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.
A common narrative today tells us that everyone should strive to be the BEST at whatever they’re pursuing. Number One, the “go to” guy or gal, the Subject Matter Expert (SME for you acronym lovers).
After all, who wants to be known as Number Two?
My decades in the military taught me there was no better feeling than seeing the words “My #1 of __” on a performance review, being the distinguished graduate from some training course, or taking home the winner’s trophy from a competition – shooting, flying, it didn’t matter what kind.
Corporate America doesn’t hand out near as many medals and ribbons as the military, so you can’t always tell who the best on the office team is by looking at their clothes. But it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out who the “go to” or the morning meeting SME is. Who got the biggest end-of-year bonus is harder to identify than the star ladder-climbers, but that information is often the worst kept secret in the office.
So, what’s wrong with a little competition in the workplace? Nothing, so long as we don’t create an environment where people either feel like winners or like losers. Believe it or not, not everyone wants to be the “go to” problem solver, the SME, or even get promoted.
Heresy, I know, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Some people just want to come into work and do their best until it’s time to leave. They don’t care about being a star performer, but they’re good, dependable teammates and willing to do more than the bare minimum to keep their job. They typically like what they do, and they sometimes even like the person they work for. An occasional pat on the back makes them feel like a valued member of the team, and that’s good enough for them.
They are just as critical to a successful team as electrons are to an atom. They may not be part of the nucleus – they may not even want to be – but an atom’s not an atom without electrons. Let them be attracted to – and orbit around – the why of your organization and not force them into an unnatural role. Truth be told, some companies add so many morons to the neutrons and protons in the nucleus, it’s a wonder anyone wants to get promoted at all.
So how do you find out what part of your organizational atom they want to be? Ask them! Life’s demands change over time and so will their level of confidence about their competence. Those directly influence their desire as to how close they want to be to the organization’s center of gravity.
What if someone turns down a promotion? I still remember the first time I turned down a job offer. I was told, “You will never be asked again!” If you have an “up or out” culture, you may want to re-think your process. The best outcome I can think of after putting someone in a position they don’t want (or that they’re not prepared for) is that they leave the position as soon as possible.
Treating them like a left back on the B-team isn’t the answer either – that’s a sure morale vacuum in the making. Obviously, the better way is to talk to them! Find out what’s holding them back… outside commitments? Skills? Knowledge? Distrust? If you think they’re right for the job, help assuage their concerns and challenges.
No, I’m not asking you to make their world rainbows and butterflies. I’m asking you to be a leader to the people you want to keep on your team. “Life’s tough; get tougher” might work in Infantry training, but few of you reading this are preparing your troops for battle.
And speaking of being a leader, make sure you know what keeps them feeling like a valued member of the team. How? Again, ask them! You might be amazed at the loyalty you inspire when you offer to cut someone some slack during a rough patch at home.
Don’t get me wrong; it’s okay for a leader to want a team of people who come to work every day ready to do their best. But I think you’re doing your team a disservice if you expect them to be the best every day. Ask a recovering perfectionist if you doubt me, but I’ve found that trying to be the best didn’t lead me to be the best version of me like trying to do my best did.
Whadda you think? Willing to try a different approach?
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…!)
During my last stint in the Pentagon, I worked for more than a few senior executives who were notorious for wanting too much in too little time. High achievers learned very quickly that the reward for hard work was more work. In fact, my favorite quote (which I used like a club) was one attributed to the late Russian-born New York Times film critic, Abe Weiler:
“Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn’t have to do the work himself.”
One of our worst habits is to assume, and part of that involves assuming we know how much time and effort a task is going to take when we haven’t actually accomplished that task under the current circumstances. It’s good to get called out for that occasionally… we can usually use a dose of humility.
My sister called me out yesterday for giving her unsolicited advice about how to ride her bike up a nearby steep hill. My suggestion that she just use a lower gear was met with a quick, “So says the man who doesn’t ride a bike.”
Touché.
And a couple of days ago, I was facilitating a series of Leader Reaction Course tasks for a group from the Wounded Warriors Project. One of the tasks involved horizontally traversing a rock-climbing wall. When one of the participants attacked the wall, he was especially challenged by the fact that he’d lost his left arm in combat. There was plenty of unsolicited advice from his teammates about his next best move. Needless to say, no one was too offended when he called down, “If you think this is so f-ing easy, you come up here and try it.” Some tried with their left hand behind their back; no one advanced a single step.
What does this have to do with you as a leader in your organization? Well, we have a tendency to pile additional work on our teams without giving it too much thought. I assume you know you can’t be successful in your role unless the people who work for you are successful in theirs. But, your team doesn’t become more successful when you assume know how much time and energy additional tasks are going to take. Quite the opposite, and here’s why:
Low morale, higher turnover. For the most part, people come to work wanting to do a good job. When they come to work overwhelmed by yesterday’s unrealistic expectations, and you casually walk by – or worse yet email – with additional work, it’s a morale killer… even if you throw a “git ‘er done” at the end. When that becomes a trend, the frustration leads to burnout which leads to looking for another job.
Poor performance, missed deadlines. When your team feels overwhelmed by the workload, they’ll often rush to finish and deliver low-quality goods on time and/or deliver late; doing both is even worse. When pushing them to do more, you have to decide if you want it done right or take the risk of an on-time, low-quality delivery. We can do some things well, or we can do everything poorly.
Here are a few ways I’ve learned to avoid (and sometimes push back) the ‘too much work, too little time’ conundrum:
Communication. There’s a handy little method of communicating called talking. It really works.
First and foremost, bosses – especially senior ones – don’t get to think out loud without their team suffering the consequences. Those who want to please their boss will immediately shift their efforts to making the good idea fairy happy, even if that wasn’t the boss’ intent.
When you assign projects, ask and listen to your team about how long they think it will take and what additional resources it might take. You hated drive-by taskings when you were in their shoes; don’t you think they feel the same? And if your top performer pushes back at the additional workload by saying, “I can do that, but I won’t be able to get this done on time,” you’d do well to consider the impact.
Create a culture that values honest dialogue about hard issues. Lip service won’t do here, and if your team is afraid to push back, you can go back to the low morale, higher turnover, poor performance, missed deadline section above . Being open to having discussions (two-way, please) about progress and challenges should keep unrealistic expectations in check.
Set clear priorities. Some of my bosses (especially the Army ones) were surprised when I’d walk in and announce my priorities for the day. I was giving them a chance to change my priorities before I got started, because later in the day when they came into my office and gave me additional work, I’d ask them where that fit in my priority list. Make sure your team knows what your priorities are, or suffer from the ‘some things well, everything poorly’ mentioned earlier.
Be flexible. Rigid adherence to self-imposed deadlines is an express ticket to failure. When things go wrong – which only happens when other people and organizations are involved – take a deep breath and adjust your expectations. It’s better to adjust the deadline or delivery date as early as you can, because it gives those who are depending on your team a chance to adjust.
Finally, don’t forget about your teams’ workload outside of work. Many of them are burning their candles at both ends, and stress added unnecessarily at work has a ripple effect on the other parts of their lives. You want them to stay? Make their families want them to stay.
We’re all human, and we like to feel productive, so it’s too bad we sabotage ourselves by taking on more than we can accomplish well. We do it as leaders, and your team does it to please you. The next time your boss gives you a new project, take a few minutes to consider how much time and effort you’re asking from your team when you pass it down the line.
Or suffer the consequences. It’s up to you, leaders.
So, do you grow your own leaders from within, or hire someone new with – presumably – the leadership skills you need are unable to find inside your organization? What do you tell yourself to justify not developing those skills from within your organization? How about these? See if any sound familiar…
“I don’t have anyone ready to ‘step-up.’”
“Leadership development is expensive.”
“If I train them, they’ll just leave and join the competition.”
Please. I’ve heard them all, and many more just like these. Some are urban myths, some are akin to the business version of “old wives’ tales.” All are dumb. Worse, however, is that some are actually damaging to your organization.
For example:
I don’t have anyone ready to step up. Really?? You have no one on your staff, or available to you, who with proper development, coaching, and mentoring could step into a more responsible role?
My first comment is “not likely.” If you really believe that, though, here’s some free advice: Whack ’em all and start over. Simple statistical odds are that some should be ready or capable of becoming ready; if not, our hiring process is so remiss that blowing it up and starting over may be the only option.
It costs too much. Again with the “really??” How much does it cost, in revenue, earnings, and your time, to re-tell, re-advise, re-answer, and re-work? How about the conflicts that apparently only you can resolve? Aren’t you tired of having to make every decision yourself?
What sort of productivity gains are you missing by not having competent and skilled managers and supervisors at all levels of the leadership food chain?
If I train them, they’ll just leave. So then, your choices seem to be either train someone who may eventually leave, or keeping that person without the necessary, relevant knowledge. You’re not seriously weighing this, are you?
Why “grow our own” leaders? In my mind, there are three simple reasons:
It ensures continuity. Someone who has seen, experienced and “lived” the functional day-to-day may better understand what issues and challenges are significant. Yes, sometimes we need an outsider to provide some new-blood thinking, but not at the expense of continuity and corporate memory.
It sends a positive message. Advancement opportunities are a big reason that good people stay – including you. Promoting a deserving candidate trumps and external hire 24×7 in that regard.
They already know, understand, and more importantly fit our culture. Let’s face it — though valuable, skills are a dime a dozen on the open market. They just aren’t that difficult to find (including mine and yours). What’s difficult is finding those skills wrapped up in someone intelligent enough to learn our jobs, and who also fits our current culture.
Except in very unique circumstances, developing current staff to assume future leadership roles always, always, benefits the organization in big ways. Many of you reading this have been promoted into your roles, so you clearly understand the value. We can – we really can – teach and develop the skills necessary to “grow your own,” so keep that in mind before thinking there’s “greener grass” in a newly hired manager…
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.
