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.
Standing still is not an option
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
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.
Threats light up our neural pathways
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
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.
Suspicion unattended can lead to paranoia.
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
23 Sep 09 Moving Into the Space
This is an interesting time for many who are in leadership positions because, on the one hand, they have either recently been promoted or recently taken on greater responsibility. As a result of reorganization or restructuring, I have met many people who have been promoted even at a time where the focus of the news is on those who have been laid off from their jobs. These are the “Survivor” leaders whose career advancement is bitter sweet. They are in new areas of responsibility with new employees but at a time (and sometimes speed) that they did not anticipate.
At the same time, there are, and will be, a large number of people who have new leadership roles, not because of negative business outcomes but because their business is in recovery. As much as we are skittish about whether or not the business world is really on the mend, now a year after Lehman’s demise, business are getting their feet back under them. This requires strong management and leaders who can take new positions with authority and success.
There are plenty of challenges to making this happen but one of the most difficult to figure out is how to take the role previously filled by somebody else and make it your own. If your predecessor was a well-loved figure, you have the challenge of “filling big shoes.” If your predecessor was a jerk, you have the additional challenge of letting people know that you are not the person who was there before you. In either case, while wanting to move at a speed that does not overly disrupt the lives of employees, you also need to start making things happen. The “I’m new in this position” response is short lived because, in your new position, you are expected to deliver results. New results as a new leader.
Be yourself in your new leadership role.
Tip #2: Listen. Often leaders in new roles have the unbearable urge to start “doing something” immediately in order to establish that they are not the boss.While it is likely that there are expectations that you do, indeed, get things done, there is an opportunity at the onset of a new position to listen to those who are going to be impacted by your leadership. Even if this is a leadership position in an area where you have been working for 20 years, taking the time to listen to your new followers will not only send the message that you want to make changes together, it will start to cast you in the new light of your new position. No matter the urgency, have at least a few small group or one-to-one conversations with your employees about what they see as the priority and even what advice they have for you as the leader.
Tip #3: Let your predecessor go. By this I mean there is little or nothing constructive to talk about when it comes to the person who was in the position before you. In your very first communication with your new employees it may make sense to in some way honor the person who preceded you. But that’s about it. Whether they were great or terrible, they are now in the past. Don’t participate in the inevitable employee conversations about the “old days,” and don’t let comparisons drive your behavior. It is only normal that employees will, for awhile, measure your words and behaviors against those to which they have become accustomed. But that doesn’t mean you need to. Soon enough, the past will be behind you and continuing to evoke history, or compare yourself to the one who came before, will only make that transition more difficult.
When Jeffrey Immelt took the reins of GE he told people, “There is no way I am going to out-’Jack’ Jack.” The same is true for your new role. Don’t try to outdo somebody who is no longer in the picture. Be yourself, listen to your folks, and move on. Comparisons are inevitable but they should not drive any of your behavior. The problems that you inherited are now your problems and the fact somebody else may have created them is irrelevant. It is your chance to lead and to do it as only you can do.
Tags: authenticity, congruency, consistency, expectations, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics, leadership integrity
20 Aug 09 The Leader’s Focus
As long as there are writers on the topic of leadership, there will be a debate about what qualities strong leaders should possess. I have also tossed in my offering to this list in earlier blogs and articles. The problem for all of us who think we “know” what it takes to be a successful leader is that most of our lists are somewhat dependent on context. In other words, of all of the possible characteristics successful leaders may hold, some will be successful with one set of characteristics while others will be successful primarily on the strengths of an entirely different set.
This is o.k. of course and why leadership is not really a robotic task. It takes the unique combination of strengths, talents and experiences of a leader to make leadership truly authentic for him or her. And that’s a great thing. To think that there is somehow a magic formula of just enough of one plus just enough of another is fairly ridiculous.
It's not what you call yourself that makes you a leader...it's what you provide to others
I think that’s a rather brilliant way to look at the role of the leader…as one who provides for success. When he clarifies what he is talking about, Marshall Goldsmith states that leaders of the future must do the following for their followers:
Encourage their passion. Professionals need to look forward to coming to work in the morning. Loving their work is critical.
Enhance their ability. Look beyond the skills needed for today and help professionals learn the skills they will need tomorrow.
Value their time. Realize their time is precious also — don’t waste it.
Build their network. By enabling professionals to establish strong networks inside and outside the organization, you gain a huge edge and much loyalty.
Support their dreams. The best professionals are working for more than money; they have a dream of making a meaningful contribution in their field.
Expand their contribution. Provide them with opportunities that they cannot provide themselves.
As simple as this sounds, consider these provisions in light of the leaders that have been heralded in the past couple of decades. This is not so much Jack Welch or Lee Iaccoca or Ken Lewis is it? Not that these guys haven’t been successful in their own rights, but the point Goldsmith is making is that times are changing, followers are changing, and leaders will have to change as well.
Make sense? What do you think?
Tags: accountability, courage, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics, leadership integrity, trust, vision
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
23 Dec 08 Strong Global Leaders (III)–Collaboration, Authenticity, Compassion
The next three areas of Global Leadership competence are a challenge because they are truly “up close and personal.”
Collaboration: The more stressful a change process becomes, the more likely leaders are to “hunker down.” By that I mean, they become isolated from others and focus inward as they become more concerned about external events. Look at the example of Lehman Brothers. As the wolves began to gather at the door, CEO Dick Fuld became more isolated and less willing to hear dissenting ideas or to ask for help. While this wasn’t the entire reason for Lehman’s implosion, it certainly contributed to the lack of ability for Fuld to strike a last minute deal. This hubris is misplaced in strong leaders who realize that there is no way they can have all the answers.
Authenticity: In my years of coaching and consulting I have seen many well-intentioned leaders who have decided to be the emulation of Jack Welch or some other mythic leader. This is always a lost cause. Not that you can’t learn from studying others, but your context and personality will differ in significant ways. It is also immensely tiring to try to be something that you are not. It is a lot more effective to determine your own strengths, learn from those before, and then create your own authentic approach to leading successfully.
Compassion: Daniel Goleman talks about the condition of “you” and “it.” In simple language (of which Goleman is apparently not fond), this is the difference between a person being seen as another human being and a person being seen as a piece of equipment. This is the challenge I have always had with the concept that “people are our greatest asset” which undermines the true value of your team. When times are tough, leaders are sometimes faced with difficult decisions that will have negative impacts on others. It is easy, and to some degree necessary, to de-personalize these decisions in order to make changes that are necessary in the organization. But it is far better, even for those who are not negatively impacted by the changes, if the leader takes the time and effort to be considerate of those who are being influenced by the change. Greater communication and taking the time to listen, make a great difference.
Next time we will finish the list of characteristics with the final pair and a bonus: Attitude, Accountability and tying it all together into a leader of impact.
Tags: authenticity, collaboration, compassion, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics
21 Dec 08 Strong Global Leaders (II)-Action, Vision and Values
Last time I mentioned Courage and Focus as keys to strong global leaders. This time I want to add three more characteristics that are closely related:
Action: Whenever change occurs there is often “a whole lot of waiting going on.”
The sheer chaos can paralyze the best leaders into inaction. However, if you are immobile, your team will become even more so. Certain activities will need to be done regardless of the future outcome. Discuss contingency plans for ongoing projects and acknowledge the concerns of the team. If you see the direction that the change is taking, you can also pro-actively prepare or influence the outcome.
In times of turbulent change, leaders are especially challenged. At the same time, the true test of leadership is how you manage yourself and the motivation and inspiration of your employees when times are tough.
Vision: In “The Leadership Challenge” authors James Kouzes and Barry Posner
point out, “There’s nothing more demoralizing than a leader who can’t clearly articulate why we’re doing what we’re doing.”While some have recently argued that a “vision” is restrictive and counterproductive, I would maintain that one of the primary ways to distinguish a leader from a non-leader is the holding of this story about what could be. Even though the world changes, the fundamentals of a vision can stay both consistent and based in reality when it is a real story that is truly held by the leader.
Values: Values are a part of leadership that never changes, they are the
masterplan to which everybody refers. No matter what else changes in the course of work and life, a leader who does not stick to his values will be seen as unpredictable, unreliable and untrustworthy.
While strong values like honesty, integrity, or social responsibility seem self-evident,it is important that you have highlighted a few of these as priorities, especially in a global team. Because they are obvious to you does not mean they are obvious to everybody. Nor does it mean that all of the team you lead or work with share the same set of values as primary.
It is not only the single importance of Action, Vision, Values that makes a great leader, but the manner in which these characteristics interact in behavior that is crucial. The vision and values drives the action. Action alone does not make a leader…only a busy person. Vision alone can not sustain a team without results. And values are the glue that holds the other two together to create truly high-impact teams.
Tags: Action, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics, Values, vision
Twitter Updates!
- impactsuccess: 'Stop J_Canfield'impactsuccess: 'Stop J_Canfield' […]
- impactsuccess: Now that I'm professoring again I think I'll grow a long gray ponytail.impactsuccess: Now that I'm professoring again I think I'll grow a long gray ponytail. […]
- impactsuccess: On the plane and headed to Dallas to work with some awesome leaders!impactsuccess: On the plane and headed to Dallas to work with some awesome leaders! […]