Speaking of Leadership . . .

What to do about a Toxic Leader?

by Robert B. Denhardt

Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Question: I saw this recently and wondered how you would respond. "New York City Council Speaker and mayoral hopeful Christine Quinn has an idiosyncratic leadership style that involves hurling invective at those around her, threatening to mutilate opponents and yelling so loudly that subordinates were forced to soundproof her office to avoid scaring visitors. Quinn says her robust approach is an effective strategy for breaking through red tape and getting things done.”

Bob: This “leadership style” doesn’t even deserve the “leadership” label. Leadership depends on connecting with people emotionally in a way that moves them and causes them to act. Screaming is not the way to make connections with others. At best, you might say that this is a “management style,” but even there it’s not likely to be one that’s effective, especially in the long term. The abusive manager may “break through red tape” occasionally but not for long – because each of their efforts to break through red tape also severely damages relationships. 

One thing to consider is whether the style the leader is exhibiting is just “blustery” or whether it is truly “vindictive.”  We all know people who appear noisy and aggressive, but “have a good heart.” There may be hope for these people to be rescued and to become effective leaders. An “intervention,” hopefully undertaken with several others who feel the way you do, may be effective in turning things around. Leadership educators and personal coaches can also help.

For the truly vindictive person, there is little hope. If you have a manager like this, you might consider talking with her and pointing out the problems she is causing. But, of course, there’s a risk in that.  A vindictive boss might well turn on you and pressure you to leave the organization. Even a modest intervention may result in retaliation.

Some employees will stay because they so believe in the "cause" that they will be willing to take the abuse themselves or stand by as it is directed at others. And others may stay because they are enchanted by power and the thrill of the "kill." (These people may need serioius psychological help themselves.)

But, as this plays out, most employees are likely to react first by quietly undermining the abusive manager, then engaging in sabotage, next posing more direct objections, and finally by mounting a full-scale revolt.  

For the rest, you might try an “intervention,” again with others who feel as you do, but at some point, you may simply have to look for work elsewhere. You don’t need this in your life.

Robert Denhardt is the Director of Leadership Programs in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC) and Director of the Executive Master of Leadership program at USC. He is the author of a dozen books on leadership and management, including, The Dance ofLeadership (with Janet Denhardt), Book: Just Plain Good Management, and Book: The Pursuit of Significance.

Blog Archive

• ▼  2013 (2)
  • ▼  May (2)
    • What Did I Learn in Graduate School Today?
    • Speaking of Leadership . . . .

What I Learned in Graduate School . . .

Bring Encouragement into the Office Every Day

Luis Guzman
USC Executive Masters of Leadership

In his talk with Executive Master of Leadership (EML) students, Mark Kroeker quoted former Dallas Cowboys football coach as saying, "Leadership is getting someone to do what they don't want to do, to achieve what they want to achieve." Imagine the energy that could be released as leaders encourage the development of everyone's potential! 

Kroeker's remarks are similar to what Dwight D. Eisenhower said..."Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it."  It is said that there are only two kinds of people in this world..."those who get it and those who don't." The former, for both leaders and followers, means that they have connected in a way so as to derive meaning, purpose, and congruence in their respective roles (a win-win). The latter, for both leaders and followers, means that they are still fighting the long fight because they are both mostly interested in only one solution, their own.

Additionally, the younger professional and the experienced professional learn differently and are motivated by different things. When a leader can get either one to internally be motivated, to be self-directed, to be goal driven, to bring their respective wealth of life experiences and share them in a practical, and thoughtful manner for the service others or the organization, is when the possibilities will be bountiful.

How can this be done you asked? It can be done through analysis, planning, implementation, testing, mitigation, measuring, reporting, and reassessing. This all takes time; time that now everyone is willing to invest in.

It took me several years and a few manager positions throughout my career to figure out that it was not "them" but "me" who needed to change. I was a great administrator but not a leader. I had no clue that what my team needed the most was for me to bring encouragement into the office each and every single day. Encouragement opens our creative minds, it connects people to people…this leads to understanding of self and others and more importantly it makes you believe that you can.

Photo: Luis Guzman – Executive Master of Leadership (EML) graduate.

To learn how an Executive Master of Leadership (EML) at the University of Southern California (USC) would benefit you in your career or development as a leader, please visit: priceschool.usc.edu/programs/masters/eml/

What I Learned in Graduate School . . .

Meditation on Leadership and Personal Development

by Kathleen O’Halloran

USC Executive Master of Leadership

Through reflection, we examine ourselves to learn more about leadership. We create content out of life experiences to distill our answers to the prevailing questions about leadership - how do we make better decisions, take wiser action, and communicate effectively. Life is a balance between stability and change. I need stability. I need change. Note optimal order, stability first, think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, smart. Smart is temporary. Wisdom builds the future. Innovation is functional wisdom, and all of it is complex.

Complexity is the term that we use to define something with many parts in intricate arrangement. Complexity describes that which possesses diversity, interdependence, velocity, ambiguity and scarcity: diversity meaning composed by different elements; interdependent meaning in relationship with an other (one) or others (many), preferably both; velocity in terms of directionality; ambiguity as in uncertain or lacking a definitive nature, implying growth, relativity and boundlessness; scarcity meaning rare or translated to the language of economics, scarcity meaning demand is greater than supply, impacted.

The world we live in is complex. All things are made of more than what they are. Even our words are defined by more than their letters. The world we live in is complex, and what that means, from the perspective of society and human behavior, is that leadership emerges in society and can be observed in the behavior of the leader and the behavior of those being led.

As our society’s thought leaders observe leadership behavior, a discussion is born on the capabilities of effective leadership. Leaders that are effective now are action oriented in ways that are authentic and appropriate. Leaders that are effective now are capable of role clarity and decision logic. Leaders that are effective now are capable of flexible fortitude meaning perseverance, courage under fire, knowing when to hold on and when to let go.

Leaders that are effective now are capable of motivation. The paradox of this leadership discussion, is that everyone needs it. All beings need something outside of themselves to be alive, here. This implies that leaders need leadership, too.

The beauty of leadership is that it can be cultivated within the self, and for the self. Leadership is scarce - it is certainly here, but certainly impacted, meaning leaders are highly impacted people. Leaders are in demand in all aspects of life, and as the nature of scarcity suggests, demand is greater than the supply – challenge. Scarcity is a boundary condition in and of itself. The nature of this challenge is causality, order, prioritizing.

So, the most important thing for the leader to remember is to include the self in the equation. Lead thy self and nurture your capacity to exist as a leader. Understand that when you see you in the mirror, you only see half of yourself. To lead your whole self you must know your whole self and to know your whole self you must listen to others who see the other half. Listen. What you are here is what you project here.

If you would like to mean something that is good somewhere, project something good there. Show up. Know your values your strengths and how you best perform, position yourself toward those opportunities. Show up. You is not a choice, it is priority one, step one. Leading yourself is not a management opportunity that you have to evaluate before deciding to take on the project. It’s vital to you, the life force that takes on all it takes on. Managing yourself is an on going learning activity that nurtures all you do, implying that all you do is done with purpose.

Photo: Kathleen O'Halloran – Executive Master of Leadership (EML) graduate.

To learn how an Executive Master of Leadership (EML) at the University of Southern California (USC) would benefit you in your career or development as a leader, please visit: priceschool.usc.edu/programs/masters/eml/

What I Learned in Graduate School . . .

The Art of Asking Why

by Valerie Alvarado

USC Executive Master of Leadership

It seems like a simple question – why? We ask it every day. But how often do we take the time to fully answer the question as a means to understand purpose? Upon meeting someone new, we typically encounter the question, “What do you do?” Most of us have a prepared, canned response to this question, which is usually an abbreviated version of our job description, but what does that really say about why we do what we do?  And more importantly, what does that say about our values?

I can easily tell you what I do and how I do it, and until recently, I thought I could tell you why I do it as well. What I learned is that you must ask why five times to get to the source. Laree Kiely, President of The Kiely Group, introduced the exercise of asking why five times when she posed the question, “Why do you exist?”  My first two answers were superficial.  My third answer required some thought.  My fourth answer had me stumped, and my fifth answer required serious self-reflection and soul searching.  When I finally got to the source of why I exist, my entire perspective on work, family and life changed. 

It is clear that our values are at the core of why we exist. Once we understand our values we can understand the why in our lives. Why did I choose my profession? Why did I choose my spouse? Why did I choose my cause? The why doesn’t change even when everything else does.  Understanding why we exist will endure the multitude of changes we’ll experience in our lifetime.  Have you ever changed jobs?  Most of us have.  Chances are what you do in your new job is different than what you did in your former job, but why you do it remains the same.  Your core values don’t change.    

As leaders, we are responsible for creating environments where asking why is encouraged. Leaders themselves should ask why of others to provoke critical thinking. Finding answers in common to the question why creates unity and loyalty. This is why we gather in great numbers at church on Sunday, why we work in an organization with people who are aligned with our values, and why we spend our precious free time with the people we choose. 

The art of asking why lies in the curiosity factor. It is through curiosity that we begin to dig past superficial answers to arrive at a deeper meaning – a clearer picture. When we allow our uninhibited curiosity to guide us, we ask the right questions until our curiosity is satisfied.  It is important not to let the fear of asking foolish questions interfere. If done right, you’ll uncover incredible insight into your core values. 

Photo: Valerie Alvarado – Executive Master of Leadership (EML) graduate.

To learn how an Executive Master of Leadership (EML) at the University of Southern California (USC) would benefit you in your career or development as a leader, please visit: priceschool.usc.edu/programs/masters/eml/

What I Learned in Graduate School . . .

Performance Management: A Leadership Perspective

by Antony Rivera

USC Executive Master of Leadership

Recently, I have been challenged to understand the relationship between leadership and performance management.  This relationship is important to understand because performance metrics are found everywhere. You can’t escape them. From test scores, to quotas, to yearly reviews, performance indicators are relied upon to assess your contribution to your organization. You are compared, ranked and evaluated against multiple numeric standards. Leaders in the private and public sector use performance information to sharpen (or maybe to justify) their decisions. Budgets, programs and even promotions may be affected by performance outputs. 

    

The goal of performance management is to use metrics to improve efficiency in the use of resources.  Its reliance across sectors is due in part to the belief that numbers can’t lie. Yet, numbers can be highly subjective and even manipulated.  Deciding what to measure is complicated.  Measuring wrong data makes performance indicators unreliable.  The quality of the data is essential in the use of performance management. Without clarity, metrics simply do not work.  Therefore, performance management extends beyond numeric outputs.  Leadership is required to make it work.

There are as many definitions of leadership as there are different performance management models.  Leadership is more than charisma or tactical knowledge.  In essence, leadership is granted, not given by positions of authority.  Consequently, leaders do more than simply encourage people to act.  Leaders energize on a human level and beyond the parameters of a specific task. They unite individuals behind a vision. They empower and develop members of the organization.  They lead authentically and by example. 

Leadership provides perspective in performance management. Executives refer to focus and alignment, non-numeric values, as the main reasons for achieving breakthrough performance in utilizing performance metrics.  Focus and alignment are essential qualities in good leaders. Leaders bring focus by conceptualizing a vision that rings true to the members of the organization. They align a vision by providing clarity and integration.  

Leaders must also understand the impact of metrics across various departments and individuals. They do this by behaving strategically. Strategic leaders are proactive, vision driven and focused. They are able to see the whole by stepping away from the tactical aspects of the organization.

Could there be a style of leadership that is most conducive to the success of performance management? In their book, Primal Leadership, Goldman, Boyatzis and Mckee, define six styles of leadership. These are visionary, coaching, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and commanding.  Interestingly, the research on performance management points out that no specific style of leadership is attributed to its success. Instead, leaders are called to adapt their style at different stages of the performance management implementation. For instance, leaders must be visionaries, articulating the purpose of the initiative in ways that ring true to those they lead. Leaders must have the ability to coach individuals through the learning and implementation of the new system. Leaders must be affiliative, focusing on the individual more than the task, in order to assess the engagement of employees and users during the performance system.  Leaders must be democratic, receiving feedback to gain broader perspective and clarity on what to measure.  At times, leaders are called to be pacesetters and must command accountability.  Conversely, the necessity to adapt is not exclusive to leadership.  Performance management systems are also expected to be flexible. One-size-fits-all approaches to performance management are not recommended.    

Because performance management extends beyond the simple measurement and monitoring of organizational data, it must be examined from various viewpoints. The most significant determinant for its success is the role of leadership. Leaders must provide a clear vision and strategically align the organization to its overall purpose.  Furthermore, leaders are needed to give data meaning.  In turn, members of the organization will be engaged and empowered to support and maintain integrity in the measures.  The dynamic relationship between performance management and leadership suggests that each has the ability to influence and be influenced.  To be effective, leaders must not only adapt themselves, but also adapt the performance measures to meet the organizational needs and purpose. 

Photo: Antony Rivera – Executive Master of Leadership (EML) graduate.

To learn how an Executive Master of Leadership (EML) at the University of Southern California (USC) would benefit you in your career or development as a leader, please visit: priceschool.usc.edu/programs/masters/eml/

Speaking of Leadership . . .

Leadership: Why Worry?

by Robert B. Denhardt

Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Question:  Is it possible to be a leader without worrying? 

I think it is. But there’s lots of evidence and intuition to the contrary. The leader, especially the leader of a large organization, has plenty of things to worry about – the success of the company and its survival, the many forces in the environment that threaten success and survival, and simply how to best manage or lead the employees that have signed on. 

The leader also has many personal things to worry about – am I wearing the right clothes for this occasion, what are all those people looking at me and listening to me thinking, and what will my spouse say when I get home late – again!  It’s no wonder that American presidents (and other significant leaders) seem to age at about five times the rate of others during the time they are in office!

Let’s try to unpack this a little by differentiating between worry and concern. Worry is a strong feeling of anxiety, a vague, unpleasant emotion that is experienced in advance of something happening. As long as worry doesn’t overwhelm the person, worrying is a natural and common response to events that might threaten the person or the organization.  And, even more positively, worrying usually occurs because the leader really cares about the outcome and wants the right thing to happen. 

But worrying can also have a more damaging side. Intense worrying can lead to mental health issues, self-medication through drugs or alcohol, or even more serious “breakdowns.” Too much worrying is itself something to worry about!

But you can control the extent of your worrying.  Stress-reduction techniques, the practice of meditation or mindfulness, and personal counseling can help.  And indeed anything that makes the workplace a happier place to be, for the leader as well as followers, reduces the tendency to worry too much. (I can’t resist this: Hubert Humphrey, senator, vice-president, and presidential candidate was known as the “Happy Warrior.”  Maybe we need some “Happy Worriers.”)

An even better approach, however, is to turn worry into concern.  Being concerned means being interested and engaged in an issue, being attentive to it and striving for a solution.  It doesn’t mean that we are filled with anxiety.  That’s not to say that concern is just an analytic way of looking at problems.  Concern certainly has an analytic side, but it is based in the same feelings of caring and commitment to a cause or an organization that worrying does.  It just manifests itself in more positive ways.

A healthy concern for the organization, your role in it, and how both relate to the rest of your life should not be allowed to evolve into excessive worrying.  As a leader, you need to be compassionate not only to your employees, but also to yourself.  Give yourself a break. At some point you simply have to say: “I’ve done all I can do.”  “It’s out of my hands now.”  “Let the fates decide.”

Worrying about something rarely changes outcomes; indeed, it clouds the process of changing outcomes.  Concern, and the clarity it requires, on the other hand, actually opens up new avenues for success. So, don’t worry, be happy – but better yet, be concerned.

Robert Denhardt is the Director of Leadership Programs in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC) and Director of the Executive Master of Leadership program at USC. He is the author of a dozen books on leadership and management, including, The Dance ofLeadership (with Janet Denhardt), Book: Just Plain Good Management, and Book: The Pursuit of Significance.

Speaking of Leadership . . .

Collaborating On Your Own

by Robert B. Denhardt

Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Collaboration and its many benefits are often described at a macro level – that is, what can working effectively together across functional boundaries do for the organization?  But it’s important also to think of collaboration at the micro level – what can you, as an individual, do to bring people together to reap the benefits of effective collaboration?

The overall problem is a familiar one and well-understood in the abstract. Organizations develop functional groupings that bring together people with similar interests and work skills.  It’s that old “division of labor” thing.  But over time these groups tend to develop a more inward focus and build walls around themselves that are hard for others to penetrate. 

For example, a high tech start-up begins with a small group where everyone does everything.  But then, with skill, ambition, and often more than a little luck, the company grows rapidly to the point where the functions of business development/sales, marketing, customer support, technology, and product development become increasingly separate and distinct. 

Often then the interests of each group become more important to its members than the interests of the larger organization.  Those in the group even speak of the importance of their managers “defending” the group from others and “crusading” to increase the power and resources of the group.

But we know that this situation is at odds with the overall interests of the larger organization.  No one person, no one group has all the answers. Indeed, for an increasing number of organizations, it is the technology/product that everything else is dependent on, so there must be a common understanding across the organization around this key element.  

For this reason, much of the work, especially when it comes to developing and implementing a new product or underlying technology, requires bringing people together from different functional groups to leverage the knowledge and expertise of each.  Such collaboration, incidentally, not only builds more effective solution to problems, but also increases the “buy-in” from all parties.

There are some things the CEO or COO can do to build collaboration.  These range from “enforcing” collaboration to building a culture of collaboration.  But where the “big boss” is involved there are tendencies for the effort to dissolve into posturing, self-promotion, and “turf battles.”  But what if someone lower in the organization acted to bring about collaboration?  How might that look?  (Indeed, the most effective strategy for the top leader is to encourage and reward collaborative efforts throughout the organization.

Based on my years of teaching and consulting, I would suggest four things individuals can do to promote collaboration across functional boundaries.

1) Be there and be present. Woody Allen said that 80% of success is showing up, a theme that was explored in the classic comedy “Being There” (starring Peter Sellers and Shirley MacLaine). For the individual manager, that means spending time visiting with others across the organization (and beyond) on a regular basis – not necessarily with an agenda in mind, but just to see what common interests and ideas emerge. In this effort, you are simply developing relationships, not necessarily trying to achieve a specific project goal.  You are building up “relationship capital” that will come in handy as things move along.

2) Define a part of your job as “building bridges.” You have to take care of your own group, but you can allocate a considerable percentage of your time to working across boundaries, both internal and external.  I would say that an absolute minimum for most managerial positions is twenty-five percent, an allocation that should grow to the extent i) your own group is operating smoothly “on its own,” and ii) to the extent you can enlist help in internal management, positioning you are the “external” face of the group. You’ll be surprised at how often working across boundaries produces results – how good and collaborative ideas emerge from casual conversations.  And remember, the default answer to any request is “Yes.” Each “yes” you can deliver on builds the relationship and strengthens a line of collaboration.

3) Don’t track changes. When Janet and I work on articles or books together, we don't use “track changes.”  We just trade the article or a chapter back and forth, with the rule that you can make any changes you want – but you can’t use track changes. Then it goes to the other co-author with the same instruction. After going back and forth a while, you forget which changes are yours and which are someone else's.  That takes the ego out of the process - and ego is one of the most damaging roadblocks to collaboration.  I’m not necessarily suggesting that you not track changes in documents (but that might help), but anything you can do to eliminate the influence of ego will be helpful in your collaborations.

4) Bring people together. You should also not hesitate to convene meetings of those at your level and below – though sometimes even inviting those above – to work on a specific issue.  You may wonder whether you have the “authority” to do so, but authority is actually what caused the problem in the first place, so don’t worry about that. People will likely accept your invitation.  But the difficult part is how to facilitate the meeting.  (Meaning don’t try to run the meeting.)  Recognize that people in the meeting are essentially equals representing different skills sets and different interests.  Make sure all are heard and recognized for their contributions.  It’s hard to lead when no one is in charge, but that’s increasingly what the world of leadership is about.

These are just four of the many ways an individual can bring people together to build bridges and to encourage a more collaborative way of working. And we already know the benefits that can bring! And, guess what, even if you approach all of these actions in a humble, low-key fashion, seeking no personal credit (which is how you should go  about this), in the end, you will be the one who gets the credit and some great stories for when you interview for the next position!

Robert Denhardt is the Director of Leadership Programs in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC) and Director of the Executive Master of Leadership program at USC. He is the author of a dozen books on leadership and management, including, The Dance ofLeadership (with Janet Denhardt), Book: Just Plain Good Management, and Book: The Pursuit of Significance.

Speaking of Leadership . . .

Masculine or Feminine?

by Robert B. Denhardt

Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Question:  There’s been a lot of discussion lately about whether men or women make better leaders. What’s your response?

Bob – Many years ago, Jan Perkins and I wrote an article for the Public Administration Review that asked whether the rising tide of women in positions of management and leadership would change those fields – or whether those same women would be changed by their experience and the traditional leadership model would prevail.  That same question has been raised again in a variety of books and articles over the last year or so, many probably stimulated by Sheryl Sandberg’s highly publicized book Lean In. 

One article reported on a worldwide survey that asked respondents what they thought were the most important skills and characteristics of leaders, then asked which of those characteristics were associated with a feminine perspective and which were associated with a masculine perspective.

The first finding was that people who are demonstrate collaboration, flexibility, selflessness, and are ready to share credit were likely to be the most successful leaders – and that these were all considered feminine qualities. Some masculine qualities, like resilience and decisiveness, were on the list of positives but further down, while others like ego and pride, were all the way at the bottom of the list (Fast Company, May 13, 2013).

A similar article offered seven most important characteristics of today’s leader, including

•                Empathy – Being sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of others

•                Vulnerability: Owning up to one’s limitations and asking for help

•                Humility: Seeking to serve others and to share credit

•                Inclusiveness: Soliciting and listening to many voices

•                Generosity: Being liberal with time, contacts, advice, support

•                Balance: Giving life, as well as work, it’s due

•                Patience: Taking a long term view (Inc., June 13, 2012)

While we can question whether these surveys convey an accurate picture of leadership today, certainly most folks would acknowledge that effective leadership is increasingly being “feminized.” This doesn’t necessarily mean that women are better leaders than men.  Rather it means that people showing these more traditionally feminine traits – and these could be men as well as women – are likely to be more successful in their leadership roles. It doesn’t appear to be a matter of gender but rather one of style.

In an earlier post, I wrote that leadership styles need to change with the times, with cultural history. “To be a better leader, you have to relate to the particular time and culture in which you live. That time and that culture are constantly changing.  And your leadership must change as well. In fact, the best leaders are those who can match their personal growth and development with the changing world around them.”

Most men who occupy top positions in business, governments, and nonprofits – and they are still mostly men – entered their first jobs in an era dominated by top-down hierarchical practices and the tough, masculine traits associated with them.  But time and culture march on.  Today neither men nor women employees are likely to respond well to that traditional masculine model. They don’t want to be bossed around, regulated in their behavior, or told what to do. Wise leaders, both men and women, will see the evolving set of expectations and adopt many of the more feminine characteristics listed above.

In this, women probably have a little head start, but we all know women managers who adopted the most heavy-handed masculine traits as they rose up the corporate ladder. If they can adapt in one way, men can surely adapt in the other. 

When Jan and I wrote our article over thirty years ago, and asked whether women would change the workplace or be changed by it, we expected to know the answer by now.  But we don’t. Cultural change takes a long time. And, of course, there are other variables at play. The environment of business and government is changing in ways that support new styles of leadership that, for example, require more flexibility and less ego.

Both men and women leaders will have to be attentive to those changes and the changes in leadership they will demand. At this point, however, we can say that whether it’s the influence of more women in the workplace or whether it’s influence of changes in the environment, a more feminine model of leadership seems to be emerging.  Leaders of all types should take notice.

Robert Denhardt is the Director of Leadership Programs in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC) and Director of the Executive Master of Leadership program at USC. He is the author of a dozen books on leadership and management, including, The Dance ofLeadership (with Janet Denhardt), Book: Just Plain Good Management, and Book: The Pursuit of Significance.

What I Learned in Graduate School . . .

From being “Right”  to being “Effective”

by Michael J. Humara

USC Executive Master of Leadership

I am not sure from where my innate need to be right originated, but I assume that I am not the only one in the workplace that has this compulsion. Often individual action or inaction gives preference to dooming the program for failure rather than risk not being right. Surely successful leaders do not pursue careers in organizations where failure is an acceptable outcome so long as they were right? So how does this idea of being “right” fit in?

 It may be self-evident that a heterogeneous organization where everybody is set on always being “right” is culturally doomed for failure. For high reliability organizations “being right” could be the critical trait for success.  An incorrect technical decision could result in catastrophe and therefore may require heated debate and even refusal to comply with a direction. But as we move through a spectrum from technical specification/practices, to management processes, and leading change the issue becomes messier.

Consider a manager’s statement, “That person will be a good/bad fit in leading that team.” It is highly probable that somebody would disagree with the manager, and both will come up with objective data that supports what ultimately is a subjective decision often ending in contempt. Of course data can be collected after the fact to allow for vindication. There lies the rub.

I propose another angle to view “being right” as a value. A variation of Jim Collin’s Good to Great concept, “Would you continue to be right if it was no longer valuable to do so?” Personal ego may allow some of us to answer yes, but I in the context of an organization it would be impossible to align with the organization if this were that case all the time. How many mission statements include something akin to the following?

To make sure that our employees and management are proven to be right, in all decisions with which they disagree, regardless of the success of the organization.

In fact most, if not all, modern organizations see the value of “being wrong” long before “being right,” and would place integrity and loyalty far above “being right” in any list of organizational values. The desire to be right is a selfish condition where we give priority to our ego above that of the team and the organization.  

In Leading Change: an Argument for Values Based Leadership, James O’Toole argues that effective leadership stems from integrity, trust, and listening.  While this is a very elevated look at effective leadership, our ego could clash with any one of these principles and undercut any foundation we could hope to establish as a leader. So what do we do about it?

Humility jumps out to me as the obvious trait, but easier said than attained. At USC in the EML program, we start with understand the “self” and what our values are. For instance, I categorize myself as one of those who want to be right all the time, yes, the very type of person I am condemning for placing ego above the organization. Digging deeper to what I truly value is not being right, but knowledge and it did not take much analysis to understand the difference between the two. 

The next practice of the USC EML program is essential: Reflection. Reflection is painful and it requires us to take the uncomfortable look at ourselves and challenge our ego with our values. These two practices are at the core of the transition of the individual that desires to “be right” to a leader that strives to “be effective.”

Photo: Michael J. Humara – Executive Master of Leadership (EML) graduate.

To learn how an Executive Master of Leadership (EML) at the University of Southern California (USC) would benefit you in your career or development as a leader, please visit: priceschool.usc.edu/programs/masters/eml/