s strengths and abilities
  • Skills in communication and problem solving
  • The capacity to manage strong feelings and impulses
  • Accept that change is part of living.

Individuals or leaders who move through life without a sense of purpose typically share an opposite set of characteristics.

  • Lack the capacity to make realistic plans usually supplanting plans with “pipe dreams” that are disconnected from their context
  • Exhibit a victim mentality and lack of confidence offering the evidence of how life and circumstances have stolen their opportunity to make it big
  • No problem solving skills instead they shift responsibility for action to others
  • Demonstrate a lack of self-discipline as seen in impulsive actions and inappropriate and accentuated emotions (e.g., rage, fear, self-loathing)
  • See change as a threat to well being.

Great leaders like a great chair exhibit a structure in life that absorbs impact and returns to its design parameters.  For example, sit on a chair and stand up – the foam in the seat returns to its original shape after being compressed.  Great leaders show the same consistency in character – their sense of purpose helps them keep their emotional and intellectual shape as they live “future forward”.

Define the Cost

Once we understand the purpose of a church chair and determine a design that meets the use requirements and aesthetic sensibilities of the greatest number of customers we define the materials needed to manufacture the new church chair. The process of finding quality material at the best cost helps us decide whether future customers will be able to afford the price of the chair.

Jesus’ parable about the tower builder affirms the importance of cost awareness. (Luke 14:28-30)  Leaders recognize the cost of their actions and routinely reassess this cost.  What costs are associated with leadership decisions?  The costs of living “future forward” include more than financial costs. In a leadership context cost include factors such as:

  • Impact on relationships
  • Ethical challenges
  • Follower’s emotional capacity for change
  • Unexpected impact on facilities, regulations, and organizational structures

Even in successful leadership initiatives that propel an organization to a new level of prosperity and influence hidden costs arise because change has occurred.

The question we face in manufacturing is whether the value to the customer makes up for the cost of producing the product – the question of price.  If we design ingenious chairs but the associated costs cannot be offset by the value added to the customer the price would be too high.  If we design ingenious chairs and use substandard materials then the chairs fail in meeting their purpose.

Leaders routinely face similar dilemmas.  What is the best solution or direction for the organization and its people?  If grand plans use substandard processes and inadequate resources because a leader did not count the cost then resilience fails and the leader and the followers loose.

Our design process involves people from every function in the company as well as customer focus groups.  In order to understand purpose and cost we gather advice from as many sources as possible to expect as many potential problems as possible and see opportunity we would otherwise miss.

Leaders who count the cost are only as effective as the feedback they receive.  Make connections with family members, friends, and others who are important and who care about you and listen to you – listen to them.  Solicit their opinion.  This strengthens resilience by clarifying opportunity and identifying potential problems.

Be Persistent

Persistence is an outcome of resilience and a factor in developing resilience.  By persistence I do not mean meanness, spite, vindictiveness or ruthlessness.  I mean determination, perseverance, diligence and resolution.  Why must leaders exercise persistence?  Persistence is the practice that refines the leader’s vision and grows capacity for resilience.

Leadership vision is always incomplete.  This is one of the most important leadership principles affecting resilience.  The single greatest relational mistake leaders make is the assumption that they know best because they see a future or an opportunity clearly.  A leader may see a clear future. However the leader also must see the challenges, resistance, threats, opportunities and insights that have the potential of shaping or derailing a leader’s vision.  Leaders need to listen to feedback to gather intelligence about the path to the vision.

A leader’s level of resilience is a result of persisting in a purpose over time.  Persistence accepts help from others, looks for multiple break-out opportunities that set the stage for the future and spends very little time with entrenched opposition to the vision.  This does not mean leaders can ignore feedback. Leaders who persist recognize the difference between a naysayer (resister) and an early adapter or a neutral (who will ultimately contribute to the vision when they see it works) and choose to spend their relational currency strategically.

When we design a new product we persist in getting feedback all the way through the development process.  Persistence is like the actions of a great football running back like Earl Campbell, Eric Dickerson, Terrell Davis, Tony Dorsett or Willie Gallimore.  Like running backs leaders bounce off tacklers, look for blockers, see the opportunities in the open field and always orient to the goal. Like a running back persistent leaders get up after being knocked down.  Persistent leaders look for new means when their planned strategy collapses. Persistent leaders listen for the encouragement of their team mates.  Leaders who exercise persistence are people who:

  • Meet obstacles as learning opportunities
  • Learn from set backs to refine communication and clarity
  • Ask questions to look for insights and correlations they did not see before
  • Interpret setbacks as an opportunity to test the validity of their strategy
  • Incorporate feedback into their tactical responses to new situations

Conclusion

Watching a leader under pressure says a lot about the leader’s future potential. Leaders who own a sense of purpose, exercise cost awareness and practice persistence are leaders whose resilience grows over time thus enlarging their capacity to deal with complexity, ambiguity, resistance, setbacks, and challenges.  More importantly leaders who are resilient see opportunities others miss because they keep looking and learning while others quit.

Resilience is a mindset that practices specific actions over time and adjusts those actions based on lessons learned along the way.  The combination of practice, learning and agility increases a leader’s resilience and enhances the value the leader brings to an organization.

How is your resilience?  Look at the factors I describe above (purpose, cost and persistence) if any of these are weak set aside some time to think about what you see in yourself.  Ask those closest to you for their input. Resilience is learned and is therefore a trait that can increase or decrease.

Posted on

Defining Moments In Leadership Development

I was thinking about all the defining moments I have experienced or others experience that make them great leaders.  A defining moment is a point at which life takes a new turn because of some deep or penetrating insight, experience or expanded awareness.  Defining moments come in many unique ways and when they come they deeply alter perspective and action. I think of four specific ways defining moments enter the life of a leader.
Defining Moment of Reflection

I thought about a statement one of my students made the other night in class. “I cannot truly know myself by seeing myself just from the inside, I know myself more fully by hearing what others see on the outside.” This student faced a defining moment that will impact the rest of his life. He understood his connection to others in a way that he never had before. The defining moment came as an involuntary insight resulting from the rigor of academic study.  He was struggling with new ideas that challenged deeply held assumptions about himself, his context and his faith. Thinking theologically about what he realized I turn to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where Paul wrote:

Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.[1]

My student understood himself in a new way. His new insight sent him on a quest of attentiveness to the voices of those who reflect the impact of his behavior.  My student’s insight demonstrates that possessing a sense of belonging in relationship to others does not diminish a sense of self-identity it amplifies it.

If I reflect on this student’s statement psychologically then I turn to the work of Kegan and see that this young man has emerged from a time of differentiation to a new understanding of his interdependence on others. His new self-awareness has provided a new confidence and sense of contribution in life.  If my student did not pay attention to this defining moment he would have become a fearful leader isolated from the advice and help of others.

Defining Moment of Success

The most effective leaders I know recognize defining moments when they face them and they pay attention to them. The April edition of Harvard Business Review was devoted to how people deal with failure and success.  One article noted that people and organizations don’t learn as much from success as they do failure.  It is not that success doesn’t have something to teach us but that we don’t really investigate success.  The result of not thinking about why we are successful or what we should learn from success allows blind spots to occur.

In light of this observation about success I was delighted to read about a defining moment that came as a result of success in the life of a pastoral leader.  Mindi Caliguire writing in Christianity Today described a defining moment rooted in success:

Not long ago a pastor told me: “Mindy, we have a lot of young leaders. Most of our staff is under 40. We’ve launched two new campuses, finished a building campaign, and are making inroads into serving the marginalized in our community. The staff has been running hard and fast for a long time. I’m wondering what the trajectory of our ministry will be two years from now if we don’t intentionally focus on the well-being of our souls. Which marriages are likely to collapse by then? Which young leaders will be run over and left for dead?”[2]

Consider the power of this pastor’s reflection on his own success.  What would have happened if this pastor ignored the defining moment success brought about?  Defining moments are unsettling at any point but I have found that defining moments around success are deeply challenging in part because I have to consider the frailty of success and the reality that success is not an end it is a door way into a far greater challenge.  If this pastoral leader had not allowed the discomfort of this defining moment to challenge his success he would become a toxic leader – a reality clear in his own question.

Defining Moment of Change

Times of change also provide opportunity for defining moments to sneak up on leaders. Jack Connell wrote about his process of change moving from a familiar house and community to a new place.  Packing up his library lead him to reflect on what he would do differently in the future.  He wrote and article titled, “Ministry Mulligans – if I had it to do all over again.”[3] He gave five:

  • More collaboration, less competition
  • More pastor, less CEO
  • More rest, less rush
  • More friendships, less isolation

When I review the insights provided by Jack Connell I find a leader who has chosen to allow the exposure of his own limited perspectives to become a leader of greater capacity. If this leader had not allowed the exposure of his limited perspective and skill while packing his office he would devolve into a leader dependent on habits and blinded to the opportunities change put in front of him. Leaders blinded to opportunity ultimately become hopeless and cynical.

Defining Moment of Prayer

In the situations above, reflection, success and change, defining moments emerge that altered the course of a leader’s life.  But there is another situation that opens up deep processing and new defining moments – it is prayer.  The defining moments initiated by prayer are often realized over time and in hindsight.  King David wrote:

1 I waited patiently for the LORD;
he turned to me and heard my cry.
2 He lifted me out of the slimy pit,
out of the mud and mire;
he set my feet on a rock
and gave me a firm place to stand.
3 He put a new song in my mouth,
a hymn of praise to our God.
Many will see and fear the LORD
and put their trust in him.[4]

For David patient and persistent prayer turned into a profound realization – God hears our cry. There is something about a leader who prays that affirms the reality of God and the acute insight that the Almighty’s attention encompasses personal struggles and turmoil – God knows me.  Leaders who are defined by prayer are leaders who know what it means to be present in the here and now.  These leaders see people not just big plans. Leaders who are not defined by prayer often leave their footprints over the backs of those they trod to success. Leaders who are not defined by prayer can fall prey to the illusion that leadership is all about them.  David understood that leadership was all about living the kind of life that ultimately draws people to the perception they can trust God.

Conclusion

There are no doubt other contexts where defining moments occur.  The outcomes however are similar. Leaders who embrace and not run from defining moments are leaders who: grow in confidence about their contribution (and not stagnate in fear and isolation); see success as a door way to greater challenges (and not becoming a toxic leader characterized by a lust for more); see opportunity (and not barriers that leave them hopeless and cynical) and see people (and not raw ambition alone).  What defining moment has entered your life?  Did you embrace it or run from it?  Are you the kind of person or leader you hoped?  Take a moment and re-engage your most recent defining moment – let its lessons sink deep and bring about transformation.

[1] 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 (NIV)

[2] Mindy Caliguire. “Thruway or Partway?” (Source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2011/winter/thruwaypartway.html?start=2; accessed 5 April 2011).

[3] Jack Connell. “Ministry Mulligans: If I had it to do all over again” (Source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2011/winter/ministrymulligans.html?start=1; accessed 5 April 2011).

[4] Psalm 40:1-3 (NIV)

Posted on

Shaping Employee Engagement and Emotional Intelligence

My surprise at seeing the thread of emails between my supervisor and one of my direct reports bordered on shock. I sat in the airport in Chicago on my way home from meetings with several of our strategic partners with time to check my emails.  I opened my email to see a stern prose from my boss chastising one of my direct reports.  I winced as I read through the original email.  Why my direct report had chosen to email her concerns to the entire group was beyond me.  Wisdom dictated that the candor of her observations required much more discretion than a group-wide broadside.
Now instead of helping my employee process a valid observation and manage their emotion I had to manage up with the entire executive team and manage down to all my team who were now convinced that their feedback was unwanted and a potential liability to their career survival.

What would you do?

 

Posted on

Leadership: Pulled in Different Directions

I often hear the proverbial statement, “those who can do and those who can’t teach.” I enjoy the phrase when it comes up in my classes because I love to watch the expression on students faces when they discover that I wear multiple hats. I run a coaching and consulting practice that engages leaders around the globe and across industries. I teach graduate leadership courses around the globe and locally in southern California.But by far the most challenging leadership role I have is running department inside a manufacturing company.
It is one thing to see the pressures and challenges faced by leaders and create models to help them interpret organizational and personal behavior while they execute on their tactical and strategic plans. It is quite another thing to actually lead a team responsible for the execution of tactical and strategic plans. The work of leadership within organizations often requires that a leader adopt complementary and even contradictory roles to stimulate new efforts while maintaining existing routines.

Organizations are dynamic and complex settings. Leaders have long felt the tension inherent in the diverse roles they are required to assume. Broadly speaking a leader also serves as a manager requiring behavior that moves back and forth between defining a future and the meaning of the present on one hand and enforcing production quotas and policies on the other.  Effectiveness in a managerial/leadership capacity requires integrating these competing roles. Effective leaders overcome the tendency to see leadership behaviors in an either/or fashion. Instead they engage competing or contradictory roles as part of a tool kit of behavior that enables them to address the multiple and competing demands of the organization.

The recognition that leaders must engage in both management and leadership roles has only recently been measured by researchers. In popular writing leadership and management activities are often framed as competing roles with one or the other disparaged as somehow less effective. Research indicates that they are symbiotic roles that engage various behaviors. Research suggests that leaders who are able to diversify their behaviors across competing values show the behavioral complexity needed to better meet the demands faced by their organization. To the extent a leader or manager is able to diversify their behaviors across these competing values they are said to have a behavioral repertoire.

Recognizing that a leader or manager needs a broad repertoire of behaviors has lead me to help leaders/managers build a perspective that complements both disparate roles and divergent perspectives in a way that provides a more accurate picture of what makes success in organizational leadership and management. So how is this behavioral repertoire developed?

First, recognize that it begins with the recognition of an individual’s unique perspectives and strengths and how these contribute to the organization’s strategic and tactical objectives. The use of behavioral and competency assessments helps leaders set up a baseline understanding of their strong points and find the gaps in behavior or knowledge that diminish potential success.

The process of assessment can be done informally if an organization has clearly defined competencies expected of their positions and if they have mentors who model effective behavioral repertoires. Once a leader identifies their behavioral repertoire he/she has the foundation to assess their capacity to handle complex organizational or situational demands.

A leader or manager’s capacity depends on (1) the range of behavior the individual is capable of performing and (2) the ability to apply various behaviors to divergent situations. Using assessments in tandem with performance coaching enhances the leader’s behavioral repertoire. As a result the organization’s capacity to adjust to market conditions, handle employee relations, meet stakeholder expectations and efficiently produce measurable outcomes increases.

Second, consciously adopt a learning orientation to experience. I remind emerging leaders I work with that feeling pulled in different directions simultaneously is an indication they engaged to the act of leadership. It remains up to them to decide whether they are willing to embrace the tension and develop a learning posture needed to uncover the gaps between their behavior and the behavioral repertoires needed to succeed. Possessing experience is worth very little without active reflection on what the experience teaches.

The highly effective leaders I know deliberately reflect each week on significant interactions and events. I adopted the social research methods introduced in my graduate work i.e., field notes. Each week or after significant interactions I sit down with my notebook and write out a short narrative. Then I look for salient points or themes from the narrative. Then I ask whether a hypothesis (rule of thumb) emerges from the themes that I need to look at further. Finally I ask whether there is a quote or vignette that supports or illustrates the hypothesis. Leaders often work from “rules of thumb” – that is just how the brain works. However, if these rules of thumb are not subjected to critical reflection and testing they may just establish damaging biases and not helpful insights.

Third, find a mentor. Find someone who has the experience and demonstrates a broad behavioral repertoire and ask to spend time with them reviewing your own development. This kind of feedback is invaluable. I recommend that people seek mentors both within and without their organizations. Internal mentors see behavior and its impact first hand and often offer a raw and immediate feedback source.

External mentors see behavior without the political filters sometimes present in an internal mentor and help provide perspective. I have been saved from engaging stupid and self damaging behaviors by talking situations through with a mentor first. Bobby Clinton one of my professors was fond of reminding us of his own truism. “Leadership is complex – complexity is why we need leaders.” Each time we complained of the complexity we faced in our leadership roles he would recite this truism. I decided it was the virtual equivalent of a slap at the back of my head to bring me back from the brink of self pity to the reality of being a leader.

Posted on

Servant Leadership and the Exercise of Discipline

Leaders who create a culture of discipline and service experience three significant outcomes: great employees  continue excellent performance, good employees step up to better performance and bad employees understand that their lack of performance will no longer be tolerated. This thesis lines up with the concept of servant leadership that asserts that people freely respond to leaders they trust to have other’s best interests in mind.
However, I find that people in leadership roles who struggle with effectiveness either misconstrue servant leadership as never having to enforce a standard (these people show a lack of skill in coaching and correcting poor behaviors) or misinterpret discipline as menacing or threatening employees.  These individuals work to survive or to avoid risk and detection. The result in organizations is not only the loss of employee engagement it is mediocrity.  Mediocrity is any state or outcome that is substantially less in quality than what is reasonably possible given the available people and material assets.

As a student of leadership I spend time looking at the latest research and reviewing historical practices of great leaders. My thoughts on discipline are deeply impacted by the Apostle Paul whose leadership in the first century served as a catalyst of the Church’s expansion throughout the Mediterranean world.  Paul’s leadership consistently expressed the concept of servant leadership in three ways: he loved the people he led; he developed structures around his strategic objectives and he identified and empowered leaders.

Titus was one of the leaders Paul worked with extensively. Paul saw the need to advise this young leader on how to handle the chronically insubordinate, complaining and intentionally misleading. Paul’s advice is as pertinent today as he gave it. Leaders who are working to create a better future and more effective workplace are wise to pay attention to Paul’s practical wisdom. Paul demonstrates three leadership behaviors needed to create a culture of discipline and thus avoid the trap of mediocrity. Paul’s advice to Titus encouraged Titus to: (1) Name problem behaviors; (2) Exposes and opposes problem behaviors when they appear and (3) Rebuke (be openly intolerant) of destructive behavior.  Paul wrote:

There are plenty of people, especially those who announce that this is the way we have always done it, who respond to authority with noncompliance, propagate groundless rumors and intentionally misconstrue the facts. (Titus 1:10 my own paraphrase)

Name Problem Behaviors

The first leadership lesson Paul gave Titus is; name problem behaviors.  I was about to have my first team meeting. The company recruited me to develop the capabilities and the perspectives of the team. I opened the first team meeting looking into the faces of my new team. I saw curiosity, trepidation, doubt, and mistrust.  I expect to see these emotions in a significant transition and especially a transition with a team troubled by poor performance, languishing morale and a forced change in leadership.  The previous manager transferred because perennial problems plagued the team’s performance.

In the meeting I introduced myself and the leadership philosophy I intended to follow. I had developed the essence of this philosophy as part of a curriculum development project for a client.  In the research phase of the client project the main themes emerged. I determined to test my observations by interviewing highly effective production managers.  The interviews with financial service managers, call center managers and manufacturing managers confirmed the validity of what I had read and gave me the stories I needed to put shape to my own approach to leadership and management.  I designed the presentation that morning with my new team to name the problems I consider intolerable and outline a constructive strategy for success. One of the things I learned was that effective leaders don’t pull punches in naming problems that torpedo the results their teams need to accomplish.

In talking about behaviors I do not tolerate I talked about building ownership for ideas by asking questions.  What does each producer want to accomplish?  What works well?  What does not work well?  What is needed to redefine success and move outcomes to all new levels of performance?  Building ownership requires a strong emotional intelligence i.e., the ability to perceive and constructively act on both one’s own emotions and the feelings of others.

Managers and leaders who are effective in naming unacceptable behaviors start by owning their emotions. Their emotions do not own them!  Similarly successful teams own their own emotions.  Part of owning one’s emotion recognizes that some issues have to be discussed in an environment that allows individuals to process their feelings in order to work through to understanding. Individuals in managerial or leadership roles cannot coerce, manipulate or force people into compliance.  I explained that my office is a transparent environment. I wanted the team’s feedback even if it was raw and unvarnished.  But, two things had to be understood in order to facilitate the kind of unvarnished conversations I described.  First, intense and potentially turbulent conversations cannot occur without a mutual respect.  I do not tolerate disrespect of the other person in any conversation.  Second, fierce conversations had to be held away from others who are not part of the subject matter.  When these conversations occur they happen in my office behind closed doors and they do not spill out into the office in the form of gossip or insubordination.

Ineffective individuals in leadership roles recoil at the idea of labeling behaviors – the problem is that such individuals cannot define successful behavior anymore than they can name problem behavior. Leaders must possess the courage and the clarity needed to define clear expectations.  These are the kinds of leaders that can define a vision for the future that makes sense.  They support that vision with concrete expectations about what kinds of behavior that are needed to achieve the vision.

I am talking about labeling behaviors not people.  Never label people as problems. When I hear individuals in leadership positions label people as problems I know that upon scrutiny these individuals behavior will exhibit insecurity, incompetence and fearfulness (the fear of failure ties them to inactivity and blame shifting).

Expose and Oppose Problem Behavior When it Appears

The second lesson I learn from the Apostle Paul is to expose and oppose problem behavior when it does appear.  The team appeared relieved as I expressed a coherent approach the management and a desire for a predictable work environment – the previous manager’s behavior routinely exploded into tirades that included yelling, kicking furniture and bouts of pouting in isolation from the team. His episodic behavior had created a culture of complaint, mistrust and suspicion.  I concluded the meeting with a question and answer period in which we discussed my expectations of performance and ran scenarios about how my management philosophy played out in life situations.  I felt like we had a good start to developing a transparent and empowering culture that would increase productivity, morale and fun.

Two days later Sally knocked on my office door. She was obviously agitated.  “I need to have one of those fierce conversations you talked about” she said as she entered the office and closed the door.  She launched into an animated diatribe on why the performance expectations I had set were unfair.  I asked questions, listened for underlying issues, clarified the questions and confirmed that I understood her objection.  Then I pulled out the performance numbers from the last quarter.  I showed her our gross profit number, it had dropped.  I showed her a twelve month review of performance metrics across the team – all of them were down.  I showed her the market trends which were all going up, our market was growing, our performance was falling and the direction of the gross profit meant that I would have to let one or more of the team go to replace them with people who could keep up.  Then I asked her what her recommendations for changing our team’s performance were. The look on her face was priceless – it was the shock that accompanies an epiphany.

She said, “I don’t have a better suggestion than the strategy you outlined.” The conversation graduated to a different tone and cadence.

“Look”, I said, “Tom did not tell you guys what was really happening in the company nor did he apparently show you your own performance metrics.”

“We never had metrics just quotas” Sally responded.

“Right, remember what I said about results” I responded, “We control activities not results.  That is why defining the right activity is important.”

The conversation went well. Sally left my office to return to her work station.  I was about the savor the victory when I saw her pull Pam aside and walk off to the side of the room. Their expressions and gestures indicated that Sally’s epiphany had worn off fifteen feet from my office door.  I walked out and asked Sally to meet with me in her office.

“Sally, did you just leave my office to pick up the same complaint with Pam over the team metrics you just spent forty-five minutes discussing in my office?”  The intensity of my expression seemed to surprise her; I apparently have a look that drills through people when I am upset.

“Yes.” Her response was more tentative now.

“Ok Sally, we talked about the how I work in our first meeting.  What did I say about taking complaints back onto the floor that needed to be discussed and resolved in my office?”

“You said you would not tolerate it” she answered.

“Why did I say that?” Now I wanted to test my own communication.  Had I been clear?  Did I clearly communicate the importance of open even fierce discussions and how to have them without descending into gossip and subterfuge?  Sally’s response let me know that she understood exactly what I had said and that she appreciated the idea. She was testing me.  I concluded our impromptu meeting by giving her a verbal warning and documenting this in her personnel file.

Rebuke – be Openly Intolerant of – Destructive Behavior

The third lesson I learn from Paul is that a leader must be openly intolerant of destructive behavior. After that encounter Sally became one of my greatest supporters and star producer. I realized that discipline in leadership is critical.  Without discipline there is no real assurance for employees that their efforts will be recognized and rewarded.  Why?  Without discipline failing performance is ignored or worse, it is continuously threatened with severe results that never materialize.  Why bother working hard when leaders fail to recognize good performance and fail to discipline poor performance?  Spineless leadership is what leads to mediocre performance and behaviors that undermine the trust and integrity necessary for success. Sally was about to test the strength of my own spine.

Things were going well.  I could see and measure improved performance and an improved morale in the office. The team had gathered into the conference room for our weekly debriefing.  I started to describe what the numbers indicated in our performance when Sally blurted out, “See that Charles, your numbers stink.  You should have been fired a long time ago. I don’t know why you are still here.”

Sally’s outburst commenced as I had turned to point out something on the screen and as I turned back around I shot back, “Sally, stop.” It felt like the tension filling the room was also displacing the oxygen.  “Enough” I said this time with emphatic emphasis.

I turned my gaze to the team who all sat with mouths agape and eyes wide as saucers.  “Team, what is the fourth value I talked about in my leadership philosophy?” Pages shuffled around the table as those who could regain composure leafed through their training books.

Bill tentatively raised his hand, “I think I have it. You said that you manage activities not results and that you evaluate production diagnostically.”

Successful production managers know that they cannot manage (or control) results; they can manage activities that contribute to results.  Leaders have to know what their teams need to do to hit the results and leaders and managers monitor performance consistency and quality in all activities.

I turned back to Sally, “What part of your speech was diagnostic?”

“None of it” she slowly answered.

“That’s right Sally, you violated one of my leadership values.”

I turned to Charles, “Charles are you open to receiving constructive feedback on your performance?”

Charles was still in shock from the volley that Sally had fired his way.  “Yea, I guess.”

“No, I need a definite answer” I said.

“Yes, I want it” he said.

I lead the team through an exercise evaluating the metrics of Charles’s performance.  The conversation ended constructively. The team expanded their understanding of how to use metrics to coach new behaviors.  I dismissed the meeting and asked Charles and Sally to stay behind.  In the discussion with Charles and Sally I reiterated the ground rules of respect.  Sally apologized and Charles accepted her apology.  Then I asked Charles to leave and Sally to stay.

“Sally” I started, “you appear to be frustrated.”

“I am frustrated, Charles produces nothing.  He doesn’t know the products. He can barely close a door much less a sale.  I don’t know why you keep him.”

“Have I demonstrated consistency or inconsistency with my management philosophy in the time I have been here?” I asked.

Sally thought for a minute then said, “Consistency.”

“Based on what you observe in my behavior do you think I will continue to act consistent to what I say?”

“Yes.”

“Then you let me do my job and I will insist others do their job.”

Sally sighed in relief.  She had often felt like she had to cover for the previous manager, a role she neither wanted nor felt competent to fulfill. As a result she developed a pattern of publicly bullying people in meetings to vent her frustration.  No one had ever called her on that before.   My insistence that her former behavior would not be tolerated combined with an awareness of the situation that contributed to it helped her change.

Evaluate behavior diagnostically.  Stop the destructive behaviors as soon as they occur, then probe for the issue behind the behavior.  Like my experience with Sally employees are often trained to behavior in less constructive ways by the behavior of poor leaders.  New habits cannot be developed without clearly identifying the bad habits by (1) calling people to be responsible for their own emotions and (2) identifying those poor managerial behaviors or employee misbeliefs that contributed to their development.

Conclusion

Creating a culture of discipline is catalytic – it initiates changes throughout the entire system of the organization. By the same token bringing a culture of discipline to an organization that has run impulsively may result in reactions to the change throughout the entire system.  Paul’s advice to Titus assumed that Titus possessed a level of authority, power and influence required to push past system wide resistance should it occur. Remember the assumptions Paul operated on with regard to leadership – he was a leader who served those he led and he possessed a transparent agenda for the common good.

In serving others Paul demonstrated two important dimensions of leadership behavior.  First he was engaging.  He was confident in his own voice and encouraged the emerging voices of leaders around him. He took risks and helped others take the kinds of risks that resulted in great accomplishment.  He demonstrated an adaptability in altering his approach based on the situation and in refusing to be a know it all. He routinely pushed problems back to their source as an act of discovery and creativity in outlining solutions.

Second he understood how to connect with others. He networked (as he was doing here with Titus and the church in Crete).  He sponsored emerging leaders.  He worked on a principle of reciprocity and encouraged reciprocity between leaders and churches so that their combined resources did not dissipate in siloed activities but accelerated success through the synergy created.

Leaders who work in organizational cultures that lack discipline need to determine two things up front.  First, how likely is it that the introduction of a culture of discipline will succeed?  Determine this by the scope of power, authority and influence you have in the organization.  If you are a sole proprietor your job is easier than if you have just been promoted to department head within a global enterprise.  Find sponsors and mentors if they exist. Build a network of support as you introduce discipline.  Review your mandate to determine whether it supports a culture of discipline.  Then act. Exercise courage and develop the right team for the performance mandate you have been given.

What if the organization you are in does not support a culture discipline?  Put your resume out.  Why would you stay? Find an organization that understands the value of leadership and put your competencies to work in a situation in which you can make a difference.  Why languish away a career fighting an organizational culture that will not allow excellence?  A word of caution is important. Before you make a transition talk with an experienced leader about your situation. By seeking out the input of others with more experience or with insight into organizational and human dynamics you may discover the problem simply requires a change of behavior on your part to initiate a significantly new shift in the way work gets done.  Talking to experienced leaders will open up new options or new opportunities you may not have seen previously.

Posted on

Dad: the First Missional Leader I Knew Well

Hardly a day exhausts its wonders, challenges and opportunities that I don’t think of my dad.  I reflect on the lessons (implicit and explicit) he taught me about leadership. I often wish he was still here to talk with me about the lessons I have learned since his death and the insights I have gained from reflecting on his life.  I still find myself talking to him in my mind and at times I almost hear his response. Watching dad respond to his faith in Christ Jesus taught me to think of the church as a missional entity rather than an institution. Dad was a significant force in modeling this for me. Dad invested in me the propensity to go to research and empirical investigation to challenge my own assumptions then use that investigation as the ground for deeper theological reflection.  So, what did I learn from dad that has shaped my view of the church and its mission?
A missional church exercises curiosity and theological reflection. It was the 1960s and through a serious of events equal in absurdity to a Greek tragedy we had moved from the Missouri Lutheran church we attended to a different Lutheran church. The tragic part of the story is that the move was precipitated by a question I raised in Sunday school.  After hearing the story of Elijah, I wondered why similar miraculous events did not occur today. The question raised a ruckus my first grade mind did not comprehend.  After a lively discussion with the pastor in the hall outside the classroom dad motioned for me to join him. He gathered my brothers and mom and announced that we would find a new church. Dad’s action signaled that I had permission to ask questions and think critically about faith and more importantly that he was willing to defend my curiosity.  The willingness to think critically about faith and its application to the present is the beginning of renewal. Without curiosity history degrades to dead tradition and nothing more than an idealized myth detached from meaning in the present. The author of Hebrews admonishes us to exercise curiosity in theological reflection, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you; consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.” (Heb. 13:7)

A missional church uses the scripture as a starting point and a standard of action. The move to a different congregation was providential. Dad and mom started attending a class on Wednesday evenings. The class was a study through the Bible that familiarized dad with the scope of God’s work in history.  The class acted as a catalyst to new questions.  For example dad and other men found James 5:14, “Is any one among you afflicted – ill treated, suffering evil? He should call the in the church elders – the spiritual guides. And they should pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Lord’s name.  And the prayer [that is] of faith will save him that is sick, and the Lord will restore him; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” (AMP). “Why don’t we do this?” The question started a new time of prayer during which pastor Andy and these men did what was recommended. What’s more when they prayed for the sick some were healed and set free.  The results became catalytic to new exercises of prayer among the entire congregation. It is one thing to state belief it is quite another to act on that belief.

A missional church engages the community. Dad always had friends and we always had people over to the house.  Games, conversation and spirited discussions were part of our family heritage.  Dad’s investigation of the scripture and what it meant to be a Christian changed the tenor of the conversations. I was typically sent to bed before the real conversation started. However, I often snuck into the hallway off the living room to listen to the discussion. I listened to conversations with students and leaders from all over the world talk about their experience with God and their stories of transformation. We hosted evangelistic teams (each Easter week a dozen or more college men slept in our garage which was transformed to a dorm room each year), dad and mom loved their neighbors and simply engaged in conversation that often lead to discussions of faith.  Dad was not plastic in these discussions he was always just himself. Jesus said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” (Luke 10:27) Being missional was not odd for dad; he simply loved his neighbors.

A missional church engages prayer like it makes a difference.  The Easter outreaches exposed dad to Bill Bright and the ministry of campus crusade.  I still remember the trek we took from Costa Mesa to Arrowhead (former headquarters of Campus Crusade). “What do you think about living here?” dad asked.  Hey the mountains were awesome I was fine with it. For the next several weeks every night after dinner dad cleared the dining room table after dinner and work on his application to Campus Crusade.  I watched him pray and struggle over the decision. I had no real grasp of the issues he wrestled with as he prayed about joining the staff of Campus Crusade. But something soaked in about involving prayer in my deepest personal decisions.  Praying for direction with an expectation of clarity was not an esoteric exercise thrown up against the wall of heaven’s doors with the hope it would stick.  Dad engaged a more deliberate process. Dad prayed like prayer made a difference in reality and in his decision process. The words of Jesus seemed clear. Jesus said, “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” (Mat. 21:22)  Ultimately he determined that Campus Crusade was not the direction he needed to go.  Shortly after that we moved from Southern California to Southern Oregon.  Dad became a professor who influenced hundreds of students each year as they prepared for careers in engineering. Dad’s influence as a leader included international students, local organizations and clubs – even the yacht club.  Not only did dad show me the power of prayer but he demonstrated the reality of ministry in the work place.

A missional church does not take itself too seriously – but is clear about its mission. As I entered school and engaged school rules and bureaucracies dad pulled me aside one day for a father son chat.  “Ray, one thing you will learn about organizations is that rules are meant to be broken.” Dad wasn’t talking about living as though morality was passé.  Dad was clarifying the difference between effectiveness and mindless compliance. Simply put, organizations sometimes become their own worst enemies.  As an Air force officer dad experienced the difference between effectiveness and mindless compliance many times.  He respected those leaders who knew when bucking the system was appropriate.  “But, if you break the rules and get caught take responsibility and own your punishment.” This piece of advice was some of the best leadership advice I ever received.  The idea of taking responsibility for one’s actions is absent in practice at times within the church. If leaders in the church exercise as much clarity about their mission as they do clarity about the need to comply with their rules and regulations they might unleash a world changing revolution of faith. When the disciples reported the impact of their efforts Jesus reminded them about the important stuff, “However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.” (Luke 10:20-21)  Recognizing the real priorities and accepting responsibility for one’s actions seems very much in line with being a child to whom God has entrusted a clear mission.

A missional church lives a lifestyle of repentance. I packed my wife and children into the car and drove to see dad.  I was well into my first pastorate and needed some time to talk with dad about the leadership issues I was going through.  I opened the refrigerator at dad’s and noticed something different. I could not put my finger on it at first.  I stared harder at the contents.  “Dad,” I called out, “where’s the beer?”  As I asked the question I realized that I had not seen a cigarette in dad’s mouth when I walked in.  “I quit smoking and drinking.” A head of foam and cigarette smoke were iconic symbols of dad to me.  Dad explained that smoking was killing him (something I had said to him for years) and God had asked him to stop.  What about the beer?  Well that too was gone for the moment so dad could focus on what God was saying to him.  Repentance is the other side of taking responsibility.  Repentance is both an admission of error and a change in behavior.  Dad modeled repentance in his usual engineering precision.  It was a simple case of realizing he was wrong and needed to make an adjustment. So, he did. Sometimes I find leaders are too invested in their persona to actually allow God to work on their person. Proverbs makes an amazing statement about repentance, “Repent at my rebuke! Then I will pour out my thoughts to you, I will make known to you my teachings.” (Pr. 1:23 – NIV)  Repentance is what dad was doing. In the months that followed I saw the impact of dad’s actions – he gained insight into God’s thoughts.

A missional church lives accountably to itself and the world around it. I loved going to breakfast with the men who were dad’s friends. Dad met with a small group of men to talk about faith, to pray for one another and to encourage one another. Those breakfast meetings amazed me.   I heard these men talk about their struggles, ask hard questions of one another, cry together, love one another, tease one another and laugh with one another. I learned the importance of being transparently accountable. These men talked about learning from their encounters with others at work, their wives, their colleagues.  They modeled what I call a transparent accountability because it extended to every venue in which they lived and worked. Sometimes I see accountability groups as little more than carefully choreographed posturing that has little to do with reality. When Paul instructed Timothy on what to look for in leaders he affirmed the importance of transparent accountability, “He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.” (1 Tim. 3:7)   It turns out that the world around us can decide if we are legitimate in faith or not.  Too many Christian leaders act as though they are exempt from the verdict of relationships outside the church. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I miss my dad. He had a way of helping me get to the heart of things quickly. He taught me something about being missional. Today when I teach, coach, consult and encourage I think of dad. When I resigned my last congregation the first words out of dad’s mouth every time we visited was “when are you returning to full time ministry?”  I would always answer, “Dad, I never left I just changed jobs.” He would smile and the conversation would move on.  Who better to teach me what it means to be “full time” in serving Christ than my dad.  Missional churches understand that “full time” is not a job designation it is a relationship with Christ.  Jesus said it this way, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)  Thanks dad for helping me discover the light of life.

Posted on

Communication a Foundation of Leadership

Communication is Multifaceted
Leaders have to master communication. In its simplest form communication is the ability to outline the actions a team or group must take to carry out a task.  This sounds simple yet outlining actions also requires that a leader outline their values, expectations and the reason for the action to be taken.  In fact the greater the scope of leadership responsibility the more complex the layers of communication become so that verbal and symbolic multilayered communication is critical for the success of the organization.

Symbolic communication (also called non-verbal communication) incorporates a leader’s tone of voice, facial expressions, posture, clothing and the environment in which the communication transpires (e.g., a board room, a break room, the hallway etc.).  If not understood, symbolic communication projects a message that actually contradicts or undermines verbal communication.  One CEO had turned around the financial position of his company.  On the brink of bankruptcy when he accepted the position the company had made up its deficits under his watch and gained  recognition as a model institution.  Employees were encouraged to know that their jobs were safe.

However, when the CEO walked out of his office on day in an unguarded moment without greeting employees in the hallway as he rushed to grab lunch prior to an afternoon appointment rumors started swirling that the company was about to go under.  He was angry and shocked when the rumors resulted in a string of resignations and panic.  What happened?  The fact he failed to engage employees in the hallway made him seem detached and worried.  Employees assumed by his symbolic communication (unintentional as it was) that he had been less than truthful about the extent to which the institution turned around.  It took him weeks and a concerted effort to undo his one thoughtless walk from his office to the cafeteria. What did he learn? He said, “I have to disengage from the analytical thinking I do in my office so that I can engage my employees and allow these casual encounters to reflect the values and the stability of the company I talk about in our employee meetings.”

Deficiency in how a leader communicates is one of the most common complaints I run across when working with organizations experiencing difficulty in meeting performance goals. Poor communication is often characterized by the employees and volunteers we interview as one way, last-minute, manipulative, unclear, demeaning, and self-indulgent.

What makes up good communication?  In working with leaders across a variety of industries and non-profits I have defined four components of effective communication: transparency, responsiveness, authenticity and apprehension.  These components are defined in Table 1.

Table 1: Components of Effective Communication

Component Characteristics
Transparency Communication the meaning of which is clear whether verbal or written and carries a sense of honesty and professionalism.  It is direct in that it communicates to the source never via another (never triangularly).
Responsiveness Aware of the moment, fully present personally as is evident in active listening, requests for feedback, reflective responses (mirroring), inquiry and consistent/appropriate follow up.
Authenticity Treating others with respect, sensitive to others’ needs, feelings, and points of view.  It is communication that is tactful, characterized in active listening and open (i.e., appropriately vulnerable).
Apprehension Communication that is perceptive, comprehending characterized by behaviors that challenge ideas not people, attacks the problem not the person, effective negotiation and constructive conflict resolution.

The data categorized in Table 1 derive from two data tables in a qualitative questionnaire I use when assessing organizations. Engaging in communication is not just delivering a message it is engaging in a series of exchanges both verbal and symbolic (non-verbal) that make sure that the message received by those who are listening is verifiably close to the intended communication action.

Remember that facial expressions, body posture, context, delivery cadence, tone of voice, and pauses designed for others to express various forms of feedback are all part of the act of communication.

Impact of Deficient Factors Illustrated

In one large metropolitan school district a department suffered a severe loss of morale and productivity.  When I tabulated the data from our interviews with their employees and the questionnaire we used to evaluate their operation a distinct pattern emerged that illustrated a gap in communication (see Figure 1).  This gap resulted in part from the director’s devaluation of communication in all its factors.   He equated communication with staccato instructions and complaints about poor performance.  His communication style when viewed by others demonstrated that he was somewhat clear in the meaning of his words but consistently failed to communicate authenticity, apprehension and responsiveness.  He gave one way commands.

Figure 1: Leadership Communication Factors (Data Table A)

As is clear in Figure 1 the director of the department scored highest in transparency and lowest in apprehension.  His communication illustrated a focus on delivering data (technical facts).  He avoided emotional connections to the point employees felt contempt from him. After identifying the deficiency in apprehension, authenticity and responsiveness I interviewed the director to uncover the source of the contempt.  He had little patience for those who did not share his level of technical expertise.  This intolerance of technical imperfection expressed itself in mistrust and emotional detachment.  While his facts were correct (his employees truly did not share his level of technical expertise) he alienated his entire department and lacked the ability to inspire anything but mistrust or fear.

As a result of the directors assumptions about communication conversation in his department consistently took on a disrespectful and combative tone.  Employee comments in the questionnaire confirmed that the department lacked constructive conflict resolution strategies.  The director and his reports exhibited a tendency to personalize challenges and not concrete issues on the one hand. On the other hand the director’s emotional detachment de-personalized people and remained emotionally detached to even when facing the most sensitive of staff issues.

The employees scored themselves as higher in authenticity and lower in transparency, a reversal of the trend seen in the leaders’ scores (Cf. Figures 1 & 2).  This reversal was interesting especially in light of the fact everyone in the department leader and follower both shared virtually the same level of development in apprehension and responsiveness.  It may be that these two communication traits are tied directly to the size and age of an organization while transparency and apprehension are tied to the personal skill development of the people within the department.

By this I do not mean that apprehension and responsiveness are not a factor of personal development but that they are required in greater measure in more complex and larger organizations.  The reversal evident between authenticity and transparency is a classic pattern of behavior when leaders want to talk facts (denying the human factor) and employees or volunteers want to talk about people needs (often denying the facts).

Figure 2: Employee Communication Factors (Data Table D)

How is Your Communication?

Test your communication as a leader in several ways.  First, ask whether the behavior of your team is consistent to your message?  When behaviors align with what you thought you communicated there is a good chance you communicated clearly and consistently over time.

Second review the factors above and ask yourself how you think you do.  Do these factors enter your consideration when you plan communication?

Third, ask people around you to rate your effectiveness in each of these four factors.  Ask people who are neither intimidated by your position nor biased to your role.

Leaders can develop more effective communication skills.  I have found that practicing a more transparent and responsive approach to communication is important to achieving a greater level of self-motivation and goal ownership among staff and volunteers as well as a greater degree of efficiency in daily operations because it encourages learning conversations, clear and timely performance feedback and recognition of a job well done. Each of these factors contributes to employees’ sense of contribution and commitment. Like all other leadership disciplines and practices communication needs planning, evaluation and practice.

 

Posted on

Shaping Leaders through Experience, Transitions, and Challenges

I saw it in a two friends one is a CEO one is a COO.  We had not talked for over a year as I was buried in my academic program and they were both transferred to new assignments.  When I caught up to these friends of mine I was frankly astonished at how they had changed.  They both possessed a measurable growth and depth in their confident demeanor and aura of authority.  I wasn’t seeing arrogance or self promotion.  They carried themselves with a sense of confident purpose that they had not previously exhibited.
The change was so noticeable I shared my observation and asked them what they thought contributed to the change I was seeing.  Both described how entering a new and more challenging situation opened up new ways of seeing themselves.  Their new assignments had required that they step into a new sense of situational awareness, self-confidence and growing competence as leaders.

These men had been through a boundary in their development.  The change each of these men faced was not easy both assignments required that they alter the trajectory of failing organizations.  They both had to step in to difficult situations, use their experience to size up the problems and outline the steps needed to bring change.  They had to move quickly to stop the hemorrhage of cash and talent.  Neither one really had the time to second guess their actions until after the changes had taken place.

A boundary represents a point at which a leader faces the necessity of moving to depth in: skills, perspective or self-awareness to continue in and grow in effectiveness.  Facing these barriers means that leaders have the opportunity to:[1]

  • Bring to closure recent experiences – closure identifies significant lessons and allows the person to move forward.
  • Deepen relationship to God or spiritual depth – growing in spiritual depth or relationship to God does not result in religious weirdness it results in a clearer picture of purpose, moral fabric and awareness of others’ current and potential contribution.  One of my friends identifies himself as a Christian the other does not. But both describe a deeply spiritual experience in the challenges they faced.
  • Expand perspective to see new things – without the challenge of barriers or challenges people often tend to plateau in their growth.  I am reminded of the now proverbial definition of insanity attributed to Peter Drucker i.e., doing the same activity over and over expecting different results.
  • Make decisions that launch a new phase of development – this development extends to everyone within reach of the leader’s influence.  The entire organization benefits when leaders successfully navigate the barriers to their personal growth.

Leaders develop through their careers through boundary events characterized in one of three ways. Boundary events are either powerfully formative or devastatingly destructive.  It is not the experience itself that determines the outcome in leaders lives.  Individual choices determine the outcomes of these boundary experiences.  Outcomes are not inherent in the experience itself.[2]

New Experience – defined as being thrust into new terrain – an overseas assignment, unexpected turn of events in business or family life, new social or organizational role etc.  The challenge in new experience is to overcome disorientation and weave it into one’s own experiential tapestry and not be consumed by it.  Both friends of mine made this kind of choice. As a result they found themselves not only challenged but also enjoying their work.  Be aware of the frame through which you view new experiences.  Your first impressions will most likely be wrong. Ask questions.  Learn to rely on others, gain common ground by telling stories and encouraging others to share their views. Remember that events may conspire to make you a leader more than any inherent talent or unique ability.

Setback – loss or failure that is profoundly disruptive and bewildering – what was permanent is transient what was believed is questioned. The challenge in setbacks is to see one’s situation in a fundamentally new – and more comprehensive – way.  Seeing this bigger picture is often tremendously freeing.  A more comprehensive perspective introduces new opportunities and options that were previously hidden by the individual’s short-sightedness.  In today’s difficult economic environment setbacks are common.  What is not as common is watching people use setbacks to define a new sense of meaning and purpose and skill.

Deferral – an unanticipated hiatus during which routines are set aside, sometimes forcibly, and replaced with regimented structure or no structure at all.   Deferrals challenge leaders to clarify or create their personal mission and purpose; to cement their foundational beliefs and values.  These foundational beliefs and values are critical to shaping organizational culture, creating powerful delegation and unleashing innovation.

The significance of identifying boundaries is twofold.  First, experiencing boundaries is normal and is not a sign of fate aligned against the person.  I do occasionally meet people so narcissistic they believe that everything and everyone is against them – effective leaders do not have time for such self-absorption. Second, boundaries tend to cluster around specific periods of development. New territory boundaries seem to cluster in early career, reversals tend to cluster in mid-carrier and suspension seems to cluster around later career.  Even though this clustering pattern is clear it is not absolute – all three boundary experiences are present at any time.  But recognizing the clustering pattern does help leaders (1) recognize boundaries to development sooner and (2) expect their arrival to capitalize on the learning experience sooner.

The question then is how do you handle your boundary times? Do new experiences, setbacks or deferred hopes collapse your personal sense of purpose and emotional resilience?  Or do you use these boundary times to engage learning and development to see new things about yourself and your situation?  It takes a certain amount of courage to face change I saw this courage in my friends.  In fact I was a little envious of the difficulties they had been through.  I liked the men and the leaders they had become…I embrace my own boundary times in hope that my own growth will be as evident to others as my friends’ growth is to me.  If you are stuck in a boundary experience it is time to talk to someone about it.  Don’t let a boundary undo you – make it work for you.

[1] J Robert Clinton. Leadership Emergence Theory: A Self-Study Manual for Analyzing the Development of the Christian Leader (Pasadena, CA: Barnabas Resources, 1989).

[2] Robert J. Thomas. Crucibles of Leadership: How to Learn from Experience to Become a Great Leader (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2008).

Posted on

Servant Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility

Servant Leadership Acts in the Tensions of Parallel Demands

In his series of essays on Servant Leadership Robert Greenleaf clearly states the thesis he wished to support in expanding the idea of servant leadership,

If a better society is to be built, one more just and caring and providing opportunity for people to grow, the most open course, the most effective and economical way, while supportive of the social order, is to raise the performance as servant of as many institutions as possible by new voluntary regenerative forces initiated within them by committed individuals – servants.[1]

Greenleaf clearly discounts two popular assumptions of his day: (1) that it is impossible to negotiate a balance between economy and society and (2) that moral reasoning (the basis of ethical decision making) has no place in economic and business policy decision-making.

Are economic factors simple objective truths divested of moral/social concerns?  If the interests of both workers and shareholders are directly dependent on the success of the corporation then such a dichotomy is untenable not only in light of issues of legal compliance but also in the larger ethical issues the determine how grey areas of legality and social responsibility are addressed.  A greater responsibility among leaders (representatives of capital) exists to make sure that the social/political aspects of worker interests are sufficiently addressed in the process of wealth creation for the corporation.

This is not a demand that business leaders be limited by the emotionally immature.  If the interests of labor and capital are  de facto included in the success of the corporation’s ability to successfully navigate an independent economic reality then it is imperative that the corporation engage in wealth-creation, innovation and opportunity with the utmost flexibility in light of the changing economic environment with the hope that the benefits will always exceed the costs exacted socially.  To accept the idea of independent economic realities does not mean one must shun engagement with the social costs inherent in the quest for flexibility.  In fact to shun the social costs ultimately undermine the capacity of flexibility needed to maintain a thriving organization.  Greenleaf asked:

In an imperfect world, some will continue to be hurt…But, as my concern for servanthood has evolved, the…more prominent…my…self-questioning…. Could I have been more aware, more patient, more gentle, more forgiving, more skillful?[2]

The concept of servant leadership places the leader squarely in two parallel concerns (1) development and deployment of the corporation’s wealth generating ability and (2) training and enhancement of the talent needed to respond to new market demands. The concept of servant leadership follows the assumption that corporate flexibility necessitated by independent economic factors demands an equally flexible workforce.  Labor must also exercise flexibility characterized by an attitude that accepts the inevitability of the market economy and thus remains mobile, multi-skilled, and always learning.  Job security is not framed as a consistent source of employment but the consistent ability to adapt to new workforce demands on skills and attitudes driven by new economic realities.

The idea of flexibility not only alters the corporation’s stance to the present it alters the workers stance in the present as well and significantly enlarges the needed skill sets among leaders.  Flexibility demands more than that the corporation’s structure and approaches are free from the rigidity of institutionalism.  Responding to market changes demands the agility to configure or reconfigure itself in its marketing strategies, products, production systems, capital investments and talent composition.  Leaders must therefore be capable of accurately reading the overlapping logistics of re-configuring corporate structures and systems and the deployment of labor based on skills, attitudes and ability to learn.  Leaders must then not only possess the skills to read and understand market trends but also read and understand the needs and skills of those around them to persuade their best performance around corporate objectives.

Servant Leadership Exercises Emotional Intelligence

Manager’s and other leaders cannot afford to either possesses a high concern for people and low awareness of business goals or a low concern for people and a high awareness of business goals. On the one hand the leader is nothing more than a pal and on the other the leader appears as a brutal dictator.

Either case is morale crushing.  If the manager/leader does not possess the competencies they need to effectively read the market and find a competitive course of action they will lose the trust of their labor.  On the other hand behaviors that fail to register either an awareness of one’s emotion or its impact on others are characteristic of a lack of emotional intelligence. Assuming for the sake of space that Servant leaders own the right business acumen and industry knowledge then emotional intelligence rises to the forefront as the skill needed to successfully lead a flexible workforce.

Emotional Intelligence is the ability to perceive and constructively act on both one’s own emotions and the feelings of others. Emotional intelligence creates a synergy between self-awareness, self management, social awareness and relationship management. (See Table 3)

Emotional intelligence gives managers and leaders a competitive edge. Studies conducted at Bell Labs found that the most valued and productive engineers were those with the traits of emotional intelligence – not the highest IQ. Possessing great intellectual abilities or grasp of a job’s core skills may make an individual a successful line employee (although the case can probably be made that without emotional intelligence an individual won’t be an exceptional performer) but skill without emotional intelligence leads to predictable failures among managers and leaders.

Emotional intelligence is a concept that measures empathy and other qualities of the heart. Lack of these qualities or abilities explains why managers who attempt to lead without an awareness of the impact of their emotion on others create a shamble of their work relationships and frequently become disastrous pilots of their personal lives.

Analyses of the behavioral traits that accompany highly capable people lacking these emotional competencies portray the stereotypical dictator: critical and condescending, inhibited and uncomfortable with relationships and emotionally bland or explosive. By contrast, individuals with the traits that mark emotional intelligence are poised and outgoing, committed to people and causes, sympathetic and caring, with a rich but proper emotional life — they’re comfortable with themselves, others, and the social universe they live in.[3]

This insight into the mechanics of emotional intelligence provides a lesson for leaders. Those with high emotional intelligence learn from their previous encounters with people and are alert to the nuances of emotion in relationships.[4] How others feel is important to them.

The concept of emotional intelligence has found a number of different applications outside of the psychological research and therapy arenas. Professional, educational, and community institutions have integrated different aspects of the emotional intelligence philosophy into their organizations to promote more productive working relationships, better outcomes, and enhanced personal satisfaction.

Table 1: Components of Emotional Intelligence

In the workplace and in other organizational settings, “people skills,” another buzzword for emotional intelligence has long been recognized as a valued attribute in employees. The popularity of the concept in business is easily explained-when employees, managers, and clients have mutually rewarding personal relationships, productivity increases and profits follow. Conversely, where the emotional intelligence of key production managers is low productivity decreases and morale seems to crash.  Without emotional intelligence the harder production managers push to gain performance the less respect and trust they retain and the poorer the results they generate.

The Servant Leadership Challenge

The challenge faced by servant leaders is tochoose what part of the inner self to respond in light of the organization’s purpose when assessing:

  • Issues
  • Expectations
  • Situation
  • Opportunities
  • Risks
  • Skill Requirements

The inner self (illustrated and defined in Table 1) cannot remain isolated from a leader’s daily management tasks. Simply put, to be effective a manager/leader or to excel as a servant leader must bring all of themselves to the task of managing performance. If a manager’s self-awareness and self-discipline remains undeveloped they fail to understand the impact of their emotion on others and risk professional ruin by exhibiting self-defeating behavior by failing to mobilize the kind of flexible workforce needed to capitalize on new opportunities or changing market situations.

In the larger picture the concept of servant leadership refuses to dismiss the issue of how to achieve a balance between economic and other social values.  It recognizes the inherent danger of assuming a values free or solely technical approach to market changes e.g., the toxic nature of unmitigated greed, disregard for the environment or disconnection from the social consequences of a “profit only” stance.  However, to date the concept of servant leadership has not tendered a viable solution to these tensions.  It has addressed the nature of the conversation by insisting that economic and social values remain in dynamic tension and thereby provides one of the best approaches to creating a healthy corporate culture.   In other words the practice of servant leadership offers those organizations that embrace it a wider platform of legitimacy among both their employees and the communities in which they work.

[1] Robert K. Greenleaf. The Power of Servant Leadership, ed., Larry C. Spears (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1998), 32.

[2] Ibid 45

[3] These traits are also identified by D.A. Benton as the core traits of an effective CEO (see How to Think Like a CEO. New York, NY: Time Warner Books, 1996). If your career goals include moving up in the company you are with or moving forward in your career the development of emotional intelligence is essential.

[4] In the non-profit world the mix of character and leadership is imperative to success. In church or para-church leadership the tie between emotional intelligence and strong leadership has an explicit foundation (Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 4). Yet, the same complaints about executive leaders (senior pastors, denominational executives, mission executives) persist as those leveled at business leaders – they often disregard people. In light of this, the concept of emotional intelligence could serve as an integration point between the spiritual realities that drive the church or para-church organization and the daily out working of leadership and managing tasks.