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

28 Aug 09 Leadership Karaoke

“I am a student of leadership,” one MBA graduate student recently told me. “I have studied the great leaders and have chosen a mix of characteristics that will be my leadership style.”

If you were watching this conversation you would have seen that this student was quite serious in his statement of fact. He had decided that he needed the decision making ability of a Jack Welch, the calm coolness of Colin Powell, and the drive to master the marketplace of Jeff Bezos. While I wish this young man all the best in his leadership aspirations, all I could think of was how easy it would be if there was really a menu from which one could pick and chose. It made me think of a new term for this style of development. We’ll call it “Karaoke Leadership.”

I’ve actually known quite a few Karaoke Leaders in my time. They read about Coach Wooden and then call their team together and try to incorporate his techniques of motivation. They read about GE and institute “workouts” and start devising plans to lay off the bottom 10% of performers. They study Meg Whitman and attempt to position themselves as charismatic speakers and communicators.

Unfortunately, even the best Karaoke Leader can only pull of the trick to a certain point. Only Coach John Wooden can be Coach Wooden and only Meg Whitman can speak as Meg Whitman can speak. Don’t even get me STARTED about Jack Welch and GE! Most leaders who try to emulate Neutron Jack discover that (a) they aren’t at GE, (b) it’s not the 90s and (c) they aren’t Jack Welch. Which brings me to my suggestion of the day.

Rather than trying to be the best Colin Powell that you can muster, try being the best YOU that you can be. Each of these people, and many more, are undeniably great leaders. They have come into a specific situation at a specific time that allows them to use their specific strengths in a way that has had a great impact. Studying the great leaders can be tremendously effective…especially if you study the manner in which they made their decisions, overcame obstacles, and used their vision to inspire their followers.

To be a great leader yourself, however, requires that you look at these experiences, make your observations, and then apply them to your own situation and your own set of strengths and talents. For example, Welch had the courage and the foresight to see that massive downsizing was required in quick order, but had to be done while building a culture of success at GE. He mastered this in large part on the strength of his own personality but also in his strategic brilliance, in-depth planning and overall chutzpah. Applying the Welch model means applying your own courage and action orientation to getting things done that need to be done. Choosing to sing the Jack Welch song as if you are Jack Welch is guaranteed to create problems in the ability of people to see your own integrity and your own strengths.

Success through the biography of others is through application, not emulation. Look at the leaders you admire, whether they have multiple best-selling books or happen to run the public library. Look at HOW they do what they do and see if there are lessons that you can apply to your own set of strengths. The authentic leader doesn’t try to lead through following somebody else’s words or music but by writing her own song. Make yours an original and your followers may be more willing to sing along.

Tags: authenticity, communication, Global Leadership, integrity

20 Jul 09 Who is the “Most Trusted” now?

As you know, Walter Cronkite died a short time ago. This brought a flood of memories to me as I heard about his death, in large part because when I was growing up, if his distinctive voice came on the television, everybody paid close attention. He gained the reputation as “Most Trusted Man in America” because of his honesty, his approach, and his TRULY fair-and-balanced reporting (Sorry FOX. Cronkhite knew what that meant!).

While I was thinking about this moniker of “most trusted,” it occurred to me that I have no idea who would be considered the Most Trusted Man or Woman in America today. It might be that we have few leaders and public figures worthy of this kind of trust. It might also be that we are so polarized in our opinions today that there would be little agreement about who is most trusted because we have come to view the characteristics that engender trust with more than a little skepticism.

So, today’s entry requires your participation. If you were to vote for “Most Trusted Man or Woman in America,” who would it be?

Tags: cronkhite, cronkite, integrity, leadership, trust

28 May 09 Part-Time Integrity

Brian Dickerson in the Detroit Free Press wrote a column this week titled “Councilwoman: Integrity is for Chumps.” Of course somebody immediately sent the article to me as I have spent the week at the Mackinac Policy Conference in northern Michigan and didn’t see it when it came out. So, here’s the deal. Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson has been taxed for the last two years on a “vacant lot”

that just happens to hold her million-dollar two-story brick house. Last year, for example, she paid $68 in property taxes. When she was pressed on this issue at a news conference, she quipped, “If anyone here in this circle received a bill and you’ve argued to pay more, just raise your hand.” As Dickerson reports, this received laughter from her supporters who were present.

Are you kidding me? The Councilwoman doesn’t see this as a problem??? As my good friend Les Brown likes to say, “Who we are part of the time is who we are all of the time.” Integrity is not something that applies only at work or only in certain settings. In my opinion, this comment should disqualify Watson for Councilwoman in the future and, if she has knowingly underpaid her taxes, she should be penalized like you or I might be under the tax code.

Here’s what bothers me even more. Her supporters laughed. They took her comment as funny, as in “What kind of fool would pay more than the invoice says?” Clearly this is another case of “The way of the leader, the way of the led.” Followers adopt the beliefs and values of their leader. In many cases, they follow because there is already alignment and then make further adjustments after they begin to see the leader in action.

I have great appreciation for the Brian Dickerson’s of the world who take the time to write about these issues. Others would feel this was not an important moment, but it gives us a glimpse of the leader in action and the thought process and value system that leads within our political system.
I had the opportunity to speak with Ken Cockrell Jr. this week as well and we were talking a bit about the City Council and another member who is quite a focus of the press (Monica Conyers). I asked him how much pressure he felt to deal with her on a day to day basis and he said, “People ask me all the time what I’m going to do about Conyers. I always ask them what THEY are going to do. They are the ones that elected her.”

And he’s absolutely right. Leaders get the followers that they deserve. The same is true of the electorate. We get the leaders we deserve because we are the ones that put them there. If you’re going to have an impact on the leadership of the state or the country, you have to make a commitment to be involved. It’s not all about popularity and it’s not all about even experience. It’s about the integrity and leadership that exists (or doesn’t) within the available candidates.

Tags: conyers, detroit, integrity, mackinac

14 May 09 How do you know when it’s trust?

I had an interesting question from a person who also works in the field of leadership and deals with clients on the issue of trust. She has her own trust assessment but is finding that potential clients are (a) hesitant to admit there is a trust issue and (b) hesitant to pay for her services without “hard data” concerning the outcomes of dealing with trust. I believe she is not only well-intentioned but truly offering value to her clients…she is just struggling with getting them to see (and accept) the value she offers.

The problem for those of us who work in this area, and for leaders in general, is that “trust” is an up close and personal thing. To admit that people may not trust me is to take some personal accountability for something that is actually not within my control. I can create the “conditions” for trust, but it is up to my followers to decide whether or not they trust me.

Of course it is also likely that I see myself entirely as a leader of integrity when my followers or the rest of the organization perceive my actions as lacking credibility. This happens because, as a leader, I see more of the future than I do the present. I may be entirely unaware of the influences that impact negative perception because I’m busy trying to establish or execute strategy. It might even be that my followers are skeptical of my integrity because of stories they hear regarding OTHER leaders. There may be a sense of “guilt by association” that completely escapes me until a full-blown issue of trust is upon us.

Trust is also a condition that is difficult to address directly. If I ask you if you trust me, and you do, you will assure me that trust is not an issue. If I ask you if you trust me, and you do not, you will likely assure me that trust is not an issue. So the best way to tell if there may be a breach of integrity…either in your own team, or in your organization, is to look for the “diagnostic symptoms” of distrust in the behaviors and activities around you. In fact, take a moment and answer the following questions “yes” or “no” about your team or organization:

Is there a tendency for people sending email to use the “cc” function in excess?
Are there “meetings outside of the meetings” where people discuss what was “really” done in the meeting?
Are there clusters of people who tend to operate at the exclusion of other clusters of people?
Is production on the team slower than one would logically expect based on skill sets and resources?
Is decision-making frustratingly slow?
Does the team have a cynical sense-of-humor regarding others within the organization?

If you answered yes to even a couple of these questions, it is highly likely that trust is an issue on your team. If the development is recent, it might be that recent events have caused this condition. If you think about it and realize that these behaviors have been around for awhile, it might also be that a CULTURE of distrust has been developed with or without your knowledge. I invite you to take a short (and free!) assessment at our Leadership Integrity website to further examine this issue.

I’d love to hear what you think: If these are some of the behaviors you see on your team or within your organization, what is it costing you? In business metrics (not just morale), what is the impact of lack of trust on your team? Is this a greater challenge when you have a diverse team (representing multiple cultures)?

Tags: integrity, Leadership Integrity Quotient, trust

13 Jan 09 Conscious-Authentic Leadership

I was just pondering an article I read some time ago, published in the Journal of Leadership Studies. This was an empirical study of a concept called Conscious-Authentic Leadership. While the study is quite interesting, my point today is to reflect on a set of criteria that the author, Dr. Robert Hofman, Jr., tested, which was: Self Awareness, Reality, Self-Identification, Values, Intuition, Critical Consciousness, Emotion, and Managing to Specific Organizational Outcomes.

We’ll have to look at this in more detail later, but what struck me is the development in the last years of a demand that leaders focus on Managing to Specific Organizational Outcomes at the expense of all of the other areas of expectation. This is evidenced in the continuing revelations of leaders who have been deemed quite successful only to be found manipulating “reality” to get to the outcome desired. This list is quite global and doesn’t seem to be diminishing either, with the recent charges by the SEC against Joseph Forte, the admission by Ramalinga Raju of Satyam of financial misdeeds and the case of David Ross from the U.K. using current investments to pay for past losses.

It is time for us to not only demand integrity from our leaders, but to take responsibility for our part in this system. Truly believing that greater and more consistent returns come from businesses led in integrity means we have to chose those we follow for something more than the annual return on investment. Or from the sheer charisma of the person. Resume’s are important, but they are not the most important. Integrity may be the key to recovering from our current crises.

Tags: conscious-authentic leadership, fraud, integrity, Leadership characteristics

03 Dec 08 Why don’t we trust our leaders?

Earlier this week, CNN did a poll asking simply, “Do you trust our leaders?” At the time of this writing, over 99% of respondents said “No.” Think about that. Only one in a hundred people say that they do trust their leaders (in a political context) and of those who do, in the survey comments they tended to qualify their answer to mean that they either (a) trusted specific leaders or (b) had no choice but to trust our leaders because they are in positions of power. From my experience working with corporations and organizations for the last 20 years, I would suggest that the amount of distrust in the corporate world is nearly, if not equally, as bad.

Why don’t we trust our leaders? There are a couple of major reasons. First, many leaders have shown themselves not to be trustworthy. Since these are the examples that stand out, (allegations regarding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for example), we have the impression that “everywhere we turn” are dishonest and untrustworthy politicians. It’s newsworthy since one can’t imagine a headline that says, “South Dakota Governor Keeps His Promises,” or “Senator from South Carolina Votes Her Honest Opinion.” And it’s the experience we continue to have.

This newsworthiness has added a second dimension to the trust problem however because it has become part of our culture to distrust our leaders. Our default opinion of practically any leader has become that he or she is dishonest. We are in some weird way almost comforted by the fact that perhaps our problems are really caused by these dishonest leaders and that the world would work fine if we could just find some honest politicians and corporate executives.

It is time for us to not only challenge our leaders and hold them accountable to a level of integrity that can make positive change, but to also hold ourselves accountable for being accessories to the problem. The issue of trustworthy leadership cannot just be a “foul weather” topic when we are looking for somebody to burn at the stake. To be a successful company or a successful nation, followers have to be able to trust their leaders. Without this relationship, no change for the good can be created with a lasting and positive effect.

Tags: change, integrity, trust