Rosie’s Rants & Ramblings

There was something about Jack Layton’s leadership that crossed boundaries and is something that leaders within corporations would do well to pay heed to.

All too often we judge a leader’s success on his or her decisions, strategies and goals. But while this is important, what Layton showed us is that in many cases it is the manner in which you choose to lead that is far more significant than the decisions you make as a leader. “Soft” is more important that “hard.”

Layton said it best himself. His leadership was defined by love, hope and optimism. He was real and human. While he was clearly the leader of the party, arrogance and ego played no role. He was personable, energetic and, yes, the guy we’d like to sit down and have a beer with. His positive energy translated into a positive vision. Whether or not we agreed with it, he was still able to articulate a constructive option as distinct from simply defining what was wrong with others’ positions.

But we see little of this leadership style in today’s organizations. Those at the top concern themselves with the hard part of leadership such as decision-making and strategy formulation. While this is important, leaders need to consider how they show up and articulate these policies. Somewhere along the way many appear to have forgotten that the best way to lead others is to connect with them on a real and human level. Policies are worthless if others will not buy in and follow. If this emotional connection is there, then, as we saw with Layton, the relationship between leader and follower is defined by a deep respect. And it is through this respect that others will follow leaders – regardless of whether they agree with their policies. His leadership became more important than the policies he was articulating.

Had Layton been the CEO of a corporation, there’s good reason to believe that organization would have been successful. His energy and commitment would have inspired others, and his hope and optimism would have likely meant that many were willing to put in the discretionary effort to help the enterprise succeed.

Let me be honest here: if I were to tell a CEO that his or her leadership needs to be better defined by love, hope and optimism, I would probably get a bunch of strange looks or rolled eyes. Either such words would be viewed as having no place in today’s organizations or the out-of-touch and arrogant CEO might genuinely believe he or she appears as loving, hopeful and optimistic.

But I beg to differ.

Most of those at the top of organizations are so caught up in the demands of shareholders, regulatory bodies, boards and others who are interested in the hard side of the business that they have forgotten that the most important job is to inspire others. And the only way they can do this is to be real, human and personable.

Layton’s legacy will be with us for many years, but my hope is that his passion and courage will cause us to take stock of how we lead organizations. What if we were to promote into leadership positions those who best portrayed a sense of love, hope and optimism? What if we demanded that today’s organizations be led by real people with a passion and a humanness so desperately lacking? What if those at the top recognized that what employees really want is not invulnerability but to be able to sit down with them, have a beer and talk with mutual interest, respect and caring.

This, I hope, will be Layton’s lasting legacy – a legacy of loving leadership. .
________________________________________
This article was first published in Business in Vancouver September 6-13, 2011; issue 1141

Leadership is much talked about in organizations. Unfortunately, all too often, actions don’t align with words. We say it’s important to develop others, yet the demands to get the job done get in the way. We say employees are our greatest asset, but we cut those things they value most when times get tough.

Given this, it was with great delight that I recognized quite the opposite in a client. And while I would love to take the credit for its story, I can’t. The client’s boldness and honesty came from the organization’s leaders, who are more than willing to put their money where their mouth is.

This organization publicly stated the philosophy that guides it in developing leaders, namely:
• Leadership is separate from position;
• An important leadership element is peer to peer;
• It cannot solely rely on supervisors to coach its people; and
• All employees must be empowered regardless of position.

Strong, powerful words, but nothing stunningly new. Where it gets interesting is how the client put these principles into practice.

Leadership is separate from position. True enough. Why is it then, that we typically use hierarchical position to determine who we develop and how much money we invest in them? Not so, in this organization. While it employs almost 10,000 people worldwide, it’s developing the leadership skills of employees at almost every level. Interestingly, the group missing is the executive, but that’s a separate story. Leadership programs are offered for managers, supervisors and front-line workers, but it’s the front-line program that most clearly demonstrates the company’s belief that leadership does not reside solely at the top of the hierarchy.

This company also espouses that an important leadership element is peer to peer. Leadership isn’t just those at a higher level leading those below, but it can happen amongst hierarchical equals. In fact, some of the most powerful and compelling leadership can occur when an individual starts to lead his or her peers. When peers raise issues, they inspire others to give honest feedback without the shield of organizational power or any sense of hierarchical obligation, demonstrating real and effective leadership.

Yet, typically we develop individuals outside of their peer group, taking them away, then putting them back in. Then we develop the groups through team-building exercises, reinforcing the myth that team and leadership are different. They’re not. They are integrated, married through every interaction within the team. Again, this organization goes against the grain. The front-line individuals learn together with their peers, with the explicit goal of deepening the relationship among colleagues. They learn to recognize and respect leadership in others.

We say we want to develop people, but all too often this means developing those at the top and then hoping they pass on similar lessons to those who report to them. While this might work well for technical skills (although don’t assume a good manager will also be a good teacher), such an assumption is seriously flawed when it comes to leadership skills. Too many leaders find it challenging enough to develop their own leadership even to consider similarly developing those below them.

In this organization, the supervisors, who participated in an 18-month leadership program, assume the role of facilitator for the front line. But unlike the day-to-day development we’d expect to occur, the process is highly structured. The supervisors spend four days learning how to deliver and adapt predefined content. Nothing is ad hoc or watered down – the front-line employees are challenged in much the same way as those above them.

And finally, all employees must be empowered regardless of position. Again, true enough. How can organizations be efficient, safe and productive if we don’t allow employees a voice? But if we don’t give them the skills to raise tough issues, how can we expect them to speak up?

This organization does not blindly expect empowerment to occur. Rather, it has given front-line employees the skills, tools and support they need to speak up. They are challenged, but not forced to lead. Instead of paying lip service to their leadership beliefs, these leaders visibly “walk the talk.” Unfortunately, they are an exception. We often hear of loftily held principles, but when the going gets tough all this talk evaporates and with it organizational credibility.

So ask yourself, what is your stance on leadership? And does your organization’s investment and resource allocation reflect this? If not, maybe it’s time to either change your principles or change your actions.

This article was first published in Business in Vancouver, July 12-18, 2011; issue 1133

This business of leadership is full of fads and trends. A word or concept bubbles to the surface, we all grab a hold of it as “the answer,” books are written, blogs are posted, tweets are tweeted – until the next big idea comes along. It’s not a bad thing, providing that the concept is well founded and helpful.

Lately I’ve been noticing that one word is increasingly gaining favour: accountability. I recently did a survey in a number of organizations, and which behaviour did respondents think others needed to demonstrate more of? Accountability.

At first blush it’s a no-brainer. If only people were more accountable, organizations would be healthier, morale would be higher, those poor performers would be dealt with and, yes, life would be better. Surely accountability is the answer?

But hang on. Is it really? Who do we want to be more accountable? And for what?

Typically, when people refer to accountability they talk of their desire for others to do things differently. To do their share, to follow through on things, hold themselves and others to a higher standard and to “walk the talk.” All very laudable.

However, rarely does anyone talk about holding him or herself to a higher standard. I have yet to hear an individual pronounce that he or she is not accountable. And therein lies the problem with this concept of accountability. By focusing on it we typically turn our attention away from our behaviour. Of course we’re accountable; the problem lies with everybody else.

Despite the fact we all know that self-awareness and humility are critically important when it comes to effective leadership, the default of many in organizations continues to be looking to others for fault rather than facing up to the reality of their own contribution. I recently conducted a survey in an organization in which I asked leaders to assess their performance and that of their colleagues. Without exception, everyone reported that they believed they were leading effectively. However, they were far less complimentary when it came to assessing the leadership of their colleagues.

It is this unwillingness to hold oneself to personal account that’s contributing significantly to unhealthy organizations and frustrated employees at every level. Rarely is anything productive accomplished when we invest our energies into critiquing what others are doing “wrong.” Efforts would be better spent in holding ourselves to account.

Real personal accountability is not easy – which is why it’s in short supply these days. It requires a mature sense of self as well as a healthy dose of courage. And I’m not talking about simply working hard and trying to do a good job. Rather, if we really believe in accountability, then each one of us should hold ourselves to account for creating healthy, honest and sustainable organizations. Which, for many, requires playing a bigger game.

So how do you get started? Start by asking yourself a few questions.
• What are you tolerating and why? Isn’t it time you stopped tolerating and started changing?
• Where are you looking for others to change? Are they looking at you in a similar manner?
• What are you willing to be personally accountable for? Your own happiness? That of your colleagues? Your organization’s health? Remember, criticism of others with no accountability of self is a fine example of pathetic leadership.

We need to be careful about jumping on this accountability bandwagon. There is a danger it will do more harm than good as we merrily look around us to identify those who need to be more accountable. We would do better to first look in the mirror.

This article was first published in Business in Vancouver June 7-13

I recently came across some research that indicated more and more CEOs come from a financial background. A study by Robert Half, a UK consulting firm, found that nearly half (49 per cent) of serving Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) in the current FTSE 100 Index have financial backgrounds, compared to only 31 per cent in 2008.

In many ways it’s not surprising. Post–recession jitters will naturally lead boards to appoint those they think can best guarantee the financial health of the organization. Those with a background in finance are obvious candidates.

But is this really the best thing for an organization? A CEO whose experience lies in finance will naturally pay attention to the balance sheet. However, how much time and energy will he or she put into the people side of the business – despite the fact we know happy people mean profitable companies?

Sometimes I despair that we really haven’t come a long way in our development beyond mechanistic thinking. Executive meetings and board discussions are typically focused on numbers, on the bottom line and, of course, on shareholder expectations. Those representing human resources [if they are even present at these discussions] often chime in with a commentary on labor negotiations or succession planning. Rarely, if ever, do the discussions focus on organizational culture or employee engagement. How often is there a vigorous debate about the behaviors that are required of leaders and what the organization must do to develop these?

I’m not saying that the numbers should be ignored. Clearly it’s essential that the organization is financially healthy and thus close attention must be paid to the financial sustainability of the current enterprise. The problem is that in most organizations such discussions dominate and the appointment of CEOs who were formally CFOs simply compounds the problem.

It is a rare CFO who truly understands behavioral change and organizational culture and how to ignite the organization with an inspiring vision. Unfortunately, the dynamics of the top frequently preclude such newly minted CEOs from acknowledging this is not an area of strength for them and seeking help in this regard. And those lower down the organization are unwilling to challenge the new leader when they see these issues not being given the attention they deserve. And so it is that those things organizations declare they value such as the employee experience, work life balance, and employee engagement are rarely, if ever, present on the CEO agenda. And the trend towards accountants becoming CEOs is, I believe, going to make the situation much worse.

How might it be different if the CEO came from a background of organizational development? If he or she truly valued the development of leaders and made it a critical strategic thrust of the organization? If the CEO understood relationships and had the skill and passion to build a truly collaborative executive team [as distinct from the group of competitive high-performers we typically see in most organizations]? If executive compensation were driven not by share price but by employee engagement? I believe it would set a different tone for the organization and ironically would result in better bottom-line results.

Many a CEO declares that employees are the greatest asset of their organization. But, if this is anything other than lip service, then let me ask – are discussions around the executive table reflective of this belief? Certainly most senior groups I work with seem to value their shareholders a whole bunch more than their employees.

Clearly the financial health of the organization cannot be ignored. But until those at the top pay equal, if not more, attention to the cultural health of the organization opportunities for financial success will be compromised. And I believe this starts by rethinking the skills we need in the leaders of today’s organizations. Sorry accountants, it’s time to move over and let some with a different background take over the top spot.

Maybe you saw the picture? You likely heard about it. You know, the one of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) ticket collector so clearly asleep on the job. If you missed it, just Google sleeping TTC worker and you’ll find it on numerous websites.

The reaction to this has been predictable. I heard it from my friends and read it on innumerable blogs. “Well, he’ll lose his job for sure.” “No need to show up for work buddy – you’re in big trouble.” “How dare the TTC raise fares and allow this type of activity to happen?”

The union weighed in.

“A simple knock on the glass might have determined if the collector was, in fact, asleep, or whether he was unconscious as a result of some medical problem.”

And then there’s the official line from the TTC. “We’ve launched an investigation to ascertain what happened and will take any appropriate action based on the information we gather.”

Give me a break! I’m pretty sure we know what the problem was. He was bored stupid. And who wouldn’t be? I’m willing to bet if you or I were placed in a small cubbyhole, had nothing to do that was even remotely interesting and had our interactions with others limited to a few transactional exchanges, we’d rapidly be heading down the snooze path – even if we were totally healthy and rested.

The response to this photo is a sad indictment of our understanding of the workplace. We’re quick to point fingers at this unfortunate employee but fail to consider the circumstances that led to his nap. We’re asking the wrong questions and directing our attention to the wrong places.

Certainly, falling asleep on the job isn’t appropriate, but blaming the worker as distinct from those that put him in this situation is all backward.

Engagement. We hear it again and again, but organizations still fail to create an engaging workplace.

Dehumanizing and alienating work. Or put simply, work that is desperately boring and certainly not meaningful. We strive to create an engaged workplace but then dehumanize jobs, fail to give people the environment in which any person could be engaged and then wonder what the problem is.

Work presents a meaningful opportunity to fulfil the human needs of another person, yet for many it offers simply nothing more than a paycheque. We distance our workforce from the entire work process and in so doing disconnect them from anything that might engage them.

The solution to the disengagement problem lies not in firing those who fall asleep on the job but firing those who put them in that position in the first place. Good leaders understand the systems that are at play in their organizations. They are willing to redesign the organization in a way that creates meaningful work that allows all employees to connect with how their contribution fits into the bigger picture – regardless of the nature of their work.

While the reality is that there are some jobs that are repetitive and boring, those who understand the people side of the equation could easily shake things up.

They could redesign systems and processes to allow those who feel they are unappreciated parts of the organizational machine to instead feel valued and connected.

This starts by identifying opportunities for interaction and contribution. This ticket collector should be connected with other tickets collectors (even if they are physically removed from each other). Perhaps management could engage this group in some information-gathering activities that would prove invaluable to monitoring the pulse of the travelling public. Perhaps these employees could be rotated so they could contribute to some other parts of the organization.

Perhaps (heaven forbid) management could have a real conversation with this guy about ways to change the job to make it more meaningful.

I’d like to thank the person that took this photo. It certainly does require a wakeup call. But not for whom you might think.

This article was first published in Business in Vancouver May 3-9, 2011; issue 1123

Like many, I find it fascinating what recently occurred in Egypt and is now spilling over to much of the Arab world. But while the dynamics of the political situation is interesting, what I really find compelling is how this all came about. If you have told Mubarak a few years ago that he would be bought down by Facebook and Twitter and satellite TV, I’m pretty sure you would have been taken as a nutcase. But isn’t that what just happened? Satellite TV educated people about other countries and provided them another perspective on their situation. Facebook and Twitter allowed people to connect, communicate and organize. And the next thing you know we have a revolution fueled by social networking and technology.

I believe senior leaders in many of our organizations would be well-advised to take note of all this. After all, what’s happening in many organizations these days? To start with, many employees do not trust the information given them by senior managers (latest figures suggest that just 32% of employees believe senior management communicates openly and honestly). Add to this the fact that, according to the Conference Board, 64 percent of workers under 25 say they are unhappy in their jobs and perhaps we have the makings of a revolution. What would happen in an organization if all these young, unhappy workers connected with each other, started to rally around a common vision of change and organized themselves along the same lines as the Egyptian people did? What if they demanded an end to unhealthy and unsustainable organizational life, an end to disconnected senior leadership, and end to a disengaging work climate? What would happen then?

Now some might say that this is a totally far-fetched idea and perhaps it is. Perhaps the disenfranchised young people would just leave the organization and go elsewhere. Perhaps they just wouldn’t care enough to try and change the organization. But what if they did? What if they actually connected and tried to change the very thing that was causing their discontent. What then?

It’s worth contemplating – particularly if you’re a senior leader. As the Egyptians have shown us, great things can happen when people unite around a common cause. And with technology these days, such unification is easier than ever. Such change need not be directed towards the overthrow of dictatorial or hierarchical leaders. Perhaps instead events in the Arab world can show us a different way to implement organizational change – and the right and the wrong way to respond to the people’s demand for change.

The key to change is not a series of “change management courses.” Rather, it is a matter of allowing people to connect with each other in ways that perhaps have been suppressed (or at best tolerated) in the past. Senior leaders should be facilitating (not controlling) communication between their young employees, they should allow people to talk, to connect, to engage, they should sponsor events in which young employees get together and talk without censorship about the organization.

To do this requires courage and a willingness by those at the top to abandon the pretense of control. This kind of change can rapidly become organic and follow an unpredictable path. And in such circumstances the only control left to those in charge is the previously articulated vision. You’d better hope this vision is the rallying point – if not those in charge of their unhappy workers could, in short order, find themselves chased out of town. Just ask Mubarak.

I was recently asked by a local TV station how you could determine if you “had what it takes” to lead. This is a question that should be asked more frequently, as current estimates suggest that a meager 11% of leaders have the capacity to lead effectively.

To know what makes an effective leader requires not a simplistic focus on behaviours, but an understanding of what lies at the root of those behaviours. To lead effectively one must have achieved a certain maturity. And this has nothing to do with age. Let me explain.

For years, we have come to recognize that as children mature they pass through clearly defined developmental stages. As Piaget showed us, these stages bring with them an ever-evolving and broadening understanding of the world and individual’s role in it. What many fail to fully appreciate is that in adulthood we continue to mature through distinct stages, albeit at a somewhat slower pace than when we were children. With this continued development come changes in how we make sense of and interpret the world around us. At each progressive stage (called action logics) we develop a greater ability to solve problems, handle complexity and appreciate different perspectives – things that profoundly affect our ability to lead. Thus an individual’s character, behaviour and leadership capacity will be directly related to his or her primary action logic.

So we know that what differentiates leaders is not their philosophy of leadership, personality or style of management but rather their internal action logic. Research confirms that the levels of corporate and individual performance are directly correlated to stage of action logic. Thus, while you may have a clear vision of how you would like to lead, your action logic might not have matured enough to allow you to acquit yourself in the way you envision.

For example, I have worked with many leaders who have what is called an expert action logic. They know that it’s important that they delegate more but they’re incapable of doing so. When they give things up to another, their whole sense of self is threatened by the fact that others may do things less than perfectly. Simply telling these leaders that they must delegate more is wasted effort. Instead, a much deeper developmental intervention is required.

When we look at how individuals behave at the various action logics, it’s clear that organizational transformation requires leaders to hold what we call the strategist action logic. These individuals are able to embrace change, recognize and appreciate conflicting viewpoints, understand that people hold different realities and can quickly reframe circumstances to transform action. Indeed some very thought-provoking research found that organizational transformation is not possible unless the CEO or a significant number of the executive team are at the strategist stage.

But here’s the problem. Such individuals are rare. We know that at best only 11% of leaders within organizations hold the strategist action logic frame. (By the way, don’t get confused by the terminology – the fact you can think strategically does not mean you hold the strategist frame.)
Most leaders in organizations are experts and achievers who, while being strong individual contributors and action and goal-oriented, lack the ability to engage with the multi-layered complexity necessary to lead organizational transformation.

What this means is that most leaders in organizations do not have what it takes. While they know intellectually what must be done, their action logic frame is holding them back from leading in ways that today’s organizations and employees demand. This is disturbing, to say the least.

The good news is that unlike certain aspects of personality, it’s possible to develop into the later stages of action logic. I have seen it take place and the resulting change on individual and organizational effectiveness is dramatic. It’s not quick or simple, but it can be done.

So how do you know if you have what it takes? The starting point is to determine your stage of action logic. Go to www.breakingtheleadership.com and take the free assessment for a quick indication or take the full leadership development profile for an accurate assessment.

The action logic framework offers insights into individual and organizational effectiveness that has been sorely lacking. It also might offer some explanation for why so many organizational change efforts fail. So before investing time in change-management strategies, check to see if you have what it takes to lead your organization. Better late than never.

This article was first published in Business in Vancouver, issue 1108, January 18-24, 2011

I just came across a report from the Economist Intelligence Unit that suggests that more than eight out of ten top executives in companies across Europe and the Middle East view disengagement as one of the three biggest threats to their business. This isn’t news. We’ve known for some time now that employee engagement (or lack thereof) can have a direct impact on business success.

Given this, you’d think that the topic of employee engagement would be front and centre at most executive and board meetings.

Not so. According to this same report, almost half (43%) of the board directors questioned admitted that engagement issues – things like staff motivation, identification with the company goals or willingness to “go the extra mile” for the firm – are “occasionally”, “rarely” or “never” discussed at board level. Furthermore, barely more than one in ten said that their companies regularly take action to tackle staff with continually low engagement.

Why is this? We get some insight into this issue when we consider that, according to this report, nearly half (47%) of C-suite executives believe that they are personally responsible for generating the levels of employee engagement in their firm. Given this, a discussion about employee engagement will inevitably lead to a discussion about C-suite performance. And let’s be honest, this is a topic that is not raised around the executive team table. Indeed, if raised at all it is done in privacy of an executive office.

All too often executives assume they are doing a great job simply because they are at the top of the organizational pyramid. But when it comes to these soft issues of employee motivation, morale and engagement, most are a long way from getting it right. Many of those at the top have had little training in these areas – rather they have focused their efforts of being whizzes in the area of finance, marketing or operations. The fuzzy people stuff was left to those in HR.

I don’t expect executives to be perfect. I also don’t think employees have this expectation – they just want them to be human. So while it’s great that those at the top recognize the impact they may have on employee engagement (remember the number one driver is the extent to which employees believe senior management care about them as people), I think it’s about time they took this responsibility a bit more seriously. That means openly and honestly discussing the extent to which their actions are disengaging employees, seeking unfiltered feedback on the impact of their actions and going forward on a path that engages rather than disengages employees.

Oh, and Boards, how about you start putting it on the agenda. Surely those shareholders you represent would expect something that has such a huge impact on the bottom line not to be relegated to a discussion around the water cooler.

You got to love the BC political scene, particularly if you’re in the business of leadership. There is never any shortage of things to talk about.

For those of you that don’t live in this wonderful province of ours, we are now officially leaderless. The leaders of both the major political parties here have recently resigned and the hunt is on for both Liberal and NDP leaders.

While the circumstances of Gordon Campbell and Carole James differ, there is a lot of similarity. Everything seemed to fall apart when they appeared to forget that what matters isn’t just what you do but how you do it. Yes, the process is as, if not more, important than the task.

Take Gordon Campbell for example. Now I’m not going to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of the HST – that’s for others. But whether or not you support the introduction of this tax, there’s no doubt that the manner in which it was introduced ultimately contributed to the demise of Gordon Campbell. When your ram something down people’s throats, when you don’t listen, when you become emotionally unintelligent, you lose the respect of those you were there to lead. In fact, you lose your leadership. This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: “If you think your leading and you turn around and no one’s following, you’re just out taking a walk.” Gordon Campbell’s fall due to his total failure to consider process when making a difficult decision. I think he was so convinced of the “rightness” of his decisions that he totally lost sight of the fact that others might have a different perspective.

Did Carole James do any better? Clearly a different leadership style, but I’m sorry to say equally ineffective. Again, for me the issue isn’t what she did or didn’t do on the policy front. Rather it was she seemed to forget the process and in so doing she lost the leadership. Whether it was not paying attention to how Moe Sihota’s salary was paid, or the manner in which she handled outspoken collegues it seems that attention to process just went right out the window. Perhaps the biggest sign was that the process was flawed was the dramatically outspoken criticism from Jenny Kwan, a senior caucus member.

Were they wrong to speak up? It seems to me this is the wrong question. Instead we should be asking about the circumstances that led to this action, one the dissidents must have known would put the very future of the party in doubt. It reminds me of when employees hit that level of frustration with their leaders. When they have voiced their concern over and over again and no one cares, let alone listens, radical action ensues. Had Carole James initiated a process to understand the reality of those who had concerns, she may still be the leader of the NDP.

So where does this leave us now – aside from leaderless? Will our new leaders, whoever they may be, do things differently? Will they pay attention to the process? While at this point they may certainly promise such things as consensus building and listening to the people, I wait with interest to see if this is just more political bluster.

And while the political situation always seems to be a little weird, there’s learning in here for those who lead in organizations. It simply doesn’t matter if you think you have a great idea. Your role as a leader is to influence others to follow you and if you don’t do this, you’re not leading.

Let me ask what might seem a silly question. Are you arrogant?

Who would ever admit it? Regardless, I have taken to asking groups and individuals this question. Not surprisingly, aside from those who throw their arms up in jest, no one admits to being arrogant. Yet we know that arrogant leaders abound – and almost certainly, some of you reading this would be described by others as arrogant.

The fact that not a soul will admit to arrogance spotlights a huge problem within the world of leadership development, where leaders will acknowledge what is important in leadership yet can’t recognize their own failings. And perhaps this self-denial occurs most glaringly in the realm of arrogance.

What is arrogance?

At one level, it’s self-confidence gone wrong. It grows when one achieves success and then loses the ability to accept feedback. Arrogant individuals look in the mirror but see a distorted self-image. And left unchallenged, once arrogance takes root, it blossoms and blooms.

Arrogance also emerges in the eyes of those around the individual as their competence rises. For example, I know one leader who is clearly seen as arrogant by his peers and his supervisor. However, the junior staff members see only their competence and confidence. But then, they don’t threaten him. The development of arrogance is often aligned to a rise through the ranks. While it’s not always clear to see, many senior leaders suffer from “imposter syndrome,” a feeling that one is a fraud and in over one’s head. I have worked with many leaders, including CEOs of large organizations, who have, at some point in their career, felt like an imposter. And while the literature suggests that those with imposter syndrome adopt self-deprecating behaviour, this is rare in leadership. Indeed, who would support a leader who confessed, “I’m not sure I’m ready for this”?

Instead, in response to self-doubt the walls go up, the focus becomes external and arrogance prevails. Feedback is welcomed only if it supports the ego. Any feedback that threatens the sense of self is firmly rejected – or turned back on those who provided the feedback. I’ve seen arrogant leaders indignantly attack those who offer it, regardless of how well it’s presented. After all, isn’t offence the best defence?

Thus a wall of confidence and bluster often masks deep insecurity and self-doubt. Not surprisingly, this concept is quickly rejected by those to whom it applies. It simply isn’t within their psyche to admit such failings. Furthermore, many leaders have adopted an arrogant persona for so long that it now defines them. Immersed in their own arrogant selves, they have lost touch with their real selves.

Naturally, an arrogant leader causes dysfunction within an organization. When a leader is reluctant to receive feedback and shows a narcissistic belief in his own ability, information will stop flowing, innovation will cease and conflict will ensue. Those who choose not to challenge this individual may instead choose to leave. I’ve seen it on many occasions.

As Jim Collins recently told us in his latest book, How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In, arrogance can also rapidly lead to an organization’s decline. Individuals become confident based on the company’s success and helped along by groupthink, the group as a whole becomes arrogant and closed to feedback.

As Collins puts it, “Every institution, no matter how great, is vulnerable to decline. Anyone can fall, and most eventually do. But decline, it turns out, is largely self-inflicted.”

Arrogance represents the first stage of this decline.

So, are you arrogant? I challenge every one of you to do a reality check and consider the following:
• When did you last receive critical feedback from peers or your supervisor? How did you react? Did you welcome it, or did you turn it on them?
• How often do you talk about your mistakes – or do you only talk about your successes? If something doesn’t work out, do you look at external factors before reviewing your own role?
• Can you name your self-doubts and fears – or do you have none?
• Do you rely solely on feedback from those who look up to you?
• How do you feel when you have to share the limelight with someone? How do they feel? How do you know?
• What would a best friend or spouse say if you asked him or her whether you sometimes come across as arrogant? Do it.
________________________________________
This article was first published in Business in Vancouver, issue 1100, November 23-29, 2010