Tag Archives: Leadership
Six key lessons that executives can use to help them scale their firm successfully.
Douglas MacArthur’s mistakes following his victory at Inchon offer timeless lessons for today’s leaders. MacArthur’s post-Inchon decisions, shaped by overconfidence and a disregard for collaboration, expose the dangers of unchecked ambition and the importance of strategic humility in navigating complex challenges. We can learn from these lessons and use them to build stronger, more adaptive organizations.
Nearly 30 years ago, I was walking with my father. I was absolutely fuming. My wife and I had had an argument, and I was ranting – full of righteous indignation. After letting me go on for longer than most would have tolerated my carping, my father stopped and turned to me to ask two questions. First: “Are you through?” When I responded in the affirmative, he asked, “Why does this matter to you?” I remember thinking, “Haven’t you been paying attention?” Instead, I simply said, “I’m right,” and so, by extension, I believed she was wrong. Again, my father demonstrated the patience that I loved in him. He replied that, even if I was right, why did the issue we were fighting about matter. He encouraged me not to answer the question. “Just think about it while we walk.” For the next few blocks, I stewed on the question. I will admit that, for the first block or so, my righteous indignation won, but then something shifted. I started to think about the issue at the root of the initial argument. I have no recollection of what it was, but I do recall thinking that my father was on to something. The issue wasn’t nearly as important as I had made it. I had allowed my ego to produce an emotion-driven response to a relatively minor disagreement. No – this is not an article about marital harmony. My father’s question works in any relationship where conflict or contention plays a role. For most people, our work is fraught with conflicts and disagreements, and many times these situations turn unproductive because we allow ourselves to get sucked into arguments that don’t matter. Don’t get me wrong, there are many things that are worth fighting for and about. My point is that we typically waste our energy on the wrong things. We fail to recognize what matters. There are so many layers to the question, “Why does this matter?” Some are obvious: Some are less obvious, but potentially more relevant in terms of our emotional response: These are just a few of the angles to consider when we begin digging into the original question. I do not believe anyone can or should run through a long list of questions to determine whether they should or should not take a stand when an issue emerges. Rather, I am advocating for a deliberate response versus an instinctive response. When we force ourselves to stop (or even slow down) to examine why something is bothering us and to discern why it matters, we take a critical step in derailing unhealthy and unproductive emotional responses. This slight pause gives us the opportunity to respond deliberately and powerfully. One situation may compel us to take an immediate and firm stance while another may lead us to ignore the issue, and others may elicit something in between these extremes. Imagine a colleague with whom you have a healthy and slightly competitive relationship takes an action that benefits him but puts one of your projects in jeopardy. You learn about this in a large meeting with some important stakeholders, including your boss and the sponsor of the impacted project. Early in my career, my instinctive response would have been to get angry and go on the attack, creating a contentious situation and forcing a rash decision to resolve the issue. Instead, when we ask, “Why does this matter?” we may recognize that the best course of action is to take the issue offline and resolve it privately, or we may decide that immediate and decisive action is required. This moment of discernment is where the deeper questions listed above may come into play. We assess the urgency and the importance of a situation and act accordingly. Depending on how we answer these questions, we may accept the short-term disappointment or frustration of our stakeholders to preserve an important relationship. Conversely, we may decide that the risk is too great to wait, so we may confront the issues immediately and directly. Regardless of the choice, the act of slowing down and responding deliberately increases the probability of achieving our desired outcome. Those who know me well are likely to see in my example that the practice of asking why something matters is more of an aspiration than a habit. I am still too quick to go on the offensive when I feel threatened or slighted. However, I have come to learn that often the only thing being threatened is my ego. Developing this awareness has allowed me to take a response that is rooted in my core values rather than defensive reflex.
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.
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.