The speed and the stresses of work-life can render us oblivious to the kindnesses of others and to the call of being kind to another. Small gestures multiplied many times over bolster us. There’s nothing asked in return. It’s a currency that crosses all cultures and continents. Let’s get more conscious about kindness.
If we were lucky to have a warm family environment, the innocence of youth bathed us in kindness and steeled us for the challenges of life. We lived in the present surrounded by parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers who doted on us. Awash in gifts, birthday cards, lifts to lessons of all sorts, cheers at recitals, we moved from day-to-day feeling taken care of. Even if our childhoods were a bit shaky, someone usually showed up offering a helping hand. We did not know how much these meant to our character development.
Fast forward to the work environment. To what extent are we taking the gifts we’ve received and deliberately passing these on to another?
Not a week goes by without some research that reminds us that work life is in need of a makeover. In November, Towers Perrin HR services reported that just 17 percent of 5,100 Canadians are “fully engaged” in their work, down from 21 per cent two years ago. In the same month, Robert Half Management Resources reported that eighty nine percent of 100 public sector executives surveyed find it more difficult to be a leader than five years ago. They cite increased emphasis on government compliance regulations as the main source of stress. In turn, top leaders rely more on delegating to a strong and competent workforce. If the workforce is less not more engaged, then what does an executive do?
Linda Duxbury, Professor at Carlton University in Ottawa would say—pay more attention to the differences in generational expectations of the workplace and make work-life balance a priority. For example, Baby Busters (1961 to 1974) and The Echo Generation (1974-1990) demand more work-life balance than earlier generations. For that reason, they are not as motivated to put in the long hours required to reach for top positions. Working to live is more important than living to work. They also want respect, to be involved in decision-making and flexibility.
Here’s where kindness kicks in: it is the forerunner of being respectful of another, which in turn implies real listening. If you don’t feel kindness, you aren’t likely to pass it on. Without the reaching out to another, you lose the opportunity to engage meaningfully, soak up her views and learn something of benefit to the organization. So, genuine kindness not only spreads goodwill, it helps us get smarter.
Poets always have a way of bringing the messages together:
So many gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
While just the art of being kind
Is all the sad world needs
The World’s Need
Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Gently they go, the beautiful, the tender, the kind;
Quietly they go, the intelligent, the witty, the brave.
The Buck in the Snow, III Dirge without Music
Edna St. Vincent Millay
The dictionary refers to kindness as being helpful in nature. Isn’t this what leaders must do to be effective? In the spirit of the times, it won’t hurt to sprinkle a little more around.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The proof is in: bad bosses wreak havoc with our health
Old news has become new news but even more scary. Bad bosses raise our risk of heart disease and stroke, let alone other emotional and physical ailments. Studies around the world recently published resoundingly underscore that a poor boss-employee relationship can erode an employee’s wellbeing, even with seemingly mild infractions.
It’s surprising what can cause undue stress, anxiety, and headaches. According to Scott Schlieman, a sociology professor at the University of Toronto, in the November issue of Psychology Today, a boss giving unclear directions can trigger anxiety. To some, that kind of behaviour may sound benign and not within the definition of “bad”. But, unclear expectations (and lack of discussion to ensure a shared understanding of them) can drive employees “nuts”. This is backed up by extensive Gallup research. Marcus Buckingham (First Break All the Rules) lists clear expectations as the number one catalyst role of a great manager.
The more obvious stereotype of the bad boss also does its damage. Nagging, showing little respect, blaming and lack of consideration all lead to health problems for direct reports, according to researchers Brad Gilmore and Phillip Benson at the Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne and Nadia Wager at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University in the United Kingdom. While this information is not new, as numerous studies over decades have hammered home the same messages, the prevalence of the bad boss syndrome is not encouraging.
In my practice, clients lament weekly on the inappropriate behaviours of persons either with whom they work on a peer-to-peer basis or to whom they report. Participants in my leadership classes have a constant stream of bothersome boss stories. Frequently they joke that while they are in classes trying to learn how to become more effective leader-managers, their bosses (often the top executives) never set foot in a classroom. Or, the bosses do not take advantage of opportunities to interact with them at in-house sessions.
Clearly, we’ve got some work to do on developing great leaders and managers. My rationale self cannot understand why individuals in authority positions choose behaviours that are contrary to healthy relationship-building. Why? The enormous cost (in dollars) of not deliberately doing so. It doesn’t take a high IQ to make the leap from happy employees to greater productivity. That spells better customer service, more effective teams generating new knowledge, processes and products and simply more fun for all. Instead, smart people sabotage themselves: poorer results directly attributable to their less than desirable behaviours with employees.
Ego wins out over sound reason. Erroneous assumptions about how to “motivate” employees unconsciously drive the wrong actions over and over again. Control becomes more important than engagement. That feeling of importance supersedes humility. Judgments of others abound. Seldom is the scrutiny turned inward.
Maybe one solution is to try the sales technique “what’s in it for me” or WIFM on bad bosses. Surely their health is adversely affected by the stressful relationships. They might think twice if they were reminded by employees that the toxins they are spreading are contagious and do not respect position, title or hierarchy!
It’s surprising what can cause undue stress, anxiety, and headaches. According to Scott Schlieman, a sociology professor at the University of Toronto, in the November issue of Psychology Today, a boss giving unclear directions can trigger anxiety. To some, that kind of behaviour may sound benign and not within the definition of “bad”. But, unclear expectations (and lack of discussion to ensure a shared understanding of them) can drive employees “nuts”. This is backed up by extensive Gallup research. Marcus Buckingham (First Break All the Rules) lists clear expectations as the number one catalyst role of a great manager.
The more obvious stereotype of the bad boss also does its damage. Nagging, showing little respect, blaming and lack of consideration all lead to health problems for direct reports, according to researchers Brad Gilmore and Phillip Benson at the Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne and Nadia Wager at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University in the United Kingdom. While this information is not new, as numerous studies over decades have hammered home the same messages, the prevalence of the bad boss syndrome is not encouraging.
In my practice, clients lament weekly on the inappropriate behaviours of persons either with whom they work on a peer-to-peer basis or to whom they report. Participants in my leadership classes have a constant stream of bothersome boss stories. Frequently they joke that while they are in classes trying to learn how to become more effective leader-managers, their bosses (often the top executives) never set foot in a classroom. Or, the bosses do not take advantage of opportunities to interact with them at in-house sessions.
Clearly, we’ve got some work to do on developing great leaders and managers. My rationale self cannot understand why individuals in authority positions choose behaviours that are contrary to healthy relationship-building. Why? The enormous cost (in dollars) of not deliberately doing so. It doesn’t take a high IQ to make the leap from happy employees to greater productivity. That spells better customer service, more effective teams generating new knowledge, processes and products and simply more fun for all. Instead, smart people sabotage themselves: poorer results directly attributable to their less than desirable behaviours with employees.
Ego wins out over sound reason. Erroneous assumptions about how to “motivate” employees unconsciously drive the wrong actions over and over again. Control becomes more important than engagement. That feeling of importance supersedes humility. Judgments of others abound. Seldom is the scrutiny turned inward.
Maybe one solution is to try the sales technique “what’s in it for me” or WIFM on bad bosses. Surely their health is adversely affected by the stressful relationships. They might think twice if they were reminded by employees that the toxins they are spreading are contagious and do not respect position, title or hierarchy!
Saturday, October 01, 2005
No Crying in the Workplace---Hogwash!
“Cry and you’re out of here. Women in business do not cry, my dear,” warned Martha Stewart to a contestant in her new apprentice program. Is she tuned into reality? Showing tears due to joy, frustration, anger and sadness are a part of the human landscape. Let’s get over penalizing each other for our natural human tendencies. That’s old industrial economy history. Time to move on and embrace reality as it should be. Emotions, not just logical reasoning, are a critical part of connecting to each other and building great things together.
It’s true, according to researchers, that women tear up on average four times as frequently as men. But, let’s lay the blame where it belongs---hormones and genetic predisposition. We are hard wired with certain tendencies and preferences. Each of us has a natural way of orienting to the world based on gifts from our parents and many before them. Instead of deciding which ones are ‘allowed’, let’s celebrate all that we bring to any situation, provided the outbursts or displays of emotions are not hurtful to others.
Some of us like Martha, whether male or female, don’t cry easily. We’re more left-brained relying on and favouring logic, facts, step-by-step thinking and detail. We get annoyed with overly emotional people and we like to ‘cut to the chase’. Enough already of ‘active listening’ and paying attention to others’ feelings. We want to get on with the decision-making and action plan.
Some of us wear our emotions on our sleeves. We cry readily at the plight of others as well as during weddings and celebratory events. We are more sensitive to the ‘vibe’ of the meeting and organization as a whole. We bask in generating and tossing around crazy ideas at the 30,000 foot level. Details give us headaches. But, if we must, we force ourselves to get into them. We always want more time spent on the process of decision-making to ensure we’ve identified the right patterns and connections among a range of viewpoints. We don’t like to be hurried.
Then, there are the rest who walk the middle ground between logic and intuition, reasoning and emotion. We can see both sides and try to strike a balance between objectivity and subjective feelings. We are relatively comfortable in both worlds. Fortunately, we don’t tear up as easily as our very right-brained colleagues.
Put together, in the workplace, we have a healthy mix of all kinds of thinking and learning preferences, including various emotions. It’s the variety that helps great decision-making.
I am always touched by a leader who shows his emotions. He seems more real, more human. I can connect him to my life and challenges. He’s less distant from the rest of us. He walks with us.
Frankly, I’m not too keen on going the extra mile for someone who controls her emotions so well, I haven’t got a clue who she really is. Deep down, I know that the workplace is full of drama and the rush of feelings as we pursue our dreams together. I simply can’t relate to a person who stands on the river’s edge and doesn’t get in the water with the rest of us.
So, back to Martha. There is no credible evidence that a workplace is more productive and better without a few tears. A “no crying” rule while on the job reveals Martha’s preferences based on her innate talents. It’s quite possible she can’t fathom why others cry when she just shrugs of the situation. She views the reaction as a weakness. Others are moved by the struggle and feel joined by the emotional display. For many, tears respectfully shed enrich the work environment.
William Blake sums it up:
“Man was made for Joy and Woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro’ the World we safely go,
Joy and woe are woven fine,
A clothing for the soul divine.”
It’s true, according to researchers, that women tear up on average four times as frequently as men. But, let’s lay the blame where it belongs---hormones and genetic predisposition. We are hard wired with certain tendencies and preferences. Each of us has a natural way of orienting to the world based on gifts from our parents and many before them. Instead of deciding which ones are ‘allowed’, let’s celebrate all that we bring to any situation, provided the outbursts or displays of emotions are not hurtful to others.
Some of us like Martha, whether male or female, don’t cry easily. We’re more left-brained relying on and favouring logic, facts, step-by-step thinking and detail. We get annoyed with overly emotional people and we like to ‘cut to the chase’. Enough already of ‘active listening’ and paying attention to others’ feelings. We want to get on with the decision-making and action plan.
Some of us wear our emotions on our sleeves. We cry readily at the plight of others as well as during weddings and celebratory events. We are more sensitive to the ‘vibe’ of the meeting and organization as a whole. We bask in generating and tossing around crazy ideas at the 30,000 foot level. Details give us headaches. But, if we must, we force ourselves to get into them. We always want more time spent on the process of decision-making to ensure we’ve identified the right patterns and connections among a range of viewpoints. We don’t like to be hurried.
Then, there are the rest who walk the middle ground between logic and intuition, reasoning and emotion. We can see both sides and try to strike a balance between objectivity and subjective feelings. We are relatively comfortable in both worlds. Fortunately, we don’t tear up as easily as our very right-brained colleagues.
Put together, in the workplace, we have a healthy mix of all kinds of thinking and learning preferences, including various emotions. It’s the variety that helps great decision-making.
I am always touched by a leader who shows his emotions. He seems more real, more human. I can connect him to my life and challenges. He’s less distant from the rest of us. He walks with us.
Frankly, I’m not too keen on going the extra mile for someone who controls her emotions so well, I haven’t got a clue who she really is. Deep down, I know that the workplace is full of drama and the rush of feelings as we pursue our dreams together. I simply can’t relate to a person who stands on the river’s edge and doesn’t get in the water with the rest of us.
So, back to Martha. There is no credible evidence that a workplace is more productive and better without a few tears. A “no crying” rule while on the job reveals Martha’s preferences based on her innate talents. It’s quite possible she can’t fathom why others cry when she just shrugs of the situation. She views the reaction as a weakness. Others are moved by the struggle and feel joined by the emotional display. For many, tears respectfully shed enrich the work environment.
William Blake sums it up:
“Man was made for Joy and Woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro’ the World we safely go,
Joy and woe are woven fine,
A clothing for the soul divine.”
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Fault Lines in New Orleans
Former President Bill Clinton put his finger on the fiasco in New Orleans---no one person was in charge. There was the illusion with FEMA, the Federal Emergency Measures Agency, but something has gone terribly awry.
As one military commander noted whose troops will be rebuilding the infrastructure, there are two views from which to manage the situation: the soda straw and the 360. Although he meant that you have to be there to understand what it is really like, on a larger level the soda straw approach might aptly be the right image underlying the problem.
It has taken Russ Honore, the no nonsense three star army general, to fill the leadership vacuum at the top. As one television commentator exclaimed, he is everywhere 20 hours a day, hands on, cutting through the bureaucracy, getting the job done, and strongly exclaiming his non-acceptance of b.s. The people of New Orleans clapped as they watched him make order out of chaos. The New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin couldn’t be happier. He’s now got a buddy who is listening and who takes action.
I have a coaster on my desk with a famous saying: "A deviation of a hair’s breath at the center leads to an error of a hundred miles". Yet another Commission on a preventable disaster will be struck and will describe in minute detail not one but many critical errors by leaders who should have known better. The echos of prior disasters such as 9/11 and the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle crashes will most certainly be heard.
What are the echos? Silos. Inadequate sharing of timely information among the accountable agencies. No overall accountability (or power) by the right organization to plan and coordinate. Cultures that prevent people below the top from speaking up. Policy, structural and financial decisions that fly in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary---a heads in the sand approach to preventing disasters when multiple studies by reputable experts are ignored or minimized.
The 9/11 Report called for a different way of organizing government that is quick, imaginative and agile in its responsiveness, not ad hoc and incremental. Repeatedly it used the term unity, as a means of prevention and execution when trouble happens. For example, strategic intelligence and operational planning must work hand in hand. It’s a no brainer intellectually, but, in reality, much tougher to do without leaders to guide the way from end to end.
We too often think of leadership as the strategic part of the equation and operational planning as management. The New Orleans chaos suggests otherwise---we need leadership at each step of the way for decision making success and implementation effectiveness. Strategy and action are intertwined. The 360 view is essential.
As one military commander noted whose troops will be rebuilding the infrastructure, there are two views from which to manage the situation: the soda straw and the 360. Although he meant that you have to be there to understand what it is really like, on a larger level the soda straw approach might aptly be the right image underlying the problem.
It has taken Russ Honore, the no nonsense three star army general, to fill the leadership vacuum at the top. As one television commentator exclaimed, he is everywhere 20 hours a day, hands on, cutting through the bureaucracy, getting the job done, and strongly exclaiming his non-acceptance of b.s. The people of New Orleans clapped as they watched him make order out of chaos. The New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin couldn’t be happier. He’s now got a buddy who is listening and who takes action.
I have a coaster on my desk with a famous saying: "A deviation of a hair’s breath at the center leads to an error of a hundred miles". Yet another Commission on a preventable disaster will be struck and will describe in minute detail not one but many critical errors by leaders who should have known better. The echos of prior disasters such as 9/11 and the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle crashes will most certainly be heard.
What are the echos? Silos. Inadequate sharing of timely information among the accountable agencies. No overall accountability (or power) by the right organization to plan and coordinate. Cultures that prevent people below the top from speaking up. Policy, structural and financial decisions that fly in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary---a heads in the sand approach to preventing disasters when multiple studies by reputable experts are ignored or minimized.
The 9/11 Report called for a different way of organizing government that is quick, imaginative and agile in its responsiveness, not ad hoc and incremental. Repeatedly it used the term unity, as a means of prevention and execution when trouble happens. For example, strategic intelligence and operational planning must work hand in hand. It’s a no brainer intellectually, but, in reality, much tougher to do without leaders to guide the way from end to end.
We too often think of leadership as the strategic part of the equation and operational planning as management. The New Orleans chaos suggests otherwise---we need leadership at each step of the way for decision making success and implementation effectiveness. Strategy and action are intertwined. The 360 view is essential.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Sir John A. Macdonald Likely a High “EI” Leader
It’s almost impossible to be a great leader without strong people skills. Given our perpetual fascination with contemporary and historical political leaders---why they are or are not effective---a check on their “emotional intelligence” (how leaders handle themselves and their relationships) can help connect the dots. Canada’s revered and pragmatic first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, appears to meet the “EI” criteria.
A leader’s manner matters. People watch leaders and take their emotional cues from them. In effect, a leader’s attitude toward others affects the mood around him like a “contagion” positive or negative. Douglas McGregor, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT, enshrined the notion in the 1950’s with his Theory X (stick) and Theory Y (carrot). His central message: people thrive on genuine respect from others; managers who honour this desire will be much more successful at “motivating” workers than those who do not. Rutgers University’s Daniel Goleman has continued the “relationship management” theme stressing that the emotional task is the “primal” leadership capability.
Judging from recent research of 500,000 people by Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves, top leaders, in general, have some work to do on their EI. The San Diego consultants found that EI scores increase with titles upward toward middle management and then steeply decrease thereafter. CEOs seem to be a hard nosed lot relying more on themselves than those around them. If middle managers are getting the message and their CEOs are not, the former are in a tough position. Clearly, we’ve got some work to do in our modern organizations to strengthen primal leadership.
In Canada’s early days, relationship-focused leadership from Sir John A. Macdonald helped lay the foundation for the nation’s resilience and moderation amidst a changing world. Macdonald was a bridge-builder, forging regional coalitions and dialogue across languages, religions and geography. Wilfred Laurier called him “gifted as few men in any land or in any age”. Historians Jack Granatstein and Norm Hillmer noted that “he understood that sugar caught more flies than vinegar.” Pierre Burton wrote in The National Dream that “the twinkling eyes, the sardonic smile, the easy tolerance, the quick wit, and the general lack of malice made Macdonald an attractive figure in and out of Parliament.”
Some things are universal. Those admirable qualities of Macdonald would be welcome in any situation. Cheerfulness and warmth spread easily like a friendly virus. They lift up moods and inject camaraderie and cooperation into any group working together. As Goleman says in Primal Leadership, “leaders with that kind of talent are emotional magnets” to which people “naturally gravitate for the pleasure of working in their presence.”
A leader’s manner matters. People watch leaders and take their emotional cues from them. In effect, a leader’s attitude toward others affects the mood around him like a “contagion” positive or negative. Douglas McGregor, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT, enshrined the notion in the 1950’s with his Theory X (stick) and Theory Y (carrot). His central message: people thrive on genuine respect from others; managers who honour this desire will be much more successful at “motivating” workers than those who do not. Rutgers University’s Daniel Goleman has continued the “relationship management” theme stressing that the emotional task is the “primal” leadership capability.
Judging from recent research of 500,000 people by Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves, top leaders, in general, have some work to do on their EI. The San Diego consultants found that EI scores increase with titles upward toward middle management and then steeply decrease thereafter. CEOs seem to be a hard nosed lot relying more on themselves than those around them. If middle managers are getting the message and their CEOs are not, the former are in a tough position. Clearly, we’ve got some work to do in our modern organizations to strengthen primal leadership.
In Canada’s early days, relationship-focused leadership from Sir John A. Macdonald helped lay the foundation for the nation’s resilience and moderation amidst a changing world. Macdonald was a bridge-builder, forging regional coalitions and dialogue across languages, religions and geography. Wilfred Laurier called him “gifted as few men in any land or in any age”. Historians Jack Granatstein and Norm Hillmer noted that “he understood that sugar caught more flies than vinegar.” Pierre Burton wrote in The National Dream that “the twinkling eyes, the sardonic smile, the easy tolerance, the quick wit, and the general lack of malice made Macdonald an attractive figure in and out of Parliament.”
Some things are universal. Those admirable qualities of Macdonald would be welcome in any situation. Cheerfulness and warmth spread easily like a friendly virus. They lift up moods and inject camaraderie and cooperation into any group working together. As Goleman says in Primal Leadership, “leaders with that kind of talent are emotional magnets” to which people “naturally gravitate for the pleasure of working in their presence.”
The Leadership-Management Conundrum
I am frequently asked to explain the difference between management and leadership and always find myself slightly at a loss. The two-columned approach describing one versus the other just doesn’t do justice to the reality. Because I see management and leadership linked like fraternal Siamese twins, I cannot offer up with any enthusiasm a chart that provides the right description.
I’ve taken to using the awkward term “leader-manager” as a means of communicating the connectedness. In my mind, both capabilities dance together in each of us like two focused ballroom dancers vying for mastery together. One needs the other to get inspired, agree on the plan, and provide support for getting the job done. Both leadership and management are needed throughout the entire “dance”. It is a creative collaboration that brings life to a system, to a challenge.
I have been tempted to drop the word “manager” or “management” altogether. We’re at the stage in our human history where the term seems out of date, at least in relatively sophisticated, evolving democracies. Technology has taken over many of the controlling and monitoring functions heretofore prime responsibilities of managers. We now have the luxury and freedom to exercise our natural leadership no matter what level in an organization. But, I continue to wonder if the term “leadership” is enough to encompass the full range of capabilities required to help teams and whole organizations move forward. Can “leadership” stand on its own without “management”?
The persistence of this conundrum, management versus leadership led me to review the thoughts of several of my favorite authors---Mary Parker Follett, Kurt Lewin, Peter Drucker, Warren Bennis, Douglas McGregor, Margaret Wheatley, Anthony Jay and many others. “Leadership” emerged as the preferred, more modern capability but by no means has “management” dropped out of the discussion. Instead it has taken on a more humanistic meaning that reflects the rapid rise of democracy in the workplace. To my surprise I did discover a new word that gets around the awkwardness of “leader-manager” and at the same time captures the connection: “linking leadership.”
More on this later.
I’ve taken to using the awkward term “leader-manager” as a means of communicating the connectedness. In my mind, both capabilities dance together in each of us like two focused ballroom dancers vying for mastery together. One needs the other to get inspired, agree on the plan, and provide support for getting the job done. Both leadership and management are needed throughout the entire “dance”. It is a creative collaboration that brings life to a system, to a challenge.
I have been tempted to drop the word “manager” or “management” altogether. We’re at the stage in our human history where the term seems out of date, at least in relatively sophisticated, evolving democracies. Technology has taken over many of the controlling and monitoring functions heretofore prime responsibilities of managers. We now have the luxury and freedom to exercise our natural leadership no matter what level in an organization. But, I continue to wonder if the term “leadership” is enough to encompass the full range of capabilities required to help teams and whole organizations move forward. Can “leadership” stand on its own without “management”?
The persistence of this conundrum, management versus leadership led me to review the thoughts of several of my favorite authors---Mary Parker Follett, Kurt Lewin, Peter Drucker, Warren Bennis, Douglas McGregor, Margaret Wheatley, Anthony Jay and many others. “Leadership” emerged as the preferred, more modern capability but by no means has “management” dropped out of the discussion. Instead it has taken on a more humanistic meaning that reflects the rapid rise of democracy in the workplace. To my surprise I did discover a new word that gets around the awkwardness of “leader-manager” and at the same time captures the connection: “linking leadership.”
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Calling Up the Leader Wihin Us In A Crisis
London’s 7/7 demonstrated once again that in times of crisis, great leadership quickly shows up and guides the way out of chaos and confusion. We expected it of the formal political leaders, Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Mayor of London, Ken Livingston. They came through admirably with their uplifting and defiant oratory and calls to action. We saw it, as we did during 9/11, in the thousands of small acts of courage by emergency personnel and ordinary people rescuing and comforting the injured. What is at work here in these moments of greatness?
Let’s assume that the definition of a crisis is being jolted out of our comfort zone. The true meaning of course is in the eyes of the beholder. One person’s crisis may not faze another. Nevertheless, we’ll assume that the situation is either life- or organizationally-threatening. The solution to the crisis cannot be found in the status quo. We must draw on something else to light the way out.
Robert Quinn, author of Building the Bridge As You Walk On It, claims that “leaders do their best work when they don’t copy anyone. They draw on their own values and capabilities”. In moments of crisis, they enter a “fundamental state of leadership” that is temporarily out of their comfort zone.
Quinn outlines four steps for great leadership in a crisis:
1. Get clear on the results you’d like to create;
2. Let your own internal direction be your guide;
3. Be other directed—sacrifice your personal interests for the common good;
4. Pay deep attention to what is unfolding and learn from it as you go.
When the situation is a matter of life or death, seconds count in the immediate aftermath of a sudden unexpected crisis. Whether leadership and personal survival kicks in, as described by Quinn, depends on how well we manage our automatic biological response.
According to researchers such as John Leach from Lancaster University in England who study human behaviour in dangerous situations, only 10 to 15 percent of people remain calm, figure out a plan and lead others. The same number---approximately 10 to 15 percent---screams and cries uncontrollably. Approximately 75 percent “will be stunned, bewildered and show impaired reasoning and sluggish thinking”. The feeling of being out of control clearly overwhelms the majority of people in the unfamiliar catastrophic circumstance. Fight or flight gives rise to “freeze”. Yet a small percentage over-rides the panic and swings into action. Why?
Emergency training and prior experience in surviving a crisis appear to be key factors. The mental maps derived from the lessons of survival significantly boost our chances of finding our way out of a catastrophic situation and stepping into the zone of leadership. Drills and rehearsals really do work but we have not always been the best students. How many people really pay attention on an airplane to the directions about the emergency exits and what to do with air bags, etc.? In that we compute the unlikelihood of a catastrophe occurring in our lives, we play “Russian roulette” and ignore the “mental mapping”. Yet, it is this preparation that can call up the great leader in each of us and save our life and potentially those of many others.
This preparedness of mindset is a pre-requisite to leading organizational crises as much as a sudden personal one. If emergency training and previous experience helps, then it follows that we can better that 10 to 15 percent showing leadership during times of great duress. We can develop our potential to be great leaders by preparing ourselves mentally in advance. We can use the lessons of survival conduct in emergencies to help more of us live in our discomfort zones with great success when needed. In so doing, we can make a profound impact on our collective well-being.
There’s another kind of preparedness---preventing or reducing the risk of a catastrophe in the first place. And, there’s nothing like eyes and ears “on the ground” to increase the probability of offsetting a possible disaster. Herein lies the real measure of great leadership in these complex times—engaging many, particularly the front line, in leading the way.
We’ve done it for years with programs such as “Neighbourhood Watch” and other grassroots efforts. More recently, “Amber Alerts” for missing children have generated many successes. We’ve learned from disasters such as 9/11, SARS and the water quality meltdown in Walkerton, Ontario that the right information-gathering and sharing across “silos” as well as top notch management and supervision (meaning---accountability) would have averted or minimized the unfolding of events. Great leadership is therefore not that complicated—being a “first preventer” is always better than being a “first responder”.
Let’s assume that the definition of a crisis is being jolted out of our comfort zone. The true meaning of course is in the eyes of the beholder. One person’s crisis may not faze another. Nevertheless, we’ll assume that the situation is either life- or organizationally-threatening. The solution to the crisis cannot be found in the status quo. We must draw on something else to light the way out.
Robert Quinn, author of Building the Bridge As You Walk On It, claims that “leaders do their best work when they don’t copy anyone. They draw on their own values and capabilities”. In moments of crisis, they enter a “fundamental state of leadership” that is temporarily out of their comfort zone.
Quinn outlines four steps for great leadership in a crisis:
1. Get clear on the results you’d like to create;
2. Let your own internal direction be your guide;
3. Be other directed—sacrifice your personal interests for the common good;
4. Pay deep attention to what is unfolding and learn from it as you go.
When the situation is a matter of life or death, seconds count in the immediate aftermath of a sudden unexpected crisis. Whether leadership and personal survival kicks in, as described by Quinn, depends on how well we manage our automatic biological response.
According to researchers such as John Leach from Lancaster University in England who study human behaviour in dangerous situations, only 10 to 15 percent of people remain calm, figure out a plan and lead others. The same number---approximately 10 to 15 percent---screams and cries uncontrollably. Approximately 75 percent “will be stunned, bewildered and show impaired reasoning and sluggish thinking”. The feeling of being out of control clearly overwhelms the majority of people in the unfamiliar catastrophic circumstance. Fight or flight gives rise to “freeze”. Yet a small percentage over-rides the panic and swings into action. Why?
Emergency training and prior experience in surviving a crisis appear to be key factors. The mental maps derived from the lessons of survival significantly boost our chances of finding our way out of a catastrophic situation and stepping into the zone of leadership. Drills and rehearsals really do work but we have not always been the best students. How many people really pay attention on an airplane to the directions about the emergency exits and what to do with air bags, etc.? In that we compute the unlikelihood of a catastrophe occurring in our lives, we play “Russian roulette” and ignore the “mental mapping”. Yet, it is this preparation that can call up the great leader in each of us and save our life and potentially those of many others.
This preparedness of mindset is a pre-requisite to leading organizational crises as much as a sudden personal one. If emergency training and previous experience helps, then it follows that we can better that 10 to 15 percent showing leadership during times of great duress. We can develop our potential to be great leaders by preparing ourselves mentally in advance. We can use the lessons of survival conduct in emergencies to help more of us live in our discomfort zones with great success when needed. In so doing, we can make a profound impact on our collective well-being.
There’s another kind of preparedness---preventing or reducing the risk of a catastrophe in the first place. And, there’s nothing like eyes and ears “on the ground” to increase the probability of offsetting a possible disaster. Herein lies the real measure of great leadership in these complex times—engaging many, particularly the front line, in leading the way.
We’ve done it for years with programs such as “Neighbourhood Watch” and other grassroots efforts. More recently, “Amber Alerts” for missing children have generated many successes. We’ve learned from disasters such as 9/11, SARS and the water quality meltdown in Walkerton, Ontario that the right information-gathering and sharing across “silos” as well as top notch management and supervision (meaning---accountability) would have averted or minimized the unfolding of events. Great leadership is therefore not that complicated—being a “first preventer” is always better than being a “first responder”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
