One of the rude awakenings for leaders promoted from within a team is the uncomfortable recognition that the easy camaraderie of the pre-promotion days immediately gives way to an awkward distancing of relationships.
Congratulations on your promotion. Oh, and you’re no longer part of the gang
It is always fun to be part of the Leadership Development Carnivals, because it gives me a chance to hang out with some very accomplished leadership bloggers and thought leaders. I learn something of value from these great professionals every time, and I never mind that I benefit from being in their company!
This month’s issue of the Leadership Development Carnival is hosted at Intentional Leadership, the home of Mary Jo Asmus, one of my must-read favorites for her wisdom, insights and the fact that she exudes professionalism and that “all around great person” in everything that she writes.
The old adage of “you get what you measure” is an old adage for a reason. It’s generally true.
Get your team talking about the right topics and get them focused on assessing and comparing based on the criteria that are the most important to your success. Skip the summer strategy offsite and start the dialogue on determining what’s truly important, and you’ll find yourself and your organization moving and working the right things faster than you might imagine.
There are at least two major perspectives on negotiation that I’ve encountered. One says quite clearly that in a negotiation you are duty-bound to secure the absolute best possible outcome for your firm. The implication of this approach is of course that a negotiation is a boxing match, with the bigger, stronger athlete not just winning, but also destroying the opponent.
The other emphasizes understanding the interests of the all parties and crafting something that meets those interests in an equitable manner.
My biggest mistakes as a leader occurred as a result of spending way too much time attempting to change two people. I was young, new to the formal leadership scene and convinced that with my help and guidance, these two talented individuals would certainly shed their dysfunctional and toxic behaviors.
Wow, was I wrong!
I’m particularly drawn to the quality of “mental toughness” in great leaders. Where most would have cut and run, the best stare at adversity and seem to draw strength from the enormity of the challenges in front of them. Failures are but mere setbacks and when conventional wisdom and all of the advisors preach capitulation, these leaders see and seize opportunity.
I look for this quality in leaders in the business environment, but often our hiring and screening processes get in the way. We tend to focus on hiring those that package themselves as flawless.
Gary Hamel offers a post well worth reading on “Why Success Often Sows the Seeds of Failure,” in his Management 2.0 blog at the Wall Street Journal. He takes some tough and well-earned shots at the narrow-minded thinking of executives that foments the eventual demise of formerly good organizations.
In my opinion, the habits and traps that bedevil formerly successful companies also exist in those less-than successful organizations. Regardless of starting point, the tendencies and habits of ineffective executive leadership are not hard to see. In theory, they shouldn’t be hard to call out and change. However, we don’t. Why not?
My recent post, “Why Do Evil Leaders Flourish in Some Organizations” struck a chord or at least a nerve for many, as the many insightful comments quickly outstripped the value of the original post. Thanks to all that jumped in and shared on this topic.
On the heels of what turned out to be a deluge of good thoughts on why some leaders and some people get away with less than agreeable (to the rest of us) behaviors in the workplace, I keep coming back to the topic of Values as a core issue.
The results of my informal polling as well as my formal surveying (as part of culture assessments) indicates that for many organizations, values exist as nice statements in a frame with little meaning or use in day-to-day business dealings.
Like bad coffee, I’m not particularly fond of leading by consensus or even seeking consensus as a decision-making tool. I’ve long viewed managing by consensus as a “Tyranny of Mediocrity” approach to leading and making decisions. In seeking consensus, compromises are made that eliminate the more radical, revolutionary innovations and settle on solutions that make as many parties as possible happy.
