Leaders to Leader

Lessons from the Great American Leaders & How They Apply Now

Archive for the ‘Key Constitiuencies’ Category

When Building Trust, By All Means Avoid These Six Behaviors

with 2 comments

smallgroup

One of the pillars of leadership is developing and fostering a deep sense of mutual workplace trust. One of the most vexing problems faced in organizations is a simple lack of trust between employees and their managers. For managers to experience successful growth and positive results in their respective department or unit, trust must be established on all levels. Without a deep sense of trust, their vision, goals and plans—as well as unified workplace cohesion—will be unobtainable.

Establishing trust is difficult, time-intensive work. It is earned when synergistic working relationships are established with individual employees. These relationships are characterized by active communication and listening, open and candid interactions, and a total acceptance of all persons as unique individuals. Trust also includes the manager’s personal involvement in ensuring employee as well as departmental success.

The fact that managers are granted authority over employees does not guarantee trust between both parties. Trust is based upon truth, which implies open, honest and direct communication free of personal or hidden agendas. For managers to become totally effective leaders trust must be earned and established. In the absence of trust, leadership principles will be of little consequence in the workplace.

Managers have a unique role within organizational workplaces. While they are responsible for individual employees and are required to guide and direct their activities, many are working on different assignments, projects and tasks in varying phases of completion. Many times it becomes impossible for managers to oversee everyone’s ongoing daily activities. This type of environment demands that high levels of trust are established and sustained.

Lack of trust in the workplace stems from areas managers can fall short in, including:

Establishing a Work Environment Free of Fear

Most managers are generally under extreme pressure to produce ongoing results. Many are focused on agendas that are able to secure or enhance their chances of organizational advancement. In the process, they often create zero-tolerance policies for mistakes and failures. This produces work atmospheres where employees become afraid to discuss problems or results in honest and open dialogue. Rather than trust their managers to support them, they hide pieces of information or mistakes that can hurt or jeopardize them in any way.

Communicating with Employees

Many managers have direct contact with their employees, but often fail to actively listen and engage in conversations that encourage interaction, feedback or input. Some are only interested in picking out certain information that they want to hear without thoroughly listening to anything else being said. Even though they fully believe they are communicating effectively, selective listening and targeted talk work to demoralize their employees and reduce their levels of trust and loyalty.

Interacting in Person

Many managers choose to communicate with their employees via email, written memos or posted messages. Very few efforts are made to interact directly with them on a regular and active basis. This becomes a major pitfall, as only when they make it a point to seek out employees to have open and free discussions and conversations can they become attuned to workplace problems, concerns, and attitudes and know which motivational methods need to be applied to whom.

All employees must be treated fairly, compassionately and honestly and be appreciated for their own particular characteristics and personalities. All have unique needs that must be addressed and met if they are to feel an important part of the organizational team. Since many tend to function with daily frustrations and pressures associated with their assignments and responsibilities, managers as leaders must become actively involved with them daily in order to encourage and sustain the motivation needed to assure they do not succumb to burnout and other psychological problems.

Specific Steps to Building Trust

If leaders wish to establish and build workplace trust, there are specific behaviors that must be avoided.

Criticism

Discussions concerning documented performance results and how to improve them are always necessary and appropriate as one of the manager’s primary responsibilities and functions. However, they must make it a point to avoid making unwarranted negative comments regarding an employee’s performance, attitudes and decisions, as they are directly perceived as personal criticisms, not constructive performance or work-related input.

Psychological Analysis

Managers as leaders must avoid assuming the role of amateur psychiatrist and analyzing employees’ motivations and behaviors. This includes resisting the urge to prejudge their circumstances, situations and actions.

Advice

Managers can easily provide solutions or advice without making the effort to seek employee input. As problems are often more complex than they appear, managers can short-circuit the learning process and alienate employees by not allowing them to identify why things happened, how ineffective solutions were reached, or the particular factors that contributed to inferior results. It is important that managers seek employee input in regard to specific problems in order to understand, analyze and learn from the facts and pertinent information they possess. Only then do they provide their advice, suggestions or solutions.

Command

Some managers tend to coerce, manipulate and force employees into completing assignments on time or accepting increased responsibility. As leaders, they need to avoid these types of actions, and instead motivate and encourage their employees to achieve desired results and/or increase their personal effectiveness and efficiency. They must know their employees well enough to be able to match the appropriate motivational strategy with each individual.

Control

Managers as leaders must avoid controlling actions and behavior through intimidation techniques and practices. Threatening employees with negative consequences does not motivate them. Employees need to be consistently and positively encouraged to produce results. Intimidation only serves to demoralize them.

Intense Questioning

Managers as leaders must avoid second-guessing and questioning employees on every decision, idea, recommendation or suggestion they make. Employees must be trusted to make decisions on their own without intense scrutiny and oversight. A barrage of suggestions or intense questioning as to their employees’ rationale or methods on every assignment only creates more obstacles to them doing their jobs properly, and sends a clear message that their manager thinks them untrustworthy and even incompetent.

Excerpt: Building & Nurturing Trust in the Workplace: Pinpoint Leadership Skill Development Training Series (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI, 2011) $ 16.95 USD

Related:

Eight Ways Others Evaluate Trust in Leaders

Five Strategies to Build Trust

Six Ways to Destroy Trust and Credibility

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2014 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

Advertisements

Q & A: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

with one comment

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. - Author - Great! What Makes Leaders Great

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. – Author – Great! What Makes Leaders Great

An Interview With the Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D., Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great

The editors of Majorium Business Press recently had the opportunity to interview Timothy Bednarz about his book: Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2012) to discuss his thoughts on the crisis of leadership being witnessed in America today.

Q: The research presented in Great! focuses upon 160 influential leaders, spanning 235 years. I would like to start our discussion by asking, do you believe leadership has changed over time?

Bednarz: The concept of what constitutes great leadership hasn’t changed over time. When I first started my research, I thought that genuinely great leadership was a thing of the past, but I was surprised to discover there are individuals today who can classified as great leaders.

There is no doubt that individuals are shaped by the times they lived in. However the great leaders rose to the pinnacles of success, while many of their contemporaries failed. What made the difference was the fact they developed the characteristics and leadership dimensions that allowed them to succeed.

Q: So you’re saying leadership hasn’t changed?

Bednarz: No, that’s not quite true. What has undoubtedly changed is the focus on short-term profitability and shareholder value, which often sacrifices a company’s long-term viability. This trend emerged in the mid 1980s after the success of Jack Welch at GE. Many CEOs jumped on the bandwagon and this trend changed the face of corporate leadership ever since. Consequently, this has severely eroded trust and credibility after years of scandals and downsizing that has affected literally millions of people.

Q: What impact has these two factors had on today’s leaders?

Bednarz: The Edelman Trust Barometer, which has evaluated global trust levels for the past 12 years, reported that the current levels of credibility of today’s CEOs has dropped to an all time low of 38%. This reflects a decrease of over 12% in the past twelve months.

Q: What are the implications of this drop in CEO’s credibility?

Bednarz: What is interesting about Edelman’s survey is that it emphasizes that without trust and credibility, a leaders lose their legitimacy to lead. Just because individuals are either appointed or elected to high positions of authority, doesn’t mean they have earned it. They may have the power and authority that comes with their position, but the legitimacy to lead must be granted by others, such as employees, voters, suppliers, communities, investors, and a host of potential constituencies, which leaders serve.

Q: How does this influence the concept of leadership?

Bednarz: Referring back to the idea of the earned right to lead, and from the decrease in credibility, many so-called leaders today have lost their focus on what is true leadership. To go back to your original question; has leadership changed? I firmly believe, great leadership is defined by the ability of an individual to earn the trust, respect and credibility of those that the leader serves. He or she has earned the legitimacy to lead. Every great leader I researched, over 235 years possessed trust, credibility and legitimacy, and 58% of the leaders I survey can be included in this category. All too many today solely focus on the financial performance of their companies and then wonder why they have lost their credibility.

Q: Is focusing on profits and financial performance wrong? After all this seems to be a theme in the current presidential campaign.

Bednarz: There is nothing wrong with being highly concerned about profits, and focusing on financial performance, but it needs to be balanced with the needs of all of one’s key constituencies. Great leaders today have proven this to be possible, without sacrificing financial performance. Jack Welch, whose example many corporate leaders follow, stated after he left GE that it is foolish to only focus on financial performance. It I only one factor to consider.

Q: Can you cite some examples of leaders today who have earned their legitimacy?

Bednarz: Certainly. Fred Smith of FedEx, Herb Kelleher of Southwest Airlines, Howard Schultz of Starbucks and Jeff Bezos of Amazon all come to mind, and there are certainly others.

Q: Based upon your responses and research, how would you define leadership?

Bednarz: That is an interesting question and one that I was seeking to answer, when I first started my research. There is a host of leadership books on the market, with many more written each year, yet, many are very similar, parroting the same information without providing the reader with any new insights or perspectives on the topic of leadership. I believe that to understand the topic of leadership, you need to first understand the leaders who have historically defined it and provided us with effective role models.

After years of study, I have concluded and condensed it into a brief statement; leadership is ultimately an act of faith in other people.

Q: That’s an interesting concept. Isn’t it the role of a leader to lead?

Bednarz: The operative word in your question is “lead.” The role of a leader is to inspire, motivate, influence and guide others. Think about it. In order to inspire, motivate, influence and guide other individuals, one must establish mutual bonds of loyalty, trust, respect and credibility.

Q: Can loyalty, trust, respect and credibility be measured?

Bednarz: You must understand that everything a leader does or says is judged by others and contributes to their credibility and legitimacy or ultimately undermines it. We have an environment that relies on relative rather than absolute truths. Consequently, we often observe so-called leaders making incredulous statements, devoid of any sense of intellectual honesty, and credibility, treating their audience like a bunch of fools, incapable of seeing the truth.

People view many in corporate and governmental positions of power as self-serving, without regard for others and the consequences of their actions. It is little wonder why we have a crisis of leadership. It’s everyone for themselves without regard for those they are appointed to serve. Subsequently, we see a crisis in confidence in these individuals, as noted by Eldeman’s survey.

Q: How would the great leaders that you surveyed respond to this crisis of confidence?

Bednarz: The great leaders I researched developed strong emotional bonds of loyalty, trust, respect and credibility with their employees, investors, suppliers, communities and a host of other constituencies. They were able to balance the needs of each of these groups, without sacrificing the needs of others. They had faith in the people they served, and this is reflected in the wiliness of these constituencies to eagerly believe in them and to loyally follow where they led them.

Q: Beyond the obvious benefits of loyalty, how did the great leaders you researched profit from it?

Bednarz: The emotional bonds forged by the great leaders paid dividends over time. For instance, when George Westinghouse faced financial difficulties during the Financial Panic of 1907, his employees sacrificed for him. They made personal contributions for him to save Westinghouse Electric. In another instance, Fred Smith saw his employees volunteer their time to help handle an onslaught of packages received by FedEx during the UPS strike in 1997. Herb Kelleher at Southwest Airlines has driven these attitudes deep into the company’s culture.

Q: In the introduction to your book you stated, “We stand at a critical moment in history for great leadership. The door of opportunity is wide open for us to those who desire to rise above the fray. History shows that many individuals have assumed the mantle of leadership, often not without experiencing painful failures and stifling adversities. Their actions and examples provide clear pathways to follow. This book is designed to show you the way.” Why do you think today’s leaders should look to examples of great leadership in the past?

Bednarz: America, if not the world is crying out today for ethical and strong leadership, especially since the world appears to be spinning into chaos. History has repeatedly demonstrated that great leaders emerge from difficult times. Many of the leaders focused upon in my book Great! have emerged from similar circumstances, If leaders today follow their examples and diligently study how they did it, there are many lessons that can be transferred into action that are able to transform individuals into great leaders.

Q: If you could condense the message of your book into one or two short sentences for this audience, what would you they be?

Bednarz: Two words: Leadership matters. This is true, whether as a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, or as the president of the local PTA. Great leaders can emerge at any level of an organization, at any time, and in every field. Each has the ability to make a difference in the lives of the people they lead and serve.

Q: Thank you for your time today.

Bednarz: My pleasure.

Read a Free Chapter of Great! What Makes Leaders Great

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2013 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

Have You Earned Permission to Lead?

leave a comment »

legitimacyprincipleschart

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.

Legitimacy is a cornerstone of effective leadership. All of the great leaders have it. However, legitimacy is seldom discussed, if even mentioned in most leadership books. This leads to confusion as to what defines legitimacy. Its definition needs to be clarified and placed within the proper context.

Legitimacy is derived from two separate sources that give 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.

The second source is validity. Validity is not conferred, nor is it automatically achieved once a leader is appointed to a position. 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. These are the hallmarks of great leaders. Without the presence of these critical factors, the leader’s validity collapses. Once a leader loses his or her validity, the authority to lead is effectively undermined.

“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…” [1]

[1] Huntsman,Jon M. Winners Never Cheat Even in Difficult Times (Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009) p 73

Excerpt: Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Majorium Business Press, Stevens Point, WI 2011)

Read a Free Chapter

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2013 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

//

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.

Related: Have You Earned 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.

Related: Emotional Bonds are a Reflection of a Leader’s Effectiveness

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…”

Related: Your Commitment to Others Defines You as a Leader

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).

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2012 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

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.

Related: Have You Earned Permission to Lead?

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.”

Related: If You’re Not Emotionally Committed, You’re Not Going to Have a High Degree of Success

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.

Related: Leadership: The divergent tale of two leaders

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.

Related: Your Commitment to Others Defines You as a Leader

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.

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).

Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D. | Author | Publisher | Majorium Business Press
Author of Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Finalist – 2011 Foreword Reviews‘ Book of the Year)
Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter | Web| Blog | Catalog |800.654.4935 | 715.342.1018

Copyright © 2012 Timothy F. Bednarz, All Rights Reserved

Your Personal Attitudes Shape Your Environment

with 5 comments

Jack Welch - General Electric

The great leaders were tough-minded individuals. They developed a drive and tenacity that refused to allow them to quit, or to accept defeat. The years they invested in the trenches of frustration, failure and adversity taught them well.

Personal attitudes reflect how individuals choose to interact with their environment. The great leaders’ personal attitudes were instrumental in forming and building essential emotional bonds with key constituencies, and established personal standing among all groups. These began with their discipline, conviction and dedication. It was often reflected in both their outward humanity and humility. Jack Welch observed, “You do have to possess self-confidence and humility at the same time. That combination is called maturity.”[1]

This is in contrast to high levels of hubris displayed by many of the poorer performing executive leaders. Herb Kelleher would state when asked about his position at Southwest Airlines, “Position and title don’t necessarily signify anything. When people ask me what I do, I say I work for Southwest Airlines.”

Many of the great leaders developed a deep sense of humanity and humility because of their perspectives on money and profits. These individuals for the most part viewed profits as a result of their efforts, and not the objective. Money was openly distained by some. Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel) refused to even carry money on his person. Walt Disney (Disney) was indifferent to both money and material comfort. Leo Baekeland (Bakelite), the inventor of plastic, is another example.

“Although he was a scientific genius and made a fortune, he disdained material things and remained a man of simple needs. He was happiest on his boat in old sneakers and white duck pants and shirt. In fact, he wore sneakers when he was formally dressed.”[2]

Additionally, many abhorred financial speculation. They viewed it as an illegitimate means of making money. (John Jacob) “Astor hated gamblers. He never confused gambling, as a mode of money-getting, with actual production. He knew that gambling produces nothing—it merely transfers wealth, changes ownership. And since it involves loss of time and energy, it is a positive waste.”[3]

Rather than believe in money and what it could do them, the great leaders had a deep-seated sense of self-belief. They believed in themselves, their abilities and in their own ideas. Mary Kay Ash (Mary Kay) stated, “Don’t limit yourself. Many people limit themselves to what they think they can do. You can go as far as your mind lets you. What you believe, remember, you can achieve… The greatest pollution problem we face today is negativity. Eliminate the negative attitude and believe you can do anything. Replace ‘if I can, I hope, maybe’ with I can, I will, I must.’”[4]

They had an incorruptible sense of purpose and duty, and were sensitive to their personal power, authority and influence on others. Many of these attitudes stemmed from their personal work ethic and the personal sacrifice they made to achieve their success. Adversity and failure produced humility rather than hubris and arrogance.

A notable example is Willis Carrier (Carrier Corporation). “He was a humble man and never used the letters in front of his name, and I don’t recall anyone calling him “Dr. Carrier” while he was alive. But out of respect to his great legacy, Carrier Corporation refers to him as “Dr. Willis Carrier” even today.”[5]

This sensitivity and humility also fostered deep respect and appreciation for employees’ contributions to their success. Before social responsibility was in vogue, George Westinghouse (Westinghouse Electric), John Patterson (National Cash Register), Milton Hershey (Hershey Foods) and William C. Procter (Procter and Gamble), among others, displayed their appreciation, gratitude and respect by greatly improving working conditions, building employee communities and introducing a host of employee benefit programs well before they were even formulized into law.

The great leaders were tough-minded individuals. They developed a drive and tenacity that refused to allow them to quit, or to accept defeat. The years they invested in the trenches of failure and adversity taught them well.

“Trials, labor, grief are but the fires in our lives, which are necessary to purify and bring out our virtues. In business, sacrifices are demanded of us… All these strengthen judgment… and cultivate resourcefulness.

Sacrifice establishes character… It takes the fire of sacrifice to clarify a man’s mind and heart so that he can establish the worthier ideals for himself.

A man who desires anything must be willing to go the whole way for it, not half way. No man gains anything in the way of power and privileges, who does not pay with a change in habits, thought and action.”[6]

[1] Welch Jack, Get Real, Get Ahead (Business Week, July 23, 2007)

[2] Flynn, Tom, Yonkers, Home of the Plastic Age (younkershistory.org/bake.html) Accessed April 21, 2010

[3] Hubbard, Elbert, Astor, A Famous Businessmen Biography (Zale Tabakman) Accessed January 19, 2010

[4] Ash, Mary Kay, (Mary Kay Inc. Corporate Website, 2010)

[5] Littlehales, Edna M., Uncle Willis the Educator (The Father of Cool, Carrier Company Website, June 14, 2002)

[6] Penney, J.C., Lines of a Layman (Channel Press, Great Neck, NY, 1956)p 118

Excerpt: Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Majorium Business Press, 2011)

If you would like to learn more about how the great American leader’s personal attitudes were instrumental in forming and building essential emotional bonds with key constituencies, through their own inspiring words and stories, refer to Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It. It illustrates how great leaders built great companies, and how you can apply the strategies, concepts and techniques that they pioneered to improve your own leadership skills. Click here to learn more.

Copyright © 2011 Timothy F. Bednarz All Rights Reserved

Written by Timothy F. Bednarz, Ph.D.

June 9, 2011 at 11:07 am

How Connected Are You?

leave a comment »

Analysis validates that emotional connections with key constituencies tend to begin early and continue throughout the leader’s career as they develop a personal standing with each group. 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.

My research 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’slist 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.”[1]

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.

[1] Guerrera, Francesco, Welch Condemns Share Price Focus (Financial Times) March 12, 2009

Excerpt: Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It (Majorium Business Press, 2011)

If you would like to learn more about the great American leaders built emotional bonds and standing with their key constituencies, through their own inspiring words and stories, refer to Great! What Makes Leaders Great: What They Did, How They Did It and What You Can Learn From It. It illustrates how great leaders built great companies, and how you can apply the strategies, concepts and techniques that they pioneered to improve your own leadership skills. Click here to learn more.

Copyright © 2011 Timothy F. Bednarz All Rights Reserved

%d bloggers like this: