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.
How many times have we heard–or uttered ourselves–this common lament? I’m guessing “lots” is a fairly accurate response.
The better answer, however, is “way too often.” The performance management process (of which some variation of an appraisal is essential) is the key to organizational improvement. To give that process the short shrift simply because someone has abused the effort sometime in your lifetime (maybe right now) is to say that, in effect, improving organizational performance is best accomplished by guesswork, hope, and good intentions. And by believing every supervisor who tells you, “Oh, yeah, I’m having regular performance feedback conversations with everyone who works for me.”
I was born at night, but not last night.
One of the scariest things I’ve read lately–in the long list of ill-advised approaches to leadership–is this talk of “getting rid of performance reviews.”
What a load of bunk.
We don’t need to, nor should we, get rid of them. In fact, it’s about time we doubled down and sharply increased the attention and use of this valuable process.
A puzzling part to me, is that most organizations attribute a poor performance review program or process to their Human Resources function. Another load of bunk. I’m not defending your HR department per se, but if your performance review efforts are anything less than successful, senior leadership–up to and including the chief executive–are squarely accountable.
A reminder… your HR shop is not an independent, self-employed entity, and if they haven’t heard you say differently, they are meeting your expectations.
Managing organizational performance is a leadership issue, not an HR function.
Some brief points to ponder:
Why do them? Done correctly, performance reviews align individual efforts with organizational goals and objectives, provide a scorecard or barometer for performance (think pay, promotion, development, succession, training), and act as a solid vehicle in an employees’ developmental journey.
Who leads this process? Senior leadership. It must–simply must–begin at the top. This top-down responsibility is as much a core responsibility as cost control and managing margins. Let’s be clear: If you, senior leader, don’t take this process seriously; if you don’t complete them timely; if you don’t enthusiastically support these efforts within your organizations, then their ineffectiveness is on your shoulders, no one else.
Best practices include casting due dates in stone–no exceptions. The latter part of the review should spell out and discuss–in clear, unambiguous language–the expectations for the future review period. More is better than few. Use objective measurements whenever possible. Subjective analysis should be a severe exception, not a rule. If you really can’t measure it yourself, what makes you think an employee can?
Performance reviews are dead. Long live performance reviews. I’m fine with burying the old, HR-driven process that included so many cumbersome “extras,” provisos and “qualifications,” as long as we replace it with something that clearly defines expectations, provides measurements for those expectations, and follows up on the performance to those expectations.
Anything else is simply accountability avoidance. Let’s don’t do that, ok?
Outsourcing is a viable business option, and it’s here to stay. And it’s nothing new — we’ve been outsourcing some or all of the human resources functions for decades (think 401k admin, for example). Having said that, to what criteria do we manage these providers? More importantly, what criteria do we/should we use when selecting outsourcing partners?
Normally, outsourcing human resources — at any level — is a balanced combination of task management and results measurement. In other words, we typically outsource those high-volume, repeatable tasks, and measure a provider’s efficacy on the demonstrated success of accomplishing those tasks.
And, from my view, we need to keep 3 things in mind when selecting these outsourcing partners:
Task management. Are they capable of accomplishing the full range of tasks that we require, specifically as we require them done?
In other words, will they, can they, do it “our way,” or will our employees have to adapt to “their way,” out of provider convenience and consistency?
Results measurement. How will we measure the success of task accomplishment mentioned above? Again, will those measurements be a subset of what we already use and are accustomed to today, or will the measurements for success be those determined or offered solely by the new provider?
Best results, of course, come from integrating an outsourcer into OUR organization, including using established, valid measurements.
What else can they offer, that creates value in our world, that we may not have specifically been seeking? I have a large client who wanted to outsource virtually all task-driven efforts within benefits, compensation, and even some employee relations. The provider, however, demonstrated a method for outsourcing full-cycle recruitment that my client had never before considered. This value-added offering put that provider over the top.
In short, measure current and future outsourcers as you would any other business function: by a combination of the things they do measured against the results they deliver.
And hold their toes to the fire…
(I have no idea of the origins of that phrase…!)
Should we use 360-degree evaluations to determine how well our managers are “managing?”
My answer will be brief, followed by some applicable humor (well, it’s funny to me…)
Management efficacy should be evaluated by measurement, not popularity. Don’t ask the question if the answers aren’t actionable. In other words, if the manager is kicking butt on all measurable fronts, what would you have him or her change if a survey came back with suggestions?
The right answer, of course, is nothing.
Having said that…
What would you like to hear them say?
Three friends of Thibodeaux’s from the local Cajun congregation were asked, “When you’re in your casket, and friends and congregation members are mourning over you, what would you like dem to say?
“Jacque said: “I would like dem to say I was a wonderful husband, a fine spiritual leader, and a great family man.
Ovide commented: “I would like dem to say I was a wonderful teacher and servant of God who made a huge difference in people’s lives.
“Then it was Boudreaux’s turn to said somethon: “I’d like dem to say, “Look at dat!!!!, he’s moving!”
Measure managers by results, not popularity or wishful thinking.
All have been used to describe domineering bosses. Leaders who are abusive, raise their voices, and intimidate. Personally, I call them something else.
Failures.
A leader who resorts to intimidation, brow-beating, threats and coercion is self-admitting the inability to successfully lead. I call it “business card leadership.” The sole source of this leader’s authority comes form a business card that says “you must obey me.”
Remove the business card, and these unsuccessful leaders couldn’t get a wolf to follow them while carrying raw meat.
Here’s a suggestion: “Be nice.”
For movie fans, remember the movie “Roadhouse” with Patrick Swayze? He’s a “cooler” (apparently some bigwig bouncer), and in one scene is giving other bouncers the rules. His commentary goes something like this:
All you have to do is follow three simple rules.One, never underestimate your opponent. Expect the unexpected. Two, take it outside. Never start anything inside the bar unless it’s absolutely necessary. And three, be nice.
He ends this conversation with the parting statement, “I want you to remember that it’s a job. It’s nothing personal.”
We could do well to internalize those three instructions above:
1. Expect the unexpected. “Stuff” happens. Remember that leading is only difficult “when it’s difficult.” When everything is running smoothly, all playing well with each other, everyone working at full competency, leading is easy. When something breaks down — and it will — it takes some skill.
2. Take it outside. Reprimand in private. Coach in private. never get emotional in a crowd. When you force defensiveness, career-altering emotions come into play. If you yell with others around, it’s apparent to others you are incapable of leading effectively. is that what you want?
3. Be nice. That’s right, be nice. At the end of the day, if someone simply refuses to be coached, comply with suggestions, etc., you can always fall back on “because I said so.” Don’t lead with that. Be nice. Calm voice. Phrase your demands as a question; reasonable (read :”keepers”) employees don’t really think a task question from their boss actually has a “no” potential response. It’s just courtesy. be nice.
And finally, remember this isn’t your life… it’s a job. It’s not a calling (for most of us), it’s employment. A way to make a living. A way to pay for the things we do when we AREN’T working. Think of it that way, and remember when you lose control, “your leadership is showing,’ and it’s not the best example to set.
