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

03 Jan 10 It’s a New Year

So, 2010 is upon us and we’re making some changes here at the ole IMPACT headquarters. 2009 was a year of learning and one of the things we learned was that social media, and communication in general, is a lot more difficult to keep up with than we first surmised.

Actually, the problem I have always had is to figure out the difference between what I post on the blog versus what I write in the newsletter. In 2009 I tried to keep up with two blog entries per week and one newsletter per week. Nuts! So at the end of the year I took a break from both in order to rethink the purpose behind the different channels and how best to approach them for the next year.

I just finished re-reading Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (P.S.)“> (If you haven’t read it, you should) and noticed something in the added material at the back of the book. Levitt and Dubner approached this issue in a way that makes sense to me. First, there is the book from which most of the discussion comes. Second, they have a website and newsletter that provides more or less updates to the book (they have a new one now called Superfreakonomics which I’m listening too on my various commutes…fascinating!). Third, they have their blog. The blog is a much more casual device for them with various observations, rantings and ravings but overall a better look into their own thinking just through the fact that it is so conversational.

There’s the model I want to use. I have tried in the past to create a blog that is educational and addresses substantive issues with leadership tips, etc. But that’s also what I’m doing with the newsletter. So I have decided that this year the blog will be much less scientific and a lot more…well, fun. It will be OPINION and hopefully in so doing will be not only an added thought value for you, but also more entertaining and engaging than the mini-lectures that have occurred here in the past. Also in a fit of independence and spontaneity, I will commit to at least a weekly blog entry but there might be some weeks where there are several. Who knows? Why not?

The newsletter on the other hand will become more substantive and provide more information and ideas than it has in the past. I am going to publish it in pdf format for those who like to print things or want to read them on their Kindle or Sony Reader (or iPhone or whatever). The objective of the newsletter is to create something that you will want to keep and to which you may want to refer. This allows me to have guest columns as well as much more useful content in one place on a monthly basis.

More than anything, as we move along on this quest to get it right, I invite you to give me feedback and input on what you think would be most useful. In the meantime, we’ll keep messing with the formula until we get something that works. For example, right now I have two websites: www.ImpactSuccess.com and www.GlobalLeadershipDialogue.com. I’m not sure this makes sense any longer and perhaps there should just be one. I think I have two partially valuable sites right now and not one that is a powerhouse. Maybe there’s a way to address that. Anyway, you get the picture. (If you have an opinion on this, I would love to hear it).

Off we go now into the new decade. We will keep learning and evolving and we invite you to do so with us. I suspect this is another case where there is no right or wrong answer, at least not one that is readily apparent. In the meantime, we’ll keep trying and see what we learn this time. Happy New Year!

Tags: engagement, Global Leadership, great leadership, trust, vision

13 Nov 09 Make your Goals STRONG instead of SMART

In the last post I talked about the difference between assessment and evaluation and how both are needed in order to provide strong performance management feedback to employees. In this post I would like to finally offer an alternative to the well-used (and perhaps outdated) SMART acronym of goal-setting. In the standard approach, goals are defined as good if they are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-Bound. These are o.k. characteristics and they have worked for decades. However, I am not sure they cover all of the elements necessary for successful goal-setting in times of great challenge. Today we need more than smart goals…we need STRONG ones.

Simple. For a goal to be useful, it has to be understandable. By “simple” I don’t mean it has to be elementary, but it needs to be focused on a single activity and outcome. Goals that have multiple parts are hard to understand and are difficult to deliver since the employee is unsure of what part of the goal is most important. A simple goal for one person may be an overly complicated goal for another person so this is a relative term based on the individual and the task at hand.

Timely. For a goal to be useful it also has to be relevant to the situation at the moment. Each goal should have an importance that is immediate. If you truly want me to make this goal a priority, I have to see how it plays a role in our success right now.

Realistic. For a goal to have its desired effect on performance, it has to be seen by the recipient of the goal as somehow possible to achieve. Unrealistic goals create demoralized troops. This is a point of negotiation. If you see the goal as realistic and your follower does not, you need to take the time to explain your thinking in a way that they can see the same reality you do. This does not mean the goal has to be easy..just possible.

Objective. For goals to be strong, they must be viewed as unbiased and real. One of the definitions of “objective” is “having a real existence.” If you want me to attempt to achieve a goal, it has to be termed in a way that it is real. “Making people happy” is not an objective goal. “Improving customer satisfaction” is.

Necessary. Useless goals are the bane of high-performance. For a follower to be motivated to achieve a goal he or she has to see the value of the goal they are pursuing. Goals need to be provided in a context of understanding so that employees understand not only the specifics of the goal, but also the goal’s importance in the bigger picture. The necessity of the goal can be a strong performance driver, especially for employees who are personally committed to the overall success of the department or organization.

Grand. Goals need to be aspirational. They need to represent performance that requires ingenuity and persistence. They need to be challenging. Remember that I suggested they are realistic, which means they are not SO grand that they are unattainable. But realistic does not mean that it’s a piece-of-cake…it just means that it is doable. Grand goals are goals that stretch us to grow in ways that mediocre goals do not. Grand goals can be exciting, if they are agreed upon by both the leader and the follower.

Ultimately, this last statement is the key to successful goal-setting. Whether SMART or STRONG or some combination of the two, goals that are imposed on people tend to be less successful than those that are established with people. A goal-setting session should be a dialogue…the actual establishment of the goal should be the outcome of the dialogue. “Gifting” your employees with their goals creates confusion about what you mean and what the priorities are. But a goal-setting session where each individual has the opportunity to share in the crafting of the objective can be inspirational in itself.

Tags: communication, expectations, goal-setting, motivation, strong goals, trust, vision

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

28 Oct 09 Leaders Behind Closed Doors

I was asked a week ago by Fox News to comment on the issue of the Health Care Debate. It startled me a bit because I’m not really a health care debate kind of expert and Lord knows I couldn’t solve the issue any faster than anybody else. But their question was specific: “Is it a problem that our leaders have taken the debate behind closed doors?” Of course, Fox being known for it’s “fair and balanced” reporting, I searched through their archives and discovered that they had started this ongoing story showing the closed door in Washington and asking the question, “What are they doing in there?”

In case your not familiar with the process, the way this works is that Fox in this case, or any network for that matter, asks their “expert” a few questions, you give them your answers and then they decide if they want you on their show. This is not an issue of censorship or some manipulation as much as it is their way of ensuring that they don’t have three people with exactly the same opinion or one person who doesn’t have anything to say, etc. Unfortunately we weren’t able to find a studio close to where I was at the time so I didn’t make it to the party.

That was disappointing because, as it turns out, I DID have an opinion on the subject. I just didn’t know it until they asked the question. Yes, it can be a problem when leaders go into seclusion to have top secret discussions because, the longer we don’t know what is going on, the more likely we are to fill in the gaps and speculate as to what is going to happen. In general terms, the more transparent, the better.

However, with the health care debate, if there is truly going to be a debate and an effort to come up with a compromise solution, it would almost have to be done behind closed doors. Democrats and Republicans alike painted themselves into a corner during the histrionics of the townhall meetings, tea parties and the like. By

playing to the drama of the moment, they scripted themselves into a non-negotiable position, an all-or-nothing position. If they are going to reach a compromise, they will have to do it outside of the eye of the media where image is everything. The American public has a right to know what impacts them. We have a right to be heard on the issues, which was the purpose of the townhalls and the various forums that have been held in the last months. And we will want to know, when we are considering our representatives for re-election, where they actually stood on the issues that are important to us. But we have to be willing to let them do the work we have put them there to do. We need to quit second-guessing the process and let the debate proceed to some outcome. Otherwise, our leaders aren’t leading…they’re playing to the media.

We have created such an atmosphere of political mistrust that any time we can’t hear what our politicians are saying or see what they are doing, we are suspicious. Actually, even when we CAN hear what they are saying we are suspicious. This is a bigger issue. Any survey I’ve read in the last 24 months has said that we simply have no trust in our elected leadership. We vote for the one that we mistrust the least! This has got to change if we are ever going to have the kind of healthy and productive dialogue that can move us forward. I would even go so far as to say that we actually have some politicians that are trying to do the right thing, both Democrat and Republican, and that deserve to be trusted. But there’s too much drama. The legitimate voices of reasoned debate are drowned out by the screaming and yelling of the overly pumped up. That’s why the current meetings are behind closed doors…for a little silence to be able to get the work done.

Neal Cavuto, in this pre-interview conversation, asked me if what I was trying to say was that the media needed to shut up and let the politicians do their thing. My answer…not really. I mean, the public doesn’t trust the media either. There are conflicting goals in play between the need to present crucial news and the need to draw viewers and readers to the drama. If there were no cameras there would be no theater. On the other hand, there would be no accountability either. The media should keep doing what it’s doing, but do it honestly. Editorial should be acknowledged as editorial and news should be presented as news. We need to separate the entertainment from the journalism for sure but I honestly believe that the vast majority of Americans are quite capable of doing that. They may not be the most vocal, but they are a pretty smart audience.

Tags: commitment, communication, honesty, leadership, Leadership Decision-making, Leadership Integrity Quotient, 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

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

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.

Having said that, I just read an article by Marshall Goldsmith called “Leading New Age Professionals” and published in the book “The Leader of the Future 2.” In this article, Goldsmith doesn’t try to tell us which qualities of a leader will make us successful (although like me, he has done that earlier as well), but he points out an even more important issue. Given the generation of followers, Goldsmith argues that the role of the leader rather than the specific characteristics, will drive success in the future. Specifically, Goldsmith states that success will be based on what the leader provides, not what the leader possesses.

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