Leadership and Common Sense

Once in a while I have a little rant.  This one happened in 2010 but, in my observation anyway, it continues to have some relevance and so I offer it as a re-rant.  Don’t worry.  It’s a short one…probably the best kind.

====================================================

Oliver Wendell Holmes has been credited with saying; “Science is a first-rate piece of furniture for a man’s upper chamber, if he has common sense on the ground floor.

 Just lately, I’m thinking that our “ground floor” is beginning to suffer from termites.  Perhaps it is that in this age of information, litigation, and personal rights, we have stopped trusting our deeper instincts about what is right.  And, in many circles, we fail to acknowledge the value of common sense in our decision-making practices.

In 1998, Lori Borgman wrote an article called The Death of Common Sense. Here is an excerpt

Common Sense, aka C.S., lived a long life, but died from heart failure at the brink of the millennium. No one really knows how old he was, his birth records were long ago entangled in miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape. 
Known affectionately to close friends as Horse Sense and Sound Thinking, he selflessly devoted himself to a life of service in homes, schools, hospitals and offices, helping folks get jobs done without a lot of fanfare, whooping and hollering. Rules and regulations and petty, frivolous lawsuits held no power over C.S. (Read more…)

Like me, you may have read this passage and nodded reverently at its wisdom.  And yet it seems so many of us continue to ignore its message and devalue the power of trusting ourselves, and each other, to come up with ideas and solutions that transcend tight-fitting structures, intractable thinking and rules that serve only to strangle growth and creativity

But, in the midst of this rather gloomy outlook, there is hope.  Common sense, at least in the corporate world, may only be in a coma.  There are some very smart people out there who see something greater and more meaningful than the structures we create.  They are people who champion the notion that neither ideas nor humans can be corralled into little boxes of rules or stereotypes for very long.  They value, promote and initiate change that invites collaboration, creativity, engagement, happiness and yes, common sense into the workplace.

It would be wiser to listen to them, and to our own instincts more often than to seek solutions from books of rules or complicated business models.

If you are a leader, the answers you seek are often inside you.  You will not find them in the detail of anyone’s position description.  You will not find them in complicated competency models that not even a super-hero could fulfill.  You will not find them in sophisticated performance evaluation processes.  They are available to you through your intrinsic sense of what is right and your willingness to listen to others and the collective voice of common sense.

That’s what I think anyway.  What do you think?

When the Grasshopper Teaches the Master

This post, from January 2010, is about the importance of being open to learning from those we might traditionally expect to teach.

====================================================

My son has been helping me learn more about Social Media.  He is the one who turned me on to the joys of blogging.  He helped me get started on Twitter too.   As a person with a degree in New Media, he is almost evangelical about the advantages and benefits of social networking. It is the way of the future, he says.  I believe him.  And, I know there is so much more that he can teach me.

Thinking about this more, and in the context of leading organizations, there is a lot to be said for learning from younger people. While we veterans can teach the invaluable lessons of the past, they can teach us the path to the future.  And that is worth paying attention to.

For instance, people of my generation often grapple with the wonders of technology with varying degrees of success.  Some of us are totally immersed and intrigued by what can be accomplished in a wireless world, (including all the cool toys that come along with it). Others of us are hard pressed to know how to turn on our computers, if indeed we even own one.   But, no matter where we are on the technology learning curve, the one thing we know for sure is that to learn it, we have to consult those who have the skill and it’s highly doubtful that we will find this expertise in people older than ourselves.

That’s why I like the idea of mentorships in organizations working both ways.

It should be pretty simple really.

Take young Person A, who knows about something and put him or her together with older Person B who doesn’t know much at all about that particular something. Then let the learning begin.

All right, so it’s not that simple

People of the older generation… well, we have our pride.  We like the idea of mentoring someone younger because it seems to us to flow with the accepted order of things…  you know, the Master and Grasshopper type of relationship.   However, when it is the Grasshopper doing the teaching, it can make us feel somehow redundant, even stupid and that’s not something one willingly puts a hand up for.

Alternately, people of a younger generation may not see the benefits of slowing down to help us older ones learn things that are, to them, elementary my dear Watson. They may also feel they are carrying a load for someone who might even make more money than they do and from whom they see no reciprocal reward.  There’s not much fun in that either.

So to begin with, I think that a successful Young master/Old Grasshopper relationship needs to begin with an attitude check on both sides.

And you spell that R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Of course along with that has to come a certain measure of empathy that allows the older to appreciate the skills and knowledge of the younger; and the younger to give credence to the lessons that only an older generation can teach.

With that established, I can think of a few practical steps that might help the Young Master/ Old Grasshopper set off on the road to building a mutually rewarding relationship.  Here they are:

Determine a skill base line

There is nothing more counterproductive, or annoying, than making assumptions about what a person knows or does not know.  Spending a little time determining current skill levels within the context of the subject matter is a good use of time.

Take time to set some goals

Technology, for instance, encompasses a huge body of knowledge.  To make some headway and avoid being overwhelmed, discuss what you want to be able to do and how it might benefit your work before you start tackling applications that may, or may not, move you in the right direction.  Goals will also give you benchmarks against which you can monitor progress.  There is something very satisfying about that for both parties in the relationship.

Establish good communication habits

For the most part this means speaking plainly; being truthful; and regularly checking for understanding.

Have Fun

Working with someone to learn something new and seeing that new thing being applied in real time is exciting!  Enjoy the journey and the person with whom you are taking it and my hunch is, you will both profit from the experience.

That’s what I think anyway.  What do you think?

Leadership and the Anatomy of a Good Apology

John Wayne, (or one of his many characters), once said, “ Never apologize, Mister. It’s a sign of weakness”

He may have been right in many things but in this, he was mistaken.  Apologies, the good kind, take a lot of courage and humility to pull off.   There is nothing weak about that.

But what constitutes a good apology? And, what can we expect when we make it?  Here’s what comes to mind for me.

A good apology starts with the right motivation ~ The most sincere reason for making an apology is simply to express deep regret and a desire to make a wrong, right again.  Anything else, like apologizing because doing so will make us feel better, is not much of an apology at all.

A good apology involves exposure and vulnerability …our own.  Apologizing well means that we have to lay aside all of our ‘built-in’ protective devices.  In other words, an apology accompanied by an excuse or a deflection of blame isn’t going to cut it.  To make it real, we have to reveal ourselves as the imperfect beings we are.  That’s the scary part.

A good apology includes willingness to make amends ~ We can’t unsay hurtful words or undo hurtful actions.  But if we show intent to listen and make an effort to repair the damage we’ve caused, the possibility of restoring trust is that much greater.

Of course offering an apology, even a good one, is only the beginning.

So what can we realistically expect from those to whom we apologize?  Well, here it is in one word.

Nothing.

We can expect nothing because those who hear our apology have the right to decide how they are going to respond to it. Chances are, if it is offered sincerely and with genuine intention to make amends, the work of reparation can begin.  But there are no guarantees.  Sometimes we simply have to learn to live with the knowledge that we have inflicted a hurt for which we are not forgiven…and accept the consequences that come out of that.

Having said that, I can think of two things we can expect from the process of rebuilding a broken trust

It will take a long time ~ There are no quick fixes here.  Rebuilding trust requires consistent proof through word and deed that re-establishing damaged relationships is a priority. It takes patience and consistent effort.  And, it is not for the offender to say when it’s over.

Those who offend are never in the position to choose the depth or breadth of their consequences. ~ For instance, during Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, he said, “I deserve to be punished.  I’m not sure I deserve the death penalty”

To me,  whatever his punishment, it is not up to Mr. Armstrong to decide its nature or severity. His apology is only a good one if he is willing to let go of control and accept whatever consequences come from his offence.  I think that’s true for the rest of us too.

=======================================================

The Bottom Line

If you are a human being, at some point you will have said or done something for which you need to apologize.   If you are a leader of other human beings, this will be especially true because, like or not, you are a role model and as such, the magnifying glass is on you.  So, when you mess up, the apology needs to be a good one.

That’s what I think anyway.  What do you think?

Leadership and Breaking the Rules

This post is a refreshed version of one I wrote in 2010.  While I’m not among those who believe rules are made to be broken, I do think some of us have a nasty habit of clinging to them long after they have passed their “sell by” date.  So here is my perspective on rules, along with a couple of things to think about before deciding to break them.

==========================================================

I think we can agree that one of the key attributes for successful leaders today is the ability to adapt quickly to new situations.   We may also agree that in order for society to function in a reasonably harmonious way, there must be rules.

And there are all kinds of them.

In general, rules are put in place to ensure personal safety and to keep things in balance.  They are also imposed to provide structure in organizational settings that support the work and build a broad framework within which individuals are free to operate and contribute.

Some people are of the opinion that rules are made to be broken.  In fact, they are so convinced of this, they see no point in learning them in the first place.  The resulting behaviour from this laissez-faire approach is a kind of chaos that tends to serve no one in the end.  It lacks maturity and I hazard to say, increases, rather than diminishes, the need for more rules.

But sometimes rules really do only serve to get in the way.

In a world where improvisation is key to success, yesterday’s rules can be today’s impediment.  Old rules often slow the flow of progress, sometimes down to a trickle.  They stifle creativity and innovation.  And they create roadblocks to the implementation of needed change.  From this perspective, I think it safe to say that the work of leadership includes breaking rules.

But before we go off and begin declaring war on rules, I think we need a few, um, rules, to ensure that the breaking process provides as great an opportunity for a positive result as possible.

To start with, I can think of two rules that work for me:

First, before eliminating or dismissing existing rules, seek to understand why they were made in the first place.

It is pretty easy to make assumptions about why rules were made but before completely eliminating them, I think it wise to question their initial purpose.  If that purpose is no longer relevant, then throwing them out is probably a good thing.

And second, be prepared to accept the consequences that may come from circumventing or defying rules

There is always the chance that circumventing a rule can cause grief for someone else, somewhere else in the organization or outside it.  Breaking an established rule usually comes with a measure of risk.  As they often say in retail stores about handling merchandise, “ If you break it you own it”. Owning our choice to break rules in service of facilitating change is, I think, part of being a responsible leader

So, having said all of that, I have a confession to make.  I am an inveterate rule follower.  It was ingrained in me as a child to be good… to follow the rules.  And yet, in my growing, (ahem), maturity I really see the need to continually question rules that make no sense to me.  After all, most rules are conceived and administered by people. And most will come to a place where they are no longer useful or relevant to our lives or businesses.

If we are to encourage the innovators of our time we must also accept that rules should be subject to rigorous question and challenge. Settling for something because that’s the rule or that’s the way it is, is simply not good enough.   If we doubt it, we just have to reflect on the accomplishments of people like Nelson Mandela, Dr Emily Stowe, Rosa Parks and people like Richard Branson and Anita Roddick, each of whom defied convention, broke rules and challenged the status quo, sometimes at great personal cost.

Rules are meant to serve us, not the other way around. And so, if we are to adapt to new and changing circumstances quickly we must also have the courage to break a few rules along the way.

That’s what I think anyway.  What do you think?

Communication: Four Occasions When It’s Best to Keep Quiet

Will Rogers once said, “Never miss a good chance to shut up”.

I think he has a point. Rarely though, do we consider that effective communication also means keeping quiet.   And yet, nothing can be more effective in reaching understanding than a well-placed pause, a time when we step back and listen, not only to others but also to ourselves.

It’s a discipline I think all leaders need to develop.  But first we have to be able to readily recognize when we are talking too much and listening too little and, as a result, eroding the depth and importance of our conversations.

So when might that happen to you? Well, I can think of a few occasions when it might and here they are:

When you’re angry ~(Subtext: I’m mad so I’m going to vent all over you so that I can feel better).

Anger sometimes compels us to put the mouth in gear before the brain has had time to process what’s going on. And that can make a bad situation worse.

Being on the receiving end of someone’s flare-up is also very off-putting and a sure-fire way of shutting down lines of communication altogether.

When you’re tempted to say any old thing to fill a void ~ (Subtext: I’m uncomfortable so I’m going to say something because somebody has to!)

Silence can be cringe-worthy.   For instance, in a meeting you put an idea up for discussion; you ask for some thoughts … and nothing happens. But, if you start talking just to relieve the tension, chances are, you are missing an opportunity to hear from someone who simply needs a little time to process the information before sharing his or her opinion.  So, tolerating pauses, pregnant or otherwise, could be a very positive discipline to develop.

When you’re convinced of your ‘rightness’ ~ (Subtext: I’m right and I’m going to keep on talking until you agree with me).

Sometimes we can fall in love with our own ideas so much that we make no space for the possibility that we may be wrong.  Clinging to a position and arguing its virtues can be great fun but if we are not willing to listen to others’ perspectives and soften the edges of our views in the face of new information, we become a roadblock to progress.

When you realize you don’t really know what you’re talking about ~ (Subtext: I’m lost but I’ll look like a fool if I stop talking now.)

Every once in a while I will embark on a line of conversation… and then lose the thread.  Instead of stopping to get re-focused, I will keep talking in the hope that eventually, I’ll get to the point.  I don’t think I’m particularly unique in this.  When it happens, it’s embarrassing but frankly so is taking people on a meander that you didn’t intend.  As for me, I find it helps to simply stop, mid-ramble, and admit that I have no idea where I was going.  We all have a laugh and get to move on to something more productive.

There is of course a common theme running through the occasions I’ve described.  Each of them is a self-indulgent response.  In communication, as in leadership, self-indulgence will get in the way of success every time.

That’s what I think anyway.  What do you think?

Leadership and the Magic of Remembering

This is a refreshed version of a post I wrote a few years ago.  It’s a simple story but I like to think its message bears repeating.

=============================================================

I often make reference to the importance of listening and how this enhances communication.  A lot of other people talk about it too.  And that’s a good thing. But I’m wondering, after we make the effort to listen, how much of what we hear do we actually remember when we’d like to or need to?

I must say my memory for some things is awful.  A little research has enlightened me however to the possibility that it doesn’t have to be awful as long as I give it some regular exercise.  So why would I want to?

Here’s why.  There is magic in remembering.

Many years ago, when I was working as a Personnel Officer in the Head office of a very large organization, I was invited to attend a breakfast and listen to the President  & Chairman of the Board, talk about our goals and challenges. The organization employed at that time, something in the neighbourhood of 35,000 people worldwide and so you can imagine that the goals and challenges were significant.

Before we sat down to breakfast the Chairman took a turn about the room, which was hosting about 350 people.  Quite by accident, he happened upon me.  I introduced myself and we talked for a very brief time.  And then he moved on.

We had breakfast and then the Chairman got up to speak.  He was eloquent in his description of the organizational goals and realistic when he described the challenges we faced.

And then it happened.  He said something like, “I was talking to Gwyn earlier and she reminded me of the importance of people to our organization”

Suddenly, I was no longer a blurred face in the crowd or a very small cog in a very large wheel.  I was important.  I was heard.  And I was included.

Remembering details, like people’s names, may seem like a small thing when you have so many other things competing for your time and attention.  But simple acts of acknowledgement are very powerful.  They make us want to participate.  They make us want to do better and be better.   And that is, to me at least, the essence of employee engagement.

Of course, it’s not just about remembering.  It’s about paying attention and about caring.  Without that, remembering becomes memorizing.  And, when that happens it loses its magic.

That’s what I think anyway.  What do you think?

p.s. Here, just for fun, is a little Sarah McLachlan.

6 Ideas About Creating Organizations That Value Ideas

John Cage once said, “I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas.  I’m frightened of the old ones”

This notion kind of struck me while I was watching a movie about Charles Darwin who had, and developed, one of the world’s biggest ideas, one that, even now, creates much spirited conversation.  I suppose in that context (and in those times) there may have been much to fear.  After all, Darwin’s big idea was one that challenged people to rethink their whole existence.  Nonetheless, it was important to human growth and understanding to entertain it because without the exploration that comes from new ideas, I suspect we would simply all fade to black eventually… or die of boredom.

I think this is also true of business organizations.  Now, more than ever, businesses are having to rethink their product and how they deliver to market.  A number of longstanding companies who failed to do that are now either out of business or in some serious bother because, either in whole or in part, they have found themselves being outpaced by technology and consumer demand for ever evolving applications.

So, the question, (or at least one of them) is, how do we build organizations that actively value idea creation and development?

Some companies will say they have processes in place that encourage people to offer their ideas.  I would argue that creating mechanisms through which to feed ideas is not enough, no matter how sophisticated the process.

To really engage people in sharing and developing new ideas, I rather think we have to create cultures that will support it.  That’s a bit trickier.

So how might this be accomplished?  Well, I’m sure you have some thoughts about that.  Just to be going on with though, here are some of mine:

Give people the opportunity to deeply understand the purpose and vision of your organization.  ~ People who have a clear grasp of why their organizations are in business and what they hope to achieve in the future will tend to set their brains in that direction when searching for solutions to existing problems or anticipating future ones.  Perhaps too, they will be more likely to use their creative juices to pre-empt organizational issues before they arise.

Build a Safe Environment for Idea sharing ~ putting forth a new, possibly even bizarre idea takes a lot of courage.  People have to see the risk as one worth taking and operate in the knowledge that they will not be judged, derided or punished in any way for sharing their ideas.  Not all ideas are going to be good  but among them, there are bound to be some great ones that might not have surfaced if the working environment is such that it values censorship over creativity.

Learn to encourage and value diverse opinion ~ People look at things based on their own experiences and biases.   If we all thought alike or hired only people who thought like us, we would no doubt miss a great deal.  To generate ideas that are future oriented we must invite diversity into our conversations.  That means letting go of the reins of our own strongly held opinions long enough to listen to the possibility that there might be a better way.

Challenge ideas not people ~ While this is part of building a safe environment for ideas to be shared, in the heat of a moment, it is easy to slide criticism away from the idea and onto the one who brought it up so I think it bears repeating.

Acknowledge, Acknowledge and Acknowledge some more ~ Acknowledgement is integral to building an organization that values idea generation and development.  I think we all know that.  I’m just not sure how many of us provide it. It really doesn’t have to come in the form of fancy recognition programs.  It just has to be sincere and timely in its delivery.

Shift the perspective of knowledge as power~   We have become used to the notion that  knowledge is power so we’d better hang onto it.  So many of us are reluctant to share what we know because we fear loss of leverage of some kind.  In this new century though, the power comes from the collective.  Business success lies in our ability to collaborate, not hoard.   That means building organizations flexible enough, daring enough, strong enough and, perhaps even Darwinian enough to invite people to rethink their whole corporate existence and use the ideas that come from it to move them confidently into the future.

That’s what I think anyway.  What do you think?

 

Leadership Lessons From Gilbert & Sullivan

This is a refreshed version of a post written a couple of years ago. It reminds me that leadership can be found everywhere… and is necessary, no matter what your occupation.

============================================================================

Recently, I watched a movie called Topsy Turvy.  This 1999 production tells a story of Gilbert and Sullivan and the events that led up to the creation of The Mikado, a now much celebrated opera.

While I was watching, I began to see the fundamental elements of management and leadership at play and to appreciate that no matter the endeavour, the principles of both are ever present.

Here are some things I was reminded of:

People work best together when they sing from the same song sheet.

Throughout the movie it became clear to me that no matter what was going on, the values of civility, respect and dignity underscored everything.  The principal leaders of the company were unceasingly polite and respectful toward one another.  This, of course, might have been the Victorian times in which they lived, but it struck me that Gilbert and Sullivan as well as their business partner, D’Oyley Carte demonstrated these values consistently and effortlessly.  They set the tone for the rest of the company who followed suit without question.  And, I didn’t see a Values Statement hanging on a wall anywhere.

Outstanding productions require collaboration

Can you imagine what The Mikado might have sounded like if Gilbert had written the libretto and Sullivan, the music for it without consulting each other?…Something of a mess I shouldn’t wonder.  And yet, in so many organizations, one department will invariably act without consulting the other or a boss will make decisions without consulting the team.  The truth is, it is collaborative effort that brings a one-dimensional idea to life and helps it to stand the test of time.

Care about the players

The company of players was comprised of a mixed group of artists all with their own special talents, needs and idiosyncrasies.  Gilbert and Sullivan recognized that in order to get the best performance from each, they needed to understand their individual capabilities, strengths and limitations. They interacted with and encouraged both the principals of the production and members of the chorus to give what they knew them to be capable of giving.  And, they held each member to account for their behaviour and the quality of performance they delivered.

Examine The Performance

At the end of the evening’s performance and before anyone in the company was allowed to leave, Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte, the theatre manager, held a meeting.  At this meeting, they each discussed how the performance was executed from their own particular perspectives.  First, they talked about what went well, praised the performers and thanked them for their efforts.   Then, through discussion, they changed some things to enhance their overall performance the next time.   This is sometimes referred to as a post-mortem but whatever you call it, bringing the team together to discuss outcomes and changes, makes for a better result next time and also has a way of creating a feeling of solidarity among people.

Criticize the song, not the singer

At one point in the movie, Gilbert announces his intention to cut a song from the show.  There are sounds of disappointment among the company and sympathy expressed for the song’s performer.  The singer suggests to Mr. Gilbert that while he doesn’t consider himself a great singer, he believes that he could make a better effort.  Mr. Gilbert responds by saying something like, “Sir, you misunderstand. You performed eminently well.  It is the song that is bad”

Often, making the distinction between the thing that isn’t working and the person who is working it is very important.  There are of course times when the thing is perfectly good and the performance of the person needs some work, but that’s a different conversation.  The lesson for me here is that being clear about what we are criticizing avoids a great deal of confusion and unnecessary angst.

Cling to your own opinion at your peril

There is a great deal of sadness among the company when the song is cut from the show.  They all consider it a fine song and have empathy for the performer who continues to feel he has somehow failed.  As a consequence, a small group of players decide to approach Mr. Gilbert and ask him to consider re-instating the song.  This is something of a departure from normal custom in a patriarchal, benevolent dictatorship and yet this small group feels strongly enough to take a risk.  And so, in the presence of the entire company they present their case.

Mr. Gilbert remains quiet for some minutes.  He looks from one to the other earnest face and asks if the rest of the company agrees.  Aside from the company sycophant, who assures Mr. Gilbert that none of this was his idea, they unanimously reply, “Yes, we do!”

Mr. Gilbert then asks the song’s performer if he would be ready and willing to perform the song.  Again, he receives an affirmative reply.   Mr. Gilbert remains unconvinced that the song is good but believes in the opinion of his company and so he allows the song back into the performance. That evening, the song receives considerable accolades from the audience.

This reminds me of the critical importance of listening.   It also confirms that even the most brilliant among us is wrong sometimes.  Clinging stubbornly to our own opinions can be critically damaging.

That’s what I think anyway. What do you think?

Oh, and just for fun, here is the finale of the Mikado for your viewing pleasure.

Leadership Perceptions ~ Changing the Record

I read an interesting article last week that started me thinking about the messages we send out to our children concerning what it is to be a manager.  I was thinking too, or perhaps worrying, that in spite of herculean efforts on the part of many ‘experts’ to change the perception of what it takes to be a good manager, we seem to be failing to convey a more enlightened message than the one that prevailed at the beginning of the Industrial Age.

The Article, written by Hal Gregersen for Businessweek.com is entitled, “What Do Managers Do at Work? 

Gregerson and his colleague, Warner Woodworth, collected data from one thousand children between the ages of five and eighteen years old.  When asked, “What do Managers do at work?” the responses looked like this:

55%: Managers control people’s actions at work, making sure they do what they’re supposed to do when they’re supposed to do it.

39%: Managers fix problems at work, any problem (and more often than not, they fix every problem). 

6%: Managers develop people’s capabilities by coaching them to become better at what they do.

Less than 1%: Managers understand and serve customer needs. 

Less than 1%: Managers make a profit for their companies.”

While I don’t think the sample size here can wholly represent the perceptions of all children in the five to eighteen age range, it appears that among these 1,000 children, the perception of management remains largely entrenched in a command and control model.  And that is worrying enough to talk about.

For me, it begs the question: What must we do to change the record… to make sure upcoming generations of organizational leaders have the opportunity to think differently about the work of leadership and management long before they even get their first job?

It’s a big question.  I don’t have the answer…just a thought for now, which is this:

Changing the way we talk about our own work experience might provide an opportunity for the next generation to think about work differently, not necessarily how it is, but how it could be or how we want it to be. ~ If we think young people are not listening when we talk about our jobs, our bosses, or our employees, we would be wrong.   That means  our experiences around leadership, control, problem solving, idea-generation, diversity etc. are, almost always passed along and absorbed.

So, here are a few questions to ask ourselves that might help us to think differently; to change the conversation; and perhaps too, the perception of what a good manager does at work:

• What kind of boss would I like my daughter or son to be?
• In what way can I champion a positive and collaborative leadership model?
• Why is it important?
• What opportunities might I provide now that will help my children develop 21^st Century leadership skill?
• What kind of role model am I?

Alan Keightley said, “Once in a while it really hits people that they don’t’ have to experience the world in the way they have been told to”

With that in mind, I assert that our children do not have to experience organizational life in the same way so many of us do, or have done.  But, for a new vision of leadership to fully emerge, we have to start by breaking old patterns…and changing the record.

That’s what I think anyway. What do you think?

Putting the “Constructive” into Criticism

Winston Churchill once said; “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”

I really think this is a good way to look at it regardless of whether you are the criticism giver or receiver.  But, there is criticism… and then there is criticism.

Most leaders like to preface the word ‘criticism’ with the word ‘constructive’.  That makes its aim one of building rather than tearing down.  However, not all carry out the ‘constructive’ part well, which usually means the ‘criticism’ part is prone to cause an already “unhealthy state of things” to deteriorate even further.

So how do we make sure the criticism we deliver is going to be worthwhile for those on the receiving end to hear and consider?

Well, I think before we proceed to offer criticism, we must first put ourselves under some scrutiny by addressing our intent. For instance:

Why do I feel the need to criticize? ~ Criticizing constructively must carry with it an equally constructive purpose.  If, for instance, my criticism of you comes out of anger, frustration or another negative emotion then I’m using it to vent not to make things better.  So, first I must determine how my criticism might serve you in some way.

What, or who, am I concerned about? ~Similarly, if my criticism of you will make me feel better, then I’m probably doing it for the wrong reason.   Caring about people you lead often includes pointing out things to them that they cannot see for themselves.  In other words the focus of criticism needs to be on enlightenment not on wielding power over another.

Am I prepared to listen? ~ When we offer criticism it is usually because we have a concern about someone’s behaviour, performance, or both.  We draw conclusions based on what we observe, what we experience, and what others tell us.  However, to make criticism useful to people on the receiving end, they have to know that we are willing to hear from them too.  Otherwise the information on which we base our judgment will be incomplete and in danger of being wrong, misconstrued, rationalized away or ignored.

Once we are satisfied that our criticism carries with it a constructive intent, I also think it important to remember this:

Criticizing another person’s behaviour or performance is not a ‘fake it ‘til you make it’ proposition ~ There are many ways to offer constructive criticism.  Some people recommend beginning with something positive; moving on to the negative; and then finishing with something else positive (popularly known as the crap sandwich). I’m not a big fan of that because, even with the best of intent, using a prescribed method of delivery can come across as contrived, even condescending.

For me, sincerity is the only thing that matters, even if the delivery is a little rough.

Abraham Lincoln said, “ He has a right to criticize who has a heart to help”

To me, that says it all.  What do you think?