It helped our cave-swelling brethren survive – and they presumably passed on their successful genetics to us.  Unfortunately, that hard-wired emotion of fear is still with us millions of year later.

Fear is a leading cause of procrastination. Seth Godin argues in his book Tribes that it is often the fear of failure which can become so powerful that we end up doing nothing when, in fact, a lot needs to be done.

Fear is also driven by the tyranny of the anecdote. We all know a story or two about someone who was fired and was sent packing to “explore new opportunities” because they failed in their role.  Fear of failure can overwhelm us, stifle innovation and the desire to make real change in an organization.

A colleague of mine has been trying to deal with a complex issue that was crying out for some serious leadership. This colleague has direct responsibility for the file – but was reluctant to take decisive action preferring instead to wait for those higher up the food chain to make the decision for him. Decisive action would require risk and courage. Success would have significant positive outcomes. Failure may bring criticism. But by doing nothing, failure is certain.

There are the two aspects of fear. The ego aspect means that I personally fear failure or criticism. The challenge is overcoming the fear of failure by embracing it. Buddhists suggest that you must truly embrace suffering to understand it and gain wisdom. Much the same with fear: face it, challenge it and offer a counterbalancing narrative that turns the fear into an advantage. The second aspect is organizational where fear of failure is rooted in the risk of disappointing or angering someone else. It might be a colleague, team or the CEO.

Effective leaders know that fear that paralyzes and leads to inaction or procrastination must be faced head on, challenged, re-framed and set aside so that we can get working on the problems that confound our teams and organizations.

A recent study by Dr Timothy Judge, Dr Beth Livingston and Dr Charlice Hurst in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology suggests that leaders who are agreeable and who focus on relationships and collaboration, earn less than their less-agreeable colleagues.

Judge, Livingston and Hurst write that “Nice guys do not necessarily finish last, but they do finish a distant second in terms of earnings. From a humanistic perspective, it seems remarkably unfair that men who are amiable would be so heavily penalized for not conforming to gender norms.”

It’s more than a little disturbing that after decades of leadership evidence demonstrating the value of collaboration, trust, and empowerment  that those who exhibit competitive, aggressive, narcisistic and ego-based leadership are still valued more (at least monetarily).

Adding to the frustration, the research suggests that comeptitive and aggressive individuals may be perceived by organizations as more competent – even though those exhibiting agreeable approaches are generally proven to have higher levels of competency.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the all important pay packet, it appears the jerks are still in charge!

This research should be a call to arms for those who strongly believe that leadership is based on universal principles such as  trust, honesty, accountability and transparency. The challenge is to desmonstrate the enduring value of principle-based leadership to the organization in order to counter the short-termism that seems to support aggressive, competitive, ego-based leadership.

Once organizations begin to truly understand and value those who practice principle-based leadership, the inequity in earnings should correct itself.

Is there more to this issue?  Why do organizations value aggressive jerks and de-value leaders who are focused on building trust and relationships.  Your comments are welcomed!

It seems that the more I read and talk about trust, the more issues related to trust, trustworthiness and lack of trust start to become more evident. Who knows what causes this little peculiarity of human behaviour – but I am becoming deeply aware of how much of what we do as leaders is interwoven in the concept of trust.

Stephen M.R. Covey, in his book The Speed of Trust, argues that the lack of trust in the workplace is downright inefficient. Low trust organizations are simply not nimble and spend more money trying to overcome distrust in order to implement change. Moreover, many of the problems that organizations face internally, as well as with customers and other stakeholders, can be rooted in the lack of trusting relationships.

Probably one of the most powerful aspects around trust is when you start questioning your role in either building or destroying trust. Do you walk the proverbial talk? Are you a trustworthy person? Do you think you are a trustworthy person but in reality, are not?  In the Speed of Trust, Covey talks about the concept of “Inside Out”, an idea developed by his late father, Stephen R. Covey in his seminal book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.  The idea is that our capacity to build trust with others is deeply rooted in our ability, through development of self-awareness, to exhibit the personal characteristics and habits of someone worthy of trust. Staff can quickly spot the leaders who are sincere about building trust and those who are going through the motions.

I have thought for many years that trust was one of many components to leadership and organizational effectiveness. I am now starting to think now that trust is really all there is.

Maybe it’s time for organizations to start thinking about making room at the table for the CTO: Chief Trust Officer!

How important is trust?  Is it over-rated or simply just another tool or approach for a leader?  Is it too simplistic to say leadership revolves around trust and trust only?  Let me know your thoughts!

Leadership is about tough decisions.  And sometimes the toughest decision for a leader is coming to terms with whether its time to move on to new challenges.

While I love writing and talking about leadership – I also practice leadership in the real world.  It’s the practice in my “day job” that pays the mortgage and keeps food on the table.  And this month marks a major transition for me as I take on a new and more challenging leadership role with a new employer,  It’s this transition that given me pause to think about when it’s time go. 

I’m a strong believer that leaders need to leave on their own terms.  Effective leadership is about having a good read of the environment and organizational culture.  Cliches aside, sometimes you can’t see the forest for the trees – and that can be the same when you can’t quite make out the writing on the wall.  But once you do, it’s important to stay focused, alert and be proactive with your leadership choices.  To paraphrase Stephen R. Covey, you can either make your own choices – or someone will make them for you.

Leaving under your own terms enables a leader to have their self-respect intact and move to a new challenge energized and focused. I’ve seen far too many leaders stay too long and get the heave out the door to “explore new opportunities”.  Sometimes it takes these leaders weeks, if not months, to overcome the anger, confusion and frustration because they simply didn’t -or couldn’t- see the writing on the wall.

To borrow a line from The Clash, leaders need to ask the question: should I stay or should I go?  If you re-align your focus, find congruity with your values and continue to contribute in a meaningful way, then stay.  But if staying means that you must corrupt your values, contradict your guiding values and work without integrity, the answer is pretty straightforward.

It takes a lot of courage to jump – but it’s a hell of a lot better than being pushed!

Do you agree?  Is exiting just the easy way out? How much should a leader bend to accommodate the organization if they are increasingly not comfortable in their role?  Let me know your thoughts!

Psychopathic leadership seems to be the new shiny thing that is taking some public and private sector organizations by storm. In tough economic times, it would appear that the answer lies with having leaders that exude a bullying narcissism instead of empathy and trust.

The question is why?

It’s been shown for decades that truly great organizations are led by individuals who care deeply about the people working for them as well as the bottom line. CEO Herb Kelleher of Southwest Airlines is often held up as an example of this approach to empathic leadership. Stephen Covey, in his seminal 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, taught that great leaders are those who have integrity, character, empathy and lead by principles such as honesty and transparency.

I am perplexed how the psychopaths even get a job interview, let alone the job.

Part of the answer is surely the increasing push to short-termism. The need for an immediate financial or productivity turnaround to satisfy shareholders or government overseers often leads organizations to find someone with a clear, “take charge” personality.

And it appears quite simple for these psychopaths to charm their way into an organization. The Guardian newspaper in the UK recently wrote about a study by psychologist Paul Babiak of New York and Bob Hare of the University of British Columbia which shows that psychopathic leaders are not at all like the Hollywood stereotype and are actually highly functioning individuals. They have the innate ability to tell people exactly what they want to hear and “are adept at climbing the corporate ladder because they can cover up their weaknesses by subtly charming superiors and subordinates.” Ironically, these leaders are poor performers and often blame others when things don’t go according to plan.

My concern is that well meaning organizations may be conned by psychopathic leaders who have the gift of the gab, the self-confidence and charm. The desire for short-term change and the psychopath’s ability to be the answer to all things, enables them to get a foothold into the organization.

But once the psychopath is in place, they begin to poison the organization with their manipulation, lack of transparency and the ever-present micromanagement needed to cover up shortcomings and delegate failure. Trust is the first thing to fall victim to the psychopath. And like the proverbial canary in the coal mine, the loss of trust beckons the unravelling of the organization. Empathic leaders, who approach issues with principles and integrity, are often at a loss when dealing with the psychopath because they simply cannot get an accurate read on what motivates them and may be victimized by them. While the psychopathic leader may have an immediate, short-term impact, the real damage begins to appear later when the longer-term negative effects are manifested by lost productivity, collapsing morale, reduced commitment and high turnover.

Of course, the simple answer is not to hire the psychopathic leader in the first place. But, unfortunately, the simple answer is not that simple. Organizations need to embrace a healthy dose of caveat emptor when bringing on new leaders. If someone seems too good to be true, perhaps they are. Psychopathic leaders, by their nature, are cunning and the usual interview and reference checks rarely weed them out. Organizations need to watch for warning signs including the loss of high-value staff,  loss of morale, damaged employee commitment and increased conflict. Psychopathic leaders are often narcissistic and cover-up artists so watch for a reluctance of the new leader to take responsibility (or, conversely, to undercut and blame their staff) when something goes wrong.

These are all warning signs. And while the excitement of short-termism often overshadows the damage of the psychopathic leader, organizations need to be aware of the long-term damage these individuals can wreak.

Do you agree that psychopathic leaders are necessarily bad for organizations? Is this just a new catch-phrase for what we used to call the “turnaround specialist”?  Appreciate your comments!

Leaders are often their own worst critics. Assuming a leadership role usually brings a significant increase in responsibility and accountability. Leaders can often feel anxiety when taking on new challenges or stretch assignments. Fear of failure can sometimes loom large. The truth is that leaders do make mistakes and some will make huge mistakes. Some will succeed and some will fail.

Leadership today is so complex that we cannot hope to be flawless. And its okay to screw up and be insecure sometimes. It’s impossible to know everything or do everything perfectly.

Leaders can, however, stay relevant, reduce risks and become more effective if they follow these four simple rules:

Learning

It’s accepted that we live in a time of relentless and exponential change. Technology, changing social values and customer expectations require us to relentlessly and continuously improve. Resting on the laurels of a 15 year old MBA is no longer good enough. Stephen Covey taught the importance of sharpening the saw: continuous improvement along the physical, social, emotional and spiritual dimensions of your life.

Listening

Real leaders are engaged listeners and communcators. They ascribe by the rule that we have two ears and one mouth and moderate themselves accordingly. They seek first to understand by listening deeply with empathy to fully comprehend what people are telling them. They resist the temptation to interriupt and offer advice. The use silence effectively to ensure the other person is completely heard.

Luminating

Effective leaders are a source of light for their teams and colleagues. They articulate a clear vision and focus on clearing the path for their teams to succeed. This value also demands that the leader demonstrate clear communication. Once they have listened, they ensure that they are clearly understood.

Leveraging

John C. Maxwell suggests that leadership is infuence. Nothing more and nothing less. I agree and believe that real leaders work diligently to grow their influence, and then leverage that influence to make things happen for their teams. Influence in and of itself is like having a lot of money in the bank. And like money, it’s more important how you choose to invest your influence to get the most valuable return.

Real leaders are humble leaders: they know their strengths but they are also acutely aware of their weaknesses. I believe that leaders can stay relevant and succeed by embracing continuous learning across all aspects of their life, becoming a strong listener to engage with people on a meaningful level, to provide light and clarity for their teams and by leveraging their influence to ensure a strong return on the investment. What do you think about these four principles? Are there others or is something missing? As always, I would appreciate your comments and insight.

A consultant colleague and I were debriefing a recent meeting where one participant, challenged for effectively mocking another participant during a small group discussion, went instead on the attack and, instead of addressing their behaviour, began to verbally attack the other participant. In other words, the initial unprofessional behaviour was met with an even bigger display of unprofessional behaviour. At no time did this individual concede they had been rude initially and merely compounded the matter by bullying the other person into silence.

Workplace bullying, like school bullying, is often brushed off by those who could do something about it. In the case above, I have since discovered that the individual has a long history of condoned bullying behaviour. It’s explained away that “It’s just the way she is” or that she was “Just having a bad day”. Or worse, that the individual’s antagonistic and bullying behaviour demonstrates she is very passionate about her work or has strong opinions. Whatever.

Bullying is bullying. Period. And for the person on the receiving end of a bully’s abuse, it all feels the same regardless of whatever excuse is used to justify or defend it.

Is there really a place any longer for workplace bullying? And how is it that someone can have a long career in an organization and yet have an equally long history of abusive, bullying behaviour?

Bullying is a cancer that must be quickly recognized and immediately removed before it spreads. It can be very difficult for the victims of workplace bullying to stand up and challenge the bullies to stop their abusive behaviour. Bullies are very good at identifying intended victims who are unlikely to challenge them or push back.

Leaders need to play a decisive role in rooting out bullying, advocate for those who have been bullied and stop the implied condoning of this harassment. Policies are one step – but enforcing the policies with swift action, including dismissal, would send a clear message across the organization that bullying is not condoned.

Organizations often cannot understand why employee engagement is so difficult. A critical component of engagement is ensuring a supportive, safe culture where employees can be free from abuse and harassment. A solid first step is impose zero tolerance on the workplace bullies.

Is workplace bullying something that adults are supposed to endure? And why do organizations tacitly condone this harassment and, in some cases, even promoting bullies to positions of power? As usual, appreciate your thoughts on this blog.

We want to believe that people are individuals. The Bell Curve will tells us that, quite frankly, our attributes mostly tend to cluster around the mean. There are a few outliers – but not too many. We struggle, however, when trying to explain and, in the case of leadership, effectively manage those people who may be two standard deviations from the mean.

The challenge for leaders is how one effectively deals with the outliers. What does it mean if employees are one or two standard deviations to the right of the mean? Can there ever been too many on the right side? I’ve written previously in this space about the perils of managing employee performance to the mean and, specifically, the practice of manipulating performance evaluations to ensure that outliers comply with the Bell Curve.

I was speaking to a colleague recently and she brought up the concept of the Tall Poppy Syndrome. It’s described as an organizational malaise where people of intelligence and talented are resented, attacked and criticized because their talents or achievements distinguish them from their peers. Like a tall poppy sticking up amongst the blooms around it, the tallest is cut off to ensure uniformity around the Golden Mean.

This is similar to the Crab-pot Mentality where its been observed that when a single crab attempts to escape a trap, or a pail, the others will drag him back ensuring they all meet a certain demise.

Whether its poppies or crabs, the result is a damaged and dysfunctional organizational culture which never advances beyond the average. Why take a risk or show initiative if you’re just going to be dragged back to the common denominator?

Effective leaders are those who can readily identify these dysfunctional organizational behaviours and instead of cutting down the “tall poppies”, and insisting that employees to huddle obediently around the average, create an environment that enables these positive outliers to make a contribution. They are not fear or resented – but supported and celebrated.

It’s okay if more than 2% of your employees rank two standard deviations beyond the mean in their performance. Far from a bad thing, these are your high-flyers who are going to drive innovation, imagination and enable the organization to progress.

Have you experienced Tall Poppy Syndrome or the Crab-pot Mentality in action? Can organizations realistically espouse their desire to be innovative market leaders and yet still enforce antiquated HR rules which expect most people to perform at the average level? Appreciate your thoughts!

But collaboration, partnership and engagement is a lot of work. Often, it’s a lot easier to rely on our experience, some outdated data and a few anecdotes to solve a problem all by ourselves. Let’s face it, if you’re in a hurry to get things done, this approach takes a fraction of the time. And really, isn’t the outcome all the same?

I call this the expert syndrome.

Expert syndrome is insidious. It can creep up on you when you least expect it. I was in a meeting recently where we were discussing the training needs of a certain group of stakeholders. The discussion carried on for some time until it dawned on me that perhaps we should actually ask these stakeholders what they needed instead of assuming we already knew.

A proper benefit:cost ratio of the expert syndrome would likely show a short-term gain (we got the project finished) with longer term losses (the project failed because our customers think we’re idiots). The cost of the failure far outweighs any perceived cost of consultation and collaboration.

True, authentic engagement is a lot of work. It takes time and it takes courage. There is considerable risk when you let others have a stake. But is the risk any greater than having the project, meeting or new campaign fail because its irrelevant or insulting to the people intended to benefit from it?

There is no real downside to engaging others in all phases of planning, decision making and implementation. It’s a lot messier and potentially inefficient, but the end result will be far superior.

Is there a place for unilateral decision making? Are there times when collaboration and partnership are luxuries we cannot afford or are inappropriate? I’d appreciate your comments!

It’s the kind of question that reminds me of when I was a kid hanging with my pals and arguing over what was better: Ford or Chevy.

My employer provides me with a Blackberry but I also have an iPhone4 for personal use. Work is on the Blackberry and life is on the iPhone. I find the iPhone to be sleek, innovative, intuitive, contemporary, simple yet complex, and fun to use. The Blackberry is kind of clunky, non-intuitive, with a outdated interface, and not all that fun to use. Using the iPhone is intuitive while the Blackberry is a bit of a chore.

If these two smartphones were metaphors for leadership, which one would you be? iPhone or Blackberry?

My choice is iPhone leadership. Real leaders must be mindful of whether they are utilizing yesterday’s or today’s leadership technology. Like the iPhone, I believe that iPhone leadership encompasses some of these qualities:

Thoughtful Design

• Lead proactively by understanding that what you say, how you act, the decisions you make provide cues and direction to those who work with you. Like an iPhone, simplicity in your leadership approach trumps complexity everyday. Make it easy for people to know where you stand and what you expect. Openness, transparency and authenticity are the values here.

Intentionality

• Like an iPhone, effective leadership is intentional. You know where you are going, always aspire to be your best and be very clear about what you -and your team- hope to achieve. Strengthen your skills constantly so that you stay on the leading edge of leadership technology.

Intuitive

• iPhones don’t come with an instruction manual. You turn it on and the rest just seems to happen intuitively. Similarly, the people who work for and with you shouldn’t need an instruction book to figure you out. Effective leaders aren’t men (or women) of mystery and intrigue. They are , in fact, the opposite: simple to understand with no surprises.

Fun

• I quite enjoy using my iPhone. It’s actually fun to use. iPhone leaders bring their sense of humour to work, they engage with their staff, remember birthdays and other important dates and take part in staff events.

Just Works

• Probably the most important feature of my iPhone is that it just works. You turn it on and it works. No crashes or endless re-booting. I can rely on it. Similarly, one of the most important values for any leader is reliability. When staff and colleagues know you can make a decision, that you will keep a commitment and, most importantly, be there when they need you, you have achieved this value.

In the end, you choice of a leadership technology boils down to preference. Some people love their Blackberries while others are enamoured with their iPhones. Effective leaders can borrow the page from the current perils of Blackberry to understand that like smartphones, leadership is a constantly evolving technology and no one wants to be left behind.

What do you think about this perspective? Is it enough to simply latch onto the latest technology or is there value in proven technology? I’d appreciate your thoughts and comments.