Strategic Planning is dead. Long live strategic planning…
An interesting conundrum; we know that strategic planning is valuable. Intuitively. Yet, we seldom march lockstep behind that big blue binder when it’s complete.
Why is that??
I have an opinion (surprise!). During a recent strategy session, the client’s chief executive stated that he doesn’t even consider it strategic planning at all. He doesn’t even like the term.
He uses Strategic Discernment.
I hate doing this, but I visited dictionary.com for the definitive definition of discern/discernment…
1. to perceive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect; see,
recognize, or apprehend: They discerned a sail on the horizon.
2. to distinguish mentally; recognize as distinct or different; discriminate: He is
incapable of discerning right from wrong. –verb (used without object)
3. to distinguish or discriminate.
Now this is something we can get our arms around. It’s not the strategy, stupid, it’s the planning (or in this case, the discernment). It’s the act of discriminating among choices; of choosing one path, direction, or vision over another.
It’s to recognize something distinct or different. Remember, strategy has never been simple trending of current results — that’s simply forecasting, and can be done via Excel spreadsheet.
No, real strategy is creating our future among the myriad possibilities; it’s determining in advance what we intend to be, who we intend to be, and what will matter to us. Then, making that happen.
Instead of simply watching in awe as things happen around us.
Consultants have been around for a long time. Some would argue we’re the second-oldest profession; others may even make some snide, not-so-humorous analogies to the oldest profession.
Ok, some of those are humorous…
Regardless, advisers have been “advising” leaders for thousands of years. Not all “advisers,” however, are created equal. And here’s a key – merely belonging to an important tribe, club, or company doesn’t make the advice any better.
A story…
Almost 2,500 years ago, there was a King called Xerxes, intent on destroying those pesky Greeks and their armies. Surprisingly, the Greeks took exception to this, and were quite formidable opponents.
Just as the King was preparing for a big battle, there was a total solar eclipse. Today, we grab the kids, rush outside and say “ooh,”and “aaah;” 2,000 years ago, people ran inside screaming “oh shit, the world is ending!”
Anyway, King Xerxes needed advice about this new development. Not having a resident expert on staff, he brought in his consultant – called then, a “Magi.” Think modern-day McKinsey by lineage…
Xerxe’s Magi analyzed the eclipse (undoubtedly with PowerPoint slides and 4-square models), and advised the King that he should proceed post-haste with his battle. This Magi foreshadowed a great victory for King Xerxes.
King Xerxes, of course, had his butt handed to him by the Greeks. It wasn’t pretty.
I’m certain the Magi, probably on retainer, had good reasons for this marked lapse in effective counsel.
Why does this matter to you? Simple: be cautious from whom you accept counsel. You didn’t get where you are today by buying snake oil, so don’t by it now when you get advice that (a) doesn’t seem logically thought out, (b) comes from someone who’s biggest or only credential is his or her “tribe,” and/or (c) if it just doesn’t pass your “sniff” test.
Adviser, consultant, consigliere, Magi… these have long been trusted positions of influence in Kingdoms, companies, and mafias (I leave it to you to decide which is yours); they have a place, and are frequently a huge asset to our success.
Another year in the books (or the cloud, or wherever we store history these days). In 2019, we worked with executives in healthcare, technology, contact centers, financial services, higher education and more, and we’ve helped them become better leaders who developed more leaders. Along the way, we had the privilege to help their organizations grow, transform and improve, and in doing so, we saw some noteworthy trends we thought we’d share with you. If any of these sound familiar, learn vicariously from the collective and use this as a catalyst for improvement.
We’re all people first. Relationships before processes. Relationships instead of processes. It’s intuitive that employees do better when change is their idea; we’ve learned that the same thing holds true for the consultant-client relationship. More shut-up, more listen.
Leadership is a contact sport.We’re all busy with a host of really important organizational and administrative tasks, but if you’re in a leadership position, leading is your primary job and not an additional duty. It’s not that idiotic term “soft-skill” if it’s the one you need to do your basic job. You can keep busy staying in your office, but you can’t develop authentic, trusting relationships with those you lead from there. Don’t let busyness become an excuse for half-hearted leadership.
Even the best need help. Michael Jordan had a coach. Tiger Woods had a coach (back when he was good; now… who knows? ???? ). Tom Brady and LeBron James have coaches. Sheryl Sandberg, Jeff Bezos and Sundar Pichai have coaches — even Oprah Winfrey has one. 40% of Fortune 500 CEOs fail within 18 months; 82% of them because of relationships. This isn’t a push for our executive coaching services; it’s a reminder (from our clients) that even those we consider superstars “need someone.” They need help to grow, develop, and continue their superstar status. Leading at the top is hard stuff, and having someone to advise and counsel — and just listen sometimes — is crucial.
Leadership development isn’t an event; it’s a process.If your leadership development program is solely an HR-led, one-and-done training seminar, you’re doing it wrong. It’s just not effective. Top leadership support for development is essential, and only individuals at the highest organizational levels can create a climate that encourages a continuous learning environment.
Often, you have to choose sides. Leadership—and consulting—has risks. In this profession, too many try to be all things to all people, tripping over non-committal PC verbiage. We must stop. Sometimes we have to tell the CEO that the SVP of Operations has the better plan to consider. It’s what’s best for the client that must always drive our actions, advice and counsel.
We can do two things at once. No, no one is advocating individual multi-tasking, but organizational multi-tasking is a must. We simply cannot focus on just one strategy, direction or objective. We must have the leadership bandwidth to move multiple objectives forward while still dealing with the occasional organizational fire.
Process cannot overcome culture. There is no single 12-page Guide to Leadership; if there were, I’d have written it, become a kazillionaire with my own island and you wouldn’t be invited. If an outfit’s culture is not conducive to, say, empowered decision-making, then for Pete’s sake don’t allow some outside consultant to teach or coach on empowerment or high-level delegation. Work on the culture first, then use leadership “pull” instead of consultant “push” to marshal through necessary objectives and behavior changes.
Talk’s cheap; meaningful conversations are priceless.Most senior leadership teams declare themselves to be great communicators… and they’re usually not. Not with each other or their employees. Think about the conversations you have around the conference room table. Are they about hard things, or are they guarded to ensure everyone “gets along?” Trust is never built hiding behind the thin veneer of playing nice; it requires authentic and meaningful conversations. Collaboration and deference look a lot alike. They aren’t.
Don’t stop doing what works. We saw this so many times in 2019 that we felt compelled to remind you. If you’ve changed a process (or put a new one into place) to correct a problem, don’t quit following it when the problem goes away. That’s like stopping your blood pressure medicine because your blood pressure isn’t high anymore. It’s hard enough to implement a new process and get it to stick; having to do it twice is self-induced suffering.
Check your ego at the door. When leaders let their ego influence decisions, they become deaf to the messages their behavior conveys, and blind to how others perceive those messages. Ego is the major culprit behind leaders who won’t admit they might have been wrong or refuse to show vulnerability. When the little green monster keeps us from making good objective decisions, we lose trust not only from those affected but also from those who watched – and don’t even think no one was watching.
I can only imagine what I’ll learn from my clients in 2020.
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.
Are you a courageous leader? Is that why people follow you?
Okay, some of you might think it’s a stretch to call what corporate and government leaders do courageous. Like former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s admission that he colluded with then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to mislead the public and shape the government’s messaging during the 2008 Lehman Brother’s collapse in a book called – get this – Courage to Act. Heaven forbid we perpetuate the over-inflated sense of self-importance many senior leaders have.
But the question’s still valid: do people do what you say because of your title or because you’re a courageous leader?
I like the Braveheart quote, because during my long association with the military’s special operations community, I got to know a lot of really courageous leaders – some with titles and some without. They were followed because they had the courage to go forward in the face of extreme adversity, and they had the courage to admit failure when their best wasn’t good enough.
They had the courage to speak out against a bad plan, but they had the discipline and commitment to fix the plan and execute it with everything they had. Some even showed courage by hanging up their spurs when the organization’s culture grated on their personal integrity like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Great corporate leaders do those kinds of things, too, so I guess courage isn’t reserved for the battlefield. History is full of examples where those with the guts to take risks, forge ahead, and lead change during trying times are remembered for their courageous leadership.
So one more time: do people follow you because you display confidence and gutsy leadership, or are you hunkered down behind the status quo exercising your authority over them? And yes, I watched the movie to the end and saw Mel Gibson’s character meet a painful and gruesome demise. I’d like to think that was against your company’s HR policies.
Here are some of my favorite ways I’ve seen leaders display courage away from the battlefield:
Be real. No rose-colored glasses or pretending it’s all unicorns and rainbows. Confront hard reality head-on and be honest about it with the people you lead so they know the true state of the organization.
Tell it like you see it. That doesn’t mean you get to use the truth like a club, but sometimes real conversations can be awkward, and it takes guts to not avoid them. Especially when you have to tell the boss what she doesn’t want to hear – naked emperors ruin organizations.
Encourage constructive debate. Have the guts to stand in there in the face of dissent, knowing that when reasonably intelligent, well-intentioned people disagree, the organization is generally better off.
Indecision kills. Make a decision and move on. Even if it’s unpopular. And then have the guts to make a better decision if that one doesn’t pan out. That kind of courage is contagious when you build a culture where people aren’t afraid of the occasional failure that comes with taking risks.
Don’t tolerate bad behavior. You endorse what you tolerate, and if you put up with negative performance issues, everyone knows it. It’s demoralizing to your high achievers to listen to Billy Do-Little BS with his pals about how long is too long to take for lunch. Back to having hard conversations, don’t let bad behavior slide – reinforce expectations and get a commitment from the miscreant to improve – or get rid of him.
About 20 years ago in the Air Force’s senior service school, I was part of a group of a half-dozen or so having an intimate chat with a recently retired Air Force Chief of Staff. We talked about selfless service, leadership, integrity, and courage, and I asked him how he knew it was time to leave. His answer should resonate with all leaders.
Though he could have stayed in his position much longer, he said after he knew in his heart that the moral compass of those above him was pointing in the wrong direction, leaving was the only option.
King Xerxes, of course, had his butt handed to him by the Greeks. It wasn’t pretty.
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.
