|
Rethinking Our Leadership Thinking:
Choosing a More Authentic Path
Gary Heil and Linda Alepin
(©Alepin and Heil, 2003)
“If
you know something but don’t yet do it, you don’t yet know it.”
Sufi saying
Simple truths are the hardest to come
by--and often the most powerful in practice. Simple, powerful truths
about leading people more effectively, about changing the nature of work
and about redefining our roles in the workplace, are well known. For
more than a half a century, Maslow, McGregor, Argyris, Benis, and others
have consistently described more enlightened ways to lead people. In
fact, it is the consistency of their messages and the ubiquity of their
views that makes it curious that most leaders continue to “talk” a better
game of leadership than they choose to “play.”
The reasons why we have been slow to
embrace research that describes better, simpler, more effective ways to
lead are many. They range from the lack of a sense of urgency for
experimenting with new ideas to a lack of good role models. The main
obstacle, however, may be the fact that the best leadership ideas are
based on assumptions that are very different from the beliefs that are
fundamental to present practices. Few challenges are as difficult for a
leader as examining basic beliefs about people and finding the best ways
to organize our collective efforts. But that is exactly what is required.
To become more effective leaders of
inspired teams, we will have to unlearn many of our past practices. We
will have to find new ways of challenging our beliefs. We will have to
create a compelling value proposition for change. We will have to build a
process that helps us anticipate and deal with the resistance that is
encountered when the best knowledge available differs from the basic
assumptions that support our past successes. We will have to adopt a
mindset that helps foster more fulfilling relationships in our
organizations. And we will have to believe that it is not only possible
to find a more enlightened path--it is our responsibility.
This article does not claim to
introduce new ideas about leadership or knowledge management. Rather, it
is a call to action. It is a call for us to create a dialogue that will
require us to challenge the context in which we view leadership
information and help us discover a more effective way to lead people. It
is a plea for leaders to:
-
Begin a process of
self-examination and self-discovery.
-
Resist the temptation to
seek simple answers. We must seek clarity, not simplicity.
-
Examine the choices they
make in order to better understand how their espoused values differ from
their values-in-use.
-
Choose a different set of
beliefs--one that is more consistent with building inspired teams.
The good news is that today, for the
first time, leaders may find that authentic leadership and inspired teams
are prerequisites to organizational survival. A rapidly changing world
demands speed, flexibility, and responsiveness. Past systems of command
and control, strict hierarchical structures, and dictated actions are
inadequate to the task.
Choosing a Path of Self Examination
“You
must be the change that you wish to see in the world.” Gandhi
Knowledge can be defined as
information in a context that renders that information useful. Simply
put, it may be that our context for viewing information about leadership
may significantly reduce or even preclude its effective use. Often, our
mindset stands as an invisible obstacle to innovation and learning and
renders us informed but not knowledgeable. To become more knowledgeable,
we will have to accelerate a process of self-examination and resist the
temptation to seek simple answers.
This process is a difficult one. Even
for the leader who is willing to challenge his or her mindset, the task
can be daunting. We simply don’t have good methods for challenging the
way we think. Without good methods, many leaders have opted not to
explore their own assumptions and have, instead, chosen to experiment with
behavioral models that are easy to understand, easy to apply, and often
give a leader a greater sense of predictability and control. For many,
these approaches have represented a pragmatic solution to the question of
how they will upgrade leadership. Predictably, these methods rarely
engender meaningful improvement beyond a quick but fleeting jolt in
productivity.
We need look no further than the list
of the most popular leadership books on Amazon.com to see our addiction to
the easy, quick answers. More than a Pink Cadillac – Mary Kay,
Inc.’s Nine Leadership Lessons, The One Minute Manager Meets the
Monkey, and Leadership Shock…and How to Triumph over It; Eight
Revolutionary Rules for Becoming a Powerful and Exhilarated Leader are
three of the top 20—all rated four or more stars.
At times in the last half-century, the
arguments for re-examining our leadership thinking have been compelling.
Douglas McGregor made it his life-long work to help leaders down a path of
self-examination and discovery. And even though he was recognized as the
foremost thinker of his time, much of his message has been misinterpreted
or ignored.
McGregor realized the complexities
involved in challenging one’s own context for viewing leadership
information and suggested a number of methods to begin the process. He
believed that leaders might find it easier to examine their thinking if
they had a construct that could provide a comparison. So McGregor
suggested Theory X and Theory Y, two very different sets of assumptions
about the nature of people. He asked leaders to compare their beliefs to
the fictitious beliefs outlined in X and Y. His queries remain highly
relevant today:
-
Are people naturally
motivated to work? Or must people be given incentives to get them to
give their best?
-
Is it natural for people
to seek rewards for the least amount of effort? Or are de-motivated
workers a symptom of stifling organizational and leadership practices?
-
Can we realistically
expect people to act unemotionally on the job? Or are emotional
reactions part of the human spirit that can be suppressed but never left
behind?
Theory X and Theory Y are still
recognizable terms for most. However, McGregor’s hopes for these
constructs were quickly frustrated decades ago. Discussions of X and Y
devolved into conversations of style shortly after their publication. In
fact, most people in 1960, as well as most today, think that a Theory X
leader has authoritative tendencies and that a Theory Y leader has a more
democratic style. This bastardization of his ideas frustrated McGregor
who, before he died in 1962, called his desire to have leaders challenge
their basic assumptions about people a “pious hope, and little else.” He
was hopeful, however, that a time would come when it would become
necessary for leaders to challenge who they are. Fifty years later the
time is near. The major business crises of the recent past are forcing
just such a re-evaluation.
We Are What We Choose:
Authenticity Is the Clear Choice
“A musician must make music; and an artist must paint; and
a poet must write; if he is to
be ultimately at peace with himself. What
a man can be, he must be." Maslow
Even though our willingness and
ability to challenge our leadership mindset has not gathered significant
momentum in the last five decades since McGregor, the need for us to take
action is more apparent. Productivity improvements in almost every
industry have led to a worldwide over-capacity of almost everything from
crackers to jet engines. Over-capacity has shifted more power into the
hands of customers who have learned to be more demanding. At the same
time, every market has grown more competitive as nearly every product has
been cloned as soon as it is released. Additionally, the lines are
blurred between what in the past was “sacred” internal information and
what the consumer sees and hears about the companies they choose to do
business with. Simply log onto the Internet and see how much is available
through web sites, chat rooms, message boards, etc. For most companies,
knowledgeable people with pride in their organization and the ability to
execute at world-class levels are the only ticket to future profitability.
This may mean that the search for a
more effective way of leading inspired teams may no longer be optional.
More effective leadership may be the key strategic differentiator for
most. Leadership’s impact on the bottom line is dramatic, according to a
study by Andersen Consulting's Institute for Strategic Change: the stock
price of companies perceived as being well led grew 900 percent over a
10-year period, compared to just 74 percent growth in companies perceived
to lack good leadership. And Fortune, in its 1998 round up of
America's most admired companies, identifies the common denominator of
exemplary organizations. "The truth is that no one factor makes a company
admirable but if you were forced to pick the one that makes the most
difference, you'd pick leadership.” The time may be fast approaching where
leaders will be more motivated to look in the mirror in search of a way to
improve their abilities to lead. We must be ready with a more concrete
method if we hope to accelerate the improvement process.
The challenges inherent in past
methods are compounded by our need to feel proud of our present
activities. This has led many of us to confuse the values that we espouse
with the values that guide our day to day leadership actions. The process
of aligning our words and actions can help leaders challenge their
beliefs.
For example, nearly every leader we
have met “says” that customer service is important to their businesses.
Yet as consumers we are frustrated--and rightly so. Service simply isn’t
very good and the ways most companies are led make it more likely that
customers will get disappointed than served. “People are our most
important asset” is a line reiterated in nearly every corporate speech,
yet we live in an era where the most motivated day at work for most is the
first day. And the list of such duplicity in organizations is a long
one. Consider the differences between how we describe our beliefs and how
we choose to act when our career is on the line. We need to ask:
Why is it
that nearly every employee understands the de-motivational effects of most
traditional performance appraisal systems, but few of these appraisal
systems are changing significantly? Most still perpetuate an illusion
that a performance management processes can be both developmental and
evaluative.
Why is it
that we talk of “empowerment,” but we cannot call a company
without hearing that the call will be “monitored for quality?” Do we
really believe that these people feel empowered by the process?
Why is it
that we invest in off-sites to help build teamwork, but perpetuate human
resource practices that are built on the assumption that better
performance will result when people inside a company compete with each
other?
Why is it
that we talk of the need for committed, passionate employees but seem
addicted to a system that attempts to gain motivation by manipulating
stock options, compensation or other rewards?
Why is it
that we say we value employee loyalty and then consistently fire the
bottom 10-20% of the company annually--no matter how competent, hard
working, and loyal they have been?
Simply put, the choices that we make
and our espoused beliefs are very different. Our talk is often consistent
with effective leadership theory. However, it may be a description of who
we wished we were. In most cases, when push comes to shove, we opt for a
more traditional, mechanical set of beliefs that appear more
predictable. To be successful in building a new context, we will have to
find a process that forces us to challenge our real beliefs.
This can be done by examining the
choices that we make. We believe that we are our choices. If we
perpetuate an ineffective performance appraisal system, we have beliefs
that are consistent with that action (or inaction). If we set up
internally competitive environments, we must believe that such an
environment is consistent with peak performance. “Calls monitored for
quality?” There is a reason. Are we aware of our reasoning? Are we
aware of the unintended consequences of our actions? To be knowledgeable
leaders, we must be aware of our reasons and willing to challenge them by
continuing to ask “Why?” until we identify the fundamental assumptions
that define us as leaders. It is simply harder to dodge the tough
questions when we are examining what we actually do. Once we are forced
to face the duplicity of our words and actions, and when we challenge
ourselves to be authentic in word and deed, we may begin to understand how
much we will have to change in order to build an organization where the
people can reach their potential.
Choosing to Believe Differently
“Men are
not afraid of things, but of how they view them.” Epictetus
We were on a plane recently talking to
a principal in a large training company. When we asked him to describe
his view of the future, he told us that the future of his business could
be described in one word. Then, he told us that the word was no longer
“plastics” (as in the movie The Graduate). “The word today,” he
said, is “Leadership.” He told us that almost all organizational failures
could be tracked to a failure in leadership and that his company was going
to emphasize leadership development above all else. When we asked him
what he intended to teach, he described the need for a situational
approach that taught leaders how to behave appropriately depending on the
circumstances. Not only was there no mention of a leader’s mindset or
assumptions, he went out of his way to explain to us how leadership
development must become more practical and behavioral. We can only hope
that his message will not resonate. It is not that our behaviors don’t
matter. They do matter. It is that, over time, our behaviors will always
follow our beliefs.
People have great radars for detecting
duplicity. They can tell whether a leader is passionate or whether he or
she is merely spouting the party line. They know when a leader’s words
are authentic and they know when a leader is parroting someone else’s
message.
More importantly, people can tell
whether the leader cares about them or only cares about meeting his or her
own goals and capturing the benefits of other people’s performance. As
followers, we look for respect, authenticity, honesty and caring. When a
leader is authentic, we know it. We can see it in their eyes. We can
feel it in their presence. We look quickly beyond their words or style
and into their hearts. We care whether they believe in us and whether
they trust us to make a significant contribution. We care about their
motives–and we should.
For example, compliments and praise
can be a way of saying thank you or can be given in the hope of getting
something in return (usually better work). People can smell the
difference in the motives of the leader instantaneously. No matter how
practiced a leader’s style, behavior exhibited in an attempt to get
something in return will appear manipulative. And manipulation, by any
name, erodes trust and undermines the development of relationships.
“Catch people doing something right,” we have been told. Rarely, have we
been asked to think about why. Do we believe that by praising people we
will get more of the desired behavior, or do we praise people because we
want to say we care? The difference is everything.
We have seen leaders of all shapes and
styles who are successful with their teams. Some had charisma; some did
not. Some sought consensus; some did not. Some had quick tempers, while
others had great patience.
What they did have in common, however,
were similar beliefs about people that allowed them to see the
possibilities. They had a unique context for viewing information. What
was merely data to some leaders was profound knowledge in others’ hands.
Interview these leaders, as we have, and many of them will tell you that
they believe deeply in the potential of people to make a commitment. They
believe that in the right environment, ordinary people will naturally do
extraordinary things. They have a commitment to the people who trust them
to lead. They provide an environment where people can learn while
engaging in meaningful work. They are perceived as authentic because
their actions are consistent with their espoused beliefs.
Although no set of beliefs is
universally held by all leaders, we have found the following ones are
frequently embraced by the best leaders that we have met. The words come
easily for many. Consistent action and complimentary management practices
are less common. Authenticity in leadership has always come before all
else. However, we are entering an era where people will not tolerate
duplicity. Although the following ideas have been debated for
generations, most of us have not made the choices required to
authentically build organizations based on these assumptions. We need to
ask ourselves “How are our current practices and behaviors consistent or
inconsistent with these beliefs?” Do we disagree with these assumptions?
Are they impractical? Is it risky to try? Or maybe we can finally ask,
“Why not? Why not me? Why not now?” Today, authenticity is the clear
mandate. It is no longer optional.
A Different Set of Beliefs
-
Trust is given, not earned.
People don’t trust people who do not trust them. If we want people to
trust us, we must trust them first. If we can’t trust them, why should
they trust us? Why do we expect others to earn our trust, while they are
supposed to trust us because of our position? When people truly trust
each other, the team dynamics flow so much more easily and openly.
-
People want to do the right thing.
People want to live values that are consistent with their aspirations.
Values are a common ground by which dialogue flows, decisions are
pondered, and people have an implicit understanding of lines not to be
crossed.
-
Freedom is the essence of motivation.
The freedom to choose is a fundamental human need. The more that need is
restricted unnecessarily, the more frustrated a person will become. Only
when we create environments based on self-direction and mutual
accountability will we capture the potential of people. Organizations are
organic and capable of evolving naturally.
-
People are naturally driven to make things
better and seek meaning in their work. Just
challenge a group to make a contribution and watch the level of energy.
There is a yearning for meaning in life and in work. People will do
things for a cause that they will not do for money. Watch how people work
when they are proud to tell people where they work and how they
contribute.
-
People have great capacity and need to
learn and grow. The need to learn and grow is
as natural as the need to eat. Unfortunately many jobs have been designed
to limit training costs and to ensure control. Maslow noted after one of
his first days working in a company that “Any job not worth doing is not
worth doing well.” Jobs must be designed so that every person, regardless
of pay level, can learn, grow and make substantial contribution. Higher
expectations will lead to higher performance in the right environment but
not if the leaders’ expectations of a group communicates a vision of
mediocrity. Dare to be great.
-
People prefer responsibility to dependency
and interest to boredom. In the right
conditions, work is as natural as play. We need to be engaged and
responsible. Too many management practices rob people of the ability be
responsible. Empowerment too often means I have the power and if I trust
you, I’ll share power with you. Effective renewal is not about getting
people to change in order to conform. It’s about getting people to take
responsibility for creating a different future. People want to be
engaged. People want to be passionate. It is the leaders’ responsibility
to create the environment and the opportunity.
-
People seek to be led, not managed.
People don’t want to be managed. No one wants to be planned, organized
and controlled. People want to be part of a team. They want to
participate. They want to be a partner in the process of value creation.
-
Participation is not a tactic. It is the way people
work best. However, there is power in an inspired leader of a team
who drives with passion, integrity, and has the courage to make decisions
and provide direction as needed. As people can be frustrated by
micromanagement, they can be equally as frustrated when there does not
appear to be any leadership or direction.
-
People want to work cooperatively towards
a shared goal. People have a need to be part of
a group and to help others. This natural tendency is often lost when
people are ‘incented’ to compete with other members of the team. This may
be the biggest value subtractor in many organizations. We need to
overcome our belief that internal competition leads to better
performance. We need to experiment with team-based organizations.
Manufacturers learned out of necessity. The rest of us must follow.
-
Communicate as much as possible to as many
people as possible. Can you remember the last
time that you were asked to do something and had no idea why you were
doing it? Can you remember how excited you were? We simply cannot commit
to what we don’t understand. Widely distributed information and a shared
context for understanding that information should be the right of every
employee. Jan Carlzon said it best. “People without information cannot
take responsibility. People with information can hardly help but take
responsibility.” People want to take responsibility and make good
decisions. People want to live values that are consistent with their
aspirations. However, too often people in organizations remain uninformed
and, therefore, are unable to discern what is best for the organization.
-
People want to belong and feel a sense of
pride in their job, organization and with their associates.
People come to work hoping that this company will be a great company where
he or she will be able to make a maximum contribution. Initial
experiences are compelling and people need to see that the company is
worthy of people’s commitment. At times people will turn down promotions,
transfers, or new jobs based on a desire to stay a part of something they
are proud of, or to avoid moving to a place where the opposite is true.
-
People are diverse and desire to be
treated as unique individuals in the workplace.
People crave to be recognized and appreciated for the individual strengths
and talents that they bring to the team. Too often organizations look at
people with the approach of what works for the majority or who most
closely fits the “organizational mold”. Harnessing the energy that comes
from individual strengths can make a formidable team more capable of
delivering results at a phenomenal level.
-
People desire to feel important, needed,
useful, confident, successful, proud and respected rather than
unimportant, interchangeable, useless, fearful, anonymous or expendable.
Enough said.
The Time Is Now
Today the evidence is overwhelming
that building more inspired teams will require that most leaders rethink
their leadership thinking. To do so, they will have to resist the
temptation to seek out simple contingency models and opt for a career
filled with self-examination and self-discovery. Because good methods for
examining our thinking have not fully evolved, leaders must participate in
a dialogue that can help them challenge their basic assumptions about
effective leadership.
This journey must begin with a
comparison of espoused beliefs and day-to-day leadership choices. By
evaluating the inconsistencies in words and actions, they will be better
able to identify the changes they must make in order to lead
authentically. Our fervent hope is that the time that McGregor envisioned
where significant changes in leadership philosophy would become a
requirement for survival is fast approaching. This will not only enable
us as leaders to build more effective, more human organizations; it will
enable us to enrich the lives of every person who gives us permission to
lead.
|
