A very dear friend of mine once said to me that “one rarely regrets taking the high road.” Though speaking in terms of moral and ethical behavior, which is indeed the behavior to be expected of the leader, it struck me that this is the position of the true leader. The true leader is the pinnacle of responsibility for the ethical and moral culture of the organization, as well as its sustained success.
It is as President Harry S Truman said: “The buck stops here.”
Or as Hopper said in A Bug’s Life, “First rule of leadership, everything is your fault.”
And back, once again, to President Truman, who said “The President—whoever he is—has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.”
This high road is a road of many forks, and leadership requires decisiveness when these forks are encountered. Baseball player (and Hall of Famer) Yogi Berra offers simple, practical advice for decision making. Berra says, “When you come to the fork in the road, take it.” Famous almost as much for his baseball success as unique use of the English language, Berra is telling us, in his own way, that, when faced with a decision, make it. Seek the advice and counsel of your colleagues and confidants, consider the ramifications of your decision, accept the responsibility of your decision, and learn from your mistakes. Change leadership requires action, and not to decide is a denial of your fiduciary responsibility of those whom you lead.
I challenge you all, to stop, look, and listen and, most of all, follow. Follow well those ahead of you, and look for opportunities to follow those whom you lead. When the time comes to lead change, embrace it, and embrace it with others.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
11/18: Leaders are firmly gentle
Dale Carnegie said it best in his book How to Win Friends and Influence People:
The use of gentleness and friendliness is demonstrated day after day by people who have learned that a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.
True leaders seem to always find the gentlest approach to dealing with problems in the workplace. They have learned that a caring, person-centric response to a workplace issue always yields the best long-term results. “A humane heart and a strong one; soft of speech and manner,” said Thomas Carlyle, “yet with an inflexible rigor of command. “ I have a prime example from one of my first jobs, some 30+ years ago, which demonstrates the effectiveness of firm gentleness.
I was 18 and working my way through college as a dock hand in a textile mill during the summer and after classes. Periodically, about once every 3 months, visited upon us like the plague was the arrival of the railway box car. When the box car arrived, about half of the dock hands were assigned to fill this box car with old rags and other non-saleable remnants of cloth. As one can well imagine, a most odious task.
There was, however, a known fact that those who dressed in the best clothes on “box car day” were least likely to be selected for box car duty. When the word would leak out that the box car was coming, those of us who had been on the dock long enough knew it was time to step up the attire.
On one particular day, the word was out that the box car was coming the next day. Secure in the knowledge of my sartorial subterfuge, I dressed accordingly.
But it didn’t work. I was placed on box car duty, and none too happy about it. I groused, I complained and worked myself into a tizzy. When I had had all I could stand, I stormed off, with my supervisor, Al, gently trying to calm me down. The reward for his efforts was a crumpled time card thrown in his general direction.
A few days later, and a realization that I had it pretty good where I was, I wanted to come back. I knew I was going to have to swallow my pride, obsequiously asking for my job back. I wasn’t happy about it, but I knew what I had to do.
When I arrived at my old job, I saw Al. I will never forget what he did. He saw me, smiled, and picked up the phone. He called the front office and said, “Cathy, send Bert’s time card down.” (It was actually a new, straight one.)
“You ready to get to work,” said Al.
“Yes, sir,” I said.
And that was all there was to it—on the surface. The next time the box car arrived, I came to work ready to work on it, and I even volunteered for the job. I will never forget the look Al and I exchanged on the dock that day. He had taught me well that I had an obligation to my place of employment, that he was indeed “the boss.” And he did it in a way that preserved my self respect, and my endearing respect for him.
The use of gentleness and friendliness is demonstrated day after day by people who have learned that a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.
True leaders seem to always find the gentlest approach to dealing with problems in the workplace. They have learned that a caring, person-centric response to a workplace issue always yields the best long-term results. “A humane heart and a strong one; soft of speech and manner,” said Thomas Carlyle, “yet with an inflexible rigor of command. “ I have a prime example from one of my first jobs, some 30+ years ago, which demonstrates the effectiveness of firm gentleness.
I was 18 and working my way through college as a dock hand in a textile mill during the summer and after classes. Periodically, about once every 3 months, visited upon us like the plague was the arrival of the railway box car. When the box car arrived, about half of the dock hands were assigned to fill this box car with old rags and other non-saleable remnants of cloth. As one can well imagine, a most odious task.
There was, however, a known fact that those who dressed in the best clothes on “box car day” were least likely to be selected for box car duty. When the word would leak out that the box car was coming, those of us who had been on the dock long enough knew it was time to step up the attire.
On one particular day, the word was out that the box car was coming the next day. Secure in the knowledge of my sartorial subterfuge, I dressed accordingly.
But it didn’t work. I was placed on box car duty, and none too happy about it. I groused, I complained and worked myself into a tizzy. When I had had all I could stand, I stormed off, with my supervisor, Al, gently trying to calm me down. The reward for his efforts was a crumpled time card thrown in his general direction.
A few days later, and a realization that I had it pretty good where I was, I wanted to come back. I knew I was going to have to swallow my pride, obsequiously asking for my job back. I wasn’t happy about it, but I knew what I had to do.
When I arrived at my old job, I saw Al. I will never forget what he did. He saw me, smiled, and picked up the phone. He called the front office and said, “Cathy, send Bert’s time card down.” (It was actually a new, straight one.)
“You ready to get to work,” said Al.
“Yes, sir,” I said.
And that was all there was to it—on the surface. The next time the box car arrived, I came to work ready to work on it, and I even volunteered for the job. I will never forget the look Al and I exchanged on the dock that day. He had taught me well that I had an obligation to my place of employment, that he was indeed “the boss.” And he did it in a way that preserved my self respect, and my endearing respect for him.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
11/11: Leaders value what other people value
I have often heard that managers should understand what those whom they manage value, and use this as a motivational tool. While this is certainly a valid management tool, it is not the perspective of the true leader.
Leaders have a much different level of empathy with the values of those whom they lead. I was taught this lesson well by a co-worker and friend soon after being placed in my first director-level leadership role. I was the leader of a small group of communications professions, mostly writers and media specialists. One individual in this group was serving as my associate director, and I had been his subordinate for several years before he then became mine. And to fuel the volatile situation, the individual and I had a rather contentious relationship long before our roles were reversed.
I was feeling rather pleased with myself, as I had handled the situation well, as had my new subordinate. Within the year, the subordinate decided to retire. I felt that I had fulfilled my professional and organizational responsibility and had no desire to plan or in any way involve myself in a retirement celebration.
This is when my co-worker and friend stepped in. He informed me very quickly that a retirement celebration had NOTHING to do with me and EVERYTHING to do with those with whom the new retiree had worked. I listened more to his admonition and I realized how right he was.
As a leader, I recognized that it was important for me to value what others value, in this case the significance of the ritual and symbol of retirement recognition over my sense of satisfied responsibility. It is often incumbent upon the leader to set aside what is of value to him and embrace what is of value to others. By valuing what others valued, I was able to honestly, with no sense of hypocrisy, plan and participate in a well-attended and very pleasant retirement celebration. Of infinitely greater significance I learned that, when it comes to what other people value, being a true leader is “all about you and not about me” within, of course, one’s acceptable moral and ethical priorities.
Corollary to this attribute is a subtle difference in a traditional characteristic of management that does not translate well to leadership but does underscore the empathetic motivational style of true leaders. Managers, it is commonly held, get work done through others. Leaders, on the other hand, get work done with others. One technique does not invalidate the other, but each indicates the difference in the role of the manger and the leader. Managers are, and should be, focused on short-term attainment of goals within time and quality guidelines as articulated by leadership. Leaders, on the other hand, are focused on the long-term goals, as well as the cultural health of the organization. Building relationships, and creating a climate conducive to this relationship building, is accomplished through camaraderie (with) not directive (through).
Leaders have a much different level of empathy with the values of those whom they lead. I was taught this lesson well by a co-worker and friend soon after being placed in my first director-level leadership role. I was the leader of a small group of communications professions, mostly writers and media specialists. One individual in this group was serving as my associate director, and I had been his subordinate for several years before he then became mine. And to fuel the volatile situation, the individual and I had a rather contentious relationship long before our roles were reversed.
I was feeling rather pleased with myself, as I had handled the situation well, as had my new subordinate. Within the year, the subordinate decided to retire. I felt that I had fulfilled my professional and organizational responsibility and had no desire to plan or in any way involve myself in a retirement celebration.
This is when my co-worker and friend stepped in. He informed me very quickly that a retirement celebration had NOTHING to do with me and EVERYTHING to do with those with whom the new retiree had worked. I listened more to his admonition and I realized how right he was.
As a leader, I recognized that it was important for me to value what others value, in this case the significance of the ritual and symbol of retirement recognition over my sense of satisfied responsibility. It is often incumbent upon the leader to set aside what is of value to him and embrace what is of value to others. By valuing what others valued, I was able to honestly, with no sense of hypocrisy, plan and participate in a well-attended and very pleasant retirement celebration. Of infinitely greater significance I learned that, when it comes to what other people value, being a true leader is “all about you and not about me” within, of course, one’s acceptable moral and ethical priorities.
Corollary to this attribute is a subtle difference in a traditional characteristic of management that does not translate well to leadership but does underscore the empathetic motivational style of true leaders. Managers, it is commonly held, get work done through others. Leaders, on the other hand, get work done with others. One technique does not invalidate the other, but each indicates the difference in the role of the manger and the leader. Managers are, and should be, focused on short-term attainment of goals within time and quality guidelines as articulated by leadership. Leaders, on the other hand, are focused on the long-term goals, as well as the cultural health of the organization. Building relationships, and creating a climate conducive to this relationship building, is accomplished through camaraderie (with) not directive (through).
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
11/4: Leaders relish the success of others
I recall an incident from my younger, more precocious days, when the ideas for organizational improvement flowed from me with little filtering. Many were quite well received and others were not as well received as I had anticipated. Bringing this fact to the attention of my immediate supervisor at the time, he informed me that “perhaps some people don’t like their horse smarter than they are.”
After recovering from the sting of having my contributions reduced to equine status, I understood how unfortunately correct he was. At the same time, I have learned how true leaders do not fall victim to this fallacy. True leaders show genuine, sincere pride in the success of those whom they lead. They have learned that the success of others is a reflection of their own success, and they freely allow credit to be absorbed and enjoyed by those who deserve it most.
There are few actions that jeopardize fulfillment of an organizational goal or objective more than jealousy of individual success. Each individual success is a component within the overall team success. And each individual success is a reflection of the quality of the team and the team’s leader, and move the team and its leader closer to achievement of the goal.
I firmly believe that greatness is never a stand-alone achievement; it is always a collective achievement by good people working well together with mutual respect and admiration for one another’s contributions to the overall attainment of the stated goal.
After recovering from the sting of having my contributions reduced to equine status, I understood how unfortunately correct he was. At the same time, I have learned how true leaders do not fall victim to this fallacy. True leaders show genuine, sincere pride in the success of those whom they lead. They have learned that the success of others is a reflection of their own success, and they freely allow credit to be absorbed and enjoyed by those who deserve it most.
There are few actions that jeopardize fulfillment of an organizational goal or objective more than jealousy of individual success. Each individual success is a component within the overall team success. And each individual success is a reflection of the quality of the team and the team’s leader, and move the team and its leader closer to achievement of the goal.
I firmly believe that greatness is never a stand-alone achievement; it is always a collective achievement by good people working well together with mutual respect and admiration for one another’s contributions to the overall attainment of the stated goal.
Monday, November 1, 2010
10/28: Leaders have appropriate operational understanding of their business
I realize that a phrase such as “appropriate operational understanding” is a qualitative term in need of some sort of qualification for more direct meaning. I also realize that leadership has failed as a consequence of not having “appropriate operational understanding” of the business being led.
Either too much or too little operational understanding tends to lead toward micro-management—the former as a consequence of the “we have always done it this way” attitude and the latter as a consequence of having to become overly involved in processes in an effort to acquire sufficient understanding to be comfortable with high-level decisions. Micro-management also results from the reverse of a very popular adage: Those who can’t teach … do. Leaders with appropriate operational understanding of their business are better mentors and work well in the teacher-becomes-learner-then-teacher paradigm.
There is, then, an appropriate medium. For the sake of proper quantification, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is no operational understanding of the business at hand and 10 is immense understanding, a leader should be in the 4 to 6 range. And a great true leader will choose confidants, directors, and associates that clearly fill in gaps on both sides of this mid-range.
I turn to baseball managers as a prime example. For years, it has always interested me that the most successful baseball managers are typically drawn from the ranks of the marginally successful baseball players. To substantiate that observation, I researched the careers of the 15 managers currently in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Not one had a playing career worthy of the Hall of Fame.
Either too much or too little operational understanding tends to lead toward micro-management—the former as a consequence of the “we have always done it this way” attitude and the latter as a consequence of having to become overly involved in processes in an effort to acquire sufficient understanding to be comfortable with high-level decisions. Micro-management also results from the reverse of a very popular adage: Those who can’t teach … do. Leaders with appropriate operational understanding of their business are better mentors and work well in the teacher-becomes-learner-then-teacher paradigm.
There is, then, an appropriate medium. For the sake of proper quantification, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is no operational understanding of the business at hand and 10 is immense understanding, a leader should be in the 4 to 6 range. And a great true leader will choose confidants, directors, and associates that clearly fill in gaps on both sides of this mid-range.
I turn to baseball managers as a prime example. For years, it has always interested me that the most successful baseball managers are typically drawn from the ranks of the marginally successful baseball players. To substantiate that observation, I researched the careers of the 15 managers currently in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Not one had a playing career worthy of the Hall of Fame.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
10/21: Leaders are humble
I was introduced to the book Good To Great: Why Some Companies Make The Leap...and Other's Don't by Jim Collins in a leadership discussion with work colleagues. Collins characterizes the Level 5 leader—the highest level of leadership by his metrics—as "a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will."
As interesting a conclusion as this is, and as much I appreciate Collins’ observation, I don’t find it at all paradoxical. Professional will is complemented by humility. Humility makes us receptive to learning and mentoring. Success requires this receptiveness, and the product of professional will is success. Just as greatness is never a stand-alone achievement, neither is success. It is realized in concert with those from whom we have learned, and those we have taught well.
One of the more endearing qualities of true leaders is this humility, and I have noticed that those whose leadership skills I have admired most view the accolades of leadership as a reflective quality. Leaders are never self-validating; they allow the honor to be attributed to them by others.
As interesting a conclusion as this is, and as much I appreciate Collins’ observation, I don’t find it at all paradoxical. Professional will is complemented by humility. Humility makes us receptive to learning and mentoring. Success requires this receptiveness, and the product of professional will is success. Just as greatness is never a stand-alone achievement, neither is success. It is realized in concert with those from whom we have learned, and those we have taught well.
One of the more endearing qualities of true leaders is this humility, and I have noticed that those whose leadership skills I have admired most view the accolades of leadership as a reflective quality. Leaders are never self-validating; they allow the honor to be attributed to them by others.
Monday, October 11, 2010
10/14: Leaders embrace diversity
Leaders embrace diversity
True leaders genuinely seek out diversity of opinion and viewpoint before making any decision. When they ask your opinion, they expect to hear it; they are not seeking confirmation or validation of a pre-conceived solution or decision.
This Six Sigma-like approach to problem solving—approaching a problem without a pre-determined solution in mind—will do more than result in new and creative solutions to problems; it will engage the individuals within the organization. Individuals and their associated groups, however diverse or disperse, will be a part of the solution. And if the solution requires change, which it very often will, then these same individuals will become a part of the change.
True leaders go about this process of seeking diversity of opinion and viewpoint in such a way that it does not compromise their ultimate responsibility to make the final decision. One other “seemingly paradoxical” nature of true leaders is their ability to be simultaneously decisive while being receptive to different viewpoints. It is the responsibility of the true leader to be the final point of accountability for the decisions made and the direction taken. And this responsibility is meticulously balanced by the ability to absorb and evaluate multiple inputs in an effort to make the best decision possible.
In her novel Middlemarch, George Eliot creates an image that beautifully describes the role of the leader as the centering force of diversity:
Your pier-glass, an extensive surface of polished steel made to be rubbed by a housemaid, will be minutely and multitudinously scratched in all directions; but place now against it a lighted candle as a centre of illumination, and the scratches will seem to arrange themselves in a fine series of concentric circles round that little sun. It is demonstrable that the scratches are going everywhere impartially, and it is only your candle which produces the flattering illusion of a concentric arrangement, its light falling into an exclusive optical selection.
True leaders are those who make the scratches, the differences, the viewpoints—sometimes myopic and sometimes universally apparent—shine, and shine through their brilliance of focus. They are those who set the final course and ensure that all voices have been heard, all concerns have been reckoned with, and the final decision reflects the goals and aspirations of the clearly articulated organizational objectives.
True leaders genuinely seek out diversity of opinion and viewpoint before making any decision. When they ask your opinion, they expect to hear it; they are not seeking confirmation or validation of a pre-conceived solution or decision.
This Six Sigma-like approach to problem solving—approaching a problem without a pre-determined solution in mind—will do more than result in new and creative solutions to problems; it will engage the individuals within the organization. Individuals and their associated groups, however diverse or disperse, will be a part of the solution. And if the solution requires change, which it very often will, then these same individuals will become a part of the change.
True leaders go about this process of seeking diversity of opinion and viewpoint in such a way that it does not compromise their ultimate responsibility to make the final decision. One other “seemingly paradoxical” nature of true leaders is their ability to be simultaneously decisive while being receptive to different viewpoints. It is the responsibility of the true leader to be the final point of accountability for the decisions made and the direction taken. And this responsibility is meticulously balanced by the ability to absorb and evaluate multiple inputs in an effort to make the best decision possible.
In her novel Middlemarch, George Eliot creates an image that beautifully describes the role of the leader as the centering force of diversity:
Your pier-glass, an extensive surface of polished steel made to be rubbed by a housemaid, will be minutely and multitudinously scratched in all directions; but place now against it a lighted candle as a centre of illumination, and the scratches will seem to arrange themselves in a fine series of concentric circles round that little sun. It is demonstrable that the scratches are going everywhere impartially, and it is only your candle which produces the flattering illusion of a concentric arrangement, its light falling into an exclusive optical selection.
True leaders are those who make the scratches, the differences, the viewpoints—sometimes myopic and sometimes universally apparent—shine, and shine through their brilliance of focus. They are those who set the final course and ensure that all voices have been heard, all concerns have been reckoned with, and the final decision reflects the goals and aspirations of the clearly articulated organizational objectives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)