Issuu on Google+

1 In this Issue > The Right Role for Top Teams

Are You Your Employees’ Worst Enemy? > Are You Caught in the Hindrance Trap? Planning Your Escape > Feedback provides answers to many workplace issues Embodied Leadership: A Somatic Approach to Developing Your Leadership


FRHR help business leaders and HR professionals drive decisions in human capital management, training, and performance, and more effectively respond to today's fast-paced demands. FRHR helps companies improve efficiencies, reduce costs and strengthen processes.

FRHR tracks trends, insightful analysis and connects research to performance. FRHR as a purveyor of the Excel Mindset Performance Excellence Program (EMPEP) helps organizations adapt and grow in increasingly uncertain times. We integrate this excel mindset expertise with experiential learning, actionable insights from a diverse network of thought leaders, and other strategic tools to help clients take advantage of opportunities.


A research-led performance initiative to run HR like a business in order to deliver measurable, planned impact with greater effectiveness and efficiency. A critical eye responsible for igniting organizational change and driving business outcomes.



The Right Role for Top Teams


Are You Your Employees’ Worst Enemy? Many leaders inadvertently stand in the way of superior performance. Here’s how to avoid the hindrance trap. And to check your own performance, take our interactive survey by Kannan Ramaswamy and William Youngdahl Do you help bring out the best in your people or do you inadvertently hold them back from superior performance? Complete this assessment to find out.

Are You Caught in the Hindrance Trap? In almost all organizations, some leaders pave the way for their employees to do their best work, and others inadvertently make things much harder than they should be. Where do you fall on this continuum? Do you help or do you hinder? In all probability, it’s the latter. According to our research, your employees are more likely to view you as an obstacle to their effectiveness than as an enabler of it—and that holds true whether your organization is successful or stumbling. People expect to find bad bosses in failing companies. However, in surveys and interviews with more than 250 working professionals in 37 countries, we’ve found that 51 percent of employees across the full spectrum of organizational performance believe initiatives tend to succeed despite, not because of, their leaders. All employees think that their bosses hinder their effectiveness from time to time. But the prevalence of this phenomenon even in successful organizations (as defined by respondents to our surveys) is eye-opening. It is hardly conceivable that the majority of bosses arrive at work each day with fresh ideas on how to actively scuttle the efforts of their teams. Rather, they are lured into what we call the hindrance trap—a cognitive bubble in which leaders erroneously conclude that the success of their teams is a reflection of their good leadership. As a result, organizations are settling for less than what they could achieve if they had more self-aware leaders throughout their hierarchies. The exact nature of the hindrance varies, but there are some common elements. They include a lack of clarity on purpose and direction, failure to consider the organization’s capacity, and useless policies (see Exhibit 1). Our research also indicates that leaders’ hindrance, left unaddressed, will eventually exact a stiff toll on employee engagement and morale, no matter how strong the latest quarterly report. To make matters worse, a pattern of hindrance will drive up the rate of churn among the highest performers. The average performers might silently suffer the consequences of a boss stuck in the hindrance trap, but high performers can hardly be expected to be as patient.



The good news is that any leader can escape the hindrance trap—or perhaps even avoid it altogether. It’s a process that begins with recognizing that hindrance is a real organizational disease, one with a set of specific symptoms you can diagnose. Only with an honest assessment can you plot your cure.

How Hindrance Takes Root Falling into the hindrance trap is frequently a subconscious process. The trouble starts with the socialization of becoming a leader. As managers move up the ranks, they are encouraged to think big and leave the details to others. The result is often a disconnect between strategy conception and implementation. Some ideas that seem feasible in the C-suite simply do not work on the ground. Leaders compound the problem when they fail to encourage honest, complete feedback from their employees. Such bosses believe they are helping because nobody tells them otherwise. They attribute success to their own efforts, when in fact the company’s positive results might be coming from self-motivated individuals making up for their leader’s shortcomings. Variations of Hans Christian Andersen’s tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” play out in organizations around the world. Few individuals are willing to point out the flaws of their bosses. Many employees may fear retribution. Others may not believe that it is their job to offer unsolicited developmental advice to their superiors. Our research shows that only 46 percent of leaders in successful organizations are perceived as supporting speak-up cultures. Thus, the lack of honest feedback is hardly surprising. Strong performance results further mask the problem. When things aren’t going well, leadership behaviors tend to be readily highlighted as a root cause. But when results are positive, we tend to look the other way or simply don’t notice damaging behavior—and bosses see no reason to adjust their approaches or work on their own development.


Are You Trapped? We know that leadership acculturation, lack of honest feedback, and the mask of success combine to draw many bosses into the hindrance trap (see Exhibit 2). The first step in diagnosis is therefore to pause for a moment and consider the way you lead. Have you reflected on the role that you play in helping your teams deliver positive performance outcomes? Do you proactively seek feedback from your teams about potential pressure points that line the pathways to successful strategy execution? Do you encourage constructive criticism of organizational norms and practices? Your answers to these introspective questions are one good way to assess your propensity to hinder your employees’ effectiveness.


Of course, validating your conclusions with those you lead is also critical. Reaching down and across the organization to solicit unvarnished feedback, both formal and informal, can help a leader gain a better appreciation of the realities on the ground. It’s best to turn to outsiders to help facilitate feedback about potentially hindering leadership behaviors. In our own experience, for example, we have concluded that individuals feel freer to speak with us about leaders who hinder them than they do to speak with their boss or an HR professional.

When looking for evidence of the hindrance trap, we focus on three key questions.

1. Are employees clear on the purpose and direction driving their work? Even in successful organizations, we found that only 56 percent of employees believed their leaders were providing clarity of purpose and direction. When intent from the top is not clear, middle managers often create their own strategies to help focus resources on specific initiatives and activities. The assumptions embedded within the process of achieving clarity in the middle of the organization can lead to wellcoordinated activities that head in the wrong direction. Positive results can pivot to disaster—sometimes without warning. Consider the high-profile Deepwater Horizon incident that nearly sank BP. On April 20, 2010, the oil and gas giant reported a catastrophic failure at its Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. When all was said and done, 11 people had lost their lives and an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil had seeped into the Gulf. Just nine days after the spill, BP shares had dropped US$25 billion in market value. By June 2013, BP had concluded its cleanup operations for Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, but the cleanup of Louisiana continues today with no clear end in sight. Although BP’s top leadership had previously identified safety as a key element of its corporate strategy, cost cutting emerged as the implied core value—and the key driver of people’s behavior. The incongruence first showed up in 2005, when a massive explosion at BP’s Texas City, Texas, refinery killed 15 people and injured 170, following cuts in preventive maintenance enacted in order to achieve aggressive financial goals. After the explosion, BP commissioned an independent panel, chaired by former U.S. secretary of state James Baker. The panel concluded that issues of management quality and lack of clarity in role definitions and responsibilities were largely to blame. Unfortunately, the lessons learned in Texas did not prevent the Deepwater Horizon spill. Once certain patterns of behavior take root, they can be frustratingly slow to change even after they have been identified.

2. Do our leaders account for and respect the need for the organizational capacity required to carry out their strategic intent? Even if leaders are clear on strategic intent, they can do more harm than good if they fail to consider the resources required to deliver results. We found that a mere 26 percent of employees in successful organizations believe their leaders account for organizational capacity when rolling out initiatives. A project leader from a biotech company described the problem bluntly: “They keep asking us to do more and more with less and less, to the point that we will be doing everything with nothing.” This project leader shared a glimpse of her typical day. “I come home at about 7


p.m., feed my family, and put my daughter to bed,” she said. “By 9 p.m., I’m back to work at the computer until about 3 a.m.” She was victimized by a senior leader who was caught in the hindrance trap, but she confided that she was also setting unrealistic expectations for members of her team who, in turn, experienced similar work–life imbalances. She had essentially become a hindrance trap conduit, assuming that others would also do whatever it took to live up to the often highly unrealis-tic expectations of the senior leader. Such extra unreported hours can hide the human costs of organizational success. For some organizations, it has become the norm to expect employees to work on six projects at 20 percent each, in addition to fulfilling a range of day-to-day responsibilities. Overloaded employees sometimes deliver remarkable results and make their bosses look good for a season, but they cannot sustain these high levels of productivity. Over time, the quality of their work declines and initiatives miss important deadlines.

3. Do our policies promote or inhibit effectiveness? Leaders at all levels in the organization set policies that govern how decisions are made and executed. We found that only 36 percent of employees in successful organizations believe their leaders set policies that help the organization achieve superior performance. In considering these results, it’s important to differentiate between types of policies. Those designed to ensure regulatory or safety compliance might not aid superior performance, but avoiding the consequences of being out of compliance makes them necessary. But that’s just one type of policy. Many others tend to be based on the personal preferences of senior leaders or long-standing tradition and may not reinforce current best practices. For example, a senior leader in a pharmaceutical company we studied instituted a 10-slide limit for PowerPoint presentations, ostensibly to focus attention on the important issues. However, he was unwilling to relax the expectation that presenters should be prepared to discuss finegrained detail on any number of different issues when called upon to do so during their presentation. Anxious presenters were known to labor over getting their presentations down to 10 slides, while producing 100 backup slides to address whatever questions might arise. The process became a huge time and attention sink. General organizational policies that address the unique “do’s and don’ts” of an organization can also be problematic. Often, these do’s and don’ts are nothing more than a historical record of the way the company has always functioned, or a codification of the organizational or industry practices that worked best in the past. However, over time such policies can become outdated and lose their relevance. In fact, many once-useful policies might actually evolve to undermine effective work practices. Leaders may unwittingly find themselves hindering progress if they stifle constructive criticism of organizational norms and practices. Some readers may have heard stories about a study that illustrates the inertia of business policies. Researchers placed five monkeys in a cage with a set of stairs in the middle leading to a banana, which dangled high above on a string. Whenever any monkey tried to climb the stairs, the other monkeys were sprayed with cold water. Soon, no monkey could touch the stairs without violent opposition.


The researchers then removed one monkey and replaced it with an outsider. To the newcomer’s surprise and horror, all the other monkeys blocked its way to the banana. After two attempts and attacks, the new monkey gave up its quest for the banana. Next the researchers removed another of the original five monkeys and replaced it with a new one. As expected, the newcomer went to the stairs and was pulled back. Joining the attack was the previous newcomer, who took part in the punishment with enthusiasm. One by one, all the original monkeys were replaced, until none had ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approached the stairs to reach the banana. As far as they knew, this was just “the way we do things around here.”

The three questions addressing strategic clarity, organizational capacity, and soundness of policies are crucial in identifying the extent to which leaders might be hindering more than helping. Leaders can’t afford to avoid these questions simply because they are achieving a high degree of success or because they may not like the answers. They need to consider how much better their people could perform with help rather than hindrance.


Planning Your Escape


Planning Your Escape Freeing yourself from the hindrance trap requires a certain degree of vulnerability (see Exhibit 3). You need to be willing to honestly examine your role in hindering or helping progress along an organization’s strategic pathways. At the risk of sounding like a 12-step program, the first step in escaping the hindrance trap is to recognize that you have a problem. Looking back at the disasters that struck BP under his watch, former CEO John Browne observed in his memoir, Beyond Business: An Inspirational Memoir from a Visionary Leader (Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2010), “I wish someone had challenged me and been brave enough to say: ‘We need to ask more disagreeable questions.’” The challenge is to hone one’s self-awareness well before disasters strike.

13 Bosses caught in the hindrance trap frequently find out only after the damage has been done. But some enlightened leaders do have the self-awareness to discover, and the courage to admit, that they are getting in the way—and to take corrective action. Consider the case of Ralph Stayer, the CEO and cofounder of Johnsonville Foods. Stayer recognized that he had hindered the ability of employees to take on responsibilities and hold themselves accountable for positive performance. Of both his own transformation and that of Johnsonville Foods, Stayer wrote in First Person: Tales of Management Courage and Tenacity (Harvard Business School Press, 1996), “If I was going to fix what I had made, I would have to start by fixing myself.” Stayer knew that changing company results would require a change in the way he led. Instead of simply declaring a new strategic direction, he sought more up-front engagement and accountability from those involved in the work of implementing those plans. Strategic intent was clearly communicated throughout the organization. He cut the layers of hierarchy from six to three, which helped ensure a shared understanding of the real organizational capacity required to deliver results. Revenues, margins, productivity, and quality all improved significantly. Stayer admitted that he had been blinded by the earlier success and growth of Johnsonville; he believed success was the biggest obstacle to personal and organizational change. He realized that the control he had over the organization was misdirected and that he had become too removed from day-to-day realities as the structure of the organization had evolved.

Toward Clarity of Purpose The second step in escaping the hindrance trap is to clarify leaders’ intent. If you are the CEO, then the solution focuses on you. If you are a leader somewhere in the middle of the organization, the solution focuses on both you and others. You need to seek clarity as much as deliver it. Consider again the BP example, in which people at all levels of the organization struggled to make sense of two conflicting imperatives. Assumptions and competing objectives discounted the safety ethic in favor of making the numbers. On the flip side, look at Apple. In Steve Jobs’s second term as CEO, Apple benefited hugely from his abundant clarity with respect to design, form, and functionality. During Jobs’s absence, the company had lost its focus, and along with it the true sense of what made Apple great. In his book Steve Jobs, biographer Walter Isaacson described how Jobs led his first product strategy review meeting by asking the assembled team a series of simple questions about what products he should recommend to his friends and what aspects of Apple’s history were evident in the designs the teams were working on. When clear answers were not forthcoming, Isaacson wrote (based on the recollections of one person at the meeting), “He grabbed a magic marker, padded to a whiteboard, and drew a horizontal and vertical line to make a four-squared chart.... Atop the two columns he wrote ‘Consumer’ and ‘Pro’; he labeled the two rows ‘Desktop’ and ‘Portable.’ Their job, he said, was to make four great products, one for each quadrant.... The room was in dumb silence.” Jobs’s product development philosophy was the central engine that drove the company during its glory years. His almost unreasonable demands for design perfection have now become the stuff of legend. In retrospect, despite his other leadership limitations (some of which may well have hindered employees), it is evident that Steve Jobs had not only the necessary clarity and focus but also the ability to communicate it very crisply, and often very sharply, down the line so that everyone associated with the company clearly understood what was expected of him or her. Aligning clarity of purpose and direction cannot be left to chance or to the variable strengths of different leaders down the chain. An organizational process is needed to drive alignment consistently throughout the organization. The militaries of the world use a process called “commander’s intent” to ensure clarity of purpose and direction. A commander briefing his or her captains and lieutenants might say, “We need to take that hill and wait for reinforcements.” With that single statement of intent, the commander has made the purpose and direction clear. After the subordinate officers have had time for initial planning, the commander reconvenes them and asks each one to share the statements being communicated to the troops and the broad outlines of their plans. These follow-up meetings create a degree of alignment that does not exist in many corporations. We have worked with organizations to help translate commander’s intent into leader’s intent, a more palatable term for civilian organizations. Leader’s intent is a process for verifying alignment of purpose and supporting implementation plans at each handoff in the path from strategy to results.


Because leader’s intent provides clarity of purpose and direction, teams no longer waste time second-guessing unclear directives. They can spend their time and energy focusing on creative solutions to achieve results. Clarity removes the hindering effects of uncertainty. Although leader’s intent should start at the top and become a common practice, midlevel managers can seek clarity of purpose and direction from those above and around them in the hierarchy. Managers should ask for a few minutes to present the purpose and direction they are sharing with their teams and the broad outlines of their implementation plans. During these meetings, they can ask for feedback on their alignment with their own leaders. This approach is more productive than asking leaders to restate their unclear or unspoken statement of purpose and direction. Saying No The third step on the ladder of escaping the hindrance trap is accounting for the organizational capacity required along the pathways from intent to results. A good starting point is to decide which initiatives have outlived their usefulness and should be eliminated to make room for new programs. Heike Bruch and Jochen I. Menges make a strong argument for this approach in their April 2010 Harvard Business Review article “The Acceleration Trap.” Their notion of starting an initiative to kill initiatives resonates strongly. Far too many “walking dead” projects clog capacity in most organizations. Faced with intense market pressures, corporations often take on more than they can handle: They increase the number and speed of their activities, raise performance goals, shorten innovation cycles, and introduce new management technologies or organizational systems. For a while, they succeed brilliantly, but too often the CEO tries to make this furious pace the new normal. What began as an exceptional burst of achievement becomes chronic overloading, with dire consequences. Not only does the frenetic pace sap employee motivation, but the company’s focus is scattered in various directions, which can confuse customers and threaten the brand. Realizing something is amiss, leaders frequently try to fight the symptoms instead of the cause. Interpreting employees’ lack of motivation as laziness or unjustified protest, for example, they increase the pressure, only making matters worse. Exhaustion and resignation begin to blanket the company, and the best employees defect. We call this phenomenon the acceleration trap. It harms the company on many levels— over-accelerated firms fare worse than their peers on performance, efficiency, employee productivity, and retention, among other measures, our research shows. The problem is pervasive, especially in the current environment of 24/7 accessibility and cost cutting. Half of 92 companies we investigated in 2009 were affected by the trap in one way or another—and most were unaware of the fact. That’s the bad news. The good news is, it’s possible to escape the acceleration trap. Companies can sustain high performance over the long term without overtaxing their employees or confusing their customers. In this article, we’ll show leaders how to recognize the acceleration problem, start to move their companies in a different direction, and make cultural changes that will prevent future entrapment.


Crisis Management by Stopping the Action In the midst of the economic crisis in 2009, executives of Phoenix Contact, the German maker of industrial electrical and electronic technologies, sensed employees were becoming overloaded. Reductions in workers’ hours had resulted in lower company capacity, so executive vice president and board member Gunther Olesch initiated a process to reduce the workload across all units and levels. He asked managers to classify all current and future projects as A) necessary for the company as a whole, B) important but can be postponed for a while, or C) can be delayed for two years or cancelled. “At first, people said, ‘We have only A-tasks,’” Olesch explains, “and I answered, ‘Then classify your tasks as A1, A2, or A3.’ We have to cancel activities— otherwise we burn out and we will not come out of the crisis in fit shape.” Being Trapped We have studied more than 600 companies over the past nine years as we tried to understand acceleration. Our data provide a sobering look at conditions inside a company that is accelerating too much. At companies we define as fully trapped, 60% of surveyed employees agreed or strongly agreed that they lacked sufficient resources to get their work done; compare that with 2% at companies that weren’t trapped. The findings were similar for the statements “I work under constantly elevated time pressure” (80% versus 4%) and “My company’s priorities frequently change” (75% versus 1%). Most respondents at fully trapped companies disagreed or strongly disagreed that they saw a light at the end of the tunnel of intense working periods (83% versus 3% in nontrapped companies) and that they regularly got a chance to regenerate (86% versus 6%). Most of the companies in our study landed in the trap after an exhilarating ride. A good example is the European conglomerate ABB. Founded in 1987 in a merger between the Swedish Asea Group and the Swiss Brown Boveri Group, ABB grew rapidly, buying 55 companies in its first two years. After eight years of strong growth, the company began to show signs of excessive acceleration. Acquisitions were no longer well integrated; different parts of the company were competing for the same customers. One annoyed customer, with seven business cards already on his desk from ABB salespeople, suggested sarcastically to the eighth rep that next time, they all get on a bus and visit him together. As we’ll describe later, ABB’s situation didn’t improve until a new CEO, Jürgen Dormann, extricated the company from the acceleration trap. The Habit of Constant Change Over-accelerated companies exhibit at least one of three patterns of destructive activity. The first is, simply, that employees are overloaded with too many activities. They don’t have the time or the resources required to do their jobs. Some 35% of firms in our sample overloaded their employees. Bombardier Transportation, the Berlin-based global market leader for rail transportation technology, is one example. It had experienced success and enormous growth, but in the past few years, it was operating in a continual state of overload. To keep up with competitive pressures, it took measures to optimize efficiency and enlarge capacity. But as the value of its contracts more than doubled, its number of engineers grew only slightly. The company has since addressed the overload problem, but at the time, employee burnout was a serious threat.


Once superfluous activities have been cut, leaders can allocate resources according to the priority of the remaining projects and initiatives. This requires the application of a consistent set of attractiveness criteria. Shape A/S, a highly successful Danish company that develops mobile applications, applies four criteria to all potential projects:    

Does the project include a feature set that will deliver value to the customer? Does the project provide interesting brand or marketing opportunities that deliver value to the company? Does the project suit the current human resources on the team? Does the client believe that the deliverable will be profitable?

On the basis of these criteria, projects are given red, yellow, or green status. As noted in “The View from Above: The Power of Portfolio Management” (Project Management Institute, April 2013), CEO Christian Risom allocates 80 percent of the company’s resources to pursuing projects that are rated green, even if it means saying no to big clients. If the future of your company depends on the most important initiative, stop assigning people to focus on it only 15 percent of the time. Assign the right people to focus on the project full time, get it done, and then move on to the next project on the priority list. Effectively managing capacity means not just ensuring your employees aren’t overloaded, but ensuring that the right people are working on the right things at the right time. For example, you can use lower-priority projects as development opportunities for less experienced leaders. Proven high performers lose interest quickly in low-priority projects, but less experienced leaders will be eager to prove themselves. Leaders don’t need to understand the complete details of how each project maps against organizational capacity. They do, however, need to be sensitive to the possibility that important new initiatives may conflict with existing workloads. Communicating clear intent, the “what and why,” isn’t sufficient for highly constrained organizations. Leaders must also state clear priorities and be willing to let go of some initiatives to make room for others.


No More Monkey Business The fourth step in freeing yourself from the hindrance trap is to eliminate or rewrite unhelpful policies. Here, take a lesson from the monkeys that enforced their “no banana” policy because of the way things had always been done. Two simple questions can help guide the process of eliminating or rewriting cumbersome policies. First, does the policy protect the organization from violating safety, legal, or regulatory standards? If the policy helps ensure compliance, leaders should still ask themselves if there is a better way to structure the policy to ensure compliance in the most efficient and effective way possible. Second, does the policy help focus talent and energy in ways that improve key business outcomes? If not, leaders should ask if the policy could be reconsidered. For policies that do not involve compliance, it’s good to ask, “Is this a must-do or is it a preferred way of doing things?” One defense contractor implemented detailed policies on how to conform to certain government requirements. Before these policies were put into place, government auditors would simply assess the level of compliance to given product specifications. Once the company implemented these new policies, government auditors assessed the extent to which the company complied with product specifications and the extent to which the company complied with its own policies on how to achieve product specification compliance. The policy added significant product development time and resulted in an additional unintended consequence. The company could meet or exceed design specifications but still be out of compliance if it didn’t follow, to the letter, its policies on how to achieve compliance. Leaders recognized that the creation of such internal policies could be traced back to specific individuals reacting to isolated negative events that could be prevented through other means. Armed with this awareness, they began streamlining or eliminating certain policies in favor of achieving quality and compliance through a heightened focus on product and process design. One of our client organizations has gone through an exercise its leaders referred to as “deDilberting” to eliminate as many policies as possible. Those that were deemed useful were then targeted for simplification. During the process, leaders realized that the origins of many policies could not be traced. Other policies had no mechanisms in place for ensuring compliance and no consequences for being out of compliance. In some cases, these issues reflected a lack of value, and the policy was dropped. In other cases, simple mechanisms were put in place to provide controls and measurement. Staying out of the Trap It can be challenging for individual leaders to get a clear picture of how they are hindering performance, especially when some of what they do is probably helping. Very few of us are pure helpers or hinderers. Asking the three guiding questions of yourself and other leaders is an important starting point. Using external facilitators to pose the questions to employee focus groups can also be particularly effective in identifying hindrance traps throughout organizations. More broadly, organizations can administer surveys to create a map of their hindrance trap terrain. Keep it simple. Survey a comprehensive cross-section of employees at different levels in the hierarchy. Shape survey items to address strategic clarity and purpose, organizational capacity, and company policies. Design the survey to collect both scaled


responses and open-ended comments, which often help in interpreting numerical responses. Look for patterns in responses that are suggestive of hindering behaviors. In some cases, truly ineffective leaders might be flagged by the focus groups or broader surveys, and tough calls will have to be made. More likely, awareness of hindering combined with application of the straightforward approaches we have shared will yield rapid and significant benefits. Are you willing to accept the possibility that others believe you are hampering their effectiveness? If so, you are starting an important journey toward staying out of the hindrance trap. Author Profiles: 

Kannan Ramaswamy is the William D. Hacker Chair Professor of Management at the Thunderbird School of Global Management and the founder/CEO of Leading Worldwide, a leadership consultancy. William Youngdahl is an associate professor specializing in strategy implementation and leadership development at the Thunderbird School of Global Management and the founder and CEO of a tech startup, 14falcons. The authors gratefully acknowledge Robert Herbold’s assistance in shaping their thinking on this article. Herbold served as chief operating officer at Microsoft and is now managing director of the Herbold Group LLC, a consulting business focused on executive training and profitability.



Feedback provides answers to many workplace issues

“There may be born leaders, but there surely are too few to depend on them. Leadership must be learned and can be learned.� Peter Drucker - The Leader of the Future

The absence of strong leadership and a good manager is the number one reason many leave organisations. In a research report on effective leadership, over 75% of the survey participants identified the most important characteristics of effective leadership, in order of importance to them, as:    

An ability to inspire and motivate people Being a good listener Creating a positive work environment Leading by example

The other leadership characteristics which they rated highly are:      

Valuing teamwork An ability to manage change Good values Demonstrate self leadership An appetite for learning and developing others Giving regular, constructive feedback and mentoring

This strong desire by employees for good leadership is further supported by the Best Employers surveys conducted by Hewitt Associates in Europe, the USA, Australia and Asian countries over the last 7 years, which has identified the number one factor (setting such organisations apart from all others), as strong leadership and a commitment to the people inside the organisation. In broad terms, many leaders fail in the following key areas:    

Managing poor performance in the workplace Giving regular, constructive feedback Are poor listeners Exhibit command and control leadership styles.

The Hewitt Associates Best Employers surveys found that leaders in high performing organisations are strong communicators who are good listeners, and are open and honest in their communication style. One of the qualities of highly effective leaders is that they don’t believe that they have all the answers themselves. They recognise that the answers to many workplace issues may be found within the organisation and often at levels below management. They ask questions of employees at all levels, and then willingly listen to their contributions. This earns respect for the leader, but simultaneously demonstrates respect by the leader for the employees. In order to engage the employees, the leader must help them understand “why” they must follow, rather than assume they will follow. Leaders need to be more open to challenges and questions from employees across the organisation and at all levels.


In order to move towards a more collaborative and inclusive leadership style, leaders need to focus on:  

  

Learning how to give and receive constructive feedback about both good and poor performance Building learning cultures within the organisation, enabling the development of the management and leadership skills of all employees responsible for leading and managing others Creating positive work environments, where employees are encouraged to be the best they can be Adopting more inclusive approaches to problem solving by seeking input from employees, where possible Moving from command and control leadership to more collaborative, inclusive leadership.

In order for a leader to be truly credible, he or she needs to lead by example exhibiting appropriate behaviours in their own lives. In the words of Father Chris Riley, CEO of Youth Off The Streets - a charity committed to improving the lives of young people living on the streets: “Leading by example is how leaders make vision and values tangible. It is how they provide evidence that they’re personally committed. And that evidence is what people look for and admire in leaders – people whose direction they willingly follow.”


Mind Your Feedback Douglas Stone, coauthor of Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well (Even When It Is Off-Base, Unfair, Poorly Delivered, and Frankly, You’re Not in the Mood), introduces a cautionary lesson in assessing others from Embodied Leadership: A Somatic Approach to Developing Your Leadership, by Pete Hamill.

I’m a communications guy—it’s what I think about and teach all day long. Yet no matter how many times I’m confronted with the crucial distinction between assessments and facts, which is what Pete Hamill discusses in the excerpt you’re about to read, I’m always caught short. My opinions about other people feel like facts. My brain distinguishes very little between “2+2=4” and “you are annoying and lazy.” I feel certain that both are objectively true. That’s a big problem. Being good at giving feedback requires us to know the difference between fact and opinion (even when it’s well reasoned), not because it changes the content of the feedback we give, but because it changes how we talk about the feedback— and that changes everything. It is much harder to communicate constructively about assessments and opinions than it is about facts; it requires not only clear explanation, but also the ability to listen with genuine curiosity. It requires that we move past arguments about who is right and who is wrong, and into a two-way conversation about why I see you differently from how you see yourself, and what we should make of that. If there’s any leadership task that is harder than listening with an open mind even when you have a strong view, I haven’t encountered it. And surely, none is more important. —Douglas Stone


An excerpt from chapter 8 of Embodied Leadership: The Somatic Approach to Developing Your Leadership

Assessments are our opinions, perspectives, interpretations or judgements. If you think about it, the chances are that you are paid for your assessments—they are the educated opinions that you have about your business, having spent time in the industry/organization/sector or having expertise in a particular field. What assessments are not is facts, and this is a major source of conflict in organizations. If I observe someone yawning and looking out the window during my presentation, I may have the assessment that they are tired, bored, uninterested or any other of a variety of different assessments. Once I have the germ of an idea in my head that this person is uninterested in what I am working on, then I will start looking for evidence to corroborate that belief— human beings love nothing more than to be right! Soon I will have more evidence—instances where the person looked at their watch whilst I was speaking, further yawning when I am speaking in meetings and so on. I will also start to block out the occasions when they do respond well to me, or explain them away as being about something else—for instance: “They just wanted to show up well to the boss who was in that meeting.” Over a relatively short time I will have a collection of evidence that this person is uninterested in my work. If I was never really close to this person, perhaps I can then take an extra leap and say that the person never really liked me anyway. Eventually I will have a clear perspective on this person and who they are, and often my belief about it will be unshakeable. However, this isn’t true. It’s not false either. It lies in the world of opinions, which are not facts and therefore cannot be true or false. You and I can go to a movie and have completely different opinions about the movie, the actors and actresses in it, the core message of the plot lines and so on. These will be our opinions and we can spend hours arguing over them, but the reality is they are not truth or falsehood— they are our opinions. Let me give another example to help clarify this. There was snow lying in parts of Central London (something that is relatively rare) during the winter of 2010–11. For my Kenyan friend, who lives in London, this was a massive snowfall; for my Finnish wife, it wasn’t even proper snow. These are the assessments that each holds for the same event, and there is no right and wrong and there is no truth in these assessments. Arguing about these would be pointless. The assessments have their roots in the backgrounds of the people concerned—a Kenyan upbringing versus a Finnish one. Assessments, therefore, can say a lot more about us than about the thing that we believe we are describing. Assessments can say a lot more about us than about the thing that we believe we are describing. Underlying those assessments are “assertions”—in the example above, for instance, that there were two inches of snow in parts of central London. These we can say are true or false, because we can measure them against an agreed frame of reference (inches or centimetres), and we can all go and measure it and agree on the same measurement.


If we go back to the example of my colleague who yawns, all we can agree on is that he yawned and looked out of the window for a short period of time (perhaps 30 seconds) during my presentation. This is something that could be agreed on by all who were present. The interpretation or assessment I come to about that is my own creation, and says something about my background and standards—just as their assessments about the snow say something about my Kenyan friend and my Finnish wife. Our assessments reveal our standards. When we give our opinions on our businesses or organizations (strategies to choose, products to launch, trades to make, services to procure) we are paid for our educated assessments, where our standards have been educated through our experience, training and feedback over our career. When we are dealing with people, we also have assessments. However, have we really educated ourselves in our ability to make assessments on other people? It’s hard to get feedback on whether the standards through which we make these assessments are useful or helpful to us, and most of the time we do it unconsciously and don’t pay much attention to it. For example, how much attention did I pay in the process of developing my assessment of my colleague being uninterested during my presentation? It probably happened in milliseconds. Getting to the assessment of someone who never really liked me anyway didn’t take that much longer—it just required that I collect a bit more evidence. Once I have reached my conclusion, how would I react to being told that my assessment of someone wasn’t true or false, but was in fact, just my opinion? I have given that feedback to quite a number of people, and I can assure you the reaction is generally not that positive. “But you don’t know this person—s/he really is like that…” is a common response. The challenge is that we don’t really notice that it is not an objective truth about the person, but an assessment we have created about them. We believe that our opinion is how it actually is and we start to treat it as truth. This becomes a recipe for conflict and distrust in organisations (and in other areas of our lives as well). The thing is that assessments are not a bad thing—it’s forgetting that they are an opinion that gets us into trouble. Even if our assessments are well grounded with evidence (assertions), they are not true or false—they are still opinions we have created from the evidence. And even as I write this, I know that there will be some people reading this who believe that in their case, with the person they know, it’s different and their assessment is true. As human beings we love nothing more than being right, and having that taken away from us is a painful, and very necessary, process, because when we are right, we are generally making someone else wrong, and generally the other person doesn’t like that too much, and misunderstanding and conflict can arise. True humility is, at least in part, being able to see one’s own assessments as assessments, rather than believing them to be truths. —Pete Hamill This excerpt from Embodied Leadership by Pete Hamill has been reproduced with the permission of Kogan Page Publishers.






Test issue