November | 2012 | Leaders to Leader

Archive for November 2012

Professional Credibility Evaluates the Leader’s Professional Abilities

Steve Jobs – Founder – Apple Computer

“Lead by Example. Simply stated, walk the talk. At Home Depot, we never expected our associates to do anything we didn’t do ourselves… You simply can’t ask anyone to do something you won’t do yourself.” – Arthur Blank

Professional credibility is an assessment of the leader’s skills and abilities. Simply put, does the leader possess the tools to do the job?

As leaders face challenges and must overcome pressing problems and issues, it is a question that will continually arise in the minds of all constituencies, and will be viewed through the lens of their individual agendas.

Where personal credibility assesses the leader as a trustworthy individual, professional credibility evaluates the leader’s professional abilities. However, both are closely aligned, as questions or doubts of a leader’s veracity and trustworthiness may taint his or her professional credibility.

An example of this occurred when Steve Jobs (Apple Computer) negotiated a deal with Carly Fiorina (Hewlett Packard) so that Hewlett Packard could manufacture a HP-branded iPod. The deal included a provision that Apple would work with HP to develop transcoding, so the device would be compatible with the Windows Media player.

After the deal was agreed to, Jobs never allowed the transcoding, “but the contract still locked HP out of the MP3 player market until Apple dominated it. Effectively, Steve Jobs “Steve’d,” HP and people there are still pissed. Right or wrong, it worked …” This typifies the behavior of a leader who may have professional credibility and be deficient in personal credibility. [1]

The Jobs’ example illustrates how a leader’s professional credibility might impact a company’s performance and profitability. This includes taking financial risks that may place the company’s sustainability at risk, or as in Job’s case, make it liable to potential lawsuits.

While Jobs achieved a strategic advantage over Hewlett-Packard, and may have been considered extremely clever, by some individuals, it damaged both his and Apple’s credibility.

Other notable examples of leaders who took enormous financial risks include Richard Fuld (Lehman Brothers), Martin Sullivan (AIG), Jimmy Cayne (Bear Sterns), as well as a host of other CEO’s.

Their professional incompetence resulted in causing financial havoc, not only on their companies, but also upon the economy as a whole.

All of these examples underscore the importance of a leader’s professional credibility to their company’s performance and sustainability, especially to all key constituencies. Without any, the company can flounder and ultimately fail.

Reference:

1. Enderle, Rob, Apple Without Steve Is Like Disney Without Walt (Tech News World, January 19, 2009)

For more information on this topic and to read a free chapter, refer to Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It by Timothy F. Bednarz (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011).

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

November 16, 2012 at 11:44 am

Visionary Leaders Are in a Different Class

with 2 comments

Leaders are continually facing situations of constant change and adaptation. Creating and implementing a vision helps them determine ways to overcome associated roadblocks, hindrances and employee resistance.

As employees and leaders alike are typically subjected to a broad range of external and internal pressures, leaders are faced with the challenge of creating an appropriate or “right” vision, then persuading various categories of employees—from avid supporters to procrastinators and laggards—to accept the vision and work toward its fulfillment.

A carefully crafted leadership vision provides the means to generate new and more flexible ways of working and thinking as a group. It enables leaders to set a specific organizational course of direction, then pursue it by selecting, equipping and training employees focused on the mission and its objectives to carry it out.

Defining, selling and emphasizing the vision motivates employees to willingly and enthusiastically expend personal, emotional, and physical energy in its pursuit. Specific organizational goals and objectives are accepted and embraced because employees have “bought in” to the vision.

A leader achieves this needed influence by displaying a servant attitude and modest stance while conveying a “prophetic and profound vision of the future.” The vision and its associated direction are presented in clear terms that resonate with employee beliefs and values.

Once this takes place, employees begin to understand and interpret “the future” in the context of present actions and steps.

During the process, the leader presents his or her vision in contrast to the present status and state of the organization. Through the use of critical thinking skills, insight, intuition, active listening and positive discourse, the leader is able to facilitate and draw out employee opinions and beliefs.

This process allows employees to move from ambiguity toward clarity of understanding, which helps them to develop shared insights that result in influencing them to see the future state of the organization as a desirable condition worth committing to.

The leader begins to move the vision forward in an ethical and productive way, which implies seeking out what constitutes “the greater good” in regard to his or her employees.

During this process the leader constantly emphasizes how and why the employees will be better off as a result of open and positive leadership interaction.

The leader is then able to achieve higher levels of trust and commitment to the vision as he or she seeks personal growth, renewal, and increased stamina through these positive leader-employee interactions.

A Visionary Leader Is Set Apart from Others

Visionary leaders are in a different class than traditional mission-focused leaders. They seem to sense the unknowable, which includes seeing others’ unique talents and abilities. These tend to influence the decisions the leader makes, and help him or her shape a better plan for the future.

Leaders with vision are outstanding “conceptualizers,” nurturing their own and others’ abilities to dream and think beyond the ordinary and day-to-day limitations. They motivate across generational boundaries to enable employee groups to learn and embrace change.

As individual work environments often directly affect employee capabilities, visionary leaders know they can and should affect employee perceptions as to their own personal capabilities. An outcome of this process is that the leader can more fully prepare and build employee followers to accomplish what they are capable of and beyond.

The building up of employee followers results in the leader knowing their capabilities to the point where enhanced trust empowers them to accomplish necessary organizational tasks, assignments and projects.

Visionary Leaders Are Motivators

Leaders with vision are extremely capable of motivating and instilling a sense of vision “buy-in,” desire, commitment and determination in their employees.

They have the innate ability to engage others in their direction. They also tend to be masters of determining their employees’ true capacities, which can be used to help seek out and overcome optimal challenges.

Inspiring the vision implies rallying employees to acknowledge a common purpose and path of direction in its behalf. Employees become motivated to behave in particular, positive ways. This true sense of motivation does not spring from external rewards or threats, but internally from individual desires of job and personal satisfaction.

Intrinsic motivation results in generating a sense of pleasure while interacting with others as well as while engaged in necessary jobs, projects and tasks.

Becoming a More Visionary Leader

Visionary leaders tend to transcend organizational expectations as well as the goals they set for themselves and their employees.

Leaders can become more forward-thinking, craft an inspiring vision and make it a reality by adhering to the following tips and strategies:

Generate movement by focusing on what is in the best interests of their employees from a long-term standpoint.
Motivate employees into action and commitment by satisfying their basic human needs.
Talk in terms of dreams and possibilities that work to inspire the vision.
Think in terms of a broader organizational view, as well as why it is important to forge a new territory of organizational direction.
Remain farsighted while working in shorter steps that focus on generating small successful outcomes.
Work to inspire employees to do things without actually sitting on top of them with a checklist in hand.
Integrate employee ideas to foster ownership in the vision.
Maintain the ability to see objectively and in an unbiased manner.
Do the right thing in all circumstances and situations.
Keep up with future trends and how they will effect the organization.
Make consistent and effective contributions to work tasks and team projects.
Continually inspire employee followers through speeches and pep talks that get them to work toward the vision.

Excerpt: Creating & Sustaining a Strong Vision: Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series by Timothy Bednarz (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011)

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

November 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm

Posted in Leadership, Vision, Visionary Thinking

Tagged with active listening, critical thinking skills, employees, insight, intuition, Leaders, Leadership, leadership vision, motivators, servant attitude, vision, visionary leader

Legitimacy: The Sole Basis of Leadership

with 13 comments

My research on the leadership qualities and characteristics of famous American leaders to determine what makes leaders great, I designated a pattern that defined the great leaders as The Legitimacy Principles. These were presented in a previous article: For the purpose of clarification, the definition of The Legitimacy Principles need to be restated:

The Legitimacy Principles enumerate the linkages of leaders’ legitimacy, credibility, trust and a balance of emotional standing and bonds with all key constituencies.

The synergetic relationship between these key factors of success is the foundation of effective leadership and provides insight into a new definition of it.

The fundamental essence of leadership is legitimacy, whose substance is based upon authority and validity. While authority is conferred, validity is earned through the development of credibility, trust and a balance of emotional standing and connections with all key constituencies.

The presence of the Legitimacy Principles endow leaders with the authority to lead, manage, execute, empower, effectively communicate, sell their vision, generate a passion for success, and overcome adversity. Their absence results in ultimate failure as an effective leader.

Legitimacy is the cornerstone of effective leadership. Jon Huntsman, Sr wrote in his book, Winners Never Cheat Even in Difficult Times:

“Effective, respected leadership is maintained through mutual agreement. Leadership demanded is leadership denied. Leadership is not meant to be dominion over others. Rather, it is the composite of characteristics that earns respect, results, and a continued following.”

The great leaders possess this critical leadership trait. However, legitimacy is seldom discussed, if even mentioned in most leadership books. The absence of a definitive definition leads to confusion as to what defines legitimacy. Its definition needs to be clarified and placed within a proper context.

It is assumed that leaders automatically possess legitimacy. My research demonstrates that this is a fallacy. It shows that legitimacy is derived from two separate sources that grant leaders permission to lead.

The first source is authority or the power granted to leaders by either election, or appointment to an office. In the business setting, this is conferred by the stockholders through the board of directors. Rudolph Giuliani observed:

“A leader is chosen because whoever puts him there trusts his judgment, character and intelligence… It’s a leader’s duty to act on those attributes.”

The second source is validity. Validity is not conferred, nor is it automatically achieved once one is appointed. It is earned and is a contributing factor to the authority granted to a leader, typically over the span of his or her career. This defines a leader as genuine and authentic in the eyes of all key constituencies.

Both sources of legitimacy compliment each other, but validity provides an enduring, yet fragile acquiescence of all the constituencies that gives a leader the tacit permission to lead. It is built upon three critical factors: trust, credibility and emotional balance.

My research demonstrates that these are the hallmarks of great leaders. Without the presence of these three critical factors, the leader’s validity collapses. Once a leader loses his or her validity, the authority to lead is significantly undermined.

Huntsman stated:

“Leadership is a privilege. Those who receive the mantle must also know they can expect an accounting of their stewardships. It is not uncommon for people to forego higher salaries to join an organization with strong, ethical leadership. Most individuals desire leadership they can admire and respect. They want to be in sync with that brand of leader, and will often parallel their own lives after that person…”

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

November 14, 2012 at 10:50 am

Emotional Bonds are a Reflection of a Leader’s Effectiveness

with 15 comments

James Burke – Johnson & Johnson

The research conducted for Great! What Makes Leaders Great revealed that great leaders created emotional balance. This is the development of emotional bonds and standing individual key constituencies. It is important because it reflects leaders’ attention and performance with each group.

It is an outcome of leaders’ actions and performance, and mirrors the overall health and sustainability of the organization. An imbalance pinpoints potential problems and issues that can damage an organization in the future.

While emotional bonds are a reflection of a leader’s effectiveness, they also are the underpinnings of credibility, trust, validity and legitimacy. This is a cyclical relationship since these characteristics must be firmly established before emotional bonds and standing can be formed. Yet, a leader’s emotional standing with key constituencies is essential to foster credibility, trust, validity and legitimacy.

A positive outcome of this relationship is that strong emotional bonds ultimately pay big dividends in the form of loyalty. This is an additional factor, which strengthens a leader’s validity and legitimacy. Research showed that during periods of difficulty, this often meant the difference between success and failure.

A notable example is Fred Smith when FedEx experienced a monumental problem because of a UPS strike. Consequently, FedEx was swamped with 800,000 extra packages a day. His strong emotional standing, which had instilled a robust sense of company loyalty, bore fruit during this crisis.

Thousands of employees voluntarily poured into the hubs a little before midnight to sort the mountain of extra packages. Many had already worked previous shifts and stayed over to help the company overcome the crisis. As a result, FedEx achieved a 2% gain in market share and saw its share price rise by 70% over the subsequent twelve months.

The emphasis of shareholder value over the past decades often created imbalance. An analysis of the financial performance of companies with this focus typically underperformed those companies where the leadership fostered key relationships.

Every one of the leaders included in Portfolio Magazine’s list of the “Worst Performing CEO’s,” who were included in the research, revealed significant emotional imbalances among their constituencies. Jack Welch reinforces this when he stated succinctly in his 2009 Financial Times interview, “Your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”

A prime example of emotional balance was demonstrated in 1982, when James Burke, CEO of Johnson & Johnson was confronted with the news of seven poison-related deaths, caused by Tylenol capsules that were laced with cyanide. He looked the facts in the face and immediately understood the gravity of the situation.

Against the vehement opposition from his management team, he decided to go directly to the public. Backed with a $ 50 million product recall, he communicated a strong sense of concern, openness and accountability as he frequently appeared on the major and influential television talk shows of the time.

This contributed to the restoration of public trust and saved the Tylenol brand. Burke was strong, bold and decisive and this built a solid base of trust and confidence. He placed his legitimacy, personal stature and reputation on the line. His proactive communications brought his message to the public, and by doing so, controlled the crisis, accompanying expectations and ultimately protected his company’s image and reputation.

A synergetic relationship and a balance between these emotional bonds were observed during the research. Each supports and reinforces the other. If one area fails, it contributes to the failure of the others.

For example, leaders like Al Dunlap (Sunbeam) made profit-enhancing decisions that deeply impacted employees, reduced product quality and squeezed vendors and suppliers. In many instances, these destroyed the emotional bonds with each key constituency, while refocusing on their emotional standing solely with the board and stockholders.

While in the short-term these leaders were hailed as triumphant heroes and celebrated by investors, in the long-term they undermined the cohesiveness of legitimacy, validity and critical emotional bonds.

Ultimately, performance suffered and they lost their emotional standing with the stockholders. Once this occurred, they were removed from their positions, if they didn’t have the foresight to prematurely depart, while leaving a mess for someone else to clean up.

Analysis validates that emotional connections tend to begin early and continue throughout the leader’s career as they develop a personal standing with each group of key constituencies. Early emotional connections are able to develop into stronger bonds of trust. This gives leaders the legitimacy, credibility and trust, which lead to future growth, either in their businesses or in their advancement to more prominent positions.

Many revere the prominence of the great leaders, like Ford, Rockefeller, Morgan, Gates and Buffet, due to their individual reputations and achievements. The research reveals that great leaders are also fallible. They make mistakes and often are subject to criticism, some valid, and some triggered by an opponent’s agenda.

But the analysis of the great leaders demonstrates that if and when they choose to persevere and persist in their efforts, they will ultimately succeed. This is a consequence of the emotional support and emotional standing they took the time to nurture and foster throughout their careers.

The question is, can leaders be effective without these emotional connections? Analysis illustrates that there are leaders who didn’t make all of the necessary emotional connections. Their effectiveness became diminished by the lack of support on multiple levels.

For instance, profit-centric leaders like Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco International) may have developed strong emotional connections with the stockholders, especially since they delivered the short-term profits being sought after. But, at what price?

Many of these types of leaders do so at the expense of their customers and employees. They reduce quality and dramatically downsize their workforce, only focusing on the bottom line. In the short-term they will likely be successful, but their actions undermine the legitimacy, trust and credibility required to build and manage an enduring, successful corporation.

Ultimately, this results in long-term problems due to the loss of the company’s customer base, along with their most productive employees, both who will vote on this leader’s performance with their feet. These actions place companies in financial jeopardy.

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

November 13, 2012 at 11:14 am

The Capacity to Face Reality

with 2 comments

Intellectual honesty is strongly interrelated to management style. It is framed by the capacity to face the realities confronting leaders, their willingness to have their thinking challenged by advisors and to seek out and consider opinions, even if they may not agree with them.

The following example demonstrates how Michael Dell (Dell Computer) exemplifies this ability. His “ability to call in experienced corporate talent, coupled with Dell’s own lack of corporate experience, has imbued his company with a unique competence–the ability to fail well. When the company hit its first roadblock (a net income decline in 1993 of more than $100 million),

Dell called Bain for counsel… by then-consultant Kevin Rollins. ‘Michael said, ‘I want you to tell me what’s wrong with my company, and fix it at the same time,’ recounts Rollins. ‘I told him that we generally diagnose the problems first, then afterward figure out a solution and then go and implement it. He said, ‘No, do those concurrently.’ So we did, and that started Dell Time, where a quarter is a year in most people’s lives.’”

It should be noted that intellectual honesty also incorporates a healthy dose of curiosity that leads to in-depth questioning and insights. After the Second World War, William Blackie (Caterpillar) didn’t like to “make his decisions in some comfortable office. He went out in the field to see for himself and advised others to do the same… Seeing the changes and their effects creates more conviction than being told about it or reading about it.”[1]

Blackie’s own intellectual honesty created the same expectations he demanded from his employees were contributing factors in the growth of Caterpillar during the post World War II period.
Intellectual honesty applies to all company-related aspects, but equally important it also applies to leaders, as they assess their own abilities, behaviors and decisions.

Kemmons Wilson (Holiday Inn) typifies this. “Knowing his strengths and weaknesses is one of Kemmons’ strongest characteristics. He freely admits that he did not have a good education. But he makes up for it by positioning the right people around him.”[2]

The degree of intellectual honesty will directly affect a leader’s critical thinking and decision-making abilities. Key constituencies may question a leader’s professional credibility if he or she refuses to face the facts surrounding a problem or issue and chooses a course of action that may be considered harmful. The same is true if a leader makes a decision and refuses to be challenged. This creates doubts, fosters distrust and leads to a loss of confidence.

My research disclosed that intellectual honesty appeared to be absent in poorer performing leaders, and those whose companies experienced the most problems. These leaders failed to posses the ability to face reality. They refused to be personally challenged and stopped listening to trusted advisors.

In most cases, these leaders were insolated and displayed an intensity of intellectual arrogance and hubris. Thinking they knew more that their constituencies, they quickly alienated them, and often put their companies in jeopardy.

Al Dunlap (Sunbeam) displayed these tendencies throughout his career. “He [Al Dunlap] is utterly convinced of his own greatness, and wholly uninterested in anything that doesn’t further his own self-aggrandizement. The portrait he paints of himself is that of a man who has never made a mistake and has never had a second thought about anything, and whose life has been little more than a series of ever-greater triumphs. He is always ready to tear down someone, especially when he can make himself look good by comparison.” [3]

In addition to Dunlap, three notable examples of this include Robert Allen (AT&T), John Akers (IBM) and Roger Smith (General Motors). In each instance, personal pride and ego prevented them from being intellectually honest about the problems facing their companies. They refused to listen to trusted advisors. They created a series of cascading problems that negatively impacted the company’s performance and further exasperated their difficulties.

My research illustrates instance after instance where great leaders faced problems, were intellectually honest with themselves and others, and established a tone that became the hallmarks of their companies.

In 1986, during a second Tylenol crisis, James Burke (Johnson & Johnson) “looked facts in the face. [He] understood the gravity of the situation… partnered with the government and media. When a reporter asked why it happened, Burke responded with crystal clarity and honesty.” [4]

When Cisco company went into a freefall after the markets collapsed in 2001, John Chamber quickly analyzed the problem without affixing blame, determined its seriousness, took harsh and necessary actions to get through it and then prepared for an economic recovery.

“Sam Palmisano, CEO of IBM… said, “John kept the company focused. He said this is where we are, and he drove the company forward… He never dwelled on it.’”

The great leaders allowed their judgments and decisions to be challenged. They encouraged vigorous debate within their organizations. They were willing to seek out expertise to solve problems, even if it was contrary to their own thinking, feelings and intuition. They were open minded and displayed sound judgment when making decisions and evaluating risk.

Prior to taking decisive action during the Tylenol crisis, James Burke (Johnson & Johnson) heard and considered contrary opinions from his advisors, legal counsel and the government not to the take the actions that ultimately vindicated his company. After carefully considering their advice, he decided to adhere to the company’s credo that “proclaimed that J&J’s “first responsibility” was to its customers and then to employees, management, communities, and stockholders-in that order.”

These leaders encouraged the same behaviors in their managers, which drove similar attitudes, skills and abilities deep into the fabric of the organizational culture. In doing so they empowered their employees and created a collaborative environment. This, in turn, fostered innovation and increased their competitive advantage.

Arthur Blank (Home Depot) observed, “Sometimes in business you have to put management in the back seat and let associates take the wheel. At Home Depot, most of our best ideas came from our sales associates. Some of the ideas were brilliant – some were risky…”

Henry Kaiser (Kaiser) and Stephen Bechtel (Bechtel Corporation) fostered high levels of intellectual honesty and collaboration due the size and scope of the production projects their companies worked on. This included the massive shipbuilding yards Kaiser built during the Second World War and the building of the Hoover Dam, that both men participated in. They would not have been able to succeed and grow without it.

References:

Schleier, Curt, William Blackie Put Caterpillar on An Upward (Investor’s Business Daily) February 2, 2002
Success Secrets of Memphis’ Most Prolific Entrepreneur (Business Perspectives) July 1, 1997
Nocera, Joseph, Confessions of a Corporate Killer (Fortune Magazine) September 30, 1996
Kwoh, Leslie, Business Historian Richard Tedlow Discusses Dealing with Denial (The Star-Ledger) January 28, 2010

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

November 12, 2012 at 10:33 am

Posted in Intellectual Honesty, Leadership, Response to Adversity

Tagged with characteristics of a leader, curiosity, famous American leaders, great leaders, insights, intellectual honesty, Leaders, Leadership, leadership qualities, leadership skills, leadership traits, questioning, servant leadership, situational leadership, what is leadership, what makes leaders great

The ABCs of Leadership

with 3 comments

There is a critical and substantial difference between managing to lead and managing to supervise. Managers who lead show others the way, while managers who supervise tend to direct and control. Leaders are individuals who motivate and inspire the individuals around them, whether they are coworkers or employees.

People often believe that “leaders are born not made,” but this is far from the truth. Most people who have the desire and internal motivation can learn to incorporate effective leadership skills into their style of management. Doing this often includes making changes and alterations in mindsets and attitudes, without which many managers will never become the type of leaders others want to follow.

Individuals who fall into the category of traditional supervising managers find themselves generally directing and controlling the people under them. They tend to be rigid in their thinking, ineffective and unproductive when compared to managers who are also leaders.

Managers as leaders are excellent motivators. They are more productive because they are able to tap into individuals as key organizational resources and rely on their cooperative efforts and results to get things accomplished effectively and efficiently. They ultimately assume cheerleader roles to inspire employees to greater heights of achievement. Most managers are surprised by how much more their departments and units are able to accomplish when they are effectively led.

If managers wish to achieve higher levels of results, they must learn to delegate various responsibilities to their employees and motivate them, rather than simply use control management methods. Due to higher expectation levels, results then tend to increase.

Managers as leaders make certain that employees become empowered to accomplish more through greater levels of autonomy and responsibility. Most importantly, this change allows managers more time to concentrate on the important strategic issues affecting their entire department rather than focusing on daily tactical issues that can just as easily be delegated to individual employees.

Managers who lead are motivated by their own personal vision of what is possible to achieve. They are always focused on the accomplishment of major long-term goals. These goals provide them with deeply held convictions of what they desire to attain and how to go about achieving it.

Their personal determination and perseverance are what attracts others to their vision and motivates them to not only believe in them, but also to embrace their attainment. Traditional managers, on the other hand, do not generally have these convictions or a vision for the future due to their having chosen to operate in a more reactive rather than proactive manner.

Managers as leaders inspire the active participation of individual employees by communicating their vision in a clear and convincing manner. Everything they say and do effuses passion and enthusiasm, which become contagious. Managers who lead are able to easily articulate their message and frequently “talk up” their personal vision. They work to create mental images of their vision that employees can conceptually see and feel.

Managers as leaders tend to have positive self-images. This affirmative sense of self translates into confidence and a keen awareness of their personal capabilities. These managers tend to build and develop similar characteristics in their employees by delegating and effectively sharing their power and professional knowledge. This is in direct contrast to more traditional managers who generally tend to hoard power and information, feeling that any form of delegation undermines their power base and authority.

Many managers are results-oriented with a zero-tolerance for mistakes and failure. This results in employees hiding their failures for fear of possibly severe repercussions. They tend to cover errors and misjudgments by altering information or misleading managers regarding certain results or oversights. This is one of the leading causes of managers being blindsided by unforeseen events and circumstances.

Leading managers, on the other hand, view mistakes and failures as learning experiences. They understand that they and their employees cannot grow and stretch their abilities without making mistakes and failing. They consistently encourage employees to implement new ideas, concepts and approaches and stretch their individual capabilities in order to learn from mistakes.

This often produces more results-driven atmospheres than those seen through strictly supervisory management styles and practices. It enables leaders and their departments or units to react faster to evolving conditions and even anticipate certain changes before they produce negative impacts.

Managers who lead their people build trust and rapport through various mutual learning experiences, which are generally accompanied by trial-and-error approaches and outcomes. They are quick to listen and observe throughout the process, with one of their most positive attributes being their ability to offer appropriate feedback in non-threatening ways.

Excerpt: Leadership: Pinpoint Management Skill Development Training Series by Timothy Bednarz (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011)

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

November 9, 2012 at 10:04 am

Posted in Employees, Leadership, Leadership Development

Tagged with controlling, delegation, directing, effective leadership skills, employees, goals, Leaders, learning experiences, managers, mistakes

Taking an Inventory of Your Leadership Skills

with 3 comments

Sound leadership includes continually and objectively taking inventory of oneself. This is not as easy as it appears, because leaders inherently have high levels of self-confidence and often believe they are strong in most areas relating to their leadership role. Even though this quality is important for leaders to fulfill their role effectively, it often obscures specific areas needing improvement.

When leaders honestly assess their performance, they will set goals for improvement. By responding to precise questions in six specific categories it becomes easier to determine areas for improvement that might otherwise be overlooked. These areas and questions need to be addressed carefully in order to improve one’s performance in their leadership role.

It is important for leaders to honestly evaluate themselves in the areas of:

Establishing a core belief system
Prioritizing tasks
Developing methods for monitoring workplace progress
Giving clear and detailed instructions
Promoting responsibility
Improving the overall workplace environment

In order to pinpoint specific areas of strengths and weaknesses, print out the following evaluation areas and questions and write “yes” or “no” before each number.

Establishing a core belief system

Do you continually prepare your employees for impending changes by effectively discussing and defending why they are necessary?
Do you review procedures and results with your employees on a regular basis?
Do your employees know where your direction is taking them?
Do your employees understand why it is important to achieve set goals?
Do your employees understand and accept established standards for performance and are they complying with workplace rules?

Prioritizing tasks

Are your priorities flexible?
Do you model the importance of organizational skills to your employees?
Do you set daily priorities?
Are your employees a daily top priority in terms of their needs and concerns?
Do you take an active role in helping employees prioritize their tasks and assignments?

Monitoring workplace progress

Do you keep daily records and check off items that move workplace progress forward?
Do you have at least one weekly meeting to discuss performance progress and/or timeline implications?
Do you consult with individuals that need to increase overall performance on a regular basis?
Are you able to determine reasons behind a lack of performance in most of your employees who aren’t meeting expectations?
Do you motivate using various leadership styles that meet specific individual needs?

Giving detailed instructions clearly

Are you allowing adequate time for discussions, asking questions and addressing particular concerns and specific issues that arise?
Do you address all the “why’s, how’s and when’s” of assignments and tasks?
Do all employees understand why particular procedures are necessary?
When plans, goals and objectives are detailed, are they completely understood by all involved?
Do you listen to employees carefully and anticipate potential problems or complications in assignments or tasks and take appropriate action before they actually arise?

Promoting responsibility

Do you give adequate feedback to employees to build development of responsibility?
Do you use motivational techniques to help build the desire to accept responsibility in your employees?
Do you assign tasks and responsibilities equally among all employees?
Do you encourage your employees to take risks without fear of negative consequences?
Do you delegate responsibilities whenever possible to the most qualified individual?

Improving the overall workplace environment

Do you celebrate individual successes, great and small?
Do you put forth daily efforts to make assignments and tasks more enjoyable for everyone involved?
Do you encourage cooperative efforts and input in planning the goals for the direction you wish to take?
Do you work to stimulate creativity and “out of the box” thinking?
Do you make sure to give each employee one-on-one time throughout each week?

Excerpt: Leadership Roles & Responsibilities: Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series by Timothy Bednarz (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011)

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

November 8, 2012 at 11:08 am

Posted in Leadership, Leadership Development, Roles and Responsibilities

Tagged with clear and detailed instructions, core belief system, employees, flexibility, Leadership, leadership styles, monitoring workplace progress, motivational techniques, organizational skills, performance, prioritizing tasks, responsibility, skills inventory, tasks and assignments, workplace environment

How Employees Handle Conflict

with one comment

The natural tendencies of many individuals and other group dynamics can hinder a leader’s ability to be effective in resolving conflict in the group setting. The leader must take the time to observe and then rectify specific behaviors that interfere with conflict resolution.

When problems and issues arise, many individuals have a natural tendency to avoid friction. When that is not possible, they seek to remain uninvolved in its resolution.

Employees may be forced to be part of a group charged with solving a problem, but these individuals are often not happy about it. The fight-or-flight response takes over, and even if they are physically present, they have mentally left the conflict.

When problems do occur leaders must ensure that all viewpoints and perspectives are heard and all alternatives explored. Techniques can be utilized to ensure that all members of the group are included in both the discussion and crafting of an acceptable solution.

Leaders can look for specific behavior patterns in order to determine how employees handle conflict. These patterns may be nonverbal and not readily apparent, but a careful examination will help leaders spotlight the behaviors impeding conflict resolution and enable them to address and rectify the situation.

Such an examination includes looking at:

Alternatives

The first behavioral patterns leaders need to explore are the alternatives that are considered when solving a problem in the group setting. Problems can present themselves and additional conflicts can be created if employees tend to consider only a few potential alternatives.

If leaders observe these patterns, they must engage the group in brainstorming techniques that explore all possible avenues toward resolution. This action fosters creative thinking within the group and provides innovative solutions to eliminate the causes of conflict.

Emphasis

Within some groups, the smoothing and avoiding approach to conflict resolution is predominant, resulting in areas of agreement being overemphasized while leaving areas of disagreement unexplored. This deficiency allows the situation to fester and explode into a bigger problem down the road.

When leaders observe this pattern, they must shift the group’s emphasis to balance areas of agreement with disagreement. All aspects must be fully examined and the alternatives considered before the problem can be adequately resolved.

Disagreement

Leaders need to observe how members respect individual disagreement, as group norms may keep any discordance from being voiced. In other situations, individuals who convey disagreement may be ridiculed, bullied or intimidated so that it is not taken seriously or considered by the group.

Leaders must ensure that all members of the group have an open and equal opportunity to voice any problems they might have and offer valid points and perspectives. Any attempt to quiet opposition will create additional conflict and deeper problems.

Agreement

There are many criteria that a group can consider in establishing agreement among its members. Some will use a majority vote, while others will arrive at a consensus before moving forward. Some group norms interpret a lack of opposition as agreement.

Leaders should shift the group toward a consensus where all viewpoints are both voiced and considered. All members of the group must be included, especially those who may be reluctant to say anything. Only in this fashion will all viewpoints, options or alternatives be considered.

Openness

In several conflict resolution modes, leaders should be watchful for members “stumping” for a specific viewpoint or perspective rather than inquiring about the potential alternatives available to the group.

Additionally, leaders can observe how actively members listen to each other’s perspectives and whether or not the members respect the input of all individuals. These clues help the leader determine the group’s openness to alternative perspectives.

Leaders must ensure that all perspectives are voiced and respected. The advocacy of one point of view without a full exploration of the facts and all possible solutions should not be tolerated.

Participation

The participation of individual members, their reactions to the group setting, and their involvement with specific issues should be carefully observed. Leaders should pay attention to whether members are apathetic, frustrated, defensive, warm or enthusiastic.

Each of these emotional states will impact both conflict resolution and problem solving. Apathy, frustration and defensive postures can result in faulty or unresolved solutions that will lead to subsequent issues.

Leaders should meet with each employee displaying negative personal attributes in order to determine the causes of their attitudes. In some cases, these attributes can surface because conflict and disagreement are not tolerated. Individuals may feel that their opinions are not respected or wanted. Such difficulties must be addressed if the group is to be effective.

Interaction

The final area that leaders must monitor closely is the interaction of individual members within the group environment. Some of these factors have already been discussed, including individuals who are overly nice and polite and emote only positive feelings.

Group members might too readily agree with one another while suppressing their true thoughts. This indicates that the group is in a destructive conflict resolution mode where suppression dominates and the status quo is maintained.

Leaders who observe these clues must intervene in meetings and take the initiative in order to draw out the true feelings and perspectives of the group. They can effectively do this by using open-ended questions that operate until satisfactory responses are obtained.

Excerpt: Conflict Resolution: Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series by Timothy Bednarz (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011)

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

November 7, 2012 at 9:55 am

Posted in Conflict Resolution, Employees, Problem Solving

Tagged with agreement, alternatives, behavior patterns, conflict resolution, consensus, disagreement, employees, group norms, interaction, leader, openness, participation, perspectives, problem solving, smoothing and avoiding

The Dynamic Nature of Credibility

Expectations

Prior to their selection of a leader, boards of directors or selection committees will establish a series of expectations that will be used during the evaluation process to filter the appropriate candidates and select the one who is determined to be the best.

Therefore, leaders are selected to meet the expectations of the board and investors and to fulfill specific goals and objectives. At the CEO level, these may include such things as producing growth, entering into new markets and increasing profitability, etc.

Credibility

Leaders will normally undergo a selection process that establishes their initial level of credibility. The evaluation process will review the following:

Personal Credibility

Assesses individual reputation and trustworthiness.

Professional Credibility

Assesses the individual’s abilities, skills and capabilities to perform the job and to meet expectations.

Competence

Assesses the individual’s competence and evaluates past performance.

Outcomes and Results

Assesses the track record and the professional accomplishments of the individual.

If individuals are promoted from within an organization, they will have an established base of credibility in these four areas that are readily verified. They also may have established it with one or more of the company’s key constituencies.

This will vary by the previous exposure individuals may have had with these groups. Otherwise, credibility is established through the selection process including interviews, performance reviews and reference checks.

Confidence

Initial levels of confidence are rooted in the beliefs of the board or selection committee that the individual possesses the capabilities and experience to meet their expectations. The authority granted to leaders is affirmed by these three factors.

At this point, the only basis of their legitimacy is the authority conferred upon them. They may have initial levels of validity, based upon reputation and past performance, but to the core constituencies, the leader must verify that validity in their minds.

After the selection process, their levels of validity, confidence and credibility will either rise or fall. This is based upon the same four factors used by a selection committee, including:

Personal Credibility
Professional Credibility
Competence
Outcomes and Results

Unlike the selection process, the key constituencies will continually use these criteria to gauge leaders’ performance as long as their tenure continues in the company. The research demonstrates that positive performance in each of these areas will generate specific levels of trust, confidence and loyalty, which enable leaders to establish emotional connections and standing with them.

Analysis of the great leaders validates that credibility is not static. Levels rose and fell as circumstances changed. This doesn’t mean the leaders were not credible or couldn’t be trusted. It revealed that only degrees of confidence varied with key constituencies at any single point in time.

The research illustrated that the emotional bonds and standing established by leaders appeared to carry more weight over the long term. This allowed them to maintain their credibility during difficult periods. When these occurred, their constituencies were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. This validates the clear correlation between credibility and emotional support when it is most needed. As was previously noted, elevated and sustained levels of credibility generate strong bonds of loyalty.

Conversely, the research showed that key constituencies often abandon leaders with poor or diminishing levels of credibility. Major missteps or unethical actions and inept decision-making erode credibility to the point where some leaders never recover. This is exemplified by traumatic events such as restructurings, major layoffs, organizational chaos, or strikes.

In some cases a leader’s validity and legitimacy may be completely lost. Carly Fiorina (Hewlett Packard) experienced this after her failed attempts to radically change her company’s culture. In her case, she had developed problems within all four categories. This resulted in the loss of emotional standing with all her key constituencies. It destroyed her validity to lead. In the end, we all heard of the widely publicized loss of her position as CEO of Hewlett Packard.

Many corporate leaders fail to understand the holistic impact their actions and decisions have upon personal credibility and levels of trust with key constituencies. They also often fail to understand the synergy and bonds of emotional connection and standing within these groups, and the importance to keep them in balance. As previously mentioned, any imbalance will generate additional credibility problems and trust-related issues.

Ross Perot achieved high levels of credibility with the public when he staged a daring rescue of his employees from Iran, during the Islamic Revolution in 1979. It was further enhanced when he ran for President in 1992. He had a number of nationally televised events, where he presented his solutions for solving the nation’s problems.

However, on the night of the election, he quickly destroyed his credibility by making light of his efforts, leaving many who voted for him feeling betrayed. While much of the public initially viewed him as a credible leader, he failed to show his concern and appreciation after the election. This caused many of his supporters to feel used, leaving them disenchanted. After this episode, he never again achieved the levels of prominence in the minds of his supporters he once had.

For more information on this topic, refer to Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It by Timothy F. Bednarz (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011).