The Journey From Hard-Headed to Tough-Minded Leadership
Note From Rand
This month’s “Real Deal” is a bit of a departure. As I’ve previously mentioned (ad nauseam), I have two books coming out in the next several months. The second one, my solo effort tentatively titled Redefining Type A — I’ve learned that until the first copy is printed everything is tentative — will be out by the end of the first quarter of next year. Right now, my contract attorney, Henry Clarke, and I are reviewing the contract language, not a big deal but a long deal. Also, Robyn Spizman (with the publishing house) and I are debating alternative subtitles for the book. (Does anyone have any novocaine??) This is an important, if tedious, exercise. Robyn is simply the best in the business at book marketing, and I’ve learned just how critical title selection is. Go into an airport bookstore and see which business titles grab and shake you; you’ll see what I mean.
The first book, Stepping Stones to Success, will be published in a couple of months. An anthology, it’s comprised of chapters from a lot of well-known contributors. David Wright, the publisher, has given me permission to print one chapter in this newsletter.
Rather than including the entire piece herein, however, I’m making you do some work. I’ve included the book cover and the first few pages of a chapter entitled “The Journey from Hard-Headed to Tough-Minded Leadership.” It’s an interview with me by the publisher. With all due humility, you’ll like it.
Until next time, get real, get tough and get going! Go Redskins!!
The Journey From Hard-Headed to Tough-Minded Leadership
Following is an excerpt from an interview I did with David Wright, publisher of Insight Publishing. This is the second time David and I sat down for a discussion on my management and leadership philosophies.
David Wright (Wright)
Today we’re talking with Rand Golletz. As an executive coach, consultant, speaker, and author, Rand brings something unique to his profession. He’s been a CEO, the Chief Marketing and Sales Officer of a Fortune 100 company, and the practice leader of a worldwide consultancy. Rand’s value proposition can be summarized by saying, “He’s been there and done that.”
Rand works with corporate leaders and business owners to develop the characteristics of what he calls “tough-minded leadership.” This is his second collaboration for Insight Publishing. The last, Blueprint for Success, was published in 2008. His solo book effort, Redefining Type A, is currently being edited for publication in 2010.
Rand, welcome—or should I say “welcome back!”? How have you been, what have you been doing and, more specifically for our readers, what have you been thinking about?
Rand Golletz (Golletz)
Actually, one thing that’s been consuming me since we talked for the Blueprint book is helping organizations do a better job of leveraging their leadership strengths. That includes helping leaders identify and develop them into über strengths, accepting the notion that there’s no such thing as a perfectly well-rounded leader (that’s a difficult proposition, by the way). I’ve also been helping both companies and their leaders configure their strengths in ways that give them the best opportunity to win.
Wright
So, if I heard you correctly, Rand, including what you’re not saying, you think the traditional path to developing talent—identifying weaknesses and developing them into strengths—isn’t the way to go. True?
Golletz
Now that I’ve opened that can of worms, let’s deal with the worms. First, I have created “rules” (if you will) for developing leaders that serve as the entry point for my discussions with prospective clients—leaders in large organizations. The rules comprise my governing beliefs about leadership development. Here’s the first one:
You must accept that you are not equally and infinitely capable of all things.
Wright
Okay, let’s stop there, Rand. Are you saying that someone who is not a good people manager won’t become a good people leader?
Golletz
Not exactly. Here’s what I am saying. Someone who’s not a good people leader (and by the way, that category needs to be defined more precisely to have any hope of working with it) might become a better people leader than he or she is. But the likelihood of taking a guy like “Chainsaw” Al Dunlop—the CEO accused of driving Sunbeam into the ground—and turning him into Mother Teresa is slim. So I’m not saying you shouldn’t try to improve in areas of weakness, only that you will not get your best leverage there.
As a strategic matter, the quickest road to success is to apply one’s strengths to opportunities that present themselves. That occurs when leaders make decisions about where to focus their company’s resources—all of them, including time, talent, and money.
Leaders accepting that they’re not capable of all things begins with how parents raise their children. Parents often drill into their kids’ heads the notion that they can be anything they want to be. If they truly want their children to be the best they can be, that premise is simply untrue. At a fairly early age, kids telegraph what they’re good at and what they love doing—and they’re generally the same things, by the way. Unfortunately, parents and school systems do their best to turn kids with specialties into uninspired generalists. Here’s a fresh way to think about this: To be successful in business, you must at least have acceptable, baseline levels of capability in a variety of areas. You must know, however, where your strengths are. From there, you do your best to create opportunities to exploit your strengths while limiting the exposure of your weaknesses in critical situations. Therefore, my second “rule” is this:
You must understand your strengths and weaknesses in a precise and granular way. Knowing them starts with feedback.
Wright
I’ve heard you say before that “feedback is the breakfast of champions.” You’re not telling me now that feedback is useless, are you, Rand?
Golletz
No, I’m not, David. I want to convey that much of the feedback obtained in the interest of personal development today is a complete waste of time. Let me explain. Most of the companies I work with use a formal 360-degree feedback process with their executives. Some are “off-the-shelf” processes, some are custom-designed, and many combine the two. What’s the problem? Many of these processes ask well-meaning but generic questions. What’s the result? They generate well-meaning but generic answers.
Wright
Can you give our readers an example of these questions and answers?
Golltez
Sure. I recently worked with an executive who had been through a written 360-degree feedback process. In addition to having a “check-the-box” exercise for providing feedback, people also had ample opportunity to write in narrative insights. One of them wrote: “John (the leader) does not collaborate very well. Unless he learns this vital skill, I believe that his promotional opportunities will be very limited.”
Wright
I get the feeling you believe that the feedback wasn’t very useful.
Golletz
I’ll go you one step better, David. It was completely useless! Here’s why: It’s imprecise and unactionable. The word “collaborate” is too lofty and too generic a word. When I think of that word, more specific words come to mind that describe collaboration—like “negotiate,” “compromise,” “influence,” and twenty or thirty others. All are part of collaboration and would do a better job of describing the potential development opportunities for John than “collaborate.” Each of those words can then be broken down into even more precise and finite descriptions.
