Helping you develop leaders from the inside out.
The most popular blogs written included some prior to 2011. The 2011 annual report for my blog is fascinating.
Here’s an excerpt:
A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 3,000 times in 2011. If it were a cable car, it would take about 50 trips to carry that many people.
My cousin sent me the reminder below and I saw it as a metaphor that aptly captured the feedback I have received in coaching from both male and female executives. Leadership is complex and the interactions that occur between men and women in the workforce is part of that wonderfully diverse complexity…well wonderful most days according to my clients.
Gender is one of the complexities of leadership interactions. Look for more about this from me in 2012. Until then, happy New Year.
When Leadership Responsibility Expands – Unresolved People Problems Loom Larger
Leaders adjusting to a new scope of responsibility face the challenge of redefining their relationships to those who were direct reports, those who were peers and those to whom they report. Every emerging leader develops a theory of leadership as a result of their interactions with their context, peers, direct reports and supervisors in a way that synthesizes their understanding of their own strengths, other’s strengths/motivations and of the tasks in front of them. Every person given responsibility for an organization’s performance enters the sometimes mystifying world of leadership. By leadership I mean (i) a culturally aware process, (ii) that involves influence, (iii) that exercises legitimate authority, (iv) in a group context, (v) that involves achieving a goal.
Every leader discovers that their self-image endures the tarnishing effect that results from attempting to work with people who are difficult. Difficult people are characterized by skepticism of a leader’s motive, capability, capacity, or vision of the future. The emotional toll of dealing with difficult people slows organizational momentum and in a worse case derails the leader and his or her team. Ordinarily assessing a goal from the perspective of differing views of reality adds to rather than detracts from the functionality of a group. This assumes that those who offer perspective possess (1) an equivalent horizon of the threat, opportunity, weaknesses and strengths of the group; (2) a respect for the fundamental orientation of the leader; and that (3) the leader has an appreciation of the differing perspectives of the group. I asked a friend to summarize the lesson’s he had just learned as he navigated a transition. I used his lessons as a springboard for the article below.
Lesson 1: Play winning percentages and priority investments
Bruce’s (not his real name) promotion from leading a field office in Europe to working in the corporate office in the United States set the stage for this important lesson. Bruce described a difficult former direct report that his replacement did not know how to handle. In fact, the new manager, trainer and corporate coach had attempted to intervene in this employee’s behavior. The various interventions were working at cross-purposes to one another in a way that excused the employee’s poor performance and actually masked the central issues of this employee’s behavior.
I listened intently for a while then asked, “Bruce, what are the odds of success you give your planned intervention?”
There was a pause on the other line for a moment when he responded, “Hmm, I’d say about 10%”
“So,” I responded, “you will mobilize your time and energy to by-pass your own organizational structure to work directly with an employee that you only see a 10% possibility of saving? How does that fit into your strategic aim for changing the culture toward accountability and leadership? Aren’t those two aspects of the culture you wanted to change?”
“Yes, I do want to create a culture of accountability, we do not execute well and we do not hold people responsible for their jobs” he responded.
“Is the action you have outlined the best way to leverage your change project forward?” I asked. “Is a decision that only has a 10% chance of success the best use of your time or that of the field managers?” I continued.
Before Bruce could respond I asked another question, “Do the managers on the field agree with your assessment of this employee?”
“Yea,” he said hesitantly, “they don’t know what to do with the employee – they are frustrated.”
“What if you handed the assignment back to them and coached them through the needed conversation with the employee?” I asked.
Popular misconceptions about leadership often start with the premise that leadership is a distant indirect influence in a group context – an “ivy tower” exercise. The fact is that much of what a leader does is actually one on one interaction that negotiates a common understanding of reality and responsibility. One on one interaction is called “leader member exchange” (LMX) which is the name of a leadership theory positing that by working with an in-group (those people with whom the leader has mutual trust, respect and commitment) allows a leader to carry out more work in a more efficient way than working without one. In-group employees show a higher commitment to work outside the scope of their formal job description and a higher degree of innovation in looking for ways to advance the group’s goals.
Prescriptively LMX theory suggests that a leader should develop high-quality exchanges characterized by trust and respect with all of his or her subordinates rather than just a few. The promotion of healthy leader member exchanges not only breaks down the inequities and negative implications of creating in and out groups it also promotes partnerships (through effective dyads) that builds the team, benefits the organization and contributes to the leader’s own career progress. Using questions I intended to help Bruce think about what effective LMX looked like in his situation.
As Bruce ruminated on the questions he reframed his LMX approach and determined to enlist the field managers and employee mentors to design an intervention that outlined specific expectations and outcomes.
Lesson 2: Keeping me focused on my role and helping people solve their own issues
Staying focused on one’s own role is especially important in transitions. Bruce’s move from managing a field office in Europe to leading the field offices globally from the corporate headquarters changed the nature of Bruce’s daily tasks. The way he spends his time and the kind of work he needs to value and the scope of perspective he now has to exercise are all different. Watkins (2003) describes the importance of understanding the significance of transition challenges;
… 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.[1]
The overriding goal in a transition is to build momentum by creating virtuous cycles that build credibility and by avoiding getting caught in vicious cycles that damage credibility – leadership is about leverage. The behavior Bruce described in this situation represented a vicious cycle in his organization. The vicious cycle that managers fail to discuss the challenges of people management meant these managers handed their responsibility off laterally and upwardly. Remember Bruce described a network of leaders in the company of four different managers (the employee’s manager, the trainer, the corporate coach and Bruce) all working with one line employee who because of the demand of attention left the high producing employees off on the sidelines (See Figure 1 below). Employee commitment, contribution, conviction, confidence and sense of alignment with the organizational culture all suffered as a result.
Bruce faced the necessity of exercising adaptive leadership in order to model and reinforce a different kind of behavior the organization needed to escape the vicious cycle of codling low producers at the cost of developing their high producers.
3. Starting with the agreed goal of our division and naming the issues that are stopping us proved to be a win.
The vicious cycle clear in Bruce’s experience is not uncommon in organizational interaction. When habits and attitudes become part of the problem over time they create a systemic problem. A systemic problem is a problem that has grown larger than the people involved; it becomes a system of its own that is self-perpetuating. The recognition that systemic behavioral problems exist forms the need for a different approach. Simply raising the level of effort to reassert known solutions only worsens the situation.
This is why a leader’s job in encouraging change is to help people face the reality of their situation in a way that they have the emotional energy to handle and to engage the organization’s people in trying to define change. Heifetz and Laurie say it this way;
… the locus of responsibility for problem solving when a company faces an adaptive challenge must shift to its people.[2]
In the face of an adaptive challenge everyone must learn new behaviors all the way through at every level of the organization. Disequilibrium in relationships, processes and emotions that result from facing deep change require that a leader sustain patience and hope to aid their teams in confronting the contradictions of existing behavior to adjust their values to the new realities around them. Bruce had to shift responsibility for working through new behavior to the employee and the manager. He could not ride in like a knight in shining armor and win the day if he wanted to change the organizational culture and develop the breadth of organizational leadership. Rather than approaching the situation issuing directives Bruce utilized coaching skills.
4. Asking, not telling the employee to reflect how she sees these things play out in her life, worked in gaining her attention.
In taking this stand Bruce did two things. First he authenticated what the employee felt. Oddly enough managers and leaders tend to discount the feelings or perception of those they don’t understand or those that irritate them. Ignoring or belittling a person’s perception never resolves the conflict but either pushes it underground so that it takes a sinister and subversive form or fuses an explosion that results in escalated tensions and broken relationship.
Second, he compelled the employee to take responsibility for her own actions by asking her to assess the kind of emotional wake her behavior left behind. According to Bruce this employee often excused her behavior and its negative emotional wake on the basis of being misunderstood by her manager or other leaders. As a result she never assessed her behavior as something she had a choice in determining. Bruce was able to get the employee to articulate that she viewed herself as a victim of circumstance beyond her control not as a person who had learned helplessness. The reality is that thinking determines behavior or outlook determines the outcome. Said another way, an outlook anticipating success determines success in outcomes. An outlook anticipating failure, defeat etcetera determines failure, rejection, and defeat. This employee routinely torpedoed her own success in the way she thinks. For the first time someone asked her to be responsible for her own feelings and behavior. (For more on this subject see http://wp.me/pYuoc-1j).
5. Sharing how I see these things play out in my personal life.
Bruce literally came out from behind himself to make the conversation real by taking the risk to; (1) be known, (2) to be seen and (3) to be changed. This takes courage – it is the courage to give honest feedback. Because Bruce had opened the conversation by authenticating the employee he gained a hearing – a real conversation ensued. Bruce was doing what Susan Scott writes about her in her book on Fierce Conversations. He had taken stock by asking himself some tough questions prior to the conversation. Good leaders regularly ask themselves questions such as:
How often do I find myself saying things I don’t mean just to be polite?
How many meetings have I sat in knowing that the real issues were being avoided?
What has been the economic, emotional, intellectual cost for my dishonesty? What is the cost to my organization? What is the cost to my relationships?
By making it real Bruce set a tone that essentially said, “I respect you as a person and I am interested in what you really have to say and I am confused and disappointed when you don’t say it but mask it by avoiding behaviors.” This kind of honesty is the foundation for discipline in an organization. Too often I hear leaders confuse the idea of respect for their employees with a laissez-faire approach to leading. (For more on the subject of discipline see http://wp.me/pYuoc-2E).
6. Having her agree to pursue her leaders experience with her in the areas mentioned.
By making it real Bruce began to challenge deeply held assumptions. He set the stage for a new definition of reality by respecting the employee’s perspective and offering his own. It was now time to check for understanding which they did in listening to one another and checking in…did they understand what the other was saying? The process of challenging reality (the deeply held assumptions we have about what is really going on) is that it requires risk taking – that risk once again is the risk of being known, being seen and being changed. It is important to gain a cross-check to reality by inviting others to weigh in. In Bruce’s situation he invited the cross-check to reality by risking the response of other the corporate coach, trainer and field manager who were familiar with the tensions between Bruce and the employee.
If the other leaders opted to avoid the fierce conversation or avoid the risk of being known, seen and changed themselves the conversation and its beneficial changes would be lost. So, Bruce also had to have open and honest conversations with these leaders helping them understand how dishonesty played a role in perpetuating the employee’s unsuccessful behavior and beliefs about herself and the organization.
7. Mapping the people involved helped clarify the situation.
This lesson referred to a conversation Bruce and I had prior to talking with the employee. He described the frustration he and the field leaders and coaches shared in working with the employee. Bruce intended to develop leaders and nurture an organizational culture of accountability and consistent execution. However, he described actions what worked the opposite of his intention but he was too close to the situation to see it. So, we drew a picture (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Relational Network – Distorted Priorities
It only takes a minute looking at the picture to see several unhealthy trends. First, notice that the employee had positioned herself at the center of all attention and emotional expenditure. The field employees were relegated to a periphery role of refereeing the tension between the Field Manager and the Employee – and they resented this role. Their resentment undermined their respect of the both the Director of Field Operations and the Field Manager. Work had slowed to a minimal performance.
Second, notice that the Trainer and Corporate Coach were also involved in attempting to work with the employee. That direct communication between the Director, Field Manager, Trainer and Corporate Coach was rare allowed the employee to play each one off the other – and she did it masterfully. The resources intended to help the Field Employees were literally siphoned off by the attention given to the employee.
Third, the diagram captures a visual sense of the confusion that surrounded the situation – the closer each leader was to the situation the more it felt like they had entered a fog. The Field Manager felt slighted by the Director’s intervention, the Director was frustrated by the Manager’s failure to act on the situation, the Corporate Coach failed to engage a 360 degree perspective of the problem and the training manager nurtured the employee’s sense of victimization by questioning the competence of the Director.
Creating this map helped Bruce see that his intentions were not visible in his actions. He had to change his behavior to move his organization to a new level of leadership and accountability.
8. Understanding that just because people don’t want to solve a situation doesn’t mean I need to step in and solve it for them.
Bruce described this realization in the following words, “I need to push them back to it. This doesn’t mean I don’t work at setting up the situation for the best success but they need to do the heavy lifting here. Not attacking the employee’s point of failure in these standards but rather processing how they impact the operation as a group allowed her [the employee] to reflect without defensiveness.”
Leadership doesn’t develop in an organization that (1) keeps people from facing the consequences of their actions by premature interventions or that (2) instills such a fear of mistakes that emotional immobilization occurs or that (3) consistently revokes permission to lead while simultaneously invoking accountability for actions that the people have no control over i.e., the actions of their leaders/managers or that (4) uses a laissez-faire management style until problems percolate to upper management leading to fits of anger and threats.
Conclusion
Bruce is growing as a leader. It is clear in his reflection that his understanding of what it means to exercise authority, power and influence in moving his organization toward consistently high performance is developing. I asked him if I could write on his observations because I believe many leaders could learn from what Bruce is learning.
Now that you have read this what did you learn? How will what you learned alter your behavior? What specific behavior do you need to change? Who will you talk to about it? Let me know how you plan to use this information or let me know if it helps you define your situation. If the latter is true what part of this article helped you most?
Or, what part of this article do you disagree with and why? Let me know…I am still learning to lead effectively as well.
Remember What Your Mother Taught You about Gratitude
A group of clients dropped in on our office the other day. One of them had their seven-year old son in tow and while he was well-behaved he was obviously bored. We have a collection of marketing and trade show trinkets including a box of rubber band balls with our company name on them. In a lull in the conversation I grabbed one and offered it to the young man. As he reached to receive the gift I offered, his mother posed a question. What was this maternal prompting? As you may have guessed she asked, “What do you say?” The expected answer was, “Thank you.”
Just how powerful is gratitude? Gratitude is a virtue that contributes to living well. It is an emotional state and an affective trait demonstrated in behavior and as such it has tremendous potential for engaging change in how a person experiences life or determines the meaning of their circumstance. It is a positive emotion that has more recently captured the imagination and eye of researchers because of the mediating role gratitude plays in other positive emotions and overall mental health.
What role does gratitude play in how we shape our thinking or our success or our failure? Can the practice of gratitude actually make a difference in how we experience life? Can acts of gratitude alter corporate cultures and increase productivity and the bottom line?
Gratitude Acts as a Pathway to Expand a Sense of Meaning and Purpose
Why is gratitude important? Does the significance of experiencing and expressing gratitude survive childhood into adulthood? Gratitude occurs when we recognize someone has intentionally done something for us that is beneficial to us. The ability to recognize what others do for us is dependent upon a consolidation of a sense of self as a causal agent understanding that others are causal agents as well. This sense of self-awareness and awareness of others is called an “internalized theory of mind” that understands that other people (like oneself) are intentional beings whose behavior is motivated by desire and belief.[1] This fundamental grasp of selfhood and sense of others formulates in children at around age 4. Without this internalized theory of mind a person becomes narcissistic.
Narcissistic individuals disdain gratitude because of an inflated sense of their own superiority – is it any wonder then that our mothers are so adamant about teaching thankfulness? Narcissistic people view expressions of gratitude as little more than attempts to curry favor or weakness – an unnecessary emotion that distracts from the need to perform expected tasks. In contrast to the extreme self-sufficiency inherent in narcissism the experience and expression of gratitude requires the ability to relinquish some self-sufficiency to see the actions of others and to acknowledge that no one really lives independent from the beneficial actions of others.
Is it any wonder then that Paul equated the act of gratitude with the discovery of God’s will? (1 Thessalonians 4:17-18) It takes a sense of self related to others and aware of others including God to come to an awareness of deeper meaning and purpose in life beyond the satisfaction of one’s own immediate and self-absorbed impulses.
Emotions like gratitude are not the same as sensory pleasure or mood. When talking about emotions researchers refer to multi-component response tendencies that reveal themselves over time. Emotions are rooted in how a person defines the meaning of some event in what Lazarus (1991) called the personal environment relationship or adaptational encounter. Defining meaning consciously or unconsciously triggers a series of response tendencies that influence how a person experiences the event. It is not the event itself that leads to emotion as experienced by the person in their facial expressions and physiological changes. It is the meaning assigned to the event by the person that result in emotional reaction to the event.
The interaction between belief, interpretation and experience is what makes the study of emotions and positive emotions in particular so important in understanding whether (1) a person can decide to alter their emotional state; (2) can support new behaviors over time and (3) can experience appreciable or measurable psychological and physiological benefit. If there is a relationship between a person’s belief (how they assign meaning to events) and their emotional state and if their emotional state influences their choice of behaviors in response to triggering events then the possibility of influence the belief triggered by events opens the door to influencing the range of responses expressed by the person to those events. This is precisely why positive emotions and gratitude specifically has been the subject of research.
What is Gratitude?
Gratitude is a sense of appreciation and joy that arises when an person receives a tangible benefit provided by another person or source who has intentionally acted to improve the beneficiary’s well-being. Gratitude is also the experience of a moment of peaceful enjoyment evoked by natural beauty. Gratitude assumes a personal nature when the benefactor is another individual or it may assume a transpersonal nature when the benefactor is God or the cosmos. Fitzgerald (1998) takes the definition a step further identifying three aspects of gratitude: (a) appreciation for another, (b) a sense of goodwill toward that person or thing and (c) a disposition to act that flows from a sense of indebtedness.
How does Gratitude Change Us?
Gratitude is an adaptive perspective that engages continuous personal development. Fredrickson (2004) asserts that gratitude broadens an individual’s mode of thinking and builds psychological and social resources. Hence gratitude broadens and builds a person’s momentary thought-action repertoire (the power to grasp and analyze ideas, cope with problems and manage an increasing degree of complexity).
The term “thought-action repertoire” refers to the spontaneous character of emotion. Thoughts (ideas or interpretations of events) actually lead to specific action. In negative emotions such as the recognition of danger (the thought) leads to an immediate fight or flight response (action). In contrast to negative emotions that yield quick action, positive emotions tend to challenge our assumptions or beliefs allowing us to alter our thought patterns and hence develop other responses. It is possible to alter emotional response by altering the belief behind the emotion. Hence it is possible to change the degree to which one experiences gratitude by engaging exercises designed to leverage awareness of the benefit one experiences either through the intentional actions of others or through apparently providential circumstances at work.
Gratitude is a powerful and critical force in personal survival and growth. Grateful people show (or develop) a different perspective on life that some researchers describe as a positive memory bias. A positive memory bias means that a person not only recalls a greater number of positive memories they reframe unpleasant experiences more positively over time as compared to the initial emotional impact of those experiences. People who exhibit a state of gratefulness are more alert, enthusiastic, determined, attentive and energetic. Fredrickson (2004) asserts that the benefits gained in emotional episodes of gratitude are durable i.e., they stick with a person. For example:
Gratitude literally prompts people to engage their environments and take part in activities that are adaptive – i.e., push the boundaries of experience and insight in such a way as to build new thought-action repertoires that can be called upon later in more stressful situations.
The Way People Experience Gratitude Varies
Gratitude is a complex emotion. Thus people experience gratitude in different ways. Research suggests that gratitude is an emotion experienced in a combination of facets including intensity, frequency, span and density. Understanding these facets helps to (1) recognize the depth to which gratitude impacts perspective and behavior and (2) suggest ways to develop a state of gratitude through the practice of appreciation and reflection.
Gratitude intensity describes the degree to which a person feels gratitude in the experience of a positive event. An intensity scale recognizes that people experiencing the same positive event may not experience the same degree of gratitude.
Gratitude frequency measures the number and types of events that elicit a report of gratitude. Some people report gratitude for in the simplest act of politeness while another may consider such simple acts as insufficient to call for gratitude.
Gratitude span refers to the number of life circumstances for which a person feels grateful at a given time. Someone with a strong grateful disposition reports gratefulness for family, job, health, and life itself as well as a list of other benefits. A person with a lower span of gratitude reports gratefulness for fewer aspects of his or her life.
Gratitude density refers to the number of persons to whom one feels grateful. Such persons may include parents, school teachers, tutors, mentors, friends and God.
Consider your own experience of gratitude. Take a moment to rank your gratitude quotient by assigning a level of experience to the facets of gratitude above. Use the number 5 to show a strongly felt occurrence of each of the facets above and the number 1 to show an absence of experience in each of the facets above. While the results of this informal self survey are anecdotal they indicate the degree to which you are aware of how others benefit or positively impact your life. If your score is low ask yourself how others experience you – are you present in these relationships? Do you see what others have done for you? Do you express gratitude for their actions? A practice of gratitude could yield some important changes in your relationships at work and at home.
Does Practicing Gratitude Make a Difference?
So why would one actually practice gratitude? (Other than assuring your mom does not show up at work or a social engagement asking the question, “What do you say?” when others act in ways that are beneficial to us.) People who practice gratitude find that gratitude creates the urge to:
Conversely those who do not express or experience gratitude exhibit the opposite characteristics. The urges associated with the practice of gratitude occur in every aspect of a person’s behavior: social, physical, intellectual and spiritual.
In addition to the interpersonal benefits of gratitude grateful people also experience intrapersonal benefits of gratitude. In an experiment conducted by McCraty et al (1995) subjects who consciously experienced appreciation for 5 minutes actually reduced stress as exhibited in heart rate, pulse transit time and respiration rate. Clearly the practice of gratitude makes a quantifiable difference in how people perform and how they experience life.
How Does Gratitude Work if you are a Leader?
Gratitude engenders organizational transformation and performance by encouraging positive emotions that reverberate through others. A leader’s positive emotions predict the performance of their entire group.
Gratitude as expressed by a leader is dependent upon the leader’s recognition of his or her follower’s intentional benevolent actions. Remember that people experience gratefulness as a complex interaction of intensity, frequency, span and density. Observing and probing a leader’s experience of gratitude offers an insight into the degree to which their experience and expression of gratitude may influence group behavior.
Team observations made by Losada (1999) concluded that those teams that flourish show the highest ratio of positivity to negativity and the broadest range of inquiry and advocacy. Teams that experienced extreme negativity calcified after such encounters and lost their behavioral flexibility and ability to question. They ended up floundering in limited thought-action repertoires centered on self-absorbed advocacy. Fredrickson (2004) notes that when “…positive emotions are in short supply, people get stuck. They lose their degrees of behavioral freedom and become painfully predictable. But when positive emotions are in amply supply, people take off. They become generative, creative, resilient, ripe with possibility and beautifully complex.”[2]
Conclusion
Gratitude prompts people to engage their environments and take part in activities that are adaptive. The broaden and build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson 2004) hypothesizes that positive emotions actually produce health and well-being and not just mark or signal health and well-being. Gratitude is an adaptive perspective that engages continuous personal development. Gratitude enhances organizational transformation and performance. Finally gratitude is an interpersonal and intrapersonal experience that benefits the social, psychological and physiological health of those who are grateful.
Test these observations yourself by practicing the exercises below. Let me know the results. I want to hear back from you.
Exercise 1: Recalibrating Your Thinking. Identify three things that happened today for which you are grateful? (e.g., a coworker’s extra effort, an employee’s extra effort, a friend’s feedback, or a spouse’s feedback etc.)
1.
2.
3.
Exercise 2: Transform your Experience. One technique utilizing a behavioral-cognitive approach to learning gratitude encourages a four-step process: (a) identify non-grateful thoughts; (b) formulate gratitude-supporting thoughts; (c) substitute the gratitude-supporting thoughts for the non-grateful thoughts; and (d) translate the inner feeling into outward action. (If this seems too simplistic review the Stockdale paradox described by Jim Collins, “I never lost faith in the end of the story,” he said, when I asked him. “I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade.” Admiral Stockdale said this on his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.)[3]
[1] Emmons and McCullough (2004:88)
[2] B.L. Fredrickson. “The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions.” Department of Psychology,University of Michigan, 7 August 2004, 1375.
[3] Jim Collins. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t. (New York,NY: Harper Collins, 2001), 85.
The Interrogation
She had just completed a sentence as I captured her thought on my laptop and sat transfixed on the screen waiting for her lecture to continue I added a few more thoughts, rabbit trails, I wanted to pursue later. My note taking always has a conversational aspect to it. I synthesize research and insights from reading I have done and take the precious few seconds between the professor’s breaths to jot down ideas that come to mind as they lecture. I was in an education design course the last semester of my doctoral program. The course caught my interest because I wanted to develop my teaching skills – the focus of my course work was leadership yet I intended to spend time teaching on the subject academically and professionally. I completed my notes and sat staring at my screen waiting for her to continue the lecture.
We sat around tables set up in a conference arrangement and Dr. Elizabeth Conde-Frazier sat just to my right. I realized after some moments that she was not going to restart immediately. I stretched my hands, repositioned them over the key board and then glanced around the room. For some reason every eye was aimed my direction. I turned to look at Dr. Conde-Frazier and caught a rather penetrating gaze. When our eyes met she inquired, “Why are you here?”
The question itself did not strike me as odd for two reasons. First, as a master teacher Dr. Conde-Frazier modeled a powerful and effective andragogy – transitions into dynamic reflection between the content of the course and our personal experience in her class was not uncommon.
Second, as a middle-aged white guy in a culturally and gender diverse institution I often betrayed my own biases and upper middle class, suburban assumptions in my comments. This typically engendered a torrent of commentary from my academic peers on the evils of social power abuse. A litany of historical references to abuse by those who held power and privilege (middle-aged white guys) often morphed into personal stories of marginalization or worse. I learned to listen to these stories as a process of education and reconciliation. I was after all a token representation of everything that social privilege represented both bad and good.
This was not always easy. I often would rather have argued that it was not I who engaged in the kinds of social abuse often described. However, I do represent and enjoy a privileged place in society. I did not grow up in poverty, I lived on the good side of town and my parents remained married to one another throughout their lives. My upbringing was very different from many of those in the classroom. I did not have to dodge gangs or violence each day. I did not go hungry. I attended good schools and could afford medical care. I was exposed to a great deal of cultural diversity as the son of a college professor. But the diversity I saw was sanitized – I saw it without its context. So, diversity was simply a distraction from the typical. I did not understand the experiences represented in the diversity. Compared to so many others the word “privileged” does apply to me. So I determined to learn and engage the stories my presence and my ignorance drew out. On this day however, I had made no comment. I simply absorbed the content of the lecture and thought about how to use it. Dr. Conde-Frazier maintained her gaze.
“I am not sure of the context of your question,” I responded.
“Why are you here,” she repeated with the same penetrating gaze. “Are you here to add to your social power and status through the acquisition of a doctorate or are you here to learn to serve?”
The Reflection
The question framed a dialectic that was common in my educational process. I thought about it for a moment. Was the question a false dichotomy? Is the acquisition or possession of social power de facto a contradiction of service? The inference beneath the frequently prickly comments of some of my academic peers in the program affirmed that many thought privilege and service were mutually exclusive. Many of them had suffered measurable social and ethnic prejudice and only arrived at this institution by indefatigable persistence against all odds. Admittedly I did not understand the hurdles they had to cross to be there.
Clearly a danger exists in the pursuit of power or added social currency. Blind pursuit of power leaves a wake of wrecked hopes and lives callously dismissed as mere collateral damage. But even if a person is not pursuing blind ambition the dilemma of injuring others while on the quest for justice does not go unnoticed by those hurt by the exercise of good intentions. A group of graduate students in Kenya helped me understand the damage of activism with good intentions. As we discussed ethics in leadership and the idea of reconciliation and justice they pointed out that they did not object to justice. They objected to the way others defined justice for them. “We have a proverb here,” one of them stated. “When elephants make love the grass gets crushed – when elephants fight the grass gets crushed.” From the perspective of the grass the issue is not whether elephants fight or make love…the issue is that the elephants are unaware of the grass in the first place.
The class sat still waiting to hear my response – Dr. Conde-Frazier had now drilled a virtual path into my soul with her gaze. I looked her in the eye and said, “Yes.” The reality I faced at that moment was provocative. I could not divorce myself from my own historicity any more than I could alter my skin color or change my height. To try to be something other than what I am simply renders me foolish and demeans others. However, to deny who I am and that I have privilege is to continue dancing on grass that I remain unaware. To live without awareness of others places me in a position of actively engaging in the social and emotional injustices that I claim to eschew.
“Elizabeth,” I said, “I am here to gain the tools I need to serve and I am here to acquire the cultural power inherent in a doctorate. My aim is to use the power I live in to serve others. I hope that I learn how to do that effectively.”
An almost reverential hush came over the class. No one said at that moment what they were thinking. I appreciated the silence since I felt exposed and vulnerable in the moment. After a few moments Dr. Conde-Frazier returned to her lecture. I returned to my notes but I never left the question. The question echoes in my heart and mind almost every day – why am I here? What is my ambition? Do I see the grass – to use the metaphor of my friends in Kenya? How do I serve when my very presence can damage, threaten or hurt the ones I hope to serve?
From Activist to Servant
Serving as a leader is a dilemma. The dilemma does not reside in putting power, authority and influence alongside service. The pursuit of the common good by leadership implies the use of power, authority and influence to this end. The dilemma rather resides in the reality that leaders caught up in the big issues of their responsibility can become blind to their context and the unanticipated impact of strategic and tactical decisions. A friend of mine from Jamaica once explained the realities of this concept. He said that some time prior to the 1990s the dairy industry in the United States over produced product in part due to government subsidies. According to my friend the United States dumped excess product on the market in Jamaica to avoid waste. Serving a developing country with inexpensive dairy product turned into a curse by destroying the dairy industry of Jamaica. Assuming for a moment that the motive for dumping the product was humanitarian and not just economic the unexpected result of turning self-sufficient dairy farmers into unemployed dependents is terrible.
The challenge in my Jamaican friend’s story, assuming the best of motivations for the original act, is the challenge of turning from activist to servant. What is the difference?
Leaders as activists arrive with solutions. The clear and present danger of being an activist is that both the solution suggested and the problem identified may be irrelevant to the context. Again, the Kenyan proverb – if the elephants only see each other as the problem then every solution they offer will damage the grass. Such is the nature of the elephant.
However, if a leader arrives as a servant who possesses tools, knowledge and ability and determines to use those tools, knowledge and ability to innovate around the context then an entirely different potential emerges. A group of graduate students in Ethiopia taught me another important lesson on serving. I taught a course titled, “Leader Driven Organizations.” I designed the course to help leaders identify and unleash a pipeline of leadership within their organizations. I built the course around my dissertation and was excited to actually use my theories in real life situations. The class consisted of business owners, Non-governmental Organizational leaders and political leaders up to the ministry level. The first round of questions after the first lecture made me rework the concepts of my dissertation through entirely different lenses. I had assumed stable political environments. I had assumed a western definition of leadership and followership. My students did not share my definitions or the cultural assumptions behind them. I had to forget being an expert and assume the posture of a peer with insight and experience to give – the context demanded that they translate my insights into their unique context. My experience could not be accepted carte blanche.
The incident reminded me of something my dad told me when I landed my first leadership role out of college. “Son,” he said, “may I give you a piece of advice?”
“Sure dad,” I replied a little surprised at the question.
“Son, you are like a freshly minted second lieutenant,” he started. My dad was an ROTC graduate who entered the United States Air Force with a freshly minted master’s degree in electrical engineering and physics. “You know a lot but you don’t know beans about how to lead.” He paused.
“A colonel and mentor of mine told me when I graduated from officer candidate school how to succeed in my first command and I want to share that with you,” He continued.
“Go ahead dad, you have my attention,” I replied.
“He told me, Wheeler, when you arrive at your first command find the Chief Master Sergeant as soon as you arrive. When you find him you ask him this, ‘Chief Master Sergeant, I have no idea how this place runs, how do you do it?’ Do that Wheeler, and you will learn how to be an effective officer.” Dad paused. “Do you understand what I am saying? College graduates are nothing more than educated idiots.”
“Thanks dad, if the meaning wasn’t clear in the story it is in the last statement. I get it,” I said.
“Good, you have the theory but there is a gap between theory and practice and your respect of the context and the people in that context is the first step to knowing how to put your theory to work.”
Dad was right.
As leaders we want to make a mark for a variety of reasons. At best we see a future potential that we want others to engage and benefit from. At best we see inefficiencies that are more than cost generators they destroy people’s identity, confidence and sense of value and contribution. At best we arrive armed with the latest in leadership theory and praxis that we know will make the work place a better place where people want to be committed to make a difference. At worst we crave recognition as top dog, innovative whiz-kid, competitive victor, top talent and the go to person for future promotion regardless of the collateral damage we may generate in the climb to the top.
I needed and continue to need the interrogation Dr. Conde-Frazier launched that day in class. Every leader needs it. Why are you here?
Conclusion
I started thinking about the trust I have been given as a professor and a leader. A discussion with my current students (mid-career leaders in a master’s program) about the insights they experienced in a class on cross-cultural leadership prompted my reflection. Their insights and reflection in discussion while prompted by the course material have taken up a life of their own because these leaders have engaged the course concepts through the rich tapestry of their own leadership experience.
One of the students, a widow with three children who teaches college courses in a developing country summed up the idea best when she wrote, “Living with others necessitates, trust, respect, understanding and acceptance. Those things can bring the possibility to build good collaboration, and people can feel secure and comfortable in those situations. Those concepts really expressed my thought when I was at Santiago following the Master courses. I was surprised to see how people from different cultures, with different intellectual backgrounds, can easily put behind them, language barriers, color, identity and family barriers in order to become connected each other. I was amazed to see how, in spite of my poor English, the class took time to listen to me, and tried to understand my points of view. The experiences that everyone shared gave me the possibility to understand the similarities and differences among those cultures…. The experiences [others] shared also [helped] me…understand how I can react to some situations, good or bad; how I must put all my strength to keep going, instead of spending time to advance negative judgment; how I am not the only one who experiences bad situations. But as human beings, everywhere people know crucibles; knowing how to respond to those crucibles can be a way to build a new hope. I will never forget the profit that I gained from those moments.”
Statements like this remind me why I teach. They remind me why I go through the work of study, course preparation, grading, and faculty meetings while also holding down a full-time management job.
Effective leadership is servant leadership. Servant leaders allow others to interrogate their motives. Servant leaders own a commitment to define service by those they serve and not by their own activism. Servant leaders are first students not experts. Servant leaders understand that whatever success they have as a leader comes when they create a win/win environment.
Dr. Conde-Frazier’s interrogation does not haunt me, it reminds me to engage the question daily lest I become numb to the context I serve and the mix of motivations that stand behind my actions. Thank you Dr. Conde-Frazier, thanks dad and thank you students. Your lives make me a more capable leader and teacher.
Are you a servant leader? Consider the following questions:
How Did We Make It So Boring?
The problem was that the change project we designed as a pathway to release ministry in the congregation threatened to turn into a train wreck. My pastor and I had spent hours sitting in church chairs in the sanctuary reflecting on the health of the congregation, the opportunities in front of us and the challenges we faced. We had the right goal in mind and we had a good plan. It was now time to diagnose our situation and make mid-course corrections. We began our conversation by evaluating what kinds of changes were happening simultaneous to our strategic change and how these changes affected our potential for successful completion of the project. We needed to reframe the change so that the board, staff and members could process the change at multiple levels.
As we talked about the resistance and support the project faced I leaned back in the church chair I was sitting and unconsciously sighed a long and exasperated sigh and said, “How in the world have we made the resurrection of Christ from the dead and the promise of a transformed life so boring. We have equated the entirety of God’s work to managing programs. The means have become the end. This is not only dull it is draining.”
I find two extremes plague congregations and other organizations. On the one hand organizations and congregations forget the observation that the church is “ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda” a Latin phrase we inherited from the reformation that reads, “the church reformed and always reforming.” Change in this perspective is expected because of a continuous movement toward the image of Christ. Paul said it this way, “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which some from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:18, NIV) In contrast personal and organizational behavior gravitates toward a kind of religious stasis in which all change stops. Stasis is a state of stability in which all forces are equal and opposing and therefore cancel each other out. Not all aspects of stasis are bad.
People need emotional equilibrium to be secure enough to risk change. When a person’s equilibrium is upset their behavior mistakenly equates equilibrium with rigid inflexibility based on inviolable tradition. This behavior confuses values and tactics so that the tactics used to express core values take the place of the values themselves. Effective leaders recognize this demoralizing and corrupting trend and work to nurture change at multiple levels of experience.
On the other hand I see organizations that misinterpret “ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda” as an excuse for personal and organizational impulsiveness. In this scenario the only thing held as sacred is an avoidance of consistency or constancy. This behavior mistakenly equates dynamism and innovation with impetuosity. The result in this case is not creative spontaneity as much as undisciplined failure to follow through and hence an attendant loss of resources and a growing dissonance among those subjected to constant change.
It is important to understand three kinds of change and to differentiate strategies to discuss the challenges in each of them. I call these types of change organic, situational and strategic. In my observation it is important for leaders to understand the difference of each of these types of change, the way they impact each other and the strategies needed to successfully address each.
Organic Change
Organic change is unique in that it is expected though sometimes surprising or upsetting in its consequences. For example I am getting older. I never expected to exist in a static body – through out my childhood and young adult years I observed my own development and even looked forward to it. It would be far more upsetting to have experienced arrested development. Organic change is the real foundation of the phrase, “ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda.” It recognizes that the transforming (developmental) work of the Holy Spirit in our overall development is paralleled in the physical changes we experience as we age. This does not mean that organic change is without trauma. One’s first brush with hormones is illustration enough that change, while normal and expected, still requires adjustment and new emotional and relational tools to successfully integrate it.
Organic change is predictable. Stage development theories of human development for example identify patterns of growth with reasonable accuracy. If these patterns or stages of growth are ignored then an individual’s capacity for social and personal adjustment is stunted. On the other hand if these stages are anticipated then people are less likely to get stuck in the boundaries represented in the space between stages. Organic change emphasizes integration i.e., how a person relates to a group on the one hand and differentiation i.e., what makes them unique on the other. Part of the challenge in dealing with organic change is to recognize the difference between differentiation boundaries (when individuals need to separate and secure their personal identity) and integration boundaries (when people need to redefine their relationship to the group).
Organic change is not often considered when working on strategic change. However, if the maturity level and specific boundary time of everyone participating in the change is not considered participants may lack the emotional reserves and skills needed to move through the change. If there is strong resistance to change from specific people the dynamics of organic change may be at play. Stage development theorists like Erickson, Kohlberg, Kegan, and Fowler are all helpful in understanding how people develop and the boundaries they face in development. Clinton’s developmental stages are outlined below. Use developmental theories to help people define what they are facing outside the strategic change process.[i]
Situational Change
Situational change often presents the greatest potential for trauma or emotional dissonance. The unexpected nature situational change reinforces human vulnerability. Situational change typically requires some immediate adjustment because it renders plans and thinking obsolete. Situational change creates emotional and epistemological dissonance or a state in which what we thought we knew and depended upon is upended by circumstance that contradict expectations about what is real or just or normal. It is possible to pretend that situational change has no effect however this kind of denial leads to increased tension and sickness related to stress.
Situational change is unintended although it is predictable as illustrated in such anecdotal truisms like Murphy’s Law. The forces behind situational change may be human (relationship changes, economic changes, wars, political shifts etc.); natural (as in weather, geological events etc.) or non-human (as in an unexpected encounter with animal life or encounter with spiritual entities).
Not all situational changes are a product of Murphy’s Law – even a good turn of events creates a situational change that shares the same upsetting emotional consequences as something going wrong. Look for example at people who win the lottery and are then unable to adjust their thinking and personal management to fit the radical change in their new social situation. The same dynamic works in churches (and businesses) that experience rapid growth that out paces the willingness of the leadership to adjust their thinking, leadership styles and working structures. The tendency in either example is to return to the more familiar situation hence lottery winners go broke and churches loose their growth and return to the attendance level leaders are familiar with managing.
Even though situational changes are predictable they are not always included in planning strategic change. If situational change is not considered when planning strategic change then any significant situational change is usually enough to derail or collapse strategic change plans.
Strategic Change
Strategic change is volitional – it represents a set of actions one chooses to engage to meet a specific end. All discussions about organizational change are framed as strategic change. Strategic change is often induced by cognitive dissonance which is a distressing mental state that arises when people find that their beliefs are inconsistent with their actions. In response to this dissonance people either change their actions or their beliefs. When strategic change works it starts with belief in the overall purpose of the organization. When people believe in the purpose of an organization they change their actions to align to that belief. The problem Pastor Dan observed was that people had begun to question the purpose of their congregational experience and so changed their actions i.e., giving dropped off, attendance dropped off and participation in various outreaches sponsored by the congregation fell.
Successful strategic change also depends on proper reinforcement systems at work in the organization. I saw this at work in one congregation that continually taught that everyone was a priest and that they wanted to develop leaders but their functional practices failed to reward those who came up with new ideas. Instead they discouraged people from taking initiative by having several thick layers of permission requirements that usually ended in a “no” answer. Initiative was redirected to participation in working in the nursery, teaching Sunday school, serving as a sound technician or serving as a greeter/usher. Soon people stopped trying to introduce new ideas, recruitment plummeted and average attendance dropped by 400 in two years. The leadership blamed the diminished attendance on consumerism, lack of commitment and the mega-church down the street – they did not see how their own behaviors contributed to the problem.
Successful strategic change also depends on possessing the skills required for change. People need consistent role models to watch. People need to see how to apply the change and see that the change can be successfully engaged. The simple fact is that adults don’t learn by listening to instructions or admonitions from the pulpit. Adults must absorb the new information, use it experimentally, and integrate it with their existing knowledge. This is part of the reason small groups are so vitally important in congregational life – they offer the environment needed for adults to absorb information by teaching others, experiment with its use in a safe environment and integrate their existing knowledge.
Use a Multi-dimensional Approach to Change
Thinking of change as a multi-dimensional process is complex. However, thinking this way can help leaders demystify some of the barriers to change they face both inside their own personal experience and outwardly as they interact with those they lead. Table 2 provides an overview that outlines the kind of strategy each change process requires to be successful. Without a multidimensional approach it becomes far too easy to characterize those who resist change negatively. Adding a multidimensional perspective provides a richer diagnostic tool that can anticipate and address resistance to change by identifying what organic and situational factors may emerge as the change occurs.
Conclusion
Change is a multidimensional process and never just a linear process. The reason some change processes derail is that they fail to anticipate the total context of organic, situational and strategic change and thus launch projects that fall into the trap of idealism, impulsiveness or tyranny. Any of these traps cause leaders to behave in ways that are inconsistent to the message of reconciliation with God and as a result lead to growing cognitive dissonance that brings about needless loss. If you are leading a change process consider the following questions. They will help you refine your thinking and engage a multidimensional perspective.
What did we say we wanted to accomplish?
Is what we are doing contributing to that accomplishment or moving us further away?
What changed between when we set our action plan and today?
What aspects of the change process need to adjust because of a changing situation?
What is the non-negotiable end and what are the negotiable means?
If the change is resisted what kind of change may be at the root of resistance? What is the best strategy to address this resistance?
Are all the participants in a place of equilibrium in their development? If not, who is in a boundary time and how are they processing it? Do they need more coaching to process their boundary?
What other steps do we need to help others process the change we want to make?
Is this the right time for change?
What happens if nothing changes? Is this a biblically consistent outcome?
What things should not change?
How will we address potential loss in a way that is consistent to the message of reconciliation and discipline evident in the New Testament?
[i] Clinton, J. Robert and Richard W. Clinton. “The Life Cycle of a Leader: Looking at God’s Shaping of a Leader Toward an Ephesians 2:10 Life.” ( Pasadena: Barnabas Publishing, 1995)
Cross-cultural Communication Easily Lends itself to Misunderstanding
It does not take much experience in cross-cultural communication to realize that getting a message across is a much more difficult task when different cultural filters are in place. In business where communication is so important an understanding of how concepts different cultures frame reality and define their values is imperative.
Business executives wanting to set up a strong Asian presence identified potential partners and initiated a distance conversation to find common ground. When they felt they had enough information they drew up a contract and flew to Asia to negotiate a final agreement. After presenting their proposal their hosts simply suggested dinner and then drinks followed by karaoke. The next day followed a similar pattern. On the third day the Americans left frustrated without an agreement. The entire relationship with their potential partners fell apart. Why? The American executives had not taken the time to understand the cultural assumptions of their hosts. They worked from completely different assumptions about (1) what constituted a good working relationship and (2) what formulated an enforceable agreement. The most significant variables involved in their failure were not business strategies but cultural ones.
What do I mean by culture? Culture consists of:
Inter-cultural studies define culture using one of two fundamental methods either of which could have significantly altered the outcome of the results of the meetings the American executives had with their Asian counter parts. One method uses a stratigraphc approach that assumes that basic human needs are held in common. A stratigraphic approach attempts to name underlying values and the cultural structures that result. Another method uses a semiotic approach to understanding culture. In a semiotic approach a person tries to understand cultural differences by identifying the way people describe significance. Those who promote the semiotic approach often find a stratigraphic approach too mechanical in that it does not always allow for the influence of individuals i.e., personal adaptations to a cultural view. I describe them both below because they both have strengths that effective leaders use to understand cultural differences. Both approaches attempt to define the differences in how various cultures see and interpret life.
Stratigraphic Approach
One of my professors, Charles Kraft, uses a stratigraphic approach to understanding cultural differences. He identified four basic needs and their functions including: biological, psychological, socio-cultural and spiritual. See Table 1.
Kraft contends that analyzing culture consists of understanding the relationship between three different stratigraphic layers.[2] The most visible part of a culture (the top-level) consists of visible behaviors. Behavior is the easiest to see however how it is understood by an observer from a different culture easily leads to misinterpreted meaning. The reason visible behavior is not always understood has to do with the fact that behavior reflects two deeper levels of a cultural system.
Just beneath the visible level is a mid-level aspect of culture consisting of the underlying values that surround how basic needs are understood and met. The five dimensions of culture identified by Hofstede help explain how the values by which human needs and interactions are defined result in significant differences in how cultures approach those needs.
The deep level of a culture consists of those basic needs and problems faced by all humanity. The deep level is universal in that needs for food, air, shelter, sex, excretion, meaning in life etcetera are observable in all human societies. However, the context in which these needs are defined impact the structures different social systems create to understand the significance of these needs and the way they meet them. For example the context of an Inuit family living on the frozen tundra of the north frame these basic needs in an environment that is radically different from a Maori family living on a South Pacific Island. For this reason I have added a middle or arbitrating layer to Kraft’s table called values.
People in Kraft’s view are more alike than cultures. In fact Kraft contends that “If we didn’t have a lot in common, the quest to communicate cross-culturally would be worthless.”[3]
Table 1: Universal Needs and Functions in Diverse Cultures
| Biological | Psychological | Socio-cultural | Spiritual | |
|
Functions |
Obtaining and maintaining biological necessities – food, air, shelter, sex, excretion | Obtaining and maintaining psychological necessities – meaning in life, personal security, a measure of freedom | Obtaining and maintaining socio-cultural necessities – language, family education, social control | Obtaining and maintaining spiritual necessities – beliefs, rituals, mythology |
|
Values provide the lens that assigns meaning and significance to the needs people experience. In a cultural view values and environment work together to define the way basic needs are met. |
||||
|
Needs |
Food, air, shelter, sex, excretion | Meaning in life, personal security, a measure of freedom | Communication provide for the transmission of culture, Maintenance of social system etc. | Understanding of and relating to supra-cultural beings and factors, etc. |
I accept the contention that people have much in common, however getting at how to understand the differences in how cultures define significance, priority, and relationship is the challenge for people working across cultural divides. A stratigraphic view of culture is helpful in providing a general reference point for differences – a beginning point to define what is different and how communication must adjust.
Semiotic Approach
Another way to define culture uses a semiotic model. Clifford Geertz champions this method in which the primary thesis is, “…that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning.”[4]
Semiotics is the study of signs, symbols, and signification. Semiotics is the study of language where one studies a system of symbols agreed on in a given culture to communicate meaning. Semiotics is a method that those who are bi-lingual and with significant cross-cultural experience have the opportunity to use most effectively. So, if one is just starting out, semiotics is too complex. However, do not ignore the principles behind this method of cultural understanding. Once language learning begins the use of semiotics in business provides an advantage in that it moves one closer to comprehending the nuanced meanings often missed by non-Native speakers. Understanding nuance is important when attempted to negotiate contracts, close deals or resolve tensions common to any business relationship.
In the study of semiotics seeks to understand how cultures use symbols (“symbology”). The following linguistic terms explain the concept of comparative symbology in semiotics. They are important concepts used to help define meaning.
The first two levels listed above (syntactics and semantics) involve the structural and functional relations of individual symbols within a communication system. In language these symbols are morphemes (smallest unit of speech), words and sentences; in culture we could interpret it as the basic meaning-based functions of individual cultural symbols. For our purposes the most important term to the study of semiotics is pragmatics. Within the study of linguistics pragmatics is involved with the “force of speech events on the world”, or the social context in which the language is spoken.
Geertz states that the use of a semiotics in the conception of public meaning requires a thick not a thin conception of culture. Semiotics enables a person to move from a thin to thick conceptions. The idea of thick and thin conceptions is illustrated in how the human behavior of winking is interpreted. A ‘thin’ interpretation (merely semantic or syntactic) defines winking as “a contraction of the eyelid.” This definition is clearly deficient if one is interested in understanding why the person is winking. Surprisingly some business communication seems to assume that a thin interpretation of a partner’s behavior is sufficient grounds for getting a message across. The pitfalls are obvious in the illustration.
Conversely a cultural interpretation or comparison of the meaning behind the behavior i.e., Geertz’s ‘thick’ (pragmatic/semiotic) definition of winking, explores the cultural context of the act of winking. Was it an involuntary movement of the eyelid, or did it have a meaning-based, communicative function?
The benefit of a semiotic approach is that it values the context in which communication occurs and thus helps to avoid drawing broad generalizations that effectively mislead one into believing they have captured the full impact of cultural differences when in fact they possess only a thin perspective. Geertz contends “…not that there are no generalizations that can be made about man as man, save that he is a most various animal, or that the study of culture has nothing to contribute toward the uncovering of such generalizations. My point is that such generalizations are not to be discovered through a Baconian search for cultural universals.”[6]
Putting Interpretive Models to Use
My point in the discussion above is to show; (1) that cross-cultural understanding is possible; (2) that one understands in degree or layers not in whole so that (3) continuous learning is necessary to succeed well in communication across cultures. As noted previously one must engage in language learning to be effective in the global market. (See, http://raywheeler.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/cross-cultural-communication-check-your-assumptions/)
Effective global business leaders develop cultural understanding by listening and inquiry. This means that before a person is truly effective in cross-cultural interaction they own the realization that their own behaviors are informed by a culturally based set of values that are not de facto universal and may in fact be getting in the way of understanding. Regardless of the model used (stratigraphic or semiotic) learning a new culture requires that one listen and observe to find the relationships between words, actions and the values the inform both. There are four available strategies which are important to understand in assessing cultural forms. See Table 2.
The point is that learning a new culture when one has limited language skills requires observable phenomenon (behavior) from which to infer constructs. By the word “constructs” I mean the collective programming of the mind that results from certain conditions of existence that produce a system of permanent and transferable tendencies that function as the basis for practices and images that can be collectively orchestrated without a conductor. (See Hofstede’s work.)
Learning a new culture often consists of observing behavior and asking for an interpretation for why that behavior occurs. A pitfall exists in this strategy that researchers call the Heisenberg effect. The Heisenberg effect states that observed behavior provoked by research cannot always be extrapolated to circumstances in which the researcher is not present. This presents a problem of validity in that inferred values or mental models may seem valid in the first answers provided by a cultural mentor but have little real influence in real behavior. In other words I may think I understand a behavior as something that applies in all social settings within the culture I study only to find that the information I received from my cultural mentor was limited to a specific context or situation or in fact represents an ideal that no one actually lives out.
Table 2: Four Available Strategies for defining Cultural Constructs[7]
| Provoked | Natural | |
| Words | 1.InterviewsQuestionnaires
Projective tests |
2.Content analysis of speechesDiscussions
Documents |
| Deeds | 3.Laboratory experimentsField experiments | 4.Direct observationUse of available descriptive statistics |
When seeking to understand a new culture a person can use provoked or natural strategies. Provoked strategies are those observations that engage another person to provoke a response that helps the observer understand. For example the strategies in quadrant 1 above are the easiest to conduct. The data gathered from instruments like those mentioned in quadrant 1 seem valid without further proof i.e., they have face validity. Face validity is a property of a test intended to measure something. It is the validity of a test at face value. In other words, a test has face validity if it “looks like” it is going to measure what it is supposed to measure. So, while the methods of quadrant 1 are useful they run the risk of the Heisenberg effect. Off set the potential of misunderstanding by using the methods of quadrant 1 in conjunction natural strategies defined in the measurements of quadrants 2 and 4 in Table 2.
It is important to understand a dynamic identified by Argyris and Schön as the difference between espoused theories and theories in use. Espoused theories are those ideal values a culture holds as a reference point for what is good or acceptable. Theories in use refer to how decisions are actually made. Hofstede called this the distinction between desired and desirable behaviors. The distinction is important in distinguishing between actions (the desirable that indicates values in action on the basis of the individual and the situation) and words (which provides the ideal [desired] that is held as a standard for determining action. In other words; what is the frame for the norm is it statistical (desired) or deontological (desirable)?
Desired: the statistically validated values that characterize the mental programming of a group. Discover desired values by assessing the words and actions of a collection of individuals.
Desirable: the ontologically stated values of a group that inform the assumptions behind ethical decision-making and choices of action.
Both words and actions are important to gain competence within a culture especially in serving as a change agent and a team builder (i.e., actions/competencies that are critical in leading across cultures).
Hofstede used quadrants 1 and 4 to identify and describe the mental software used by groups of people in the constructs of: (1) values and (2) culture. This allowed him to name discrete group mental programs while also recognizing the variations inherent due to ecological differences and personal adaptation. Hence it is important to understand Hofstede’s definition of terms.
Values: a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the choice from available modes, means and ends of actions.[8]
Culture: the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.[9] Culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments or in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values.[10]
So what should you be attentive to in trying to understand cultural values? Hofstede suggests using the following contrasts to define how a culture thinks and behaves. Using these continua help compare and contrast observed versus stated values. Ask yourself how do people talk about these concepts? Do they act in ways consistent to what they said? Under what circumstances do their actions seem to differ from what they said? Are these apparent differences common to everyone or observable in only one or a few?
It is not only important to understand how these concepts are defined but to capture the reasoning behind the definitions (remember the focus is behavior). Table 3 identifies the distinction then between desired and desirable. When listening to people talk listen for three semantic differentials – these give hints to whether you are hearing desired or desirable values. Osgood et al 1975 identified three semantic dimensions
Learning to listen for values by the way is a skill that enhances leadership in one’s own cultural context as well. When we talk about the complexities of culture we will move this discussion a step further. For now think about language that illustrates these semantic dimensions. Think about it in conversations you have had in your own organization and it would be helpful to think about difficult conversations.
Table 3: Distinction between the Desired and the Desirable and Associated Distinctions[11]
| Nature of a Value | The Desired | The Desirable |
| Dimension of a value | Intensity | Direction |
| Nature of corresponding norm of value | Statistical, phenomenological, pragmatic | Absolute, deontological, ideological |
| Corresponding behavior | Choice and differential effort allocation | Approval or disapproval |
| Dominant outcome | Deeds and/or words | Words |
| Terms used in measuring instrument | Important, successful, attractive, preferred | Good, right, agree, ought, should |
| Affective meaning of this term | Activity plus evaluation | Evaluation only |
| Person referred to in measuring instrument | Me, you | People in general |
Conclusion
The growing ability to understand and to make oneself understood in cross-cultural settings is a process. As long as a person grasps the concept of culture and commits to learning how to get things done they will grow in their cross-cultural communication ability or cultural intelligence. If a person assumes that the way they are accustomed to working is universally effective frustration and ineffectiveness occurs. Using the listen models suggested in this paper is a good step toward learning to get things done in cross-cultural settings. What similar ways of understanding do you use in a global market place to get things done? What has worked for you? What did not work? Who did you turn to for help? What kind of help did they give? Write me or leave a comment and let me know what you learned.
[1] This definition is very close to what Geertz will recommend and then caution against based on his observation of the unpredictability of human behavior.
[2] Charles H. Kraft. Anthropology for Christian Witness (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996), 118.
[3] Kraft, 120.
[4] Clifford Geertz. Available Light (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
[5] V. Turner. From Ritual to Theatre, (New York: Performing Arts Publications, 1982), 8.
[6] Geertz, 40.
[7] Hofstede, 5.
[8] Hofstede 5
[9] Hofstede 9
[10] Hofstede 9 quoting Kluckhohn 1951:86
[11] Hofstede, 7.
Cross-cultural Communication Introduces Unexpected Nuances
“What we need,” the CEO said, “is to find global partners who understand the rule of law.” The statement emerged from a discussion about a new global initiative. “We don’t need to get bogged down in corruption, I want our partners to own our core values” the CEO continued. From the perspective of the CEO these two statements were clear and universal sources of certainty and protection as we entered an unknown world of global trade. This perspective had reduced the risk of expansion, hiring and managing competition in the United States. But the deeper challenge inherent in a global initiative would shake these assumptions to their core. Asserting that one’s core values are universal is a fundamental mistake of leaders who enter the global market for the first time. The assumption that one’s own values are universal and the basis to assess all other values is ethnocentrism.
I do not use of the word ethnocentrism pejoratively rather I mean it descriptive. The greatest single challenge to entering a global market is to move from the assumption that one’s own mental categories are both universal and the correct way of assessing reality. It typically comes as a shock to discover that the rest of the world does not share one’s own cultural assumptions. Engaging cultural differences successfully means arriving at the realization that mental categories are culturally defined and thus are not universal. Over time leaders that remain in a global setting gain an appreciation of cultural diversity that recognizes all worldviews are adequate in their context and inadequate to fully comprehend others who are different.
Business leadership today is a multicultural challenge even if one never travels across a national boundary. In a survey in of executives from 68 countries 90% named cross-cultural leadership as the most significant management challenge for the 21st century. While Friedman’s idea of a flat world is appealing (and verifiable at a surface level) it cannot be taken as permission to do business as usual wherever one travels. The simple fact of the matter is that cultural differences exist despite the common business language and forms that make it seem like differences are minimal. The reality is that cultural nuances impact common business language and forms.
Consider the CEOs assertion that we needed a business partner who understood the rule of law. This seems adequate however the question that immediately arises is whether every legal system around the globe is same as that which we use in the United States? When working across cultures remember that what is seen and heard in the mind’s eye of people from different cultures may result in widely divergent understanding of the same situation and as a result widely different outcomes.
John C. Tobin notes that, “…even cultures that share the same legal systems may view the formation of legal states, such as a contract, or breach of contract, from fundamentally different viewpoints.”[i] Why is this? The simple answer returns us to the reality that cultural differences exist and these differences mean that situations interpreted from one cultural perspective to another remain dissimilar. The rule of law may be founded on either the adversarial system rooted in the common law developed in Elizabethan England or inquisitorial system rooted in Napoleonic Code.
Adversarial systems work from two pillars (a) that an impartial judge serves with broad discretion as a fact finder sifting through the competing arguments of adversaries represented by advocates and (b) the principle of stare decisis i.e., that the impartial judge applies the text of the law to the controlling facts he or she has determined in a fashion that harmonizes with prior decisions so that the interpretation of the law remains consistent over time. Stare decisis is a Latin phrase that roughly translates to “to stand by that which is decided.”
Inquisitorial systems derive from Napoleonic code in which the judge not the parties involved in a dispute determines the initiation, scope and extent of litigation. As a result each case entering the court is unique and is not dependent upon the precedent of other similar cases. In other words the concept of stare decisis that is so important in an adversarial system does has no part in an inquisitorial system yet both systems represent the rule of law.
The CEO’s apparently simple recommendation becomes complex when applied cross-culturally even if we found only potential business partners who said they understood the rule of law. This complexity only amplifies when one considers working in a non-rule of law country i.e., where the enforcement model is personified in a supreme ruler (religious or state entity) where decision-making is strictly defined by religious, ideological or tribal source of law. Cultural differences and how these cultures define risk aversion, power, orientation toward goal or environmental concerns, or individualism versus collectivism in decision-making must be understood to avoid serious misunderstandings.[ii]
Why is Understanding Cultural Differences So Important?
What is culture? If understanding culture is imperative to working in a global environment then it is good to start with a basic definition. Livermore (2010) defines culture as “…any group of people who have a shared way of seeing and making sense of the world.[iii]
Defining culture this way allows us to consider the impact of organizational as well as national and ethnic cultures (or regional cultures). Possessing the ability to adapt to various ways in which groups of people see and make sense of the world has specific benefits. Livermoore (2010) calls this adaptive ability “Cultural Intelligence” and notes that it is essential to:
I have noted elsewhere that leaders must 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 understand and outline their own values, expectations and the reason for the action and communicate this in light of the way values, expectations and reasons for action taken as understood from the cultural perspective of those who are listening. In fact the greater the scope of leadership responsibility and the more diverse the cultural differences the more complex the layers of communication become so that verbal and symbolic multilayered communication is critical for the success of the organization.
How Do I Develop Cultural Intelligence?
Leaders who wish to avoid the trap of ethnocentrism (i.e., “evaluating other people and their culture by the standards of our own cultural preferences”) can start by following four simple steps.[iv]
First, see culture’s role in your own life as well as in other’s lives. It helps to have a basic model of culture from which to assess your own perspectives and the perspectives of others. One way to start is to use Gert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These dimensions of culture include:
Second, review the basic cultural systems – gain a familiarity with the culture’s economic, marriage and family, political, religious, legal, and artistic systems. Talk with several people who are part of the culture in which you intend to work. Ask why at least five times and of different people. Asking “why” more than once gets past surface level responses to the deeper assumptions of the culture. This assumes that (a) you have done some research or reading about the culture and its worldview and (b) you spend time in the culture. I call this: getting three blocks in. One of my first cross-cultural adventures started at a port in the Middle East. I noticed that things seemed somewhat familiar to me until I walked about three blocks off the water front. It was there that I entered a completely different world and felt altogether disoriented. Embrace that sense of disorientation and loss of control. It is part of gaining cultural intelligence.
Third, learn the core cultural values of the culture in which you intend to work. Be aware of the reality that values defined by a cultural mentor may not correspond with how people actually act. Argyris and Schön define this paradox as the difference between espoused theories and theories in use. Hofstede calls this the distinction between desired behaviors and desirable behaviors. The distinction is important to recognize the difference between actions (the desired that indicates values in action on the basis of the person and the situation) and words (which provides the ideal [desirable] that is held as a standard for determining action. The tension between the desired and the desirable is found in every culture. The point is that to understand culture it is imperative to see both aspects of what leads to action and decision-making.
Fourth, understand the different languages. Ideally working in a cross-cultural capacity leads to learning a second language and becoming proficient in conversation. In many business environments today however business people spend very little time and may cross multiple cultures. Even in this case learning the basics of language in light of the cultural dimensions identified by Hofstede make the difference between being successful in forming business alliances or failing altogether. One need not be a linguist to learn a second language. One of my first international assignments found me working with leaders from Latin America. So, I determined to become at least somewhat functional in conversational Spanish. I told my secretary of this goal. She said, “Are you sure?” “Then I will only use Spanish when I talk with you so that you practice and learn to speak Spanish.” These were the last words she said to me in English.
After a week of frustration and growing agitation on my part she asked me a rhetorical question in English. “Ray, did you arrive from your mother’s womb speaking perfect English? No, you cooed and mimicked and practiced sounds until you began to put together sounds with objects. No one understood you at first and you did not understand them but still you made noise. What makes you think you can learn Spanish as an adult? Become a child again or you will never learn how to think and see in Spanish and so you will never speak it.” Learning requires that one embrace the awkwardness of curiosity. Without the commitment to be curious like a child the odds of developing cultural intelligence greatly diminish.
Conclusion
As we prepare to launch a new global initiative these lessons revolve around in my head. Like others I don’t like feeling less than competent or out of control yet without feeling these emotions I know that I have not yet begun to move from an ethnocentric view to one that grows in cultural intelligence.
Developing cultural intelligence requires a commitment to learning. Anyone can develop cultural intelligence. However, not everyone will. Learning cultural intelligence provides a clear advantage in the global market place and it has the less obvious benefit of gaining an ability to read every cultural (or political) situation with greater insight into how decisions are made. This benefit is significant for emerging leaders as it minimizes the risk of political missteps within one’s own organization and cross-cultural gaffes in the global market place. If you are a leader learning to work in the global market place tells me how these lessons resonate. What have you learned along the way? What faux pas did you stumble into? Don’t keep the wisdom to yourself help all of us by sharing your experience.
[i] John C. Tobin. “The Legal Implications of Cross-cultural Leadership and Trade” in Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence ed. Michael A. Moodian (Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2009), 66.
[ii] Gert Hofstede. Culture’s Consequences in Work Related Values (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980).
[iii] David Livermore. Leading with Cultural Intelligence: the New Secret to Success (New York, NY: American Management Association, 2010), 13.
[iv] Livermore, 64.
Leaders See the Road Ahead
Will Mancini of Auxano provides a great summary of what he calls the Vision Frame.[1] It is a quick way to review the work of the church in light of its mission and thus shift the focus of assessment from attendance and money to the outcomes the church is commissioned to generate.
The Vision Frame focuses thinking on values, measures, mission and strategy. The frame is illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1: The Vision Frame
|
Frame Component |
Missional Reorientation |
Answers |
Irreducible Question of Leadership |
|
Mission |
Mandate |
Question zero |
What are we doing? |
|
Values |
Motives |
Question hero |
Why are we doing it? |
|
Strategy |
Map |
Question how |
How are we doing it? |
|
Measures |
Marks |
Question now |
When are we successful? |
|
Vision Proper |
Mountain top + milestones |
Question wow |
Where is God taking us? |
The question asked by Mancini is, “Do you have compelling answer to these five questions?” These questions define the DNA of your congregation so to the degree to which the answers are fuzzy your team will lack focus and experience dissonance between what they hope to carry out and what is actually happening.
Next Steps
Now that you have these questions in hand why not take time with your key leaders and work through each of them. Keep it simple. The task is to bring clarity that inspires action in the same direction. As a leader you serve as a catalyst to this kind of thinking.
If you are confident you are a leader then use the definition below to double-check how you are doing.
What is leadership?
Leadership is the capacity, moral authority and skill needed to influence a group’s goal attainment in an ethical, spiritual and socially responsible way. Leadership is a spiritual gift (Romans 12: 3, 8). The Apostle Paul encourages leaders to do act with diligence i.e., earnest thoroughness and attentiveness in accomplishing the task.
Lead well! Have fun!
[1] Will Mancini. “The Vision Frame; The Core Tool for Visionary Church Leaders” available at http://www.willmancini.com/the-vision-frame-the-core-tool-for-visionary-church-leaders; accessed 2 Sep 2011.
Bad Hiring Decisions are Painful
I could hear his voice trailing off on the other end of the phone. He had asked me to assess his company’s job contracts to name the core competencies of each position because his top executive was not performing up to speed. The lack of performance was impacting revenues and morale in negative ways.
“Based on this set of competencies I moved this person up before they were ready…” his insight focused more on his own mistake than the frustration and anger he had earlier expressed at the flagging financial performance and imploding morale. We talked about the next steps he will take to correct a difficult situation. After the conversation I thought about how organizations find and develop the leaders they need. It is not an easy job particularly in small to mid range privately held companies like that of my friend’s. The challenges of finding the right talent to support a successful company are manifold. What needs to be considered?
Don’t Make Me Manager
The first challenge is the fact that some people do not want to lead. Who are the next generation of leaders in your organization? According to the Ranstad World of Work Survey (2009) over half of US workers would say “no thanks” if offered a promotion to a manager’s position.[i] All they see is stress and the discomfort of working with unhappy subordinates. The challenge of this reality is that (a) it disallows the use of knowledge and experience gained by these employees and (b) it may show a problem in how employees perceive the organizational culture.[ii]
According to the Randstad survey, 68% of workers over age 64, 50% of “boomers” (age 45-63), and 47% of “Gen X” (age 30-44) report they’d refuse a job with supervisory status. In the survey the primary reasons given for avoiding management opportunities were:
If half a company’s employees feel this way what about the other half? How does a leader or business owner develop a leadership mindset that realistically understands both the challenges and the opportunities of leadership? If the reason leadership is unattractive consists of the realities above the benefits also emerge in the survey. Those who expressed an interest in becoming a supervisor wanted to:
The survey authors expressed surprise that the respondents did not point to a desire for increased power, recognition, or even more money. However the issue of power and recognition is inferred in the answers that were given.
Understand Motivation – Not Everyone Makes a Good Leader
Power and other leadership motivations has been the subject of significant research. Thomas (2008) notes that three dominate motivations evidence themselves in the work force: achievement, association and power. He contends that power is the motivation that makes leaders effective and those people who are uncomfortable with power should reconsider accepting leadership roles. Does this negate the findings of the Ranstadt survey? No, but it may explain the deeper motivational issues behind the reasons why employees want to enter management roles. It is important to define each of Thomas’ motivational labels.[iii]
Achievement is concerned with excellence and efficiency. It is a preference for personal work and those motivated by achievement typically exhibit low emotional intelligence (a prerequisite for success as a leader) and moderate risk taking capacity or desire. For those motivated by achievement the focus is on getting things right. People motivated by achievement have the potential to develop deep understanding. However, achievement motivated people also face the pitfall of rejecting ambiguity or forcing facts to a premature synthesis.
Affiliation is characterized in a concern with friendship, wanting to be liked or accepted or to take part in social situations. People motivated by affiliation make great support people however they experience a significant amount of stress in leadership/management situations. They have a high emotional intelligence which is a great leadership characteristic however they also have a low willingness to undertake risks. Their discomfort in leadership roles stems in part from the tendency to see feedback as personal. Those motivated by affiliation have a dynamic ability to involve others and they generate a broad influence. The pitfall faced by a person motivated by affiliation is a strong tendency toward projection and blame shifting.
Power is demonstrated in a concern with influence and influence relationships. A person motivated by power usually possesses high emotional intelligence, willingness to take moderate risks in influence situations, either high or low risks in task situations, verbal facileness, a preference for qualitative feedback and ability to persist in a goal for lengthy periods without feedback or with negative feedback. The focus of those motivated by power is a focus on getting the right things done and recognizing the potential for new action. The pitfall faced by a person motivated by power is isolationism and resistance to internal probing (i.e., they are less willing to challenge their own assumptions).
Does the emphasis on power set the stage for unleashing Machiavellian tyranny on the workforce? Power is not the end that effective leaders pursue, hence the lack of mention in the respondents of the Ranstadt survey. However, it is the means that effective leaders use to achieve the kinds of results the respondents mentioned. Notice that the ends described by the survey respondents include a willingness to accept responsibility (versus skirting responsibility), engage influence (versus manipulation or power-mongering) and serve others (the point of servant leadership research).
Based on research motivation is important to leadership success. Based on Thomas’ work on motivation we know that those motivated by power have a somewhat easier time in adjusting to the demands of leadership/management roles. While this is helpful in coaching potential leaders a prior step should be taken. Before starting a search for leaders identify clear criteria – don’t go on first impressions alone. Use criteria to apply more rigorous evaluation of potential candidates.
Identify Clear Criteria
In considering who may make a good leader/manager or who may not a clear criteria is advisable especially in light of the fact that managers are not only depended upon to propel the mission and profitability of the organization forward but are also called upon to problem solve, drive productivity and innovation and offer opportunities for employees to develop. This is especially true in times of recession when efficiency and managing cost is very much a focus.
“Especially in periods of economic recessions, companies rely on managers to problem solve, drive productivity and innovation, [and] motivate and provide opportunities for workers,” said Eileen Habelow, Randstad Senior Vice President. “It’s not just doom and gloom that managers are focusing on today. Companies must make sure they consistently recognize managers’ valuable contributions, not only to the company, but to the broader workforce.”
When thinking about criteria for identifying effective leaders six characteristics identified by Watkins offer a starting point.[iv]
The two greatest mistakes I see business owners and other leaders make in promoting new leaders is (a) promoting too quickly for some sense of urgency – as when a business or organization grows quickly and (b) promoting prematurely because they wish to sidestep the rigor of establishing disciplined and efficient business processes (sometimes called the premature success syndrome and seen primarily in small business owners who equate steady cash flow with success without assessing their organization’s true financial health).
So now that you have an idea of the candidate’s motivation, a good assessment of whether your potential candidates meet you criteria it is now a good idea to create a checklist to guide your implementation.
Create a Check List
Use a check list to think through the process you need in your own organization. Notice that the suggested checklist uses more than one set of eyes to check the candidate’s capacity and ability to work effectively in a new leadership role.
Conclusion
Recruiting and employing the right leaders/managers in your business, organization or department is critical to building a consistently effective operation. By using rigor in your selection process you avoid the most common mistakes. This is not a comprehensive paper on identifying leaders but it gives a start. What other factors should be considered? What is the situational context of your organization? Is it a start-up, a turn around, a success that needs to be sustained? What are your short-term and long-term goals? Use criteria and a good process to focus your search on the right talent. Is there one other piece of advice? Yes, don’t use financial restrictions as your first criteria. I have had clients tell me they could not afford to hire the right talent. This is rarely true. Why? The right talent is typically motivated by more than money. The reality is that the right talent will pay for themselves.
[i] Source: http://pihra.lawroom.com/Story.aspx?&STID=2076; accessed 8 Sep. 2009.
[ii] Happiness at work is a measurable aspect of employee commitment, contribution, conviction, culture and confidence and a concept that quantifies the impact of an organization’s culture on employee performance. The significance of happiness cannot be understated. For more information see: http://www.leadership-praxis.com/leverage-self-awareness/ and the article, “Are you Happy at Work – Does it Matter” – available at http://raywheeler.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/are-you-happy-at-work-does-it-matter/).
[iii] Robert Thomas. Crucibles of Leadership: How to Learn from Experience to Become a Great Leader (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2008), 101-02.
[iv] Michael Watkins. The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at all Levels(Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2003), 163.