Do You Believe in Transformational Leadership?

Transformational leaders try to develop their followers’ full potential (e.g., Bass, 1985; Johnson & Dipboye, 2008); therefore, followers tend to feel that their organization is effective and that it can provide future opportunity and development. As such, it is expected that followers will be more likely to stay in the organization because they are satisfying their needs for self-categorization/self-identity, and they have a sense of being unique from other members in society. Organizational identification is therefore likely to be strengthened.

 

Wang and Huang state in a 2009 article, that “in the last few decades, within the field of leadership, transformational leadership behaviour has come to represent the most effective form of close engagement between leaders and followers that motivates the latter to perform beyond their transactional agreements. Robbins (2001) defined transformational leaders as, leaders who provide individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation, and who possess charisma,” (p.381).

It was the late Bernard Bass (founding editor of the leadership quarterly journal) who back in 1990 attributed four behavioural characteristics to a transformational leader: charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration. It was only later, in 2003, when John Antonakis, Bruce Avolio and Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam replaced the characteristic of charisma with, what they termed, idealised influence.

Wang and Huang (2009) remind us that “a leader only possesses idealised influence if his or her followers seek to identify with, and want to emulate, him of her. This type of leader is admired, respected and trusted.” Further, “transformational leaders behave in ways that;

1) Motivate and inspire their followers by providing meaningful challenges;
2) Encourage followers to envision attractive future states, which they can ultimately envision for themselves; and
3) Aim to expand their followers efforts in terms of innovativeness and creativity by questioning assumptions, reframing problems and approaching old problems in new ways;” (p.381).

Research has also linked transformational leadership with levels of emotional intelligence. Where, for example, Wang and Huang mention that “emotional intelligence is an emerging topic within psychological, educational and management research, and that it was Daniel Goldman back in 1995 who suggested that the best predictor of who eventually emerges as a leader is based on emotional intelligence (EI), which includes abilities such as;

Self-Awareness;
Self-Management;
Self-Motivation;
Empathy; and
Social Skills.”

 

John Ryan from the Center of Creative Leadership mentions that "as we explore what's new and meaningful on the frontiers of leadership development, we do know this: the context in which leadership happens is changing every day in every sector. We are living in a VUCA world: one characterized by Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity and will be for years to come. In a dizzying swirl of socio-political upheaval, natural disasters and volatile business markets, many of us stay awake at night wondering if our skills and knowledge are enough to see us through tomorrow or the next quarter. Seeing farther than that is even more daunting and yet we have to keep searching."

The findings from Wang and Huang’s study “indicate that leaders exhibit more transformational leadership behaviour when they have the ability to perform self-emotional appraisals; others’ emotional appraisals; regulation of emotions and constructive use of emotions. Their findings support the view that emotional intelligence is an important variable for understanding and predicting transformational behaviour. Their results also contribute further evidence that transformational leadership influences not only individual level consequences, but also group level consequences,” (p.389).

 

Genuine transformational leaders possess great referent and inspirational power (Bass, 1985) which enables them to gain the respect, admiration, and trust of their followers. They are also seen as role models who exert significant and positive influence on followers that creates a sense of meaningfulness (Bass, 1985). Employees who experience a greater sense of meaning from their work are likely to feel more empowered (Spreitzer, 1995) and proud of being a member of the organization, and thereby enhance their identification with the organization (Koberg et al., 1999).

 

In their HBR article from 2012 Boris Groysberg and Michael Slind highlight that “smart leaders today engage with employees in a way that resembles an ordinary person-to-person conversation more than it does a series of commands from on high. Furthermore, they initiate practices and foster cultural norms that instill a conversational sensibility throughout their organizations. Chief among the benefits of this approach is that it allows a large or growing company to function like a small one. By talking with employees, rather than simply issuing orders, leaders can retain or recapture some of the qualities that encourage operational flexibility, high levels of employee engagement, and tight strategic alignment.”

In the last few years transformational leadership has become one of the dominant leadership theories and applications for successful organisational development. Occasionally as a leader, it’s worth stepping back and asking; are you a leader who is admired, respected and trusted by your followers and your peers – do people in your organisation strive to be like you? An honest reflection will help you understand the difference between just being in a leadership position and actually being an effective transformational leader.

References:

Groysberg, B. and Slind, M. (2012). Leadership is a Conversation. Harvard Business Review. July.

 

Ryan, J.R. (2012). What's next for leadership? 5 big ideas. Center for Creative Leadership Annual Report, 2011-2012.

 

Yung-Shui Wang and Tung-Chun Huang. (2009). The Relationship of Transformational Leadership with Group Cohesiveness and Emotional Intelligence. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal; Vol. 37, Issue 3, p.379-392.

 

Zhu, W., Sosik, J.J., Riggio, R.E., and Yang, B. (2012). Relationships between Transformational and Active Transactional Leadership and Followers’ Organizational Identification: The Role of Psychological Empowerment. Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. p.186-212.

Is Your Leadership Training a Success?

Any form of training and development is an investment, for which there should be a measurable return in the short, medium and long term; hopefully in excess of the original investment. Organizations should spend the right amount of time identifying specific training and development needs; identifying how success will be measured; identifying potential suppliers and gaining the usual three or more quotes, (where the supplier identifies and commits to some form of measurable outcome for their service); and then implementing the solution and measuring the success. But is this what your organization is doing?

 

Michael Beer, Magnus Finnstrom and Derek Schrader in their HBR article write that “corporations are victims of the great training robbery. American companies spend enormous amounts of money on employee training and education - $160 billion in the United States and close to $356 billion globally in 2015 alone – but they are not getting a good return on their investment. For the most part, the learning doesn’t lead to better organizational performance, because people soon revert to their old ways of doing things,” (p.51).

 

What Beer, Finnstrom and Schrader identify is that organizations aren’t identifying specific needs, but instead seemingly responding to an organizational cultural need that simply says (or implies) ‘we have to have done some training this year’ – lets go and spend some money! If you don’t have a specific need in mind that is ‘owned’ by those taking the training and those they report to – is it any wonder ownership, implementation and change don’t take place after the vast amounts of money have been spent.

 

Beer, Finnstrom and Schrader mention how “education with the objective of individual growth is worthy in its own right, of course, and people are eager to acquire knowledge and skills that will help them advance in their careers. However, the primary reason senior executives and HR invest in management training is to make their leaders and organizations more effective, and results on that front have been disappointing. Three-quarters of the nearly 1,500 senior managers at 50 organizations interviewed in 2011 by the Corporate Leadership Council were dissatisfied with their companies’ learning and development function. Only one in four reported that it was critical to achieving business outcomes. Decades’ worth of studies show why it isn’t working, but, sadly, that understanding has not made its way into most companies,” (p.52).

 

In some organizations training just seems to be like a production line, i.e. let’s just show that we’ve put x amount of people through x number of courses and that will impress the bosses. But a good CEO or executive will always ask to see the impact of the return on investment and won’t be fooled by numbers. Great organizations look for quality that makes a real difference, rather than quantity that has no impact, other than on the ‘expenses’ column of the HR budget.

 

Beer, Finnstrom and Schrader highlight how “from all the streams of research we’ve learned that education and training gain the most traction within highly visible organizational change and development efforts championed by senior leaders. That’s because such efforts motivate people to learn and change; create the conditions for them to apply what they’ve studied; foster immediate improvements in the individual and the organizational effectiveness; and put in place systems that help sustain the learning,” (p.53).

 

I know some organizations where their employees have a reputation of being ‘training tourists’, because when they are assigned to a training program they hardly ever show up, as they know they’re not actually expected to ‘change’ once they get back to their organization. Often the training organization doesn’t mind, as they’re getting paid whether the employee turns up or not, so it’s a complete farce all round.

 

Beer, Finnstrom and Schrader remind us how ‘a poor return on investment isn’t the only bad outcome of failed training initiatives. Employees below the top becomes cynical. Corporate leaders may fool themselves into believing that they are implementing real change through corporate education, but others in the organization know better. Why don’t leaders get this? So what happens is HR defines the requisite individual competencies according to the company’s strategy and then sells top management on training programs designed to develop those competencies, believing that organizational change will follow. This widely embraced development model doesn’t acknowledge that organizations are systems of interacting elements: Roles, responsibilities, and relationships are defined by organizational structure, processes, leadership styles, people’s professional and cultural backgrounds, and HR policies and practices. And it doesn’t recognize that all those elements together drive organizational behavior and performance. If the system doesn’t change, it will not support and sustain individual behavior change – indeed, it will set people up to fail. Second HR managers and others find it difficult or impossible to confront senior leaders and their teams with an uncomfortable truth: A failure to execute on strategy and change organizational behavior is rooted not in individuals’ deficiencies but, rather, in the policies and practices created by top management. Those are the things to fix before training can succeed longer-term. It’s much easier for HR to point to employees’ competencies as the problem and to training as the clear solution. That’s a message senior leaders are receptive to hearing,” (p.54).

 

Organizations need strong leaders that demand an ROI on training and development solutions; and leaders that demand that those solutions meet a specific need that is identified and owned by the key players (the employee and their boss); and leaders that hold HR, functional leaders and the training suppliers to account. These three attributes are essential to stop the drain of money and the failing of training solutions.

 

Finally Beer, Finnstrom and Schrader indicate how “part of creating a favorable context for learning is making sure that every area of the business provides fertile ground. Soil conditions will inevitably vary within an organization, because each region, function, and operating group has its own needs and challenges. In our studies of corporate transformations and our work with clients, unit leaders have told us that their companies’ education programs were not wrong in substance but failed to align with their local priorities and stage of business and organizational development. In other words, their groups were not ready for the training yet. So companies should invest in capability development unit by unit. The corporate-level unit links everyone at the top – the CEO, their senior team, and key business units, regional and functional leaders and their key people. Individual units must consider their needs and their capabilities in the context of their own strategies and goals,” (p.56).

 

References:

 

Beer, M., Finnstrom, M. and Schrader, D. (2016). Why Leadership Training Fails – and What to Do About It. Harvard Business Review, October, p.50-57.

Do You Work in a Trusting Environment?

Trust is one of those words rarely discussed in the work place, yet it has a huge impact on performance, talent retention and sustainable growth, to name just a few elements. All the leaders I’ve respected in my career have been men and women I genuinely trusted, amongst other great attributes; and the high performing teams I’ve been involved with also had trust as a key element in their successful make up.

 

Paul Zak in a 2017 Harvard Business Review article found that “building a culture of trust is what makes a meaningful difference. Employees in high-trust organizations are more productive, have more energy at work, collaborate better with their colleagues, and stay with their employers longer than people working in low-trust companies. They also suffer less chronic stress and are happier with their lives, and these factors fuel stronger performance,” (p.86).

 

Worse still trust is a word customers hardly use anymore where in fact distrust seems to be the rule rather than the exception. I’m still amazed that organizations and leaders feel that trust isn’t an attribute worth focusing on; and don’t care if they and their organizations are distrusted. Yet Zak highlights how “leaders understand the stakes – at least in principle. In its 2016 global CEP survey, PwC reported that 55% of CEO’s think that a lack of trust is a threat to their organization’s growth. But most have done little to increase trust, mainly because they aren’t sure where to start,” (p.86).

 

Trust is actually very healthy in all aspects of the business equation – it’s not just important for the business-customer relationship, but has a huge impact inside the organization too. Zak highlights how “neuroscience shows that recognition has the greatest effect on trust when it occurs immediately after a goal has been met, when it comes from peers, and when it is tangible, unexpected personal, and public. Public recognition not only uses the power of the crowd to celebrate successes, but also inspires others to aim for excellence. And it gives top performers a forum for sharing best practices, so others can learn from them, (p.88).

 

The problem with trust is, as we know, that it takes time and a constant effort to develop a trusting environment, probably even more so in the 21st century, and yet that same trust can be eradicated in a split second. It seems that too many leaders either simply don’t want to put in the effort to build trust in their workplace or feel that ‘trust’ limits their leadership style – where the latter is a very scary but real fact in today’s business world.

 

The thought that some leaders would feel that ‘trust’ limits their ability to lead should be something more academics and subject matter experts are discussing openly. The signs are everywhere, an over-promoted to fearful of showing their weaknesses and too scared to ask for help and development, limp through their leadership role using mostly power, with a pinch of ‘fear’ and find a distrusting environment makes it easier for them to lead; and I’d even suggest in some cases they purposefully create the mistrust.

 

I mentioned in the first paragraph how the high performing teams I’ve worked with in my career have all had ‘trust’ as a key attribute; and looking back it wasn’t even something the team consciously worked at. It was simply a team of skilled and principled people, who wanted the best for the organization and that was our primary focus. We felt great once the objective was achieved and had leaders who recognized our successes. Zak mentions how “when a manager assigns a team a difficult but achievable job, the moderate stress of the task releases neurochemicals, including oxytocin and adrenocorticotropin, that intensify people’s focus and strengthen social connections. When team members need to work together to reach a goal, brain activity coordinates their behavior efficiently. But this works only if challenges are attainable and have a concrete end point; vague or impossible goals cause people to give up before they even start. Leaders should check in frequently to assess progress and adjust goals that are too easy or out of reach,” (p.88).

 

Further Zak highlights how “only 40% of employees report that they are well informed about their company’s goal, strategies, and tactics. This uncertainty about the company’s direction leads to chronic stress, which inhibits the release of oxytocin and undermines teamwork. Openness is the antidote. Organizations that share the ‘flight plans’ with employees reduce the uncertainty about where they are headed and why. A 2015 study of 2.5 million manager-led teams in 195 countries found that workforce engagement improved when supervisors had some form of daily communication with direct reports,” (p.89).

 

It genuinely saddens me that one has to write articles about an attribute like trust – where even without the science, we know ‘trusting’ environments are better than ‘distrusting’ ones. As Zak mentions “the brain network that oxytocin activates is evolutionarily old. This means that trust and sociality that oxytocin enables are deeply embedded in our nature. Yet at work we often get the message that we should focus on completing tasks and not making friends,” (p.89). Why, even when we know something is right, are we prepared to settle for less. We know how long it takes to build a trusting environment – and we know how much harder it is to rebuild trust, if the trust has previously been broken. We also know there comes a point where it’s virtually impossible to rebuild trust without fundamental changes in the makeup of the group.

 

So let’s draw a line in the sand. Shareholders, corporate boards and executive directors make it your mission for 2018 to build a trusting working environment – the benefits both in the short and long term will be well worth it for all of you.

 

Zak highlights how “high-trust workplaces help people develop personally as well as professionally. Numerous studies show that acquiring new work skills isn’t enough; if you’re not growing as a human being, your performance will suffer. High-trust companies adopt a growth mindset when developing talent. Some even find that when managers set clear goals, give employees the autonomy to reach them, and provide consistent feedback, the backward looking annual performance review is no longer necessary. Instead, mangers and direct reports can meet more frequently to focus on professional and personal growth. Assessing personal growth includes discussions about work-life integration, family and time for recreation and reflection. Investing in the whole person has a powerful effect on engagement and retention,” (p.90).

 

Reference:

 

Zak, P.J. (2017). The Neuroscience of Trust. Harvard Business Review. Jan-Feb. p.84-90.

Do You Dislike Your Boss?

Times have changed over the last five decades. There was a time where organizations had to develop and secure the best leaders to retain their best talent. Although poor leaders existed, they were often quickly identified by a high turnover of staff in their area – as employees voted with their feet.

 

Yet more recently and especially after the global financial crisis jobs have been scarce in many industry sectors, globally, with supply outstripping demand and hence poor leaders have been able to entrench themselves in many organizations, both large and small, as employees are less able to ‘vote’ with their feet anymore.

 

This is bad for everyone – organizations, employees and stakeholders and the only winners are the bad leaders - where way too many are able to ‘survive’ in today’s global economy, as many employees are ‘forced’ to put up with their poor dysfunctional behaviour.

 

According to the most recent Gallop ‘State of the Global Workplace’ study, half of all employees in the United States have quit jobs at some point in their career in order to get away from their bosses. The figures are similar or even higher for workers in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

 

The same survey, consistent with previous ones, also shows a clear correlation between an employee’s engagement (that is, motivation and effort to achieve organizational goals) and their relationship with the boss. Where 77% of employees who said they were engaged at work described interactions with managers in positive terms (for example, my supervisor focuses on my strengths).

 

What’s really worrying is that research has shown that an engaged workforce is a key driver of organizational success, and yet according to Gallop, only 13% of employees worldwide fall into that category.

 

Manfred Kets de Vries asks in a Harvard Business Review article: “What are these ‘bad’ leaders doing? Frequently cited grievances include micromanaging, bullying, avoiding conflict, ducking decisions, stealing credit, shifting blame, hoarding information, failing to listen, setting a poor example, slacking; and not developing staff. Such dysfunctional behaviour would make anyone unhappy and unproductive. However, whatever sins your boss commits, managing your relationship with them is a critical part of your job. Doing it well is a key indicator of how effective you are.”

 

Across the globe there are too many demotivated employees and their organizations seem unable or unwilling to try to shift the balance. The problem often starts right at the top with corporate boards and shareholders only focused on the short-term , where a ‘culling’ of the poor leadership would not be good for the share price in the short-term – although it would, if done correctly ensure much greater returns in the long-term, than they will get keeping the status quo.

 

The short-term focus mind set is destroying the very fabric of developing world class, efficient leaders who can develop their organizations to completely new levels of performance and innovation; two key factors required for competing in the global 21st century market place.

 

Kets de Vries offers some basic tips and tricks for employees who work for ‘bad’ bosses;

 

“Research has shown time and time again that practicing empathy can be a game changer in difficult boss-subordinate relationships, and not just as a top-down phenomenon. Experts such as Steven Covey and Daniel Goleman emphasize the importance of using this key aspect of emotional intelligence to manage ‘up’. Where neuroscience also suggests that it’s an effective strategy, since mirror neurons in the human brain naturally prompt people to reciprocate behaviours.

 

Second - Look at yourself. People who struggle to work well with their bosses are nearly always part of the problem themselves: their behaviour is in some way preventing them from being recognized and valued.”

 

However there is a naivety with these suggestions. With the first ‘tip’ many poor leaders just ‘lap up’ the empathy and actually don’t reciprocate it – rather taking the empathy as ‘tacit recognition’ statements that they are in fact ‘great’ leaders. These people refuse to accept their weaknesses and hide them behind all the poor traits that were listed above.

 

Sadly if these simple steps don’t work and you don’t have a solid case to take to your HR department – and remember it will have to be solid, with factual evidence and not conjecture and opinion. Then most employees start to just go through the motions at work and try to minimize contact with their boss – hoping that by playing the waiting game their boss will move onwards and upwards or move preferably out completely. The problem with this strategy is that during this ‘playing for time’ phase your relationship is unchanged at best, or deteriorating at worst, as from the poor leader’s perspective you’re not ‘putting in the effort or being a team player.’ Which they use against you to make life even more miserable.

 

Often it’s not the best strategy to play for the time when the boss leaves – but play for time when you can leave and use the time actively seeking alternative employment – specifically at a time while you are still feeling positive about yourself, your self-worth, and your future ambitions. Since being stuck in a ‘playing for time’ scenario for too long can have a negative psychological effect on you and ultimately your health.

 

There is definitely strength in numbers – but often in business it seems to be everyone for themselves. If a group of people can go to leaders they trust and ‘flag’ the poor leadership traits they are experiencing and have some constructive solutions, then maybe, just maybe, your voices will be heard. But it’s often a very risky strategy and you find those people who have promised to be ‘right behind you’ – are, when the time comes, so far behind you, you can’t see them for dust.

 

There’s a great quote that states “don’t push a loyal person to the point where they no longer care” – too many poor leaders are doing that on a daily basis around the world and sadly it’s a lose-lose scenario for everyone involved.

 

I just hope that key stakeholders will take a stance soon to bring effective leadership back into the workplace.

 

References:

 

Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2016). Managing Yourself. Do You Hate Your Boss? Harvard Business Review, December, 2016. P.97-101.

Is Transparency the Missing Link?

I started my career nearly 40 years ago now and remember my first job as if it was yesterday. What I distinctly remember from that time is the transparent cultures that I worked in. I remember feeling part of the organisation even as a young inexperienced graduate as the organisations leadership made me feel a valued part of the organisation, where my thoughts and inputs were actively sort by my manager on a reasonably regular basis.

 

Obviously there was confidential, high level information that wasn’t so transparent, often until after the fact, but that didn’t bother me, as I genuinely felt that I was a ‘cog in the organisational wheel’ albeit a very small cog and part of both a small departmental team and a much larger organisational team. 

 

When I talk to employees today, however, they often tell me that they feel that they are seen simply as a ‘warm body’ filling a position, to do as they are told and do not feel that they are employed for their thoughts and ideas. It seems, sadly, that transparency is not a business principal that is embraced by many 21^st century leaders. I wonder why?

 

There definitely seems to be a negative trend, back towards command and control leadership which is really sad, as this leadership approach does not build strong organisational cultures. Organisations that encourage or turn a blind eye to this negative style of leadership may feel that their choice is validated because they get the results they want – but they naively don’t appreciate the cost in terms of ‘lost’ employer loyalty, innovation, and performance. Because the allure of the power that comes with the command and control style – these leaders blindly continue on their path, believing that they are solely the ones who have any brains in the organisation – and that employees are there to do as they are told; and not to think or question ideas.

 

These command and control leaders fear transparency as they believe it will show their weaknesses and shortcomings; and as individuals who can’t stand solely on their ‘work record and skills’ need ‘power’ to keep them in their leadership role – and the ‘perceived feelings’ that this brings. Hence they avoid transparency and create a ‘brick wall’ between themselves and the employees they ‘lead’ – allowing them to operate with perceived impunity. In the end command and control might get results but it doesn’t get optimum performance, sustained growth and innovation – business principles that are vital in today’s cut throat world of business.

 

Because command and control leaders are rarely transparent, this just fuels the distrusting culture even more, creating a very negative environment for their employees who simply adopt a ‘survival’ culture until they either find an alternative job or until they retire. Creating, in the end, a lose-lose situation for everyone – if only these modern day leaders had the courage to open their eyes and see it.

 

Transparency is the ‘competitive advantage’ between organisations and leaders you want to work for and those you strive to avoid or escape from. Transparency is one of the key elements of what organisational cultures should be all about. For example some of the benefits of transparency include;

 

It opens up a trusting relationship between leaders and employees;

It allows employees to contribute and innovate towards clear goals and objectives – a win-win for everyone;

Employees feel part of ‘something’ and feel valued – hence this helps with talent retention;

Day-to-day business discussions focus on genuine ‘pro-active’ honesty in all aspects of the work cycle – where, for example, mistakes aren’t hidden but transparently embraced and actively learnt from; and

Transparency makes an organisation a ‘rich’ place to work in, learn and develop your career.

 

It seems in today’s hectic global business environment that too many organisations have let poor leadership become the acceptable norm – often because once in place these leaders surround themselves with incompetent people who will follow them and be the ultimate ‘yes’ men – pushing out the best talent – but sadly still getting good enough results to remain in post.

 

It needs a strong CEO, with a strong board, to constantly challenge and investigate their ‘real’ company culture rather than the one that is portrayed by those in positions of power – as there may be a real difference between perception and reality, which can have a huge impact on an organisations future. A lack of transparency is like a cancer slowly eating away and ‘killing’ the good parts of an organisation.

 

Often by the time organisations find out that their middle management is not that good, it’s way too late to do anything about it – as by now all the really good talent has already left.

 

Leadership comes from the top and hence so does transparency. As a leader you need to ‘get out’ and meet you employees – have genuine and transparent one-on-one chats with them to find out what the real culture is like – and then you can more easily adapt and respond.

 

Just by getting out and having genuine, meaningful, transparent conversations with your employees will go a long way to developing a transparent culture; from there you can build a very special organisation. Why not give it a go today, you won’t regret it…..

How Often Do You Receive Performance Feedback?

In an article in this month’s Harvard Business Review Lori Goler, Janelle Gale and Adam Grant mention how “performance reviews are awkward. They’re biased. They stick us in boxes and leave us waiting far too long for feedback. It’s no surprise that by the end of 2015, at least 30 of the Fortune 500 companies had ditched performance evaluations altogether,” (p.92).

 

I don’t fully agree with their comment about the link between feedback and performance reviews – as I think they are mutually exclusive and that whatever your approach to performance reviews, feedback shouldn’t be something you have to wait ‘far too long for’ and should be a regular event occurring on a weekly/monthly basis where the employee sits with their immediate boss on an one-on-one basis for a honest and forthright discussion about what’s going well; what isn’t (if anything); areas where improvement could be made (which might lead to development needs) and what’s going to happen in the next ‘period’ of time.

 

Feedback is different to ‘acknowledgement’ where acknowledgement is or should be immediate following a ‘job well done’ and where feedback is a more formal regular event. Feedback isn’t just the responsibility of leaders, it’s also the responsibility of employees to seek feedback – so if you aren’t getting feedback on a regular basis it’s your responsibility to ask for it.

 

What’s true is where Goler, Gale and Grant highlight how “as researchers pointed out in a recent debate in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ‘Performance is always rated in some manner.’ If you don’t have formal evaluations, ratings will be hidden in a black box.” In today’s world we are rating ‘things’ all the time, virtually instantly, and ‘performance’ isn’t any different. But how we ‘rate’ and what we do with this ‘rating’ defines good leaders, from poor leaders (and good organisations from bad ones). If you don’t have formal evaluations then you shouldn’t be hiding your ‘tendency’ to rate in a black box – you should be totally transparent with your ‘black box’ and this is done through regular transparent feedback. ‘Black box’ mentalities lead to distrust and demotivation within the team, where there is no chance of honest feedback taking place and employees find themselves in a ‘toxic’ environment.

 

Goler, Gale and Grant mention how “we all want performance evaluations to be fair. That isn’t always the outcome, but as more than 9,000 managers and employees reported in a global survey by CEB, not having evaluations is worse. Every organization has people who are unhappy with their bonuses or disappointed that they weren’t promoted. But research has long shown that when the process is fair, employees are more willing to accept undesirable outcomes. A fair process exists when evaluators are credible and motivated to get it right, and employees have a voice. Without evaluations, people are left in the dark about who is gauging their contributions and how.”

 

The reality is that performance evaluations simply aren’t ‘genuine’ performance evaluations if they aren’t honest and transparent. All the talk about ‘black boxes’ etc doesn’t belong in the same sentence as performance evaluations; and it’s because they now seem to appear in the same sentence that performance reviews have become misunderstood and gained a bad reputation – but it isn’t the concept of performance reviews that is bad, it’s the people that have misused them for decades that have made them bad.

 

Goler, Gale and Grant highlight how “at Facebook, to mitigate bias and to do things systematically, we start by having peers write evaluations. They share them not just with managers but also, in most cases, with one another – which reflects the company’s core values of openness and transparency. Then decisions are made about performance: Managers sit together and discuss their reports face-to-face, defending and championing, debating and deliberating, and incorporating peer feedback. Here the goal is to minimize the ‘idiosyncratic rater effect’ – also known as personal opinion. People aren’t unduly punished when individual managers are hard graders or unfairly rewarded when they’re easy graders.”

 

Two of the authors of the article are from Facebook, Lori Goler and Janelle Gale and though it’s good that they are trying to use performance reviews effectively, it’s sad that they think they need their own ‘theory’ to mitigate ‘bias’ – as there have been tips and tricks on how to mitigate performance review bias for decades. One of the simplest, wasn’t to rate performance on an annual basis in the first place it was to give regular reviews based on a ‘management by objectives’ approach. This professional approach meant that ‘performance reviews’ linked with regular ‘feedback sessions’ to form a constant review of performance that didn’t leave employees in any doubt about how they were doing; and became a seamless ‘performance review’ that left employees motivated, engaged and inspired to over-achieve against their objectives on a continuous basis.

 

Goler, Gale and Grant state that “many companies that are abandoning performance evaluations are moving to real-time feedback systems. That is an excellent way to help people repeat their successes and learn from their failures. But it doesn’t help them – or the organization – gauge how they’re doing overall.” Again I have to totally disagree with their statement that ‘it doesn’t help them gauge how they’re doing overall’ and to me the statement sadly shows a misunderstanding about managing performance, reviewing performance and the art of ‘feedback’. Done correctly there is no doubt in the employees mind about ‘how they’re doing overall’ – and it’s scary that a company like Facebook could be so confused and misinformed about what regular performance feedback is all about.

 

The most important aspects of ‘great’ performance feedback is that;

 

It should be a regular, formal process.

 

Leaders and employees should be ‘trained’ in how to give and receive feedback – a skill that is rarely taught and hence where many of the problems start;

 

Feedback is specific, constructive and makes a real impact;

 

Feedback is genuine and honest, discussed in a ‘safe’ environment - which only exists in great organisations, with great leadership and a strong culture of transparency;

 

Feedback is based on specific objectives that leads to performance improvement and development needs as and when necessary;

 

The employee learns how to receive feedback in a constructive and not a defensive way; and to seek clarification from the feedback in a positive way, that makes a difference to their performance.

 

If you give regular feedback in the right way, you won’t need to only ‘rate’ your employees once a year; as through regular, honest feedback all your employees will be performing at their optimal level of performance balanced between the organisations ‘present and future needs’ – it’s a genuine win-win for everyone. So let’s take this opportunity to go back to basics; teach our leaders and employee’s how to give and receive feedback; and get back to giving regular, honest feedback to our employees – it will make a huge difference to the employees and the organisation.

 

 

Reference:

 

Goler, L., Gale, J. and Grant, A. (2016). Let’s Not Kill Performance Evaluations Yet. HBR, November, p.90-94.

Are We Developing Effective Future Leaders?

William Maxwell highlights how “many of us are paying an unprecedented price for the rightsizing of the 1990s and the resulting abandonment of leadership development. We seem to be struggling to find capable, caring, C-suite leaders. In some cases, we see corporations seeking ‘boomerang’ CEOs and luring other C-suite executives out of retirement,” (p.5).

 

Although there has been a deluge of theories and research on leadership development one has to ask just how much of a real difference all this work has had ‘on the ground’ inside organisations. For example Googling leadership development will give you 84,500,000 responses, that’s over 84 million, so one would be excused for thinking that there must have been a positive shift in leadership in the last few decades.

 

Yet if one looks at the different groups on Linkedin focused specifically with leadership you’ll find over 90% of their discussions are focused criticising the current lack of effective leadership around the globe and on finding ways to improve leadership – even with over 84 million suggested ways of improving leadership out there already. So what is the real problem – it seems employees accept that their leadership can be significantly improved and there are plenty of solutions to choose from – so why aren’t we making progress?

 

Maxwell suggests that “the problem runs deeper, however, to the roots of leadership development throughout organizations. Just think about it. If we can reorganize companies, merge, acquire, or dispose of others, and compete globally, then why can't we develop better leaders? The reason is simple. We think that it is someone else's job or that we can buy C-suite and other leadership talent. Some might argue that I exaggerate the current leadership situation, but the subject does merit greater dialogue.”

 

Maxwell mentions one word at the end – ‘dialogue’ – and in the last twenty years one thing I have found inside companies is that they very rarely sit down and openly discuss leadership issues. I’ve found that 99% of employees know what makes a great leader. Get them in a room – ask them the very basic question – and they will fill a flipchart with the right behavioural traits and skills a great leader needs.

 

If you then ask them how many of these traits and skills they apply on a constant basis, day-to-day, all will admit that they don’t apply them constantly – and this is where the problem with leadership lies. It’s not that we need any more theories or research – we all know what it feels like to be led by a great leader – the problem is found on the day to application and implementation of the traits and skills we all agree should be there.

 

Maxwell reminds us that “we are accountable for developing the best leaders possible and, without question, the time is now for a ‘leadership renaissance.’ Several books on leadership preach leading by example, being role models, and inspiring our people. Inevitably, many of us do not embrace or demonstrate the challenge. After all, being visible, accessible, and accountable can be time-consuming and frightening.”

 

One of the quickest and simplest solutions you can implement today within your organisation is to get your leadership peers together and having an open and honest discussion about leadership in your organisation. What’s working and what isn’t – how much you all really know about the effect your style has on your staff and on your internal customers. Discuss leadership experiences you have recently had – both good and bad – share stories and ask questions. You’ll be amazed what you will learn and how this simple discussion over a cup of coffee can reignite your leadership in the right direction – where as a group you will start defining and learning effective leadership in your organisation. It takes guts and courage to start these dialogue series – but you’ll be amazed of the impact just talking about effective leadership can have on everyone; and over time you will start to have a sustainable influence on changing leadership and the organisation for the better.

 

Maxwell mentions that “yes, we think someone else should take responsibility for developing our future leaders. Only our respective C-suite teams can do something about developing tomorrow's leaders. The research is compelling. Change, driven and led from the top, truly transforms and sustains any business.”

 

So you can start today – start actively asking yourself how effective is your leadership – learn not just to manage by walking around – but learn to lead by walking around too. Learn from your staff and your peers and most importantly regularly have transparent dialogue about leadership in your organisation. This will have an immediate impact if you have the courage to question just how effective your leadership is and if you have an overwhelming desire to grasp the opportunity you have been given to become the best leader you can be.

 

References:

 

Maxwell, W.J. (2006). Leaders developing leaders. Human Resource Planning, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p.5-7.