Rosie’s Rants & Ramblings

I met with a friend of mine after work last Friday. She was fed up and frustrated. It had not been a good end to the workweek for her.

Throughout the week she had been faced with a couple of tricky problems involving some of the more cantankerous members of her team. She’d known for some time that these individuals were not putting in their best effort but things had come to a head last week when they simply refused to help out their fellow team members. My friend knew she needed to address it, but was not sure exactly what to do. She was looking for someone to bounce ideas off and so, naturally, she turned to her boss.

She gave her boss a call on Thursday morning and they arranged a meeting on Thursday afternoon. My friend went around to his office (he worked another building) but he was nowhere in sight. She waited for half an hour before finally giving up.

The following morning she phoned him again. Without any acknowledgment of the missed meeting (and she had no intention of raising this) they agreed to meet at the end of the day Friday. Once again, she walked around to his office and this time, much to her relief, the meeting had not been forgotten. But it might as well look been for all use it was. She started explaining her problem but within 10 minutes her superior became distracted, started looking at his watch, checking his e-mail, and nodding his head in agreement to something that he clearly wasn’t listening to. My friend grew frustrated but rather than trying to force herself on him she instead drew the conversation to a close. As she stood up to leave he told her that he was confident should make the right decision.

It was these interactions [or rather lack of thereof] with the boss that sent her spiraling downwards on Friday evening. “I’m just sick of it,” she told me. “He just doesn’t care. I just don’t matter to him or that company. I don’t know why I bother.”

“Do you think he has any idea of what impact he has on you?” I asked.

“Not a hope,” she replied. “And what’s worse, if you would ask him he’d tell you he was a pretty good leader. Nothing could be further from the truth. I tell you, I’m going to start looking around for somewhere else to work. That guy probably wouldn’t even notice if I was gone.”

Leadership isn’t impossibly hard – but is does require a commitment and an effort. I know my friend’s boss has been on all kinds of leadership training programs. But somewhere along the line he missed the essence of what leadership was really about. My friend wasn’t looking for him to be a hero, to solve her problems or anything dramatic. All she simply wanted was to bounce some ideas off someone who cared. That doesn’t mean he had to like my friend. But what he had to do was respect her and her situation and simply be there for her. But he was clueless.

I know this situation is not unique but plays itself out time and time again in organizations. It does tremendous harm and ultimately costs organizations millions of dollars. And it’s so unnecessary.

I do believe that every one of us is capable of caring. But sometimes we forget that this is perhaps the most important leadership skill. So if you’re reading this and if you lead others please, ask yourself, do you care about them? Really? If you do, do they know it? Or do you fit them in around your busy schedule? Remember, actions speak way louder than words in this case.

And if you don’t care, it’s okay – providing you’re not leading others. I think organizations would benefit a bunch from leaders being honest about what they care about. So if you are a leader and you don’t care about those who call you the boss, do me (and everyone else in your organization) a favour. Make a change. Either stop leading or start caring but please, don’t do what my friends boss continues to do – be a disinterested, clueless excuse for a leader.

Rosie Steeves has spent 35 years dispensing advice to senior corporate executives, ranging from Fortune 500 companies to small startups, on topics like leadership and organizational development. Recently, the Vancouver-based executive leadership coach took her own advice to heart and left the Refinery Leadership Partners Inc., where she was co-founder and principal, to start a new enterprise called Executive Works so that she could do more hands-on work with clients.

She has written a new book, Breaking the Leadership Mold, An Executive’s Guide to Achieving Organizational Excellence, which focuses on the challenges faced by senior executives in developing and sustaining healthy and successful corporations.

This is an edited version of a recent question-and-answer session with Steeves.

Why write the book?

I guess because I felt I had something to say, and to say what I really feel strongly isn’t being said — “Hey, look, I think there’s a problem at the top of organizations. By the way, executives, you may not know because your employees won’t tell you.”

Just about every book that I know of on this topic doesn’t address the unique situation that’s at the top. They tend to be generic leadership books. Things are different when you are running organizations. The book really is for those who are faced with those challenges, where they have to fly around the world, and deal with shareholders and regulators and everything else.

Give us a key point from your book.

I asked a colleague once if he knew of one highly performing executive team, and he didn’t know of one. I didn’t know of one. I know of a few individual executives who are doing great things, but as a team is anybody spending the time? No, they are not.

It’s not bad intent. They think if they spend time on themselves that it’s a luxury, that they’ve got to take care of the organization first. That’s the wrong way around.

They’ve got to spend time on themselves and develop their leadership. Simply because they are at the top doesn’t mean that we should expect them to be perfect.

The corporate communications sphere is changing very rapidly, thanks to social media. Are executives really ready for the challenges that this presents to them?

You have some that are great, but for the most part, no.

Let’s not assume that what has been happening in the past was effective. The way that executives particularly have got their message out to employees is through such things as a communications department. It crafts this beautiful message and out it goes. There is a lack of real, honest dialogue and conversation.

I think what can happen now, and we are seeing it in some organizations with social media, with blogs and whatever, is that there is an opportunity for those at the top to truly engage their employees in a conversation.

You suggest in the book that executives end up working too hard and taking on too much responsibility. What warning signs do you have if there’s too much on your plate?

Clearly, it’s the time [you spend on work]. I think more than that, increasingly we are seeing a trend not toward time management, but towards energy management. They can’t get the energy unless they are sleeping properly, unless they are eating properly, they’re exercising, they’re having some times where they actually don’t do anything.

There are going to be times when it’s going to be nuts and they’re going to be living on planes. It’s actually okay, I think, to have those times as long as there is a time when that stops.

Veteran senior executives risk falling into a trap of believing they don’t need more training. How do you figure out that might be the problem and how do you explain to people what they need to do?

Well, I’m very direct. But many aren’t, and therein lies the problem. I find it fascinating to go into organizations and see how those at the top see themselves and how those in the rest of the organization see them.

I did an informal poll on one of these LinkedIn networks of executives only, just kind of senior executives. Somebody put a question up there: What one word would you use to describe your leadership? You wouldn’t believe this was executives responding. They are “visionary,” “empowering,” “inspiring,” all these kinds of things.

Those are not the words that I hear when employees describe their leaders. I put a question up there: What one word do you think your employees would use to describe your leadership?

We got exactly the same answers, these beautiful wonderful words that did not describe what employees were experiencing — The leaders are absent, distracted, distant, they don’t understand their employees, their employees are not important to them.

Occasionally we get some of the real dysfunction, that the leaders are arrogant and all those things, but we don’t get that very often.

Leaders are so busying trying to manage their external environment that they are not paying attention to employees. The No. 1 driver of engagement is the extent to which senior leaders care about their employees.

What things can aspiring executives do to make sure they are ready to move up to that next level when the opportunity arises?

The most important thing is that they get to know themselves, that they grow and mature as people, that they become feedback junkies. That can happen in the workplace, but it can also happen outside the workplace. Some of the best leaders I’ve seen are young people that have taken on something in their community, or decided they are going to head up the strata council, or run the soccer club, those kinds of things.

It’s doing whatever they can in terms of personal development. I don’t mean going to do a course on Leadership 101 — but doing things they’ve never done before, things that scare them. It could be going on a hiking trip or jumping out of an airplane — things that cause them to look in the mirror.

Article by Scott Simpson – Vancouver Sun (ssimpson@vancouversun.com)

Everywhere I go these days, I hear stories of organizations working hard on engagement, and central to their efforts is the question of what they can do to engage their employees. But this is the wrong question. I don’t think they should be asking what they need to do to engage employees. Rather, they should ask how they could stop disengaging employees.

Consider this. On the day a new employee starts work, that employee is engaged. He or she typically wants to do a good job, is keen, anxious to learn and excited about the new opportunity. Then slowly, but surely, we go about the process of disengaging them.

What is it that happens in organizations that causes employees to disengage? I believe it is caused by a series of organizational missteps, most notably organizational neglect, organizational disdain and organizational busyness.

In many organizations the root cause of disengaged employees can be traced back to a systemic epidemic of organizational neglect. This doesn’t occur on Day 1 of the job when we show genuine interest in our new employees, ensure they have what they need to do the job, worry less about output and more about orientation. Oftentimes new employees meet those they consider to be senior managers, who perform as they should and show genuine interest in them.

Employees then embark on doing their work. Initially, engagement levels likely stay high as they learn the job. They’re intensely focused on the job at hand and are not looking for a sense of higher purpose or an enhanced relationship with senior management.

However, at some point the learning curve levels off and, no longer faced with the challenge of the job, new employees start to look for something else. They wonder if anyone cares or notices them. Indeed, the degree of attention they received on their first day of work is never repeated. And unless they’re performing badly, they likely drop off the radar for many managers. The lack of interest in their reality caused by neglect by senior managers can send a previously engaged employee down the spiral of disengagement.

Raised in the era of the mechanistic organization, all too many of today’s senior managers fail to appreciate the true value of employees. Quietly harbouring outdated metal models, in which employees are viewed as interchangeable parts of a machine, those at the top do not always value employees’ input – despite the rhetoric they may espouse. And every time an employee is not asked for input or every time he or she offers input and it’s dismissed as irrelevant, his or her degree of engagement spirals down.

In today’s world everyone is busy, but organizational busyness is simply not an excuse to permit the disengagement of employees. While it’s challenging, the links between the bottom line and employee engagement must surely make it a priority. It takes a lot less time to prevent engaged employees from becoming disengaged than trying to re-engage a disengaged employee.

Senior managers who genuinely want to prevent the spiral of disengagement can do so – if they care enough. The solutions are simple.
• Pay attention to your employees. While you likely can’t put as much effort into paying attention to your employees as you did on Day 1, don’t neglect them on Day 2. A simple acknowledgement can go an awful long way.
• Get into their world and their reality. Meet employees on their turf. There is much to be said for this notion of walking around – providing it’s done with genuine interest. Employees almost certainly have a different reality from those several hierarchical levels removed from them. Simply demonstrating to employees that you’re interested in their world can do wonders.
• There comes a point in all employees’ careers when they begin to question how their work fits into the bigger picture. This yearning for a connection to the larger system is not restricted simply to those at the upper end of the hierarchical pyramid. Explaining the bigger picture and their part in it will help mitigate the disengagement factor.

There is no mystery to engagement. It’s simply a matter of not disengaging. So ask yourself: what have you done (or not done) today to prevent your employees from becoming disengaged?

(This post was originally published in Business in Vancouver, August 31-September 6, 2010, issue 1088)

Some interesting discussions have occurred recently in our family over our two daughters’ bedrooms. The problem we face is that while one room is bright, roomy and spacious the other is, well, some would describe it more like a closet. When we first moved into the condo, it seemed pretty obvious that our eldest daughter should get the larger room. The younger one didn’t seem to either notice or mind. But since that time, our younger daughter has grown and is now questioning the obvious inequity of the situation.

All this got me thinking about offices in corporations. How often do we see executives with the huge offices with expansive views while the worker bees are closeted away in cubby holes? It is assumed that the higher up one is in the hierarchy, the larger and nicer the office.

But is this really appropriate? Is it a necessity or a perk? And what message does it send to others in the organization?

Perhaps is a requirement. Maybe that executive plays host to clients and government dignitaries who would be shocked and concerned if their host entertained them in anything less than the best. But perhaps others in the organization do likewise. And the reality is, more often than not, executive offices lie empty. Those at the top tend to travel extensively, leaving their fancy office and all its trappings simply collecting dust.

I’m not the one to judge whether those at the top are entitled to claim large offices with desirable views. But I would urge everyone in the organization to challenge the paradigm – be they at the top or not. Once you recognize that offices are cultural artifacts and not just places to hang your hat it changes how we view them. A significant message about doing things differently and valuing all employees (regardless of hierarchical position) comes when we ask the questions about appropriateness as distinct from assuming rights and privileges.

It is in the willingness to question and to challenge traditional paradigms that the learning and organizational shifts take place. If only those in organizations would fully appreciate the power of this – and act accordingly.

As for my daughters, the saga continues. My eldest is struggling with the decision (we’ve told her she must be the one that makes the decision based on what is the “right” thing to do) , but in so doing she’s learning a lot about equity, ethics and her own values. And that in itself is priceless.

IBM recently conducted face-to-face conversations with more than 1,500 Chief Executive Officers worldwide to determine what was on their mind and in particular how they were responding to today’s environment. The results? Eight in ten CEOs expect their environment to grow significantly more complex, and they strongly believe that the ability to lead creatively will be critical. Indeed, these CEOs now believe that creativity trumps all other leadership characteristics.

No great surprise there, but what is of concern is the fact that most of the CEOs interviewed (over half) seriously doubt their ability to cope with rapidly escalating complexity. They admit that they have never faced a learning curve so steep and are unsure how to handle the degree of complexity with which they will be faced. They must shake up their portfolios, adopt different business models, let go of their old ways of working and abandon long-held assumptions. They must be comfortable with ambiguity and experimentation.

However, although they know they must lead and interact in entirely new ways, it is the rare CEO that is confident of their abilities in this ever changing world – despite the image they may portray to the external world.

Given such self doubt, you’d think that CEO’s would be investing heavily in preparing themselves for this new reality. While it would be naive to expect that they instantly adopt a new style of leadership in response to the rapidly rising complexity, an expectation that they were aggressively working on developing the appropriate skills sets would certainly be in order.

Unfortunately nothing could be further from the truth. With a few notable exceptions, most CEOs I know fail to fully engage in their own personal development. Oh sure, they read books, attend networking events, and listen to eminent speakers, but none of this constitutes the intense developmental work that today’s environment calls for. Even those that hire a coach, more often than not, use that individual as a business consultant rather than someone who can help develop their leadership skills.

We do not have to look far to find the reasons for this failure (and yes, I do regard it as a failure). Those at the top have many pressures pulling them away. Their responsibilities are vast and they take them seriously. As such there is a constant pull away from their personal needs to those of the organization. This centrifugal force is a powerful one and the majority of well-intentioned executives I know do not spend time on their own development simply because they see it as a luxury — the needs of the organization must come first.

But unfortunately, it is not quite as simple as having insufficient time. Many of today’s executives, raised in era of the heroic leader, did not spend a lot of time in the early stages of their career in deep personal reflection and development. Rather, they were rewarded by achievement, driven by ambition, were likely good at maintaining public facade and waging office politics. This is not the profile of someone who commits time and energy to examining and redefining their leadership style – as is currently required in this increasingly complex world.

Those lower down the organizational hierarchy are often well aware that they need to develop their leadership. I always find those new to leadership or for whom leadership development is a new experience to be thirsty for feedback and for knowledge on how they may be impacting others. Rarely do I observe resistance amongst this population to developing their leadership abilities.

However, as these young leaders are promoted up the organizational hierarchy, something changes. Influenced by the organizational acknowledgment of their success as leaders, their drive for personal development decreases. By the time they reach the executive suite, many individuals assume they are indeed effective leaders.

While one would hope they are effective leaders, the assumption that they have “arrived” is a dangerous one. As the IBM study suggests, the world is a changing one and as such CEOs, just like any other leader in the organization, must constantly reflect on who they are and how they need to lead in these new circumstances. The fact they are at the top of the organizational food chain should not be taken as an assumption of their effectiveness. Just the opposite is true; the immense responsibility they hold demands, I believe, and equally large degree of self-development.

I don’t expect those who are leading our organizations to have it all figured out. But I do expect them to do what it takes to prepare for the future. And that means committing time, energy and resources to a real and relevant personal development program. It’s not a selfish act, but a critical strategy for their organization.

(This post was originally published in Business in Vancouver, July 20-26, 2010, Issue 1082)