The qualities of authentic leadership.

I believe that we acknowledge individuals as leaders far too generously.  That is not to suggest that true leaders do not exist.  Rather it is to suggest that leadership ought to be a position that is jealously and rigorously defended so as to retain the esteem that authentic leadership embodies. 

Too often we are quick to designate,or someone is too quick to claim, this role.  Sometimes it is due to the void of a legitimate leader and our natural inclination to be led.  At other times we make assumptions of competency based on the academic credentials or seniority of an individual.  But lets be clear.  Leadership must have both a skill set and a character set for there to be authenticity. 

We all have different ideas as to the character set that we want to see in our leaders.  I want to start a dialogue to see what you think.  I will start the conversation with a few that come to my mind.  With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy...

1.  If you have met company payroll with your credit card, you have leadership qualities.

2.  If the prospect of having to lay off staff members makes you want to vomit, you have leadership  
     qualities.

3.  If you would rather have TBSH than MBA on your business card, you have leadership qualities.
     (The Buck Stops Here)

4.  If you have the confidence to state your role as Leader rather than Owner or President on your
     business card, you have leadership qualities.

5.  If you know more about your staff members families than the stats of your favourite team, you
     have leadership qualities.

6.  If you would rather be known as being too honest than too successful, you have leadership
     qualities.

7.  If people would rather work for you and make less money than work for the competition and
     make more, you have leadership qualities.

8.  If your goal is to be known in your community before being known at your club, you have
     leadership qualities.

9.  If you want others to always know where you stand, even without asking you first, you have
     leadership qualities.

10.  If doing right is more important than being right, you have leadership qualities.

You all have thoughts on the matter based on your own experiences.  Add to the conversation by posting a comment to this blog.  In the end we can develop a grass roots definition of leadership that we can communicate to those who aspire to be leaders.  The first step of getting what we need is by expressing our expectations.  Join the conversation.



 

Boomers versus Millenials...lest we be too quick to judge.

There is a popular trend these days to do the 'Millennial Bash'.  Many authors and commentators are typically critical of those born in the period of 1980 to 2000.  Case in point is a recent Time magazine article that labels this generation as lazy, entitled narcissists.  While I may not have a problem with this generalization, we Boomers would do well to take a long look in the mirror before we become too quick with our criticisms.  Let me offer some sobering thoughts.

The Boomer generation is typically defined as those born in the period of the late 1940's up to the early 60's.  That range means that this group of Millennials is largely the offspring of the Boomer generation.  That being the case, what does it say about the job that Boomers have done in raising children that we now want to call lazy, entitled and narcissistic.  Clearly the burden of responsibility lies more with the creator than with the created.  The old saying suggests that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  So have we created that  which we ourselves truly embody but are unwilling to acknowledge.

Consider what we have done.  As Boomers we entered a workforce that was over-run with opportunities.  The fact of the matter was that there were so many jobs that even the marginally competent had no problem finding employment that paid very well and offered opportunities for promotion on a regular basis.  Even the lazy found work and could buy a car and a home and raise a family.  By comparison, Millennials have been entering a work place that, over the past decade, has been dominated by the Great Recession, a period of economic malaise that has been almost as destructive as the Great Depression which effected the parents of many Boomers.  We are far from being out of these woods as many Boomers hang on to jobs rather than retire thus further depriving this next generation the opportunity to enter the work place in a truly meaningful way. 

Even with this significant employment advantage, Boomers have done a poor job economically.  We inherited a theme of thankfulness from our parents.  They were thankful to have survived both a depression and a war.   They established for us a society of opportunity.  Yet we Boomers have turned thankfulness into entitlement.  And in that process we have created much of the economic misery that exists today,  Governments around the world are in crisis because of the massive accumulated debt that has become increasingly unmanageable and certainly is unsustainable.  But an analysis shows that the genesis of  the majority of that debt was established as Boomers entered the workforce.  We lobbied for more vacation time; for greater pension benefits; for more social benefits and all without any real understanding of how we should pay for all of it.  Now we have debts and future obligations that we are unable to pay off except with IOU's for our children and grand children.  We may not be lazy, but we sure as hell are greedy.  The real issue is that Millennials will finally get it and become more conscientious whereas Boomers have no way to renounce their greed and make the debt go away. 

For Boomers it is and always has been '...all about me...'  If that is not a reasonable definition of  entitlement and narcissism, sue me.

Along the way Boomers have turned a blind eye to anything that might challenge their perceived rights.  And so, in addition to debt, we will also pass along a world mired in a dramatic climate change.  Boomers consumed at a rate that will only be fully grasped when we are gone and others such as the Millennials go the cupboard only to find it bare.  Whether it was cars or homes; food or gasoline; clothes or electronic toys, we denied ourselves of nothing.  At least nothing that could not be acquired on a credit card.

Boomers can legitimately look to our many accomplishments with a measure of satisfaction.  We have been the architects of so many technological advances and we have overseen the volume of accumulated knowledge that continues to double at an astounding rate.  But far too often these efforts have lacked any altruistic value and rather have served to fuel that greed which I have earlier addressed.

Lazy...entitled...narcissistic.  Yes, Millennials often deserve these criticisms.  But those in glass houses ought not to throw stones.  So Boomers would do well to tone down the rhetoric and rather begin to focus on their own shortcomings.  We cannot undo that which has been done.  But we can become the example we should have been.  And in this way we can influence the Millennials and the future generations and thus, hopefully, leave something of a legacy for which we can be proud.

Where have all the leaders gone...the void of true leadership in politics.

We deserve better! 

In the 1976 movie "Network", Peter Finch portrays a network anchorperson who gets so fed up that he screams '...I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore...'

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=network+the+movie&docid=4655114183967048&mid=5D2D9172BE17CA6F48465D2D9172BE17CA6F4846&view=detail&FORM=VIRE2

Given the current state of politics and the abysmal lack of leadership being shown at both the provincial and federal levels, I am feeling the same level of frustration.  But lacking a television studio from which to pontificate, I will use this forum.

Living in Ontario it is clear that the inmates have finally taken over the asylum.  Dalton McGuinty essentially charged the Ontario taxpayers something in excess of $500 million (perhaps closer to a billion dollars when all is said and done) in order to secure two parliamentary seats in the last election which assured his Liberal party of a narrow minority.  And now, under oath, he declared that he was simply doing the right thing for the people of each riding.  His unrepentant testimony was, in my opinion, a blatant lie and was compounded only by the cowardice he displayed in proroguing Parliament while stepping down as Premier.  Now, in order to retain power, his successor has introduced a budget which is essentially the platform of the third place party. 

What am I missing? How can we start to hold these people accountable for their actions.  Apart from an insurrection or waiting 4 years for the next election, we must have some means of addressing this type of  incompetency.  Our political leaders have always been about plying the taxpayers with programs with money borrowed from the future generations, for the sole purpose of re-election.   But the extent to which these activities have grown has passed from simple pandering of the electorate to outright betrayal of their elected responsibilities.  I'm mad as hell and I don't want to take this anymore.  The question is how to respond.

Taxpayers need to take back control from the politicians.  Their level of entitlement no longer allows them the luxury of self governance.  Politicians, and party leaders in particular, must be held criminally responsible for their actions.  Laws must be passed that hold these people to the proper level of accountability and there must be penalties that include both fines and imprisonment for those who are convicted of abuse. Defeating them in a future election is simply insufficient because, for the most part, they will only retire and collect a guaranteed and inflated pension.

We see the same entitlement and irresponsibility coming from our Senate as well.  Currently  there are several members of that group who are under investigation for misuse of public funds and we have little to no recourse in removing them from office. 

Our US friends are equally disenfranchised with the government shut down that has been orchestrated by only about 40 members of the House of Representatives.  Their collective refusal to act in the best interests of the American people on an issue already resolved through due process and legal challenges is putting in jeopardy the US economy and, by extension, the world's economy.  Their actions are, at best, self serving.  At worst they are alarmingly irresponsible.

Why must we settle for less than the best?  Why is it that politics seems to attract only those who either incompetents with elitist attitudes or those who are simply the puppets of special interest groups?  Our choices too often boil down to the lesser of the evils...dumb versus dumber.

Maybe it is just me...my standards are too high and therefore my expectations are always let down.  But somehow I don't think that I am alone in this frustration.  I don't see any benevolent dictator on the horizon, so what are we to do.

I am open to your suggestions, even if it only to vent your frustrations as well.  The forum is open for comments.

.

 

Is this your time...

Most often, leadership is ‘…for such a time as this…’

If I asked a roomful of executives the question ‘how many of you view yourselves as leaders’, I would fully expect to see all hands raised.

If the follow up question was ‘how many of you have the word leader on your business card’, I expect that no hands would be raised.

Leaders come in a range of shapes and sizes.  Their core competencies are often similar, but the overall package is quite different.  The axiom that there are ‘horses for courses’ is as true in business as in sport.  Every company, every enterprise, every team is at a different point in its history.  And what is needed for the success of one company may, and usually is, quite different for another company.

Some leaders can be chameleons and make the necessary changes to adapt with the changing needs of the firm.  But more often than not, their fundamental skills are hard wired.  After a time, they no longer fit the personality that is needed for continued success.  This is hardly surprising because the skills needed for start-up differ from those of a turnaround and again from those of leading a mature business.

History offers us an interesting look at just what I mean.

Winston Churchill, rather SIR Winston Churchill, is acknowledged as perhaps the finest leader of the 20^th century. His time as Prime Minister embodies all the elements of an inspirational leadership model.

He had the moral authority to lead by virtue of his election to Parliament.  His oratory and diplomatic skills rallied a willing populace to perform feats that were unimaginable.  And the goal of victory over their enemy and ultimately freedom in Europe cannot find a more noble or worthy purpose.

Churchill came to power upon the resignation of his predecessor Neville Chamberlain. He served from 1940 until the war’s end.  But to the point of ‘…for such a time as this…’, he was voted out of office scarcely weeks after the end of the war because the general opinion was that his skills were not consistent with the needs of a nation now ready to re-build its’ economy in the post-war period.

Churchill had not changed.  The noble purpose had changed.  And thus another leader was necessary.

In the examination of leaders, too often we become mesmerized by past performance and ignore the current state of affairs.  Perhaps it is our natural resistance to change. Perhaps the rose coloured glasses obscure the view.  Regardless, companies, organizations and any situation in which the inspirational leadership model is active, must come to terms with the reality that what has become broken cannot be fixed by sheer force of will.  Change must happen for the benefit of all. Organizations are organic.  They grow and they change. 

This is not meant to be unnecessarily critical of the leader.  Indeed, in most instances we will find that the leader did an extraordinary job.  It is just an acknowledgement that you cannot be all things to all people all the time. The very best, most inspirational leaders will recognize instinctively that their time is done.  And during their time they will have prepared the organization and their successor for the transition to the next stage.

Research in Motion presents a classic case in point.  Originally founded in the 1984, RIM carved out a unique space in the telecommunication market with the introduction of its first Blackberry in 1999.[1] In a short time they had developed the `must have` hand held mobile communications device.  RIM grew exponentially and essentially created and dominated a sector of the cell phone market.  Its products were in demand around the world and used by people as significant as  President Obama of the United States.

The founders were two men from the relatively small city of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.  Michael Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie, co-CEO`s, grew the company from humble beginnings to a point where, for a time, RIM was the largest company in the country based on stock value.

But the industry changed and the co-CEOs lacked the skill sets necessary to maintain the company`s competitiveness.  This is neither an indictment of their abilities nor of their desire.  It is simply a statement of fact.  RIM entered a long term free fall in which it lost over 90% of its value.

Like Churchill, the skills needed to address the changing times were not consistent with the skills that had led the company in the earlier days.  RIM had to make changes at the CEO level and history will record whether these changes were made in time to avoid ultimate disaster.

Had the founders acknowledged their status sooner and made the necessary executive changes, perhaps they could have avoided the dilemma in which they ultimately found themselves.  But it is very difficult to see the forest for the trees and to confess that someone else can do the job better than you can. 

Another case in point is Yahoo and its founder, Jerry Yang.  From humble beginnings in the dormitory room, Yahoo took on a lead position in the web search market.  With an initial third party investment of only $2 million, Yahoo seemed certain to be a spectacular success. From that time in April 1995, the company grew exponentially.  

Not surprisingly, competition followed from several fronts.  Most notably, Google started to overtake Yahoo as the industry leader.  By 2008, Yahoo was a distant second and continuing to lose ground.  With Yang having returned to the CEO office he had given up in 2001, Yahoo received an offer of $31 per share from Microsoft, valuing Yahoo at over $40 billion.  Today the company has lost over 50% of its value.  Most investors blame Yang for not supporting the sale to Microsoft and thereby condemning the value to the decline it has experienced.  Apparently it was just too hard for Yang to give up on his creation as emotion won over logic.[2]

It takes strength of character and outstanding self- awareness to make this confession.  But at the end of the day, if you don`t, someone or something else will have to make the decision on your behalf.  Candidly, it is much less painful if you are willing and able to make the confession yourself; less painful for you and for others impacted by that decision.

This simple statement should guide your decision making.

“…do the right thing for the company; have the company do the right thing by the employee…”

If this principle is followed by both parties – company and employee – then the resolution will be fair and just.  The interests of both will have been properly considered.

Sometimes the blame extends not only to the leader but to the Board of Directors as well.  I recommend you to this article to you as it speaks to the need to stop idolizing leaders and recognize their actual performance and contribution to the company.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/05/12/oops-5-ceos-that-should-have-already-been-fired-cisco-ge-walmart-sears-microsoft/3/

As a leader, do you have the courage and confidence to step forward and recommend change, even when that change means that you lose your job?  If you are as good as you think you are, there will always be opportunities to apply your skills in another role.  And if you truly care about the success of the company and the welfare of your staff, this will be an easy decision. 

Or will you choose to hang on beyond your personal best before date. Your leadership is for such a time as this.  IS THIS STILL YOUR TIME?

---

[1] http://www.rim.com/company/index.shtml

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/06/03/us-yahoo-microsoft-idUSN0229819820080603

What colour are your glasses?

Quite apart from passion, inspirational leaders have joy.  And this joy is real as it breeds a culture that is positive and affirming.

I am not advocating a Pollyanna approach to joy; one in which the negative is never acknowledged.  Clearly there will be times or circumstances in which tough, difficult and disappointing results are the outcome of legitimate and worthwhile efforts.  But the leader with joy will choose to see the glass half full and as such have an uplifting and encouraging attitude as opposed to the defeatist half empty view of things.

It really is a matter of perspective.  And it is a matter of choice.  A negative attitude will have to change at some point if the objective is to be pursued successfully.  Why not already be pointed in the right direction, at least attitudinally, by taking the positive position rather than the negative. The glass is still filled to some level regardless of how you got to that point. Use the positive as a first step to re-filling the glass until it overflows.

I cannot stress enough how important this choice is, not only to your team, but more importantly, to you.  It starts when you look in the mirror to start each day.  By making your first decision each morning to find the positive in each and every outcome predisposes you to a positive outlook.  With this attitude already established, it is much easier to encounter difficulties by looking for solutions rather than dwelling on obstacles.  You won’t be found ‘picking yourself up off the floor’ because the issue you confronted was not able to knock you off your feet in the first place.

Again let me stress that this is not an attitude of denial.  In point of fact, it is an attitude that is more realistic than one which assumes that there will not be issues and therefore is surprised and often overwhelmed when that does happen.

Those who make no provision for the possibility of failure are those who are the most naïve.  When confronted by problems, their initial response is one of despair and questioning.  The ‘why me’ syndrome takes over as they try to analyze the reason that they and their team are the ‘victims’ of their efforts.  All this does is to delay the real work which needs to be accomplished, namely, how do we get past the obstacle and move on towards the fulfilment of our objectives.

Consider how you react as a team member to a leader whose response takes this ‘victim posture’.  If you are naturally positive, you are likely to become increasingly frustrated and impatient with their negative outlook.  Over time you will begin to tune out because you sense the lack of maturity in the person.  The noble goals that you once supported are less achievable because of the leader’s response to problems and your support of this person and the team’s objectives will begin to wane. Consider the Leadership Equation and the need for 'willing followers'. (See the earlier blog.)

Conversely, if your disposition is typically negative, the leader’s similar negative response will simply reinforce your attitudes and sustain or accelerate a downwards spiral.  As the team loses momentum, more problems present themselves and eventually it becomes easier to abandon your attempts than it does to continue to invest the efforts to overcome.  Bad simply leads to worse and each problem adds to the weight of the situation.  Finally you submit to failure because the leader has not provided any encouragement that the matter can be overcome. And the outcome confirms the negative suspicions your attitude has fostered all along.

A key responsibility of the leader is to build this  realistic positive culture that maintains a 'can do' attitude even in the face of obstacles.  Why choose joy?  The answer is obvious!

Are you a chicken or a pig?

Leaders with passion inspire a similar response on their part of their staff. 

These leaders are passionate about their work and this passion evokes an emotional response on the part of their team.  The response is not directed towards the leader. But rather it is an emotional response to the goal.  The individuals on the team become invested in the successful achievement of the objective and this is a reflection of the passion modeled by the leader.  Call it pride of accomplishment; a willingness to go the extra mile; that 'never say die' attitude.  Regardless of how you choose to define it, it boils down to a commitment to the goal that is evidenced by a higher level of personal devotion than might otherwise be anticipated.
Think about times when your leader has failed to have a passion towards the team’s objective.  How did that impact your commitment?  How willing were you to search for the answers or make the effort to overcome a particular challenge when the one most responsible for the outcome chose only to be involved in the efforts.

A passionate leader is a committed leader.  The difference between commitment and involvement is best defined by the story about the breakfast of bacon and eggs.  In this analogy  the chicken is involved.  But the pig... the pig is committed. 

When a leader lacks passion, the results are predictable.  The opposite of passion is not hate.  Rather, it is indifference.

And it is this attitude, perhaps more than any other, which will sap the enthusiasm out of a team faster than anything. 

When there is conflict amongst team members, at least there is an emotional response happening.  And the response indicates that people care about the outcome.  The issue then becomes one of channeling the emotion in the right direction.  Not unlike the experience of many entertainers who relate that they have butterflies before a performance.  What they have mastered is the art of having them fly in formation.

In a like manner, the inspirational leader will harness the passion of the team and focus it on the achievement of the goal.  For a time it may seem like a task not unlike herding cats.  But this is far preferable to trying to manufacture interest where none exists.  It is always easier to steer a course when you are moving than when you have not yet overcome inertia.

Be passionate but be real.  Remember that one of the aspects of a noble goal is that it is achievable.  If you have taken an unrealistic appraisal of the situation and the goal is truly not achievable, then grab hold to reality.  Your staff will have already acknowledged the situation and they are simply waiting for you to catch up so that a new strategy can be defined.  Any false bravado will simply erode their confidence in your judgement.

So be passionate, be committed, but be real!

The Plumb Line

In Jane Austen’s book ‘Pride and Prejudice’, her Mr. Darcy proclaims “…my good opinion, once lost, is lost forever…”

For the inspirational leader there is no such thing as ‘situational ethics’.  That is, right or wrong is not a reflection of the circumstances.  Right is right and wrong is wrong. Truth is not relative.

People on your team must know that there is always a moral compass guiding decisions.  They must know that the response to any situation is not dependent upon who is more senior, or more favoured or more fortunate.  They must know that the situation does not dictate the response but rather the ethical, moral or legal imperative is that which has priority.

Situational ethics are used only by those for whom ‘doing the right thing’ is an optional exercise rather than an obligation.  It is for those who see truth as an inconvenience and a potential obstacle to the achievement of the goal.

Quite apart from disrupting the inspirational leadership model, the fact of the matter is that situational ethics creates a dilemma throughout the organization.

There are no longer any standards that cannot be compromised.  Whether that is dealing with company assets, company finances or company information, where does one draw the line?   When a bribe paid to a foreign nation in order to secure an order and generate business because that is ‘business as usual’ in that country, what’s the issue?  A recent PBS documentary highlighted that much of our current economic malaise associated with the US housing market can be traced back to the practice of derivative trading conducted by major US banks.  The documentary showed that the practice would have violated US law had the banks not sold these financial instruments to European banks and non-bank companies in the US.  The bottom line was that the US banks found a way around the law and in doing so they created a market for mortgages where non would have otherwise existed.  Situational ethics in action!

The list is endless when everyone gets to interpret truth for themselves.  No definitions are valid any longer.  If I see performance one way and you see it differently, who is right.  Or for that matter, is there a ‘wrong’ any more.

Leaders set the standard.  And the standard must be unambiguous.

Expectations must be codified.  And they must be applicable across all levels of the organization.  As we saw with the issue of accountability, there can be no exceptions.  Too many people are impacted by the failure to abide by the standards that are established.

The impact of situational ethics extends beyond the borders of your team or your company.  It really extends to all your business partners, whether they are suppliers or clients. 

All the stakeholders that touch your firm need to know and understand the principles by which you operate.  They are looking for the same unambiguous standards that you promote for interaction within the company.

At the same time, your employees need to understand that the standards are applicable externally as well as internally.  There should never be a question in their minds about the need to compromise their personal integrity or the company’s standards.  No client, no supplier, no opportunity is ever so important as to require you to defer to a situational ethics decision.  As tempting as it may be in the short term, the consequences that follow will NEVER justify the decision.

The consequences may not be immediate. You may be able to rationalize the decision based on any number of factors.  But as well intentioned as you think your motivation, you move away from your standards at your peril.  RESIST the temptation.  Deal in truth, not in abstract.  Everyone wins when you set the standard and then abide by it.