Management 11

A very special person is lining up his first management assignment. 

He's been poking at the idea for some time, even tried for an opening in his organization a while ago. Another opportunity has now come along and we've been talking about it: what the current situation is, is he interested, is he ready, what are the implications, etc., etc.

These conversations are wonderful for me because I love sharing what I've learned and the results. I'm a strong believer in the pilot's adage: Learn from the mistakes of others, because you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

So after an ask for help from him to prepare for this new opening, I've been thinking about how best to be helpful. How do I usefully condense 20+ years of management learning and experience? It suddenly occurred to me that I had posted thoughts on management before, and they might be useful. So the list below is an index of management topics from which anyone can pick and choose items of interest.

Management

• Management 1: The prospective manager dilemma
• Management 2: Precision of terms
• Management 3: My manager is a bozo
• Management 4: Some definitions, to have the correct discussion
• Management 5: My manager is my best customer?
• Management 6: Managing my manager!?
• Management 7: Jobs vs. Roles
• Management 8: Fun with role play
• Management 9: Management training?
• Management 10: Coaching and mentoring and asking for help

And just in case you thought you would see more on "leadership" in these, there are lots of posts on Leadership starting with:

• Leadership 1: Leadership can come from anywhere

through to 

• Leadership 13: Smart leadership

(If you want to scan through all the Leadership posts, just look in the Archive list (middle right), select an arrowhead beside a date to find the desired topic. (Google organizes by date instead of topic.))

Now the fun begins! What does he find most interesting? What did I leave out? Do these posts help him get results?
Stand by!

Team Tips – 2 {Where's the Boss?}

Assuming you've read the previous post – Team Tips - 1 – you know the definitions I'm using for “teams”, “boss”, etc. and can guess that I will be relying on the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams – the Core Protocols – in my answers.

Indeed, the underlying premise in all these answers is that the team is using the Simple Rules – the Core Commitments in the Core Protocols – and the Tools – the Protocols themselves, for their day to day operation. This is simply the smartest approach for any team that we have found.

So here is the “catch”. If what I am suggesting doesn't seem workable in your situation, then the organization needs to use the Core Commitments and Protocols (or something better).

Let's start with one of the most complicated situations Vickie and I have had to work on with a team, the question Jose R. asked:

“Does the boss belong to the team, or he just must work for it?” (I believe for the last part Jose meant “or does the team just work for the boss?”)

(Remember: “boss” as used here is defined in the prior post Team Tips - 1).

Boss

The simplest rule is NOT to have the boss be part of the team. The team works for the boss, and delivers the product or service the boss requires, in the timeframe the boss requires, with the quality the boss requires. And in large enough organizations the boss is on his or her own team with other bosses of other teams.

Team

In fact the teams working for a boss ARE THE PRODUCTS of the boss, and the teams across the organization are the products of the team of bosses. In the purest arrangement the bosses don't produce any final product or service for sale to their retail customers – their teams do.

And to get even more precise, the boss sets the initial conditions for the team – what must be produced and delivered by the team, and when, and within what constraints (resources, values, legislation, policies, etc.). The most experienced and mature teams can take responsibility for deciding what can be produced and delivered against a given deadline, or alternatively, what deadline they can meet for a given product requirement.

All of this works smoothly when there is a high level of trust and a high level of communication both ways between the team and the boss. And, of course, individual commitment and responsibility from each team member. (We'll explore trust and commitment more in future posts.) These elements are all comprehended and provided for in the Core Protocols.

But the situation gets trickier when the organization is smaller and, for example, the owners of the business are the bosses AND are also contributors to the team and its products.

In this special case the boss or bosses have to operate in two modes: explicitly as the boss, and explicitly as a team member. The modes have to be crystal clear at each moment in each transaction between all parties – that is why I emphasize “explicitly”.

In all cases, the boss's job is to have the team produce a result on time that is great in the opinion of the team and the boss. The boss does not have to be concerned with how that is done, what tools or methods are used, etc. as long as the initial conditions – the non-negotiable items – are met. If the result exceeds expectation or is finished early – fantastic. If there is any doubt that this will happen, the team should be reworking their methods, their focus on deadlines, their quality, etc., without expecting the boss to intervene or rescue them, unless they specifically ask the boss for help.

Similarly, in daily operation, the team relies on the merit of the best ideas from any team member at any time to proceed to producing the team result. The boss as a team member cannot have any special standing or influence, otherwise the other team members will eventually stand back and wait for the boss to propose all ideas and make all the decisions, and the huge opportunity for individual leadership, innovation, and energy is lost.

Accordingly, as the boss the business owner states the end result required or the deadline, then steps aside to let the team get on with it. As a team member, the owner acts as an equal with all the other team members to determine how best to produce a high quality result, or when the result will be completed as appropriate.

To be crystal clear about what mode the business owner is in – boss or team member – he or she may use a special name, put on a particular hat, etc. or simply say: “As the boss I need...” or “As a team member I propose...”

Needless to say, this special case can add a layer of extra effort and confusion, and so we recommend the simplest scenario for teams that are just getting accustomed to using the Core Protocols for team building and operation. But if there is no choice, we have a number of ways of accomplishing the special case.

If you already are knowledgeable about the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams – the Core Protocols – then you can see how this boss / team model works.

If not, then you will probably have many more questions on how this model can possibly work! So please send in your questions via the comments section below or @ReevesResults on Twitter.

Leadership 13

You can't beat having your own coach, soul-mate, and historian right at your finger tips. And it's wonderful when she – Vickie Gray, www.adaptivecoach.com – throws a wrench into my half baked thinking about Servant-Leadership with one comment.

Like: I think servant-leadership is attempting to solve an issue with authority.

Ooops! Another solution for symptoms – not the cause?

Let's continue the investigation on Servant-Leadership then and see what we can find.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Greenleaf

"Larry Spears ( in the “Ten Characteristics of the Servant-Leader” ) distills Greenleaf’s (1977/2002) instrumental means into ten characteristics: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (pp. 3-6). It is important to note that these characteristics are not simply traits or skills possessed by the leader; a century of research has rejected what Bass and Stogdill (1990) referred to as an “approach [that] tended to treat personality variables in an atomistic fashion, suggesting that each trait acts singly to determine the effects of leadership” (p. 87).

"Rather, servant-leadership is an ethical perspective on leadership that identifies key moral behaviors that leaders must continuously demonstrate in order to make progress on Greenleaf’s (1977/2002) “best test.” The “best test,” which gives us the ethical ends for action, combined with Spears’ distillation of traits that identified the means, create a powerful framework for a review of the literature that furthers the conceptual framework for servant-leadership.

"That person is sharply different from one who is leader first... The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant first to make sure that other people's highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and the most difficult to administer, is this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?"

As Vickie and I discussed the evolution of leadership thinking that got Greenleaf and Spears to the servant-leader concept and traits, the question became: What prompted all this?

If we take the idea at face value, it all seems quite nice, and perhaps too idealistic. I know I haven't encountered one of these animals personally. Mohandas Ghandi is the best candidate I can think of.

But if we consider the historical context of leaders, rulers, kings, princes, generals, etc. behaving in their own best interests, using their position to exercise power, and that leading to excesses of manipulation, subjugation, even slavery, the need for a kinder, gentler approach becomes clear.

Even in the lightest case of employees working for a domineering boss, the concept and traits of servant-leadership become appealing.

But not necessarily for everyone.

• Some are very content to be led, directed, told what to do.
  
• Some are looking for strong leadership in the form of an appealing vision – a picture of the future.
  
• Some want a clear course of action laid out in a mission statement.
  
• Some want the bounded responsibilities of specific tasks that don't include tactical or strategic thinking.
  
• Some want a well defined “day job” that lets them have a life of their own outside of work.
• Some don't want the boss asking them their opinion.

The point that Vickie and I got to was: In reaction to absolute power corrupting absolutely (or less disturbing versions of that), servant-leadership makes sense.

But the servant-leader traits listed should be part of any leaders behaviours because it simply just makes sense. They are the smart things to do. They get the best results.

And for more reasons than we might recognize on the surface.

From: http://www.greenleaf.org/whatissl/MargaretWheatley.html
Margaret Wheatley gave a talk on “The Work of the Servant Leader” at the 1999 conference. In her talk, which was published in Focus on Leadership, she said:

"There are many patterns, many beliefs, out there about leadership, about people, about motivation, about human development. The essential truth I’m discovering right now is that when we are together, more becomes possible. When we are together, joy is available. In the midst of a world that is insane, that will continue to surprise us with new outrages…in the midst of that future, the gift is each other. We have lived with a belief system that has not told us that. We have lived with a belief that has said, ‘We’re in it for ourselves. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there. Only the strong survive and you can’t trust anybody.’ That’s the belief that’s operating in most organizations if you scratch the surface. The belief that called you to be a servant-leader, I believe, is the belief of who we are as a species. We have need for each other. We have a desire for each other, and, more and more, I believe that if the real work is to stay together, then we are not only the best resource to move into this future—we are the only resource….We need to learn how to be together: that is the essential work of the servant-leader."

I like letting Margaret Wheatley have the last word.

Leadership 12

Luke Schubert, Adelaide, Australia asks:
“Have you mentioned servant leadership in this series yet? That's a concept that interests me. Listening to others is a fundamental part of authentic leadership IMHO.”

In further conversations Luke said, “If I remember correctly, servant leadership starts with serving - working out what the needs of others are and how to meet them. Similar to the Alignment protocol [from the Core Protocols] though maybe from a different angle. Perhaps the motivation is different from conventional leadership as well. I was thinking that it lined up with Authentic Leadership as you described it in a few ways but hadn't thought about specifics.”

Thanks Luke (beauty, mate)!

Since, for Christians Jesus is the exemplary Servant-Leader, the Christmas season seemed a good time to get to this question.

Luke and I both went off to research more on this topic and met at the same places from which I have extracts below.

Before we even get to them it's important to distinguish between what I'll call “assigned” or “conferred” leadership – as a CEO or prime minister or boss – and Authentic Leadership as previously discussed – where any one can adopt leadership behaviours based on passion and taking responsibility.

The distinction between them is important to better understanding the notion of Servant-Leadership. One way to clarify the distinction is to see the “assigned” leader as a structural position – a job – where one may or may not exhibit leadership behaviours. I think this is often the cause of confusion between the descriptors “leader” and “manager” and their actions. The positions and behaviours of leaders and managers get muddled in many discussions, blogs, and instances of expectations not met.

I've covered this before in prior blogs; however, the key point is that a position alone does not guarantee, nor does it prevent, the desired behaviours. The concept of a role taken on being a different thing than a position or job assigned is at the heart of keeping the words, and hence the thinking, straight. Using that foundation, one can more readily see how Authentic Leadership is about a role assumed and behaviours demonstrated rather than a title or position conferred.

So a management position is different from a leadership position, and a person in either, or neither, position may demonstrate leadership behaviours.

And all of this preamble plays into what Luke and I found on servant leadership.

At http://www.greenleaf.org/ Luke found:

The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions' (Addressing the motivation of leaders ...)

Here the extract is differentiating between one aspiring to lead through a desire to serve (adopting a role) and one who is “leader first” (by virtue of their position).

Luke continues:
“Maybe the connection between this and authentic leadership as you define it is that they're both "emergent and spontaneous" - not formal or authoritarian. Perhaps servant leadership addresses a different aspect of leadership, more the emotional and social side ... (Which I think the Core Protocols also address)”

And, yes, the adoption of the leadership role is emergent – not formalized – because I have inserted the word “role”. As to the emotional and social side, more later.

Turning to Wikipedia, I found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership:

The modern servant leadership movement was launched by Robert K. Greenleaf in his 1970 with his essay, “The Servant as Leader,” in which he coined the terms “servant-leader” and “servant leadership.”

The general concept is ancient. Chanakya wrote, in the 4th century B.C., in his book Arthashastra:

“the king [leader] shall consider as good, not what pleases himself but what pleases his subjects [followers]” “the king [leader] is a paid servant and enjoys the resources of the state together with the people.”

This matches a teaching from Laozi (Lao-tzu) in the Dao (Tao):

The ideal ruler restrains his desires, doesn't codify his own subjective standards of right and wrong, and treats all people with goodness and sincerity*

Aha! The wisdom of history pokes its head up. Time to turn to my coach, soul-mate, and historian, Vickie. And that generated a conversation that sharpened my thinking, provided more insights, and will start my next blog as we continue on Servant-Leadership.

*The Tao Speaks translated by Brian Bruya, Doubleday, New York (1995)

Leadership 11

A comment from last week's blog “Leadership 10” from Pixie Stevenson, www.enigmawellness.com:

“Are you saying you wish the paradigm of formal leadership would change to authentic leadership?

What I meant in my last comment is that leadership is also a part of the organic, evolutionary, and every expanding process of life.

Have there been cycles in leadership? Is the current formal leadership a relic from the past that is now suffering the labor pains and transition of birth into authentic leadership? Are you midwifing a new era of leaders?”

Pixie; thanks again for your comment – let's continue the discussion. :)

“Are you saying you wish the paradigm of formal leadership would change to authentic leadership?”

I believe we need both, and realistically it is unlikely that those in formal leadership positions would simply fade away. Nor should they. What I am advocating is that formal leaders recognize, and take advantage of, is the phenomenon of emergent and spontaneous leadership. That can occur

• by recognizing their own passion and responsibility that might be part of their formal assignment – why they are in their current leadership assignment – or might be in addition to their formal assignment, and / or
• by relinquishing their presumed need or task of maintaining control and being charge and letting someone else's passion and responsibility for action take over

The key is to allow both to operate as required to get the job done; i.e. move toward the shared vision.

“Have there been cycles in leadership? Is the current formal leadership a relic from the past that is now suffering the labor pains and transition of birth into authentic leadership? Are you midwifing a new era of leaders?”

I'm not qualified to speak to historical cycles; however, others have written, for example, about forms of “tribal” behaviour, and self organizing systems where leadership occurs outside of our commonly held model of organizational strata. The message here again is that while a hierarchical structure continually evolves to determine the “pecking order” - the formal leader being the one currently most dominant – that structure co-exists with spontaneous leadership emerging from any member. And the hierarchical structure is also fluid over time as the dominance of any individual ascends and wanes.

It may be that our current dependence upon the formal leader model is a carry over from the World Wars. To mobilize and direct armies, materials production, and countries, formal leaders were needed to provide clarity of purpose, consistency of message, a rallying point for focused effort. We sought out those who would carry us forward up the hill, or over the cliff, in a very directive, black and white, manner.

Similarly today, we look for those who offer to lead us out of the quagmire of difficult, unsolved problems. That makes it easier for us: follow the strong formal leader and sidestep our responsibility. If their solution works, we win by tagging along, and if not then push them aside and look for the next hopeful candidate.

So, in my view, today's focus and dependence upon the formal leader is a carry over from the recent past. Or more precisely, we have experienced success and comfort with that model and so continue to endorse it. And because we gravitate to the simple answer, the short version of the story, the sound-bite, we ignore the authentic leadership that was happening simultaneously through that history. The formal leaders – Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin – were the rallying points, but they engaged others who emerged according to their passions and desire to exercise their responsibilities.

It seems to me that both models were operational then, and continue to be today. The challenge for us is the mind shift from an exclusive “either / or” perspective to an “inclusive” perspective where both models are necessary and co-exist. And instead of the “hero worship” of the formal leader as saviour, we recognize that the norm, the natural or default model has been, and should continue to be, authentic leadership through passion and responsibility.

But, darn it! - that requires work and engagement on our part. We can't just simply leave leadership to others to do it for us. We can't just hide in our cubbyholes, and daily routines.

We have to think, expend energy, act.

We have to determine our passion and take responsibility.