Leadership

Creative Leadership

Leadership is about influencing the behavior of others.  Don’t let your leadership behaviors get you in a rut.  If you’re efforts to improve organizational performance are not successful, try another approach.  Get creative.

You’ve probably seen this plaque:  “Unattended children will be given sugar cubes and a free puppy.”  In a simple and creative way the “leader” is influencing parents to keep track of their children or risk the consequences.  There is no confrontation, no progressive discipline process and no frustration. 

The next time you’re faced with frustration in your leadership efforts, try a simple, yet creative approach to improve employee and organizational performance.

Improving All Of Your Results…All At Once

 Revenue, profit, productivity, performance, etc.  Each of these is a measure of organizational performance.  Each of these is important to your organization and is a predictor of future organizational results.

However, there are two challenges with focusing on these measures in our efforts to improve results in our organizations.

First, most organizations generally consider these measures independently.  Meetings are convened to discuss “How can we improve our productivity?”  “What steps are we taking to triple sales in the Midwest region?”  And so on.  Considered independently, plans are implemented to drive one measure sometimes at the expense of another.  Or worse, efforts are made to increase these measures, but with different strategies.  Think of a car full of people, each with a different map, each giving different directions to the driver.

The second challenge with focusing on these measures is that we’re focusing on the wrong measures to begin with.  Sure, each of these is a measure and a predictor of results.  But, there is a measure that is more predictive of results and it has a high impact on each of the measures we’ve already discussed.  What is it?  Measure and improve the quality of the leadership strength in your organization and you’ll impact results in your organization like never before. 

Now, I know that as a business leader, or THE business leader, that I might be talking about YOUR leadership strength, but hear me out.  The fact is that if you can increase the leadership strength in an organization, all of the measures we discussed above can go up.  But, don’t take my word for it:

• Jim Collins in Good To Great talked about the 5 levels of leadership and his team’s extensive research on the topic. 
• Ken Blanchard developed Situational Leadership II to document the process of building peak performing leaders.  Some twenty years later, more than 400 of the Fortune 500 have tested the model in pre- and post-test assessments and found it to be very effective. 
• Marcus Buckinham’s research focused on talent as the most predictive factor in building a true strength.  In this case, finding and developing leadership talent will improve leadership effectiveness.  

The list goes on.

As your company emerges from the dark forest of the Great Recession, you’ll have a decision to make about what to focus on to build competitive advantage in this new landscape.  Sure, measure and focus on revenues, productivity and profits.  But, put building leaderhip strength at the top of your list and find the resources and the time to focus on THE factor that can drive all other factors.

Successful vs. Effective Leadership

In my work with clients over the years, one discussion comes up more than any other.  It’s the distinction between successful and effective leadership.

Let’s start at the beginning.  Leadership is necessary because one person cannot accomplish all that needs to be done.  There isn’t enough time.  Things have to happen simultaneously.  Specialized expertise is needed.  More input results in better ideas and decisions.  And, so on.  So, someone has to coordinate the work of others.

In my last post, I defined leadership as opposed to managing or coordinating.  Today, I want to focus on the distinction between successful leadership and effective leadership.

If you give out work assignments assignments and employees complete them, you’ve been successful.  One question to consider is why you have been successful.  Maybe employees did the work because they like the work.  Maybe they did the work because if they don’t do the work, it may, over time, put their employment at risk.  Maybe they did the work to make money to support their boat racing habit.  Who knows.  In any case, if they completed the work, you have been a successful leader.

But, have you been effective?  We acknowledged at the outset that leadership is necessary because one person can’t accomplish all the work that one person is responsible for, right?  For that reason, we need leaders who are more than successful.  We need leaders who are effective. 

Effective leaders are those who influence others to work on achieving organizational objectives even when the leader is off working on other areas of his/her responsibility.  In other words, employees will work toward achieving the organization’s objectives because they, like the leader, are committed to achieving the organizational objective.  When leaders are effective, they multiply their efforts and their results five to ten fold because they have influenced others that the organizational goal is worthy of their best effort.

What kind of leader are you?  Do you strive for success or effectiveness?

To learn more about the difference in organizational results for organizations with effective leaders, call or write for the details.

A Working Definition of Leadership

I define leadership as the act of influencing others toward organizational objectives.

Leadership requires influence.  If you’re managing a project, giving out assignments to team members and coordinating what items can be checked off the list, I’m not sure you’re really leading.  In the true leadership context, the definition of influence is to affect or to sway.  Team members may not be influenced by your direction as much as they are by the fact that they like the work or that there are consequences if they don’t do the work.  So, avoid automatically crediting management experience as leadership experience.

Secondly, leadership is the process of influencing others toward an organizational goal.  Leadership to achieve organizational objectives is necessary because the leader can’t do all the work him/herself.  Believe me, if it were possible, the leader would have done the work him/herself if they could have.  It’s easier than leading others to get the work done. 

Whether it’s the soccer team, a church committee or a manager and his/her employees, the purpose for our influence is to achieve an organizational objective.  Despite our different interests and motivations, the leader’s job is to get his/her followers to accomplish organizational objectives.  Unlike the weight loss class teacher who wants each person to achieve their own goal, true leadership requires pulling different people with different skill sets, diferent experience, different opinions and different motives together to accomplish organizational objectives.

Keep these distinctions in mind as you select and develop leaders in your organization.

Next up:  Successful vs. Effective leadership

Working Effectively With People Over Whom You Have No Authority

The secret to working effectively with people over whom you have no authority is based on working effectively with people in general.  There is a high level of correlation between organizations that have high levels of leadership effectiveness and the business results those organizations achieve.

If we have authority over someone, we have what’s called position power.  With position power we are able to influence the behavior of those we have authority over.  If the extent of our influence relies solely on our position power, we might, in fact, be successful.

For instance, if we use our position power to exercise our authority over someone and they comply, we have been successful.  The task was accomplished.  However, it is likely that this person will comply only because we have authority over them.  If we didn’t have authority over them, it would be likely that they would not comply.  Why does this happen?

The reason we are not likely to comply with what someone else tells us to do is because we live in an age where our first question to any instruction is often “Why?”  When someone asks us to write a report, we ask “Why?”  If we’re asked to attend a meeting, we ask “Why?”  When we’re asked to join or lead a team, we ask “Why?”

There are many reasons we ask why.  Here are three important reasons.  First, we use the answer to the “why” question to prioritize our efforts.  We have to balance the request with the other tasks we have to accomplish.  Second, we also want to know why because we want to believe that the task makes sense to us.  It helps us generate “buy in” for the plan.  Finally, we also know that we might have a better idea based on what we know about the situation.  So we “need” to know why.

How do we work effectively with people over whom we have no authority?  We must become not only successful, but also effective.

Effectiveness requires that we demonstrate to others that achieving the goal or completing the task is something in their interest regardless of whether or not we are wielding our authority.

For example, will your team members use the prescribed safety practices even when you’re not looking?  Will your employee double check the accuracy of his/her analysis even if you don’t double check it?  Will your employees accomplish the goal or achieve the standard because they believe the goal or the standard is now their goal and their standard.

The real key to working effectively with people is to influence their behavior toward the organizational objective whether or not we have authority over them.  Nowadays, most of us are in positions every day where we need to work with others to complete a task without any position power over them.  Without position power, all we have is influence.

Granted, influencing others toward a goal is harder to do than to simply rely on our position power.  “Do this or you’re fired” is quicker than “Can you see the benefit of doing the task in this way?”  However, influencing others toward an organizational goal is far more effective.  When those we lead take responsibility for completing tasks at a specified level of performance, they are more engaged and more committed to the task.

The goal is to drive improvements in performance, which directly lead to improved committee, team, division and organizational results.

Are You The Micromanager Your Employees Are Complaining About?

How would you react if your boss reminded you several times a day how to tie your shoes? Would your reaction be “Stop wasting my time” or “Don’t you have anything else to do?” Ask an employee who works for a micromanager and they will instantly know what that feels like. So, how does a manager become a micromanager? What are the impacts of micromanaging? How can it be fixed? What if the micromanager is you?

To start, let’s define a micromanager. A micromanager is a manager who uses a highly directive management style even when it’s not called for. A highly directive style is perfect in an emergency or when working with people new to a task. But, a highly directive style is not the most effective choice when leading people who perform tasks moderately well or extremely well. Unfortunately for employees, micromanagers believe a highly directive management style is always called for.

So, why does a manager become a micromanager? There are at least four reasons.

• First, their model for what a successful manager looks like may have been a micromanager from their past experience. They saw managers taking control and getting things done so they think they should emulate that successful, but less than effective, manager.
• Second, as I have studied micromanagers over the years, in their defense, they often can’t help it. Micromanagers are often “wired” to be highly directive. The same is true for delegating managers who delegate too much. We each come “wired” by our personalities and previous experience with a primary management style that we use most often. The goal is to make a conscious decision to use the
  most effective management style for each situation.
• Third, micromanagers often believe that only they can do the job right. And, in fact, they may be right. Of course, if the micromanager never allows anyone else to learn and do the job, no one else will ever do it “right.” 
• Finally, micromanagers often develop out of a lack of proper planning and effective management. If tasks are not planned out, assigned and followed up on, then the micromanager often has to do much of the work himself or herself.

The interesting thing about micromanagers is that they are sometimes groups of people.  If the board of directors you sit on approves purchases of office supplies for the organization, the board has become a micromanager of the organization. This is not some way out extreme example. I know of numerous organizations where this level of micromanaging by the board is routine. That’s a topic for another article.

Next, let’s consider the impact that the micromanager has on the organization.

For employees who work for the micromanager, there are two outcomes that result from being micromanaged:

• First, employees develop “learned helplessness.” The micromanager’s style causes an employee over time to give up their ability to take charge and complete tasks. The employee knows that the micromanager will come in and change whatever they did accomplish.  So, the employee mentally “gives up,” resulting in “Learned Helplessness,” a disease that infects organizations. 
• Secondly, employees stop demonstrating passion for their work.  It’s a defense mechanism that causes them to say “If my input will never be considered or if my completed work will always be changed, then why should I bother.” Employees feel like their contributions are not valued or trusted. The result is that you end up with employees who, like prisoners, are serving time instead of serving the needs of the organization.

For managers who have become micromanagers, there are at least two outcomes of their micromanaging style:

• First, micromanagers are racing toward burnout. Micromanagers feel that few tasks in their departments can be carried out without being personally involved. Their burnout may take the form of continued poor productivity, their resignation or even being fired.
• Far more significantly for managers, the major outcome of micromanaging is that, while the manager is mired in the details of  accomplishing other people’s tasks, he or she is missing the big stuff. Big stuff like analyzing sales profitability, performance to budget, industry trends, new products and key contacts that would bring more business. The micromanager is single-handedly limiting the ability of the department or the company from growing beyond their personal ability to manage the details.

So, how can a micromanager be “fixed?” In short, if you work for a micromanager that doesn’t make the changes that need to be made, my only advice to you is to find a new job. Life is too short.

What if the micromanager is you? Simply put, if you keep doing what you have been doing, you’ll continue to get the results you always gotten. Seek out the help of books, a trusted mentor to act as your coach, a management effectiveness workshop or other professional resources that have expertise in helping managers become more effective.

Changing the style that you’ve become accustomed to and found some success with will be difficult. But, with a strong desire to improve your management skills and lots of persistence, you can become a much more effective manager in a relatively short period of time.