Leadership Excellence

Good is not Good Enough

Every so often the contents of a book resonates: indeed opens ones eyes to a divergent point of view.  Manfred Kets de Vries in his " The Leader on the Couch" takes a clinical approach to changing people and organizations.  He slices, dices, moves the pieces of the human psychological puzzle around in delineating how leaders come to be.

In addition, de Vries closes "  with a call for authentizotic ( how's that for a new word) organizations where leaders walk the talk, people feel alive and all are called to give their very best.

Ah yes, my current mantra -- " Good is not good enough"...

Dissing Performance Appraisals

Researching material for a seminar presentation on Performance Management, I came across an illustration of why some information dispensed by "experts" on the internet are to be taken with, well shall we say, a questioning mind.

The attrributes of various performance appraisal situations is always a bell ringer. Evaluative criteria, halo rankings, lack of training by the manager, two way frankings etc etc.  For many employees it's their 15-30 minutes of fame per year. They get to sit with the boss and hear how much of a salary increse they will receive -- plus the good and bad news about their performance.  The boss may be unprepared but both parties suck it up and go on about their business. a perfect system --no way... Better than no system - absolutely. 

A renowned consultant on the internet recommends goal setting, a sophisticated 360 evaluation process for all employees in every type of work with every degree of education and training.  Give me a break.  The best appraisal is often noted as being a blank sheet of paper -- the employee and manager have a frank discussion about work performance and life goes on.  I don;t recommend this approach for admin, technical, and mangerial positions where goals, MBR, and 360's are invaluable. But let's give production supervisors and workers a break... well designed evaluative criteria, year long documentation and an honest discussions are the critical elements.

Leadership Volunteers vs Employees

A communications text from the 60's - I believe by S Hayakawa, discussed the phenomena that Cow 1 is not Cow 2. People though similar are not clones of each other. This got me to thinking about  leadership in a for profit organization vs. leadership in a volunteer setting. 

Asked to assume a leadership role in a community service organization, the selector said " you have the necessary skill sets " to make a difference.  Is that really accurate.

Certainly organizational skills, identifying opportunities for service/markets, making presentations to groups , budgetary matters, yes, these are common.   But what about the human relations side of the equation? Are the skill sets for motivating participants the same as those for motivating employees?

Theoretically, volunteers are motivated to participate and give of their time to a cause because they are a believer, a follower of a particular philosophy etc. Logically these individuals should raise their hands at every available opportunity and participate as needed.  Ah, there is the rub.  Volunteers often have their own agenda... they will participate if and when the activity coincides with their needs.

I would suggest that while "listening" is a well known requisite for leadership in the workplace, it's even more essential in leading volunteers. Volunteers who feel a leaders is being nonresponsive to their agenda vote with their feet -or through passive nonparticipation.  Having said that " empowering employees" is also about listening. With generation x'ers and zer's looking askance at hierarchal leadership concepts, convincing them of project needs, processes etc.

The skill types are the sames -- but the tenor of the motivational/empowerment  medium are very different

Leaders in Constant Motion

Much is written about managing change. The " Who Moved my Cheese" book is a continuing best seller.  The well written theme explores the consequences of adaptation and resistence to change.. Ah yes, the adaptors prosper and succeed. Terrific metaphors for business plans as well as successful leaders and entreprenneurs.

I have an idea for a new book...  well, at least a pamphlet: There are leaders who don't just move the cheese and deposit it: they continue to move the cheese. Never satisfied with a business solution: always seeking to change the production process: dissing their firm's leaders in the process of replacing them with bright new talent.  They constantly examine and adapt business plans. Discussing advertising on his radio show yesterday, Jim Rhome asked the question: If you are selling 9 million bottles of soda --why would you break the advertising scheme? A very good question.

Leaders in seemingly directionless motion.  Anyone thought about the impact on employees? Or do we denigrate the employees with the mantle of " they just can't stand change?

Selecting Leaders

A client recently admitted that his hiring practice revolved around the concept that he could train anyone to do anything --including becoming a leader.  Is this a reasonable premis?

Most are familiar with the "Peter Principle" -- wherein individuals are promoted to their level of incompetence.  On its face,  this sounds like easily identified, clearly marked quicksand which can be easily walked around and avoided.   Not so fast -- this quicksand entraps us especialy when we selection decisions are made in the darkness known as lack of information.

So what do executives look for when surveying the employee landscape to select managerial talent?  Technical excellence - absolutely and sometimes this is the primary and only criteria. Adherence to project time frames and budget parameters -- absolutely critical to project management success. Present and prior leadership success? - Ah this is where the rubber hits the road.  In many scenarios the "individual performing allstar" is assumed to be able to grow into a leadership role. Factors such as successful leadership roles on the job, in school, on academic or athletic teams, in social and service clubs are sometimes not considered. 

The point here is --leadership is a skill. Can it be learned- yes: Can the skills be instantly acquired - no. Are there individuals who are natural leaders - absolutely. Are there individuals who are not and never will be leaders - yes.

Leaders have identifiable, specific to the work environment, levels of energy, cognitive abilities, assertiveness, independence, socialbility, and manageability ( and lack thereof) as well as a combination of interests which generally include industry knowledge and financial/administrative .  It's best to empirically measure these aspects of the individual BEFORE promoting them into a leaderhsip capacity.

Informal Leadership

Meeting with a group of utility company executives, I ( as am inclined to do) surveyed the attendees in an effort to ascerain who were the " real power brokers". Was it the CEO from the largest firm? How about the loudest speaker with the broad shoulders and no neck. Or the sexily dressed blonde who used her legs as a  " look at me" charmer.

Over several hours, the informal leader emerged. She was a quiet, confident middle aged executive. As the meeting progressed, Sarah  became the de facto spokesperson, the individual to whom others listened when clarification on various points of view was necessary.

What made her the "informal leader"? Appearance - partly .. she had teh demeanor and accompagnying attired of a conficent, assured leader. Articulation - partly: her comments were cogent, sprinkled with analogies, clear, and free of rancor. Trust - primarily : Sarah may have had her own internal agenda - but externally she was inclusive, apealed to the " better interests" of others. While not a slick politician type who agrees with every point of view , she had the ability to convey - let's agree to disagree. 

Sarah's distinctive and instinctive leadership characteristic -- being a bridge builder rather than a commander in chief: She saw each person as being able to contribute to the construction of the greater good : and people came to believe in her. A bridge builder -- those who have the unique capacity to be trusted by others.

Managerial Excellence

Managerial self evaluation as compared with ratings from employees is discussed in a recent article by Andrea Coombs ad posted on WSJ.Com.

Coombs writes "While 92% of managers say they're doing an excellent or good job managing their employees, only 67% of workers agree with that statement". The remaining 33 % rate their boss as doing a fair or poor job.

A multiplicity of questions arise from these statistics. However, there is good news for managers and employees. Two thirds of employees agree managers are doing an excellent job . The disconnect with the other 1/3rd can directly impact productivity, profitability, employee retention etc etc etc. 

What is the impact on leadership? If 1/3rd of the employee population sees their leaders as not performing to a high level of excellence --- is follows that their are significant training and development needs. 

Alternatively, is the 1/3rd of the employee population in the "right job"? This may sound a bit controversial... but perhaps the managers are doing an excellent job and are faced with " non job fit" employees.  I suspect their is a middle ground here. In evaluating 360 performance data it's important to perform a qualitative measurement from all information sources.

Performance Evaluations -- The biggest heartbreakers

Let's be honest .... in suryvey after survey, my training participants tell me the two human resource activities they dread are : employee terminations and performance reviews.

Employee terminations --no one is happy: a lose /lose situation. Angst is understandable.

Performance evaluations -- the "dread" is akin to " fear". A causal factor of fear is the "unknown".. Generally speaking, managers verbalize " I am afraid of the employee's reaction".  A legitimate fear. 

Why?  Many managers meet with employees, individually, ONLY during the performance review. YES! Estimated  confidential, one on one time per year spent with the employee is 15 minutes.  What type of relationship can be developed on 15 minutes per year ??

Therefore , the manager doesn't know the employee as an individual. Equally significant - unless the employee is ranked as one of the top 10% or bottom 10% in performance, the manager hasn't had a perceived need to discuss job duties, responsibilites, quantity of production, changes in technology, how the company's mission is changing etc etc. Now we have a 2nd information deficit.

Thirdly, how does the employee rate their performance. Unless the manager asks -- they don't know. 

So here comes the heartbreak - the stage is set for a mutiple train wreck.  A collision based on lack of information, interest, and relationship.  Yes, the  manager has a right to be fearful -- but this contretemp could be avoided.

Leadership & Anger

Emotional intellegence gurus have helped us understand the waving red flags, measure our body temps in times of stress, etc etc.  These signals, penetrated by the little person in our head givng us messages as to what is going to transpire next if we continue to react to situations in a variety of ways are road maps to sensible behavior.

Every once in a while we ignore the crossing gates and plow head on into an oncoming train.  That's where Bill Clinton and I have something in common.  Last week both of us released our anger in public.

I can only speak for myself. At least 24 hours before my personal volcano erupted, the " little voice" was warning me. Oh yes, I heard it.  Getting ready to conduct training whcih involved a recalcitrant client,  the warning signs said - you know the project is late, you know the client's representative has been less than forthcoming, and most of all -- you know how you react negatively to those whom you suspect are sandbagging  on purpose.

Well, I didn't listen... And I blew a fuse.. And then I had to apologize. And then the client team members said it was ok -- they finally saw me as also being human.  The messages -- as a leader I probably have been less than human in the past. 

The other message ... I suggest you GOOGLE the topic " Leadership and Anger". The listings are predominately negative.  We all know that fear is the least effective motivator... so continuous or even minimally regular outbursts of anger are counterproductive.  Does controlled anger ( is that an oxymoron) have the capability to demonstrate to the receiver that you care?  Passive, non reactionable behavior leave the follower cold, at drift, not sure of where the leader stands.  Anger, on the other hand can show what the recipient does and says really do matter to you.

Hmmm -- this is definitely a platform for ongoing discussion ... Your thoughts???

Performance - Who is Responsible?

Who has responsibility for employee performance?  Warm and fuzzy types espouse the concept that "  happy" employees, working in an employee friendly  enviorment, surrounded by understanding/compassionate/motivational leaders will perform at the optimum.

Another theory holds that happiness and productivity are not necessarily congruent. Job content/challenge/compensation aligned with the position, these are the penultimate factors.

In my opinion there is a middle ground.  The initial responsbility lies with the hiring authority.  Chances are that an employee who is a job match has a better chance of succeeding and performing well than one who is like the proverbial fish out of water. If he/she don't have the abilities, behavvioral traits, interests, skills, and education, no amount of warm and fuzzy accoutrements in the work place are going to make a positive difference ( see www.rlhassociates.com and download the sample Profile XT).

Secondly, an employee who works with and for a boss who is, for whatever reason, incompatible with the employee is also in danger of being marginalized.  No matter their knowledge, expertise, interests, if continuous tension exists , productivity is likely to decline... A generalized problem between the supervisor and employees -- take a hard look at attempting behavior modification training with the supervisor or take other remedial action such as transfer or termination.

In many situations, the "decision" ( note I put this in quotes) as to the level of performance rests with the employee.  Ideal circusmtances or not, the emotionally tough, driven employee will rise to the occassion and perform.  Others will rarely perform. Still more utlimately refuse to perform.  Leaders, true leaders, peel back the onion and understand their workers... they make ajustments, and above all listen to their concerns...amazing how much good will is generated by active listening.

Conclusion -- leaders and employees alike have responsibiliy for performace on the job.