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

30 Oct 09 Effective Leadership Presentations

There has been a lot of study and writing on the act of oral presentation so it would seem that there’s probably not much more we need to learn, eh? As leaders we know we need to “Tell em what we’re going to tell em, tell em and then tell em what we told em.” At least that’s the conventional wisdom. The problem of course is that being redundant is not only sometimes very boring it is also not a guarantee that our message will have any impact at all.

I generally have an immediate suspicion of conventional wisdom anyway. Typically it became conventional wisdom over a long period of time and is so general as to be not of much use. At the very least, conventional wisdom tends to be…well…conventional. In other words, average is not what we’re after here so perhaps we need to try a little harder. Recent evidence in brain research of participants listening to speakers gives us some ideas as to how we might make presentations to our followers more powerful. Here are three ideas for example that are not likely to be intuitive or in your basic speech workshop:

1. Focus on multiple processing: Very often leaders approach communication to groups of people as information dumps. A few charts, a bunch of numbers, and that’s about it. Then they wonder why nobody seems to remember what they said. Research however indicates that the more diversity in the presentation, not just with information but with our senses, the more likely we are to retain the information. Most speakers stick to audio and visual, but are there some ways you can bring your message alive by activity within the group. Can you pass out an object or have them engage in an activity to illustrate your point. The more ways they have to experience the information the more likely they are to retain it.

2. Be “level” with the audience: Of course we have been trained to do this through a story or joke or whatever else we throw into the introduction of the speech, but connecting with the audience is really about being a credible and trustworthy source. Be real and authentic. Avoid acting out the power position. For example, if these are employees within your company or department do you really need a formal introduction? Do your assistants really need to be visible to everybody all of the time? Come down the hierarchy for awhile and really speak with your folks.

3. Tie into existing knowledge: While every presentation should have a unique component (otherwise, why are you doing it?) participants can make meaning of your discussion more easily if it is related to stuff they already know. Whether it is a continuation of an earlier presentation, connected to current events, or even product related, it is helpful to overtly tie your new information to previously understood content. The more you can help the audience make the connection, the less cognitive effort it takes for them to figure it out on their own.

One thing stands out above all others when it comes to making presentations with impact. If you are not considering your audience in the process of creating your speech, you will not be as effective as you could be. Speaking is all about the audience. If you have others who are creating your speech, make sure that they are doing it from the perspective of the receiver. No matter how powerful a leader you are, if you stand there and tell us what you think is important, without considering what is important to us and how we can best understand the information, your presentations will fall short every time.
“>

Tags: change, commitment, communication, leadership, performance

09 Oct 09 Leading with the Brain

First, let’s get one thing out in the open for those of you who have not figured this out yet. I’m a nerd. There are certain things that I really get jazzed by that to others would be mindnumbingly boring. I get that and I’m comfortable with it. I can live with myself.

Having said that, there is the coolest article in the Autumn 2009 edition of strategy+business (yes, I subscribe) on recent neuroscience research and the brain that relates directly to the issue of effective leadership.Of course I’m such a nerd that I couldn’t just read the article but I had to find the sources that were cited in the article and read them too. If you hang out with me, it’s just a moment-by-moment flow of excitement!

Actually, it is honestly a very interesting article titled “Managing with the Brain in Mind,” by David Rock of the NeuroLeadership Institute and author of the book “Your Brain at Work.” In this article, Rock makes the argument that a person’s job is not simply a transaction—they work for you, they get paid. While this is an important aspect of our work, even more importantly, we view our workplace as a social system. Much research has shown that the brain is a social mechanism, looking for connections between people, events and data, so it would only make sense that much of our work life would be seen the same way.

The interesting addition to this information that Rock adds to the dialogue is that the concept of “threat” applies to our primacy of social interaction. In other words, perceived threats to the social aspect of our work life will evoke the same response as perceived personal threats to our being. Our brains function in a way that we attempt to either flee the threat (by checking out, disengaging, or actually leaving our jobs) or fight it (through aggression either passive or active). Rock proposes that there are five qualities that enable employees to mitigate and handle these threats and that these are crucially important for leaders to understand:

Status: Research indicates that we are constantly assessing our status in relative terms to those around us. Threats to status are endemic in the organization when we give performance reviews, promotions or even passing comments in staff meetings. Research also indicates that something as simple as acknowledging a followers contribution can raise perceived status. Leaders who are sensitive to the status needs of their followers can offset this threat by the way they interact.

Certainty: As humans, we love stability and certainty in part because these are conditions that are less taxing to our brains and bodies. When we are not having to worry about what happens next, we are able to operate in a comfort zone. On the other hand, uncertainty registers in our brain (in the anterior cingulate cortex!) as a potential threat until investigated and understood. Transparency is the antidote to this issue. By sharing as much information as possible and keeping followers informed about current and future issues, effective leaders are able to avoid short-circuiting the resources necessary to get the job done.

Autonomy: Autonomy is the feeling that we as individuals are able to make our own decisions and chose our own courses of action. Perceptions of limited autonomy create a feeling of helplessness and a threat response related to the fact that our survival is not by our own choosing. Leaders who want to reinforce autonomy know that being micromanaged is a threat felt at a very deep level. Followers need choices, not just in the details of their work but in the bigger picture issues of balance and priority.

Relatedness: In our best efforts, and for the sake of diverse opinions and experiences, we often put together teams of unrelated people to focus on a crucial issue. However, the neural pathways triggered by meeting new people put us in a friend-or-foe assessment phase. While many of us like to think that we trust people until they show us that we can’t trust them, the fact is that we are suspicious at the onset of any new relationship. Leaders need to be thoughtful about the teams they form and, if made up of unrelated people, the team needs time to assimilate. Further, by cutting off individuals from social interaction, we stimulate the same kind of threat response. Leaders need to attend to the social needs of those they assign to positions that will keep them isolated.

Fairness: Fairness is a concept that is also related to the limbic system of our brains. If violated, the response is hostility and lack of trust. As we have discussed in this blog before, I will only commit my actions to you if I trust you. If I don’t trust you, I spend a lot of time in protectionist mode, making sure that all of my bases are covered and that I am in a position to survive if and when you betray me. Openness and transparency are again the best responses to this issue. Leaders who are clear about the process they are using, and then apply it consistently, are seen as more fair than those who keep their thoughts a secret.

David Rock uses SCARF as the acronym for these behaviors and as the foundation for advising leaders on how to manage people in the manner that their brains work. While I think it is highly interesting and helpful, I also don’t see neuroscience as the unifying theory to human behavior. It doesn’t answer the whole question of why we do what we do, but cognitive science may provide part of the answer. As a survival instinct, we act to avoid threats and, if brain research can give us some insight on what triggers the threat response, it is a valuable addition to the toolbox of the leader.

Tags: change, communication, Energy, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics, trust

05 Oct 09 Change Acceptance–Part 2

If Change Acceptance starts with Unawareness and ends with Owning, how long does it take and how do you advance through the stages? This is an important question since, left to our own devices, we will advance at least to the “Knowing” stage. Eventually. Helping your followers discover Buying and Owning however is usually a conscious effort. But it doesn’t have to be a complicated one.

1. When your followers are Unaware. The challenge with unawareness is timing. There may be a short period of time where followers need to be unaware because whether or not a change is likely to happen may be unsure. It will always be that, as a leader, you have information that not everybody else has. While I strongly support transparency, there is sometimes a period of time where you have to get it together before discussing it. But beware…this has to be a very short period of time. Unawareness starts to go away with the first hint of new information or activity. As soon as the change begins, it is important to provide information to everybody as quickly as possible.

2. When your followers are Suspicious. Once information begins to flow, suspicion will follow even in the healthiest situations. Followers have to go from hearing the information to somehow understanding it. While information is the antidote to unawareness, dialogue is the antidote to suspicion. Our minds hate a vacuum, so if you do not provide an opportunity for us to air our concerns and for you to answer our specific questions, we will add to the story ourselves. Open and honest discussion will eliminate much of the space available to rumor.

3. When your followers are Knowing. You must really pay attention once you feel that your followers are up-to-speed on the new direction and the change that is underway. This phase is crucial because here there will be some who decide to “opt-out.” Now that they are aware of the change, they may decide it isn’t worth it to be invested in the change. In this arena, both passive and active support and resistance start to take place. And the danger around those checking out is that they will take others with them. To continue a positive momentum, not only should you be sharing information and continuing dialogue, but actively engaging followers to make the change happen. Committees or project groups should be put together in this stage so that they can take the next step to owning. We don’t own those things that we talk about…we own those things that we do.

4. When your followers are Buying. Once you see the support building for the change it is time to stop talking so much about it and start supporting whatever activity that you see moving the organization in the right direction. This is a time of great positive action, yet it is also a time to be careful. Your objective in this case is to make the change concrete. You don’t want to continue building cheerleaders…you want to start developing owners. Let go of some of the details and let their creativity take a role. Continue supporting, but stop shaping and let others take that role. Only then will they feel it is their own.

5. When your followers are Owning. It is likely that another change will come soon, if it hasn’t already. In many cases, organizations are still trying to figure out how to buy one change when they are suspicious of another. It is important to celebrate the ownership of the change by reflecting to your followers what THEY have accomplished. This is sometimes a difficult place for leaders because they have worked hard on the success of the change and now feel that they no longer get credit. Don’t worry…everybody will know the role you played. But you should not be reminding them. All of your conversation should be about when “we” started this and how “we” or “you” have succeeded. If you insist on taking credit in the end, you will find it harder to pass along ownership in the future.

Unfortunately, there is no hard-fast rule about how long this takes. It takes as long as it takes. But if you will focus on moving your organization through the process, you will find that you can accelerate it. Remember, you are ahead of them in coming to grips with the change. Be patient but be diligent. The sooner your followers own the change, the more effective you and your organization will be.

Tags: change, courage, expectations, Global Leadership, trust

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

10 Aug 09 Where there is no vision…

Vision, mission, purpose, values…all terms that represent some sort of organizational characteristic and all terms with which leadership teams consistently struggle. It’s unfortunate really because, in most cases, the struggle comes down to semantics. “Is our current statement a vision or is it a mission?” “Do these values statements really represent the way we differentiate ourselves in the marketplace?” “Can we stop talking about the bs-stuff and get to business?”

If you have been in any of these conversations, take heart at least in the fact that you are not alone. In my opinion, business schools, consultants and authors have done a disservice to leaders by trying to “brand” a process of definition that is, at its core, quite simple. I also suspect that some of you reading this will disagree with where I’m going in the conversation if for no other reason than it doesn’t represent what you learned as a definition. That’s o.k. too if what you currently have makes sense to you and is a clear actionable tool for your leadership. If not, at least keep an open mind.

Vision: The easiest way for me to think about vision is to go all the way back to bbc (before Boston Consulting). In Proverbs 29:18, King Solomon says, “Where there is no vision, people perish.” Whether the old testament is a primary source for your leadership training or not, this statement says a lot about a vision. A vision is not a statement. A vision is a dream of where you want to go. The statement comes later. Without a dream, it is difficult to get up in the morning and commit the energy and effort necessary to be successful.

Case in point: Amazon’s vision is to be a place where people can come to find anything they want to buy online. If you work for Amazon, you know that the vision of your company is not in being the world’s largest bookstore. Nor is the vision to have the greatest Return on Income of any online seller. If you look at Amazon’s recent moves into the shoe business for example, it makes sense given where they want to go. If you believe that shoes are something people want to buy online, and your vision is to provide “anything” that people want to buy online, then buying a shoe company might make sense.

I just listened this week to a group of graduate students arguing over whether the vision should be attainable or not. For what it’s worth, I’ve heard the same debate in leadership retreats and boardrooms. In my opinion, it doesn’t really matter. At some point the vision has to have a sense of reality in that it relates to what the organization (or individual) actually does. But it also has to have a sense of excitement. “Wouldn’t it be cool if we could actually say we have achieved this?”

Why would you not want a vision that you might possibly attain? You know what you do if you achieve your vision? You create another vision!!! The importance of vision is to put a point out in the future that you and your people can truly imagine. If all things were to work perfectly, if all problems were to be solved, and if we had a little bit of luck as well, we could attain it.

A vision is like magnetic north. It doesn’t actually move you anywhere, but it provides a point of orientation. That is why visions are not only corporate but also individual. You should have a vision for your organization, for your family, and for yourself. There are no limits to your vision because…well, it’s your vision. It’s where you want to be.

Don’t get hung up on whether this is a three-year vision, a five-year vision or a thirty-year vision. Who really cares? If it is exciting and if it focuses the effort of you and your people, go with it. I worked with a company one time that was in dire straits and nearing bankruptcy. This was in 2003 I think and there vision was, “Survival to 2004.” While this was meant to be something of a joke, it was also a compelling vision for a group of people who could not see how they were going to make it through the year. It was at the level of a “dream” for them to manage the challenges they had to the point of making the business work. They did, and they turned around a $500 million loss in 2 years as opposed to the projected 5 years that was assumed by heaquarters.

Helen Keller once said, “The most pathetic person in the world is the one who has sight but no vision.” Why? Because they have no direction. Vision is a dream that provides direction for action. You don’t have to measure the number of words in your vision statement, just measure the number of actions it inspires.

Tags: change, commitment, Global Leadership, great leadership, vision

07 Aug 09 The Ecology of Renewal

As Rachel van Rossum and I had the opportunity this week to spend with clients and prospective clients, we listened to the stories of struggle that the various leaders had within their organizations. In our business at IMPACT Consulting and Development, we offer consultation, coaching and development for leaders trying to successfully navigate the twists and turns of change and one of the most common situations we find ourselves in is the one where we are telling our client that what they are experiencing is neither entirely unique nor insurmountable.

While you might think this is an example of a consulting firm of hammers finding every problem to be a nail, I believe it is more than that. As we have spoken with leaders from around the world and at every level, we find that there is a certain predictability when it comes to the chaos of change.

Why is it that a large organization has an enormously difficult time reinventing itself, even when the obvious changes in economy require it? Why would it be that small business have a struggle to get beyond the DNA of the founder and into a working organizational culture that is adaptable to the necessities of the times?

In his book Crisis & Renewal: Meeting the Challenge of Organizational Change
, David Hurst presents a fairly interesting (although somewhat heavy) argument that the growth of successful organizations is counterproductive to the ability of those organizations to change. As he puts it, organizations use the logic of management to move from a system of “trust” to a system of “power.” Power comes from permanence and structure, e.g. repeatable processes, production systems, organizational hierarchies, etc.

While every entrepreneur knows that these system developments are necessary to eventually move away from a one-person show to a stand-alone, functioning business, these same systems are counterproductive to the adaptability of the organization. And as we’ve seen over and over, once these “power” systems are in place, the organization fights vigorously to keep them. In ecological theory, it is known as the survival instinct of the organism. First you have to mature, then you have to protect yourself in maturity.

If you look at the time period between the agricultural age and the industrial “age,” it is likely that you would feel the changes were inevitable. And for the most part a good thing since it was our development into a focus on industry that led to the innovations necessary to move into the information “age.” All of this is easy to say, but painful to practice. For the people who suffered through the transition from agriculture to industry, the perspective was anything but comfortable. Having grown up in rural Kentucky I can tell you that there are many yet who have not figured out how to be successful in a non-agriculture-focused society.
It may be that at this moment we are moving from the information age to yet another era. And, in my opinion, if anybody tells you what that era actually is, they are making a guess at best. You can’t see the frame when you’re in the picture. And to be honest, it doesn’t actually matter. What is important is for leaders to make the conscious effort to find the balance between total anarchy (the entrepreneurial danger of creating idea after idea with nothing permanent in between) and total monarchy (the established organization danger of refusing to revisit the primary success factors of the business).

Nature loves renewal. It is built into the ecology around us. Many forests are considered only sustainable when fire cleans out the overgrowth to allow for regeneration. Land managers of course have discovered that this fire, while somewhat inevitable, does not have to be unpredictable. Through frequent, yet much smaller, “controlled burns,” foresters are able to renew the forest on a pre-directed timetable rather than waiting for a catastrophic event and hoping for the best. Leaders should consider the same in their organizations. Through a continued commitment to re-examining and re-inventing old and well established norms—whether historically successful or not—a culture of smaller but consistent change will have a greater adaptability in especially challenging times such as these.

Tags: change, change management, Energy, Global Leadership, innovation, leadership and change, organizational development

31 Jul 09 Accelerated Leadership Development

I was recently approached by a publisher to consider writing a book on “accelerated leadership.” While I may or may not take on this project, I was struck by the concept. For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out exactly what “accelerated” leadership might look like. I finally decided (and am still waiting on clarification from the publisher) that what they actually meant was “accelerated leadership development.” That actually makes sense to me because, in today’s workplace, time is more than money. With the many organizational changes that have been accelerated themselves, it would stand to reason that leaders need to get up-to-speed and highly effective as quickly as possible. Especially in cases where the leadership position developed through re-organization or a change in company priorities. In more cases than I can remember seeing before, leaders are being placed in areas of responsibility for which they are not quite ready.

The idea of accelerating the development of leaders…and development of specific leaders who need the support…is an important topic. It also begs the question, why is it so difficult to speed up the process of leadership learning when the demands are so great and the need is so pressing? I would suggest that the speed of leadership development is, in large part (not entirely) a function of the organizational culture in which the leader operates.

A recent article in the OD Practitioner suggested some interesting issues that are barriers within an organizational culture to learning and performance. While I’m not sure I agree with all of the conclusions (I hardly ever do!), I think there are some interesting findings worth considering in terms of cultural inhibitors to growth. These included:

1. The collective attitudes and established norms. One of the inhibitors to accelerated learning on the part of leaders is the overall attitudes and actions of support (or not) within the organization. This is in part the issue of diversity of opinion and dialogue. On the one hand, if there is AN attitude in the organization about learning, it may be a very cohesive culture. On the other hand, if that attitude and norm diminishes the value of leadership learning and only focuses on the value of leadership action, it might be that it is difficult for leaders to identify their performance gaps and address them.

2. The written and unwritten rules that influence behavior. On this topic I’ve written and spoken a lot. It is less the written rules within the organization that influence behavior than it is the unwritten ones. The issue of “how we do things around here” can dictate exactly the focus of “successful” leaders (defined by the organization.) If the unwritten rule is, to succeed you have to show forcefulness as a leader, then it is difficult to imagine an open mind when it comes to collaborative methods of leadership. These rules of behavior and engagement can not be understimated when it comes to the overall effectiveness of leadership development.

3. Tolerance toward risk and innovation. At the beginning of a leaders development process in a new role, innovation is not only easier it is likely to be desirable by the leader. If I don’t know any better, I may come up with ideas that have not been tried before in order to establish myself as the new person in that role. Unfortunately, in many organizational cultures, the tolerance towards risk is so low that the actual lesson that must be learned by the leader is to not rock the boat. This not only stymies the development of the leader, but the development of the organization as well. If there is a culture of humiliation around failed ideas and innovations, it is unlikely that the new leader will develop quickly into the powerful person he or she has the potential to be.

While a culture like the one above can make things more difficult, it does not have to create an impossible situation. Like with many similar issues, the first step is to acknowledge that these are forces fighting the desired change. Then you can create strategies to address them. It may be that you need to take ownership of your own development if the environment is one that discourages it. You can test the unwritten rules by asking, “Is this what we really believe around here?” And you can deal with risk aversion in large part by doing your research and making sure that everybody is clear on the potential upside as well as the downside. None of this is easy in practice, but unless you take accountability to start the change within your organization, you will be waiting a long time for somebody else to do it.

Tags: accountability, change, culture, leadership development, ownership

02 Mar 09 Bartz declares a new culture at Yahoo

If her take charge tone is any indication of her strength and courage, Carol Bartz might be the new “tough guy” in the ongoing internet battles between Yahoo and, well…just about everybody else. Although her blog posts have been criticized as vague, Bartz has started her rein as new CEO with some fairly notable changes. With an almost immediate shakeup at the top, Bartz has made it very clear who the decision-maker is going to be going forward. For the marketplace, this is good news indeed.

Now comes the hard part. In her statement she says, “Everything becomes simpler…the notorious silos are gone and we have a renewed focus on the customer.”

Sorry Carol, but the challenge of true leadership is not in stating that things have changed. The challenge is in creating the culture that changes with the statement. One thing we know for sure…organizational restructuring NEVER eliminates internal silos. It may change their nature, it might even temporarily change their focus, but so-called silos are the result of cultural aspects such as trust, communication, competitiveness and openness. Having all top executives reporting to the CEO only facilitates accountability, it does not create it.

I wish Ms. Bartz the greatest of luck with her new endeavor. Lord knows that the internet stalwarts of Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and many others need a shakeup. And I am as excited about seeing ACTIVE leadership as I am anything else. But now is the time to bring the troops along. It will be crucial for her to not only establish her vision, but to establish the rules of the village…the culture of Yahoo has to change or the new CEO will find herself as a leader without followers.

Tags: Carol Bartz, CEO, change, Google, Microsoft, Silos, Yahoo