Management | INSYNC Management Solutions

Abilene Paradox

The Abilene Paradox, was first penned by Professor Jerry B. Harvey in 1974 in an article entitled “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement”. Much later, in 1988 Prof Harvey published a book on the topic entitled “The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management”.

The Abilene Paradox describes a group of people who collectively decide to take a trip from their home in Coleman, Texas to Abilene, some 53 miles away, to partake in a meal at a quaint local diner The premise of the paradox is that in agreeing to act on the idea and take the trip, put them on a course of action that was counter to the preferences of many or all of the individuals in the group.

The following passage is taken from Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1988, pp. 17–43. © 1988 by the American Management Association, New York – All rights reserved; and was reprinted with permission, by the Aspin Institute.

“The July afternoon in Coleman, Texas (population 5,607) was particularly hot— 104 degrees as measured by the Walgreen’s Rexall Ex-Lax temperature gauge. In addition, the wind was blowing fine-grained West Texas topsoil through the house. But the afternoon was still tolerable—even potentially enjoyable. There was a fan going on the back porch; there was cold lemonade; and finally, there was entertainment. Dominoes. Perfect for the conditions. The game required little more physical exertion than an occasional mumbled comment, “Shuffle ‘em,” and an unhurried movement of the arm to place the spots in the appropriate perspective on the table.
All in all, it had the makings of an agreeable Sunday afternoon in Coleman—this is, it was until my father-in-law suddenly said, “Let’s get in the car and go to Abilene and have dinner at the cafeteria.” I thought, “What, go to Abilene? Fifty-three miles? In this dust storm and heat? And in an unairconditioned 1958 Buick?” But my wife chimed in with, “Sounds like a great idea. I’d like to go. How about you, Jerry?” Since my own preferences were obviously out of step with the rest I replied, “Sounds good to me,” and added, “I just hope your mother wants to go.” “Of course I want to go,” said my mother-in-law. “I haven’t been to Abilene in a long time.”
So into the car and off to Abilene we went. My predictions were fulfilled. The heat was brutal. We were coated with a fine layer of dust that was cemented with perspiration by the time we arrived. The food at the cafeteria provided first-rate testimonial material for antacid commercials.
Some four hours and 106 miles later we returned to Coleman, hot and exhausted. We sat in front of the fan for a long time in silence. Then, both to be sociable and to break the silence, I said, “It was a great trip, wasn’t it?” No one spoke. Finally my mother-in-law said, with some irritation, “Well, to tell the truth, I really didn’t enjoy it much and would rather have stayed here. I just went along because the three of you were so enthusiastic about going. I wouldn’t have gone if you all hadn’t pressured me into it.”
I couldn’t believe it. “What do you mean ‘you all’?” I said. “Don’t put me in the ‘you all’ group. I was delighted to be doing what we were doing. I didn’t want to go. I only went to satisfy the rest of you. You’re the culprits.” My wife looked shocked. “Don’t call me a culprit. You and Daddy and Mama were the ones who wanted to go. I just went along to be sociable and to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in heat like that.”
Her father entered the conversation abruptly. “Hell!” he said. He proceeded to expand on what was already absolutely clear. “Listen, I never wanted to go to Abilene. I just thought you might be bored. You visit so seldom I wanted to be sure you enjoyed it. I would have preferred to play another game of dominoes and eat the leftovers in the icebox.”

What the Abilene Paradox highlights is an almost universal feeling of needing to propose ideas thought to be desired by others, which are then agreed with, to “not rock the boat”.

This Abilene Paradox seems to play out regularly today by a libertarian society laser focussed on innovation and change, encouraged by a mainstream who desire harmony and are opposed to confrontation. The result is bad ideas supported by people who oppose them but do not feel empowered to speak up for fear of being at odds with the group and needing to back their conviction, possibly through confrontation and debate.

The Abilene Paradox highlights what can happen in business when there is an inability to manage agreement rather than conflict. Couple this with a lack of psychological safety to speak your mind and today’s regression of freedom of speech and this is once again the single most pressing issue facing modern organisations.

Knowing about the Abilene Paradox and that it is prevalent in many group discussions ranging from the example above to the board room and even social and political reform, will hopefully allow you to empathise with others and feel what they feel. While you can never truly know another’s mind, you should always feel empowered to authentically express how you feel without fear of offending others or of their potential ridicule, knowing they are possibly more in agreement with your view than you think.

Situational Leadership

The saying “one size fits all” really doesn’t work when it comes to leadership. Afterall, we are all different and unique. We have different beliefs, values, abilities, motivations, and aspirations. So, as leaders, why do we assume we can lead everyone in the same way? We can’t.

Imagine you’re fresh out of school and it’s your first day at a new job. You have no real understanding of what your role requires of you and therefore no idea how to achieve the list of outcomes on your new position description, if you’re lucky enough to have one. You complete some notional induction training and tick off some items on a HR check list and then you’re off. Your new boss comes over to you and rattles off 10 lines of instructions with no context or explanation then disappears into his office. How do you think you will perform? Not great I bet.

Now imagine you have been working in your role for 10 years. You have completed multiple advanced training courses and regularly provide advice and guidance to more junior staff. What goes through your mind when your boss continuously insists on explaining what she needs you to do and how she requires you to do it? Pretty annoyed and undervalued I’d bet.

Now we’re somewhat conflating leadership with management here, after all its rare that you’ll be just a leader or a manager, can you see how each of these staff members have different needs and hence need to be led in different ways?

In 1969, researchers Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard created their ‘life cycle theory of leadership’ while working on Management of Organizational Behaviour. During the mid 1970’s the theory was renamed Situational Leadership Theory.

The origins of Situational Leadership stem from related research conducted at Ohio State University on what they referred to as the two-factor theory of leadership. The researchers postured that leadership styles are dependent on task behaviour and relationship behaviour.

In the early 1980s, Hersey and Blanchard both developed their own slightly divergent versions of the Situational Leadership Theory. Hersey developed the Situational Leadership Model while Blanchard expanded the theory and developed the Situational Leadership II model, in popular use today.

The fundamental principle of the situational leadership model is that there is no single style of leadership that is effective in every situation. To be effective, the leadership style used needs to be task-relevant, and the most successful leaders are those who can adapt their leadership style to the performance level of the individual or group they lead, in terms of their ability and willingness. Effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group being led, but also based on the task, job, or function that needs to be performed.

The Situational Leadership Model has two fundamental concepts: leadership style and the individual or group’s performance readiness level, also referred to as their development level.

The figure below shows the relationship between the individual’s development level and the level of leader support they require.

As you move around the model, you’ll see that those at the Development Level 1 (D1), require the leader to demonstrate a high level of Directing Behaviour. That is to say that those who are new to a role, task, or scenario will need to be told what to do and how to do it and will require the highest level of support and direction compared to someone with much more training and experience.

As the individual gains more experience, they will move to Development Level 2 (D2), where the support they require from their leader is less directing and more coaching. At this level, the individual understands the principles of the task but lacks the full knowledge for how to complete the task on their own. At the D2 level the individual no longer needs to be told what to do but may need to be reminded how to perform certain aspects of the task. At this level the leader should promote more autonomy and lead by coaching the individual to recall their training and to put it into action. There may also be a need to confirm the training and even go back over certain aspects that may not have been fully understood.

Once the individual becomes competent, they may still lack the experience and confidence needed to function in a totally autonomous fashion. At this Development Level 3 (D3), the individual is capable of completing the task or performing their role, but may need reassurance, affirmation, and varying degrees of leader support.

At Development Level 4 (D4), the individual is highly competent and capable of completing the task or their role independently, with little or no direction. Here, the leader need only delegate the task and seek status reports on progress.

The basic directing and supporting behaviours for each Development Level are detailed in the table below. You will see how leaders can be seen to be ‘micromanaging’ their staff when they may be simply treating everyone as if they are stuck at Development Level 1 (D1).

Inversely, the busy leader who assumes their staff are all at Development Level 4 (D4), may seem to be absent and to be delegating or even abdicating their responsibilities, by staff who need their support.

This is a very brief overview of Situational Leadership Theory designed to stimulate thought and discussion. There are several criticisms of the theory with the main one being that it’s possible for individuals to be at a level D3 or D4 for some tasks while still being at a level D1 or D2 for others. The Leader would therefore need to have and maintain a very high degree of awareness of each individual team member’s Development Level and the amount of support they need. Situational Leadership is also difficult to apply to a team scenario when the individuals within the team are at different Development Levels.

Despite these and other criticisms, it is useful for leaders to know that each member of their team will likely be at different Development Levels and will therefore require different levels of support from Directing, to Coaching, Supporting and Delegating.

Once you are familiar with Situational Leadership Theory, you may find yourself spending more time observing those you lead, assessing their Development Levels, and trying to provide the support you feel they need. Be careful that you don’t attempt to implement Situational Leadership as a wholesale leadership style.

Having a basic knowledge of Situational Leadership Theory allows leaders to understand that the leadership style they use and the level of support they provide, should be tailored to match the needs of those they lead.

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:

It is highly disruptive for the weeks leading up to the reviews.
It creates anxiety for both the giver and receiver, that for the receiver, may last sometime after the review.
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.

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.

Directive Control

For the past 20 years or so, the focus of most modern leadership theorists has been on the need for leaders to create an environment where followers feel safe to contribute fully without fear of ridicule or reprisal. Thus, the transition to the 21^st century has also been a time to transition our approach to leadership and to introduce the concept of Psychological Safety.

Psychological Safety was popularised by organisational behavioural scientist, Amy Edmondson in the early 2000s but its origins extend back to Schein and Bennis in the 1960s. The concept of Psychological Safety has, in-kind, been incorporated into systems such as “Safety Culture” and the Toyota Total Production System (TPS) and is represented in the “Andon Cord” system.

What is Psychological Safety?

Psychological Safety is the ability to “show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences of self-image, status or career” (Kahn 1990, p. 708). It fosters a sense of value in what individuals and teams have to contribute, endows them with a sense of belonging, and empowers them to speak up, collaborate, and experiment.

But this post isn’t about Psychological Safety. Rather it’s concerned with the notion that Directive Control no longer has a place in the leader’s tool kit, and that’s wrong.

The wide adoption of Psychological Safety and the desire of leaders to demonstrate inclusivity may have caused them to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. At the same time as Psychological Safety was experiencing rapid take up throughout the corporate world, society was experiencing a significant shift in behavioural expectations. This shift was seeing diversity and inclusion experience an elevated sense of value and bullying and harassment being called out as inappropriate behaviour and rightly, worthy of punishment.

However, the problem is that the negative bullying and harassment behaviour prevalent at the time has been conflated with the leadership technique known as Directive Control.

The term Directive Control comes from the German ‘Auftragstaktik’ (literally, “mission tactics”) and was the precursor to Mission Command. It is a form of ‘command and control’ developed initially for use by the military and is predicated on the commander giving directions to their subordinates based on their intent. That is, the orders given describe the objective or outcome required, but does not prescribe how to achieve the outcome.

Directive Control tends to conjure images of military commanders yelling orders and punishing subordinates who fail to comply or achieve the objective. But this is a mischaracterisation which has been propagated by ill-informed, self-professed gurus in the leadership consulting circuit, pedalling their own leadership systems and ideologies.

The problem is, Directive Control has become synonymous with poor leadership due to the barrage of articles written that denounce and demonise it and those who employ it.

Directive Control, Mission Command and Command and Control are generally misunderstood terms. This is likely due to the terminology used to label the techniques which seems to imply autocratic, exclusive, and micro-managing forms of dictatorial rule. But this is an incorrect interpretation of these valuable leadership and management techniques.

To properly understand why these techniques are not evil and the value they offer, we need to understand the role of a leader.

While there is no universally accepted definition of leadership it is generally agreed that a leader is someone who creates a vision and influences followers to achieve the objectives required to realise that vision.

Commander’s Intent

Once a leader has formed a vision, which is a view of some desired future state, they will generally express their intent for achieving the vision. This is not detailed planning. Rather this is the ‘what’ to achieve not the ‘how’ to achieve it. The role of subordinate leaders is to take the leader’s intent and create detailed plans.

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

When the military develops plans, they seek out the widest available input from all relevant, credible sources. This is a very inclusive process but deliberately restricts input from those who are not properly informed, positioned or experienced to contribute. At all levels of planning, commanders encourage what the military calls ‘contributary descent’. This is a technique where anyone and everyone involved in the planning is required to raise any concerns or issues they have with the plan. A kind of continuous Debono ‘Black Hat’ review. Once the plan has been agreed and finalised, however, everyone is expected to adhere to it.

Directive Control

Directive Control is a system of leadership where the leader expresses their intent and provides direction to followers on the objectives to be achieved and then empowers them to achieve the necessary outcome within the parameters of a set of ‘freedoms and constraints’[1]. To be truly effective, the leader must educate and mentor their followers for sufficient time to develop trust in their ability to make decisions and the leader must vary their leadership style according to the evolution of the situation.

Decentralised Execution

Decentralised execution is the delegation of decision-making authority to followers, so they may make and implement decisions and adjust their assigned tasks in fluid and rapidly changing situations.

Follower decisions should be ethically based and within the framework of their higher leader’s intent. Decentralised execution is essential to seizing, retaining, and exploiting the operational initiative during operations in environments where conditions rapidly change, and uncertainty is the norm as has become the case in today’s VUCA[2] business world.

Rapidly changing situations and uncertainty are inherent in business where leaders seek to establish a tempo and intensity that their competitors, cannot match.

Decentralised execution requires disseminating information to the lowest possible level so followers can make informed decisions based on a shared understanding of both the situation and their leader’s intent. This empowers followers operating in rapidly changing conditions to exercise disciplined initiative within their leader’s intent.

Generally, the more dynamic the circumstances, the greater the need for initiative to make decisions at lower levels. It is the duty of followers to exercise initiative to achieve their leader’s intent. It is the leader’s responsibility to issue appropriate intent and ensure followers are prepared in terms of education, training, and experience to exercise initiative.

The leader’s intent provides a unifying idea that allows decentralised execution within an overarching framework. It provides guidance within which individuals may exercise initiative to accomplish the desired end-state. Understanding the leader’s intent two levels up further enhances unity of effort while providing the basis for decentralised decision making and execution throughout the depth of the organisation. Followers who understand the leader’s intent are far more likely to exercise initiative effectively in unexpected situations. Under the Mission Command approach to command and control, followers have both responsibility and authority to fulfil the leader’s intent.

Now that we have a shared understanding of the term Directive Control and how it is employed through decentralised execution, you can see how the philosophy of Directive Control is fully congruent with that of Psychological Safety. Hopefully, this has inspired you to consider researching more about Directive Control and Mission Command with the intent of incorporating their philosophies into your leadership style rather than excluding them due to the stigma created by ill-informed leadership gurus.

[1] Freedoms and constraints set out the rules, regulations, and limits of the mission or activity.
[2] Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous (VUCA).

Building Rapid Trust

Credit to The Cove and the Centre for Australian Army Leadership

The ability to build trust quickly is a skill leaders often need, but more often struggle to know how to achieve. In this Pod Cast, Dr Jemma King speak with the Centre for Australian Army Leadership about how to achieve rapid trust and explains her top 5 factors to increase inter-team effectiveness. There’s a lot that Dr King unpacks in this show so you may want to listen to it more than once.

Key take-aways

Dr King speaks about the need for leaders to demonstrate their ability and benevolence and to act in a consistent manner in order to rapidly gain trust and to sustain that trust over the long term. To aid in remembering these three critical components of trust she refers to these characteristics as the A-B-Cs of trust.

Dr King also explains that before followers will care about how much you know, they first want to know how much you care. Hence the sequence of the A-B-Cs is important and starts with benevolence, then ability and consistency.

The diagram below shows the relationship between a leader’s ability and benevolence or warmth.

Ethics and Integrity

Ethics

Ethics and Integrity are undoubtedly the foundations of great leadership. Over the years, the media has been littered with examples of leaders and individuals who put profit and self-interest ahead of what was right. There are far too many modern examples where leaders compromised their integrity and breached their ethical obligations.

Related to follower willingness or conviction is the concept that leadership has a moral or ethical component. Followers see the difference between striving for a goal that they believe to be ethically sound and one that is ethically or morally wrong. This distinction is made to differentiate between those leaders that are influential and visionary but morally or ethically corrupt and those that are equally influential and visionary but morally and ethically sound.

Leader Responsibilities

It is necessary for leaders to have more than just an academic appreciation of ethics. Leaders require an understanding of how ethics influence their decision-making and actions. Leaders have specific responsibilities that relate to the individuals and the teams they lead. There are three fundamental ethical responsibilities that leaders are required to discharge. These are:

Serve as role models worthy of emulation.
Promote ethical development for followers.
Develop and sustain an ethical climate within the group that they lead.

Case Studies

Enron. One of the best-known examples of unethical behaviour is the 2001 Enron scandal where senior executives deceived clients and shareholders by hiding billions of dollars of losses and debt and coerced their auditors Arthur Andersen into ignoring and hiding the issues. Enron was ultimately caught and forced to file for bankruptcy and Arthur Andersen, then one of the largest and most respected auditing companies in the world, folded. Several Enron senior executives received jail sentences but despite Enron’s billions of dollars of assets, many investors’ pensions and livelihoods were lost by the actions of greedy, unethical, and morally bankrupt executives.

Wells Fargo. In 2016, Wells Fargo, one of the US’s largest and most trusted financial institutions was found to have created millions of fraudulent savings and checking accounts on behalf of their clients without their consent. Initially, senior leaders tried to distance themselves from any wrongdoing, blaming individual employees and managers; however, regulators found the fraud was due to senior leadership pressure to open as many accounts as possible and through cross-selling. The bank has been issued nearly $3Bn USD in fines and suffers ongoing reputational damage despite a pledge to reform its practices.

Despite most organisations and institutions now having strict policies on ethical behaviour and providing training at all levels, unethical behaviour continues to be an insidious problem that causes all manner of leadership challenges. But it’s not just commercial businesses that push the boundary to gain a competitive advantage. Ethical failures can occur in any organisation and at any level within the leadership and management ranks. In 2015, the then Chief of Army, LTGEN David Morrison AO, addressed the Australian Army to state his position on inclusion and his expectations of the officers and soldiers under his command. He did this because of allegations made against Officers and NCOs of misconduct and behaviour deemed inappropriate and demeaning to female ADF personnel.

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept”

In making his stand, LTGEN Morrison may have himself crossed an ethical boundary through his treatment of some of the accused, effectively ruining their careers despite no charges being laid. It is important to apply ethics and integrity at all times and to all parties.

So how do leaders ensure they do not succumb to the allure of the quick win or belief that they can get away with unethical behaviour? What stops individuals from straying when no one is watching? Here are a few things you can do to stay the course set by your moral compass.

Know your values and live them

Nowadays, most organisations have a set of defined values. The unfortunate reality is that many organisations set these values as a means of marketing to their customers that their business is about more than just gross margins. There is little point to businesses setting corporate values if these values do not perfectly align with those of every individual member of the organisation. Besides, every client automatically expects every organisation to value honesty, integrity, trust, loyalty, and the array of other trendy values pinned to company websites everywhere. Values are nothing unless they are demonstrated through consistent behaviour. Leaders need to lead by example and exemplify the behaviour they expect of those they lead. There is real power in knowing this as you may attain compliance by mandating values but you will inspire behavioural change through inspiring junior staff to want to emulate their leaders.

Do what’s right, not what’s quick or easy

Time and cost pressure are powerful drivers and are significant influencers of behaviour. The need to be profitable and survive when times are tough will test even the most disciplined leader. This is when only the very best leaders know that crossing the ethics line is far worse than any short-term gain that may be realised by acting in an unethical manner. It is far better, to be honest, and deal with issues and problems at the time, rather than delaying them or acting inappropriately. Elron and Wells Fargo have shown the impact of crossing the line for short-term gain.

If it doesn’t feel right; do, or say something

Many times, in our lives we will encounter situations where our ethics, morals and integrity are challenged. This can be anything from schoolyard antics and trying to gain or retain your popularity amongst the “cool kids”, to peer pressure to shoplift or turn a blind eye to discrimination in the workplace. Speaking up and acting according to your values is hard and it gets harder the further you walk past the bad behaviour. There’s an old saying, “bad news doesn’t get better with age” and this is certainly true when it comes to needing to speak up. It is far easier to stop unethical behaviour at its early stages before it takes root. This is also the time when you are least implicated in the issue and therefore are less likely to suffer from being complicit. Often, the difficulty is noticing the subtle signs that something is not quite right. Hence, it’s crucial that you act as soon as you sense something seems off. At this early stage, be cautious not to be too accusatorial. A good technique is to ask lots of questions. Eventually, any corruption or unethical behaviour will surface, and you can then take action.

Choose good role models

Identifying three or four role models of unimpeachable ethics and striving to emulate their character and ethics is a great way to help keep you from straying due to pressure and local influences. Research them, think about them often, think about what they would do when faced with your challenge or ethical dilemma, and speak their names during conversations to reinforce them as important to you. Also, choose a couple of trusted mentors with who you can speak honestly and confidentially and use them as sounding boards when you have difficult circumstances to navigate or decisions to make. Generally, if you feel the need to discuss an issue with your mentors this should be a red flag that something is not ok, and your mentor should help confirm this and hopefully help you choose what to do.

Making ethical decisions

Facts and logic underpin all good decisions and decision-making processes, but it’s our moral compass and our values that guide and temper those decisions. Facts and logic alone only tell us what is; they don’t tell us what ought to be. If ethical decision making was as simple as understanding the facts and applying logic, all decisions would be black and white and solved by using the right mathematical equations. Many of the ethical dilemmas we face are multivariable problems that undermined our values, our cultural norms, and our religious beliefs and are often tainted by our biases and steered by our heuristics. There is no simple answer to the question of how to consistently make good ethical decisions. I believe all we can do is try our best to make them according to our values and, to quote Stephen Covey, “start with the end in mind”. Understand the outcome that must be achieved and anticipate any unintended consequences. It is often impossible to make a completely ethical decision, or at least from the perspective of some individuals or factions. In these cases, you should take a utilitarian approach.

Other approaches to ethical decision making include Kantian ethics, the Fairness or Justice approach, the Common-Good approach, and the Virtue or Aretaic approach.

Being of good moral character and always demonstrating good ethical behaviour and making ethical decisions are core to being a good leader. These traits will build internal and external trust and will be the pillars of your reputation. These things are precious and take much time to mature. Failing to act ethically and with integrity will destroy your reputation before your eyes and render you unable to lead; so, be warned, any momentary lapse of ethics could, and well ought to result in your downfall.

What Makes Teams Work?

Teams win because they are a stable, bounded group of individuals who are interdependent in achieving a shared outcome and work or practice together over a long period of time. In today’s fast-paced world where change is constant and disruption is an aim of business, diverse teams are brought together quickly and expected to achieve great things, often under immense time pressure, with complex and ambiguous requirements and no real certainty of the outcome. Amy Edmondson’s TED Talk on teaming sheds light on why some teams can come together to accomplish great things by bonding, finding a common purpose, and being prepared to try new things and fail. Leaders who practice situational humility and remain curious, create an environment of Psychological Safety that allows team members to speak up without fear of criticism or ridicule.

Meeting Expectations

Meetings are a useful means for brainstorming, planning, communicating, and coordinating activities. Pre COVID19 most meetings were conducted face-to-face in meeting rooms and were a means of bringing a team together to discuss important operational or project matters, often setting post-meeting tasks or follow-up. Holding meetings necessarily came with the requirement to schedule the meeting and book a room, plan the meeting and set a formal agenda, corral the participants, conduct the meeting, decide on and assign actions, set deadlines, take minutes, and socialise the outcomes. Meetings were used for discussions and decisions, and for planning and executing activities. After a meeting, teams would interact and discuss joint and individual activities creating an unseen extension of the meeting. Teams would, in effect, operate in ‘group silos’ performing both individual tasks and group activities requiring periods of isolated effort and team interaction. Tasks would be performed and would last until the activities were completed or the next meeting provided new or updated directions. Meetings took time and effort to set up and run and had a defined purpose.

Fast-forward to the 2020s where COVID19 has created a world where lockdowns and working from home are commonplace and meetings are conducted over the internet via videoconference. The ability for teams to socially interact during their workday has been eroded and the ability of team members to bond and create a unified team identity, a ‘tribe’ has been lost. This has negative implications for the team’s ability to complete their assigned duties in the effective and coordinated way they would if working together in a physical group environment. This social interaction is not only important from a humanistic and mental health perspective, it’s the way informal mentoring, problem solving, and innovation occurs. When individual members of a team work in isolation they are less likely to draw upon the diverse thinking that happens when a group of individuals interacts as a team. Under the constraints that COVID19 forces upon us, it’s important that teams take the time to connect in informal online meetings where formal agendas and meeting outcomes are not important and group discussion is the foremost purpose of the meeting.

As the leader or manager of the team, it’s important that you understand that your role in these meetings might be, to not be in these meetings. That’s right, your presence in these meetings may inhibit the natural flow of the meeting and morph its purpose from team interaction to planning, coordinating, deciding, and executing new activities. The purpose of these team interactive meetings is to allow your team to interact and discuss the activities already set, not to leave the meeting with a new set of activities, tasks, and deadlines. In the current paradigm, leaders and managers need to view online meetings in the same way as face-to-face meetings but must also realise that not every meeting is a formal meeting. Leaders and managers need to be clear with themselves about which meetings are for planning and assigning tasks and which meetings are just team interactions. Leaders and managers must ensure they do not dominate these meetings or assign new tasks. If you think about normal face-to-face meetings where the leader or manager needs to plan and set up the meeting and manage the outcomes, and then compare this to sending a meeting invitation to the team, ‘winging it’ and leaving the meeting with staff now having 15 or 20 new tasks, you run the risk of overloading staff with too much work.

Leaders and managers need to realise that their staff may not be comfortable taking the initiative and set up their own meetings or even understand the need or value in doing so. It’s important that you have a discussion with your team about the value of working together whilst in isolation.

Here are 10 ways you can hold better online meetings that help you lead or manage your team without overloading them and allow your team to interact, problem solve, be mentored, and be innovative.

Distinguish between formal meetings and team interactions
Conduct formal meetings as if they are face-to-face meetings
Restrict formal meetings and task allocation to only when they are needed
Develop a task register to track task allocation and progress and to allow task cross-leveling
Start each week with a weekly planning meeting to understand and coordinate the weekly workload
Make most meetings ‘catch ups’, progress updates, or information sessions
Control your urge to end each meeting by assigning new tasks to staff
Have a discussion with your staff about the importance of their own online interactions, mentoring, and group discussions
Set up a reoccurring end of week meeting to wrap up the week and socialise before the weekend
Don’t forget to have regular one-on-one ‘meetings’ with your staff to discuss their challenges and check on their welfare

COVID19 has been disrupting the way we live and work for over a year and a half now and will continue to challenge us for a long time to come. Ensuring the way we interact online is positive and effective and does not compound the stress staff already endure is critical in maintaining effective teams and reducing mental health issues. Holding effective, purposeful meetings is not only a critical leadership and management function, it’s now often the only interaction we have with our staff so its worthwhile making them as beneficial as possible.

Long-term Planning

Planning is the process of developing courses of action to move from your current state to a desired future state and involves change, and everyone knows, people don’t like change. We hear it all the time and it’s true, people don’t like change! But have you ever stopped to wonder why people don’t like change? In his book Your Brain at Work, Dr. David Rock takes this notion further and proposes that it’s uncertainty that actually makes us uncomfortable. If we can reduce the uncertainty associated with the change, we can significantly reduce its negative impact and increase engagement and uptake. The way we try to reduce uncertainty and gain control of the future is through planning.

We all like to be in control, but our inability to predict what’s going to happen in the future limits our feeling of control, and the further we look into the future the greater the uncertainty and lesser the control. Hence, our natural inclination is to try to predict the future and develop plans that allow us to prepare for whatever it’s going to throw at us.

We do this through planning and forecasting, but how many times have you been involved in planning and forecasting activities where the degree of uncertainty was so great that you knew in your heart that your plans were little more than an optimistic guess? This is especially true when the plans or forecasts being developed are very long term such as three, five, and ten year plans.

So why do we placed so much importance, emphasis, and time on long-term plans and forecasts when we know that it’s unlikely they’ll hit their targets? Well, the answer may be embedded in our brains and the way we think.

Every time we reduce uncertainty we receive a hit of dopamine. Dopamine is the chemical used by our brains to derive pleasure and just like ticking off a checklist is rewarding and pleasurable. So is fooling ourselves in the belief that our planning and forecasting will somehow create certainty in the future.

There is no real ability to plan long-term or truly forecast based on any single view of the future. But business continues to try and reduce uncertainty and give confidence to senior executives, boards, and shareholders by investing significant time and money in this type of planning.

The perception that planning and forecasting have been performed effectively provides a degree of comfort and is in a way a placebo that lasts a whole financial year or for the period covered by the plan. So, if planning and forecasting are little more than adding 5 or 10% to last year’s results and are not truly representative of the future, why should we bother trying to plan at all?

Well, it’s not all bad news. Whilst the future is uncertain and your plans and forecasts are based on your perception of what the future holds, there are ways that you can plan for an uncertain future and reduce the anxiety associated with uncertainty and your lack of control.

Planning and forecasting should be done for the shortest period possible. Longer-term planning must be broad and allocate low confidence levels and large margins for error and must factor uncertainty into the planning process.

These plans need numerous decision points that take a “what if” and “if then” approach. The best way to do this is to take a multi-varied view of the future. The further into the future that you try to plan, the greater the uncertainty and variability.

Understanding this means that you cannot simply plan for one future, but rather you need to plan for the various possible futures likely to eventuate.

For this reason, scenario planning offers the best approach and uses uncertainty to influence thinking and the planning process. Scenario planning unlike traditional business planning requires the planners to consider different views of the future and develop appropriate courses of action for each view.

As we move along the timeline and the future becomes clearer, we can adjust our courses of action as required or even change to a planned alternate course of action without feeling like a rudderless ship that is out of control and at the mercy of the sea.

For more information on how to develop effective plans, check out our post titled Planning Process.

« Older Entries

Abilene Paradox

Situational Leadership