09 Jan 10 The Glamour of Live TV

Being interviewed on live TV is fun. It truly is. The lights and set-up are cool, the fact that you are in front of a million people is neat and all-in-all I would recommend it to anybody who feels they have a message they want to bring and who has some sort of expertise that the media seeks or that you can make them agree that they need to seek.

Having said that, I just had an experience with Fox Business News that also serves as a reminder that live TV is, well, live. If you are going to do this you have to be comfortable with the fact that things will happen that are beyond your control and will either push you over the edge or turn into one of those funny stories that you can keep forever.

I recently did a Special Report on CEO New Year’s Resolutions. My findings…most CEOs are conservatively optimistic about 2010. Seventy-five chief executives responded to my question and I put all of this together into a multi-page report sharing the overall themes of the findings. Not the most earth-shattering news, but news that interested Fox Business.

Now, I have a love-hate relationship with Fox as they do with me I think. On the one hand, while fairly conservative, I am not nearly as anti-government as the “fair and balanced” station is. On the other hand, because I am also not a screaming, yelling liberal, I serve a purpose for them as a counter-opinion on some topics that they can use to balance their coverage to some degree. In other words, I’m not tremendously threatening but at the same time, they can engage in a bit of a debate with me.

I say all this to say that when I am on Fox I am always on my toes because they have a tendency to try to bait their interviewees into their particular point of view. They also do their remote tapings from some difficult settings. In this case I was at the Fox 2 station in Detroit but set up on a chair with a table and a camera. Period. No monitor or anything to see who I was speaking with…just a set up so I could be filmed. In those cases the only connection you have with the actual interviewer is a small earpiece that allows you to hear what is on the air. (This takes some getting used to as well because you are then essentially talking to yourself.)

So, on December 31st I knew that Fox would be focusing on the miserable 2009 and trying their darndest to make it all about the evil Democrats. My argument was that, once you get below the dozen or so leaders that we focus on in the media, most executives were ready to get on with it in 2010. I’m sitting on my stool, earpiece firmly in place and am given the 10 second warning that we are almost live.

Then the platform my chair was sitting on broke.

Then the earpiece popped out.

Then the reporter was on the other side and we were live. I knew this was the case because somewhere in the distance I could hear my name as Dagen McDowell began the piece. Additionally, I was holding onto the bottom of the table for dear life to keep from tipping over. That “fun” moment had become horrific because I could just imagine either not answering a question she asked because I couldn’t hear her and/or disappearing from the camera frame because my chair broke entirely.

You really need to watch the video if you haven’t seen it already. I look like Quasimodo all hunched over and at one point it looks like I’m going to get up and walk away. I didn’t answer the first question at all, got close with the second, and then…when the baiting question at the end came up…I disappointed Dagen with the fact that I didn’t bite. You really should see this…she actually points her finger at me as she says, “I beg to differ but that’s an argument for another day.”

By the way, that is a perfect ending to a media appearance like that. Her comment at the end will serve as an invitation in the future to be back on Fox News with a story about the difference between the average concerns of a CEO and the ones that are most often in the news. In other words, if the purpose of publicity is in some way to get more publicity, this has the potential of being highly successful.

Of course, if I had let go of that table and disappeared from the screen as my chair collapsed, I suspect that would have gotten as much publicity in the end. At least I would have appeared on the blooper reels for who knows how long!

Tags: accountability, CEO New Year's Resolutions, Global Leadership, leadership integrity, motivation, trust

01 Dec 09 The Ridiculous Focus on Approval Ratings

Ok, you can probably tell by my title where this blog is going to go. I have become increasingly more fascinated at the desire that we have to measure effectiveness primarily through numbers. I’ve written on this before in a corporate setting with the idea that measures established to make the vague more concrete become overly important and allow us to ignore the not-so-measurable environmental and cultural changes that are going on around us as leaders. I don’t think we should throw out all of the numbers…I just think we get obsessed with them.

But this is not my point right now. I have noticed more and more this obsession with approval ratings. For example, there was panic a week or so ago when President Obama’s approval rating dropped below 50%. Now it is back to above 50% but the whole issue was silly because there is a 5% margin of error. In other words, we have no idea whether 45% is that much different than 55% because the range of scores is 10%.

Ok, that’s one thing, but here’s the real issue. Leaders can not lead effectively worrying about rolling approval scores. President Obama was not elected to gain public approval. He was elected to lead the nation. The same is true of every governor, mayor and other official who serves public office. Chasing public approval is like chasing employee approval…there are times when you are simply not going to have it. Why is that?

The biggest reason that approval ratings need to be put back on the shelf is that they are short-term measures. Approval ratings as published always represent an immediate and timely response at a specific moment in time. Leadership on the other hand is measured over the long term. You can’t adequately make decisions that are visionary or complex and worry about the response you will get on the day you make that decision. This is the paradox of approval ratings. When published as if they are substantial news, we get confused and concerned because we get the impression that there is something terribly wrong.

One other thing to remember about approval ratings on a large scale. The most reported ratings, those conducted by Gallup, are conducted by phoning between 3000 and 4000 people with the question, “Do you approve of leadership?” or something to that effect. It is as simple as that. In other words, the breaking news that somebody’s approval rating has dropped or risen is based on an answer given by .00001 of the population.

This is the equivalent of asking 1 person in a sell-out crowd at the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium to represent the views of the nation.

While it would be great if we could predict the effectiveness of our President or any other leader based on a simple measure of public opinion, we simply cannot. The same is true of corporate leaders or others in complex systems. There is simply too much we do not know at a given point of view and too great a diversity of opinion to ensure a valid measure. It is important that our leaders hear our views and opinions, but simply having these opinions is no reflection of the effectiveness of the leader.

What do you think?

Tags: accountability, approval ratings, communication, Global Leadership, integrity, leadership approval, performance, politics

10 Nov 09 Assessment versus Evaluation

There are many things coming down the pike at this time of year for leaders in organizations. Very soon most will be doing the end-of-year performance reviews as well as goal-setting, budgeting and finalization of strategy for the next 12 months to 5 years. Each company or organization is difference so I would never be able to cover all the possible topics and not all of them would be relevant to you anyway. What I would like to do instead is use both postings this week to address two areas of end-of-year activity that apply to just about everybody. The first of these is assessment and evaluation.

The important thing about assessment and evaluation is that you need to do both. Yes, they are different, and they are different in substantial ways and they serve different purposes. This is not just hair-splitting when it comes to terminology. If you only focus on one or the other you miss an opportunity to develop your people and give them the feedback that they need to be successful.

Evaluation

This is what most leaders and managers are doing at the end of the year in terms of performance management. Evaluation is summative. By that I mean it is the result of activities that have gone on during some defined period in the past. For most organizations, this is a one-year period although some forward thinking groups make the evaluation more frequent and covering a lesser stretch of time. Evaluations are also results-oriented. They focus on what has been produced during a period of time. The findings of evaluations are judgmental. I don’t mean to say that in a negative way, just that evaluations are for the purpose of judging performance and usually determining a score or rating. From a timing standpoint, evaluations are designed as a quality-gate. In other words, they are for the purpose of giving feedback on performance in a segmented manner. For too many, this is once a year. In fact, mid-year evaluations used by many are not as much evaluations as they are corrections. If compensation and other important decisions are made based on the once-per-year function of performance evaluation, then your evaluation cycle is yearly.

Assessment

Actually, mid-year evaluations often fall into the category of assessment rather than evaluation. Assessments are ongoing and process-oriented. They check the status of progress and provide direction or correction. By process-oriented, I mean the question for an assessment discussion is “How is it going?” whereas the question for an evaluation is “How has it gone?” So assessments are formative rather than summative. They happen as performance is being conducted, not after the fact. Assessments also tend to be more flexible than evaluations. With an assessment, modifications can be made either to the development and performance of the individual, or to the desired outcomes. With evaluations, that horse has already left the barn.

The point of calling out the difference between assessment and evaluation is to realize that both are different but important. Employees and followers need feedback in both areas. From an assessment standpoint, reflection on how things are going and adjustments to the tools available or expectations are important on an ongoing basis. Assessment in this sense is not about grading…it’s about providing an honest and helpful viewpoint on the process being used by the leader or the follower in achieving objectives. Every performance management process should include ongoing assessment, but without defined evaluation periods, followers will have a “sense” of how they are doing, but will have nothing to measure their performance against.

From an evaluation standpoint, it is also important to give honest and real feedback about how effective performance has been to a certain point. For most people, this “score” is an important indication of how well they are meeting expectations. Evaluation is not coaching…it’s judging. One of the benefits of evaluation is that it marks a close to the end of a performance period. If I have been doing great, it acknowledges my performance in a positive way and gives an opportunity for us to refocus on the next evaluation period. If my performance has been poor it provides an opportunity for some pre-defined consequence and then a clean slate for the next evaluation period.

The point to take away from this. Provide both! Evaluation without assessment is just a random score that surprises our followers and provides no real direction for improvement. Assessment without evaluation is an ongoing discussion that has no end. There are no points for either rewarding or correcting poor behavior and performance. The leader who wants to give the most powerful feedback defines the opportunities and the value of both for all followers.

Tags: accountability, consistency, evaluation, expectations, feedback, performance, performance review

06 Nov 09 Chickens, Eggs and Change

There is an interesting debate going on amongst those who have little else to debate these days. The question is this. For effective change to take place, does one first change the organizational structure and systems and then adapt a strategy (and human strategy as well) to fit the new structure and system, or does one start with the strategy and mindset changes and then adapt the systems and structure to fit it?

This is one of those interesting leadership questions because, if you have an answer, you probably believe it is the only logical answer to have. Of course my answer is one of those amazingly frustrating answers for many people. I believe it depends on the change being instituted and the context of the specific leadership and organizational challenge.

In my opinion, it is possible for a full scale and successful change initiative to be instigated by the recognition that current systems, hierarchies and processes are either producing less than desirable results or, more likely, are not creating results quickly enough. This is a carry over from the industrial age that we haven’t quite settled yet. Systems that create efficiency and run at the lowest cost are not necessarily the same systems that create the greatest speed or quality. As I’ve written here before, the obsession with cost reduction has created many organizations that now find themselves able to do things inexpensively, but without innovation or speed to market.

On the other hand, organizations that have flat structures, few complex processes and an innovative mindset are not immune to dealing with change. The current economy for example has hit everybody. Many of these innovative companies (Google, 3M, Apple) have come to recognize that their cowboy mindset worked well in good times, but did not prepare them for the more team-oriented approach that may be necessary today. Yes, these companies have had teams forever, but the kind of collaboration that is necessary now is so entirely cross functional and focused that few organizations are accustomed to it. These aren’t organizational design issues…these are internal issues. In these cases, the mindset has to change first, and the design will follow.

I believe what is most important is the manner in which the change process is approached. First of all, we should quit acting as if the “change process” is a unique and perhaps frequent stand alone event. In the current environment, change is not separate from leadership…it IS leadership. Second, for either design driven or internal driven change to work, stakeholders have to be enlisted early in the game. We have become a complex environment and diverse perspectives will provide the framework for understanding what and how change will enable the new corporate.

Finally, we have to get away from believing that there is one way to either make change happen or even to describe the phenomenon that occurs during change within an organization. We have become comfortable with approaches and theories that date back to a much more stable and industrial age. For change to work, leaders have to have open minds and hearts and be willing to understand that they don’t understand.

“>

Tags: accountability, change, communication, culture, Global Leadership, innovation, Leadership characteristics, trust, vision

03 Nov 09 Communicating Survival

As I continue to work on a special report regarding managing workplace layoff survivors, I’m finding that there are some very consistent communication methods that effective leaders are using. I’d like your thoughts on this:

1. Have as serious a communication strategy with those that are still part of the organization as you did when layoffs were looming. Even if the message is that there are no changes, a lack of communication promotes suspicion and lack of trust.

2. Sincere appreciation from top management to all employees, recognizing the challenges of the current situation and without reference to the “dire” needs of the company. A note saying that management understands the emotional challenge of losing good co-workers can go a long way to communicating empathy.

3.No BS about future changes. If there is a possibility of future layoffs it is not necessary to trumpet that there will be more people losing their jobs, but it is important to let people know that there may be additional organizational challenges and that they will be kept abreast of these changes as they come into play.

4.Schedule get togethers both formal and informal between leadership and staff to discuss upcoming decision schedules and to get input from employees, not about what the decisions should be, but about how they should be handled.

5.Senior management should take responsibility for much of this communication and not depend on front line supervisors to trickle down the information. They are as disturbed by the changes as anybody and it is a senior leadership responsibility to be accountable for organization-wide changes. That means it is a senior leadership responsibility to communicate to employees.

6.At the same time, senior leadership should take the opportunity as a coaching moment with their management and supervisors. Let the middle and lower level managers know the thought process and let them in on the communication plan. Let them feel like leaders, even if they are not the ones doing the communicating. Ensure that employees and supervisors alike understand that senior leaders are doing the talking, not because they don’t trust line management, but because they may have more answers and a bigger picture.

Managing organizations that have had major personnel challenges can be a challenge because, regardless of what you tell your folks, they will be suspicious and they will be hurt. They have already suffered from losing long-term relationships and assuming that they can just “let it go” and “get back to work” is short sighted and reflects a lack of understanding as to what motivates people. Even with ridiculously busy schedules, senior leadership has to take the time to reach out to employees. It is not just a nice thing to do, it is a way to get the organization back on track as quickly and effectively as possible.

Tags: accountability, change, courage, fear, trust

17 Oct 09 Why so angry?

Friday afternoon I was running errands when I realized that absolutely everywhere I went, there were angry people. Angry in the parking lot because a car was parked over the line, angry in the grocery store because the older lady at the self-check-out didn’t know how to use the machine and angry on the road because somebody in the right lane needed to cut over quickly to turn left. Earlier I was updating my column on TheStreet.Com and reflecting on the fact that, when people disagree with me (or any writer it seems), they don’t simply express their opinion anymore but feel the need to call me (or any writer it seems) an idiot because we don’t share the same point-of-view.

As leaders, this is an important trend to which we should pay attention. Anger serves many purposes, at least in the short-run, and one of those is to oppose and offset authority. More specifically, rage provides an internal justification for setting the balance straight. When there is a perceived power imbalance we have a number of strategies to achieve equilibrium and one of them is righteous indignation. We feel we have a right to be angry which in turn tends to surface the inequality and, if nothing else, turn the attention (or power) to the angered rather than to the offense. And this move almost always eliminates any possibility of a mutual solution. Anger can be a powerful and appropriate tool when the outcomes are limited to a “go” or “no-go” set of variables. When the solution needs to be found in a more complex range of options, anger is counterproductive.

There are many books written to help people control their anger and I won’t propose to get into those strategies in such a short blog. I will however point out a somewhat controversial approach for leaders to consider. While an employee going into a fit of rage is a power-balancing move, it doesn’t have to be. By that I mean immediate acquiescence is not your only option. If it is true that an individual has a “right” to be angry, it is also true that leaders have a “right” not to reward the anger. At the point a person gives in to a rage impulse, he or she is choosing which consequence is most important…to express their anger or to solve the problem. If your intent is to solve the problem, doing so while emotions are soaring is a difficult if not impossible task. This might mean sending somebody home or forcing them to take a break before discussing the issue.

I don’t propose to have all of the answers about dealing with the anger issue but I do know that it is an ongoing challenge for leaders when they try to engage their employees or deal with the realities of an imperfect world. The first step is to ensure that you are not modeling the behavior yourself. Attempting to motivate others through anger simply reinforces the idea that you hold angry people in high respect. Rewarding angry behavior has the same outcome. Helping your followers develop conflict strategies before an issue arises, and holding them accountable to using them, may be the best strategy of all.

What do you think? Is so much anger justified? Is there a way you have dealt with this in the past from which we could all learn?

Tags: accountability, anger, courage, Energy, Global Leadership, honesty, trust

13 Oct 09 Build Esteem, Don’t Start There

As a speaker and sometimes “Motivational Speaker,” I was accosted this week by a student who made a passing comment regarding the purpose of motivational speaking. She said, “I’ve never bought into the self-esteem movement.” As we talked, she was referencing an experience she had at her workplace where a speaker was brought in for an annual meeting and, in an attempt to pump all of the managers up, focused on the leader’s role in building the self-esteem of their followers. I gather that the premise of the speech was, leaders who build self-esteem create workforces that are empowered to be successful.

This turned out to be one of those discussions that bounces around in your head for awhile. You know there is something important there but you’re not sure exactly what it is immediately. On my two-hour commute between where I live and Devos Graduate School of Management where I was teaching, it came to me that I was (a) a bit defensive about her perspective and (b) almost entirely in agreement with her concern. (I really hate it when that happens!). As I began to think about the subject matter of many of my speaker colleagues who are absolutely sincere about their desire to help make leaders more successful, I came to realize that we sometimes get the message backwards. Based on what we think we know about self-esteem, it’s important to separate the myth from the reality:

1. Self-esteem precedes success. This may be one of the most damaging myths and one of the most common. I say “damaging” in the sense that it is simply not effective. Our self-esteem is established as a result of our successes, not as an antecedent. Think about it. Nathaniel Brandon a well known psycotherapist, defined self-esteem as “the disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness.” Where does this disposition come from in your followers? It comes from their ability to provide evidence for themselves that they are able and skilled enough to be successful. Success, by the way, is defined by the individual…not by you.

2. Self-esteem is about praise. In an effort to teach leaders how to motivate their employees, many lecturers and writers have focused on the idea that praising employees builds self-esteem which in turn creates satisfaction which in turn creates productivity. While this seems fairly straightforward, the problem is it doesn’t tell the whole story. Efforts to build self-esteem in others by heaping on praise usually fall short because the praise, if not seen as authentic, is not useful. When John gives a terrible executive briefing, using the conventional approach of telling him that his presentation was not clear but he spoke with authority is hollow. The key to praise is that is recognition of an action worthy of note. Think about it. You know when somebody is blowing smoke…your followers know as well.

3. Self-esteem can be built in others. This was at the core of my students complaint about the “self-esteem movement.” It is ludicrous to think that you, as a leader, have the ability to grant self-esteem to others. You don’t give me self-esteem…I give me self-esteem. To decide that one of your goals is to increase the self-esteem of your followers is to decide that you somehow hold the key to their self-worth.

If you want to help your followers create an atmosphere of success and self-worth, you should ensure that the expectations of success are realistic and challenging at the same time. Helping others be successful is a large part of the truly effective leader’s approach. This is done through goal-setting, providing the right tools for the job and coaching. It is not a function of a steady stream of “you can do it” messages. If you want me to believe I can “do it,” then you have to tell me why you believe so. You have to be specific about it. What is it about my strengths or abilities or determination that makes you believe that I can succeed. And what will you do to be a partner in that success. Leaders who focus on creating a success culture are focusing on things within their power. And they are creating an environment where others can use their strengths and establish their own image of what they can accomplish.

Tags: accountability, engagement, honesty, motivation

02 Oct 09 Change Acceptance Part 1

Any leader who has had any kind of training in change management is familiar with the standard model of change: First there is denial, then resistance, then exploration and finally acceptance. While this is a perfectly legitimate approach, I think there might be a more interesting and productive way to look at change. First of all, since change is actually not a topic that lends itself to “management,” I offer a view of “change acceptance.” Since change is inevitable, it is important as leaders to judge where our followers are on this acceptance continuum in order to gauge (a) how successful the change process has been and (b) what communication and support are needed at any given moment in time. Here is a simple and straightforward version of what I’m talking about:

1. Unaware. When change within an organization first begins, it is likely that there is a period of time where followers are not in denial, they are simply not aware of the change that is on the way. They may have a sense that there WILL be change, but in terms of understanding exactly what is happening, they are fairly clueless in this beginning phase.

2. Suspicious. As time goes on and more activity is underway, people become aware that there is SOMETHING happening and as a result start to look for explanations. If they find them, and the explanations are satisfying, then no problem. However, there is usually a period where there are more questions than answers. In this phase, people are trying to predict what is going to happen in order to prepare themselves. Even if they start hearing about it in formal communication, followers in this phase are trying to determine the “reality” of the situation.

3. Knowing. Eventually people become aware of what is up. They are involved enough, and see enough, to not only know for sure that change is happening, but to predict what the change will ultimately mean for them. This is perhaps the most crucial phase because it is here that people also decide whether they support the process or they will battle against it (actively or passively). Once you know there is a change afoot, you have the opportunity to pick sides. It is almost impossible for neutrality in this phase because anybody who cares about the organization or their future will be trying to determine their next step and what their actions should be.

4. Buying. In the positive sense, as people begin to understand what the new situation is and what the needs of the change process are, they will begin to buy-in to the process. They still see it as an externally driven phenomenon but they can decide to “enroll” and be a part of it. This stage takes some time to achieve but once there, the change takes on more internal momentum. In the negative sense, this is also where some people will decide that they know what the change means and they do not support it. These people will often check out of the process and simply not participate. Unfortunately, it is during this time as well that those who choose not to buy-in will often recruit others to be the negative forces in the process.

5. Owning. Ultimately, the change is adopted in the organization and becomes part of who you are and what you do. At some point, it is no longer an external force but becomes woven into the organizational culture. Again, this takes time…a long time. Managers often push their employees to get to the “ownership stage” faster than employees are comfortable (or able) to do. When your followers own the change, it is successfully implemented in your organization.

While this is a fairly simple description, it is extremely difficult to deal with in practice. Within each of these phases, followers are trying to sort themselves out and determine what to do next. There are actions you as a leader can put into place for each of these areas and we will talk about those in the next entry.

Tags: accountability, change, congruency, expectations, Leadership characteristics, leadership integrity

29 Sep 09 Performance Improvement through Personal Strengths

There comes a point in life where one realizes that most of the weaknesses we have…we are going to continue having. For example, I am not a numbers person. I like numbers, I have tried to work with numbers, but I am simply not the guy who is going to a “Finance for Non-Financial Managers” course and coming out of it with a focus on numbers. Now, while I’m not a numbers guy, I am a story guy. If you can give me the numbers and help me understand what they mean, I will be able to explain the numbers in a way that people understand. Granted it’s not a superhuman strength like x-ray vision, but it has served me well as a strength for most of my career.

As leaders, we often approach our employees as if it is our job to “fix” them. Then, of course, we get frustrated at the fact that “fixing” never seems to work. I’m not talking about behavioral problems that need to be addressed. I’m talking about those alignments where the strengths of the individual are either not in alignment with their responsibilities or have simply not been allowed to develop in relation to the task at hand. As the end of the year approaches, and most leaders are looking at performance reviews looming on the horizon, here are some tips for helping employees improve through strengths:

1. Ask your employees to identify the part(s) of their job that excites them or gives them energy. The part of the job that most excites an employee, or more specifically, the most energizes an employee, is likely to be directly related to their strength. When we are doing things that are in alignment with our interests and our abilities, we find that the time spent doing these activities tends to be energizing. Even if the work is hard, we take power from using our strengths.

2. Ask your employees to identify the part(s) of their job that is the most fun. Again, the alignment of strengths with activities is usually so enjoyable for people that it qualifies as “fun.” Pay attention to the answer to this question. It might be that your employee is most jazzed by time spent with customers or colleagues. It might also be that they love solving complex problems. Don’t judge their answer by whether or not you would find the activity fun. That isn’t the question.

3. Looking at the performance for the year, ask your employees to evaluate themselves. First of all, when given an opportunity for honest reflection, most employees are fairly accurate about how well they are doing. There ARE times where the employee may be misinterpreting their performance, but in most cases, they are pretty close. This should not be a “guess the right answer” exercise nor a spontaneous one. Have them evaluate their performance in some form that you will review before the performance discussion. Use their evaluation as the basis for your discussion.

4. Have your employees tell you what should be different about their job in order for their performance to improve. This one takes guts because we normally go into a performance review situation telling employees what they need to do to change. You are probably still going to have some things you want them to do differently. But start from a collaborative effort. Perhaps there are simple ways…or ways you would never guess on your own…that the work could be better aligned with the strengths of the employee. This is not necessarily re-engineering the job. It might simply be allowing and individual to do the job in an individual kind of way.

From the time we are children we are taught to identify our weaknesses and eliminate them. While there are examples where this approach has been successful, it is enormously time consuming and energy draining. If you truly want to engage your employees in a performance improvement effort, allow the possibility that it might not be the person who needs to change, but the approach of the work that would give the greatest return on investment if aligned with the already held strengths of the individual.

Tags: accountability, engagement, leverging strengths, performance improvement

18 Sep 09 The Danger of Dogmatic Leaders

So, I’m in a local Walgreen’s and the person in front of me is talking to the cashier about the fact that Michigan is about to put a tax on soda (”pop” for those of you from other areas). It goes like this:

Customer: “So, my son says they are going to start taxing soda. I think we’ve got about enough taxes.”
Cashier: “Yeah, it’s going to be a Socialist state before long. We’re turning into Russian Communists.”

While I managed not to actually snort through my nose or something, I was extremely puzzled. What does paying too much in sales taxes have to do with being Socialists? And how does being a Socialist state with too many taxes have anything to do with Russian Communists? And how does this conversation begin because Pepsi is about to be taxed in Michigan? By the way, the conversation ended with both of them nodding sympathetically to each other so apparently it was me that missed the point.

As I thought about this later it occurred to me that this kind of thinking, and these conversations, happen all of the time because of our tendency to be so dogmatic in our thinking that it doesn’t matter what is said, we have our opinion. If the customer had said, “They are going to repave the road,” it is just as likely that the cashier would have brought up the Socialist/Communist issue. By definition, dogmatic people have beliefs that are to be undisputed and do not require any particular basis in fact. I believe it because I believe it and if you don’t believe it, you are wrong.

Many leaders that we see in the media are dogmatic leaders. Their beliefs are the only facts they need. If you follow them, you follow them without question because their beliefs are the truth. Often they present evidence, but it doesn’t have to be strong because it is only window dressing to the real issue which is that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

This behavior causes many dysfunctions. For one thing, followers of leaders that are dogmatic have no idea why they believe what they believe…only that their leader does. This creates a dysfunctional situation where the follower may hear or see discrediting evidence about the leader but can not accept it as evidence because…well…because their followership is based primarily on belief about the leader, not on evidence. So, when an auditor starts to question the ethics of decisions, or business results start to decline because the decisions are poor, neither the leader nor the followers will challenge the practices because they are “right.”

It is also impossible to compromise with dogmatic leaders because there is no compromise. Look at the current health care debate raging in Washington. Many of the political leaders have taken an unbending position (on the right and the left) based on ideology and not on the needs or wants of the people. Dogmatic leaders tell people what they should believe and then poll them, using the results as proof that they are right. This circular approach creates a no-lose situation for the Dogmatic Leader.

Truly effective leaders have to understand that the strength of their convictions is based on what they believe to be true at the time. Leaders who care about the welfare of their followers take the time for open discussion and consideration of options. Even when they are sure of themselves, they are always seeking indications that their direction or opinion might need adjustment. These leaders do not measure the intelligence of others by how closely others agree with them, but by how willing others are to be innovative and accountable to the outcomes. They start with the problem and work their way to a solution, not the other way around.

Tags: accountability, dogmatic, fear, global leader, Global Leadership, politics