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.

Maybe it's not them...

Some themes seem timeless even if the circumstances that gave rise to certain scenarios varies over time and place. I first wrote much of this post in November 2013.  Different time, different place, and different person than who I am today. That being said, what goes around comes around and the subject matter appears equally relevant to me as it did many years ago.

A lament that I've often heard from many leaders is "Why doesn't my staff perform at the level I need them to?" The context for this can relate to many things: a focus on developing new products or service offerings, a desire to enhance customer service capability, a shift in emphasis in strategic direction, or any number of other "big-ticket" ventures that a leader believes their organization needs to undertake and achieve. Regardless, the long and short of the story is things are not going right and certainly not as well as the leader expected. In fact, rather than succeeding, there is a feeling of losing momentum, of being stalled, failing, and even of going backwards.

The leader's frustration - and mystification - at the lack of success arises because in his/her mind, the initiative should be moving forward rapidly, smoothly, and with a minimum of bumps along the way. From the leader's perspective, the reasons for moving forward assertively and confidently are self-evident. There should be no reason for confusion or lack of action. From the leader's perspective, the importance of the initiative is clear. From the leader's perspective, implementation and execution should now be a foregone conclusion. Barriers? Challenges? Problems? Hardly worthy of consideration. We shall overcome.

Yet, success is not forthcoming. And maybe that means it's time for a change in perspective. Maybe it's not about them. Maybe it's about you.

It's often far easier to blame others for a lack of success or progress in moving an organization forward than in taking a hard look at what we are doing or not doing as the leader. It's personally challenging to start asking some hard questions about what role I as a leader played in not setting the organization up for success. What steps did I not take? What warning signs did I ignore? 

So maybe your leadership is getting in the way.  First off, like anyone else, leaders can develop tunnel vision. We may have become so engaged with our day-to-day work that we start to lose perspective.  Despite the fact that we are specifically tasked with maintaining that 50,000 foot view - or maybe as a result of it - we can lose a sense of what else might be happening in and around the rest of the organization. In essence, we have become trapped by our own mental box and simply can't conceive of factors or issues that might impact successful implementation of our ideas. The facts may even be staring you right in the face but you simply are no longer able to see them. Here's where developing a true climate of trust and confidence in your team can pay huge dividends. The more objective eyes on the ball the better.

Related to the tunnel vision is a phenomenon I'll describe as the speed trap. As leaders we can easily get caught up in the desire to move forward as fast as possible. Time is money, we have to get out ahead of an issue, we have to be first to market, we have to move, move, and move faster. This driving sense of urgency, however, can cause us to plan in a superficial fashion and gloss over challenges. More importantly, as we try to solve a problem, the anxiety we feel to get on with things can actually prevent us from understanding the issue before us. As a result, we may not be tackling the real problem but only dealing with its most obvious symptoms.  The adage of pay now or pay later bears listening to. Only in this regard, the currency in question is time.  Slow down to move faster and more effectively.

Leaders can also be confounded by an overconfidence in their ability to communicate. Effective communication is never simply about getting the memo(s), emails, or newsletters out, or about having a grand launch event. For any significant initiative, the leader has already spent a considerable amount of time coming to grips with the whys and wherefores of the initiative. The leader believes they understand the importance of the effort at an intellectual and gut level. Leaders are therefore surprised and amazed that the rest of the organization doesn't have the same level of understanding and commitment. The reality is nobody else has been able to spend as much time on this idea as the leader already has. They truly don't yet "get it" because they have not yet been given the time to understand the rationale for the effort. A leader must communicate and allow time for the idea to be digested. In addition, effective communication will ensure and incorporate a feedback loop that allows a check on understanding of key messages and expectations.

Paradoxically, I have also observed that leaders can similarly be confounded by their own lack of confidence or sense of self. There may, in fact, be a lot of exceedingly strong-minded contrarians among your leadership team or other significant stakeholders. I have observed too many conscientious and "nice" leaders failing to follow through on their core values when faced with well-stated or vociferous opinions.  They hesitate, change their mind, or never achieve the full potential of what they envisioned for the team or their larger organization. Ultimately, they find themselves challenged by not owning their own values and hopes for the organization strongly enough. Or they hold out false hope that eventually consensus will win out. Unfortunately, many leaders - effective or ineffective - discover eggs have to be broken to make an omelette.  

Success in implementing past initiatives may also cloud judgment on a go-forward basis. A lack of planning, preparation, and good communication may not have confounded success in the past. A leader may have succeeded in spite of himself for a whole variety of reasons. A fact-based analysis may not have been undertaken to help identify key learnings. Perhaps we were saved by even worse planning and preparation of a competitor. Perhaps we were saved by the extraordinary efforts of our staff. The truth is, we don't really know what factors supported success or what that success actually cost us. The result is that a leader is unduly confident in their own ability or is otherwise complacent relative to what the next effort is really going to take. 

Finally, the ability to move an initiative forward may be most fatally confounded by the organization's assessment of the leader and his/her motivations.  Ultimately, I believe words and actions of a leader must line up over the long run. Staff and stakeholders will commit more strongly to something if they believe it serves the achievement of the organization's stated mission, vision, and values. They will commit if they can see benefit for themselves as individuals, and for the organization as a whole. If, however, past experience has informed them that the leader is first and foremost concerned about his/her personal gain, an integrity gap will develop and grow. In these circumstances, the leader may gain compliance but they will not gain true commitment to future plans.  Staff and stakeholders will ultimately see through the motivations of a self-absorbed leader. It may take some time, but eventually organizational performance will suffer.

There could probably be a few more warnings posted here about not rushing to judgment on one's staff.  The cautionary tale is one of making sure to look at yourself in the mirror first before casting aspersions on the skills, abilities, and motivations of your followers. Have you done enough to set the stage for success? Have you provided the right tools to support effective implementation? Have you looked at the issue from all perspectives? 

In the end, it may be that it's not them that failed you. Maybe you failed them.
______________________________

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.

What is Culture...and Why Does it Matter?

The subject of culture continues to be one that I grapple with and encounter on a regular basis in my coaching and consulting practice. The reality and challenge of culture comes forward from a number of different angles - leaders not appreciating how their actions or inaction foster a dysfunctional or low-performing culture; lack of consensus throughout an organization on what the culture is or should be resulting in a whole series of competing subcultures; a need for an organization's culture to adapt to changing external realities; a lack of appreciation for how legacy systems confound an imperative for change that is being communicated by a leader. The examples are myriad of how culture needs to change, but how unprepared or unaware we might be about what culture is and how we impact effective shifts in culture to support goal achievement. 

                                     

In my career as a leader, learner, executive coach, and consultant, I've gathered a few gems of knowledge (if not wisdom) along the way related to culture change. Included among those insights or lessons are included a need to persevere through adversity with optimism and energy, a commitment to celebrate milestones and achievements even in tough times, a need to continuously develop one's own leadership and the leadership skills of your team, and the necessity to balance work with one's whole life.

So much food for thought, but for this blog, I choose to focus on one key question: Is there really a recipe for culture change, particularly at an organizational level? So being either bold or foolish I'll take a crack at the question.

First, I believe there is some value in defining what we might mean by the term culture. Being a creature of our time, I googled the term and came up with the following (amongst a variety of definitions): "...the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values and knowledge which constitute the shared bases of...action..." and "...the total range of activities and ideas of a group of people with shared traditions, which are transmitted and reinforced by members of the group."  I've highlighted what I think are some key elements of the definition and upon which I will touch in this blog. 

The phrase Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast is probably familiar to most of us and reflects the very real challenge in moving an organization forward or changing its direction. As many an executive will attest to, you can have spent countless hours and money on developing a world class strategy, putting together and delivering a slick internal marketing campaign, and engaging all manner of expertise and external resources, and yet find that after a year (or less), you have made no progress on your lofty goals - and may actually have taken your organization a step or two backward. The culture of the organization - its inherited ideas, beliefs, values and knowledge - can be a very effective barrier or block to your plans. 

So instead of developing the glitzy strategy, or restructuring the organization, or implementing new processes or systems, why don't executives focus on organizational culture? My perspective is it often appears easier to tackle structure and process than culture. One can implement structural and process changes in a far shorter timeframe. Quick or easy, however, doesn't equate to effective. Such initiatives can certainly disrupt the organization and give the appearance of action, especially to those looking at the organization from an external perspective (e.g., shareholders, community leaders). Cultural changes take a much longer period of time to realize a more intense and sustained effort. Unfortunately, too many leaders (and too often a variety of stakeholders) don't have the patience for these types of efforts. We want instant solutions and instant results.

The term inherited also implies something that is built or created over a long period of time. And it will take just as long to mold, alter, or modify this reality, as it took to create. Moreover, it's critical to understand that, for the most part, this set of shared ideas, beliefs, and values have worked for the organization or key stakeholder segments. It doesn't mean life has been easy or great. But the organization has survived, it has accomplished something, some element of progress has been experienced, and the organization's staff believe it works and/or is good enough. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If it ain't broke why change it?  So suggesting there is need for change or trying to initiate big cultural change will not come easily or without effort. 

One of the first key steps in changing culture is to define the characteristics of the new culture and why it is important to shift to this new set of beliefs, behaviours, and practices. This is the leader's role. The leader has to achieve clarity for self as to the where, what, and why of culture change. If the leader doesn't have a clear idea about this preferred future and the necessity of this new path, a change in culture will be a non-starter. Clarity of vision is critical to to overcome resistance and inertia. 

Just as important as defining the new desired culture will be the concrete actions that a leader and the organization as a whole must take to reinforce and support the shift. This includes steps such as recruiting, hiring, retaining, rewarding, and promoting individuals who will, by their behaviours and actions, develop and reinforce the tenets of the new culture. People build culture. Focus on cultivating the right people.  Make a long-term commitment to them. They become the proverbial stones thrown into the water, with ripples emanating out from them and influencing the behaviour of others.

Communicate, communicate, communicate. Along with that comes the importance of leadership visibility and reinforcement - by word AND action - of key organizational values and expectations. As a leader you are being watched all the time and people will rapidly determine whether you hold the values of the new culture sincerely or merely as another fad of the moment. Your energy, your perseverance, and your consistency is going to be critical to success.

Make sure all processes and systems of the organization are aligned and supportive of the culture you are trying to create. If you are marketing the organization as one that prides itself on innovation but have an incentive system that rewards everyone at the same level regardless of performance, then creativity is not likely to be sustained. If you are asking for daring and bold initiatives but your performance management systems actually reward a risk management mentality, you may make stuttering steps forward. If you are touting yourself as an organization that fosters empowerment and employee participation but have a human resource system that tolerates old-style management practices, you will quickly short-circuit your efforts.

As leaders you also have to ensure your own personal words and actions are aligned with the corporate culture you say you are trying to build. If you set yourself apart from what you are expecting of your staff - do as I say, not as I do - you will have compromised your leadership credibility. You won't be able to retain your best leaders or get the kind of change you were expecting or hoping for. In addition, you have to have patience for this effort; you have to be in it for the long haul. Culture happens through long-term, consistent behaviour and effort. The best and most successful organizations build from within and stay true to their core for years.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither is the culture of your organization created or changed in a fiscal year.  And building a new temple to the gods won't keep the barbarians away from the front gates. Only strong and vibrant citizens/staff working from the same page will ensure long-term success.

________________________________________________________

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.

Defining Leadership

The beginning of 2022 finds me on the cusp of more opportunity and creativity.  I am working on a series of leadership development modules for several organizations.  The topics to be covered will range from a coach-approach to leadership, to the foundations of strong teams, through to performance management.  One other subject near and dear to my heart will be the foundations of personal leadership.  For many years now, and prior to becoming an executive coach and management consultant, I have devoted considerable study, time, effort, and thought to leadership, what makes a leader, and how to further hone leadership.

I have seen other authors or pundits put together their top list of what qualities or strengths great leaders possess. The listing I offer below has some similarity to that approach but perhaps goes a bit more off road.  I am interested in leadership qualities to be sure, but hope that I have gone a bit deeper in distinguishing the core of what leadership is - from my point of view - as compared to the notion of management, for example. 

Leadership requires self-awareness. What does that mean?  In my view, this relates to the understanding of one's own strength and weaknesses and having a regular practice of evaluating growing edges. This appreciation and drive to self-evaluate requires a healthy dose of humility and a willingness to explore personal bias and blind spots. If a leader is not prepared to face and understand themselves, they will be less effective in understanding the capacities of the teams and organizations they lead.

Leadership is visionary. Leaders know what needs to get done. And they experience this vision and future state both for themselves and for their organizations. Leaders can read the tea leaves, appreciate potential and possibility, see a new or better way, and feel passionate about what lies before them.  Moreover, this vision isn't abstract in conception. This vision is understood at a visceral level. This vision is not created in a series of spreadsheets or models. While those might be useful tools or supports, leaders are far more apt to tap into the emotional and even spiritual aspects of a vision - they can literally see, feel, hear, taste and smell the future!

Leadership is, and must be, expressive. A vision that is unexpressed, poorly articulated, or not understood by others, doesn't lead to action. If others cannot be brought on board or do not appreciate the power and possibility the leader feels for the future, we have a dream of one that is likely to go unfulfilled.  So leadership – good leadership – means being able to take a vision out of one’s head and articulate it to others in a way that they can understand and powerfully engage with. 

At this point, I want to make sure there is no confusion about being articulate, passionate, and committed to a cause and the notion or quality of charisma or being charismatic. Charisma for me too often equates to superficiality and insincerity. Effective long-term leadership success can use charisma (personality, charm, presence) as a tool, but it doesn’t long stand without supporting substance. 

Leadership sees the big picture and plays the long game. The comparison to a chess grand master may hold true here. A key distinguishing variable between leadership and management is how expansive the view is for each. Management is more often focused on a select number of variables within a defined period of time; e.g., I know what tasks I have to accomplish today, which staff I have available to me, and what problems I might encounter.  

Leadership has a more expansive view. A good leader contemplates execution and realization of their vision considering a host of factors and variables, how those variables might interact to support or confound each other, and is often looking to a future laid out months and years ahead. Like a chess player, they see the whole board, see how each move might impact the next, and anticipate several moves ahead.  They have a long-term systems view.

Leadership is about change. Leaders are good at anticipating change as might be expected from a chess master. More importantly, they also are often (or always) initiating change as they evaluate and make sense of the big picture view they have been forming for themselves on behalf of their organization. They have a view on challenges and opportunities, initiating change to mitigate one and realize the other. This change effort can manifest in any number of ways – creating a sense of urgency, seemingly tireless energy and passion, and a dynamic and flexible mindset. Creativity, innovation and out-of-the-box thinking can also characterize this leadership change mentality.

Leadership is about capacity building.  Because leaders see potential, understand or perceive the shifting environment around them, and appreciate that change will be necessary to both survive and thrive, they are constantly looking to develop new skills and capacities in their organizations. They believe a couple of things about capacity building. First, the strengths that helped you achieve success in the past will be insufficient, if not irrelevant, to survive and thrive in a new future state.

Second, they have a commitment to leaving the organization in a better position then when they found it.  This includes building bigger and better capacity in their followers, investing in training and development, succession planning, and building new leaders. This has short-term benefit in supporting voluntary and committed engagement amongst staff. More importantly, it builds resilience and capability in the organization to overcome adversity and reach new performance heights.

Leadership is about discipline. Author Jim Collins (Good to Great) has dissected organizations trying to distil what separates good companies from great companies, and what allows great companies to continue on that path. More than one of his concepts applies to effective leadership as well. Discipline – in thought and action – is one of those concepts.

Leadership is able to pull all of the variables noted above together, sort the wheat from the chaff, keep in mind (while still challenging) their capabilities, and stay focused on their preferred vision. Good leadership is able to stay focused in the face of distraction that too often masquerades as opportunity.  Leadership is not distracted by the next shiny bauble. Leadership understands its core competencies and/or is prepared to undertake the necessary investment to do different. In short, leadership knows that success is based on making sound choices, sticking to its core values and strategies, and setting up supports and systems to drive success.

Leadership is about courage. None of what we describe above comes without a very strong dose of courage. Leadership requires developing a comfort level with ambiguity and a near daily confrontation with doubt and fear. 

You might consider a comparison between leadership and being a weather forecaster. Rare is the day when anyone gives us 100% certainty on any weather-related fact. We lament but prepare for the possibility that a 60% chance of partly cloudy skies might turn into drizzle or a momentary downpour. Leadership operates within similar shades of grey. Leadership must interpret, with imperfect data and imperfect lenses, what the future may hold and try to prepare accordingly. There is always the real and tangible risk that they may decide incorrectly.

Leaders must have the courage to act despite this uncertainty. Seeing what needs to be done, understanding the forces at play, anticipating the chess moves of organizational life and the business environment are all well and good. However, if this knowledge or intuition are not put into action, then this insight is worse than useless. Inaction is action where no decision becomes a decision. The environment or others will choose a path for you. 

Leadership is selflessness. Finally, I come to a personal philosophical belief that all good leadership is fundamentally about being selfless. I appreciate the challenge that might come from others on this point!  However, I believe that truly impactful leaders are NOT solely or primarily focused on their own success.  Rather, they are ambitious for the success of their teams, organizations, or businesses. Make no mistake, they are competitive and they want to win. Will they accept or appreciate personal accolades or glory should it come? In many cases, yes. But that personal recognition or reward is NOT THE motivating factor for their efforts. They want to win for the benefit of the bigger cause. They want to build capacity and realize potential for their organization. They want to see foundations built and a legacy for success established that lives beyond their leadership tenure.  

There you have my perspective on leadership. There you have some insights and snippets into what is starting to coalesce into various leadership development modules for 2022 and beyond.  

For me it really is all 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.

The Great Return?

August 24, 2021. At this point in much of North America, we are seemingly resetting for the umpteenth time as we continue to navigate the ongoing saga and impact of COVID-19. The desire and longing for a return to normalcy - the pre-COVID times - is heavy on all of us. Levels of exhaustion, frustration, anxiety, and anger ebb and flow with the fall and rise again of COVID cases. Businesses in all shapes and sizes and in every sector have been similarly been trying to pivot, reconfigure, respond, and stay afloat through all of this.  

At the beginning of this saga back in early 2020, many of us probably operated under an assumption that we could batten down the hatches, stiff upper lip, and ramp up our reserves for a few days, weeks, and maybe even a month or two. But as each successive wave has come and gone and come again, we are increasingly pushing our personal and organizational resilience beyond all reasonable expectation. And maybe that is the key word after all to explain some of our more challenging behaviors and responses since this all started - expectation.  

Regardless of who we are - pro or anti-vax, pro or anti-mask, pro or anti-lockdown - our expectations of what should or should not happen have continuously been confounded.  

Earlier this summer, as I worked with a number of my clients, there were a variety of plans in place to resume on-site operations, meaning that there were expectations that staff were going to return to their normal places of business, offices, or workstations. Some of this was going to coincide with the start of the school year or the start of the next business quarter, all around or about September 1, 2021. Even before the fourth wave of COVID was starting to ramp up in Alberta and Canada, staff in some businesses were pushing back on coming back to their former work environments. A variety of reasons were offered to justify the hesitancy (or even outright refusal) to return to the office - immuno-compromised, child care issues, fear of public transit and potential to acquire COVID, cramped office space, cramped common areas including elevators, etc. Some client organizations have since allowed for voluntary or graduated returns as of September 1. Others have postponed re-launch to October 1 or even into the new year.  Others have been adamant that the return plans remain on schedule. 

Certainly some of the motivation behind a drive to get back to the "office" comes from a desire to return to normal. For some, there almost seems to be a perspective that we shall just force normal back on COVID; we will compel normalcy through force of will and determined leadership. If we think positive thoughts, positive things will happen. In other circumstances, there is a strong belief that those who work at home are really not working.  

What I believe is missing from these assessments, plans, and actions is a much more thoughtful, purposeful, and considered evaluation of the organization's strategy, goals, and culture. There are too many organizations that seem to have a blind belief that bums in seats = success or productivity. Against what metrics? I will certainly grant that the challenge of maintaining organizational culture and team cohesion are manifold in a virtual, Zoom-based environment. Beyond that, some leaders seem to be operating from a standpoint that if I cannot lay eyes on my people at any point in time, I can't TRUST them to be giving me their all.

I would suggest that, as a leader, if you can't trust your staff in their remote work environments, you probably did not have trust in them when they were around the corner from you in the office. I would suggest that, as a leader, using presence in the office as a proxy for productivity was a failure to measure such adequately (if at all) in the past.

I'm not suggesting that a return of an office or work environment is wrong. Rather, I am suggesting that there should be a much more thoughtful, considered, and intelligent evaluation of that option as it relates to the overall strategy of the organization. What will the presence - or absence - from the workplace gain or lose the business? Do we need all or some staff back? Do we need all of our work space as it was in pre-COVID times? If we don't really understand productivity of staff at this point, how do we get a better handle on it now? If you really want to be so bold, ask these leadership questions of yourself - how important are our staff to the achievement of our goals and what am I doing to support their ability to deliver on those goals?

True leadership is not simply about ensuring control over other people. True leadership, in my estimation, is generating and responding to change (planned and unplanned), understanding all the forces at play, having a big picture view, playing the long game, and supporting/influencing others to contribute their best efforts to understandable and shared goals.  

Physical presence in an office cannot and should not be confused with commitment and productivity on the part of your people. I have worked with far too many people who simply put in time at the office while dutifully maintaining a 9-to-5 schedule. In too many other ways they had already retired on the job.  

My recommendation for this present time and moving forward through the continued challenge of COVID is to then get well-grounded in your organizational strategy and objectives, truly understand what it is going to take to succeed despite COVID, and perhaps engage your valued staff as allies in getting there - regardless of or despite where they work.  

A productive return to work is not going to come from simply calling out the troops (or prisoners?) on to the parade ground on September 1. A productive return to work - COVID or no COVID - is going to come from understanding your strategy, understanding productivity and effectiveness, and creating an organizational environment that supports your valued staff committing their time and energy to the cause. 

It's not simply about eyeballing your staff across the hall.  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.