Introduction
In his book, “The Circle of Innovation” (1999), Tom Peters writes about the “white-collar revolution.” He believes that a confluence of factors – including a streamlining of business processes, technology that replaces jobs, an increase in outsourcing to foreign countries, and an age of entrepreneurialism where more and more people see themselves as free agents – are combining in such a way that over 90 percent of all white-collar jobs will be radically different or won’t exist at all in ten to fifteen years. [1, 225]
While the timing of his prediction may have been premature, it is apparent that many of these factors are beginning to impact our world. Whether it is outsourcing to foreign countries, increased productivity from new mobility devices, or the inexorable movement to “cloud” computing – the nature and number of white-collar jobs are changing.
What does that mean for you? How are you going to find a job in this new marketplace? What are you going to do to survive in this new economic order? While I do not have the complete answers to these questions, I would like to provide you with a primer on how to build, enhance, and protect your career. As Keith Ferrazzi writes: “Our careers aren’t paths so much as landscapes that need to be navigated” [1, 17]. This primer is for those in transition and for those currently employed. It is not intended to be an exhaustive career development guide. Rather, it is an attempt to provide you with a clear, concise plan of action that will increase the likelihood of greater success in your career.
This plan of action – characterizing, connecting, and communicating – involves a significant amount of work. Just as gardening requires you to sow, water, fertilize, weed, and harvest – your career strategy requires that you plan, feed, tend, and reap the benefits of your job efforts. This primer is not a guarantee. It merely sets forth a set of wise principles that more often than not, yield success. I am mindful of what James writes in his epistle:
“Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.’ Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that’” (James 4:13-15).
I hope that this primer provides you with a valuable resource for building, enhancing, and protecting your career.
Characterizing (Brand Yourself)
If I were to place a “swoosh” in front of you, how many of you would struggle to identify the “swoosh” as belonging to Nike? If you saw a billboard with black and white-spotted cows (whether or not there was any writing), how many of you would immediately know that the billboard is from Chick-fil-A? If you were parachuted into a pro football stadium and one team had blue stars on a silver helmet, how many of you would not think that you were watching the Dallas Cowboys?
As a technology professional, I’m keenly aware that image and identity have become increasingly important in our new economic order. With the information marketplace drowning in sameness, a powerful brand – built not on a degree or product but on a personal message – has become a competitive necessity. Or stated differently, the bottom line for everyone comes down to a choice: to be distinct or extinct (Tom Peters).
How does one brand them self? What does a personal branding message look like? How is a brand statement used? Let me try and answer these and other related questions by setting forth the following points:
1. The Owner of Your Brand
You cannot expect someone else to define who you are. You cannot depend upon someone else to influence other people’s personal and professional expectations of who you are. Your career is yours and yours alone to manage. Your career requires work. It involves a lot of “sweat equity.” So how do you create an identity for a successful career? How do you become the “swoosh” of your company? Of your network?
2. The Qualities of Your Brand
A brand is nothing less than everything everyone thinks of when they see or hear your name. The best brands, like the most intriguing people, have several qualities. First, a brand should be seen as authoritative. Being seen as an authority isn’t just about acquiring a degree or accumulating up a set of experiences. It entails having a well-thought-out point of view. It is about knowing what you have that most others do not. It’s your expertise. In every job and at every stage in your career, you had some expertise, some content that makes you interesting. It gives you a cause, an idea, a trend, or a skill – the subject matter on which you are an (or the) authority. [1, 206-207]
Second, a brand should be unique. It should have a distinct message. You want to be the brown egg in a carton of white eggs! Your brand statement will come from your content/unique value proposition and a process of self-evaluation. It involves finding out what’s really in a name – your name. It calls for you to identify your uniqueness and how you can put that uniqueness to work. It’s not a specific task so much as the cultivation of a mind-set. When it comes to making an impression, differentiation is the name of the game [1, 145].
Third, to become a great brand, your brand must be seen as being relentlessly focused on delivering value. What do you want people to think when they hear or read your name? What product or service do you best provide? What value do you consistently deliver? To determine your “value proposition”, take an inventory of your skills, combine them with your passions, and find out what value you can consistently deliver. This becomes your value proposition. Remember, the choice isn’t between delivering value or not. All of us deliver some value. The choice is between consistently delivering superior value or risking nothing and being certain of mediocrity.
3. The Packaging of Your Brand
After you’ve established your brand, it is time to package your brand. Your packaging message should include a list of key words that you want people to think of when referring to you. Ask your most trusted friends what words they would use to describe you -- for good and for bad. Ask them what are the most important skills and attributes you bring to the table. Ask yourself what are three words that summarize your success. Writing these words down and including them in your marketing message is the first step to selling it to others. [1, 229-230]
As you “package” your brand, remember that your brand statement must possess three “packaging” characteristics. First, it must be relevant. Don’t create a brand statement that is irrelevant. Determine what skills or areas of expertise will be valued in this new economic order. Second, the packaging of your brand should resonate with others. When others think of you, your brand message should be so simple, they can describe you in a single sentence (or at least in a few short phrases). Much like a stone cast into a pond or a tuning fork that is struck but one time, your brand needs to resonate in the minds of others long after it is presented. Third, your brand statement needs to be real – which leads to authenticating your brand.
4. The Authentication of Your Brand
Each of us would love to have a “killer” brand statement. What’s a “killer” brand statement? While there’s no definition, it is basically a value proposition that supersedes the brand statements of your peers or establishes a new category in the market. The greatest difficulty in creating a “killer” brand statement is that, ultimately, it must be authenticated. It must be real. To authenticate your brand statement, you need to identify seven to ten success stories that support your brand statement. These success stories should in crafted in terms of how you increased revenues, decreased expenses, increased efficiencies, and/or diminished risks. These success stories must be real examples, drawn from your work experience, that prove your brand statement to be authentic. It is easy to try and become something you want to be rather that what you are. Don’t go down that road. Work diligently to establish a brand statement that is real.
5. The Marketing of Your Brand [1,230]
Once you have crafted and packaged an authoritative, differentiated, authentic brand statement – it is time to market that brand. How do you do that? First, you need to have a single statement that encapsulates your brand. Second, you need to develop a thirty second speech (the infamous elevator speech) that explains your brand. Third, you need to incorporate this thirty second speech into your resume, your LinkedIn profile, and your biography. Fourth, you need to dedicate the top half of the first page of your resume to this brand statement and some of the killer success stories that authenticate your brand statement. Remember that this is the most valuable space on your resume – use it wisely. Fifth, you need to create a blog site (or even better, a web site) that serves as a marketing tool to clearly articulate your brand. Sixth, you need to write articles for trade journals, magazines, and/or company newsletters. Seventh, you need to get on seminar panels (or even better, on the seminar podium as a speaker). Bottom line: you need to take advantage of every forum and medium to broadcast your brand.
Endnotes
[1] Keith Ferrazzi, “Never Eat Alone”
Monday, December 27, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Managing & Developing Your Employees -- Pt. 3
Do Everything You Can to Retain Great Employees
When you’re hiring employees, don’t settle. Secondly, never stop coaching employees. Finally, do everything you can to retain great employees.
As is also the case when it comes to customers, retention matters even more than acquisition. With customers, the usual figure is that repeat customers are five to ten times more profitable than newly acquired ones. Likewise, great employees are worth at least ten times what average ones are worth. [1]
So just as a dollar spent in customer retention can pay ten times the dividend of a dollar spent advertising for new customers, so a dollar…..or more to the point, an hour…..spent in employee retention can return ten times the equivalent investment in new hires. Do everything you can to make the thought of leaving your place of employment almost unimaginable for a great employee. This includes perks, bonuses, extra time off, flexible work hours, larger or better-positioned cubicles, and taking the time to make sure they know you appreciate the contribution they make to your organization. [1]
Hire great employees, coach them, and do everything you can to keep them. Let me give you five practical things you can do to keep great employees.
1. Know Them [2]
First, know your employees. Lincoln revealed the cornerstone of his own personal leadership philosophy, an approach that would become part of a revolution in modern leadership thinking 100 years later when it was dubbed “Management By Walking Around” by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman in their 1982 book -- “In Search of Excellence.” It has been referred to by other names and phrases, such as: “roving leadership,” “being in touch,” or “getting out of the ivory tower.” Whatever the label, it’s simply the process of stepping out and interacting with people. It is simply the process of establishing human contact.
We need to know how our people will respond in any given situation. We need to know who will have a tendency to get the job done on his own, or who will be more likely to procrastinate and delay. We need to know who can be counted on in an emergency and who can’t. We need to know who are the brighter, more able, more committed people. We need to know who shares are strong sense of ethics and values.
The most important asset a business organization has is its employees. So why not spend some time and money striving to more thoroughly understand who are your really great employees?
2. Listen to Them [7]
In his book, “Leadership Gold”, John Maxwell tells the story:
“A couple of rednecks are out in the woods hunting when one of them falls to the ground. He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are rolled back in his head. The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls 911. He frantically tells the operator, “Bubba is dead! What can I do?” The operator, in a calm, soothing voice says, “Just take it easy. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is silence, and then a shot is heard. The guy’s voice comes back on the line and says, “Okay, now what?””
It is no accident that we have one mouth and two ears. Steven Covey writes: “When we listen with the intent to understand others, rather than with the intent to reply, we begin true communication and relationship building. Opportunities to then speak openly and be understood come much more naturally and easily.”
This is particularly an important point to know when it comes to great employees. Great employees really want to be listened to, respected, and understood. When leaders listen to them and use what they hear to make improvements that benefit the organization, then those great employees put their trust in those leaders. They want to work with those leaders. When leaders do the opposite – when they fail to listen – it damages the leader-great employee relationship. When great employees no longer believe that their leaders are listening to them, they start looking for someone who will.
3. Lead by Being Led
Third, lead by being led. As just stated, great employees want to be listened to. Great employees want their suggestions and recommendations considered and implemented. Our goal is to foster an environment in which our great employees sense little oversight and a large amount of freedom to “set the pace.” With great employees, we merely need to direct or point them in the proper path and allow them to lead us down that path. Rather than ordering or dictating, we need to refine our ability to direct others by implying, hinting, or suggesting.
One of the marks of true leadership genius is to create an environment that great employees relish to work in. Paraphrasing Lao Tzu: “A good leader is one who talks little, and yet, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, all his followers will say: ‘We did this ourselves.’” [3]
4. Don’t Send Your Ducks to Eagle School [7]
In his book, “Leadership Gold”, John Maxwell shares a lesson learned from Jim Rohn:
“The first rule of management is this: don’t send your ducks to eagle school. Why? Because it won’t work! Good people are found, not changed. They can change themselves, but you can’t change them. If you want good people, you have to find them. If you want motivated people, you have to find them, not motivate them…..Chalk it up to mysteries of the mind, and don’t waste your time trying to turn ducks into eagles. Hire people who already have the motivation and drive to be eagles and then just let them soar.”
This counsel very much applies to “retaining” great employees. Once you “know” who your great employees are, don’t try and turn your ducks into eagles. It just doesn’t work. Here’s why it doesn’t work:
o If you send ducks to eagle school, you will frustrate the ducks. Ducks are not supposed to be eagles – nor do they want to become eagles. Who they are is who they should be. Ducks have their strengths and should be appreciated for them. They’re excellent swimmers. They are capable of working together in an amazing display of teamwork and travel long distances together. Ask an eagle to swim or to migrate thousands of miles, and it’s going to be in trouble. Leadership is all about placing your great employees in the right place so they can be successful. As a leader, you need to know your great employees and let them work according to their strengths. As a leader, you should always challenge people to move out of their comfort zone, but never out of their strength zone. That is one reason you don’t send ducks to eagle school. Secondly…..
o If you send ducks to eagle school, you will frustrate the eagles. Eagles don’t want to hang around with ducks. They don’t want to live in a barnyard or swim in a pond. Their potential makes them impatient with those who cannot soar. People who are used to moving fast and flying high are easily frustrated by people who want to hold them back.
As a leader, your job is to help your ducks to become better ducks and your eagles to become better eagles – to put individuals in the right places and help them reach their potential. You shouldn’t ask someone to grow in areas where they have no natural talent.
Don’t make the mistake made in a story borrowed from Charles Swindoll’s “Growing Strong in the Seasons of Life”:
“Once upon a time, the animals decided they should do something meaningful to meet the problems of the new world. So they organized a school. They adopted an activity curriculum of running, climbing, swimming, and flying. To make it easier to administer, all the animals took all the subjects. The duck was excellent in swimming. In fact, he was better than his instructor was! However, he made only passing grades in flying, and was very poor in running. Since he was so slow in running, he had to drop swimming and stay after school to practice running. This caused his webbed feet to be badly worn so he became only average in swimming. But “average” was quite acceptable, therefore nobody worried about it – except the duck. The rabbit started at the top of his class in running, but developed a nervous twitch in his leg muscles because he had so much makeup work to do in swimming. The squirrel was excellent in climbing, but he encountered constant frustration in flying class because his teacher made him start from the ground up instead of from the treetop down. He developed “charley horses” from overexertion, so he only got a “C” in climbing and “D” in running. The eagle was a problem child and was severely disciplined for being a non-conformist. In climbing classes, he beat all the others to the top, but insisted on using his own way of getting there!”
5. Give Them the Credit/You Take the Blame [2]
Finally, if you want to retain great employees, give them the credit and you take the blame. As leaders, we’d like to think that when people leave, it has little to do with us. But the reality is that we are often the reason. Some sources estimate that as many as 65 percent of people leaving companies do so because of their managers. We may say that people quit their job or their company but the reality is that they usually quit their leaders. [7]
So what is one solution to retaining great employees? Always give credit where credit is due and, conversely, accept responsibility when things go wrong. When a great employee does a good job, praise, compliment, and reward the individual. On the other hand, be prepared to shoulder the responsibility when they make mistakes. Always let your great employees know that the honor will be all theirs if they succeed and the blame will be yours in they fail.
Abraham Lincoln practiced this laudatory style right up to the final days of his life. During his last public address, made to gathering of people outside the White House on the evening of April 11, 1865, he was filled with modesty for himself and praise for the soldiers who had won the union victory: “No part of the honor, for plan or execution, is mine”, he asserted. “To General Grant, his skillful officers, and brave men, all belongs.”
Likewise, the president readily accepted responsibility for the battles lost during the Civil War. He tried to let his generals know that if they failed, he too failed. Throughout the war Lincoln accepted public responsibility for battles lost or opportunities missed. In the days following the battle of Gettysburg, for example, the president was distressed Meade’s delay in pursing Lee before his army made it back across the Potomac River. Well after the battle, in an attempt to spur the general into an active confrontation with Lee, the president sent him a letter urging an immediate attack. “If you can now attack him on a field no worse than equal for us,” said Lincoln, “and will do so with all the skill and courage, which you, your officers, and men possess, the honor will be yours if you succeed, and the blame will be mine if you fail.”
Endnotes
[1] Adapted from “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology” by Bob Lewis
[2] Adapted from “Lincoln on Leadership” by Donald T. Phillips
[3] Adapted from “It’s Your Ship” by Captain D. Michael Abrashoff
[4] Bits & Pieces, May 28, 1992, Page 5-6
[5] Adapted from “The Mark of a Leader” by Doug Keeley
[6] Adapted from “The Ten Rules of Good Followership” by Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger
[7] Adapted from “Leadership Gold” by John Maxwell
When you’re hiring employees, don’t settle. Secondly, never stop coaching employees. Finally, do everything you can to retain great employees.
As is also the case when it comes to customers, retention matters even more than acquisition. With customers, the usual figure is that repeat customers are five to ten times more profitable than newly acquired ones. Likewise, great employees are worth at least ten times what average ones are worth. [1]
So just as a dollar spent in customer retention can pay ten times the dividend of a dollar spent advertising for new customers, so a dollar…..or more to the point, an hour…..spent in employee retention can return ten times the equivalent investment in new hires. Do everything you can to make the thought of leaving your place of employment almost unimaginable for a great employee. This includes perks, bonuses, extra time off, flexible work hours, larger or better-positioned cubicles, and taking the time to make sure they know you appreciate the contribution they make to your organization. [1]
Hire great employees, coach them, and do everything you can to keep them. Let me give you five practical things you can do to keep great employees.
1. Know Them [2]
First, know your employees. Lincoln revealed the cornerstone of his own personal leadership philosophy, an approach that would become part of a revolution in modern leadership thinking 100 years later when it was dubbed “Management By Walking Around” by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman in their 1982 book -- “In Search of Excellence.” It has been referred to by other names and phrases, such as: “roving leadership,” “being in touch,” or “getting out of the ivory tower.” Whatever the label, it’s simply the process of stepping out and interacting with people. It is simply the process of establishing human contact.
We need to know how our people will respond in any given situation. We need to know who will have a tendency to get the job done on his own, or who will be more likely to procrastinate and delay. We need to know who can be counted on in an emergency and who can’t. We need to know who are the brighter, more able, more committed people. We need to know who shares are strong sense of ethics and values.
The most important asset a business organization has is its employees. So why not spend some time and money striving to more thoroughly understand who are your really great employees?
2. Listen to Them [7]
In his book, “Leadership Gold”, John Maxwell tells the story:
“A couple of rednecks are out in the woods hunting when one of them falls to the ground. He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are rolled back in his head. The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls 911. He frantically tells the operator, “Bubba is dead! What can I do?” The operator, in a calm, soothing voice says, “Just take it easy. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.” There is silence, and then a shot is heard. The guy’s voice comes back on the line and says, “Okay, now what?””
It is no accident that we have one mouth and two ears. Steven Covey writes: “When we listen with the intent to understand others, rather than with the intent to reply, we begin true communication and relationship building. Opportunities to then speak openly and be understood come much more naturally and easily.”
This is particularly an important point to know when it comes to great employees. Great employees really want to be listened to, respected, and understood. When leaders listen to them and use what they hear to make improvements that benefit the organization, then those great employees put their trust in those leaders. They want to work with those leaders. When leaders do the opposite – when they fail to listen – it damages the leader-great employee relationship. When great employees no longer believe that their leaders are listening to them, they start looking for someone who will.
3. Lead by Being Led
Third, lead by being led. As just stated, great employees want to be listened to. Great employees want their suggestions and recommendations considered and implemented. Our goal is to foster an environment in which our great employees sense little oversight and a large amount of freedom to “set the pace.” With great employees, we merely need to direct or point them in the proper path and allow them to lead us down that path. Rather than ordering or dictating, we need to refine our ability to direct others by implying, hinting, or suggesting.
One of the marks of true leadership genius is to create an environment that great employees relish to work in. Paraphrasing Lao Tzu: “A good leader is one who talks little, and yet, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, all his followers will say: ‘We did this ourselves.’” [3]
4. Don’t Send Your Ducks to Eagle School [7]
In his book, “Leadership Gold”, John Maxwell shares a lesson learned from Jim Rohn:
“The first rule of management is this: don’t send your ducks to eagle school. Why? Because it won’t work! Good people are found, not changed. They can change themselves, but you can’t change them. If you want good people, you have to find them. If you want motivated people, you have to find them, not motivate them…..Chalk it up to mysteries of the mind, and don’t waste your time trying to turn ducks into eagles. Hire people who already have the motivation and drive to be eagles and then just let them soar.”
This counsel very much applies to “retaining” great employees. Once you “know” who your great employees are, don’t try and turn your ducks into eagles. It just doesn’t work. Here’s why it doesn’t work:
o If you send ducks to eagle school, you will frustrate the ducks. Ducks are not supposed to be eagles – nor do they want to become eagles. Who they are is who they should be. Ducks have their strengths and should be appreciated for them. They’re excellent swimmers. They are capable of working together in an amazing display of teamwork and travel long distances together. Ask an eagle to swim or to migrate thousands of miles, and it’s going to be in trouble. Leadership is all about placing your great employees in the right place so they can be successful. As a leader, you need to know your great employees and let them work according to their strengths. As a leader, you should always challenge people to move out of their comfort zone, but never out of their strength zone. That is one reason you don’t send ducks to eagle school. Secondly…..
o If you send ducks to eagle school, you will frustrate the eagles. Eagles don’t want to hang around with ducks. They don’t want to live in a barnyard or swim in a pond. Their potential makes them impatient with those who cannot soar. People who are used to moving fast and flying high are easily frustrated by people who want to hold them back.
As a leader, your job is to help your ducks to become better ducks and your eagles to become better eagles – to put individuals in the right places and help them reach their potential. You shouldn’t ask someone to grow in areas where they have no natural talent.
Don’t make the mistake made in a story borrowed from Charles Swindoll’s “Growing Strong in the Seasons of Life”:
“Once upon a time, the animals decided they should do something meaningful to meet the problems of the new world. So they organized a school. They adopted an activity curriculum of running, climbing, swimming, and flying. To make it easier to administer, all the animals took all the subjects. The duck was excellent in swimming. In fact, he was better than his instructor was! However, he made only passing grades in flying, and was very poor in running. Since he was so slow in running, he had to drop swimming and stay after school to practice running. This caused his webbed feet to be badly worn so he became only average in swimming. But “average” was quite acceptable, therefore nobody worried about it – except the duck. The rabbit started at the top of his class in running, but developed a nervous twitch in his leg muscles because he had so much makeup work to do in swimming. The squirrel was excellent in climbing, but he encountered constant frustration in flying class because his teacher made him start from the ground up instead of from the treetop down. He developed “charley horses” from overexertion, so he only got a “C” in climbing and “D” in running. The eagle was a problem child and was severely disciplined for being a non-conformist. In climbing classes, he beat all the others to the top, but insisted on using his own way of getting there!”
5. Give Them the Credit/You Take the Blame [2]
Finally, if you want to retain great employees, give them the credit and you take the blame. As leaders, we’d like to think that when people leave, it has little to do with us. But the reality is that we are often the reason. Some sources estimate that as many as 65 percent of people leaving companies do so because of their managers. We may say that people quit their job or their company but the reality is that they usually quit their leaders. [7]
So what is one solution to retaining great employees? Always give credit where credit is due and, conversely, accept responsibility when things go wrong. When a great employee does a good job, praise, compliment, and reward the individual. On the other hand, be prepared to shoulder the responsibility when they make mistakes. Always let your great employees know that the honor will be all theirs if they succeed and the blame will be yours in they fail.
Abraham Lincoln practiced this laudatory style right up to the final days of his life. During his last public address, made to gathering of people outside the White House on the evening of April 11, 1865, he was filled with modesty for himself and praise for the soldiers who had won the union victory: “No part of the honor, for plan or execution, is mine”, he asserted. “To General Grant, his skillful officers, and brave men, all belongs.”
Likewise, the president readily accepted responsibility for the battles lost during the Civil War. He tried to let his generals know that if they failed, he too failed. Throughout the war Lincoln accepted public responsibility for battles lost or opportunities missed. In the days following the battle of Gettysburg, for example, the president was distressed Meade’s delay in pursing Lee before his army made it back across the Potomac River. Well after the battle, in an attempt to spur the general into an active confrontation with Lee, the president sent him a letter urging an immediate attack. “If you can now attack him on a field no worse than equal for us,” said Lincoln, “and will do so with all the skill and courage, which you, your officers, and men possess, the honor will be yours if you succeed, and the blame will be mine if you fail.”
Endnotes
[1] Adapted from “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology” by Bob Lewis
[2] Adapted from “Lincoln on Leadership” by Donald T. Phillips
[3] Adapted from “It’s Your Ship” by Captain D. Michael Abrashoff
[4] Bits & Pieces, May 28, 1992, Page 5-6
[5] Adapted from “The Mark of a Leader” by Doug Keeley
[6] Adapted from “The Ten Rules of Good Followership” by Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger
[7] Adapted from “Leadership Gold” by John Maxwell
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Managing & Developing Your Employees -- Pt. 2
"Never Stop Coaching Employees"
When you’re hiring employees, don’t settle. The second inviolable principle is: “never stop coaching your employees.” While there are many things you can “coach” your employees to do, what aspects of coaching do you focus on? Let me provide you with five suggestions.
1. Cast a Shared Vision & Continually Reaffirm It
First, cast a shared vision and continually reaffirm it.
Churchill [5]
In 1940, the then disgraced Sir Neville Chamberlain stepped aside and Winston Churchill was made Prime Minister of Britain without an election. Like so many great leaders, he inherited a problem that his predecessor had allowed to fester and grow. Churchill knew that Britain would be the last major defensive post in Western Europe that could stand up to Hitler’s attack. If England fell, the whole face of the earth would change. He knew that the weight of the free world was on his shoulders, and that he must rally his countrymen around a “shared vision” to hold back the German attack and ultimately lead them to victory.
Using his skills as a linguist and orator, and his burning passion for England and for the cause of freedom, he focused on rallying his country’s pride. This can be seen clearly as the clash that became known as “The Battle of Britain” (in the summer and autumn of 1940) approached. In a speech to the nation, Churchill put the stakes of victory on the line for his countrymen very clearly:
“I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us…Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands…But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the light of perverted science…Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: ‘This was their finest hour.’”
Across the country, glued to their radios, the people of England instantly understood the job ahead, the stakes, the style of the enemy, and the outcomes of failure or victory. There was no doubt about exactly what had to be done, no debate about whether it would happen.
Lincoln [2]
Likewise, it’s well known and documented that during the Civil War Abraham Lincoln -- through his speeches, writings, and conversations -- “preached a vision” of America that has never been equaled in the course of American history. Lincoln provided exactly what the country needed at that precise moment in time -- a clear, concise statement of the direction of the nation and justification for the Union’s drastic action in forcing civil war. Everywhere he went, at every conceivable opportunity, he reaffirmed, reasserted, and reminded everyone of the basic principles upon which the nation was founded. His vision was simple, and he preached it often.
We can learn much from these two leaders. We can learn that effective visions and organizational mission statements can’t be forced upon our employees. Rather, they must be set in motion by means of persuasion. Our employees must accept and implement them wholeheartedly and without reservation. When this is achieved, truly accepted visions tend to foster innovation, risk-taking, empowerment, and delegation. If our employees understand what is expected of them, what the organization is trying to accomplish, then it becomes possible to create a climate in which results and progress continually occur. When coaching your employees, cast a shared vision and continually reaffirm it.
2. Set Goals and be Relentlessly Results-Oriented [2]
Second, set goals and be relentlessly results-oriented. Goals unify people, motivate them, focus their talent and energy. As just stated, Lincoln united his followers with the “corporate mission” of preserving the union and abolishing slavery, and this objective became more firm and resolute with the onslaught of the Civil War.
Even so, Lincoln realized that the attainment of such a successful outcome had to be accomplished in steps. So he continually set specific short-term goals that his generals and cabinet members could focus on with intent and immediacy. And he created a contagious enthusiasm among followers by demonstrating a sense of urgency toward attainment of his goals. He wanted them all to be like the dog in one of his favorite anecdotes:
“A man…had a small bull-terrier that could whip all the dogs of the neighborhood. The owner of a large dog which the terrier had whipped asked the owner of the terrier how it happened that the terrier whipped every dog he encountered. That, said the owner of the terrier, is no mystery to me. Your dog and other dogs get half through a fight before they are ready. Now, my dog is always mad.”
Contemporary leaders often worry about how to keep a fire lit under their employees. The best way to do so is to set specific, short-term goals that can be focused on with intensity and immediacy by employees. And then coach them to be relentlessly results-oriented.
3. Reinforce Followership [6]
The third suggestion for coaching employees is to reinforce followership. That is because there are very few who will someday command thousands of troops in battle or direct the operations of a large organization. And yet, most of us spend most of our life being a follower. Thus, how does one become a good follower?
Borrowing from Meilinger’s work on the “Ten Rules of Good Followership”, let me provide you with several suggestions on how to “coach” your employees to be better followers. Be forewarned: “We need to practice what we preach.”
o Teach them to not blame their boss for an unpopular decision or policy. Their job is to support, not undermine. Leadership is not a commodity to be bought at the price of followership. If an employee asks you whether or not you agree with a particular decision of your boss, your response should be that it is an irrelevant question. The boss has decided, and we will now carry out her orders. That’s what good followers are expected to do. Loyalty must travel both up and down the chain of command.
o Teach them to make the decision -- then run it past you. Encourage them to show initiative. No one likes to work for a micromanager. We all believe we are smart enough and mature enough to get the job done without someone hovering around and providing detailed guidance. One reason bosses tend to become micromanagers is because they see their subordinates standing by and waiting for specific instructions. They then feel obliged to provide it. You can short-circuit this debilitating spiral by simply encouraging initiative. Allow them to accomplish the task and then (and only then) expect a briefing on what was done.
o Teach them to do their homework. Teach them to give you all the information needed to make a decision. They need to understand that when their supervisor gives them a problem to solve, it is essential that they become an expert on the subject before they attempt to propose a course of action.
o Teach them to keep you informed of what’s going on in your department. People are naturally reluctant to tell you about their problems and successes. Creating an open environment of sharing will enable a larger amount of information to float upwards. It also enables you to recognize those employees that are making a real difference.
o Teach them that if they see a problem, fix it. They need to understand that it doesn’t matter who gets the blame or who gets the praise. General George C. Marshall, the Army chief of staff during World War II, once made the comment that there was no limit to the amount of good that people could accomplish, as long as they didn’t care who received the credit.
4. Empower Employees [2]
Fourth, empower your employees to achieve the objectives of the organization, department, and team. People generally want to believe that what they’re doing truly makes a difference and, more important, that it is their own idea. Thus, good leaders learn the value of making requests as opposed to issuing orders.
Leadership, by definition, omits the use of coercive power. When a leader begins to coerce his followers, he’s essentially abandoning leadership and embracing dictatorship. Dictatorship, force, coercion – all are characteristics of tyrants, despots, and oppressors. Competent leadership, on the other hand, delegates responsibility and authority, and empowers subordinates to act on their own. It attempts to gain commitment through openness, empowerment, and coaching.
Teddy Roosevelt grasped this fact very clearly when he wrote: “The best leader is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and the self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.” [7]
5. Encourage Innovation [2]
Fifth, encourage employees to be innovative. One of Lincoln’s favorite stories was designed to encourage people to innovate, to take action on their own initiative, without waiting for orders:
“There was a colonel, who when raising his regiment in MO, proposed to his men that he should do all the swearing for the regiment. They assented. For months, the regiment followed the rules. The colonel had a teamster named John Todd, who, as roads were not always the best, had some difficulty in commanding his temper and tongue. John happened to be driving a mule team through a series of mud holes a little worse then usual, when he burst forth into a volley of profanity. The colonel took notice of the offense and brought John to account. ‘John’, said he, ‘didn’t you promise to let me do all the swearing for the regiment?’ ‘Yes, I did, Colonel,’ he replied, ‘but the fact was the swearing had to be done then or not at all, and you weren’t there to do it.’”
Genuine leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln, are not only instruments of change, they are catalysts for change. Lincoln effected the change needed by creating an atmosphere of entrepreneurship that fostered innovative techniques.
How did he do this?
o First, he allowed for mistakes. Lincoln viewed the failures of his generals as mistakes, learning events, or steps in the right direction.
o Second, Lincoln essentially treated his subordinates as equals. They were colleagues in a joint effort. He had enough confidence in himself that he was not threatened by skillful generals or able cabinet officials. Rather than surround himself with “yes” men, he associated with people who really knew their business, people from whom he could learn something, whether they were antagonistic or not. An often overlooked component of leadership is this ability to learn from people and experiences, from successes and failures. The best leaders never stop learning.
o Third, he refused to resign himself to the limits imposed on him by flawed systems rather than rethinking those systems. As a result, innovations such as hot air reconnaissance balloons, pontoon bridges, ironclad ships, and breech-loading rifles were introduced during his administration.
Rather than inhibiting progress or sapping energy, innovative thinking actually increases an organization’s chances of survival. Lincoln realized that, as an executive leader, it was his chief responsibility to create the climate of risk-free entrepreneurship necessary to foster effective innovation. We need to do likewise.
Endnotes
[1] Adapted from “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology” by Bob Lewis
[2] Adapted from “Lincoln on Leadership” by Donald T. Phillips
[3] Adapted from “It’s Your Ship” by Captain D. Michael Abrashoff
[4] Bits & Pieces, May 28, 1992, Page 5-6
[5] Adapted from “The Mark of a Leader” by Doug Keeley
[6] Adapted from “The Ten Rules of Good Followership” by Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger
[7] Adapted from “Leadership Gold” by John Maxwell
When you’re hiring employees, don’t settle. The second inviolable principle is: “never stop coaching your employees.” While there are many things you can “coach” your employees to do, what aspects of coaching do you focus on? Let me provide you with five suggestions.
1. Cast a Shared Vision & Continually Reaffirm It
First, cast a shared vision and continually reaffirm it.
Churchill [5]
In 1940, the then disgraced Sir Neville Chamberlain stepped aside and Winston Churchill was made Prime Minister of Britain without an election. Like so many great leaders, he inherited a problem that his predecessor had allowed to fester and grow. Churchill knew that Britain would be the last major defensive post in Western Europe that could stand up to Hitler’s attack. If England fell, the whole face of the earth would change. He knew that the weight of the free world was on his shoulders, and that he must rally his countrymen around a “shared vision” to hold back the German attack and ultimately lead them to victory.
Using his skills as a linguist and orator, and his burning passion for England and for the cause of freedom, he focused on rallying his country’s pride. This can be seen clearly as the clash that became known as “The Battle of Britain” (in the summer and autumn of 1940) approached. In a speech to the nation, Churchill put the stakes of victory on the line for his countrymen very clearly:
“I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us…Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands…But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the light of perverted science…Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: ‘This was their finest hour.’”
Across the country, glued to their radios, the people of England instantly understood the job ahead, the stakes, the style of the enemy, and the outcomes of failure or victory. There was no doubt about exactly what had to be done, no debate about whether it would happen.
Lincoln [2]
Likewise, it’s well known and documented that during the Civil War Abraham Lincoln -- through his speeches, writings, and conversations -- “preached a vision” of America that has never been equaled in the course of American history. Lincoln provided exactly what the country needed at that precise moment in time -- a clear, concise statement of the direction of the nation and justification for the Union’s drastic action in forcing civil war. Everywhere he went, at every conceivable opportunity, he reaffirmed, reasserted, and reminded everyone of the basic principles upon which the nation was founded. His vision was simple, and he preached it often.
We can learn much from these two leaders. We can learn that effective visions and organizational mission statements can’t be forced upon our employees. Rather, they must be set in motion by means of persuasion. Our employees must accept and implement them wholeheartedly and without reservation. When this is achieved, truly accepted visions tend to foster innovation, risk-taking, empowerment, and delegation. If our employees understand what is expected of them, what the organization is trying to accomplish, then it becomes possible to create a climate in which results and progress continually occur. When coaching your employees, cast a shared vision and continually reaffirm it.
2. Set Goals and be Relentlessly Results-Oriented [2]
Second, set goals and be relentlessly results-oriented. Goals unify people, motivate them, focus their talent and energy. As just stated, Lincoln united his followers with the “corporate mission” of preserving the union and abolishing slavery, and this objective became more firm and resolute with the onslaught of the Civil War.
Even so, Lincoln realized that the attainment of such a successful outcome had to be accomplished in steps. So he continually set specific short-term goals that his generals and cabinet members could focus on with intent and immediacy. And he created a contagious enthusiasm among followers by demonstrating a sense of urgency toward attainment of his goals. He wanted them all to be like the dog in one of his favorite anecdotes:
“A man…had a small bull-terrier that could whip all the dogs of the neighborhood. The owner of a large dog which the terrier had whipped asked the owner of the terrier how it happened that the terrier whipped every dog he encountered. That, said the owner of the terrier, is no mystery to me. Your dog and other dogs get half through a fight before they are ready. Now, my dog is always mad.”
Contemporary leaders often worry about how to keep a fire lit under their employees. The best way to do so is to set specific, short-term goals that can be focused on with intensity and immediacy by employees. And then coach them to be relentlessly results-oriented.
3. Reinforce Followership [6]
The third suggestion for coaching employees is to reinforce followership. That is because there are very few who will someday command thousands of troops in battle or direct the operations of a large organization. And yet, most of us spend most of our life being a follower. Thus, how does one become a good follower?
Borrowing from Meilinger’s work on the “Ten Rules of Good Followership”, let me provide you with several suggestions on how to “coach” your employees to be better followers. Be forewarned: “We need to practice what we preach.”
o Teach them to not blame their boss for an unpopular decision or policy. Their job is to support, not undermine. Leadership is not a commodity to be bought at the price of followership. If an employee asks you whether or not you agree with a particular decision of your boss, your response should be that it is an irrelevant question. The boss has decided, and we will now carry out her orders. That’s what good followers are expected to do. Loyalty must travel both up and down the chain of command.
o Teach them to make the decision -- then run it past you. Encourage them to show initiative. No one likes to work for a micromanager. We all believe we are smart enough and mature enough to get the job done without someone hovering around and providing detailed guidance. One reason bosses tend to become micromanagers is because they see their subordinates standing by and waiting for specific instructions. They then feel obliged to provide it. You can short-circuit this debilitating spiral by simply encouraging initiative. Allow them to accomplish the task and then (and only then) expect a briefing on what was done.
o Teach them to do their homework. Teach them to give you all the information needed to make a decision. They need to understand that when their supervisor gives them a problem to solve, it is essential that they become an expert on the subject before they attempt to propose a course of action.
o Teach them to keep you informed of what’s going on in your department. People are naturally reluctant to tell you about their problems and successes. Creating an open environment of sharing will enable a larger amount of information to float upwards. It also enables you to recognize those employees that are making a real difference.
o Teach them that if they see a problem, fix it. They need to understand that it doesn’t matter who gets the blame or who gets the praise. General George C. Marshall, the Army chief of staff during World War II, once made the comment that there was no limit to the amount of good that people could accomplish, as long as they didn’t care who received the credit.
4. Empower Employees [2]
Fourth, empower your employees to achieve the objectives of the organization, department, and team. People generally want to believe that what they’re doing truly makes a difference and, more important, that it is their own idea. Thus, good leaders learn the value of making requests as opposed to issuing orders.
Leadership, by definition, omits the use of coercive power. When a leader begins to coerce his followers, he’s essentially abandoning leadership and embracing dictatorship. Dictatorship, force, coercion – all are characteristics of tyrants, despots, and oppressors. Competent leadership, on the other hand, delegates responsibility and authority, and empowers subordinates to act on their own. It attempts to gain commitment through openness, empowerment, and coaching.
Teddy Roosevelt grasped this fact very clearly when he wrote: “The best leader is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and the self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.” [7]
5. Encourage Innovation [2]
Fifth, encourage employees to be innovative. One of Lincoln’s favorite stories was designed to encourage people to innovate, to take action on their own initiative, without waiting for orders:
“There was a colonel, who when raising his regiment in MO, proposed to his men that he should do all the swearing for the regiment. They assented. For months, the regiment followed the rules. The colonel had a teamster named John Todd, who, as roads were not always the best, had some difficulty in commanding his temper and tongue. John happened to be driving a mule team through a series of mud holes a little worse then usual, when he burst forth into a volley of profanity. The colonel took notice of the offense and brought John to account. ‘John’, said he, ‘didn’t you promise to let me do all the swearing for the regiment?’ ‘Yes, I did, Colonel,’ he replied, ‘but the fact was the swearing had to be done then or not at all, and you weren’t there to do it.’”
Genuine leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln, are not only instruments of change, they are catalysts for change. Lincoln effected the change needed by creating an atmosphere of entrepreneurship that fostered innovative techniques.
How did he do this?
o First, he allowed for mistakes. Lincoln viewed the failures of his generals as mistakes, learning events, or steps in the right direction.
o Second, Lincoln essentially treated his subordinates as equals. They were colleagues in a joint effort. He had enough confidence in himself that he was not threatened by skillful generals or able cabinet officials. Rather than surround himself with “yes” men, he associated with people who really knew their business, people from whom he could learn something, whether they were antagonistic or not. An often overlooked component of leadership is this ability to learn from people and experiences, from successes and failures. The best leaders never stop learning.
o Third, he refused to resign himself to the limits imposed on him by flawed systems rather than rethinking those systems. As a result, innovations such as hot air reconnaissance balloons, pontoon bridges, ironclad ships, and breech-loading rifles were introduced during his administration.
Rather than inhibiting progress or sapping energy, innovative thinking actually increases an organization’s chances of survival. Lincoln realized that, as an executive leader, it was his chief responsibility to create the climate of risk-free entrepreneurship necessary to foster effective innovation. We need to do likewise.
Endnotes
[1] Adapted from “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology” by Bob Lewis
[2] Adapted from “Lincoln on Leadership” by Donald T. Phillips
[3] Adapted from “It’s Your Ship” by Captain D. Michael Abrashoff
[4] Bits & Pieces, May 28, 1992, Page 5-6
[5] Adapted from “The Mark of a Leader” by Doug Keeley
[6] Adapted from “The Ten Rules of Good Followership” by Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger
[7] Adapted from “Leadership Gold” by John Maxwell
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Managing & Developing Your Employees -- Pt. 1
Don’t Settle When Hiring Employees
First, don’t settle when hiring employees. Great employees can and do overcome poor relationships. Great employees can and do overcome bad processes. Great employees can and do overcome lousy managers. Great employees can and do pull along mediocre teams. Great employees can and do turn around underperforming teams and organizations. Which is to say: If you want a team or organization that works – you’ll get more leverage from hiring great employees than from any other single effort you can undertake. But this begs the question: What makes a great employee?
The phrase “great employee” flows easily off the tongue. Unfortunately, it is easier to say you want a great employee than actually knowing what characteristics make up a great employee when interviewing job applicants. Amongst the many characteristics, here are five characteristics that I suggest that you seek out when rating job applicants:
1. Habit of Success
More than any other single trait, look for employees who know what success looks like and are accustomed to seeing it. Those who have this habit will usually figure out a way to get done what needs to get done. Those who don’t will often mistake obstacles for impenetrable barriers.
Many prefer to list character traits that someone with a “habit of success” encompasses separately – such as maturity, persistence, confidence, a willingness to take responsibility, and/or a sense of pride in achievement. I would argue that they go together. Look for a “habit of success” and you’ll find all of these character traits present.
Before I move on to the second characteristic to consider when rating job applicants, I think it is fair to answer this question: What does a habit of success look like?
While the answer to that question may depend somewhat upon the one performing the evaluation, here are just a few examples of someone with a habit of success:
o They possess numerous degrees
o They have won numerous awards
o They have been given numerous promotions
o They can list numerous real accomplishments
o They have “sterling” references
o They can demonstrate a pattern of increasing responsibility
2. Competence
Second, look for employees who are competent. A competent employee is one who has the:
o knowledge to do the job,
o skills to put that knowledge into practice, and
o commitment to apply the knowledge and skills in the appropriate way.
When measuring competence, focus on the “how” of performance not the “what.” For example, do not be enamored by “what” results somebody delivered but focus on “how” he/she managed to deliver such outstanding results (with a clear emphasis on achieving results underlying Company goals).
Why is competence so important (it is not as obvious as you think)?
o Competence is really an inherent characteristic that predisposes an individual (not a company) toward certain skills and behaviors that achieve exemplary performance.
o Competence is a standard of behavior that is demonstrated consistently over time. It is not a “one time” measure of success. Can anyone name “one hit wonders” or “one season superstars”? (e.g., The Penguins – “Earth Angel” in 1955; Blue Swede – “Hooked on a Feeling” in 1974; Lucy Pearl – “Dance Tonight” in 2000)
o Competence is future-oriented. It does not measure only past successes but it provides its owner with the ability to quickly adapt to new environments and new challenges.
o Competence continually strives for improvement. Competent employees do not rely upon the Company (or others) to provide them with the means to improve. They constantly assess their own results and look for ways to better those results in the future – whether it is additional education, additional training, or additional study.
o Competence always demands a higher standard for himself/herself than does his/her employer.
The noted English architect Sir Christopher Wren was supervising the construction of a magnificent cathedral in London. A journalist thought it would be interesting to interview some of the workers, so he chose three and asked them this question, “What are you doing?” The first replied, “I’m cutting stone for 10 shillings a day.” The next answered, “I’m putting in 10 hours a day on this job.” But the third said, “I’m helping Sir Christopher Wren construct one of London’s greatest cathedrals.” That is a competent employee!
3. Craves Responsibility [2]
Third, look for employees who crave responsibility. When Abraham Lincoln took office in 1861, he found that the United States was unprepared for war. The country had an insufficient, poorly trained, and poorly equipped army of only 16,000 men under the command of 75-year-old Gen. Winfield Scott. Scott was old, physically unable to command in the field, and his theories and strategies of warfare were outdated.
What would you do if confronted with a situation as severe as this? Sit back? Wait and see if someone came forward to handle the problem? Not so with Lincoln. Lincoln believed that if one’s chief subordinates do not move and get the job going, then you should act, decisively and without hesitation.
Contemporary leaders who experience difficulties finding the right employees can take comfort in the knowledge that Lincoln spent more than two and a half years searching for an aggressive general who could do the job. Over that period of time, Lincoln went through general after general (ten generals in all) seeking a chief subordinate who craved responsibility, was a risk-taker, and, most importantly, made things happen. It wasn’t until March, 1864, that Lincoln finally found his man when he officially promoted Ulysses S. Grant to the rank of lieutenant general and consolidated all the armies of the United States under him. The rest is history.
All leaders should realize that they can’t do everything on their own. They simply must have people below them who will do what is necessary to insure success. Those employees who will take risks, act without waiting for direction, and ask for responsibility rather than reject it, should be treated as your most prized possessions. Such individuals are exceedingly rare and worth their weight in gold. And when you finally find one – as Lincoln found Grant – they tend to multiply. The “Grants” of the world will choose others in their own image, just as Lincoln’s Grant chose aggressive generals such as Sheridan and Sherman rather than procrastinators like McClellan and Hooker.
4. Team Orientation [3]
Fourth, look for employees who are “team” oriented. Too often individuals champion their individuality as an excuse to do whatever they want, whenever they want. That is no formula for success in sports, in battle, or in business. As Benjamin Franklin put it when he defied the British and signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1976: “We must indeed all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
The need for employees who are “team” oriented can be shown by look back at the 1996 Washington Redskins. This team fielded a team of highly talented (and overpaid individuals) who looked like Super Bowl champions only to win a handful of games. Four years later, that same group of players made up the highest paid team in the NFL but still could not make it to the playoffs. (I wonder what is going to happen to the 2010-11 Miami Heat?)
It’s perfectly fine for an employee to take personal pride in personal achievement -- and in fact you want this. But this can’t come at the expense of the health of the team as a whole. If you work with other people you are part of a team. On teams individuals may be very different from each other and each unique member may have a different level of contribution to make. But everyone is valuable because each member adds to the overall success of the team. You want (and need) employees to support each other – just make sure that they don’t compete with each other.
This reminds me of a story about a very team-oriented volunteer:
When Christian Herter was governor of Massachusetts, he was running hard for a second term in office. One day, after a busy morning chasing votes (and no lunch) he arrived at a church barbecue. It was late afternoon and Herter was famished. As Herter moved down the serving line, he held out his plate to the woman serving chicken. She put a piece on his plate and turned to the next person in line. “Excuse me,” Governor Herter said, “do you mind if I have another piece of chicken?” “Sorry,” the woman told him. “I’m supposed to give one piece of chicken to each person.” “But I’m starved,” the governor said. “Sorry,” the woman said again. “Only one to a customer.” Governor Herter was a modest and unassuming man, but he decided that this time he would throw a little weight around. “Do you know who I am?” he said. “I am the governor of this state.” “Do you know who I am?” the woman said. “I’m the lady in charge of the chicken. Move along, mister.” [4]
5. Intellectual Honesty
Fifth, look for employees who are “intellectually” honest. What do I mean? You want employees that are willing to:
o Base their decisions on objective evidence.
o Not allow their personal beliefs to interfere with the pursuit of truth.
o Present facts in an unbiased manner.
o Acknowledge their dependence upon the ideas of others and do not claim it for themselves.
o Show a willingness to acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.
o Acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases.
o Acknowledge when their argument is weak (or when they are wrong).
o Address an argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.
o Show a commitment to critical thinking.
o Be open to criticism.
How does one foster such intellectual honesty? It is by building a culture of honest inquiry. To do so, there are several things you need to do. You need to:
o ask questions,
o acknowledge errors of your own,
o accept the ideas of others as being superior to your own,
o avoid blaming others, and
o avoid encouraging biased instead of rational thinking.
Your criteria for a “great employee” might be different from this list. That’s fine. The employees you select and retain will be working for you, not me. But whatever your criteria, here’s a piece of advice: Don’t settle!
Bob Lewis writes: “My personal experience, the experience of others, virtually every study on the subject leads to an inescapable conclusion -- Great employees produce 5-20X more value than average employees. Since you’re unlikely to pay your best employees more than double what you pay average ones, they are quite cost effective. In fact, they are cheaper at even twice the price!” [1]
In addition to delivering disproportionate value themselves, great performers also raise the bar for everyone around them. They help everyone around them excel. Simply put, their performance is contagious. On the other hand, poor employees achieve the opposite. They bring negative productivity to the team. Beyond their own limitations, they drag down everyone they interact with. No matter how little you pay them, they are unacceptably expensive.
Endnotes
[1] Adapted from “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology” by Bob Lewis
[2] Adapted from “Lincoln on Leadership” by Donald T. Phillips
[3] Adapted from “It’s Your Ship” by Captain D. Michael Abrashoff
[4] Bits & Pieces, May 28, 1992, Page 5-6
[5] Adapted from “The Mark of a Leader” by Doug Keeley
[6] Adapted from “The Ten Rules of Good Followership” by Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger
[7] Adapted from “Leadership Gold” by John Maxwell
First, don’t settle when hiring employees. Great employees can and do overcome poor relationships. Great employees can and do overcome bad processes. Great employees can and do overcome lousy managers. Great employees can and do pull along mediocre teams. Great employees can and do turn around underperforming teams and organizations. Which is to say: If you want a team or organization that works – you’ll get more leverage from hiring great employees than from any other single effort you can undertake. But this begs the question: What makes a great employee?
The phrase “great employee” flows easily off the tongue. Unfortunately, it is easier to say you want a great employee than actually knowing what characteristics make up a great employee when interviewing job applicants. Amongst the many characteristics, here are five characteristics that I suggest that you seek out when rating job applicants:
1. Habit of Success
More than any other single trait, look for employees who know what success looks like and are accustomed to seeing it. Those who have this habit will usually figure out a way to get done what needs to get done. Those who don’t will often mistake obstacles for impenetrable barriers.
Many prefer to list character traits that someone with a “habit of success” encompasses separately – such as maturity, persistence, confidence, a willingness to take responsibility, and/or a sense of pride in achievement. I would argue that they go together. Look for a “habit of success” and you’ll find all of these character traits present.
Before I move on to the second characteristic to consider when rating job applicants, I think it is fair to answer this question: What does a habit of success look like?
While the answer to that question may depend somewhat upon the one performing the evaluation, here are just a few examples of someone with a habit of success:
o They possess numerous degrees
o They have won numerous awards
o They have been given numerous promotions
o They can list numerous real accomplishments
o They have “sterling” references
o They can demonstrate a pattern of increasing responsibility
2. Competence
Second, look for employees who are competent. A competent employee is one who has the:
o knowledge to do the job,
o skills to put that knowledge into practice, and
o commitment to apply the knowledge and skills in the appropriate way.
When measuring competence, focus on the “how” of performance not the “what.” For example, do not be enamored by “what” results somebody delivered but focus on “how” he/she managed to deliver such outstanding results (with a clear emphasis on achieving results underlying Company goals).
Why is competence so important (it is not as obvious as you think)?
o Competence is really an inherent characteristic that predisposes an individual (not a company) toward certain skills and behaviors that achieve exemplary performance.
o Competence is a standard of behavior that is demonstrated consistently over time. It is not a “one time” measure of success. Can anyone name “one hit wonders” or “one season superstars”? (e.g., The Penguins – “Earth Angel” in 1955; Blue Swede – “Hooked on a Feeling” in 1974; Lucy Pearl – “Dance Tonight” in 2000)
o Competence is future-oriented. It does not measure only past successes but it provides its owner with the ability to quickly adapt to new environments and new challenges.
o Competence continually strives for improvement. Competent employees do not rely upon the Company (or others) to provide them with the means to improve. They constantly assess their own results and look for ways to better those results in the future – whether it is additional education, additional training, or additional study.
o Competence always demands a higher standard for himself/herself than does his/her employer.
The noted English architect Sir Christopher Wren was supervising the construction of a magnificent cathedral in London. A journalist thought it would be interesting to interview some of the workers, so he chose three and asked them this question, “What are you doing?” The first replied, “I’m cutting stone for 10 shillings a day.” The next answered, “I’m putting in 10 hours a day on this job.” But the third said, “I’m helping Sir Christopher Wren construct one of London’s greatest cathedrals.” That is a competent employee!
3. Craves Responsibility [2]
Third, look for employees who crave responsibility. When Abraham Lincoln took office in 1861, he found that the United States was unprepared for war. The country had an insufficient, poorly trained, and poorly equipped army of only 16,000 men under the command of 75-year-old Gen. Winfield Scott. Scott was old, physically unable to command in the field, and his theories and strategies of warfare were outdated.
What would you do if confronted with a situation as severe as this? Sit back? Wait and see if someone came forward to handle the problem? Not so with Lincoln. Lincoln believed that if one’s chief subordinates do not move and get the job going, then you should act, decisively and without hesitation.
Contemporary leaders who experience difficulties finding the right employees can take comfort in the knowledge that Lincoln spent more than two and a half years searching for an aggressive general who could do the job. Over that period of time, Lincoln went through general after general (ten generals in all) seeking a chief subordinate who craved responsibility, was a risk-taker, and, most importantly, made things happen. It wasn’t until March, 1864, that Lincoln finally found his man when he officially promoted Ulysses S. Grant to the rank of lieutenant general and consolidated all the armies of the United States under him. The rest is history.
All leaders should realize that they can’t do everything on their own. They simply must have people below them who will do what is necessary to insure success. Those employees who will take risks, act without waiting for direction, and ask for responsibility rather than reject it, should be treated as your most prized possessions. Such individuals are exceedingly rare and worth their weight in gold. And when you finally find one – as Lincoln found Grant – they tend to multiply. The “Grants” of the world will choose others in their own image, just as Lincoln’s Grant chose aggressive generals such as Sheridan and Sherman rather than procrastinators like McClellan and Hooker.
4. Team Orientation [3]
Fourth, look for employees who are “team” oriented. Too often individuals champion their individuality as an excuse to do whatever they want, whenever they want. That is no formula for success in sports, in battle, or in business. As Benjamin Franklin put it when he defied the British and signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1976: “We must indeed all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
The need for employees who are “team” oriented can be shown by look back at the 1996 Washington Redskins. This team fielded a team of highly talented (and overpaid individuals) who looked like Super Bowl champions only to win a handful of games. Four years later, that same group of players made up the highest paid team in the NFL but still could not make it to the playoffs. (I wonder what is going to happen to the 2010-11 Miami Heat?)
It’s perfectly fine for an employee to take personal pride in personal achievement -- and in fact you want this. But this can’t come at the expense of the health of the team as a whole. If you work with other people you are part of a team. On teams individuals may be very different from each other and each unique member may have a different level of contribution to make. But everyone is valuable because each member adds to the overall success of the team. You want (and need) employees to support each other – just make sure that they don’t compete with each other.
This reminds me of a story about a very team-oriented volunteer:
When Christian Herter was governor of Massachusetts, he was running hard for a second term in office. One day, after a busy morning chasing votes (and no lunch) he arrived at a church barbecue. It was late afternoon and Herter was famished. As Herter moved down the serving line, he held out his plate to the woman serving chicken. She put a piece on his plate and turned to the next person in line. “Excuse me,” Governor Herter said, “do you mind if I have another piece of chicken?” “Sorry,” the woman told him. “I’m supposed to give one piece of chicken to each person.” “But I’m starved,” the governor said. “Sorry,” the woman said again. “Only one to a customer.” Governor Herter was a modest and unassuming man, but he decided that this time he would throw a little weight around. “Do you know who I am?” he said. “I am the governor of this state.” “Do you know who I am?” the woman said. “I’m the lady in charge of the chicken. Move along, mister.” [4]
5. Intellectual Honesty
Fifth, look for employees who are “intellectually” honest. What do I mean? You want employees that are willing to:
o Base their decisions on objective evidence.
o Not allow their personal beliefs to interfere with the pursuit of truth.
o Present facts in an unbiased manner.
o Acknowledge their dependence upon the ideas of others and do not claim it for themselves.
o Show a willingness to acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.
o Acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases.
o Acknowledge when their argument is weak (or when they are wrong).
o Address an argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.
o Show a commitment to critical thinking.
o Be open to criticism.
How does one foster such intellectual honesty? It is by building a culture of honest inquiry. To do so, there are several things you need to do. You need to:
o ask questions,
o acknowledge errors of your own,
o accept the ideas of others as being superior to your own,
o avoid blaming others, and
o avoid encouraging biased instead of rational thinking.
Your criteria for a “great employee” might be different from this list. That’s fine. The employees you select and retain will be working for you, not me. But whatever your criteria, here’s a piece of advice: Don’t settle!
Bob Lewis writes: “My personal experience, the experience of others, virtually every study on the subject leads to an inescapable conclusion -- Great employees produce 5-20X more value than average employees. Since you’re unlikely to pay your best employees more than double what you pay average ones, they are quite cost effective. In fact, they are cheaper at even twice the price!” [1]
In addition to delivering disproportionate value themselves, great performers also raise the bar for everyone around them. They help everyone around them excel. Simply put, their performance is contagious. On the other hand, poor employees achieve the opposite. They bring negative productivity to the team. Beyond their own limitations, they drag down everyone they interact with. No matter how little you pay them, they are unacceptably expensive.
Endnotes
[1] Adapted from “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology” by Bob Lewis
[2] Adapted from “Lincoln on Leadership” by Donald T. Phillips
[3] Adapted from “It’s Your Ship” by Captain D. Michael Abrashoff
[4] Bits & Pieces, May 28, 1992, Page 5-6
[5] Adapted from “The Mark of a Leader” by Doug Keeley
[6] Adapted from “The Ten Rules of Good Followership” by Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger
[7] Adapted from “Leadership Gold” by John Maxwell
Monday, September 13, 2010
Transformational Servant Leadership
Introduction
For the past thirty years, numerous articles and books have been devoted to leadership styles in the realm of business. Despite this groundswell of material and research, there is still no comprehensive understanding of what leadership is, nor is there an agreement among different theorists on what good or effective leadership should be. With that said, two leadership styles – transformational leadership and servant leadership – have arguably gained the ascendency in the business world.
The origins of transformational leadership can be traced back to 1973 when J.V. Downton coined the term “transformational leader” in his work “Rebel Leadership:Commitment and Charisma in a Revolutionary Process.” Transformational leadership is a process of transforming an organization by persuading colleagues to work together to achieve a vision (Burns, 1978). They have an ability to exceptionally influence their followers to share in the vision and to perform well beyond what is usually expected of them. Transformational leaders also have an ability to align individual aspirations and motivations to that of an organization vision (stewardship component).
Servant leadership seems to be all the rage these days. Every company wants “servant leaders”, but few seem to know much about servant leadership. The origins of modern servant leadership can be traced back to 1970 when Robert K. Greenleaf coined the terms “servant leader” and “servant leadership” (Greenleaf, 1970). "Servant leadership is an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader. Servant leadership promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of each individual, the total organization and those served by the organization" (Laub, 1999). Though the organization and external stakeholders are important, it is clear that needs of the members of the organization are placed in priority over organizational success. A servant leader views leadership not as position or status, but as an opportunity to serve others, to develop them to their full potential. Greenleaf believed the final goal of servanthood was to help others become servants themselves so that society would benefit as well.
The conceptual framework for each leadership style is very similar. Both leadership styles have a charismatic component or underpinning. Both are inspirational, trustworthy, ethical, egalitarian, and focused on mentoring. In other words, much of servant leadership may be subsumed within the transformational leadership model. Nonetheless, they ultimately form a distinctly separate theoretical framework because of one perceived, primary difference. The difference is reflected in the following statement by A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, and Kathleen Peterson (2003): “The principal difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus of the leader. While transformational leaders and servant leaders both show concern for their followers, the overriding focus of the servant leader is upon service to their followers. The transformational leader has a greater concern for getting followers to engage in and support organizational objectives.”
Given the information presented, it appears that both leadership styles have strengths and can bring real change in organizations. What is not clear, is the universality of transformational and servant leadership. Specifically, are both of these styles sufficient in all contexts, or do the contexts (in which the organizations exist) make one or the other of these leadership styles more appropriate? (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004)
The purpose of this brief presentation is to suggest that a hybrid of these two leadership styles – transformational servant leadership – leads to a leadership style that:
o Blends the strengths of both leadership styles
o Offsets the weaknesses of both leadership styles
o Avoids the need to utilize “situational” leadership
o Has the greatest contextual appropriateness
To better explain transformational servant leadership, let us consider its:
o Foundation
o Facets
o Forces (think strengths)
Its Foundation
Humility is not taught in management courses or in many leadership courses, for that matter. Organizations want their leaders to be visionary, authoritative, confident, capable, and motivational. Yet, humility is the primary requirement for leadership. Or stated in a different manner, humility is the foundation of leadership. Why is humility essential (i.e., foundational) to leadership (including Transformational Servant Leadership)? It is because humility:
o Acknowledges our sinfulness,
o Comprehends our creatureliness, and
o Authenticates our humanness.
1. Acknowledges Our Sinfulness
The Psalmist writes: “Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults. Also keep back Thy servant from presumptuous sins; then I shall be blameless, and I shall be acquitted of great transgression” (Psalm 19:12-13).
The first reason that we need humility in leadership is because we are sinners. (Note: To those who object to this statement, I ask that you be patient and consider the other arguments for the importance of humility.) We have deceitful hearts. We truly do not realize the depth of sin. As such, it is important for us – in humility – to acknowledge our sinfulness.
This acknowledgement of man’s sinfulness has been a foundational principle of all successful governments. For example, this acknowledgement led our founding fathers to build into the very fabric of our governmental structure, a separation of powers. Each branch of government – executive, legislative, and judicial – is bridled by a series of checks and balances. Why? As Lord Achton expressed in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” A similar statement was expressed by William Pitt in 1770: “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” Whenever governments have acknowledged man’s sinfulness, liberty and freedom have quickly followed.
2. Comprehends Our Creatureliness
The second reason that we need humility in leadership is because it comprehends our creatureliness. The word “humility” itself comes from the Latin word humus, which means "dirt" or "earth." Behind the concept of humility is the realization that life inevitably ends with a return to the earth, "from dust to dust," as the expression goes. Since this inglorious end awaits all of us, it hardly behooves us to be boastful or full of ourselves. Ultimately we all turn into dust. Thus, true humility never lets us lose sight of our human mortality with all of its limitations (Armour, 2007).
Colonel Larry R. Donnithorne (Ret.), in his book “The West Point Way of Leadership,” captures this fact: “Every leader is a follower. No one commands an organization without restraints. For every leader, no matter how ‘supreme,’ there is always a higher authority who must be answered.” The employee answers to the manager. The manager answers to the director. The director answers to the CIO. The CIO answers to the CEO. The CEO answers to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors answers to its shareholders. Even the shareholders answer to somebody. Why? We are creatures, not the Creator.
3. Authenticates Our Humaness
The third reason that we need humility in leadership is because it authenticates our humanness. Or as John Baldoni states in his article entitled “Humility”: “Humility is a strand between leader and follower that underscores one common element – our humanity.” We humans are frail creatures. We have our faults. Recognizing what we do well, as well as what we do not do so well is vital to self-awareness and paramount to humility. Humility keeps us attuned to our frailty, our inadequacy, and our vulnerability (Baldoni, 2007).
Most successful leaders understand that a sense of humility is essential to winning the hearts and minds of followers. Humility is a visible demonstration of concern and compassion, as well as authenticity. Leaders who are to be followed must be leaders who understand the human condition, especially their own. Those in authority who are blind to their inner selves are likely to do stupid things, like invade Russia (Napoleon), invade France and Russia (Hitler) and invade Kuwait (Saddam). On a less serious note, managers out of touch with reality put their own interests first - Ken Lay, Richard Scrushy and Dennis Kozlowski come to mind. None of these supposed leaders demonstrated one iota of humility, and, in the process, ran their businesses into the ground. By contrast, leaders such as Colleen Barrett of Southwest Airlines, along with her leadership team, have created a culture of humility, one that springs from concern for others as a means of building a people-centric organization. Humility is an approach to life that says "I don't have all the answers and I want your contribution." For some people, that is no problem. For people at the top, that may seem akin to saying, "I am naked." Or close. Humility is a form of nakedness, but not a form of exhibitionism. Rather, it's a demonstration of acceptance as well as resolve. Humility is acceptance of individual limitations - I cannot do it alone - coupled with a sense of resolve to do something about it - I will enlist the help of others. That is the essence of leadership (Armour, 2007).
Its Facets
Having considered the foundation of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its facets. It is a transformational journey that encompasses (borrowing a framework from Blanchard and Hodges, 2005):
o The motivation of the heart
o The perspective of the head
o The behavior of the hands
o The practice of habits
Let us quickly look at each of these facets.
1. The Motivation of the Heart
Most leadership books and seminars focus on the leader’s behavior and try to improve his/her leadership style and methods. That is, they attempt to change leadership from the outside. That objective is misguided. Effective leadership starts on the inside. It is a heart issue. If one does not get the heart right, then we simply won’t ever become transformational servant leaders.
The primary question you have to ask yourself is: “Am I a servant leader or a self-serving leader?” That is, “Do you seek to serve or be served?” Self-serving leaders never bring themselves to subjugate their own needs to the greater ambition of something larger and more lasting than themselves. Work will always be first and foremost of what they get – fame, fortune, power, adulation, etc. Work will never be about what they build, create and contribute. Secondly, self-serving leaders do not invest in succession planning. They view such an investment as a threat. Finally, self-serving leaders think they should lead and others should follow.
Transformational servant leaders, on the other hand, have a completely different motivation. They view their leadership as an awesome responsibility that affords them a position of trust and stewardship to take care of those entrusted to them – their staff and the company they work for. They build, create, and contribute to something that is larger and more lasting than themselves. Finally, they realize they came into the world with nothing and will leave with nothing.
Jim Collins mentioned this “heart” in his seminal work -- “Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't.” In this book, Collins examined companies that went from good to great by sustaining 15-year cumulative stock returns at or below the general stock market, and after a transition point, cumulative returns at least three times the market over the next 15 years. Among the many characteristics that distinguished these companies from others is that they all had leaders that directed their ego away from themselves to the larger goal of leading their company to greatness.
2. The Perspective of the Head
The journey of transformational servant leader starts in the heart with motivation and intent. Then it travels through the head, which is the leaders’ belief systems and perspective on the role of the leader. Transformational servant leaders have a specific point of view related to themselves and to others.
o View of Self
A transformational servant leader, first, dies to himself/herself. They sacrifice themselves to a higher good or yield to a legitimate authority. Quite often it means doing what you don’t want to do. Sometimes it means going down with the ship so that others may live. Second, they realize that the beginning of followership is getting to zero. That is, it is realizing that you don’t know everything and open yourself to the possibility of being remade into something more (Donnithorne, 1993). Third, a transformational servant leader is capable of performing a self-analysis in order to know their strengths and weaknesses. They “know” their mistakes, but see them not as failures, but as learning opportunities.
o View of Others
A transformational servant leader also has a specific point of view related to others. They believe everyone has dignity. Everyone deserves respect. Everyone deserves to be elevated. Secondly, they do not consider themselves to be superior to those underneath their authority. Thirdly, they avoid the trap of being proud for getting to where they are at. They know that they didn’t get themselves here. They know that others helped them, encouraged them and assisted them to get to where they are now.
3. The Behavior of the Hands
That which is in the heart and in the head, must be practiced. Your motivations and beliefs must affect your actions. What are some examples of how one can “practice” transformational servant leadership?
o Invite feedback. One of the operative principles of coaching is giving feedback. Managers need to turn the tables on themselves and invite their employees to give them feedback, too. But before they can do this, they must spade the ground. Asking for feedback from subordinates without proper preparation is akin to pulling a knife on them. Of course they will tell you what you want to hear. Leaders must make it safe for their people to offer criticism as well as advice. When done properly, it builds trust.
o Encourage dissent. Part of feedback is dissent, a disagreement with the central point of view. For leaders, dissent is a good gut-check as well as a lesson in humility. As with feedback, when you make it safe for people to voice a discordant note, you get other points of view. Accept dissent as a form of humility.
o Temper authority. Power comes with rank but you don't have to pull it to make it work for you. You can encourage others to make decisions by delegating authority and responsibility. Encourage your people to write their own performance objectives and set team goals. Allow them to make decisions. Your authority comes in the form of imposing order and discipline.
o Acknowledge what others do. Few have said it better than legendary Alabama coach, Paul "Bear" Bryant. "If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, we did it. If anything goes really good, then you did it. That's all it takes to get people to win football games for you." Practice that attitude always, especially when things are not going well, and your team will rally together because they want you to succeed. In short, humility breeds humility.
o Turn failures into lessons. Mistakes give rise to the need for humility. Instead of trying to cover mistakes up, leaders need to publicize them. Not for the sake of retribution, but for the sake of education. According to the Wall Street Journal, Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company, took a second look at a cancer drug that had failed in human trials. Researchers at Lilly understand that the scientific method involves a degree of trial and error as well as failure analysis. The result is that mistakes can be turned into successes; the failed drug was modified and is now used to treat another form of cancer.
o Expect humility in others. Humility breeds humility. A good example of this practice is a Buddhist monastery. There all the monks work in support of the community and in pursuit of a oneness with their humanity and their spirituality. A sense of personal humility is a key to self-understanding that in turn leads to greater awareness of the wholeness of life. In other words, if you show humility, you can ask and expect others on your team to do the same.
o Demonstrate confidence. Too much humility can erode self-esteem. Ego is essential to leadership because it breeds self-confidence. If anything, leaders must demonstrate confidence, a sense that they can do the job. What leaders need to realize is humility need not be oppositional to confidence but rather supportive of it. Confidence is not simply about self, but can grow to embrace the entire team. That is, leaders can, and should, feel more confident knowing they have the support and the resources of others with which to do the job. And if the team is not right, then it is the leader's job to make it so through job training, personal development and augmentation of people with other skills.
o Don’t be first. First is not necessarily a bad thing, however being first can come across as competitive, self promoting or demoting of others. None of those things are common for a humble person. In a group or workplace, if you don’t be first to speak, participate or get involved, you give others a chance to be first. This can be very humbling for several reasons. You may see that others have better or smarter ideas than you had in the first place, you’re not the only one capable of the task or message and that you aren’t necessarily needed as much as you would like to think you are. These are very humbling realizations so if want to learn to be more humble, next time you have a chance to be first, don’t!
Jim Collins supports this truth in his best-selling leadership book Good to Great. According to Collins, when things are going well for typical self-serving leaders, they look in the mirror, beat their chests, and tell themselves how good they are. When things go wrong, they look out the window and blame everyone else. Great leaders, on the other hand, are humble. When things go well, they look out the window and give everybody else the credit. When things go wrong, these servant leaders look in the mirror and ask, What could I have done differently to allow these people to be as great as they could be?
4. The Habits as Experienced by Others
Now that your motivations and beliefs affect your actions, make sure that you renew your daily commitment (as a leader) to serve rather than to be served. It is very easy to be consumed by the rat race and the pressure of life. Good leadership habits are not a permanent characteristic. They can be lost or gained since human virtues are imperfect representations of the ideal. As such, all of us need to develop strategies and habits that will help us stay on purpose. For example, we should:
o Establish a habit of reading 2-3 books a month
o Set aside “quiet time” to think about leadership
o Be in prayer on a daily basis
o Join an accountability team/group
o Etc.
Forces
Having considered the foundation and facets of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its forces (or strengths). Transformational servant leadership is really just a version of servant leadership that is transformational. That is, it imbibes the strengths of servant leadership while overcoming its weaknesses. Like servant leadership, it shares the following strengths:
o Both inspire others to follow.
o Both have high ethical standards.
o Both have a sense of egalitarianism.
o Both practice coaching/mentoring.
o Both have a concern for the needs of others.
o Both are effective in communicating expectations.
o Both engender trust. These forms of leadership require that leaders engage with followers as ‘whole’ people, rather than simply as an ‘employee’ for example.
o Both build confidence in those that work underneath them (SL – in how they are cared and treated; TL – as a foundation for accepting radical organizational change)
Transformational servant leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of servant leadership. This includes:
o Broadening and elevating (Bass, 1990b) the interests of their employees beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.
o Providing more initiative/risk-taking to revitalize processes. The servant-leader model does not stress risk-taking behavior as an essential attribute of organizational success. In transformational leadership, on the other hand, the leader's initiative is strongly associated with risk taking as the necessary element of future success, as well as with the willingness to switch to the more effective practices and systems (or revitalizing organizational processes).
o Arousing and changing our followers’ awareness of problems and their capacity to solve those problems (Bono & Judge, 2004; Kelly, 2003). Transformational leaders question assumptions and beliefs and encourage followers to be innovative and creative, approaching old problems in new ways (Barbuto, 2005). They empower followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment or ridicule (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003).
o Avoiding slow consensus and leveraging acquired trust to expedite required changes. Servant leadership stresses collaboration and integrity, where communication and persuasion skills become extremely important. Decision-making processes involve most of the organizational members and generally results in consensus. The time factor is not considered crucial, which allows for groups to make mutually acceptable decisions. Transformational servant leadership, in contrast, gives the leader some initiative in decision making, for example, to take a certain risks or to drop obsolete practices. This, however, does not guarantee that the decision made will be completely accepted by followers, but the charismatic influence and inspirational power of a leader will support the faith in the correctness of a leader's actions.
o Creating an “empowered dynamic culture” (whereas servant leadership leads to a “spiritual generative culture"). Under the Servant Leader model, the leader's motivation to lead arises from an underlying attitude of egalitarianism. In other words, the leader's belief system says he or she is no better than those who are led. All members of the organization have equal rights to vision, respect, and information. The leader's role is to facilitate the emergence of a community within the organization. A spiritually generative culture is one in which members are focuses on the personal growth of themselves and others, and the organizational systems that facilitate that growth. It is further suggested that, while this culture is satisfying to organizational members, it results in followers who are passive to the external environment and unlikely to want to upset internal conditions which might require substantive changes in the status quo but is conducive to generating internal personal growth. The Transformational Servant Leader emerges from a different motivation base. Where the servant leader has a sense of egalitarianism, the transformational servant leader is motivated by a sense of mission to recreate the organization to survive in a challenging external environment. The transformational leader's motivation base has a more macro focus. Individual growth and development are not unimportant but must be related to the organization's success in the external environment. This leader approach produces the empowered dynamic culture. Organizational members in this type of organization not only have high skills but also have high expectations placed upon them. The leader models high performance. A reading of the descriptions of servant leadership reveals no calls for risk taking and innovation, while this is a key element in a transformed organization. Clearly some of the outcomes of the transformational model are similar to the spiritual generative culture. For example, the call for high ethical standards and concern for the individual are apparent in both. It could be suggested, however, that in servant leadership one arises from a belief in human dignity as a primary organization goal; while in the transformational organization these virtues are valued because to be successful the organization as a whole depends on a strong "virtuous" foundation.
o Motivating individuals and organizations to follow a new idea. Transformational leaders make clear an appealing view of the future, offer followers the opportunity to see meaning in their work, and challenge them with high standards. They encourage followers to become part of the overall organizational culture and environment (Kelly, 2003; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might be achieved through motivational speeches and conversations and other public displays of optimism and enthusiasm, highlighting positive outcomes, and stimulating teamwork (Simic, 1998, p. 52). Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and US President John F. Kennedy’s vision of putting a man on the moon by 1970 stand out as exceptional examples of this characteristic (Yukl, 1989, p. 221).
o Tying individual growth/development to organizational success.
Merging servant leadership with transformation leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of transformational leadership. For example, it:
o Avoids the possibility of dictatorial behavior by the leader. A key criticism of transformation leadership is it’s potential for the abuse of power (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002). Transformational leaders can choose to motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on followers and do not necessarily attend to positive moral values. As Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003, p. 4) observe, transformational leaders can exert a very powerful influence over followers, who offer them trust and respect. Some leaders may have narcissistic tendencies, thriving on power and manipulation. Further, as Bass (1997) notes, transformational leadership lacks the checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and power that might help to avoid dictatorship and oppression of a minority by a majority. In the absence of moral rectitude it is self-evident then that transformational leadership might be applied for less-than-desirable social ends.
o Lets us treat even difficult people with such respect that we help them feel worthwhile. People do not typically invest their trust in someone who makes them feel invisible or insignificant.
o Leaves us open to what others can teach us, no matter what their station in life. As a result we learn and develop wisdom more quickly, because we let everyone be our mentor.
References
Armour, M. (2007). Humility and Leadership: No Laughing Matter. LeadershipPerfect Newsletter: August 15, 2007.
Baldoni, J. (2007). Humility. www.johnbaldoni.com
Barbuto, J.E. (2005). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26-40.
Bass, B.M. Avolio, B.J., Jund, D.I. & Berson, Y. (2003). Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), pp. 207-218.
Bass, B.M. (1997). KLSP: Transformational Leadership, Working Papers http://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/klspdocs/bbass_pl.htm
Blanchard, K., Hodges, P. (2005). Lead Like Jesus. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Donnithorne, L.R. (1993). The West Point Way of Leadership. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Downton, J.V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in a revolutionary process. Free Press.
Graham, J.W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral.
Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A. & Kepner, K. (2002). http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu
Leadership Quarterly. 2 (2), 105-119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The Servant as Leader.
Kelly, M.L. (2003). The Mentor. from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/030101mk.htm
Laub, J.A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida Atlantic University.
Simic, I. (1998). Transformational Leadership. Facta Universitas, 1(6). p. 52.
Smith, B., Montagno, R. & Kuzmenko, T. (2004). Transformational and Servant Leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Spring 2004.
Stone, G.A., Russell, R.F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 25(4), 349-361.
Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations (2nd ed.). p. 221
For the past thirty years, numerous articles and books have been devoted to leadership styles in the realm of business. Despite this groundswell of material and research, there is still no comprehensive understanding of what leadership is, nor is there an agreement among different theorists on what good or effective leadership should be. With that said, two leadership styles – transformational leadership and servant leadership – have arguably gained the ascendency in the business world.
The origins of transformational leadership can be traced back to 1973 when J.V. Downton coined the term “transformational leader” in his work “Rebel Leadership:Commitment and Charisma in a Revolutionary Process.” Transformational leadership is a process of transforming an organization by persuading colleagues to work together to achieve a vision (Burns, 1978). They have an ability to exceptionally influence their followers to share in the vision and to perform well beyond what is usually expected of them. Transformational leaders also have an ability to align individual aspirations and motivations to that of an organization vision (stewardship component).
Servant leadership seems to be all the rage these days. Every company wants “servant leaders”, but few seem to know much about servant leadership. The origins of modern servant leadership can be traced back to 1970 when Robert K. Greenleaf coined the terms “servant leader” and “servant leadership” (Greenleaf, 1970). "Servant leadership is an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader. Servant leadership promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of each individual, the total organization and those served by the organization" (Laub, 1999). Though the organization and external stakeholders are important, it is clear that needs of the members of the organization are placed in priority over organizational success. A servant leader views leadership not as position or status, but as an opportunity to serve others, to develop them to their full potential. Greenleaf believed the final goal of servanthood was to help others become servants themselves so that society would benefit as well.
The conceptual framework for each leadership style is very similar. Both leadership styles have a charismatic component or underpinning. Both are inspirational, trustworthy, ethical, egalitarian, and focused on mentoring. In other words, much of servant leadership may be subsumed within the transformational leadership model. Nonetheless, they ultimately form a distinctly separate theoretical framework because of one perceived, primary difference. The difference is reflected in the following statement by A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, and Kathleen Peterson (2003): “The principal difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus of the leader. While transformational leaders and servant leaders both show concern for their followers, the overriding focus of the servant leader is upon service to their followers. The transformational leader has a greater concern for getting followers to engage in and support organizational objectives.”
Given the information presented, it appears that both leadership styles have strengths and can bring real change in organizations. What is not clear, is the universality of transformational and servant leadership. Specifically, are both of these styles sufficient in all contexts, or do the contexts (in which the organizations exist) make one or the other of these leadership styles more appropriate? (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004)
The purpose of this brief presentation is to suggest that a hybrid of these two leadership styles – transformational servant leadership – leads to a leadership style that:
o Blends the strengths of both leadership styles
o Offsets the weaknesses of both leadership styles
o Avoids the need to utilize “situational” leadership
o Has the greatest contextual appropriateness
To better explain transformational servant leadership, let us consider its:
o Foundation
o Facets
o Forces (think strengths)
Its Foundation
Humility is not taught in management courses or in many leadership courses, for that matter. Organizations want their leaders to be visionary, authoritative, confident, capable, and motivational. Yet, humility is the primary requirement for leadership. Or stated in a different manner, humility is the foundation of leadership. Why is humility essential (i.e., foundational) to leadership (including Transformational Servant Leadership)? It is because humility:
o Acknowledges our sinfulness,
o Comprehends our creatureliness, and
o Authenticates our humanness.
1. Acknowledges Our Sinfulness
The Psalmist writes: “Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults. Also keep back Thy servant from presumptuous sins; then I shall be blameless, and I shall be acquitted of great transgression” (Psalm 19:12-13).
The first reason that we need humility in leadership is because we are sinners. (Note: To those who object to this statement, I ask that you be patient and consider the other arguments for the importance of humility.) We have deceitful hearts. We truly do not realize the depth of sin. As such, it is important for us – in humility – to acknowledge our sinfulness.
This acknowledgement of man’s sinfulness has been a foundational principle of all successful governments. For example, this acknowledgement led our founding fathers to build into the very fabric of our governmental structure, a separation of powers. Each branch of government – executive, legislative, and judicial – is bridled by a series of checks and balances. Why? As Lord Achton expressed in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” A similar statement was expressed by William Pitt in 1770: “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” Whenever governments have acknowledged man’s sinfulness, liberty and freedom have quickly followed.
2. Comprehends Our Creatureliness
The second reason that we need humility in leadership is because it comprehends our creatureliness. The word “humility” itself comes from the Latin word humus, which means "dirt" or "earth." Behind the concept of humility is the realization that life inevitably ends with a return to the earth, "from dust to dust," as the expression goes. Since this inglorious end awaits all of us, it hardly behooves us to be boastful or full of ourselves. Ultimately we all turn into dust. Thus, true humility never lets us lose sight of our human mortality with all of its limitations (Armour, 2007).
Colonel Larry R. Donnithorne (Ret.), in his book “The West Point Way of Leadership,” captures this fact: “Every leader is a follower. No one commands an organization without restraints. For every leader, no matter how ‘supreme,’ there is always a higher authority who must be answered.” The employee answers to the manager. The manager answers to the director. The director answers to the CIO. The CIO answers to the CEO. The CEO answers to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors answers to its shareholders. Even the shareholders answer to somebody. Why? We are creatures, not the Creator.
3. Authenticates Our Humaness
The third reason that we need humility in leadership is because it authenticates our humanness. Or as John Baldoni states in his article entitled “Humility”: “Humility is a strand between leader and follower that underscores one common element – our humanity.” We humans are frail creatures. We have our faults. Recognizing what we do well, as well as what we do not do so well is vital to self-awareness and paramount to humility. Humility keeps us attuned to our frailty, our inadequacy, and our vulnerability (Baldoni, 2007).
Most successful leaders understand that a sense of humility is essential to winning the hearts and minds of followers. Humility is a visible demonstration of concern and compassion, as well as authenticity. Leaders who are to be followed must be leaders who understand the human condition, especially their own. Those in authority who are blind to their inner selves are likely to do stupid things, like invade Russia (Napoleon), invade France and Russia (Hitler) and invade Kuwait (Saddam). On a less serious note, managers out of touch with reality put their own interests first - Ken Lay, Richard Scrushy and Dennis Kozlowski come to mind. None of these supposed leaders demonstrated one iota of humility, and, in the process, ran their businesses into the ground. By contrast, leaders such as Colleen Barrett of Southwest Airlines, along with her leadership team, have created a culture of humility, one that springs from concern for others as a means of building a people-centric organization. Humility is an approach to life that says "I don't have all the answers and I want your contribution." For some people, that is no problem. For people at the top, that may seem akin to saying, "I am naked." Or close. Humility is a form of nakedness, but not a form of exhibitionism. Rather, it's a demonstration of acceptance as well as resolve. Humility is acceptance of individual limitations - I cannot do it alone - coupled with a sense of resolve to do something about it - I will enlist the help of others. That is the essence of leadership (Armour, 2007).
Its Facets
Having considered the foundation of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its facets. It is a transformational journey that encompasses (borrowing a framework from Blanchard and Hodges, 2005):
o The motivation of the heart
o The perspective of the head
o The behavior of the hands
o The practice of habits
Let us quickly look at each of these facets.
1. The Motivation of the Heart
Most leadership books and seminars focus on the leader’s behavior and try to improve his/her leadership style and methods. That is, they attempt to change leadership from the outside. That objective is misguided. Effective leadership starts on the inside. It is a heart issue. If one does not get the heart right, then we simply won’t ever become transformational servant leaders.
The primary question you have to ask yourself is: “Am I a servant leader or a self-serving leader?” That is, “Do you seek to serve or be served?” Self-serving leaders never bring themselves to subjugate their own needs to the greater ambition of something larger and more lasting than themselves. Work will always be first and foremost of what they get – fame, fortune, power, adulation, etc. Work will never be about what they build, create and contribute. Secondly, self-serving leaders do not invest in succession planning. They view such an investment as a threat. Finally, self-serving leaders think they should lead and others should follow.
Transformational servant leaders, on the other hand, have a completely different motivation. They view their leadership as an awesome responsibility that affords them a position of trust and stewardship to take care of those entrusted to them – their staff and the company they work for. They build, create, and contribute to something that is larger and more lasting than themselves. Finally, they realize they came into the world with nothing and will leave with nothing.
Jim Collins mentioned this “heart” in his seminal work -- “Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't.” In this book, Collins examined companies that went from good to great by sustaining 15-year cumulative stock returns at or below the general stock market, and after a transition point, cumulative returns at least three times the market over the next 15 years. Among the many characteristics that distinguished these companies from others is that they all had leaders that directed their ego away from themselves to the larger goal of leading their company to greatness.
2. The Perspective of the Head
The journey of transformational servant leader starts in the heart with motivation and intent. Then it travels through the head, which is the leaders’ belief systems and perspective on the role of the leader. Transformational servant leaders have a specific point of view related to themselves and to others.
o View of Self
A transformational servant leader, first, dies to himself/herself. They sacrifice themselves to a higher good or yield to a legitimate authority. Quite often it means doing what you don’t want to do. Sometimes it means going down with the ship so that others may live. Second, they realize that the beginning of followership is getting to zero. That is, it is realizing that you don’t know everything and open yourself to the possibility of being remade into something more (Donnithorne, 1993). Third, a transformational servant leader is capable of performing a self-analysis in order to know their strengths and weaknesses. They “know” their mistakes, but see them not as failures, but as learning opportunities.
o View of Others
A transformational servant leader also has a specific point of view related to others. They believe everyone has dignity. Everyone deserves respect. Everyone deserves to be elevated. Secondly, they do not consider themselves to be superior to those underneath their authority. Thirdly, they avoid the trap of being proud for getting to where they are at. They know that they didn’t get themselves here. They know that others helped them, encouraged them and assisted them to get to where they are now.
3. The Behavior of the Hands
That which is in the heart and in the head, must be practiced. Your motivations and beliefs must affect your actions. What are some examples of how one can “practice” transformational servant leadership?
o Invite feedback. One of the operative principles of coaching is giving feedback. Managers need to turn the tables on themselves and invite their employees to give them feedback, too. But before they can do this, they must spade the ground. Asking for feedback from subordinates without proper preparation is akin to pulling a knife on them. Of course they will tell you what you want to hear. Leaders must make it safe for their people to offer criticism as well as advice. When done properly, it builds trust.
o Encourage dissent. Part of feedback is dissent, a disagreement with the central point of view. For leaders, dissent is a good gut-check as well as a lesson in humility. As with feedback, when you make it safe for people to voice a discordant note, you get other points of view. Accept dissent as a form of humility.
o Temper authority. Power comes with rank but you don't have to pull it to make it work for you. You can encourage others to make decisions by delegating authority and responsibility. Encourage your people to write their own performance objectives and set team goals. Allow them to make decisions. Your authority comes in the form of imposing order and discipline.
o Acknowledge what others do. Few have said it better than legendary Alabama coach, Paul "Bear" Bryant. "If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, we did it. If anything goes really good, then you did it. That's all it takes to get people to win football games for you." Practice that attitude always, especially when things are not going well, and your team will rally together because they want you to succeed. In short, humility breeds humility.
o Turn failures into lessons. Mistakes give rise to the need for humility. Instead of trying to cover mistakes up, leaders need to publicize them. Not for the sake of retribution, but for the sake of education. According to the Wall Street Journal, Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company, took a second look at a cancer drug that had failed in human trials. Researchers at Lilly understand that the scientific method involves a degree of trial and error as well as failure analysis. The result is that mistakes can be turned into successes; the failed drug was modified and is now used to treat another form of cancer.
o Expect humility in others. Humility breeds humility. A good example of this practice is a Buddhist monastery. There all the monks work in support of the community and in pursuit of a oneness with their humanity and their spirituality. A sense of personal humility is a key to self-understanding that in turn leads to greater awareness of the wholeness of life. In other words, if you show humility, you can ask and expect others on your team to do the same.
o Demonstrate confidence. Too much humility can erode self-esteem. Ego is essential to leadership because it breeds self-confidence. If anything, leaders must demonstrate confidence, a sense that they can do the job. What leaders need to realize is humility need not be oppositional to confidence but rather supportive of it. Confidence is not simply about self, but can grow to embrace the entire team. That is, leaders can, and should, feel more confident knowing they have the support and the resources of others with which to do the job. And if the team is not right, then it is the leader's job to make it so through job training, personal development and augmentation of people with other skills.
o Don’t be first. First is not necessarily a bad thing, however being first can come across as competitive, self promoting or demoting of others. None of those things are common for a humble person. In a group or workplace, if you don’t be first to speak, participate or get involved, you give others a chance to be first. This can be very humbling for several reasons. You may see that others have better or smarter ideas than you had in the first place, you’re not the only one capable of the task or message and that you aren’t necessarily needed as much as you would like to think you are. These are very humbling realizations so if want to learn to be more humble, next time you have a chance to be first, don’t!
Jim Collins supports this truth in his best-selling leadership book Good to Great. According to Collins, when things are going well for typical self-serving leaders, they look in the mirror, beat their chests, and tell themselves how good they are. When things go wrong, they look out the window and blame everyone else. Great leaders, on the other hand, are humble. When things go well, they look out the window and give everybody else the credit. When things go wrong, these servant leaders look in the mirror and ask, What could I have done differently to allow these people to be as great as they could be?
4. The Habits as Experienced by Others
Now that your motivations and beliefs affect your actions, make sure that you renew your daily commitment (as a leader) to serve rather than to be served. It is very easy to be consumed by the rat race and the pressure of life. Good leadership habits are not a permanent characteristic. They can be lost or gained since human virtues are imperfect representations of the ideal. As such, all of us need to develop strategies and habits that will help us stay on purpose. For example, we should:
o Establish a habit of reading 2-3 books a month
o Set aside “quiet time” to think about leadership
o Be in prayer on a daily basis
o Join an accountability team/group
o Etc.
Forces
Having considered the foundation and facets of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its forces (or strengths). Transformational servant leadership is really just a version of servant leadership that is transformational. That is, it imbibes the strengths of servant leadership while overcoming its weaknesses. Like servant leadership, it shares the following strengths:
o Both inspire others to follow.
o Both have high ethical standards.
o Both have a sense of egalitarianism.
o Both practice coaching/mentoring.
o Both have a concern for the needs of others.
o Both are effective in communicating expectations.
o Both engender trust. These forms of leadership require that leaders engage with followers as ‘whole’ people, rather than simply as an ‘employee’ for example.
o Both build confidence in those that work underneath them (SL – in how they are cared and treated; TL – as a foundation for accepting radical organizational change)
Transformational servant leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of servant leadership. This includes:
o Broadening and elevating (Bass, 1990b) the interests of their employees beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.
o Providing more initiative/risk-taking to revitalize processes. The servant-leader model does not stress risk-taking behavior as an essential attribute of organizational success. In transformational leadership, on the other hand, the leader's initiative is strongly associated with risk taking as the necessary element of future success, as well as with the willingness to switch to the more effective practices and systems (or revitalizing organizational processes).
o Arousing and changing our followers’ awareness of problems and their capacity to solve those problems (Bono & Judge, 2004; Kelly, 2003). Transformational leaders question assumptions and beliefs and encourage followers to be innovative and creative, approaching old problems in new ways (Barbuto, 2005). They empower followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment or ridicule (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003).
o Avoiding slow consensus and leveraging acquired trust to expedite required changes. Servant leadership stresses collaboration and integrity, where communication and persuasion skills become extremely important. Decision-making processes involve most of the organizational members and generally results in consensus. The time factor is not considered crucial, which allows for groups to make mutually acceptable decisions. Transformational servant leadership, in contrast, gives the leader some initiative in decision making, for example, to take a certain risks or to drop obsolete practices. This, however, does not guarantee that the decision made will be completely accepted by followers, but the charismatic influence and inspirational power of a leader will support the faith in the correctness of a leader's actions.
o Creating an “empowered dynamic culture” (whereas servant leadership leads to a “spiritual generative culture"). Under the Servant Leader model, the leader's motivation to lead arises from an underlying attitude of egalitarianism. In other words, the leader's belief system says he or she is no better than those who are led. All members of the organization have equal rights to vision, respect, and information. The leader's role is to facilitate the emergence of a community within the organization. A spiritually generative culture is one in which members are focuses on the personal growth of themselves and others, and the organizational systems that facilitate that growth. It is further suggested that, while this culture is satisfying to organizational members, it results in followers who are passive to the external environment and unlikely to want to upset internal conditions which might require substantive changes in the status quo but is conducive to generating internal personal growth. The Transformational Servant Leader emerges from a different motivation base. Where the servant leader has a sense of egalitarianism, the transformational servant leader is motivated by a sense of mission to recreate the organization to survive in a challenging external environment. The transformational leader's motivation base has a more macro focus. Individual growth and development are not unimportant but must be related to the organization's success in the external environment. This leader approach produces the empowered dynamic culture. Organizational members in this type of organization not only have high skills but also have high expectations placed upon them. The leader models high performance. A reading of the descriptions of servant leadership reveals no calls for risk taking and innovation, while this is a key element in a transformed organization. Clearly some of the outcomes of the transformational model are similar to the spiritual generative culture. For example, the call for high ethical standards and concern for the individual are apparent in both. It could be suggested, however, that in servant leadership one arises from a belief in human dignity as a primary organization goal; while in the transformational organization these virtues are valued because to be successful the organization as a whole depends on a strong "virtuous" foundation.
o Motivating individuals and organizations to follow a new idea. Transformational leaders make clear an appealing view of the future, offer followers the opportunity to see meaning in their work, and challenge them with high standards. They encourage followers to become part of the overall organizational culture and environment (Kelly, 2003; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might be achieved through motivational speeches and conversations and other public displays of optimism and enthusiasm, highlighting positive outcomes, and stimulating teamwork (Simic, 1998, p. 52). Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and US President John F. Kennedy’s vision of putting a man on the moon by 1970 stand out as exceptional examples of this characteristic (Yukl, 1989, p. 221).
o Tying individual growth/development to organizational success.
Merging servant leadership with transformation leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of transformational leadership. For example, it:
o Avoids the possibility of dictatorial behavior by the leader. A key criticism of transformation leadership is it’s potential for the abuse of power (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002). Transformational leaders can choose to motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on followers and do not necessarily attend to positive moral values. As Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003, p. 4) observe, transformational leaders can exert a very powerful influence over followers, who offer them trust and respect. Some leaders may have narcissistic tendencies, thriving on power and manipulation. Further, as Bass (1997) notes, transformational leadership lacks the checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and power that might help to avoid dictatorship and oppression of a minority by a majority. In the absence of moral rectitude it is self-evident then that transformational leadership might be applied for less-than-desirable social ends.
o Lets us treat even difficult people with such respect that we help them feel worthwhile. People do not typically invest their trust in someone who makes them feel invisible or insignificant.
o Leaves us open to what others can teach us, no matter what their station in life. As a result we learn and develop wisdom more quickly, because we let everyone be our mentor.
References
Armour, M. (2007). Humility and Leadership: No Laughing Matter. LeadershipPerfect Newsletter: August 15, 2007.
Baldoni, J. (2007). Humility. www.johnbaldoni.com
Barbuto, J.E. (2005). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26-40.
Bass, B.M. Avolio, B.J., Jund, D.I. & Berson, Y. (2003). Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), pp. 207-218.
Bass, B.M. (1997). KLSP: Transformational Leadership, Working Papers http://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/klspdocs/bbass_pl.htm
Blanchard, K., Hodges, P. (2005). Lead Like Jesus. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Donnithorne, L.R. (1993). The West Point Way of Leadership. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Downton, J.V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in a revolutionary process. Free Press.
Graham, J.W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral.
Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A. & Kepner, K. (2002). http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu
Leadership Quarterly. 2 (2), 105-119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The Servant as Leader.
Kelly, M.L. (2003). The Mentor. from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/030101mk.htm
Laub, J.A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida Atlantic University.
Simic, I. (1998). Transformational Leadership. Facta Universitas, 1(6). p. 52.
Smith, B., Montagno, R. & Kuzmenko, T. (2004). Transformational and Servant Leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Spring 2004.
Stone, G.A., Russell, R.F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 25(4), 349-361.
Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations (2nd ed.). p. 221
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Managing & Developing Your Employees
Howard Dean tells the story of an instructor on his staff that had been explaining leadership to a class of police recruits. Calling a man to the front of the class, he handed him a piece of paper on which was written: "You are in charge. Get everyone out of the room without causing a panic." The recruit was at a loss for words and returned to his seat. The second man summoned tried: "Everybody outside. Go!" No one moved. A third man (when given the chance) glanced at the instructions, smiled, and said: "All right, men. Break for lunch." The room emptied in seconds.
Sports franchises, sales teams, and IT Departments all desire to assemble the best set of talent possible. How does one assemble such talent? Much like the story in the introduction, the best “talent” is creative and successful. And if you assemble such talent, how do you ensure that you develop them? Many sports franchises have assembled talented teams only to see a less-talented team take the title. And if you develop them, how do you retain them?
I would like to take a stab at answering these questions. For I believe that the key to managing and developing your “team” as a CIO, is to embrace three inviolable (or sacrosanct if you prefer) principles:
o Don’t settle when hiring employees
o Never stop coaching employees
o Do everything you can to retain great employees
Let us consider each of these inviolable principles.
TO BE CONTINUED
Sports franchises, sales teams, and IT Departments all desire to assemble the best set of talent possible. How does one assemble such talent? Much like the story in the introduction, the best “talent” is creative and successful. And if you assemble such talent, how do you ensure that you develop them? Many sports franchises have assembled talented teams only to see a less-talented team take the title. And if you develop them, how do you retain them?
I would like to take a stab at answering these questions. For I believe that the key to managing and developing your “team” as a CIO, is to embrace three inviolable (or sacrosanct if you prefer) principles:
o Don’t settle when hiring employees
o Never stop coaching employees
o Do everything you can to retain great employees
Let us consider each of these inviolable principles.
TO BE CONTINUED
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Book Review: The Big Switch
Nicolas Carr's “The Big Switch” is a must read for those in the business world. It starts with a simple and profound thesis: Computing is turning into a utility and the effects of this transition will ultimately change society as completely as the advent of cheap electricity did.
If you accept this thesis as being true, it leads to a series of likely conclusions. I will pick just five for your consideration.
1. Once utility computing services mature, the idea of getting rid of your PC will become much more attractive.
2. In the long run, the IT Department is unlikely to survive (as we know it today).
3. Anyone employed by a business whose product or service can be distributed in digital form may be at risk.
4. The arrival of the universal computing grid portends a very different kind of economic realignment. Rather than concentrating wealth in the hands of a small number of companies, it may concentrate wealth in the hands of a small number of individuals, eroding the middle class and widening the divide between haves and have-nots.
5. Computerization puts many American wage-earners in a double bind; it reduces the demand for their jobs even as it expands the supply of workers ready and able to perform them.
If any of these conclusions interest you (and they should), you need to read this book.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0-5): 4.5
If you accept this thesis as being true, it leads to a series of likely conclusions. I will pick just five for your consideration.
1. Once utility computing services mature, the idea of getting rid of your PC will become much more attractive.
2. In the long run, the IT Department is unlikely to survive (as we know it today).
3. Anyone employed by a business whose product or service can be distributed in digital form may be at risk.
4. The arrival of the universal computing grid portends a very different kind of economic realignment. Rather than concentrating wealth in the hands of a small number of companies, it may concentrate wealth in the hands of a small number of individuals, eroding the middle class and widening the divide between haves and have-nots.
5. Computerization puts many American wage-earners in a double bind; it reduces the demand for their jobs even as it expands the supply of workers ready and able to perform them.
If any of these conclusions interest you (and they should), you need to read this book.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0-5): 4.5
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Lessons Learned from CEO Transitions
It happened again last week. On my first day back from vacation, I walked into the Monday morning Senior Leadership Team meeting and learned that our CEO had turned in his resignation. This announcement meant that I will now be working for my fourth CEO in just eleven months! Least you think that our company is in financial trouble, you need to know that: our sales are growing, we are profitable, we are the market leader in two of our three lines of business, and we have arguably one of the best brand recognitions in the environmental services space. So this blog entry is not about what one can learn in the midst of downsizing an organization or managing an IT department in the midst of chaos. Rather, it is about what I am learning in the midst of repetitive changes in who sits in the CEO chair. While there are many lessons that can (and have been learned), let me share just three of the more pertinent:
1. Seize the Initiative and Never Relinquish It
With any CEO change, the CIO will have to re-introduce themselves, prove themselves, and/or re-justify themselves. That re-introduction includes your position, your Department, your strategy, your past accomplishments, your past failures, and your present challenges. That is why you must seize the initiative and never relinquish it. Do not allow others in the organization (Board members, fellow reports to the CEO, etc.) to “define” yourself or your Department. Make a strong “first” impression with the new CEO. Provide him/her with a notebook. This notebook should provide an overview of the Department, its accomplishments, its strategy, and its spend (amongst other things). Emphasize how IT is working with the Business to increase revenues, decrease expenses, increase efficiency, and diminish risks. Make sure that the CEO sees you as being a strategy leader and not a technology leader. Make sure that they see you are part of the “solution” and not part of the problem.
2. The Value of Alliances
In nature, lone wolves live shorter lives than those who belong to a pack. Allying with others increases your influence with the new CEO and protects your back side. Remember (as Bob Lewis writes in “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology”) that your peers are either allies, neutrals, or opponents. As such, you always need to: 1) maximize the number of allies, 2) convert as many neutrals to allies as possible, 3) convert as many opponents to neutrals as possible, and 4) avoid turning any opponents into enemies. Those investments will pay huge dividends during these times of CEO transition.
3. Focus on the Task at Hand
It is very easy during a CEO transition to freeze and await new marching orders. Don’t! Focus on the task at hand. Your war will not be won by strategy alone. Your war will be won by hard, desperate, hand-to-hand fighting. Make sure that you keep the engine room running, the car operating on eight cylinders, or whatever analogy you prefer. Avoid major conflicts in the form of quarrels and arguments. You simply don’t have time for it. Everywhere you go, at every conceivable opportunity, reaffirm, reassert, and remind everyone that you are keeping your eye on the ball (another one of those analogies).
1. Seize the Initiative and Never Relinquish It
With any CEO change, the CIO will have to re-introduce themselves, prove themselves, and/or re-justify themselves. That re-introduction includes your position, your Department, your strategy, your past accomplishments, your past failures, and your present challenges. That is why you must seize the initiative and never relinquish it. Do not allow others in the organization (Board members, fellow reports to the CEO, etc.) to “define” yourself or your Department. Make a strong “first” impression with the new CEO. Provide him/her with a notebook. This notebook should provide an overview of the Department, its accomplishments, its strategy, and its spend (amongst other things). Emphasize how IT is working with the Business to increase revenues, decrease expenses, increase efficiency, and diminish risks. Make sure that the CEO sees you as being a strategy leader and not a technology leader. Make sure that they see you are part of the “solution” and not part of the problem.
2. The Value of Alliances
In nature, lone wolves live shorter lives than those who belong to a pack. Allying with others increases your influence with the new CEO and protects your back side. Remember (as Bob Lewis writes in “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology”) that your peers are either allies, neutrals, or opponents. As such, you always need to: 1) maximize the number of allies, 2) convert as many neutrals to allies as possible, 3) convert as many opponents to neutrals as possible, and 4) avoid turning any opponents into enemies. Those investments will pay huge dividends during these times of CEO transition.
3. Focus on the Task at Hand
It is very easy during a CEO transition to freeze and await new marching orders. Don’t! Focus on the task at hand. Your war will not be won by strategy alone. Your war will be won by hard, desperate, hand-to-hand fighting. Make sure that you keep the engine room running, the car operating on eight cylinders, or whatever analogy you prefer. Avoid major conflicts in the form of quarrels and arguments. You simply don’t have time for it. Everywhere you go, at every conceivable opportunity, reaffirm, reassert, and remind everyone that you are keeping your eye on the ball (another one of those analogies).
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Back to Basics
Back to Basics
For IT Leaders
1. The Principle of Servanthood [1]
o Do you seek to serve or to be served?
o Self-promotion (pride) and self-protection (fear) are the reigning motivations that dominate the leadership landscape.
o Shackleton practiced the principle of servanthood.
o He chose to serve rather than to be served.
o Are you a servant leader or a self-serving leader?
2. The Principle of Influence [2]
o True leadership cannot be awarded, appointed, or assigned.
o It can’t be mandated. It must be earned.
o Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.
o Shackleton was a true leader.
o He chose to influence rather than to demand.
o Maxwell writes: “He who thinks he leads, but has no followers, is only taking a walk.”
3. The Principle of First Hand Knowledge [3]
o Quality leadership means that you get out of the office and circulate among the “troops.”
o This type of contact gave Shackleton the first-hand knowledge he needed to make informed, accurate decisions without having to rely solely on the word of others.
o He learned how his people would respond in any given situation; who would have a tendency to get the job done on his own, or be more likely to procrastinate and delay, who could be counted on in an emergency and who couldn’t, who were the brighter, more able, more committed people, who shared his strong sense of ethics and values.
o He also wanted his subordinates to get to know him, so they would know how he would respond in any given situation, what he wanted, demanded, and needed. If they knew what he would do, they could make their own decisions without asking him for direction, thereby avoiding delay and inactivity.
o The principle of first hand knowledge is simply the process of stepping out and interacting with people, of establishing human contact.
4. The Principle of Empowerment [2]
o Teddy Roosevelt writes: “The best leader is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
o Shackleton assigned men certain responsibilities and rarely overruled them.
o When a leader can’t or wont’ empower others, he/she creates barriers within the organization that people cannot overcome.
5. The Principle of Persuasion [3]
o Good leaders persuade rather than coerce.
o Shackleton chose to work with and through people.
o He attempted to gain commitment from individuals through openness, empowerment, and coaching. He provided as much support as he possibly could.
o Leadership, by definition, omits the use of coercive power. When a leader begins to coerce his followers, he’s essentially abandoning leadership and embracing dictatorship.
6. The Principle of Timing [2]
o Great leaders recognize that when to lead is as important as what to do and where to go.
o Shackleton knew that the wrong action at the wrong time leads to disaster.
o Shackleton knew that the right action at the wrong time brings resistance.
o Shackleton knew that the wrong action at the right time is a mistake.
o Shackleton knew that the right action at the right time results in success.
7. The Principle of Credit [3]
o Good leaders always give credit where credit is due. Conversely, good leaders accept responsibility when things go wrong.
o When a subordinate did a good job, Shackleton praised, complimented and rewarded the individual. On the other hand, he shouldered responsibility when mistakes were made.
o Jim Collins writes: “When things are going well for typical self-serving leaders, they look in the mirror, beat their chests and tell themselves how good they are. When things go wrong, they look out the window and blame everyone else. Great leaders, on the other hand, are humble. When things go well, they look out the window and give everybody else the credit. When things go wrong, these servant leaders look in the mirror and ask: ‘What could I have done differently to allow these people to be as great as they could be.’”
Endnotes
[1] Ken Blanchard, “Lead like Jesus”
[2] John Maxwell, “The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership”
[3] Donald Phillips, “Lincoln on Leadership”
[4] Bob Lewis, “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology”
For IT Leaders
1. The Principle of Servanthood [1]
o Do you seek to serve or to be served?
o Self-promotion (pride) and self-protection (fear) are the reigning motivations that dominate the leadership landscape.
o Shackleton practiced the principle of servanthood.
o He chose to serve rather than to be served.
o Are you a servant leader or a self-serving leader?
2. The Principle of Influence [2]
o True leadership cannot be awarded, appointed, or assigned.
o It can’t be mandated. It must be earned.
o Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.
o Shackleton was a true leader.
o He chose to influence rather than to demand.
o Maxwell writes: “He who thinks he leads, but has no followers, is only taking a walk.”
3. The Principle of First Hand Knowledge [3]
o Quality leadership means that you get out of the office and circulate among the “troops.”
o This type of contact gave Shackleton the first-hand knowledge he needed to make informed, accurate decisions without having to rely solely on the word of others.
o He learned how his people would respond in any given situation; who would have a tendency to get the job done on his own, or be more likely to procrastinate and delay, who could be counted on in an emergency and who couldn’t, who were the brighter, more able, more committed people, who shared his strong sense of ethics and values.
o He also wanted his subordinates to get to know him, so they would know how he would respond in any given situation, what he wanted, demanded, and needed. If they knew what he would do, they could make their own decisions without asking him for direction, thereby avoiding delay and inactivity.
o The principle of first hand knowledge is simply the process of stepping out and interacting with people, of establishing human contact.
4. The Principle of Empowerment [2]
o Teddy Roosevelt writes: “The best leader is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
o Shackleton assigned men certain responsibilities and rarely overruled them.
o When a leader can’t or wont’ empower others, he/she creates barriers within the organization that people cannot overcome.
5. The Principle of Persuasion [3]
o Good leaders persuade rather than coerce.
o Shackleton chose to work with and through people.
o He attempted to gain commitment from individuals through openness, empowerment, and coaching. He provided as much support as he possibly could.
o Leadership, by definition, omits the use of coercive power. When a leader begins to coerce his followers, he’s essentially abandoning leadership and embracing dictatorship.
6. The Principle of Timing [2]
o Great leaders recognize that when to lead is as important as what to do and where to go.
o Shackleton knew that the wrong action at the wrong time leads to disaster.
o Shackleton knew that the right action at the wrong time brings resistance.
o Shackleton knew that the wrong action at the right time is a mistake.
o Shackleton knew that the right action at the right time results in success.
7. The Principle of Credit [3]
o Good leaders always give credit where credit is due. Conversely, good leaders accept responsibility when things go wrong.
o When a subordinate did a good job, Shackleton praised, complimented and rewarded the individual. On the other hand, he shouldered responsibility when mistakes were made.
o Jim Collins writes: “When things are going well for typical self-serving leaders, they look in the mirror, beat their chests and tell themselves how good they are. When things go wrong, they look out the window and blame everyone else. Great leaders, on the other hand, are humble. When things go well, they look out the window and give everybody else the credit. When things go wrong, these servant leaders look in the mirror and ask: ‘What could I have done differently to allow these people to be as great as they could be.’”
Endnotes
[1] Ken Blanchard, “Lead like Jesus”
[2] John Maxwell, “The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership”
[3] Donald Phillips, “Lincoln on Leadership”
[4] Bob Lewis, “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology”
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Transformational Servant Leadership -- Forces
Forces
Having considered the foundation and facets of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its forces (or strengths). Transformational servant leadership is really just a version of servant leadership that is transformational. That is, it imbibes the strengths of servant leadership while overcoming its weaknesses. Like servant leadership, it shares the following strengths:
o Both inspire others to follow.
o Both have high ethical standards.
o Both have a sense of egalitarianism.
o Both practice coaching/mentoring.
o Both have a concern for the needs of others.
o Both are effective in communicating expectations.
o Both engender trust. These forms of leadership require that leaders engage with followers as ‘whole’ people, rather than simply as an ‘employee’ for example.
o Both build confidence in those that work underneath them (SL – in how they are cared and treated; TL – as a foundation for accepting radical organizational change)
Transformational servant leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of servant leadership. This includes:
o Broadening and elevating (Bass, 1990b) the interests of their employees beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.
o Providing more initiative/risk-taking to revitalize processes. The servant-leader model does not stress risk-taking behavior as an essential attribute of organizational success. In transformational leadership, on the other hand, the leader's initiative is strongly associated with risk taking as the necessary element of future success, as well as with the willingness to switch to the more effective practices and systems (or revitalizing organizational processes).
o Arouses and changes followers’ awareness of problems and their capacity to solve those problems (Bono & Judge, 2004; Kelly, 2003). Transformational leaders question assumptions and beliefs and encourage followers to be innovative and creative, approaching old problems in new ways (Barbuto, 2005). They empower followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment or ridicule (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). They impose their own ideas judiciously and certainly not at any cost (Simic, 2003, p. 52).
o Avoids slow consensus and leverages acquired trust to expedite required changes.
o Creates an “empowered dynamic culture” (whereas servant leadership leads to a “spiritual generative culture"). Under the Servant Leader model, the leader's motivation to lead arises from an underlying attitude of egalitarianism. In other words, the leader's belief system says he or she is no better than those who are led. All members of the organization have equal rights to vision, respect, and information. The leader's role is to facilitate the emergence of a community within the organization. In our opinion, the leader has a trustee role, one in which individual growth and development are goals in and of themselves. The key leader drivers, as shown in Figure 1, are valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity and sharing leadership. Possible impacts of these drivers could be: higher skilled people, more ethical people, better communicators, strong interpersonal relationships, creation of shared visions, and clear goals. It is argued here that these outcomes in conjunction with the leader initiatives that produce them create the spiritual generative culture. A spiritually generative culture is one in which members are focuses on the personal growth of themselves and others, and the organizational systems that facilitate that growth. It is further suggested that, while this culture is satisfying to organizational members, it results in followers who are passive to the external environment and unlikely to want to upset internal conditions which might require substantive changes in the status quo but is conducive to generating internal personal growth. The Transformational Leader emerges from a different motivation base. Where the servant leader has a sense of egalitarianism, the transformational leader is motivated by a sense of mission to recreate the organization to survive in a challenging external environment. The transformational leader's motivation base has a more macro focus. Individual growth and development are not unimportant but must be related to the organization's success in the external environment. Under the transformational leader model, as seen in Figure 1, the main leader initiatives are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. These initiatives lead to: role modeling, high ethical standards, concern for the needs of others, communication of expectations, shared visions, innovations, risk taking, and questioning of practices and systems. Together with the leader initiatives, this leader approach produces the empowered dynamic culture. Organizational members in this type of organization not only have high skills but also have high expectations placed upon them. The leader models high performance. A reading of the descriptions of servant leadership reveals no calls for risk taking and innovation, while this is a key element in a transformed organization. Clearly some of the outcomes of the transformational model are similar to the spiritual generative culture. For example, the call for high ethical standards and concern for the individual are apparent in both. It could be suggested, however, that in servant leadership one arises from a belief in human dignity as a primary organization goal; while in the transformational organization these virtues are valued because to be successful the organization as a whole depends on a strong "virtuous" foundation. In Figure 1, both models of leadership are included in a chain of relationships. Contextual forces and/or situational factors would define the leader's motivation in these relationships. As stated earlier, applications of the servant leadership concept include not-for-profit and community leadership organizations where the environment can be characterized by low dynamism and slow change processes, relative to many modern business environments that face global competition. In the low dynamism situation, a leader's motivation "to serve first" is effective. The "black box" of an organizational system will interpret the leader's philosophy and resulting initiatives into a culture that we would describe as generative and spiritual. This type of culture works on creation of a harmonized, cooperative internal environment where spiritual awareness and growth represent the core values of an organization. Such a culture is likely to be more passive in introducing changes and more persistent in preserving its status quo. Given the specifics of an appropriate external environment, an organization with servant leadership based culture will succeed. In the case of transformational leadership, the external environment is usually more dynamic and challenging, thus requiring quick decisions and correct reactions. Here a leader's motivation is to lead first, to get an organization into the shape necessary to adapt effectively to external requirements. Leader initiatives are designed to place strong emphasis on inspiration and intellectual stimulation of every member in organization. It is suggested the resulting organizational culture is the projection of a leader's behavior through organizational communication and reward systems, and is characterized as empowering and innovative, dynamic, and receptive to possible changes. We would argue that the servant leadership model works better in a more stable external environment and serves evolutionary development purposes, whereas transformational leadership is the model for organizations facing intense external pressure where revolutionary change is a necessity for survival. Here, the importance of the time factor comes into play. Servant leadership stresses collaboration and integrity, where communication and persuasion skills become extremely important. Decision-making processes involve most of the organizational members and generally results in consensus. The time factor is not considered crucial, which allows for groups to make mutually acceptable decisions. Transformational leadership, in contrast, gives the leader some initiative in decision making, for example, to take a certain risks or to drop obsolete practices. This, however, does not guarantee that the decision made will be completely accepted by followers, but the charismatic influence and inspirational power of a leader will support the faith in the correctness of a leader's actions. Thus, the time factor is accounted for in the transformational leadership model.
o Motivates individuals and organizations to, for example, follow a new idea. Transformational leaders make clear an appealing view of the future, offer followers the opportunity to see meaning in their work, and challenge them with high standards. They encourage followers to become part of the overall organizational culture and environment (Kelly, 2003; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might be achieved through motivational speeches and conversations and other public displays of optimism and enthusiasm, highlighting positive outcomes, and stimulating teamwork (Simic, 1998, p. 52). Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and US President John F. Kennedy’s vision of putting a man on the moon by 1970 stand out as exceptional examples of this characteristic (Yukl, 1989, p. 221). Through these sorts of means, transformational leaders encourage their followers to imagine and contribute to the development of attractive, alternative futures (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p. 208).
o Tying individual growth/development to organizational success.
Merging servant leadership with transformation leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of transformational leadership. For example, it:
o Avoids the possibility of dictatorial behavior by the leader. A key criticism of transformation leadership is it’s potential for the abuse of power (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002). Transformational leaders can choose to motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on followers and do not necessarily attend to positive moral values. As Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003, p. 4) observe, transformational leaders can exert a very powerful influence over followers, who offer them trust and respect. Some leaders may have narcissistic tendencies, thriving on power and manipulation. Further, as Bass (1997) notes, transformational leadership lacks the checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and power that might help to avoid dictatorship and oppression of a minority by a majority. In the absence of moral rectitude it is self-evident then that transformational leadership might be applied for less-than-desirable social ends.
o Lets us treat even difficult people with such respect that we help them feel worthwhile. People do not typically invest their trust in someone who makes them feel invisible or insignificant.
o Leaves us open to what others can teach us, no matter what their station in life. As a result we learn and develop wisdom more quickly, because we let everyone be our mentor.
Having considered the foundation and facets of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its forces (or strengths). Transformational servant leadership is really just a version of servant leadership that is transformational. That is, it imbibes the strengths of servant leadership while overcoming its weaknesses. Like servant leadership, it shares the following strengths:
o Both inspire others to follow.
o Both have high ethical standards.
o Both have a sense of egalitarianism.
o Both practice coaching/mentoring.
o Both have a concern for the needs of others.
o Both are effective in communicating expectations.
o Both engender trust. These forms of leadership require that leaders engage with followers as ‘whole’ people, rather than simply as an ‘employee’ for example.
o Both build confidence in those that work underneath them (SL – in how they are cared and treated; TL – as a foundation for accepting radical organizational change)
Transformational servant leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of servant leadership. This includes:
o Broadening and elevating (Bass, 1990b) the interests of their employees beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.
o Providing more initiative/risk-taking to revitalize processes. The servant-leader model does not stress risk-taking behavior as an essential attribute of organizational success. In transformational leadership, on the other hand, the leader's initiative is strongly associated with risk taking as the necessary element of future success, as well as with the willingness to switch to the more effective practices and systems (or revitalizing organizational processes).
o Arouses and changes followers’ awareness of problems and their capacity to solve those problems (Bono & Judge, 2004; Kelly, 2003). Transformational leaders question assumptions and beliefs and encourage followers to be innovative and creative, approaching old problems in new ways (Barbuto, 2005). They empower followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment or ridicule (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). They impose their own ideas judiciously and certainly not at any cost (Simic, 2003, p. 52).
o Avoids slow consensus and leverages acquired trust to expedite required changes.
o Creates an “empowered dynamic culture” (whereas servant leadership leads to a “spiritual generative culture"). Under the Servant Leader model, the leader's motivation to lead arises from an underlying attitude of egalitarianism. In other words, the leader's belief system says he or she is no better than those who are led. All members of the organization have equal rights to vision, respect, and information. The leader's role is to facilitate the emergence of a community within the organization. In our opinion, the leader has a trustee role, one in which individual growth and development are goals in and of themselves. The key leader drivers, as shown in Figure 1, are valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity and sharing leadership. Possible impacts of these drivers could be: higher skilled people, more ethical people, better communicators, strong interpersonal relationships, creation of shared visions, and clear goals. It is argued here that these outcomes in conjunction with the leader initiatives that produce them create the spiritual generative culture. A spiritually generative culture is one in which members are focuses on the personal growth of themselves and others, and the organizational systems that facilitate that growth. It is further suggested that, while this culture is satisfying to organizational members, it results in followers who are passive to the external environment and unlikely to want to upset internal conditions which might require substantive changes in the status quo but is conducive to generating internal personal growth. The Transformational Leader emerges from a different motivation base. Where the servant leader has a sense of egalitarianism, the transformational leader is motivated by a sense of mission to recreate the organization to survive in a challenging external environment. The transformational leader's motivation base has a more macro focus. Individual growth and development are not unimportant but must be related to the organization's success in the external environment. Under the transformational leader model, as seen in Figure 1, the main leader initiatives are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. These initiatives lead to: role modeling, high ethical standards, concern for the needs of others, communication of expectations, shared visions, innovations, risk taking, and questioning of practices and systems. Together with the leader initiatives, this leader approach produces the empowered dynamic culture. Organizational members in this type of organization not only have high skills but also have high expectations placed upon them. The leader models high performance. A reading of the descriptions of servant leadership reveals no calls for risk taking and innovation, while this is a key element in a transformed organization. Clearly some of the outcomes of the transformational model are similar to the spiritual generative culture. For example, the call for high ethical standards and concern for the individual are apparent in both. It could be suggested, however, that in servant leadership one arises from a belief in human dignity as a primary organization goal; while in the transformational organization these virtues are valued because to be successful the organization as a whole depends on a strong "virtuous" foundation. In Figure 1, both models of leadership are included in a chain of relationships. Contextual forces and/or situational factors would define the leader's motivation in these relationships. As stated earlier, applications of the servant leadership concept include not-for-profit and community leadership organizations where the environment can be characterized by low dynamism and slow change processes, relative to many modern business environments that face global competition. In the low dynamism situation, a leader's motivation "to serve first" is effective. The "black box" of an organizational system will interpret the leader's philosophy and resulting initiatives into a culture that we would describe as generative and spiritual. This type of culture works on creation of a harmonized, cooperative internal environment where spiritual awareness and growth represent the core values of an organization. Such a culture is likely to be more passive in introducing changes and more persistent in preserving its status quo. Given the specifics of an appropriate external environment, an organization with servant leadership based culture will succeed. In the case of transformational leadership, the external environment is usually more dynamic and challenging, thus requiring quick decisions and correct reactions. Here a leader's motivation is to lead first, to get an organization into the shape necessary to adapt effectively to external requirements. Leader initiatives are designed to place strong emphasis on inspiration and intellectual stimulation of every member in organization. It is suggested the resulting organizational culture is the projection of a leader's behavior through organizational communication and reward systems, and is characterized as empowering and innovative, dynamic, and receptive to possible changes. We would argue that the servant leadership model works better in a more stable external environment and serves evolutionary development purposes, whereas transformational leadership is the model for organizations facing intense external pressure where revolutionary change is a necessity for survival. Here, the importance of the time factor comes into play. Servant leadership stresses collaboration and integrity, where communication and persuasion skills become extremely important. Decision-making processes involve most of the organizational members and generally results in consensus. The time factor is not considered crucial, which allows for groups to make mutually acceptable decisions. Transformational leadership, in contrast, gives the leader some initiative in decision making, for example, to take a certain risks or to drop obsolete practices. This, however, does not guarantee that the decision made will be completely accepted by followers, but the charismatic influence and inspirational power of a leader will support the faith in the correctness of a leader's actions. Thus, the time factor is accounted for in the transformational leadership model.
o Motivates individuals and organizations to, for example, follow a new idea. Transformational leaders make clear an appealing view of the future, offer followers the opportunity to see meaning in their work, and challenge them with high standards. They encourage followers to become part of the overall organizational culture and environment (Kelly, 2003; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might be achieved through motivational speeches and conversations and other public displays of optimism and enthusiasm, highlighting positive outcomes, and stimulating teamwork (Simic, 1998, p. 52). Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and US President John F. Kennedy’s vision of putting a man on the moon by 1970 stand out as exceptional examples of this characteristic (Yukl, 1989, p. 221). Through these sorts of means, transformational leaders encourage their followers to imagine and contribute to the development of attractive, alternative futures (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p. 208).
o Tying individual growth/development to organizational success.
Merging servant leadership with transformation leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of transformational leadership. For example, it:
o Avoids the possibility of dictatorial behavior by the leader. A key criticism of transformation leadership is it’s potential for the abuse of power (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002). Transformational leaders can choose to motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on followers and do not necessarily attend to positive moral values. As Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003, p. 4) observe, transformational leaders can exert a very powerful influence over followers, who offer them trust and respect. Some leaders may have narcissistic tendencies, thriving on power and manipulation. Further, as Bass (1997) notes, transformational leadership lacks the checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and power that might help to avoid dictatorship and oppression of a minority by a majority. In the absence of moral rectitude it is self-evident then that transformational leadership might be applied for less-than-desirable social ends.
o Lets us treat even difficult people with such respect that we help them feel worthwhile. People do not typically invest their trust in someone who makes them feel invisible or insignificant.
o Leaves us open to what others can teach us, no matter what their station in life. As a result we learn and develop wisdom more quickly, because we let everyone be our mentor.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Book Review: Love is the Killer App
Tim Sanders makes the bold suggestion that business success can best be achieved by becoming a “lovecat.” Sanders defines the love business as “the act of intelligently and sensibly sharing your intangibles with your bizpartners.” Those intangibles are our knowledge, our network, and our compassion. By knowledge he means everything you have learned and everything you continue to learn. By network he means your entire web of relationships. By compassion he means that personal quality that machines can never possess – the human ability to reach out with warmth, whether through eye contact, physical touch, or words.
I wish I had read the book back when it was first published in 2002. Because many of the lessons he learned, I learned the hard way in the past years. I can strongly endorse the practical advice he provides as much of what I have been doing for the past 12 months agrees with his advice. I would challenge each of you to seriously apply his advice of “intelligently and sensibly sharing” your knowledge, network, and compassion with your business partners. Pick up the book and learn numerous ways that he “intelligently and sensibly” shares his intangibles with his business partners.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 3
I wish I had read the book back when it was first published in 2002. Because many of the lessons he learned, I learned the hard way in the past years. I can strongly endorse the practical advice he provides as much of what I have been doing for the past 12 months agrees with his advice. I would challenge each of you to seriously apply his advice of “intelligently and sensibly sharing” your knowledge, network, and compassion with your business partners. Pick up the book and learn numerous ways that he “intelligently and sensibly” shares his intangibles with his business partners.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 3
Book Review: Winners Never Cheat
“Circumstances may change but your values shouldn’t.” So begins the introduction to Huntsman’s book – “Winners Never Cheat.” Huntsman updated and re-issued this book to address the ethical lapses that he saw during the most recent economic downturn. The book makes a strident appeal for all business persons (and businesses) to maintain the highest ethical standards. He sets forth how one has learned these standards, how one knows right from wrong, how one overcomes the temptations to ignore these standards, and a variety of suggestions (surround yourself with ethical team members, operate the business as if they’re family owned, etc.) to increase the likelihood that the standards will be adhered to. Huntsman provides many real-life examples of the benefits and costs of maintaining the highest standards. The book is a very easy read and worth considering for a companion on a plane flight.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 2
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)