Tag Archives: Leadership

06 Sep

Can Failure Serve as an Effective Communication Tool?

wdmoran Uncategorized 0 0

By Sage Moran and Doug Moran “Mary” was amazingly talented. She was dedicated, smart, hard-working, savvy, and likable, and she had leveraged these assets to move up quickly. Success had bred success, and she was excited to take on her newest challenge. Her boss had asked her to take over a department that had been underperforming for the past eighteen months, and they were confident that she could turn it around. Mary quickly realized that things were worse than she had expected, and she was concerned that, for the first time in her career, she would fail. That scared her terribly. The problem was that her boss’s expectations, and those of other key corporate stakeholders, far exceeded her team’s capacity. While she was able to fix some of the problems and improve the team’s performance, most of the issues required more people and more money. Her boss had made it clear from the outset that neither was available. Mary had always taken pride in the jokes that she could stuff twenty pounds into a ten-pound bag. She was exceptional at living the adage of doing more with less, but now she was literally facing twice as much work as she had people to do it. She was deeply concerned. Mary and her team had spent weeks analyzing the work, investigating options, and challenging deadlines, but she kept coming to the same conclusion – she couldn’t get everything done in the time she was being given. With the facts in hand, she sat down to negotiate tradeoffs with her boss. While he was sympathetic, he declared the deadlines firm and reiterated that she wasn’t getting any more resources. Confronted with these realities, Mary and her team developed a triage plan that optimized the team she had. She took the triage plan to her manager and other key stakeholders to ensure they understood the tradeoffs she was making. The most important thing she did was highlight those tasks she would not be doing. Mary had discussed her plans with several trusted colleagues and her mentor, who concurred with Mary’s assessment and plan. To Mary’s chagrin, her boss kept reminding her that all her projects were important and that missing any deadlines would be seen as a failure. He ended many meetings with some version of “failure is not an option.” Despite the facts, Mary was expected to deliver, so she and her team hunkered down and did their best. Over the next six months, Mary was open and honest about their progress and equally clear about the missed deadlines, budget risks, and projects that she was not working on. Most of her key stakeholders were thrilled, but those whose projects were getting ignored began to rumble. They complained to Mary’s manager, who responded by calling her into his office to repeat his warnings about failure. As the year came to an end, Mary and her team had delivered more than they had predicted, but she had failed to meet several critical deadlines. Mary was frustrated and scared. She knew that the results they achieved were outstanding and that the projects they delivered were far more valuable than those she had not; however, according to Mary’s boss, she had failed. Mary feared that she had done irreparable damage to her career. Fortunately, some of the complaints about her work had come to the CEO’s attention, and he decided to look into matters personally. What he found deeply troubled him. He quickly realized that Mary had presented a compelling case for more resources, which had been ignored. Worse than that, no one had the courage to push back on these shortsighted decisions. He was disappointed with Mary’s manager and the corporate executives who had failed to listen when Mary had presented a clear and compelling case. Mostly, he was angry with himself for allowing this type of culture to thrive in the company he founded. He moved quickly to address the underlying issues that had created this situation. He recognized Mary and her team for their achievements. He also asked her to lead a team to find the root causes of the thinking that had led to such poor decisions and destructive actions. In the end, Mary’s failure led to real change. It provided a concrete, tangible demonstration of the impossibility of the demands she and her team faced. They exhausted all other methods of communication without substantial change, leaving them overburdened and overwhelmed. When their voices went unheard, action and results spoke volumes. The situation put her in a position that necessitated what we call “strategic failure.” It is the rigorous process of failing in a way that exposes challenges or problems that are being ignored. It is a risky strategy that should be used only as a last-ditch solution in unmanageable circumstances with poor communication and no feasible resolution. The risk of using “strategic failure” is evident in its name: It is a failure. It hinges on the contention that while putting forth our best effort, we are still likely to fail. When we have tried everything to communicate the impossibility of unattainable demands, there is really no choice in being unable to meet superhuman asks (without violating our boundaries*). There is authenticity in such scenarios. When we try in earnest and demonstrate the way our unheard concerns become a reality, our failures can affect positive change. When used well, “strategic failure” can lead to positive results like those described above. If we aren’t careful and disciplined, though, using failure as a tool can go terribly wrong. When we make the active choice to fall short in a task, we may be practicing what psychologists call “weaponized incompetence.” This label refers to when an individual acts as if or pretends that they cannot do the task, usually in the hope that someone else will assume responsibility instead. The key to identifying this behavior in ourselves is recognizing the actual ability to complete the task or the easy accessibility to it, making any failure not an inevitability. As a result, this behavior can be manipulative or passive-aggressive. This behavior may also be called “skilled incompetence” when someone uses this tactic to obtain a specific result that offloads their own burden. As discussed above, communication is one of the most important ways to distinguish “strategic” failure from “weaponized (or skilled) incompetence.” How well or poorly we communicate will often be the determining factor. We often find ourselves in situations where our workload exceeds our capacity, and we are forced to prioritize and make hard tradeoffs. These situations can be highly stressful in many ways. First, tasks do not simply disappear when left incomplete. The reality is that assignments must be done, and sometimes saying “no” – even in the forms of “I don’t have the capacity” or “I don’t know how” – doesn’t work. Our concerns may be ignored or rejected. In which case, we may have no choice but to perform more poorly than we would like. It is the moment of direct communication of limitations as well as our earnest consideration that distinguishes ethical failure from weaponized/skilled incompetence. This direct communication must be upfront and honest, establish clear expectations, and allow the person assigning the task to seek alternatives. When, despite our clear and explicit articulation of the risks and issues, we find ourselves in an untenable position, our communications will create accountability for adverse outcomes. To a large extent, communicating the risks associated with strategic failure comes down to saying “no.” Regardless of how well you say it, saying “no” is difficult and dangerous. It’s essential to recognize that structural, organizational, and cultural obstacles may inhibit this type of direct (seemingly contentious) communication. Some of us may be uncomfortable with setting boundaries and/or acknowledging limitations. Saying “no” requires confidence, boldness, and vulnerability. This is especially true because our accomplishments determine our career success and our (and potentially our family’s) well-being. It may feel easier to nonconfrontationally avoid difficult assignments, letting them fall to others to deal with. However, this type of passive behavior has its own risk. Portraying ourselves as inadequate or unqualified for an assignment or avoiding direct communication may create the perception we are guilty of weaponized/skilled incompetence. It is important that we remain aware of our own behavior to avoid potential missteps that could be (or perceived to be) weaponized/skilled incompetence. What questions should we ask to help us distinguish between strategic failure and weaponized incompetence in the workplace? Questions for Self-Analysis: The following set of questions builds off of the above for us to ask ourselves when considering the choice – or lack thereof – in a situation of overwhelm and potential failure. Strategic failure can be a powerful and effective tool for effecting change and communicating difficult messages, but it can also be risky. These risks aren’t just limited to those who use it. It can also adversely affect others. In the coming weeks, we will explore further the adverse impact strategic failure can have on those who lack the power or influence to avoid the problems using it can create. *A Note on Boundaries: It is important that we consider and implement appropriate workplace boundaries when examining situations of failure. We should not have to repeatedly disrespect our own boundaries in order to meet expectations. The choice to avoid doing so does not reflect an active choice to fail, even if giving more and more to the workplace may make the impossible demands feel more achievable.

07 Jun

Turning Rigidity into Rigor Through a Growth Mindset

wdmoran Leadership 1 0

By Sage Moran A colleague once told me the definition of bureaucratic is “when the form is more important than what is written on it.” We’ve all experienced that type of officiousness when someone tells us that they would like to help, but because we failed to follow some silly rule or jump some inane hurdle, we are out of luck. Think of the movie Office Space when the protagonist gets chastised for failing to put a cover sheet on his TPS report. There is nothing more frustrating when we run into this type of rigidity. I don’t believe that anyone intends to be overly rigid. No one wakes up and says, “I think I will be a bureaucratic jerk today.” Most people want to do a good job, which usually requires rigor and discipline. So, what causes us to slip from rigorous to rigid? When an individual has passion, dedication, personal investment, or experience in a particular situation, they may find themself standing a bit more firmly in their perspectives, especially if the stakes are high or time is limited. These attributes can be substantial strengths in tackling the tasks at hand, but firmness has the potential to be a limiting factor when it manifests as rigidity. Instead of rigidity, it may be more beneficial to practice rigor in order to maintain a growth mindset in navigating the challenges we confront. To do so, we must ask ourselves: How do we define rigidity and recognize it in ourselves in the workplace? Turning to a dictionary, “rigidity” and “rigor” are tied together, holding very similar definitions and appearing as synonyms not only for each other but for “firmness” as well. However, the socially established and agreed-upon understandings for workplace environments and academic institutions mark the terms as linked but distinctly counter to one another. As a whole, the difference comes down to a fixed mindset versus a growth mindset. In the fixed mindset, rigid attachment to one’s perspective often arises from fear or a need for control and leads to reduced growth and the repetition of old patterns. Holding tightly to particular ideas, rigid individuals may behave in ways that reflect stiffness or brittleness, resistance to change, and a need to be “right.” As a result, in approaching challenges, they may exhibit low imagination in identifying solutions or opting for those that present the lowest risk. Doing so reveals the way in which rigidity may be driven by fear, as the individual chooses the familiar or the comfortable to avoid real or perceived failure. They may become attached to and fixed on the options that provide the surest path to their personal success. Insecurity can lead to a high degree of focus on their individual performance as well as emotional reactivity should they feel inadequate or challenged. When an individual’s firmness becomes rigidity, they not only inhibit their personal growth and the growth of their organizations, but they also place themselves at great risk for burnout from the emotional toll and stress. However, an individual with strong feelings about a particular situation can avoid a fixed mindset by practicing growth through rigor. As opposed to fear- or control-driven rigidity, the driving factors in rigor are the individual’s and the workplace’s shared values. The key difference between being rigid and being rigorous is the individual’s commitment to firm practices (rigidity) or to firm values (rigor). When determining how to handle challenges, one who practices rigor welcomes different perspectives and conflicting opinions, reflecting open-mindedness, flexibility, and adaptation. The most important aspect to these individuals lies in their ability to find approaches that best align with the shared workplace values. Their mental flexibility highlights curiosity’s role in a growth mindset: the emphasis on newness and the possibility to facilitate progress. As a result, the individual must be able to accept that failure and conflict are both inevitable and potential opportunities for improvement. While those practicing rigor still try to avoid failure, fear of it does not define their behaviors or prevent them from taking risks to uphold shared values. Analysis of Rigidity and Rigor: Three Perspectives Most individuals will, at points in their lives, experience both rigidity and rigor. It may be difficult for one to recognize their own rigidity or rigor without taking a step back for active reflection. In doing this self-analysis, it is most important to consider ongoing patterns and trends as well as changes that may benefit your current practice. Assessing Rigidity Rate yourself (High, Medium, or Low) on how frequently you notice the following behaviors in your life. The more these are a part of your normal routine, the more likely you may be experiencing rigid thinking or practices. __ Strong need to be “right” __ Resistance to change, even when change may be necessary __ Desire to have total control __ Tendency to choose low-risk over high-risk options __ Comfortability in old, familiar patterns __ Difficulty brainstorming new ideas or resistance to the new ideas others bring forward __ Strong desire to avoid any and all possibility of failure __ Intense reaction to real or perceived failure __ High focus on own individual performance __ Emotional reactivity in facing challenges (e.g., external, like shouting, or internal, lile negative self-talk) Assessing Rigor Rate yourself (High, Medium, or Low) on how frequently you notice the following behaviors in your life. Regular use of these behaviors is a good indication of a rigorous growth mindset. __ Encourage as well as actively seek out different perspectives __ Belief that failure and conflict can provide opportunities for improvement __ Active attempt to approach challenge with an open mind __ Curious exploration of conflicting opinions __ Comfortability with not having desired control or the greatest degree of control __ Emphasis on the team/group achievement over individual performance __ Comfortability with adaptation and change, especially in high-pressure situations __ Consideration of high-risk options as well as low-risk options __ Desire to seek out and brainstorm new ideas __ Ability to take failure seriously without reactivity (more intellectual than emotional) Reflection Questions: How can one turn rigid thinking into rigorous thinking? Being rigorous is hard and inherently risky, but true leadership requires us to avoid the temptation to rigidly follow rules. By knowing ourselves, being true to our values and beliefs (and those of the organizations we represent), and critically analyzing our behaviors using techniques like those described above, we can become the rigorous leaders our organizations need us to be while becoming the type of person people want to follow.

09 Jan

Attribute 4: Self-Efficacy – PM Jacinda Ardern’s Confidence to Lead

wdmoran Uncategorized 0 0

New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is an obvious choice for inclusion on the COVID-19 version of the ‘If-‘Sixteen Leaders – although it is difficult to decide which attribute she represents best. Ardern has led with boldness, courage, accountability, composure, and selflessness. I ultimately chose Self-Efficacy as the attribute she best exemplified after watching more than twenty of her interviews and Facebook Live videos. In every video and interview I observed, she exuded extraordinary self-confidence. This is not the arrogance or bluster that has been the hallmark of many failed leaders; rather, she has shown the type of confidence needed to tell her people the hard truths that fighting COVID-19 has required. Ardern’s self-efficacy seems to be rooted in her belief in her capacity to lead New Zealand to overcome and endure, no matter what this crisis brings. This is the essence of Self-Efficacy. While other world leaders were dithering and struggling to establish a coherent strategy, Jacinda Ardern was moving aggressively, repeating her COVID leadership mantra – “go hard and go early.” This statement captured the gist of New Zealand’s COVID-19 strategy, an immediate and absolute nationwide lockdown. Her approach was bold, and many believed it was recklessly so. During her March 23rd press conference announcing New Zealand’s lockdown, Ardern acknowledged her critics’ concerns, while emphasizing her confidence in her nation’s ability to endure. She declared, “These are all tools of last resort, at a time when I know New Zealanders will rally — because that is what we do.” She ended that speech with these words, “So, New Zealand: be calm, be kind, stay at home, and break the chain.” Ardern’s words are reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s confidence-inspiring speeches during the early days of the Second World War. Coincidentally, Churchill is the exemplar of Self-Efficacy from the original ‘If-‘ Sixteen list. Like Churchill, Ardern recognized that her confidence was meaningless unless she inspired the confidence of those she was leading. This required her to invest significant time and energy in communicating with New Zealanders and keeping them engaged and confident. Ardern’s communication approach has worked. It has demonstrated her confidence and commitment to her COVID plan, and it has bolstered New Zealanders’ confidence. Her recent reelection as Prime Minister is the most obvious measure of this confidence, but her success was apparent almost immediately. The reaction to the lockdown was swift and generally positive. Most New Zealanders quickly accepted the government-imposed restrictions. During the more than five weeks of the lockdown, fewer than 4,000 people (in a country of 5 million) were cited for violating the lockdown rules. Compare that to the difficulty the U.S. has had getting people simply to wear masks. Throughout the pandemic, Ardern and her government have enjoyed strong approval ratings, with Ardern’s rating ranging from 55% to 65% since March. Before the pandemic, Ardern was struggling with approval ratings closer to 40%. New Zealanders’ rating of their government’s handling of the pandemic has ranged between 75% and 85%. Ardern has communicated effectively, and she has kept the people of New Zealand informed and engaged. While she has used traditional communication channels (e.g., press conferences, interviews, etc.) to get her message out, she has also embraced social media. Ardern has shared over 150 videos via Facebook, including scores of Facebook Live videos from her home. These video messages provided updates about the pandemic, but they also helped Ardern stay connected and engaged with her people. Many have compared these videos to Franklin Roosevelt’s “Fireside Chats.” Just as Roosevelt had the confidence to embrace the new media of radio to connect with the American people during the Great Depression, Ardern has used live video to sustain and build the confidence of New Zealanders. During her typical videos, Ardern used a combination of optimism and realism. During her March 25th Facebook Live message, she set expectations for the days and weeks ahead. She encouraged New Zealanders not to be “disheartened by the initial spike” that she knew was likely, and she ended by repeating her encouragement to, “Stay home, break the chain, and you’ll save lives.” These words reminded each New Zealander that this was their personal responsibility. Ardern has repeatedly demonstrated that the words we use matter when instilling confidence. On June 8th, the day New Zealand announced no active cases in the country, Ardern continued to send messages that expressed confidence and caution. She stated, “We are confident we have eliminated the transmission of the virus in New Zealand for now.” She reminded her people that the threat had not been eliminated, but their plan was successful. Ardern stated, “We will almost certainly see cases again, and that is not a sign that we have failed. It is a reality of this virus.” She ended by reminding people that “We are prepared.” Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark described the feeling that Ardern’s leadership has instilled, stating, “They may even think, Well, I don’t quite understand why [the government] did that, but I know she’s got our back. There’s a high level of trust and confidence in her because of that empathy.” The support and confidence of New Zealanders have been far from universal. Throughout the pandemic, Ardern’s critics have accused her of overreacting to the pandemic. Most critics voiced concerns about the economic impact the lockdown would cause. As predicted, New Zealand did experience a severe economic downturn, facing its worst recession since 1987 due to the pandemic and the lockdown. In the second quarter of 2020, its economy shrank by 11% compared to the second quarter of 2019. However, the economic impact was short-lived, with the economy growing by 14% in the 3rd quarter (https://www.ft.com/content/b8c4ab58-99db-4af2-9449-5fd70a9235ce). New Zealand’s initial downturn was comparable to the United States, whose economy shrank by approximately 9% in the second quarter and grew by 7% in the third quarter. However, when you compare their death rates, the story becomes more compelling. According to the WHO COVID-19 dashboard (https://covid19.who.int) for January 4th, 2021, New Zealand’s COVID death rate was 5.18 deaths per million, while the COVID death rate in the U.S. was 1050 deaths per million. New Zealand still faces daunting challenges to building its economy, but its successes have silenced many of Ardern’s critics. Dr. Albert Bandura was the first psychologist to study and describe the concept of Self-Efficacy. He described it as “the belief in one’s abilities to organize and execute the courses of action to manage prospective situations.” In my book, If You Will Lead (Agate 2011), I distinguish between Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem. The critical difference is that the confidence that Self-Efficacy produces is well-grounded. Jacinda Ardern didn’t just wake up and say, “I believe in myself. I can do anything I put my mind to.” In fact, she admitted in a recent Guardian article that she often struggles with self-doubt and “imposter syndrome.” Ardern spoke of channeling “her self-doubt into a positive.” She also spoke of using the feeling associated with self-doubt to focus her attention and to encourage collaboration. Despite her self-doubt and “imposter syndrome,” Ardern has demonstrated a self-confidence that is rooted in her past experiences and successes (and those of the leaders around her). Throughout the crisis, she has drawn on her own experiences and the expertise of others. Like all of the ‘If-‘ Sixteen Leadership attributes, leading with Self-Efficacy goes beyond simply possessing Self-Efficacy. Leading with Self-Efficacy requires that we instill our own grounded confidence in those we are leading. Jacinda Ardern has done this throughout the COVID-19 crisis. She has given assurance to the people she serves, and she has set an example for other world leaders to follow. Who else is leading with Self-Efficacy? Whose grounded self-confidence is inspiring others to make hard choices to fight COVID-19? Remember, we are looking for leaders at all levels, so share examples of local, national, and international leaders who exemplify Self-Efficacy.

23 Sep

Attribute 1: Character – Angela Merkel Leading Through COVID with a Strong Sense of Self

wdmoran Uncategorized 2 0

Chancellor Angela Merkel is the first leader to make the list of the COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen leaders. For almost 15 years, she has led her country with a strong sense of who she is, remaining true to herself no matter what. Her self-awareness has enabled her to lead Germany through extraordinary challenges, including the 2008 Economic Crisis, the European Refugee Crisis, and now the COVID-19 Crisis. Character was the first leadership attribute I discussed in If You Will Lead: Enduring Wisdom for 21st-Century Leaders (Agate B2 2011), because character forms the foundation upon which all other leadership attributes are built. Leadership demands that we act in ways that are consistent and aligned with our beliefs and values. That is the essence of leading with character—knowing what we believe and value and then ensuring that our actions reflect those beliefs and values. Crises are the greatest leadership character tests, and Chancellor Merkel proved her character during the early days of the COVID-19 Crisis. While she continues to lead effectively, this article focuses on her actions and leadership during the pandemic’s early days. There are three aspects of Merkel’s character that seem most relevant: her commitment to liberty and freedom, her scientific mind, and her gender. The German culture is very conscious of recognizing and attributing titles in a way that often describe key aspects of one’s character. To many non-Germans, this behavior can seem awkward, especially when someone has numerous honorifics. In the case of Angela Merkel, she is Frau Chancellor Doctor Merkel. This may seem like an odd point, but I see all three honorifics as essential to Angela Merkel’s character and her leadership. Chancellor Merkel’s Commitment to Liberty and Freedom I’ll start with Chancellor, because, above all else, Angela Merkel is a politician. Merkel was quick to recognize that COVID-19 was an unprecedented threat. On March 18, she declared to the German people, “Since German unification, no, since World War II, there has been no greater challenge to our country that depends so much on us acting together in solidarity.” Merkel demonstrated clearly her commitment to the health and safety of her citizens, and she was willing to sacrifice other key values to protect her people. To do so, the German government took steps that curtailed liberty and freedom. This was an extraordinary test of her character, because Merkel had experienced 35 years of repression under East German government during the Cold War. She had spent much of her political career defending freedom and liberty. This life-long commitment bolstered her credibility with the German people that a short-term sacrifice was a reasonable price to pay to contain the spread of COVID-19. Fiscal responsibility is another important aspect of Chancellor Merkel’s political character. She has spent most of her political career as a fervent believer in government frugality, and her leadership was a driving force behind the EU austerity measures following the 2008 Economic Crisis. Again, COVID-19 forced her to confront conflicting values, and she put safety above frugality. In light of the societal risks posed by COVID-19, Merkel has been a champion for the EU economic stimulus efforts. She recognized that the economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic threatened to undermine European stability. She saw this instability as a threat to freedom, so she sacrificed her natural frugality and austerity to protect freedom. Doctor Merkel’s Scientific Mind Angela Merkel started her career as a scientist. She earned the title doctor when she received her Ph.D. in Quantum Chemistry. As a scientist, she learned to rely on data, critical thinking, and rational analysis to inform her decisions. This means asking hard questions to ensure that those we trust are worthy of our trust. It means knowing that what we want is not always consistent with what the data tell us. It means using the guidance of trusted experts to make hard and often unpopular decisions. When many leaders were dithering, Merkel engaged experts from organizations like the Robert Koch Institute and the Berlin’s Charité Hospital to inform her decisions and to help her create appropriate responses. Her trust in science and scientists enabled her to build the trust of the German people. Frau Merkel’s Feminine Leadership Merkel’s last honorific, Frau, has also played an important role in her leadership style. Merkel has never shied away from her gender. She has always embraced her political nickname “Mutti” (i.e., Mommy in English). There have been numerous articles highlighting the benefits of female leadership during the COVID-19 Crisis. Leadership traits like empathy, compassion, collaboration, and humility are often associated with femininity, and these same leadership traits seem to be producing positive results in the fight against COVID-19. Merkel has demonstrated these traits throughout her career, and she has continued to do so during the COVID-19 Crisis. There is much speculation about the role gender is playing in COVID-19 leadership. I will not add to this speculation, as this topic is far too complex to be addressed in this short piece. However, I will highlight some impressive anecdotal evidence supporting the case. Under Merkel’s leadership, Germany has seen much lower infection and death rates than France, the UK, Italy, and Spain – countries all led by men. Of the twenty-three nations led by women, only five have infection/death rates higher than the international mean. Some woman-led nations have seen exceptional results. New Zealand, Finland, Greece, Georgia, and Slovakia have had infection rates less than half of the global average (Source: WHO Coronavirus Dashboard). I believe these successes may reveal some important information about the benefits of feminine leadership, and I will discuss some of these strong female leaders in subsequent posts. Results of Leading with Character So how well did Angela Merkel’s leadership serve Germany in its efforts to confront the COVID-19 Crisis? Let’s start by looking at what those efforts entail. On March 22, Chancellor Merkel announced Germany’s plan for a “contact ban” that limited public gatherings to two people (outside families), required social distancing, and closed non-essential businesses. While the contact ban was not a lockdown, Merkel made a personal appeal to all Germans to act responsibly. She connected with the German people by speaking and acting in ways that demonstrated the true nature of her character. According to WHO data, Germany’s efforts and Merkel’s leadership paid off. By May 1, Germany was reporting approximately 1,600 cases per day – down from a peak in March of 6,800 cases per day. Based on these trends, the German government began a gradual easing of physical distancing measures. While the relaxation of physical distancing this summer led to an increase in new infections, Germany’s infection and death rates remain low. On September 23, the WHO reported daily new infections for the previous week of less than 1,800, indicating that Germany’s efforts and Merkel’s leadership continue to benefit Germany and its people. In comparison, during the same week, the much smaller nations of France, Spain, and the UK all saw significantly more daily new cases – approximately 10,000, 5,700, and 4,000, respectively. Angela Merkel knows who she is and what she values and believes. This allows her to trust herself to make hard decisions informed by those values and beliefs. This self-confidence enables her to build trust with those she leads. During her almost 15 years as Chancellor, she has demonstrated how strong leadership rooted in character can lead a nation through a crisis. While the COVID-19 Crisis is far from over, Angela Merkel is integrating all the pieces of her character to provide leadership and solutions that save lives. Who else has been leading with character? What other leaders have used their values and beliefs to inspire others to combat the pandemic? Who has risen to this challenge? Remember to think local and share stories we may not have heard.

15 Sep

Enduring Leadership in a Time of COVID

wdmoran Uncategorized 3 0

Crises test leaders. We all know this, and the new normal created by COVID-19 is proving that maxim every day. The news is full of examples of leadership greatness and leadership failures. Like many, I found myself getting sucked into the emotional swamp of the endless failures and disappointments. My wife, Laurie, encouraged me to find and celebrate the great leaders and leadership we have observed over the past few months. She inspired me to consciously change my focus and create a list of the COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen leaders. An ‘If–’ Sixteen Refresher: The concept of the ‘If–’ Sixteen comes from my book, If You Will Lead: Enduring Wisdom for 21st-Century Leaders(Agate B2, 2011). Based on Rudyard Kipling’s poem ‘If—’, the book identifies an essential leadership attribute associated with each of the poem’s sixteen couplets. Together, the ‘If–’ Sixteen define a path we may choose to follow to become better leaders. By incorporating the concept of “awareness and choice,” they form a comprehensive leadership structure that is timeless. The original ‘If–’ Sixteen are some of history’s greatest leaders, including giants like George Washington, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mother Theresa. I picked the original ‘If–’ Sixteen leaders because they led in ways that exemplified these leadership attributes described in the poem: As a lover of history, I largely chose historical figures who represented these leadership attributes. Only James and Louise Mulligan – whose stamina carried them through his seven-year internment as a North Vietnamese POW – are still living. I began considering which present-day leaders would comprise a modern ‘If–’ Sixteen. COVID ‘IF–’ SIXTEEN LEADERS I started compiling the COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen by prowling the internet for stories of leaders who have risen to the COVID challenge. Some names jumped up and screamed at me. Consider the boldness of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as she moved aggressively to seal New Zealand’s border while many world leaders dithered about how to respond. Or think about the integrity of Dr. Anthony Fauci as he defended the truth about how best to combat COVID-19 despite those who wished to ignore or silence him. Other leaders have shown a wide range of attributes. This crisis has also demanded more of some attributes than others. For example, I have been awed by the number of stories about leadership boldness and courage. So, this process of choosing a COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen will be hard, and it will be dynamic. Here’s the good news. In my first two hours of searching, I identified forty-seven worthy leaders for the sixteen slots. In the past weeks, I have found dozens more. With so many great leaders out there – and many of them not showing up on an internet search – I plan to make this an interactive process. I will provide the description of each of the ‘If–’ Sixteen attributes and the leader who held the spot on my original list. I will identify one current leader who could represent each attribute. The rest is up to you. I will invite readers to identify other leaders who exemplify the leadership attribute for them. Hopefully, we will end up with dozens of examples of leaders who inspire us to lead as they do. If it works the way I hope, this process will introduce us to new leaders and expose us to new aspects of well-known leaders. As you consider this list, be mindful not to limit yourself to leaders you like or whose beliefs align with your own. Don’t be offended if I write about someone you believe to be mistaken or wrong. While writing If You Will Lead, I learned more from the leaders with whom I disagreed than those with whom I was closely aligned. I know that all of the original ‘If–’ Sixteen leaders have baggage – they were human with all its imperfections. The COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen leaders will also have their own flaws. Be willing to accept those flaws and learn from every leader and every story. Stay open and be curious, so that you can learn from each leader and become a stronger leader in your own right. So here we go! ‘If–’ Sixteen Leadership Attribute #1: Character – The Wisdom to Know and Trust YourselfRonald Reagan holds this spot on my original list because of his willingness and ability to lead in a way that demonstrated who he was. His leadership was deeply rooted in his values, beliefs, and principles. For the COVID ‘If–’ Sixteen, I chose Chancellor Angela Merkel to represent character, because her leadership (especially during the COVID-19 crisis) has demonstrated her core values and beliefs. In my next post, I will further explain why I chose Chancellor Merkel and how her character-driven leadership has served her people. In the meantime, who do you think is leading with character? Tell us why you chose them and how their leadership has benefited others. Don’t limit yourself to well-known leaders. Use this as an opportunity to highlight some unsung heroes and quiet leaders.

← Older posts