Focal Leadership

Leadership

Why character always matters in leadership

By

characterCharacter is a much-debated aspect of leadership. There are many who consider exemplary character to be important for good leadership. There are also many who don’t care, as long as a leader is delivering results.

Let us consider the trajectory of each argument:

• Important: Leadership with an integral moral code based on integrity, honesty and transparency will develop a culture that reflects this. In fact, the whole argument concerning the importance of character is about outcomes. Leadership with these character traits requires followers to consider values, standards, and behavior as significant in the way results are achieved.

• Not important: Leadership that considers a good and upright character as optional, will encourage followers who regard the end as always justifying the means. Values, morals, or methods do not matter. By definition, this type of leadership will develop an “anything goes” type of culture.

An interesting case study is the recent scandal consuming the Australian cricket team. Leaders decided that cheating is ok in the pursuit of success. A culture of spitefulness, abuse, and aggression develops in that sort of environment, or maybe this culture spawned cheating as an acceptable strategy. Not that all other national teams are paragons of virtue – far from it! Has the need to win at all costs resulted in the death of good sporting behavior? Thankfully there are still leaders in the sporting world who maintain a virtuous character.

Politics is a murky world that I’d rather not delve into too much. But leaders who lie, deceive, and besmirch, rather than show a passion for truth, integrity, and praise, do not endear themselves to many. Maybe that’s why voting often seems to be either, (a) the lesser of evils, or (b) policy regardless of leader.

In the business world, the character of leaders has the potential to impact many. Not only members of the leadership team, but all employees, customers, and suppliers. Leaders of good character will encourage a good culture. These leaders develop a way of working and relating that has a moral foundation. Those who interact with these leaders get to know and understand their basis of operating. Recruitment of new employees requires a standard based on good character, not just competence.

Character isn’t just a moral consideration. Character is also defined by how people serve, speak, and show-up. Character can be described as personality, pedigree, or practice. It is the “whole person”, not just what a leader does or achieves. Character is rarely aligned with charisma but is often associated with caliber.

There are many examples of leadership character being excused when results are good. It takes a lot of courage to challenge character even when results are outstanding. Thankfully, there are also examples of organizations where character is paramount in the way results are achieved.

Bringing the spotlight onto character cannot simply be achieved by adopting a competency model or defining a set of organizational values. Although both are excellent. When leaders of character are promoted, honored, and rewarded, organizations and everyone connected with them benefit. Keeping the focus on character will ensure high caliber leaders in the 21st century.

Building diversity into cultures

By

diversityThere are many examples of well-defined organizational cultures that bring significant clarity to brands, values, and behavioral expectations. There are also examples of organizations where the culture has been defined extremely well, but where this has in fact led to stagnation and homogeneity rather than rich diversity.

Edgar Schein points out in his book Organizational Culture and Leadership that, “culture is deep, wide and complex. Leaders should avoid the temptation to stereotype organizational phenomena in terms of one or two salient dimensions, and they should be sensitive to the power they have to influence the groups with which they work.”

This specific case study illustrates this:
A successful financial services company was facing the challenge of diversifying its products to remain competitive. The company was over 100 years old and had a deeply embedded culture of financial rigor (thankfully!), pragmatic decision-making, and pride in robust legacy products. The challenge of innovating and diversifying did not come easily to the senior leadership team. A comprehensive profiling of this senior team revealed some of the reasons why. For example, using the Myers Briggs profiling framework, everyone was an ST. For those unfamiliar with this vernacular, everyone was focused on solid facts and data, thoroughly analyzed in consistent and logical ways. Not a bad thing for a financial services company one might think! But there was very little customer understanding, creativity, interest in trends, or inspiration. The leadership group had become so consistent in their narrow cultural and behavioral alignment, that they had squeezed out diversity and innovation.

Bob Garratt, in his book The Cultural Contexts, cites Argenti when he suggests the main reasons for corporate collapse are, “too many people of the same sex, age, education, and nationality at the top, with too little authentic information about the changing environment, and few managerial information systems.” Given that this insight is now over 40 years old, shouldn’t lessons have been learned?

Organizations who narrow their focus on cultural imperatives should also be mindful that cultural diversity can expand and not threaten the success of their business. Defining a differentiating culture does not mean that diversity is jettisoned. Culture is often about behavioral norms and not the rich tapestry of a diverse workforce. A well-known insurance company conducts an employee engagement survey every year. Comments such as, “run by old white men”, should cause the company to consider deeply the demographics of the senior leadership team and the implications for its culture.

The challenge of creating inclusive cultures that are also distinctive, can also be seen in organizations such as churches. A large suburban church defined by its all white and all male senior leadership team, faces a challenge of diversity. Organizations such as this can develop over many years with leaders who tend to see things in a similar way. Just by hiring a senior leader who may have a different background, doesn’t necessarily change the culture. In fact, changes arising from an external hire can be very unauthentic if not integrated in a very careful way. It is important to grow an organization authentically, develop leaders from a diverse spectrum, and foster a risk-comfortable environment of constantly growing a culture dynamically.

Cultures that embrace diversity are more likely to lead to long-term success and fulfilment than those that hold onto a narrow set of cultural principles.

When a leader’s behavior masks the culture

By

culture maskThere is a lot of focus these days on progressive and positive culture being a differentiator for organizations. And rightly so. But this sort of culture, without consistent and complementary behavior, can’t exist. Organizations can run all the education programs they like, place posters on walls, and talk about the great culture, but if leaders don’t exemplify the culture – it is like pouring water into a leaking vessel. If a leader’s behavior masks the culture in a negative way, this speaks louder than all the corporate messages about a healthy culture.

“She/he is a right b***h to work for”. A comment I heard about one of the senior executives in an organization. (I have kept it gender neutral, because this doesn’t matter). This organization has invested heavily in making culture a major reason for their raison d’être and prides itself on the efforts made to generate a climate of healthy and correct attitudes/behaviors. Many employees would speak commendably about the culture of the organization in open session, but the water cooler conversations tell a different story.

The difference between reciting cultural mantras and experiencing cultural application is massive. The old adage of leaders “walking the talk” springs to mind.

So, what is it like to work in an organization that parades a healthy culture, but where leaders demonstrate contradictory behavior. At best, hypocritical. At worst, demoralizing. Another old adage seems to apply in those organizations – “do what I say, not what I do”. There are the face-to-face conversations and completely different behind-the-back conversations. A culture with a sunny side and a dark side. Employment with a healthy front and a poisoned experience.

Why don’t leaders behave the way the culture advocates. Power is one reason. For some leaders, their power and position become a corrupting influence on their behavior. They are all smiles with their colleagues in the leadership team, but turn into witches or evil wizards when facing off to their subordinates. (A timely Halloween reference). Some leaders show absolute compliance and supportive behavior in certain settings, and yet behave like tyrants or dictators in others. Let me illustrate – “collaboration” is often held up as a virtuous behavior for positive culture. Leaders in the organization will wax lyrical about the virtues of collaboration. But when he or she becomes autocratic and uncollaborative, what has happened. Their personal behavior traits have over-ridden the aspired cultural traits.

Leadership behavior goes deep! It springs from personality, learned-traits, experiences, beliefs, family-norms, alternative cultures, and many other sources. When an organization espouses a culture that exemplifies the best behaviors, attitudes, and convictions, it needs to work hard on the leaders who must lead this culture. Perhaps more than anything an organization needs to promote an atmosphere of permission to call out counter-cultural behavior – led from the top. Employees also need to have courage to confront, with the backing and protection of the organization that this will not result in negative repercussions.

So, leaders – ask for feedback, listen to the good, bad, and ugly. Be honest with yourself. Hold a mirror up to your behavior frequently. Hold culture conversations regularly with your teams, encouraging everyone to be candid with positive and negative examples. Above all, ensure that you treat everyone with the respect and admiration that a positive culture advocates!

Culture – can it be too soft?

By

culture softNo-one wants to work in an organization where the culture is vicious and authoritarian. Most people enjoy organizational culture where everyone is treated with respect, there are considerable degrees of freedom, and integrity seems to run through everything and everyone.

Culture is often seen as a differentiator when it comes to building relationships between client and vendor. It is also something that is touted when an organization is recruiting or promoting its brand on other ways. It lies at the heart of employee’s psychological contract with their employer.

Some organizations seem to have a more aggressive and ruthless culture, where mediocrity is met with dismissal instead of development, and leadership hierarchies seem to frame the communication and operational norms. The converse is also true where some organizations have soft, generous and easy-going cultures. These are of course generalizations, and there are many variations of culture types. There is nothing wrong with clear communication protocols or video games for employees in a lounge area, but these are expressions of the cultural lifeblood that needs a much deeper definition.

Can an organization develop a culture that is too soft? Let’s paint a contextual picture. Maybe attrition has been retrospectively high and an organization responds by raising salaries, relaxing benefit boundaries, and embarking on a cultural charm offensive to show how much positive change is happening. Of course, these initiatives may be absolutely necessary. It may be however, that an organization is so focused on creating a ‘great place to work’ that it loses sight of the ‘tough love’ that employees need to add value to the organization. Raising the bar of organizational culture is not all about making life easier for employees. It’s not about delivering the many enhanced and flexible working conditions to make employees feel better so that they actually relax and enjoy themselves too much at the expense of delivering extraordinary performance. It’s about creating a climate where discretionary effort is willingly given, employees strive to do their best, and the rewards of employment are truly motivational.

Culture should support outstanding performance – it can also blur the lines between outstanding and average.
Culture should differentiate great leaders – it can also hide mediocrity and promote stereotypes.
Culture should build pride – it can also create lethargy and allow people to settle into comfortable routines.
Culture should develop organizational traction – it can also undermine a cutting edge and result in organizational drag.

Let me give an example. I worked for an organization where flex-time was allowed. This meant that employees could bank extra hours worked over and above their standard 7 hours and 30-minute day, and take extra time off up to a maximum of 1½ days per month for hours banked in credit. While this was meant to be a motivational benefit as part of a positive culture, it actually worked in the reverse direction. Many employees watched the clock to bank enough hours to always take the maximum extra time off each month. This did not deliver enhanced performance and it meant that employees were not available to customers for an extra 1½ days per month, thus creating a soft culture.

Organizational culture needs to focus on the good of the organization as well as the employees. It needs to ensure that competitive edge is gained, not just that the organization features in the ‘great places to work’ surveys.

Is the culture of common courtesy dead?

By

keyboardI remember the day when writing emails, responding to LinkedIn messages, leaving voicemails and writing letters used to result in a response of some kind – even in the most attritional culture. Nowadays however, and I know that I’m not alone in this, I often get ‘deafening silence’ as a response.

It doesn’t take much for a courtesy response, even if it’s ‘thanks but no thanks’. And it really doesn’t take much effort! You’d think that for some people it would involve a massive commitment of time, planning and energy – it really does not!

Let me give you an example. A while ago, a former colleague reached out to me to check on my availability for some work that was needed in a location abroad where I had previously worked. I responded with my availability and willingness to have further discussions. When I heard nothing, I checked in one last time to ensure that my response had got through. Again – no response. Why?

Have we become so obsessed with WIIFM (What’s In It For Me), that if someone doesn’t meet our criteria or respond as we would like, that the response is to walk away and just move on? Personally I don’t think that’s a great way to build and maintain professional relationships.

Another example …. a company I had been doing some work for sent me an email asking for a specific piece of follow-up information to help them analyze next steps. I duly provided this. Is it too much to ask for just a ‘thank you’?

In an age when people espouse values and culture as a differentiator, I am finding that the courtesy of a response to a request is becoming optional rather than common. Maybe it’s the advance of social media that is impregnating this habit. We read what we want and engage when we want. In other words, the whole world revolves around ME and my agenda.

One response to this behavior is to adopt the same practice. But, I’d like to suggest that ‘do to others as you’d like them to do to you’, is a better way. Maybe with a few people at a time, we can turn the tide! Oh, and I haven’t even started on the subject of showing great leadership and being a role model ….. enough said!