Diversity and Inclusion Part 2: Creating a Culture of Inclusion and Learning

Diversity and Inclusion Part 1: Beyond the Checkbox

 

It is only the second month of 2021, and although I am grateful that 2020 is behind us, I have reflected many times on the lessons learned, on the pandemic, and on the tragic events (e.g., the Black Lives Matter protests and the Capitol Hill riots to name a few) that have taken place in the last year. It is hard to forget how our world has been turned upside down. 

In the aftermath of the events of 2020 and with increased media exposure, discussions around diversity and inclusion (D&I) are going strong. The heartbreaking events and protests in 2020 are advancing dialogue on systemic discrimination and bias like never before. People are hurting. I feel angst on so many levels – professionally as an HR leader and personally through my lived experiences – because diversity, fairness, and equity are at the center of my life and work. 

What has changed? Why do these discussions feel different today? This is not the first time there have been riots or powerful events around racial injustice and systemic discrimination. Is it because these events are hitting prime time news and media?

From a corporate perspective, historically, organizations have made efforts to incorporate diversity and inclusion into the workplace. Resolving D&I incidents were limited to the HR department that was charged to rectify the scenario, ensure employees were treated fairly and given equal opportunities, and subsequently, offer training. The difference today is the world is talking about the realities of diversity, equity, inclusion, and more time and energy are being invested on educating people on anti-racism and interrupting bias.

These ongoing discussions have inspired action. More organizations are becoming aware of how systemic discrimination and bias are subtly and overtly part of their organization, and leaders are becoming actively engaged to start to break the cycle to build more diverse and inclusive workplaces. Leaders are having conversations within their organizations to evaluate what has been done, if it is enough, or how they can get started. There is momentum to get involved, to act, to contribute to something bigger that gives purpose and meaning for humanity. This drive to act has inspired me to get involved; to give back; and to participate in networks that openly share, embrace differences, and encourage learning. I wholeheartedly believe it is in each one of us to act. 

How should organizations approach D&I?

In my experience, the best way to approach D&I is as a leader-led culture change management initiative that is interwoven into the organization’s strategic plan. It is not an HR initiative. For successful outcomes, D&I requires an organization’s living commitment to lifelong learning as part of a never-ending journey.

With the ongoing discussions around D&I, some of the companies, that had not done work in this space, have rushed to create a D&I policy or post a company-wide statement about its stance on diversity and inclusion – check; or offer awareness training to its employees – check.  They have completed the D&I requirement, right? Other organizations did not have an urgency to respond because they do not see themselves as having any issues with diversity and inclusion. Is it because when they look around the room, the majority of employees look like them? Or when they look at the people at the leadership table there is at least one person who looks different in an executive role, so they are good, right?

Don’t get me wrong, developing a D&I policy is a start, and training is a part of the puzzle, but it is not THE solution. Training on its own does not actually change the behaviors and systems that contribute to systemic discrimination and bias. The work around D&I needs to go deeper. The work needs to go beyond the checkbox to challenge values, beliefs, behaviors, and systems. Furthermore, the deep work requires being intentional to understand, appreciate, and acknowledge people’s unique attributes and the differences that make up who they are. D&I work requires an organization to define their why and what outcomes are desired as part of the overall strategic plan. This is the deep work required to ingrain D&I into the fabric of an organization. With deep work comes deep learning and it is in learning where progress is made. Are organizations prepared to invest in doing this work?

If you are wondering if there is a business case for diversity and inclusion, the jury is no longer out. The decision to invest in D&I with a learning mindset is well worth it and organizations will reap many benefits. Most notably, it leads to higher employee engagement and team satisfaction, stronger employee skillsets, higher quality of work, improved decision making, better staff retention, and increased overall company performance. 

Final Thoughts

From my experience, it is not enough for organizations to simply create a D&I policy and conduct awareness training. D&I goes beyond the checkbox to include deep work to change behaviors and systems. It requires organizations to dig deep into understanding, appreciating, and acknowledging its people’s differences. Human beings have had a lifetime to build attributes, beliefs, and experiences that have shaped who they are today. This work takes time and a living commitment by organizations to learn and grow.  And most of all, always remember why you started.

Check back on Friday, February 26, 2021 for Part 2.

Driven by connection,

Rita Filice

______________________________

Rita Filice, BCOMM, CPHR

Partner, BreakPoint Solutions

ritaf@breakpoint.solutions 

www.breakpoint.solutions 

780-250-2544

Rita thrives on connecting people, leveraging human resources and delivering performance.  She is a collaborative and accomplished HR leader who values authentic connection, meaningful conversation, and her positive energy and outlook make anything possible.

What's Your Ocean?

I have often found myself using a variety of metaphors in my personal and business life, trying to make a point, trying to confirm or cement my own understanding of a concept, or to do something similar for someone I'm working with.  I think we have all done something like this at one point in time or another. The ability to provide people with some point of comparison or even a visual representation of a thought or an idea can often allow us to reach agreement, advance a perspective, or otherwise make a change.

So what is my reference to an ocean meant to convey?  From an early point in my career (and life) I found myself strongly influenced by the writings of Stephen Covey.  His book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, inspired me to articulate and document my first mission, vision, and values.  As I look back on those initial efforts, I see a significant degree of naivety and lack of depth in the efforts!  No small wonder, as I might have been 21 years old when I took my first stab at this kind of work, had limited life experience (relatively speaking) and wouldn't say I had much benefit of mentorship at that early stage of my career.  That being said, the effort was the right thing to be doing and some of the same values I identified then are still important watchwords for me now - not least of which is the value of integrity.

As I have transitioned through my leadership career and into executive coaching and consulting, my ability to frame my personal mission and vision has dramatically evolved - or at least I think so!  I believe I have been able to solidify both elements with the benefit of all kinds of experiences - life, business, relationships, formal learning, and so on.  My points of reference and foundations for creating visualizations that help me make sense of things for myself - and with others for themselves in my coaching practice - have grown, expanded, and become more fulsome. One of the most relevant, consistently useful and powerful I have found to be a reference to the Ocean and to the River.

One thing that many of my clients so often struggle to deal with or overcome is the notion, or the even the utility, of having a vision.  Common challenges in this regard revolve around an inability to be specific or detailed enough about a desired future state, intimidation around not having the crystal ball to predict the future, being overwhelmed by the potential immensity or power of a desired vision that causes some to not even start on the journey, or - perhaps hardest of all - feeling like one has no power to overcome barriers and challenges that will inevitably arise and get in our way.  Taken to extremes, this latter perspective suggests we are truly victims of circumstance, destined to a pre-determined fate, mere flotsam and jetsam to be tossed about by far more powerful forces.

So to the Ocean and the River and the potential power of metaphor.  The Ocean for me is that stand-in for our sense of direction and where we want to get to.  Sometimes that Ocean is something we see in close proximity to us - perhaps no more than a few months or a year out.  Other times, it truly could be years in the making, up to and including retirement.  Many of us might be accustomed to thinking of a traditional retirement age of somewhere between 55 and 65.  Regardless, for all of our individual protestations, assumptions, and limiting beliefs, we have a vision, or dreams, about how we hope life might turn out for us.  

Now to the River.  That is our path. These are the steps we take on the journey to that far-off shore.  At points in time in the River's journey to the Ocean, the clouds or a fog bank might clear enough for us to see the destination more clearly, or there may be a parting in the forest and perhaps a height from which the river flows that allows us to glimpse the future.  We get some brief moments of clarity before the riverbend puts its head downward again, carving out its effort against the rocks and the soil that we must cover and push against to succeed and achieve.  

But aside from any conformity imposed by man on the course of any individual River, none flow in a straight line.  The River encounters a multitude of different geographical and environmental realities that alter its flow, that change its speed, maybe at times seeming to stagnate, and even seemingly turn back on itself.  The journey of the River is meandering, changing, worked through cataracts and rapids, and can even change paths from season to season.  Ultimately and unerringly, it does, eventually, reach the Ocean.

As a metaphor then, I suggest you can describe your vision - your Ocean - in sufficient detail to keep you moving forward.  You can find and describe your version of this Ocean view, its shoreline, the sounds and the smells you might expect to experience.  Warm or cool breeze, sounds of birds, crashing of waves, sandy or rocky beach.  We've heard about similar destinations from others.  We know some of what to expect when we get there.  You CAN create this vision, your Ocean.

In similar fashion, we know some of the first steps we can take along the way to the Ocean.  We can prepare for the journey, but at some point, if the Ocean means enough to us, we must begin, we must start.  And even when (not if) we encounter some harder terrain, some boulders, or a diversion, keeping the Ocean in mind allows our River to adjust, to change course, to slow down or speed up, with the idea that the Ocean is still there, still waiting for us and still worth working for.  

What's your practical application of this metaphor?  How can this metaphor even apply within the context of world-altering events like COVID-19?  For me, I still have an image of my Ocean as it relates to my obligations and commitments to my family, hopes, and expectations for my career, and even something as small (perhaps) as the next Ironman in August 2021 and $100,000 in a fundraising goal reached for Kids with Cancer Society and in honour of Ronan Smyth.  

Find your Ocean.  Begin and sustain your journey as the River.  The path will be winding.  There will be both scenic and desolate landscapes along the way.  Keep your vision and sustain your efforts.  The River will get there. 

______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

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.

Disruptor - In Service of What?

In previous blogs I have called for disruption as a necessary and required force for change. This has been particularly true for me given my long experience in healthcare.  We have a very expensive system that doesn't deliver on what it should given the resources expended, we have imbalances in how we spend our dollars in light of our changing population demographics (e.g., a need to continue a shift from cure to prevention, mental health, palliative and care of seniors), and there is a need to appropriately leverage technological advances (the right tool, at the right time, for the right reasons).  In those past blogs, I have suggested that healthcare needs some form of Uber-like development or something akin to how Apple disrupted how we communicate and interact with each other.

This is not, however, a post about disruption in that sense.  Rather, it will speak to a perspective of leaders as disruptors within their own companies or organizations.  By definition - or at least by my reasoning - leaders are not brought in or hold a pinnacle position to manage to the status quo.  They are uniquely positioned and tasked with scanning the environment for the organization, identifying both threats and opportunities, and required to position the business for future success.  Disruption can and often is the name of the game for a leader.  This is why there is a constant need on the part of the leader for continuous learning and development.  The strengths or knowledge that got you to a position of leadership must remain as evolving and dynamic as the organization's environment.

The same holds true for leaders at all levels of the organization, even if to a lessor extent.  Even at a front-line supervisory level, the leader must be in a constant state of learning, evolution, and anticipation of what is before them.  They are required, at their level, to challenge their teams to grow and avoid stagnation and complacency.  Their teams must be made change ready and resilient if they are to maintain effectiveness and engagement.  

Let's be clear here as well that I am not talking about change for the sake of change.  There are just as many leaders - in both the private and public sector - who go for the appearance of disruption without actually changing anything of substance.  Nor do they intend to or are they capable of leading real change in these circumstances. The most common forms of this in my estimation are things like mergers and acquisitions and organizational restructuring.  

Turning back to healthcare for the moment, how many restructuring efforts have our systems been through in the past decade or two?  Can we say that the benefits of such have outstripped the cost of the disruption that was caused?  I am in the cynical group that would say we have put on the modern day equivalent of Roman bread and circuses without addressing core fundamentals.  Similarly, I have worked with several organizations that are in a constant state of acquisitions, driven to enhance (short-term) shareholder value or image, but oblivious to or uncaring of the systems and cultural integration work required in such endeavors.  There is much bluff and bluster built on shaky foundations.

This is where the question of Disruptor - In Service of What? comes into play.  And it applies no less at a front-line level as it does for a CEO.  In fact, just recently, I had a newly-minted leader recount how he had been questioned and even goaded by a subordinate to be more disruptive, to challenge the culture of the organization, to take on senior leaders all in order to make a leadership mark.  In the view of this subordinate, disruption was required in order to make one's mark as a leader.  The further implication was that failure to be disruptive was tantamount to mediocrity and career stagnation. What I believe I heard in this was that disruption was seen as a means to advance a personal agenda. Disruption and challenging behavior were seen as necessary for career advancement, to get noticed and to otherwise standout.  The reality was the organization is saddled with a challenging employee who scorns the use of influence versus power in leadership, engages lightly, if at all with others, and is not an icon of collaboration.  At this point, disruption is most often destructive, conflict-ridden, and a sport for one.  There is much promise accompanied by little hope that this potential can be harnessed.

It's at this point that I am reminded of Jim Collins's concept of Level 5 Leadership.  Whereas our examples above seem motivated by personal gain and short-term thinking, Collins notes the success and longevity of other leaders who are as equally ambitious, disruptive and creative with a focus on team and organizational success.  The difference between the hard-driving individual in the little vignette above, and the executives in restructuring and acquisitions noted earlier, is one of motivation.  Disruption that acts only to challenge and destroy, or change for change's sake, are all too often about personal ambition and glory.  They don't necessarily create something new and better, and even if they do create something, these edifices are built on shaky foundations that inevitably fall in the next strong wind.  They get changed and disrupted by the next "great" leader. 

So by all means, disrupt, challenge, seek out, and generate change.  That's what a leader is supposed to do.  But if you really want a legacy and to build something of lasting impact, do it for the purpose of creating something bigger than yourself, of building up the capacity of those you lead, and to realizing a potential for yourself and your organization that you never dreamed of when you started.  I further suggest that being the lone wolf, railing against all around you, calling out the failings of others, may feel vindicating and cathartic.  However, in order to be truly called a leader, you have to have more than a few people follow you down a new path of change.  Leaders need willing and committed followers.

In my view, disruption is necessary, inevitable, and should be used to create rather than simply tear down.  Be a disruptor.  Be a creator.  Be a leader. 

______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

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.

What Leadership Isn't

We live in interesting and challenging times.  The pressures, frustrations, anxieties and everything else you might want to use to describe 2020 and the first weeks of 2021 are there in spades.  People are trying to cope with extraordinary events and circumstances unlike anything they have ever experienced.  As a consequence, our personal reserves are being tapped, stretched and even shattered like never before.  The consequence of this is we may have found ourselves wanting, perhaps not quite up to the challenges, and acting in ways, that in better times, we would never imagine.  I say this in part as a hope that some of what we have seen of late can be chalked up to stress reactions.  

That being said, a phrase that comes to mind in times like these: adversity does not so much build character as it reveals it.

So what does it say about us as individuals and collectives that in these times "we" have rushed the Capitol in Washington, vilified and threatened each other in online forums, made death threats against public health officials throughout Canada and the U.S. (and perhaps more) and, as of January 23, saw fit to rally in the front yard of Saskatchewan's Chief Medical Officer of Health.  There are, it seems, no bounds to what we believe is acceptable behavior or discourse, nor do we see anything wrong in attacking - perhaps even killing - those who have given themselves over to serving the public.

What does this have to do with leadership?  

This type of behavior doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Too many of us and most often, and disturbingly, our political leaders have been creating the environment that not only permits but encourages this type of behavior.  And the seeds of this reality were not just sown in the past year nor with the advent of someone like Donald J. Trump in the U.S. four years ago.  Too many politicians have determined that their path to power is abetted by attacks on our public servants.  And the collective "we" have become accustomed to attacking government waste and inefficiency, turning the word bureaucrat into a bad name, and even suggesting our public sector is this nefarious deep state intent on subverting the will of elected officials.  We have turned expertise, experience, and education into qualities to be questioned and dismissed, recommendations coming from such quarters to be held under suspicion and thrown away if they don't accord with what some leaders wish to believe.  Shoot the messenger for suggesting that the emperor has no clothes, their draft policies have no legs, and that plans are not grounded in reality. 

We have normalized a narrative that sees public servants as the other, as alien, and not worthy of the same respect we would demand for ourselves. 

As noted, this is not a new phenomenon.  I have personally experienced several examples of this perspective dating back decades.  As an administrator, vice-president, and CEO in Canada's public health care system, I have been subject to more than my fair share of eye-popping attacks.  

Example 1, individual members of my own Board of Directors deciding that their best course of action in voicing their displeasure with a Board-approved operational/budget initiative was to attack my credentials and my motivations in our local media.  Let's be clear - those attacks came from a couple of  my bosses, roasting their own employee, likely to protect themselves from potential community backlash.  It was convenient, easy and wrong. 

Example 2, straight out of the "I pay your salary through my taxes, you work for me" category (e.g., this is my desk Nancy Pelosi), getting calls literally at all hours of the day or night - and mostly night, at my house.  I was rapidly disabused of the notion that I could have my name and number in a phone book.  When I suggested that I would be more than willing to debate the finer merits of the issue during working hours, it was made clear that my public position meant my open for business sign was on all night.  While I might have signed on for some of those realities, my family clearly had not.  Number became unlisted after that. 

Example 3, after having made the effort to meet with a few community members whose community was about to be impacted by a provincially mandated decision, it was suggested that I ran the risk of being shot between the eyes.  The implication was that I needed to back away from the decision.  No discussion about other alternatives we could have worked through together.  Assassination seemed to be in order.  And this particular insight was not offered by any random member of the community.  It was provided by a manager of a financial institution in that community.

What does this have to do with leadership?  In light of some of the more newsworthy public events of late (e.g., Capitol riot, protest in Saskatchewan), we see political leaders stepping out to express their dismay at such events, to offer condemnation of the perpetrators, and support for public servants.  Too often those words ring hollow or hypocritical when these very same "leaders" have set the stage with their words in actions in the years prior to where we now find ourselves. 

I leave you with the following statement, which has a distinctly healthcare flavor to it, but which I believe should act as a call to do better in relation to how we should be treating all of our public sector employees; i.e., doctors, nurses, teachers, police, fire, civil servants.  

"Since the beginning of COVID-19, this worrying phenomenon has escalated. What began as online harassment has evolved into threats and in-person intimidation. We have seen protests at the private residences of #Saskatchewan’s chief medical officer of health and #Quebec’s National Public Health Officer.

We must speak out against such #intimidation, whether online or in-person, and urge those responsible for overseeing social media platforms and law enforcement bodies to put an end to this highly alarming conduct. Peaceful protests are an important feature of our democracy, but these recent demonstrations have crossed a crucial line between free speech and willful intimidation.

Public health officials and #HealthCareWorkers in Canada have been working tirelessly — under stressful and very challenging conditions — since the beginning of the pandemic to keep Canadians healthy and safe. They deserve nothing short of our full appreciation and respect.

These disquieting acts of aggression must not be tolerated."

Dr. Ann Collins, CMA President

Actions matter. Words matter. Do better. It's About Leadership!

______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

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.

Leadership Lost...and Complicity

January 20, 2020 marked the end of the Trump presidency, if not the end of Trump, MAGA, and associated realities.  The assessment/evaluation of his term will continue for decades to come.  The full impact and story will NOT be told or understood until that kind of time has passed.  Here in Alberta, the passing of this chapter in the US is being received to mixed reviews.  In some quarters, positively, anticipating a return to less vitriolic and chaotic times, a commitment to healing and inclusion, and for environmental protection.  In other quarters, dreading the consequences of cancelled energy projects and viewing such changes with anger and dismay.  

Politically, for our conservative government in Alberta, the year 2020 and the commencement of 2021 is a time that seems like it can't pass fast enough.  Receiving the news of another blow to Alberta's energy economy, on top of mixed reviews on COVID/healthcare management and Aloha-gate, has led to a sharp rise in unpopularity of our Premier and a similar plunge in trust in his leadership.

In my previous two blogs I have focused on the theme of Leadership Lost. What was not addressed in those two previous posts, however, is the reality that leadership has never been anything but a team sport.  Donald Trump, Jason Kenney, and any other leader have never achieved anything alone - good or bad.  By its very definition, the term leader entails and requires that there are people to be led, that there be followers, and that there be supporters to help achieve and even sometimes help to develop or massage a vision to be pursued. 

Particularly in the US at the present time, we have heard many terms that describe how Donald Trump both came to power and was allowed to ignore, shatter, and blow past so many long-held protocols and norms of Presidential behaviour - incite, collude, collaborate, connive.  Complicity is a word that I choose to use in describing the reality of his leadership.  Usually complicity or being complicit implies, or is taken to mean, negative intent.  It need not necessarily be so.  Positive results could also, conceivably, be supported by positive actions; e.g., I could be complicit in supporting a colleague's success.  But I will be focusing on the more commonly held negative connotation this word invokes.

Complicity, I believe, can come in many forms and can be visualized as a continuum.  At one end there may be those of use who are unconsciously complicit or only want to make ourselves vaguely aware of nefarious things that are going on around us.  We might consider ourselves smaller cogs in the machinery of an organization, business, or public sector entity.  We are content to work our 9-to-5 shift, get our pay cheque, and stay apart from other elements of an organization's life.  We'd rather not know and work on the premise that ignorance is bliss.  Others of us might be more aware of situations and circumstances based on our positions or connections to other individuals in an organization.  One example I can cite here is that of an accounting clerk - seeing expense claims of executives, knowing and perhaps even calling into question dubious submissions from those in positions of power, but ultimately bending to power (willingly or unwillingly).  The expenses claims are no longer questioned as it relates to policy but merely moved along.  

Others of us are more knowingly and intentionally collaborators in nefarious deeds.  Not surprisingly, although not a given, individuals like Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were key supporters of their father through thick and thin.  Blood can be thicker than water.  Others in a leader's inner circle may also actually believe in fundamentally the same causes and similarly believe that ends pursued justify means used.  This may be accompanied by a further belief that all leaders are flawed in one way or another but that, again, the outcomes being pursued are grounds to support overlooking, forgiving, or even actively defending such character defects.  

As we dig deeper into the circle of collaborators, there are also those who are as self-centred and narcissistic as the leader themselves.  These are perhaps the most dangerous and culpable actors in the rise of a dangerous leader.  These individuals are more than competent, skilled, and experienced.  They have vision and foresight enough to understand how the leader can help them to advance their own ends so they become willing accomplices in the leader's actions and agenda.  In some cases, these collaborators become co-opted into the spiderweb they have helped create.  In my executive leadership experience, this has taken on the form of "right-thinking" people being given greater consideration for performance bonuses, increased or accelerated promotional opportunities, more frequent and attractive personal development opportunities, and so forth.  It has even meant beneficial (and mostly largely unscanctioned/hidden) changes to benefits plans and related compensation elements that would not pass moral, ethical, and even legal tests.  

Often, these collaborators, slowly but inevitably, get dragged to a point of no return.  They - we - delude themselves through a variety of mental gymnastics or self-defense mechanisms to come along with the leader, either voluntarily or involuntarily, as strong advocates or as the willfully blind.  Our future defense when consequences arrive - as in most circumstances they inevitably do - is to claim ignorance, no ill intent, or lack of power to alter the destructive path.  

Leadership lost through complicity often comes from a corruption of our personal values.  And as with so many other things, it happens gradually and then suddenly.  We find ourselves through a series of compromises, each of them seemingly small and inconsequential at a place we would never have imagined - an attack on the U.S. Capitol for one.

It's About Leadership.  But that leadership includes the team that supports the leader.  At a point we all have to be clear about or rediscover our personal values, be prepared to be judged by our own standards, and hold ourselves accountable to what we have actioned or not actioned.  Eleventh hour confessions and contrition are unlikely to save us from Leadership Lost and its consequences.  We reap what we have helped sow.

It's About Leadership.  What do you want to be remembered for?  How do you want your 15 minutes of fame (media attention, public spotlight) to look?  With whom do you want to be forever associated?

______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

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.

Leadership Lost...or Never There?

2021 continues to be an eventful year - and as of the writing of this blog, we are still only sitting on January 11!  At the time of my last post we we were experiencing Aloha-gate in Alberta and had not yet gotten to the vote certification process in the U.S. Presidential election.  What a difference a week has made in the reality we are facing today!  The (top!) highlights of the past week include: the second impeachment process has begun for Donald Trump following the Capitol debacle of January 6, coupled with ever-challenging COVID-19 case counts and deaths.  We see resignations from Trump's Cabinet (rather late in the day), some Republicans jumping ship, other allies looking to distance themselves from the carnage, Trump suspended from social media platforms, and Trump world losing corporate opportunities. 

At a more local level in Alberta, the latest political polls show the governing United Conservative Party (UCP) dropping precipitously as the choice of Albertans, now sitting with a 31% approval rating as compared to the NDP at 48%.  In April 2019, the UCP won a majority government with nearly 55% of the vote in their favor.  This appears to be a direct outcome of a variety of government missteps and anxieties primarily (though not exclusively) related to handling of COVID-19.  Much like what we now see in the US, there are starting to be some cracks in unity within the UCP/conservative ranks and certainly many calls for resignations, reassignment, and consequences for government leaders and staffers who are believed to have not shown the "right stuff" or even followed government policies and directives. 

When I last posted (Leadership Lost), I talked about the fundamental sense of betrayal that so many people seemed to feel here in Alberta when government leaders and staffers seemed to go against their own directives and guidelines on managing the COVID-19 response.  Those who had adhered to restrictions, experienced loss of income/job, had to home school, or otherwise had their lives impacted were incensed.  I identified several reasons for this sense of anger and betrayal, the consequences of which for the UCP are currently reflected in the political polling noted earlier.   

One element of that anger I glossed over quite significantly, however, was a sense of foolishness that we might be experiencing during these type of perceived leadership failures.  Let me explain.  Most of us assess our leaders against our own needs and values - ill-defined as they sometimes might be.  Whether this be in politics or work or other group settings, we gravitate towards leaders whom we believe "get us" and believe in the same things we do.  The key question here is how do we make such an assessment and determine fit?  For the vast majority of us - whether in politics or business - we have limited time, access, and ability to vigorously and authentically assess and evaluate our prospective leader's values and capabilities.  And in many cases, our leadership candidates purposefully look to keep their true persona and intentions vague.  In today's social media and sound bite-driven, world we are even more challenged to go past the surface to what might be real versus staged.

We are also confounded by our unconscious filters and biases.  Contrary to what this first statement implies, filters in our minds actually serve a great purpose.  They allow us to deal with the literally thousands of pieces of data our senses take in every hour and every day.  If we had to pause for any length of time to consciously process, evaluate, and make sense of this data, we could literally be frozen into place.  An example?  I suspect very few of us who drive have to place a lot of thought into what to do when we get to an intersection or have to respond to a traffic signal.  We automatically press the brake when we see a red light, maintain or increase speed when coming to a green light, and perhaps press even harder on the gas when we see yellow.  At the same time this is happening, you are listening to the radio, a fellow passenger, or might be processing other to-do's and issues in your brain.

What does this concept of filters and unconscious bias have to do with how we pick and evaluate our leaders?  Whether we realize it or not, and whether we want to own that reality or not, we unconsciously look for qualities, characteristics, and statements that support what we already want to believe.  This is called confirmation bias. Moreover, any contrary information is not only often dismissed, it might not even register on one's radar!  We don't even see the facts when they are staring us in the face.  We see what we want to see, we dismiss what we don't, and we get highly emotional and even more entrenched when our strongly held views are challenged. 

Equating this to gambling, when presented with a losing hand (e.g., our leaders are not what we expected they would be), we often double down.  We become more committed to a cause, a leader, a direction that isn't supported by the facts or reality.  But at some point, in leadership as in gambling, we run out of chips to stay in our particular world.  "Winning", or coming back from the point of no return, is no longer possible.  The result is at least despondency if not outright anger.  If the latter, we blame everyone but ourselves for defeat.  

In reality, however, our sense of anger reflects that we are primarily angry at ourselves.  The leadership we have lost was likely never there in the first place.  It was a mirage of our own making.  We eventually realize that the leaders we came to place our faith in have not changed since we first cast our vote for them.  They are who they have always been, possessed of the same values when first elected or selected, guided by the same ambitions as they once were, and committed to the same objectives as always.  

Our anger is not so much that they fooled us into believing they understood us and cared for the same things we did, or even cared about us.  

Our anger might just be based on the fact that we fooled ourselves into seeing what wasn't there to begin with.  We have seen the enemy and it was us.

It's About Leadership.  The challenge just might be to own what we imagined and created. ______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

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.