Implicit in contemporary approaches to leadership, particularly the leadership of change, is the assumption that leaders are a constructive force that have a positive impact on organization and employee performance.  As a result, the overwhelming emphasis in leadership research and development is on the factors associated with effective, successful, or constructive leadership. The implication in these approaches is that ineffective leadership is simply the absence of the factors associated with effective leadership.  But this is an inaccurate and incomplete view of leadership.

Under such terms as “abusive supervisors”, “petty tyrants”, “bad leadership”, “toxic leaders”, “intolerable bosses”, “derailed leaders”, and “brutal bosses“, researchers have investigated the “dark side” of leadership (Conger, 1990) and have found that leaders can and do take actions and engage in behaviors that are destructive to the organization and/or the people who work in them. This research indicates that that destructive leadership includes behaviors that go beyond simply the absence of effective leadership behaviors to include such actions as arbitrariness, belittling of others, lack of consideration, and a forcing style of conflict resolution.  Among the impacts of destructive leadership are such negative outcomes as reduced employee commitment and satisfaction, revenge and retaliation, lower performance and work unit cohesiveness, and high frustration, stress, reactance, and helplessness among subordinates.

Interestingly, some researchers propose it is possible for the same leaders to be constructive in one setting or situation and destructive in another (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007).  In my research on the leadership of change, it is apparent that leaders who are typically constructive can, during a change, engage in actions that are destructive to the change, the people implementing the change, and even to themselves.  Among the results of such actions are the loss of leader credibility and increased resentment, cynicism, and resistance to change by those implementing the change.  Ironically, the resistance to change leaders complain about may well be the product of their own destructive actions.

To fully understand leadership, particularly the leadership of change, requires we consider both sides of leadership and how they impact each other.  Idiosyncratic credit theory suggests that typically constructive leaders are likely to be forgiven for “destructive mistakes” that damage trust, particularly if they use closure conversations to acknowledge and apologize for the mistakes.  However, there may be a limit to how many destructive actions a constructive leader can take before it begins undermining their leadership.

Some References:

Conger, J. A. 1990. The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2): 44-55.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. 2007. Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18: 207-216.

Lombardo, M. M., & McCall, M. W. J. 1984. Coping with an intolerable boss. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.

McCall, M. W. J., & Lombardo, M. M. 1983. Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.

The difficulty with this equation is that we can achieve a result, in fact many results, some of which are difficult and challenging, and still have no sense or experience of accomplishment.  Just ask yourself, “What have I already done today?” You got dressed, went to your workplace, handled some email, went to a meeting, read a memo, made a phone call… and so on. These are all achievements.  In fact, we can’t make it through the day without dozens and dozens of achievements, many minor, some major.  So, with all your many achievements today, do you have a sense and experience of accomplishment or being accomplished (also a dictionary definition of accomplishment). Why not?

I propose that one answer is because the accomplishment has not been recognized and spoken.  Think about a time when you went all out to make something happen – a time you went beyond your normal behavior, and did things you hadn’t done before, or talked to people you didn’t normally talk to, and yet failed to achieve the result you were working for.  As a result, did you develop any new capacities?  Did you learn useful things about yourself you didn’t know before or about others?  Did you create any new relationships, communicate in ways you hadn’t before, or become more productive and efficient in some way?  Did you go beyond your comfort zone and break some of your own barriers?  If you answered yes to any of these questions, then there is an accomplishment that can be spoken, even when the achievement was not what you hoped it would be.

People are starving for accomplishment.  Studies repeatedly show that people feel unrecognized and under-appreciated for what they contribute at work.  This is not surprising given we equate achievement with accomplishment and ignore all the other things that have to happen to achieve an outcome.  Clearly we want to speak the accomplishment of achieving an intended goal, outcome, or result.  But it is possible to listen for and speak accomplishment in both successes and failures.  It is in listening for and speaking accomplishment that people are recognized and appreciated and come to experience what they have accomplished and is it these accomplishments that matter to people.

Accountability

Accountability begins when we agree to do something for someone else.  As soon as we accept a request and say, “Yes, I will”, we have made ourselves accountable to the other person for keeping our agreement with them.  Once we’ve said, “Yes”, we either keep our agreement or we don’t.

Most people want to perform well at work.  Few of us get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say to ourselves, “Today I am going to do the worst possible job I can and make the lives of everyone around me miserable.”  There may be a few “bad apples”, but most of us want to do a good job.  Unfortunately, doing a good job doesn’t always happen.

Sometimes we are late with assignments.  Sometimes our work is incomplete.  And sometimes our work is inaccurate or of poor quality.  Unfortunately, the people to whom we deliver our work don’t always tell us.  How often do you tell people they are late, their work is incomplete, or of poor quality?

If you are like most people, rather than say anything – rather than provide honest feedback and have the accountability conversation – you make accommodations.  You fix the mistakes, do the missing work, or have someone else redo the work.  The result is that you continue to get late, incomplete, and inaccurate work.

Getting Pushback

One reason we are hesitant to provide honest feedback is that we do not want to deal with the “pushback”, which can sometimes get emotional.  I recently returned exams to a group of 140 MBA students in the Working Professional MBA program.  They had done very poorly on the exam and so when I returned the exams, I told them to notice their reaction to the results. “Notice whether you want to blame me,” I said, “or whether you are willing to consider that the grade is a reflection of YOUR performance.”  I was concerned that they would dismiss the feedback and miss the learning opportunity.

Some students claimed that, “I studied hard and have a high grade point average”, suggesting that Jeffrey’s grades were an inaccurate estimate of their study skills or capabilities.  Other students pointed out, “The whole class did poorly, so it must have to do with the teacher,” a valid point.  Still others went silent and essentially withdrew from the discussion.

Most of the reaction to receiving straight and honest feedback about their performance was to invalidate that feedback.  “No”, they say, “this is not feedback on MY performance. This is more a commentary on you and the way you teach.”  As the cliché goes, they wanted to kill the messenger for the message.

Why Bother

The student reactions are consistent with what happens in organizations every day. The negative pushback is a primary reason that managers dislike doing performance reviews and giving direct and honest feedback. They, like Jeffrey, catch flak for it, making it uncomfortable to have the conversation and fend off the attacks.

As one manager told me, “Why Bother?  If I give people anything other than praise and appreciation, I will have upset people who are going to argue with me. They are more interested in being right than in developing themselves to be better performers.”

When people receive feedback indicating their performance is deficient in some way, they can lose sight of the fact that they once wanted to learn, grow, and develop themselves. Suddenly, the most important issue is to preserve their dignity and avoid looking bad to other people.

People want to be well regarded, respected, and seen as competent.  Of course, they want to avoid being embarrassed, or have someone question their ability. It is natural to try to explain poor performance, or give reasons for lateness or low quality results.

The challenge is to find a way to return people to remembering the good intention behind even negative-sounding feedback: we want to use the facts of our results today to help us improve our results in the future.

I use an article in my class called, “The Folly of Rewarding A while Hoping for B” by Steve Kerr.  When we say we want to support people in being better performers, but then reward them for just getting by, that’s a folly that undermines accountability.  Great managers who want high performance and accountability will take the trouble to give honest feedback, in service of developing the people in their charge.

Consider the case of Paul (you met him earlier in http://professorford.com/2010/02/01/is-demanding-%E2%80%9Cnow%E2%80%9D-undermining-leadership/).  He has consistently had problems with his boss not setting deadlines and calling things “high priority”.  From where Paul sits, this habit is frustrating, inefficient, and ineffective.  So he wants his boss to stop doing it and start having more complete performance conversations in which deadlines are established and agreements for actions and results clearly established.  Now, unlike many people who just complain about their bosses, Paul has actually talked to his boss about the issue, but without success.

In the face of his failure, Paul asked, “I need to come up with an angle/pitch that proves unequivocally that the form of “high priority” manipulation my boss uses is inefficient.  I need to detail a “process” to help him make better requests more efficiently. Any thoughts, resources, and editorial skills are welcome.”

I told him, “If it were me, I would want to know what my boss is concerned about, what he is accountable for and how he wins at his game.  Inefficiency may not be his thing in which case you are showing him something he may not care about. The thing that is likely to interest him is if you can show him that his actions are actually working to limit him getting what he wants or cares about.”

No matter how insane, inane, or just plain stupid the actions of a boss may seem to us, those exact same actions look reasonable, appropriate, and potentially effective from the boss’s point of view.  Bosses and the people who work for them live in different worlds – what looks “wrong” in our world looks “right” in theirs.  So, if you want to understand more about why bosses do what they do, you will want to learn more about what the world looks like to them rather than judge them from a world they do not inhabit – ours.

Paul raised an interesting issue: “Maybe that is the problem in of itself.  Maybe my requests to understand his concerns are not good enough.  It feels that when the topic comes up I am rebuffed more than answered.  I will have to think some more on that.  Maybe the simple answer is that my request is just not understood?”

What I like about Paul’s response is that he is beginning to consider that maybe he has something to do with how his boss is acting.  Rather than put all the blame on his boss, or make what his boss is doing wrong, Paul is looking at one of the things he can personally control – his own communications.

I told Paul, “Perhaps he doesn’t understand why you would want to know what they [his concerns, etc.] are. There are at least two reasons someone might want to know my concerns – to support me or to thwart me.  Since most people don’t seem to care about the concerns of others, it can be seen as strange and create suspicion and guardedness.  The key would be to make it clear you are his partner in winning and that your only interest is to support him in winning at what he needs to win at.  Any other reason is worthy of suspicion.  If any of this were the case for him, then the approach would be a closure conversation to acknowledge the past attempts and your concern that your interest may have seemed out of place and apologize for that.  Then let him know it was out of an interest in support and that you still have that and if he is willing to share with you, you promise your support, thereby creating a new agreement with him [or something like that].”

Bosses are interested in winning at the game they are accountable for to their bosses, and anything we do that does not support them in that is seen as a hindrance, a distraction, or unnecessary.  Paul’s wanting deadlines is something he wants, not something his boss necessarily sees as valuable no matter how often Paul tries to explain it to him.  However, if through the use of deadlines, Paul can have his boss win, his boss is more likely to see the value in deadlines.  Paul now has a choice, complain about the way his boss works, or become a partner to his boss and use what he (Paul) knows to have his boss win.  If what Paul has to offer has value, the proof will be in the results.

Paul wants his boss to use deadlines rather than calling everything “high priority”.  One way of accomplishing that is to partner with his boss.  Now he has to decide if he wants to do that, or if he just wants to BMW (bitch, moan, and whine) about his boss – could be a tough choice!

There are lots of reasons why we don’t like some people at work: they don’t treat us or others the way we think they should, they create problems for us and others, they don’t do what they say they will, and so on.  For the most part, these differences don’t create problems for us and we can go on about our work without much difficulty.  But occasionally the fact that we don’t like them, or the things they do, gets in our way.  It is at these times that our lack of affinity for them actually works against us; our effectiveness is reduced, our stress increases, and we lose our sense of humor.  Work gets harder and more unpleasant and it takes longer and more effort to get things done.  And, we blame them.

What we fail to consider in all this is that it is OUR lack of affinity for them that is an issue.  It is not surprising that we treat people we like differently than the people we don’t. Nor is it surprising that we use the fact we like or dislike someone as a justification for how we treat them.  When asked why we do or don’t do things for others, we are likely to respond (if truthful) “I like/don’t like them”.   We act as if they are responsible for our liking or disliking them; that it is their fault we don’t have much affinity for them.  As a result, we believe that unless and until they change, our relationship with them has little chance of improving.  We are not responsible.

Like most people, the managers in my MBA class bought into this line of reasoning.  That is, until they did an exercise in which each one of them wrote a letter to three people they didn’t particularly like.  In the letter, they were to write out exactly what they would say to the person to authentically:
1. Acknowledge the person for something they had done but which the manager had not acknowledged, e.g., completing a project on time;
2. Appreciate something about the person, e.g., a good sense of humor;
3. Apologize for a mistake or misunderstanding the manager was responsible for but had not owned up to, e.g., not providing clear directions on an assignment; and
4. Amend an agreement that had been broken but had been stepped over, e.g., an agreement to meet on a weekly basis which wasn’t kept.

What surprised each and every manager was that they had more affinity for the person after they wrote the letter than before.  They discovered that it was their interpretations, assessments, evaluations, and conclusions about the other person that was the source of their liking or disliking them, not the other person.  They realized that they could be responsible for their affinity toward others and that if they were willing, they could shift that affinity.  What they found most exciting was that they could potentially improve their working relationships with other people if they were willing to authentically engage in something as simple as acknowledging, appreciating, apologizing, and amending agreements with them.

No doubt, inspired understanding can get people excited and energized, and there are numerous books and websites that focus on being an inspirational leader.  But inspired understanding is not enough.  If it were, Obama and other inspirational leaders would be far more effective and successful than they are.  If leaders want reliable action from others they will need requests and accountability.

One of the biggest mistakes leaders make is to assume that when people understand something, they will take the appropriate actions on their own.  That somehow the excitement and engagement that comes from being inspired will automatically translate into effective action.  Unfortunately, understanding, even inspired understanding, does not cause reliable action.  During the 2008 Presidential campaign, there was considerable speculation whether the younger voters who were inspired by Obama would, in fact, vote.  This speculation shows that the link between inspired understanding and action is not direct or tight.

How many times have we attended meetings, conferences, or seminars in which we were inspired by what was said and then left the event and did nothing?  We may have talked about how great the event was, or even what difference it would make if people did the things that were talked about, but then still did nothing.  Or, maybe some of us did take action.  Maybe we were one of the one’s who saw the value and importance in what was said and initiated some actions on our own only to find that no one else was.  No, inspired understanding is not enough.

If leaders want action, reliable action, then the way to get people into action is by having performance conversations in which they make requests and then holding people accountable for their promises through closure conversations. The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) conducted a study to determine under what conditions people are most likely to complete a task. Their results indicate that people are six times more likely to do something when they promise actions, results, or outcomes to someone else (65%) than when they just hear a good idea (10%).  And they are almost certain (95%) to complete a task when they have a scheduled appointment where they will be held to account for their promise.

Requests provide people with an opportunity to take specific actions that forward the accomplishment of something that may, or may not, inspire them.  Well formulated requests let people know what is wanted and needed, when it is wanted and needed, and why it matters.  Getting people inspired and not making a request gets everyone buzzed, but gives them no outlet for the energy.  As the ASTD study shows, leaders who assume inspired understanding is sufficient will be frequently disappointed.  People may “feel good” about the leader and the message, but little will happen.

But requests must come with accountability.  Accountability is built in the interactions between people in which they account for the status of the promises they made to each other.  As the ASTD study shows, if this accounting does not happen, there is a substantial reduction in the likelihood people will do what they promised.  As a result, leaders lose credibility and trust by failing to follow through on their requests.

Inspired understanding clearly can energize people.  But if leaders want reliable and appropriate actions, they will combine inspired understanding with requests and accountability.  Otherwise, they run the risk of becoming “motivational speakers” people like listening to, but do nothing with what they hear.

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 to solve the problem, he had “bike lanes” painted on the sides of city streets. But instead of making things better, the bike lanes actually made things worse. Drivers, undeterred by the double yellow lines identifying bike lanes, crossed them so frequently that police could not write enough tickets, and accidents involving bikers increased. As a result, Mayor Koch had the bike lanes removed, ending a futile exercise that cost the city millions of dollars.

Plenty of editorial space was given to criticizing the blunder and Koch’s poor judgment. Reporters, looking for blood, sought interviews with the beleaguered mayor. In one television interview he agreed to, which was scheduled to last thirty minutes, the host was armed with a list of questions that were sure to make Koch look bad. The host began by asking, “Mayor Koch, you spent millions of taxpayer dollars to paint those bike lanes only to remove them. That tax money could have gone to valuable social services. What do you have to say for yourself?”

Pausing, Mayor Koch replied, “You’re absolutely right. It was a huge mistake. I made the wrong decision, and I apologize.” The host, stunned by the mayor’s response, gathered herself and proceeded through her list of questions, each of which was an accusation of some kind. To each accusation, Mayor Koch gave a similar response, admitting the mistake and apologizing for it. The interview lasted for only five of the scheduled thirty minutes after which the topic was dropped, never to be raised again.

Mayor Koch’s success in this interview demonstrates the power of what we call Closure Conversations. By acknowledging the facts that New Yorkers already knew—that the bike lanes were an idea that didn’t work—and then apologizing for it, Mayor Koch completely disarmed the issue and brought it to a close. In the process, he restored some of his credibility and the confidence New Yorkers had lost in his stewardship of the city.

Closure Conversations can restore credibility and confidence, reduce resentment, build accomplishment and accountability, add velocity to projects, and increase the engagement of participants and potential participants.  Try them – they work.

[From “The Four Conversations: Daily Communication that Gets Results” by Jeffrey and Laurie Ford, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, p. 131-2]

Most of us have experiences similar to those reported by Chiang.  I once order some electronic marketing materials online with a “money back guarantee”.  When I downloaded it and found it did give me what I wanted,  I emailed and called the seller – multiple times.  At no time did he respond (sorry, I don’t remember the  seller’s name), so I finally contacted my credit card company, went through their processes, and eventually got my money back. Interestingly, even though I don’t remember the seller, I do remember one of the people who endorsed him (whom I also contacted and who didn’t respond) and I will no longer consider his products either.  Unfortunately, not only do the people who “don’t respond” hurt themselves, they cast a shadow of doubt over everyone else in the business.

But “no response” is not limited just to businesses.  How many people do you send replies to when they send you something important?  How many people tell you when they got the report, the email, the proposal, or any number of other things you invested in providing them?  Is your opinion of them higher or lower as a result?

I, like most people, get plenty of emails.  Some are simply “fyi”, whereas, others want me to do something.  In each case, I read the email to determine if it is something they need to know “I got it” and, if so, respond accordingly.  I am not yet 100% reliable, but I am working on it because I think it makes a difference to the other person.  I like knowing when people get what I send them, so I assume they would like to know as well.

If you go into any workplace, what you will see is people doing things.  They are talking to each other, walking from one place to another, working on their computers, sitting in meetings, etc.  In short, what you see is people and their behavior.  What you don’t see are such context factors as the hierarchy of authority (titles and reporting relationships), workflow, accountability, trust, personal relationships, goals and objectives, or most of the other things that happen “in between” people.  People and behavior are in the foreground, context factors are in the background.

Why does this matter?  Because it leads to what is called the “fundamental attribution error” in which observers overattribute behavior to the dispositional factors (e.g., attitudes, emotions, motivations, skills, traits) of people rather than to contextual factors.  I can see you and your behavior, but I can’t see all the context factors or how they are impacting you.  As a result, when you do something – more often when you don’t do something – I look to you and you alone for the explanation.  I assume it has something to do with your commitment, your attitude, your motivation, your competence, whether you care, etc.  I don’t look to me and our relationship, or to the myriad things you have to deal with, or any of the factors going on between you, me, and others.  In short, your behavior is a function of you and you alone.

The impact of making this “error” is that if I want you to behave in some different way, for example, being more accountable, then I will try to alter your disposition in some way.  I might send you to training, talk to you about the value of being accountable in an attempt to motivate you to be more accountable, or any number of other things to change your disposition.  What I won’t do, however, is consider other context explanations, such as our conversations, and whether your being accountable is a function of the requests I make and whether I consistently follow up on them.

In my MBA class on management, I assign the book “Leadership and Self Deception” (I strongly recommend it).  Its and easy and engaging book in which the “hero” of the story discovers he has been interacting with people based on erroneous attributions, how and why he made those attributions, and the impact the errors have had on his leadership.  What I find particularly interesting is that students don’t want to talk about how they make similar attribution errors and how to overcome them.  They want to talk about how then can stop their boss or the people around them from making the error!

That was the second part of my insight – the fundamental attribution error is extremely persistent.  Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, people will continue making the same attribution error.  In other words, telling people, even demonstrating to people, that they are making an error, an error that has negative real life consequences, they will persist in the error.

For years I have wondered why it was that even though countless of articles and experts have said it is not possible to motivate others, that motivation is an internal state, managers persisted in wanting to know “How can I motivate them?” I now see an answer – they believe behavior is a function of disposition, not context, and anything said to the contrary is ignored.  That belief makes my job harder and reduces the opportunity for breakthroughs in leader effectiveness.