In today's issue
>> A note from Rand
>> Feature Article: Commitment vs. Compliance
>> Additional Thoughts: Character Counts
|
|
Note from Rand
|
|
I’m really gratified by your response to this publication. The distribution of this issue will be 30 percent higher than the first issue. That only happens when you share it with others who then decide to subscribe. Thanks!
One of my challenges with this publication is brevity. Distilling ideas that defy simple explanations isn’t easy. This month’s two topics are no exception. Organizations require the commitment of constituents to be successful. Most often, however, they’re satisfied with compliance. I examine those two alternatives and propose that the former is required for an organization to achieve its potential. In the second article, I discuss the importance of character for organizational leaders with the input of someone who knows.
I know you’re finalizing plans for next year. We’re doing the same. If your challenges include improving your organization’s performance to world-class levels, we’d love to discuss collaboration with you. Call us.
|
Feature Article: Commitment vs. Compliance — What's a CEO to do?
|
When Carly Fiorina became the CEO of Hewlett-Packard a few years ago, she lamented that the culture had become one in which “anyone can say 'no,' but nobody can say 'yes.'” How decisions are made is a significant part of any company’s culture. Like Ms. Fiorina, most executives of large and small companies wrestle with the priority of creating or changing their corporate cultures vis-à-vis decision making.
A number of years ago, as a senior executive of a financial services company, I undertook that challenge myself. The CEO, who was semi-retired, had previously made all of the firm’s important decisions himself. He also seemingly defined “important” as almost all of the company’s decisions, although he never explicitly articulated his criteria. Additionally, when someone else made a “bad” decision – any with which he disagreed – he punished the decision-maker. Sometimes, that punishment was financial. At other times, he quite literally ignored the executive for a period of weeks to “send him a message.” I realize that this is an extreme example, but it’s also true.
After I had worked for about three months to implement the necessary changes, the CEO confronted me after one of the other executives – a former direct report of his and a new direct report of mine - had made what I agreed was a questionable decision. My response to that decision was to have a discussion with the executive to uncover his thought process and to ask for his post-mortem assessment. The CEO’s input to me was to bang his fist on the desk and tell me what I should have done. He added, “Rand, this is not a democracy.” My initial impulse was to respond in kind; I didn’t. Instead, I asked if we could meet that afternoon in his office to discuss the matter in greater depth. I figured we could both use a cooling-off period. I also needed some time to craft an approach that would yield a productive discussion and a reasonable outcome.
I prepared as best I could. My approach to these kinds of sessions was generally to ask the other party a series of comments or questions, the answers to which would lead inexorably to the outcome I wanted. I started with, “I’m sure you believe that committed people perform better than compliant people, don’t you?” When he answered “yes,” I followed-up with, “ Do you believe that commitment is voluntary and that compliance, or obedience, is not. “ Again, he answered “yes.” I followed with: “I sense that we believe the same thing. I also sense that your problem is in getting there in a way that will preserve your options, not cede decisions to people who aren’t qualified to make them and yet delegate those decisions that can be made at 'lower' levels to people who can make them effectively, i.e., a qualitative success, and efficiently, i.e., a quantitative success.” He responded with a resounding “yes.” We then dove into building a process for decision-making that would achieve all of those objectives.
Here are the issues: Most executives have a hard time letting go. They do, after all, get paid to make decisions. Most executives also have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which delegation can be accomplished effectively, so, in the interest of time, they just make most decisions themselves.
The problem with that: People disengage. High achievers stagnate and leave. Good performers die on the vine. Mediocre and poor performers stay, because obedience is just fine with them – they were “mailing it in” anyway.
Peter Senge of MIT’s Sloan School of Management created a continuum to describe people’s levels of possible dedication. On one end of the spectrum is grudging compliance. People do what’s expected and no more; they’re not really on board. In my experience, these employees may also subvert organizational direction and strategies in subtle ways that are almost impossible to detect. At the other end of the spectrum is true commitment. People really “want it.” They’ll make it happen. They’ll overcome obstacles with their energy and focus. Again, in my experience, you can see organizations with committed people. They all have sparks coming out of their backsides.
The problem is that commitment cannot be mandated; it has to be earned, just like trust. Here are some questions for you to answer: What does your organization look like? What have you done to create an environment in which people zealously commit? Do you believe it makes a difference? What are you willing to do about it?
Call us; we’ll help you sort through the issues and craft a plan that makes a difference!
|
Additional Thoughts: Character Counts
|
Contemporary models of leadership promote attributes like the ability to:
• initiate and sustain productive change
• shape strategy and drive execution
• build organizational relationships
• envision the future state of the organization
Rarely is character discussed as necessary for effective leadership. Either it’s viewed as a precondition that doesn’t require discussion or its mention makes people so uncomfortable and self-conscious that it isn’t talked about.
My work with executives often includes a discussion of their definition of character, their perception of its priority and how it ought to manifest itself in the workplace. My personal search for a definition introduced me to the work of Bill Hybels, pastor of the Willow Creek Community Church in suburban Chicago and author of the book Who You Are When No One’s Looking – Choosing Consistency, Resisting Compromise. Here are some of his thoughts on character: “Character, a wise person once said, is what we do when no one is looking. It is not the same as 'reputation,' what other people think of us. It is not the same as success or achievement. Character is not what we have done, but who we are.” He goes on:
“Character cannot be developed through good resolutions and checklists. It usually requires a lot of hard work and a little pain and years of faithfulness before any of the virtues are consistently noticeable in us.”
Bill goes on to provide the following as his attributes of strong character:
• Courage – overcoming crippling fear
• Discipline – achieving success through delayed gratification
• Vision – looking beyond the obvious
• Endurance – crashing through quitting points
• Tender love – walking in someone else’s moccasins
• Tough love – insisting on truth in relationships
• Sacrificial love – giving without giving out
• Radical love – breaking the hostility cycle
This is a lot to aspire to and none of us is perfect along all of these dimensions. The point here, however, is that organizational leaders must set an example for the kind of behavior they expect. The CEO must also be the CCO (chief character officer). People emulate examples far more voluntarily than they follow orders, edicts or mandates.
How are you doing?
|
About Rand Golletz
|
Rand Golletz is a executive coach and consultant. With more than 25 years in leadership roles, including CEO, chief marketing officer of a Fortune 100 company and international strategy consultant, Rand brings an unparalleled level of business expertise to his profession.
|
|
|
|
