Three Warning Signs That You're Setting Yourself Up For A Leadership FAIL
There's a long-standing piece of advice to leaders that goes like this. They don't care how much you know until they know how much you care.
I'm thinking about that this morning having read an article in the Washington Post over the weekend about polling that shows DC mayor Adrian Fenty's previously overwhelming lead in his reelection campaign has flipped to a 17 point deficit. Post reporter Mike DeBonis breaks down the numbers and offers an excellent analysis of how things have deteriorated for Fenty. He offers several reasons why Fenty is on the ropes. When I read through the list, I saw three reasons that should serve as reality checks for leaders in any arena.
The common denominator question for leaders is do you, through your words and actions, show that you care about the people you're leading? Here are the warning signs of an impending leadership fail that DeBonis identified in his article:
DeBonis says that Fenty:
Lost his base - he hasn't stayed connected with the core supporters that originally elected him mayor. The concept of understanding who your base is and how to stay connected to them is one that a lot of leaders overlook. Do you understand who your stakeholders are and do you have a systematic approach for staying connected with them?
Betrayed his message - Fenty ran on a platform of competent management but has overspent the budget on highly visible programs, appointed his friends to city boards and awarded city contracts to other friends. One of the quickest ways for leaders to disconnect from their followers is to behave in ways that are inconsistent with what they say is important to them. Do as I say, not as I do is a recipe for leadership failure.
Hasn't listened - DeBonis notes that upon election, Fenty took on the persona of "big city mayor" and started doing things that set him apart from his allies and the people who elected him. He ignored the advice of people who were trying to help him see the negative impact of his actions. As a leader, do you have people around you who tell you things that you don't enjoy hearing? If you don't, you're running the risk of doing things that lead to a disconnect.
How do these warning signs apply outside of politics? Consider the case of Mark Hurd, the recently deposed CEO of Hewlett Packard. As Joe Nocera reported in his New York Times column a couple of weeks ago, Hurd more or less ignored the same warning signs that are causing problems for Fenty. Here's an excerpt that sums it all up.
(Speaking of Hurd,) Rob Enderle, a well-known technology consultant, noted that in recent internal surveys, nearly two-thirds of H.P. employees said they would leave if they got an offer from another company -- a staggering number. "He didn't have the support of his people," Mr. Enderle said. Although he was good at "holding executives' feet to the fire, he seemed to be the only one benefiting from H.P.'s success," Mr. Enderle continued. "He alienated himself from the people who might have protected him."What's your take? What are the signs that a leader really cares about the people he or she leads? Conversely, what are the other warning signs that can predict a big FAIL for leaders who don't care?
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Executive coach Scott Eblin’s goal is to help you succeed at the next level of leadership. Throughout the week, he’ll offer his take on the leadership lessons in the news and his advice on your most pressing leadership questions. A former government executive, Scott is a graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and is the author of The Next Level: What Insiders Know About Executive Success.
MESSAGE TO POLITICIANS: Give the people jobs, and they (the voters) will give you yours. It's really that simple. They'll forgive you for just about anything EXCEPT failing to give them jobs. Just ask Marion Barry.
David Hoffman Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:12 PMI think too many times our leaders keep their heads in the sand on matters of concern to our best employees.
Roger Posted Wednesday, September 1, 2010 7:48 AMI think it is a mistake to compare a politician to a leader of an organization. Name an organization that has all its members elect the leader outside of political entities. HP certainly didn't elect Hurd - the Board of Directors selected him.
Will Posted Thursday, September 2, 2010 7:03 AMListening to constituencies sounds like subdividing the organization into "supporters" and "opponents". While any leader that has to effect change will initially have opponents to the change, that leader doesn't need to listen to supporters - the leader needs to listen carefully to the opponents. Then, the leader needs to either modify his or her approach or find ways to overcome the opponent's objections. Listening to supporters encourages isolation - the "echo chamber" effect.
I'll let others chime in about the importance of caring...
What an awesome and "to the point" article. Should be mandatory reading for every manager out there today. The saying "they don't care how much you know until they know how much you care" is so true. Too many managers today have lost touch with reality! They truly see themselves as the "God" of their respective section/organization. Humility is an awesome thing.
Ruthie Posted Thursday, September 2, 2010 7:49 AMSharing Success. Nothing is more self-destructive than a charismatic and talented leader who "tolerates" his staff being in his presence rather than celebrating achievement by the entire team. If a staff feels that it is accountable for failure but does not share equally in success, it has no incentive to do the extras necessary for sustained performance. You've got to make sure your staff feels that everyone who deserves it gets recognition and make sure that those who put in the extra time and effort to deliver great things have their careers accelerated as well. Just as star leaders usually benefited from a mentor at some point in their careers, they need to become mentors and advocates for top performers under them.
To borrow an example from D.C. politics, Fenty and his schools chancellor Michelle Rhee have achieved a good deal in their four years. However, every signal they send makes it clear that they believe they are the sole reason for the improvement in the schools. They have not made parents, teachers, administrators, or students feel that they have been involved in something great. Less arrogance would have turned school reform into winning issue rather than a source of controversy, and Mayor Fenty would be cruising to victory.
Dan Ezrow Posted Thursday, September 2, 2010 8:40 AMUnfortunately, in DoD, there are no substantive measures of success and no consequences of failure. The merit or demerit of your words and actions are displayed on your uniform. Higher rank equals 'right'; lower rank equals 'wrong'. The whole castle of cards would crumble if it were otherwise. The only exceptions are when the spotlight of the media leads to a sacrificial offering.
JDV Posted Thursday, September 2, 2010 10:47 AMit's funny b/c this article really hits home right now. we have brand new leadership across the board, and the saying "you don't know what you have until it's gone" really applies. our previous leadership was articulate, generous, results oriented, and open to ideas. part of our new leadership micromanages (even though the person is at a deputy level), makes constant grammatical "corrections" even though the corrections are not actually always grammatical, and acts petty and intimidating. basically the polar opposite of the previous regime. the standard was set with the previous leadership, so it's going to be tough to meet that expectation, but this is not a good way to connect to your people from teh start.
concerned Posted Thursday, September 2, 2010 11:18 AMi think sincerity is key in leadership, if people genuinely think you are trying to do the right thing; for the most part, they will support you. if you act petty and come off as you are only looking out for yourself, and THAT is your first impression to your workforce, it's going to be a long road. inevitably mgmt will have to change b/c it's a lot easier to change one person then a whole workforce. look at baseball; regardless of the situation, if the players of a team aren't happy wiht mgmt and aren't producing, the manager is fired.
if the workforce isn't producing and mgmt isn't doing the right thing, the mgr doesn't have a leg to stand on.
who knows, maybe i won't be around to see it through, but for now, things aren't going anywhere good.
One of the biggest problems I see in the DoD is giving responsibility to individuals but not giving them the authority and really good resources to accomplish the mission. We get resources that work...sort of ...they are usually designed by people that haven't had much experience struggling to try to do a really good job for their customers, so the workforce is saddled with resources that sadly aren't very efficient, which in turn, can turn otherwise productive employees into marginal or failing employees. I realize we can't gold plate our systems but leaders need to show some trust in very experienced individuals that have an excellent work ethic and are exploding with ideas to improve their processes; as opposed to bright, shiny, positive, smart individuals that never have a negative thing to say.
Lee Cockerell has pointed out in his leadership strategies book "Creating Magic," he explains that when you give responsibility without authority that puts your employees in "...an untenable position--and, by the way, one of the leading causes of stress." (Page 65) Can anyone relate?
Think about budget saving opportunity. If we have efficient intuitive systems, efficiency goes up and mistakes go down. That's why it's imperative that only people that know all the rules, and the intent behind the rules, be chosen to advise in the development of these mega dollar data systems.
Of course not having any input into developing data systems an individual will have to use is only one aspect of responsibility without authority. What are some more aspects of this problem others struggle with?
Neil Posted Thursday, September 2, 2010 12:27 PM