While you’re still recovering from the hockey game and reflecting on the fine points of landing a triple lutz, curling a draw shot, and throwing a double mctwist 1260 (with cheese), let’s add to the list what we might learn about leadership from the Winter Olympics. While the athletes made the impossible look easy and danger look fun, the planners, judges and referees were sometimes in the spotlight more than the competitors—not for their athleticism but for their decision-making.
Olympic athletes should be allowed to race, shoot and objectively score their way to the medal podium or do their best in the process. But circumstances interfere, the weather doesn’t cooperate, or variables change unexpectedly during an event—the nature of competition. When subjectivity is an integral part of the scoring, judges appear to let their biases affect the outcome–the nature of humanity. In 2010, however, the event managers were under the microscope for their roles in the outcomes—the nature of decision-making.
Sleds, skates, and skis
On the sliding course, athletes, coaches, and officials agreed that the track was too fast and dangerous; unfortunately their consensus was not evident until after Georgian Luger Nodar Kumaritashvili was killed making a practice run. The course was quickly shortened to reduce top speeds, and a safety barrier was erected. The decision to build the fastest sliding track in history was meant to foster excitement and set world records, but the unintended consequence was the tragic death of a young athlete.
At another venue, the first runs of the women’s giant slalom got under way in less-than-ideal conditions and with less-than-ideal results. Lindsey Vonn spun out and crashed near the end of her first run, but there was no time to alert Julie Mancuso, who had already entered the course. Mancuso had to be stopped before reaching the accident and transported back to the start line, a confusing snowmobile relay to the top. Her next try was attempted in much worse conditions, both physical and mental, and the rest of that day’s runs were postponed, perhaps casting some doubt on the decision to run the slalom that day.
The behind-the-scenes decisions (i.e., putting two racers on the course at one time, rushing to get all the runs in on the first day, transporting Mancuso abruptly to the top of the slope) were meant to keep the event on schedule. But the unintended consequence was to put a dangerous burden on the racers, which changed the final outcome of the event and the course of people’s lives.
At the speed-skating oval, sure-fire gold medalist Sven Kramer, was disqualified after completing the 10,000-meter event, not for his decisions but for his coach’s. The errant official instructed Kramer from the sidelines to skate his final eight laps in the wrong lane, which caused the disqualification even though Kramer had the fastest time. The coach surely meant to correct what he saw as an unfolding error and keep his skater on course, but the consequence was the complete undoing of his protégée’s medal chances.
Your decisions affect people’s lives, too
As a manager, your decisions may be equally well intentioned, but your consequences can be just as harsh. Furthermore, when you make quick decisions about whom to hire and fire, “pencil-whip” your performance appraisals, or make significant changes without input, you risk the same kinds of outcomes. You affect people’s lives every day.
Don’t wing it. Make your decisions the highest quality possible by: gathering sufficient data, developing criteria, using your group’s resources wisely, utilizing time to full advantage, comparing the pros and cons of each alternative, making contingency plans for short- and long-term eventualities, and communicating proactively with all stakeholders. Take courses on decision-making. Adopt a decision-making model, and practice making decisions under varied situations and constraints.
Good leaders know the depth of their responsibility. But they also come to terms with the fact that their judgments will sometimes yield negative outcomes. These Olympic officials did not necessarily make bad decisions, but the decisions they made sometimes had bad consequences—the nature of leadership. This can’t deter them (or you) from making the highest-quality decisions with the information available. You affect people’s lives, and it’s your job.
Tiger Wood’s will apparently issue an in-person public statement this Friday, the first time he has shown his face since his family and professional life started unraveling after he mysteriously “crashed his SUV in his driveway” at Thanksgiving. News reports indicate that he will offer some form of televised apology to a room full of friends and well wishers but will take no questions. If so, it will be an ignominious next step in a trail of misdeeds and mistakes that highlight an important, although tragic, lesson in leadership.
His misdeeds were many, including being unfaithful to his wife, being untrue to his stated values, and placing others in untenable positions to hide his indiscretions. However, his biggest mistake had to do with his communications – or lack thereof. The most famous name in golf has been virtually silent on the events surrounding the debacle, letting others fill the void with whatever information they wished. A posted statement taking some responsibility for the sordid events did little more than confirm our worst fears, far short of being forthcoming or proactive at a critical time.
His lack of communication dramatized an important leadership principle taken directly from Mother Nature, in fact, “the woods.” The principle is “nature abhors a vacuum,” meaning that when there is a void of flora and fauna, the empty space will eventually be filled with plants and animals of some variety. Even parking lots will one day break apart and yield to the forces of nature if left alone to do so.
Since Thanksgiving, the void of information left by Mr. Woods has been filled daily with other people’s version of what transpired, including accusers who were never under oath. This allowed an embarrassing and humiliating chapter in his life to become even more devastating to his family and career.
New managers naively assume they can control information, but experienced leaders eventually learn that voids of this nature will be filled anyway, so they might as well be the ones doing it – and with the correct information. New and experienced leaders struggle to balance the short-term downsides of being proactive about bad news with the long-term gains of being forthright. In truth, the latter mitigates the damage and builds credibility while the former exacerbates problems and undermines trust.
A somewhat better example than Tiger Woods comes from the president of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, who has at least placed himself in the uncomfortable public spotlight to take responsibility and apologize for Toyota’s malfunctioning vehicles, recalls, and loss of customer confidence. As a result, Toyota has a fighting chance to stay competitive and eventually win back market share. Had he not done so, the organization would be relentlessly punished by stakeholders and customers, just as Tiger is continuing to be discredited.
While Toyota has a long way to go to get out of their particular “woods,” they have at least started the process. Tiger has hardly begun.
Ten U.S. missionaries on a relief operation of their own design were charged yesterday with “kidnapping and criminal association” stemming from their apparent attempt to rescue 33 children from that earthquake-ravaged country. Besieged group leader Laura Silsby has admitted that while she and the others charged by the Haitian government had not sought permission for the rescue, they were “only trying to help.” According to the Voice of America, Silsby said, “We came here with the intention of being able to offer and share God’s love and share hope with these children.”
Assuming all the best intentions, it appears that she and her associates are likely to spend a miserable portion of their lives paying a very high price for their good intentions. Haiti has laws — and well it should — to protect its children from the well-known, sick, and criminal elements that would extort them.
While the entire story is still unfolding, at least one lesson of leadership (and life) is clear: your intentions do not equal your impacts, no matter how altruistic, passionate, or deeply held they are. Neither do they amount to an acceptable excuse when things don’t turn out the way you had planned or hoped.
More mundane examples might include:
· “I didn’t mean to offend anyone, I was just telling the truth.” This individual feels that since he didn’t mean to offend anyone, then the responsibility for the negative outcome lies with the other person.
· “I only wanted to make things better than they were, and now everyone is upset because I was being a change agent.” The implication here is that since the manager’s goal was altruistic and within the scope of her job, people should not have been as upset as they were and should be more accepting of the change.
· “If you’re going to learn, then I have to be able to give you feedback without you getting defensive.” The implication here is that the feedback giver was only doing his job, and it was the recipient’s responsibility to deal with it more professionally.
Our good intentions should certainly guide our behavior. However, an alert leader needs to be cognizant of their unintended consequences and take responsibility for avoiding them, minimizing them, and ameliorating them when they occur.
Delivering again on his promise of “change,” President Obama has appointed 32 special-purpose “czars” to date, high-level government officials who appear to advise him and set policy on a cornucopia of issues. How their purpose and authority juxtaposes with his Constitutional leadership team — The Cabinet — has yet to be clarified, and it is the subject of growing consternation and confusion.
This article is about the latter, and what leaders need to know before making a foray of their own down this particular method of structuring and leading an organization.
Structuring “Outside the Boxes”
In business terms, what the president appears to be doing on the surface is creating a “matrix organization,” a structure that is sometimes used to manage large projects, develop products, or improve processes. This structure works more like an Excel spreadsheet than the traditional organization chart, with its one-person, one boss simplicity.
In the spreadsheet analogy, functional leaders would be shown in the headers of the columns (e.g., manufacturing, finance, human resources), and project leaders at the beginning of the rows. Project teams would be composed of “cross-functional” experts from the various units or divisions of the organization, their names inserted where the rows and columns intersect. The team members in these cells end up reporting to two authorities, the one at the head of the column and the one at the start of the row, and that’s just if they are on one cross-functional team!
Easy to Appoint, Hard to Manage
Ideally, this arrangement blends the best of both worlds, the deep knowledge of functional experts with the integrating nature of teams to deliver the best possible results. But this is one of those management theories that looks great on paper but is extremely difficult to execute in real life. The research continues to show mixed results, largely because of certain “human factors” and the difficult leadership challenges that they pose.
One such study summarizes that when you attempt to use a matrix organization, you can expect the following: (1) misaligned goals, (2) unclear roles and responsibilities, (3) ambiguous authority, (4) lack of a matrix guardian (someone to coordinate activities and facilitate communications), and (5) silo-focused employees (http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/administration-human/394122-1.html).
Fortunately, these are also clues about what you can do when faced with a matrix challenge:
1. Get all parties “on the same page” about the overarching goals and recognize them for their mutual contribution and accomplishment of them.
2. Clarify roles and responsibilities like they’ve never been clarified before. This process should be repeated many times during the project as they will get off track regularly.
3. Build teamwork between the two matrix authorities first. The function (or dysfunction) of every such team is a direct reflection of how the leaders work together.
4. Orchestrate the entire entire symphony from a central point. This is a very hands-on process that requires a coordinator with deft facilitation skills and his/her own authority.
5. Create and maintain a culture of flexible, autonomous, self-motivated individuals who can adapt quickly without constant supervision.
Unfortunately, very few of these appear to be happening among the czars, the cabinet members and the president. Not only that, those holding the “project manager” slots seem to be functional experts themselves, or they duplicate the cabinet positions already in place. In short, the emerging matrix is missing the structure, coordination, communication, and culture it needs to succeed, which does not bode well for this new form of our federal government.
For leaders, the matrix organization can be a daunting structure work within, but if called upon to lead in such an environment, do your homework, find a mentor, and be nimble as a cat. The skills you learn will make you a better and more adaptable leader.
Disgraced NFL Quarterback Michael Vick got out of prison in May, was released by the Atlanta Falcons in June, got his NFL suspension lifted in July, and signed with the Philadelphia Eagles in August. The sordid details of his crimes and lies need not be detailed here, but after what must have been the slowest 23 months of his life (in Leavenworth), Vick is getting an epic second chance — at lightning speed. The question now is, “Can he turn his life around and earn this triple reversal of fortune?”
If his past successes on the field were a byproduct of good coaching, his future achievements in life will be the consequence of something different — mentoring. Thanks to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Vick is fortunate to have Tony Dungy as his formal mentor. Coach Dungy is one of the most successful, ethical, and respected leaders of our time, sports or otherwise. But what will mentoring do that coaching could not, and how does this apply to the everyday leader?
Where “Mentoring” Comes In
In the workplace, we have five major options to affect performance: (1) rewards and recognition, (2) performance management, (3) training, (4) coaching, and (5) mentoring. Most of us are familiar with the first four, but the last is an old concept in a new package. Even before it became a formal technique, mentoring has always been a part of developing talent in organizations.
In its most rudimentary form, older workers showed younger employees “the ropes.” More formally stated, mentoring is a relationship that imparts wisdom from experienced individuals to less experienced ones, so that the protégé’s success is accelerated by not having to learn every lesson on their own. If we are lucky, we have good mentors who impart productive wisdom, accelerating positive success through healthy life lessons. If not, we may have poor role models and the worst kind of mentors, exactly what happened to Vick.
A Growing Art and Science
But Vick isn’t the only one benefitting from mentoring these days. Fortune 100 organizations have formalized the process to stem the “brain drain” of retiring Baby Boomers and get newly acquired talent on board as fast as possible. In addition, the latest generation of employees, Generation Y, is looking for mentors to fill the role of their “helicopter parents” who have been championing them (a little too much) from cradle to college.
Organizations that can leverage mentoring (and even use “reverse mentoring,” especially where younger employees are more experienced with technology) are likely to attract and retain the best talent and improve their bottom lines. But like the other forms of performance improvement methods, there are key principles to learn how to do it well. For example, slamming in a formal program and assigning mentors to protégés is a recipe for disaster. Structured but less formal programs work much better, especially where mentors have formal training and protégés have more choices.
As a leader, you are probably already mentoring several people in an informal way, even though you have received no formal training on how to do it. Choose your mentee carefully, test the relationship before finalizing it, invest in learning your role, and don’t spread yourself too thin with multiple mentees. If you can’t hire Tony Dungy to mentor your people and the job falls to you, then you should read The Elements of Mentoring by W. Brad Johnson and Charles R. Ridley. It’s the essential primer on the subject, and it’s your job.
Managers often ask, “How do I motivate my people?” I tell them, “You don’t!”
My surprising answer not only frustrates them but challenges a basic paradigm that we all share about motivation, what is commonly referred to as “carrots and sticks.” The main concept is that we have two kinds of motivational tools at our disposal that can be used in various combinations. They are “rewards” that promote the desired behavior and “punishment” that discourages the undesired behavior. While the fundamentals of this philosophy are true, they are not enough.
I encourage my clients to shift their thinking from one of manipulation (i.e., “How do I get people to do what I want?”) to one of alignment (i.e., “How do I create the conditions that will maximize performance?”). The latter question is more likely to be asked by a leader who has learned that carrots and sticks have limitations and that “discretionary effort” is almost boundless.
Discretionary effort is the energy and focus people voluntarily bring to bear on their work. Like “discretionary income,” it is the amount left over after the basic obligation is satisfied. People can “spend” their discretionary effort any way they wish. As a leader, you hope that they choose to spend it with you.
Maximizing this voluntary output comes from appealing in various ways to people’s intrinsic motivations. This is done by aligning work with people’s interests, and here are three ways to do that:
- Good Job-Person Fit. People can be a good or bad fit with their boss, their organization, and/or their organization. The better their values, motivations and interests are aligned with these three elements, the better their performance will be, without any additional intervention. This can be accomplished with high-quality recruiting, interviewing, personnel testing, and/or assessment centers.
- Job Enrichment. You don’t have to redesign an entire job or move people around like chess pieces to accomplish this. Talk to each person to find out what kind of work has been most satisfying, fun, or energizing. Ask questions like, “What was your most fulfilling assignment in any job?” Collect their stories over time, and you will see a pattern of what gives them job satisfaction (e.g., working with numbers, starting something new, or helping people learn), these are the keys to their discretionary effort. Once discovered, be creative in matching assignments (that have to get done anyway) to people. It takes some effort, but a little bit goes a long way!
- Involvement. The only way to maximize discretionary effort is through ownership, and the only way to build ownership is through involvement. Adults expect to have a say in how their work is designed, how change that affects them is implemented, and how plans are made that they must execute. To test this theory, simply leave people out of any discussion about their job then tell them what you decided without them. If you are lucky, they will do exactly what you told them to do and nothing more – zero discretionary effort. At worst, they will sabotage the process and undermine results. Even if they cannot be involved from the outset, get their fingerprints on the project as early and as often as possible. Once again, a little goes a long way.
Be a smart leader, and take a step up from “carrots and sticks” to maximizing your results through discretionary effort. You’ll be glad you did, and it’s your job.
Another Case of Communications Undermining Credibility
Any time a leader raises more questions than she answers (whether it’s a performance review, a staff meeting, or a national news conference), their results and credibility are bound to suffer. That’s what happened when Gov. Sarah Palin, a lightning rod for supporters and critics since her explosion onto the national scene during the 2008 presidential campaign, announced last week that she would be resigning from public office in just a few weeks.
What she did was incongruent
Her credibility and leadership were damaged in at least three ways. First, what she did (i.e., resign from the top public service role in her state) was incongruent with her message (i.e., to remain a dedicated servant leader to the people of Alaska). Unless better explained, the two ideas remain contradictory, leading to “cognitive dissonance,” a state of anxiety when one is asked to hold two incompatible beliefs at the same time. When you do this to your audience, as Gov. Palin did, you are creating the conditions for misinformation and speculation, your audience’s natural attempt to reconcile the discord that you created.
How she did it was incomplete
The second way her credibility was damaged was by her incomplete messaging, which relied more on code words and implications. The listener could discern two potential reasons for her decision, but they were not clearly spelled out as she said they were. One was the growing cost to doing the work of the people, apparent waste that was precipitated by “a full court press” of media attention, attack, and distractions on her time. The second implication was that her family wanted her to leave office. If she was resigning for family reasons, that would have been understandable and credible, but her real reasons still seemed shrouded by catch phrases (i.e., “no more politics as usual”) and famous quotations (i.e., “we are not retreating; we are advancing in a new direction,” Gen. Douglass MacArthur).
When she did it was disingenuous
During the announcement, she said, “Some are going to question the timing of this,” which showed that she must have realized that the timing would be suspect. It’s a well-worn technique to release bad news on a Friday afternoon to avoid the immediate news cycle and have your story buried by other events. The technique is less than forthright and, when recognized, can be seen as calculating and insincere. If her decision had been in the works for many weeks, as she said, it could have been announced at any other time.
Leaders can and must do better
Gov. Palin will certainly go on to do great things, and I wish her family well. But she could have been more forthright, concise, and clear in her resignation communication. Because she was not, her credibility was diminished and so was her leadership. No matter what your message, your reputation will be better served when your communication is straightforward and respectful, which means clear, sincere, and congruent. This will add to your legacy of leadership rather than detract from it, and it’s your job.
My blog and newsletter (Leaderslips & Tips) are subtitled “The Good, The Bad, and The Bungled,” and so far this year, Gov. Mark Sanford is taking the grand prize for the latter. The only dignity remaining in the whole embarrassment is thanks to First Lady Jenny Sanford, who deserves our respect for her professionalism, dignity, and leadership.
Try as he (tangentially) might to blame the pressure of office and the “political bubble” in which he chose to live, he literally lied, cheated, and stole from the people of South Carolina. I’m sorry for his family, but based solely on the self-destruction of his credibility, the case for his resignation or removal from office could not be clearer. His credibility is gone. His ability to lead has evaporated, and he should step down to allow the government to move forward as effectively as possible.
Even if it had been artful, his apology, while necessary, was insufficient. Moreover, to say that he plans to use the next 18 months to “rebuild trust” is to demonstrate that his focus remains in the wrong direction — on himself. Rebuilding trust might be his wish, but it’s not his job.
Focusing only on the leadership-related aspects of the case, here’s why Gov. Sanford should go:
- He was “absent without leave” from his post without properly informing his office and without making arrangements to manage the business of the people in his absence. This was gross mismanagement and terrible judgment, reason enough for reprimand by any reasonable organization.
- He lied to his staff and therefore to his constituents. By misleading his staff into thinking he might be “hiking on the Appalachian Trail,” he was essentially lying to them and arranging for that lie to be passed along to his constituents. This unconscionably put his staff — and their credibility — at risk, which was to use them in the worst sense of the word.
- He stole from the people by using taxpayer money to visit his mistress in Argentina. Even if he makes any kind of reasonable case for being in Argentina on behalf of South Carolina, he clearly misused government resources while he was there. Offering to pay this money back — only after being found out — does virtually nothing to mitigate the damage or erase the crime. Like much of this case, while paying back the money was necessary, it only adds insult to injury.
Even without the most exquisite leadership skills and abilities, leaders can still be effective (i.e., followed) if they are trustworthy, if they are setting a productive direction, and if they are behaving in a way that is congruent with their role and the values of the organization.
Gov. Mark Sanford must go, do what he can for his family, and do what he must for the people of South Carolina. Protect your credibility. Without it, you have no chance as a leader. It is quite literally your job.
In what initially appeared to be routine testimony before Congress, Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh ran into an ambush he wasn’t expecting.
At a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the general was answering a question from Sen. Barbara Boxer and addressed her as “ma’am,” as in “yes, ma’am.” Sen. Boxer interrupted him to say, “You know, do me a favor. Could you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’ It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you.” At which point, the general responded crisply, “Yes, senator.”
It is well-established military protocol to address a superior officer (or anyone higher in the chain of command) as either “sir” or “ma’am.” Even though the officer clearly meant no disrespect and was choosing his words properly, the senator appeared irritated, even implying that she had been insulted or degraded. But what did she have to be offended about? Nothing.
She was making a point related to her leadership, not his language.
The Boss-Subordinate Relationship
You don’t have to work in the rings of the Pentagon or the halls of Congress to be familiar with the boss-subordinate relationship. By definition, the relationship is out of balance. The boss has more positional power than the subordinate. Power to establish expectations. Power to make decisions. Power to promote, demote, and create a work environment that can be miserable or masterful.
Adults understand the need for a “chain of command” in the workplace, military or not. Hierarchy is necessary in organizations to give clarity to roles and differentiate responsibilities, but depending upon the situation and their intentions, bosses and subordinates can take action (covert and overt) to balance the relationship to their liking.
To “bring them down a peg,” subordinates can embarrass a boss, withhold needed information, or let them fail in any number of ways. Subordinates can also bring themselves up by boasting, grand standing, or demonstrating power of their own.
Bosses can equilibrate the relationship, thus minimizing the power gap and making the relationship more collegial. This can be done by working side-by-side with subordinates, meeting them on their “turf,” using self-deprecation, or choosing language that implies partnership more than power. Bosses can also make the power gap wider, unbalancing the relationship even more than normal.
That’s what Sen. Boxer was doing, and it was not a compliment to her leadership abilities. If the general had done something to insult, diminish, or undermine the senator, then her chastising might have been appropriate to re-balance the relationship. However, since none of these factors was evident, Sen. Boxer diminished herself and her leadership.
“Pulling Rank” Should be Your Last Resort
As I explain in The 8 Greatest Mistakes New Managers Make, your rank (or job title) does not give you as much power as you think. The power to get things done through others — the leader’s real job — comes from understanding human behavior and relationships, not from heavy-handed, junior-grade tactics, like these. Leaders who rely on their positional power, as Sen. Boxer demonstrated, might achieve a degree of compliance, but they will never earn the discretionary effort of their subordinates. Leaders who learn to rely on personal power will be more effective and more likely to go farther — faster.
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s careful countenance cracked on May 14 during a national news conference, spotlighting the dramatic connection between communication and credibility.
While the event was clearly intended to clarify timelines and to solidify her positions on “enhanced interrogation techniques,” it had nearly the opposite effect, clouding the torture issues and diminishing her standing with stakeholders of every stripe.
This episode will become a case study of poor eloquence at an executive level, and it marks a derailing moment in Pelosi’s career. Here is how her words and gestures were the Speaker’s undoing this month in the media so you can avoid this fate.
Words
A leader’s words are her weapons. President Obama earned an international reputation for eloquence during his 2008 presidential campaign and beyond. Previous presidents John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt were similarly gifted. Of Winston Churchill, Edward R. Murrow once reported that “he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.”
Ms. Pelosi’s words were halting, circular, and exculpatory. She had trouble putting them in plain English and had to refer to her written statement to ensure that she was consistent in her message. Her key points should have come from memory and her heart, not the carefully chosen words of a script. In addition, the content of her explanation was confusing and raised more questions about her actions and intentions than they answered, leaving listeners with serious doubts about her integrity, undermining her reputation almost beyond repair.
Gestures
Perhaps more damaging was her demeanor and delivery, which was characterized by nervous mannerisms and overt annoyance, not just at Republicans but at the media itself. She repeatedly licked her lips, waved her hands incongruently, stumbled over her words, fumbled with papers, interrupted questioners, darted her eyes, and gulped repeatedly. In addition, she parsed words, became defensive, and appeared generally desperate rather than in charge.It may be some time before we fully understand “what she knew and when she knew it,” but a lesson in words and gestures is immediately apparent.
A leader’s credibility is her stock in trade, and it behooves every manager to speak plainly and deliver messages sincerely.For more information on the linguistics of leadership, read Speak like Churchill, Stand like Lincoln: 21 Powerful Secrets of History’s Greatest Speakers by James C. Humes. In the meantime, say what you mean and mean what you say. It’s your job, and your credibility is always at stake when you communicate.