Great leaders make great leaders

In the world of leadership development, The Big Question has always been, “Are leaders born or made?”  Personally, I think this question gets far too much weight.  Even the most “natural” leaders spend a lifetime learning their craft.  You’d be crazy to move someone from individual contributor to running a division. Too much goes into getting ready for that level of responsibility, or, for that matter, for any level of management responsibility. 

Why? Because management isn’t just more scope, it’s an entirely different job. The heavy lifting in leadership roles demands market intuition, deep competence in managing resources, highly developed emotional intelligence, cross-boundary collaboration, a sense for how long or hard a team can be pushed before coming apart at the seams – in short, a host of complex skills and knowledge that comes only through learning and experience. And with each successive level of leadership, it gets tougher and more ambiguous.

So the real Big Question is, “How do we get leaders ready for the next level of responsibility?  There’s a small industry out there just dying to answer that question for you.  There are competency frameworks that lay out differing skills and knowledge for each level of management, leadership development program models that involve everything from structured learning to coaching and action learning projects, assessments to gauge strengths and weaknesses for moving to the next level – plenty of tools in the leadership development toolkit.  But for all that structure, the real answer comes down to this: Great leaders are developed by great leaders.

Throughout history, the greats in every field were the protégés of someone.  Lance Armstrong had Eddy Merckx to mentor him.  Anthony Hopkins had Laurence Olivier.  Alexander the Great had Aristotle.  Oliver Stone had Martin Scorcese, and Martin Scorcese had Roger Corman (as did Francis Ford Coppola, Ron Howard, James Cameron and Jonathan Demme, among others).

As organizations have grown in size and complexity, we in the world of leadership development have attempted to systematize these professionally intimate  “master/apprentice” relationships.  We create websites where mentor and mentee candidates can assign themselves to partnerships, we write instructions on what a good mentoring call might look like, and we track the volume of connections as a success metric.

But the proof is in the results.  Do the people in these partnerships get promoted more often?  Are they more effective?  Are they “great” in their roles?  Is the program changing the trajectory of the individuals or the success of the business?

If the answer is no, then the issue may be that there is no real mentoring going on. At least not the kind I’m talking about.   Mentoring should include far more than just a monthly coaching call.  It requires teaching, stretching, exposure and sponsorship – in short, investment and accountability on the part of the mentor to change the trajectory of the protégé’s career and success. 

Last year, I had the opportunity to hear Betsy Myers speak at Elliott Masie’s Learning 2010 conference on the issue of mentoring for women in organizations.  She noted that women are engaged in mentoring relationships much more often than men in the workforce, and yet women as a group are not getting the career traction they should based on merit.  The shift required in these mentoring relationships, she said, was moving from mentorship to sponsorship – where the mentor is both teacher and advocate for the protégé. 

Yes, that’s right.  Mentors should do everything to create a relatively unfair advantage for their proteges to get ahead.  Think about it.  If you as a mentor don’t think your protégé is worth pushing hard and moving up, then why are you investing your time with them?  Go find the raw talent elsewhere, and invest deeply to shape that talent.

In the end, it all comes down to the legacy you plan to leave as a leader.  With the churn in the business environment, most leaders won’t even recognize the businesses they built within a couple of years of their departure.  Which means that, as much as you hate to hear it, your stamp on the organization will be all but gone before you can shave 3 strokes off your handicap.  The real legacy you will leave, then, is the next generation of leaders you create, and the leaders those leaders will create.  Great leaders make great leaders.

So ask yourself – who is my protégé?   And who would call me their protégé? If you can’t answer those questions, you’re holding your organization back, and you’re holding yourself back.  More importantly, you’re compromising your legacy.  It’s not about your success today, it’s about the leaders you leave behind to carry on your vision.  I’d rather be a Roger Corman or an Eddy Merckx any day, knowing that I changed the direction and the lives of the people in my profession.

A manager’s lens on the Federal budget crisis

There has been so much partisan noise about the budget crisis that it’s hard to figure out what really happened and what needs to be done.  But the whole situation gets much simpler when you look at the problem the way a manager would in the private sector.  So let’s cut through the spin and use this as a case for how a manager is supposed to think about a budget.  No politics, I promise.  (But you can always go back to your favorite flavor of spin afterwards if you feel a close an attachment to it…)

The story of our budget problem reads like a fable about what happens when a core business virtue – accountability – gets replaced by other agendas.  I won’t try to support or vilify those agendas (won’t even mention them, in fact), because it’s not necessary.  It’s the lost accountability that any private sector leader would go after first in understanding and addressing the crisis.

So imagine with me for a second.  A Senior VP somewhere learns that one of her business units has a budget that is, well, completely upside down.  The first statement out of the VP’s mouth would be “Get [insert name of accountable manager here] on my calendar.” Possibly stated using far more colorful language.

Next would come The Meeting.  The Meeting has many names – The Woodshed, Math Camp, The Cuisinart – all depending on your company culture and the disposition of the VP in your particular case. In preparation for The Meeting, all-nighters would be pulled, takeout food consumed, and important family functions missed or canceled.  Jobs are on the line.

During The Meeting, the appropriately nervous manager would explain the top-level story of the budget crisis, quickly and succinctly, but with several back-up slides in the appendix covering specific details that answer a myriad of questions the VP may or may not ask.  The explanation would cover top-line revenue vs. spending, highlighting where and why one or both went sideways, and what has been done to date to course-correct.  After much uncomfortable discussion, a decision would be made on the go-forward strategy and deadlines.  The focus of the meeting for the VP would be three-fold – first, to determine the most important facts about the situation; second to approve or revise the manager’s action plan to address the problem; and third, to assess the manager’s ability to fix the problem and continue running the business longer term.

It’s a series of steps that occur daily around the globe in the private sector.  So let’s go down this same road with the Federal Budget.

Who’s the “accountable manager” in this case?  The quantity and quality of spin here is impressive, but the answer is simple – Congress created and owns this problem.  This isn’t an opinion.  Per the Constitution, only the legislative branch can change the income and spending of the Federal Government, or create any laws whatsoever.  So when you hear about “Bush Tax Cuts” or “Obamacare,” don’t be confused about who really owns these.  The President simply doesn’t have the power to create laws that alter tax rates or restructure the healthcare system.  No matter who asks Congress to do something -  whether it be a lobbyist, a Senator’s second cousin, or even the mighty POTUS - making laws, approving budgets and taxing the public are the exclusive purview of the folks in the Capitol Building.  So the accountability to fix it also sits squarely on the shoulders of your elected officials in Congress.

Now let’s move to the core of The Meeting – what on earth happened with our budget?  Was it those nasty tax cuts in the early 2000’s, or that evil stimulus bill?  Is someone not “paying their fair share?” Was it the misguided ideals of [insert your opposing political party here]?  Nope.  Each might be a factor in the larger picture, but the savvy VP would cut through all that in a heartbeat.  “Show me the trending on revenue against spend,” she would say before her notepad was even out of her computer bag. 

And it’s usually a very telling picture.  The chart shows what it looks like for the Federal government since 2000.

You can see that annual revenue has cycled up and down, reaching its highest level ever in 2007, and is up by 7% ($138 billion) over the decade.  But spending has skyrocketed over the last several years – up 93% ($1.67 trillion) over the decade.  Twice the growth of GDP and 3x cumulative inflation.  The gap is being covered by borrowing money – which is now over 40 cents of every dollar the government spends.

But what would be equally notable to our Senior VP is that the two lines are moving independently of each other.  In the private sector, if the two lines moved apart in one year, they would typically correct to each other the following year (i.e., spending would by adjusted to align with revenue). So the lines tend to follow each other over time. But with the Federal budget there isn’t a connection.  For example, Congress issued two tax reductions early in the decade that reduced revenue, but they increased spending both years.  And when revenue fell due to economic conditions in 2008-2009, Congress increased spending more than any year in history.

You don’t need to be Keynesian or Austrian in your economics to sort out what the problem is here.  For a private sector manager, this one’s a softball.  No connection between spending and revenue.  Which means no accountability taken by the managers of the budget (especially when, unlike the free market, Congress has a lot of control over both revenue and spending).  It’s been going on for 10 years and gotten significantly worse in the last two.  And don’t blame election cycles and party shifts in Congress for disconnecting accountability from the problem.  Since the average tenure of a US Senator is about 13 years, many of the same folks have presided over the mess for the entire decade.

Here’s the moral of the story.  At the heart of management is the concept of stewardship – that you’re given authority over resources that belong to your organization, not you.  And your job as a steward is to leave things better than when they were given to you. You have to make tough, unpopular choices to ensure the success and stability of your organization, especially when people’s desires and the situational realities don’t match.  And even when your own desires or agendas don’t match reality. 

Peter Drucker once said, “Successful leaders don’t start out asking, ‘What do I want to do?’  They ask, ‘What needs to be done?’”  The fix for government will be painful because the problem has been allowed to erode for a decade.  But what we need now is clarity, accountability and real leadership that is willing to put aside agendas, ideologies, blaming and personal interests, and make hard choices. Whether it’s popular or not, spending and income need to line up, or you inevitably run out of money.  Leaders, cowboy up and make the hard choices.

Leading the Free-Agent Workforce, Part II

In my last post, I talked about a new dimension to the workforce – the “free agency” mindset of knowledge workers – that’s forcing a shift in leadership approach for managers. Now let’s dig into how managers will adapt to this new dimension. You’ll be surprised - the “new” way of leading free agents is actually pretty old school.

In their recent book, The 2020 Workplace, Meister and Willyerd explain what our emerging workplace demands. To engage employees, they say, an organization will have “five principles resonating throughout its organizational practices” - collaboration, authenticity, personalization, innovation and social connection. Nope, no mention of job security increasing engagement. What free agents want is to connect with each other, work in teams on innovative projects, and learn and grow at an accelerated rate under authentic, transparent leaders.

Wait a second - isn’t that what everybody wants? Absolutely – the difference now is free agents expect it. Fortunately, some managers have led this way for years, because the core concepts/skills have been kicking around longer than many free agents have walked the planet, let alone the workplace. It didn’t start with Covey’s Principle-Centered Leadership, or Buckingham’s strengths-based management, or Lencioni’s “first team” concept. It goes all the way back to Peter Drucker, who said a manager's job is to prepare and free people to perform. Tailor-made for free agents, and that was 1954 - five years before the term “knowledge worker” even existed.

Later, in the '70s, Hersey and Blanchard introduced us to Situational Leadership Theory, showing managers how to tailor their approach to the needs of the person or team in a specific context. Again, dead-on for free agent teams who want managers to adapt their approach to their developmental needs.

The list goes on – this is not new stuff, just not common practice (yet). So I’ve distilled down all I’ve seen, read, practiced and taught that resonates with free agents – new and old - to four key mandates for the Free Agent Leader. An oversimplification, for sure, but here are the essentials for managers of the free agent nation. What you’ll see is timeless fundamentals:

• Lead: Be clear on the vision, purpose, goals and priorities – in short, the outcomes you need, with a heavy dose of why you need them. And lead by example through your own authentic behaviors. Be open and don’t fake it.
• Listen: Give individuals and teams air time to clue you in on what’s happening and what they need. Assume you don’t know until you’ve asked and they’ve answered.
• Learn: Take time to understand what’s unique about each of your people, and what’s common across them. Develop individuals based on what’s unique to them, and lead collectively based on what resonates across the group.
• Let Go: Hardest of all. Let teams participate in decisions that affect them. Give them the room to collaborate and innovate by removing barriers. Challenge them to take on more of your job – that’s everything you’re doing today that doesn’t absolutely require your level of authority or influence. Allow yourself to get out of their way whenever you can.

Timeless, yes – easy, no. But managers who consistently deliver on these four mandates are usually described as “the best manager I ever worked for,” not because they’re “nice,” but because people do their best, most creative work under them. And your team will be highly productive because they’ll feel a huge sense of ownership for the work they do.  Which drives success for the teams and their managers. Master the Four L’s, and watch what happens.

Article first published as Leading the Free-Agent Workforce, Part II on Technorati.

The Free-Agent Workforce: Leading in 3D

Article first published as The Free-Agent Workforce: Leading in 3D on Technorati.

I was talking to a group of leaders recently about a change initiative that was clearly falling apart before their eyes.  One of the more senior managers in the group was lamenting about how much harder this change was from another similar change he presided over several years ago.  The group felt like they were pulling all the right levers, but none of them worked anymore.  Something big had happened inside their workforce.

This leadership team was facing a phenomenon I’m seeing more and more – managers trying to “steer the ship” to get results, only to realize they are flying a plane instead. And if you ask any Navy pilot, the big difference between sailing and flying is that a plane moves in three dimensions, where a ship only travels in two.  Up and down isn’t an option on the water, but it’s everything in the air.

In the same way, there’s a new dimension to the workforce that fundamentally changes the levers you use to manage and lead - the free-agent perspective of knowledge workers.  Increased access to information and a stronger sense of purpose and self-determination, coupled with a lack of trust in the traditional organization, all add up to a mindset in the workplace that “we’re all just here for a little while.” 

Authors like Seth Godin and Daniel Pink have been writing about the Free Agent Nation phenomenon and its implications since the late 90’s, but the main focus has been on “going 1099,” not free agency inside the organization.  In an excellent new Kindle book called The Blue Jean Manifesto, Julie Maloney does a great job of describing the new knowledge worker mindset and the strategies these workers are beginning use to manage their careers as a series of projects inside the big house.  I was struck not just by the implications for workers, but the huge impact it has on how those workers are managed and led.

There’s a lot of data to back up Maloney’s claims about the new workplace.  For example, a recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that between the ages of 18-44, people change jobs/companies an average of 11 times. I personally know a lot of folks that average more than 1 manager per year, even while staying in the same job. 

So with employees changing managers faster than they can wear out a pair of sneakers, what’s the impact on how they regard you as a leader?  Put on your 3D glasses, and you’ll see a new set of questions your people are asking themselves:

• You may not be the one writing my review next year.  How much does your opinion matter?
• Your Big Bet Change Initiative may take longer to implement than either of us will be in our jobs.  Is it easier just to keep nodding but passively resist?
• New positions resulting from organizational churn are like cool shiny objects floating around the organization every day. How long should I tolerate this heavy-handed manager who keeps trying to control me?
• Cutbacks in the company healthcare plan and the increased use of long-term vendors make it seem like taking a contractor role could be more lucrative – and even more stable.  Why should I stay with the company at all?

The good news is that leading this free-agent workforce can be a lot more fun than traditional management.  And the skills you need for this new era have been proven out over many years, because they work with just as well with “lifers” as they do with free agents.  In my next post, I’ll cover the core elements of this approach.  But for now, take a look at yourself and the team you lead as a collection of people who may just be passing through on their way to the next assignment.  Seeing that third dimension is the first step to navigating this new world of work as a leader.

Gen Y: Embrace a little hierarchy?

More and more studies are being published about the unique needs and expectations of the Gen Y’ers coming into the workforce today.  Generation Y, also known as Millennials or  “Echo-Boomers,” are the 70+ million born between the late 1970’s and early 2000’s.  But there’s something bugging me about the coverage on this emerging workforce.  Every report seems to be telling organizations to make significant changes in order to accommodate Gen Y’s needs, as though the corporate world is an ecosystem of dinosaurs that needs to catch up or become extinct.

At the risk of creating my Most Unpopular Blog Post Ever, I’m going to swim against the current and try to balance things a bit.  I don’t do this as the defensive reaction of a late boomer – I do this as someone who has watched too many Millennials stall their early career growth by expecting the workplace to tailor itself to their style.

Now before you throw me in with the dinosaurs, let me say two things. 

First, Gen Y, we love you.  Studies have shown that you’ve grown up swimming in activities and focusing on results – you’re no stranger to hard work and you’re oriented around performance.  You also attach meaning to your work – you’re on a mission that’s greater than just personal success.  We desperately need more of this in the workplace.

Second, I want to acknowledge that the modern organization is still very much a work in progress, and that the shortcomings of too many managers sometimes make work, well, suck.  More than once have I walked out of a meeting resolving to move to the Bahamas to set up a margarita shack on the beach and never look back. 

That said, surveys on Gen Y tell us that this growing segment of the workforce carries a perception of the workplace as an outdated, hierarchical structure, full of rigid rules and baby-boomer managers who are top-down control freaks.  A generalization of Gen Y perspective, for sure; but statistically, no less valid than saying that Gen Y’ers attach meaning to work more than other generations.

What I see here is a two-fold challenge for Gen Y being successful early in their careers.  First, some mistaken beliefs about management need to be cleared up.  And second, Millennials may need to manage their expectations and meet the modern organization halfway to be successful. 

Why management and hierarchy?

Management and the corporate org chart have been vilified in the blogosphere by Gen Y, to the degree it seems we’re forgetting why these staples of corporate life even exist, so let’s quickly revisit.

Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of management is not control, it’s specialization.  Managers lead distinct teams focused on a function or purpose that serves the larger organization.  This is true of both very traditional organizations and highly agile organizations that reconfigure frequently around shifting priorities.  As one who has led organizational realignments and worked in both types of organizations, I can tell you that specialization works.  Ten thousand workers randomly trying to design, build and market a new car or piece of software would never get anywhere without the power of specialization that structure and management provides.

Unfortunately, those new to the workforce are typically not used to working in an environment where they are a piece of a piece of something larger.  Even in the most collaborative of work settings, effectively taking direction from others is not just an attitude or preference, it’s a critically important job skill.  A study by Careerbuilder.com states that “over half (55 percent) of employers over the age of 35 feel Gen Y workers have a more difficult time taking direction or responding to authority than other generations of workers.” 

While every other generation has faced the struggle of adapting to the workplace, the unique challenge I’ve seen with Millennials is that they perceive this struggle as a reflection of a cultural barrier and an outdated mindset of the company, instead of as a signal to grow new skills. This frame of reference puts the source of both the problem and the expected solution on the organization instead of the employee, so the employee can’t do anything about it except get frustrated.

From aspiration to expectation

This perspective of Gen Y is complicated by another factor that can make it tougher for them to adapt to the workplace – expectations.  Studies also show that Gen Y’ers tend to expect many things early in their career that previous generations did not expect until later in their careers, if at all.  In the same Careerbuilder.com study:

• 74 percent of employers said Gen Y workers expect to be paid more
• 61 percent said Gen Y workers expect to have flexible work schedules
• 56 percent said Gen Y workers expect to be promoted within a year
• 50 percent said Gen Y workers expect to have more vacation or personal time

When you couple together high expectations of advancement, flexibility and benefits with a difficulty in taking direction and responding to authority, Gen Y’ers can find themselves frustrated and misunderstood when they have trouble showing up well in the workplace.

Meeting in the middle

Generation Y presents a massive opportunity to employers today, and they own that opportunity as much as employers do. Expecting that the world of work will tailor itself en masse to this generation of workers quickly is unlikely, especially in areas where expectations may not match the realities of how organizations function.  As a friend of mine once said, “Sometimes it’s easier to put on slippers than to get someone to carpet the world.”

New models for organizing work will continue to emerge, and I expect that Gen Y leaders will play a big role in developing them.  In the meantime, my hope is that Gen Y can embrace a little hierarchy and, just as Boomers and X’ers have, develop new skills and perspectives that enable them to meet management in the middle.  Their ability to adapt will define how well they can maximize their impact in early part of their careers.

And a final thought.  Today’s workplace has at least three distinct “generations” on the payroll.  But every person in the workforce is unique, regardless of generational labels.  Each person brings their own approach and value proposition, and can position themselves early for success.  My recommendation to anyone coming into the workforce at any age is to watch, learn, add value and do what works.  From there, you gain influence and authority to create the kind of workplace that matches your vision.

The real problem with diversity in the workplace

There are few topics in the corporate environment that are as unclear and emotionally charged as Diversity. Managers are told to pay attention to it and make it a priority, but it’s such a murky pond in most organizations that even well-meaning managers (diverse or not) often just bow to political correctness and try to avoid doing anything that would get them in trouble. It’s exacerbated by the fact that most corporate HR departments are not allowed to share any actual statistics with the broad management population so they can understand the current situation (e.g., how many “diverse” people are there in a division at each level vs. what’s the expected number) Add it all up, and it can seem like a pointless exercise to try to make it better.

It’s a little tougher still if you’re a white male manager, because you’re not just the focus for fixing this ambiguous problem, it’s often assumed that you don’t get it in the first place. Unfortunately, that’s sometimes the case. And, not only are you considered ill-equipped to fix it, the fact that you’re taking up a headcount with your “non-diverseness” means that your very presence is an example of the problem itself.

It’s a nasty situation.  But there’s a different way to approach this than I’ve seen in most organizations – one that can get to the real root of the diversity thing so we can actually fix it.  First, we need to understand a core dynamic that exists between people and their workplace that creates barriers to a diverse culture.  Second, managers need to understand the role they are playing in screwing things up. 

It’s about power

First, the problem.  Here’s why tackling diversity is such a big challenge for most organizations, and why I’m not a big fan of most corporate diversity initiatives.  The real problem with diversity isn’t really anything about diversity at all.  Diversity itself is about a lot of very cool, very beneficial things – it’s about leveraging differences, it’s about equal treatment, it’s about inclusiveness and not pushing people out or holding them back because they’re different.  Hard to argue with any of that. 

But the problem with diversity is an entirely different beast.  Some in the ranks of diversity initiatives think it’s about things like awareness, education and acceptance.  But that misses the point.  It’s about power.  And the reason most managers don’t get how to improve the culture of diversity where they work is because they don’t have a very good understanding of how power works, especially their own. 

So now I've taken an already charged topic and introduced the “P” word into it.  But if we’re going to actually make some headway on this, we need to go after the real issue.  So bear with me for a minute while I lay this out. 

The organization is about power

Every organization is experienced differently by each person in it. Everyone’s history and life experience is totally unique, so actually, we’re all diverse, in a broader definition of the term. And everyone uses the lens of their life to make sense of their workplace. But one of the biggest challenges people face at work is how they regard authority and people “in power.” If you were picked on a lot growing up, for example, or were unjustly fired over a misunderstanding early in your career, you’ll probably see the balance between The Powerful and The Powerless a certain way. Those who have personally experienced race, culture or gender bias in their lives are well aware of what a lack of power can feel like.

That’s the worker’s side of the equation.  Now to the workplace itself.  The workplace is completely and deliberately a power structure – it’s designed for the appropriate distribution of authority so the organization’s objectives can be met most effectively.  We each get a space to play in, and someone we have to answer to.  And that someone controls our ability to put food on the table. It’s how organizations work and get things done.  There are those who make decisions, and those who carry them out.  There are those who give promotions, and those who get them.  And, more to the point, there are those who fire people, and those who get fired (if you’re a manager, congratulations - you’re actually in both camps).  Of course, there are great places to work where managers make people feel part of something transcendent, but we all know that there is a Darwinian undercurrent flowing through every organization – if you don’t believe me, ask any one of the literally millions of people who were unexpectedly laid off in the latest economic downturn.

So, what – you may be asking – has this got to do with diversity? Here’s what.  Those who fit the category of diverse are defined so because they are in the minority.  It’s the whole point of a diversity initiative – to create an environment where those in the minority can be heard, can flourish and can have access to more power.  The whole glass ceiling concept is all about a lack of access to power by diverse people. 

Racial, cultural and gender biases have been around forever.  But in the workplace, these biases play out in a power structure.  For example, it’s one thing if someone doesn’t get your need to reduce business travel because you’re a single mom.  It’s another thing entirely if that someone is your boss.  One is a lack of empathy, the other is a serious threat to your livelihood.  Which is why diversity issues are often never even raised to managers – the very discussion could create a career barrier.  And most managers are totally unaware of the things they do that stifle real dialogue because they don’t really see how their power affects that dialogue.

The Antidote: Stop the programs; focus on power

All managers (white male and otherwise)  need to understand something if we’re going to crack the code on diversity, and a host of other organizational challenges  as well.  Every interaction your people have with you has meaning attached to it, because you hold power over them.  Meaning that you probably don’t see at all.  Your ill temper that day someone cut you off on the way to work, or the fact that you’re regularly on email at midnight, or that small comment to a coworker about how nice he or she looked that day – ultimately, it’s all seen through their lens of power and authority, because at the heart of things, that’s who you are to them.  The one who giveth and the one who taketh away. 

So, just for now, stop trying to address diversity by spinning up a bunch of affinity groups for women or racial minorities in your organization to acknowledge their presence (in a series of recent meetings with people in affinity groups, the participants overwhelmingly told me that affinity groups are nice, but useless in improving diversity).  

Instead, focus on yourself.  Step One for creating a culture where diversity can thrive is to become very aware of your own behavior and the signals you send to people who rely on you for a paycheck.  For example:

• When you interview a group of candidates for a job, is the candidate pool diverse, or is it a bunch of white guys?  Trust me, people know – especially those who are not white guys. 
• When you recognize people for top performance, do most of them perform the way you do?  Are they mostly like you?  Again, people notice – especially the ones who are not like you. 
• When it’s time for career development discussions, do you really take the time to listen, and then act on what comes out of the discussion?  If the person you’re coaching is diverse and you’re not listening, how do you think they see your lack of interest?
• Do you “sponsor” people who are diverse by providing stretch assignments with plenty of air cover?   Are you using your authority and influence (i.e., power) to support them?
• When you’re running a meeting and someone says something insensitive as a joke, do you let it go because you’re embarrassed and don’t know how to handle it, or do you call them on it? If you don’t call them on it, what generalization could the others in the meeting make about the organization’s leaders?
• Were there an unusually high percentage of women impacted in your last layoff?  Did you raise the topic during its planning?

These are the moments of truth where people decide whether the organization is serious about real diversity or not, because to them, you are the organization.  Diversity isn’t about programs or posters in the hall.  It’s being aware of how you show up and use your power as a manager to support people, including those who aren’t like you.  It’s demonstrating a little compassion by listening.  It’s helping people feel valued, regardless of who they are.  Whether you agree with them or not.  It’s being aware that none of your directs can really think of you as a peer or just another person on the team, no matter how informal you are with them.  It’s pushing your best and brightest along faster, regardless of your ability to identify with their background or workstyle.  It’s getting really clear on performance metrics that make your evaluation of people’s success less subjective.  When you can do that, you no longer need initiatives for diversity, because the goal is already met.  Access, addressing of unique needs of your people, and fair treatment across the board.  It sounds a lot like just good management, doesn’t it? 

And if you’re running a diversity initiative for your organization, step back from  “the program” for a second.  Have you done anything yet to help managers understand power and how it plays out in the organization?  I don’t mean power plays or political power – I mean the basics of power. The types of managerial power. The difference between expertise, authority and influence, and how to make the most of each. Delegation vs. empowerment. How managerial power affects working relationships.  Trust me, it would solve a lot of performance problems for them and make them better leaders. 

And you might just solve the diversity problem along the way, without ever even mentioning diversity.

Leadership Voice, Part II: Building leadership credibility

My recent post on Finding Your Leadership Voice really heated up my inbox – thanks for all the comments! A key theme I heard was the challenge leaders have in the area of authenticity and believability (another theme was how to get leaders to become more self-aware – that’s for another post).  So here is Part II on Leadership Voice - building leadership credibility. A longish post with a lot to cover, so let dive right in.

Agreeing on the definition

Credibility, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is the “ability to inspire belief.” This is a key aspect of leadership, but it’s only one aspect. For example, Credibility doesn’t necessarily validate the nobility of a leader’s belief, just that others will buy into it. Martin Luther King Jr. led a cultural movement by inspiring the world with his noble belief that people should be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. On the other hand, the road of history is strewn with moral potholes left by leaders who inspired entire societies to buy into (and act on) insane beliefs.

So credibility is measured solely by the level of belief in your followers. Truly great leadership requires credibility, but it also requires much more. For this post, we’ll just focus on the elements of credibility, so we can really get a handle on how it works independent of other aspects of leadership.

Working on being credible?

But before we go further, let’s acknowledge that this can be an odd topic to get your brain around.  Why should a leader have to work on being more credible?  It seems like a contradiction – why would I work on something that’s supposed to be natural and authentic?  For two very good reasons:

• Leadership amplifies and distorts your authentic self: As your authority increases, so does your persona, and that persona is held up to scrutiny. Just as a film actor has to work so her facial expressions look normal when 30 feet tall on the screen, you need to understand and address how your authentic self comes across in organizational life. Small, even silly things can become large – like the media circus that ensued when George HW Bush mentioned he didn’t like broccoli in the early 90’s. Your followers’ perception of your credibility is subjective, complex and dynamic, often shaped through back-channel communications, events and the context of the workplace.
• Reactivity steers you away from your authentic self: An ambiguous, high-velocity work environment can quickly shift an ungrounded leader into a reactive mode, where the leader’s actions may have no connection to who or what they are. So while you’re dealing with mess after mess and bouncing around like a pinball, your people are reading your behavior as if you are purposely, carefully choosing every step you take as a reflection of your core values. Scary, but true. 

Suffice it to say that being credible as a leader isn’t so simple.  Or, better put, it’s simple, but not easy.  And it’s definitely work.

Five pillars of leadership credibility

There is a vast amount of information available on this topic, but all seem to mix leadership credibility with other elements of leadership that are more about just being a good and noble leader in general.  For example, Kouzes and Posner, in their excellent book on credibility, site things like appreciating the diversity of constituents.  This is a great thing for a leader to do, for sure, but it’s not necessarily a requirement to be viewed as a credible leader.

So, in culling from the best, here’s my list of the five key elements of credibility that leaders can’t do without:

1. Purpose: To “inspire belief,” you need to be extremely clear about what that belief actually is.  Your mission and the possible future you lay before others need to be so palpable that others can taste it.  To do that, you need to be extremely clear yourself, and be deliberate in how you communicate and model your purpose. You also need to communicate that purpose in a way that connects with common desires or concerns that cut across the people you wish to inspire.
2. Competence: People need to perceive that you understand your job and can handle your scope of responsibilities.  Domain knowledge, good judgment and a pattern of success are the three keys to demonstrating that you are up to the task in the eyes of followers. No matter how wonderful the destination, no one wants to get in the car with someone who doesn’t know how to drive.
3. Confidence:  People will not find you believable as a leader if you don’t demonstrate belief in yourself.  This is different from competence, in that even the smartest leaders can appear unsure, particularly in ambiguous, unpredictable situations.  Confidence is most important when followers are not feeling confident themselves. In toughest times, this manifests itself as leadership resolve – think Winston Churchill during WW II, constantly reminding the people of Great Britain the importance of no surrender, regardless of how the war appeared to be going.
4. Openness: On the other hand, leaders can take confidence too far and show up as headstrong – they have decided what they will do and won’t hear otherwise. It’s a fine line.  A truly credible leader allows room for input from others, especially those who work directly with that leader on a regular basis.  The act of listening – really listening – to others affected by your decisions shows them you have enough adaptability to consider new information, inspiring trust.  Open dialogue also provides others a window into your human, relational side, where your values and priorities can come through.
5. Integrity: Integrity simply means that everything hangs together, like the structural integrity of a building. In my earlier post on Leadership Voice, this is where I spoke of “the audio matching the video.”  People usually associate integrity with morality (not lying on a tax return or stealing from the company, for example), but that’s just one form of integrity.  Essentially, integrity has three parts – alignment of what you say and do (e.g., keeping promises and following through), consistency over time, and honesty – being transparent and truthful (no hidden agendas). Integrity removes the questions of your trustworthiness so followers can focus on where you want to take them.

Being vs. doing

So you can see from the above attributes that credibility is more about being something than doing something.  Sure, actions reflect who you are, but the source of credibility is the character of the leader, which develops over a lifetime.  That said, character and credibility can definitely be developed through self-awareness of these five areas and a real commitment to change.  In many cases, a leader may lack credibility due to a glaring issue in just one of the above areas (like confidence, or openness).  By identifying and addressing a single, serious blind spot, a leader can significantly improve leadership credibility.

Building personal capacity: Work like it’s the day before vacation

I recall a day a few years back when I was in my office, trying desperately to get some work done.  A guy I worked with at the time strolled in.  He seemed to have no sense of urgency about, well, anything.  He proceeded to explain to me – for over ten minutes – how incredibly busy he was, and how he expected to be at work until the wee hours finishing up something that was tremendously behind schedule.  Instead of being frustrated by the interruption, I found myself mesmerized by the contradiction before me, wondering how much earlier he’d see his kids that night (or I’d see my kid) if he’d just get back to work.

Presenteeism: The new corporate disease

The new word for this is “presenteeism” – showing up for work without really showing up. Presenteeism is often associated with people working while sick, leading to low productivity.  But presenteeism goes far beyond people just being sick at work.  It’s a growing problem in organizations, afflicting people who are overwhelmed by their workload.  Ever find yourself just pointlessly doing email when you’ve got bigger fish to fry?  That’s a form of presenteeism. Or wandering the halls like my hapless colleague above?  Presenteeism again.  You’ve reached the saturation point with work, and nothing productive is going to happen.

In a great little book from a few years ago called Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork, and the Myth of Total Efficiency, Tom DeMarco makes the point that people who plan on working long hours during the day are far less productive than people who tightly time-box their day.  The reason?  With no definitive, hard stop for their day, people unconsciously pace themselves, spreading roughly the same amount of work across more hours.  In fact, their most productive time during those extended work days is when everyone else goes home and they realize they have to get something done or they won’t get any sleep. 

Of course, all of us have to put in long hours at times to deal with a peak load, but the chronic pattern of long work hours tends to result in very low productivity. And at great cost to your personal life.

The problem: Energy management

Now, we could get into a big discussion about employee engagement and all the things organizations do wrong that create a detached workforce, and it would all be valid.  But if we take ownership for it at the grass roots level, something else is at work.  This is a classic energy management problem for individuals.  Jim Loehr and Tony Schwartz exposed the issues around energy management in The Power of Full Engagement.  In their book, they compare their peak performance training for their clients who are elite athletes with their work with corporate executives. 

The biggest difference between the two, they state, is that elite athletes understand they have to cycle between training hard and allowing time to recover, while corporate professionals don’t allow for any recovery time.  Conditioning to take on more, they say, is based on pushing hard but then resting. So for us corporate athletes, we should push hard for a sprint, but then take some time to recharge.  Not only will your productivity increase, but so will your overall capacity – you condition yourself to do more and handle larger stressors, like elite athletes pursuing higher levels of performance in their sport.  No recovery time, on the other hand, leads to slow-burning mediocrity, which is all you can muster when you’ve used up your energy. 

Maximizing your energy at work

So, if you find yourself wandering the halls, looking for a friendly ear to hear about how overworked you feel, here are two tips. 

• Build recovery time into your daily schedule.  Personally, I can push hard for about two hours, and then I need 15-30 minutes to get some air.  The time window is different for everyone – some can push for 3 hours, some 90 minutes.  But then there needs to be time to recover.  I’m an extrovert who recharges by being around people, so I plan 1:1’s with people I call “coffee walks” – where people can get 20 minutes of my time, some fresh air and a cup of coffee.  No slides, no office, just talking and walking.  Then I’m back to work at 100%.  For introverts who recharge their batteries by being alone, it’s probably something very different.  Whatever it is, put it on your calendar and do it.  You’ll get more done and be more focused afterwards.
• Work every day like it’s the last day before vacation.  You know that day – where you’ve got to tie up all your loose ends at work by a set time so you can get home and pack for vacation?  That’s often the most productive day people have.  And the sense of completion and closure is just amazing.  If your workday is out of control, try this.  First, define what time you must leave work that day.  Carpool with someone, set a personal appointment, take mass transit – whatever you need to force you out of the office by a set time.  Second, set specific goals for what you’ll get done prior to your planned departure. This simple discipline of defining and time-boxing the work creates urgency and focus during your work day.  And when you get home, you’ll be home.

Yes, it may seem counter-intuitive, but the way to get more done is through rest.  Your muscles don’t grow during exercise; they rebuild themselves during the rest period that follows.  Consider your capacity at work to be much the same – through rest, you grow stronger and more capable.  When your day becomes a series of shorter, time-boxed work periods, you’ll get much more done, and get home on time much more often.  So the family will get to enjoy more of you.

And the guy down the hall you keep dropping in on – he’ll get to enjoy less of you.

Finding your leadership voice

For many years, RCA used a painting called His Master’s Voice as its trademark.  The painting featured a fox terrier named Nipper, looking intently into the megaphone of a record player.  The picture was obviously intended to convey the clarity of the sound – so accurate that the dog would mistake a recording of his master’s voice for the real thing. 

But for someone like me who spends a lot of time thinking about how leaders lead, this painting makes a different point.  We all know that animals, including us humans, identify unique characteristics of a voice and instantly attach meaning to it.  In the same way, every leader has a “voice.”  It’s the culmination of all your behaviors – your decisions, communications, how you listen, how you prepare and even how organized or on time you are. 

All successful leaders, at some point in their careers, have to get a handle on that package that becomes their unique, powerful leadership voice – the voice that people will follow, even through difficult or uncertain times.  People’s commitment to the leader’s purpose is largely based on their level of trust in the voice of the leader.

Top three problems leaders have with their voice

Unfortunately, too many leaders have no idea what they’re saying with their voice – or worse, their voice says something completely different than what they think it does. Here are three of the most common ways leaders misuse their voice.

Problem #1: Audio doesn’t match the video

When a manager’s words and actions conflict, people will follow the actions and forget the words. I recently coached a manager who complained that her direct reports weren’t working together to solve problems before bringing them to her, regardless of what she said to them. As we dug into her behavior with her team, she saw the problem in what her “voice” was telling them.  Down deep, she viewed the team’s decisions as little more than recommendations, so she frequently overrode the team after the fact.  As a result, the team stopped trying, knowing it was pointless to make a decision that wouldn’t stick.  Her problem wasn’t going away until she used her whole voice differently – communicating with her actions what she was saying with her words – that ownership of the problems sat with her team, not her.

Problem #2: Wrong Level

Leaders can undermine how they are viewed by others when the use their Leadership Voice indiscriminately for things that don’t require their level of authority or influence.  Early in my career, the president of the organization I consulted with - a sizable division of a Fortune 100 company - was frustrated by cost overruns one particular quarter.  To show everyone he “really means business” on the topic, he sent an email to all employees saying he personally would be approving all expense reports going forward.  That’s all expense reports for the entire division. The mail contained very detailed instructions about how he wanted expense reports filled out and his process for judging the merit of each expense.  That one email shattered his image with the entire organization.  The president’s voice went from that of a leader and strategic thinker to that of a reactive, frustrated administrator in just one email.

Problem #3: Schizophrenia

Any savvy investor will tell you that the kiss of death on Wall Street, equal to poor financial performance, is unpredictability.  Why? Because future performance can only be based on the track record of the past.  A company that gives its investors whiplash every quarter – positive or negative – will see their share price erode over time. 

The same is true for leaders – no matter how likeable a leader may be, people won’t rally behind someone who is too unpredictable, because it undermines their sense of trust and stability. If your priorities shift day-to-day, or you find yourself playing whack-a-mole too often, or if you even tend to describe the same problem too many different ways to your team so they “really get it,” odds are your team doesn’t know how to follow you. 

Getting a handle on your leadership voice

So, how do you get the most out of your leadership voice?  Four steps:

1. Get grounded in your priorities. Not everything is important – really.  So get clear about your core values, your vision and your strategic imperatives. Then review them daily.  It doesn’t take very long to do, and it keeps you grounded as a leader.  Your people can’t be focused unless you focus yourself first.
2. Find your level. Look at the decisions you make and the things you communicate about.  Are they appropriate for your level of authority or influence?  Could someone else deal with the more tactical stuff, allowing you to save your voice for the more important and strategic messages and decisions?
3. Identify the state of your “brand.” Get feedback from peers, direct reports and others who know you well on how you are viewed today as a leader – what your “voice” actually means to them.  This can be a formal 360-degree personal brand assessment process, or less formal info gathering.  Either way, get a baseline on the current health of your brand today so you can see where you need to tune up your voice.
4. Get on message. Taking the above info, define how you will focus yourself – communications, decisions and actions – on those things that are most critical to you.  Simplify, simplify, simplify.  Then stay on message and at the right level, using every situation and opportunity to reinforce what you want others to be thinking, feeling and doing.

And lastly, don’t try to copy someone else’s approach – don’t ape another leader you respect by mimicking their presentation style, catch-phrases or idiosyncratic behaviors.  It’s not just ok to be yourself, it’s a requirement. Like Nipper, people will want to know and follow your authentic Leadership Voice.

Productivity Reset: There’s no such thing as a free lunch

The office has been a bit crazy for most folks since about 2008. The shedding of costs by just about everyone has put more work and stress on those lucky soldiers who have maintained their steady paychecks. And I guess we were willing to deal with it because the alternative was looming large. Better to be over-worked than unemployed.

But there's a new kind of pain hitting the average worker now that isn't caused by "unfavorable business conditions." Bunches of companies are posting solid - sometimes record-breaking - quarterly earnings again. And in spite of all the Washington rhetoric, the federal government is still spending like crazy. Sure, some industries are still hurting, but where there's a rising tide in the economy, why does the average workday make it seem like we're in a bigger crisis than before?

Because of something leaders are calling a productivity reset. That's code for a dangerous leadership mindset that gets short-term gain but long-term trouble. Quite simply, it means using the current headcount level in your organization, post-layoffs, as the baseline for how many people you need to cover the same amount of work as you had pre-layoff. You've reset the baseline for productivity higher, covering more workload with fewer people - permanently.

The stats tell the story. You can see in the chart from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing the year-over-year change in productivity. We’ve had significant increases since 2006, with the exception of 2008 (when the economy tanked, productivity grew more slowly, and actually stayed flat in manufacturing). But since 2008, the shedding of the workforce led to – no surprise – big increases in productivity. Because business is back, but jobs are not – at least not yet.

So, looking at the numbers, it might seem like the plan is working – fewer workers, more revenue, better productivity. So what’s the problem?

The problem is, the dam is getting ready to break. Like dot-com boom "new economy" thinking, Productivity Reset is a nonsensical, alluring concept that whispers to leaders that they can get something for nothing - over-driving your headlights at the expense of your people. Its proponents swear it works for two main reasons, but both are flawed. First, they say the workforce post-layoffs has adapted, figuring out ways to increase its productivity for survival. Second, there must have been at least a little headcount bloat in there somewhere, what with some low performers and a few extra roles scattered about that no one really misses much…

They say the best lies have just enough truth in them to make them credible. This is just such a case. There have been some workarounds that have helped out, but not anywhere near the degree to which the labor force was cut back.  So it's still a lie - and we're telling it to ourselves to see if we can make the new math work.

Let's just call Productivity Reset what it is - bad management. On an economic upswing (especially a drawn-out version like we're in right now in the states), leaders charged up with new visions of a rosy, growing future drive new initiatives with renewed leadership vigor - but with a lingering fear of things going in the toilet again. So, we ask people to step up and drive to the new future, but it's an unfunded mandate.

How will this play out? We're already seeing it. Top performers, who are always in demand regardless of economic conditions, suddenly have lots of options that they're beginning to explore. Churn among high-potential workers continues to climb. And their departures stress remaining organizations to make up the losses and ramp new people. Battlefield promotions to fill gaps creates chaos. And the no-room-for-error situation created by the productivity reset means that critical initiatives will fall over.

So no matter what the new "collective wisdom" is trying to sell us about a Productivity Reset, the old school wisdom is winning out. There's still no such thing as a free lunch.

Leading change: What leaders can learn from high oil prices

Oil, which is like the black cocaine of our energy-hungry society, is once again over $100/barrel. At the pumps, this is translating to over $4.00/gallon, and consumers are feeling it.

$4.00 seems to be the point where real discussion begins about alternatives. Over the kitchen table, it’s reducing driving or getting a hybrid. In government, it’s about funding research and giving tax credits. Entrepreneurs smell opportunity for alternative energy markets. In any case, we have a real discussion, because people are feeling it personally. So this round of high prices is not just a problem in the petroleum supply – what we have are the conditions necessary for change.

 

Creating a personal connection to a change

It’s been touted by many in the field of change management – achieving a personal connection to the problem is a key prerequisite to any major change. A leader will try to wake a sleeping company by story-telling and laying out cold, hard facts to create urgency around a change. Stephen Elop, Nokia’s new CEO, did just that in his compelling “Burning Platform” memo to all employees last month, using the story of the Piper Alpha oil rig fire in the North Sea in 1988 (oil again…) as an analogy of the state of Nokia and how they have to move forward.

It’s a great story, but for most employees, it’s still just a story. What employees feel is what happens within arms’ reach – they need to be touched by the problem, not just hear a business case describing it. For example, employees can’t “feel” lost market share, so they won’t commit to painful remedies that leaders push when trying to fix it.

The same is true for changing the minds of executives. With the velocity and ambiguity that execs deal with, the executive mind is often set to “screen out” mode or “decide and move on” mode. When people deep in the organization flag a need for change that challenges the status quo of the business, it’s tough for executives to wrap their brains around it.

John Kotter, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School and organizational change guru, wrote about this in a recent blog post. In the post, he talks about how an employee had to get the attention of leaders about a purchasing problem wasting the company’s money, but the execs weren’t getting it. What finally got everyone’s attention was bringing over 400 different pairs of work gloves – all bought from different suppliers at different prices - and dumping them on the CEO’s desk. The tangible example of the deeper issue helped the CEO, and then the senior leadership team, finally “get” the problem, leading to change in the company’s operations.

 

How to help employees connect with the need for change

So how do you connect people to the case for a change?  It’s a lot of work, but without doing the work, you can’t expect the change to actually happen.  And recovery from failed change implementation is far more difficult than tilling the soil for your change in the first place.

Here are three ways you can create the connection:

1. Simulate the change: Create a way for people to “experience” the change before it happens.  Two popular approaches are:
• Experiential exercises: The old “rocks and ropes” exercises usually don’t do much to teach people new skills, but they’re great at helping people see something that’s broken.  This is particularly good for showing gaps in team dynamics or cross-organizational processes.
• Business simulations: A true simulation actually creates a model of the business – a “before” model, an “after” model, or both.  People run the business, the process or org that will undergo change and personally see how their actions matter.  Sims aren’t cheap, but if the change is deep and strategic, it can be well worth it.  Companies like BTS in the US specialize in building business sims.
2. Publicly execute the old way of doing things: In change management there’s a saying – “change is more about what you stop doing than what you start doing.” Until the old way dies, change can feel like a bolt-on to the old way, instead of a departure from it.  I once consulted with a metal parts manufacturing company trying to change its manufacturing processes.  On the shop floor, the crew measured success by total weight of parts produced that day.  This drove the team to pick the heaviest jobs to run in the plant, even though these products were the least profitable and often sat in inventory.  It wasn’t until the day that the shop supervisor ceremoniously tore up the log for tracking weight that the crew began to understand what was expected in the new world.
3. Involve people in creating the change: We’ve all heard about this – it seems so obvious, doesn’t it? But too often the involvement is superficial just to claim it was done. People take you seriously when you pull a couple of the sharpest front-line folks out of their day jobs and engage them in the planning – and you actually use their contributions.

So when you look at the price at the pump next time you fill the tank, and you feel that pinch, remember the feeling for the next time you have a change to implement.  If you or the people you work with aren’t feeling that same four-buck-a-gallon twinge yet, chances are that change won’t happen.