The difference between power and authority!

 

In April 1887, the British historian Lord Acton wrote to Bishop Creighton observing ‘…power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely…’

I have been reflecting on this statement and have come to the conclusion that ‘power’ has nothing to do with leadership.  Please allow me to explain.

Leaders are put into place in all aspects of our society.  Business, politics and religion are just some examples.  In every instance there is either an explicit or an implicit understanding among all parties.  Specifically, the leader is granted both the responsibility and the authority to carry out a clearly defined mandate.  At the same time, the third leg of this agreement holds the leader to account for their actions and their results. This third component is as important to the equation as the two former aspects for without accountability we have no way to judge performance.

However, some ‘leaders’ believe that they deserve certain entitlements above and beyond that which was intended in their appointment.  These individuals seek not leadership’s authority but power because, in their determination, power allows them to amend the bounds ascribed in the ‘responsibility and authority’ elements and to ignore the accountability entirely. They desire unilateral freedom to operate as they choose without any of the normal checks and balances.

We have all had our personal examples of situations where this has played out.  In these instances you must run, not walk, away as quickly and as far as possible.

Typically these people are incorrigible.  And more so, they are dangerous. They are often sociopathic and narcissistic in spite of their apparent charm and appearance. Power is addictive and generally self destructive.

The world has several of these types operating politically; Russia, North Korea and China obvious examples.  These are the most notorious because they are the most visible.  But do not be deceived, countless others lurk in the shadows.

Religion has offered us far too many examples as well.  You need to be in those circles to recognize the names. But be assured that power has been exploited far more frequently than one might imagine.

We have seen power play out in business as well.  The tech world offers several current examples.  The landscape is littered with so many others – think Nortel and Enron to get you started.

In all of these examples, individuals sought power to broaden the scope of their influence and/or abuse the influence that they were granted.  They expected, without justification, that they would not have to face scrutiny because they were self-diluted to believe that the rules did not apply to them.

These people are not leaders. They are abusers.

Authentic leaders achieve through the efforts of those they lead and they recognize those contributions. These impostors seek only recognition for themselves through deceit, deception and defamatory behaviour.

Lord Acton was right in 1887.  The past 135 years have done nothing to dispel his assertions. 

Hopefully we can all learn from history!

Finding a leader...or building a team?

 

 

For too long selecting a leader was essentially ‘who’s next in line’.  The attitude was that if you were good at doing your job you should be good at leading others in the same department or division.  Unsurprisingly, this rather cavalier method often led to disastrous results.

In my opinion the search for leaders and, by extension, for team members should follow the “Principle of Three C’s”.  These C’s are listed in order of importance.

C1 is character.

A leader must be one whose moral, ethical and legal ‘compass’ is properly aligned to integrity.  After all, this individual sets the standards and expectations for everyone in their scope of supervision.  And depending upon the level of responsibility associated with the role, this person may also be demonstrating those standards internally to others outside their direct scope and externally to clients and suppliers. Someone lacking character will not attract others who have it.  Furthermore someone lacking character will not be supported by those whom they expect to influence.  In short, an absence of character will directly lead to failure, sooner than later!

C2 is chemistry.

Leaders seldom accomplish something by themselves.  Rather they rely on the collective efforts of all the team members.  If there are members whose attitudes and behavior are disruptive to the overall chemistry of the team, it will be a constant uphill battle to accomplish the goals set out. I’m not suggesting a team of clones, but there must be a collective understanding that every member is there to contribute to the overall good by maximizing their own contributions.  Think of it like a rowing crew of 8.  When everyone is pulling in the same direction the boat literally flies across the surface of the water.  But when one oar is disengaged, the boat struggles to stay on course.  Success is a function of the sum of the efforts and chemistry – the shared belief in the values and the objective- makes this possible.

C3 is competence.

Many believe that this should be the most important.  I believe that an absence of C1 and/or C2 demonstrates a lack of competence to begin with. If we assert that an ability to ‘do’ leads naturally to an ability to ‘lead’ then we have a fundamental misunderstanding of leadership.  Clearly some functions need at least some measure of competency.  No one leads a team of lawyers without knowledge of the law.  Nor does one lead a team of medical professionals without a foundation of health care.  But does a hospital need a doctor to lead, or someone with a broad understanding of the delivery of health services.  I submit that it is the latter.

Whether selecting a leader or building a team, these principles should be your ‘North Star’ in guiding you to the best candidates.

Remember this truth... ‘Reputation is what others think of you, character is who you really are…’

Starting there sets you on a solid foundation for success!

Let's talk 'cost of living'

 

Across the news we are hearing the constant beat of the drums complaining about the cost of living.  I don’t mean to diminish those realities, but let’s have some perspective. 

Here are two examples and two of my heroes.

 

Cecil Thomas Brown, my father, was a teenager growing up during the Great Depression and then enlisted in the RCAF and served until war’s end in 1945.  He didn’t know where his next meal would come from or if he would live through the war.  His ‘cost of living’ was to sacrifice his youth and early manhood to serve all of us.

Barclay Newsome, whose name I proudly share, was Cecil’s best friend.  He too grew up through the Great Depression and enlisted with Cec in the RCAF.  As the picture notes, his ‘cost of living’ was a hell of a lot more than a few more dollars at the gas pump.

At this time of year, I am reminded of these two heroes and the thousands…nay millions…whose cost of living is something most of us can never measure.

Thanks boys, we owe you one!

Silence is not an alibi for accountability!

 

We live in a world where too often opinions are shaped by the pronouncements of the most radical in our society, whether that comes from the right or the left of the spectrum.  Unfortunately these pronouncements are, more often than not, short on truth but long on volume.  We are wise to remember the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan who stated years ago ‘…you are entitled to your own opinions.  But you are not entitled to your own facts…’

It concerns me that too many leaders are not engaging in this dialogue.  One does not have to be politically motivated to speak out and challenge the lies and half-truths that are advanced; nor does one need to be adept on social media platforms.  NO, one simply needs to speak out and accept the responsibility that comes with a position of leadership. No forum is too small or too large to advance the truth.  Ultimately your silence is not an alibi for the accountability that comes with your position.

‘Ah’ says the silent one.  ‘I am only trying to be tolerant of others opinions’. 

Well here’s the reality.  The opposite of tolerance is not intolerance.  It is INDIFFERENCE.   If you sat in a bar and watched as someone drank themselves into insobriety you could claim that you were being tolerant of their choices.  But if that same person then left the bar and was involved in a fatal car crash was it due to your tolerance of drinking or your indifference.  When you had the opportunity to make a difference based on the facts…and you chose not to…that’s on YOU!

Leadership demands that we stand for what is right and call out that which is wrong.  You are not doing it because of what it will benefit you in the opinion of others.  Your motivation must be entirely altruistic. 

Too many have for too long simply sat on their hands and chosen not to be counted.  Those who fade to black when given the opportunity to shine are not worthy of the call to lead.

We are at a crossroads where we must be championed by the character of our leaders.  Embracing the MORAL…ETHICAL…and LEGAL priorities upon which we founded our cultures, and which are now most under attack, is the path forward.  Our failure to do so will only lead to the disintegration that is happening now.

Silence is not an alibi for accountability…and truth needs no alibi!

It starts with moral failure...

 

 

Morality refers to a generally accepted set of standards by which people associate with each other in society.  These values change over time but remain as guiding principles and expectations by the majority.

Now pause and think back to a time when a leader that you know/knew started to become ineffective.  I am not referring to that individual who was blatantly incompetent but rather to the one whose performance ceased to be worthy of a leader.

I’ll bet that in most instances their decline came at a moment of moral or ethical failure that impacted their ability to perform at the levels that others had come to expect.

There have been some high profile examples that speak to this point. 

Bill Gates was ‘asked’ to step down at Microsoft.  Steve Easterbrook at McDonald’s was fired.  Neither was incompetent at their jobs but both had moral failings that compromised their ability to lead. 

Dennis Muilenburg at Boeing was replaced.  His moral failing was pride that he could lie about the performance of the 737 Max hoping to get away with it.

We see it in the area of government, entertainment and religion as well.  How many politicians have been forced out of office because of moral or ethical failures?  Across a broad range of faiths, leaders have been compromised by moral failings resulting in their removal from office.

How many ‘Harvey Weinstein’s’ are still out there?

We have seen similar events happen with Boy Scouts and now, in Canada, Hockey Canada. 

In most instances the activities have not been illegal.  They have been serious breaches of the standards of behavior or conduct that society has rightly expected.

Some of these leaders thought that they were clever enough that they could fool their constituencies.  Few have proven that assumption to be true.

I don’t know how or when a leader begins to believe that they are above the rest and that the expectations do not apply to them.  In some small way perhaps we are part of the problem because we have tended to elevate leaders in all aspects of society.  And the human condition is simply not built to be worshipped…

Leaders need to keep that oversized mirror of self-awareness front and centre at all times.  Seek activities that breed humility to counter those that daily feed the ego in all of us. 

The old adage that says ‘…pride goes before the fall…’ is one that was crafted from experience, not from a fortune teller.

Lead with integrity and others will follow. Honour the faith and trust invested to you by others.

Maintaining the moral and ethical high ground never was a bad recipe.

Work harder, not smarter...

 

There are among us a select few who are exceptional.  These few have been graced with skills and abilities which set them apart from the masses. And they exist in all parts of our society.

It may be mental acuity; physical prowess; uncommon proficiency in the arts or music.  Regardless of their unique gift, they excel with an ease and certainty of accomplishment that makes us mere mortals recognize that indeed we are not all created equal.

And yet, even at this rarefied level of potential, some achieve so much more than others.  If they all have started within a narrow range of competency what separates one from another?  I submit that it is ‘working harder’.  Some are simply willing to make the sacrifices needed to hone their skills and abilities and to produce/perform at an exceptional level that is possible for all but achieved by few.

We have lived for the past decades with the motto ‘work smarter not harder’. That stands in sharp contrast to the work ethic of our ancestors. In my opinion that has only led to generations that have an expectancy of accomplishment that greatly exceeds the reality of their efforts. First of all, what really is ‘smarter’?  And secondly, when did working harder become a social taboo?

Work should be hard.  It should stretch our abilities.  It should challenge us and reward us.  It should make us better in the ‘doing’ as well as in the ‘completing’.

In stating this opinion let me also champion the need for balance.  We develop sayings in response to realities and the one that says ‘all work and no play makes one a dull person’ has much truth.  Someone who has only one priority seldom lives a happy and fulfilled life.

By extension, one who only works hard will have no standard by which to measure or enjoy their success. We need balance of activities in our lives to ensure that we do not become one dimensional creatures of habit.

We are informed by surveys over the past decades that employees are less and less engaged.  Some feel that their contributions are not properly recognised.  Some say it is because they have a lousy boss.  Some say that they are not compensated well enough.

Could it be that they really are not challenged by what they do; that they don’t have to exert themselves mentally and/or physically to accomplish their tasks; that there is no fulfilling sense of accomplishment and thus no personal satisfaction in a job well done?

Technology has made work easier and there is much to praise in these advances.  But we are built for work as well as play.  And when it takes effort to not just ‘do’ but to ‘excel’ the individual derives so much more knowing that it was their choice to work harder that led to that outcome.

Let’s celebrate hard work again.  I believe we need to push more to reach our full potential.

Follow the Money!

 

\

According to reports from Bloomberg, women now directly control over 35% of all wealth.  They indirectly control much more than that. 

Why should that seem surprising given that women represent half of the population?

Because that wealth has been accumulated in just the past 100 years and against all odds.  Consider these facts.

1.    Women only received the right to vote in North America in 1917.

2.    Banks only allowed women the right to a personal credit card in 1974.

3.    Women have often been treated as second class members of society in all areas of politics, business, religion and relationships.  This has been accomplished by irrational and restrictive laws, by workplace discrimination, by deliberate or uninformed interpretation of scriptures, and by fear from threats of bodily harm or death by relationship partners.

So men, with the aid of all these advantages, and a head start of several thousand years, have seen women close the wealth gap in under 100 years.  That is not just remarkable.  It’s a mind blowing testament to female ingenuity, perseverance and ability.

Does your company reflect the realities of the contributions that female leaders can make?  It’s not just that it is the right thing to do…it’s the smart thing to do!

And here’s the real kicker.  If you haven’t or aren’t prepared to acknowledge these realities, it probably doesn’t matter.  Women have figured out how to get there despite you! 

It’s time to be part of the solution instead of continuing to be the problem…

In Power...or near power?

 

In Power…or near power?

 

Every leader has some element of power. That power is granted by their superior and consists of both responsibility and authority to accomplish a specific task or tasks.  Implicit with this ‘power’ is the accountability associated with both components.  By that I mean that the achievement of the task must be done within the bounds of the authority granted.  Working outside of these bounds implies that ‘the end justifies the means’ and this typically suggests that the conduct has been legally, ethically or morally dubious.

Because of this expectation, many leaders fail.  In fact, many leaders are either unable or unwilling to function under the burden of these guideposts.  Consequently they surround themselves with those who live to be ‘near power’ (‘np’ers’) while staying far away from actually being ‘in power’. 

Too often these ‘np’ers’ are there to support the leader’s aspirations by telling them exactly what they want to hear. They are as unable or unwilling to speak truth to power as the leader is unable or unwilling to hear it.

These dysfunctional situations can be seen in all areas of society – business, politics, sports, religion and government.  Generally it indicates that the leader is in over their head but they lack to strength of character to admit it or to ask for help. Instead they push on and go further and further down the rabbit hole of denial until the weight of incompetence finally crashes down around them.

An authentic leader expects and accepts that they will be held to account for their performance.  They are self-aware enough to evaluate their own competencies and to surround themselves with others who complement their abilities by filling the gaps in their skills and/or experiences. These ‘np’ers’ are competent and strong enough to speak to power.  In so doing, the leader is able to add to the capabilities of the entire team.

To lead most effectively you need to:

1.    Understand and accept that YOU will be held accountable for the proper completion of the tasks assigned to you.  This is not negotiable nor can it be delegated.

2.    Confidently and realistically evaluate your strengths and weaknesses.  Are your aspirations for power supported by the facts?

3.    Hire those with competencies that complement - not compliment – your character and abilities.

4.    Beware of those who seek to be more than ‘near power’. Some would rather attempt to implant their own ideas or strategies for personal gain. In so doing, they undermine rather than support.

5.    Routinely do a ‘health check’ of your team.  Life is dynamic and we often cling to that which we know, even after we sense that it is no longer in our best interests.  Summon the courage to choose to ‘excuse’ those who have ceased to positively contribute to your well-being.

Leading can be made easier by those with whom we choose to surround ourselves.  Making solid decisions about these people will make other decisions better and easier.

Houston, we have a problem!

	Questions regarding two income families.	Men	Women
1	Who does the majority of meal planning?		X
2	Who does the majority of child care/care planning?		X
3	Who does the majority of elder care/care planning?		X
4	Who is most likely to be paid less for doing the same work as others?		X
5	Who is most likely to be called upon to make career sacrifices for the family?		X
6	Who is more likely to have a higher level of education?		X
7	Who is under-represented in executive level positions?		X
8	Who is under-represented on boards of directors?		X
9	Who has demonstrated the greater level of empathy, a key characteristic of an effective leader in the 21st century?		X
10	Who thinks that they have all the answers and are the most effective leaders?	X

 

Do you delegate or abdicate?

 

It has long been understood that for a leader to assist a subordinate in their personal development, the leader must be willing to delegate certain tasks that are a normal part of their scope of responsibility.  The practice holds that the individual who is delegated this task will be enriched by learning to make decisions that are above their own scope of responsibility and thus become more confidant in their own skills and abilities.

For this development tactic to work there must be some mutually understood and accepted ‘rules’.  These include:

1.    The task being delegated must be clearly defined with specific expectations and timing.

2.    The leader must use the task as a training opportunity.  It must not be used as a set up for failure.

3.    The person being delegated the task must be given the tools to succeed including the authority to ensure the assistance of others as necessary.

4.    Leaders must always make themselves available for assistance.

5.    It must be clear to both parties that the responsibility and authority associated with the task are being delegated but that the ultimate accountability must remain with the leader.

As long as this process is followed, delegating to another is a powerful expression of confidence and a very useful tool in preparing someone for greater responsibilities.

Problems arise when delegating really becomes a form of abdicating.

Let’s be honest…not every leader is the sharpest tool in the box. And not every leader is comfortable with having staff members who are more capable than they are. 

Whether it is a defensive manoeuver - an attempt to cover up one’s own shortcomings – or an offensive measure to cripple a rising star, some leaders avoid their responsibilities by abdicating them, not delegating them, to someone else.

What’s the difference?

When a task is abdicated it is done without the protection of the ‘rules’ outlined above.  As a consequence, the subordinate is often handcuffed from the beginning and despite best efforts they may be unable to satisfactorily complete the assignment. This allows the leader to cast blame on another without ever revealing their motive.

Here’s an extreme example.  I started a new position with a new company.  On day one my new superior told me that I needed to fire a particular associate in the division, a former direct report of his. I was informed ‘… he’s no good …’

I had no way of making any judgement so I simply replied that I was delegating this task ‘back up’ to him or I be allowed time to make my own judgement and action.  As you’d expect, he backed off…his abdication attempt failed.

Leading means taking responsibility as well as taking action.  Lead with integrity and with clarity of purpose.  Give others the opportunity to grow through your thoughtful delegation. Those to whom you provide leadership as well as opportunity will support you and grow to become effective resources you can count on in times of need.

It's YOUR job.

 

 

I have seen and read a number of opinions regarding team building.

Some remind us that “…there is no I in TEAM…”

Others insist that “…success is a team sport…”

Another popular opinion is that it’s better to have a person who is self-sacrificing and committed rather than one who is an A type personality.

To all of the above I have but one comment ‘…nonsense…’

What leader would hire a committed, self-sacrificing person of mediocre abilities?

What leader seeks individuals who do not want to perform their best, even if that means others cannot measure up to their level?

Why would anyone expect to participate with only marginal contributions to the overall success and not be judged poorly?

Team building is less about the individuals on the team and much more about the ability of the leader to do their job…to LEAD.

I fully acknowledge that it is difficult to find a group of all-stars.  Furthermore, even amongst that group, some will perform better than others.  But the role of the leader is to establish an environment in which each participant is able to maximize their potential.  Once you establish that someone can be on the team while falling short of their potential, a new and lower level of acceptable performance has been set.

If an Olympic team can improve by getting superior performers, the coach would be derelict in their duties if they did not seek out that better person.

Likewise, an F1 team needs the best drivers and mechanics it can find in order to win.  If the performance of any individual makes that success less likely, they should be replaced.

Yes I want commitment; yes I want team members to support their co-workers; yes I understand that ‘their best’ means different levels of accomplishment amongst the team members.

But let’s be honest.  You can find top performers who hold these qualities or you can develop them in individuals, if you lead competently.  It falls to you as the leader to knit together the skills and competencies of each individual on your team. The lack of cohesion in an elite group has much more to do with your leadership than it does with the team member’s qualities.

There are no participation medals in the workplace.

But there is an ‘I’ in failure. 

Don’t pedal these worn out phrases that excuse under performance.  Expect the best of all qualities from every team member and hold yourself accountable to creating the environment for that to happen.

It's a two way street.

 

As the leader, the culture that you establish significantly influences the reason that attracts and retains individuals to work for you.  It is on the basis of this culture, which aligns with the individual’s personal beliefs, that relationships are established and maintained.

This cultural alignment also extends externally to your clients and your suppliers.  It is fair to say that these are relationships based on loyalty to you and, by extension, to your company.  As a provider of goods or services, your loyal clients have built trust in your recommendations and look to you almost as a partner in their business. 

As much as loyalty serves your interests - whether that is the internal loyalty of staff or the external loyalty of others - it is important to recognize that the loyalty is built on a two way street.  You must remain loyal to the culture which attracted both in the first place.  It is a relationship built first and foremost on that which you offer them, not vice versa.  Their trust, their commitment, their loyalty is built on the foundation of trust, commitment and loyalty that you present and maintain.

In most instances these people, internal and external, will remain loyal unless and until your position changes, i.e. until you cease to be loyal to that which you first represented.  When you make a material movement away from that foundation, you have ceased to be loyal to the vision; you have broken the bonds that formed the relationship.  Therefore, when others respond by pulling away or disconnecting entirely, the fault lies with you, not them.  Your behavior was the catalyst of change and their response is not one of disloyalty.  Rather it is a normal and healthy response that affords them the time to analyze whether or not the changes that you initiated constitute enough of a violation to prompt their changed loyalty.

Loyalty is not synonym for allegiance.  The two are quite different.  Loyalty is a choice and is two way.  Allegiance is a command and goes only one way.  The problem arises when the leader asks for loyalty but expects allegiance. Your values of morality, ethics and legality must be set aside in deference to this person.  It is only a matter of time before the disconnect results in a complete breakdown and disintegration of the union of the parties.

You are the leader.  You set the tone; you set the culture; you control the work environment; you establish and maintain the parameters under which the business or the unit will function.  Continually check to ensure that the standards that you presented are kept – or improved.  In so doing you will have done your part in holding true to the part of the loyalty equation which is your responsibility.  And you should reasonably expect others to do likewise.  It is this partnership that makes your efforts a success.