MIA: Real Political Leadership

Posted on 08. Dec, 2010 by Gary in Uncategorized

As a leadership consultant, I’m often dismayed by the major disconnect between the way politicians talk about themselves as leaders and their glaring inability to lead.  Here are two definitions to consider:

LEADERSHIP: the ability to organize a group of people to achieve a common goal

POLITICIAN: a seeker or holder of public office, who is often more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles

As our country grapples with incredibly complex issues, it’s obvious which of these we need — and it couldn’t be clearer which one we’ve got. The leadership breakdown starts at the top.  President Obama is a very smart guy.  He ran a brilliant campaign that actually reignited people’s belief that hope was alive.   He entered office with a tremendous amount of leadership currency. Unfortunately he hasn’t spent it all that wisely.

The media and Mr. Obama’s opponents have characterized his problem as over-reaching.   I strongly disagree.  The president is “under-leading”. His leadership approach is that smart, logical, and pragmatic ideas will carry the day. As I have seen time and again in the corporate setting, for new ideas to make a difference you need buy-in for them. Specific steps for securing this commitment have been MIA in Washington.

While most people are excited by the idea of change and innovation, there is significant research that shows we are quite resistant to it. People like what they know and they are very skeptical of the unfamiliar.

Currently, we are in uncharted waters that cry out for new solutions. But Washington is not a place that rewards experimentation and innovation. The DC game is about maintaining the status quo and getting re-elected. The idea of leading differently is MIA in Washington.

The Republicans understand this reality well.  Since President Obama was elected they adopted a strategy of political opportunism that exploits people’s fears of the unknown (he’s not an American, he’s a Muslim, death panels). Their approach is about winning back power not about leading for the common good.  Mitch McConnell’s recent statement sums this up:  “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”.  Bi-partisan collaboration — that’s been MIA.

And the Democrats?  The Republicans ability to successfully play the fear card made many Democrats timid and reluctant to embrace meaningful change.  Standing up for principled new ideas — that’s been MIA.

Much has been made about how angry Americans are, because they feel no one is listening. While individuals are losing their jobs and their houses, elected officials are being wined and dined by lobbyists and using the filibuster to derail unemployment benefits.  In this time of crisis, people want to see positive change that makes a difference in their lives.  They’re angry because real leadership is MIA in Washington.

The Republicans are suggesting that a “back to the future” strategy is what we need.  That is a prescription for disaster.  What we need is an aggressive approach to our complex problems. But that means the incentives in Washington must change.  Being an obstructionist or simply yelling “fire” can’t be rewarded with 2 or 6 more years in office.  We need a little Steve Jobs or Herb Kelleher in our elected officials.  We need leaders who have the vision to say, “I’m willing to stick my neck out and try something new”. We need representatives who have the strength of character to commit to bold actions and stay the course. New problems require new solutions not retreads. We expect innovation and smart risk-taking from our business leaders.  Why in the world shouldn’t we expect this from our elected officials?  The truth is right now it’s the blind not leading the blind at a time we desperately need leaders with vision and courage.  These leadership qualities can’t be MIA in Washington for our country to thrive again.

Breaking Through Resistance

Posted on 22. Jun, 2010 by Gary in Gary's Blog

On June 11th Mike Levine, Adam Klein and I hosted the third in a series of Senior Executive Leadership Breakfasts at Newsweek’s headquarters in New York.  This session featured Jon Katzenbach speaking about how to use the informal organization in a company to ignite change.

Jon, who wrote the seminal book on team effectiveness, The Wisdom of Teams, has a new book out called Leading Outside The Lines.  His perspective is that to accelerate the pace of change in an organization you have to use the informal part of the organization to push the formal side of the organization into action.

The formal side of the organization is about planning and logic.  The informal side of the organization is about passion and emotional commitment.  Jon’s main point was that to overcome resistance Senior Leaders must find the influencers inside their organization and enlist them in the change process before going company-wide.  Find out what they’re thinking, let them experiment, take action and deliver a win.  Then leverage their work and their influence in the organization to build buy-in.

The breakfast attendees, CEO’s, COO’s and division Presidents, found the concepts very appealing.  But the real payoff came in the discussion about the resistance they face in their organizations and what to do about it.  Several of the participants focused on the problems they have getting their direct reports to really embrace change.

As a psychologist, my perspective is that it takes a lot to get senior people to take the leap of faith required to embrace change.  First, you’re talking about people at the top of organizations who have been successful doing what they’ve done for years.  They’ve seen countless flavor-of-the-month “change events” that have delivered less than brilliant results.  Why should they believe this next one will be any different?

If you can overcome that issue, the next hurdle is dealing with the fact that not many executives have led successful change efforts.  In some ways you’re putting them in a difficult position: “I haven’t seen this work before and I don’t really know what to do myself”.

The way best way to break through this resistance is to start small and create a quick victory. In working with executives who are leading change efforts, my approach, once they’ve explained their vision and rationale for the initiative, is to get the team to take an action quickly that results in almost immediate, positive change.

You can talk all you want about why change is necessary and will improve performance.  But nothing trumps resistance more than a tangible win.

Delivering Unpopular News — When You Haven’t Bought In

Posted on 15. Jun, 2010 by Gary in Gary's Blog

I was recently asked to contribute to Toddi Gutner’s  Management Q & A section of the Wall Street Journal on the question of how to deliver unpopular news to employees when you yourself are not totally “on board” with the message. Here is the article:

Question: What advice do you have for delivering an unpopular message to your employees, particularly when you may not have bought in to the message yourself?

–Student at UVA’s Darden School of Business in Charlottesville, Va.

Answer: It’s hard enough to deliver unpopular news to your employees, but it’s even harder when you struggle with the message yourself. If you’re in a position with your superiors to push back on the decision, you might want to try that first, recommends Gary Schuman, president of CDL Consulting, a leadership and change management consulting firm in Baltimore. “If you lose that battle, then as a leader you have to figure out a way to get onboard with the message,” he says.

To that end, take the time you need to get your own feelings about the decision in check. If you haven’t fully bought into it, “your employees will be able to tell in the tone of your voice or your body language that you do not believe in what you are doing,” says Ray Skiba, director of human resources at Streck, a manufacturer of clinical laboratory products in Omaha, Neb.

The worst thing you can do is send a mixed signal: “I don’t believe in this but they’re making me do it.” That may seem like the safest way out of challenging situation, but you’ll lose credibility with your staffers. “You’re making it clear you’re powerless in this situation and you’re selling out your responsibility as a leader to stand behind company policy,” says Mr. Schuman.

Once you’ve done your internal work, prepare yourself to deliver the message. If there was team involvement in the decision, ask one of the team members to listen to how you plan to address your employees. “The more prepared you are, the better the outcome,” says Mr. Skiba.

Next, consider your communication strategy. “Explain why the decision is important to the business, how the decision was made, and why it is important that the plan be executed,” says Kimberly Bishop, founder of a career management and leadership services consulting firm in New York.

Give your employees ample time to digest the message. Since it took you some time to accept the information, realize that your employees will need time as well. “When the message has been delivered, be available to answer questions, be visible and approachable to help individuals get to the point of acceptance,” says Mr. Skiba.

Realize that once your employees see that the decision has not totally destroyed their work environment, they may be more willing to let go of their anger. “You might want to get your group together a week or two after a decision has been made and ask people what’s been working and what hasn’t been working since the announcement,” says Mr. Schuman. Then see if there’s any action that you can take to improve the situation. Your availability to your employees and understanding of their experience will go a long way in making them see you as an effective leader.