For more about leadership power failures see
Black Holes--an invisible danger to change initiatives

Download pdf
​(text of video)

​To assure success with improvement initiatives, leaders must take on two key actions themselves if they want to sustain the necessary alignment. 
 
Neglecting or delegating these responsibilities is like pulling the plug on the best results, spread, and sustainability. 

Institute for Healthcare Improvement Blog Post. Access at
How to Use Supervision to Create Psychological Safety

​This blog post shares survey results which indicate that conversations between leaders and their direct reports too often do not address concerns and challenges. 

This is in stark contrast to research which shows that addressing what is important to each person and his/her pain points significantly improves performance, learning, and innovation. The article defines action steps supervisors can take to promote a psychologically safe work environment which enhances speaking up about concerns. 

References
1. Beer, Michael High Commitment, High Performance Jossey-Bass 2009
2. Conner, Daryl R. Managing at the Speed of Change Villard Books 1992
3. Crosby, Robert P. Solving the Cross-Work Puzzle VIVO! Publishing 2010 
4. Scherr, Allen L. and Jensen, Michael C. A New Model of Leadership Harvard NOM Research        Paper No. 06-10, Barbados Group Working Paper No. 06-02, 2007

Tool for Ongoing Review Meetings
Available for subscribers only. For free monthly articles and a link to additional resources, click on Subscribe. You may unsubscribe at any time. 

Download pdf

In this article you will learn about black holes and how to prevent them from endangering change initiatives. ​

Reference

1. Heifetz, Ronald A. Leadership Without Easy Answers The Belknap Press 1994

Additional resources

1. Are flaws in decision making causing conflict and poor alignment--a quick diagnostic
2. We have a consensus!....?

Download pdf
​(text of video)

Not only are there hundreds of thousands of books on leadership and associated topics but they offer a bewildering variety of frameworks, models, and terminologies. 

On the one hand, this is a very good thing. Having served as a leader for many years, I have been deeply appreciative of many great approaches. 

But, as a leader, I usually faced a huge number of issues every day. It was hard to recall more than a few strategies in the moment. 

So, all through my career I have sought one short list of strategies for easy reference that would be powerful in problem-solving across many types of situations.  

Could it be possible to create such a list? Find out more in the Resource Guide for In-the-Moment Leadership Strategies available for subscribers only. Click on the button below to subscribe for free monthly articles and obtain a link to the Guide as well as other resources. 

Subscribe for free monthly articles and links to resources for subscribers only
You may unsubscribe at any time.​

Barriers to progress like lack of alignment or conflict that are difficult to resolve are fairly common. One seemingly quite logical interpretation is that the primary cause of such barriers is the way people are communicating.

But, problematic communication could be secondary to--a result of--flaws in decision-making processes. Such flaws may not be recognized as an important source of relational problems. When people then dive into discussions, they are at risk for having unexpressed concerns, differing views, and assumptions about how decisions will be made.

As a result, it is more difficult to sustain dialogue—a process of eliciting and assuring mutual understanding of differing ideas, opinions, and perceptions. Instead, due to the prevailing uncertainties, people are more likely to fall into debates, arm-twisting, coaxing, and pressuring which disrupt efforts to achieve alignment.  

Identifying flaws in decision making and doing something about them can help significantly to shift a murky, entangled debate into a clear, effective process of dialogue.

Common decision-making errors include lack of clarity about: who has the authority to make the call; the type of decision being used; whether there will be input before and after decisions are made in order to address concerns; or if those impacted will be involved in the design of the implementation plan.

A quick diagnostic for flaws in decision making process (to support high quality dialogue):

• In this situation, is it clear who (person or group) has the authority to make the decision?
• Has that person or group identified the type of decision making to be used? (see brief descriptions below)
• Is there a clear timeline for the decision?
• Do people who are impacted and those who can contribute expertise have opportunities to give input? Have they been involved in creating a mutual definition of the problem?
• Has there been high quality dialogue prior to the decision with consideration of different options and the benefits and risks of each?
• Will there be opportunity to express reactions and address concerns about a decision after it is made?
• Will people be involved in designing the implementation plan for the decision?
• Will the person or group who made the decision engage in regular review of the quality, clarity, and effectiveness of decision making processes?

Types of decision making: (1)
The following two decision types mesh best with the objective of promoting high quality dialogue.

• In consultative decisions, a leader with the authority to do so makes the call after obtaining input through dialogue from those who will be impacted and those who have key knowledge and expertise.

• In consensus, a group of people make the call together. Consensus does not mean that the decision is everyone’s first choice but that everyone can live with the decision and commit fully to its success.

Additional decision types:

• In authoritative decision making, a leader with authority makes the decision without input. Dialogue about the decision after it is made is crucial to promote alignment and participation in implementation.

• When decisions are delegated, a leader with authority gives that authority to another leader or team who then determines the decision type and process to be used. 

Maintaining high quality dialogue while also maintaining clarity and quality of decision making processes is an important and nuanced balancing act. It takes art, skill, and ongoing, deliberate practice by individual leaders and by teams.

Additional brief articles on decision making

• When Decisions Cause Distress--a path of courage and compassion
• We have a consensus!?

Reference
(1) Special thanks to Robert Crosby. See his book Walking the Empowerment Tightrope 1992.

Download pdf

It may seem strange to link vulnerability with results because vulnerability is so often associated with weakness.

As defined by Brene Brown through her research, vulnerability is inherent in life--we cannot avoid "uncertainty, risk and emotional exposure." Our choice is how we "own and engage with our vulnerability." (1)

"To be vulnerable with others" means choosing to say what we really think and feel. It is about engaging in open, honest, and transparent communication. This means taking risks: of showing imperfection; of being wrong; of losing popularity; of losing status.

In organizations, an "open and trusting environment" has been linked with financial performance--"fostering trust among managers and employees so that they are open to sharing information, providing and receiving honest feedback, and having difficult conversations." These are factors which enhance an organization's ability to "align, execute, and renew." (2)

Vulnerability does not mean "letting it all hang out" or emotional catharsis. (1) It demands appropriate openness that does not provoke defensiveness and withdrawal but builds partnership.
 
An organization will likely have a difficult time establishing group norms for safe conversation unless leaders "go first"--that is, unless leaders are active participants. Taking the lead in being vulnerable is hard to do but "the best cure for the fear of being burned is opening yourself up to being burned. Sometimes it's even okay to get burned because you realize it's not fatal." (3)

How safe is it to be vulnerable in your workplace? One indication is the way leaders talk. Listen for statements like: "I don't know; I need help; I am not sure but I feel we need to take the risk; It failed but I learned a lot; I made a mistake; I apologize; My idea may be completely off-base but I want your reactions; What can I do better next time?; I played a part in that." (1)

These statements may seem like weakness but this kind of vulnerability actually "sounds like truth and feels like courage...Truth and courage may not be comfortable but they are not weakness." (1)

References
(1) Brown, Brene Daring Greatly, Gotham Books, 2012
(2) De Smet, Aaron et al The Missing Link: Connecting Organizational and Financial Performance McKinsey and
     Co., February 2007 (downloaded at McKinsey.com)
(3) Lencioni, Patrick The Five Temptations of a CEO Jossey-Bass, 1998

Well-functioning work partnerships are not easy to build and maintain. They "always involve awareness, intention, and choice on an ongoing, minute-by-minute basis." (Cheesebrow, 2012)

In complex systems, there are many opportunities for misunderstandings which can disrupt partnerships.

Decision making is an especially sensitive area. In particular, making decisions unilaterally can be very negatively provocative for those who are impacted but were not involved in the decision process. Years of work building trust can be disrupted in such circumstances leading to poor quality of future problem solving and diminished engagement with implementation. (Fisher and Shapiro, 2005)

Decision making is so important for partnerships that consulting with key work partners before deciding should always be considered. In fact, while there are no absolutes and unilateral decisions are sometimes necessary, consultation is usually advisable. (Fisher and Shapiro, 2005)

This does not mean that decision making authority is abdicated by those who have it. Even if there are negative feelings about a decision, acknowledgement of the input along with explanation about how it was considered tends to mitigate problematic effects. Prior consultation helps others feel included. Also, valuable input may be provided.

A drawback of consulting might be prolonged decision making. But, the experience of respectful involvement usually facilitates better problem solving in the course of implementation.

Overall, "partnership is a conscious act, not a reflexive one." (Cheesebrow, 2012)

One method of group decision making I have observed, not uncommonly, is for someone to vigorously put forth a proposed decision and look around the room.

A few people remain silent and still, a few nod their heads, and maybe one or two exclaim “Yes.” Then the person who wants the decision announces: "We have a consensus!" (After all, "everyone agreed--no one stated any objections.")

Poor implementation and outcomes in such situations are quite likely. High quality consensus requires that each person give explicit indication of being able both to live with the decision and to fully commit to successful implementation—even if not fully satisfied. This occurs only with balanced, fair, and rational discussion in which everyone participates and everyone feels heard. (Chris Mcgoff The Primes, 2012 and Peter Scholtes et al The Team Handbook, 1989)

Poor quality consensus decisions result from lack of a shared definition of consensus, lack of a systematic and clear way for each person to indicate if they are in consensus, and arguments and debates as opposed to assuring all opinions are fully heard. Also, use of traditional definitions like "no one voices objections," "everyone agrees with everything," "everyone is fully satisfied," or "majority rules" are not effective and perhaps even destructive to the best efforts. (McGoff, 2012)

Groups have used a wide variety of methods for each person to specifically indicate if they are in consensus: An example is to use a scale of 1 - 5  with "5" meaning a high level of enthusiasm and "1" meaning no enthusiasm. A cut-off is defined (e.g at a rating of '1" or "2" even from just one person) which means insufficient enthusiasm to commit to implementation. The effort to come to a decision would then stop and dialogue would be restarted. This might lead to revision of the proposed decision or a shift in enthusiasm due to deeper exploration of issues. This iterative process increases the odds of a creative decision and shared motivation for implementation.

High quality consensus decision making is not easy. It requires high quality dialogue so that decisions reflect the thinking of all group members. The skills for moving back and forth between checking for consensus and dialogue require a good deal of intentional practice over time.

The organizational theorist Elliott Jaques suggested that you can test organizational design by one main criterion—does it increase mutual trust or does it increase suspicion? (1)

In his view, much of the mistrust in hierarchy is “generated by the failure to specify the accountability and the authority people are expected to exercise in their everyday working interactions.” (2)

 In particular, managers should be responsible not just for the work of their direct reports but for their results and the quality of work context. In addition Jacques stated manager accountability should include adding value to the work of their direct reports, developing healthy teamwork, and generating authentic enthusiasm for work. To do this, managers also must have authority to make work assignments and make removals if necessary—but even the latter would also be dependent on a process that does not disrupt trust.

Jaques felt that without the clarity of these basic expectations, other interventions will not get very far--like working on morale, individual insight, exercises in group dynamics, incentive planning, leadership development, etc.

(1) From Art Kleiner, Elliot Jaques Levels With You, Strategy+Business, Jan 1 2001, Issue 22
(2) Elliott Jaques, Requisite Organization, Cason Hall and Co, 1989

At a recent conference on leadership, some participants expressed strong negative reactions to even the mention of hierarchy and positional authority which they saw as unavoidably dis-empowering and controlling.

In contrast, some participants in past conferences have had strong negative reactions to mentions of equality, participation in decisions, and consensus which were seen as asking for role confusion, intolerable delays in decisions, and stalled initiatives.

Balancing equality vs.hierarchy is an example of one of many challenges for which there are no risk-free, easy answers. In response to this uncertainty, it is not uncommon for people to develop hardened, polarized positions---a process Oshry calls "dancing into the tunnel of limited options." (Barry Oshry, Seeing Systems, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., 2007).  

Instead, by recognizing and accepting the lack of risk-free, simple answers, more nuanced strategies can be developed. For example, types of decision making might vary in different situations. Or, consensus decision making might include back-up resolution methods to assure timelines.The objective is to increase everyone's capacity to "respond complexly to complex situations." (Oshry 2007)

Empowerment of followers is a crucial reason why transformational leadership is effective in leading to performance beyond expectations and helping followers to be more creative, more flexible and more open to change. (Bass, Bernard and Riggio, Ronald E. Transformational Leadership 2nd Ed., Psychology Press, 2006)

But this does not mean transformational leaders are passive. In fact, laissez-faire management, associated with avoiding or delaying decisions, has been shown to be connected to low productivity, more conflict and lack of cohesion among employees (Bass et al).

On the other hand, this does not mean such leaders use primarily top-down directive, decision making. Close monitoring, oversight and control are also substantially less effective leadership methods.

Transformational leadership requires a delicate balance of asserting positional power and promoting empowerment. The key components for effective balance, as studied by Bass et al, are: (a) idealized influence--e.g. communication of clear expectations and vision, willingness to take risks, high ethical standards, persistence, and determination; (b) inspiration motivation--e.g. enthusiasm, optimism, and motivation of others; (c) intellectual stimulation--e.g. questioning assumptions, and thinking of old problems in new ways; and (d) individual consideration--e.g. staying aware of individual concerns, acting as a coach and mentor, and seeking two-way communication and feedback.