Tag: leadership

In the full-time MBA program at Olin, it’s easy to be intimidated by your peers. Students come from a wide array of backgrounds and experiences, and there’s not a single person here who didn’t excel in whatever they were doing prior to school. Everyone is remarkably humble about their achievements, so often it takes some time before you’ll learn exactly how accomplished your classmates are.

Such was the case when I attended a panel set up by one of my core team members, Jon Slack (MBA ’17), who is also a ten year veteran of the Army. Jon and six other WashU MBA and JD candidates arranged to sit down with about 20 cadets from the local Army ROTC Gateway Battalion; a good chunk of these college juniors and seniors from nine schools in the St. Louis area had just received their orders for where they’d be stationed next year, and in what branch of the Army, and my veteran and active-duty classmates were on hand to pass on advice about what it’s like to be an officer in the Army at a young age, to share stories of their own experiences, and to speak about success after leaving the Army.

Veteran and Active Duty members of the Olin Business School and the Washington University School of Law share their experiences as young officers with junior and senior college students from the 9 member schools of the Gateway ROTC Battalion.

The event kicked off with one panelist sharing how he became immediately responsible for a unit of over forty men, and as more of my MBA classmates shared their stories, I was continually struck by how much responsibility each was given at a young age, and how much freedom they were given in how they went about fulfilling their duties. Although the stories were very different, as the panelists came from varied roles and divisions, there was much similarity in the approaches each took to tackling the challenges of being a new leader.

Danny Henry (MBA ‘17) advised cadets to “be quiet, listen, ask questions, and start to identify who has strengths, what they are, and how to leverage them.” All the panelists urged cadets to have respect for the experience of their NCOs, and to learn from them as much as possible.

David Marold (JD ‘16) framed it as a people business: “if you invest in building relationships, your authority is already there and built into that.”

Charlie Hon, (MBA ’16), shared the benefits of empowering Soldiers to take ownership of their projects, and of recognizing soldiers for their successes, no matter how small.

Dan Vitale (MBA ‘17) reminded cadets that “you’re young, but you know what right looks like,” and encouraged them to “ask dumb questions, because everyone assumes you know nothing anyway, but all that changes pretty quick. By the time you’re a first lieutenant, everyone will think you know everything.”

James Jacobs (MBA ‘17) extolled the virtues of being in shape, explaining how an easy way to immediately command respect from subordinates was to be able to outrun them in PT. He also encouraged cadets to learn to prioritize, “you’ll never get everything done, so figure out what has to be done, what should be done, and what would be nice to be done. And never try to cover up ‘has to be done’ with ‘nice to be done,’ it never works!”

Nearly every single piece of advice was equally applicable to the business world; near the end, I found myself scrawling down notes not for this blog piece, but for my own edification.

The anecdotes my MBA classmates relayed were often ones where they’d made mistakes, or learned lessons the hard way. Their stories and advice illuminated a particularly salient point made by Tony Nuber (MBA ’17): “leadership is a process, not a state of being,” and each cadet had the ability to be a good leader if they brought confidence, determination, and empathy to their role.

It was exciting to see the incredibly accomplished members of the MBA and JD classes interacting with the equally talented cadets of the Gateway Battalion, and to watch one generation of leaders give back to the next.

Claire McCaskill participated in her first political campaign in 1960 when she was 7 years old. It was Halloween and when her neighbors in the conservative Missouri town of Lebanon opened their doors, she chimed, “Trick or Treat. Vote for JFK!” She didn’t realize it then, but clearly sees now that her parents were teaching her how to be a risk-taker and stand up for what you believe in.

McCaskill, now the senior senator from Missouri in the US Congress, was a guest speaker  Oct. 30 in the Women & Leadership course co-taught by Michelle Duguid, associate professor of organizational behavior and Maxine Clark, founder and former CEO of Build-A-Bear Workshop. The course examines career paths, challenges, and choices for women in today’s workplace. McCaskill is one of nine women leaders scheduled to share their stories with students in the class.

Image Courtesy of Simon & Schuster

During her informal talk with students followed by questions and answers, McCaskill talked about her unbridled ambition to be in politics ever since she was 13. She emphatically told her audience of undergraduate and graduate women (and a few men), that “women should own their ambition.” It’s nothing to be ashamed of, she said, instead,”women need to embrace the fact that ambition is using your abilities to drive toward your goals.”

The Senator shared many lessons that she learned the hard way as she broke barriers for women in the Missouri legislature, Kansas City prosecuting attorney’s office, as Missouri Auditor and a US Senator.

Despite a 3 a.m. roll call in the Senate the night before, McCaskill delivered an energetic and inspiring talk in her signature straight-shooter style. In addition to comments on the current presidential campaign and gridlock in Congress, she shared timeless words of wisdom with the students:

“Every time I was marginalized, I used it as fuel to focus my drive.”

“Don’t submit to the disease to appease. You can’t lead by making everyone happy – if you do you are naive.”

“To grow confidence, you need to do something a little scary to push through the fear.”

“You are not evil and manipulative if you are strategic.”

“Be authentic to what you believe in. Stay grounded.”

Sen. McCasskill’s recently published memoir, Plenty Ladylike, is on the syllabus for the course along with case studies involving discrimination and research on gender differences, bias and stereotypes in the workplace.

Other speakers scheduled for the Women & Leadership course include:

What is strategic thinking and how can I get better at it?—Anonymous

In our rapidly changing world, strategic thinking is a tent pole of leadership. Good strategic thinking can help resolve challenges. But bad strategic thinking almost always makes the situation worse. Outside of dictionary definitions, strategic thinking has resisted an agreed upon definition in the context of organizational leadership, and no universally accepted path for getting better at it has been identified. So, your two questions indeed are challenging.

The BusinessDictionary.com definition of strategic thinking is “the ability to come up with effective plans in line with an organization’s objectives within a particular economic situation.” Other definitions range from metaphors (“finding the dots and connecting the dots”) to mathematics (such as the theory of games) to the abstract (“mental process, at once abstract and rational, which must be capable of synthesizing both psychological and material data”).

But strategic thinking, especially with respect to organizational leadership, can be defined in a more actionable way. It involves four fundamental processes:

• Recognizing. When is a situation strategic? While many indicators exist, three are particularly important: 1) much is at stake, 2) the cost to reverse decisions is high, 3) outcomes are not certain. There is no doubt that the Ebola pandemic is strategic: many lives are at stake, the lack of early intervention cannot be reversed, and how many globally will be affected is uncertain. But when did the issue become a strategic issue? When only a few people in West Africa were sick? When the rates of infection rose to an epidemic? When the epidemic becomes a pandemic? Given prior knowledge of the disease and experience with the disease, the issue became a strategic one for the United States and the world long before the current Ebola outbreak was identified in March 2014.

• Formulating. Diagnosing the challenge, problem or opportunity is critical. Who are the stakeholders? What information and knowledge do they have? What is in their best interest? What is the real challenge? You want to formulate the challenge from all relevant perspectives, but also to take a step back and reformulate to come up with an overarching diagnosis. How and why are these formulations connected? What is the big picture? Is there an even bigger long-run picture? For instance, beyond the obvious and immediate root causes of the biological and medical aspects of Ebola, why might it be difficult for West African countries to contain the virus? Why might family and village members not only refuse to report sick individuals but also hide the deaths of family members from the authorities, both of which could accelerate the pandemic? What are the logistical and distribution challenges of medical aid and support reaching affected communities? How might citizens, communities, political and regulatory institutions, and economic interests around the globe respond in different ways to a perceived pandemic as it grows in geographic scope and magnitude? Responses to these and other questions can provide a more comprehensive formulation of the challenge.

• Solving. A comprehensively formulated challenge shines a bright light on where to look for solutions. Einstein once wrote: “The formulation of the problem is often more essential than its solution.” Nonetheless, comprehensive and feasible solutions are not always easily found. Approaches have to be analyzed, compared and contrasted. Treatment, quarantines, appropriate burials, education of citizens and health care workers, travel screenings and perhaps travel bans are surely all to be considered. But solution elements that address other aspects of the root causes about reporting the sick, hiding death, and other factors that contribute to accelerating the pandemic also need to be considered if the problem is to be tackled in a comprehensive way.

• Deciding. A strategic decision is not to be taken lightly. Can actions be taken to reduce uncertainty, lower the stakes, or reduce the costs of potential reversal? Is the timing right? Sometimes a decision can’t be delayed or reducing the risk comes at too high a cost. What is the downside risk? How can the downside be mitigated while still capturing the upside? In many instances, though, responding to pressure to decide quickly can lead to far worse outcomes than delaying the decision until after the options and risk management are worked through. Some decisions, like screening and isolating flight arrivals from West Africa, may be seen as actions too costly for societies to take until the epidemic reaches their shores. In fact, many decisions involve trade-offs between arresting the epidemic and causing panic. These trade-offs can change over time. Revisiting decisions in an ongoing way is an important aspect of strategic thinking (you can track information about the Ebola epidemic here).

While the Ebola epidemic is an obvious application of strategic thinking, the same four fundamental processes can be used for any strategic issue ranging from investing in a new information technology system to ending homelessness for veterans.

Strategic thinking is difficult, but two key ideas may help.

First, instead of trying to improve all aspects of your strategic thinking at once, try improving each of the four processes one at a time. Stop and think about recognizing strategic situations. Focus on formulating the challenge in a comprehensive way from all relevant perspectives before trying to come up with solutions. (Warning: You will likely find it difficult to keep from jumping to a solution and then developing a formulation to support your solution.) Come up with different approaches before analyzing, comparing, contrasting and deciding.

Second, act and reflect. Reflecting on the decisions you implement is central to learning. Conduct after-action assessments. Ask others to review what you did well and what you could have done better. Adopt a growth mind-set and seek out new ways of thinking, especially from good strategic thinkers.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

I am a fairly new second-level supervisor at a small office (20-30 people). The supervisor of the largest branch I oversee just left. The sigh of relief was palpable. She hid it well from me, but I’m now discovering (and employees are finally telling me) about bullying tactics, moodiness and generally poor leadership. How do I stay engaged and ensure that her replacement treats employees well while not micromanaging or breathing down her neck?–Anonymous

Knowing whether a new hire is going to fit your requirements for the position and the organization’s culture is not easy. The situation surely becomes more difficult when the prior leader had more weaknesses than were visible. It is all too easy to become gun-shy and fearful that the new leader will fail, which may lead to micromanaging that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. What can you do?

Allow me to share my SECRET for increasing the likelihood of success for new supervisors:

Selection. First and foremost, hire a supervisor that fits the leadership culture you are trying to support or develop. Figure out, write down and make concrete the culture you desire for your organization. Post the cultural expectations as part of the job description, if you’re allowed. If not, share them with every candidate and ask whether they are willing to commit to supporting those expectations. If so, then their integrity will be on the line. Of course, so will yours, because they will hold you accountable for the same expectations.

Expectations. Discussing leadership culture during the hiring process is a good first step at setting expectations. Discuss expectations again when the person begins work. In addition to ongoing conversations about your culture and how the new hire can contribute to it, demonstrate your own commitment to the expectations. You might consider having a new supervisor shadow you for a few days to see how you respond to challenges. Be creative and find other ways to demonstrate your thinking and commitment to the leadership culture.

Coaching. Setting expectations may be easy compared to maintaining them during an employee’s tenure. Things happen. Challenges emerge. Cultural violations abound. Cynicism breeds easily. One way to combat these obstacles is through coaching. This is less about telling people what to do and more about asking what they’ve done well and what they could’ve done better. Using a growth mind-set for figuring out how to improve and support the organization’s culture is one way to invest in the maintenance of expectations.

Reflection. The idea of reflection should be central to not only coaching but also employee assessment. Ask people if they performed their job or tasks, and they naturally will respond in the affirmative, leaving no room for reflection or improvement. Ask what they did well and what they could have done better, and you are encouraging a growth mind-set. Questions should not be only about the set of tasks in a person’s job description, but also how they have acted with respect to the organization’s values and contributed to strategic initiatives. This provides a richer assessment of the individual’s accomplishments and potential while setting expectations.

Exits. Depending on which statistics are quoted, 40 percent to 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. Poor match quality is challenging not only for marriages but also for organizations. We shouldn’t think of employees in terms of good or bad. All too often poor performers merely have poor match quality with their position. In the long run, if match quality is low, your organization and the employees will be better off if you part ways. But in the short run, such parting is painful because finding a better match may be costly, difficult and time-consuming. Nonetheless, if you demonstrate to workers your commitment to a leadership culture then you’ll want to help poor performers either get better or find better match quality elsewhere.

Trust. If trust flows throughout your organization, then bad news (and good news, too) is shared with you. If information about the prior supervisor didn’t make it to you until after her departure then you need to invest in growing trust—easy to say, but difficult to accomplish. Create opportunities for one-on-one conversations, so you can get to know people and solicit their advice on how to support the leadership culture.

The SECRET to avoiding micromanaging while staying engaged and ensuring good leadership is to be thoughtful about the culture you want to engender and then invest in the actions needed to achieve it.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

What would you discuss in your first meeting as new manager and your first one-on-one with employees if promoted within a group of co-workers?—Anonymous

One of the more difficult transitions in professional life is being promoted to manage a group in which only yesterday you were a fellow team member. The discontinuity in the team’s relationships can greatly improve the work environment, send the organization spiraling downward, if your prior peers undermine you in your new position, or land your group’s performance somewhere in between. How can you navigate the tricky shoals of shifting from peer to manager, especially in the early going?

Congratulations on your promotion. It indicates that you were successful in your prior job and that upper management perceives that you have potential to be a leader. Yet learning how to be a manager is not as easy as it may seem. Now you are formally responsible for your team and how it engages with the rest of the enterprise. Indeed, perhaps the most difficult challenge about entering management is adopting this enterprise perspective.

Before meeting with your team members, meet with your manager, mentors and other managers with whom you have pre-existing relationships to begin learning the ins and outs of the position from those who have gone before you. Ask them how they navigated the transition from peer to manager. Ask how they avoided mistakes and, if they didn’t, what they would do differently. You might also want to discover what is fun and rewarding about being a manager as well as what are likely to be your biggest challenges. The more you learn vicariously from others the more likely you will avoid early fumbles.

Next, meet with your team members one-on-one. Think about asking four questions:

1. Ask about their expectations of you. Asking is easy, listening and understanding is the hard part. Use open-ended questions. Check in every minute or so by rephrasing to ensure that you understand. Make them feel like they have all of your attention. Asking about their expectations will signal that you care and their opinions matter, which is a first step to building trust.

2. Ask about their expectations of the entire team. What has gone well from their perspective, and what can go better? How can the team’s performance improve while making the job more interesting and the team better? With these questions you are signaling that you want to resolve issues and barriers that might make jobs unpleasant while improving performance.

3. Ask them what makes for a great manager and a poor manager. You might think that you already know what your co-workers might say or that they will not answer seriously. Asking the questions signals that you want to learn from them and that you are willing to strive to be a great manager. You might be surprised by their responses.

4. Express your appreciation for meeting with you and for their responses. Explain that you are learning and will need their support. Ask if they will be willing to support you in this new position. A “yes” response is a commitment you can draw on later. A response of “sure” or “OK” might indicate that the lack of commitment, which is important to know upfront.

Don’t expect to know how to be a great manager right from the beginning. Let your superordinates and subordinates know you are eager to learn and you will think carefully about how fulfill the responsibilities entrusted you.

Duce a mente

(May you lead by thinking)

At a recent conference an old friend asked me a question: “What is the key difference between leading in government and private enterprise?”

The question is difficult to answer. Government and private enterprise differ in so many dimensions: purpose, human capital, finance and funding, operations, incentives, procurement and purchasing, organizational structure, measurements of success, the role of Congress versus a board of directors.

But it all boils down to one key, yet obscure, difference: adjustment costs. What are adjustment costs, why do they matter, why are they different in government compared with private enterprise, and how do these differences affect leadership in the government?

The 1945 article “The Use of Knowledge in Society” by Austrian-born economist Friedrich Hayek offers a unique perspective on the costs and benefits of different institutions. In comparing the capitalist and communist economies, Hayek said society’s economic problem isn’t the efficient allocation of resources, but rather “one of rapid adaption to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place.”

Our world experiences all sorts of changes—what I refer to as shocks—that call for rapid adaptation of the economic system. Advancing scientific knowledge, radical as well as incremental innovations, changing weather patterns, great recessions, shifting politics and political revolutions, shifting immigration patterns, morphing terrorist threats, dwindling resources and the discovery of new ones all are part of an ongoing stream—some might even say a flood—of shocks. The problem is: How can organizations and institutions rapidly adapt to these shocks?

The cost and time spent adapting to shocks—or adjustment costs—is where government and private enterprise differ most.

Firms can adjust much faster than government. A business leader can recognize a shock, decide on a major reorganization in response and implement it in as little as a few months or as long as two to three years, depending on the size of the firm and extensiveness of the changes. In government, an equivalent decision and reorganization might take three to 10 years and cost an order of magnitude more.

Private enterprise has much lower adjustment costs than government for two main reasons:

• A chief executive, with agreement from the board of directors, can quickly reallocate decision rights. The executive could centralize decision-making to address poor reliability or decentralize it to increase innovation. Such a switch can occur quickly, even in a single board meeting.

• Failure to adjust puts the chief executive’s tenure and the firm’s market position at risk. Companies that adapt faster and have lower adjustment costs can displace slower firms.

Government has much higher adjustment costs and little competition. Reorganizing decision rights such as budget and decision authority can take years and tremendous effort at multiple levels of government.  Often, the need has to become quite pressing before Congress will even consider reorganizing authorities, which delays adaptation. It would take years of working through the multitude of committees overseeing various authorities and then through both houses of Congress and the president. All these steps must be achieved before implementation even begins, which is itself a slow process.

Politicians face pressure at the polls, but a government that is slow to adapt is unlikely to face much competition from organizations with lower adjustment costs. Even with well-meaning politicians, outstanding leaders and the best public servants, government is structured to lag substantially behind current needs. This lag leads to crisis after crisis, while political actors find plentiful opportunities to make hay about government’s slow responsiveness, ineptitude and failure to adapt.

The Veterans Affairs Department’s health care debacle illustrates how high adjustment costs can play out. After more than a decade of war, demands for veteran health care have shocked a system that could not sufficiently adapt under current authorities. Only after management failures became a high-profile crisis did Congress take up the issue and begin the long process of adjusting the department’s structure and oversight.

High adjustment costs have profound consequences for government leadership. Government needs enterprise leaders—people who are able to recognize shocks and collaborate across the silos of government and coordinate existing authorities. Enterprise leaders don’t act to protect their turf—their authorities and decision rights. Such parochial self-interest would add to the adjustment costs and foster conditions that lead to the next crisis.

Through collaboration and coordination, agencies can do better to adapt to shocks and tackle wicked problems without resorting to costly and time-consuming reallocation of authorities and budgets. One great example is the collaboration between the Housing and Urban Development Department and VA to end veteran homelessness. Using each agency’s existing authorities, leaders found new methods to substantially reduce veteran homelessness.

Hayek’s argument has currency today when comparing government and private enterprise. When economic shocks call for rapid response, the key difference is the adjustment costs that create profound consequences for leadership. Government’s adjustment costs are comparatively high, but enterprise leaders can speed adaptation to changing circumstances.

Duce a mente
(May you lead by thinking)