Rebuilding Trust

I must confess that I borrowed the title for this week’s excursion into leadership from the most recent issue of Harvard Business Review. Actually they have a series of articles spotlighting the topic under this broad themed moniker. It’s worth the read and I’m not planning to plagiarize their work. You can check it out online at hbr.org if you like.

If you regularly peruse my weekly ruminations you will know that trust has been my most popular topic. At least five articles feature trust as a keyword and there are likely others that include a reference to trust somewhere in the text. So it should come as no surprise that the attention this topic received in a leading business magazine caught my eye. Here are a few brief observations about their coverage.

In the spotlight introduction this sentence is a key one: “A modern economy simply can’t function if people don’t have faith that the institutions around them actually work.” I would extend that reasoning to include other systems and relationships – management and labor, clergy and laypersons, husbands and wives. Trust undergirds nearly everything we do and yet we spend very little time understanding how to maintain and enhance this fundamental ingredient to a healthy organization or marriage.

The magazine articles focus on the need for better communication – a culture of candor – in organizations and also suggest that we aren’t always smart when choosing whom to trust – Bernie Madoff is the prime example. There is even a timeline of highs and lows in the public’s trust of business. These articles suggest that transparency in business is no longer an option and that our willingness to trust often gets us into trouble. If their observations are correct, it will take some time for business and political entities to rebuild trust.

The most penetrating article was a no-holds-barred assessment of the role business schools have played in the systematic failure of leadership that has been so influential in the recent economic meltdown. As I read the critique and proposed solutions to the problem I admit to being more than a little skeptical. After all, inviting an academic dean and former professor to analyze the shortcomings of the nation’s best known MBA programs is a bit like asking Barry Bonds to assess Major League Baseball’s current drug screening process. But to the author’s credit he pulls no punches and makes it clear these institutions are culpable for the “values-less” leaders they have been producing in droves each year. Contrition has been almost non-existent from the schools (no surprise there) as their funding depends on competitive rankings that have little to do with ethics and values. And so it goes.

It seems obvious to me that the effort being made by HBR to address the issue of trust will bear little fruit until the system that produces each new generation of leaders is dismantled and rebuilt. Is there the will and incentive to make these innovative changes? With our short memories and jaded views of the world I’m not optimistic. Greed and selfish behavior have been with us since Cain and Abel. It’s easier to do what we know and that is likely the path we will choose. Rebuilding trust makes for great headlines and likely sells magazines but as a new mantra for business it’s not likely to take root. I wish it didn’t need to be that way. Maybe that’s why I never pursued my MBA.

Digging In the Dirt

It’s Memorial Day weekend and, like many of our neighbors, my wife and I have been planting flowers. It’s an annual ritual, a rite of spring that comes and goes with the rhythms of the season. This year the cooler, wetter weather has postponed the work but, I’m happy to report, the beds are filled with new color, vulnerable seedlings, and the many wooden and metal ornaments that add character to the presentation. This year we have included some new varieties of flowers and gambled on more perennials. The project has ended with tired backs and redder than usual complexions.

Digging in the dirt seems a strange topic for my weekly rumination about leadership but I was struck by the lessons that planting offers. In the next few paragraphs perhaps you will see what I mean.

As someone who grew up on a farm in central Pennsylvania the spring season was an especially hectic time. It seemed we were always negotiating with nature to find just the right blend of warm sunshine and gentle rains so the seeds we sowed would germinate properly. Cultivating leadership is also a matter of timing and requires a proper mix of teaching, mentoring, constructive feedback, and meaningful praise. Many young leaders fail to grow because we neglect to invest in their personal development or do little to encourage them when the opportunity is there.

To plant flowers requires getting your hands dirty – grit underneath the fingernails kind of grubby. Even with a good pair of gloves it is hard to avoid the stains that come from investing this much energy in the moist, brown soil. Developing leaders also involves a deeply personal stake in the outcome. When a mentee or protégé disappoints or fails to deliver as expected sometimes the blame rests squarely with us. Our reputations may be blemished along with theirs, a risk we must take to help others succeed.

Each person we identify for leadership training will be very different. The flowers I planted today aren’t all the same either. Some can thrive in full sun while others must have the protective canopy of shade. The amount of moisture, space needed to grow, and level of pruning differs with each variety. People need this same personalized care. Some leaders need space to be creative; others require privacy to analyze and prepare. Many leaders will do well with minimum coaching or direction; others crave praise or attention so they know how they’re doing. Your job is to pay attention to the nuances and tailor your approach to maximize potential.

As the seasons change again this year, the flowers planted today will take root and be transformed into beautiful palettes of luminosity and fragrance. Any memories of today’s aches and pains will be replaced with pride and amazement as we enjoy God’s bountiful handiwork. Your investment in people also has its rewards. Future managers, senior executives, even potential owners can all be grown from within the organization. By “digging in the dirt” now, you too can enjoy the rewards of a well-placed and well-paced investment in your brightest and best. Happy planting!

Can You Hear Me Now?

Most of you will recognize the title for this week’s journal entry. For a number of years Verizon Wireless effectively built a case for their brand’s cellular network reliability by placing a non-descript actor wearing the company uniform in dozens of unusual and remote locations where his single question “Can you hear me now?” was always met with an affirmative response. Consumers came to trust his claims and Verizon now uses this same character, along with dozens of his colleagues, to tout the strength of their network as well.

In the context of leadership, this question illustrates an important disconnect between what we say and how others hear our message. In fact, too many leaders at every level in business and government offer confusing and sometimes incredulous responses to even the most basic questions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent an entire news conference this past week offering stilted and sometimes outrageous remarks about her knowledge of intelligence briefings. If we practiced her approach to communication, my title question might sound like this: “Are we capable of maintaining a modicum of consistency within our broad range of coverage so you may know and understand the nuances of your voice parameters without fail?”

As ridiculous as my example may seem, an approach to communication that is truthful and transparent often seems out of reach. We are bombarded with corporate lingo that includes overused metaphors and mind-numbing acronyms. Our political leaders use evasive and deliberately ambiguous words and phrases to parse the truth and protect their own self-interests. Where is the leader willing to speak plainly about our problems and challenges?

While I love the English language, and admire those who eloquently use it to weave imaginative stories, challenge us with poignant prose, and ignite us with inspiring visions, I also long for a simpler way. Where is the leader willing to offer direct, yet compassionate advice? Who will be the politician that admits they made a mistake or don’t have an answer to a pressing problem? When will employees have the courage to confront each other’s behaviors in the workplace with dignity and respect?

Might the simple phrase “Can you hear me now?” hold promise for a new way to communicate? Could each of us make a commitment to clarity and common sense in our conversations? Will we banish banality from our speeches and presentations? Can we agree that leaders need to ask fewer questions and listen instead? Did I just hear a resounding “yes?”

Graceful Leadership

This past Friday morning I hosted twenty business, not-for-profit, and community leaders for a half-day workshop where we explored the theme of “Building Inspiring Organizations.” In the keynote address and breakout groups our discussions focused on the role that grace plays in this process. Grace, from the Latin gratus, means praiseworthy but it is further defined as beauty; charm; a sense of what is right and proper; decency; thoughtfulness; and good will. We are inspired by people with grace because their integrity, love, and courage create symmetry in their relationships with others.

During the breakout discussions we challenged each other to share ideas for being more graceful with our employees, customers, and suppliers/vendors. We wrestled with how to be kind instead of right, being a better listener, honoring the priorities of others, winning without creating losers, and how to make it fun to do business with us. The conversations were sprinkled with stories of our own struggles to answer these questions and some examples of success we have achieved along the way.

Leaders who practice grace, and thus inspire others, must demonstrate four qualities. First, they must selectively show their weaknesses. Exposing some of our flaws establishes trust, encourages collaboration, and builds solidarity. Second, they learn to rely on intuition (or instincts) to gauge the timing and course of their actions. Sensing what is wrong in the workplace, our client’s mood, or our vendor’s business situation seems natural to graceful leaders. Third, they are empathetic in a tough sort of way. Balancing what individuals need with the task at hand, graceful leaders care deeply about people and about the work that must be done. Fourth, they dare to be different by embracing their preferred behavioral styles and their strengths. Graceful leaders are vulnerable and real with everyone they serve.

Perhaps the most jarring question posed to the group came during my keynote address when I asked, “Why would anyone want to be led by you?” It seems like such a simple question. How would you respond? Those in attendance listed it often on evaluation forms and mentioned it during our wrap-up time as one of the key takeaways from the event. Imagine the transforming power of this question if it were carefully considered and truthfully answered by our nation’s top political, business, not-for-profit, and religious leaders?

I experienced graceful leadership from those who gathered for this time of reflection and discussion. Perhaps they sensed grace in my words and deeds as well. In a world where competition, fear, deception, and control have created uninspiring workplaces we need graceful leaders with the courage to model a different way. It’s not too late. Who will join this movement to restore grace into our employee, customer, and vendor relationships?

Change Agents

I’m currently reading a powerful and interesting book written by Mark Friedman titled “Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough.” It is based on the premise that much of what we do in the public and private sectors doesn’t produce measurable results or improvements in the lives of our customers or communities. He cites examples of organizations seeking the perfect mission statement, preparing meaningless reports, wasting countless hours in meetings, and relying on outside experts to tell us what is needed. In spite of our well-intentioned efforts, much of what we tout as progress does little to engage people, change their behavior, or improve the quality of our products and services.

Friedman proposes a different approach called Results Accountability. It provides a simple, common sense way of thinking and acting that makes a real difference. I’m not planning to share all of the wisdom in his book – you can read it for yourself – but I do wish to offer some very brief thoughts about the role of leaders as change agents in their organizations.

Business and not-for-profit leaders know that measuring performance is an important way to hold people accountable for results. Friedman points out that our traditional models for performance measurement come out of industrial production, but there is little connection between the inputs and outputs in a factory with those of a service organization. I would add that my own observations and experiences lead me to believe these models don’t always adequately capture the human dynamics of an assembly line environment either, but that is a topic for a future blog entry.

If an enterprise wishes to effect lasting change then its performance measures must be simple – connecting what it does with actual improvements in the lives of those it serves. Leaders in these organizations must adopt a change-agent approach by measuring both the quantity and quality of effort and the quantity and quality of effect. Friedman suggests three questions that provide universal performance measurement categories: How much did we do? How well did we do it? Is anyone better off? By honestly answering these questions we can gauge how well our efforts produce effects. If people or communities are not substantially better off as a result of our work, then we are not really doing our jobs well.

Leaders wishing to adopt a change-agent model have many potential hurdles to overcome. One of these is the need to tell the truth about internal performance. I have addressed truth-telling on other occasions in my writing so you know my position on the important role it plays in revealing the integrity of a leader. Even the simple answer “I don’t know” is a better tact to take than lying to protect one’s ego. It is tempting in every setting and at every level within an organization to tout successes but fail to reveal when established goals or standards are not being achieved. This may be especially true for not-for-profit boards where members prefer to project high expectations on staff while rarely turning the spotlight inward on their own performance.

I long for the day when government, not-for-profit agencies, and the private sector adopt a new model for creating lasting change. While Friedman’s approach is an important tool it will also require a new style of leadership, being a change-agent, to champion this effort. Are you up to the task?