Mr. Shanahan–What’s Behind Your Question?

Ask any major league starting pitcher with a high pitch count how he feels in the late innings of a game, and 99 percent of the time he’ll tell you that he feels great. In fact, he probably doesn’t feel great. He’s probably trashed. The pitcher responds the way he thinks he’s supposed to.  After all, he’s a warrior!

This was essentially what Mike Shanahan (football coach of the Washington Redskins) did with quarterback RG3 (rookie phenom Robert Griffin III) on Jan 6th in a playoff game against the Seattle Seahawks. RG3 was clearly hobbled—barely able to defend himself. He was gimping around on the same leg (knee really) that he had severely injured earlier in the year.

‘You OK?'” Shanahan asked.  “And he [RG3] said, `I’m fine.'”   This exchange was late in the game.  At that point, even a grade school kid could tell RG3 wasn’t right. RG3’s response was no surprise—he was responding the way he was expected to. After all, even as a rookie, he was the face of the franchise and its unquestioned leader.

RG3 stayed in the game.  Minutes later he mangled his knee trying to recover a botched snap from center. RG3 was not only out of the game but possibly next season as well due to, among other things, a torn ACL.

Shanahan tempted fate.  He lost.

Shanahan’s assertions that he left RG3 in the game because RG3 said he was fine are ridiculous.  Shanahan has been coaching for—what—a gazillion years? He knew better. He knew that RG3 would say just about anything that would keep him in the game. In other words, RG3 responds the way he thinks he’s supposed to.

Even if the question came to mind, it should have never left Shanahan’s lips. In the end, however, RG3’s answer to Shanahan’s question proved to be the justification Shanahan used to keep RG3 in the game.

Let’s call this what it is, a lapse in judgment—a very costly one.  RG3 shouldn’t have been on the field—even if he’s our best player in the year’s most important game.

The lesson:  We’ll learn far more about ourselves as a result of asking this type of self-validating question than anything the person ever tells us in return.

Monday’s Pleasant Surprise

Trust Across America is an organization dedicated to improving the level of trust within the business sector.  Founder Barbara Kimmel has done a tremendous job growing the influence of the organization.

Earlier today Trust Across America published their top thought leaders for 2013. I’m pleased (and humbled) to have been included. The list has many notable (and impressive) people.

I can only hope this honor helps advance the important work we’re doing here at Wiersma and Associates.

.

 

 

Even The Elite Aren’t Immune

Many in the United States feel that, in varying degrees, there’s an inherent bias in the media. It’s hard to argue with a straight-face that there isn’t.  Most of us expect the media to be neutral when it comes to political matters—that’s what most of us feel a professional journalist is supposed to do.  They’re supposed to be objectively reporting the news, not making it.

The media in Mexico makes bias in the US look pale–at least if you believe a recent article in Fortune.  In Televisa vs.The People Mexico’s broadcast monopoly is accused of helping a candidate win the presidency.  The article is an eye-opener…check it out. Unlike the US, there’s been outrage in Mexico.  In July nearly 100,000 people protested…yes, you read correctly—100,000 !  The specifics are outlined in the article.

Ironically, Televisa’s brand appears to have been tarnished—along with hurting its business interests.

How interesting…even when you’re part of the elite and ‘in the tank’ for your nation’s president and you violate professional ideals, you ultimately pay a price. That’s encouraging…and an important lesson each of us should remember.

100 and Counting

This is the 100th post on this blog.  I started the blog reluctantly.  Whatever concerns I initially had are now gone. Truth be told, I enjoy writing the blog.  I hope people enjoy reading it—although I’d rather know than just speculate what people’s impressions are.

It’s time for a reality-check, time for some feedback.  Tell me what you think.  Be honest.

What aspects of the blog do you like?  What’s the very best aspect of the blog? What types of posts do you learn the most from?   What types of posts interest you the most?

Anything about the blog you’d change?   Any complaints?  Anything you’d like to see more of?  Less of? Are there best practices from other blogs you’d suggest we add/modify?

Let’s make the next 100 posts even better than the first 100.  Thanks, in advance, for weighing in.

More About ‘The Code’

When people use code they’re being less than forthright.  Consider:

The potential recruit who says, “I’m interested” when asked about their impressions of the position they’re interviewing for.  ‘Interested’ in this instance is code for, “it’s true I’d consider your position, but I’m really considering a number of options.” To assume the recruit is actually committed would be a mistake.

The senior officer who says, “here at ACME we’re always looking out for your success” when speaking with a new analyst in her department.  It’s a much weaker thing to say that the company (e.g. ACME) is looking out for the analyst’s success than for the senior officer to personally commit to the analyst’s success.  In this instance, ‘we’re’ is code for the senior officer to hide behind ACME (an oft-time nebulous, faceless organization) and avoid making a personal commitment to the analyst.

The hiring manager who says “we’re looking for fresh perspectives” to the 55 year old job applicant.    That’s code for “we’re looking for younger workers”.  The applicant shouldn’t be mislead, there is a snow ball’s chance in a very hot place they’ll be hired.

Authenticity is the anti-thesis to code.  Most organizations would be well served by increasing authenticity and decreasing code….largely because code is less-than-forthright, it can mislead, it breeds cynicism…and, most importantly, it undermines trust.  Until authenticity increases, know the code.

Part Two—Is A Moral Compass A Prerequisite To Being A Leader?

Consider:

***the director of an after- school program (think:  Boys and Girls Clubs) is consistently losing kids to a new, increasingly popular, gang in town.

***the senior executive whose ‘killer’ proposal for the company’s strategic direction loses favor amongst her colleagues to a peer whose own proposal is blatantly self-serving

***the forthright and well-intended politician consistently loses ground to a charismatic, but unprincipled, opponent whose policies will (among other things) break the bank

What’s common amongst these three examples?

1)      each leader had a compelling message

2)      each leader was losing ground to an arguably inferior ‘competitor’ and was surprised by it

3)      each leader had become dismissive of their counterpart

4)      each leader assumed that the ‘moral high ground’ they believed they held would count for more than it eventually did

5)      each leader failed to acknowledge their counterpart as a leader

The director, the executive, and the politician each saw their counterpart as unworthy—at least compared to themselves.  By default, none of their counterparts could measure up to the lofty standards they associated with being a leader.  Each leader felt contempt towards their counterpart.  They were dismissive of them—all the while feeling a little victimized.

Of course, all of this is misplaced energy.  Most importantly, each made the classic mistake of disrespecting a worthy opponent.  They didn’t make any of this of this public.  Rather, each kept their feelings and impressions private.

Each of these three were less diligent in advancing their point of view than they should have been. They didn’t work as hard as they needed to.  They assumed (among other things) that the moral high-ground they represented would be a great equalizer. Unfortunately for them, it didn’t work out that way.

The truth is, each leader was facing a formidable opponent—a formidable leader if you will. Their counterparts were people that were creating a new status quo; people who had influenced others thinking.  Yes their counterparts were indeed leaders—even though these people may have had a malfunctioning moral compass.

Being dismissive of one’s opponents (as leaders) because one considers them ‘unworthy’ is a mistake. It  sets in motion a set of psychological conditions that prove to be self-defeating.  For each of these three leaders, their counterparts were leaders –they just weren’t ones that these three had much respect for.

Making a judgment is one thing, but developing a sense of moral superiority is quite another.  And it was largely that sense of moral superiority that undermined these three leaders.  As we mentioned in Part One, leadership is an equal opportunity aspiration for saints and scoundrels alike.

Is A Moral Compass A Prerequisite To Being A Leader?

I’ve heard it argued by some pretty smart folks that people like Joseph Stalin (a revolutionary who, by conservative estimates, was responsible for the deaths of over 20,000,000 people) or “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap (the infamous ‘profit-at-any-price’ CEO) weren’t really leaders because they lacked a moral compass.  I suspect their thinking was influenced by the philosophy, “managers do things right; while leaders do the right thing.”   

Allow me to share a different point-of-view.

A leader is someone who:

***creates a new status-quo (they’re not focused on making the current status-quo more efficient)

***has followers (sufficient enough, and who are emotionally engaged enough, to create the desired momentum the leader seeks to drive change)

*** creates a step-change in people’s thinking

Simply put, a leader is someone who takes people from today’s current state to a new state.  Some go willingly, others not.  The leader is introducing change—typically a significant one.  The individual may or may not have a formal title.  Certainly more could be written on this—but, to me, this is the gist of it.

One last thing: no moral litmus test is required to take people from one state to another. Leadership is an equal opportunity aspiration for saints and scoundrels alike.

Whether the new state is the right thing (i.e. whether it’s valuable or good) is entirely a matter of interpretation. In other words, whether someone is a good leader or not is ultimately a value judgment—one that is driven by the ‘fruits’ brought forth by the individual.  Good leaders are those that are trusted.  The fact that we find an individual’s actions reprehensible—or even if we consider the individual to be amoral–doesn’t not make them a leader. They’re a leader all right—one we’re not inclined to follow.

The word ‘leader’ generally carries with it a positive connotation, largely because trust is assumed.  But trust, as I outlined in The Power of Professionalism, is personal—very personal.  Let’s face it, there are  plenty of bad leaders out there.  And the primary reason they’re bad is because people don’t trust them.

Reasonable people can differ on whether someone measures up as a good leader or not.  But to dismiss someone out-of-hand as a leader simply because we consider them unworthy (or because we disagree with them) is to ignore the very real impact they’re having. Unfortunately, this happens a lot.  It’s a form of moral superiority—one that often shoots us in the foot.

Part Two, in two weeks, will explain why.

The Passing Of Stephen Covey

Stephen Covey passed away today. He’ll be missed.

Covey was the author of The 7 Habits of Highly-Effective People—which sold over 20 million copies. Over the years, I bought over 50 copies for my staff and my friends. Interestingly, Covey shopped the original manuscript for 7 Habits to an endless number of traditional publishers.  Initially no one was interested. Eventually the book was picked up.     

His was the first ‘personal growth’ book of its type I ever paid any attention to. His approach helped millions–me included. His books inspired my writing.  His philosophies influenced my thinking. Covey’s legacy is rich indeed.

Stephen was one of the good guys. R.I.P. Stephen.

Fixing Our Broken Government–Optimism To Mitigate An Otherwise Sobering 4th

Earlier today I received an e-mail from Geoff Smart, Chairman and CEO of ghSMART & Company.  Geoff’s firm is a renowned management assessment firm for CEO’s and investors.  His wonderful book Who is a classic on hiring ‘A’ players—it became a NY Times best seller.    

Geoff was writing to announce his new book Leadocracy.  It was a pleasant surprise.  The book was written, in part, because of Geoff’s hope (in some small way) of ‘fixing’ our broken government.

I couldn’t help but think back to my own book The Power of Professionalism (which Geoff happened to have endorsed) which had as a sub-plot getting our country back on track.  In other words, Geoff and I shared a similar concern about the health of the country and had dedicated significant aspects of an otherwise traditional business book to the nation’s health.

Yes folks, the United States has some serious issues—and they’re pretty sobering. On the verge of July 4th, my hopes are still high for the nation.

The answer, in part, is to expect elected officials to be professionals who happen to be politicians, not professional politicians.

Happy 4th everyone!

 

Professionalize Teaching ?—A Duke University Senior Speaks Out

‘We must become more professional’ is a mantra I regularly hear amongst both the for-profit and non-profit sectors. For instance, many have argued that management should have the same types of standardized professional requirements that law does.  Whether you agree or not isn’t the point.  Rather, it’s symptomatic of some level of dissatisfaction of the profession itself.

Recently in the Contra Costa Times another such article “Educating Under Oath”, surfaced. It’s about teachers–written by Matthew Straus, a Duke University senior. Check it out.  And notice the thinking that is foundational to the oath Straus proposes teachers take.  To me, it’s clear that Straus holds several of the mind-sets we write about in The Power of Professionalism.  Am I surprised?  Not at all!