Blog Entry
Too many leaders make fast (and wrong) decisions in the face of disagreement. They trust their own thinking, and then justify their decision based on what they interpret as positive results. Yet they fail to consider the cost of rejecting an opposing view that would have led to a different decision or additional insight.
Too often, I hear clients announce that they’re going to “hold someone accountable,” but what they’re really doing is angrily venting their frustration. Though the leader might feel justified by “coming down hard,” the impact is rarely positive, and often has nothing to do with accountability. Worse, the boss may leave feeling better once they’ve unloaded, but are often oblivious to their actual impact in terms of erosion of trust and decreased motivation.
Many of my coaching clients are results-driven leaders who have the outward appearance of confidence and a long list of accomplishments. So I’m often surprised by how much time I have to invest at the beginning of a coaching relationship to reinforce that my role is to develop, not evaluate, them. Early conversations sometimes feel like a cat and mouse game, with clients responding to questions as if it is my job to uncover their fatal flaws and their job to ensure none are revealed. But until the mindset of evaluation has shifted, there is little likelihood of growth.
What we call ‘common sense’ is really a collection of personal experiences and knowledge that we assume everyone else shares. But it is rarely as common as we assume. I’m confident that what is ‘common sense’ to an African American from Harlem would be ‘foreign intelligence’ to a small town white southerner like me! And yet most of us tend to take our knowledge and experience for granted, label these ‘common sense,’ and then judge harshly those who don’t act in concert with our world-view.
When one institutionalizes something special, it becomes routine. Corporate recognition programs are great examples of well-intended attempts to “automate” what should be meaningful interactions between colleagues. In my opinion, the ability of a leader to affirm others authentically is one of the most profound skills of effective leadership and one of the least mastered.
Our brains have minds of their own. At an early age, we instill beliefs in these minds that certain ‘noble’ principles must be maintained: be careful, be perfect, never fail, don’t let other’s fail, and even don’t walk through open windows. This mind holds fast to its belief systems as if they are unshakeable truths. It’s as if we all carry an overprotective mother in our heads. She shrieks, “Watch out!” any time we initiate an action that conflicts with her rules, even though our rational brain knows better.
Falling forward IS the strategy.
Like many executives, Chris overdid her strengths. Her intellect and confidence made her a dynamic visionary, but an ineffective change catalyst. Her communication flaw was something I refer to as the “jug head assumption:” Executives with this condition believe that communicating is like pouring water into a jug. You just open the lid of an empty mind and pour. Once full, communication is assumed to be complete…no spillage.
One way we help leaders develop their strategic thinking muscle is through the use of experiential exercises. In just a short time, these activities allow participants in leadership development programs to make decisions in a safe environment that reveal flawed “mental models” while they develop new mindsets.
