Leadership

Great leaders are adaptable. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard called this Situational Leadership.  In short, leaders are hands-on with workers who need supervision and support. Conversely, leaders will delegate to workers who are competent and confident.

Hence, leadership is a blend of direction and support. This translates into four leadership styles: Telling, Selling, Participating, and Delegating.  Let us look at those styles.

Telling (Directing) is for people who need guidance and motivation.  This means one-way communication, step-by-step directives, and clarity on consequences for failure. The leader clarifies the task, sets milestones, monitors, gives feedback, and rewards output.

Selling (Coaching) is for workers who want to learn.  This worker is motivated, but he may lack skills. The leader coaches the worker, building confidence and aptitude.

Participating (Supporting) leadership is for employees who have the ability but lack confidence to work independently.  These workers still need oversight and support.

Delegating leadership is for employees with high confidence and competence. They know what needs to be done.  And they can do the work, on their own.  These staff members can take more responsibility. The leader still supervises performance, albeit from a distance.

How can we use these 4 styles in our leadership?

Leaders must grasp the competence and confidence levels of their workers. Then, the leader adapts his style: The leader is a chameleon, varying leadership style for everyone in the team.

Inexperienced workers—and those who lack motivation or skills—need specific instructions and clear goals. The leader tells them what to do, and makes sure they do what they are told. That is telling or directing.

Selling (Coaching) is for workers who are motivated yet they lack skills and know how.  These workers are happy to learn. They will blossom with coaching. So, the Leader coaches the worker towards greater independence.

Participating (Supporting) leadership style is for workers who are capable, but still need support. The Leader is more of a cheerleader.  He gives encouragement and feedback.

Delegating is the highest level of autonomy, for both workers and leaders. The worker is both fully proficient, enthusiastic, and able to shoulder enlarged responsibility. The leader delegates additional jobs and roles to this worker. Again, he monitors, but from a distance. This is the “hands-off-eyes-on” level of leadership.

Conclusion:

Situational leadership is about optimization: The leader commands workers who are less autonomous. Leaders step back and delegate to self-reliant and competent workers.

This is a dynamic process.  As workers learn skills, developing confidence, the leader morphs into a coach, or mentor. By the same token, if the business enters a new activity, the leader takes greater control of the entire team until workers are competent.

Leaders are rigid on values, flexible on the process, and focused on their overall mission. Situational leadership bridges all these priorities.

References:

Blanchard, https://www.kenblanchard.com/

Business to You, https://www.business-to-you.com/hersey-blanchard-situational-leadership-model/

Goldsmith, M. (2015). Triggers, New York, NY: Penguin Random House.

Hersey, https://situational.com/

People want smart Leaders, but raw intellect may hamper effective Leadership. How so? Based on studies by Marshall Goldsmith, Leadership Guru, smart Leaders make predictable mistakes:

Proving how smart you are:

Smart Leaders learn – from an early age – how demonstrate their brilliance. In fact, they get lots of recognition for being smart, from friends, parents, teachers, coaches – just about everyone. When smart Leaders enter the workforce, they continue brandishing their intellectual prowess. It is a conditioned reflex.

About 65% of their interpersonal communication is devoted to either: a) showing their brilliance (or listening to others tell them how smart they are), or b) talking about the stupidity of others (or listening to others make the same observation).

How should smart people get out of this habit? They should remember Peter Drucker’s advice:

“Our mission in life is to make a positive difference – not to prove how smart we are.”

Proving how right they are:

Smart people have more data at their fingertips – facts, figures, concepts and so forth. So, they are proficient at winning their arguments. This can be a ‘blind spot’. Why?

When smart folks blunder – which inevitably happens – the losses could be big, because they have quashed divergent opinions. Smart Leaders should ask themselves two questions:

• What if I am wrong?
• Is it worthwhile being right? In other words, does it matter?

If winning the argument is unimportant, why waste time showing how smart you are?

I already know that: It is tough for smart people to listen as someone telling them things they already know. Smart people usually say: “I already know that.”

Alternatively, some Leaders say “No, I agree with you.” This is a complex subconscious response: “No” means “Of course I agree with you. I already knew that. Don’t confuse me with someone who doesn’t know”. In general, Leaders should avoid starting phrases with “no”. Negation undermines the contribution of the other person.

Under these circumstances, Leaders should simply say: “Great idea!”, or “Interesting”, “That makes sense” and so forth. Again, the mission is to make a positive difference, not to show your brilliance.

Super-smart’ people can often make connections and see patterns that are invisible to others. Then, they assume others should see the same things. That’s not reasonable.

Smart Leaders should never make others feel ashamed for not making the same cognitive connections as the Leader.
Leadership is a transformative process – even for the best and brightest:

To be fair, these bad habits are shared by many people, but they are particularly irksome for really smart people, who are unaware of these ‘blind spots’.

It is a cruel irony. People move up organizations by being top achievers, and by being super smart. Often achievers are egocentric: “It is all about me”. Then they become Leaders. Suddenly it is about “them” – the team, division, or organization. What a switch!

Yes, there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom: Smart Leaders spend too much time showing others how clever they are, whereas wise Leaders transform average folks into heroes.

Peter Labrie
Art of Leadership

Reference:
https://www.marshallgoldsmith.com/articles/four-bad-habits-of-super-smart-Leaders/

Larry Bossidy, leadership guru, found seven core leadership traits.  The ‘magnificent seven’ are shared by the best CEO’s of top organizations.

Here are the ‘magnificent seven’:

Know your people and your business.  The big CEOs understand all facets of their business.  The ‘nitty-gritty’ is where it is at.

Insist on realism. These leaders benchmark their products and services against their toughest competition.  Top CEOs want to know how good their products are, and how they can be better.    Realism and truth are pivotal to success. Delusion is a waste of time.

Set clear goals. Clear targets get people moving forward.  Goals must specify quantities and quality. Goals are outside the company’s grasp, but within their reach.

Follow through.  The top leaders make follow through a daily commitment.  Nothing falls through the cracks, and nothing is left behind. That is 24/7 execution.

Reward doers. Give biggest paychecks to top performers (even if those people are difficult or prickly at times).

Expand people’s capacities. Leaders put their people and themselves on a continuous path of improvement. Training and learning never stop.

Know yourself.  Top CEOs know their strengths and weaknesses.  They maximize their strengths and make their weaknesses irrelevant (by either by hiring complementary staff, or by learning compensatory strategies against their weaknesses).

Technology, charisma, and intelligence are important, but they aren’t as critical to success as the ‘magnificent seven’.

Sure, these seven habits look obvious.  They make common sense. But, as humorist and philosopher Will Rogers said: “Common sense ain’t common”.

Master the ‘magnificent seven’ and watch your influence grow.

It is simple, but not easy.

It is tough to dump bad habits. The process starts with understanding:

Habits have three inter-locking steps:
• First, there is a cue, or a trigger (for example, the feeling of hunger);
• Second, a routine or behavior (in this case above it means eating); and
• Third, we get a reward (we are satiated).

Habits are self-reinforcing loops.  The cue stimulates behavior, which generates a reward. That reinforces the behavior. Moreover, we develop craving for the reward, over time. About 40% of our activity is habitual. So, habits are integral to our psyches. As Will Durant said: “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then is not an act, but a habit”.

True, you can break bad habits with self-control. Still, people respond better to rewards, than to control. In fact, that’s how humans evolved over 3 million years. We want food, companionship, security, power, meaning, and so forth.  Humans move towards rewards.

Hence, changing habits starts with mindfulness.  You need to understand the cues that trigger behavior, leading to rewards. Here is the three-step process:

Map out habit loops:

Figure out your cues. For example, if you over-eat, do you eat snacks whilst watching TV?  Do you drink while eating?  Do you snack between meals? Does stress make you eat?

Cues are important because the brain connects the cue to behavior, and to rewards.  Craving comes from a neurological connection to the reward. The smell of a cinnamon may trigger a craving for a cinnamon bun. There are five common cues:

• location;
• time;
• emotion;
• others; or
• some previous activity.

Keeping notes helps:  When, where, and how do you perform the habits?  How do you feel when you indulge in bad habits?  Do others play a role?  Is the habit part of a bigger activity?

Be Curious:

You need to be a detective, studying your behavior and recognizing the patterns. Treat yourself as a patient. The solution could mean changing behavior, whilst maintaining the reward.  Or, you may find healthier, more productive ways of satisfying the craving.  Each habit is unique.

Once you know your cue, the behavior, and the reward, you can restructure the habit.  Then, you will need self-discipline to change your habits. Understanding starts with objective curiosity.

Formulate a plan:

Now, that you understand the process, you can devise a plan. When you feel the cue, you adopt a new behavior, but still get the reward. For example, you crave an energy boost in the afternoon. Rather than eating jelly babies, you drink green tea, or take a short brisk walk, or eat some fruit.

Changing habits means experimentation.  It is tricky, too.  Why? Because you are outsmarting your brain, by rewriting your neuropsychological programing. Remember all living organism look for stability – for homeostasis.  So, changing habits is easier when new behavior has some similarity to what you are replacing.  It’s easier to restructure bad habits than to eradicate them.

Try different combinations.  You want to fulfill the craving without the bad behavior.  Be tolerant.  It could take some time.

Final Comments:

Self-discipline is important. But the cornerstones of changing habits are curiosity and the desire to change.

Full understanding of our bad habits leads to roadmaps for self-improvement.  You are the vehicle of your own positive transformation.

Finally, don’t be too hard on yourself.  If you are on the road to improvement, you may stumble, as you move towards your goal.  Keep at it.

Peter Labrie

References:

Brewer, J. (2019). How to Break Up with Your Bad Habits: HBR Webinar.  Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/12/how-to-break-up-with-your-bad-habits

Duhigg, C. (2014). The Power of Habit: Why we do what we do in life and business.  New York, NY: Random House

Frank, T. (2015). 5 Lessons from “The Power of Habit” by Charles Duhigg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ws2WfeD6d8

Overview:

Giving feedback (especially negative feedback) can be uncomfortable.  Nevertheless, clear feedback is integral to effective leadership.  Indeed, feedback helps us grow – all of us.

The BEER technique is a simple way of giving difficult feedback.  There are an number of steps.  But you must first summarize the situation you must address. What is the issue? Who is  involved? Make this 100% clear from the outset. Read More

A recent study by Signal vs. Noise – including of 597 operations and managerial workers – discovered three powerful ways of boosting trust; namely:

Show vulnerability

Over one-quarter of the people said leaders build trust by acknowledging their shortcomings. That’s no surprise.  Lencioni’s classic work on teamwork says that trust is all about vulnerability.  Team members who trust each other are more comfortable sharing information about failures, weaknesses, and even fears. When people are willing to admit the truth about themselves, they won’t waste time on political games, wasting precious time and resources.  Vulnerability is a shortcut to authenticity.

It is a two-way street: The vulnerable leader appears more empathetic, and trusted. Each person knows the other person’s strengths and weaknesses. It is crucial information. Effective teams have no mysteries. No one gains from keeping skeletons in the closet.

Explain the intent behind your actions.

Over one-quarter of the people said leaders must explain the intent behind their actions.  Why? The labor force is increasingly sophisticated, educated, and informed.  They want to understand why the leader is taking various steps. Intent is part of a three-step process.  First, clarify the goal.  Then formulate action plans.  Finally, explain why the action steps are necessary to achieve the goal.

Ambiguity on overall intent is toxic to the team’s overall commitment.  Your intent needs to be crystal clear. As Friedrich Nietzsche said: “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.” Read More