COMPLEXITIES THAT CHALLENGE BALANCE
In the preceding section and indeed throughout this book, we encourage you to be mindful of maintaining a dynamic tension between the opposing competencies of the model. It is certainly true that over time and across multiple situations we believe you will find greatest success by managing your behavior such that you operate near the midrange on each competency (neither overdoing nor underdoing consistently). Striking a balance will enhance your ability to cultivate trust and increase the likelihood that you will lead in an authentic fashion—particularly during times of change and transition. That being said, there are also times that call for the ability to manage “out of balance” in order to meet the demands of situational challenges—situational leadership, if you will. While a detailed examination of the more subtle application of the model is beyond the scope of this book, a couple of examples may serve to stimulate your thinking.
Situational Demands for Leadership
There are actually good reasons for managing with the competencies out of balance…at least for limited periods of time. Take, for example, the manager who inherited a division that had suffered from inattentive and lax leadership and had missed its targets for five quarters…more than a year underdelivering and exceeding budget. A change in management was made to correct the situation. The new manager came in and found poor levels of motivation and performance at lower levels in the division. There was a general lackadaisical attitude. People seemed totally unconcerned about their failure to meet objectives. Excuses for the poor performance were rampant, but data suggested low effort, poor attention to detail, and a general lack of urgency. The previous manager had exercised patience during the last reorganization, trying to allow people time to understand and accept the new strategy, but he had failed to balance that patience with the drive and motivation to follow through on the needed changes. Resistance and complacency had taken hold, and the change effort was being derailed.
The new manager had to ratchet up the sense of urgency in order to break the malaise and stimulate attention to productivity and better cost management. Although she understood that the change in leadership added yet another transition to be coped with, she also understood that her major challenge was to interrupt the negative and unhealthy behavior pattern that was presently block-ing performance. She brought her team together and issued very challenging cost management and productivity targets. She explained the dilemma that the division was in and how it was affect-ing other parts of the company. She was careful to let her team members know that it should not have to be this way indefinitely, but that she would be monitoring more closely than usual until the division’s contribution had been reestablished. She instituted more team meetings and shortened report times. She opened the door to input from the team, but didn’t hesitate to rely on her own judgment and experience when swift action or decisions were required.
If you were to assess this leader’s performance on the wheel during this turnaround period, you would likely rate her as overdoing sense of urgency, self-reliance, being tough, and catalyzing change, while limiting her expression of realistic patience and trusting others. These tactics were undertaken deliberately and consciously and were justified in the short term to reignite the change process. Typically, new managers will be granted a grace period while their approaches and styles are evaluated. We propose, however, that if this style of operating is tied more to personal preference than to situational demands or if it is maintained after the triggering situation has improved, the likely result will be a breakdown in morale and trust and a culture that operates on the basis of compliance rather than commitment. In the situation above, people might continue to meet the minimum requirements of her demands, but she would lose respect and trust to a degree that would likely undermine sustainable commitment and long-term success. Of course, this situation might have been avoided entirely had the leader’s predecessor been more balanced in applying the wheel’s competencies when the change was rolled out in the first place.
This is but one example of how some of the competencies may need increased or decreased emphasis in certain situations. A deeper examination of the subtle impact of cultural and situational forces is beyond the scope of this book. It has been our experience that managers have a tendency to overdo the more traditional competencies associated with leadership, such as being tough and self-reliance, over the aspects of emotional intelligence affiliated with being empathetic and trusting others. These patterns often appear to be linked to stereotypical mental models of how leaders are supposed to behave. The effect can be heightened when these same behavior patterns are subsequently reinforced by the reward systems in unenlightened organizational cultures. Neither is an excuse if the establishment of authentic leadership is the goal.
The ever-changing landscape of business makes it impossible for anyone to “settle in” on a balanced profile. The model is meant to be dynamic. It requires managers to periodically assess themselves on the competencies. The circumstances at the time will determine which of the competencies may need more or less emphasis. If managers find that they are habitually overdoing or underdoing the same competencies, it may be helpful for them to search for unintended consequences that may have escaped their attention. It is these unintended consequences that separate the mediocre from the excellent.
Prevailing Leadership Culture
Throughout this book we have characterized the expression of the various dimensions of the transition leadership wheel as though they were the unique province of an individual’s preferred leadership style or typical pattern of behavior. Indeed, we know from our work with thousands of executives that the tendency to overdo or underdo a given competency (or cluster of related competencies) is often linked to the presence of underlying personality characteristics, interpersonal needs and values, or prior learning experiences. On the other hand, understanding and predicting leadership behavior is a bit more complex than that. Simply stated, a given leader’s behavior never exists in a vacuum. Every organization has a culture that helps to shape and define the context in which an individual’s behavior is perceived and judged. The emphasis a leader gives the different competencies of the wheel is influenced by the organization’s culture, and the formal and informal reward systems that reinforce that culture. Often the most powerful factors are subtle and difficult to observe unless one is part of the system. The powerful rules that drive and hone leader behavior are often the unwritten and unspoken threads that are woven into the fabric of day-to-day life. People come to know these subtleties by how they are rewarded or punished. The rewards and punishments are themselves often subtle. They shape behavior and are most powerful (and sometimes insidious) when they are outside our awareness.
For example, some organizational cultures operate in a heavy-handed and competitive manner with little room for mistakes and no patience with the expression of discontent. Such an organization might be perceived as a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest kind of place. This information, of course, would never show up in the mission statement, employee handbook, or formal orientation session. People figure it out from the way some people with certain styles or patterns of strengths are recognized and favored while others are passed over and discounted. These norms are revealed in how the leaders act day to day. Their behavior serves as a model for how others are supposed to act in their own practice of leadership.
We were once brought in to coach a very promising assistant vice president by the human resources department. He had been accused of abusive behavior in general and of creating a toxic environment in his department. After meeting with him, conducting some psychological assessments, and interviewing people close to him, we found a person whose intentions and style seemed to be at odds with the negative behavior attributed to him. In our coaching sessions we discovered that he was acting not in congruence with his own beliefs and style, but was instead repeating patterns of behavior that he had witnessed in other leaders in the company. While he was never directly encouraged to treat people in such a negative way, he had learned to operate in that fashion by observing others being rewarded for that style. We offer this example as neither an excuse for ineffective leadership behavior nor an example of executive naïveté. Rather, our purpose is to demonstrate the subtle and insidious ways that organizational culture can influence leadership behavior and style.
It is important to remember that cultural norms can transmit effective, healthy patterns of behavior as well. When conducting organizational assessment interviews within organizations, we often find leaders who are modeling behavior that is both engaging and motivating. When asked why they do what they do, they might say, “I really hadn’t thought about it. It’s just the way we do things here.” Admittedly, we are more likely to be invited into situations where leaders need to shift their behavior in a positive direction. But we would be remiss if we failed to acknowledge that organizational culture can operate in ways that nurture and support the practice of effective leadership rather than undermine it.
What are the subtle ways that your organizational culture operates to influence leader behavior? A useful exercise is to map those subtleties on the transition leadership wheel. Can you actually name some of the influences? Can you see how your culture may influence your leadership style? Can you catch yourself passing some of those influences along to those who look to you for leadership?
It is less than authentic leadership to blame your culture for your behavior. Yes, it is a challenge to behave in ways that are in conflict with the prevailing cultural norms. It may appear easier and safer to simply conform to the practices observed in others, but accepting the leadership challenge includes being willing to challenge practices that aren’t in the best interest of the organization or its constituents. It takes more courage to follow one’s own beliefs and values than to fall into the pace and style of an organization’s culture. And in the end, most leaders will find that their careers are judged and rewarded based on their competence, their performance, and their personal integrity. Leading with authenticity—balancing the dynamic tensions between the human and structural aspects of leadership—can be the most effective. If your culture rewards and punishes leadership behavior in a manner that fosters chronic imbalance and you succumb to that style, you may thrive in the short term while undermining your ultimate potential as a leader in the long term. Leading with authenticity will often test your level of personal conviction, but you will never have the ease of applying your own style within a vacuum. Cultural context will always be present.