Helping you develop leaders from the inside out.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 3,500 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 6 years to get that many views.
The new year is a natural time of reflection and much will be written about the importance of reflection. Steve Morgan encapsulates the pitfall of writing goals. Enjoy the read.
Development – the process by which the vision, purpose, strengths, abilities, weaknesses of an individual become visible in degrees of clarity through the fog of uncertainty, fear, chaos, grief, loss, victory and daily living.
Leaders develop in hind sight through distinct processes and hurdles. Smart leaders use the power of hindsight as a means of foresight to persevere in their darkest hours because they know there is transformation on the other side if they keep up a learning posture and if they exercise the most important developmental leverage of all – forgiveness (see http://raywheeler.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/when-leadership-requires-the-power-of-forgiveness/).
I read the blogs of emerging leaders and I noticed that many of them feel overwhelmed while simultaneously desiring to explore new territory and that is how it should be for emerging leaders. Focus comes later in development. I felt the words “overwhelmed” when I read them. I experienced a visceral impact because I still recall those periods of self-doubt mixed with confidence (or arrogance). So, I am compelled to offer both encouragement and a reminder.
The encouragement is keep exploring and pushing the boundaries of what you think is possible. Embrace failure and attribute success. In my early days as a leader I took as much pride in the number of failures I had accomplished as successes and celebrated the lessons learned in both.
The reminder is that vision, purpose, strengths, abilities, weaknesses become visible in degrees of clarity through the fog of uncertainty, fear, chaos, grief, loss, victory and daily living.
Keep going, not everything in your path will be pleasant or desirable. Yet everything in your path will shape and develop you powerfully if you see and learn.
A Function of Moral Judgment
The recent wave of significant leadership resignations and some of the interactions I have had with clients in the last three months have me thinking about how leaders gain or lose legitimacy and the role mentors play in leadership health.
The loss of legitimacy rooted in poor moral and ethical judgment is a significant pitfall for leaders. The failure of national and globally influential leaders should give all leaders pause to reflect on the ethical and moral foundations of their own choices. It is unfortunate however that a large number of leaders will exercise their hubris and declare, to themselves if not also to those around them, that the failure of these leaders was that they got caught and not that they made incredibly poor moral judgments. There are important leadership lessons to learn from these failures.
David H. Petraeus resigned as director of the CIA after his affair came to light. His lapse of judgment cited in his letter of resignation affirms the need for a strong moral core in those who lead and who carry the weight of other people’s lives and well-being in their daily decision-making.[1] Petraeus’ actions lead to a loss of trust.
Christopher Kubasik, chief operating officer and future chief executive of Lockheed Martin, resigned after he admitted to an improper relationship with a subordinate.[2] The board of Lockheed Martin asked for Kubasik’s resignation after his tryst came to light because it violated the company’s code of ethics and business conduct. Kubasik’s misstep was an abuse of power.
The BBC’s Director General George Entwistle resigned over a story of an alleged sexual scandal that failed to apply quality journalistic standards to a story broadcast in November 2012 because as editor-in-chief he failed to put integrity over sensationalism.[3] Without integrity the process of journalism succumbs to a quest for the novel – like an addiction for more and more sensational tidbits so that the purpose of journalism is lost in a narcissistic pursuit of the next hot piece or conspiracy theory that serve as little more than escapes from personal responsibility.
Three stories and three failures: a failure of trust, an abuse of power and a lack of integrity tear apart the essence of leadership. Good leadership as characterized in benevolence, integrity and ability is far more than a formula for organizational success – it is a building block of healthy community and social interaction. Given the amount of time each of us spends at work the influence of work on the rest of our personal life is significant in both its direct and indirect effect.
A Function of Follow Through
It isn’t enough to start well – good leaders know they must finish well. Follow through is a theme that has stood out for me personally in the last few months both as I reflect on my own leadership and as I work with helping other leaders develop. When leaders short-circuit their development they diminish their capacity so that they collapse under pressure. Leaders who find themselves out of their depth have essentially two choices: (a) fake it or (b) ask for help.
If a leader chooses to fake it they start down the road of defective reasoning that ultimately ends in ruin. Defective reasoning explains why otherwise intelligent leaders fail to exercise moral sensitivity. The three contributing factors to defective reasoning include: insecurity, greed and ego.
Insecurity is that low self-esteem that equates identity to the job. This lack of differentiation as a person means that the trappings of the job become the sole source of identity. Jobs are artificial! A job represents a temporary structure to an end. The greater importance rests on the person in the job – a person who understands their unique contribution that far outlasts the current situation. When jobs become real in the mind of their occupants i.e., the source of all security, identity and well-being they take on god-like characteristics in the minds of those that hold them and they are defended at all costs including the destruction of all others. When the job defines ones identify the loss of a job is not seen as a mere transition and time for new opportunity but a loss of self. The insecure twist moral reasoning so that it becomes a means of self-protection.
Greed is simply cheating because payoff is high or dishonesty is justified by systemic injustice. The result of greed is always that the consideration of the good disappears. Greed suppresses moral reasoning to make way for the acquisition of ever greater personal gain. The ultimate moral formula for greed is a self-focused Darwinian fallacy that only the strong survive and the weak – the victims of greed – exist to feed more of greed’s ambition. Symbiotic relationships don’t exist for the greedy. There are only the winners and the dominated.
Ego is a set of beliefs that sets one apart from others – it is not a differential belief as is found in healthy people it is an exceptional belief in that the egotist sees themselves as an exception to the rule. Hence the belief that one is above average, or more ethical than others, or in control of their environment, or immune from consequences, or possesses all information needed or is irreplaceable in their organization. Each of these beliefs led to the conclusion that the exceptions ego finds are simply higher rules or inconsequential loop holes that the less intelligent or capable just have not seen.
Clearly the preferred option is to ask for help. Leaders (men and women) wise enough to call for help understand his/her differentiation from the group. A differentiated sense of self enables a person act without being adversely affected by a group’s (institution’s) own emotional processes. Without a clearly differentiated sense of self the leader fails to develop clear values, a unique vision or a defined moral foundation. Instead the undifferentiated person looses the nerve to be his or her own self in the face of the emotional reaction of the group to both internal and external events.[4] Mentors serve as a significant force for growth by helping leaders follow through in their development and maintaining their nerve to be themselves.
A Call for Mentors
I am drawn more and more to work with leaders. I am available to emerging and established leaders to encourage them and to ask them probing questions. I also find that I want deeper levels of accountability in my own life – I desire to be connected with a community of those who pursue meaning and purpose in life i.e., those who persist in working to make sense of a life that is often senseless, disappointing, inconsistent, and sometimes just pure evil.
Craig Johnson diagrams the components of developing ethical capacity in a helpful way in Figure 1.[5] Johnson built a concentric model that starts with leadership development components at the core of the model. Leadership development requires three components consisting of challenge, assessment and support. The role of mentors provides all three of these components in the life of the leader that can then be applied to the ethical capacity of the leader i.e., skills, motivation, knowledge and perspective (the next layer of the model). The result of ethical capacity is ethical outcomes illustrated here in the outer characteristics of the model i.e., self-confidence, moral imagination etc.
Figure 1: Developing Ethical Capacity
If Petraeus, Kubasik and Entwistle had mentors ready to challenge their ego, insecurity and greed consistently would their stories be different today? What challenge did they fail to follow through on? What assessment did they ignore? What support did they pass off as unnecessary?
I find that one of the greatest challenges I face as a leader is being an engaged follower. How do I help the leaders I work for avoid the defective reasoning that will not only ruin their life but also negatively impact the lives of those around them? Left to their own devises we see entire companies destroyed by leaders exercising defective reasoning. Where are their peer mentors? Where are their followers who are courageous and differentiated enough to challenge defective reasoning?
It is a bit unnerving to discover that I face similar ethical dilemmas as the followers Hitler in that I face the temptation to ignore the defective reasoning of leaders around me and thus consider myself exempt from the consequences of their bad decisions. Are followers who know of defective reasoning themselves exempt from accountability for that reasoning if they do nothing? People in my experience have not died as a result of my inaction but they have led miserable lives and faced the loss of employment. The point is that dysfunctional systems are built by followers who do not exercise their own differentiation not leaders who exercise defective reasoning! Without followers leaders have nothing to work with.
Conclusion
Reflecting on the failure and accomplishments of Petraeus, Kubasik and Entwistle led me to resolve to persistently pursue feedback, assessment and support in my own development. At a personal level I understand the draw of defective reasoning. Defective reasoning is easy to nurture – especially as I get older. On the other hand the consequences of defective reasoning are unavoidably clear. Rather than taking the easy road of defective reasoning and rationalization I will be a leader who finishes well.
And another commitment arises – to be a mentor. I am grateful to one of my mentors for pointing out that mentoring possesses different expressions and time commitments – mentoring may be active, occasional or passive in its time constraints and approaches. I can and I will make a difference in the lives of leaders I work for and leaders I work with. Good leadership characterized in benevolence, integrity and ability is more than a formula for organizational success – it is a building block of healthy community and social interaction. So, I am committed to helping build a community of health. Will you join me?
[1] Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/citing-affair-petraeus-resigns-as-cia-director.html?pagewanted=all; Accessed 10 Nov 2012.
[2] Source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-09/business/chi-incoming-lockheed-ceo-resigns-over-relationship-20121109_1_improper-relationship-christopher-kubasik-ceo; Accessed 10 Nov 2012.
[3] Source: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/10/15077908-bbc-boss-entwistle-quits-amid-turmoil-over-networks-child-sex-abuse-scandal?lite; Accessed 10 Nov 2012.
[4] See more on differentiated leaders at http://raywheeler.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/you-are-stalled-as-a-leader-because-you-are-lost-as-a-person/
[5] Craig Johnson. Meeting Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 2009), 56.
The Future and Three Essential Commitments
It is a political season and political discourse causes me to think about the future. However, I find the political discourse of part of the church disappointing in both its lack of depth and failure to show character that looks different from the norm. What is the shape of the church tomorrow? How will the church re-shape the future? What is important to remember every day when taking single steps into the future? There is, I am sure, more than one answer to these questions. The variety of cultural and geographic situations of the local church guarantees an assortment of answers. One thing seems persistently true in every culture – thinking about the future has a dual character of release (freedom from the ineffective and imprisoning) and rebirth (an entrance into trauma that makes new). Release and rebirth reflect the nature of God’s promise and leads me to think about the future in two ways.
First, I think about the local church. I have served in the church as a campus pastor, pastor, church planting supervisor, executive pastor, missions director, board member, and 2 and 3-year-old teacher for over forty years…it does not seem that long! Time has reinforced my appreciation for the fact that new generations must wrestle with how to be the authentic and vibrant church. New insights and forms consistently disrupt and encourage how I think about faith.
Second, I think about the business stewardship with which I am entrusted i.e., how businesses create, communicate and deliver value to customers through the products or services they design and manufacture or offer. Businesses cannot ignore the social changes facing the local church and their own business any more than other leaders can. The reality is that the church by nature is a catalyst to change (transformation) and not just a victim of social change. As believers we have to embrace the disruption of our thinking because the promise of God woos and summons us to a new future. I like the way Ed Stetzer and Thom Rainer put it in their new book:
The alternative to this biblically mandated transformation is to pick a rut and make it deeper. And this is just what many churches have done, preferring, even if not consciously, repetition or even stagnation. As leaders we sometimes fool ourselves into thinking that just managing the status quo is good enough…Rather than missionary disciples for Christ going out into the world, we have a group of people content to go in circles.[1]
I have seen businesses and congregations dig ruts that look too much like a graves – they have either gone out of business or gone bankrupt. The only way I see to avoid following in a similar path is to engage the sometimes uncomfortable and always transformative vision of the future the work of God brings. Isn’t it strange that the promise of God is simultaneously comforting and disconcerting?
In thinking about the church and business in today’s social environment I cannot avoid the need for three essential commitments. In my view without commitments like these the church fails miserable at being a differentiated body of people. Without commitment the church floats somewhat aimlessly amid the currents of culture without making any real difference and without demonstrating any real change. I attempt to explain these commitments below.
Engage the Conversation
Commitment 1: Engage the conversation about how the church relates to the culture. One of my friends complained that the church can never get this right. It is right to say that the conversation is perennial, and it needs to be. Culture is not static. New generations grow in changing contexts and express different ways of addressing their situation’s critical questions.
Paul S. Minear in his book on the images of the church reinforces the necessity of thinking about how to reach the world in which we live. Conversations about how to relate to the culture necessarily start with a commitment to Jesus as Lord. Minear’s insight is sobering:
Yet we know enough concerning God’s design for the church to be haunted by the accusation of the church’s lord: “I never knew you.” So there is much about the character of the church to which the church itself is blind. Our self-understanding is never complete, never uncorrupted, never deep enough, never wholly transparent. In every generation the use and reuse of the Biblical images has been one path by which the church has tried to learn what the church truly is….[2]
Commitment to Jesus as Lord result in a devotion to learning that is characteristic of a close friendship. Friends are attentive to each other. Friends discover preferences and share dreams and fears. It is disappointing to find church leaders who are more self-assured than humble learner – can we really afford to behave in ways that contradict the words of Christ while claiming to act in the name of Christ? By learning I don’t mean academic learning. Instead I mean a willingness to face one’s self and one’s context with the realization that knowledge is incomplete and perspective is always limited. The most effective leaders I know live transparently as learners – they constantly work on relating to their world authentically. Their congregations don’t run into ruts but race toward a powerful vision. Learning means constantly looking and listening for what the church needs to fulfill its vision in a constantly changing social context.
Demonstrate Conviction
Commitment 2: Undiluted and transparent conviction is essential to saying anything important.
In a day when pluralism is emphasized as a social necessity (respect for people who hold opposing views or differing cultural perspectives is essential for a civil society) it also unfortunately acts as a barrier to real communication.
Pluralism means several different things. In common terms it describes the reality that ethnic, religious, political differences identify groups of people as distinct from one another. Sociologically it defines a policy or theory that minority groups within a society should support their cultural differences and share overall political and economic power. Philosophically the term describes the theory that reality is made up of many kinds of being or substance and (1) may not be definable or (2) that a plurality of realities actually exists. Each of these nuances is used in various ways when people talk about pluralism.
For this discussion pluralism can be categorized in two schools of thought; identist (all religions are oriented toward the same religious object) and differential (religions promote different ends – different salvations). In this definition it is safe to say that evangelicals generally define pluralism differentially i.e., we recognize that different ideas of salvation or the need of salvation exist but that Jesus claimed a unique status and a single reality in the midst of these differences.
Here is the challenge. There are those who consider any unique conviction to be a denial of pluralism (a loss of respect for any other view). My contention is that without clear convictions communication cannot take place because without clearly stated convictions there is no opportunity to agree or disagree there is simply an artificial truce that goes nowhere. Luther, who was not known to hold back on his convictions and opinions, describes a Christian’s basic conviction this way:
The chief article and foundation of the gospel is given you …when you see or hear of Christ doing or suffering something, you do not doubt that Christ himself, with his deeds and suffering, belongs to you. On this you may depend…to have a proper grasp of the gospel, that is, of the overwhelming goodness of God….This is the great fire of the love of God for us, whereby the heart and conscience become happy, secure, and content. This is what preaching the Christian faith means. This is why such preaching is called gospel, which in German means a joyful, good, and comforting “message”….[3]
The good news of God’s great love and goodness as revealed in Jesus Christ is at odds with certain religious and social views. This does not cut its universal application – it affirms humankind’s universal dilemma i.e., the quest for meaning and the diagnosis that the lack of meaning stems from separation from God. In the biblical view there is no exception to this diagnosis (Rom. 3:23 and 6:23).
This clear conviction does not need to be reduced to unbending bias, cultural/ethnic hegemony or squishy acquiescence of one’s deep convictions. If the church is going to say anything important today it has to be honest and transparent about its assumptions and beliefs and to allow for the scrutiny of its convictions with the confidence that God really is at work in the world around us. An example of this kind of conviction occurs in Paul’s defense before Festus and Agrippa in Acts 26 (see vs. 24-28).
Hans Küng carries the idea of conviction further. The way the church lives out its attributes determines its credibility and authenticity. There is a point at which the clarity of difference summons a decision to believe or disbelieve.
“That the world may believe” (Jn. 17:21) depends entirely upon whether the Church presents her unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity credibly in accordance with this prayer of our Lord. Credible here does not mean without any shadows; this is impossible in the Church composed of human beings and indeed sinful human beings. Credible does mean, however, that the light must be so bright and strong that darkness appears as something secondary, inessential, not as the authentic nature….[4]
One implication I find in Küng is that authentic living does not need “spin”. If being credible means that the light need to be stronger than the darkness then I understand this to mean that being credible is not only living out one’s conviction but admitting when one’s behavior does not align with one’s convictions. In our experience in business admitting mistakes or errors and working with our customers to find a solution creates far more credibility and customer loyalty than trying to cover things up. Isn’t the same true for the church?
Make a Contribution
Commitment 3: Contribution to the world around us in measurable meaningful actions is the earmark of grace.
The church father Cyprian summarized what is sometimes missing in more esoteric theological reflection on the nature of the church. Cyprian wrote in more concrete terms about the nature of the church i.e., how should the church behave? The third commitment may be framed as a question, how does the behavior of a congregation impact its neighbors?
In conclusion, my dear brothers, the divine admonition never rests, is never silent; in the holy Scriptures both old and new, the people of God at all times and in all place are stirred up to works of mercy…’Share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house. When you see the naked, clothe him; and do not neglect the household of your own family. Then shall your light break forth in due season and…the glory of God will encompass you.[5]
I love Cyprian’s insistence that the impulse to contribute to the world around us is divinely motivated and never at rest. When I look at the unknown future I find courage in the fact that if our company continues to be stirred up to works of mercy i.e., to contribute to real needs we will never end up in ruts that look like graves and lead to demise. The same is true for the church.
Conclusion
There may well be other important aspects of facing the future but it seems to me that if we engage in conversation with those around us and do it with honest convictions with the goal to make a real contribution then the future does not present itself as a threat but as an opportunity. Will there be such a thing as the church in 20 years? Yes. I am more confident to assert that if we keep up a commitment to conversation, conviction and contribution the as expressed in congregations and in business will offer a quality and vital impact in society. What does your conversation, conviction and contribution look like? Does it lead unmistakably to Christ? Or, is it muddled, muddied and misleading? Join me in making a measurable difference by being a living demonstration of what it means to be a believer.
[1] Ed Stetzer and Thom S Rainer. Transformational Church (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing, 2010), 3.
[2] Paul S. Minear. Images of the Church in the New Testament (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2004), 25.
[3] Martin Luther, “A brief Instruction on What to Look for and Expect in the Gospels” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, 2nd ed, Timothy F. Lull ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 95.
[4] Hans Küng. Structures of the Church (New York, NY: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1982), 27.
[5] Cyprian. “On Works and Alms” in Documents in Early Christian Thought, Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer eds. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 210.
Convenient Misconceptions
The conversations started over a year ago when an executive in one of my clients approached me, “You are the leadership guru,” he began, “how will you get the CEO to become a leader?” I was a little surprised by the intensity of the statement especially because the scope of my assignment had little to do with directly working with the executive team. However, this was not the first time a COO has approached me with this level of frustration.
“I won’t,” I responded.
He looked me up and down for a moment.
“What do you mean?” he continued.
“How long have you been with this CEO?” I queried.
“About 15 years,” he answered.
“Hmm, over that time how has the rest of the team, yourself included, adjusted to the CEO’s poor leadership? What changes in your own leadership perspectives have to occur if the CEO did become the leader you want him to be? What has changed now that makes the CEO, you and the rest of the team open to change that was not in play before now? What makes you think I can bring change you have either been unable or unwilling to initiate in the last 15 years?” I had more questions but I could see that I had already more than amply primed the pump.
It is not uncommon in a consultation to be viewed as the answer to all an organization’s most troubling problems. In fact it is a little heady to be viewed as one possessing such power…that is until reality pops back up. In my younger days I would have jumped into the middle of this discussion and outlined a change project that failed to take into account the systems, organizational culture and long-term relationships that had authenticated the leadership of the CEO (warts and all) for so long. In my earlier days I often failed to appreciate that pushing on a system to change only meant having the system snap back with the same force to expel me. The simple fact is knowledge is only a small part of a transformative process. It opens the door to new perspectives and may inform future decisions. But it cannot make people travel a path they don’t want to pursue.
The COO sat across the table from me silent. When the conversation started back up we talked about the questions I raised. “One thing that is different,” he began, “is that you have challenged the CEO in a way none of us ever have before. He is talking about change now where before he acknowledged that he was the limiting factor to the organization but he would not step away from his role.”
“What will you do with the observation you just made,” I asked. “In what ways have I challenged the CEO that you have not? What makes this challenge so effective? What step will you take next since you are in a place to do far more change organizationally than I am?”
At this the conversation shifted to talk about how to define leadership and how leaders develop. Over the course of the next several months the COO and I met periodically to continue the discussion and to talk about communication and where the company needed to go in his view. The COO talked about his conversations with the CEO and how they had changed to be more transparent or open.
The COO’s opening statement about guru’s was a convenient misconception. In his frustration and resignation with how things were it seemed far easier to assume a holding pattern that waited for some outside force to start the changes he felt were needed. Convenient misconceptions are simply ways to avoid the stress of upsetting the status quo. All of us weigh the cost to change. We understand that in some cases acting like a turtle under duress seems safer – withdraw, pull down a paycheck and try to reduce the impact living at odds with either core values or sense of purpose. But, convenient misconceptions ultimately show up for what they are – denial.
The Change – it begins internally
Month’s passed and the COO invited me to lunch. “I want to talk about a different future,” he said in his call, “this is strictly confidential.”
“I understand, I will keep the conversation confidential and I would love to go to lunch” I replied.
At lunch the COO laid out his plan to either take over the role of the CEO or step down from his role as COO. “I cannot continue in either the scope of my role as now defined or the tension of this role knowing that without significant change we may be in trouble in just a few years. I want to do something significant. I can do it here or somewhere else,” he told me at lunch.
The problem in all interpersonal relationships is the challenge of preserving self in a close relationship. Somewhere along the way the COO had lost his sense of self. He now began to reclaim it and to decide how he would stay a differentiated person while simultaneously maintaining a healthy interaction with the CEO and the rest of the company’s leadership team. This requires maturity that Friedman defines as, “…the willingness to take responsibility for one’s own emotional being and destiny.”[1]
Leadership is an emotional process and not only a process of analysis and data. The significance of this shows up in how a leader deals with resistance. In this case resistance from the CEO was not something to avoid. Instead the CEO’s resistance was a reality associated with the shifting balances in the emotional processes of a relationship system of the company. Resistance was inherent in change the COO wanted to pursue and was not caused by the company’s “…specific issues, makeup, or goals….”[2] The capacity of the COO to identify and manage this emotional process began a road to change. This kind of self-management that addresses and not avoids emotional issues is paramount to success in leadership.
Now what?
The COO invited me to help with the changes he mapped out. I reviewed his plan and provided feedback. When he presented his plan to the CEO and to the board the plan was enthusiastically received. We met again after the board meeting and the COO outlined his next steps.
“Your job is changing pretty dramatically,” I offered.
“Yes, I suppose it is,” he stated.
“May I suggest that the transition you are now entering, and that your entire team is entering, is the same as though you were moving to a new company altogether?” I asked. He agreed with this assessment and we talked about how he would approach his first 90 days. I recommended the book by Watkins, The First Ninety Days. In his book Watkins points out that,
… transitions are critical times when small differences in your actions can have disproportionate impacts on results. Leaders, regardless of their level, are most vulnerable in their first few months in a new position because they lack detailed knowledge of challenges they will face and what it will take to succeed in meeting them: they also have not developed a network of relationships too sustain them.[3]
In the transition the COO has entered he has to manage the shifting balances of the emotional processes in the company and do this while matching his strategy to the situation. Understanding the situation of the company is the first step in outlining a strategy that has the potential to succeed. It is now imperative that the COO find the right formula for success especially now that he secured the changes he wanted. So what does it mean to match strategy to situation?
Match Strategy to Situation
Understanding the developmental stage of the organization provides a basis for engaging the right kind of leadership approach. If the business situation of the company is not understood then it is easy to set the wrong goals and then fail to meet them. In the first 90 days of a transition it is important to establish credibility and knowing the business situation is critical. Watson’s STARS model (i.e., is the business a start-up, turnaround, realignment or sustained success?) is a simple diagnostic tool that can guide critical leadership/management decisions.[4]
Figure 1: STARS model[5]
The goal in a transition is to focus energy on the actions that set up the greatest chance of success in a new environment. Figure 2 below summarizes the choices. Focusing energy in a new assignment is a function of three core questions:[6]
Figure 2: Focus Energy on the Right Approach
By offense Watkins means activities such as identifying new markets, developing new products/technologies and building new alliances.
By defense he means protecting current market share positions, strengthening products and realigning relationships. In turnarounds a good defensive position includes pairing things back to the most valuable core and identifying the most valuable employees. New relationships are important to forge with the right people so that the team that results is ready to work in a new direction. Friedman’s work around systems in leadership relationships is an important addition to Watkins at this point.[7]
Friedman defines the difference between healthy (differentiated) and unhealthy (non-differentiated) people and the dynamics involved in various relational triangles. His point that all relationships are three-sided versus two-sided is an important insight to a leader stepping into any new situation particularly in the case of the COO who has a team made up of new and existing members all of whom must now redefine themselves in light of the shifts in reporting structure. The COO must decide the situation of his own company. Consider your situation. What challenges and opportunities do you face?
See the Challenges and Opportunities of Transition Times[8]
In a start-up people are excited and hopeful. The challenges include:
The opportunities in a start-up include:
Clearly a leader has much more flexibility in a start-up. Remember however that flexibility also means the leader’s own strengths and weaknesses will mark the company. Diversifying leadership by acquiring good mentors and choosing the right employees helps prevent adopting fatal flaws.
In a turnaround the focus stays on key issues like vision, strategy, structures and systems. The challenges include:
The opportunities of a turnaround are:
In realignment the goal is to pierce the veil of denial that has allowed the organization to get too close to irrelevance. The challenges a person faces in realignment include:
The opportunities a person faces when leading realignment include:
When leaders find themselves in successful organizations where the assignment is to sustain success the objective is to invent a challenge the organization can rally behind. The challenges faced by leaders in successful organizations include:
Successful organizations present great opportunities as well:
Conclusion
The COO’s journey has changed from tedious boredom plodding toward retirement to enthusiastic purpose striding to a new future. I appreciate the invitation to work alongside this team as they pursue a different future. The road ahead is not without deep challenges. Even though the team agrees on the need for change not all of them anticipate how the changing relational structures and strategic emphasis impacts their relationships, skill development and leadership capacity. Those who are weakest in their self-differentiation will have the hardest time adjusting – if they do adjust.
Remember, it’s not about experts – it’s about nerve, endurance and a commitment to learning. So how do you assess your own sense of purpose and your role in the organization in which you work? Do you have the courage or nerve to be an agent of excellence and/or change? The COO’s own change and self-differentiation ran parallel to his willingness to step away from a good paying job to pursue his sense of purpose and a more meaningful relationship. The CEO could easily have agreed to his departure. I suspect however that the COO would have found the pursuit of purpose a far greater force than the temporary loss of revenue. In your situation ask yourself the following questions and see where they lead you.[9]
[1] Edwin Friedman. Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix, Margaret M. Treadwell and Edward W. Beal eds. (New York, NY: Church Publishing. [Kindle Version downloaded from Amazon.com], 2007), 235 of 5400.
[2] Friedman 292 of 5400.
[3] Michael Watkins. The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at all Levels (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2003), iv.
[4] This is another way to describe where a corporation or company is at in its life cycle. Compare Ichak Adizes. Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why Corporations Grow and Die and What to Do About It (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988). The model also takes into account the insights from Ken Blanchard in his work on innovation/revitalization showing how revitalization must occur as an organization approaches its prime. See Ken Blanchard and Terry Waghorn. Mission Possible: Becoming a World-Class Organization While there’s Still Time (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1997).
[5] Watkins, 63.
[6] Watkins, 69.
[7] Edwin Friedman. Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix Margaret Treadwell and Edward Beal eds. (New York, NY: Church Publishing, 2007).
[8] Watkins, 66.
[9] Watkins 77-78.
“The most important leadership activity,” Bobby said, “is identifying and developing leaders.” In my business and non-profit experience equipping a new generation is a high priority quest today. Leadership development is not just concerned with specified succession and talent planning but understanding how to reach emerging markets or effectively reach a growing demographic diversity.
The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) recently released a study that had two important insights about the next generation leaders now in need of development.
First – what is it that excites today’s leaders about the emerging generation? Several things stood out in the CCL report:
Their comfort/skill with technology and social networks for information/connectivity. (See: http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/ExpandingLeadershipEquation.pdf).
The potential inherent in new technologies for doing great and good things is inspiring – even with the dark side of technology. Every new generation has to wrestle with the dark side of change. The fact is that they way we do business today, the way customers find us, the way customers buy are all radically different than even ten years ago. The changes are both breath taking and astonishing.
Yet I remember one of my mentors telling me, “Ray, I am not impressed with talent. I see a lot of talent. I am impressed with character that shapes talent into consistent outcomes, commitment and endurance.” The same idea is said about today’ s emerging leaders and it is a message that should be heard. In my experience the weakest of these traits (when I find weakness) rests on the confidence and assertiveness of emerging leaders. Some emerging leaders need help identifying their own uniqueness and how to relate – a need discussed in one of my earlier blogs see http://wp.me/pYuoc-9K.
The survey results also identified what many leaders are concerned about in the development of emerging leaders namely:
Clearly the perceptions don’t apply to every emerging leader. However, in both my non-profit work and work in business I see these two sets of traits constantly. So what? CCL’s survey results set the stage for some great conversations. How is your organization leveraging the development of its emerging leaders? Mentors need to know how to lead emerging leaders into owning their development and becoming truly differentiated people. Emerging leaders don’t have to wait to be mentored…find mentors! In one of my relationships with an emerging leader the sense of entitlement demonstrated itself in this person’s assumption that by simply showing up with a college degree they would be made a manager. Their disappointment when they were overlooked for a promotion was palpable. However, they were overlooked for their failure to take advantage of mentoring and other informal learning opportunities.
How are you addressing the dynamics described in the lists above in your organization or company?
Terry’s article on the fate of Malala Yousafzai captured my own sense of being stirred to action in light of this atrocity. The capacity of humankind for injustice in action and in inaction points to the reality that the world needs a transformational influence. It is this need that I find answered in my own encounter with Jesus the Messiah. If you are a reader of my blog then I hope you see that when I talk about faith I am not talking about blind parochialism but an encounter with God that I cannot avoid and will not treat with triviality but with deep curiosity, enduring reverence and explicit impatience with any form of religious expression that fails to reflect that nature and character of the God revealed.
I commend this article to you. a teenage advocate.
An inauspicious start to a critical engagement
“Don’t think you can change me…don’t even try.” The department director shot these words at our introduction.
I caught the eyes of my friend darting toward mine to see if I would buckle or flinch in the first volley. I smiled and while grasping the hand of the director to shake it I looked into his eyes and said, “That is the last thing I would attempt…I am not here to change you I am here to help you leverage the success of the department you have built to the potential you see for it. Is that ok with you?”
“Ok,” he responded. He looked surprised.
“Well then I have two rules,” I continued “and I need you to agree to them before I begin or I will pack up and walk out.”
“What are they?” the director queried.
“First, you give me permission to discover the unvarnished feedback of your employees,” I began. “Second, you agree to debrief with me at the end of the project to tell you what I have learned. Do you agree?”
“I agree,” he said and looking at my friend “he is not a bad guy Tim.”
“I told you Dick, he is good at what he does.”
This engagement germinated when Tim had asked me one night what I my research focus was in my doctoral program.
“I am looking at how hope impacts the development of existing and emerging leaders in complex organizations” I responded to his inquiry.
As we talked more about the insights I had gathered in my field research Tim asked, “Would you be willing to see if that fits at the school district? Our department could really use something like this and we have no budget for consultants right now.”
Tim told me that the technical maintenance unit developed in the early 1980s. The director and his secretary were the first employees. At the time of the project the unit operated with 80+ unionized employees. The unit’s original assignment was limited to fulfilling EPA directives on the abatement of asbestos contamination. Today the unit handles abatement of every potential environmental health risk to students. Not only has the complexity of regulatory compliance increased but the volume of work within this metropolitan school district increased with its initiatives to meet its plan of reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance.
The growth of the department, its technical focus, its existence within a complex metropolitan school district and the fact that its original director was still the leader made this an irresistible field study.
I negotiated for permission to publish my findings (I didn’t know school districts had so many attorneys). The District finally gave permission to publish my work as long as I never mentioned it by name.
Tim had initiated a focus on best practices in management at every level of the department. He had a long leash that resulted from the fact he served as the de facto director for several months the director was recuperating from a significant health challenge and that Tim had the highest respect for the expertise of the director. Tim’s respect was both professional and personal. This respect provided the safety net the director needed to extend trust to my research project.
Classic leadership tensions
In the course of doing the field research some interesting observations emerged:
Change was not an option for this department. A vortex of constant and discontinuous change resulted from the department’s growth and contentious budget/philosophical changes in the District. A chronic degree of mistrust and anxiety existed among the employees I interviewed and surveyed. I prepared to debrief with the director at the end of the research project. I could not help but remember his edict, “Don’t try to change me.”
When changes occur what is impacted?
The Director’s warning about challenging him to change was intriguing in its own right. He had already faced a wave of change but struggled with altering his behaviors in ways that are classic to a founder. He managed like a tyrant in that he refused to delegate control of decisions – he was the bottleneck of his department that threatened to push the department in into dangerous lapses of execution. He was the first in and the last out of the office often working 16 hour days. He had destroyed his family, had few friends and was losing political capital in the District because he did not know how to relate with peers. As captain of his own ship he worked more like a pirate barking orders and threatening to keel-haul inefficient crew.
The Director was on a collision course with the future – a future that no longer needed a pirate at the helm of an underfunded loosely supervised division. He had sailed into the center of the District’s maintenance budget in part by the fact he is an internationally recognized expert in his field and in part because of the success he had achieved over the years in raising recognition of the dangers of environmental pollutants and the need to give safe educational environments. The problem was not a fight for recognition and budget in the bureaucracy. The problem was the director’s own lack of self-regulation in the face of tension. He did not know how to relate to the organization he had built. He had no idea how to relate to the larger bureaucracy of the school district. If change did not occur the District would slowly dismantled the maintenance unit and absorb it into other departments.
The Director’s initial bark, “don’t try to change me” was not the bark of a blind tyrant hell-bent on running the department into the ground. It was a statement of recognition that he felt he could not compete on the same ground as the polished political apparatchiks of the District office and was not sure he wanted to – but he did need to adjust something. So how does a pirate accustom to effecting immediate and sweeping change, immediate execution of ideas with full budgetary discretion alter behavior enough to avoid being abandoned by his allies i.e., the District he serves?
The power of reflection in defining context
After talking with the Director and his team I realized the Director did not see how his own success altered the political terrain. The director faced two big crises: readjust his approach to his own team or risk losing the best and the brightest that were all frustrated by the repressive tyranny of the director’s micro management (he did not trust them and they knew it). The director had to readjust his approach to the District that now saw him as a policy maker and not an odd ball outlier – he now had power but he did not realize it. There are few things more dangerous than a leader that possesses power but fails to exercise the self-awareness to realize the extent (or limitations) of their power. The Director was still fighting for recognition of his expertise and the importance of student health. But, he had won that war – the District had become a model for school districts around the nation for environmental health.
In my curiosity about what the Director had done and my probing about how the changes he initiated had altered District policy both of us gained insight into the shifting political terrain in which he now functioned. We had several three-way interviews between the Director, Tim and me. Tim was a master at pointing out the Director’s accomplishments, offering deep respect and bringing the current challenges to clear definition. These conversations forced a reflection of the type top leaders desperately need – a strategic reassessment of their position. The Director however had never taken the time to do this on his own because he was too busy fighting the good fight to realize that he was wining fewer battles because the opponents had moved. He ended up wounding his political alliances and most trusted employees. Tim served as the Director’s first mate inside the office and as his emissary to the District. Without Tim’s respect for the man and his accomplishments the Director’s survival in his role was doubtful. The Director realized two things in these conversations based on his reaction to me.
First, the district trusted his opinion about the law and regulations around environmental safety. The former pariah was now a recognized expert. He had accomplished something significant and meaningful. The problem was that while he had achieved a new status he did not know how to behavior relative to his new status – he is like a championship boxer who after beating his opponent continues the fight with the referee trying to name him the champion. The failure to change behaviors based on the changing environment makes more enemies than friends.
Second, the Director was rapidly losing the political capital needed to keep his clout in the organization he had created from scratch. He still had fight left and still had battles to win but had not defined them appropriately. The Director sensed the loss of political capital but had interpreted it as an irrational outside threat and not a self-inflicted wound to his own credibility. His dissonance upon realizing this had shaken his confidence in himself. Tim used the opportunity to drive both realities home with data that was affirming, disarming and incontrovertible. The Director became more inquisitive and open to learning. This was the easier of the changes. As the Director grasped the new limits of his fight and talked about what needed to happen next in his department and beyond. He became quite inspirational in the weeks we talked together – he is passionate about environmental health.
The breakthrough
How did this change occur? At the end of the field study I prepared a report and the Director and I sat down to lunch to discuss my findings.
“Ok,” I began. “You committed to hearing feedback at the completion of my research. I am ready but I need two actions from you. I want you to commit to doing these actions for three months without fail. Will you give me that commitment?”
The mood of the lunch shifted at the tension and competition of our first meeting reemerged. The director repeated his first words to me, “Don’t try to change me!”
“We already agreed to these ground rules, Dick,” I responded. “Your insistence on resisting feedback only tells me that you would prefer to sabotage your entire division and sacrifice it on the altar of your own hubris. Is that what you are telling me?”
“Geez, you are ….”he paused, “…ok what do you want me to do?”
I asked, “In your own words who are you?”
He floundered for a moment grasping for what I meant.
“I am an expert in my field. I am focused. I want to make a significant contribution in life. I am gruff and impatient with incompetence. I am a man of few friendships but I think they are deep,” he replied.
“Ok,” I said, “…your team agrees with all of this but they don’t trust you.” He looked rather stunned as founders often do. I explained that in my experience founders are very capable of outlining how they have sacrificed. Founders ably describe the risk they assumed in the pursuit of success. Yet they are blind to the sacrifices and risks taken by those they have inspired to help them achieve their big goals. Granted, the risks incurred by employees seem small in comparison to putting family, assets, and reputation on the line like founders often do. However founders inherently infer that a proportional sacrifice is required of all their key employees. It takes a different shape usually in long hours and high demands and initially low pay. If the employees sacrifice remains unacknowledged and devalued then a mutiny occurs. The casualty of such a mutiny is not limited to the founder – everyone is hurt.
It was quiet for a long time – I felt little compulsion to rescue Dick from whatever internal reflection he was doing in the silence. Finally he said, “Ok, I will commit to your suggested actions.”
“Great,” I replied. I need 20 minutes of your time each day. I need 10 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the evening. As your employees arrive I want you to walk out of your office and greet your employees by name.” For all the years Dick had worked to build the department he always arrived up to 60 minutes ahead of his employees and stayed for up to three hours after they left – and never left his office. Only two people dared to enter his office without being invited – Tim, his first mate and Dick’s secretary. Employees summoned to Dick’s office endured scolding on their failure to consider all the aspects of their projects. Dick would itemize their failures and send them back to correct their mistakes. If anyone pushed back during these interactions Dick would launch into a review of his published work and his stature as an expert.
“I can do that,” Dick replied.
“Ok, then 10 minutes before the end of the day I want you to come back out of your office and thank your employees for their hard work.” I said.
“What? They are paid for that work. That is their thanks. They and the union give me nothing but grief with all their gripping, their grievances – we spend so much time with union reps and attorneys over this crap that we fall behind on critical projects.” Dick’s face had begun to glow with a reddish hue.
I stared right back at him, “You gave me your word that you would keep your commitment. Are reneging? I am happy to leave you the bill for lunch and go home now. But, I need to know if you have the integrity to keep your word.”
Dick stopped mid-breath. “Why do I need to thank them for doing their jobs?”
“Because,” I said, “…they are doing their jobs. They could be out sitting behind the district buildings drinking beer and simply reporting that they are working. They could be doing all kinds of things that would destroy this department.”
“They try that crap and they will be fired,” Dick retorted.
“Good,” I said, “you need to be consistent in excellence and in the management of the task. That excellence is not the problem here. Thank them every day because they perform the work you assigned to them. And if any of them are not you have the disciplinary processes in place to discuss that problem – use them consistently. The question is; will you keep your commitment?”
Dick agreed. In the months that followed I checked in with Dick in a surprise visit. He was noticeably happier and his employees in the department caught me and thanked me for whatever it was I had done to make Dick human. A year later the department inherited all maintenance functions in the district. Eventually Dick moved to a new position that allowed him to be the knowledge expert and put Tim in the Director seat. The employees, Tim and Dicks all told me that the consult had been a success. The real success however is that Dick emerged as a fully differentiated leader. He was never the best friend of his team. However he had become human and began to allow his direct reports to thrive. By appreciating their work Dick begun to recognize their expertise and slowly backed away from micromanaging every detail.
Conclusion – what is a differentiated leader?
A differentiated leader is a person whose identity exhibits several critical behavioral characteristics. Dick had started the department as a differentiated leader but then because of the capacity shift that occurred as the department grew he fell into regressive and reactive behavior. As his identity reemerged several critical behaviors returned and grew in-depth. Being a self-differentiation leader requires:[1]
So how is your differentiation as a leader? Can you describe what makes you unique? Do you exercise the seven traits outlined above? In what ways do you see improvement may be needed or advised? Who are you talking to about it? Dick had two trusted advisors that led him through significant changes in perspective – Tim who worked for him and me who served as a timely mentor/coach. If you don’t have a trusted advisor who provides clear and unvarnished feedback it is time to find one. Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Thanks.
An inauspicious start to a critical engagement
“Don’t think you can change me…don’t even try.” The department director shot these words at our introduction.
I caught the eyes of my friend darting toward mine to see if I would buckle or flinch in the first volley. I smiled and while grasping the hand of the director to shake it I looked into his eyes and said, “That is the last thing I would attempt…I am not here to change you I am here to help you leverage the success of the department you have built to the potential you see for it. Is that ok with you?”
“Ok,” he responded. He looked surprised.
“Well then I have two rules,” I continued “and I need you to agree to them before I begin or I will pack up and walk out.”
“What are they?” the director queried.
“First, you give me permission to discover the unvarnished feedback of your employees,” I began. “Second, you agree to debrief with me at the end of the project to tell you what I have learned. Do you agree?”
“I agree,” he said and looking at my friend “he is not a bad guy Tim.”
“I told you Dick, he is good at what he does.”
This engagement germinated when Tim had asked me one night what I my research focus was in my doctoral program.
“I am looking at how hope impacts the development of existing and emerging leaders in complex organizations” I responded to his inquiry.
As we talked more about the insights I had gathered in my field research Tim asked, “Would you be willing to see if that fits at the school district? Our department could really use something like this and we have no budget for consultants right now.”
Tim told me that the technical maintenance unit developed in the early 1980s. The director and his secretary were the first employees. At the time of the project the unit operated with 80+ unionized employees. The unit’s original assignment was limited to fulfilling EPA directives on the abatement of asbestos contamination. Today the unit handles abatement of every potential environmental health risk to students. Not only has the complexity of regulatory compliance increased but the volume of work within this metropolitan school district increased with its initiatives to meet its plan of reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance.
The growth of the department, its technical focus, its existence within a complex metropolitan school district and the fact that its original director was still the leader made this an irresistible field study.
I negotiated for permission to publish my findings (I didn’t know school districts had so many attorneys). The District finally gave permission to publish my work as long as I never mentioned it by name.
Tim had initiated a focus on best practices in management at every level of the department. He had a long leash that resulted from the fact he served as the de facto director for several months the director was recuperating from a significant health challenge and that Tim had the highest respect for the expertise of the director. Tim’s respect was both professional and personal. This respect provided the safety net the director needed to extend trust to my research project.
Classic leadership tensions
In the course of doing the field research some interesting observations emerged:
Change was not an option for this department. A vortex of constant and discontinuous change resulted from the department’s growth and contentious budget/philosophical changes in the District. A chronic degree of mistrust and anxiety existed among the employees I interviewed and surveyed. I prepared to debrief with the director at the end of the research project. I could not help but remember his edict, “Don’t try to change me.”
When changes occur what is impacted?
The Director’s warning about challenging him to change was intriguing in its own right. He had already faced a wave of change but struggled with altering his behaviors in ways that are classic to a founder. He managed like a tyrant in that he refused to delegate control of decisions – he was the bottleneck of his department that threatened to push the department in into dangerous lapses of execution. He was the first in and the last out of the office often working 16 hour days. He had destroyed his family, had few friends and was losing political capital in the District because he did not know how to relate with peers. As captain of his own ship he worked more like a pirate barking orders and threatening to keel-haul inefficient crew.
The Director was on a collision course with the future – a future that no longer needed a pirate at the helm of an underfunded loosely supervised division. He had sailed into the center of the District’s maintenance budget in part by the fact he is an internationally recognized expert in his field and in part because of the success he had achieved over the years in raising recognition of the dangers of environmental pollutants and the need to give safe educational environments. The problem was not a fight for recognition and budget in the bureaucracy. The problem was the director’s own lack of self-regulation in the face of tension. He did not know how to relate to the organization he had built. He had no idea how to relate to the larger bureaucracy of the school district. If change did not occur the District would slowly dismantled the maintenance unit and absorb it into other departments.
The Director’s initial bark, “don’t try to change me” was not the bark of a blind tyrant hell-bent on running the department into the ground. It was a statement of recognition that he felt he could not compete on the same ground as the polished political apparatchiks of the District office and was not sure he wanted to – but he did need to adjust something. So how does a pirate accustom to effecting immediate and sweeping change, immediate execution of ideas with full budgetary discretion alter behavior enough to avoid being abandoned by his allies i.e., the District he serves?
The power of reflection in defining context
After talking with the Director and his team I realized the Director did not see how his own success altered the political terrain. The director faced two big crises: readjust his approach to his own team or risk losing the best and the brightest that were all frustrated by the repressive tyranny of the director’s micro management (he did not trust them and they knew it). The director had to readjust his approach to the District that now saw him as a policy maker and not an odd ball outlier – he now had power but he did not realize it. There are few things more dangerous than a leader that possesses power but fails to exercise the self-awareness to realize the extent (or limitations) of their power. The Director was still fighting for recognition of his expertise and the importance of student health. But, he had won that war – the District had become a model for school districts around the nation for environmental health.
In my curiosity about what the Director had done and my probing about how the changes he initiated had altered District policy both of us gained insight into the shifting political terrain in which he now functioned. We had several three-way interviews between the Director, Tim and me. Tim was a master at pointing out the Director’s accomplishments, offering deep respect and bringing the current challenges to clear definition. These conversations forced a reflection of the type top leaders desperately need – a strategic reassessment of their position. The Director however had never taken the time to do this on his own because he was too busy fighting the good fight to realize that he was wining fewer battles because the opponents had moved. He ended up wounding his political alliances and most trusted employees. Tim served as the Director’s first mate inside the office and as his emissary to the District. Without Tim’s respect for the man and his accomplishments the Director’s survival in his role was doubtful. The Director realized two things in these conversations based on his reaction to me.
First, the district trusted his opinion about the law and regulations around environmental safety. The former pariah was now a recognized expert. He had accomplished something significant and meaningful. The problem was that while he had achieved a new status he did not know how to behavior relative to his new status – he is like a championship boxer who after beating his opponent continues the fight with the referee trying to name him the champion. The failure to change behaviors based on the changing environment makes more enemies than friends.
Second, the Director was rapidly losing the political capital needed to keep his clout in the organization he had created from scratch. He still had fight left and still had battles to win but had not defined them appropriately. The Director sensed the loss of political capital but had interpreted it as an irrational outside threat and not a self-inflicted wound to his own credibility. His dissonance upon realizing this had shaken his confidence in himself. Tim used the opportunity to drive both realities home with data that was affirming, disarming and incontrovertible. The Director became more inquisitive and open to learning. This was the easier of the changes. As the Director grasped the new limits of his fight and talked about what needed to happen next in his department and beyond. He became quite inspirational in the weeks we talked together – he is passionate about environmental health.
The breakthrough
How did this change occur? At the end of the field study I prepared a report and the Director and I sat down to lunch to discuss my findings.
“Ok,” I began. “You committed to hearing feedback at the completion of my research. I am ready but I need two actions from you. I want you to commit to doing these actions for three months without fail. Will you give me that commitment?”
The mood of the lunch shifted at the tension and competition of our first meeting reemerged. The director repeated his first words to me, “Don’t try to change me!”
“We already agreed to these ground rules, Dick,” I responded. “Your insistence on resisting feedback only tells me that you would prefer to sabotage your entire division and sacrifice it on the altar of your own hubris. Is that what you are telling me?”
“Geez, you are ….”he paused, “…ok what do you want me to do?”
I asked, “In your own words who are you?”
He floundered for a moment grasping for what I meant.
“I am an expert in my field. I am focused. I want to make a significant contribution in life. I am gruff and impatient with incompetence. I am a man of few friendships but I think they are deep,” he replied.
“Ok,” I said, “…your team agrees with all of this but they don’t trust you.” He looked rather stunned as founders often do. I explained that in my experience founders are very capable of outlining how they have sacrificed. Founders ably describe the risk they assumed in the pursuit of success. Yet they are blind to the sacrifices and risks taken by those they have inspired to help them achieve their big goals. Granted, the risks incurred by employees seem small in comparison to putting family, assets, and reputation on the line like founders often do. However founders inherently infer that a proportional sacrifice is required of all their key employees. It takes a different shape usually in long hours and high demands and initially low pay. If the employees sacrifice remains unacknowledged and devalued then a mutiny occurs. The casualty of such a mutiny is not limited to the founder – everyone is hurt.
It was quiet for a long time – I felt little compulsion to rescue Dick from whatever internal reflection he was doing in the silence. Finally he said, “Ok, I will commit to your suggested actions.”
“Great,” I replied. I need 20 minutes of your time each day. I need 10 minutes in the morning and 10 minutes in the evening. As your employees arrive I want you to walk out of your office and greet your employees by name.” For all the years Dick had worked to build the department he always arrived up to 60 minutes ahead of his employees and stayed for up to three hours after they left – and never left his office. Only two people dared to enter his office without being invited – Tim, his first mate and Dick’s secretary. Employees summoned to Dick’s office endured scolding on their failure to consider all the aspects of their projects. Dick would itemize their failures and send them back to correct their mistakes. If anyone pushed back during these interactions Dick would launch into a review of his published work and his stature as an expert.
“I can do that,” Dick replied.
“Ok, then 10 minutes before the end of the day I want you to come back out of your office and thank your employees for their hard work.” I said.
“What? They are paid for that work. That is their thanks. They and the union give me nothing but grief with all their gripping, their grievances – we spend so much time with union reps and attorneys over this crap that we fall behind on critical projects.” Dick’s face had begun to glow with a reddish hue.
I stared right back at him, “You gave me your word that you would keep your commitment. Are reneging? I am happy to leave you the bill for lunch and go home now. But, I need to know if you have the integrity to keep your word.”
Dick stopped mid-breath. “Why do I need to thank them for doing their jobs?”
“Because,” I said, “…they are doing their jobs. They could be out sitting behind the district buildings drinking beer and simply reporting that they are working. They could be doing all kinds of things that would destroy this department.”
“They try that crap and they will be fired,” Dick retorted.
“Good,” I said, “you need to be consistent in excellence and in the management of the task. That excellence is not the problem here. Thank them every day because they perform the work you assigned to them. And if any of them are not you have the disciplinary processes in place to discuss that problem – use them consistently. The question is; will you keep your commitment?”
Dick agreed. In the months that followed I checked in with Dick in a surprise visit. He was noticeably happier and his employees in the department caught me and thanked me for whatever it was I had done to make Dick human. A year later the department inherited all maintenance functions in the district. Eventually Dick moved to a new position that allowed him to be the knowledge expert and put Tim in the Director seat. The employees, Tim and Dicks all told me that the consult had been a success. The real success however is that Dick emerged as a fully differentiated leader. He was never the best friend of his team. However he had become human and began to allow his direct reports to thrive. By appreciating their work Dick begun to recognize their expertise and slowly backed away from micromanaging every detail.
Conclusion – what is a differentiated leader?
A differentiated leader is a person whose identity exhibits several critical behavioral characteristics. Dick had started the department as a differentiated leader but then because of the capacity shift that occurred as the department grew he fell into regressive and reactive behavior. As his identity reemerged several critical behaviors returned and grew in-depth. Being a self-differentiation leader requires:[1]
So how is your differentiation as a leader? Can you describe what makes you unique? Do you exercise the seven traits outlined above? In what ways do you see improvement may be needed or advised? Who are you talking to about it? Dick had two trusted advisors that led him through significant changes in perspective – Tim who worked for him and me who served as a timely mentor/coach. If you don’t have a trusted advisor who provides clear and unvarnished feedback it is time to find one. Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Thanks.