Every organization will have its own criteria for selecting team members. Pat MacMillan in his book, Hiring Excellence, has a chapter dedicated to the subject of candidate selection. His list of criteria includes:
- spiritual maturity and growth,
- emotional maturity,
- a willingness to be teachable,
- character and courage,
- a team player mindset,
- commitment to excellence,
- interest in this job,
- concern for people,
- demonstrated ability to set and achieve goals,
- intelligence, and
Pat concludes with this admonition, “Look for people who show a total life pattern of success consistently, over time.”
According to Peter Drucker, this is one of the biggest obstacles to innovation in public-service institutions. In Drucker’s 1985 book, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, he dedicates a chapter to this issue and begins with the statement that “most innovations in public-service institutions are imposed on them either by outsiders or by catastrophe.”
“They (service institutions) are good at building empires–and they always want to do more of the same. They resist abandoning anything they are doing. But they rarely innovate once they have been established.” Peter Drucker
Drucker’s list of three obstacles to innovation:
First, the public-service institution is based on a “budget” rather than being paid out of its results…And “success” in the public-service institution is defined by getting a larger budget rather than obtaining results.
Second, a service institution is dependent on a multitude of constituents…The public-service institution has to satisfy everyone, certainly, it cannot afford to alienate anyone.
Third, The most important reason, however, is that public-service institutions exist after all to “do good.” …If one is “doing good,” then there is no “better.”
If you were asked to identify the structure of your organization, you would probably pull out the organization chart and describe what each department does. The organization chart may be a picture of the structure of an organization, but is not a picture of how things get done. An organization chart shows the location of resources, not how things works.
Isn’t it strange, that whenever we seek to improve an organization one of the first things we do is restructure the organization chart. What we fail to do is change the way things get done.
One of the first principles of Lean is to directly observe work as activities, interconnections, and flow. As we learn to see work in this way—as interconnected activities and flow—we will also see things differently, and we will see opportunities to change things for the better.
Womack and Jones, authors of “The Machine that Changed the World,” define Value Stream as “The set of all specific actions required to bring a specific product through three critical management tasks of any business: …problem solving, …information management, …physical transformation.” As you gain an understand of the value streams within your organization, you discover the three categories of activity:
1. Steps that definitely create value
2. Steps that create no value but are necessary
3. Steps that create no value and can be immediately eliminated
Since no one wants to consider what they do as waste, the job of mapping and evaluating a value stream needs to be done at a fairly high level. And the focus needs to be on four basic principles:
1. Add nothing but value (eliminate waste)
2. Focus on the people who add value (transfer authority and responsibility to the people who are adding value)
3. Let value flow from demand (eliminate as many handoffs as possible, expose problems as soon as they arise, and correct immediately)
4. Optimize across the organization
I once had a friend tell me he was concerned that his boss, the CEO, was not telling the Board of Directors the truth. That is a terrible place to be in any organization, and one I would not wish on my worst enemy.
If you are a member of the Board, how do you know your CEO is telling you the truth?
“Well,” you say, “we trust him.” Or, “We’ve known her for a long time.” Or, “He’s my wife’s brother.”
I believe in the power of trust, and think it is the key to great leadership, but as a Director, you are accountable to the moral ownership of the organization, and the CEO is accountable to you.
So, how do you answer the question, “How do you really know your CEO is telling you the truth?” John Carver in Reinventing Your Board, suggests three ways a Board can acquire accountability data:
(a) by internal reports, in which the CEO discloses compliance information to the Board,
(b) by external reports, in which an external, disinterested third party selected by the Board to assess compliance with board policies, and
(c) by direct board inspection, in which a designated member or members of the Board assess compliance with the appropriate policy criteria.”
The problem with Boards is it is easy to get lazy and only look at the internal reports–a report created by or under the direction of the CEO–and not look at the external reports and direct inspection that are needed to get a true picture of the CEO’s performance in achieving the “Ends” of the organization.
Carver reminds us that the “Board members and CEO are colleagues.” The relationship is “collegial, not hierarchical.” However, the Board’s desires must be clear, and the CEO response must be in compliance with those desires. Both have a job to do and need to be “personally responsible” for the job they do.
They also need to be “cumulatively responsible,” or as Carver puts it, “accountable for the total contribution and compliance of his or her team, however extensive that team might be.” How will you know if the CEO is accountable? Start using your entire accountability toolkit: internal reports, external reports, and direct inspection.
A little over twelve years ago The Drucker Foundation published Leading for Innovation and Organizing for Results. Contributers included Clayton Christensen, Jim Collins, C. William Pollard, Margaret J. Wheatley, and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. It has proven to be one of the most practical guides for anyone seeking to lead their organization to greater levels of performance.
Kanter’s chapter, Creating the Culture for Innovation, is most helpful, not so much in how she outlines how innovation is started, but in how she outline how innovation is stopped. Her “rules for stifling innovation,” are as follows:
1. Be suspicious of every new idea from below—because it’s new and because it’s from below. (After all, if the idea were any good, senior people would have thought of it already.)
2. Insist that people who need your approval to act go through several other levels of management first. (Most will fade away before getting back to you.)
3. Ask departments or individuals to challenge and criticize one another’s proposals. (That saves you the job of deciding; you just pick the survivors.)
4. Express criticisms freely, and withhold your praise. (That keeps people on their toes.) Let them know they could be fired at any time.
5. Treat identification of problems as signs of failure, to discourage people from letting you know when something in their area isn’t working. (Fear of mistakes will reduce risks.)
6. Control everything carefully. Make sure people count everything that can be counted, frequently. (That ensures a tight ship with nothing extra for unproven plans.)
7. Make decisions to reorganize or change policies in secret, and spring them on people unexpectedly. (That also keeps people on their toes.)
8. Make sure that requests for information are fully justified; don’t give it out freely.
9. Assign to lower-level managers, in the name of delegation and participation, responsibility for figuring out how to cut back, lay off, move people around, or otherwise implement threatening decisions you have made. And get them to it quickly.
10. And above all, never forget that you, the leaders, already know everything important about the business. (Isn’t that why you’re in charge?)
“A kaleidoscope, not a computer, is the ultimate weapon to help leaders meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. It represents the ever-changing patterns and endless new possibilities, powered by human imagination, that lie at the heart of innovation.” (Rosabeth Moss Kanter)
If you are new to leadership and you want to connect with your team in a meaningful way, try telling them your story. Begin with the story you don’t need to memorize, the one you already know, the story of who you are. “Before anyone allows you to influence them,” writes Annette Simmons, “they want to know, ‘Who are you and why are you here?”
Put away the research, the vision statement, the plan of work, and tell them who you are. Where did you come from? Who are your heroes? What events have shaped your life? Tell them about a time you laughed, a time you cried, a time you fell, a time you got up and tried again. Annette Simmons tells us, “At a deep level we know that true strength is found not in perfection, but in understanding our own limitations. A leader who demonstrates this self-knowledge (by telling their story) demonstrates strength.”
“Truth, naked and cold, had been turned away from every door in the village. Her nakedness frightened the people. When Parable found her she was huddled in a corner, shivering and hungry. Taking pity on her, Parable gathered her up and took her home. There, she dressed Truth in story, warmed her and sent her out again. Clothed in story, Truth knocked again at the villagers’ doors and was readily welcomed into the people’s houses. They invited her to eat at their table and warm herself by their fire.” Jewish Teaching Story from The Story Factor by Annette Simmons
Some are doing good things for great reasons. They are doing good to change a life. They are doing good to heal a hurt. They are doing good for future generations.
But many people are doing good for bad reasons. They are doing good to gain an advantage. They are doing good to hide a fault or mask a wrong. They are doing good in order to put others down. They are doing good, but doing it for no good reason.
I am convinced the act of doing good and the motive for doing good are both important. Don’t stop the good work, but ask yourself, “Why am I doing it.” Make your answer a good one.
Pat MacMillan, in his book “The Performance Factor,” gives one of the best definitions of a leader I have ever seen, and not just any leader, but a leader who’s leadership is accepted by the team. Pat’s characteristics of “Accepted Leadership” is as follows:
1. Accepted Leaders appreciate the collective brilliance of a team.
2. Accepted Leaders believe in the power of diversity.
3. Accepted Leaders see team leadership as a role from which to serve.
4. Accepted Leaders see leadership and power as something to be released and shared.
5. Accepted Leaders understand that teams are all about tasks.
So, how do you measure up?
You want to be heard and appreciated. But, how do you do that without sounding like it is all about you?
One of the first things you need to do is acknowledge that there is very little you do that you do all by yourself. So why not talk about all of the people and all of the contributions that came together to make this “good thing” happen. You can mix yourself up in the story, but tell the “whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
In the end, you will feel great because the story got told, and all of your friends (and maybe some who were not friends) will feel great because their story got told. You don’t have to remain silent, or take a back seat. Just give credit where credit is due, even if it isn’t all about you.
Look back on your own experience with leadership and ask yourself the question: “Who had the greatest impact on the organizations and teams in which I have had a part?”
Start by thinking about all of the leaders you have known and admired. Then pick the one who really stands out from the rest, and write down what you saw, heard, and felt about the way they led. Yes, write it down.
Now, what do you see? Perhaps what you see is a great place to start your own leadership journey.
Too many leaders act as if the sheep… their people… are there for the benefit of the shepherd, not that the shepherd has responsibility for the sheep. (Ken Blanchard)