The Certainty of Ambiguity in Leadership

This post is a refreshed version of one written originally in  June, 2009.

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

Anyone who has ever been in a leadership role for longer than, oh, five minutes, knows that leadership is not a prescriptive thing.  As simple as we try to make it with lists of the ten top things to do here or the best five things to do there, it remains rife with complexity.

Part of this complexity lies in the many roles leaders must undertake that, while necessary, seem incompatible with one another.

Here are some examples:

Being conceptual and Tactical

As a leader, it is important for you to be able to rise above the day-to-day mechanics of your operation so you can see where it is all going. This is about having a vision and ideas that give purpose to the work.

There is, however, a limit on the amount of time you should spend at thirty thousand feet without coming down to the ground and working with people to ensure that plans are developed in line with the vision and specific actions are taken to bring it to life.

Leaders who dwell in the land of ideas too long tend to accomplish very little. Alternately, those who keep their noses to the grindstone and never get off the ground might accomplish a lot but chances are, it will be a lot of the wrong thing.

Being a Leader and a Manager

Some people believe that leadership and management are two separate jobs. From where I sit, they’re not.  Both roles belong in the leader’s virtual backpack. Confusion often raises its quizzical head, though, when deciding what to manage; what to lead; and when.

A simple rule of thumb is that you manage things and lead people. However, to add complexity to the mix, you also manage events and happenings that involve people. And that means you must be prepared to manage conflict and other situations that could potentially get in the way of accomplishing the work.

Being a Leader and a Follower

Opportunities for people to show leadership, regardless of their formal status in the organization, are everywhere.  It is a wise leader who will recognize this and make room for it when it serves the organization and supports its goals.  The trick is in knowing when it is appropriate to stand down and become a supportive follower.

In general, allowing someone else to take the lead is a good idea when:

S/he knows more about the specific work involved than you do or;

S/he has demonstrated more skill in a certain area than you have.

This doesn’t mean you abdicate your position.  It does mean that you are leading for a time, by following and supporting someone who can by leading, accomplish the goal better, faster or more efficiently than you can.

To do this effectively, you must first know your own strengths and limitations and also make it a priority to know the capabilities of the people who work with you.

Controlling and Empowering

We all know that empowering others to express themselves and make contributions to the organizational goals is key to creating vibrant, engaged, working environments. And, while this is a leadership responsibility, it is also the job of the leader to create a controlled atmosphere that connects to the demands and goals of the business.

This means finding a fine balance between being autocratic and being liberal. It is where having a fully activated set of organizational values and a comprehensive, well-articulated vision of the future come in handy. They form a framework within which people can be empowered to use their creative abilities and make contributions on their own terms.

There are many other situations where leaders are required to make choices between seemingly contradictory activities.  For instance, when would you encourage individual effort over team development? Under what circumstances might you favour an arbitrary decision over a democratic one?

What comes up for you?

Ambiguity in Leadership is a Certainty

Anyone who has ever been in a leadership role for longer than, oh, five minutes, knows that leadership is not a prescriptive thing.  As simple as we try to make it with lists of the ten top things to do here or the best five things to do there, it remains complex and full of paradox and ambiguity.  That’s what makes it the challenge it is.

Being in the leadership hot seat means that uncertainty will surely be your companion.  In fact, leaders have many roles that can seem incompatible with one another. And yet, they are all necessary parts of the overall function of every leadership position. There is nothing neat and tidy about them either.  These roles ebb and flow and leaders  must be flexible enough to roll with the tide.

Here are some leadership contradictions that come to mind for me.

Being conceptual and Tactical

It is important for leaders to be able to rise above the day to day mechanics of their operation so they can see where it is all going. This is about having a vision and ideas that give purpose to the work.

There is, however, a limit on the amount of time a leader should spend at thirty thousand feet, without coming down to the ground and working with people to ensure that plans are developed in line with the vision and specific actions are taken to bring it to life.

Leaders who dwell in the land of ideas too long tend to accomplish very little. Leaders who keep their noses to the grindstone and never get off the ground might accomplish a lot but chances are it will be a lot of the wrong thing.

Being a Leader and a Manager

Some people believe that leadership and management are two separate jobs. From where I sit, they’re not.  Both roles belong in the leader’s proverbial back pack. Confusion often raises its quizzical head, though, when we are deciding what to manage; what to lead; and when.

A simple rule of thumb is that leaders manage things and lead people. However, to add complexity to the mix, leaders also manage events and happenings that involve people and that means they must be prepared to manage conflict and other situations that could potentially get in the way of accomplishing the work.

Being a Leader and a Follower

Opportunities for people to show leadership, regardless of their formal status in the organization, are everywhere.  It is a wise leader who will recognize this and make room for it when it serves the organization and supports its goals.  The trick is to recognize when it is appropriate to stand down and become a supportive follower.

In general, allowing someone else to take the lead is a good idea when:

• s/he knows more about the specific work involved than you do or;
• s/he has demonstrated more skill in a certain area than you have.

This does not mean that you abdicate your position.  It does mean that you are leading for a time, by following and supporting someone who can take the lead and accomplish the goal better, faster or more efficiently than you can.

The bottom line here is that to do this effectively, you must:

• know your own strengths and limitations and;
• know the capabilities of the people who work with you

Controlling and Empowering

We all know that empowering others to express themselves and make contributions to the organizational goals is key to creating vibrant, engaged, working environments. And, while it is the leader’s job to do this, it is also his job to create a controlled atmosphere that connects to the demands and goals of the business.

This means finding a fine balance between being autocratic and being liberal. This is where having a fully activated set of organizational values and a comprehensive, well articulated vision of the future come in handy. They form a framework within which people can be empowered to use their creative abilities and make contributions on their own terms.

There are many other situations where leaders are required to make choices between seemingly contradictory activities.  For instance, when would you encourage individual effort over team development? Under what circumstances might you favour an arbitrary decision over a democratic one?

What comes up for you?

So, We All Agree?… Really?

Here’s the scenario.

You call a meeting to discuss a project. You gain full agreement from everyone on how you’re going to proceed. You adjourn the meeting feeling good about having been successful at getting everyone “on side“. And then you hear people on their way out of the room saying something like, “I’m really not sure this will work, but everyone else seemed to think it was a good idea so I went along”?

Ever happen to you?

Believe it or not, this particular frustration actually has a name.  It’s called The Abilene Paradox

The Abilene Paradox was introduced by Jerry B. Harvey.  It is essentially a story that demonstrates what can happen if we are not candid in sharing our views and opinions.  Here’s the quick version:

Four people are sitting comfortably on the porch of their home in Coleman, Texas.  One suddenly suggests that they take a trip to Abilene (which is about fifty miles north), for dinner.  A second one considers that the trip will be long and hot but doesn’t want to be the one to pour cold water on the idea and so agrees. A third simply says that it sounds like a great idea and when doubt is cast upon the willingness of the fourth person to go, this person responds indignantly with “of course I want to go!”

And so they pile into the car.  It is a hot and dusty trip.  When they arrive at the restaurant in Abilene, they order and eat a very mediocre meal after which they pile into the car again for the long and hot trip home.

When they arrive home, they are all exhausted. One admits that she would rather have stayed home.  This surprises the second one who confesses that the only reason he suggested it was because he thought the rest of the group might otherwise be bored. And, as the truth began to unfurl they learned that the trip they had just taken was one that no one really wanted take.

Sounds pretty implausible doesn’t it?  But it happens.

So, when you are sitting in a meeting with a bunch of other people, determining what course of action to take, what can you do to make sure that you’re  getting the benefit of authentic views and opinions?

Here are some of my thoughts about that:

• You can conduct meetings on the principle that “nobody gets to be wrong”.

This doesn’t mean, by the way, that you have to agree with everything everyone says.  It only means that if someone has something to say, they can feel confident that whatever it is, will not be instantly discounted or in any way disparaged.

• You can  appoint someone who is willing to be “devil’s Advocate” for the meeting.

The role of the devil’s advocate is to purposely bring up issues that might be at odds with the popular trend.  Often these are things that some people are thinking anyway but are reticent to bring out.

• You can share the “Abilene Paradox” anecdote with meeting participants before a meeting actually starts.  This, in addition to establishing other operating principles for the time participants are together, makes for an environment where people can feel comfortable speaking their minds.

• In addition to the “devil’s Advocate”, you can include the “voices” of the client, the employee and the shareholder.  This often gives the propositions being tabled, a multi-dimensional perspective that ensures that all parties are heard from and the chances of “going to Abilene” are negligible.

The Abiliene Paradox points out to me that it is just as important to manage agreement as it is to manage disagreement.

What do you think?

To Lead is also to Follow

I asked a question the other day and that was, “At what point does a leader lead by following?”

One response, from Susan Mazza (check out Susan’s Blog, Random Acts of Leadership here) is that leaders follow when they want to empower others to lead.  And that, I think is one of the paradoxical things about leadership.  Sometimes, to lead is also to follow.

But what does it actually look like? And, what does it take?

The other evening, I was watching one of my favourite TV shows, NCIS.  I love it because the dynamics of the team of NCIS agents is so full of energy.  The seriousness and gravity of their work is wonderfully offset by a lighthearted banter, a lot of mischief and loyalty to each other that transcends words.

In this show, it is clear who the boss is. Jethro Leroy Gibbs brings his marine training to the team.  He runs a tight ship and everyone calls him “Boss” His leadership style is pace-setting. He expects the highest level of performance from everyone at all times.  He drives them, challenges them and fiercely defends them. You simply don’t mess with Gibbs.

And yet, the other night, Gibbs gave over the leadership of the team to one of his agents, Tony DiNozzo and became a team member.  Tony had knowledge of the case that he did not and so he said simply, “Your case, your lead…Boss”

Here is that portion of the episode that illustrates the power of leading by following. Watch it to the end and see what you think.  To me, there are no grand gestures, only a simple acknowledgement, in a lot of little ways, that the leadership has shifted from one person to the other.  DiNozzo steps forward and begins to take on the leadership mantle.  Gibbs steps back and participates with the team. That, I think is often what it looks like if approached well.  There is no fanfare or great speech. One simply gives way to the other in service of getting the job done.

So what does it take? Okay, this is what I think it takes:

• Accurate knowledge of a person’s capabilities.  It stands to reason that it is unwise to throw the keys to the family car to someone who either doesn’t know how to drive or is always having accidents.  So, as a leader, it is important to be solidly aware of just what people are capable of doing.

• Ability to judge potential in others to do more. Part of a leader’s role is to observe and to listen to what the people around them are saying and doing.  Most people need encouragement and challenge before they can see that they are really capable of doing more.

• Courage to take risk. Not everything works out the way we imagine and so there is an element of risk to standing back and giving the job of leadership to someone else.

• Enough humility to set aside the ego in service of something greater. This can be a toughie.  The ego does not take kindly to playing second fiddle, but sometimes following someone else’s lead produces a better result and it is the quality of the result that ultimately matters to good leaders.

What do you think it takes?  What are your experiences with leading by following?  What have I missed?