Being A Leader – Part 5
November 21, 2008
(Fifth In a Series)
Roles, Responsibilities and Accountabilities for Your Leadership Team.
Building a strong team is both the result and the foundation of being a leader. To lead effectively, you have to surround yourself with strong, appropriately-experienced people that respect your role and view their responsibilities as integral to the success of the group. At the same time, as a leader, you must be confident enough in your own skills, experience and style to seek out these types of people and trust them to do their jobs.
Too often, the leaders that I help have surrounded themselves with less than optimal supporting managers or directors. Even more challenging, the people in these roles have unclear or skewed views of their roles and responsibilities within the group. The result, invariably, is a poor performing team and a leader beleaguered by problems with no obvious way to climb out from under the mess. When I see these situations, I’m usually blunt about what needs to be done to correct the situation.
- Assess. Take the time and thoroughly evaluate your managers and directors. Be honest with yourself about your needs and their capabilities. Do not fall into the trap of feeling bad about honesty or being critical. Usually, when you look really closely and permit yourself that frank, honest evaluation of someone, it is fairly obvious if they will ever be able to meet your standards.
- Construct. Imagine the organization that you need to be able to support your goals and responsibilities as leader. For just one instant, ignore the political, financial and emotional limitations you believe you are under. Define the roles, skills, experience and accountabilities you see as fundamental to success. That will let you build the “dream team” you want.
- Campaign. Build a case for change. Don’t assume it cannot be done or that people will stand in your way. If you have thought it through, matched your changes to the goals of the organization and address the details sufficiently, you will be surprised at the support you get. Most organizations want people to think about how to be the best, not just how to maintain the status quo.
- Persist. I’ve found that “no” doesn’t always mean “no”. It usually means “find another way”. By taking the initiative to detail what needs to be done, you may find that you can do it in phases or pieces, rather than all at once. The best strategies for building your leadership team revolve around flexibility and innovation.
- Reorganize. Whether you get approval for the big bang approach or not, you can always find ways to start moving people around, rewriting job descriptions, setting performance goals and adding new process that are all designed to get you there over time.
- Report. Make sure your management knows how things work as you make changes. Report back on both successes and failures. Everyone knows that some things will work and some will not. Don’t be afraid to say “that was a good idea in theory, but not in practice.” They will see that you are not afraid to admit a mistake. Just be sure you have a plan of action to address and correct any problems or miscalculations.
This is a lot of work, but it is the responsibility of any leader. Moreover, it demonstrates to your team that change is not something to be feared, but an opportunity to show their value and leverage skills no one knows they had. You will be surprised at the positive results of this approach.
Being A Leader – Part 4
November 14, 2008
(Fourth In a Series)
The Importance of Managed Conflict
It seems that we are constantly told that conflict and disagreement is bad. In an age where organizations increasingly manage by consensus, conflict is seen as detrimental to the group, the organization and even to an individual’s performance rating.
Over the past few years, I’ve noticed a tendency within my clients and their respective cultures to devalue the person that disagrees openly with the organization or challenges another person on their facts. I’ve seen people quickly hustled into an office and told they “are not being a team player” or “we have to do this because this is what upper management wants”. You all have experienced these scenarios.
I personally believe this is the wrong way to lead and the wrong way to build a successful organization. In multiple leadership roles, I was stunned to find that the amount of agreement I got from my team was directly proportional to my title. As a Director, most people would agree with my decisions, but some would still challenge me. As a Vice-President, the naysayers within my team were few and far between. As a President, I suddenly found myself within a cone of silence. It was like I could do no wrong. Even when I would repeatedly solicit input from my management team, there were virtually no responses that made me change my course or question my decisions.
Now, none of this is a surprise to anyone that has move throw the ranks to leadership throughout their career. You learn that people may disagree with you and worse, are reluctant to share bad news with you because they don’t want to “get on your bad side”. This is one of the greatest challenges of leadership. How do you build an organization and culture where people know that it’s acceptable to share bad news and challenge bad decisions in a way that helps strengthen the team? I found that a few things work no matter where I go. These tips are by no means absolute or comprehensive. Nor should you try them if you are not confident in your leadership abilities and can have a “thick skin”.
- Encourage people to speak their minds without consequences. One of the most skilled individuals I ever managed was a person who had the ability to make people cringe when he asked a question. While his questions, observations and comments were never inappropriate or offensive, they did make people stop and think. On more than one occasion, I was taken aside and told to “teach him not to rock the boat”. I declined that advice every time because I realized he had the ability to see through the smoke screen of organizational politics and get to the root of an issue. (On a personal note, this person later became my business partner in my first company and was the foundation of that company’s success.)
- Never stop a conflict between people on your team because it makes you uncomfortable. My experience is that these conflicts have a basis in fact and it is incumbent on you as a leader to find out what it is and judge the merits of each argument. Resist the urge to create an environment where conflicts are buried. Bring them out in the open. This way, you encourage people to disagree respectfully and build an organization where rank, territory and longevity take a back seat to skill, intelligence and innovation.
- Your team is NOT your family, so don’t encourage family behaviors. I personally dislike the organizational mentality that insists “we are a family”. Work is work and home is home. Unlike your family, the people in your organization are being paid for their performance. Everyone needs to be held accountable to the same standard. As a leader, you have to set the tone that squabbles and professional disagreements are allowed, but childish or immature behavior has consequences.
- Make sure people know not to cross the line. The challenge to encouraging this type of environment is making sure people know where the line is that cannot be crossed. As a leader, you are ultimately responsible for the actions, behaviors and performance of your team. Build an environment where people can feel free to give their opinions and challenge others to perform better. However, also make sure that they understand you are under no obligation to act on every opinion. I always tell people, “You can give me all the advice you want, but I’m under no obligation to take it.”
- Identify and reform bad actors. So many people in leadership positions know they have bad actors on their teams. Usually, these people are widely known and have repeatedly escaped the consequences of bad performance and childish behaviors. These people should not be ignored or marginalized. Identify them and set about discovering the source of their discontent. I have discovered, repeatedly, that these people often had reasons for their actions that can be addressed and resolved through reassignment, changes in responsibilities or an “airing of grievances”. If this fails, don’t hesitate to leverage this person out of your organization.
Not all of this advice is “text book”. Most of it is based on the hands on experience of someone that came up through the ranks and learned through trial and error. But, I know these tactics work. They’ve never failed me and every time I fail to follow them, I have seen and felt the consequences.
Being A Leader – Part 3
November 6, 2008
(Third In a Series)
The Limitations of Consensus Leadership
Leading people requires two things. First is the willingness to assume the responsibilities that are automatically assigned to you when you accept the mantle of leadership. This goes beyond the mere “managerial” and “fiduciary” responsibilities of being in charge of a group of people. These responsibilities transcend the job description. I’m talking about the willingness to take on a portion of the lives of those you lead. There was a time when the mantra of management was “leave your personal life at the door”. That is no longer the case. In a society where the boundaries between personal and professional routinely mix, where cell phones and blackberries make a mockery of the concept of “quitting time” or a true “day off”, the expectation now from the people you lead is that you invest a part of your interest in them as a person. While this may seem to be a silly statement, this was not always the case. Anyone that was in the workforce in before the mid-1980′s can attest to that fact. I, personally, remember there being limits on the time you could take a restroom break, lunch and even how many times you could call home from your office phone (seriously). The point is that a leader today not only gets to manage and lead people directly, he or she needs to accept and understand that for every person they lead; there is a certain amount of their personal life that now comes along for the ride. The expectations of those you lead in today’s society require a considerable level of flexibility if you want to be successful.
The second big component of leading people is their willingness to be lead by you. No, I’m not kidding. Nothing is more difficult than trying to lead a group of people that do not accept or support your leadership. We have all found ourselves thrust into leadership roles where there was a resistance to our mere presence, not to mention our managerial situation. Getting this group of people to willingly accept, respect and follow your leadership is one of the most challenging situations you will ever meet, but one of the most rewarding if you actually succeed.
So, how does this all translate to the topic at hand? Quite simply, the nature of leadership now requires a consensus between the leader and those being led. Certainly, there are managerial functions that can craft a team that doesn’t require consensus leadership. You can hire, fire, reassign and generally design a situation where you have the “dream team” you want. That is rarely achievable and takes an incredible amount of latitude from any organization. And, truthfully, the autocratic leader is rarely truly successful in the long term.
So, we are mostly stuck with a consensus style where the leader must demonstrate willingness to compromise on situations, decisions and goals routinely. This appears to be the acceptable and approved style of leadership in most organizations today.
While this is the approach that is in vogue, there are severe limitations to relying on consensus as a style of leadership. It should be practiced in moderation. Some of the biggest limitations of consensus leadership include -
- A tendency toward risk aversion. This is the most obvious limitation. Consensus invariably leads to compromises that play to the lowest acceptable risk by a group. Depending on the composition, a group will sometimes lose obvious opportunities based on the need to work toward an acceptable risk/reward consensus.
- Emergence of “pseudo-leaders”. Consensus leadership, over time, encourages the creation of informal leaders of sub-groups. In severe cases, these pseudo-leaders will actually supplant the authority of the official leader of the group.
- A sense of familiarity and comfort. As a leader, you want your team to be able to function in an environment that reinforces the sense of safety we all require. Chief among them is the need to be comfortable in the team culture. However, allowing this to develop too far will create unproductive stability where people protect the status quo at the expense of accomplishment and innovation.
- A feeling of entitlement. While consensus, as a practical matter, can empower and propel groups to achievement, it can also create a sense that every decision, every direction and every job description is open to debate. Left unchecked, this sense of entitlement can severely hamper any leader and truly hamstring him/her to the point of failure.
I learned leadership (and management) under the old style. The boss was in charge. I followed his/her directions and rarely questioned or challenged the decisions, strategy or approach to the work of myself or the team. When I assumed leadership roles, I naturally followed that model. By then, we’re talking about the late 1980′s and early 1990′s and things had begun to change rapidly around me.
So, I had to change my style to be more oriented toward consensus. In every role I have held since then, I have found myself investing time in understanding the “consensus culture” of the organization. Determining how much consensus is a part of the operating mode of the organization has been critical to my success as a leader and as a consultant. It requires a level of emotional and business intelligence that I continually refine.
What I have learned, however, is that truly successful leaders quickly learn the right balance between consensus and direction. More importantly, they use this knowledge as a way to build teams that outperform expectations and endure challenges that other teams do not.