By Jeffrey Ford, on June 14th, 2010,
Is it possible that our current approach to leadership is insufficient for creating and developing leaders? Given the amount of time and money that is spent on leader development, along with the number of books and articles that have been written on the subject, you would think that we would have a much better track record on producing high quality leaders by now. That we don’t have a better track record suggests that our understanding of leadership and our approach to its development may be misdirected, perhaps even misinformed.
Our current approach to leaders and leadership can perhaps best be crudely summarized as follows: “leaders are people who have particular qualities and engage in particular behaviors that result in their being people others choose to follow”. Leaders, for example, have charisma and inspire people with compelling visions. They “walk their talk” while enabling and empowering others to act to challenge the status quo and bring about a new future.
Based on this approach, and its many variations, our formula for developing leaders could be called the “Have-Do-Be Formula”. The application of this formula leads us to employ various training and development techniques to give leaders who wish to become more effective, or non-leaders seeking to become leaders, those qualities (the “have’s”) and practices (the “do’s”) which, if successfully employed, will result in their being leaders or more effective leaders. The challenge confronting academics, consultants, coaches, and trainers, therefore, is to identify THE “have’s” and “do’s” which truly define leaders and effective leadership and to successfully and effectively convey those to current and prospective leaders so that they too may exhibit them. That we have not yet identified this holy grail of “have’s and do’s” is evidenced by the countless number of books and articles released every year on the subject of leadership.
Given the pervasiveness of the “Have-Do-Be Formula”, why is it that we do not see far more dramatic results in the development of leaders and leadership? One explanation is that although we have made substantial progress, we still haven’t discovered the essential “have’s and do’s” of leaders and effective leadership. So the search goes on. A second explanation is that our training and development is not completely effective, so even though if we have found the essential “have’s and do’s”, we aren’t able to develop them fully in others. Yet a third explanation is that we are good at training people in the essential “have’s and do’s”, it just that they do not fully implement them.
No doubt there is some validity to each of these explanations. What is somewhat disturbing, however, is that none of these explanations focus on whether the underlying formula is valid. After years of teaching practicing managers and reading the literature on leadership, I have come to question the validity of the underlying model and no longer teach it in my MBA management classes.
The “Have-Do-Be Formula” assumes leaders and leadership exist independent of assessment and interpretation. That is, it assumes there ARE leaders and there IS leadership as an objective occurrence in the world that any competent observer can see and that differences in perceptions are either contextual differences or error variance. But what if we are not simply describing some objective state or condition, but are instead reporting on a contextualized interpretation based on some experience? That is, what if the “have’s and do’s” we believe lead to being a leader have nothing to do with being a leader or effective leadership, but are simply the result of our attempts to differentiate, after the fact, between people we call leaders and people we don’t? If this is the case, then we are treating the consequences of leadership and being a leader (i.e., the “have’s and do’s”) as the causes. What this means is that rather than a “Have-Do-Be Formula”, we would have a “Be-Do-Have Formula”.
What do you think?
By Jeffrey Ford, on May 12th, 2010,
How often have you heard (or made) one of the following complaints (or some variation thereof):
- We have a real communication problem here.
- They don’t tell us anything, and when they do tell us, it’s not much.
- They never give us enough information.
The absence or inadequacy of communication is one of the most frequently voiced complaints in the workplace. Perhaps the only complaint more frequently voiced is some version of “there is no leadership”. Interestingly, the complaint is always from people on the receiving end, never on the sending end. In fact, if you talk to leaders and managers, they are likely to tell you they are “always communicating” with people.
So, when it comes to communication in the workplace we have this interesting conundrum: leaders and managers insist they are communicating, but people on the receiving end insist they are getting no or poor communication. Is this simply an issue of misperception? In some cases, but misperception does not account for all of it. In fact, my research and experience indicates that misperception accounts for very little. The bigger factor is that managers don’t distinguish among the types of conversations they are using and whether they are using the appropriate conversations.
There are numerous articles that offer recommendations on how to improve workplace communication. One article, for example, proposes that managers change the style, method, content, timing, and frequency of their communications. Another article recommends such things as avoid gossiping, getting overly personal, or raising controversial subjects. Although these recommendations all contribute to more effective workplace communication, they all ignore one simple fact – not all conversations are the same. If managers use the wrong type of conversation, or use the right one inappropriately, getting the style, content, etc. right won’t make any difference. They will still be ineffective.
Many people erroneously believe that understanding is the source of action. Understanding may be necessary for action (e.g., you can’t sum a column of numbers if you don’t know addition), but it is not sufficient to get people to act (e.g., knowing how to add doesn’t mean you will tabulate the column of numbers). A result of this belief is that considerable attention is given to trying to improve the chances people will understand our communications. The assumption being that if people clearly understand and comprehend the communication, then they will behave in the desired manner.
Check it out for yourself. How many times have you “explained things again” when people didn’t do what was expected? Or how often have your heard (or said) something like “What didn’t they understand?” or “How could they not understand this?” I have found in my work with managers that when they don’t get what they expect, their explanations frequently become longer and more detailed. They earnestly believe that people didn’t do what was expected because they didn’t understand something. And if the longer explanation doesn’t work, managers blame the other person for being lazy, stupid, uncommitted, incompetent, etc. Rarely do managers consider that they may be using the wrong conversation to get what they want, or that if they are using the right conversation, they are using it inappropriately. Understanding is only one of four types of conversations used by managers.
There is only one type of conversation that reliably gets people into action and that’s a performance conversation. Performance conversations involve making requests and getting promises. Although there are a variety of ways (styles?) one can go about making requests and getting promises, they all boil down to asking the other person to take an action or produce a result within a specified time period. For example, “Will you schedule a brainstorming session of our lead designers for the last week of April?”
If what you want to accomplish is people taking a specific action or producing a specific result within some time period, then the appropriate conversation to use is a performance conversation. On the other hand, if you what you want is to inform people, develop a plan for accomplishing a goal or objective, or have them understand something, then the appropriate conversation to use is an understanding conversation. However, if you use an understanding conversation on the assumption it will lead to people taking specific actions or producing desired results, you and the people with whom you have the conversation are likely to be very disappointed. They will not know what actions or results you want or by when, and you will not get the actions and results you expect.
And what do you think the result of this disappointment will be? Well, among other things, they are likely to say “We weren’t told”, “The communication wasn’t clear”, or “We weren’t given the right information.” In other words, they will blame “poor communication”. You, on the other hand, may say something like “I don’t get it. I told them everything they needed. What more do they want?” In other words, you will say there was sufficient communication.
Sounds like the very conundrum we started with, doesn’t it?
By Jeffrey Ford, on April 21st, 2010,
How do you synchronize work when you can’t talk to each other? What allows people to know who you are and what you are accountable for if you can’t tell them? One way is through the use of “signage” which refers to the use of any kind of visual graphic created to display information to a particular audience. And when people ignore the signage, it can create problems, as I recently discovered.
Signage is a critical part of an effective infrastructure that allows for “silent” (non speaking) communication. We rely on signage every day to navigate through work. Signage is used to guide and direct traffic, get us into and out of buildings, and tell us which restroom we should use. Signage, in the form of uniforms, also makes it possible for us to know who we are talking to, who belongs to which group, and what people are accountable for. We depend on signage to help us coordinate work. Given our reliance on signage, therefore, it should not come as a surprise that failing to play attention to it can create performance breakdowns.
I work on a conference project where people are assigned to different teams. Each team has a particular accountability and must coordinate their part of the conference with others. One way we distinguish who is on which team is by the type of name tag they wear. That way, when the conference is happening, we can tell instantly who is suppose to be in certain places and who isn’t – all without ever talking.
In a way, it is like the way the teams on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier distinguish themselves by the color of their uniforms. Since the flight deck is loud, oral communication is not always possible or effective. And, because the deck is dangerous, it is imperative that coordination get done or people die. One way the Navy accomplishes the necessary coordination is through the use of colored uniforms.
Although the conference I work on is nothing like the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, effective coordination of it nevertheless requires being able to know who is who quickly, and in many cases, quietly. We do that though name tags.
Recently the client we do the conference for said that a new person was going to be at the conference doing work for them. “No problem”, we said, “what name tag will he wear?” Rather than answer the question, they proceeded to explain what he would be doing at the conference and why it would be important and valuable. They didn’t understand that we were asking a question about infrastructure and they answering a question about activity – they are not the same.
We didn’t want to know what he would be doing, we wanted to know how to “tag” him so that people at the conference could appropriately coordinate with him. We explained that if he wears a conference participant nametag, he will be related to in one way, but if he wears a conference worker nametag, he will be related to in another way. No one will ask (or even care) what activities he is engaged in other than as they relate to his name tag.
All this over a name tag????!!!!! Yes, because that is the power of infrastructure. It is one of the key elements we use in coordinating with the world and each other. I suspect that there are far more breakdowns and upsets related to issues of infrastructure that many of us imagine. In our case with the conference, the client had no idea they were violating a piece of infrastructure we rely on for coordination. Instead, they believed we were being resistant to the person (“You don’t like him?” they asked) and what he would be doing. Each time we would ask about the “name tag”, they would try to explain what he would be doing. We were not communicating and both sides were upset, but for different reasons.
I am beginning to wonder how much things like “resistance to change” or “poor performance” are a function of infrastructure breakdowns rather than motivation, leadership, commitment, etc. What do you think?
By Jeffrey Ford, on April 19th, 2010,
When it comes to improving productivity, our own or others, we frequently look to such things as motivation, commitment, leadership, incentives and rewards, and various other factors (obstacles?) for the answers. You know, I would be more productive if I was more motivated or committed, or if there was better leadership, or if the incentives
Continue reading On Building Infrastructure
By Jeffrey Ford, on April 5th, 2010,
I am occasionally asked by the managers in my classes, “How do I get my boss to do this stuff?” My answer is often the same, “Get interested in what they are interested in. Find out what they have their attention on, what they are concerned for, and what they are accountable for and then
Continue reading How Do I Get My Boss to Change?
By Jeffrey Ford, on March 1st, 2010,
I recently had the working managers in my MBA class on execution (as in implementation, not hanging) undertake an exercise to improve relationships with the people with whom they work. In particular, we were interested in whether or not they could improve their affinity (liking) for people they currently did not like very much. They
Continue reading Improving Relationships at Work
By Jeffrey Ford, on February 18th, 2010,
During a recent meeting with a group of managers from COSI in Columbus, OH, one of them asked about the role of inspired understanding in getting people to do things. She was proposing that the primary difference between effective managers and less effective leaders was that effective leaders presented their ideas in a more compelling
Continue reading Inspiration Is Not Enough
By Jeffrey Ford, on February 15th, 2010,
It is said that when Caesar invaded England, he burned his boats to let his men know that there was no way home. The only options were victory or death. For most of us, the idea of cutting off all retreat is unnerving. We like to keep our options open, to have a back door
Continue reading Burn the Boats
By Jeffrey Ford, on February 8th, 2010,
Have you ever heard someone say, “What we need around here is more accountability”? If so, you are in good company because accountability, how to get it, and why people don’t have more of it is a popular topic in today’s workplace.
I encounter this complaint from the managers in my MBA classes as well as
Continue reading The Two Sides to Getting “More Accountability”
By Jeffrey Ford, on February 4th, 2010,
Credibility is essential to being an effective leader. One of the most powerful ways to build credibility is to own up to something that didn’t work and apologize for it.
When Ed Koch was mayor of New York, he was concerned about the number of accidents resulting from bikers darting in and out of traffic. Determined
Continue reading Want More Credibility? Own Up and Apologize
|
Order Our Book Awarded "Best Management Book of 2009" by 800-CEO-READ.
Rated #5 "Best Business Book of 2009" by The Toronto Globe and Mail.
Great Managing Newsletter Great Managing is a newsletter for leaders and managers that is delivered twice monthly FREE to your email. Each issue provides a practical tip or technique that can be immediately put to use. For your free subscription, enter your email below.
|
