Courtesy of Tony Schwartz
30 October, 2012

No single challenge has been greater for me as a leader than learning how to take better care of the people I lead, and to create a safe, supportive space in which they can thrive.

Like most men I know, I grew up with very little modeling around empathy — the ability to recognize, experience and be sensitive to what others are feeling.

Empathy proved especially difficult for me whenever I felt vulnerable. My instinctive response was to protect myself, most often with aggression. I equated aggression with safety, and vulnerability with weakness. Today, I recognize the opposite is often true. The more I acknowledge my own fears and uncertainties, the safer people feel with me and the more effectively they work. But even now, I’m amazed at how dense I can sometimes be.

An effective modern leader requires a blend of intellectual qualities — the ability to think analytically, strategically and creatively — and emotional ones, including self-awareness, empathy, and humility. In short, great leadership begins with being a whole human being.

I meet far more women with this blend of qualities than I do men, and especially so when it comes to emotional and social intelligence.

To a significant degree, that’s a reflection of limitations men almost inevitably develop in a culture that measures us by the ability to project strength and confidence, hide what we’re feeling (including from ourselves), and define who we are above all by our external accomplishments and our capacity to prevail over others.

The vast majority of CEOs and senior executives I’ve met over the past decade are men with just these limitations. Most of them resist introspection, feel more comfortable measuring outcomes than they do managing emotions, and under-appreciate the powerful connection between how people feel and how they perform.

I’m not suggesting gender ensures or precludes any specific qualities. I’ve met and hired men who are just as self-aware, authentic and capable of connection as any women. This is especially (and encouragingly) true among younger men. I’ve also encountered many senior women executives who’ve modelled themselves after male leaders, or perhaps felt they had to adopt their style to survive, and are just as narrow and emotionally limited as their worst male counterparts.

For the most part, however, women, more than men, bring to leadership a more complete range of the qualities modern leaders need, including self-awareness, emotional attunement, humility and authenticity.

That’s scarcely just my own view. In March, Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman reported here on their study of 7300 leaders who got rated by their peers, supervisors and direct reports. Women scored higher in 12 of 16 key skills — not just developing others, building relationships, collaborating, and practicing self-development, but also taking initiative, driving for results and solving problems and analysing issues.

In another study of 2250 adults conducted by the PEW centre, women were rated higher on a range of leadership qualities including honesty, intelligence, diligence, compassion and creativity. For all that, women still hold only 14 percent of senior executive positions in Fortune 500 companies; a percentage has barely budged over the last decade. So why do women remain so vastly underrepresented at the highest levels of large companies?

There are many answers, including the fact that even the most educated women typically take the primary role in raising their children, and are far more likely than men to scale back their careers and ambitions, or even leave the workforce altogether.

But perhaps the key explanation is that men commonly bring more of one key capacity to the competition for senior leadership roles: aggression. The word aggression comes from The Latin root “ag” (before) and “gred” (to walk or step). Aggression, therefore, connotes stepping before or in front of someone and it has an undeniably genetic component. Men have in 7 to 8 times the concentration of testosterone in their blood plasma than women do.

From an early age, men often overvalue their strengths, while women too frequently underrate theirs. In reality, we all struggle to feel a stable sense of value and self-worth. Men often defend against their doubts by moving to grandiosity and inflation, while women more frequently move to insecurity and deferral.

Men seek more often to win, women to connect. So long as the path to power is connected to proving you’re bigger and badder, it’s no surprise that men have mostly prevailed.

But the leadership skills required to fuel great performance are far more nuanced and multi-dimensional today than ever before. As Hanna Rosin puts it in her new book The End of Men, “The post-industrial economy is indifferent to men’s size and strength.”

Instead, we need more male leaders with the courage to stand down, comfortably acknowledge their shortcomings, and help those they lead feel safe and appreciated rather than fearful and inadequate.

We need more women with the courage to step up, fully own their strengths, and lead with confidence and resolve while also holding on to their humanity and their humility.

We need a new generation of leaders — men and women — who willingly embrace their opposites.

How much influence do you really have?

By influence we don’t mean manipulation. We define influence as the capacity to persuade others to do something different because others personally see the value in it.

Essentially there are four ways you can influence anybody. You can influence people through: Assertive Persuasion (AP), Reward and Punishment (R & P), Participation and Trust (P & T), and Common Vision (CV). People who are consistently influential consciously or unconsciously practice all four styles.

But the catch is that we will tend to favour – and therefore over-use – one of those four styles and under-use the other three. Why? How we like to be influenced is how we tend to try to influence others.

For example, if you like to be influenced by fact, logical argument and analysis, you will then try to do the same when persuading others. In other words you are favouring Assertive Persuasion (AP). The trouble is: Not everyone is influenced by fact and logic! The only way to hit the mark is to use all four styles in your communication with others; that way, you will use the recipient’s favoured style.

Below is a brief description of the four styles and how you might incorporate them in a presentation at a meeting where you want to influence your colleagues of a particular direction.

Assertive Persuasion (AP)

As I mentioned earlier, this style is based upon logic, analysis, fact and clear structure. For example, when giving a presentation a manager ought to clearly define what his or her argument is going to be and then back it up with fact and credible argument.

Reward and Punishment (R & P)

R & P is about articulating the pros and cons of a situation. Commonly referred to as the ‘carrot and stick’ approach, the manager frames his or her argument around the advantages of going down a particular path and the disadvantages of not doing so. So, if you have a logical, coherent argument using AP and then talk about the benefits and disadvantages (R & P) of not going in that direction, you have increased your persuasive powers.

Participation and Trust (P & T)

Building trust with an individual or group goes a long way to helping them to feel secure about going with your recommendation. After using logic (AP) and explaining the pros and cons associated with your direction (R & P), you may then open the meeting up for discussion. Through genuine inclusiveness, you build trust (P & T).

Common Vision (CV)

CV links the argument you are making with the ‘big picture’. In a business context this means persuading people of your approach on the basis that it contributes to the overall mission of the organisation. So, after explaining the facts (AP) and reminding people that the benefits out-way the risks (R & P), inviting people to be involved in the discussion (P & T), you then tie your argument to the values and strategic direction of the organisation (CV).

By consciously using all four influencing styles in your presentations, you are likely to appeal to the distribution of preferences among your colleagues. On the other hand, if you don’t do this, you are apt to be less effective. By applying all four styles, you significantly enhance your capacity to influence.

Five key “soft skills” to enhance leadership effectiveness include:

• Self confidence; value yourself and back your judgement
• Assertiveness; be straightforward and achieve buy in when communicating
• Positive energy; engage your people and drive business results
• Relationships; 80% of our success comes from the quality of our relationships
• Empathy; show that you understand another person’s experience

Does your leadership training neglect application?

It isn’t skill that differentiates a great leader from an average one, but the perspective that guides their application of skill, says University of Sydney researcher Dr Richard Cavanagh.

“In the past, a lot of leadership models have articulated [what] leaders should be really excellent at. And they’ve given them lists of different skills to learn and develop in order to be a great leader,” Cavanagh says.

“[But] what we find is that people can learn the skill and still get it wrong in the implementation,” he says. “For instance, knowing how to give good feedback, [and] having a process… doesn’t mean you are giving the right feedback.

“Things show up as problems because of the perspective that we take on them,” he explains. “A more complex perspective will often dissolve a problem, or give us a different view of the problem.

“Let’s say you’ve got a worker who is quite creative in the way they do things… If you’re a manager who believes that style of operation is not what is required, you’ll see it as a weakness.

“But if you’re a manager who can look at the situation and see how that characteristic can be adapted to meet the needs of the situation, then it can be a strength,” he says.

Teach leaders to think big

Cavanagh and fellow researchers from the University of Sydney have been investigating the connection between managers who engage with multiple viewpoints, and workplaces where staff are productive and “flourish”, as part of a $3 million “world-first” study.

“What we were testing in terms of hypothesis is: If you improve people’s abilities to take complex perspectives, does that have an impact on their engagement, retention levels, satisfaction in the workplace, and productivity?”

The Leadership in high-stress workplaces study (2010) involved 180 leaders and managers from medical and legal professions, who were split into three groups. One group received training on how to solve workplace problems by considering multiple perspectives, another received training and three to four months of coaching, and a control group received neither.

Leaders that participated in the four-day training workshop were asked to consider “tension-filled scenarios” – problems that could not be adequately resolved using a “normal” level of thinking. They were then encouraged to question assumptions behind any instinctive “either/or” responses, and overcome perceived dilemmas by taking a bigger perspective to find solutions.

Sixty of the leaders then practised these skills on an ongoing basis, by workshopping real challenges that made them feel “torn” at work, in a series of follow-up sessions with a coach.

Reflection makes “a huge difference”

“What we’re seeing is measures of happiness and positive effect are rising… most so in the group with the coaching,” Cavanagh says.

Preliminary results show gains that occur in the training are “embedded and increased” in leaders who receive coaching, but lost in those who don’t, he says.

For example, “mindfulness” (stepping back from an experience rather than being “captured” by it) increased significantly in training, but decreased over time without coaching. Those who were coached also became more “solution focused”.

“If you’re thinking about developing your people, you need to put significant thought into not just the initial training, but how you can embed those gains and learning in a real way back in the workplace,” Cavanagh says.

“And it seems that methods that help people to enter into reflective practice in a regular, structured way make a huge difference.”

Innovative perspectives bring competitive advantage

“The other thing that we’ve done that helps people to take more complex perspectives is teaching them dialogue skills,” Cavanagh says.

“And dialogue is really about being able to make sure that all the perspectives and all the dilemmas… all the tensions, are out on the table rather than trying to avoid them – how do we turn towards the diversity of what’s going on… long enough for those tensions to be creative?”

One of the reasons the study is important is the complex nature of today’s world, Cavanagh says. “Most of the problems that we face in our world today can’t be solved with very simple answers [so] people who are able to take new, creative and innovative perspectives have a competitive advantage,” he says.

“Take Copenhagen, for example. One of the reasons Copenhagen failed is that you’re talking about a global problem, and you’re bringing to it national solutions. So it’s the wrong level of thinking.

“And most of the complex problems we have in our world today require relatively high level perspective-taking capacity – the ability to integrate multiple competing perspectives. And that’s what dialogue helps us to do.”

The first results from the study were presented at the Australian Evidence Based Coaching Conference in Sydney recently. Final results will be published later this year.

Article courtesy of Dr Richard Cavanagh and HR Daily.

Organisations usually think, market and are structured along the lines of: What > How > Why

However, according to leadership and marketing expert, Simon Sinek, organisations and leaders must reverse the order to “WHY” > How > What

Because people don’t buy “what you do” but rather “why you do it”, therefore your clients and customers must “believe what you believe” eg. the greater purpose and vision.

This is biologically how people make decisions eg. “it feels right”. Sinek also says you must hire (and only retain) people who “believe what you believe”.

Those who effectively lead and inspire us, always start with the “Why”

See Sinek’s highly engaging 15-minute address here;

www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html

Winning charisma, razor sharp intelligence and personality characteristics such as extraversion are the keys to great leaders, right? Forget it! The most recent research in psychology explodes this myth and reveals the real skills that great leaders possess.

Beyond Sticks and Carrots

Two decades of research into leadership has long challenged the idea that good leaders use their authority to dominate follows and tell them what to do by enforcing compliance.

Instead, we’re told that real leaders are people who possess exceptional charisma, but consider this: research published in a recent edition of The Scientific American Mind challenges the idea that effective leaders can use their charismatic personalities to manipulate others into conformity.

Although coercion through using sticks or carrots may work in the short term, neither strategy has the power to drive sustainable change. And, according to the latest findings, no fixed set of personality traits, charismatic or otherwise, can guarantee great leadership either.

According to these reports, a new picture of leadership skills has emerged that better accounts for leadership performance. In particular, this research points to three keys insights:

(1) Leaders are most effective when they tap into the aspirations people hold in their hearts. In other words, when they understand what people want, and help people make the link between their aspirations and what the business can achieve for them.

(2) They recognize the fundamental need that people have to belong to a group, so they build shared identities for people at work so people feel ‘one of the gang.’

(3) They possess advanced skills in being able to engage with the real drivers of performance in people – emotions.

Masters of Mood

Great leaders have the skills to manage their emotions well and influence the emotions of other people toward positive outcomes. In other words, leaders must become masters of mood and lead organizations that excite energize and enthuse their customers.

Yes, but what specifically are these skills, can you really measure them, and more importantly how can people in business build them quickly and cost-effectively?

After analysing more than ten years of scientific data exploring the link between emotional intelligence and leadership, research psychologists at RocheMartin have identified ten skills that powerfully predict leadership effectiveness. These skills form the basis of an exciting new model of emotional intelligence and leadership – Emotional Capital.

Ten Dynamic Emotions that Drive Leadership Success

The most effective leaders score higher than the average on each of these ten particular scales of emotional intelligence. The highest scores were on: Self-Reliance – the emotional power to accept responsibility, back personal judgments and be self-reliant in planning and making important decisions; Self-Confidence – the ability to maintain self-respect and personal confidence; Relationship Skills – the knack for characterized by positive expectations.

In terms of leading a business, these three competencies enable a leader to model self-assured behaviour; communicate a clear view of the organization’s vision and direction; inspire the confidence of others, and gain their support and commitment to building successful relationships – not only with employees and customers, but with everyone the business touches.

A second cluster of high scores that distinguish these leaders include: Optimism – not just ‘the glass is half full’ kind, but optimism as a strategy – as a way of dealing with difficulties and sensing opportunities. Emotionally intelligent leaders look on the brighter side of life and sense opportunities even in the face of adversity. They are resilient, can see the big picture and where they are going, and are able to focus on the possibilities of what can be achieved.

Secondly, they score well on Self-Knowing – emotionally intelligent leaders are aware of their emotional experience and have the capacity to recognize how their feelings and emotions impact on their personal opinions, attitudes and judgments. In other words, they remain open to discovering new things about themselves and are not afraid to modify their behaviour.

Thirdly, this cluster includes Self-Actualization – high scores on this skill suggest that these leaders know how to manage their reserves of emotional energy and have achieved an effective level of emotional balance. They appear to thrive in setting challenging personal and professional goals and their enthusiasm is likely contagious.

The final group of skills that differentiate effective leaders from the rest include: Straightforwardness – this suggests the ability to express feelings, thoughts and beliefs openly in a straightforward way, while respecting the fact that others may hold a different opinion or expectation.

The second skill in this cluster includes Adaptability – the ability to adapt thinking, feelings and actions in response to changing situations and be tolerant of others, and receptive to new ideas. In other words, they are champions of change. Not surprisingly, they also score well on Empathy. This is the skill that enables a person to grasp the emotional dimension of a business situation and create resonant connections with others. This is also the skill that makes talent dance in an organization.

Finally, they score well on Self-Control – emotionally intelligent leaders have the ability to manage their emotions well and restrain their actions until they have time to think rationally. They are able to stay calm in stressful situations and maintain productivity without losing control. This skill is critical to building and maintaining a consistent leadership presence and for becoming a ‘trusted advisor’ to people.

Emotional Capital – An Important Addition to the Balance Sheet

These leadership skills add real commercial value to the balance sheet, and this value can be measured in any successful business as emotional capital using the Emotional Capital Report (ECR). If emotional capital is the creative energy that your people bring to work and the enthusiasm that customers have for your company and products, then emotional capitalists are leaders who manage their own emotional energy well and know how to inspire others to create products, solve problems and deliver superior service.

It’s simply amazing to see the impact that leaders like this can have on the people around them. Building these skills in leaders is the key to attracting, developing and retaining talent in any business and the major source of competitive advantage.

Article courtesy of enviableworkplace.com and HR Daily

It is not people, but the ability to manage people, that is an organisation’s greatest asset, says leadership expert Tony Wilson.

Wilson, a performance coach who has worked with elite athletes and corporate executives in Australia and the US, says leaders and their teams can be an employer’s greatest competitive advantage.

However, most employers spend relatively little time developing them.

It is “an unfortunate fact” that most leaders are unable to clearly and concisely answer fundamental questions about the vision, mission, values and strategy of their organisation and their team, he says.

And if the leader can’t see clearly, chances are their team won’t either.

Lead with clarity, accept responsibility

In his new book Jack and the team that couldn’t see, Wilson says clarity should be a team leader’s first priority.

In a busy workforce where people are “constantly bombarded by more requests”, clarity is essential to ensuring proper prioritisation.

Failure to prioritise can cause individuals to compromise their team’s immediate performance without even realising it, Wilson says.

“If you have 10 people in your team making a wrong decision 10 per cent of the entire time, how does that impact the team’s performance at the end of the day?”

It is also “imperative” that leaders accept responsibility for their team’s performance, he says. “When you assume that responsibility you can continually ask, ‘What can I change to fix this?’ You are now on your way to discovering effective ways to lead.”

Open and honest communication

In order to work effectively, the individual members of a team must communicate openly and honestly, engage in “constructive conflict”, and hold one another accountable, Wilson says.

Leaders should encourage every member of their team to say what they mean without holding back – everyone with an opinion should put it “on the table” and every individual should expect and be given honest feedback.

“The key is to highlight differences and make them OK,” he says.

Leaders must beware of allowing “gung-ho extroverts” to speak over the top of introverts. One tip is to give introverted people advanced warning of a discussion topic so they have time to think about what they wish to say before the meeting.

Trust is also essential. “There are many ice-breakers that can initiate openness and honesty,” Wilson says, “but a simple tactic of answering questions about yourself will get the ball rolling”.

He also suggests keeping a written list of expected behaviours on display, incorporating suggestions, and using it to keep people accountable.

Real collaboration and constructive conflict

Real collaboration involves “constructive conflict”, Wilson says.

“This is the debate and argument that occurs when teams genuinely search for the best outcome or solution. It may appear to be a lot like fighting, but it isn’t personal,” he says. The trick is to validate each idea, even if it is ultimately rejected.

Asking people why they don’t agree with an opinion, playing the devil’s advocate, and praising the team when conflict is constructive can promote healthy discussion.

Once a plan of action has been decided, the leader should assign tasks to those who originally disagreed, Wilson adds. “Immediately engaging them in action will help them to overcome any lingering feelings they may have about not getting their own way,” he says.

Self accountability and mutual accountability

Every member of a team should be willing to hold the others accountable, Wilson says. Then if anyone – including the leader – overlooks something, someone else will raise it.

If a member of a team approaches their leader with a problem that relates to another team member, the leader should encourage them to handle it themselves, and reward them if they handle it well.

When the team fails, or someone lets others down, it should be acknowledged. “Once you accept excuses from people, you give them permission to fail again,” Wilson says. “Empathise with failure, but don’t make it OK.”

Leaders should also follow failure with questions that initiate positive discussion, such as, “Why do you think that approach didn’t work?” and “What would you change about it next time?”, he says.

Leaders can also encourage accountability by resisting the urge to cancel meetings they can’t attend. “If you’re not there, allow the meeting to continue,” Wilson says. “[But] make sure you ask for a post-meeting briefing, and if there were things that were not addressed, ask why.”

Article courtesy of Tony Wilson and HR Daily