I know, that’s heresy, but it’s still true. We make mistakes all the time, we can only assume that the people working for us do as well.
So, when they do make that mistake, what do we do? Whack ’em immediately? Beat ’em up about it? Public humiliation?
How about, “Complete unequivocal support.”
WHAT??? You say…?
Now, of course I’m assuming that the mistake we are discussing isn’t patently illegal or unethical, and that it’s not so incredibly egregious as to start a trend of stupidity throughout the organization… so, given those broad parameters, how about we make this a learning event by:
1. Acknowledging the mistake. Let the employee or manager know that you know, and that we need to find a satisfactory way to get past the mistake.
2. Allow the employee or manager to find and/or create the resolution for the mistake, and
3. Support the manager publicly with his actions. Don’t torpedo a manager to his subordinates; when they come to you talking about the dumb decisions, claim ignorance of all the facts and circumstances, and state clearly — unequivocally — that you support the manager’s decision. If they have any issue with that, recommend they take it up with that manager.
After all, defending a wrong decision, or accepting responsibility for its correction, is part of management maturity, and needs to be learned through experience.
Let’s don’t cheat our folks out of our support, nor the opportunity to learn from mistakes. After all, as the old saw goes, they are the best teacher…
Besides, if they then make that mistake again, we can kill ’em with a clear conscience…
I recently went with some friends to Venice, Louisiana to do some gulf fishing. Those who know me are right now asking themselves what sort of alien has taken over my body, since they know well that I’m no fisherman. Not even a little bit.
But gulf fishing with a charter is different; there’s a crew on the boat that does the myriad things that need to happen to make fishing a success. Passengers just get to do the fun stuff. Essentially, we have no responsibility whatsoever, except reeling in fish.
So, a-fishing we went. One day inshore (not far from bunkhouse) and one day offshore (way the hell out there).
Good times had by all. Fish caught, fish eaten, cigars smoked, maybe even had a drink or two. Lots of laughs. But, much to the chagrin of some of my fishing partners (…”don’t you ever turn that off?”), I also noticed some appropriate leadership lessons from our days in the boat. Some things that apply to us once we get back onshore and return to our real worlds, where responsibility and accountability seems to run amok.
Lessons learned from my fishing trip:
Leaders are responsible for specific results, not simply effort. Our boat captain, Ronald, took us inshore fishing the first day; the expectation was to catch our limits in red fish. Well, the reds weren’t exactly biting, but we still had a good time catching sheepshead, bass and flounder, along with just a few reds.Only that wasn’t the expectation. So, though Ronald accomplished something, which is nearly always better than nothing, it was not the result we set out to accomplish, and that’s on him.
Real talent can do what mediocre talent cannot. Last year, same trip, our boat captain got us stuck on a sandbar while tentatively trolling in shallow waters. That’s a little too inshore for me, as we bailed out to help push. “Get out and help push” is not a conversation expected when fishing in a chartered boat.This year, Ronald said “hold on and don’t look down,” then slammed the throttles. We hurtled across waters more shallow than last year (inches deep) at breakneck speed. No running aground, no hopping out to push. A marked difference in boat leadership.
Leaders decide, evaluate, then decide again if necessary. During our offshore day, Ronald was having difficulties finding tuna that would bite. We continued to do what always worked for him, until he realized it wasn’t; then we started doing things differently.While we were trying new methods, the environment (weather) shifted, and Ronald immediately pivoted back to his original process, and we started catching fish. Ten tuna in about 90 minutes, to be exact. Not huge, but I can already attest to their eat-ability.Decide, evaluate, decide again.
There is always a bigger fish. Though we were ultimately successful in our tuna quest, we actually caught more than ten, only to have 2-3 dismembered by barracudas before we could get them in the boat. Disappointing, though not altogether surprising.You see, we were using bait fish (hardtails) that we caught earlier using a sabiki rig. Those small fish were just going about their business, not bothering anyone, looking for a simple meal. When we later used them for bait, the tuna would see these hardtails in unexpected waters, decide to be opportunistic and jump on ‘em. The barracudas, unable to run down a tuna in open water, would see the tuna on the line, in trouble, and attack from behind.Much like at work, you have (a) those just going about their business, doing their job, hoping to get paid; (b) those who are opportunistic, looking for a chance to get something they probably shouldn’t have had access to; and (c) those who see others in trouble, and capitalize on their misery for their own gain.
Admit it – you know some workplace barracudas.
There was also the lesson I learned about not trying to drink a beer in the face of a boat going 50 mph, but I’ll save that for another time.
Word Synonym Bossy controlling
Fair unbiased
Honest trustworthy
Handsome kevin
Intelligent smart
Mean bad-tempered
We use a lot of words interchangeably. Sometimes we’re accurate, and the different words mean substantially the same thing. Other times, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya from Princess Bride: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”
In this brief article, I’ll introduce five word pairs of words that many managers use as synonyms. The problem is, they simply are not synonymous, and the real meanings matter. In some cases, bigly. In future articles, I’ll address each word pair in detail, fleshing out some of the nuances and meanings, and providing examples for relevance and application.
Today, however, I’m just going to give you the word pairs and a teaser description to get you thinking. Plus, it’ll be fun to imagine your head exploding when you disagree with my abbreviated descriptions. More to come…
Let’s start with the big kahuna:
Leadership == Management
In all fairness, I believe the absolute argument between these is largely academic; specifically, however, it’s important to know the difference, if only so we can better understand who does what to whom.
Leadership is about positively influencing others toward a shared vision.
Management is predetermined and repetitive. It’s controlling a process.
Both are necessary, but they aren’t synonyms.
Accountability == Responsibility
This pair is probably the most abused of all. They sound so… so… similar. They must be synonyms, right?
Yeah, no. And the difference is huge.
Accountability is ownership of a specific result. It’s one-deep; no multiple people accountable for the same thing.
Responsibility is accomplishing a task(s) leading to a result. Lots of folks can be responsible for things, only one is accountable.
Empowerment == Delegation
I used to believe these were on the same continuum. I was wrong, they are entirely different, and that difference is significant and important.
Empowerment is bigger, added autonomy in existing work.
Delegation is more, doing someone else’s task or job.
Both are useful, and effective developmental tools. They aren’t synonyms.
Passion == Emotion
These can be confusing, since some errant dictionaries include as synonyms. In leadership parlance, they certainly are not.
Passion is controlled reactions.
Emotions are uncontrolled reactions.
Close, but no cigar.
And finally, Teams == Groups
In all fairness, people don’t often use these interchangeably; they just use them incorrectly, calling something a “Team” when they should be saying a “Group.”
A Team requires trust that another person will contribute to your success.
A Group just requires an org chart.
These two aren’t even on the same planet, yet “Team” is one of the most frequently misused terms in any organization. Most teams, simply put, aren’t. We like the word, but resist the heavy lifting required to make it accurate.
These are just a few, and my descriptions are far from complete, though I believe them to be defensibly accurate. I’ll flesh them out in future editions of At C-Level.
Email me at kevinb@triangleperformance.com with comments; I’ll address one or two of the specific word pairs next month, and it would be interesting to hear your inputs.
Not too long ago, I worked with a group of executives for a fast-growing client.
Two things struck me as interesting, and somewhat of a paradox: First, they were all reasonably successful in their jobs (and their jobs were substantially the same, just different geographic regions). Second, they were all incredibly different. Yes, they each had similar core characteristics, such as intelligence and work ethic. In other areas, such as sales, marketing, people management, organizational skills, strategy, planning, and so forth, they were all over the charts.
So what? Well, I’ll tell you “so what.” You hear a lot about understanding your “strengths and weaknesses,” then you’re supposed to work on your weaknesses, right?? Sort of like the big Superdude combating kryptonite, right??
Bunk.
Let’s look at it differently. Let’s assume that succeeding in a position can be done in any of several different ways, using a variety of skills. With that reasoning, you don’t have strengths and weaknesses; you have learned skills and skills you have yet to learn.
Wow!
So, then, we should then simply “learn more skills,” right??
No, no, no…
We should, instead, clearly identify our skills, since we know that we can succeed with them, and work on improving our strengths! That’s right, improve our strengths, since we already know that they work for us. Learning new skills is time consuming, and depending on application, may or may not work for us the way they work for others.
Now, this logic assumes current success, so don’t confuse this with those managers who are clearly unsuccessful, though I would argue this could help them with their improvement also. In other words, as Bum Phillips (retired Houston Oilers coach) would say, “Dance with who brung you.”
Use the skills you have — improve and hone them to a razor’s edge — and continue your increasing levels of success. Over time, identify some additional skills you would like to pick up, and develop a plan to learn them in a reasonable time and fashion.
This should be our modern-day mantra, allowing for every fad, survey, or new statistic loudly proclaiming that leadership as we know it is “dead” and that something new should immediately follow it.
Let’s unpack this idea a bit, fleshing out the realities of leadership as we know it compared with leadership as it should be.
Real leadership vs. bad leadership disguised
The problem with trying to supplant leadership as we view it today with something “new” is that we tend to see new leadership in its most favorable possible outcomes, while viewing “old” leadership through the lens of the worst possible example. In other words, we compare the ideal of something new with something done incorrectly in the past.
Real leadership—current, existing, successful leadership—has always required a lot of the things that we frequently extol as virtues for the “new” leadership behaviors.
For example, real leaders follow up. There is, however, a difference between necessary follow-up and micromanagement. Micromanaging isn’t bad leadership; it’s simply not leadership.
Now, take the conversation around the Millennial generation. Much has been written, spoken, and opined about how best to lead this group of people who seem to have needs and desires that don’t make a lot of sense to most Baby Boomers in leadership today. In reality, Millennials don’t want anything different than we Baby Boomers wanted 10, 20, or even 40 years ago. They simply have less tolerance for not getting it. And I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.
So it goes, down the list, of all real leadership competencies. It’s not “new” just because some consultant or academic writes a new hardback. When you dig into it, you discover it’s just old leadership being repackaged. Don’t fall for the ruse.
Keep it simple. Leadership is not complex. Can it be difficult? Certainly. But we need to remember to keep things as simple as humanly possible.
If you want to know how to simplify leadership, there are some simple ways:
Communicate. Set expectations—clear expectations—for those you lead. Then, give feedback to let them know how well they are progressing toward reaching those expectations (or not). Get good at—and insist on—receiving feedback from those you lead. You can’t survive without it. Finally, listen. Learn to really listen. I don’t mean hear; I don’t mean notice; and I don’t mean simply acknowledge. I mean listen.
Set a positive example. It sounds so simple, but we screw this up more than anything else. You must model the behavior that you want your followers to emulate. Remember that leading by example is not a choice. You do it every time you show up. And part of that example must be remaining positive. There is no place for moaning, whining, and complaining in leadership.
Have integrity. You’ve gotta have it. Be honest, be consistent. Do what you say you’ll do.
That’s it. Sure, there are plenty of other tips, techniques, and methods to fine-tune your leadership approach and success. None, however, will trump the simplicity of the three listed above.
We should, instead, clearly identify our skills, since we know that we can succeed with them, and work on improving our strengths! That’s right, improve our strengths, since we already know that they work for us. Learning new skills is time consuming, and depending on application, may or may not work for us the way they work for others.
