Governance Coaching - Why not? What if?

Several years ago an organization reached out to me requesting consulting support in respect of both strategic planning and governance. When the request came in I had this tremendous sense of deja vu.  The organization and the issues they presented to me had an air of familiarity that I could not place and yet I sensed that in some way, some how, in some fashion I had heard this story before.  And it wasn't just that the issues they presented were generically common to other such engagements.  As a consultant and executive coach I was certainly well-versed with this organization's stated desires - revitalize and confirm long-term strategic directions; re-establish understanding and commitment to Mission/Vision/Values; and, clarify and confirm governance framework and implementation through agreed upon policies and protocols.  

For several hours (if not days) after having received the request I found myself wracking my brain as to why this seemed so much more tangible in my mind then any other similar request from any organization.  And then it came to me. I hadn't done this kind of work with this organization before - but a colleague of mine had!  This very same organization had engaged my colleague to provide in-depth governance and conflict resolution services that had resulted in the creation and solidification of governance philosophy and framework with particular emphasis on a Board of Directors code of conduct.  This organization had been experiencing significant conflict at the board level up to an including threats of legal action.  They sought and got support from my colleague to navigate them through this minefield. 

The board had done good work with my consulting colleague.  They had tackled hard issues.  They had arrived at short-term resolution and had set up agreements to help them move forward. Yet two or three years later they were knocking on my door looking to centre themselves yet again.  What had happened?  How did things get lost (again)?  

Make no mistake, every one of the board members was very interested in the work of their organization.  Every one of the board members wanted to make a difference or impact in the work that they were doing.  None of them sought a board position merely to put that type of position on their resume.  For the most part, this is true for almost any board especially for those boards that rely on voluntary (versus paid) commitment.  Almost without exception, directors become involved in an organization because they are committed to its mission and want to help it achieve great things. Yet many boards find themselves floundering and seem to reinvent the proverbial governance wheel on a too frequent basis.  

How do we get boards off this groundhog day type process, where there is a need for a major intervention every few years, where external supports are called in, and significant time, energy and $$$'s are expended to get back to stability and base function?  Increasingly I have come to believe that the answer lies in governance coaching.  Over the past several decades leadership and executive coaching has become more mainstream as it relates to support executives and teams at an operational level.  The reasons for utilizing coaching in this way are many as are the documented benefits of utilizing this leadership and team resource.  This resource has been less utilized or even thought of for boards of directors.

The possibilities for utilizing governance coaching are as extensive as they are in the leadership and management realm including:

• Supporting an entire board establish and affirm their governance philosophy including creation and application of a board of directors code of conduct;
• Supporting a new Chair or other officers of the board to understand their leadership approach, their role as Chair/Officer, and establishing goals/plans to succeed in the role;
• Supporting a Chair and their CEO/Executive Director assess and establish the parameters of their working partnership - for some organizations, by design, this kind of work could take place on an annual basis; and,
• Providing a regular, periodic checkpoint (e.g., monthly, quarterly) through engagement of a governance coach to support the board of directors to maintain momentum and traction on its governance role and goals. 

This list above is not exhaustive and there are as many ways to consider supporting and sustaining board function as do exist for the administrative arm of an organization.  Historically, governance coaching has not been as strongly utilized as leadership coaching both for reasons of cost and an assumption that skilled and committed volunteers or paid directors implicitly understood governance.  In my experience, both of those perspectives have been more often proven (egregiously) wrong than right.  Again, this is NOT for lack of desire to deliver quality work for an organization on behalf of the board members.  But like the leaders and staff they will derive benefit from an external sounding board that helps them confirm and clarify goals, build self-awareness, and keep them on track to the benefit of themselves and their organizations.

In my biased opinion (as a governance coach) organizations need to utilize governance coaching to get governance right.  If we can build and sustain effective governance we provide a strong foundation for effective executive leadership and ultimately sustained organizational success.

It's about governance and its about leadership!

_______________________________________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

3rd Generation Canadian Ukrainian

gregh@breakpoint.solutions 

www.breakpoint.solutions 

780-250-2543

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Building Governance - Sustaining Governance

2022 is in the rear view mirror!  Looking back if I could identify themes from the past year one of those, unfortunately, would be governance dysfunction.  Or rather, I might say continuing governance dysfunction.  I have either been on boards, reported to boards, counselled boards, or counselled leaders reporting to boards for nearly 40 years now.  Despite the supposed advancements in training and development opportunities for boards of directors, certification programs, the proliferation of books and articles on the subject of governance, and a long line-up of well-intentioned people too many organizations are still struggling mightily to get governance right.  

What does dysfunction at the board level look like?  Here are only some of the examples that I could cite from this past year alone:

• Confusion and even outright disagreement on governance philosophy and framework for the board.  As a result, individual board members operate in different and conflicting ways, seeking to engage on issues at different levels of detail, and send confusing messages and directions to operational leadership.

• Rogue board member(s).  Rogue behavior can manifest in several ways.  Sometimes it is one board member, up to an including the Chair, that dominates the board discussion and decisions. There is no opportunity or allowance for other board members to contribute to board decisions in any meaningful way.  This may even include not sharing information that all board members are entitled to receive.  In other cases, rogue board members may be those who take on a role beyond what they have been authorized to do and/or actively undermine decisions made by the board as a whole.

• Lack of clarity of roles.  This can operate at various levels within the governance structure: (1) what is the role, power and obligations of the Board Chair, (2) what is the role, power and accountabilities of other officers of the board and any board committees that may be in place, (3) what is the relationship between the Board Chair and CEO, and, (4) what is the relationship between the Board as a whole and the CEO.

• Off-the-record or side-bar meetings.  The work of a board of directors should be done through formally established committees or working as the whole board.  To the extent that select board members start to operate in the shadows, aligning interests and positions, and even making decisions outside of the sight of the whole board leads to board member disengagement at best and deep distrust and conflict at worst.  

• Failure to take role seriously.  This dysfunction can take on many forms from something as simple (but impactful) as not being prepared for (or even attending) board or committee meetings, not bringing forth their ideas and expertise to board deliberations, and avoiding hard conversations on real issues.

This is only a small listing of challenges that board's face on a regular basis.  How do we (finally) resolve this reality?  The first thing that I believe is necessary to appreciate on the part of any board is that no matter how successful they might believe themselves to be at a moment in time, ongoing success requires the regular expenditure of time, energy, effort and thought in maintaining governance equilibrium and growth.  I have more than one example of being called in to resolve board conflict or improve function two or three years after they have done similar work with another consultant.  Failure to continuously attend to governance can result in a version of groundhog day.

The next step is to for the board to constructively discuss and vigorously debate what the governance philosophy and model should be for the organization.  In this case, while the discussion and final decision can and should be informed by a variety of governance models that exist and what other organizations are doing, every organization should make sure that their model works for their circumstances and in light of their identified mission, vision and values.  All too often a board can find itself hamstrung by preoccupation with procedural matters, worrying more about parliamentary procedure than the big issues they are supposed to be focused on.  In effect, the board loses the forest for the trees.    

This leads us into ensuring that the board in question even understands the mission, vision and values of the organization on whose behalf they govern.  This may seem obvious but too often these foundational elements can be seen as more relevant to the organization as a whole than to the board.  As a result, too little time is spent by the board understanding how they can or should translate these concepts into action at a governance level and how they should be using the mission, vision and values to evaluate the organization's progress and board function.  Therefore, a deep dive into mission, vision and values is called for and should form part of at least an annual touchpoint for the board.

Once these core elements are better understood, the board should dig into its operational procedures including a deep dive into the roles and responsibilities of the Board Chair, Vice-Chair, other officers and committee chairs.  It is important to have each individual taking on these roles understand what they are committing to do on behalf of the board, but it is also important that there be clear understanding on the part of all board members so that they can support these leadership roles and expectations going forward.  In addition, for the purpose of recruitment and succession planning for the board (yes, there is work to be done here as well) you want to make sure that those pursuing or being considered for board membership or positions on the board know what is expected of them.

This point of discussion naturally leads into the need to create, solidify and hold to a code of conduct for the board.  This can be a follow-up on the values discussion we noted earlier. What do the values look like in practice for the board?  How do board members interact with each other?  How do they interact with the rest of the organization and external stakeholders?  What behaviors are "off-side" and what steps do individual board members, the Board Chair or the board as a whole take to resolve such issues?  This conversation and plan must be grounded in practical examples and specific remedies rather than theoretical or abstract constructs. 

The final thing that I want to leave you with is the need to integrate all of these deliberations and outcomes into a set of structures and processes that support and reinforce the approach to governance that a board has decided on. While we have not talked about the relationship with the CEO or Executive Director, the concept of board evaluation, the need and approach to measurement and reporting, and more, it is critical that the board leverage and support the good intentions of its members to stay on track.  In its simplest form this is an agreed-upon annual calendar of board events and responsibilities.  Rather than relying upon memory and goodwill, the organization as a whole is guided by and can anticipate governance work weeks, months and even a year ahead of time.  Rather than responding or reacting in the moment - or even creating crisis in reactive mode - the board is supported and prepared for all aspects of its governance role.

As I have said to some of my clients, I see the role of consultants supporting boards of directors to move them out of reactive and crisis mode to proactive and considered deliberate consideration. In short, I want to help them find and deliver quality through governance.  I want to help them leverage their expertise and good intentions.  I want them to be inspired and to inspire through governance. 

_______________________________________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

3rd Generation Canadian Ukrainian

gregh@breakpoint.solutions 

www.breakpoint.solutions 

780-250-2543

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

 

Lessons in Leadership - From Ukraine

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky seems - or seemed - an unlikely exemplar for leadership at the best of times, much less during the most significant conflict in Europe's history since World War II.  Prior to taking office in May of 2019, his history was as a comedian, actor and producer. His political credentials were (rightly) questioned as was his leadership in general.  He had not proven himself in any leadership capacity, much less in a neighborhood as dangerous and volatile as Eastern Europe has become especially as the Vladimir Putin's reign as Russian leader has evolved over the years.

Against all odds, and despite all prognostications on his leadership and the resilience and capacity of Ukraine itself, here we are, 6 months into a war that was predicted by a variety of experts to last only a few days or a week at the most.  The vision for Russia was a military parade in Kiev, a puppet government installed that would be supportive of imperial Russian designs, and the weakness of western democracy laid bare.

Without question, we can attribute a large part of the current success of Ukraine's war effort to the skill and tenacity of its troops and population at large.  There is even some credit to be given to Western powers who have helped in the training of Ukraine's army prior to this time and the not insubstantial supplies and intelligence being provided to Ukraine since the war started.  However, the leadership skill being demonstrated by President Zelensky cannot be discounted.  So what are the leadership qualities or principles that he has demonstrated and how might these be relevant to other less tumultuous circumstances?

1. Leadership With vs Apart

A sharp contrast in image (and reality) has been evident in terms of how Zelensky and Putin have been portrayed or shown up in media reports.  On the one hand, we have the image of Putin separated from foreign dignitaries and his own military and political leadership by long conference tables in an equally large room.  The image may be intended to convey power and hierarchy but also comes across as arrogant and out-of-touch.  Zelensky on the other hand has been seen on numerous occasions either seated cheek-by-jowl with his closest advisors and fellow leaders or walking the streets of Kiev or other communities in Ukraine.  Putin conveys a distance in a real and metaphorical sense from his people.  Zelensky is with and shares the pain and burdens of his fellow Ukrainians.

2. Messaging that Matters & Resonates

As the war began so many months ago, and with expectations of imminent defeat for Ukraine so prevalent, Zelensky seemed to mirror Winston Churchill in the darkest days of World War II when he said "The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride."  In one simple sentence Zelensky encapsulated the fighting spirit of Ukraine while at the same time sending a message that resonated not only with the people of his own country but all those who shared and supported the cause of freedom and self-determination.  Zelensky touched an emotional cord with many around the world.  

In contrast, Putin has continued to present in a very stolid fashion that mirrors what we have come to expect from decades of Soviet and post-Soviet bureaucracy.  The intent is no doubt to present strength and confidence, but his overly long speeches are hardly engaging, are highly professorial in tone and approach, and laced with resentment and grievance that connect with very few, even within Russia itself.

3. Messaging & Context

One of the clear strengths of Zelensky's messaging to the world comes from the way he is presented and shown up at various world forums - mostly of a virtual nature - from the beginning of the war to the present time.  This starts even with something as simple as how he dresses for the occasion - not in business suit, but rather in common clothing and combat gear.  His presence again conveys powerfully that my country is under siege, times are not normal, and we are determined to prevail regardless of sacrifice.  No power suit - as per Putin - for Zelenzky.

Zelensky has also been very successful in understanding his audience and speaking in experiences and metaphors that resonate with that particular audience.  He has not used concepts that only have meaning for Ukraine.  He has taken time to understand comparative stories that resonate with his audience - whether Canadian, American, German, etc. - and have put those within the context of the war in Ukraine.  By doing so he has built common cause with other using their own history to make the connection.

Finally, he has also been at pains to speak to others, albeit in sound bites, in their own language.  He has not just relied on translators to convey his message.  This is especially true in parts of his message that are the most powerful pieces of what he wishes to convey. 

4. Humility

The contrast between the personality and leadership style of Putin and Zelensky cannot perhaps be seen more starkly than when comparing levels of humility (or arrogance).  No doubt that the relative power positions of the two nations at war put Zelensky in the least favorable position and suggests a need for humility.  This is particularly so when you are literally begging for the means to defend your country and the lives of your citizens (and yourself).  Zelensky's honest presentation and engagement with the world has, however, been a source of strength rather than weakness as he continues to rally support for the cause of Ukrainian independence.  There is no façade, there is no pomp and ceremony in any presentation by Zelensky.  Rather he uses a bare office or the destruction of Ukrainian cities and villages as a backdrop for his work.  

5. A Shared Vision

Despite the odds and expectations, Zelensky has continued to speak of a stronger and better future for Ukraine.  He paints a picture of a free and united Ukraine.  He paints a picture of a Ukraine built back better than before.  He paints a picture of a Ukraine that has weathered a storm and comes back stronger.  He has been consistent in articulating and pushing this vision of hope since the beginning of the conflict.  And it is a SHARED vision. It has encouraged and supported much sacrifice and dogged resistance on the part of the Ukrainian nation. But, combined with the very staying power of Ukrainians themselves, it is also a vision that has inspired action and support from around the world.

This contrasts sharply with what Putin has been able to cobble together.  There is certainly a vision, make no mistake, but one that harkens back to Imperial or Soviet Russia.  Both models have some nostalgic appeal for some Russians, but clearly does drive a level of commitment or support at the levels that Ukraine is experiencing both within and outside of its borders.  Rather, we see strong (although small) dissent within Russia, lack of motivation and performance on the part of the common Russian soldier, and little to no external support that isn't simply driven by cold calculation of what's in it for me (e.g., buying Russian energy at a discount).

This is a very short list of lessons in leadership that I believe we can observe from Ukraine and Zelensky in particular.  Back in January of this year, I further wrote about what I believe defines leadership It's About Leadership: Defining Leadership (breakpointsolutions.blogspot.com).  At least two of those qualities stand out for me as it relates to President Zelensky - Courage and Selflessness. Going back to the earlier quote, Zelensky was made every offer to leave Kyiv.  He has chosen to stay along with his family.  No easy exits for him. No easy choices for him.  In this same regard, he has clearly made the choice to do what is best for his country and not just for his own survival.  

Never has it been made more demonstrably true than through President Zelensky's approach that it is All About Leadership!

Slava Ukraini!

_______________________________________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

3rd Generation Canadian Ukrainian

gregh@breakpoint.solutions 

www.breakpoint.solutions 

780-250-2543

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Toxic Leadership - A Way Forward?

Just last week I published a post on toxic leadership, a variety of its forms and some personal experiences of that reality.  The response to that blog was overwhelming.  Thousands of views and many comments - mostly of commiseration!  At the end of that post the question of not just simply identifying a toxic leader but effectively working or managing in such an environment was left open.  The article that I drew from at the time seemed to imply that the only effective strategy in dealing with a toxic boss was to simply cope with that reality.  A less polished way to put it would be "suck it up buttercup."

So I put it to you - the reader of this blog - to ponder alternatives to managing a toxic leader and surviving the personal angst and chaos that ensues.  Unfortunately, even with time and discussion and feedback what came back to me were two relatively harsh alternatives.  The first commonly stated alternative was in fact to merely accept this as an inevitable consequence of a working life.  In this harsh assessment it is clear that those who shared their thoughts (or despair) with me were not alone.  Gallup research seems to consistently bear out a common theme of poor leadership and lack of engagement of staff in literally all industries.  Common terminology used to describe such poor leaders includes - self-absorbed, unaware, stubborn, overly demanding, and impulsive.

The second most common response I received back was that the (best/only) way to manage a toxic leader was to accept defeat and move on to another role in another part of the organization or to leave altogether.  The challenge with that alternative goes directly back to the Gallup research just noted above.  Most industries, sectors, and companies all seem to suffer from poor leaders.  So you might just be moving from the frying pan to the fire in your attempt to escape a bad situation.

I did get some other insights from my readers and I've expanded upon those kernels below.  Perhaps these are more practical then simply resorting to the alternatives of self-suppression and flight noted above.  The first solid piece of advice to provide is to clearly understand yourself.  While that may seem like an odd place to start when trying to think about dealing with a bad boss it's crucial in making sure you know what's important to you and what your boundaries are.  What this understanding of self positions you to do is more effectively pick your battles.  You can then better evaluate whether a "compromise" is morally and ethically defeating versus simply being annoying and inconvenient.  Essentially you can determine which one of the options for coping - management or flight is the best option.

It was also clear from the responses I received that while I might have focused on the more malicious type of leader in my first post, a number of you are dealing with a different varieties of poor leaders.   Hence you have some specific "solutions" to provide in that context.  The broader array of poor leadership included the micro-manager (short on vision, long on telling you how to do "everything"), the grand visionary (long on vision, unable to comprehend or frustrated by the work required to achieve the vision), the "analyst" and risk manager (every contingency and piece of data mapped out), the self-centred leader (it is all about me) and finally the truly incompetent leader.

While these are all very different types of scenarios and leaders there are some common techniques and strategies by which you can perhaps more effectively manage - and perhaps even succeed - in these environments:

• Be prepared.  Unfortunately you are going to have to put in more time into this "relationship" than your boss will.  Regardless of what type of bad boss you have none of them have as much at stake as you do.  Understand yourself and your boundaries, prepare in advance for each meeting, and map a plan/objectives for each meeting or initiative.  As a leader yourself you can manage the relationship.  In some ways it's important to think of your boss as your most important customer.
• Don't assume.  As a corollary to "Be Prepared" don't make the mistake of assuming anything about what your boss will want, knows, expects or will do.  In any of these scenarios you don't have the luxury of not planning for or anticipating a variety of circumstances.  Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
• Don't try to be right.  This is a hard one to swallow but in the "battle" you're in you are going to have to decided whether you want to be right or get the right thing done.  They are not necessarily the same thing.  Be clear about your ultimate goal for the particular project or initiative and be prepared to alter tactics to ensure success.  In addition, be clear and solid on your big picture career goals.  Be prepared to alter your tactics to keep moving forward in your career despite the short-term reality of a toxic boss. 
• Understand your boss.  I found with one of my worst bosses that I really had to make an effort to get into his head.  I certainly would never lead the way he did, but I did try to anticipate what might set him off (e.g., one too many chairs for the Board meeting!) and resigned myself to many agonizing minutes of silence as he "visioned" the next big thing.  This meant being disciplined in my work habits and approach.  I also tried to emulate his language.  Explaining things my way was not as successful as explaining things his way.
• Support your boss.  Several of my readers reflected on a boss who has clearly been promoted too quickly, had an awesome interview that belied a lack of substance, or was the best of a bunch of poor candidates.  Now what?  For most of us, if we are committed to our organization, our staff or our customers, it means we do our level best to deliver great service regardless or in spite of the leadership handicap we labor under.  Our satisfaction comes from succeeding despite that handicap.
• Engage a team.  Most times, despite the strength and validity of your arguments, the strength of your position, or even your own personal credibility and history as a leader you won't be in a position to effectively counter a poor leader one-on-one.  You may need to engage like-minded allies.  I'm not suggesting fostering a mutiny.  That's a dangerous road.  Rather, you need more than one voice offering alternatives, respectfully questioning direction or decisions, and otherwise offering other solutions.  If you become the lone voice within you could soon be the lost voice without.
• Network and Remain Connected - one of the worst things that I have observed in dealing with a toxic leader - particularly one that we would consider abusive - is the tendency to blame self and self-isolate.  We start to believe the narrative being created around us and about us.  We begin to lose confidence in self and trust in others.  This becomes a spiraling downward cycle.  A request I often make of others - having been in this position myself - is to foster relationships inside and outside of work, find a place of support, and find a place of safety that just even allows you to vent and brainstorm with others.  Engage others to ensure that you are realistically and objectively evaluating your state of affairs. 

One final and far more risky tactic that one can take when dealing with a toxic leader takes a page from the Me Too movement - exposure and truth telling.  As I know you can well imagine, this is a far more intimidating prospect than just coping or leaving.  In some cases, it can feel like a scorched earth policy and akin to burning all bridges behind you. In many cases, it also may feel like you are similarly burning all bridges in front of you as well.  If the toxic leader in question has been able to deliver results in some form, has a charismatic personality or is well-liked/connected within and outside of the organization how will your grand reveal be perceived by those in positions of power?  If change happens will it simply be in the form of your departure/martyrdom?  

This final option is not an easy choice.  Many of us would far prefer to take what seem to be easier roads.  There are no guarantees of success or survival in this path.  That being said, we have seen examples of change in other circumstances with powerful personalities brought down for their historic transgressions. Successful or not, this path is often long and bruising.  Gird for battle, wounds and a process of recovery. 

It often takes more energy and effort to lead up than it takes to lead a team of subordinates.  Your team has less choice about whether to follow you.  This is also true of a CEO who is trying to work with a Board of Directors, a Board Chair or a group of shareholders.  Leadership is not just about working with those who recognize your authority because you are one or more levels up the ladder from them.  Leadership is also about how you can manage others above you.

Success in managing a poor leader takes a lot more strength, discipline and emotional maturity than feels reasonable but it can be a harsh reality.  I certainly can't say that I've always passed my own personal tests but then continuous learning and growth should always be part of what being an effective leader is all about.
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
Executive Coach/Leadership Consultant
President & Co-Founder - BreakPoint Solutions
gregh@breakpoint.solutions

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Toxic Leadership - Hidden (and not so hidden) Reality

Four years ago I posted on the subject of toxic leadership.  In fact, I wrote about this sad reality in back-to-back posts.  I was prompted by an article I came across that spoke eloquently on the subject of toxic leaders.  In recent weeks, I have again been motivated by the unfortunate experiences of colleagues and clients with toxic leadership to review what I had written before.  Unfortunately, not much has changed in that time period. One might argue, in fact, that things have gotten worse rather than better.

Why?  Why are we still burdened with a mix of incompetent, self-serving, and even malicious leadership?  Why are some of these leaders recruited, tolerated, enabled, promoted and even lauded?  The recent examples that have put my clients, colleagues and myself to despair include:

• leaders who drift from leadership role to leadership role, staying in place only a couple of years or less - what are organizations not seeing that causes them to overlook such transient commitment or capability?
• leaders who have an incredibly high rate of turnover in their teams and who brush off such turnover, year over year, with reference to work ethic, competitive marketplace, lack of commitment and so on.  Those "arguments" might stand up to scrutiny for a short period of time, however, when that reality persists year-over-year for a decade then one should start to question the leader's skills in hiring, guiding, mentoring and developing their team.  Or questions should be asked about the work environment that they are creating. 
• leaders who actively undermine their subordinates.  This takes many forms - throwing your direct reports under the proverbial bus when the organization fails to perform; failing to take accountability for poor decisions/outcomes that directly trace back to the leader; failure to prioritize initiatives and/or providing staff with tools to succeed - then making them pay the price for inevitable failure; leaders who expect/demand their subordinates take responsibility and accountability for their actions but then impose their own solutions that align with a personal (not organizational) agenda.
• leaders who pay lip service to team development and succession planning, but then either don't invest in capacity building of their teams or even actively diminish the skills, abilities, opportunities - and even confidence - of their direct reports.  Why?  Variety of reasons that I have seen encompassing a full range of motivations from ego boots to complete insecurity and fear on the part of a leader.
• leaders who create an "us versus them" culture.  This can happen at many levels and I have seen this play out where a CEO pits Board against Administration, a leader pits management against staff (or union), department vs department, and so on.  Again, information and withholding of information, restrictions in decision-making power and authority, and other tactics are used to reinforce and support the toxic leader's position of power and personal agenda.

As I said, all of these recent realities brought to mind an article I came across on toxic leaders some years ago.  It was written by Richard Gunderman, Chancellor's Professor of Medicine, Liberal Arts, and Philanthropy at Indiana University-Purdue University.  The author had so many good points that I decided to simply share and comment on his thoughts.  In this case, I've emphasized Gunderman's points in bold lettering and provided supplementary comments based on personal experiences.

Gunderman posits that just as effective bosses can do considerable good for an organization, toxic ones can inflict a great deal of damage.  In my estimation, its also true that the extent of the damage is not fully realized or understood until the toxic leader leaves or is let go.  Oftentimes the organization is left repairing the damage for some time after.  

Sadly, the individual that takes on leadership AFTER a toxic leader departs is often left to clean up a substantial mess.  Worse yet, by discovering or stumbling across the wreckage left behind by the toxic leader it is often the successor that pays a heavy price - including termination - for the damage done.

The author suggests that the first step to coping effectively with a toxic boss is recognizing that you have one.  Here are the 10 indicators that Gunderman provides to help you diagnose that your boss is probably toxic.

One.  When the toxic boss comes on board it feels as thought all fellowship and joy are being sucked out of the organization.  Like Dementors in Harry Potter, toxic bosses drain people of their passion, leaving nothing in their wake but a widespread feeling of despair.  Employees come to resemble mice who have been subjected to random electrical shocks, lapsing into a state that psychologists called learned helplessness.  As another former employee of a toxic boss put it, "It wasn't long before the whole organization took on a soulless feel."

Two.  Within weeks of the toxic boss's arrival, the mercury in the organization's "distrustometer" begins rising precipitously.  People begin eying one another with suspicion.  Lively meetings become deadened, as though no one would dare voice a divergent opinion.  According to one employee, "People stopped saying what they really thought. If they ever spoke their mind, they did so only after glancing over both shoulders to make sure no one was listening, and then they spoke in a whisper. It was like Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

This one really resonated with me from a couple of my past experiences.  I've had a "leader" who has either taken an active approach of "divide and conquer" as it related to their subordinates or actively disengaged from their team leaving agreements or disputes to fester.  If you take a lead from Patrick Lencioni's work, the absence of trust that is created (and fostered) leads to suppression of any constructive conflict, lack of common commitments and so forth.  By design or neglect, a toxic environment is established.  Similarly, if you start to see a rise in sick time, stress leave, and turnover amongst staff, the organization needs to dig deeper and not settle for simplistic answers/excuses.

Three.  Power becomes consolidated in the hands of a few people who report directly to the toxic boss.  People who question this process are moved aside or completely out of the organization.  In many cases, the toxic boss achieves these ends not by direct confrontation, but like a subtle poisoner, delivering the lethal dose in tiny amounts that build up over time.

Four.  Toxic bosses quickly seize control of the pathways along which knowledge is shared.  Organization charts and reporting hierarchies are rearranged so that everything flows through one central hub, with few if any alternatives.  Without admitting to it, toxic bosses feel threatened by more open patterns of information flow.  As the former colleague of a toxic boss put it, "He sensed that if others knew what was really going on, his position, power and prestige would be undermined."

I've experienced these realities directly and seen too many of my clients/colleagues share this reality.  Some leaders become incredibly adept at this and even leave a subtle suggestion that the one-on-one discussions - versus team-based engagement - represent a privileged reality between leader and subordinate.  I trust you more than the others.  You are more capable than the others. Sometimes the approach is much more direct - thou shall not speak with your peers!  The whole goal is to ensure that a complete picture of reality is only held by the toxic leader.  Even appropriate collaboration for the benefit of the organization is seen as a threat to leadership power. 

Five.  With a toxic boss, employees may have a hard time remembering why they came to work for the organization in the first place.  The true mission of the organization is obscured.  The toxic boss shifts everyone's attention to crasser metrics, such as revenue and rankings, and the organization's mission is treated as a mere tool for boosting results.

Sad but true.  I've been in one too many large organizations where the stated values seemed very remote from the actions that the "leader" or leadership team took on a regular basis.  The substantial disconnect led to more than just a bit of disengagement on the part of employees and seemingly intractable morale issues.

Six.  Toxic bosses leave others feeling manipulated and used.  Some are simply so insensitive that they do not appreciate the toll that their modus operandi takes on their colleagues, but others seem positively to revel in it.  Said an employee, "She seemed to believe that the only way to make herself bigger was to make the people around her feel progressively smaller."

Seven.  Soon after the toxic boss arrives, people begin disappearing.  Almost invariably, such departures go unannounced, completely devoid of fanfare or explanation.  One day they are there, and the next day they are gone, and only later do people learn that former colleagues were abruptly told one day to pack up their offices and hit the pavement.  The toxic boss will never express gratitude to their service, publicly or personally.

The other way that I've seen this reality play out is not in letting people go or marginalizing those with contradictory perspectives but rather in hiring individuals who will be more malleable to the toxic leader's directives.  This sometimes simply plays out with a feeling of personal obligation that a new hire has to the person who has hired them.  Alternatively, I have seen toxic leaders ensure that new hires ARE simply weaker or less experienced and, therefore, can pose no credible contrary points of view.  Overall, a great means to ensure the toxic leader remains unchallenged but hardly a tactic to build organizational strength and success.

Eight.  The toxic boss has no interest in what others have to say.  Some savvy operators appear to listen to other perspectives, but when it comes to action, their in-boxes are black holes.  They seem to believe that being an effective leader means being the center of attention.  Before long, their behavior at meetings begins to reveal their true stripes.  Said one former employee of a toxic boss, "She kept cutting other people off, belittling their contributions, and ended up listening to nothing but her own voice."

Nine.  The toxic boss starts to act like a playground bully.  People are treated not as sources of insight but as tools of implementation.  When they diverge from this path, the toxic boss reminds them how easily they could be replaced.  In short, the tools of persuasion give way to the instruments of coercion.  And such techniques are powerfully augmented by the enhanced sense of vulnerability that accompanies the swelling ranks of the disappeared.

I have vivid memories of getting a phone call "pep talk" from a toxic leader of mine that was a couple of rungs higher up the ladder than I.  Her relative distance from me didn't dissuade her from giving me a shout and probably reflected as much her lack of confidence in my direct supervisor as in myself.  At the time, my organization was going through significant - and noisy - change.  The essence of the pep talk was summed up in her parting words to me - "There are going to be casualties in this time frame, don't be one of them."  I understood my role and standing quite clearly.  I understood that I was quite an expendable and replaceable tool.

Ten.  Do you feel like your every move is being watched by unseen eyes?  Like you are in some kind of jail?  Do you feel like your boss is taking leadership lessons from Jeremy Bentham?  His creation, The Panopticon is a building with a watchman sitting at the center, looking out on all the inmates, who are arrayed around the periphery, each in a separate cell.  The inmates cannot see the jailer, generating a sense of constant surveillance.

For me this goes back to the feelings of mistrust created by the toxic leader ala Lencioni.  In those environments where a toxic leader's impact has been particularly "impressive", it becomes the unfortunate reality that no member of the team believes they can trust any other member of the team - peers or subordinates.  The environment becomes marked by extraordinary caution and guardedness.  The environment becomes risk averse and lacking in a desire for innovation and creativity.

At the end of this article - and my supplementary comments - we have been provided with one set of variables that describe what toxic leadership looks like.  What is lacking is how to effectively tackle it.  In fact, Gunderman seems to suggest that the best one can do is to COPE effectively with toxic leader.  Is this really all that we are left with as a tactic when dealing with a toxic leader despite the very real damage being done to an organization?

So I ask you, what's been your experience in dealing with toxic leadership?  More importantly, what steps did you and others take to effectively DEAL with a toxic leader?  I'm looking forward to your answers, supplemented by my thoughts, as a means to creating a response or tactics that might be useful to us all!

______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
Executive Coach/Leadership Consultant
President & Co-Founder - BreakPoint Solutions
gregh@breakpoint.solutions

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.