Like many Americans, I was transfixed by the story of the hijacking of the freighter Maersk Alabama since Somali pirates first boarded by force last Wednesday.The larger story of piracy in the region fascinates, of course, but the leadership story of Captain Richard Phillips compels discussion. If the media accounts are anywhere near accurate, if ever there were a leader who engendered loyalty in his followers through the coolness of his thinking and the quality of his character, that leader would be Captain Richard Phillips.
To recap for anyone who may have missed it: when the unarmed crew of the freighter knew it was being boarded by pirates bristling with arms and armaments, the captain’s greatest concern was the safety of his crew. When he was taken hostage, his loyal crew credited him with saving their lives at the risk of his own.From all accounts, no one was more joyful at his safe return after a grueling ordeal in a small boat in a large ocean was that same crew. After all, Phillips had volunteered to be taken hostage to reduce the risk of capture, injury and death to the seamen who worked for him.
Wow.
Now think about the captains of the ships of industry afloat – or awash – on the pirate-infested seas of our global economy.How many of their crews believe that their captain is personally willing to off-load risks from the workers onto themselves? How many of their crews believe that the captain is truly trying to keep them safe? What are they looking to as evidence of the leader’s willingness and ability to care for his or her followers?
Senior leaders today are all about getting their people to do more with less - to find innovative solutions to customer needs.So what can 21st century leaders learn from Stonehenge?Or, more accurately, from retired construction worker Wally Wallington of Flint, Michigan in the US, who seems to have solved the mystery that has stumped leading scientists, archaeologists and engineers for hundreds, maybe thousands of years: how the massive stone enclosure was constructed. This innovative guy, driven by his own curiosity and informed by his experience in construction as well as his own powers of observation and deduction, demonstrates how simple and easy it would have been to create Stonehenge. http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/posts/moving_big_rocksWhat do you take away from this story?What are the leadership lessons here? Sometimes the best thing to do is to find people who are intensely curious about solving problems, and then get out of their way.
Why did Ansgar Gabrielson, a conservative minister for trade and industry in Norway with no particular affection for women’s liberation, flip the gender politics of Norwegian business leadership on its head in 2002?By that I mean, why did he suddenly declare without warning that 40% of all boardroom positions in companies listed on the Oslo stock exchange would be held by women within five years, or be shut down?This in a country in which, at the time, 94 percent of all board positions held by men.
The simple reason: Gabrielson was willing to look at the facts.Here I quote the Times UK Online (June 8, 2008):
“He was not driven by ideology aimed at creating equality between the sexes, he says, despite accusations that the quota law was created by ‘fetishists of diversity.’The boardroom revolution he ushered in was inspired by studies in the United States showing that the more women there are at the top of a company, the better it performs.”
As a top minister for Norway, he saw an opportunity for a country whose population was aging, and who needed to draw on the talents of more of its citizens in order to compete.The Times piece quotes him:
“’What’s the point in pouring a fortune into educating girls… if, when it comes to appointing business leaders in top companies, these are drawn from just half the population – friends who have been recruited on fishing and hunting trips or from within a small circle of acquaintances?It is all about tapping into valuable under-utilised resources.’”
I have not yet met Gabrielson, but did have a chance to engage with other Norwegians last week about what their dramatic leap into gender equality at the top has taught them: the positive effects on business results for sure (very positive), but also very positive results for children, women and-- guess what – men!It is fascinating story, and clearly provides a bold example of how any organization, even those outside the social support net of Norway, might think about re-populating the top of the house for competitive advantage.
Kate O’Sullivan of CFO Magazine has launched a new column on leadership aimed specifically at professionals in the finance organization who aspire to increase their impact on the larger organization.
In her inaugural column, O'Sullivan looks not only at what leaders need to do to mature to the next stage of their leadership development, but also what they need to stop doing.
From what I can tell, O’Sullivan’s column -- both this one and future ones -- will be relevant to anyone who wants to transition from contributing primarily through technical expertise to contributing more broadly as a leader.It is definitely worth a look.
Amy Reece of LeaderReview invited me to talk about our book The Leadership Code with a group of her clients yesterday.For those who don’t know Amy, she is a gifted coach and consultant who also provides her clients the service of seeking out books that they should know about.Somehow, our book made that list. If you have time for all or part of the 45 minute recording on Leadership Code, enjoy! You will get the usual virus warnings – rest assured that this link is fine.
If you have any questions or comments about this podcast or anything else, please be sure to connect with me either through this blog or directly through my email.Thanks!
No one needs to be reminded that the current economic downturn is global.Interestingly, when it comes to leadership at this time, it appears that important questions are universal as well.
I recently responded to a set of questions sent to me by a reporter for a Chinese business magazine.The first question that he asked was the first one that I often hear from people in the US and Europe as well.Specifically: “In times of crisis, what changes do you observe in leadership style and substance -- is leadership less important than it was before?” Basically is it more about execution, with the needs of the people and preparing for the future taking a distant back seat?
This question from China is highly relevant.We have heard many examples of senior level people who have in effect abandoned their leadership responsibilities to hunker down and “do what needs to be done.”They ignore the needs of the people upon whom they depend, the larger organization, even the future in the name of exigency.
Leadership is important at all times, even in good times, because the ability to think and plan ahead, to really know what customers want, to get ahead of change, to sensibly manage resources and coordinate execution, to engage people today and around their own futures will keep those good times going.If we had had good leadership in key institutions over the past few years, we would not be in the fix we are in today.Imagine, for instance, if leaders in certain US financial institutions had said: “It runs counter to our values and our collective long term benefit to focus only on short term profits.We must only sell instruments and securities that we understand, and that accurately reflect risk as well as return.”Look as well as the companies whose leaders had the wisdom not to over-extend themselves during the good times in order to have sufficient resources to weather the downturn today.Those folks can even position themselves better for the recovery because they can make smart investments in the business and talent that the competition can’t.
That said, nothing heightens the sheer drama around the role of leader more than a crisis.In tough times, people need leaders who are visible, who engage with their people, and who are willing to take action.Employees need leaders who reduce their sense of insecurity, and who give them confidence that they will live in a safety and prosperous future -- eventually.They need leaders who are as honest as they can be about what they face, and who have a plan for moving forward.When anxiety runs high, leaders need to communicate with those around them more than before, and be prepared to listen to the concerns and ideas of others.When leaders do that, they will find that the people needed to do the work will be better able to focus on the tasks before them with energy and goodwill.
Psychologists will tell us that the hardest emotion for people to live with is uncertainty. Leaders need to reduce that feeling in their people.Even bad news is better than no news.If you happen to be in a business for which 2009 is going to be really tough, acknowledge that.Then engage in the dialogue around how to move forward from there to succeed.If you are in a business that should do fine in this downturn, for heaven’s sake, say that as well!The psychology of this downturn, at least in the US, is far more negative than it needs to be.Help your people live in as positive a reality as you can.
In our book The Leadership Code: Five Rules to Lead By, one of our key findings in that all great leaders, male and female, are personally proficient in a figuring out and staying true to their goals, while learning,growing and changing along the way.
Surveys of CEOs will tell us that the two main barriers blocking women from the C-suite are: 1) lack of line experience, and 2) lack of support for female advancement from the top.These are certainly true. But even the women who have succeeded in the line organization and are supported by well-intentioned senior management can lose the struggle.Research by the Calvert Fund’s Women’s Initiative Project, shared with me by Calvert’s Amy Augustine , finds that a significant disconnect persists between companies that have tried to create structures and systems to advance women and their actual advancement into the top levels.
What’s missing?A few things, but one I would like to discuss because it is within the individual’s power to change. A woman leader’s own “personal proficiency” in dealing with the extraordinary challenges of entering this all-male domain distinguishes those who ascend from those who get stuck. The female leader has to keep her internal act together while going about the careful and painstaking task of building trust and credibility with a group of guys who likely have a lot more in common with each other than they do with her– and possible a longer history as well.
If you are a woman reading this blog, imagine trying to truly integrate a man into your next girls’ weekend, and you’ll begin to understand the nature and enormity of the challenge!
In speaking with a number of women executives and coaches to women executives (big thank you again to Ellen Kumata of Cambria Consulting for her wisdom and experience in this area), women who manage to gain the trust of the men they need to have faith in her are proficient in seven key ways:
1.They keep their goals front and center. You can endure a lot when you know your purpose. Successful people in general view setbacks as speed bumps, not de-railers.
2.They know themselves.The more the woman leader understands herself and her own predispositions, assumptions and reactions to the world, especially the male world, the better prepared she will be to keep her emotions and behaviors in check.As Ellen observes “Women tend to think more broadly about business issues on both the business and the people sides, including the long term.But they are not thinking broadly about themselves. They do not see their own potential; they do not fully comprehend the politics.”Women who are successful in getting into the C-suite realize that it is perfectly ok to work the high end corporate politics in order to pull the top team together in ways that advance them to the benefit of the organization.
3.They prepare for a stressful journey.Getting to the top is not easy for anyone, and is especially anxiety producing for those who don’t fit the existing molds.Successful senior women leaders accept that this is the case.Accepting this also lessens the stress.Women as a group tend to take things more personally than men do, and women who make it to the C-suite have learned to personalize a lot of what others do around them.
4.They are willing to learn new behaviors and approaches that men can value. Women who enter the C-suite have met the men there more than halfway.Since they tend to have more awareness of the issues of difference, they are in a better position to mitigate them.These women are investigative reporters: they find out what the burning issues are for their male colleagues, they find where those concerns overlap with their own, and they find ways to help their colleagues to succeed.An excellent approach is to find a male trusted advisor who can give anthropological guidance in the male culture.Smart women also ask anyone who will give it for feedback about how they are showing up: do they have “executive presence?”
5.They tend to their own character and integrity. Learning and being willing to change is one thing. Giving up one’s personal identity or values for success is another. Successful women who maintain their stamina for the long term don’t give up on who they truly are even as they stretch to meet others more than half way.
6.They take care of themselves.Health and wellness, spending time with family and friends – the things we all know that we should do but too often sacrifice.The more stress the leaders is under, the more she needs to take care of herself.
7.They energy and passion for what they do.They use that female emotional mojo to their advantage.
Finally, I have to share a link with anyone interested in this topic of woman as leaders – starting as girls. This was forwarded to me by Tara Cousineau of WomenInsight: http://www.girleffect.org/#/video/It is both touching and terrific.
If you would like to contact me, please email ksweetman@rbl.net. Thanks for reading!
“Forget it,” said my friend Allison. “This is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.People these days are interested in the bottom line, not touchy feely stuff.They are not interested in issues of women and leadership, or helping women to get to the top.”
My friend Alison is smart, sophisticated, and well-educated.She even has an MBA from a top-tier school.Is she right?She is certainly expressing a sentiment that I have heard from more than a few people recently: we don’t have time to worry about this gender equity thing when all attention must be placed on the business. Implicit in this attitude, of course, is the assumption that helping women to play a larger leadership role is somehow, well, window-dressing, politically correct, or just a nice thing to do.What this attitude excludes is the possibility that allowing women to participate fully and completely to their best abilities is part of the answer to various crises around the world.
Consider the following: companies that have at least 25% women at the executive level enjoy a 35% higher return on equity than their industry peer group, and 34% higher total return to shareholdersthan their industry peer group.This research was done by Catalyst , a research think tank that focuses on issues of women in the workplace. And if the company strategy depends on innovation, the evidence is also unequivocal that gender-balanced teams deliver measurably better innovation outcomes.
Are short term pressures combined with outmoded thinking – or little thinking at all -- making it harder for women to be part of the solution?
The evidence so far is only anecdotal, but it seems that some companies are in fact using this crisis as a way to re-organize women into positions of greater power and influence.
Ellen Kumata, Managing Director of Cambria Consulting here in Boston recently told me the story of a Fortune 100 CEO that she coaches.This man completely “gets” the strategic imperative for women at the highest levels of decision-making.“When he looks at his strategy of going global,” she reported, “it is crystal clear to him that the top of the house cannot just be the mid-western white males he’s got. He knows that he needs diversity of thinking and a variety of perspectives. He knows that he can only do this by having a variety of people in the decision-making process.”
Other partial confirmation comes from Barbara Annis, chair-elect of the Woman’s Leadership Board at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, co-author of Leadership and the Sexes, and author of Same Words, Different Language.In her words: “We are seeing two reactions to tough economic times.One is a complete retraction, a total focus only in the short term, a focus only in the bottom line.”The other reaction is to view this crisis as a priceless opportunity to make change happen.Keeping confidential the identity of her client, Barbara Annis shared with me a conversation that she had with the CEO a major global financial institution.“This is our chance to get women to the top,” he said. “We’ll cancel other people initiatives, but not this one.”
It is tough work indeed for women to enter into the very competitive alpha male group at the top of these global entities, but with the enlightened support of key men who are there, it can happen – especially in the toughest economic times.
In tomorrow’s blog, I will share some more concrete observation and advice on how to make that happen. Comments? Please write me at ksweetman@rbl.net And check out our new book Leadership Code at www.leadershipcodebook.com.
I was talking to my Uncle Dave Sweetman last night about the curious timing of the launch of the Leadership Code.Our book, meant to consolidate the learning of the most reflective, experienced and knowledgeable people in the world on the topic of leadership and organize it into a simple, elegant framework, hit the scene just as many businesses were retracting their leadership efforts in the interests of the short term bottom line.
Uncle Dave, ever the optimist, said immediately, “No, the timing is perfect. All of these problems trace back to a lack of leadership, and leadership is what will fix it. Just tell them that.”
I said that we knew that, of course, but that the issues remained mental bandwidth, physical energy and budget. So he said: “Well, surely they are doing something. Tell them this: if you are clutching at straws, clutch this one.”
What do you think? Does your company place leadership at the forefront in troubled times? Are you clutching the right straws?
How do you get more out of the organization that you’ve got, or from the organization that you’re downsizing into?Combine fewer people and higher anxiety, and you’ve got a whole host of possible viruses that can give the organization a teeth-chattering case of organizational ague: internal competition for scarce resources from the top on down, overwork, unclear priorities, conflicting messages – any I have missed?
To help your people and your organization clear up these viruses and focus their attention and actions on executing on the right things in the right ways, consider using an old-fashioned Work-out.Yes, I am talking about the GE Work-out that readers of a certain age will remember from 1989 when GE unleashed a radical new process to bust through its bureaucracy and quickly find ways to get unnecessary work out of a downsized organization. Some of you may have read the book GE Work-Out co-authored by my colleague Dave Ulrich who was involved in this pioneering effort; there is also lots of information on Work-out on the web.
The antidote that Workout provided was the simple act of bringing together those closest to and most impacted by an important issue or opportunity, and having them go through a collective decision-making process, the results of which all parties would have to commit to act upon.In the words of then-CEO Jack Welch: “Workout is designed to create an environment where every man and woman in the company can see and feel a connection between what he or she does all day…and winning in the marketplace.”
I was reminded of the power of Work-out last week when I met Bev Davids for the first time.She runs an organization called The Greenwich Group out of Toronto which has adapted Workout for our current conditions. Here’s my best attempt to recap the conversation that I had with Bev:
Kate:I am old enough to remember the excitement about Workout back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.I also can’t help but wonder if a 20 year old process can really be useful in the Internet age.Isn’t this your father’s management Oldsmobile?
Bev:Workout is all about high involvement and rapid decision-making. What could be more relevant to today’s challenges?It was relevant then, it’s relevant now and I daresay it will be relevant 20 years from now.
Kate:If every organization knows that it needs to be more speedy and engaging, why can’t they simply address that issue head-on?Isn’t a Workout really just a workaround – a process placed on top of the real issue?
Bev:Think about your own blogs on viruses – groupthink, not invented here, and the rest. Left on their own, organizations tend not to listen very well, good ideas languish in in-boxes, innovations get raised but not acted upon. Organizations tend more toward inertia than toward taking new actions or adopting new habits that could be useful. Without a dedicated and formalized process for getting things done like a Workout , it is often hard for voices to be heard, decisions to be taken, and actions to happen.
Kate:I get from the GE experience that Workout is great for bureaucracy busting.But how Workout support the initiatives that so many organizations have at the center of their strategies today around, like innovation and globalization?
Bev:Yes, Workout was very focused on bureaucracy-busting – that was why it was invented.It proved so effective, though, that both GE and other organizations have adapted it for other uses, from process improvement to strategy implementation – wherever the issue is of medium complexity and touches many people. It is a very useful fit for organizations that have been through downsizings because many minds and perspectives need to come together around the challenge of “how will we go forward with so many fewer people?”This challenge requires organizations to be very innovative in how they approach their work.They may need to conceive of it entirely differently.They need a way for innovative ideas to come forward.
Kate: If this is all about hearing voices, it may also be a useful tool for organizations hoping to make the most of the diversity in the organization - the voices that are sometimes not heard.
Bev: There is a strong link to diversity in these situations: the best solutions to the post-downsizing world will be found in the diverse wisdom and experience remaining in the organization.A workout in this situation needs to include representatives from different levels, functions, skills, experiences, genders, thinking styles, nationalities – you name it.
Kate:What’s a good example of Workout delivering an innovative solution?
Bev: Here’s a simple one, not around downsizing but around employee engagement, another “soft” issue for our times. The business issue was that new employees in this organization were having a terrible experience in their first week or so on the job.The organization was not prepared to receive them, and the negative impression really colored their emerging opinion of and level of commitment to their new employer. So, we decided to tackle the issue of the induction process of the new employee. For that Workout, we brought together recent hires from various backgrounds, as well as HR, IT and others.They quickly got to 12 recommendations, all of which have been implemented and had very positive impact.One that comes to mind: that the process of approving the technology for the new hire would begin as soon as the position was approved. That meant, when the person arrived, his or her technology was all set up and ready to go on the desk. This had a HUGE effect on employee morale: they felt they had joined a very together company and had the satisfaction of being productive from Day 1. This solution could never have come from HR by itself or IT by itself.
Kate:Sounds simple and powerful.
Bev:Happy employees mean happy customers. And one happy employee means many happy employees because as we all know, moods are contagious.
Kate:So far, so good. But what can go wrong?
Bev:Leaders who want to implement a process that promises to engage and listen to employees had better follow up on that promise. If they undertake an engagement process and then fail to listen and take action, they will have made a bad situation worse.
