Engaging Leadership...
A good deal of time and attention has been, and continues to be, invested in seeking the fullest levels of commitment and productivity among organization members. Many if not most businesses have realized that such engagement is the true path to profitability – not to mention survival.
We can all agree that full employee engagement has to be a good thing for all concerned but how, as a leader, do you make it happen? I was inspired by a recent Towers Perrin presentation to structure and offer the following for your consideration. I’d be most interested in your thoughts and suggestions to expand this dialogue.
We’ve come off the tracks . . .
You’d think that with all the great and inspiring stories about leadership throughout history we’d be pretty adept by now at making it work. Good leaders abound and bad leaders are innumerable. Comparing and contrasting the different types and styles, we should be able to define quite clearly what works, and what doesn’t!
We can’t! Simply stated, we haven’t a clue.
We’ve a better idea on how to be a good person, although many of us still struggle in making that work consistently. We have some fairly compelling and consistent rules for success – and there’s a multi-million dollar industry built to encourage its implementation. A few can actually make this work to advantage.
Management is a relatively new science and there are copious opportunities out there to practice it diligently. Management coaching is the ‘in’ thing and our business schools have no shortage of applicants. Notwithstanding, we are still somewhat less adept at defining, specifying and measuring success among management practitioners.
When it comes to leadership though, we’re still wrestling with the age-old question as to whether leaders are born or made, with passionate advocates on both sides. It would appear that we do not yet have even so much as a standard definition of what a leader is, so developing the right leaders for any situation is problematic.
Yet we are escalating the rate of change. All around us there’s a great multitude of people as well as organizations who are beset with change – both incremental and traumatic – all screaming out for leadership. From families through social organizations and communities to whole nations, we are suffering a substantial shortage of leadership talent. The demand outstrips the supply and there’s no relief in sight.
Why have we not kept abreast of the need? Why are our experiences so turbulent and unsatisfying?
The need for clarity . . .
At the Towers Perrin presentation I mentioned above, the intention was to present the findings of a recent extensive survey of best engagement practices in leadership performance. Between the presenters and the senior-level audience the term ‘leadership’ was used extensively and in pivotal ways. The problem for me was the lack of rigor, and especially consistency, in its application.
It was employed in four separate and even contradictory ways in the material and the resultant questions and comments from the audience generated at least three more variations on a theme. The term ‘leaders’ was used to depict top organizational executives, those who are responsible for the development and setting of policy. Then leaders were described as ‘all those who influence change regardless of hierarchical position or status’.
Later, the term was used in a qualitative sense – those who have earned the recognition of others as ‘constructive’ influencers of change; and then again as those who disrupt the status quo the ‘unreasonable’ people who instigate change by being contrarians.
If we are not able to agree on terminology then finding consensus in opinion, strategy and intention is going to be difficult. So, let’s see if a common definition is possible.
Starting with change (for without change there’s arguably no need for leadership) the role of the leader is to focus that change in a consensual way. The power arises from those who would follow and the leader builds a series of unifying visions around the emotional charge that generates the desire – this is focusing.
This isn’t enough, though. We need action, coordinated and sufficient to create a sustainable, positive new condition and the leader is expected to facilitate this emergence.
So, a leader is one who focuses the desire for change resident in others and who then facilitates the creation of a sustainable new reality.
It seems to me that leadership, at least in this definition has little or nothing to do with hierarchy, policy or even influence. Effective leaders are simply catalysts and may not even be noticed let alone recognized, and while they are hopefully constructive, they’re far from disruptive.
It’s all about you - both of you . . .
Leaders are primarily involved in engaging others, in bringing the energies of others to a common point (the focus) and thereby developing or facilitating a critical mass for action and adaptation. This is their job!
They need to tune into others’ desires, to reach out to assist the design and development of a personal vision of what could be, then to take action on those visions, to invest time and effort, to overcome resistance and challenges along the way and ultimately to achieve a new reality.
The leader is truly focused on the experiences of others past, present and future, in order to bring each follower to a new place. There’s an alliance here, wherein both the leader and the follower need to be fully engaged – or nothing will transpire for there is no leadership. You cannot have a leader without a follower or a follower without a leader, they’re a necessary duality.
The bond is initiated by combining passion with focus and it’s sustained by meaningful action. This action has a number of ‘faces’ or different types of expression, all necessary to stimulate and pursue the mutually desired outcome. These faces or behaviors could include sponsoring, communicating, role modelling, collaborating, mentoring/coaching, developing, recognizing and rewarding, among others.
I would argue that all faces / behaviors are needed at some point in an ongoing leader/follower relationship and that complex situations demand dexterous switching or adaptation ‘on the run’. To assist with the identification and practice of such faces you’ll find a schematic which includes typical illustrative behaviors for each face attached to this article.
Putting it to work . . .
Among the first steps in a leadership intervention is the concept of sponsoring. This means that a trust bond, centered on a cause that has shared or mutual value, is established. Leadership is offered and, if accepted, begins to stimulate a vision for each person involved that is powerful enough to generate future action. Personal confidence is a major component and has the power of veto.
Communicating is logically the contiguous step. An exchange of meaning is required to shape visions into action plans and supporting commitment levels. Here again, continuing confidence is required as well as rational agreement. It’s essential that the intellectual component of agreement be matched by a positive emotional alliance if the action is to be effective; sometimes emotion alone can carry the day and rational understanding follows later.
The supporting mechanism for all this action, often risky, is the clarity and confidence that emerges from proper role modelling. Leaders must, above all, be credible and authentic. It’s true that confidence can be secured on less-than-honest terms but not for long. As Lincoln stated, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Once real people are engaged with one another in the pursuit of a common objective, you have collaboration. For an open, continuous and seamless process to be sustained there needs to be spontaneous enablement, mutual trust and a measure of resilience. Within a given mandate, each would allow other(s) to contribute without judgment or restraint, suspending assumptions and reservations and acting upon faith alone in some instances.
In implementing the required change there could be many contingent decisions on what has to be done and how it is to be done. Mentoring and Coaching are the relevant tools and serve as a very useful base for building even closer leader / follower relationships. A realistic, intelligent appreciation and acceptance of risk is made easier wherever there is a progressive, trust-based relationship.
This naturally leads to the growth and development of those so engaged. In many cases, it isn’t necessary for the attempted change to be fully realized, but yet there’s a residual and enduring benefit that arises from the leadership experience. Individuals are stretched beyond their original perspectives, more self-aware and feel more competent and confident as a result of the relationship.
Recognition can be the cement that holds the leadership construction together. This is an appreciation of the specific contributions and potentials of individual, perhaps even more so than collective, achievement involved. There’s something very primitive in our need to master the world around us, and effective leaders are continuously conscious of this. Small gestures and accomplishments go far in reinforcing individual efforts and commitment.
Lastly, there’s the matter of reward. We all want to prevail, to be successful, to win and to gain the spoils of victory. The outcomes need to be tangible, enduring and have universal value; substantial, if symbolic evidence that veni, vedi, vici - ‘I came, I saw, I conquered’. The two components are ‘differentiation’ and ‘significance’ – separating the event from those of lesser impact and also sufficient to make a real difference in the grand scheme of things.
The bottom line . . .
For those who would offer leadership of a quality that will really engage others, the course is clear – a multi-faceted intervention that is truly meaningful for all participants. Change can be achieved with lower investments and at lower cost but the impact will be markedly reduced. Only those who are prepared to give all they have in the service of the mutual cause can expect the commitment and satisfaction that comes from leading a fully engaged team.
There are no shortcuts. The one-on-one relationship is the essential foundation throughout the leadership experience and pivotal to the ownership of input and outcomes. A leader who neglects the essential behaviors that will initiate and sustain effective, sustainable, trust-based and resilient relationships cannot prevail.
(S)He may never know the joy of leading a fully engaged and committed team. How sad!
I'd welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. We can all learn through dialogue and your experiences will undoubtedly gain more value when shared. Please contact me at david@andros.org.
A Note to our Readers . . .
Previous series of articles on the topics of
- Tomorrow’s Leaders – a model for SME organizations
- The Leadership Crucible – the ‘making’ of leaders
- Leadership Characteristics – a comprehensive catalogue of leader qualities
- Succession Planning – the strategic argument, principles and strategies, and
- Managing Change – every person’s guide to painless processes
have been summarized as discussion guides for those who lead and manage through mentoring and coaching. If you would like to secure a copy for your own use, please contact us.
It is a pleasure to share ideas with you and we’d welcome your questions, suggestions and comments. They’ll assist us refine and expand the essential value of these initiatives. Thanks in anticipation for your participation.
|