Telling Truth to Power
Question: How does a leader achieve a balance between a
compelling leadership style and promoting a high-involvement ‘followership
style’ among subordinates?
Recently, while conducting a
strategic planning session with a CEO and his immediate staff, I observed a
common phenomenon.
The group consisted of seasoned
members of the executive team except for one, who was new to the company. The
CEO asked his staff to give him input on problems and opportunities facing the
firm. After a little coaxing, some tame input was finally offered from some of
the seasoned executives.
After getting the ‘lay of the land’,
the new executive decided to participate and make his contribution. However,
his input was met with serious critique from the CEO. While initially surprised
by this response, the new executive felt it was his duty to stay in a role of
advocacy for his point of view rather than be seen as a’ shrinking violet’ in
front of his boss and peers.
However, the CEO continued his
berating and prevailed in the confrontation as the new executive backed down
before it could be interpreted as insubordination. What lesson was learned by
the executive? Don’t argue with the boss.
While the rest of the meeting
continued without further confrontations, the CEO appeared to be disappointed
with the quantity and quality of input from his team and he couldn’t understand
why, as he confessed to me in a later conversation.
An important part of a vibrant team
is the high quality interchange of insightful minds at work. It’s as true in
the mail room as much as it is in the executive suite. However, many of us with
experience in organizational life can attest to the power struggles that
interfere with otherwise collaborative meetings.
Almost like a Dilbert cartoon, our
role in the organization translates into status that then translates into how
much ‘power’ we have in meetings. This perceived power appears to dictate the
type of input that we are allowed to provide and more importantly, the type of
feedback, or critical analysis of other people’s input, that is acceptable.
As a result, the business of the
group degrades to the point of showing deference to those who have more power
and the quality of the meeting outputs become merely a reflection of one or a
few, rather than the combined efforts of the whole team.
How do you handle “Telling truth to
power”?
“The best leader is the one
who has sense enough to pick good people to do what he/she wants done, and
self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
-
Theodore Roosevelt
Interesting Kevin! Good question.
Perhaps there are new ways to experience power.
How about the power you can win by building alliances? Recognizing first that there are problems that are bigger than yourself.
It can be challenging in a C-level position to be comfortable knowing that it is perhaps NOT your role to know everything and be the smartest in the room -- but instead to be the one in the room modeling a certain vulnerability. To be the one in the room who is curious so that the essential information for his or her business can percolate safely on a regular basis. That would be the power worth having.
thanks Kevin,
leslie
www.developcoach.com
Reply to this
The truth of power is present, in my opinion, in the significance of the relationships one has. In the case of your example, how many of the team will be behind the CEO when going into battle? If they refrain from participating in a planning/strategic session, what happens when the going gets tough?
I try to let the truth of power come out in actions, and specifically, in the support and empowerment of others. Challenge where necessary, support when called upon to serve. As leaders, I believe it is important to recognize that tasks may produce steps that get an organization closer to achieving its goals. However, it is the members of the team/unit that produce the results. Lose sight of that, and you won't be leading long at the C-level.
Reply to this
Kevin, this is a great question! In this instance, the CEO sent the signal that he wanted input, but it better follow a well-worn path. This won't get new ideas on the table. Employees learn very quickly that there's not much in it for them to stray too far off that path. As a result, the organization might adopt small, incremental changes. That will work fine as long as that's all that's required.
On the other hand, the new employee might have benefited from more observation and time on the job before pushing ideas too aggressively. Anyone who fancies himself a change agent has to learn to couch ideas in ways that square with a culture's perception of itself and with its vision and mission.
Also, your colleagues have to know that you care before they care what you know. It takes some time to build up trust and credibility. New employees who pay attention to these principles early on will have a more receptive audience for their ideas.
Reply to this
Kevin,
Recently I consulted for a senior team who said that they wanted to hear from their direct reports and from employees but seldom received that feedback. This team was used to talking "to" their employees a lot more than they listened and prided themselves in being right most of the time. I suggested that their employees had a lot of respect for the team (which was true in that culture), and this high level of respect made employees hesitant in giving feedback that might be perceived as criticism.
Given such a devoted culture, I suggested that the executives would have to put forth a greater effort to proactively "ask" for input AND be willing to "receive and consider" the feedback when it was given without immediately countering feedback to prove a point. In other words, it was the team's responsibility to "take down their power barrier" to create a comfort zone for their employees. My comments were received positively by the executive team, and they changed their behavior accordingly to improve communications.
Kay Sever
Reply to this
HR includes the process of change management. In doing so, it is important to remember that there is no magic silver bullet, rather, a myriad of influences that exist to shift this "power". Speaking to others in the group about a perception, forwarding articles to the group about the topic, using a tone in the meeting that contradicts the norm are just a few other influences. The direct approach may be met with denial or reluctance to accept that which is being stated, however, if given in the spirit of fostering dialogue the message has been stated.
The dilemma you portray in your blog suggests a bullying and control tactic, in addition to a senior manager (CEO) not open to leading and supporting his team. In the moment others saw and heard how he handled the situation. Follow up group dynamics that include one on one conversations with the CEO could be a means to raise the issue as well.
Reply to this
This situation is similar to one I encountered while in a corporate position. It appears to me this CEO exhibited bullying behavior, and intimidating others who respond to invited comments is unacceptable. The CEO has missed the opportunity to help that new executive get involved by not accepting creative criticism. Their meetings will never be open and honest.
Reply to this