+61 8 8123 0393 info@insyncms.com.au

Giving Feedback

Giving and receiving feedback is fundamental to the growth and development of us all, but is very often difficult for the giver and confronting for the receiver.

There are many reasons for this. For example, if you’re due for a performance review, you may experience negative emotions and anxiety caused by the fear of being told that your ability, behaviour, or performance isn’t meeting expectations. Inversely, if you need to provide feedback, you may not have the experience or maturity to deal with the effect caused by your feedback, especially if it is likely to be taken badly and you’re not sure how to deliver your message.

Anecdotally, the performance of annual or bi-annual performance reviews alone are totally ineffective. In the weeks leading up to a performance review period, the reviewer will often need to take time out of their normal routine to think back over the past six or twelve months and draft their review notes. Some organisations transfer much of this responsibility to those being reviewed, requiring them to complete templated forms detailing their past achievements and future goals.

There are three key problems with this system:

  1. It is highly disruptive for the weeks leading up to the reviews.
  2. It creates anxiety for both the giver and receiver, that for the receiver, may last sometime after the review.
  3. The goals set tend to focus on hitting targets for revenue or some other KPI, rather than homing in on the underlying behavioural or performance issues that would support the achievement of the desired improvement or change.

Sometimes, people’s pride or ego may prevent them from accepting the feedback, causing them to disengage or even become agitated or angry. If the giver is at all narcissistic, egotistical, or even has feelings of inferiority, they may magnify the severity of the issues or behaviours that constitute the feedback.

Either way, these are common and normal feelings experience during the ‘build up’ to a performance review and they are completely avoidable.

The anxiety sometimes felt by those giving feedback can be alleviated by ensuring proper preparation for the encounter.

We should also remember that not all feedback is negative, and even negative feedback should, in cases were the behaviour or issue is not deliberate or malice, be given in an upbeat, positive manner. The feedback should be seen as identifying the opportunity to improve and do and be better.

A good habit to develop is to record an individual’s positive and negative behaviour and performance in a dedicated notebook. The notebook is then used to recall specific behaviour and performance issues in the lead-up and preparation for the review. Feedback should also be given at the time of the behavioural or performance issue and recorded in the notebook for later review to gauge if the behaviour or performance has improved. A caveat for using a performance notebook is that you need to ensure the book is treated with the utmost confidentiality as it may be used to record sensitive and personal information.

The importance of feedback

Feedback is critical for our development and improvement. We are often too close to our behaviours, traits, and habits to have the proper perspective to see and understand their impact on us, on other’s and on the tasks or work we do.

To change and improve we must first recognise that change is needed, that things could be better, that we could improve. We also need a reason to change, for without a compelling reason, we will not be motivated to action, or disciplined to completion. There are generally only to reasons why people change, and these are to receive a reward or avoid a ramification. By this, I’m not suggesting that giving feedback and inspiring change should employee a carrot or stick mentality. Rather, what I’m saying is for someone to act and make meaningful adjustments that positively change their behaviour or performance, they must see a benefit or disbenefit attach to them making, or not making the change.

It’s only when we recognise that we have the potential to do or be better and have the drive to achieve the desired future performance level that improvement will occur. It image below shows the relationship between potential and drive on performance. It is entirely possible that an individual who possesses the skills and ability to excel may not, due to a lack of drive or motivation. The inverse is also true for those who want to succeed but lack what it takes at the time. Performance is the coming together of potential and drive and normally requires some form of ‘trigger’ to act as the catalysis for performance. This may be something as subtle as the person’s supervisor engaging with them and letting them know they are doing a great job and see bigger things in their future, to the opportunity to lead an exciting project that could result in a promotion.

The power of feedback is that it can alert us to our blind spots and allow us to consider our behaviour or performance from a different perspective. This is why the best feedback always starts by asking the subject “how do you rate or feel about your performance on…..?”. This allows the giver of the feedback to understand how the subject perceives their performance and therefore allows the feedback to be tailored to address any blind spots or misperceptions.

The giver of the feedback may then continue giving feedback through the process of asking questions that result in the receiver describing how they perceive their performance across multiple performance criteria, steered by the giver and allowing the giver to simply agree or disagree and to explain why.

When giving feedback you must be objective and honest, but this does not mean you should be blunt, brutal, or mean. You should ensure your feedback is CLEAR. CLEAR is an acronym that stands for Context, Language, Examples, Alternatives, Reset, and is explained below:

Context. When giving feedback it is important to provide context and relate the behaviour or performance to whatever negative outcome or result it manifests. This might be telling them that others performance is also impacted, or safety jeopardised, by their behaviour.

Language. How you give your feedback is as important as the feedback itself. Be aware of the receiver’s circumstances and tailor your feedback accordingly. This maybe because the undesirable behaviour or poor performance is due to a situation affecting the subject of your feedback and demonstrating empathy and compassion may be the best way to kickstart the change. Except in specific circumstances where bad behaviour or poor performance is deliberate or done with malice, your language should be inspiring, motivating, and positive.

Examples. It is important to give tangible examples of poor behaviour or low performance. You might say something like “when you do XX, it disrupts others by distracting them from their work, resulting in lost productivity”.

Alternatives. Identifying, establishing, and setting the standard for receivers is necessary. Giving receivers alternatives to their current behaviours or performance provides the direction they may need to make the change.

Reset. Once the feedback has been given, to not harp on about it. Allow the receiver time to absorb the feedback, develop and execute their plan for change, and set realistic review points to check in and gauge their progress. If the plan is not returning the necessary results, help them make adjustments and move on. Don’t forget the plan should be SMART – Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timebound.

Remember, the feedback you give is your observation and perception of the receiver’s performance. Never apologise or feel bad about the feedback you give as it is a reflection of the receiver’s behaviour or performance. You are merely raising their awareness of how you, and possibly others view them.

Feedforward

Feedback is retrospective and by virtue of its approach seeks to identify behaviour or performance issues, good or bad, and in the case of bad, to inspire or impose change. The real opportunity is to identify opportunities to coach your followers to continuously improve their behaviours and performance, and consequently their outcomes, rather than waiting for problems to occur. This approach is similar to the lessons learnt process used at the start of new projects. Based on a retrospective or post-mortem performed at the end of another similar project, the lessons learnt process seeks to prevent past problems from occurring in future projects. Similarly, feedforward seeks to head off future behavioural and performance issues by identifying and preventing the formation of bad habits.

Servant Leadership

Servant Leadership is a term that was first introduced into the leadership vernacular in 1970 by retired AT&T executive Robert K. Greenleaf. Greenleaf coined the term to describe what he believed was a type of leadership that was missing in corporations at the time. Greenleaf identified the need for a type of leadership where the leader’s role was to facilitate the success of their followers for the greater good of the organisation. It was Greenleaf’s belief that leadership should be based on serving the needs of others and helping them to serve those who they lead so that they would in turn become Servant Leaders themselves.

But Greenleaf did not invent the concept of Servant Leadership. One of the earliest examples of Servant Leadership is captured in biblical scriptures describing Jesus washing the feet of his disciples and telling them to wash each other’s feet. This was a demonstration by Jesus, that leadership is not about having power over others, but rather giving power to them. Within the military context, one of the most crucial ranks in most armies is that of the Sergeant. The word Sergeant derives its origins from the Latin word Serviens, which means to serve.

Greenleaf worked on the concept of Servant Leadership for 20 years, but it did not gain popular status until Greenleaf passed away in 1990. While there has been a lot written about the concept of Servant Leadership since 1970, it has been criticised due to the lack of published empirical research on the topic.

While most people would interpret and understand Greenleaf’s concept of Servant Leadership, as the ‘leader as servant’, his notion of the ‘servant as leader’ may be less understood. This is a very important distinction as the ‘servant as leader’ draws a very different image of the role of the leader. This misinterpretation has happened because like so many leadership concepts, much of the research and literature has not been fully read or understood by those espousing it. This is evident in the common abbreviation of Greenleaf’s seminal essay on the subject entitled “The Servant as Leader” to “Servant Leadership”. Greenleaf never intended for the Servant as Leader to be interpreted literally as the Servant Leader, which conjures images of leaders being subservient to their followers and where the leader needs to transform into a servant. Rather, Greenleaf inferred that servants can, and should lead and that this mindset of the Servant as Leader should be front of mind for all leaders as they ascend the leadership ladder.

Supporters of Servant Leadership see it as an altruistic form of leadership where the leader acts as steward and influences their followers through the demonstration of leadership behaviours and characteristics such as integrity, honesty, and empathy manifested as a genuine concern for their followers. Hence, as humans are not autonotoms and perform better when they are able to relate to their leader and feel a sense of belonging to a group or organisation, it is logical to assert that the application of Servant Leadership will help leaders influence their followers.

Greenleaf wrote about the Servant Leader being a servant first and referenced ‘Leo’ a character from a story Greenleaf read about Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the East. In this story, Leo served a wealthy family and was central to maintaining harmony and proper functioning of the group. At a certain point, Leo disappears and the family falls into disarray. Later Hesse finds Leo leading a group of his own people and realises that it was Leo’s leadership and influence that had unified the family.

Servant Leadership begins with a natural desire to serve first. Then conscious choice, the situation, and time allows the servant to grow and want to lead. A person who is a servant first is very different from one who is a leader first. One who desires to lead first may desire this based on a feeling or need for power, or merely to acquire material possessions. In some cases this person may later choose to serve after leadership is established.

“The leader-first and the servant first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature”.

Robert K. Greenleaf

The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the Servant Leader to ensure other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best way to think about Servant Leadership is to ask if those being led grow as people because of the Servant Leader’s leadership? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived? This is where Servant Leaders need to be careful not to desire the adoration of their followers to the point of being weak or soft on bad behaviour or poor performance. This is what I refer to as the “Nice Leader Fallacy”.

Critics of Servant Leadership cite the lack of published research on the efficacy of the concept and infer that so long as leadership is associated with power, leaders will not be able or willing, to adopt a higher standard of leadership. It is especially true of leaders in business and in politics that the task of achieving ever greater returns for shareholders or winning the next election means there is a significant focus on the task or mission rather than on the welfare of the followers. In this scenario, the followers, aka workers or voters are merely tools for the leader to achieve their goals.

At the end of the 20th Century, there were at least 650 definitions of leadership. While there is no consensus on the meaning of the word leadership, most would agree that leadership is the process of influencing people to achieve shared goals and deliver a vision.

This implies that the followers, follow the leader not because they are forced to, or because they are being paid, but rather because they believe in the leader and the leader’s vision.

Leadership is a very broad discipline and covers self-leadership, often in the context of self-discipline and self-actualisation or transcendence, religious organisations, sporting teams, charities and non-profit organisations, emergency services, and the military, politics, and business.

Some examples of true leaders include Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa. These leaders were able to mobilise large groups of people to follow them and indeed to participate in the execution of their missions and visions, without being paid or coerced, and without fear of punishment for non-compliance.

Based on the above ‘common definition’ and examples, true leadership can only exist if there is an absence of authority, with no consequence for the followers who choose not to comply or follow. This is because where the ‘leader’ has authority over the followers, they are not truly leading them, they are directing them. In this scenario, if the follower chooses not to follow, there are consequences. These might be being overlooked for a promotion or being found unsuitable to continue in the organisation, and in some situations could result in more dire consequences such as imprisonment or worse.

Does this mean that the concept of Servant Leadership is not valid in modern society? I don’t believe so. I believe strongly in Servant Leadership as a concept and an approach to leading. In my view Servant Leadership is a logical approach to empowering others to achieve results and for the leader to clear the path and provide the support necessary. I can’t think of a circumstance where this type of leadership would be seen as anything other than appropriate. I do, however, acknowledge that leaders who do not feel secure or safe in their positions will succumb to the pressure to return results more rapidly or in line with unreasonable projections. These leaders are likely to revert to a more authoritarian style of leadership.

This is not a failure of Servant Leadership, but rather a failure of the individual leader. Anyone can apply Servant Leadership and lead high performing teams during an economically prosperous time and within a stable industry. Reverse the circumstances and ask the same leader to lead in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous time and they will likely adopt a much more authoritarian leadership style.

This purist version of leadership, where the leader influences their followers through willing consent is very different to the type of leadership delivered in virtually all business settings. Hence, I submit that there are almost no cases where “business leaders” are in fact leaders at all. Herein lies the dilemma for the future of leadership within a business context, as business leaders do indeed have authority over their followers and there are consequences for followers who choose not to follow.

Business leaders can direct their followers, known as employees, to perform the actions laid down within their employment contracts, which they have agreed to. Therefore, in this context, this type of leadership is not leadership at all, but rather a form of what I refer to as ‘Corporate Command’.

Business tends to follow social trends and the current trend, which has been growing for more than 20 years and seems to be gaining mass, is that of a more socialist, left-wing ideology. For business leaders, most of whom are currently of older generations, this presents a significant challenge.

The challenge for leaders will be how to drive results and maximise shareholder profits while attracting and retaining top talent? I believe the answer lies in the culture of modern organisations, the moral character of the leaders and the attitude and loyalty of the followers.

Organisations and their leaders need to keep pace with changing social attitudes if they are to offer new entrants into their organisations the type of workplace experience expected by those now entering the job market. My own observations of Millennials and Gen Z, indicates they are less focused on salary and status and more focused on job satisfaction and inclusion. They have also grown up in affluent times, are more educated than previous generations, and enter the workforce with little or no previous work experience. Whilst these have been my observations and perceptions, I acknowledge there is little empirical research on the topic.

Business is changing rapidly. Technological advances, social change, geopolitical instability, quantitative-easing and hyper-inflation, the rapid push to ‘green energy’, and the “long pandemic”, all represent an enormous challenge for current and emerging leaders. But change is not a new phenomenon, and while the rate of change today is unarguably greater than at any time in history, the challenge for leaders remains fundamentally the same. How best to lead?

In the 1960’s, Laurance J. Peter established the ‘Peter Principle’ where he asserted that “in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to the level of incompetence”. Anecdotally, many leaders of company’s start their careers in technical or administrative fields, in which they excel. Over time, these individuals are promoted into leadership roles where the skills needed are very different from those of their previous roles. Leaders who expect to be experts in all facets of their business and remain up to date on the latest technologies and social trends will have little time left to lead. Leaders need to focus on the future and on leading, and need to place trust in the other members of the organisation to play their part.

If leaders are to rise to the challenge and lead in a humanistic yet effective manner, they will need to put aside their authority and their egos and discover the power of giving away their power. This is not to say that leaders should ignore underperformance or tolerate bad attitudes or behaviour. Followers have a role to play, and that role comes in the form of ‘servant as leader’.

One way that leaders can better lead during times of rapid change is to adopt a technique used by the military, known as Contributory Dissent. This is where the leader elicits and demands that followers challenge the status quo and contribute through constructive arguments, to discover the best way forward. Everything is on the table until it’s not. Contributory Dissent requires trust and a high level of psychological safety that gives followers the confidence and authority to propose all options. However, once a decision is made, everyone must accept the decision as if it were their own.

Another way that leaders can adapt to rapid change is to adopt a more principled based approach to business management and leadership. This is where the organisation adopts a ‘purpose over process’ approach which emphasises doing what’s right rather than blindly following orders or processes. This requires the leader to make their intent known and to empower and trust followers to make their own decisions and do what’s right. Followers should be encouraged to explore new ways to do business all the while supporting the leader’s intent and remaining firmly focused on the mission and vision.

Conclusion

While there is little empirical evidence that Servant Leadership is effective within the contextual framework of business leadership, it is a form of leadership that helps to distribute leadership throughout the organisation by empowering followers to also act as leaders. Probably the largest criticism of Servant Leadership, other than the lack of empirical research into its efficacy, is that it requires leaders to put aside their egos and relinquish their power and this is difficult for most leaders to do.

In dealing with a future that is changing so rapidly, I believe leaders need to understand the influences of social, generational, technological, environmental, and geopolitical forces on business and on people and adapt to a more humanistic form of leadership.

A final word on Servant Leadership.

The most significant criticism of Servant Leadership is its lack of efficacy. I have personally found that this can be addressed by concurrently employing other forms of leadership such as Situational Leadership developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in the 1970’s.

Critical Thinking

What is Critical Thinking?

The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos meaning “able to judge or discern”. Critical thinking is the ability to consistently apply sound judgment based on reliable information for the purpose of making good decisions. The best way to think about critical thinking is that it’s the type of thinking that should be applied to solving complex, complicated, and ‘wicked’ problems where finding the best solution is critical to success.

Before deep-diving into Critical Thinking, it’s useful to understand that there are other forms of thinking, the application of which are often more appropriate than critical thinking. This is because critical thinking is more difficult than non-critical thinking, can require significant research and time, and is often not warranted as the problems being solved are simple and their solutions are of little consequence. For example, you wouldn’t normally use critical thinking to help you decide whether you should choose coffee or tea for your morning beverage. The effort-to-reward ratio doesn’t stack up.

Some other forms of thinking include automatic thinking, which is often based on heuristics and applied to simple, everyday decision-making tasks such as coffee vs tea. Automatic thinking is sometimes referred to as ‘system one thinking’ thanks to the success of Daniel Kahneman’s best-selling book ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’. Other forms of thinking include analytical, design, systems, creative, abstract, and convergent and divergent thinking. These are all valid forms of thinking that when applied in the right circumstance help to inform decisions.

Critical thinking is a process-oriented approach to thinking that can help almost anyone be better at solving problems, rendering judgments, and making good decisions.

In simple terms, Critical thinking is a three-step process involving clarity, conclusion, and decision.

Critical thinking cannot, however, make you smarter as your innate Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is relatively fixed. Critical thinking can, however, help you to form better conclusions and make better decisions, maximising your mental capability and capacity which results in far better outcomes attributed to you. Consistently applying critical thinking to solve complex problems can be your superpower that allows you to surpass those with higher IQs who do not apply the critical thinking process, resulting in less consistent outcomes.

Before we delve into finding clarity, drawing conclusions, and making sound decisions, it’s important to understand logical reasoning.

Two kinds of logical reasoning are often distinguished in addition to formal deduction: induction and abduction. Given a precondition or premise, a conclusion or logical consequence, and a rule or material condition that implies the conclusion given the precondition, one can explain the following.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. For example: “When it rains, things outside get wet. The grass is outside, therefore; when it rains, the grass gets wet.” Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are commonly associated with this type of reasoning.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning attempts to support a determination of the rule. It hypothesizes a rule after numerous examples are taken to be a conclusion that follows from a precondition in terms of such a rule. For example: “The grass got wet numerous times when it rained, therefore: the grass always gets wet when it rains.” This type of reasoning is commonly associated with generalization from empirical evidence. While they may be persuasive, these arguments are not deductively valid.

Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning sometimes called inference to the best explanation, selects a cogent set of preconditions. Given a true conclusion and a rule, it attempts to select some possible premises that, if true also, can support the conclusion, though not uniquely. For example: “When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it might have rained.” This kind of reasoning can be used to develop a hypothesis, which in turn can be tested by additional reasoning or data. Diagnosticians, detectives, and scientists often use this type of reasoning.

Within the context of a mathematical model, these three kinds of reasoning can be described as follows. The construction/creation of the structure of the model is abduction. Assigning values (or probability distributions) to the parameters of the model is induction. Executing/running the model is deduction.

There are numerous other forms of reasoning, however, for the purposes of getting started with critical thinking deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning are the most widely used forms of reasoning and work to solve most problems. The image below details the basic steps involved in applying deductive and inductive reasoning to either validate a premise based on a sound conclusion or vice versa.

Almost all problems have some form of argument or premise that either validates the conclusion or is validated by the conclusion. We apply reasoning to validate the conclusion and/or premise. To help do this we can use a tool that can be remembered by the acronym FOEBA. FOEBA stands for Facts, Observations, Experiences, Beliefs, and Assumptions. We use FOEBA to perform research to help clarify the argument and ensure we have defined the problem correctly.

Facts

The facts of an argument contribute significantly to supporting or not supporting the premise and/or conclusion. It is important to perform sufficient research from a wide variety of sources to ensure you have all the relevant facts. You also need to ensure you understand the facts and how they apply in the context of the argument. Sometimes, facts can be difficult to find or prove for specific situations. This can be true for instances where the facts are unknown, some are missing, or they do not support a strong conclusion such as during an air crash investigation where the ‘black box’ failed.

Observations

Observations are useful in the absence of facts or when there are insufficient, known facts to fully support the argument. Using the crashed aircraft as an example, observing flames coming from one of its engines and flocks of albatross flying in the area might be a powerful observation that could contribute to solving the question of what happened. Equally, investigators’ observations at the crash site could help them establish that the aircraft hit a flock of albatross due to the presence of albatross feathers at the site.

Experience

Your experience and heuristics are very valuable assets as they are your firsthand account of similar situations and contribute to your knowledge, hence, your experience can also help you solve a problem. The closer your experience aligns with the problem you are trying to solve the more likely your experience will help. However, your experience can also lead you to make incorrect determinations as it is based on your past and the problem being solved may exist in the future where the situation is unknown. An example where your experience may be a powerful influence on you would be if you went to a restaurant and ended up with food poisoning. Your experience might cause you to conclude that eating in that same restaurant in the future will result in you getting sick again. You can see how this could be a biased presupposition based on your previous experience. Many changes may have occurred since you last ate at the restaurant, but I’ll bet you would find it hard to disagree with your experience and decide to eat there again in the future. The takeaway here is that your experience can have a positive or negative impact on your decisions so it’s always wise to understand this when using experience to help make decisions.

Beliefs

Like your experience, your beliefs can be a powerful influence on your decision-making. However, unlike your experience, your beliefs are much less likely to evolve over time and are much more likely to cause biases. Beliefs are established during your formative years and play a major role in your view of the world, circumstances, and situations and they can strongly influence your decisions. You only need to look through history to understand how people’s beliefs led to racist, homophobic, religious, and misogynistic policies and decisions that have resulted in mass oppression and wars. Having said that, belief in sound principles such as ‘fair play’, the proper uses of logical reasoning, and the truth of facts will likely be a positive influence on your decisions.

Assumptions

Solving complex and complicated problems is challenging. One of the main challenges is not having sufficient facts, observations or experiences, or beliefs to draw a valid conclusion. This is where assumptions can be used to fill the gaps in your hypotheses. Assumptions are thoughts you have that you presume to be correct. Based on your assumptions you can come to a conclusion. This is where you can fall into the trap of believing your assumptions are correct. When using critical thinking, you must always ask “how do I know my assumptions are correct”? The best approach to assumptions is to not make them without knowing how you arrived at them and if you cannot validate them.

The figure below shows the relationship between a premise, FOEBA, and the conclusion.

We hope this post has provided some valuable insights into the critical thinking process. Good luck incorporating critical thinking into your decision-making at work and in life more generally.

Does the weather reign over your leadership?

How you ‘feel’ impacts how you think, the decisions you make, and the way you act. If you feel sad or down, it’s likely your shoulders will be drooped, you will have a tight jaw or frown, and you may even move more slowly and drag your feet. Interestingly the opposite is also true. You can positively or negatively affect your mental state or ‘mood’ through your physical state. 

Try this quick experiment. Stand up, place your hands on your hips and smile, really smile, for five to ten seconds. If you weren’t happy before, I’m guessing you feel happier now. This is because your physiology really does affect how you feel and vice versa. There are anthropological reasons for this that stem back to times when seeing the physical state of someone from a neighbouring tribe or clan, friendly and calm, or agitated and threatening, would rapidly change your posture and your mindset in a reflexive way. Coming face to face with a dangerous wild animal would also cause this reflexive physical response such as when you are surprised by a venomous snake or confronted by a wild dog. In modern times, we can relate this to stepping off the curb and being surprised by a car speeding toward us. Reflexively, without stopping to think, we’ll step back onto the curb and then feel a sense of fear and anxiety followed by relief and the understanding that we need to be more aware and careful in the future. Hence, this physical response is accompanied by a neurological response. 

As a leader, your mood and your emotions will obviously affect how you feel and some situations will impact you more severely than others; however, it’s important that you don’t allow your feelings to control your judgment, decisions, or actions. You must be able to remain composed and act in a rational manner consistent with your values and character. This is not to say that you should never display normal human emotions, but you must ensure that you control these emotions and their outward display so you can demonstrate appropriate compassion and empathy without over-reacting. You need to remember that as a leader you are always on the stage and your mic is always on. You need to be able to read the situation and your followers and give them just enough emotional response to ensure they remain connected and engaged with you, but not so much that they are able to influence you to change your decisions and behaviour just to appease them.  

There are obviously exceptions to every rule and extreme circumstances may require you to comfort your followers, especially individuals suffering from a personal tragedy, but even in such situations you still need to keep a degree of professional distance and remain stoic. If you break down and display too much emotion, you may well connect with your follower at a very deep level, but you will have crossed the line from objective professional leader to friend. On the surface, this may seem appropriate, harmless, and even desirable, however once the situation has passed it is very difficult to resume the previous leader-follower relationship.  

During less dramatic, yet high stress circumstances or even during times of significant frustration there is no place for the display or influence of negative emotions or neuroticism. Whether you realise it or not, as a leader, you do lead by example. The way you act and carry yourself sets the standard for your followers. 

Followers respond best to consistent leader behaviours. If you suffer from “mood swings” or make your followers join you on regular roller coaster rides of emotional highs and lows, they won’t know how to act around you and may even second guess whether they are going to get Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde and modify their behaviour to suit.  

Leaders also need to extend their desirable, consistent, and stoic behaviour to their decision making to ensure they always exercise sound judgment and make good decisions; or at least the fairest, least worst decisions possible. In doing so, the leader will develop and keep the trust and respect of their followers. 

When exercising judgment and making decisions, it’s important to employ critical thinking and not succumb to our biases or heuristics. We must remain objective and always focus on the mission and the greatest good. We must also choose what we believe in and value carefully as our beliefs and values drive our behaviours and decisions so choose wisely. 

Once the leader can consistently keep their emotions under control and demonstrate sound judgment and decision making, they must be able to effectively influence their followers without the need for manipulation or coercion. Leaders need to be able to compel their followers with their knowing and willing consent otherwise they are exercising directive control, which is only appropriate in specific circumstances. I used the term compel not in a negative way such as manipulation for the malevolent benefit of the leader, but rather in a manner to convince the follower to act in the interest of the greater cause, even if to their own detriment. Critically, this compulsion must be with the follower’s knowledge and consent and at no time is it acceptable to use passive aggressive behaviour, coercion, or manipulation in place of genuine influence.  

While the leader needs to be able to influence their followers, he or she needs to be wary not to be adversely influenced by their followers and not acquiesce to their demands. 

We have all heard the saying “make a decision and stick to it”. I always caveat this by saying “make the RIGHT decision and stick to it”. Realising you have made the wrong decision, admitting it, and correcting that error takes courage and is the sign of a mature leader, although consistently making wrong decisions is likely a sign of poor judgment. The leader has a responsibility to act fairly and make the decisions that result in firstly the best outcome for the mission and secondly the least harm possible. In doing so, the leader must act fairly if he or she wants to retain the loyalty of their followers. Leaders can’t allow their emotions or moods to impact their objective and fair decision making. Individuals will accept decisions that negatively impact them if they trust their leader and know the decision is best for the mission and is fair. If your followers do not, you need to consider if you have the right followers? 

Leading from the Front with Distributed Leadership

Leading from the front is one of the most misunderstood and miscommunicated leadership principles. When most people think about leading from the front they conjure images in their mind of some great military commander out front, sword in hand, engaging with the enemy. Unfortunately, this cinematic representation of leadership is romanticised and is seriously skewed. The sword-wielding warrior will certainly be demonstrating some enthusiastic leadership prowess, right up to the point when he is killed in the first skirmish.

One of the hardest lessons to learn in the military is that good leaders need to remove themselves from the “doing” and focus on the leading. This is because you can’t observe and adjust the plan if you’re neck deep digging a fighting pit. You need to step back and observe your part of the battlefield and direct your troops to where they are needed. You can also command the reserve troops and coordinate fire support, logistics, resupply, and so on. You can’t do these things if your head is in a hole or if you are fighting or you are dead. Don’t get me wrong, there will be times when you must get your hands dirty, and all hands are on deck. But this is the exception to the rule, not the rule.

Stepping back and commanding your troops or staff can be an uncomfortable feeling, especially if you have been promoted from within the ranks and used to be at the same level. But you are no good to anyone if you are unable to lead because you are too involved in the work or you’re metaphorically dead.

The etymology of the word leader comes from the Old English word ‘lædan’ meaning ‘to go before as a guide’. It was first used in English in the 14th century to describe a person in charge, and then various other uses came about later. Leaders were known to be those people who would step into the darkness holding a lantern and charting the way. They often put themselves at greater risk resulting in personal sacrifice or sanction.

So, how do you lead from the front whilst maintaining oversight of the battlefield? The answer is distributed leadership.

Distributed leadership is not delegating. Delegation is the specific assignment of responsibility for an activity or task without authority. That means the individual who has been delegated the activity or task is responsible and accountable but has no authority over how it is to be completed. The authority remains vested in the leader who assigned the delegation.

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, leaders should not allocate subordinate leaders responsibility for a task without also giving them the authority to complete it.

Delegation has its place, but only so far as to allocate specific work or functions to subordinates. If leaders constantly delegate, work just gets pushed down the chain of command, causing people who have got less time and earn less money to complete the work. This can result in a workforce resenting leaders within the organisation as their perception of those in power is that they are lazy and just off-load their work onto others.

The purpose of distributed leadership is to increase the leadership capacity within an organisation. It is the transfer of part of the leader’s power to subordinate leaders, allowing them the freedom to lead their part of the organisation autonomously, whilst remaining aligned to the vision, mission, and values of the organisation.

Employing a distributed leadership model requires subordinate leaders to be given the autonomy to make key decisions in their areas of responsibility. This autonomy is central to achieving the objective of empowering leaders and giving them ownership of their part of the organisation.

They should not be micromanaged, and for new senior leaders, this can be a hard thing to do. Affording members of your senior or middle leadership team this level of autonomy requires a huge amount of trust and this is often outside the comfort zone for many senior leaders.

However, this trust needs to be earned as it is dangerous to give ineffective leaders full autonomy – therefore the term “earned autonomy” is common.

Distributed leadership empowers subordinate leaders to lead from the front and frees up senior leaders to maintain one eye on the battlefield and the other on the vision.

Most militaries employ distributed leadership. Military commanders know that leadership decisions must be allowed to be made by the individual who is closest to the action; hence, they push leadership responsibility down to the lowest level practicable.

“Great leaders do not create followers, they create more leaders.” Tom Peters

The concept of distributed leadership has significant benefits for the military but can equally benefit business, especially when employed with mission command. The six key benefits of employing a distributed leadership model are:

  1. Effectiveness – Accurate decisions and solutions that best address the situation.
  2. Decisive Action – Action that is deliberate and targets the specific issue or circumstance.
  3. Efficiency – Timeliness of decision making and responsiveness of the solution.
  4. Ownership – Full ownership, buy-in, and belief in the decisions at the level where they will have the most impact.
  5. Empowerment – Empowerment of subordinate leaders, leading to their growth, loyalty, and retention.
  6. Ethics– Leaders who are close to the issues and those they affect are more likely to be empathetic and make more ethical decisions.

Locus of Control

If — by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;

If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Locus of Control

The world is not out to get you, in fact in the big scheme of things you really don’t matter at all. There are currently some 7.9 billion people on the planet which is more people than have existed throughout all time in history. Of this all most uncomprehendable number, there are only a few thousand notable individuals who have made their mark in the annals of history. Hence, it’s unlikely that very many of us will be shortlisted to notoriety. Most of us will not write a best seller, star in a block buster movie, be president of a country, a company or even a local football club, and most of us won’t retire wealthy with a holiday house in the Bahamas. In fact, for most of us, the best we can hope for is to live a rewarding life without suffering too many significant losses and to die at a ripe old aged surrounded by our loved ones.

But maybe the world is being unfair to us. Maybe if it just through us the occasional bone, or gave us a handout every so often, we would feel and do so much better and achieve so much more!

But the reality is the world doesn’t owe us anything, nor do any of the billions of other temporary occupants of the planet and to think otherwise is naive.

Quote by Mark Twain

“Don’t go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.

So, should we just accept our fate and give up now, or to we get angry and rebel against the establishment, and demand to be given the same outcome as those few who we deem to be privileged?

Or is there an alternative to this drama. An alternative to why we feel so oppressed and victimised? And, if the world truly isn’t out to get us, are there things we can do to get ahead and arrest this feeling of victimisation.

Is it possible that our situation is not the result of an oppressive world, and that other people are struggling just as much as we are to get ahead and have the best life they can? Sure, the world is full of difficulties and prejudices, but is it possible that everyone is going through something, and you are not unique in how you feel?

What if your inability to succeed was all in your head? What if you are discriminating against yourself by believing you are unable to get a head because no matter how hard you try the world is against you? Do you think this mindset would be helpful or would it predispose you to think, feel and believe, it’s all hopeless and everything is out of your control?

If two equally qualified, competent people of the same age, race, gender, and orientation, interviewed for a job you would assume they would both have an equal chance of winning it, right?

Wrong. One of the biggest discriminators in this and many other situations in life is the mindset of the individuals. If one person believes that they have no control over the outcome and that it is solely upto others to decide if they are worthy, they will present with ‘tells’ that will be picked up upon; whereas, if the other person presents with confidence and a mindset that they are in control of their future this will also be evident and in a close competition will likely be the difference between being selected or not.

This is often best seen in sporting competitions where competitors are so closely matched that the result cannot be predetermined. In this scenario, it will almost always be the individual with the superior mindset who will win.

In life, we ultimately hit what we aim for. If our focus is on being victims, then that is what we will become. In 1954 Julian B. Rotter’s research identified what he called people’s Locus of Control. What he discovered was that those who believe they are in charge of their own destiny have what he referred to as an Internal Locus of Control, whereas those who believe that outside factors control their destiny have an External Locus of Control.

A person’s “locus” (place or location) is conceptualized as Internal, when they believe they can control their own life, or External, when they believe life is controlled by outside factors they can’t influence, or that chance or fate controls their lives.

Having an Internal Locus of Control, believing you set your own destiny, will allow you to focus your attention on succeeding rather than obsessing about the world being against you and ultimately leading you to failure.

Internals believe that their hard work will lead to positive outcomes. They also believe that every action has its consequence, which makes them accept the fact that things happen, and it depends on them if they want to have control over them or not.

Externals attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. People with an External Locus of Control tend to believe that the things which happen in their lives are out of their control, and even that their own actions are a result of external factors, such as fate, luck, and the influence of others. They believe the world is too complex to predict, or successfully control its outcomes. Such people tend to blame others rather than themselves for the outcomes in their lives. People with an External Locus of Control also tend to be more stressed, neurotic, and prone to clinical depression.

This simple shift in mindset from an External Locus of Control to an Internal Locus of Control could make all the difference to how you live your life and therefore what you get back in return.

Believing you are in control of your own destiny comes with the added benefit of contributing to your general wellbeing and happiness and surely that alone is worth striving for.

The Nice Leader Fallacy

If you believe the constant barrage of social media posts, good business leaders are those who focus on taking care of their people, being empathic, and being nice, but like so many ideologies, this opinion has been communicated by a noisy minority with an agenda, but no valid argument. This agenda seeks to conflate the employment of staff by an organisation with a responsibility by the leader to take care of the staff in a way that far exceeds any moral obligation or legal requirement.

Modern leadership has had its focus redirected from achieving the vision to the welfare of employees. Universities indoctrinate their students by focusing their teaching on social leadership principles and literature, rather than on a broader, more holistic curriculum.  Leaders are told that their primary responsibility is taking care of their employees and that by doing so the business will prosper.

Leaders today feel obligated and indeed are told on social media that they are responsible for all aspects of their employees’ well-being as if their employees have no responsibility for themselves and are incapable of acting autonomously. Unfortunately, our human nature causes us to become dependent over time in a sort of “learned helplessness” way and people will tend to take advantage of the leader if they perceive that he or she is weak and willing to tolerate bad behaviour.

The migration of Gen-Z into the workforce exacerbates this problem. According to Proff. Jonathan Haidt, the over-protection of children in the 2000s, arguably the safest time in history, the addition of ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ on social media, and the introduction of trigger-warnings, controlled and compelled speech, safe-spaces, microaggressions, and no-platforming has resulted in a generation of ‘fragile’ people who started entering the workforce between 2015-18.

Leaders are told that, if they take care of their employees, their employees will take care of the business. But is this actually true? Is there any evidence that employees who are mollycoddled are more productive, happier, and loyal? Unfortunately, the answer is no. There is no empirical evidence that this is the case at all. This is what I refer to as the “Nice Leader Fallacy”.

This is not to say that leaders should not treat their employees well. On the contrary, the opposite of nice leadership is not bad leadership. It’s important to not conflate nice leadership with effective leadership. To quote Jocko willink there are only two types of leaders, effective and non-effective.

Leaders need to have a clear vision for the future of the business and be able to communicate that vision to the various internal and external factions that have a part to play in realising the vision. Anecdotally, employees respond best to leaders who consistently act professionally, ethically, and fairly to everyone.

It’s the leader’s role to enable their employees to achieve the vision by removing roadblocks and bottlenecks, providing tools and resources, and constantly shining a light on the path to the future. It is not the leader’s role to take care of every aspect of their employees’ well-being or give in to their every demand. Employees have a responsibility for their own well-being. It is, however, the responsibility of the leader to not contribute to the employees’ ill-being, to not place them at avoidable risk, or to treat them without respect or dignity.

Employment is an agreement between an organisation and an individual for the exchange of the individual’s time, experience, and effort for fair and agreed remuneration. Any expectations above and beyond this must be fair, agreed and not to the detriment of the organisation. It is true that all organisations have high performers who are motivated by extra attention and rewards such as increases in remuneration and bonuses. Providing these are fair and benefit the organisation by supporting the leader’s vision, these should be supported. What should not be supported are unwarranted demands by low performers based on group success or collective demands.

One of the most difficult challenges faced by leaders today is the recruitment and retention of staff. Leaders are falling into the trap of believing that the only way to attract and retain top talent is to offer higher remuneration, better conditions, and to provide an enjoyable environment where employees can socialise and feel appreciated. Where the organisation can afford to provide these conditions, it absolutely should. However, without also offering challenging and rewarding work, accountability for outcomes, and the authority needed to succeed, the ‘sugar rush’ will quickly wear off and staff will begin looking for more rewarding work and higher remuneration for their next dopamine hit.

Maslow implied this when he created his ‘Hierarchy of Needs’. Once an individual’s basic needs (physical, safety, and security) and psychological needs (belonging, love, and esteem) have been achieved, they will seek to achieve their highest order need for self-fulfillment. This will ultimately include the need for appropriate remuneration, however, at this level, individuals want to feel that they are contributing value to the organisation and are integral to the achievement of something important and enduring.

In non-business scenarios such as war, sport, politics, and education, the realisation of their vision and the achievement of the associated outcomes must be the leader’s primary focus. This often results in the conclusion of the ‘finite game’, activity, or mission which concludes when there is a clear winner.

This differs dramatically from business where the leader needs to continuously achieve sufficient financial success to sustain the business and/or meet shareholder financial, legal, and moral expectations and targets. In business, the organisation is analogous to an organism where the aim is to grow, develop and survive as long as possible.

In business, top leaders may develop the vision and set the direction for the organisation, but they are pressured to act and react to external forces with opposing interests such as shareholders and unions.

Ultimately, top leaders need to not allow themselves to be coerced into making decisions that adversely affect the achievement of the vision in order to be nice. There’s nothing wrong with being a ‘nice leader’ however this should be subordinate to being an effective leader who delivers the outcomes necessary to grow and sustain the business.

Delegation

Delegation generally refers to the assigning of responsibility of a function, activity, or task to another individual. Delegating responsibility has the effect of “scaling” the leader’s capacity by removing some burden and reallocating it to another person, freeing the leader up to attend to the most important matters with the knowledge that the subordinate matters are well taken care of.

Leaders, businesses, and organisations need to place trust in the professional ability of their staff, and particularly in their junior leaders. As with the maintenance of standards, leaders and managers must ensure those working for them are not only equipped to carry out those tasks assigned to them but that they do so in a manner appropriate to the required outcome and the circumstance at the time.

Careful observation is necessary to ensure that it is not just the outcome that is considered, but that the path to that outcome is also subject to review. While this may appear to run counter to the accepted philosophy of Mission Command, it should form an important part of the process. A task undertaken does not mean that it has been effectively and safely carried out.

Whilst the leader can delegate responsibility for the performance of a function, activity, or task, he or she cannot hand off accountability for the outcome or the way the delegate achieves that outcome. This accountability inherently resides with the leader and is an ethical, moral, and legal obligation. Leaders may delegate tasks to subordinates, but they cannot delegate their responsibilities.

Delegation is not Abdication.

Junior leaders must uphold the standards set by the organisation and/or senior leaders. Responsibility for the overall performance of an organisation or group remains the responsibility of the individuals occupying senior leadership roles. Leaders should ensure that they do not simply rely on their “orders, directives or intent” being carried out. The high standard expected by senior and junior leaders alike should be similarly expected through all levels and aspects of the organisation. Leaders cannot expect their subordinate leaders and followers to suddenly ‘switch on’ in a crisis or time of high demand if they have not received the training and conditioning necessary for higher end operations.

For delegation to be effective the following conditions need to be established, documented, and understood:

WHO – Formal, documented assignment of responsibility to an individual who is deemed competent, and possesses the requisite skills, knowledge, and experience to properly execute the assigned delegation.

WHAT – Clear and unambiguous statement of intent from the leader to the delegate.

WHERE – Identification of any boundaries for the assigned responsibilities.

WHEN – Notice for when the delegation starts and ends.

HOW – Details of any specific methods or expectations associated with the delegation.

LIMITS – Clearly stated limits of responsibility and authority.

It is crucial to follow this process and set in place these conditions for all delegations, not just for senior leadership roles and management positions. Taking the time to delegate responsibility effectively is important and will ensure the subordinate leader is clear about their responsibilities and how they are expected to carry them out. Failure to delegate effectively is also setting up the subordinate leader to fail in the execution of their delegated responsibility and will result in you spending time to resolve issues or need to continually assist the delegate to perform their assigned duties.

Once all necessary conditions have been set in place and the leader can trust that their delegates are properly equipped to perform their assigned responsibility in the manner expected, it is essential that the leader not only delegates responsibility to act but also the authority to do so without the need to constantly seek higher approval. This is the fundamental basis and essence of Decentralised Command.

The Value of Values

Have you ever attended a leadership course or corporate training session where you were asked to quickly jot down your core values? If you have, I’ll bet you identified around five values that you thought should be important to you and would be appropriate should you be singled out to share them with your colleagues.

But have you ever sat down in a quiet space and thought deeply about what is truly important to you? Are there things that are so important that you would be willing to make a stand for them, lose your job over them, give up your freedom for them, or even sacrifice your life to preserve them? This might sound somewhat dramatic, but I doubt many people have taken the time to consider what is truly important to them and what they are willing to do or not do in order to live according to their values. In fact, I doubt most people are even aware that they have a consistent set of values that guide the way they live their lives. Rather, they live according to what seems right to them at the time. But if they were to stop and think about why they make the decisions they make or act the way they do, they might just realise their free will is being controlled by internal and external factors and a sense of what is right or wrong.

Values can be grouped into three broad categories. These are individual values, societal values, and corporate values.

As humans, we are social creatures, so we need to conduct ourselves and behave in a manner that won’t see us cast out from our social group or network. When we are young this means acting in a way that subordinates us while we learn and become accustomed to what is acceptable to the group. As we grow and rise in status within the group, our values become important as they characterise who we are and they influence those who are subordinate to us. Our values underpin our moral character and define the type of person we are. Because we are brought up within our relevant social settings our individual values a generally aligned with those of our “tribe”.

The multicultural nature of the world today has seen a melding together of a broad range of values from various ethnic groups and geographic locations. There are also societies that are very conservative and have strict religious teachings or legal doctrine that determine their values. There can be significant differences between the values held sacred by one group to those held sacred by another and this has contributed to conflict throughout history.

In today’s business world, we now also have corporate values which tend to be linked to the ethical conduct of business and the adherence of organisations to their social and legal responsibilities. Unfortunately, business values are sometimes developed as a subset of the business planning process and are developed by senior leadership behind closed doors. An organisation’s values need to reflect the values of the society in which it operates as well as those of its employees. Trying to force employees to conform to corporate values that do not align with the individuals’ values doesn’t work as it’s the same as trying to convince a 13th-century religious scholar that the world isn’t flat.

All teams, groups, organisations, and businesses are made up of individuals whose values are shaped by their specific cultural, social, and religious upbringing and beliefs. Amongst all of this variability, there does; however, seem to be some consensus on core values within specific groups. Without diluting the absolute importance of the individual, societal groups do tend to share the same, or at least similar values such as the need to be loyal, honest, fair, humane, and free, noting that some cultures interpret these values differently.

While individuals may hold around five values as core to them, the variability in these values is very large and exists on a sliding scale.  Individuals within the same group may all hold honesty as a core value with most trying to be honest most of the time, while one may be dogmatic and another quite liberal in their adherence to this value.

With so many competing values the effective functioning of any group can be impacted upon by a misalignment of values. 

Many organisations now list their values on their websites and in their proposals and use them as a selling point. This can be construed as disingenuous as specifying that one of your values is honesty, for example, may be seen to imply that this differentiates you from your competitors when, in reality, acting honestly is a normal expectation of business by society and under the law. Similarly, listing courage as a value for your employees to adhere to is only valid and effective if management and leadership genuinely reward courageous behaviour, when in reality, too often the opposite is true. Others like teamwork are listed to encourage better collaboration and enhanced performance to only be undermined by compensation and promotion systems that reward individual effort.

If organisations are going to espouse specific values, they need to ensure that the values chosen are truly representative of how the organisation wants its staff, managers, and leaders to behave and how it wants to be known. Alternatively, an organisation made up of staff from very different backgrounds, might be better served by adopting and documenting a set of expected behaviours rather than a list of values. 

In my opinion, the two areas where values provide the greatest value are in shaping an individual’s moral character and in influencing individual and group decision making.

Accountability vs Responsibility – A Case Study

On the 21st of October 2021, Halyna Hutchins was shot by Alec Baldwin on the set of the low-budget Western RUST. But who is ultimately responsible for the shooting and does that responsibility in any way diminish the accountability of the movie’s producers?

In the interview, Alec Baldwin speaks with ABC News reporter George Stephanopoulos about the tragic fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins and the wounding of Joel Souza on the set of his new movie Rust.

Baldwin speaks out about his role in the shooting and states that he does not feel guilty about what happened and knows that someone is responsible but that it is not him.

This case study highlights the difference between accountability and responsibility. As a leader, you can delegate responsibility for functions, activities, and even missions, but you ultimately retain accountability for the actions of those you lead and the outcome of their actions.

While you may not be directly responsible for what your followers do, you are accountable for their actions and it’s your responsibility to ensure they are qualified, competent, and experienced for the activities assigned to them. You are also responsible for setting the conditions that ensure the safe and successful performance of their duties.

As leaders, we need to trust that those we assign tasks will perform those tasks in a manner that is safe and according to any relevant standards and specifications. With the exception of deliberate negligent action or sabotage, the behaviour of our followers, how they perform their roles, is a direct reflection of their understanding of our expectations of them and how we allow them to act.

This is especially true of teams that are formed quickly for short durations of high intensity and dangerous work. The ability to build trust rapidly is underpinned by knowledge of individual team member’s skills and experience and shouldn’t be formed based on assumed competence. The degree of two-way trust that exists between a leader and their followers should be proportional to their familiarity with each other or based on objective evidence of their skills and experience and their reputation.

While it is more often than not appropriate and even necessary to employ “Mission Command” and allow our followers the autonomy to perform their roles based on their skills and experience, we retain the responsibility to maintain oversight and ensure all necessary checks and balances are in place and due dilligence is performed.

We are also responsible for ensuring our followers feel “psychologically safe” to speak out and express their concerns, knowing that they will be listened to and treated seriously. As leaders, we need to make decisions based on the best and most complete evidence available at the time. Too often when things go wrong, leaders have either dismissed concerns as they could not ‘see’ them as significant risks, or concerns are not raised by followers due to their fear of being ridiculed or seeming inexperienced or alarmist. Hindsight is a skill all leaders need to possess and to paraphrase the late Stephen Covey leaders need to always “start with the end in mind”.

Leaders can not do everything themselves and one of the hardest parts of developing into a good leader is letting go of the reigns and delegating non-leadership activities to your followers. But delegation does not mean abdication and while you can delegate responsibility and authority to your followers you can not delegate your overall accountability.

So is Alec Baldwin responsible for the death of Halyna Hutching and the wounding of Joel Souza or does responsibility rest with others who may have performed their roles in a negligent manner setting in place a sequence of events leading to the fatal shooting?

If Baldwin is not responsible for the shooting, is he still accountable through his role as a Producer of the film?

These are questions that will need to be deliberated over and answered during be court trial in early 2022. 

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial