Sunday, May 26, 2013

Unaccountable

Watching officials from the Internal Revenue Service carefully parse their answers, or plead the Fifth, during testimony before Congress was a lesson in leadership arrogance and unaccountability. I wondered if they realized it was their “bosses” who were sitting across the room asking those tough questions. If I had behaved in a similar fashion with any of my supervisors over these past 40 years I’m pretty sure I would have been fired, or at the very least, reprimanded.

Regardless of who did what or knew what, as the leader of an organization, accountability begins and ends with you. You can’t simply announce to the world, “I did nothing wrong” and then hide behind the Fifth amendment. Yet, here were top government bureaucrats denying any responsibility for what happened under their watch.

How does an organizational culture become so arrogant that it lacks accountability in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? What happens to the employees who labor daily in such an environment? Where do leaders gain a sense of entitlement and the power to wield fear and control on a daily basis? Can anyone trust a company or government who operates in this way?

Most businesses who choose the route of being unaccountable for their actions with customers and vendors will soon find their store, factory, or restaurant empty and bankrupt. Being accountable, especially when mistakes are made, is the only way to show clients that they matter. 

If the IRS fails to change its culture and refuses to hold employees and leadership accountable for their exploits, then it is unlikely any American will trust their actions in the future. Whether you agree with paying taxes or not, it would be sad to know that the agency entrusted with collecting those revenues and enforcing existing codes can operate with impunity. In this case, being unaccountable has devastating consequences.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Birds of a Feather

A recent Harvard Business Review article revealed some interesting research about the perceived power of influence. While marketers spend millions to tap this power of influence among early adopters of their products or services, there is growing evidence that the money they spend may have little or no impact. It seems as though confounding factors that mimic social influence may account for how many of us behave when a new iPhone or other “must have” item hits the market.
The article’s author recalls a common saying that some of you will recognize, “Birds of a feather flock together” and uses it to illustrate how many of our preferences, like much of human behavior, is clustered among friends and in time. While marketers are interpreting our propensity to watch the same TV show or eat at the same restaurant as influence, it may have little or nothing to do with it.

This revelation got me wondering about the influence leaders seem to hold on others at times and what might drive that perceived power. In recent years political parties have increasingly turned to social media as a means of peer-to-peer influence in support of a particular candidate or public policy. This strategy is often accompanied by an expensive and expansive media ad campaign. Do these approaches actually carry influence or would party loyalists support their candidate in spite of these external factors?

Business leaders often seem to ignore the value of alignment when they propose new initiatives. Without clarity, dialogue, and inspiration their best laid plans will likely come up short. The “birds of a feather” mentality so inherent in workplace cultures often stymies any concerted effort to implement change. In this case, a leader can actually exert meaningful influence by being a better communicator.

The study revealed an interesting result when generous and fair incentives were included in friend-to-friend referrals. If the giver could include a discount for the other person, or share a discount with them, their willingness to refer or recommend increased. Perhaps leaders in business would do well to remember that benefits and generosity may wield more influence than the “big stick” so many seem to prefer.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Candid Conversations

This past week three State Department officials testified under oath before a House committee about what they knew and observed regarding Benghazi, a story that has mostly been used as political grist since the incident took place on September 11 and 12 of last year. Their accounts seemed credible and apolitical. That’s what made them so compelling.

In today’s instant news cycle world, where a Twitter or Facebook post can transform how information is received and perceived, leaders are better off telling the truth before it finds its way into the blogosphere. As the facts about Benghazi emerge the lesson is clear - stonewalling, spinning, and distorting don’t serve leaders well.

Many managers operate on a need-to-know basis, willing to shield direct reports and colleagues from access to timely information. Others try hard to suppress negative news in the interest of employee morale or out of loyalty to the company. None of these practices result in the hoped for outcomes they promote.

By only making Benghazi about politics, those in leadership who had authority to act now seem small and incompetent. Organizational leaders who lack transparency with those they serve do nothing to build trust or command their respect. Even worse, they encourage those same persons to withhold the truth and that can have devastating results.

The old style suggestion boxes that encouraged employees to anonymously submit their feedback and ideas never captured anyone’s imagination, and for good reason. Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if any employee was able to sign their name to a comment form or speak truthfully in a meeting without fear of recrimination? Unleashing information, unless it’s a confidential trade secret, always seems preferable to withholding or distorting the facts.

With all the avenues of communication available in today’s modern workplace the idea that candid conversations can’t occur seems patently absurd. Yet the barriers to honesty remain and until leaders are willing to admit they exist, and model a different approach, there will be more Benghazi stories and less reasons to trust anyone in leadership.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Influential Leadership

Throughout our lives there will always be people trying to exercise some level of authority and influence over us. Parents, for example, begin this process when we are still quite young, and a few never seem to learn when to loosen their grip over the various aspects of our lives they deem as important.

We have probably all encountered the pushy salesperson who ignores our wishes as he or she pressures us to buy a certain model of car or brand of appliance. Too many of us work for leaders whose opinions and perspectives seem to always rule the day. Regardless of how competent these persons are, their ability to engage and inspire us will always be limited.

 Today’s internet and social media driven culture allows anyone who posts a blog or manages a Facebook or Twitter account to instantly use it as a platform to try and influence the rest of us with their arguments. Some never seem to learn that respecting differing viewpoints is one way to actually enhance these efforts.

What might happen if leaders seeking influence were also willing to acknowledge and respect the many disparate ways other persons approach issues? Instead of simply digging in their heels, suppose those same leaders found common ground and praised the salient points presented by their opponents? Imagine if that pushy salesperson mentioned earlier had thoughtfully asked you questions and guided your decision-making by carefully listening to your needs and wants?

In a world where money and power are typically sought as the primary means of influence, it is often the leader who has learned how to respect others' opinions and find ways to work with their opposition that ultimately accomplishes the most. Brute force and arrogant blaming only make leaders look small and selfish.

I have always tried to encourage those who show promise and raw talent, even when their competence is in areas where I am deficient. In the end, I need their engagement and commitment more than holding on to control. Influential leadership isn’t built by assuming those you lead are idiots. It prospers through mutual respect for differing ideas and opinions. I hope you feel free to disagree.