In a chance encounter with a bank employee in the mezzanine of an aging suburban mall, I heard the same phrase for the second time in as many months and only the third time in my career—“she’s the best boss I’ve ever had.” Referring to her manager with whom my mother and I had finished a meeting moments before, I couldn’t help ask: “what does Janet do that makes her your ‘best boss’?”
My first impression over the phone should have been a clue. I had phoned someone else to make an appointment. Although polite and helpful, Pat sounded tired and flat. She could not fit into our schedule because she was going on vacation. I thought: “I think you need it!” But, she asked, “Would I be willing to meet with another staff person who was filling in for her?” to which I quickly agreed. She put me on hold. Within seconds a new voice full of energy, lightness and gaiety vibrated over the line. The appointment was made, the required papers for the meeting clarified, and a best wishes for the day mutually shared. Later, I mentioned to my mother: “I think you’ll like Janet.”
How many of us can count beyond the fingers on one hand the “best bosses” in our lives? Over a long and varied career, before I set up my own organization, I had only one. I have used the same phrase verbatim to describe him when discussing “great leadership” with my clients. What is this about?
My first meeting with Dr. Warren was, like Janet, over the phone. I was making a “pitch” for him to hire me as the first nutritionist the organization had ever had. I was only 22 years old and miserable in my current job. I had phoned several other Medical Officers of Health in and around Toronto. Unlike the others, he immediately warmed to the idea, sight unseen. The only trouble was that he had no money in the budget. But, he promised to think about it. Yeah, right!
He was a man of his word though. Unbelievably, he found money to send me back to school to do post-graduate studies, so that I would more closely meet the job’s requirements and to give him time to budget for the position. Almost two years later I landed on his doorstep to start what proved to be a rewarding, exciting and challenging job and a boss-employee partnership that resulted in a number of innovations in the organization.
How was I so lucky? I know he inspired me with his faith in my capabilities. He never let me down when the going got tough. He rarely said, “Yes, but.” He coached me on the politics of the organization. He gave me constructive feedback, even if I didn’t like it. He went to bat for me on new ideas when others weren’t so enthusiastic. I felt cared for and respected despite being a “newbie.” I believe he was the same with everyone, as he led an organization that was a leader of change in those days. I was at the right place at the right time with the right boss! To my delight, many of his innovations have stood the test of time.
Years later, my early memories come flooding back, no less in a funeral home. As I greet the crowds of people who are paying their respects for my Dad, I listen intently to their warm, funny, poignant and complimentary stories. “He was the consummate professional.” “In spite of his high profile, he made me feel welcome even though I was a ‘greenhorn’.” He had faith in me, trusted me.” “He was inclusive, a great mentor.” “He was a man of integrity and principles.” “He stood up for his staff.” “He was warm and generous.” “He was meticulous, always well-prepared.” “He was a fierce competitor not against others but against himself.” “If it was O.K with him, it was O.K.” “He set the foundation that still exists to this day.” One former employee, in particular, wanted to talk at length to me because my Dad was quite simply, “the best boss he ever had.” He left the funeral home in tears. Little did I know that I had a role model on my doorstep, but what do daughters really “get” about the jobs their fathers do? Maybe it explains my abiding interest in the subject in some unconscious way!
We met with Janet in a windowless, utilitarian room off the reception area of the bank. In person, she exuded the same vibrancy, smiling, making eye contact with each of us and graciously extending her condolences. We had no sooner gotten down to business than another staff member (the person we met later in the mall) came to the door with an urgent message. After Janet excused herself to take the phone, we knew something serious was amiss.
On her return, we learned she had moments before lost her sister-in-law to cancer. We were now in a different place---a shared experience. We offered to postpone the meeting. “No”, she said. “Let’s complete the task and then I will begin to mourn.” Such composure! But, as she worked with us, I noticed a slight tremor in her hand when she offered us a pen for signatures. Her demeanor was more subdued, yet still much more upbeat than many. Tears welled up in her eyes every once in a while. We soldiered on together.
In the mall, Iris told me why Janet was the “best boss she had ever had.” “She always has time for everyone.” “She shows respect for me.” “She listens.” “She’s great at multi-tasking.” “She takes care of us.” “She’s positive.” “We can depend on her.” “She’s a wonderful mentor.”
What is at the heart of “best boss”? I believe it is an abiding real regard for another beyond yourself and a willingness to work side-by-side (not one above the other) with a belief that something better will be created together. A “best boss” is no slacker either modeling what is expected of everyone else. At the same time, a “best boss” isn’t perfect. For example, Dr. Warren was disorganized. However, he made sure he had a well-organized team around to make up for his lack in that area.
No matter who we are, we each need support (emotional and structural), encouragement, and individualized attention to rise to the next level of our capabilities. That means not only a strong respectful relationship with our “boss” but one from which we learn.
The research supports this conclusion---how a manager relates (builds relationships) can affect up to 70% of group performance. Shall we surmise that this applies to the individuals making up the group?
That’s the secret---relating, one person at a time.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Monday, April 17, 2006
Expediters Motivate
The data continues to pour in about disengaged workforces. For the last half of the 20th century, we referred to whether an employee was “motivated” or not. Now we speak of “engagement”. Either way, the surveys say that with few exceptions (such as the most admired companies to work for), we’re doing an abysmal job of fostering the spirit of employees. This message just will not go away despite a long ago awareness by the top management of organizations that something must be done. The irony is most managers themselves are caught up in the ennui. They too could do with a boost.
Take some of the latest research. According to Gallup’s semi-annual Employment Engagement Index, about half of employees have “checked out”. In Towers Perrin’s 2005 Global Workforce Survey of 85,000 people, only 14 percent of all employees worldwide were highly engaged in their job. The number was 17 percent for Canadians. Equally as compelling, Sirota, a New York-based organization, reports that from 2001 to 2004, 85 percent of the 1.2 million employees surveyed at 52 primarily Fortune 1000 companies suffered steep declines in morale after an initial “high” of enthusiasm in the first six months of employment. Mid-career employees—those between 35 and 54 who make up approximately half the workforce in North America--- are getting a bit grumpy too. An Age Wave/Concours Group/Harris survey in June 2004 of more than 7,700 U.S. workers found that only 43 percent are passionate about their jobs. They have the lowest satisfaction rates with their immediate managers and the least confidence in top executives. Why can’t we get this right?
Decades of research from multiple sources underscores that regardless of personality, age, education, tenure or position, employees are most frequently motivated (or engaged) when they feel emotionally connected to their organizations. The fastest way to being connected is through their bosses—that relationship can make or break “motivation”. Let’s call such bosses “expediters” because they treat employees as customers, helping them to get their jobs done.
It’s not easy to be an expediter. My head spins with all the suggestions I read in the various research reports. But one that caught my attention is Jerald Salacuse’s contention is that we’re now in an era of “leading leaders”---smart, talented people who wish to be treated more like peers than employees in a command and control work environment. This requires “interest-based leadership” in which effective leaders tailor their approach in one-on-one meetings to the particular situations they face. One thing is for certain: what works is leadership “up close and personal”. This resonates with Daniel Goleman’s message about the importance of emotional intelligence for leaders or how they handle themselves and their relationships.
Deep down the design of our brain accounts for our reliance on connectedness. The open-loop nature of our limbic system which relates to our emotions means we depend a great deal on external sources to manage our emotions. There’s nothing automatically self-managing about our feelings. We are sharply attuned to our environment. People in work groups “catch” feelings from one another. Cheerfulness and warmth are more catchy than irritability. Laughter creates a spontaneous chain reaction. Leaders who are interested rather than interesting feed our brain’s need for “limbic locks”---direct emotional connections, brain to brain.
If the emotional connectedness aspect of a leader is the source of being an expediter, how does someone like our new Canadian Prime Minister stack up? I had some fun with my leadership class at McMaster University by asking the participants to rate Stephen Harper’s “motivation index” on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 meaning “very unlikely to motivate” and 5 meaning “very likely to motivate”. They used as background information his five priorities, a range of media reports on his leadership style and Sirota’s research on motivation (see http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=5289&t=organizations&iss=y). After considerable debate and discussion, sometimes heated because of different political beliefs, the group of almost 30 seasoned managers gave Harper a 2.75 rating. Despite the recognition that he’s projecting the appearance of taking charge, the group expressed the concern that his pacesetting/commanding style may not work in the long run. His way of leading, in their assessment, does not build a positive working culture.
Fred Emery would agree. As a renowned social scientist more than 50 years ago, he noted that tightly managed organizations (most often named as bureaucracies) are the cause of individual frustration, anger, contempt and other negative feelings. He further explained that in flatter organizations where responsibility for coordination and control is located with the group of people doing the work, employees are motivated to do their best and to cooperate out of self-interest. Overall, it is a healthier, happier workplace more often characterized by mutual support and respect.
For those who like things neat and tidy, this conception of how to motivate might appear too risky, too unstructured and laissez-faire. However, the irony is that accountability and taking responsibility are more effectively self-managed when bosses position themselves humbly as leaders of leaders. Walt Whitman echoed this art of conversation as the “right voice”:
“Surely, whoever speaks to me in the right voice, him or her I shall follow.”
Take some of the latest research. According to Gallup’s semi-annual Employment Engagement Index, about half of employees have “checked out”. In Towers Perrin’s 2005 Global Workforce Survey of 85,000 people, only 14 percent of all employees worldwide were highly engaged in their job. The number was 17 percent for Canadians. Equally as compelling, Sirota, a New York-based organization, reports that from 2001 to 2004, 85 percent of the 1.2 million employees surveyed at 52 primarily Fortune 1000 companies suffered steep declines in morale after an initial “high” of enthusiasm in the first six months of employment. Mid-career employees—those between 35 and 54 who make up approximately half the workforce in North America--- are getting a bit grumpy too. An Age Wave/Concours Group/Harris survey in June 2004 of more than 7,700 U.S. workers found that only 43 percent are passionate about their jobs. They have the lowest satisfaction rates with their immediate managers and the least confidence in top executives. Why can’t we get this right?
Decades of research from multiple sources underscores that regardless of personality, age, education, tenure or position, employees are most frequently motivated (or engaged) when they feel emotionally connected to their organizations. The fastest way to being connected is through their bosses—that relationship can make or break “motivation”. Let’s call such bosses “expediters” because they treat employees as customers, helping them to get their jobs done.
It’s not easy to be an expediter. My head spins with all the suggestions I read in the various research reports. But one that caught my attention is Jerald Salacuse’s contention is that we’re now in an era of “leading leaders”---smart, talented people who wish to be treated more like peers than employees in a command and control work environment. This requires “interest-based leadership” in which effective leaders tailor their approach in one-on-one meetings to the particular situations they face. One thing is for certain: what works is leadership “up close and personal”. This resonates with Daniel Goleman’s message about the importance of emotional intelligence for leaders or how they handle themselves and their relationships.
Deep down the design of our brain accounts for our reliance on connectedness. The open-loop nature of our limbic system which relates to our emotions means we depend a great deal on external sources to manage our emotions. There’s nothing automatically self-managing about our feelings. We are sharply attuned to our environment. People in work groups “catch” feelings from one another. Cheerfulness and warmth are more catchy than irritability. Laughter creates a spontaneous chain reaction. Leaders who are interested rather than interesting feed our brain’s need for “limbic locks”---direct emotional connections, brain to brain.
If the emotional connectedness aspect of a leader is the source of being an expediter, how does someone like our new Canadian Prime Minister stack up? I had some fun with my leadership class at McMaster University by asking the participants to rate Stephen Harper’s “motivation index” on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 meaning “very unlikely to motivate” and 5 meaning “very likely to motivate”. They used as background information his five priorities, a range of media reports on his leadership style and Sirota’s research on motivation (see http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=5289&t=organizations&iss=y). After considerable debate and discussion, sometimes heated because of different political beliefs, the group of almost 30 seasoned managers gave Harper a 2.75 rating. Despite the recognition that he’s projecting the appearance of taking charge, the group expressed the concern that his pacesetting/commanding style may not work in the long run. His way of leading, in their assessment, does not build a positive working culture.
Fred Emery would agree. As a renowned social scientist more than 50 years ago, he noted that tightly managed organizations (most often named as bureaucracies) are the cause of individual frustration, anger, contempt and other negative feelings. He further explained that in flatter organizations where responsibility for coordination and control is located with the group of people doing the work, employees are motivated to do their best and to cooperate out of self-interest. Overall, it is a healthier, happier workplace more often characterized by mutual support and respect.
For those who like things neat and tidy, this conception of how to motivate might appear too risky, too unstructured and laissez-faire. However, the irony is that accountability and taking responsibility are more effectively self-managed when bosses position themselves humbly as leaders of leaders. Walt Whitman echoed this art of conversation as the “right voice”:
“Surely, whoever speaks to me in the right voice, him or her I shall follow.”
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Hillier's Mountain to Climb: Every Leader's Dilemma
The shadow or light of leadership beckons with each act. General Rick Hillier is battling that zone: is he right or wrong in his bold view of Canada’s role in fighting terrorism? Can he convince all the right constituents that his vision is the right one? Can he successfully climb that huge mountain to reach a new plateau toward more safety and security for the planet? It’s quite the balancing act and one which all leaders face in complex environments.
I ask the question, not to debate the answer, but to examine how a leader leads so that we see in his determination for action leadership of the “light” variety not the “dark”.
There’s no doubt that Hillier believes with great passion and certainty that Canada’s efforts in a far flung corner of the world are necessary to make life better for us as well as others. Like the United States’ Lieutenant General Russel Honore who deftly led the National Guard to work kindly and effectively with the people of New Orleans during the Katrina disaster, Hillier is a man of action on the ground shaped by years of experience. He’s been there seeing what it takes to change the world. Emboldened with that resume, his soldiers are willing to listen and learn. Add to that his visibility and accessibility. So far, Hillier has a winning formula for convincing the troops that their mission matters.
He’s also “over the store” minding operations. From what I read, Hillier has taken umbrage with spreading resources too thinly and approaching new realities with old methods. He stresses prioritizing so that the military can excel in the missions chosen at home and abroad. He’s constantly battling for the equipment and training to support the few goals not the many. He has encouraged soldiers to open up their minds to what works, to throw out what they learned if it doesn’t fit with the situation. That point was well made in Mitch Potter’s recent article for the Toronto Star. A recurrent message coming out of the heart wrenching description of his “embedded” experience this past month was that the rule book had to be thrown out with the tribal and guerilla warfare in Afghanistan. Learning on the run and crafting strategy accordingly is the nature of the new reality.
I am reminded that failed CEOs all have one thing in common: they did not get things done. Great visions, but rotten execution. We cannot accuse Hillier on poor execution. But, he’s far from reaching success. Hiller’s ultimate mountain to climb is Afghanistan’s success at resisting progress.
It is downright depressing to read of Afghanistan’s miserable history. It seems that no nation has succeeded to date in helping ordinary Afghan’s lead a peaceful co-existence within their country and with the world. It’s true with the help of the UN and NATO, much has been accomplished in 4 ½ years to suppress, investigate and incapacitate terrorists sourced out of Afghanistan. The UN and NATO are the necessary driving forces and the backbone for rebuilding the country—Hillier is a key operational leader who without them would have no hope in succeeding. Thus, collaborative leadership of all the right players is a must for successful large scale change.
But the real test is village by village change, just as change in an organization is one work group at a time. That’s where Hillier and his troops can make and perhaps are making the ultimate difference. We know from the horrific ax attack on an unsuspecting Captain Trevor Greene that the strategy is fraught with peril. However, there is no trust without nurturing relationships and for that we must give the Canadian troops under Rick Hillier an A for effort.
Finally, there is always the nagging question: how long is this going to take? In North America, we are programmed for short time horizons. We want results fast. In complex situations worthy of our attention, constant persistence does create change. But like James Collins’ use of the flywheel metaphor, it takes time. His research on good to great companies underlined the power of continued improvement and the delivery of results. Tangible accomplishments, often incremental in the early stages, help people “see and feel the build up of momentum.”
Well, Hillier has made it plain that a ten year time horizon is likely. Given the historical intractability of Afghanistan, he’s probably erred on the light side! Regardless of his accuracy on the time required, he’s still faced with a significant problem: he has not gotten the message out clearly on the tangible results accomplished to date.
Change of any sort is difficult even when it is so obviously necessary. None of us wants terrorism to grow and infect our well-being. Our confidence has been shaken by many events since 9/11 and it’s still shaky. No doubt, the intentions of the UN and NATO are noble. Our previous Liberal leadership at the federal level was convinced of the necessity for action in Afghanistan and so are the Conservatives, as Stephen Harper’s surprise visit to that country demonstrates. Such solidarity sends strong messages to us.
Now, to continue with the road ahead, we need something more to convince us that we can help in making a difference. For ordinary Canadians, the “help” might only be moral support. It’s time for Hillier to use his media savvy to communicate any and all tangible results. Hopefully, he’s already well into doing that with his troops otherwise they will be hard pressed to carry on. For the rest of us, we’d like to hear too so that we can see and feel the light not the darkness in such a monumental undertaking.
I ask the question, not to debate the answer, but to examine how a leader leads so that we see in his determination for action leadership of the “light” variety not the “dark”.
There’s no doubt that Hillier believes with great passion and certainty that Canada’s efforts in a far flung corner of the world are necessary to make life better for us as well as others. Like the United States’ Lieutenant General Russel Honore who deftly led the National Guard to work kindly and effectively with the people of New Orleans during the Katrina disaster, Hillier is a man of action on the ground shaped by years of experience. He’s been there seeing what it takes to change the world. Emboldened with that resume, his soldiers are willing to listen and learn. Add to that his visibility and accessibility. So far, Hillier has a winning formula for convincing the troops that their mission matters.
He’s also “over the store” minding operations. From what I read, Hillier has taken umbrage with spreading resources too thinly and approaching new realities with old methods. He stresses prioritizing so that the military can excel in the missions chosen at home and abroad. He’s constantly battling for the equipment and training to support the few goals not the many. He has encouraged soldiers to open up their minds to what works, to throw out what they learned if it doesn’t fit with the situation. That point was well made in Mitch Potter’s recent article for the Toronto Star. A recurrent message coming out of the heart wrenching description of his “embedded” experience this past month was that the rule book had to be thrown out with the tribal and guerilla warfare in Afghanistan. Learning on the run and crafting strategy accordingly is the nature of the new reality.
I am reminded that failed CEOs all have one thing in common: they did not get things done. Great visions, but rotten execution. We cannot accuse Hillier on poor execution. But, he’s far from reaching success. Hiller’s ultimate mountain to climb is Afghanistan’s success at resisting progress.
It is downright depressing to read of Afghanistan’s miserable history. It seems that no nation has succeeded to date in helping ordinary Afghan’s lead a peaceful co-existence within their country and with the world. It’s true with the help of the UN and NATO, much has been accomplished in 4 ½ years to suppress, investigate and incapacitate terrorists sourced out of Afghanistan. The UN and NATO are the necessary driving forces and the backbone for rebuilding the country—Hillier is a key operational leader who without them would have no hope in succeeding. Thus, collaborative leadership of all the right players is a must for successful large scale change.
But the real test is village by village change, just as change in an organization is one work group at a time. That’s where Hillier and his troops can make and perhaps are making the ultimate difference. We know from the horrific ax attack on an unsuspecting Captain Trevor Greene that the strategy is fraught with peril. However, there is no trust without nurturing relationships and for that we must give the Canadian troops under Rick Hillier an A for effort.
Finally, there is always the nagging question: how long is this going to take? In North America, we are programmed for short time horizons. We want results fast. In complex situations worthy of our attention, constant persistence does create change. But like James Collins’ use of the flywheel metaphor, it takes time. His research on good to great companies underlined the power of continued improvement and the delivery of results. Tangible accomplishments, often incremental in the early stages, help people “see and feel the build up of momentum.”
Well, Hillier has made it plain that a ten year time horizon is likely. Given the historical intractability of Afghanistan, he’s probably erred on the light side! Regardless of his accuracy on the time required, he’s still faced with a significant problem: he has not gotten the message out clearly on the tangible results accomplished to date.
Change of any sort is difficult even when it is so obviously necessary. None of us wants terrorism to grow and infect our well-being. Our confidence has been shaken by many events since 9/11 and it’s still shaky. No doubt, the intentions of the UN and NATO are noble. Our previous Liberal leadership at the federal level was convinced of the necessity for action in Afghanistan and so are the Conservatives, as Stephen Harper’s surprise visit to that country demonstrates. Such solidarity sends strong messages to us.
Now, to continue with the road ahead, we need something more to convince us that we can help in making a difference. For ordinary Canadians, the “help” might only be moral support. It’s time for Hillier to use his media savvy to communicate any and all tangible results. Hopefully, he’s already well into doing that with his troops otherwise they will be hard pressed to carry on. For the rest of us, we’d like to hear too so that we can see and feel the light not the darkness in such a monumental undertaking.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Smart Strategy, Olympian Results
The forty one per cent increase in Canada’s medals at the Olympic Games proves that smart strategy does work. No rocket science here—set the stretch goal (own the podium: finish third by getting 25 medals) but don’t just pray. Walk the talk with serious investment in the athletes. Too bad it took us so long but better late than never.
Australia woke up to the value of “strategic planning” almost 40 years ago when its athletes fell short in the 1967 Olympics. The Australian Institute of Sport is touted as a model for other countries, particularly in golf, which is now an official Olympic sport.
What did it do to get at least four times the number of golfers in the Masters in comparison to Canada? Australia deliberately tackled the issue on a number of fronts: recruit top athletes, provide them with access to top facilities and coaching, increase cash support and opportunities for getting experience and deepen the research on human performance and technology. Never let up. Learn as you go. Keep the funding flowing Presto! Significant and positive change happens.
In its wisdom, Canada took notice. In preparing for the 2006 Olympic Games, our Olympic Committee leaders adopted or intensified the modeling of Australia’s ideas, including those of other successful countries, and the rest is history. The enlightened policy of the same resources and access for both sexes paid off in spades, proving that investment in human potential without judgment can be a win-win for all.
These Olympian results---24 medals with a phenomenal showing by women---demonstrate clearly the power of leadership. With golf as a new Olympic sport, and the more focused and wise leadership mindset on what it takes to succeed, we may have the pleasure of a second Canadian winning the Masters sooner rather than later.
Australia woke up to the value of “strategic planning” almost 40 years ago when its athletes fell short in the 1967 Olympics. The Australian Institute of Sport is touted as a model for other countries, particularly in golf, which is now an official Olympic sport.
What did it do to get at least four times the number of golfers in the Masters in comparison to Canada? Australia deliberately tackled the issue on a number of fronts: recruit top athletes, provide them with access to top facilities and coaching, increase cash support and opportunities for getting experience and deepen the research on human performance and technology. Never let up. Learn as you go. Keep the funding flowing Presto! Significant and positive change happens.
In its wisdom, Canada took notice. In preparing for the 2006 Olympic Games, our Olympic Committee leaders adopted or intensified the modeling of Australia’s ideas, including those of other successful countries, and the rest is history. The enlightened policy of the same resources and access for both sexes paid off in spades, proving that investment in human potential without judgment can be a win-win for all.
These Olympian results---24 medals with a phenomenal showing by women---demonstrate clearly the power of leadership. With golf as a new Olympic sport, and the more focused and wise leadership mindset on what it takes to succeed, we may have the pleasure of a second Canadian winning the Masters sooner rather than later.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
When the "Vision Thing" Skipped Town
Somewhere in the multitude of Prime Minister Paul Martin’s priorities, a vision lurked. Occasionally, it would shine through, like “a new deal” for cities. Then, it would disappear among the chaos of other competing issues. Martin’s loss underscores the importance of inspiring those he serves with a clear and compelling vision and staying the course. Paul Martin succumbed to the complexity of the task.
George Bush senior made light of vision being a critical tool for an effective leader. Was he right? Time has proven otherwise. He underrated how much we look for a vision to organize the challenges that confront us. It’s no different than finding a thesis for an essay. The message must be clear and supported by the evidence! Thus, the complexity becomes less of a fog. Hope springs forth. Some possibilities may come to pass.
Take the “new deal” for cities. The wording evokes times past when, for example, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (F.D.R.), renewed and rebuilt the American economy to pull it out of an internal war: the 1933 depression. A new deal worked then. Why not now? The times and the challenges are different. Economic development is the common thread, now as then.
Does the vision capture complexity? You bet! A new deal must address both the hard and soft challenges. Improvements to infrastructure, roads, transit and policy tools for raising money to fit local needs go hand in hand with social infrastructure opportunities. They include better day care, affordable housing and tuition, security of neighbourhoods, more attention to the needs of youth at risk and access to health care. Paul Martin could have lived off that vision perpetually and touched many of the issues that create angst among voters.
In the absence of a vision, the change agenda of other political leaders filled the void. The issues must migrate somewhere. Like water, they followed the path of least resistance, to the leaders who could package them more effectively. Now, they await being organized into an understandable framework (a vision) that resonates across boundaries and grabs the energy of people. It will not be enough to talk only of change.
Sounds simple, but it is not. The vision must be rooted in reality, addressing problems that, if eliminated or reduced, would create a more livable environment for many (in an organization, in a community). A vision of worth also stretches our minds. When our rationale selves say, “No, we can’t do this, it is impossible”, the leader says, “Yes, we can. Let’s give it a try and see what happens.” That’s when creativity steps in and people literally invent how to get there!
A vision is useless without focused action (or execution of a few major priorities). The world is awash with failed CEO’s who talked but didn’t walk. A vision must be rich with images of what could be, like Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream”. At the same time, that same leader must work hard to transform the dream into concrete benefits. We know that King’s dream continues to this day to drive us toward a better world. We do need mega-doses of patience because big dreams take time.
To be sustainable, a vision must reflect positively the soul of the deliverer: is he to be believed? Does his passion shine through, like a cause and a calling? Does it honour common purpose, or the invisible leader, as the 1940s management guru, Mary Parker Follett emphasized?
The vision must also “align” with the core beliefs and values of the leader. If they don’t, people will instinctively “smell a rat”.
Annette Simmons explains in The Six Stories You Need to Know How to Tell,
“People don’t want more information. They are up to their eyeballs in information. They want faith—in you, your goals, your success, in the story you tell. It is faith that moves mountains, not facts. Facts do not give birth to faith. Faith needs a story to sustain it---a meaningful story that inspires belief in you (the leader) and renews hope that your ideas, do indeed, offer what you promise. Genuine influence goes deeper than getting people to do what you want them to do. It means people pick up where you left off because they believe.”
I would add that facts are important or put another way, some show of the evidence (the lessons of history, sustainable “best practices”, current problems) is necessary to justify the direction. But, in the context of Simmons comments, they, the facts, have no relevance without a vision to frame them and trust in the leader’s integrity.
Therein lies the real dilemma for any leader---presenting oneself as having a soundness of character that is “integrated”. To integrate, is “to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole” (Webster’s Ninth English Dictionary, p. 628). This implies a self-knowledge, a world within us from which vision is shaped. In Blake’s words:
In your own Bosom, you bear your Heaven
And Earth & all you behold: tho’ it appears Without,
It is Within (Blake, 1965, p. 223).
In his research on the longevity and success of organizations in Good to Great, James Collins discovered that great companies are internally driven and externally aware. This mirrors Blake’s “take” on personal success.
Paul Martin’s demise may be a function of having his integrity driven too much by “externals” and not enough by his core—who he really is.
George Bush senior made light of vision being a critical tool for an effective leader. Was he right? Time has proven otherwise. He underrated how much we look for a vision to organize the challenges that confront us. It’s no different than finding a thesis for an essay. The message must be clear and supported by the evidence! Thus, the complexity becomes less of a fog. Hope springs forth. Some possibilities may come to pass.
Take the “new deal” for cities. The wording evokes times past when, for example, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (F.D.R.), renewed and rebuilt the American economy to pull it out of an internal war: the 1933 depression. A new deal worked then. Why not now? The times and the challenges are different. Economic development is the common thread, now as then.
Does the vision capture complexity? You bet! A new deal must address both the hard and soft challenges. Improvements to infrastructure, roads, transit and policy tools for raising money to fit local needs go hand in hand with social infrastructure opportunities. They include better day care, affordable housing and tuition, security of neighbourhoods, more attention to the needs of youth at risk and access to health care. Paul Martin could have lived off that vision perpetually and touched many of the issues that create angst among voters.
In the absence of a vision, the change agenda of other political leaders filled the void. The issues must migrate somewhere. Like water, they followed the path of least resistance, to the leaders who could package them more effectively. Now, they await being organized into an understandable framework (a vision) that resonates across boundaries and grabs the energy of people. It will not be enough to talk only of change.
Sounds simple, but it is not. The vision must be rooted in reality, addressing problems that, if eliminated or reduced, would create a more livable environment for many (in an organization, in a community). A vision of worth also stretches our minds. When our rationale selves say, “No, we can’t do this, it is impossible”, the leader says, “Yes, we can. Let’s give it a try and see what happens.” That’s when creativity steps in and people literally invent how to get there!
A vision is useless without focused action (or execution of a few major priorities). The world is awash with failed CEO’s who talked but didn’t walk. A vision must be rich with images of what could be, like Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream”. At the same time, that same leader must work hard to transform the dream into concrete benefits. We know that King’s dream continues to this day to drive us toward a better world. We do need mega-doses of patience because big dreams take time.
To be sustainable, a vision must reflect positively the soul of the deliverer: is he to be believed? Does his passion shine through, like a cause and a calling? Does it honour common purpose, or the invisible leader, as the 1940s management guru, Mary Parker Follett emphasized?
The vision must also “align” with the core beliefs and values of the leader. If they don’t, people will instinctively “smell a rat”.
Annette Simmons explains in The Six Stories You Need to Know How to Tell,
“People don’t want more information. They are up to their eyeballs in information. They want faith—in you, your goals, your success, in the story you tell. It is faith that moves mountains, not facts. Facts do not give birth to faith. Faith needs a story to sustain it---a meaningful story that inspires belief in you (the leader) and renews hope that your ideas, do indeed, offer what you promise. Genuine influence goes deeper than getting people to do what you want them to do. It means people pick up where you left off because they believe.”
I would add that facts are important or put another way, some show of the evidence (the lessons of history, sustainable “best practices”, current problems) is necessary to justify the direction. But, in the context of Simmons comments, they, the facts, have no relevance without a vision to frame them and trust in the leader’s integrity.
Therein lies the real dilemma for any leader---presenting oneself as having a soundness of character that is “integrated”. To integrate, is “to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole” (Webster’s Ninth English Dictionary, p. 628). This implies a self-knowledge, a world within us from which vision is shaped. In Blake’s words:
In your own Bosom, you bear your Heaven
And Earth & all you behold: tho’ it appears Without,
It is Within (Blake, 1965, p. 223).
In his research on the longevity and success of organizations in Good to Great, James Collins discovered that great companies are internally driven and externally aware. This mirrors Blake’s “take” on personal success.
Paul Martin’s demise may be a function of having his integrity driven too much by “externals” and not enough by his core—who he really is.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Kindness
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
