Are Two Heads Better Than One??

Are Two Heads Better Than One??

Co-leading is more difficult than leading. Co-leading can also be richer, more productive, and rewarding than single leadership. Twenty-first century organizations are increasingly going to require co-leadership skills from their leaders. Leaders may be asked to occupy more permanent positions they will co-lead or jointly oversee important projects and initiatives. Companies such as Citi, PwC, Chipotle Mexican Grill, J.M. Smucker, Martha Steward Living Omnimedia, Primerica, Whole Foods Market, and Amway have all had co-leaders. However, few leaders are prepared and trained by their organizations to co-lead.  Co-leading requires each party to take on a mindset and leadership presence that is suited for the role. Conversations and experiences with co-leaders points to the following critical competencies for successful co-leadership:

1. Self-awareness and Humility – Successful co-leaders spend time in reflection and are aware of their strengths and weaknesses. In coaching, I have noticed that the diagnostic instruments I use for these leaders often result in similar conclusions on how they describe themselves. In addition, these leaders have the humility to acknowledge and to ask for help. Conversely, many leaders have difficulty in exhibiting vulnerability and humility. They seem to equate an honest assessment of their weaknesses with a recipe for others to take advantage of them. Experience has shown the opposite. The leaders that I have worked with who have acknowledged their less developed leadership skills and asked for help, experienced an abundance of work and personal/emotional support.
2. Agreement of Authority and Roles – Once the leaders understand their strengths and weaknesses it is vital that they establish clear roles and responsibilities that leverage their respective strengths. As Bill McDermott, co-CEO of technology giant SAP said, “One plus one can equal three.” His partner, Jim Hagermann Snabe, agrees. “Bill and I have different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives,” Snabe says. “He has spent most of his career in the field with customers and running businesses for four global brands, and I’ve spent quite some time managing the development of our business software. We play to our strengths.”
3. Higher Vision– Successful co-leaders are aligned on the vision and destination of their organizations, and actively use it as a “North Star” to inform their decision making.  For example, in our organization our north star is “We aim to fill the unique space in our industry where our clients and employees trust and respect us completely.” This may seem obvious. However, we have noted that very few consultancies in our space have achieved this. There are many firms that are trusted and liked, and others that are competent, perform, and are therefore respected.  Few are trusted and respected completely. This requires the three of us who lead the firm to set aside our personal preferences and make decisions, (at times gut wrenching ones), in the service of our North Star.  As with any leadership team, our record has not been perfect.  On the few occasions when we have allowed our personal agendas and pet passions over rule our north star thinking, we have paid the price. A great example from the corporate world comes from the failed co-leadership of Sandy Weill and John Reed following the merger of Traveler’s and Citigroup.  As Sandy Weill said, reflecting on the experience. “I think we honestly believed…but it didn’t end up that way at all. We were driving the people who worked for us crazy and not making decisions, or making decisions they did not understand. Eventually, one of our senior managers at a management meeting [said] something about this, and that became the cry that led us to having to share a board meeting to make the decision that we needed one North Star. There had to be one North Star, and we had two North Stars.”
4. Camaraderie – Outstanding co-leaders spend a good deal of time of getting to know one another as people and establish a personal connection with one another. They seem to have a feel for each other’s thinking, tendencies, and likes and dislikes. They can improvise in the heat of the battle much like a jazz band when required because they have an intuitive understanding of their partner’s likely reactions. Most importantly, they genuinely enjoy spending time with one another, respect each other, and take an interest in the personal fulfillment and development of their partner. This last point, according to Katzenbach and Smith, the renowned authors of “The Wisdom of Teams,”is what distinguishes a “high performance team.”¹
5. Learning Mindset – Co-leaders believe in continuous learning and growth. They establish an early working norm that sees experience as a precursor to learning and continuous growth. These leaders do not favor gamesmanship that tries to hide mistakes or poor outcomes from one another.  Instead, they actively share their experiences with one another and solicit feedback and advice from their trusted thought partner(s).
6. United Support – it is critical that co-leaders develop norms and a process for resolving differences of opinion in private and present a united front to the outside world. Andy and Amy Heyward are married, and co-leaders of A Squared Entertainment, a Los Angeles-based provider of children’s entertainment programs competing with Disney, Nickelodeon, and others. In reflection on their collaboration, Andy said “Running the company is like parenting. People here understand that they can’t go to one of us, and if they don’t like the answer, go to the other. There is no court of appeals.”

One of the most powerful examples that demonstrates how all of these come together is at Sony Pictures Entertainment, described in the New York Times article by Tim Arango titled “Sony’s version of Tracy and Hepburn” dated December 24^th 2009.

The article describes the relationship and experiences of Amy Pascal and Michael Lynton in co-leading Sony Pictures Entertainment.  Mr. Lynton, a former AOL executive, had to check his ego after he thought he had been offered the job alone, while Ms. Pascal had to overcome her resentment and disappointment at not being given the chance to step up to this role after a long tenure with the studio. The idea of combining their talents originated with Howard Stringer, their supervisor. Mr. Stringer believed that while Ms. Pascal’s strength was in her intuitive ability to pick films, the organization also needed an outsider who had the knowledge and experience with the changing media environment, brought on by new digital technologies and to help Sony expand internationally. He also valued Mr. Lynton’s financial acumen and ability to minimize risk.

The combination of their talents paid immediate dividends.  In 2006, Sony released “The Da Vinci Code,” with revenues of $1.7 billion domestically, and had one of its best years. In the first quarter of 2009, revenue rose 6.5 percent, compared with a loss a year earlier.

Since getting to know one another, they allow each of their strengths to showcase itself at the appropriate moment.  As the article points out, “After reading ‘Superbad,’ a Seth Rogen comedy released in 2007, Mr. Lynton said he didn’t understand the humor, while Ms. Pascal said she thought it would ‘be fantastic and an anthem for this generation.’ But because the investment risk was so low, he relented. Amy said, ‘You know what, you’ve just got to go with me on this one.’ Mr. Lynton added that the movie was of the type that is ‘never going to make sense on a piece on a paper.’  Ms. Pascal’s instinct was dead-on. ‘Superbad’ cost about $18 million to make, and it generated about $120 million at the domestic box office, according to BoxOfficeMojo, which tracks ticket sales.”

It was not always a smooth journey.  However, by being able to elevate the conversation to a higher level, Mr. Springer was able to convince them to spend time to get to know one another.  In so doing, they developed a deep respect for each other’s talents, and camaraderie and friendship. The ultimate prize came when Ms. Pascal came upon the hours of rehearsal tape left by Michael Jackson after his death.  She quickly recommended buying up the cache for $60 million for exclusive move rights.  This strategy resulted in an amazing payoff when the film “This Is It” became a block buster.

1.  Katzenbach JR, Smith DK. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-performance Organization. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc. 1993.

Questions for Online Conversation:

• Have you been party to, or experienced co-leadership?
• If so, what was your experience? What worked? What didn’t?
• How would you co-lead?

The Case for Choosing Not to Lead

Many organizations designate high-performing employees as future leaders. Rising to leadership positions typically requires business acumen and performance.  However, outstanding leadership demands so much more. Leadership, particularly at the highest levels, is a sacred territory and a privilege that should be granted to the few. Sadly, many organizations do the opposite.  Leaders are often selected based on current business performance and metrics rather than for their intrinsic leadership behaviors and ability to motivate and inspire others.  Candidates often are placed in succession boxes and enticed with potentially lucrative rewards.  In addition, there is tremendous pressure to enthusiastically embrace the opportunity to assume higher positions of leadership.  If the successor is not perceived as enthusiastic and passionate about the new position, his or her career may be adversely affected, or their value to the organization may diminish.

To borrow an analogy from the world of science, outstanding leaders have qualities that are at the “DNA” level.  Similar to the DNA code, these distinguishing qualities of great leaders are not readily transferred or copied to others.  They are part of the essence of a person. Leaders who are interested in developing these skills must “unlearn” their current leadership styles and rewire.   Most research supports the premise that unlearning is more difficult than learning.  A great deal of commitment and work is required to transform those who do not inherently carry this leadership DNA. Often, organizations confuse the requirements of this type of transformation with tactical and remedial leader training and development programs.  These may include communication effectiveness, executive presence, and organizational/planning skills.

Listed below are critical competencies for outstanding leadership.  As you review this list, note whether those in your organizations, destined for senior leadership positions, are able to demonstrate these:

1. Leading with a heart and a backbone.  Showing empathy, understanding, support, and mentoring while driving the mission and values of the organization.  Balancing delivering business results with the art of motivating and inspiring
2. Reflective leadership. Regularly slowing down to reflect and use judgment, rather than reacting to information and events and reflexively passing judgment and making hasty decisions
3. Next level leadership. Letting go of habitual behaviors and strengths that have resulted in climbing the corporate ladder to take on new skills and leadership behaviors required for the next role.  Delegating; having a learning mindset; always reaching for the next plateau
4. Managing the loneliness. Making difficult and principled decisions in the service of the enterprise that are not always popular with a majority of stakeholders. Pushing through the loneliness, in the service of the future vision and rewards awaiting the enterprise. Being less concerned about being liked and popular, and more energized by the respect of colleagues
5. Situational leadership. Adjusting one’s style and message to the audience, and connecting to hearts and minds.  Able to motivate constituencies to reach and stretch beyond their normal comfort zones.  This entails deep and active listening skills and the ability to frame and deliver the communication accordingly
6. Ethics and motivation.  Being in the service of the organization vs. masquerading own agenda under the guise of the organizational strategy and mission. Truly being a servant to the organization, obsessed with delivering the best outcome for the greatest good of the enterprise
7. Authenticity and courage.  Consistently regarding values and beliefs vs. being more like a weather vane, constantly spinning with the direction of the oncoming wind. Communicating and acting clearly on declared values and beliefs. Trusted by followers who know that their leader will support and stand behind them throughout the journey

In my coaching engagements with emerging leaders, I often discuss these critical aspects of leadership.  Once trust is established and the client is assured of the confidential nature of our conversations, it is not uncommon for some to show discomfort and hesitation.  In these cases, the leader is usually attracted to certain aspects of the next role such as the position power, rewards and recognition, or greater levels of freedom and independence.  As discussed before, these individuals are concerned that lack of enthusiasm and passion to progress in the next role will be viewed negatively by the organizations and that their careers will be affected.  Others, who are not equipped to lead, carry an entitlement mindset that assumes that credentials, time in position, and performance equate to advancement and promotion.  Some go as far as making future plans and financial commitments on this basis prior to being promoted.

Consequently, best in class organizations create specialized career tracks that reward and recognize high performance in technical areas without putting undue pressure on staff who are ill equipped to carry the mantle of senior leadership.

It is imperative that organizations cast their net wide in identifying and attracting genuine leaders internally and externally. True leadership does not reside in everyone.

Questions for on-line conversation:

1. When you consider the next generation leaders in your organization, how do they fare relative to the DNA code leadership competencies listed above?
2. What other critical leadership skills would you add to the list?  Remember to distinguish these  from technical and business acumen

New Year Reflections

As 2012 draws to a close, I thought I would share some areas I consider important for reflection. (Previous blog postings contain more on each area.)

Consider starting the year with your thoughts on what you wish your legacy as a leader to be.

• Am I closer to being a “reflective” or “reflexive” leader? 
  • How often do I slow down to reflect?
  • Where is my balance between asking questions versus advocating my point of view?
  • Am I more often “in judgment” or “using judgment”?

• Am I able to lead with heart and backbone? Able to empathize, support, and champion others while driving the mission?
  • Am I more likely to be described as strong or hard?
  • Do my followers want to invest fully in my vision – or are they fearful of the consequences of not following my directions?

• Am I listening and present? 
  • Am I anxious to complete my colleagues’ thoughts and statements for them?
  • Can I listen for emotions and feelings? (Empathetic listening)
  • Do I consider the context or situations that surround them as they speak? (Contextual listening)

• How authentic and believable am I as a leader?
  • Do my values and deeply held views show up in my leadership style?
  • Would I trust and believe in me if I was led by me?
  • How do I manage the loneliness that is part of authentic leadership? Is it more important to me to be liked, or to serve the highest agenda of the organization?

• How do I lead under stress?
  • Do I filter stress, and am I able to retain my equanimity and composure?
  • Or, am I more likely to overuse my strengths and come across as disorganized, hurried, bullying, blaming…?

• Do I carry a fixed or a growth mindset? 
  • Am I willing to risk lower performance in a new area? Or do I prefer to rest on the recognition and applause from past accomplishments?
  • Do I help create an environment for others to reach for higher ground?  Or are my actions leading others to be risk averse and settle for the fixed mindset?
  • What is the continuous improvement process for my leadership?  Do I dwell on the past, or do I learn and adjust my future actions?

What questions would you add to this list for others to consider?

The Tragic Dramatic Leader

Tragic dramatic leaders are characterized by some or all of the following attributes:

• Their inherent insecurities have also pushed them to attain notable skills and achievements
• Reliance on past success, reputation, forceful logic, and passion to win at any cost
• A tendency to dramatize and glorify their past experiences and organizations
• Will often exaggerate the severity of a problem or embellish good news or successful events
• Characterized by mood swings.  Difficult for others to know which persona will show up on a given day
• Highly sensitive, and often taking business conversations and outcomes that do not comply with their wishes personally
• Become strong-handed or use bullying tactics, including advertising their superior intelligence or downgrading that of others when they don’t get their way.  Conversely, they may regress to passive aggressive withdrawal – “I don’t like what is going on around here so I am taking my ball and going home…”

Tragic dramatic leaders have a tendency to insert negativity and contaminate the climate of organizations, taking away from the motivation of the team.  They often cloak their own personal agendas behind key strategies and business goals.

Since this type of behavior is unsustainable, these leaders, at some point in their career, are forced to either reflect and adjust their leadership style or derail.  Anyone who coaches, or is tasked with helping the tragic dramatic leader may experience the following:

It is difficult for the tragic dramatic leader who has had business and financial success to admit to his highs and lows.  He may dismiss others as “too soft” or not in touch with the reality of the business and the hard decisions that a leader has to make or some other version of “oh but if you were in my shoes you would know that…”  Of course these explanations are the final remnants of a defense system that is experiencing a gradual breakdown.  It is futile to argue facts, figures and specific examples with him.  Years of left-brained conditioning in support of his tragic dramatic persona has made him a superb defender of his position and gifted debater.  It is more productive to ask him if he thinks that the perception that is surrounding him is affecting his success in the organization.  If he is willing to admit that these perceptions whether fair or unfair, are important, then it may be useful to ask him to provide his own examples of how these negative perceptions about them might have gained currency.  In this way, the coach steers clear of the intellectual banter and point-counterpoint debates.  It is also the ideal moment to ask the tragic dramatic leader if he or she wants to engage in the necessary work.

The coach must exercise a perfect balance of heart and backbone.  Under the hardened cover, the tragic dramatic leader carries vulnerabilities and insecurities that require understanding, empathy, active listening, support and trust.  On the other hand, he is usually masterful in exercising that which will carry the day.  This includes not only superb logic and intellect but also weaponry for emotionally high jacking the audience.  These include anger, cynicism, tears, silence/distance, resentment and even vengeance.  The coach must have a strong backbone and not take the mirror away prematurely.  It is only when the tragic dramatic leader realizes that the work is not about defeating the coach but to use the coaching opportunity as a safe process for gaining critical insights necessary for development and self mastery that the breakthroughs and insights surface.

An example of a tragic dramatic leader is a senior leader at a global pharmaceutical organization.  She was an exceptionally gifted and intelligent individual.  Her technical skills were outstanding.  She had been promoted rapidly to a senior position. It was not uncommon for her to make passionate presentations and appeals in favor of her position. During these presentations she neutralized all dissent and other points of view through her superior intellect and communication skills.  Naturally, over time her intense personality and style led some of her peers, who felt she was taking up too much air time and too focused on her own agenda, to turn against her.  Since she was used to being admired and winning the point, the tragic dramatic characteristic began to surface. She exhibited anger and impatience, followed by withdrawal and lack of participation.  When she was called on, she would respond in an indifferent and cynical manner.  In private, her frustration would well up and tears would follow.  She routinely placed the blame on others or the organization and would defend her own decisions and actions.  Her strong logic and debate skills led her supervisor and peers who were trying to help her to throw their hands up and give up.  Many were seeing her as foul tasting medicine—needed and valued in her area of specialty but to be avoided if at all possible.

Questions for on-line conversation:

1. Which aspects of the tragic dramatic leadership style have you observed in other leaders?
2. Have you had the opportunity to supervise or coach any? What was your experience in this regard?

Leadership Lessons From The U.S. Political Process

“Mistakes are the usual bridge between inexperience and wisdom.” Phyllis Theroux

I thought, given the timing of this posting, that I would focus on some of the lessons from the U.S. political process regarding leadership.  Unfortunately, most of the lessons at this time fall into the category of “what not to do.”

First, a qualification. What follows is not meant to be partisan.  The lessons are equally drawn from both sides of the aisle and are endemic.  In most cases I believe our political leaders are reacting to the societal and cultural signals they receive regarding the mindset and behaviors that will make them successful.

I have noticed an unmistakable trend to undervalue the longer term values and commitments of the leader and instead, to focus on specific issues, events and gaffs.  Some of the more important manifestations of this trend are described below.

I believe that there is a general lack of respect accorded in our political process to the “learner leader.”  As discussed in my September 27^th 2011 blog posting, “Bias For Action,” great leaders are learners.  They exhibit “reflective” leadership, regularly taking time to reflect on their experiences and insights in order to learn and make better decisions.  They freely admit to mistakes and shortcomings as important learning for the future.  Our current political process, on the other hand, does not celebrate learning.  In fact, it would be risky and even taboo for candidates to admit in a debate viewed by over 50 million Americans that a decision they made was imperfect but that they learned a great deal from it for the future.  Instead “reflexive” leadership focuses on justifying actions at any cost.  To display vulnerability and humility, (necessary conditions for the learner leader) is seen as political suicide.

The moderators of the political debates, correspondents interviewing the candidates or ordinary citizens who are afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the candidates, rarely ask the candidate what he or she has learned and how the experience has shaped their future course of action.  Each side prefers their candidate to display absolute knowledge, confidence, skill, an impressive physical stature, loving and stable families, impeccable values … In short, perfection. Numerous experts in public relations, communication effectiveness, stage design and cosmetic consultants surround the candidate to ensure that all blemishes are corrected and information is purged or spun to favor of the candidate. History has shown that great leaders are shaped by challenging experiences that helped create the learning necessary to reach their greatest leadership moments.  Imagine if JFK had folded his tent and the electorate had run him out of office after the Bay of Pigs political disaster.  We would never have seen him at his finest making the perfect call on the Cuba blockade, despite intense pressure by some in his inner circle favoring a more aggressive response to the Soviet threat.

In the wonderful article titled “The Opiate of Exceptionalism” in the Ops Ed section of the October 21^st edition of the New York Times, Scott Shane of the New York Times, writes “How far would this truth telling candidate get? Nowhere fast.  Such a candidate is in fact unimaginable in our political culture.  People in this country want the president to be the cheerleader, an optimist, the herald of better times ahead.  During a presidential campaign it can be deeply dysfunctional, ensuring that major issues are barely discussed. Problems that cannot be candidly described and vigorously debated are unlikely to be addressed seriously.”

The lesson for organizations is clear.  Organizations must create a culture where the leaders feels safe showing vulnerability, admitting not knowing the answer and being able to share information that may not always be positive without fear of being labeled an ineffective leader.  Here are some examples of important business leaders that learned from their setbacks to achieve phenomenal results:

Henry Ford convinced a group of businessmen to back him on the biggest risk of his life—a company to make horseless carriages. Ford knew nothing about running a business. Learning by doing often involves failure. The new company failed, as did a second. To revive his fortunes, Ford took bigger risks, building and even driving a pair of racing cars. The success of these cars attracted additional financial backers, and on June 16, 1903, just before his 40th birthday, Henry incorporated his third automobile venture, the Ford Motor Company.

At the age of 22 Walt Disney’s cartoon series in Kansas City failed and he went through bankruptcy.  He went to Los Angeles with $40 dollars of cash.  He thought he would give up animation and become an actor.  However, he realized that animation houses were not headquartered in California.  He set up his company and with his brother Oswald and became very successful.  However, soon he found out that his signature character, the Lucky Rabbit was owned by another distributor and most of the artists that worked for him had committed themselves to the other distributor. On his way back to New York he created another character called Mickey Mouse that became the symbol of his new company and the vanguard of his future success

When I started my career with Citibank the CEO, Walter Wriston, would often remind the staff that in baseball if you get 3 hits out of 10 at bat you wind up in the hall of fame. But make those 3 hits good ones…   This served as his mantra for Citibank. This brand of learning, risk taking and entrepreneurship made Citibank the leader in its industry at the time by a wide margin.

Questions for online conversation

1. What are some examples of failures in your career that led the way to insights and learning for future success?
2. Have you experienced working for leaders who celebrated the learning from failure for future success? How did they do it? What was the effect of this leadership style on the culture and performance of the organization?
3.  How does the current culture of your organization view failure? How does that influence the behavior of your leaders?

Leading Through Hurt

It goes without saying that most leaders at some point in their careers experience disappointment, pain, and in many cases, a sense of deep hurt.  Therefore, the fundamental question for leaders is not “if” or “whether” he or she will feel hurt, but “how” will it be managed productively and in the best service of the broader organization and the leader’s career.  It is not unusual for many leaders to sense resentment when hurt, that if not managed productively, travels quickly through the neurological pathways to connect with its road companion “revenge/getting even.” Symptoms of this might show up as generalizations regarding entire categories of people such as men, women, senior management, or nationals of other geographies. Sometimes it is accompanied by “withdrawal/passive resistance.” Decisions and actions taken in response to these symptoms such as, avoidance and exclusion, damaging comments, destructive alliance building, and ultimately derailing/blocking of careers can be even more damaging.

An alternative that outstanding leaders choose is “learning.” Great leaders have the ability to learn from hurtful experiences to shape different and positive experiences for their followers. These lessons become powerful foundations and core values of their leadership style and behaviors.  Rather than dwelling on their own personal hurt and anger, these leaders seem to have the ability to use these hurtful experiences as lifelong reminders of “what not to do” and even practicing the opposite behaviors.

A powerful example came from my own experience. I started my career at the American International Group (AIG) headquarters in New York City.  At the time, AIG was under the iron fisted rule of Maurice (Hank) Greenberg and an inner group of family and close advisors.  Greenberg was the classic autocratic leader – a hard charging, take no prisoners leader with a deliver or perish mindset.  It was not uncommon for executives to be publicly dressed down for not producing the planned results.  This type of leadership naturally cascaded down the organization.  As a newly minted MBA destined for overseas assignment, I was placed in a rotational training program designed for high potential employees.  Consequently, I had visibility to senior management meetings. In one such meeting, a leader at AIG in charge one of its core businesses ripped into one of the people that I considered a mentor.  My mentor Bob was an exceptionally generous, honest, and hardworking individual who had not delivered on his annual profitability target. Prior to the meeting, he had told me that this was due in large part to a number of natural calamities that had adversely affected the annual claims experience. The brutality and humiliation of his public dress down in front of his staff left me with tears in my eyes, and pure disgust and hate in my heart.  However, Bob kept his composure and seemed to be unaffected by this outrageous treatment.  After the meeting, over a cup of coffee, I asked Bob what it felt like to be tortured in that manner publicly.  He told me that he felt humiliated and incredibly frustrated.  I told him I was amazed at his composure, and I would have never known that was the way he felt.  The words he spoke to me on that December day in my first year of my career reverberate in my ears to this day, and have been pillars for my leadership development.  He told me that the deeper the words cut into his dignity and self-respect, the more certain he was that his greatest contribution to the development of his team would be to demonstrate the opposite.  In effect, he was establishing a powerful real time point of contrast between the oppressive culture created by Greenberg and his leadership team, and the leadership style that Bob witnessed in his family and later as a decorated veteran of the war in Vietnam.  I was floored. I asked him how he could have the presence of mind and the elevation of spirit to be able to distance himself from such a brutal attack in real time.  His answer was incredibly powerful in its simplicity.  He said “Kaveh, those verbal bullets pale compare to metal ones coming at you while you are carrying someone in your platoon to safety…”  As I listened, the power of the analogy did not escape me – the hurt buddy he carried to safety and the bruised colleagues at AIG that he was hoisting above his shoulders so they could have a sense of the higher road and their higher selves…

Questions for online conversation:

1. How have you or others that you know managed personal hurt and disappointment at work?
2. What have been the consequences of their actions?
3. What is your powerful story in this regard???

Coaching Conversations with Women Leaders – Chapter 3: Being Heard, Not Just Listened To

The feminine mindset draws clear distinctions between being listened to and being heard.  There are a myriad of listening techniques that can be mechanically practiced and enhanced.  Organizations invest time and resources in practicing/developing these skills in their leaders.  However, left brained listening that focuses on words, facts, the logic of a conversation, and validates through restating what has been said, is not the same as feeling validated through active, empathetic, and contextual listening.  Someone who feels heard feels the listener has suspended the knowing voice, and carries a frame that allows the listener to be able to detect the underlying emotions, feelings, and context or situational factors surrounding the words.  Great leaders are able to connect at an emotional level and validate what others are feeling as well as the context.

One of the most powerful examples that vividly demonstrates the difference between being listened to versus being heard occurred during the 1992 Presidential debate between Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., and Ross Perot. A young African American woman asked “how has the national debt personally affected each of your lives, and if it hasn’t, how can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people, if you have no experience in what’s ailing them?” President Bush was visibly thrown off by the question. His body language and tone signaled annoyance towards the questioner.   After several attempts at understanding the question, he answered with a logic-based approach, focusing on facts selected to persuade the questioner that the national debt was a higher order concept that could not really be linked to individual lives.  He also attempted to use the power of his office to convince her by saying “you ought to be in the White House for a day and hear what I hear, and see what I see, and read the mail I read, and touch the people that I touch from time to time…” which further disconnected him from his audience. He attempted to convince the audience that although he has not personally experienced financial hardship, this did not mean that he does not understand it. At one point he exacerbated a bad moment by nervously looking at his watch. It made him seem even more disconnected. His answers all had an air of talking down and lecturing to the audience. He did not exhibit any visible non-verbal cues that showed an emotional connection with the questioner or an understanding of the situation/context that surrounded her life.

In stark contrast, President Clinton moved toward the questioner and established eye contact and a non-verbal connection. He validated her by demonstrating that her question was important, and given his own background and circumstances, he could empathize with her and the challenges that she faced.  Next, he offered her hope by providing a supportive shoulder as well as a path forward. Irrespective of one’s political affiliation, this moment captured in the video below is recognized by political pundits from both parties as a defining and seminal moment in favor of President Clinton in the 1992 Presidential debates. A CBS News poll found that 53 percent of US voters thought so, versus 25 percent who favored Bush.

Research conducted by John Gottman in his groundbreaking work on marriage and relationships shows that one of the most important factors in the success of relationships is the extent to which one or both of the partners feel that he/she is “heard” and validated by the other. ¹

In the work setting, this translates into a leadership style that demonstrates genuine care and attention to the emotional and affective aspects. I am continuously amazed at how shocked and surprised leaders are when they receive the results of their employee surveys. In many cases, the areas with the lowest scores include the extent to which:

• Employees feel their perspectives and opinions are valued and considered in decision making
• Management genuinely cares and invests in their professional and personal development
• There is transparency in organizational and leader communication
• Leaders make themselves available and are approachable

The common thread running across all of these areas is the employee perception of not being heard by their leaders. The feminine mindset places high value on the ability of a leader to really hear their employees. Here are some indicators:

1. Can the leader pick up on the real message that their employee is communicating to them? Not only the spoken words, but the feelings and emotions that surround those words – Empathetic Listening
2. Can the leader understand the context that is surrounding the spoken words?  For example, the culture in which the employee was raised – Contextual Listening
3. Can the leader put him or herself in the shoes of the employee at that particular point in their career, and feel the currents that are driving the employee’s thoughts and feelings?
4. What are the non-verbal cues, such as the body language and tone of the leader, as he or she is listening? (Once more, notice President Clinton’s non-verbal communication while answering the question – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE)
5. What are the ways in which the leader shows understanding and empathy in regards to what their colleague is telling them?

Questions for our online conversation

• Have you worked with leaders who were either especially adept or incompetent at making you feel like you were heard? What were the characteristics of these leaders and their listening?
• How did it make you feel?
• How did it shape you and your leadership, if at all?

1. Gottman JM, Silver N. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work: A Practical Guide from the Country’s Foremost Relationship Expert. Three Rivers Press; 2000.

Coaching Conversations with Women Leaders – Chapter 2: Honoring the Whole Self

In the last chapter I described the qualities of anima (female energy) and animus (male energy).  I also suggested that leaders who can integrate both into their leadership style will be more successful leaders in the 21^st century. However, the primary question that many leaders return to is how does all of this translate into results in the work environment? Furthermore, what are the strategies that organizations should pursue in order to honor and foster this balance?

In the following chapter, I will first provide more insight into this feminine or anima mindset, and then share additional examples of organizational strategies that high performing companies such as Trader Joe’s and Google have employed to achieve this balance.
 

Chapter 2: Honoring the Whole Self

As mentioned in Chapter 1, the anima (feminine) mindset is the generative and holistic energy required to develop and nurture the social fabric of the environment. When one finds him or herself in this anima mindset, an inner voice might say the following:

“see me, the smart and successful leader,”

“see me, a great mom,”

“see me, the energetic volunteer in schools and community,”

“see me, the loving and grateful daughter that will take care of my elderly parents,”

“see me, the social architect that connects the family and friends,“

“see me, taking care of my health and appearance so that I can feel good about myself and lead and take care of others…”

The feminine mindset does not see these as disjointed presences with solid boundaries.  Rather, it views these components as an interwoven tapestry of thoughts and feelings with a profound impact on personal happiness and leadership effectiveness.

Feminine cultures encourage personal stories and celebrate the make-up and preferences of people. These cultures consider knowing individuals on the team, and connecting with each an essential aspect of leadership. Cultures that only emphasize business acumen, presence and a “just the facts please…” mentality, diminish the social and emotional intelligence and the creativity needed to navigate and win in a competitive and challenging world. Leaders with a healthy balance of anima who work in organizational cultures denying or preventing them from expressing their “whole self” report earlier signs of loss in motivation, loss of leadership, resonance, and eventual burn out and separation from their organizations.

Leaders with the feminine mindset notice when organizations take active steps to make it possible for them to feel whole.  For example, organizations that sponsor and genuinely engage in causes that benefit communities and societies are seen as being more interesting places to work. Organizations that take an active interest in the spouses and children of their employees set a platform for success. Examples include:

• Spouses being interviewed prior to expatriate assignments to help them understand the implications of international assignments for them and their children, and what can be done to help orient them and make the transition as painless as possible
• Provision of onsite childcare allowing better integration of leadership capabilities with care giving needs

Feminine cultures are also more open to multidisciplinary and integrative thinking. These organizations have softer boundaries regarding career planning and roles/responsibilities. A more informal communication style is practiced, and decision making is less rigid and hierarchical.  These organizations operate primarily in the service of great ideas/innovation, customers, and their employees.  Trader Joe’s, the retail food chain, is a great example of this concept.

Mallinger and Rossy report the following from their study of Trader Joe’s:

“The Crew members” (the moniker for store employees) are selected, in part, because of their expressed enthusiasm and energy. Training includes skills in communication, teamwork, leadership, and product knowledge. Crew members handle a multitude of responsibilities including, cashier, stocker, and customer interface, and are evaluated on a quarterly basis. Turnover among full-time crew is 4 percent yearly, substantially below that of traditional supermarkets. The managerial structure is relatively flat. Crew members report to the “first mate” (assistant store manager), who, in turn, reports to the “captain” (store manager). The store atmosphere is highlighted by a South Seas motif, and crew members often wear Hawaiian shirts and banners throughout the store convey that theme. There is a casual ambiance; new products are identified on chalk boards arranged in key locations. Crew members reported elevated levels of ability to influence, commitment to teamwork, and  level of achievement orientation. They also indicated that they felt empowered to make decisions, were collaborative in their relationship with others, and were motivated to high levels of performance. These characteristics were demonstrated by the extent to which they were enthusiastic, hardworking, outgoing, and team and customer oriented.”¹

And here is how Google describes how its culture celebrates the whole self:

“It’s really the people that make Google the kind of company it is. We hire people who are smart and determined, and we favor ability over experience. Although Googlers share common goals and visions for the company, we hail from all walks of life and speak dozens of languages, reflecting the global audience that we serve. And when not at work, Googlers pursue interests ranging from cycling to beekeeping, from Frisbee to foxtrot.

We strive to maintain the open culture often associated with startups, in which everyone is a hands-on contributor and feels comfortable sharing ideas and opinions. In our weekly all-hands (“TGIF”) meetings—not to mention over email or in the cafe—Googlers ask questions directly to Larry, Sergey, and other execs about any number of company issues. Our offices and cafes are designed to encourage interactions between Googlers within and across teams, and to spark conversation about work as well as play.” ²

In your experience, what have you observed as examples of specific initiatives or cultural traits that honor the “whole self”?

What are the consequences of not integrating these attributes into the fabric of the organization?

How would you rate your own leadership style with respect to the previous posting on the relationship-based mindset, as well as this chapter regarding leading with the “whole self”?

1. Mallinger M, Rossy G. The Trader Joe’s Experience. Graziadio Business Review. 2007;10(2).
2. Google. Our Culture. Available at: http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/culture/. Accessibility verified August 6, 2012.

Coaching Conversations with Women Leaders – Chapter 1: The Relationship-based Mindset

Coaching Conversations with Women Leaders

First, an acknowledgement.  I fully recognize that there are vast differences in the backgrounds, geographical cultures, work experiences, and chemical/neurological make up of women leaders. In my view, a more accurate driver of effective leadership is the extent to which female leaders can integrate their masculine inner self (animus), and male leaders their feminine inner self (anima) into their leadership style.

The female qualities of anima include attributes such as feelings, emotions, tenderness, relatedness, commitment and fidelity, friendship, love and compassion, imagination, gentleness, creativity, intuition, and a sense of aesthetics. The male qualities of animus include assertiveness, courage, analytical thinking, strength, vitality, decisiveness, a focused attentiveness, and a desire for achievement¹.  I believe that leaders who can leverage and balance these qualities will be more successful in leading 21^st century organizations.

Additionally, as described by Geert Hofstede, one of the pioneers of intercultural differences, there are cultures/countries that are more masculine, and others that are more feminine. Masculine cultures’ values are competitiveness, assertiveness, materialism, ambition, and power, whereas feminine cultures place more value on relationships and quality of life. In masculine cultures, the differences between gender roles are more dramatic and less fluid than in feminine cultures where men and women have the same values emphasizing modesty and caring. Not surprisingly, Hofstede’s measurements show that the U.S. is one of the highest ranked countries/cultures in masculinity, as well as individualism (the reliance on self rather than the collective). According to Hofstede, these distinctions are a general construct (applicable to men and women).²

Never the less,  in my conversations with hundreds of women leaders, it is impossible not to notice the clear and important differences in the more natural and authentic leadership style of women leaders, and the frustrations they experience when a masculine culture dictates them how they should lead. Furthermore, over time, as more women have entered the labor force and ascended to higher positions, I have noted that their values and beliefs are no longer of the lone wolf variety. These views are clear, intense, and popular – especially with other women who wield significant power. It is therefore critical for 21^st century organizations to not only be aware of these views, but also to cultivate and engage with them in positive and productive ways. Talented women who aspire to successful leadership roles have become aware of the organization’s reputation regarding their stance and commitment to incorporating the feminine mindset into the culture. Therefore, organizations that are slow to honor the feminine mindset will be left behind when competing for top women talent and will suffer the consequences.

Over the next few installments, I will share some of the views that consistently emerge in my conversations with women leaders, and the associated frustrations experienced when these views are repressed, blocked, or crushed.

 
Chapter One – The Relationship-based Mindset

Most women are socialized to weave a tapestry of meaningful and often longer-term relationships. This more collaborative orientation assumes a “win-win” outcome, where there is enough room to compromise, find a middle ground, and through the collective intelligence and effort of the team, make the pie bigger for everyone. This is contrasted with a mindset of bringing home the trophy through intense and merciless competition driven by an underlying assumption that there are fixed number of slices in a pie. Women who feel forced or enticed away (by rich compensation and perks) from their more natural and authentic relationship-based views into this competitive frame, report loss in motivation, passivity/gradual check out, addictive ways of obsessively throwing themselves exclusively into work to validate their sense of self-worth and choices, and many other negative symptoms.

The relationship-based leadership style is attentive to how things are done.  Short-term wins at the expense of leaving behind a battlefield of wounded souls and irreparable burned bridges is not an acceptable option. Fostering longer-term relationships is as important as the task at hand.  In fact, they may be more important as the value of these relationships transcend the here and now, and span over the leader’s career.

Here is an example of how being inattentive to the relationship-based leadership style can translate into lost business opportunities. There is a trend by some team development consultancies that advocate “courageous conversations”. This often is an exercise in which members of leadership teams are pushed to publicly declare their concerns and displeasure with one another. These conversations are timed to coincide with a preset timeline for team development, and not necessarily when the team has gone through its journey to achieve trust and camaraderie. The style of conversation is one of confrontation rather than collaboration. Importantly, care is not taken to ensure that these conversations and relationships land in a safe place before the team leaves the room and goes back to conducting its day-to-day work and interactions. Disruptive negative energy is routinely transferred into the work environment and the relationships of team members. Interestingly, we have noted that women leaders or international leaders from more feminine or collectivist cultures rarely engage in this type of activity for team development work or leadership coaching. Those that do, usually feel coerced to do so by their leaders.

What has been your experience with womens’ leadership styles?  Have you also noticed that on average, women leaders naturally prefer a more collaborative style which honors relationship building and creating win-win outcomes? What have been the levels of acceptance or push back by their organizations?  Why?

1. Stevens A. On Jung. Princeton University Press; 1990.
2. Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3^rd ed. McGraw-Hill; 2010.

Leadership Is a Lonely Gig

Leadership at higher levels of organizations is lonely.  Great leaders are motivated by making the right decisions for the greatest good of the organization and teams they lead.  They find support systems, emotional and spiritual fulfillment, and validation outside of the work setting through family, friends, and external coaches/advisors.  They do not allow personal attachments and individuals or pet projects influence their objectivity and balance.  This requires leaders to regenerate and develop a balance in their lives where work and productivity are important, but not the only source of self-validation and motivation.

There are, however, many leaders who put a great deal of focus on popularity and relentless consensus-building as hallmarks of great leadership.  Yes, as I have written in previous chapters of this blog, great leaders value and look for the collective intelligence of their teams prior to making important decisions.  However, great leaders also carry anchors and compasses that are authentic, visionary, and at times unconventional.  If the leader is overly concerned about achieving consensus amongst all stakeholders and being liked, blessed, or recognized, he will overly compromise.  Imagine a world where our greatest visionaries were focused on popularity.  We would not have many of the disruptive innovations that we enjoy today such as computers, the internet, electricity, and cars.  In the end, after perspectives and opinions have been shared, the leader finds himself in the lonely place of making a decision with the best information at hand, using their intellect and intuition, and hoping for some timely luck. Yes luck.  Look up the greatest innovations and some of the highest impact decisions ever made, and invariably there are situational elements that had a direct impact on their success or failure.

There is a fascinating video clip of President John F. Kennedy and his cabinet debating their response to the intrusion of the Russians into Cuba and their plans to install nuclear missiles.  In this clip, JFK listens carefully to the points of views of both sides.  The hawks, led by General Curtis Lemay and national security advisor McGeorge Bundy, urged retaliation and war.  On the other side, a more cautious approach represented by the blockade was advocated by Robert Kennedy and the secretary of defense, Robert McNamara.  In the end, JFK had to make one of the most important decisions of the 20^th century.  At that moment, he was not concerned about pleasing everyone on the cabinet, or being reelected, or how some of his long-time friends and relationships would regard him.  In the end he had to weigh the facts, use his intuitive sense regarding the likely reactions of the First Secretary of the Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev and his team, stand behind his beliefs, and make the decision that would benefit the greatest number of people. This genre of leadership with a backbone is contrasted with the manner in which some CEO’s and their senior teams make decisions. Their focus is on the short-term reactions of Wall Street, their own short-term wealth and prosperity, and there is seemingly less concern about the longer-term impact of these decisions on the organization. A case in point is the recent safety and quality issues that have resulted in massive financial loss for the pharmaceutical and healthcare organizations.

This quote captures the essence of leadership with courage and backbone:

 “A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He doesn’t set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the quality of his actions and the integrity of his intent. In the end, leaders are much like eagles… they do not flock; you find them one at a time.”   – Unknown

What examples can you share of leaders you know that found themselves in that lonely place and had to make the right decisions? What happened/how did it turn out? What lessons do you think we can take away?