Peter Tennis

Humans don’t fear change, they fear uncertainty.

In Uncategorized on April 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm

There has been many a forest spent on theories of change, many of which seem to posit that humans dislike and avoid it. Tell me, however, that you are giving me 10 million dollars and I will happily take it, even though it means and introduces change into my life.

It’s not change that people avoid, its uncertainty. Whether or not this sprouts from biological origins, homeostasis seems to be our goal, only embracing change with the prospect of elevating our homeostasis to a level of higher, perceived benefit. The million dollars, for example, conjurs up certainties in our minds that we readily pursue (such as freedom to do what we want, absence of stress, etc.) even though those images are often under-thought and over-imagined.

Now, since we are on the subject of millionaires, the research around lottery winners, inheritors and other nouveau riche seems to show that their lives actually get worse. Why would that be? It seems that change driven by circumstances is rarely undertaken along with a change in character or habits, and though the scenery has changed, the music remains the same. But character change can follow a change in circumstances.

The one thing certain in life, at least as certain as death, is our agency to choose our thoughts, words and actions. When people are unhappy (a choice) regarding change, then change rarely sticks. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that the scientific odds are 9 to 1 that a person will not change, even under threat of impending death.

So, there is a chance…

Out of Reach (and Out of Touch) Leaders

In Alignment, Communications, Leadership on March 25, 2013 at 7:16 pm

The number one question I am asked when working with mid-levels in leadership development programs is, “Has my manager been through this?”  That’s a sad indictment on the state of leadership within an organization.  Essentially, what employees are saying is that, “Boy, I wish my management lived these values and behaved in this ideal way!”

Organizations whose structures promote power distance are actually building “out-of-reach leadership” within themselves. Such organizations usually end up struggling with alignment due to misshapen communications, murky clarity of focus and low levels of trust.  Organizations with such symptoms would expect to end up with caustic environments, fear-based cultures and widespread negative results.

Such atmospheres are typical of leadership practices that are out of reach with key stakeholder groups, such as customers and employees – the people that consume the products or services of the organization, and the people that actually produce those products and services for consumption.

Out-of-Reach leadership isolates themselves from customer-focused, mission-driving data, instead choosing to focus on those things that confirm their paradigms of power, prestige or self-centered agendas of promotion and organizational notoriety.  Unfortunately, such notoriety is achieved, often infamously within the organization, but not of the positive flavor that most would desire.  Leaders founded on the opinions of others or appearances of control, in turn lock themselves away from the realities of the business even more, driving top-down communication, creating “Holy-We” management archetypes and seizing position and authority as if personal property.

When leaders become out-of-reach from customers, they become out-of-touch with customer needs and thus find themselves unable to align the organization to meet those needs, even if they truly wanted the organization to succeed.

Out-of-Reach leaders also become out of touch with employees and the realities of the cultures they are shaping by virtue of behavior and position. Such leaders make devastating mistakes that create massive withdrawals of trust and undercut their credibility, poignantly illuminating their own incompetence for leadership and management. Unfortunately, such leaders often continue to parade along, either deniably oblivious or cathartically too prideful to confront a self-awareness that points them out as the chief contributor of folly.

It is not uncommon for such out-of-touch and out-of-reach leaders to churn through humans as “resources” to implement their pet projects, citing “lack of skill”, “lack of fit” or simply “unsupportive” as reasons for the fallout, rather than confronting the reality of disengagement that out of touch leadership not only creates, but drives. Projects often go unfinished or under-perform in relation to desired results, mostly due to a lack of connection with the realities of stakeholder needs and organizational capabilities.

In a 2012 survey of 167 companies, Bain and Company found a gaping difference between the C-level and management / front line employees when it came to organizational perceptions.  Using Net Promoter® score, asking how likely they were to recommend their company as a place of work to a friend or colleague, the results showed that C-level members showed an NPS of +20.3% vs. a -5.1% and -4.6% from Managers and Front-line employees, respectively.

So, how do leadership teams stay in-reach and in-touch with their internal and external environments?  It’s more simple that you might expect, and much more difficult to pull off than it sounds: Leaders get clear on their deep, articulated values, and live them.

Leaders that are self-aware, in-touch with their values and the values of those around them, tend to be more open to feedback and more aware of the needs of others. This awareness allows leaders to become “teachable” rather than “all-knowing”, and accept leadership as a process of individual and dyadic, personal and interpersonal development.

What’s more is that leaders and leadership teams that hold to core values are more open to including other value sets in their practices that help drive purpose, mission and vision. Leaders that incorporate in-reach and in-touch values will obviously tend to demonstrate those values in action more than leaders that do not pay attention to such values.

Out-of-reach leaders lose touch with the very people who gave them leadership in the first place. As they learn to focus on creating value for key stakeholder groups, such value demands will inherently draw them nearer to the action where value is created, bringing them in-touch again with environmental, customer and employee realities.

Reversing the 1:50 Ratio – A gut-check on values and A response to Greg McKeown

In Leadership on July 18, 2012 at 9:42 am

I’ve been taking so much time actually working to help others develop their leadership that I have been neglecting to write about it.  And I am scolded by friends and family that the latter is included in the former.  So, I repent.

I have been reading some posts in reflection of the passing of Stephen Covey, and was led into some great thoughts from Greg McKeown, and in response to a post about Reversing the Stanford Prison Experiment, I wrote a bit too much and thought I should put it here.

Greg,

That must have been a great lunch! Question: Are we looking to “reverse” the experiment or leverage what we’ve learned from it? In other words, we’ve learned that people take on the identity of a role according to the perception they have of that role. Maybe we ought to work on how others see the roles they play in life and the underlying leadership that ties them all together? In salute to Stephen, that is the classic See-Do-Get cycle at work.

Even Zimbardo wrote, “The question now is how to change our institutions so that they promote human values rather than destroy them.”

There are still plenty of organizations that are not interested in human values, businesses included, but give credence to the use of humans as “resources”, as the ill-named and often ill-focused department is often referred to. There are certainly some powerful paradigms behind such notions (which often glide along unexamined on the thin ice of benevolent authority).

Perhaps more startling is the power that one individual, Christina Maslach, had on ending the experiment; The only 1, out of some 50 or so visitors, that openly questioned the moral ethics of what was going on in the experiment. Maybe Christina is the one that ought to have been studied?!

I have met far too many members of management (maybe they are the other 49/50) whose view of the leadership role (from supervisor to husband or father) is often based on their own fears, finding them on the low end of the character continuum and dependent on things other than principles.

At which point do our institutions begin to celebrate human vs. shareholder value?

Perhaps we’ve become confused about, or never really understood to begin with, the difference between the means and the end.

What are our organizations for, anyway?

Keep up the great work,

Peter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.