In a comment Monday Denis asked, “What do the people you hire tell about your leadership style?”

The short answer has been around a long time in one form or another.

Good leaders (managers) hire people smarter than themselves and don’t feel threatened by people who are better at given tasks.

The people you hire tell more about who you are than just your leadership style; they are a reflection of  your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) and your confidence.

No matter what the reality, the more insecure a leader/manager feels the weaker the people he hires.

At lower levels, you find that those less willing to delegate rarely hire people with skills similar to their own.

Just as your friends reflect your thoughts, attitudes, beliefs and prejudices, so do those you hire. If you want to know who someone is, just look at who they hang with and who they hire, but not who they date and marry.

All bets are off when love/lust enters the picture.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: sxc.hu

It seems that more and more people these days confuse accountability and consequences with ultimatums and punishment.

I thought it would be a good idea to sort this out, since the former is a part of a strong, healthy culture, while the latter is a major factor in an abusive one.

Accountability stems from the public nature of an action, whether planned or unplanned, and usually includes an unstated request for support and a greater incentive to follow through because others know (the reason for making it public).

Weight Watchers offers accountability and support through its public nature.

Consequences are the result of an action; they may be good, bad or depend on your view of the situation.

In other words, cause and effect—doing A results in B.

• The consequence of studying hard is a good grade on the test.
• The consequence of writing a check with insufficient funds in your account is having it bounce.
• The consequence of not immediately responding to an email may be neutral for you and frustrating for the sender.

Even if you don’t like the idea of consequences there’s no way to stop them. Everything you do, say, even thing has at least one effect if not more.

Business, obviously, is a hot bed of cause and effect—both little and large and often a domino effect.

The vp of engineering announces that the new product will be ready for the big trade show.

Accountability!

But…

The developer out for a week of jury duty is late finishing her part of the project, which slows the team and the project itself is late. Just-in-time purchasing finds a crucial part that was available at the original deadline is now on back order slowing the project still more; by the time the parts arrive manufacturing is in the middle of a scheduled software upgrade that can’t be interrupted, which forces marketing to use a prototype instead of a production version for a crucial trade show making it more difficult for the sales team to convince customers that the product will ship when they need it.

Consequences!

Everybody knows that actions have consequences and you lose credibility if you claim there are none, but consequences have nothing to do with punishment.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

As you probably know there are hundreds of ways to mess up a culture and a lack of authenticity is one of the big ones.

There’s a lot about written about authenticity, but are you aware that one of the quickest ways to announce your lack of authenticity is to issue ultimatums?

Thousands of times a day, day after day, bosses in every industry, in companies both large and small, issue “or else” ultimatums, sometimes without even realizing it.

These threats aren’t always direct (Do it or start looking.), more often, they are subtle (“I expect employees who work here to be team players.”), but the threat is there: Do X if you want to keep your job.

Obviously, this is not only atrocious management, since

• threats are tremendously debilitating to those receiving them, often costing them the confidence to do their job; but
• the manger who uses threats loses the most—the credibility to run the organization.

Bad enough, but beyond the direct effect of the threats, there is a ripple effect that is far worse—the seeding of a self-propagating culture of intimidation—as with hazing people start thinking, “I’ll do it to you because the person above did it to me [and I want to get even].”

Ultimatums kill creativity, innovation, motivation, caring, ownership, in fact, everything it takes to create a culture that allows a company to successfully compete in today’s economy.

If intentional you need to look long and hard at your MAP and decide if that’s who are and how you want to be, then change—or not.

When not intentional, ultimatums are often the result of poor communications but they can be stopped—the choice is yours and yours alone.

If you do it you can change it.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

Leaders, with a few industry exceptions, have noticed that the economy is in trouble (duh), but they still seem to think that their people don’t know the facts (double duh).

Sadly, too many bosses, from Fortune 100 companies to mom and pop-owned small businesses, are clamping down, saying nothing, running scared, freezing, blustering, or some combination thereof.

The result is management by rumor, which once started never ends.

The way to deal with bad news is directly, openly and honestly.

Even when you have to lay off this axiom applies; in fact, it’s the only way that gives your company any chance of emerging with the rest of your workforce intact and productive.

Here are six basics to keep uppermost in your mind—Whether they are comfortable or not!

1. Bad news must be communicated—just like good news.
2. Employees aren’t dumb—they know something bad is happening—and if they’re not explicitly told what it is, rumors will make any difficulty a catastrophe and a catastrophe a death knell.
3. Management must be explicit about the ultimate potential consequences. In a situation that’s unfolding, such as the current economic crisis, when no one knows what’s ultimate or can predict when it will change, frequent updates are effective.
4. Everyone hates uncertainty, which is all you have to offer at present. Analyzing and then explaining the worst case outcome as well as what you’re doing to counter it and how your people can contribute goes a long way to stabilizing people and gaining their buy-in to your plans.
5. Successful plans are dependent on how well they are communicated, which is what determines employee buy-in; if you choose the delusional approach of minimizing the situation then you should expect minimal results.
6. Share the outcome of your thinking, whatever it is—layoffs, plant closures, project cancellations, etc. If you don’t trust your people with the information your problems are even more serious than you realize.

Any solution to a crisis must be seen as fair, reasonable, and businesslike. If management’s reaction is illogical, petty, slipshod, unrealistic, draconian or any combination of these, then it’s likely employees will conclude the ship is about to sink and leap off.

People understand that difficult situations demand difficult remedies, and they appreciate that management must at times step up to harsh challenges. But if solutions are irrationally or whimsically applied, they become a demoralizing factor, increasing the difficulties that people encounter in trying to do their jobs.

Finally, you should always attempt to find a positive note to leave with employees. Everyone already knows that things are bad; it’s your job to find a potentially favorable course of action.

Just remember, you hired your people for their brains, so don’t expect them to suddenly go dumb. Employees easily spot propaganda masquerading as a solution. Predicting an impossibly favorable outcome will not only demean management, it can also result in a lawsuit.

Image credit: sxc.hu

I only received one response to my query last week and it was positive, so here again are three food-for-thought links. I wouldn’t want you to run out of stuff to do this weekend.

First up is a post from Denis, who starred in my post, A Follower Leads. Denis is a senior software developer who says he isn’t a great follower, but he’s not a manager and doesn’t seem to see what he does as ‘leading’. The other day he wrote about Group Coherence/Common Purpose—one of the best explanation/discussion I’ve seen on the topic. I think Denis a leader, what do you think?

Next is from HBS Conversation Starter, a favorite source of mine, not so much for the posts as for the responses from readers (which are the whole point). This one is by Peter Bregman, CEO of Bregman Partners, Inc., who offers up what he considers the ultimate interview question—“After you have narrowed the pool of applicants down to those with the skills, experience, and knowledge to do the job, ask each candidate one question: What do you do in your spare time?” I hope that if you join the conversation, you repost your comment here.

Last, but not least, is a link to yet another Harvard offering. It’s the abstract of a paper called Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions. It discusses how “Neuroscience reveals what distorts a leader’s judgment. Here’s how you can keep your own judgment clear.” The teaser is interesting, but you’ll have to decide for yourself whether to buy the entire paper.

OK, that should keep you busy for an hour or so. Have fun the rest of the time!

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

Another day, another leadership book. I sometimes wonder how far around the earth they would stretch if laid end to end. Most have viable lessons, useable by everyone, not just the person running the show.

Many of the attitudes, actions and lessons learned and offered are similar, but each seeks a teaching mechanism that will catch and hold your interest.

Not an easy task in a time of information abundance.

Chris Warner and Don Schmincke manage to do it in High Altitude Leadership.

It’s not that their leadership guidance is new, but the presentation is riveting.

I like it because it directly addresses MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) and offers examples from a world where screwing up easily results in death—real death as in gone from the world, not the company.

Amazing how different the advice feels when viewed through the lens of the “death zone,” i.e., the top altitude of the planet’s tallest mountains where mistakes are usually fatal.

“In achieving peak performance as a high-altitude leader, you also risk death. It could be the death of a career, project, team or company, or in extreme situations, someone’s physical death. Learning the best way to succeed comes from studying the death zone.”

Chris Warner is founder of Earth Treks (indoor climbing centers) and has led more than 150 international expeditions.

Don Schmincke started as a scientist and engineer who became a management consultant after realizing that most management theories fail to work.

There are eight dangers in the death zone and, although the authors stress that it’s the high altitude leaders that face the same eight dangers, I think that everybody faces them every day and in all facets of their lives.

The dangers are

1. Fear of Death
2. Selfishness
3. Tool Seduction
4. Arrogance
5. Lone Heroism
6. Cowardice
7. Comfort
8. Gravity

Not really new information, but when seen in the light of the death zone they have a very different impact.

High Altitude Leadership is an exciting, sometimes hair-raising read (even when the transference to business doesn’t work well) that will get you thinking whether you’re heading a Fortune 50 or trying to raise your kids. It’s a book that helps you see the problems in your own MAP.

What the book doesn’t offer are easy, paste on solutions—changing how you think means changing your MAP which is doable, but not easy.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Jane Wesman PR

Six weeks ago I started Seize Your Leadership Day; each post had info and links to resources or articles I felt would interest/be or use to you.

Based on your reaction to date, it’s been of little use to you—a giant yawn.

So I thought I’d ask you directly, do you like the feature?

If so, is the content I find of use to you or does it need refining?

If not, what would you like to see here on Saturdays?

Please don’t be shy. The worst thing for any blogger is to ask for guidance from readers and not get any. Makes us wonder if anyone is reading.

In the meantime, Here are a couple of goodies for today.

Margaret Heffernan’s two most recent posts (1/6 and 13) are the start of a series and offer smart, real-life examples on dealing with the recession. As Heffernan says,

“Think of recessions as tests. Companies that fail them die. Companies that survive live to fight another day. But a few companies emerge stronger than ever.”

They’re short, with solid lessons and ideas for you to start using immediately.

Another useful reminder for recession managing comes in an 18 month old article in Business Week on the value of failure in achieving success. It’s more important in today’s economy than it was then, because without a safe environment in which to fail there can be no innovation and a company without innovation is a company on the slippery, downward slope to mediocrity—or worse.

I hope they’re of use to you.

Don’t forget to leave your thoughts and preferences for Saturday subjects as requested earlier. If you’d rather send them for privacy, you can reach me at miki@RampUpSolutions.com (please put Leadership Turn in the subject line to avoid filters).

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

Dan McCarthy writes a great blog over at Great Leadership; we don’t always agree, but I always learn something from reading him.

He recently wrote one with which I disagree, but I see the same topic over and over, so I thought I’d offer up my two cents on the it.

The post lists “styles of leadership” and the types of people on whom they work best; generally these lists refer to how managers, i.e., bosses, handle their people.

In short, there are four styles of situational leadership

1. Directing Leaders define the roles and tasks of the ‘follower’, and supervise them closely.
2. Coaching Leaders still define roles and tasks, but seeks ideas and suggestions from the follower.
3. Supporting Leaders pass day-to-day decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to the follower.
4. Delegating Leaders are still involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is with the follower.

and six styles categorized by emotional intelligence competencies

1. Coercive: This “Do what I say” style demands immediate compliance.
2. Authoritative: This style mobilizes people toward a vision.
3. Affiliative: This “people-first” style engenders the creation of emotional bonds and team harmony.
4. Democratic: This style builds consensus through participation.
5. Pacesetting: This style expects excellence and self-direction.
6. Coaching: This style focuses on personal development.

I’m sure you’ve seen this discussed before. Wayne Liew’s question sums up the problem I have with the whole idea of “leadership styles.”

He asked, “In your opinion, is it possible for someone to have all the leadership styles that you have listed above? I know it’s hard but if it is possible, would you recommend someone to focus more on perfecting one of the styles or to branch out?”

As Shakespeare said, “There’s the rub.”

It’s not just that different people require different approaches, but that what Joe needs changes not only based on the situation and subject, but also on where Joe’s head is at that moment.

And the ability to assess all that is what separates those who do from those who try.

Whether you call them leaders, managers, leadagers or something else, the real brilliance isn’t in what their style is it’s in the instant, unconscious ability to evaluate each of their people and proceed in the way that works best at that moment.

My final problem with these labels is that the only time they can be applied is after the fact.

At least I’ve never met a manager who thinks along the lines of “I need to talk to Joe about the widget in his design and I think that my best approach would be affiliative, with a hint of authoritative and a fall back position of democratic, but leaning towards coaching.”

In the long run, I find that people use the styles that are most synergistic with their MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™). Of course it’s possible stretch to styles that aren’t comfortable, but to do so requires stretching/changing your MAP or else you risk sounding like a fake.

What about you? What’s your take on leadership styles?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: scx.hu

I adore Bette Midler. I like her singing and acting, but mostly I love her chutzpah, humor, and all around sense of life; she’s feisty and independent—all traits that I respect enormously and do my best to emulate.

Now, without more ado, I present a few choice Midlerisms.

On Personal Development:

“Cherish forever what makes you unique, ‘cuz you’re really a yawn if it goes.” (Yup. There’s only one of me—past, present and future.)

“I made a pact with myself a long time ago: Never watch anything stupider than you. It’s helped me a lot.” (That sure eliminates a lot.)

On Sex and Politics

“If sex is such a natural phenomenon, how come there are so many books on how to?” (Isn’t sex part of life coaching?)

“I haven’t left my house in days. I watch the news channels incessantly. All the news stories are about the election; all the commercials are for Viagra and Cialis. Election, erection, election, erection — either way we’re getting screwed!” (Amen!)

On Responsibility

“Self-esteem is something you have to earn! The only way to achieve self-esteem is to work hard.” (You mean it’s not the result of singing “I am special…” in kindergarten?)

“People have an obligation to live up to their potential.” (Check. More hard work.)

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

What does Yahoo’s new CEO Carol Bartz have in common with incoming President Barack Obama?
While they are superb choices as managers and as leaders,

1. both are entering their respective stages at a time of crisis;
2. both have multiple and diverse constituencies;
3. both are the focus of extremely high, often conflicting, sometimes impossible expectations; and
4. both are subject to substantial outside influences, circumstances and pressure.

Hopefully both will succeed, but the real lesson to be learned here is in the list of commonality and what they do.

Not because of the obvious difficulties, the scope of challenges or even enormous pressures, but because these four points are what every person in charge faces—from multinational CEOs through small biz owners and managers at every level to parents. In many ways the scope isn’t even all that different, relatively speaking.

It’s like cooking. You can take a recipe for two, multiply by X and feed an army.

Which makes this the opportunity of a lifetime.

Look at your world, professional and personal, and analyze it based on the four points above and sort accordingly. Then watch the actions of these two role models.

For instance, Obama spent substantial time before the election and all his time since talking with a wide variety of people and gathering a diverse amount of information from all quarters—including just plain people—in order to be as fully briefed as possible to the situations he’ll inherit on January 20th.

Bartz plans to gather diverse intelligence from all stakeholders and doesn’t seem interested in just kowtowing to those with power.

“But for the moment, she doesn’t even seem to care [about a Microsoft deal]. She told journalists to stop already with the speculation and advice, and explained that she would take her time listening to employees and customers before making any big decisions.”

Ask yourself, how often do you take on a situation by doing instead of listening, analyzing and thinking first?

Plan on watching these two, learning from what they do and applying that knowledge to your own situations—kind of long-distance mentoring.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: