Leadership Distractions Dissected
Prologue
Distractions
abound around us. All one must do is watch the evening news to witness how
calculated distractions camouflage real issues.
We have found that distractions are more disruptive than most of us
realize. In addition to their disruptive nature, taking action to eliminate or
minimize distractions becomes a significant leadership challenge. Before developing corrective strategies an
understanding of distractions must be characterized. In this article we attempt to characterize
distractions by dissecting them. Our
final article in this series is the tough one, where we will offer thoughts on
how to stem distractions so leaders can improve their effectiveness.
Introduction
The first article of this
year advanced the premise that distractions confronting leaders may be one of
the biggest challenges to their leadership effectiveness. In that issue of UPDATE, we began
formulating our thoughts regarding distractions, and things started lining
up. A major factor on leadership
effectiveness is reactivity within the organization. If the organization, department, etc. is
operating in a reactive mode, then the distractions become the normal mode of
business. This cycle is difficult to
break, yet we are confident our readers have experienced this condition.
Considering the distractions within a reactive organization, the energy needed
by a leader just to “put out fires” on a daily basis impacts his or her
proactive intentions and abilities. We
also discussed what we refer to as ‘self-imposed/self-created’ distractions
where leaders create several of the distractions that befall them. Those self-imposed/self-created distractions
include:
·
Micro-management
·
Lack of trust of their people or their superiors
·
Lack of ability to delegate
·
Lack of focus
·
Poor decision-making
·
Well-intentioned to a fault
·
Unmanaged conflict – running issues/conflicts up
the flag pole or ignoring them and hoping they will go away
·
Weak hierarchy that creates distractions rather
than helping
This
issue attempts to dissect each of the above self-imposed distractions,
recognizing that these are driven by the reactivity we refer to above. Getting out of the cycle of reactivity is
difficult and requires a plan, a commitment and self-discipline. Our intention in this article is to
drill into each of the distractions to better understand them, and highlight the relationship between distractions and the cycle of
reactivity. In the third article we will
explore ways of managing distractions resulting in improved leadership
performance.
Micro-management
We
have all experienced working for a micro-manager. What a joy, if you are a supervisor or lower
level manager. Every little decision
requires input or approval from the boss.
You wonder if you have any competence or even why you are in the position. In most instances this is not a reflection of
you and your capabilities but of the confidence and skills of the boss. Unfortunately, managers cannot let go of
the details. They may have had the same
experience while moving up the organization chart and feel that is the expected
norm. The reason for this behavior may
also be insecurity. The boss is not sure
of his/her ability to be in this position or they may look for that which makes
them comfortable – i.e. getting involved in details. This keeps them occupied and they can then
ignore the uncomfortable issues such as long-range planning and growing the
future of the organization. Too many are
moved into senior positions based on their performance in lower level positions
and are not provided the training and given clear expectations of what the new
role requires. So, they focus on what
they are most comfortable with and the behaviors they feel got them to this
higher position.
The
negative impact of this behavior was experienced by one of your authors. Working in a large technical organization
micro-management became the norm for senior managers. They were all technical people who loved
detail. This behavior became almost
inbred in the organization to the point where it was named “Stump the Dummy.”
When a senior manager was meeting with his direct reports, he would keep asking
more and more detailed questions until the direct report did not have the
answer on the tip of his/her tongue. Therefore,
the senior manager stumped the dummy. For
these meetings, bringing to the meeting the engineers who were doing the
detailed work was not acceptable. The
manager was expected to know every detail.
This behavior then forced the lower-level manager to know every detail
to avoid failing in Stump the Dummy. Not
only did this “game” discourage people, but it also prevented bright people in
the organization from getting exposure to upper management.
Is
the answer to this trait more training on how to behave as a senior manager or
is it having an enlightened senior manager who does not micro-manage. The answer is probably both. The organization should have expectations for
its senior managers and should be clear about the need to understand the work
going on in their organization and also focusing on much broader issues. New senior managers often need mentoring on
the broader aspects of the position, but too often asking for such help is seen
or perceived as a weakness and therefore avoided. Mentoring and selected training should be a
standard to help a person acclimate to a new position and to develop the new
skills required at the higher position.
Lack of trust of their people
or their superiors
This distractive trait is often
related to micro-management. There are
people who have egos that they just have to display. These are people who are convinced that no
one can do things better than them.
There are also cases where a subordinate makes a mistake and that
mistake stays in the mind forever. If a
subordinate makes a mistake, use it as a teaching moment and help the person
learn. Don’t hold it over the
subordinate’s head forever. If the
subordinate doesn’t improve then there are other actions that may be needed,
such as additional training or perhaps reassignment or even termination. These latter two are only last resort actions
after attempts to work with the individual or providing training.
Lack of trust of superiors is
dangerous. This can be a perception of
the individual or it can be based in fact.
If it is based in fact, the individual needs to do some serious
evaluation of whether he/she wants to remain in that organization. Trying to work around an untrusted superior will
for the most part, end poorly and could derail the career of the individual.
If this lack of trust of the
superiors is a perception without a true basis the individual needs to assess
his/her perception. It would be best to
discuss with someone, but that can be tricky.
If the discussion is with someone else in the organization it can get
back to the superior and derail the career.
It would be best to discuss with someone who is impartial. Use an outside consultant or do some
networking and find someone from outside the company who you trust to be a
sounding board and help you discuss your concerns. Either that perception is reality and you
need to reassess your current employer or the perception is unfounded and you
need to develop a personal plan to get past that perception and build a good
working relationship with your boss.
Lack of ability to delegate
When a person is successful at a
working level position they are because of the work they do. There may be some collaborative projects but
a majority of the success is due to the individual talents. When moved into a supervisory and a subsequent
management position expectations change.
No longer are you expected to do the work but to develop and use those
who now work for you. While you have
those same technical skills, doing the detailed work is no longer your job.
Some people quickly adjust to a
supervisory or managerial role, others need coaching and training and a third
group struggle to give up the detailed work and do not delegate and develop
their staff. This third group disrupts
and distracts and often discourages their team of subordinates. A line exists between correcting and coaching,
and just redoing the work as you would. By
stepping in and doing the task, does not help the subordinate learn and will
eventually demotivate them. It takes self-discipline
for the supervisor/manager to resist doing the detail work instead of coaching
and mentoring. Leaders have to provide
guidance, allow the subordinate to ask questions and try it again and again, if
necessary. The supervisor/manager who
cannot give up detail work will soon fail in their leadership role or they will
limit future growth.
Learning to delegate is not
easy. Sure you can just give out
assignments, but are you giving the right assignments to the right people? Are your using assignments to expand and
develop your subordinates? Are you
available to help coach the subordinates without doing the work for them? We could list other questions but the point
is that delegation is a skill that must be developed to be effective.
Lack of Focus
Who
doesn’t have a plethora of distractions in their lives? There are work distractions like the “oh by
the way” assignments given by your boss or the distractions brought to you by
your peers. There are personal life distractions
– the disagreement you and your spouse had last night, the stress of getting to
your child’s soccer game or worse, getting there on time to coach the
team. The leak in the kitchen that is
getting bigger and needs attention. The
list could go on and on. Sometimes it
seems that your actual job is the least important thing in your life.
We
realize compartmentalizing each of these distractions is difficult, but it
needs to be done. There may be times you
just need to take a day off work to deal with some of the outside issues. Maybe you need to find someone to help you
coach the soccer team and give up some of that pressure. Maybe you need to politely decline the
appointment to new team at work or to the city planning commission. Prioritize your life and decide what is most
important to being able to focus on your role as a supervisor/manager. You have a responsibility to your
organization, to help those who report to you become successful, and you have a
responsibility to your family. When you
are in your work role you need to be present and focused on those who depend on
you. When you are in your family role,
focus on them. Sounds easy but we know
it is not.
Poor
decision-making
The
topic of decision-making is one of the most written about leadership skills
ever. We do not intend to reiterate
decision-making in that context. The
point here is to present the disruptive effect of poor decision-making from
viewpoint of the leader as an individual.
In our leadership classes we stress the importance of self-awareness,
introspection and effects of stress on leadership behavior. We believe that
poor decisions are a result of other distractions, or other stressors a leader
may be experiencing. The consequence of
decisions made under stress themselves become disruptions.
We
administer different behavioral assessments in our practice. The outcomes of these assessments provide
individuals with insights into their behavioral type under normal situations
and increasing levels of stress. In one
particular assessment the premise is that excessive stress shifts behavior, and
the shift is predictable based on the normal behavior. While for the most part the outcomes of these
assessments are fascinating to those who partake, the learning and insights
gained can be powerful information to help control behavior when one knows the
pattern when stress becomes an overriding influence.
Case
in point, there was a CEO who fell victim to several of these disruptive
influences, and as a result, he found himself either stressed or his normal
charming self. The real problem was not
knowing which person he was. Through an
assessment we learned that when stressed his behavior was equally
predictable. The challenge was to get
him to realize this and the damage he was creating by jumping to decisions
while in the stressed state. Perhaps the
biggest problem with all this is the follow-up behavior. The scenario might go as follows: An event or condition was brought up at a
meeting. Resolution to the CEO was clear
in his mind but flawed in his logic.
When that was pointed out (in private so as not to embarrass him) he was
so stressed that he made a poor decision to launch an outrage that was
inappropriate and damaging. Damaging not
only to the person who was the recipient, but those who could overhear the
outrage within earshot of his office.
Only later to apologize to the individual for his outrageous
behavior. This sequence of outrage
followed by apologies became a trademark.
By not knowing the well-researched predictability of his behavioral
patterns, he made poor decisions. In
reality, he became a victim of his own inability to recognize the stress and
temper his poor decision-making.
One
can only image the disruptive nature of the overall encounter; to the CEO who
was disrupted, the recipient and those who overheard the outrage. Take this to the next level, what happens
when stressors and the inability to recognize that they are affecting behavior
come into play for business, operational or administrative behaviors. If similar aberrant behavior influences those
decisions, the subsequent consequences of those poor decisions has to be dealt
with and rectified.
Well-intentioned
to a fault
Being well-intentioned is an admirable trait for a
leader. Compassion for subordinates and
employees is not only desirable but important to the culture of the
organization. We believe that most
leaders want to give their people the benefit of the doubt. Be considerate of each person’s situation and
attempt to balance those situations with the best interest of the company as
well as the individual. Anything less
than that is not only harsh, but ineffective and detrimental to both the
organization and the leader’s effectiveness.
The issue here is, when being well-intentioned goes to the extreme. When affording the benefit of the doubt
becomes risky to the leader and the organization. Risky can mean different things depending on
the situation. What we have experienced
is when a leader’s good intentions are taken advantage of to the point where
those involved actually subvert the leadership for their own benefit. One situation that stands out is the case of
a senior executive who demonstrated some subversive behaviors along with
another senior person who had subversive ambitions and needed the other
executive to secure his objectives. This
subversive behavior while subtle was recognized by other executives and discussed. As the consultant, I informed the CEO of
these observations. The second executive
who was the collaborative partner was close to retirement. The CEO felt he was of minimal influence and
wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him to serve out his time
(hopefully in a rather benign fashion) so he would receive his retirement. We continued to warn the CEO, but his
compassion and desire to give the second executive an opportunity to complete
his career, did not confront the subversion the CEO knew about. The outcome was the CEO’s leadership was
subverted, those two senior executives were successful in having the CEO
disenfranchised by the parent company and the two of them survived and took
over the leadership of the company. The
original CEO was well-intentioned to a fault.
Personnel conflicts are a normal course of organizational
functioning, but when they occur between key individuals, such conflicts can
become a major distraction to a leader. It
can be as simple as two key people who just don’t get along. Both have been good employees. One is close to retirement, the other is
not. A short-term strategy assumes the
conflict will go away once the older person retires. What the leader believes is his good
intention is, in effect, passive-aggressive.
It does nothing to eliminate the conflict; rather, neglecting the
situation and the ongoing lack of cooperation becomes a distraction to the
leader and other employees.
Unmanaged
conflict – running issues/conflicts
up the flag pole or ignoring them, hoping they will go away
This
distraction is a good example of a reactive organization, but also ties into
the other distractions we are discussing.
It’s also manifested in flat organizations where the
decision-making/problem resolution hierarchy is weak. None-the-less, whenever the smallest of
issues arise, and they are escalated to higher levels of management/leadership,
these situations are disruptions and interruptions that impact a leader’s
effectiveness. The other side of unmanaged conflict is leaders like to think of
themselves as problem solvers, and these situations are typical what we teach
as “Convergent” problems. Ones that can
be dealt with since the solutions converge upon themselves in a rather clear
manner. Therefore, these issues or conflicts
are addressed but can be significant disruptions depending on how the
respective parties lobby their cause.
In
this specific disruptive case, another insidious consequence exists which is
indirect, and impacts both the organization and the leadership. It’s the
overall disruption caused by the conflict, beyond just those involved. We refer to these as ‘sideline effects.’
Those sitting on the sidelines or who are impacted indirectly by the conflict
are distracted from their normal work as they watch the drama unfold. Then after resolution people congregate and
spend time ‘talking it down.’ For the
leader, this indirect impact fosters the wrong behavior. Local problem solving is not being cultivated
in the organization. If the leader falls
victim to those who approach him with minor problems, and allows them to run
their problem up the flagpole to the leader, then she is falling short on
several leadership learning opportunities.
The goal should not be the disposition of problems; it should be resolution
at the lowest level in the organization.
Finally,
the case exists where instead of taking the bait and resolving the problem for
those who approach a leader, leaders take the approach that maybe it will go
away if I let emotions cool off; the ‘do nothing option.’ This tends to exacerbate the initial issue
and escalates the problem to some future time when it can be worse. Or worse yet, the do nothing option becomes a
reflection on the leader’s ability to not deal with problems, making the leader
even less effective. We have witnessed
this particular type of distraction and it is disruptive. When this distraction is repeated on a rather
routine basis the distraction becomes damaging to the organization and
leadership.
Weak
hierarchy that creates distractions rather than helping
From
an organizational effectiveness perspective, workforce planning and strategic
staffing are important activities. We
have worked in several organizations attempting to align the right people into
the right jobs. When issues of
favoritism or time in service (TIS) become the promotion criteria the hierarchy
can, and in most cases under these issues, will be ineffective, unqualified,
unprepared and deficient. For leaders to
be as effective they need a support team that is the best they can field. A weak hierarchy creates an immense amount of
distraction because those below the leader cannot function as necessary,
thereby shifting their leadership responsibilities to their immediate
leader.
The
age old mistake of taking a good technical or operational person and reward
them with a promotion to a management/leadership position assuming they will
function at a level equal to their technical or operational expertise is
false. For senior leaders to be
effective they need to build their team over time. Select the right people, mentor and groom
them, train them and afford them time to work in the areas they are being
prepared to lead. When that happens the senior leader can be just that and
focus on his job knowing that his support team is capable and proficient at
theirs.
Closing
As
stated above, the eight distractions we are discussing are not exclusive, with
distinct relationships between them.
What we are attempting here is to dissect the issues that distract leaders,
to better understand the components that affect leadership effectiveness. We know that distractions are a part of life,
but they can consume and overwhelm or they can be accepted and dealt with. With this understanding we can offer thoughts
and perspectives on how to overcome these disruptive aspects, which challenge
leaders. Our concluding article in this
series will provide these perspectives and further highlight the integrated
nature of these disruptions. Our overall intention is to increase awareness of
the things that may be considered as normal daily irritations to a leader, and
offer some ways to minimize the disruptions such that they can focus on their
leadership responsibilities.
