Management Psychology Group

Tag: golson

  • Active Leadership 8: Protecting your organization from the wrong people

    On her way to a promising job interview, Maria can’t help feeling a sense of loss and disappointment when she thinks about some of the reasons she is seeking a change. When she joined her current organization, a nonprofit dedicated to im­proving local communities, she was enthusiastic and convinced that she could make a real difference. She believed in the mission and she enjoyed the work. The organization has a great reputation and she was proud to be associated with it. Then things began to fall apart, a year or so after her arrival. Her boss hired a new person, a relative of another section head, who started to make trouble immediately. Maria was amazed that no one in authority seemed to notice, or if they did, that they didn’t care. The new person immediately took credit for the work of others, and immediately started to gossip and trash coworkers. Although everyone in the unit realized she was bad news, they still had to deal with her. Eventually, this began to sap the energy and motivation of the team, and Maria noticed that people were becoming less and less open and trusting with one another. What had been a great and well-functioning team just a few months before had now become a somber, suspicious, and generally dysfunctional group. She was saddened to see how much of a toxic effect one person could have on a great organization. However, since no one in authority seemed particularly bothered by it, she realized there was nothing she could do. She decided to look elsewhere, and it hasn’t surprised her to find that several coworkers are doing the same.

     

    While Jim Collins emphasizes getting the right people on the bus, corporate transformation expert Bob Miles notes that if you get the bus moving in the right direction, the wrong people will get off. Which brings us to the ques­tion, “What do the wrong people look like?”

    Individual characteristics to avoid

    This is simple and important: don’t hire bad apples. If you already have them, get rid of them as quickly as pos­sible. One toxic person can do more damage to an executive team than all your star performers can over­come. A few incompetent or lazy team members can ruin the team. In an article describing the bad apple syndrome, researchers Will Felps, Terrence Mitchell, and Eliza Byington observed, “The bad is stronger than the good.” In one study, they found that just one abrasive or lazy person on the team could bring down the overall perfor­mance by 30% to 40%.

    Stanford professors Jeffrey Pfeffer and Charles O’Reilly report that leaders who tolerate their high-performing but toxic superstars underestimate the damage they do. For example, they note that one company reluctantly fired their best salesman because he was a jerk with a negative effect on coworkers. Sub­sequently, none of the other salespeople sold as much as he had as an individual, but the total sales of store increased by more than 25%. The lesson here is that a bad apple can suppress the efforts of others, and that by re­moving that individual, the other team members begin to thrive.

    Allowing abrasive or ineffective people to remain in place sends the message that you are too timid to con­front the issue, that you are out of touch, or that you don’t care.

    Some, if not most, of the causes of poor performance can be related directly to problems with the I-Competen­cies described earlier. Although all types of ineffective people have a detrimental effect on team performance, a particular category of bad apple deserves special atten­tion. Certain pathological people can do more than just damage internal morale and performance. These people are most likely to get into ethical difficulties. If they’re at an executive level, they can do real damage to the or­ganization, up to and including de­stroying it. The rest of this discussion will focus on them.

    There are measures to diagnose some of the patholo­gies   likely to be associated with wrongdoing, but they’re not very useful with an executive population. The profes­sional roadmap for clinical pathology definition is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association. It’s unlikely, however, to see obvious signs of the pathologies described in this work in a normal population, especially a high-functioning group such as managers and executives. While we might see hints of certain patholo­gies, if they were blatant enough to meet the diagnostic criteria, any person displaying them would be selected out of the process long before arriving as a candidate. In addition, the measures to diagnose these pathologies are typically quite apparent to a nor­mal job applicant. How­ever, although they can be sub-clinical, the expression of milder forms of these pathologies can be related to or­ganizational malfunctions in general, and ethical problems in particular.

    Assumptions about world: underlying mechanisms of pathology

    When people see the world as a hostile place, and assume others will hurt them if they can, their responses to most life situations are very different from those of normal people. Normal people define reasonable behavior by the cultural norms and standards they have internalized from parental, school, and societal influences. Normal people have a hard time understanding why some people behave poorly – not only being overtly violent, but also acting in more subtle aggressive ways, some of which are readily observable in organizations.

    People who see life through the distorted lens of ag­gression think their pathological actions are reasonable responses to a hostile world. Where normal people see others in a positive light, pathologically aggressive people see them either as weak players to be used or des­pised, or as strong competitors who pose a threat. They see life as a struggle between dominance and vic­tim­ization, and believe that aggression is better than co­operation, because cooperation indicates weakness. When given a choice, they prefer force, competition, and displays of power to avoid having others take advantage of them.

    Aggressive people are always vigilant for hostile in­tent and see it where none exists. They misinterpret positive overtures from coworkers as hostile attempts to find and exploit their weaknesses or steal their work. This sets up a vicious cycle – their behavior turns others away from them, and causes defensive reactions: reinforcing their worldview.

    They have a keen sense of injustice and are motivated by a desire to get even for perceived wrongs. They seek retribution. When given well-meant and innocent critique, they respond both with anger at the “injustice”, and with feelings of inadequacy, a powerful combination that drives negative, hostile behavior. At its worst, this can trigger workplace violence. However, the effects of this aggressive response bias can be seen in theft, sabotage, cheating, malicious gossip, and other negative acts. Aggressive personalities always try to get even, and can always justify their behavior. They are not likely to be swayed by moral arguments.

    The pathologically aggressive person operates with very different assumptions. His reasoning is designed to justify and rationalize behavior that harms others. These people are unconcerned with traditional ideas of ethical and moral behavior.

    Aggressive personalities can do great damage to a company, especially if they have the veneer of social polish, above average intelligence, and impressive educational credentials. In positions of executive leader­ship, they can take the company down. However, if we can understand their assumptions, which are beneath their level of awareness, we can avoid bringing these potentially destructive people into our organizations. This is difficult, but there is promising research that could eventually provide some help here. Psychologists Larry James and Mike McIntyre have developed an instrument which appears to be a test of reasoning, but which is in fact a measure of aggressive versus normal assumptions. This measure is not correlated with general intelligence, so pairing it with cognitive tests should be a powerful method to screen for potential pathology. Brighter people with a more normal (that is, less aggres­sive) worldview are always better hires.

    This mechanism is at the heart of many ethical problems. The aggressive worldview can be changed over time if the individual truly understands how harmful it is to him and is truly motivated to change, but this is not an easy task. Moreover, it’s beyond the mission scope of most organizations. If you’re running a business, you need to keep pathologically aggressive people out of the hiring pipeline.

    The aggressive worldview is implicated in the factors of the Dark Triad of pathology: Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism. These are separate but overlapping disorders, all of which generally predict bad behavior. As an upper level graduate student explained, when I was just learning about such stuff, the main thing you need to know about these people is that “They don’t care about you!” All three types are characterized by self-centeredness and manipulation. A key factor to remem­ber here is that these disorders are long-term, stable, and resistant to change. They have a strong and consistent influence on the person’s behavior over time, and in a wide range of circumstances. Clinical efforts to change such people have not been effective, and in some cases have made things worse. In short, you don’t want them in your organization.

    The Dark Triad

    Machiavellianism

    Nicolo Machiavelli, a Florentine poet, musician, play­wright, and keen observer of political power, is best remembered for The Prince, a biting but accurate treatise on the practical application of power in politics. Although some of his advice is harsh, such as his dictum: “If you must fight, don’t wound your enemies … kill them, their families and friends, so they can’t come back to do you harm later”; his messages still carry a certain resonance of uncomfortable accuracy.

    Machiavellianism, as a negative term, became one focus of research in social psychology in the seventies. It was defined as the proclivity to manipulate and exploit using power, intimidation, charm, or other such methods to win personal or organizational advantage. Psycholo­gists Richard Christie and Florence Geis de­veloped a scale to measure a person’s level of Machiavel­lianism. People with high scores on this measure are seen as calculating, detached, manipulative, deceptive, and self-centered. They employ all means available to them to get their way; but some of these characteristics are also correlated with rising to power in organizations and, as Machiavelli observed, maintaining power. Those who achieve low scores on the Machiavellianism measure de­veloped by Christie and Geis are usually more empathic, sym­pathetic, open, and agreeable.

    Unfortunately, this measure of potential pathology isn’t very useful in helping select people in business organizations, because it is rather transparent. That is, a reasonably bright candidate can easily figure out the right answer. It doesn’t take much to understand that the socially acceptable response to such items as “Most people are basically good and kind,” or “There’s no ex­cuse for lying” is agreement. So, we have to rely on more indirect means.

    For instance, high Machiavellianism tendencies are related to low scores on the standard personality factors of agreeableness and conscientiousness (stay tuned for more on this).

    Narcissism

    In mythology, Narcissus was a handsome young man who eventually fell in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. Freud saw narcissism as the quality of being self-absorbed to the point of pathology. Narcissistic person­alities are characterized by an inflated self-concept and self-centeredness in general. They lack empathy for others and typically assume that they are entitled. Their view of themselves is grandiose. They are sometimes flamboyant and have an undeserved and unrealistic sense of superiority.

    It’s easy to see how people with these characteristics can be destructive to an organizational culture. In their less pathological form, some narcissistic characteristics can help people rise quickly in an organization; but in the long term, their self-centered, superficial, and manip­ulative characteristics do turn people against them.

    Psychopathy

    Psychopathy and sociopathy are related terms, some­times now referred to as antisocial personality disorder. As with other such disorders, they are deep-seated and quite resistant to change. Psychopathy is characterized by lack of concern for others, disregard for social norms, low tolerance for frustration, and a keen ability to rational­ize problems by finding blame elsewhere. Psycho­paths do not experience guilt, and consequently don’t learn much from punishment. They are thrill seeking and impulsive. The worst cases of psychopathy rarely make it to the executive suite, because their anti­social behaviors usually serve to remove them from the path for succession and progression in most organizations. However, as with Machiavellianism, milder and more attenuated expressions of their deeper nature can sometimes give them a competitive ad­vantage. A charming psychopath can do a great deal of damage in an organization, especially if  he or she is brighter than average.

    Other individual factors related to organizational dysfunction

    Locus of Control

    Locus of control, a concept first defined and researched by psychologist Julian Rotter, refers to the belief that we control our lives by our own actions (internals) or that we’re mostly at the whim of outside forces (externals). Note that this has nothing to do with the normal person­ality traits of introversion or extraversion that will be discussed a little later.

    Internally-controlled people are more satisfied with their jobs, have a more favorable attitude towards their managers, and feel better about salary increases and career advancement. They see themselves as more in charge of their own destiny and as responsible for their own actions. They are less likely to succumb to negative peer pressure. When motivated by positive factors, they have a strong moral compass.

    Externally-controlled people are likely to believe more in luck and happenstance than in their own ability to make things happen. They feel that their own efforts do not significantly affect outcomes. They are more likely to see themselves as victims and, because of this, more likely to justify “getting even” thinking, which leads to bad behavior.

    We can measure this factor, but as with Machiavellianism, the test for it is easy to manipulate. Rotter’s original IE scale, if applied to a work environ­ment, would have candidates indicate whether they agree or disagree with such statements as “Promotions come to those who do a good job.” Most people would rightly assume that if you want the job, you should agree with these types of statements. If using such a test as a selection tool, you’re selecting for higher intelligence, but perhaps not much else. For selection purposes, the methods to estimate this characteristic must be more subtle than tests that have been used for research on it. Moreover, because most people in executive ranks score in the internal control direction anyway, it would not be particularly useful.

    Cognitive Moral Development (CMD)

    A helpful framework through which to view moral and ethical decision-making is offered by psychologist James Rest. His model describes four basic components of moral decision-making: identifying it as a moral issue; making a moral judgment about it; focusing on how to deal with it; and taking the appropriate action. This model makes use of the developmental stage framework for moral reasoning suggested  by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg. He outlined six stages, from Stage One (recog­nition only of oneself, the perspective of the infant) to Stage Six (recognition and adherence to uni­versal ethical principles) as the basis for ethical behavior. People who have reached the higher stages of CMD make better ethical decisions.

    The traditional way to measure this factor is to pre­sent a scenario with a dilemma of competing values, such as determining the rightness or wrongness of stealing something from someone who owns it, to help someone whose life depends on getting it. This is cum­bersome in a selection situation, and of questionable value, because it is more of a surface competency. That is, people can learn to think differently about complex issues when given the proper training and perspective. Therefore, ethical decision-making is better addressed in training than used as a selection factor, unless there are blatantly obvious signs of problems. If you’re selecting for intelligence, you also indirectly help to increase the overall cognitive moral development of the organization, because brighter people are able to understand the subtleties of ethical issues more readily than those who aren’t as gifted, as long as they have the proper instruction. Remember, select for the foundation competency (the Intellectual Competency, in this case) and train for the surface competency (CMD).

    Key Concepts

    Just a few bad apples will spoil any team. Left unchecked, they can wreck a good corporate culture. Get rid of lazy, incompetent, or toxic people. Better yet, don’t hire them in the first place. Just as there are consistent characteris­tics of good people, there are also consistent characteristics of people who can harm an organization. These include the “dark triad” of pathology – Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism. These factors are related to a general inclination towards ag­gression. People who have a sense of personal control over their environment and people who can understand some of the subtleties of ethical decisions make better employees.

  • Developing your organization: the right people (Active Leadership 7)

    Bob had a successful early career in large account sales, and is now in his second role as leader of a national accounts group. His team sells complex systems integration services to the company’s largest customers. Many of his people have tech­nical and engineering degrees. They are usually quite clever in helping their clients solve complex problems; but they are a bit slower than he would like in developing social relationships that lead to greater business development success over time. Last year, he hired Fred, a candidate from outside the organization, to handle a steady client that appeared to have untapped potential for development. Bob realized that Fred might be a little light on the technical side, but assumed that his winning smile and great social skills would compensate and help him develop the business. As anticipated, everyone responded well to Fred, and he seemed to get a great deal of traction on the front end. But business has actually declined. Although Bob provided him with a more technical exposure and a deeper dive into the complexities of the services the company provides, Fred appears to be out of his element. Bob is now thinking about reassigning one of his other people to help with some of the technical difficulties the client appears to be experiencing. He has a sinking feeling that Fred might not be able to learn what he needs to know to represent the company in a credible manner.

     We all know ascent is fraught with obstacles and dangers: but just getting there isn’t enough. Now the question becomes, “How do I stay here long enough to have a lasting positive impact on this place?” To do so, you must build a healthy, viable company that provides growth opportunities for people. You just can’t do that with toxic people (see the next chapter). A sad fact of life is that some people choose to do harmful things. But let’s talk about good people first.

    In Good to Great, Jim Collins describes the characteris­tics of great leaders as being modest and even self-deprecating, yet also as having an unwavering ambition for the company. They never lose faith in ultimate suc­cess, but also face facts in a brutally direct manner. One of his adages is that success is a function of getting the right people on the bus and getting them in the right seats.

    The leader’s ability to select and develop the right people is crucial to the success of any organization. In addition to Collins’s “First the who, then the what”, other people as diverse as humorist Leo Rosten (“First rate people hire first rate people, second rate people hire third rate people”) and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (“A’s hire A’s, B’s hire C’s”) emphasize the importance of getting the best people. A leader has no higher duty than choosing people who will ensure the future success of the organization.

    What are the characteristics of the right people – those who will be good for your business and help foster a culture of success? Theories of personality can be conflicting and confusing. Some measures of personality lead to typecasting that doesn’t hold up when subjected to rigorous predictive analysis. Competency models used by many organizations to define the desirable character­istics of their people are usually too narrow. They can lead managers to look at the wrong things or ignore important aspects of “the whole person” when hiring or developing their people. Competency models don’t often differentiate between what can be taught and what could be an ingrained trait or ability. Some things simply can’t be changed or developed to any significant extent.

    Having personally conducted many thousands of psychological assessments for business organizations, I still sometimes find it difficult to understand and integrate the multifaceted and often conflicting data gathered in the assessment process. The framework de­scribed in this chapter, however, has helped me stay focused on the most important factors in assessment and in coaching for development. It can also help you make better selection and development decisions in your own organization.

    We can all get better at just about anything. In spite of the fact that there are apparently hardwired traits, abilities, and characteristics, improvement is possible. If we define the right kind of goals, pursue them with the right strategies, and monitor our progress, we can im­prove. Psychologist Heidi Halvorson has offered compelling evidence for the dynamic nature of human ability in her book Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals. This is quite encouraging, and has broad implications for self-development, coaching, parenting, and for educa­tional applications. As with anything worthwhile, progress takes insight, planning, time, and effort.

    Unfortunately, unless you’re running a well-funded early career developmental program, you don’t have the resources or time to bring in raw material and nurture it to full potential. If you’re a typical recruiter or hiring executive, you need competent people with the talents and skills necessary to hit the battlefield in full stride. A quote attributed to Lewis Pierson, businessman and for­mer president of the US Chamber of Commerce in the early part of last century, describes your situation: “Business is like a man rowing a boat upstream. He has no choice; he must go ahead or he will go back.” If that was true nearly one hundred years ago, it’s certainly so now.

    This is not to downplay the importance of good management and leadership practices; but unless you’re hiring for entry-level jobs, you simply don’t have the luxury of providing the long-term nurturance, coaching, care and feeding of new hires necessary to develop them to full potential. At least, not in the time frames you face. Although people have great capacity for improvement and development, for your purposes, your candidates typically need to look more like the finished product than a work-in-progress on certain key factors. They must bring with them the appropriate traits and apti­tudes that enable them to learn, adjust, and make a contribution, in relatively short order.

    The necessary business skills can be learned relatively easily and quickly. It takes more time to move the needle on these more deeply ingrained qualities. Long-term and enduring patterns of behavior are traits. An old nugget of business wisdom is “Hire for trait, train for skill.” But if certain traits aren’t in place, some skills won’t develop, no matter how hard one tries. To hire or promote the best people who can quickly become assets in our organizations, we must act as if some things are innate.

    In previous writings, I have described the I-Competencies: the Intellectual, Interpersonal, Integrity, and Intensity factors. These characteristics are generally hardwired, at least for the context and time frames within which a business leader must operate. Think of them as head, heart, guts and will. These are the foundation competencies: the result of genetics and the values and attitudes one absorbs from early family and societal or cultural influences. They are fundamental, and cannot be developed quickly or significantly by training, coaching, or experience. In this respect, they differ from surface competencies such as formal presentation skills, spread­sheet skills, technical knowledge base, and so forth, which can be taught. Since you cannot change these fac­tors to any significant degree, they should be targeted in your selection process.

    The I-Competencies

     The Intellectual Competency (Head)

    This factor has traditionally been measured by standard­ized tests that predict success in school, but test scores alone aren’t enough. The Intellectual Competency, or general intelligence, encompasses mental agility, quick­ness and creativity, depth of knowledge, logical reasoning, and common sense. This factor is a combination of people’s unique mix of skills and abilities: and how well they use them to solve problems. People who make smart decisions and who use their talents effectively are more successful over time than those who make bad decisions or squander their intellectual resources. After almost one hundred years of scientific research on this dimension, the results are quite clear and unambiguous. This is the best predictor of job perfor­mance available. There are always exceptions to the rule: there are very bright people who never amount to any­thing and there are people of rather average intelligence who work hard and achieve great things. But the correlation between this competency and performance over time is clear and consistent across jobs and occupations. In the story introducing this chapter, Bob deals with the consequences of hiring someone who is not strong enough in this competency into an analytically demanding role.

     The Interpersonal Competency (Heart)

    No matter how clever you are, and how elegant or elaborate your problem solutions, if you can’t communicate them to others and convince others of their merits, it doesn’t matter. People who have good social skills and who get along with other people are much more successful as a group than those who don’t have as many talents in this area. They have greater in­fluence in the group because others like them and feel good about them. The Interpersonal Competency is the key that unlocks the door of influence. It enables you to communicate the worth of your ideas. This competency includes general social and persuasive skills, social in­sight and intuition, likeability and persuasiveness. The Intel­lectual Competency enables you to solve the problem. The Interpersonal Competency enables you to convince other people that your solution is a good one.

     The Integrity Competency (Guts)

    This is broader than just the basic honesty-dishonesty dimension, although that’s a fundamental. This competency is the cornerstone of building trust, one of the primary factors of credibility. It includes general conscientiousness, discipline, and follow-through. People with high integrity meet their commitments within the time frames agreed upon, and according to standards ex­pected, and let everyone know in plenty of time if the commitment can’t be met. Part of this competency includes the ability to focus, and to use your talents and aptitudes with appropriate discipline. This factor holds things together and facilitates trust and consistency of performance. The greater the perceived integrity, the greater the trust.

     The Intensity Competency (Will)

    This is the motivation factor. It includes energy, stamina, drive, and the ability to get fully engaged. People with high intensity are active, not passive. They are driven by a need to get things done and to see results. With proper control and focus, people with high intensity achieve at higher levels than those with only average amounts of stamina and energy. This is the fuel that provides force for achieving goals, and for staying motivated in the face of obstacles. It is often referred to as general drive or motivation. The more motivated you are, the more likely you are to achieve results, and consequently the greater your ability to influence others by virtue of your accom­plishments and general credibility.

     Key Concepts

    Although everyone can improve, some things take too long to change enough to make a difference in the business con­text and timeframe. Therefore, we must select people for specific fundamental and stable traits and aptitudes. These are foundation competencies: intellectual, interpersonal, integrity and intensity. These “I-Competencies” can be thought of as head, heart, guts, and will.

  • Transitions: anticipating the demands of new roles and adapting (Active Leadership 6)

    Catherine has been fiercely competitive and quite successful in everything she has ever tried to do. She was awarded academic and athletic scholarships, and graduated cum laude with a degree in electrical engineering from a major university. People have always assumed she was destined for greatness. The confidence that came from her many successes reinforced that idea in her mind. She was quickly discovered to be the cleverest technical problem solver on the team in her first job. On recommendation of her bosses, she was assigned to bigger and more complex projects whenever the opportunities arose. She thoroughly enjoyed the work and the challenge of dealing with difficult and multifaceted real world engineering problems. She was known to have exacting standards, and to be quite de­manding of other team members, but she got along well with people.

    Because of her outstanding work, she has recently been promoted to supervise a similar team in another department. Although this was quite a feather in her cap, she was reluctant to give up some of the interesting and exciting engineering problems she found so stimulating and challenging. Now she has a different sort of problem. She is disappointed with the quality of thinking and the general expertise of her new group. Things she had assumed would be in place appear to be severely lacking in this team. She finds herself having to redo their work on a regular basis. Although she is making a valiant effort to bite her tongue, she is rolling her eyes too often. This stuff is really much simpler than the work of her previous group, and she has a hard time understanding why they don’t seem to get it. By now, they should know what they’re trying to do, and shouldn’t need so much help from her. She finds herself wishing she didn’t have to worry so much about other people, especially those who seem so slow on the uptake. Perhaps her path to success should not include having to manage – and babysit – people?

    You don’t need a shrink to tell you change is difficult. There are powerful dialogues and instincts inside all of us that conspire against us. Change involves letting go of something that has been of value, so it automatically triggers our fear of loss. Change can sometimes threaten our self-concept, releasing the previously mentioned forces of the law of consistency. It also involves expendi­ture of energy, to learn something new and to deal with all of the previously described forces of resistance.

    Obviously, as you move up, you need to develop new skills and insights. Although the lessons learned from your previous lives typically work your advantage, they can sometimes work against you. There are certain skills and perspectives one must develop at each new level. Our natural tendencies are to rely too heavily on the knowledge, skills, and behaviors that made us successful in our earlier roles. But if you don’t make the necessary ad­justments in attitude, behavior and focus, you won’t make a smooth transition. For each new level, suc­cess demands letting go of something that was previously of value and broadening your perspective.

    From individual performer to supervisor of others

    Self-management was earlier discussed as one of the three basic tasks of successful leadership (the other two being people and task management). As an individual performer, you are rewarded for being the most knowledgeable, clever, hardworking, and task-focused person you can be. However, when the job involves supervising others, you just don’t have as much time as before to invest in all those other areas. Now, the reward comes from helping others to be successful and relying on them for your own success. But it’s not easy to shift from actually doing the work to getting it done through other people. You must let go of some of the behaviors and activities that made you successful as an independ­ent worker. You now must develop and apply your knowledge of motivation and behavior. This involves helping people settle conflicts, diagnosing performance problems, coaching them to work more effectively, and holding them accountable. Although you still might be responsible for many of the earlier activities, you have broader and more challenging goals.

    This is a very difficult transition for many people, especially those who have a craft, technical, or profes­sional specialty. It’s quite natural for them to feel a loss of security by moving to this level. The idea of losing one’s technical edge is threatening: especially if that person is unsure about the ability to direct and facilitate the work of others.

    From supervisor of individuals to manager of managers

    This transition involves retaining and applying every­thing you’ve learned as a supervisor, while shifting to a broader focus. The new skills required at this level are not quite as obvious as those necessary for success in the previous job. Assessment and selection of talent become more important. At this point, you are far re­moved from being able to be involved in individual contributions. Again, this level requires changes in your time allocation. You now need to analyze how to deploy resources most effectively to the various units under your supervision. What’s more, you need to help define and clarify boundaries between units to help settle con­flicts, to facilitate efficiency and to foster better working relationships among your people.

    Coaching becomes more important at this level, be­cause your direct reports probably have very little formal training about their own new roles. They know how to be great individual contributors. After all, if that were not the case, they wouldn’t have been considered for promotion. Like Catherine, however, most of them are still wrestling with some of the changes in perspective, values, time allocation, and scope of vision you encoun­tered in your own initial supervisory role. At this level, you can’t help people solve problems they encounter as individual contributors. You’re just too far away from that particular theater of operations. One of your major tasks in this role is to help others become more comfort­able and effective delegating work, rather than trying to do it themselves.

    From manager of managers to leader of a function

    Depending on the size of your organization, this may be a position reporting directly to the CEO. Developing new ways of communicating becomes increasingly important at this point. There are now at least two layers of management between you and the individual workers. In addition to this, you might be managing departments with which you are totally unfamiliar. You are inter­preting new data and judging how well it reflects reality. You must also communicate a clear and consistent mes­sage to everyone in the group, to help them understand the mission, values, standards, and goals that are important to the success of the organization.

    The leader of a function must learn to understand and appreciate longer-term strategy. This involves understanding the other functions; and how each con­tributes to the current and future success of the organization. Here, you need to coordinate with your peers to clarify expectations, to facilitate a solid under­standing of what each group contributes, and to define the standards, metrics, and criteria for success. Naturally, politics play a role as well: politics are part of every or­ganization, and tend to become more subtle, yet more intense, as one moves up the organizational hierarchy. At this level, you are generally dealing with competent and ambitious peers, and need to develop even more effective negotiation and relationship management skills.

    From functional manager to business unit leader

    In smaller companies, this is the CEO position. If not, it usually reports to the CEO. In larger companies, it can report to an enterprise manager responsible for several different businesses. This is the P&L level, and here you have a great deal of autonomy and responsibility. In ad­dition to the strategic and cross-functional perspective, now you must consider questions of risk, profit, and long-term results. This is one of the most challenging positions you could ever hold. It requires the ability to maintain a delicate balance of operations, strategy, financial acumen, and ever more complex and subtle communication and political issues. You must learn to be effective making trade-off decisions between the demands of future goals and current operational needs. The time pressures of short-term profit demands add an extra layer of stress.

    Full success at this level requires that you understand and value all staff functions, some of which you might have considered adversarial in previous roles. A common mistake here is to overvalue one’s previous function, and to let old loyalties, alliances, and relationships cloud the judgment and impartial vision necessary for success at the business unit level. This is especially true if you have been promoted from your previous function inside the business you now lead.

    Deeper reflection and analysis become much more important to the success of a business unit leader. This requires a major shift in time allocation. Planning for business success years in the future cannot be done on an ad hoc basis. It requires time for sustained analysis and deep thinking. At this level, you need to be able to con­nect the dots from a very wide range of sources, and to be comfortable with a broader and more far-reaching horizon. This is a major shift in thinking for most people, and it requires a concentrated effort to carve out the necessary time and space to do so effectively.

    This role requires a keen ability to deal with a wide variety of external constituencies. Here, you must de­velop a good balance between internal and external perspectives and focus. You can’t be involved in every internal decision, so you need to be sure you are focusing on the appropriate mission-critical decisions. Now your scope is the organization as a whole:  how it relates and responds to customers; the competitive landscape; the changing technological environment; and regulatory realities.

    Successful internal leadership at this point relies heavily on clarifying your message, ensuring its appropriate communication, understanding and using the power of symbols, delivering good sound bites for message reinforcement, and making sure that your behavior is consistent with your words. It involves creating and maintaining a culture that will facilitate success. This is a complex task, and it takes time. It in­volves developing and communicating a clear and compelling vision, and making sure you have the right people to help you achieve it.

     

    Key concepts

    Relying on the knowledge and skills that made you suc­cessful at one level in the organization will not necessarily help you succeed at the next. In fact, if you rely too heavily on them, they can work against you. The successful journey up the food chain involves letting go of some things that have facilitated your progress so far, learning new skills and perspectives, and making sure you allocate your time appropriately.

  • Keys to Leadership Success (Book Intro)

    Author’s Note —

    This is taken from the introduction to a book in progress (working title: The I-Competencies: Head, Heart, Guts and Will as Keys to Success). If anyone has an idea for a shorter title, please let me know. If it works better, I’ll send you a free copy of the book when it’s published next year.

    Hire smart people who get along well with others, who do what they’re supposed to do and who work hard. That will guarantee your success as a leader. Simple in concept, difficult in execution. The book will explain what these blindingly self-evident insights really mean, their practical implications and how you can use them to be more successful.

    —- Hodge Golson

    The ultimate mission and purpose of any leader is to make his or her organization successful. The leader’s ability to select and develop the right people is crucial to the accomplishment of that goal. Insightful and successful people as diverse as humorist Leo Rosten (“First rate people hire first rate people, second rate people hire third rate people”), former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (“A’s hire A’s, B’s hire C’s) and Good to Great author Jim Collins (“First the WHO, then the WHAT”) emphasize the importance of getting the best people. A leader has no higher duty than choosing people who will ensure the future success of his or her organization.

    Theories of personality can be conflicting and confusing, even for psych graduate students. Some measures of personality lead to type-casting that doesn’t hold up when subjected to rigorous predictive analysis. Competency models used by many organizations to define the desirable characteristics of their people are usually too narrow. They may lead managers to look at the wrong things or ignore the whole person picture when hiring or developing their people. Competency models don’t often differentiate between what can be taught and what may be an ingrained trait or ability. Some things simply can’t be changed or developed to any significant extent, at least in the time frame required for success in business. Having personally conducted over ten thousand psychological assessments for business organizations, I still sometimes find it difficult to understand and integrate the multifaceted and often conflicting data gathered in the interview. But the framework described in this book has helped me stay focused on the most important factors in assessment and in coaching for development. It can also help you make better selection and development decisions in your own organization.

    We can all get better at just about anything we focus upon. In spite of the fact that most of the characteristics and behavioral patterns associated with the four foundational competencies described in this book seem to be hard-wired, improvement is possible. If we set the right kind of goals, pursue them with the right strategies and monitor our progress, we will improve. Psychologist Heidi Grant Halvorson has offered compelling evidence for the dynamic nature of human ability in her book Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals.[1] This is quite encouraging and has broad implications for self-development, for coaching, for parenting and for educational applications. As with anything worthwhile, progress takes insight, planning, time and effort.  Unfortunately, unless you’re running a well-funded early career developmental program, you don’t have the resources or time to bring in raw material and nurture it to full potential. If you’re a typical recruiter or hiring executive, you need competent people with the talents and skills necessary to help out quickly. A quote attributed to Lewis Pierson, businessman and former president of the US Chamber of Commerce in the early part of last century, describes your situation fairly accurately: “Business is like a man rowing a boat upstream. He has no choice; he must go ahead or he will go back.” If that was true nearly one hundred years ago, it’s certainly so now.

    This is not to downplay the importance of good management and leadership practices, but in most instances, you simply don’t have the luxury of providing the long term nurturance, coaching, care and feeding of new hires it would require to develop them to full potential in the time frames you face. So, although people have great capacity for improvement and development, for your purposes, your candidates typically have to hit the ground running. They need to possess the appropriate raw material (the competencies described herein) walking in the door so that they can learn, adjust and make a contribution in relatively short order. The necessary business skills can be learned relatively easily and quickly as compared to moving the needle on these more deeply ingrained qualities described in the following discussion.

    As Halverson points out, few things are totally innate. But there are factors that are largely built-in by the time a person gets into the recruitment pipeline for other than entry level jobs. We consider long term and enduring patterns of behavior to be traits. Traits affect us consistently over time and consistently in a broad range of circumstances. An old nugget of business wisdom is “hire for trait, train for skill.” But if certain traits aren’t in place, certain skills won’t develop no matter how hard one tries. For our purposes – hiring the best people who can quickly become assets in our organizations – we must act as if some things are innate. Among these are the I-Competencies. These factors: Intellectual; Interpersonal; Integrity; and Intensity can be thought of as foundation competences. That is, they are fundamental and typically cannot be developed quickly or significantly by training, coaching or experience. Think of them as head, heart, guts and will. They are the result of genetics and the values and attributes one absorbs from early family and societal/cultural influences. In this respect, they differ from the many surface competencies (e.g. formal presentation skills, spreadsheet skills, technical knowledge base, etc.) which can be taught. As noted, there is evidence for plasticity in each domain, but change takes time – more than most organizations have. So, for practical purposes, we’ll treat these as hard-wired. Of course good parenting, good schooling and good coaching can help a person work at the high end of his/her abilities, and may even push the limits out much further than we can predict. But those are topics for several other books. Those are societal concerns and not likely to be high on your list of immediate issues if you’re charged with deciding which candidate will best help you achieve success in your day-to-day business battles.

    The I-Competencies

    The Intellectual Competency (Head)
    This factor has traditionally been measured by standardized tests that predict success in school, but test scores alone aren’t infallible. The Intellectual Competency, or general intelligence, encompasses mental agility, quickness and creativity, depth of knowledge, logical reasoning and common sense. This factor is a combination of a person’s unique mix of skills and abilities and how well she or he uses them. People who make smart decisions and who use their talents effectively are more successful over time than those who make bad decisions and/or squander their intellectual resources. After almost one hundred years of scientific research on this dimension, the results are quite clear and unambiguous. This is the best predictor of job performance available. There are always exceptions to the rule (there are very bright people who never amount to anything and there are people of very average intelligence who work hard and achieve great accomplishments) but overall correlations between this competency and performance over time are clear and consistent in all jobs and occupations.

    The Interpersonal Competency (Heart)
    No matter how clever a person is and how elegant or elaborate his problem solutions, if he can’t communicate them to others and convince others of their merits, it doesn’t matter. People who have good social skills and who get along with other people are much more successful as a group than those who don’t have as many talents in this area. They have greater influence in the group because others like them and feel good about them. The interpersonal competency is the key that unlocks the door of influence. It enables you to communicate the worth of your ideas. This competency includes general social and persuasive skills, social insight and intuition, likeability and persuasiveness. The intellectual competency enables a person to solve a problem. The interpersonal competency enables him or her to convince other people that the solution is the right one, or at least a good one.

    The Integrity Competency (Guts)
    This is broader than the basic honesty-dishonesty dimension although that is an important part of this factor. This is the cornerstone of building trust, one of the primary factors of credibility. It includes general conscientiousness, discipline and follow-through. The person with high integrity will meet his or her commitments in the time frames agreed upon and according to the standards expected. If not, she will let everyone know in plenty of time so that they won’t be surprised. Part of this competency includes the ability to focus and to use one’s talents and aptitudes with appropriate discipline. This is the factor that holds things together and facilitates trust and consistency of performance. The greater the perceived integrity, the greater the trust.

    The Intensity Competency (Will)
    This is the motivation factor. It includes energy, stamina, drive and the ability to get fully engaged. People with high intensity are active, not passive. They are driven by a need to get things done and to see results. With the proper control and focus, people with high intensity will achieve at higher levels than those with only average levels of stamina and energy. This is the fuel that provides the force for achieving goals and for staying motivated in the face of obstacles. It is often seen as general motivation. The more motivated you are, the more likely you are to achieve results and consequently the greater your ability to influence others by virtue of your accomplishments and general credibility.

    The Basis of Influence

    Stanford professor Jeffrey Pfeffer[2] notes that the ability to influence others is crucial to success in a career and in gaining personal power. There are three major factors that predict and enhance a person’s influence skills. In an earlier work[3] based on the major findings from over fifty years’ research in social psychology, I described them as follows:

    Expertise     (does this person know what he’s talking about – does he have the necessary background, credentials or knowledge?).

    Trust (can I rely on this person – will she cover me, further my interests and do what’s expected?).

    Likability (do I relate to this person – do I enjoy being around him and like him?).

    The I-competencies are fundamental to these influence factors. Expertise depends on the Intellectual and Intensity factors (you need to be smart enough to learn the material, and you need to have the motivation and staying power to apply yourself so that you can learn it adequately). Trust is directly related to the Integrity factor. Likability is a product of the Interpersonal and Integrity dimensions. To succeed as a leader, you need people who can influence the course of events in your organization. To increase your chances for developing people who will do so, pay attention to the I-Competencies. They’re the basis of success in any business or other organization with the purpose of achieving goals.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    [1] Halvorson, H. (2010). Succeed: how we can reach our goals. Hudson Street.
    [2] Pfeffer, J., (2010). Power: Why some people have it – and others don’t. Harper Business.
    [3] Golson, H., (2011). Influence for impact: increasing your effectiveness in your organization. H Lloyd Publishing.

  • DO THE WORK: Overcoming Resistance

    There was an old Star Trek plot about an alien enemy called the BORG. Their mission in the universe was to assimilate all of the other intelligent races. In pursuit of their seemingly unstoppable collectivist mission, they had a habit of intoning “resistance is futile.” They were convinced that they would win in the end. Of course, this attitude is usually admirable. In the case of forced assimilation into the collective, not so much.

    As it turns out, resistance was not futile, and the good guys finally won the day. However, there’s another sort of resistance. This variety is insidious and evil. It’s the enemy inside all of us that keeps us from achieving our goals. Whether you’re trying to write a book, develop an app, lose 40 pounds, start a new business or bounce back from adversity, you have a built-in adversary that will be fiendishly creative and stubborn in finding ways to keep you from your goal. This enemy, Resistance with a capital R, is described accurately, succinctly and frighteningly by Stephen Pressfield in his new, quick and feisty little book, Do the Work.

    Pressfield sets the stage by describing Resistance and its allies: self-doubt, procrastination, timidity, perfectionism, narcissism, our own intelligence and even friends and family. These are the powerful forces that are arrayed against us with whether we’re trying to build a business, create a work of art or achieve any worthwhile goal. Think of Resistance as an actively malevolent force whose sole aim is to keep us from doing our work by using a wide variety of tactics and obstacles. It is always there, it is universal and it never sleeps. A major tool of Resistance is rational thought. It can distract us and lead us to over-think issues. We normally assume our rational mind will help us to achieve, but (especially in the early part of the process) it will try to talk us out of our quest. Another enemy in disguise is our normal support system. Friends and family have a great deal of investment in seeing you as consistent and as staying as you are. Actually, that’s the last thing you want to do if you’re trying to accomplish great things. By definition, you’re trying to transform something: yourself, a business, a project, the presentation of great thoughts and ideas, etc. That may be a threat to those closest to you.

    However, there are allies we can employ to fight Resistance. Most important of these are stupidity, stubbornness, and blind faith. Pressfield uses the examples of Charles Lindbergh, Steve Jobs and Winston Churchill to illustrate the value of “staying stupid.” This is because any “smart” person would have immediately understood how impossible their goals were and would have advised them to look at something more realistically achievable. He notes that ignorance and arrogance are indispensable allies for the artist and entrepreneur. One must be clueless enough not to realize how difficult the task will be and cocky enough to believe that he or she can pull it off anyway. We do this by staying stupid and not allowing ourselves to think. Instead, we need to act. As he notes, “The child has no trouble believing the unbelievable, nor does the genius on the madman. It’s only you and I, with our big brains and our tiny hearts, who doubt and over-think and hesitate.” Act. Don’t think. You can always revise, rewrite, and revisit once you have acted, but nothing gets accomplished until you DO act.

    The second great ally is stubbornness. We need to keep going once we have committed to an action. As resistance piles up more and more doubt and other obstacles, the worst thing we can do is stop at this point. Be a pain in the butt. Be mean, ornery and pigheaded. Once you have determined your course of action, put blinders on and keep pushing. As Pressfield says “We’re in until the finish. We will sink our junkyard-dog teeth into Resistance’s ass and not let go, no matter how hard he kicks.”

    Blind faith is the belief in something that you can’t see, hear, touch, taste or feel. It is your ability to sustain belief in what you are doing. When you’re working on a project and trying to accomplish your goals, consider this as your religion. It’s your belief in what can be and what will exist beyond the current reality. Closely related allies are passion, the ability to tap into the natural increase in good ideas once you are on your way and remembering who you love: that is, who you are doing this for.

    Pressfield suggests these steps to help you succeed:

    Begin before you’re fully ready (that is, don’t spend any more time on research beyond the basics that you need to get started) Stay primitive (that is, keep things on the primal, earthy and emotional plane rather than trying to be too rational at this point)

    Swing for the seats (keep your sights very high because that will get you a lot further toward your goal even if you fail at first)

    Start at the end (visualize where you want to go, then work backwards from there.

    And always remember that your internal dialogue, your chatter, your “monkey mind talk” (as the Buddhists call it) is nothing more than Resistance.

    Not only does the universe not care about you and your work, it will actively conspire to keep you from achieving it. Resistance is built-in to each of us. It’s the pull towards entropy and the push against change. However, once we realize that we can fight against it by pushing ahead on all fronts, staying crazy and irrational, suspending self judgment, saying yes to the ideas and goals that would normally stop “smart” people in their tracks and working with blinders on towards the end result, we can overcome it. But even doing all this, there will always be the wall you’ll encounter at various points and there will always be unanticipated counterattacks, IED’s, booby traps and frontal assaults.
    You’re in a war, and the enemy is tireless and unceasing.

    Be all that as it may, it helps to remember that Resistance arises as a second force in opposition to the idea. The idea, the passion and the dream come first. Resistance is the inevitable shadow that tries to block out the light from these positive energies. The achievement wants to exist. Resistance wants to snuff it out before it gets started.

    If you’re not totally committed to the work and if you’re not doing it for sheer fun, love or beauty, or because you have no choice, Resistance is likely to win. Only with the total motivation and belief in yourself, your idea and your potential to achieve it, will you be able to successfully fight against Resistance and slay the Dragon. But he’s like a zombie looking for brains. You must keep killing him. But you can kick his butt by aiming high, staying stupid, being stubborn and keeping the blind faith.

    BE THE BORG. Make Resistance futile.

     

    Hodge Golson

  • We ALWAYS Have Choices

    You can’t operate in the physical world without making choices. The alarm goes off in the morning. You choose to get up or to burrow back in. If you realize you’ve put on a few extra pounds, you can choose to begin training for a marathon, decide you’re OK and grab another bag of chips and/or choose a wide variety of other actions to deal or not deal with the situation. You choose to follow the well-grooved way to work or take another route. You choose to watch TV tonight or pay the bills. You choose to shave or to go scraggly.  Actually, you can’t NOT make choices. We’re always choosing. Sometimes it’s by default. As long as you’re conscious, you’re making choices. You’re not always aware of the process but it’s there.

    This is important: the conditions that conspire to present you with your current set of choices are not always under your control, but the way you respond to them is. Viktor Frankl’s work illustrates this concept quite effectively. You can’t imagine more dire straits than Auschwitz, where the Nazis have the power over everything in your life, including whether or not you get to keep it. But some people, including Frankl, were able to survive their ordeals in the death camps. Being a neuroscientist and psychiatrist, he was intrigued by the puzzle of what makes some people resilient and what causes others in similar life-threatening circumstances to succumb.  His observation was that, although people were deprived of choice in all aspects of their lives, those who retained the human dignity of choosing how to respondwere more likely to survive. Those who gave up and acted as if they had no control, no choices, were more likely to die. This was also illustrated in studies of learned helplessness conducted my Martin Seligman, one of the primary developers of the emerging field of Positive Psychology.  Dogs who were subject to shocks over which they had no control eventually gave up and stopped trying to escape. Even when the doors to their cages were left open, they would lie down and passively accept the shock rather than trying to get out.

    The clear lesson of these results and observations is that we always have the choice of how we respond to a situation, and that’s what allows us to transcend even the worst of circumstances. Frankl’s book Man’s Search for Meaning describes the experiences that helped him to develop these insights. Surprisingly, it’s not a downer to read. In fact, it’s amazingly upbeat and encouraging.

    Fortunately, most of us will never have to endure such traumatic experiences. But we still whine and complain. It’s our nature. However, we can transcend our nature at times by shifting our frame of reference, realizing that we in fact do have more control than we think and changing the way we act. If the dogs in the learned helplessness experiments could only realize that the cage door was open, they could escape the shock. But they didn’t have that frame of reference. Similarly, when we change how we think (often leading to the insight that we in fact do have options), we’re preparing to change how we respond and behave. And changes in behavior are what enable us to make things better. We can choose to see things differently and we can consequently choose to act differently. But it takes awareness of choices and the courage to act differently.

    How do you begin? If you’re in a bad situation, start with a question: ”What am I going to DO to make things better?” This implies analyzing your circumstances with an eye towards seeing what can be improved. As you do this, you may begin to see alternatives you may not have considered. Then you can see opportunities to act differently. You may not have caused your situation, but you always have the choice about how to respond to it. You have more control than you realize. Sure, it sounds simplistic. But sometimes the simple solutions are the best. Try this:

    • What will you DO to make your life better?
    • WHEN will you do it?
    • HOW will you measure your success?
    • HOW LONG will it take before you know whether it’s working?
    • WHAT will you do if it’s not working?

    Hodges L. Golson, Ph.D. is President and a founding partner of  Management Psychology Group. He is a licensed psychologist and board certified in Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Organizational and Business Consulting Psychology by the American Board of Professional Psychology. He is the author of Influence for Impact and Active Leadership. He is a founder of eTest.net, and currently consults with top executives in a wide range of organizations about some of the unique issues of leadership at the top and about the selection and development of key executives and senior leadership teams.

  • Leading the New Generation: Are the Kids All Right?

    GenX. GenY. Millenials. Generation ME. Whatever comes next. They’re so different from the way we were. They’re self-centered, anti-social, superficial, unhappy, etc. Maybe not so much, it turns out.

    Received Wisdom tells us that recent generations are fundamentally different in some very important ways and that these differences need to be taken into account as we recruit and manage younger people. Some have even suggested that they have national policy implications. Popular books and articles have been written on the topic and most people accept this as an article of faith. Everybody seems to agree that there have been clear and usually negative fundamental changes in attitudes and behavior as a result of changes in schooling, parenting practices, technology, increased exposure to negative influences in the media and entertainment, etc. But how real are these differences? In spite of the fact that many journalists and some researchers accept generational differences as a given, the actual data say “not very.”

    Recent research by psychologists Kali Trzesniewski and Brent Donellan suggests that previous efforts  in this area may have yielded inaccurate results and led to faulty conclusions due to a variety of methodological flaws.  According to this new study, there has been very little change in the attitudes of young people since the mid-seventies. Analyzing the results of a very large scale (almost a half-million participants) annual survey begun in 1975, they found virtually no differences in egotistical attitudes, self-esteem, loneliness, unhappiness, work ethic, apathy and other similar measures of pathology or well-being.

    Of particular interest relative to the workplace was the finding that young people don’t seem to be any lazier than they’ve been in the past several decades. They don’t cut school any more often, spend about the same amount of time on homework, watch TV about the same amount and work about the same number of hours during the school year. There was a slight increase over the years in the belief that not wanting to work hard will keep a person from getting a desirable job.

    However, these researchers did find a few interesting differences:

    Decrease in Trust. There has been a slight but steady increase in the level of cynicism about the trustworthiness of government and the usefulness of school. No surprise there, given the behavior of our elected officials, abuses of governmental power, failure of politicians to live up to campaign promises and the difficulties in finding good jobs out of school. There has also been a slight but steady increase in the belief that they will graduate.; But that feeds the disillusionment with schools (if everyone has a degree, there’s no advantage in having one, but there is a disadvantage in not having one).

    Decrease in Worry. Interestingly, there has been a corresponding slight and steady decrease in the level of concern about social problems, war, pollution and crime. Open to speculation here, but there may be a desensitization effect due to the constant exposure to negative stories in the press. It may be that the media are inadvertently making people less fearful simply by turning up the volume on the scare stories.

    What do these findings tell us about recruitment, management and development of young people?

    1. Don’t worry about generational differences. As with most arbitrary groupings, there is much more variation within the group than between it and other groups. There are people at all levels of motivation and ability in any age-related, ethnic, racial or cultural grouping that far exceed any average differences between such clusters. So treat each person as an individual, not as a stereotype from some arbitrary clustering.

    2. Get the best people available. Make sure you have a valid selection system in place to help you choose the most talented people possible. Making selection decisions based on generational, cultural, gender, racial or ethnic criteria will limit your ability to compete effectively in business over time. Did I mention issues of fairness and common sense?

    3. Remember what you were like at that age. Our attitudes may be quite different now, but we felt the same back then as they do today. People just beginning a career don’t have a great deal of perspective and are likely to be naïve about some things we were equally clueless about at that point in our own development. So be prepared to coach and educate – don’t expect them to arrive full-grown.

    4. Give them clear and compelling goals. After the fundamental needs for safety and security are met (these are the maintenance needs – including money and identification with an attractive reference group), most people need a sense of achievement and accomplishment. If they have good people to work with and targets that are well-defined, high but reachable and worthwhile to them, you won’t have to worry about engagement.

    5. Facilitate achievement. Give them the resources they need to achieve those goals, the metrics to determine how well they’re doing and the coaching to get them on track when things aren’t going as expected.

    6. Hold them accountable. If you’ve done your job, they’ll be in a position to do theirs. If they don’t perform, find out why, give them what they need, monitor their progress and be prepared to make changes if things don’t work out.

    7. Get the hell out of their way. Dude. Seriously.

     Of course the recent generations have grown up with different cultural and technological influences. But it seems the kids are still all right – or at least not all that different.

    Hodge Golson

  • Leading in Tough Times: When You’re Going Through Hell … Keep On Going

    Growth through Pain (Cliché but True)

    It’s a tough fact of life that we don’t learn much about ourselves or our character in good times. We can’t fully discover our strengths and shortcomings without being tested by adversity. How we deal with it, or how we learn to deal with it, is central to who we are – and how credible we’ll be in leadership roles. In bad times, all eyes are on the leader. How you behave will have a tremendous impact on your people. Keep that foremost in mind to help you provide the right attitudes, goals and vision in tough times.

    There have been a few encouraging signs recently, but the economy of the past several years has been brutal and the recovery is likely to be slow. And some believe we could be in the eye of a double dip recession hurricane. Unemployment is still in double digits and people who have held onto jobs find themselves having to do more with less. The media pounds us with a steady diet of bad news and worst case scenarios. With all of these stressors affecting the people in our organizations, good leadership is more important than ever.

    When people are under stress for sustained periods of time, predictable and bad things happen. They become increasingly wary and tend to interpret each new sign as an indication of more bad things to come. Negative emotions run high and people are more likely to bark at each other and openly display frustration. They become skeptical of the new and different and are prone to reject it out of hand. As the stress continues, fatigue sets in and they become overly pessimistic about the future. Relationships suffer as the focus becomes increasingly one of staying afloat as a business. In fact, if these stress reactions are not checked, they can lead to a complete failure of the business.

    But not all the changes caused by hard times are bad. With good leaders, businesses can increase their focus on critical components that drive their success. Higher standards and greater demands for efficiency lead companies to get better at assessing performance and refining business processes. The burning platform creates motivation for change that in good times may not exist. Things that were tolerated in the good years, that everyone knew were less than optimal, can no longer be accepted. In the presence of good leadership, the same pressures that cause people to attack each other can be redirected into more effective teamwork and opportunities for individual growth. Businesses that address this challenge effectively will emerge from the recession stronger than their competition and ready to take advantage of an improved economy.

    Two Keys to Leadership Success

    So what does it take to lead effectively in tough times? Research into leadership over the past 60 years, consistently shows that two broad dimensions describe effective leadership. The most effective leaders have strengths in both dimensions. The task management dimension has to do with the leader’s ability to set goals, organize efforts, direct activity, provide corrective feedback and set the general focus of efforts. The people management dimension recognizes the importance of communication, motivation and encouragement. The ability to set the emotional tone of the workplace and inspire greater effort from others is the hallmark of a transformational leader. Operating in a stressful environment actually tends to increase the leaders impact. People look to leaders more in hard times, partly as a product of the ambiguity that adversity creates.

    The best leaders focus on both dimensions in managing their way through stress. From a task standpoint, the critical challenge is keeping people focused on things that are under their control. You may not be able to affect what happens in the stock market, but you sure can reach out to your customers and provide great service. This sense of control helps people manage their stress and allows them to experience small wins that have a buffering effect. It is critical that the leader provide a broader vision of the future and a sense of direction and purpose. By linking today’s actions to a better future people gain a sense of perspective. By pointing out how one individual’s job links to a broader corporate strategy, that person has a greater sense of purpose and utility. A sense of purpose has been shown to provide significant relief from the debilitating effects of stress. While many people find this sense of purpose in broader life aims, a business leader can help provide the same sense at work.

    On the people side of the equation the key task of a leader is communication. Regular, honest, candid and consistent communication is key. The leader must be seen as a reliable source of information; even if it means admitting you don’t know. Equally important is listening. By understanding people’s concerns, we can more readily address them and share with them the information and insights that will help reduce misunderstandings and fight negative rumors. In tough times, it is critically important to try to create opportunities for positive emotion. While a sense of humor helps, it is also important to celebrate wins, find ways to have fun, and thank people. Emphasizing strengths, wins, and good news helps redirect people’s attention.

    The constant barrage of stress, particularly over a long period of time, will take its toll on people. A cornerstone of great leadership is taking care of the troops. Of course listening and empathy are important, but you also need to be attuned to signs of burnout. Because much is expected of people in a tough economy, they need to find ways to recharge the batteries. Framing the challenges people face as developmental opportunities can often help redefine their emotional experience. While few people would wish to go through boot camp again, most recognize the benefit of that challenge. Seeing current circumstances as being tested in the fire tends to make us more resilient.

    The Third Dimension

    In addition to the task and people management dimensions, self management is crucial to effective leadership. This includes not only managing your behavior in ways conducive to more positive morale and action from your people, but helping them to manage their own attitudes and behaviors towards appropriate outcomes. It’s natural for people to feel powerless and victimized in tough times, so it is important for the leader to help his or her people shift from the mindset of the passive victim observing things from the sidelines to that of the athlete playing the game. Anything you can do to keep them focused on the fact that we always have choices and that, although we may not always control the final score, we do control how we play. If we play with integrity, stamina, optimism and intensity, we can often surprise ourselves. And even if we lose, we can be proud of our performance.

    One way to keep people focused on positive action is not to slip into the trap of automatic sympathy. While it makes a person in victim mode feel good to hear such things as “that’s terrible, you must feel awful, they should fix it, poor baby”, etc., those are the wrong messages. They imply that the power is out there, with those bad people who are doing you wrong, with that evil competitor or that rotten economy. A more effective way to get and keep the right focus is with statements such as “yes, that’s tough – what are you going to do about it?; I wish it was different, but it’s not – what did you learn from it?; I understand you’re angry – so how will you avoid this in the future?”. These responses imply that the power remains with the individual and that some positive can come from this tough situation. A key to great leadership in tough times is helping people see reality and helping them find appropriate ways to deal with it. Keep in mind the words of Carl Rogers – “The facts are always friendly.” And Fred Kofman, in his book Conscious Business provides great examples of shifting from the archetype of the victim to that of the player.

    Of Course, It All Starts in the Mirror

    A final point, that may be the most central one to effective leadership, is the recognition that you are the role model. You set the tone. If you are positive, confident and optimistic, your people are likely to behave the same way. If you display focus and determination, they are likely to follow suit. Remember, just as panic and despair are infectious, so are energy and enthusiasm. As you look around your organization, remember the words of Gandhi: “be the change you want to see in the world.”

    Martin Haygood

    Hodge Golson

  • Tough-Minded Teamwork: Role Negotiation

    Roger Harrison was one of the founders of the professional discipline known as Organizational Development (OD). In the 1970s, he described a rather novel and tough-minded approach to team development. This was a bit of a departure from the then-vogue tender-minded approaches that assumed conflict and power struggles were symptoms of underlying leadership or structural problems. This article is a reprise and update of his original description of this Role Negotiation technique.

    The paradigms of OD (e.g., sensitivity training) have shifted since that era, but vestiges of the early approaches can still be seen in many organizational development and team building efforts such as job enrichment, trust-building, open sharing of feelings, re-focusing on the intrinsic rewards of the work, etc. Of course all of these techniques can be used to positive effect at times. But a leader or consultant who minimizes competitiveness and power struggles natural to all organizations does so at his or her peril. These are facts of organizational life and often must be addressed directly before there will be real progress.

    Consider the following scenarios.

    • A CFO is concerned that her team is always just barely on time with the quarterly figures from the field divisions. This game of brinksmanship is creating a vicious circle of tightening controls, earlier deadlines, closer supervision, passive resistance and tension throughout the quarter.
    • There is ongoing conflict between the Chief Marketing Officer and the VP of Sales. Many people have to be involved in the complex work of the organization and the various product managers have competing demands for their time and attention. From the sales perspective, there are too many handoff points where things can go wrong in the matrix and too many people to call when a customer has an issue. But marketing sees the sales people as prima donnas who don’t understand or appreciate the complexity of the process.
    • The head of production and the engineering manager in a manufacturing company are too often at odds. Engineering feels that production doesn’t give enough time for changes and for new demands that should be easily forecasted. Production feels that engineering doesn’t have an appreciation for real-time schedules and equipment constraints, and that they tend to design in a vacuum.

    These familiar examples illustrate the problems of power and influence that arise naturally when one person or group tries to affect the activities of another. In each case, the objective of one or both parties is to gain more control over the other or to reduce the control exercised by the other – or both. A well-intentioned leader or consultant may make the case that these situations are due to miscommunication, unclear goals, problems with trust or other similar causes. But in all such cases, both parties see the situation as one of influence and power – who will be the boss and have the final say.

    The process of role negotiation as originally described by Harrison may be of value in these and many similar cases. It is a real-world oriented technique that can lead to a workable solution in cases involving competition, coercion and power struggles. It builds on the nature of the current situation rather than getting everyone to strive for an ideal. Of course, the ideal would be better and a perfect world would be nice, but this process helps all parties play their current hands most effectively. It provides a method for one person or group to negotiate and structure the role, or working arrangements, with respect to the other. It may include the nature of the activities expected of the other, the reporting relationships, rules for escalation, who is responsible for what decisions, who will carry them out (and according to what criteria), what are the consequences for non-performance, etc. This process can be used in most any situation involving competition, power, control and influence. It is appropriate for dyads and for large functional groups, including separate companies.

    Role negotiation makes the fundamental assumption that reasonable people prefer a state of negotiated settlement to one of ongoing unresolved conflict. Most people are quite willing to invest the appropriate time in an activity that will result in a more stable and predictable situation. And they are typically open to concessions to achieve such a state. For the process to work, people must be willing to discuss the situation openly and take a few risks to describe their hoped-for outcome. This means talking about the changes in behavior, responsibility or authority they want and the things they’re willing to give up or change to get there.

    The Front End

    In Harrison’s original article, he described a role negotiation process involving a consultant facilitating a session of five to seven people, including a manger and his subordinates. The consultant, whether external or part of an internal team, must have the trust of the participants. They must feel that he or she will be objective, fair and competent. People must be willing to make the effort and have the confidence that there can be a better outcome than the present situation.

    One full day, away from the office, is usually necessary to get the focus and attention of most groups. A two-day session with a commitment to follow-up in a week or so is ideal. In cases where the groups or individuals are overly wary or competitive, extra time for ice-breaking, mutual understanding and trust-building may be necessary before getting into the real work of productive confrontation and negotiation.

    Developing the Contract

    This crucial step sets the stage for everything that will happen in the change process. Several iterations may be needed before a final version of the contract is agreed upon. The ideal end result will be a written agreement that will guide the behavior of all parties, provide a way to handle disputes and outline sanctions for not following the contract. The basics are as follows:

    • While feelings and emotions are likely to exert a powerful influence on the thoughts and behaviors of the participants, the facilitator will not ask, probe or press anyone about how he or she is feeling. The process is focused on developing an agreement about the way people will work together. Feelings about the process or about the other people involved are private. Participants may choose to talk about how they feel, but that’s their business. Feelings are not part of the contract.
    • Participants are expected to be open and honest in their discussions about behavior. Concrete examples will be necessary for illustration. Each person must be able to openly, accurately and specifically describe the things he or she wants the others to do more  of, do better, do less of, stop doing and continue doing unchanged.
    • All demands and requests for behavioral change must be written down to ensure there is an accurate and full understanding by both the sender and receiver. This is an essential step before any change process will begin.
    • Although full and accurate descriptions of behavioral change are necessary, they do not constitute the change process itself. These descriptions provide the raw material for the discussions and negotiations that will eventually lead to the contract. When a behavioral change request is made, the facilitator will always ask for a quid pro quo – what the person is willing to give or change in order to get what he or she wants. Harrison noted at this point that if the discussion is between boss and subordinates, and if the boss can get what he wants simply by clarifying expectations from his position of authority or can issue orders, he probably doesn’t need a facilitator or change process.
    • The change process now becomes one of negotiation and bargaining by which participants agree to change behavior in return for some desired change on the part of the other(s). But the process is not complete until the agreement is written down in terms that all participants understand. It will make explicit the expectations and describe clearly what each participant must do in return.
    • Since this is an exercise in clarifying power, influence and behavior, threats and pressure may be employed by one or all parties. However, participants should be reminded clearly that such tactics often result in an increase in defensiveness, passive resistance, guarded communications and retaliation. At worst, they may result in a breakdown of the process, so the facilitator needs to keep the focus on positive incentives and reinforcements to whatever extent possible.

    A real advantage or Role Negotiation is that is makes things explicit. During the contracting process, the facilitator helps everyone understand that each participant has some degree of power, from the positive, rewarding good behavior in others to the negative, resisting and punishing others for behavior not in agreement with the contract. By clarifying and defining expectations, participants don’t have to guess what the others want. They understand the relationship with greater certainty than would be the case if things were still covert or underground. With this process, people better understand how to influence others in the group.

    Diagnosing the Issues

    In this stage of the process, participants analyze the way they currently interact with others in the group and start to define the changes they’d like to see. The focus is purely selfish at this point – what would make him or her more effective? What would he or she change if possible? These are the raw data points for discussion and negotiation. After a short period of reflection, the participant fills out an issue diagnosis form (see Figure 1) on each other person. The messages should clarify what each sender needs from the others to help him or her perform more effectively on the job. The messages will be a list of things he or she would like for the other person:

    1.     To do more of or do better.
    2.     To do less of or stop doing.
    3.     To keep doing unchanged.

    After the lists are completed, they are shared with the others. Each person records a summary and compilation of all the messages received from others – a list of the behavioral changes desired. The lists are posted on a flip chart for all to see. Each recipient is allowed to ask for clarification – the what/why/how. But nobody is allowed to defend, rebut or explain his or her reasons for current behavior. This is a time for clarification only. There is no argument, negotiation, discussion or decision-making at this stage.

    There are likely to be increased amounts of anger, anxiety and natural hostility at this point, so the facilitator must control the discussion rather tightly now to prevent escalation and minimize threat and defensiveness. The procedure here is necessarily slow and deliberate to help channel the natural arousal and energy towards a positive outcome rather than leading to more conflict. Issues are being confronted, but in such a way as to maximize the chances for a collaborative and workable outcome.

    Negotiation

    After each person has clarified the messages he or she has received, issues are selected for negotiation. Here, the facilitator re-emphasizes that unless there is a quid-pro-quo, there is no point in proceeding with the discussion on any particular item. That is, everyone must be prepared to make some sort of change to get what he or she wants. If behavior doesn’t change on both sides, the status quo will prevail. By an iterative process, each person selects and communicates his or her most important issues and eventually the group comes to a consensus about which ones will be dealt with at this point. This defines the most negotiable issues – the ones with the appropriate combination of high desire for change on the part of the initiation and willingness to discuss it on the part of the person who is the target of the request.

    The negotiation process is one of making contingent offers to one another in the form of “If you do ABC, I’ll do XYZ.” At this point  participants may respond in the following ways:

    • “OK, that makes sense. I can do that” (assuming the request is not too difficult and appears to be of clear benefit).
    • “I can’t do that because…” (when the request is in conflict with his or her values, seems unethical, requires something that is too dangerous politically, etc.).
    • “I will be willing to do that if you can help me out with this request…” (in the case where there may be a long term pay back for meeting the request).

    When all parties are satisfied that an appropriate agreement has been reached, the participants write down the agreement to formalize it as a behavioral contract. It states what each participant will give and receive, and will include sanctions for noncompliance. The consequences for a broken contract may simply be a reversion to the status quo but they may also include other pressures, escalations and penalties.

    Several negotiations may take place simultaneously, depending on the number of people or groups involved. All agreements are published for everyone to see and are discussed openly in the group (public commitment increases the chances for compliance). Where there is an impasse, the facilitator and other participants may kibbutz and suggest the imposition of further positive or negative consequences of failing to reach an agreement, or to abide by one. Of course there is always the possibility that one or more people may negotiate in bad faith. Also, most political landscapes are complicated to the point that simple solutions are difficult and such a direct approach could make the conflict worse. The facilitator must be skilled enough to realize that some things can’t be changed by these techniques and will avoid pushing the group into unproductive or politically dangerous territory. A positive outcome from an initial intervention is a path to better communication and teamwork. It should provide new insights and a successful experience in creating a better working environment.

    Here are a few things to consider when negotiating and developing the behavioral contracts:

    • If you try to manipulate or use tactics that seem underhanded, it will backfire. Remember, reputations are built over time and are difficult to overcome, so you want to invest in the creation of a good one. This is a chance to do that. This is a sample of your behavior in potentially adverse situations that others can see and by which they will judge you. Play it straight and don’t give anyone a reason to be suspicious. This is a chance to build long term relationships and trust.
    • Be sure your requests are clear, appropriate and achievable. The better the definition of the task, the more likely it will happen. Avoid generalities like “be more efficient” or “get along better.” The request should be specific and measurable.
    • Don’t try to win every point. Remember, this is called a negotiation, not a competition. Everyone needs to feel that he or she is getting something as well as giving something up. If you seem to come out on top constantly, you will breed resentment and passive resistance.
    • It takes time to come up with clear, specific, measurable and actionable requests. People aren’t used to making their expectations explicit and discussing their working relationships in such direct terms. Allow time for the process to work.

     Follow-up

    Participants will need to live with the agreements for a while to see how well they work in the real world before trying to push things farther. An appropriate follow-up format would allow people to get back together and discuss what worked and what didn’t work. At that point, they can tweak, abandon, re-negotiate or reinforce the contracts. With repeated exposures to the process, especially if there are a few early wins, the group becomes more comfortable dealing with the conflict, perceived dangers, threats and touchy issues inherent in any process of change involving influence, power and competition. As participants get used to the process of role negotiation, the directive role of the facilitator diminishes and can be assumed by the group.

    Dynamics of Role Negotiation

    This process focuses on the working relationships between people, not their feelings about one another.  As such, it is less threatening to most groups and more accessible than other techniques that place greater emphasis on interpersonal dynamics. People tend to be more at home discussing issues of power and influence on the job, rather than those involving feeling and emotion. Although people must make explicit the issues and observations that previously have been covert or underground,  the level of skill facilitating a process of behavioral negotiation is not as crucial as that required for helping people deal with the more sensitive issues of interpersonal dynamics, feelings and emotions. Of course, the threat level is often significant when people are faced with a demand to change their behavior and to confront others in a discussion of what they need from them to be most successful on the job. Therefore, it still takes a significant level of confidence and trust in the facilitator. If it were easy, these matters would have been dealt with more directly before now.

    People may resist writing down the changes they would like to see from others. There is often an extra level of threat perceived in putting one’s commitments to change on paper. However, there is a great deal of solid psychological research demonstrating that people are more likely to keep their commitments if they write them down and declare them in public. If there is too much resistance, the facilitator may let participants off the hook to a degree by not having them write down all the issues of concern, but only those they agree to work on at this time.

    Any process of change implies loss, so we are naturally inclined to resist it. Nobody wants to lose power, influence or control. Role negotiation addresses these issues directly and helps identify opportunities for mutual advantage. These opportunities may be considerably greater than we realize or expect. As participants learn to influence things for the better and still achieve personal gain by channeling their competitive energies more effectively, they become more adept at an open process of behavioral negotiation. Their skill sets are broadened because they now have other tools to get their needs met rather than having to rely exclusively on covert, potentially destructive methods.

    Summary

    • Role negotiation deals with working relationships – what people do on the job and how that helps or hinders others. It doesn’t probe into feelings or emotions towards others.
    • It deals directly with issues of power and authority – issues that are sometimes ignored by other team building approaches. Although it doesn’t seek to undermine legitimate authority, it does help people explore the sources of power available to them.
    • It is oriented towards action and achieving commitment to realistic change, not just uncovering and understanding of issues.
    • The procedures are clear and simple, and can be outlined to participants beforehand to minimize the threat and uncertainty of many team development techniques. Participants realize they have power and are not overly reliant on the skill of the facilitator.
    • Role negotiation is an economical process that can be facilitated by internal consultants and team leaders, not exclusively by outside consultants. It does not rely on extensive training or special credentials.
    • It may only function as a stopgap to help people live with potentially toxic relationship issues. But even so, it is a way to make life more bearable in a bad situation.
    • It does not necessarily replace more complex interpersonal and organizational development processes that help build trusting relationships over time, but it is a great first step and in many cases may be a highly effective team development technique by itself.
    • People don’t have to like one another for this to work. But they often develop more positive feelings towards one another when dealing from a position of clarity and when they know what to expect. We perform better in consistent, reasonably predictable environments. Role Negotiation helps clarify the organizational landscape.


     

     

    Figure 1. Issue Diagnosis Format

    (From Role Negotiation by Roger Harrison)

    Message From: John Smith
    To: Fred Jones

    If you were to do the following things more often or more effectively, it would help me to be more effective in my job:

    1. Be more receptive to ideas for process improvement from my engineers.
    2. Cooperate more fully to help us control our costs.
    3. Push harder on your GM to get approval for our plans.

    If you were to do less of the following things, or were to stop doing them, it would help me do my job more effectively:

    1. Acting unilaterally on cost control; acting as the judge and jury.
    2. Checking up so closely on minor details; asking for so many detailed progress reports.

    These things you have been doing help me to be more effective in my job. Please continue to do them.

    1. Passing  on full information in our weekly meetings.
    2. Being available and readily accessible when I need to talk to you.

     

    Figure 2. Example: Summary of Messages to
    One Participant from the Other Group Members

     

    Do More or Better Do Less or Stop Keep Doing Unchanged
    Give complete information on project process, to include slippage and completion ETA.

    –All

    		 Let people pursue other opportunities – stop hanging on to your best engineers.

    — Paul, Amy, Sandy

    		 Training operators on preventive maintenance.

    — James
    Send progress reports on the ABC venture.

    — James, Fred

    		 Missing weekly planning meetings.

    — All

    		 Offering good suggestions and insights in meetings.

    — Sandy, Paul, Fred
    Make engineers more readily available when we need help.

    — Paul, Sandy

    		 Ignoring cost control memos and reports.

    — Fred, James

    		 Asking the tough, difficult or awkward questions.

    — All
    Stay better informed on things that don’t affect you immediately.

    — Amy, James, Fred

    		 Putting off or setting aside my priorities for engineering attention.

    — James, Sandy, Paul

    		 Offering help on design problems.

    — Amy, James
    Enforce safety compliance on engineers when they’re on the shop floor.

    — Sandy, James

    		 Charging time on the XYZ project to other accounts.

    — Paul, James

    		 Keep up the good quality work on all projects.

    — Fred, Sandy
    Push harder on the XYZ project.

    — Paul, James

    		 Over-running project budget without discussing beforehand.

    — Fred, James

     
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Hodges L. Golson, Ph.D. is president and a founding partner of Management Psychology Group and www.eTest.net.

    He is a licensed psychologist and board certified in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. He is the author of many articles and papers, including the book Influence for Impact.

  • The Foundations of High Performance: The I-Competencies

    Are top performers made or born? How can I get more of them? The answers to these questions hold the key to every leader’s success. The more top performers a leader can select and/or develop, the greater the success of his or her organization.

    Competencies are clusters of KSAPs (knowledge, skills, abilities and personal characteristics) that enable a person to be successful in a particular job. There are two basic types of competencies. The foundation competencies are built into the system for the most part. These are the innate abilities and the enduring behavioral patterns we get through the luck of the draw from the gene pool and our early learning and background experiences. This is the raw material we have to work with. The surface competencies are the result of later training and experience in schools, early jobs and other learning experiences. People can develop a wide range of surface competencies depending on the types of foundation competencies they possess.

    Performance is dependent upon a person’s natural abilities and characteristics (the foundation competencies), the knowledge and skill the person possesses (the surface competencies), the ability of the organization to facilitate success and the ability of the leader to keep his or her people motivated and focused on the goal. The successful leader selects people with the necessary foundation competencies, helps them develop the necessary surface competencies and facilitates their success by keeping them focused on the right objectives. At the most basic level, high performance depends on four foundation competencies — the I-competencies:

    The Intellectual Competency. This is more than just how well a person can perform on a standardized test although it does include the aptitudes that predict success in an academic environment. However, it also encompasses common sense, mental agility, quickness and creativity, among others. It is a combination of how well the person uses his/her abilities and the unique mix of abilities. People who make smart decisions and who use their talents effectively are more successful over time than those who make bad decisions and/or squander their intellectual resources. The data are quite clear and unambiguous. There are always exceptions to the rule (there are very bright people who never amount to anything and there are people of very average ability who work hard and achieve at very high levels) but overall correlations between the components of this competency and performance over time are clear and consistent in a very broad range of jobs and organizations.

    The Interpersonal Competency. People who have good social skills and who get along with other people are much more successful as a group than those who don’t have as many talents in this area. The interpersonal competency includes general social and persuasive skills, social insight and intuition, likeability and persuasiveness among others. The intellectual competency enables a person to solve a problem. The interpersonal competency enables him or her to convince other people that the solution is the right one.

    The Integrity Competency. This is somewhat broader than the basic honesty-dishonesty dimension although it is an important part of this competency. This also includes general conscientiousness, discipline and follow-through. The person with high integrity will meet his or her commitments in the time frames agreed upon and to the standards at or above those which are expected. If not, he or she will let everyone know in plenty of time so that they won’t be surprised. Part of this competency includes the ability to focus and to use one’s talents and aptitudes with appropriate discipline. This is the factor that holds things together and facilitates trust and consistency of performance.

    The Intensity Competency. This includes energy, stamina, drive and the person’s ability to get fully engaged. People with high intensity are active, not passive. They are driven by a need to get things done and to see results. With the proper control and focus, people with high intensity will achieve at higher levels than those with only average levels of stamina and energy. This is the gasoline that drives the engine.

    As with any gift, there are potential downsides with each of the I-competencies. Very bright people may sometimes become overly academic, theoretical and philosophical. They may pursue ideas merely for intellectual challenge and fail to accomplish things in the practical realm. They can also inadvertently intimidate other people because of their strength of intellect. People with high interpersonal competency can sometimes get so wrapped up in the relationship aspects of the job that they lose sight of the tasks and goals at hand. The high discipline and conscientiousness which comes with the integrity competency can lead people to rigidity, perfectionism and stubbornness. The high energy and drive which comes with intensity can lead to errors of impatience, excessive ambition, impulsivity, an inability to relax and stress-proneness.

    In spite of potential problems, the I-competencies tend to counterbalance and facilitate one another. For instance, the drive and energy of intensity helps to ensure that the very bright person does not waste time in overly academic pursuits when practical results are demanded. Also, the conscientiousness of integrity can counterbalance the highly extraverted person when he or she is tempted to focus on relationships more than on task performance.
    Various surface competencies (e.g. financial acumen, collaborative problem solving, handling heavy workloads, sales ability) are dependent upon the foundation I-competencies at the base. If the person possesses the necessary foundation competencies and consequently has been able to develop the appropriate surface competencies, the stage is set for high performance. This is where leadership comes in. Merely having good people on one’s team does not guarantee performance. Their efforts must be focused and mobilized and they must be encouraged and rewarded for using their abilities in a collaborative manner.

    How to Succeed as a Leader

    Select for foundation competencies. If a person doesn’t have them, no amount of effort will enable him or her to develop the surface competencies necessary for top performance. The foundation competencies are wired into the system, whether by nature or nurture. At this point you cannot develop them through training or experience. Many dollars are wasted on people who don’t have the capacity to benefit from organizational training efforts.

    Focus on surface competencies for training. A leader may be lucky enough to have people with fully developed surface competencies necessary for success on the job but most people will need some sort of training and experience to get up to speed. Financial skills, specific engineering problem solving techniques, in-depth knowledge of the company’s services and products and specific sales techniques are among the surface competencies necessary for success in various jobs. For the most part these can be learned through academic or on-the-job training, coaching and general experience. These are the areas for training and developmental dollars.

    Attend to the basics. Not everyone has a charismatic leadership personality. However, most people can learn to get work done through others by focusing on the right basics: be sure the goal is clear and exciting (people need to know what is expected and they need to feel it’s worth doing); help them get the resources they need; Remove barriers; monitor progress, provide corrective feedback, and use collaborative problem solving when things get off track; reinforce good performance after the goal has been accomplished.

    This is the task cycle by which all work gets accomplished in an organization. Leaders who operate effectively in all phases of the task cycle pull for exceptional performance from their team. However, if the team hasn’t been selected carefully for the appropriate foundation competencies and trained to develop the necessary surface competencies, not much will happen.

    In summary, all it takes to be successful as a leader is to get good people, be sure they have the tools for success, give them clear and worthwhile targets, provide supportive feedback and critique…then stay out of their way until you’re needed. It’s that simple…and that complex.

    Hodge Golson