Leadership Skills and Building Trust

I found two interesting papers by The Ken Blanchard Companies, Critical Leadership Skills and Building Trust, on the internet.

Critical Leadership Skills

The article reports on the findings of four studies conducted by the company, and that the critical skills are:

1. Communication/listening skills - reflective listening, use of a variety of styles, and providing relevant information
2. Effective people management skills - adapting the leadership style to suit the individual follower and the situation, modeling desired behaviours, and coaching
3. Emotional intelligence/empathy - putting the needs, issues and concerns of followers ahead of the leaders own; empathy, concern, engagement; valuing others, preserving their dignity.

Close to my own philosophy, if not performance!

Building Trust

The "high cost of low trust" has these components:

1. Low morale
2. Lower productivity
3. People 'quit but stay'
4. Increased turnover

The report finds that four elements (ABCD) of trust are:

1. Ability - demonstrated competence
2. Believable - acting with integrity
3. Connected - demonstrating care and concern for other people
4. Dependable - reliably following through on what one says one will do

The "trust busters" are

1. Lack of communication
2. Dishonesty
3. Breaking confidentiality
4. Taking credit for another's work

The "trust builders" are:

1. Giving credit
2. Listening
3. Setting clear goals
4. Honesty
5. Following through

The 8 things a leader should do to improve trust:

1. Demonstrate trust
2. Share information
3. Tell it straight
4. Provide opportunities for everyone to win
5. Provide feedback
6. Resolve concerns 'head on'
7. Admit to mistakes
8. Walk the talk

This reinforces the "critical skills" but adds more on 'how to'.

The Real Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs!

Here, in summary, are the general leadership lessons form Walter Isaacson's blog piece*.

A good leader:

1. Clearly articulates the intent of the organisation and ensures the whole organisation understands it, and conducts itself in accordance with that purpose and mission.
2. Understands the essence of the organisation's purpose and eschews activities and complications that absorb people's time and spirit, and wastes organisational resources.
3. Ensures that the organisation takes responsibility for its complete value chain - from its suppliers' suppliers to its customers' customers.
4. Encourages continuous improvement and couples this with "breakthrough" innovation 
5. Guides the organisation so that it remains true to its intent, purpose, mission and values
6. Thinks in terms of what people need, not what they want; makes a difference to the world.
7. Knows that people have more in them than they realise.  To rise to a challenge they must be motivated, and the motivation comes from their leader's confidence that they can do so.
8. Addresses not just the material needs of his/her follower, but considers (and uses to advantage) their emotional and spiritual needs.
9. Want his/her followers to have pride in their work.  This pride motivates them to do great deeds.
10. Expects his/her followers to do great things.

This is the beginning of the statement of my personal philosophy of leadership, mentoring and coaching.

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 10 - Tolerate Only 'A' Players

This piece* seems a bit confused.  It starts by reporting on Jobs' trait of being "impatient, petulant, and tough" on employees.  Although "not laudable", it emanates from his perfectionism and desire to "work with only the best".  But Jobs inspired people and many stayed loyal to him for long periods.

Presciently, Isaacson warns other CEOs that they "should not emulate his roughness without understanding his ability to generate loyalty".

Unfortunately, it's easier to be rough than it is to generate loyalty!

Perhaps the more general leadership lesson comes at the end of this section of the article where Isaacson quotes Jobs as saying that "by expecting them [followers] to do great things, you can get them to do great things".  But does expectation have to be so aggressive?

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

What do Leaders Do?

The inaugural issue of Momentum, the University of Queensland Business School magazine, answers this question using the research and views of five of their Professors and Lecturers.
The five components of their answer are:

1. Leaders create trust
2. Leaders facilitate strategy
3. Leaders drive change
4. Leaders manager emotions
5. Leaders build teams.

A summary of the answers is given below with my comments (in italics).

Leaders create trust (Dr. Nicole Gillespie)

Trust is important for "without trust, how can a leader engender commitment" according to Dr. Gillespie.  Trust can be built in six (6) ways - empowering, coordinating, coaching, developing common values and goals, modeling competence and integrity, and benevolence.
This view is quite similar to Onora O'Neill's response to the "crisis of trust".

Leaders facilitate strategy (Dr. John Steen)

Strategy formulation, says Dr. Steen, should be a continuing conversation facilitated by the leader.  This describes a coaching role for the leader - in this article Dr. Steen has made "leader" synonymous withe "CEO".

More generally, a leader should be having "sense-making conversations" with his/her followers to maintain a shared understanding of what is required and what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.

Leaders drive change (Prof. Victor Callan)

Change must be planned and driven by the leader, according to Prof. Callan.  To do so, business leaders must have self-confidence and conviction.
This is a very "directive" view of the change managers role, perhaps missing the many other entities that create change in an organisation.  A bit too "heroic" for my taste!

Leaders manage emotions (Prof. Neal Ashkanasy)

Professor Ashkanasy's research looks into how emotions get one into "the top job" and "makes you successful" once you become the leader.  The Profs piece touches on rhetoric as motivation, modeling appropriate emotions, and emotional intelligence. 

This, to me, is somewhat akin to Kant's imperative that people be treated with respect.

Leaders build teams (Dr. Neil Paulsen)

The Doctor sees that a leaders contribution is "not about having all the answers" but is in "coordinating and connecting ideas and resources" to enable team success.  He also believes that effective leaders should "manage the context" in which the team operates.

This view of the purpose of leadership being the success of the "followers" is very much in line with my thinking on leadership.

Reflection

This is a very interesting article and quite informative.  It is one of the best I've read in the "popular" press on the topic.  And not just because the writers agree with me!

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 9 - Push for perfection

Toy Story, the iPhone and the iPad are given by Isaacson* as products where Steve Jobs' showed his "push for perfection".  If one considers Steve Jobs as a product designer this conclusion seems fair.  But a leader wouldn't necessarily aim for perfection in a product, activity or outcome, in my view.

A leader would want his/her followers to have pride in their work.  That pride would motivate them to achieve great deeds (and deliver great products).

Next: Lesson 10 - Tolerate Only "A" Players

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

Reflections on 21722 so far (2) ...

Robert Kennedy and the Death of Martin Luther King

The rhetoric of great US political leaders

The documentary on Bobby Kennedy's speech reporting the death of King was touching and inspiring.

US political leaders so often are very good orators; their rhetoric is so often inspiring with its blend of logos, pathos and ethos.

My favourite piece

Part of a documentary I once saw about Malcolm X contained my favourite piece of political rhetoric.  Malcolm was discussing equality, refuting it as an objective of American black people.  He asked why blacks would want to be the equals of whites - those who had subjugated them, insulted them, lynched them.  He saw blacks as better than that and that they should act accordingly.

Truly inspiring.

Reflections on 21722 so far ...

A personal philosophy of Leadership, Mentoring and Coaching

The MD of King Gee at the time of the closure of the Kempsey factory had an interesting, unusual and praiseworthy approach to the closure.  He wanted staff to "leave with dignity" to celebrate the "life" of the factory rather than mourn its "death".  During class discussion, a comment was made that as MD he had "no choice" but to close the plants.  But I believe that managers always have a choice.  He could have refused to be involved, although this may not have been the best option for his employees.  He perhaps could have worked to have the factory handed over to local management and staff.  He may have had the ability years earlier to choose an approach that wouldn't lead to closure.

Hard decisions

The "hard decisions" of leadership are not necessarily those forced upon the leader or the ones that involve them sacking their followers.  The hard decisions are the ones avoided, ignored or not noticed;  that are made by default and are left unchallenged.

Competence and Morality

The structure of university management courses means that broad and underpinning topics - such as "Leadership" and "Change" - are addressed as self-contained almost independent subjects.  But I see a connection between management competence and morality.  For example, women represent 50% of the population but only 3-40% of managers are women (depending on level and industry).  Given that men and women, across the population, are of equal intelligence, an organisation where women are under-represented in management has a lower level of competence (or potential competence).
Similarly, employees who are treated as mature, honest, intelligent people (not "assets") are happier and more productive (as described in the Service-Profit Chain).
An organisation striving for high performance would therefore employ moral leadership.  Not to do so is incompetence.
The majority of organisations have incompetent management (see "Management Matters").  Improving the overall competence of management would therefore lead to more moral leadership of these organisations.

Incompetence and harm

Managers lack competence but not power.  Power allows undeserved harm to be done both deliberately and accidentally.  Even highly competent managers are capable of doing undeserved harm.  This capability can be prevented from causing harm when power is devolved.  Management approaches such as those of W Edwards Deming and Ricardo Semler devolve power to employees and so limit the potential for its abuse.
But such approaches are not the stuff of business schools.  The doing of harm continues.