Humility, Honesty, Support

Here is the transcript to the latest video about humility, honesty, and support. A link to the video is below the transcript.

“Hello, well the lockdown continues to
dissolve and that means that for many people for many lucky people.
They are going to head back into a working environment which will be a bit different, the new normal.
And we have to bear in mind though
it’s difficult not to, that this has been a hugely unsettling time for a lot of people.
It’s been a scary time for a lot of people, and for many people it’s been absolutely tragic.
We’ve been reminded about the finiteness of life, the
fragility of life, the fact that life is often not fair.
So what can we do? What can we do that’s positive, what can we take forward with us?
That are lessons learned, that can improve things, or hopefully improve things?
Well, I think there are many things that we can do. But in this short video,
I’m going to focus on three; these three things you may think apply to the leader, or leaders.
Well, yes they do, but I think the one of the lessons that we’ve
learned is that we’re all in this together
and so many people have stepped up to the plate.
Why would we change that? It’s up to everybody to contribute to a culture which is beneficial
because if we have recognized how short
and fragile life can be then shouldn’t it be the case that we would want to create an
environment, a culture that we work within, that is beneficial
and not toxic, because not only do we work there, we live there, we exist there.
It’s crazy to do otherwise, and yet for some of us, we’ve let that creep up on us.
That’s wrong. I think. And I think it’s wrong to expect anything less from leaders than support
and encouragement to create a beneficial,
a nourishing culture and environment; a non toxic environment.
Now not every leader will do that unfortunately,
that’s where we need to all play a role, to demand it of ourselves
and to demand it of other people. So what are these three things?
Well, number one in no particular order is humility. Humility is not of course
allowing people to kick sand in our face on the beach.
Not at all. We all have to be able to defend ourselves, humility is a little bit different from that.
Let me just pull up one little thought about humility.
I’ve pulled a few things from the web
because sometimes these pithy little statements make the point, make the point rather
well, and quite quickly. So humility is the solid foundation of all
the virtues according to Confucius, allegedly.
It is a virtue, that’s what we have to bear in mind.
It’s not a weakness. It’s a virtue. Very important distinction.
One definition of humility; freedom from pride or arrogance.
I think this is the key. We need to ensure that we’re not
allowing arrogance to run riot, with ourselves
or with others, and we need to be focusing on leaders to help
develop them, to dial down that arrogance.
Imagine that you go towards somebody in a position of authority, a manager
or leader, a supervisor, whoever it might
be and you’ve got a proposal
and you know right away that the barriers come down they’ve switched off they may
not even disguise it, or they may pay lip service.
But you know that your proposal your idea is going no further.
What does it do to your motivation? What does it do to your morale, your energy?
Well generally reduces it.
That’s not good. You don’t feel good.
The business doesn’t get to hear your idea or ideas,
but imagine you go in to see a person and they are very curious.
You see arrogance wants to tell, wants to show off
because it’s connected to being egotistical, humility is
curious; humility says, this person may know things
I don’t. In fact
they almost certainly do, so when you go into that individual,
they’re curious. How do they look?
How do they sound? What’s the body language doing?
How do you feel in their presence? Because they have no barrier of arrogance or ego up.
They want to hear what you’ve got to say, what a huge difference
that makes or can make to your motivation and energy. What a huge difference
it can make to the business. And again,
as I say this I know you’re probably thinking well it’s common sense.
And we also know that not everybody does it, so we need to dial that down.
We’ve got to be curious, got to practice humility. Being curious is I think a talent
but it’s also something that reaps such rewards, gives us so many dividends.
Let’s move on. Honesty. Word number two, honesty is crucial.
We need to be honest. We need to be transparent, the flip side of honesty.
We need to, to speak our truth.
We need to encourage others to speak their truth as well.
If we’re honest, if we’re
transparent
that links strongly, is associated strongly with integrity.
It pulls people together there are no hidden agendas people feel
part of the team, it’s such a powerful thing to do.
Sometimes it’s very difficult, to be honest can cause a bit of an explosion initially
but once things settle down then it’s like sunlight.
It’s disinfectant the way forward is clear,
but honesty is not just about being honest and transparent with others, honesty is
also about being honest with ourselves.
Carl Jung quoted here; ‘knowing your own darkness is the best method
for dealing with the darkness of other people’,
what he’s really saying…and Carl Jung has written an awful lot so again I’m still hugely summarizing here.
But my interpretation of what he’s saying is that
when we don’t explore that darker side of ourselves that that that hidden side then we don’t fully
integrate it, if we integrate it we can become really effective, effective members of the team, of
society, that can allow us, that integration, to be more resilient.
It can allow us to stand up and be assertive, to to tell our truth, and that’s really important
but when it’s not integrated it can lurk away in the shadows, and that, according to Carl Jung, can cause us to project onto
other people those things that actually we think are hidden, but we are
actually displaying ourselves.
And you’ve probably seen this. I’ve certainly seen it on many an occasion
where somebody is saying, ‘oh, you did this, you did that.
Look at this. Look at that
And in actual fact you look at this individual and think, my goodness, that’s you!
So we need to be honest with self, and one of the ways that we can do that
is to make sure that we have mentors
and coaches around and it’s a coaching type environment, that
we are developmental focused, with the leader, but with everybody, that it’s a learning
culture
and that we have those honest conversations, at an equal level of respect.
If not, then we can get into this stress area
because with arrogance can come bullying, you probably seen this before
but there’s good stress and bad stress; eustress is that good
stress it allows us to get a bed in the morning.
It can help us get towards our Peak Performance level,
but go beyond it into distress… then again, anxiety, fear, all sorts of things
and performance, and mental health, all affected, not good stuff. Last word…support.
An antidote, perhaps, to arrogance. Supporting other people.
We need to create, as I’ve suggested, a coaching, a learning environment.
We need to reach out to people and make sure that they’re okay.
It’s amazing what we can do, we don’t think we make a difference,
but we do, it’s like a ripple that goes out.
We think we’re not impacting people
because we’re not necessarily the leader, you would be amazed
you would be surprised, people come back to
me and say, ‘what you did a few years ago that really made such a difference’.
I’m glad I did but I didn’t think it made such a difference
and that they’d still be talking about
it. And I can say the same thing about other people who’ve helped me… it can
…and they don’t even know, I’ve told them, but they didn’t even realise! Here’s a quick quote.
’Your life has purpose, your story is important, your dreams count, your voice matters.
You were born to make an impact’.
HUMILITY, HONESTY, SUPPORT”

imageDialling down the ego

It seems to me that one of the biggest challenges that we face in building successful teams and businesses is that thing called ego, and in particular the ego of leaders. And I don’t mean a lack of ego either.

Perhaps it would be best to begin with a definition of ego, although defining ego is something which can result in a longwinded explanation, but not necessarily providing any increase in understanding. So, I’ll attempt to make this description quite straightforward.

With clarity and brevity in mind, it is then perhaps best to consider this thing called ego in three different ways.

1: Freud’s version

Sigmund Freud suggested that the human psyche (personality) had three different elements; the Id, the Ego, and the Superego.

Freud maintained that the Id was was the impulsive and instinctive component of the psyche, e.g. aggression and libido, and that the Id requires immediate satisfaction. (Freud had obviously taken a stroll down Sauchiehall street on a Saturday night).

For a more detailed description of the Id, I would recommend the excellent 1956 documentary ‘Forbidden Planet’.

Secondly, Freud also suggested that the Ego performed the role of a mediator between the instinctive Id and the need to conform to some societal requirements. In essence, the Ego’s role is to try and satisfy the base demands of the pleasure seeking Id, whilst avoiding being jailed. (I’m going to resist the temptation of making a cheap joke about the leaders of some global financial institutions).

The third element was called by Freud, the Superego (no, not Jose Mourinho). (For information about the fourth element look up ‘Beryllium’, and for the Fifth Element, see the works of Luc Besson). Freud described the Superego as a component of the human psyche which consisted of conscience and the ideal self. If the Ego was overpowered by the Id, the Superego may make someone feel guilt or remorse, and if the Ego resisted the Id and did the ‘right’ thing, the Superego may reward the individual by making them feel good, happy, proud etc. The role of the Superego is to push the individual towards the ideal self, the moral high-ground.

That is obviously a very high level summary, however if you want more information about Freud, there are many books available, including Freud’s intriguing autobiography: ‘Me, my mother, and the King of Thebes’.

2: A more modern consideration of Ego

It has more recently been suggested that ego is our vision of who we are. It can be quite a complex construction of the mind. It is sometimes referred to as the ‘self consciousness system’. The ego tends to separate itself from everything else ‘out there’. It is in some ways akin to a person’s identity. This sense of separateness can lead some of us to begin to have a sense of superiority and entitlement.

3: Egomania

In today’s society the term egomaniac is occasionally used interchangeably with the phrase ‘having a huge ego’, and in some ways that is quite an accurate comparison.

Egomania is often used to describe an individual who has an obsessive preoccupation with self, and who has a sense of superiority and/or greatness, but who also often feels that others do not appreciate their greatness enough. (I’m going to resist the temptation of making another cheap joke, this time about certain politicians).
It has been suggested that a more extreme version of Egomania could fall into the category of something called Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This is a personality disorder where individuals have an inflated sense of their own importance and have a lack of empathy for others.

Now, where might any of the above be relevant in business? Well, I believe that each of these ideas about ego are worth considering. It is important to be aware, and reflect, and if appropriate take action, and each of these ideas can help us with that. For example, if we look at Freud’s version of Ego and Superego, it would seem that the ideal self idea may allow us some traction. More of that later.

The more modern consideration of ego, where it could be thought of as being akin to identity, is often a good place to begin. If the ego drives us towards a sense of separateness from others, that can lead to a feeling of disconnection. That disconnection can be felt as ‘pain’ which we try and satisfy (feeding the ego) with external ‘trinkets’. And it can never be satisfied for long. A healthier approach for us, and ultimately for others if we are the leader, is to practise what I call the ‘dialling down the ego’ approach.

Spending years or decades meditating whilst dangling from a goats leg half way up a mountain may well be an ideal way to help us diminish or get rid of our ego, but most of us haven’t the time to do that, or indeed the desire to earn the soubriquet ‘dances with goats’. (It could be worse).

Another way forward, and one which is more goat friendly, would be to adopt the aforementioned ‘dialling down the ego’ strategy. It is unlikely that we can get rid of our egos entirely, but by becoming more conscious of that part of our make up, we can perhaps seek to diminish it, at least from time to time. I would suggest that one way to do that is to reverse the sense of separateness and isolation that the ego can invoke, and think about connection. Think about those people that you interact with. Think about them as people. Think about their hopes, aims, aspirations, dreams. Think about their families. Think about them as being very similar to you. Most people want pretty much the same things. The detail may be different, but the key drivers are the same. Think about how you are there to support them, how your role is to help deliver the environment that will most likely help them to succeed and be happy. And recognise that other people have other strengths and skills. Whilst your particular strengths and skills may have given you a position and recompense within the structure that others currently don’t have, everyone is unique. You are unique, but so are they. Your position may mean that you get to wax lyrical about the strategy and the horizon, but you aren’t going anywhere without the help of the people in the engine room. Of course, this idea of ‘we’re all in it together’ has been aired many times over the years. And yet, so many leaders simply pay lip service to it. However, there is something very important to consider here. People aren’t stupid. Those types of leaders aren’t fooling anyone.

It is important for the leader to consider the business from a humanistic perspective, and to be genuinely empathic. People pick up on it. Always remember, the person that you might have walked past every day without even acknowledging them, who is perhaps cutting the grass to keep the place looking respectable, is just as important as you.

Having said that, if you don’t actually have any grass, then someone may well have been making a right mess of your carpets.

Think about interdependence, and a sense of doing the right thing whilst interacting and making decisions.

To help us do that, we can borrow the idea of the Ideal Self. When considering how best to act in a more connected and considered fashion, ask yourself ‘what would my ideal self do in this situation?’.

What then about the extremely challenging situation where the team and/or business is headed up by the Egomaniac? (This is where I am guessing many an organisation has fallen off the edge of the cliff).

How should we deal with the Egomanical leader?
Answer: we shouldn’t.

These people should never ever, ever, be allowed anywhere near the helm. And if they are there, we should all simply walk away. Find a better leader. Find a different organisation if at all possible. And if you can’t walk away, challenge them. And get others to challenge them too. Might that mean that some people lose their jobs? I wished that there was a better answer than this, but sadly in certain circumstances it might. However, how much harm do you do yourself if you have to live with constant fear and anxiety because of some weak minded bully?

Also, more and more people are finding certain leadership behaviours totally intolerable, and so it is highly likely that this tide will turn, and indeed is turning. If we can develop better leaders, we can create organisations which people are keen to join. The sea change will then result in the best and most creative people gravitating towards the better leaders, and these are likely to be the organisations that succeed. This in turn may well highlight that the behaviours of the egomaniacal leader are so glaringly wrong and abhorrent and ultimately damaging to the business, that they are asked to go on ‘gardening leave’. Ironically perhaps giving them time to reflect on how differently things may have turned out if they had just been a bit nicer to others around them, including the gardener.

We must all agree that the toxic egomaniacal approach to leadership is no longer acceptable, no matter how good the P&L sheet is looking.

Best wishes
Mike

 

Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

I’d like you to consider the following ideas which I have about leadership.

The leader is there to serve.
The leader has a major influence on the ‘emotional tone’ of a business and/or team.
The leader should consider each employee as a person, not a number.

The leader should strive to help others to be as good as they can be.
The leader should do the right thing.
The leader should understand that leadership is a privilege.
The leader must attend to their ego, and ensure that it is appropriately ‘dialled down’.

The leader must make sure that ethical behaviours are front and centre, and will go beyond these if the ethical behaviours fall short of the moral requirements of any given situation.
The leader is aligned to company values, but will move away from them if there is a clash between morality and some corporate value.

The leader will flex their approach, even if they feel vulnerable doing so.
The leader will allow others to lead when and where appropriate.

The leader must be emotionally intelligent.

If you agree with most or all of these statements, then it is highly likely that you will understand what I mean when I talk about ‘the gap’. This is the gap between what I consider to be a ‘common sense’ approach to leadership and how some leaders and businesses actually behave.

Sometimes the gap seems so huge that we can feel as if we are lone voices shouting about the injustice of it all in the wilderness, or we can even begin to doubt our sanity. However, you are not mad, you are simply observing behaviours that are often caused by (amongst other things) a combination of some or all of the following: habits, corruption, fear, delusion, greed, and stupidity.

We can make a difference. We can’t change everything, but we can change those elements in our lives and businesses that we are responsible for… and that would include ourselves.

Please try the following exercise. Have a really good think about the following areas in your life, and in particular as a leader (irrespective of role or company or current situation – you are still leading something!).

Grab a pen or pencil and some paper, and carefully consider each of the following questions before writing down your thoughts:

What do you actually value? What is truly important to you?

What drives you? What gets you out of bed in the morning?

What do you want your reputation to be? How do you want to be seen by others?

What would you say were your key strengths? What strengths are you not using?

What behaviours are you displaying which may not be truly aligned with your values, drivers and desired reputation?

Be totally honest with yourself.

Any misalignment may mean that you are simply not being the change that you need to be to effect the changes around you that you want to see.

To use a simple example, if you value honesty, and creating an honest culture is one of your drivers, and you want to be viewed as an honest leader, but you know that your behaviours have been less than straightforward recently, then this lack of ‘congruence’ may well be massively limiting your progress and effectiveness. I would urge you to think about any possible misalignment, because by adjusting that, you are strengthening yourself and can therefore be much more effective in helping to close ‘the gap’.

And often, when we think about the strengths that we have that we aren’t using, and then access them more readily and regularly, we can really begin to fly.

Please look at those leadership ideas again and realise that they speak to you because they are you. We need to begin to make a bigger difference today.

Best wishes
Mike

Leaders or Pirates


The new year. A time of contemplation. A time when we often think about doing things differently. I wonder what might be worth doing differently in this new year? Well, amongst some other things, I believe that there is still an awful lot to do in the area of leadership development.

Last month Sir Brian Souter, co-founder of Stagecoach (the bus company, not Wells Fargo) warned that too many large companies are run by ‘control freaks’ and that their outlook affected long term business growth.

Sir Brian! How ungallant.

In the same newspaper article, he was also reported as saying, ‘the more emperors we have the more staid our growth will be for the longer term…entrepreneurs need to be encouraged…there needs to be a fiscal system to do that which is simpler than the one currently in place…some people are terrified to do anything in case it affects their share price’. (A link to the complete article can be found at the bottom of the newsletter).

Let’s consider one of the main points he appears to be making.

Bosses who are control freaks stifle business growth.

Have you ever had a boss like that? You would certainly recognise the signs if you had. These signs include the following:

You need to run all your ideas past them first – welcome to kindergarten.

Innovation and creativity can be permitted only on their say so, and even if others are allowed to be creative and innovative, the kudos for the idea may not ultimately be allowed to remain with the originator(s) – how motivating.

The general atmosphere around them feels tense, restrictive, overbearing – how energising.

People are generally nervous and fearful for their jobs – how relaxing.

Any element of humour has got to be of the correct type and may also only be deemed humour if the boss deems it to be – how depressing.

It’s an open secret that must not be said out loud (a bit like Volderm…oops) but you know, and you know that everyone else knows, that everyone is essentially working towards making sure that the boss’s impending bonus is paid in full so that their latest exotically located Caribbean holiday property can be purchased, along with the prerequisite monogrammed carpets for the driveway, Ultra HD 4K TVs on the floor of the swimming pool, and gold satin waistcoats for the kangaroo butlers – how inspiring, but perhaps only for the kangaroos.

Now being a control freak does not necessarily run hand in hand with having ostentatious and self-indulgent tastes. It does however often run hand in hand with being self-indulgent; self- indulgent in the sense that the control freaks can harbour a belief that the whole enterprise actually revolves around them and is simply there to fulfil their desires for power, prestige, wealth (and sometimes the kangaroos).

What sort of working environment might that type of boss create? Probably pretty grim. The fact that they focused so much on themselves and their own gain, would likely sabotage ultimately the gaining of that gain! Would anyone around them really be giving one hundred percent? One hundred percent in terms of fear, and thinking simply about survival perhaps.

And yet these often apparently smooth (to the investors) operatives pocket the money, tick another box on the CV, and move elegantly and decisively onto the next cash cow with vampiric accuracy, leaving behind them the collateral damage of dashed hopes and shredded nerves.

Imagine the following organisation. The leader laughs. The leader has a sense of humour. That leader can be self-deprecating. Others are encouraged to have fun. Bonuses, if they exist, are more evenly spread. People know at least a little about each other’s families. The leader welcomes and encourages new ideas, and the person who generates the ideas gets the kudos. There are regular celebrations, for the right reasons. The leader mentors and coaches. The leader also understands that sometimes others must lead. There is a high level of transparency. Doors are actually open.

Unrealistic? Of course not, many successful teams work that way and also some organisations. But here’s the secret…it takes effort! It generally doesn’t just happen. And this is where we need a fully developed (as a person) leader! Not a boss. And certainly not a control freak.

Now, importantly in the article, Sir Brian Souter also goes on to acknowledge that ‘the best leaders needed a mix of qualities’. That is very important, for just as the thrust of his argument was that the emperors could stifle growth and tended to be risk averse, I would suggest that whilst many entrepreneurs have the admirable ability to create businesses from almost nothing, and can display incredible resilience, motivation and creativity, they can also be blind to the needs of others in a more defined structure. Their mercurial creativity, and sometimes bad temper, often needs to be tempered, otherwise they are in danger of generating a revolving door staffing policy, and that will also affect performance and share price.

All things in balance and moderation it would seem. Perhaps this can be summarised by thinking about it in the following way.

We need more leaders who will take appropriate risks for the business, and who do not avoid risks to simply protect themselves.
We need leaders who are comfortable enough to work within a team where views and opinions may differ.
We need leaders who are not control freaks. In fact real leaders are not control freaks.
We need leaders who genuinely support others.
We need leaders with a very well developed sense of humour!

As an interesting postscript, in the same newspaper article, Anton Colella, the chief executive of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland (ICAS), said that ICAS was proposing to add a moral courage principle to the body’s code of ethics. He also stated that individuals needed to take more personal responsibility to rebuild customer trust in the wake of wide ranging corporate scandals seen in recent years. Laudable stuff. And yet I would strongly suggest that until we can generate a critical mass of leaders who are smart enough and courageous enough to actually make a difference in the heat of the moment, when the pressure is on, then any such code is likely to remain much like the pirate’s code in the movie Pirates of the Caribbean.

Captain Barbossa: ‘…the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules’.
Link to the full article: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14109809.Sir_Brian_Souter_says_too_many_bosses_are__quot_control_freaks_quot_/

Employee engagement…how well we aren’t doing

I just read an excellent article by Mark C Crowley entitled ‘Employee engagement isn’t getting any better and Gallup shares the surprising reasons why’.

In this article Mark discusses why employee engagement isn’t getting any better. According to Gallup, growth in engagement has remained flat for most of 2015. Mark goes on to talk about his discussion with Dr Jim Harter, who is Gallup’s engagement expert. According to Dr Harter, organisations may measure different things whilst attempting to quantify engagement, ‘those outcomes range from basics such as absenteeism, employee retention rates, service levels and productivity: and ultimately it all adds up to about a 22 percent difference in profitability when you compare top quartile business units to the bottom quartile’.

Intriguingly the top organisations Gallup work with have only 65% of their workers fully engaged. Imagine what must be being wasted in terms of motivation, innovation and dedication in so many businesses. This point hasn’t been entirely missed however as Dr Harter goes on to say ‘…it’s serious enough that it’s become a check-the-box HR activity, but not serious enough to have a meaningful impact and raise their score…we are now at just 32% engagement…there’s simply no question that managers are one of the top root causes of low and flat-lined engagement’.

That statistic is quite shocking, as is the fact that this appears to have remained for many a check-the-box exercise.

Dr Harter goes on to suggest that high performing managers/leaders have five talents:

1. They are motivators – challenge self and others
2. They are assertive – push past obstacles, make tough decisions
3. They accept accountability – they help their team deliver
4. They are relationship builders – they personalise how they manage
5. They are decision makers – they solve complex issues and plan ahead

He suggests that these are not too common and that not everyone can ‘learn’ them. This is why I have made the point time and time again, that if people are promoted purely because of their skill, we can, and almost certainly will, run into trouble. And so not only does development have a role to play here, but so does the person or people doing the hiring and promoting.

This is also why we need leaders in place who have a good dose of common sense who can read people pretty well, and who promote and hire from a position of insight and emotional robustness, and not from a position of fear or protectionism, where appointments may be made in both a feckless and reckless fashion. If we have leaders who promote individuals because they are blind to the fact that their ‘favourite’ is simply a bise le derrière aficionado, or has all the emotional intelligence of a paperclip, or is a devious little back stabbing weasel who has more faces than a dodecahedron; then the endless cycle of mediocrity and misery will continue. And heaven forfend that the leader actually promotes someone because of those traits!

And yet we see this time and time again. Something is amiss.

Dr Harter suggests, ‘…for companies who are truly committed to employee engagement, they must raise the bar further…there’s another traditionally unappreciated quality that’s been consistently proven to turn managers into talent magnets: they care deeply about their people…they share, teach, coach, support, and appreciate their employees…regardless of what’s on their plate’.

Now those are the qualities that we should all be galloping towards rewarding and emulating.

Let’s look at my interpretation of what each of these might mean, through the lens of Braver Leadership, and just for fun, I’ve arranged them into a nice little acronym for the hard of understanding. TASCS.

Teach: Can you remember the time when you attended a really bad lecture? And did you by any chance compare that experience to the very different experience of being in the class of your favourite teacher. What was the difference? Well, the clue is in the words. Your favourite teacher taught you, that implies that you learned. Lecturing is just that. No learning required. One person can do that in an empty room. Teaching requires an element of vulnerability. If I go down that road, am I good enough to allow you to learn? Most people can learn most things, given time. The only thing that generally stops them learning is not receiving the proper teaching. The braver leader is able to teach, and understands that it may expose their own failings in knowledge (if you want to master it, teach it) and also that they cannot teach by lecturing. Persistent lecturing belongs in the command and control toolbox of the weak leader. The braver leader will be at your side, helping you understand, guiding, willing you to succeed.

Appreciate (their employees): Genuinely appreciating people is the key here. How often have you met someone who displayed false sincerity, kindness, interest etc. etc. Most of us can spot that a mile away. It’s as insulting as it is depressing. The braver leader understands that despite the grade, the salary, the role…that this is a person who has dreams, hopes, aims, aspirations, ambitions and feelings. Just like us, just like everyone else. They are using up some of their time on the planet to do the task at hand. They are not a number.

Share: Now this requires the leader to be very comfortable with themselves. To be comfortable in their own skin. To be able to be challenged. To accept that someone may come up with a better idea. Leaders who do not share are often fearful that their perceived power base will be eroded, that they may be questioned, that they might even be wrong.

And yet if the leader keeps people at ‘arms length’ we know that this can cause a sense of elitism, and that employees can become demotivated when they do not have a sense of ‘being in on things’.

Coach: Receiving coaching from a leader is one of the most positively transformative things that a leader can do for a team member. However, one of the mistakes that a leader can make is to use a coaching session as a vehicle for telling and grandstanding and passing judgement and opinion. Coaching is performer centric not egocentric.

Support: In many ways the supporting leader is already supporting if they do all of the four things mentioned above. Supportive is a mindset. And having a supportive mindset is often connected to having the quality of humility. (Humility is often misunderstood and hugely underrated. I have attached a link to a video below, in which I discuss humility and its importance in leadership).

The findings of Gallup will not come as too much of a surprise for those of us who have been paying attention. Have you ever looked around an organisation or team and wondered whether perhaps the apparent madness of sycophancy and egomaniacal behaviours was actually normal, and that perhaps it was you who was mad after all? Hopefully you came to the (in my opinion very rational conclusion) that you were indeed sane and that something was indeed sadly awry. And yet you are far from alone. Talk to most people in most organisations and they all tend to want similar things. Words like ‘purpose’, ‘camaraderie’, ‘fun’, ‘belonging’, ‘a sense of achievement’, ‘feeling valued’ are commonly used. This madness I would suggest stems from only a few, but they can infect many, and without a different type of leadership the malaise will continue, with more and more people becoming desensitised to what are actually pretty abhorrent behaviours. Engagement can only be nurtured and grown. It cannot be attached to an organisation or an individual using Velcro. We must educate, promote, assist, develop and nurture a different type of leader who can change the resonance of a business. That type of leadership approach can take honesty and endeavour, and of course courage, but that courage is likely to be greatly rewarded.

As I have said for quite some time now, ‘profit by all means, but not by any means’. Perhaps if we concentrated more on getting the people bit right, everything else would fall into place.

If you would like to contact me directly to discuss any of your development needs, please get in touch via this website, email, or by phone.
Seasons greetings
Mike

Link to the article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/employee-engagement-isnt-getting-better-gallup-shares-mark-c-crowley

Video: https://vimeo.com/148804852
Twitter: @braverleaders

Oh for a world where everyone itches for ethics

Have you ever paused to consider where the ‘tone’ of an organisation or team comes from?
One way of thinking about the emotional tone is to consider it as part of the culture. Organisations and teams are made up of people, and people have feelings, and feelings drive behaviours; and so it is very important to be aware of whether the residents of any particular corporate village are fearful, or happy, or sad, or energised. I would suggest that the single largest resonant emotional frequency is broadcast from the leader. They transmit the strongest signal, and if that signal is suspicion, the villagers will tend to be suspicious of the leader and of each other. If the signal is anger, the villagers will tend to be fearful and/or angry. Leaders, by their way of being, define so much. They can define the moral high ground, or even if there is going to be a moral high ground.

I was intrigued by a recent article by Dina Medland entitled, ‘The Dangers Of “Window Dressing” when Raising The Bar On Corporate Ethics’.

Consider this quote from the article, ‘ nearly half of employees (45%) are not willing to raise their concerns about misconduct. Among those who have ‘spoken out,’ the proportion who say that they were not satisfied with the outcome has doubled’.

Even if those figures do not reflect all organisations, it still makes for pretty shocking reading. I would suggest that some of these organisations are in an emotional abyss, and that that abyss is essentially a giant sink hole upon which the moral high ground once lay.

This brings me to one of the key components of what I consider braver leadership to be about. As I have already suggested, the leader sets the tone. So who must be setting the tone in these organisations and teams, where results come before ethical behaviour and where almost half of a workforce won’t speak out? Ethics doesn’t belong simply in a committee, or in a ‘hand book’, it belongs in every conversation and decision. And the braver leader may go beyond the ‘hand book’ anyway, realising that a simple tick box exercise often isn’t enough for the situation at hand.

Naturally, there is no one answer as to how this might be achieved, and there is much work to be done in various different ways to help evolve corporate thinking. However, one of the ways to perhaps begin this journey is to consider the mindset of the leader. There is a link below to a new video where I consider some fundamental approaches that a leader may take in order to help set the correct emotional tone.

Best wishes
Mike

Video: https://vimeo.com/146151116

Dina Medland’s full article:

http://onforb.es/1kNfGFa

Lazy Doctors, or just a small case of insanity?

The recent dispute in the UK about Doctors’ hours and pay has attracted a lot of attention. What should we think? Lazy Doctors, or just a small case of insanity?
In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Doctor Kamalvand quite elegantly lays out the current challenges facing doctors…and therefore everyone else.

Is it not perhaps even a tad mad to take some of the most sophisticated thinkers around, and subject them to the stress of sleep deprivation (which some would argue is thee most effective means of torture) amidst the omnipresent stress of life and death decisions, and to that mixture, stir in a soupçon of job, contract, and career uncertainty?

This would appear to be a little bit like putting an expensive wristwatch in a microwave oven. At best, sparks will fly, and at worst, you may find that you’ll need to use the sun, moon and stars to plan your next few meetings.

Does it not seem really odd to you that we seem to penalise the very people who are the built-in heroic archetypes within our society?

Why is it that the professions that are so important for upholding and promoting a humane, healthy, intellectual and safe society are the very ones who appear to get penalised and treated so shoddily?

The doctors and nurses, the ambulance drivers, the police, the firemen, the teachers and the men and women who directly defend us. Why them? This seems to me to be like some kind of lunatic inversion.

And it doesn’t seem to matter which political party mouthpiece is mouthing, they all never seem to get it quite right or go far enough. What is stopping them? Who is voting for the bankers to become even richer? Not even a lot of the bankers these days I suspect.

So are we doomed to live in a dystopian present, where the good, the decent, the honest, the hardworking and the brave are penalised, whilst the fractional reserve lenders, the untaxed, and the sociopaths are glamorised, rewarded with given kudos for their latest great strategic thought?

I for one think not. We can do better than this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-shebby-kamalvand/junior-doctors-contract_b_8286172.html

The Volkswagen emissions scandal…what should we think?

The recent scandal surrounding the emissions from some Volkswagen vehicles is still generating headlines in the media, and no doubt will continue to do so, as it would seem that Europe as well as the U.S. may also be living under the cloud of corporate double dealing and nefarious cheat the test schemes. However, as sure as night follows day, the media wolf pack will move on, eager to feed our apparent and alleged insatiable need for some new shocking and/or tragic scenario. However, when the dust (and nitrogen oxide) has settled, do we simply write this off as ‘things that organisations do’, or accept that ‘they’re probably all up to something’?

Or instead do we conclude that things must and will change? It is perhaps long overdue that collectively we should see this much more as the exception than the norm, that the individuals behind this particular ‘scam’ have not only potentially threatened the health of thousands of people, but have also threatened the livlihood of thousands of individuals, and so they are not just a bunch of ‘naughty boys/gals’ (or in this case noxy boys/gals) but are morally reprehensible. If so, then we should expect much more from so many more individuals/leaders in so many more organisations/institutions. Honesty is the new sexy.

I have copied below a link to a video that I produced about this subject.

The Bank of England’s chief economist is bang on the money

The Bank of England’s Andrew Haldane chief economist is bang on the money!
It is a couple of months now since Andrew Haldane suggested that shareholder power is leading to slower growth, and yet the shockwaves can still be felt. How utterly refreshing to hear someone with such potential ‘clout’ espouse such ear piercing common sense! Mr Haldane points out that in 1970, £10 out of each £100 profit was paid to shareholders (via dividends). Apparently, that figure today is between £60 and £70. Coupled with that, it would seem that in 1945 a share was held for approximately six months, and now it is approximately…six years! Andrew Haldane goes on to argue that the model of the shareholder dominated firm of the last century and a half, may well be doing us more harm than good. And meanwhile researchers at Stanford have concluded that pressure to meet quarterly earnings may be reducing R&D spend and negatively impacting U.S. growth by 0.1% per annum. Bravo Mr Haldane, bravo Stanford researchers.

At last, we are beginning to see the green shoots of pragmatic, balanced thinking. We must think longer term. We must think about sustainability. We must think about a fairer system of reward, lest we allow a truly dystopian ‘mash-up’ to manifest as the hunger games meets a zombie apocalypse, where a drooling set of jogging morons, eager to feast at the altar of avarice, literally eat us out of house and home!

A link to the original FT article is pasted below:

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d347016-32f4-11e5-b05b-b01debd57852.html#ixzz3m7HRK9h1